Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2009-12-07 City Council Agenda Packet
1 12/07/09 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 December 07, 2009 6:00 PM ROLL CALL STUDY SESSION 1. Review of the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project CMR 453:09 & ATTACHMENT 7:30 or as soon as possible thereafter SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 2. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Library Advisory Commission for Three, Three-Year Terms Ending January 31, 2013 ATTACHMENT 3. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Storm Drain Oversight Committee for Three, Four-Year Terms Ending December 31, 2013 ATTACHMENT 4. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Parks and Recreation Commission for Four, Three-Year Terms Ending December 31, 2012 ATTACHMENT 5. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Dennis Vanbibber 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. 12/07/09 2 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 19, 2009 October 26, 2009 November 02, 2009 CONSENT CALENDAR Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members. 6. 2nd Reading Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Sections 18.30(C).040, 18.18.060(F), and 18.08.040 (The Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Ground Floor Use Restrictions in the Downtown Area (First reading November 16, 2009 – Passed 8-1 Kishimoto-no) CMR 443:09 & ATTACHMENT 7. 2nd Reading Adoption of an Ordinance Approving and Adopting a Plan of Improvements to the Junior Museum & Zoo to Construct a New Bobcat Exhibit and to Replace Fencing and Walkways – Capital Improvement Program Project AC-10000 (First reading November 16, 2009 – Passed 9-0) 8. Approval of an Agreement with the Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo for the Design and Construction of Bobcat Facilities and Other Capital Improvements at the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo CMR 447:09 & ATTACHMENT 9. Approval of Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and California Fire Fighter Joint Apprenticeship Committee (CFFJAC) for the Transportability Study for Candidate Physical Ability Test (CPAT) Professional Services CMR 454:09 & ATTACHMENT 10. Approval of a Purchase Order with Ironman Parts and Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $14,932 and a Purchase Order with Peterson Power Systems in an Amount Not to Exceed $261,567 for the Purchase and Installation of Diesel Emissions Retrofit Devices on a Total of Ten Heavy Duty Diesel Powered Trucks CMR 446:09 & ATTACHMENT 12/07/09 3 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. 11. Approval of a Storm Drain Enterprise Fund Contract with Repipe- California, Inc. in the Amount of $394,981 for the Storm Drain Rehabilitation and Replacement (Phase III CIPP Lining) Project - Capital Improvement Program Project SD-06101 CMR 452:09 & ATTACHMENT 12. Approval of City’s Participation in a State Energy Program (SEP) Application with Humitech of Northern California, LLC and Efficiency Services Group, LLC to Provide Commercial Energy Efficiency Installations CMR 440:09 & ATTACHMENT 13. Adoption of a Resolution Declaring Results of the Consolidated General and Special Municipal Elections Held on November 03, 2009 ATTACHMENT 14. Adoption of a Resolution Summarily Vacating a 4-Foot Wide Strip of a Public Utilities Easement at 680 Georgia Avenue CMR 450:09 & ATTACHMENT 15. Adoption of a Resolution in Support of the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act of 2010 CMR 455:09 & ATTACHMENT 16. Utilities Advisory Commission and Finance Committee Recommendation to Use Up to $2 Million in Calaveras Reserve Funds Over Four Years for a City of Palo Alto Utilities Department Electric Efficiency Financing Program CMR 430:09 & 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. 12/07/09 4 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. ACTION ITEMS Include: Public Hearings, Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Reports of Officials, and Council Matters 17. Public Hearing: Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Adoption of (1) a Resolution Adopting an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map by Changing the Land Use Designation for 2180 El Camino Real from Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use, and (2) an Ordinance Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 2180 El Camino Real from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District to PC Planned Community for a Mixed Use Project Having 57,900 Square Feet of Floor Area for a Grocery Store (Intended for JJ&F Market), Other Retail Space, Office Space, and Eight Affordable Residential Units, with Two Levels of Below-Grade Parking Facilities and Surface Parking Facilities for the College Terrace Centre, and Approval of Design Enhancement Exceptions to Allow a Sign Spire and Gazebo Roof to Exceed the 35-Foot Height Limit, and to Allow Encroachment into a Minimum Setback on Oxford Avenue CMR 442:09 ATTACHMENTS A-F ATTACHMENTS G-H ATTACHMENTS I-M PUBLIC COMMENT 18. Review of Development Center and Building Permit Process CMR 444:09 & ATTACHMENT 19. Colleague’s Memo from Mayor Drekmeier, Council Member’s Burt, Schmid, and Yeh Regarding Adoption of a Resolution Acknowledging the Costs Associated with Climate Change on Palo Alto’s Financial Health and Quality of Life and Supporting the Exploration of New Approaches to Funding the Costs Associated with Burning Fossil Fuels for Energy Production, and Recommendation to Create a Task Force to Address the Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Palo Alto ATTACHMENT 12/07/09 5 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. 20. Colleague’s Memo from Council Member’s Burt, Espinosa, Kishimoto, and Yeh Regarding the Update of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan ATTACHMENT 21. Approval of Amendment Number 4 to the Management Agreement with Brad Lozares for Golf Professional Services at 1875 Embarcadero Road, Extending the Term One Year to December 31, 2010 CMR 451:09 & ATTACHMENT COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 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. December 7, 2009 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL City of Palo Alto SUBJECT: Selection of Candidates to be interviewed for the Library Advisory Commission Dear Council Members: Enclosed are six applications submitted for three terms, ending January 31, 2013 on the Library Advisory Commission. At the Council Meeting on Monday, December 7, 2009, the City Council will select the candidates to be interviewed for the Library Advisory Commission, with the interview date to be determined in the new year. 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. The applicants are as follows: Name Address Phone 1. Corey Levens 666 Glenbrook Dr Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-857-9246 2. Marc Marchiel 852 Los Robles Ave Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-493-3095 3. Diane Morin 1635 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-3830 4. Robert Moss 4010 Orme St. Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-493-2178 5. Theivanai Palaniappan 3152 Ross Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 510-795-9084 6. Mark Weiss 1788 Oak Creek Dr., #217 Palo Alto, CA 94304 650-305-0701 Respectfully submitted, Ronna Jojola Gonsalves Deputy City Clerk Enclosures cc: All applicants (without enclosure) Donna Grider, City Clerk Diane Jennings, Staff Liaison December 7, 2009 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL City of Palo Alto SUBJECT: Selection of Candidates to be interviewed for the Storm Drain Oversight Committee Dear Council Members: Enclosed are four applications submitted for three terms ending December 31, 2013 on the Storm Drain Oversight Committee. At the Council Meeting on Monday, December 7, 2009, the City Council will select the candidates to be interviewed for the Storm Drain Oversight Committee, with the interview date to be determined in the new year. 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. The applicants are as follows: Name Address Phone 1. Nancy Clark 225 Addison Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-327-8205 2. Rebecca Justman 836 Ramona St Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-740-6808 3. Hal Mickelson 167 Greenmeadow Way Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-868-2938 4. Richard Whaley 4240 Briarwood Way Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-494-0675 Respectfully submitted, Ronna Jojola Gonsalves Deputy City Clerk Enclosures cc: All applicants (without enclosure) Donna Grider, City Clerk Joe Teresi, Staff Liaison December 7, 2009 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL City of Palo Alto SUBJECT: Selection of Candidates to be interviewed for the Parks and Recreation Commission Dear Council Members: Enclosed are six applications submitted for four terms, ending December 31, 2012 on the Parks and Recreation Commission. At the Council Meeting on Monday, December 7, 2009, the City Council will select the candidates to be interviewed for the Parks and Recreation Commission, with the interview date to be determined in the new year. 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. The applicants are as follows: Name Address Phone 1. Jennifer Hetterly 813 Colorado Ave Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-856-0516 2. Ed Lauing 1400 Webster St Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-327-8890 3. Paul Losch 891 Lincoln Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 415-269-1427 4. Pamela Radin 877 Ames Ave Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-1515 5. Matt Robinson 171 Washington Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-322-1379 6. Daria Walsh 810 Fielding Dr Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-424-8866 Respectfully submitted, Ronna Jojola Gonsalves Deputy City Clerk Enclosures cc: All applicants (without enclosure) Donna Grider, City Clerk Rob DeGeus, Staff Liaison RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO DENNIS VANBIBBER UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Dennis Vanbibber has served in various capacities for the Utilities Department from July 9, 1984 to November 19, 2009 including as a Utilities Installer, Heavy Equipment Operator, Field Inspector, Supervisor of Water/Gas/Wastewater Operations; and WHEREAS, Dennis Vanbibber was essential in performing various repairs, replacements, and installation of the City’s utilities infrastructure; and WHEREAS, Dennis Vanbibber quickly learned to operate critical pieces of equipment including the horizontal directional drill and the nuclear moisture density gauge; and WHEREAS, Dennis Vanbibber ensured sound construction of utilities infrastructure as an Inspector on small and large underground construction projects; and WHEREAS, Dennis Vanbibber became a Supervisor of Utilities New Construction and developed new procedures to efficiently and cost effectively install water and gas services to homes and businesses; and WHEREAS, Dennis Vanbibber raised the bar in customer service and public outreach programs for underground construction projects; and WHEREAS, Dennis Vanbibber’s wisdom, sound judgment, and well-placed sense of humor was the reason that so many employees from throughout the department sought his expert advice; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto desires to recognize the meritorious service of Dennis Vanbibber. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby commends the outstanding public service of Dennis Vanbibber and records its appreciation as well as the appreciation of the citizens of this community for the service and contribution rendered during his 25 years of employment with the City. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: December 7, 2009 ATTEST: APPROVED: ___________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ ___________________________ City Attorney City Manager CITY OF PALO ALTO Memorandum December 3, 2009 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2009 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 443:09 SUBJECT: 2nd Reading Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map), Chapter 18.30(C) (the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District), and Chapter 18.18 (the Downtown Commercial Community (CD-C) Zone District) to Modify Restrictions on Ground Floor Uses in the Downtown Attached for second reading is the revised ordinance reflecting Council's changes to Sections 2 through 4. Staff assumed from Council discussion that the annual retail monitoring should continue and included that in Section 3. The modifications include the following and are redlined in the attached ordinance: 1. In Section 2 add "and deleting the Ground Floor (GF) combining district from the properties listed in Exhibit 2". 2. In Section 3 add "(Use Exceptions) and replace it with Section 18.30(C).040 (Annual Monitoring of Ground Floor Retail Use) to read: "A downtown retail vacancy rate survey shall be prepared annually in September of each year, and a report shall be prepared conveying that information to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council prior to the end of the year. The purpose of the survey is to assess changes in retail use in the downtown zones. The vacancy rate shall address all areas zoned CD-C or GF in downtown". 3. In Section 4 remove "and rename Section 18.18.060(f)(2) to Section 18.18.060(f)(1)" and replace with "and replace it with a new Section 18.18.060(f)(1) to read: "New construction and alterations in the CD-C zoning district shall be required to design ground floor space to accommodate retail use and shall comply with the provisions of the Pedestrian (P) combining district." CURTIS WILLIAMS Director of Planning and Community Environment Attachment A: Ordinance NOT YET APPROVED Ordinance No. ---Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections 18.30(C).040, 18.18.060(F), and 18.08.040 (The Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Ground Floor Use Restrictions in the Downtown Area The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds that: (a) The Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing held September 23, 2009, reviewed, considered, and recommended that Sections 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map), 18.30(C), and 18.l8.060(f) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to delete Sections 18.30(C).040 and 18.18.060(f)(1), and to rezone properties as listed in Exhibit 1 and shown on Exhibit 2. (b) The Council, held a public hearing on November 9, 2009, and considered the recommendation by staff and the Planning and Transportation Con1ll1ission. (c) The proposed ordinance is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth, and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by adding the Ground Floor (GF) combining district to the properties listed on Exhibit 1 and deleting the Ground Floor (GF) combining district from the properties listed in Exhibit 2. SECTION 3. Section 18.30(C) (Ground Floor (GF) Combining District Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to delete Section 18.30(C).040 (Use Exemptions): and replace it with Section 18.30(C).040 (Annual Monitoring of Ground Floor Retail Use) to read: "A downtown retail vacancy rate survey shall be prepared annually in September of each year, and a report shall be prepared conveying that information to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council prior to the end of the year. The purpose of the survey is to assess changes in retail use in the downtown zones. The vacancy rate shall address all areas zoned CD-C or GF in downtown. SECTION 4. Section 18.l89.069(f) (Restrictions on Office Uses) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to delete Section 18.l8.060(f)(1) afld reflame Seetiofl 18.18.060(f)(2) to 18.18.060(f)(I).and replace it with a new Section 18.18.060(f)(1) to read: "New construction and alterations in the CD-C zoning district shall be required to design ground 1 091124 syn 0120418 NOT YET APPROVED floor space to accommodate retail use and shall comply with the provisions of the Pedestrian (P) combining district." SECTION 5. This action is categorically exempt (per Section 15305 (Class 5) of the CEQA Guidelines) from the provisions of CEQA as they comprise minor alterations to land use limitations and can be seen to have no significant environmental impacts. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment 091124 syn 0120418 APPROVED: Mayor City Manager 2 EXHIBIT 1 The following properties will be added to the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District: 200-228 Hamilton Avenue APN 120-27-008 230-238 Hamilton Avenue APN 120-27-009 240-248 Hamilton Avenue -APN 120-27-010 412 Emerson Street -APN 120-26-106 420 Emerson Street APN 120-26-025 430 Emerson Street APN 120-26-026 EXHIBIT 2 The following properties will be removed from the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District: 115-119 University Avenue APN 120-26-108 102-116 University Avenue -APN 120-26-039 124 University Avenue APN 120-26-043 125 University Avenue APN 120-26-038 525 Alma Street -APN 120-26-093 529 Alma Street APN 120-26-110 535-539 Alma Street, 115 Hamilton Avenue APN 120-26-091 135 Hamilton Avenue APN 120-26-111 542 High Street -APN 120-26-089 440 Cowper Street -APN 120-15-014 437 Kipling Street APN 120-15-020 443 Kipling Street APN 120-15-019 EXHIBIT 3 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2009 CMR: 447:09 8 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Approval of an Agreement With the Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo for the Design and Construction of Bobcat Facilities and Other Capital Improvements at the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council approve an Agreement for the design and construction of the Bobcat Facilities and Other Capital Improvements at the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. BACKGROUND The Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (Friends) have played an integral role in the support and operation of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) since their inception in 1962. (Note that from 1900 through 1962 the group was called the Junior Museum and Zoo Associates.) In 2002, the Friends approached the City of Palo Alto to create a public-private partnership with the intent to raise the capital funds required to renovate the JMZ facility. The Friends have continued to be an active advocate and support organization for the JMZ's mission. In February 2007, a Council Colleagues Memo from then Vice-Mayor Klein and Council members Beecham and Mossar requested that staff work with the Friends to explore the possibility of a new public-nonprofit partnership that would strengthen the ties between the City and the Friends and that the outcome of any partnership agreement would be contingent on the completion of a revised public/private partnership policy. That revised policy was approved by the Council in June 2007. Staff then worked with representatives of the Friends' Board of Directors and with Rick Smith, a nonprofit sector management consultant hired by the Friends, to develop a concept for the proposed public/nonprofit partnership. In November 2007, the Council approved a Mutual Cooperation and Support Agreement with the Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (Partnership Agreement). The Partnership Agreement provides the Friends with greater opportunity to play a role in program planning, be more engaged in the decision-making process, and grants a nonexclusive license to use the JMZ facilities for the benefit of the JMZ. The Friends also provide outside funding for increased or enhanced JMZ programs and capital improvements. The responsibility of the parties in regard to any capital improvement projects (CIPs) for the JMZ was not CMR: 447:09 Page 1 of4 established by the partnership agreement and the parties agreed to reserve for future consideration any capital project by amendment or by separate instrument. In January 2008, the Friends entered into contract for the design of a new bobcat exhibit with Studio Hanson Roberts, an international zoo design firm and, to date, have completed construction documents. Simultaneously, the Friends issued a Request For Proposal for construction services in December 2008, and completed the selection process for a construction contractor for the exhibit. By prequalifying a contractor who agreed to assist with cost estimating, the Friends ensured accurate cost estimates for the project during design. The design team included JMZ staff and Friends board members. The design process began with defining the goals of the project, which included creating an enriching, living landscape for the cats and the context of nature for visiting children, creating a facility that would enable modem animal management practices, and staying within the allocated budget of $450,000 from the Friend's capital campaign. The Bobcat Ridge Exhibit will be constructed by the Friends using private dollars. Design is complete and $450,000 of funding was in place by June 30, 2009. The exhibit is approximately 1,000 square feet (SF), of which 800 SF are a landscaped habitat with a waterfall and pool for the cats covered with a protective stainless steel net. There is a view area with tempered laminated glass for nose to nose viewing, and behind-the-scenes management enclosures to facilitate veterinary care, animal introductions, and off-exhibit rest for the cats. The construction duration of the Bobcat Ridge is estimated to be four months. The contractor will be provided access through Rinconada Park so that the Zoo may remain open. On July 28, 2009, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed conceptual design plans for the new bobcat exhibit. Comments and questions from the public were also received at the Commission meeting. On October 26, 2009, the Junior Museum & Zoo sponsored a public meeting to gather comments and suggestions and to answer questions from neighbors and interested parties. No member of the public attended the meeting. A model of the exhibit was on display in the museum from June through November 2009. At their October 27,2009 regular meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously to recommend to Council the approval ofthe proposed Park Improvement Ordinance for the project. On November 16, 2009, the Council approved a Park Improvement Ordinance for the construction of the new bobcat facilities and other improvements at the Junior Museum and Zoo. The second reading of the ordinance will occur at the December 7, 2009 Council meeting. Since the approval of the Park Improvement Ordinance, staff has worked with the Friends to develop an agreement to provide right of entry and exclusive access to that portion of the park for the purposes of construction of the new bobcat facilities by the Friends. The agreement specifies policy and procedural guidelines for the Friends to follow regarding construction, safety, liability, and payment details. DISCUSSION CMR: 447:09 Page 2 of4 The agreement with the Friends of the JMZ includes the following specific provisions (in addition to other standard City contract terms and conditions): 1) Gran~s the Friends temporary access to the Site during the Term in order that the Friends may constrw;t and install Bobcat Ridge (Facilities); 2) Provides for the preparation by Friends, and the review and approval by the City, of plans, specifications and working drawings for the Facilities; 3) Provides for the Friends' completion of construction and installation of the Facilities and the City's approval and acceptance of those Facilities; 4) Provides for the transfer of possession of the Site and all rights, title and interest in the Facilities to the City upon the completion of construction and installation of the Facilities; 5) Defrays the direct cost of design and construction to the Friends who have obtained contributions from the community for the expenses of the design, construction and installation of the Facilities and it assures that funding is in place to finish the project by requiring the Friends to establish a "Bobcat Ridge Fund" account within a commercial bank and designate the City as a joint owner otherwise has the rights as a joint owner of the account; 6) Assures that the Friends, when employing services, shall be obtained by means of an informal competitive selection process conducted by the Friends; 7) Allows the City to waive the obligation of the Friends to pay any and all permit-and permit-related fees and charges that are due and payable to the City'S general fund with respect to its design, construction and installation of the Facilities at the Site and any other related work in connection therewith; provided. However, the City will not waive the obligation of the Friends to pay any fee or charge that is due and payable to any of the City's enterprise funds for utility services and utility-related service charges that are rendered to the Friends at the Site or the Park; 8) Allows the Friends to commence design, construction and installation within thirty (30) days after the effective date of the contract and for a term of one (1) year; 9) Requires a community outreach program to provide information to the Park's neighborhood concerning the Facilities for the purpose of soliciting the input and support for the Facilities; 10)Requires that the Friends indemnify the City for claims caused by its negligent acts, errors, or omissions, or willful misconduct, in the performance of or failure; and 11) Requires that the Friends maintain books and records relating to the construction of the Project during the Term and for three (3) years thereafter and provides the city access to these records. RESOURCE IMPACT Funds for this project are included in Capital Improvement Program Project -AC-l 0000 (Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) New Bobcat Habitat). Funds were derived from three sources. The Friends have committed to fund the construction and have secured $450,000 to cover design and construction of Bobcat Ridge. Funding of $55,000 has been reserved in a CSD donation account for the perimeter fencing contract. Funding of $70,000 had been previously budgeted in the Infrastructure Reserve for the resurfacing of the Zoo pathways. CMR: 447:09 Page 3 of4 NEXT STEPS Once the agreement is approved by the Council and signed, and all requirements are met, the Friends will commence construction activities. Based on the date of adoption of the Park Improvement Ordinance (December 7, 2009), staff anticipates that construction will begin around January 7, 2010 and will conclude in late May 2010. The fencing and paving portions of the project will be bid as informal contracts by the City of Palo Alto. Work on these portions of the project will be coordinated with the work on the Bobcat Ridge project. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed projects are consistent with existing City policy, including C-17: Continue to support provisions, funding, and promotion of programs for children and youth; and C-26: Maintain and enhance existing park facilities. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Department has reviewed the project and has determined that it is categorically exempt under Section 15301 [existing facilities] ofCEQA. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Agreement PREPAREDBY: ______ ~~~~~~~~~~~~-------------- John Aikin Director, Junior Museum & Zoo DIVISION MANAGER: __ -"bt=:::::=-=::::::====~~ ___ V~· ~ ____________ _ Kelly Morariu DEPARTMENT HEAD: ~ Science Division Manager ~ Interim Director of Community Services CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ____ ~~...___'lL.....:-""!O""-~'____+=~!:.....--- CMR: 447:09 Page 4 of4 Attachment A Contract No. ------- AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE FRIENDS OF THE PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM & ZOO FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF BOBCAT FACILITIES AND OTHER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AT THE PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM & ZOO Dated as of ____ , 2009 091109 jb 0073245 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Description Page 1 Purposes 5 2 Tenn 5 I 3 Use; Access to the Site and Facilities 6 4 Consideration 6 5 Plans for Design of Improvements 8 6 Construction and Completion of Improvements 8 7 Maintenance and Repairs 10 8 As-Built Drawings 10 9 Ownership of Facilities and Improvements 10 10 Utility Service 11 11 Insurance 11 12 Indemnity 13 13 Waiver 13 14 Assignment 13 15 Nondiscrimination 14 16 Force Majeure 14 17 Audit; Inspection of Records 14 18 Independent Contractor 15 19 Representations and Warranties 15 20 Event of Default; Remedies for Default 15 21 Notices 16 091109 jb 0073245 22 23 Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F 091109 jb 0073245 Dispute Resolution Miscellaneous Provisions Description of the Site and Facilities Installation Schedule and Conditions Precedent to Construction Itemized Budget Insurance Requirements Certification of Nondiscrimination Quitclaim Deed 17 18 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE FRIENDS OF THE PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM & ZOO FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF BOBCAT FACILITIES AND OTHER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AT THE PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM & ZOO This Agreement for the Design and Construction of Bobcat Facilities and Other Capital Improvements at the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo (the "Agreement"), dated, for convenience, , 2009 (the "Effective Date"), is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (the "CITY") and the FRIENDS OF THE PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM & ZOO, a corporation organized under the Nonprofit Public Benefit COlporation Law of the State of California (the "FRIENDS") (individually, a "Party" and, collectively, the "Parties"), in reference to the following facts and circumstances: RECITALS: A, The CITY is the owner of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo, a 9,000 square feet museum, and a 10,000 square feet zoo, located at 1451 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, California. The Museum & Zoo is located within Rinconada Park (the "Park"). B. The FRIENDS intends to benefit the CITY and the general public by, directly or indirectly, designing, constructing and installing on approximately 1,000 square feet of the southeasterly quadrant of the Zoo (the "Site") certain animal enclosures and equipment and other structures, including, but not limited to, the creation of a bobcat. habitat, support enclosures, and placement of equipment and other structures, a below ground level drainage system, retaining walls, stainless steel netted enclosure,caging, paving, arbors and landscaping, and fencing (the "Facilities"). The description of the Site and Facilities is described in Exhibit A. An installation schedule and conditions precedent for construction of the Facilities is set forth in Exhibit B. C. The FRIENDS will design, construct and install the Facilities at its sole cost and expense. The CITY will not grant to the FRIENDS funds to be applied by the FRIENDS to the acquisition and construction and installation costs of the Facilities. D. Upon the completion of the construction and installation of the Facilities, the FRIENDS will deliver possession of the Site to the CITY and it also will transfer all right, title and interest in the Facilities to the CITY. IN CONSIDERATION OF the foregoing and the following covenants, terms and conditions, the Parties agree: 091109 jb 0073245 4 AGREEMENT: 1. PURPOSES. 1.1. The Parties acknowledge the forgoing Recitals A through D are hereby ratified and approved and are incorporated in this Agreement. The purposes of this Agreement are to: (a) grant the FRIENDS temporary access to the Site during the Term in order that the FRIENDS may construct and install the Facilities; (ii) provide for the preparation by FRIENDS, and the review and approval by the CITY, of plans, specifications and working drawings for the Facilities; (iii) provide for the FRIENDS' completion of construction and installation of the Facilities and the CITY's approval and acceptance of those Facilities; and (iv) provide for the transfer of possession of the Site and all rights, title and interest in the Facilities to the CITY upon the completion of construction and installation of the Facilities. (b) In the event the Site or the Park is destroyed by any cause that renders the Site or the Park unfit for the purposes described in Section l(a), and its condition cannot be repaired within 180 days from the date of destruction, either Party may give notice of termination of this Agreement, which will become effective 30 days after receipt of such notice. If the Site, but not the Park, is damaged and rendered unfit for the purposes described in Section l(a), this Agreement will remain in effect only if the repairs to the Site can be commenced within 180 days after the date of destruction, or either Party may give notice of termination in accordance with the preceding sentence if the repairs cannot be commenced within such period of time. If the Park, but not the Site, is damaged, this Agreement will continue in effect; provided, however, the CITY will use reasonable efforts to promptly commence repairs of the Park within 30 days after the date of destruction in order that the FRIENDS may continue to enjoy access to the Site for the purposes hereof. (c) Nothing in this Agreement will be construed to limit the CITY's right to temporarily revoke the FRIENDS' access to the Site for the purposes hereof in the event of a default or breach of this Agreement by the FRIENDS or in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare. 2. TERM. 2.1 This Agreement shall be for a term of one (1) year (the "Term"), commencing upon the Effective Date, when the Parties have duly executed this Agreement. If the completion of construction and installation of the Facilities is delayed for any reason beyond the reasonable control of the FRIENDS, then the Parties may agree, in writing, to extend the Term on a month-to-month basis, in order to permit the FRIENDS' completion of construction of the Facilities. Upon (a) the completion of the construction and installation work, (b) the CITY's acceptance of the Facilities pursuant to Section 6(g)(6), and (c) the FRIENDS' completion of any punch-list items within the 091109 jb 0073245 5 time specified in Section 6(g)(6) this Agreement will tenninate without notice to either Party. The Tenn will not extend after December 31,2010. 2.2 During the Tenn and subject to Section 16 hereof, in the event the Facilities or part thereof is destroyed or substantially damaged by any cause beyond the reasonable control of either Party, and the Facilities or part thereof cannot be substantially repaired and occupied, in accordance with the purposes described in Section 1.1 above, within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of destruction or substantial damage, either Party may give to the other Party written notice of tennination of this Agreement, which tennination will become effective thirty (30) days after receipt of such notice, without accruing any liability to the other Party. The FRIENDS will not be required to repair or pay for the repair of such damage, unless that damage is actually. caused by the negligent acts or omissions of the FRIENDS, the Designer, or the General Contractor and is not covered by insurance to be provided by the Designer or the General Contractor. 3. USE; ACCESS TO THE SITE AND FACILITIES. 3.1 Subject to all covenants, tenns and conditions hereof, the CITY hereby grants to the FRIENDS, its members, directors, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, agents and representatives the revocable, nonexclusive right to enter the Park and the exclusive right to enter the Site for the ,purposes hereof. No other right, title or interest, including, but not limited to, any estate, ownership, leasehold, easement or other property interest, in the Site or the Park is granted or intended to be granted to the FRIENDS by this Agreement. The FRIENDS shall use the Site and the Park without substantial interference or interruption of the public's use and enjoyment of the other portions of the Park. 3.2 At a mutually agreeable date and time, the CITY at its own cost and expense will remove only the animals and other property of the CITY that is housed at the Site before the commencement of construction contemplated by this Agreement. After the completion of construction of the Facilities project and the FRIENDS has conveyed the quitclaim deed to the CITY, the CITY at its own cost and expense may return such animals and other property of the CITY that had been housed at the Site before the commencement of construction. 4. CONSIDERATION. (a)(I) The FRIENDS will obtain contributions from the community to defray all of the direct costs and expenses of the design, construction and installation of the Facilities, excepting only those funds which the CITY will contribute or waive collection of. The contributions received by the FRIENDS will be used exclusively to pay for the service of any other individual whose service is reasonably required to complete the construction and installation of the Facilities, plus reasonably related project costs and expenses. The services of the foregoing individuals shall be obtained by means of an infonnal competitive selection process conducted by the FRIENDS. The FRIENDS will 091109 jb 0073245 6 deposit funds for the project such contributions in a fund and disburse accordingly as described in Section 4(b)(1). The FRIENDS will be obligated to pay any fee or charge for utility services rendered to the FRIENDS at the Site in connection with the Facilities' construction and installation. (a)(2) The CITY and the FRIENDS together will undertake a community outreach program to provide information to the Park's neighborhood concerning the Facilities for the purpose of soliciting the input and support for the Facilities. As practicable, the FRIENDS will coordinate its construction and installation efforts in the Park with the Walter Hays Elementary School, Palo Alto, adjacent to the Park. (a)(3) Prior to the commencement of construction and installation of the Facilities, the FRIENDS shall furnish to the CITY's Director of Administrative Services evidence that assures the CITY there will be sufficient funds available to complete the construction of the Facilities. The term "sufficient funds" means the total amount of all actual costs of construction and installation of the improvements, equipment, and structures that constitute the Facilities, as set forth in the FRIENDS' itemized budget, as described in Exhibit C. The budget will include an additional ten percent (10%) of the total amount of all actual costs as a contingency to meet any unforeseen costs that may arise during the construction and installation of the Facilities. Evidence of assurance will take the following form: Evidence of the deposit by the FRIENDS of the total amount of sufficient funds for the Facilities, as defined herein, into the separate account maintained by the FRIENDS and where the CITY is designated as a person which has rights as a j oint owner of such account. The Director of Administrative Services, or designee, will be the CITY's representative for all purposes hereof If this Agreement is terminated for any reason, before the completion of the Facilities, the CITY will be entitled to all rights, title and interest in the funds and Facilities; provided, however, the CITY will thereafter expend the funds only for the purpose of constructing and installing the Facilities, or part thereof, that is not completed at the time of termination. If any portion of the amount remains and is not disbursed following the completion of the Facilities, the remainder will be retained by the FRIENDS to meet the requests and obligations of the fund's donors. The account will be maintained in the name of the FRIENDS and the CITY in a form reasonably acceptable to the Director of Administrative Services. (b)(1) The FRIENDS will establish a "Bobcat Ridge Fund" account within a commercial bank and designate the CITY as a joint owner or otherwise has the rights as a joint owner of the account. The FRIENDS will administer and coordinate the receipt and disbursement of these funds, which shall be expended for all direct costs and expenses related to the construction and installation of the Facilities at the Site. 091109 jb 0073245 7 J' (b )(2) The CITY will waive the obligation of the FRIENDS to pay any and all permit-and permit-related fees and charges that are due and payable to the CITY's general fund with respect to its design, construction and installation of the Facilities at the Site and any other related work in connection therewith; provided, however, that the CITY will not waive the obligation of the FRIENDS to pay any fee or charge that is due and payable to any of the CITY's enterprise funds for utility services and utility-related service charges that are rendered to the FRIENDS at the Site or the Park. (b )(3) The CITY will provide staff support and other assistance to the FRIENDS, upon request, in connection with the initiation and completion of the Facilities. 5. PLANS FOR DESIGN OF IMPROVEMENTS (a) The FRIENDS have prepared final plans and specifications and working drawings (the "Plans") for the design and construction of the improvements at the Site, as described in Exhibit B. The FRIENDS will submit the Plans to the CITY's Community Services Department, Planning and Community Environment Department and the Public Works Department as well as to the appropriate board and commissions, including, but not limited to, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Council for review and approval. (b) The FRIENDS will obtain and maintain all CITY -issued permits and other authorizations required for the completion of the Facilities and shall furnish to the CITY upon request during the construction and installation phases any and all financial and non-financial security deemed appropriate by the CITY, including, but not limited to, evidence of insurance coverage, indemnity agreement, lien waivers, performance and payment bonds, and covenants. 6. CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS (a) The FRIENDS will commence design, construction and installation within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date in accordance with the installation and construction schedule, as set forth in Exhibit B. All construction and installation work will be conducted in an efficient and workmanlike manner in substantial compliance with the approved time schedule. The FRIENDS, at its cost and expense, will arrange for the placement of a portable restroom at the SITE during the Term and at any time that work will be performed with respect to the Facilities. (b) The FRIENDS will comply with the CITY's regulations governing construction noise controls and regulations governing dust control, all as set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. (c) The FRIENDS will be responsible to accomplish all associated work required to complete the Facilities and will be required to comply with all conditions that are imposed on the Facilities during the approval process. 091109 jb0073245 8 (d) The FRIENDS shall include standard CITY requirements in all equipment purchases and construction contracts in regard to warranties and workmanship guarantees for the Facilities. The CITY, upon request, will provide the FRIENDS with a list of such requirements. (e) All contractors, subcontractors, and other personnel who will perform the construction and installation work at the Site under contract with the FRIENDS shall possess all current licenses required by the State of California. (f) All Facilities will be constructed and installed at the Site in compliance with the approved Plans. Any conditions relating to the manner, method, design and construction of the Facilities established under the CITY's approval process will be conditions of this Section 6(f) as if they were stated in this Agreement. Upon the completion of construction and installation, the FRIENDS' project manager for the Facilities will submit to the CITY's Manager, Arts and Sciences, a certificate of inspection, verifying that the construction and installation were completed in conformance with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. (g) For the purposes of this Agreement, the Facilities will be deemed completed at the time all of the following have occurred: (1) The FRIENDS' contractor has delivered a statement, in writing, to the CITY, stating that the Facilities have been substantially completed in accordance with the Plans; (2) The FRIENDS has obtained all necessary CITY inspections of and approvals for the Facilities; (3) The Parties' representatives have inspected the Facilities, and all major defects and incomplete items that materially impair the use of the Facilities have been remedied and a "punch-list" of minor defects has been prepared for prompt repair and completion by the FRIENDS. (4) All trash and garbage has been removed from the Site. (5) The FRIENDS has made the Site available to the CITY for use by the public; (6) The CITY has confirmed, in writing, that the FRIENDS has complied with the provisions of this Section 6(g) and final acceptance by the CITY has been issued. As a condition precedent to the CITY's acceptance of the Facilities, the FRIENDS will complete the "punch-list" items within a reaSonable time but not later than 30 days after the CITY has made a preliminary determination that the Facilities is deemed completed. ' 091109 jb 0073245 9 (7) The FRIENDS will ensure that the Project is constructed and completed in accordance with all applicable laws, including CITY ordinances, rules, and regulations, governing construction noise, traffic controls, and dust control, as may be set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the "PAMC") and the CITY's Department of Public Works Standard Drawings and Specifications for construction projects and other related construction rules and regulations. 7. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS. (a) The FRIENDS, at its sole cost, will maintain the Site and the Facilities during the Term in a commercially reasonable, clean and safe manner to the complete satisfaction of the CITY and in compliance with all applicable laws. The FRIENDS will provide approved containers for trash and garbage generated at the Site and arrange for their disposal. The CITY reserves the right to enter and inspect the Site for compliance with this maintenance requirement and applicable safety requirements. The FRIENDS will be responsible for any damage to the Site or the Facilities that arises in connection with the construction and installation activities at the Site. (b) If the FRIENDS fails to properly maintain the Site and any portion of the Park on which the Facilities is or will be located, then the CITY will notify the FRIENDS, in writing,' of such failure, but the CITY's failure to give notice shall not constitute an event of default. The FRIENDS will be afforded a reasonable period of time in order to bring the Site to a clean and safe condition. The CITY, at its option, may elect to enforce its rights and remedies, including, but not limited to, entering the Site to ensure the safety of all persons and property thereon. (c) The obligation of the FRIENDS to maintain and repair the Site and the Facilities will terminate upon the CITY's acceptance of the Facilities pursuant to Section 6(g)(6). 8. AS-BUILT DRAWINGS. 8.1 Upon the completion of the Facilities, the FRIENDS will provide the CITY's Director of Public Works with a complete s'et of 24" by 36" digital reproducible "as built" Plans and one printed set reflecting the actual construction and installation performed or caused to be performed by the FRIENDS at the Site pursuant to this Agreement. 9. OWNERSHIP OF FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS. 9.1 The FRIENDS covenants that the Facilities will be free and clear of all liens, claims or liability for labor or materials at the time of completion of the construction and installation thereof. The FRIENDS will execute a quitclaim deed or other document acceptable to the CITY with respect to the Facilities' ownership in the passing of all rights, title and interest therein to the CITY. 091109 jb 0073245 10 10. UTILITY SERVICE. The FRIENDS will be responsible for paying for all utility services, including electric, water and garbage services, and utility connection charges, provided at the Site, which the FRIENDS requires in order to construct and install the Facilities and the other improvements at the Site or the Park. For the purposes of the preceding sentence, the FRIENDS will be responsible for the quantities of electricity, water and garbage utilities services multiplied by the respective utilities rates and charges that are attributable to the FRIENDS' usage of the Junior Museum and Zoo at the Site for construction purposes. These amounts will be deemed in excess of the actual average monthly utilities consumption of the CITY at the Junior Museum and Zoo for the months of January through May 2009 (the "Baseline Usage"), as follows: for electricity, the Baseline Usage per month is 9,747 kilowatt-hours ("kWh"), and the FRIENDS will pay to the CITY any such amounts in excess thereof; for water, the Baseline Usage per month is 335 hundred cubic feet ("CCF"), and the FRIENDS will pay to the CITY any such amounts in excess thereof; and for refuse, the Baseline Usage per month is $101, and the FRIENDS will pay to the CITY any such amounts in excess thereof. In the construction and installation of the Facilities and other improvements, the FRIENDS will not cause damage to the CITY's utilities at the Site or the Park. The FRIENDS will be liable for the replacement costs of the CITY's utilities at the Site or the Park that are damaged by the FRIENDS (including its general contractor, architect, and any p'erson hired or used by the FRIENDS) in connection with the construction and installation of the Facilities and other improvements. The replacement costs will be payable on demand of the CITY. 11. INSURANCE. (a) The FRIENDS, its consultants and contractors, if any, at their sole cost and expense, will obtain and maintain during the Tenn the insurance coverage described in Exhibit D, insuring not only the FRIENDS and its consultants and contractors, respectively, but also with the exception of workers compensation, employer's liability and professional liability insurance, naming the CITY as an additional insured concerning the FRIENDS' perfonnance under this Agreement. (b) Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the CITY. At the option of the CITY either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the CITY, its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, and volunteers; or the FRIENDS shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. The insurance shall remain in full force and effect during the Tenn, commencing on the Effective Date and ending on the tennination of this Agreement. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall contain the following clauses: 1. "Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the CITY." 091109 jb 0073245 11 2. "All rights of subrogation are hereby waived against the CITY OF PALO ALTO and its elected and appointed officials, officers or employees, when acting within the scope of their employment or appointment." 3. "The CITY OF PALO ALTO is named as a loss payee on the Facilities and builders' risk insurance policies described above." 1. "The CITY OF PALO ALTO, its elected and appointed . officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the FRIENDS; products and completed operations of the FRIENDS; premises owned, occupied or used by the FRIENDS; or automobiles owned, subleased, hired or borrowed by the FRIENDS. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the CITY, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers. " 11. "For any claims related to this Agreement, the FRIENDS' insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the CITY OF PALO ALTO, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the CITY, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of the FRIENDS' insurance and shall not contribute with it." 111. "Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the CITY OF PALO ALTO, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers." IV. "The FRIENDS' insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability." (c) All insurance will be provided by insurer carriers with a current A.M. Best's rating of not less than A:VII. The FRIENDS will deposit with the CITY, on or before the Effective Date, certificates of insurance necessary to satisfy the CITY that these insurance provisions have been complied with, and to keep such insurance in effect and the certificates therefor on deposit with the CITY during the Term. If the FRIENDS does not provide evidence of coverage at least three (3) days prior to the expiration of any existing insurance coverage, the CITY may purchase such insurance coverage for not more than a six-month period, on behalf of and at the sole cost and expense of the FRIENDS. The CITY retains the right to review the coverage, form, and amount of the 091109 jb 0073245 12 insurance coverage required by this Agreement and require the FRIENDS to alter the coverage, as appropriate. The CITY's requirements shall be reasonable and shall be designed to assure protection from and against the kind and extent of risk which exists at the time a change in insurance is required. A failure by the FRIENDS to provide acceptable insurance policies or certificates with the CITY incorporating such changes within 30 days of receipt of such notice will constitute a default under this Agreement. Such default will constitute a material breach and shall be grounds for termination of this Agreement by the CITY. The procuring of such required insurance will not be construed to limit the FRIENDS' liability hereunder or to fulfill the indemnification provision and requirements of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, the FRIENDS shall be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss occurring during the Term that is caused, directly or indirectly, by the willful or negligent acts andlor omissions of the FRIENDS or its engineers, contractors, or design professionals, or connected with this Agreement or with use·or occupancy of the Site by the FRIENDS or its landscape architect, contractors, or design professionals. 12. INDEMNITY. The FRIENDS will protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the CITY, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and representatives, from any and all demands, claims, damage, loss or liability of any nature, including death of or injury to , persons, property damage or any other loss, caused by or arising out of the FRIENDS' or any of its landscape architect's or contractor's negligent acts, errors, or omissions, or willful misconduct, in the performance of or failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement. The foregoing indemnity obligation of the FRIENDS shall expire and be of no further force or effect upon the confirmation, in writing, by the CITY that the CITY has accepted the Facilities, except for any pending claims made, in writing, that are received by the FRIENDS, the FRIENDS' general contractor, or the CITY prior to such acceptance. 13. WANER. 13.1 The waiver by either Party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, or condition of this Agreement or of the provisions of any park improvement ordinance or other CITY law will not be deemed to be a waiver of any such covenant, term, condition, or ordinance or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or any other covenant, term, condition, or ordinance. The subsequent acceptance by either Party of any consideration which may become due or payable hereunder will not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other Party of any other covenant, term, or condition of this Agreement or any ordinance. 14. ASSIGNMENT. 14.1 The FRIENDS will not assign, transfer, or convey this Agreement without the express written approval of the CITY, and any such assignment, transfer or conveyance without the approval of the CITY will be void and in such event, at the 091109 jb 0073245 13 CITY's option, this Agreement may be terminated upon thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the FRIENDS. 15. NONDISCRIMINATION. 15.1 The P AMC prohibits discrimination in the employment of any individual under this Agreement because of race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of that person. The FRIENDS acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of P AMC Chapter 2.30 relating to nondiscrimination in employtilent and the penalties for violations thereof, and it agrees to comply with all requirements of P AMC Chapter 2.30 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment, including the completion, execution and submission to the CITY of the Certification of Nondiscrimination, as described in Exhibit F. 16. FORCE MAJEURE. 16.1 A Party will be temporarily excused from the performance or further performance of any of its covenants or agreements or any terms or conditions that it is obligated to fulfill hereunder and such Party's nonperformance shall not be deemed an event of default under this Agreement for any period to the extent that such Party is prevented, hindered or delayed for any period of time not in excess of thirty (30) days from performing any of its covenants or agreements, in whole or in part, or any term or condition it is required to perform or satisfy as a result of an act of God, war, civil disturbance, court order, or other cause beyond that Party's reasonable control. The Parties hereby agree to use reasonable efforts to remedy the effects caused by the occurrence of the event giving rise to a Party's temporary nonperformance of its covenants or agreements or any terms or conditions that it is obligated to fulfill hereunder. A Party will provide notice promptly to the other Party to the extent thllt Party relies on the provisions of this Section to temporarily excuse its failure to perform any of its covenants or agreements or any terms or conditions hereunder. 17. AUDITS; INSPECTION OF RECORDS. 17.1 The FRIENDS will maintain, or caused to be maintained by its general contractor(s) and subcontractors, if any, books and records relating to the construction of the Project during the Term and for three (3) years thereafter. It will permit the CITY to inspect, audit and copy, upon thirty (30) days' prior written notice from the CITY at any reasonable time during the Term and for three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of the Agreement, the FRIENDS' books and records pertaining to its obligations imposed by this Agreement. The FRIENDS will retain such books and records at accessible locations and for at least thee (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement, whichever occurs later. This provision will survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. 091109 jb 0073245 14 18. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. 18.1 In the construction of the Project and the performance of other duties imposed upon it by this Agreement, the FRIENDS acts at all times as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the CITY. Nothing in this Agreement will be construed to establish a partnership, joint venture, group, pool, syndicate or agency between the Parties. No provision contained herein will be construed as authorizing or empowering either Party to assume or create any obligation or responsibility whatsoever, express or implied, on behalf, or in the name of, the other Party in any manner, or to make any representation, warranty or commitment on behalf of the other Party. In no event will either Party be liable for (a) any loss incurred by the other Party in the course of its performance hereunder, or (b) any debts, obligations or liabilities of the other Party, whether due or to become due. 19. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. 19.1 On the Effective Date, each Party represents and warrants to the other Party that: (A) it is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the jurisdiction of its formation; (B) the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and the Exhibits are within its powers, have been duly authorized by all necessary action and do not violate any of its governing documents, any contracts to which it is a party or any law, rule, regulation, or order; (C) the Agreement and the Exhibits and any other document executed and/or delivered in accordance with this Agreement constitutes its legally valid and binding obligation enforceable against it in accordance with its covenants, terms, conditions and provisions; (D) it has not filed and it is not now contemplating the filing for bankruptcy protection or, to its knowledge, threatened against it which would result in it being or becoming bankrupt; (E) there is not pending or, to its knowledge, threatened against it or any of its affiliates any legal proceedings that could materially adversely affect its ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement and the Exhibits; and (F) no event of default or potential event of default with respect to it has occurred and is continuing and no such event or circumstance would occur as a result of its entering into or performing its obligations under this Agreement and the Exhibits. 20. EVENTS OF DEFAULT; REMEDIES FOR DEFAULT. 20.1 This Agreement may be terminated upon the occurrence of an "event of default" by a Party (the "Defaulting Party"). An "event of default," which will constitute a material breach of this Agreement if it is not cured in a timely manner, means the occurrence of any of the following: (A) a representation or warranty made by a Party is false or misleading in any material respect when made or deemed made or repeated; (B) the failure to perform any material covenant, or obligation set forth in this Agreement or any Exhibit if such failure is not remedied within thirty (30) days after written notice of default is given; (C) a Party files a petition or otherwise commences or acquiesces in the commencement of a proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or similar law, makes an assignment for the benefit of its creditors, has an administrator, 091109 jb 0073245 15 receiver, trustee, conservator or similar official appointed with respect to it or any substantial portion of its property or assets, or is generally unable to pay its debts as they fall due; (D) a Party consolidates with, merges with or into, or transfers all or substantially all of its assets to, another entity and, at the time of such consolidation, merger or traDsfer, the surviving entity fails to assume all of the obligations of the Party under this Agreement and the Exhibits to which it was a party by operation of law or pursuant to an agreement reasonably satisfactory to the other Party; (E) the transfer of this Agreement and the Exhibits or any material obligation arising under this Agreement and the Exhibits, whether voluntarily or by operation of law, without the consent of the other Party; and (F) the failure to make, when due, any payment required by this Agreement if such failure is not remedied within five (5) business days after written notice of default is given. 20.2 If an event of default occurs and is continuing with respect to the Defaulting Party, the other Party (the "Non-Defaulting Party") will have an election of rights and remedies, in addition to all other rights and remedies afforded or provided by law or in equity or as otherwise provided in this Agreement, to which the non-defaulting Party may resort cumulatively, or in the alternative: (A) the right to terminate this Agreement by giving thirty (30) days' prior notice of termination, in which event this Agreement will tenninate on the date set forth in the notice of termination; (B) the right to demand performance of an act which otherwise cure the violation or any breach; and (c) the right to suspend performance of any of its material obligations, including, without limitation, the right to withhold any payments due to the Defaulting Party under this Agreement. 20.3 In the event of default which cannot reasonably be cured within sixty (60) days, the FRIENDS may, at the CITY's sole and exclusive option, have an additional period of time specified by the CITY to cure the default. The remedies given to the CITY hereunder, or by any law now or hereafter enacted, are cumulative and the exercise of one right or remedy will not impair the right of the CITY to exercise any or all other remedies. In case any suit, action or proceeding to enforce any right or exercise any remedy shall be brought or taken and then discontinued or abandoned, then, and in every such case, the Parties will be restored to their former positions, rights and remedies as if no such suit, action or proceedings had been brought or taken. 21. NOTICES. 21.1 All notices, requests and approvals by a Party will be given, in writing, and delivered by personal service, the United States . Postal Service,express delivery service, electronic mail transmission or facsimile transmission, as follows: II II II 091109 jb 0073245 16 TO CITY: TO FRIENDS: 22. DISPUTE RESOLUTION City of Palo Alto 1305 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: (650) 463-4951 Fax: (650) 321-5612 E-Mail: greg.betts@cityofpaloalto.org ATTN: Greg Betts, Interim Director And john.aikin@cityofpaloalto.org ATTN: John Aikin, Junior Museum & Zoo Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo 1451 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phone: (650) 326-6338 FAX: (650) ______ _ E-Mail: info@FRIENDSjmz.org E-Mail: aletha_c@hotmail.com Attention: Al~a Celfltan, Boa~d President A~· COlbl1AtU 22.1 If a dispute arises from or in connection with this Agreement, generally, or any Exhibit, in particular (a "Dispute"), the following procedure will govern the resolution of any such Dispute: (A). the Parties will nominate their respective representatives to be responsible for and exercise the appropriate authority to resolve all Disputes hereunder for the respective fourteen-day resolution period of time; and (B) if the Dispute remains unresolved within such fourteen-day period, before either Party may resort to the process described in Sections 22.3 and 22.4, either Party may refer the Dispute, in writing, for final settlement to the FRIENDS' President and the City Manager, or designee, who will jointly convene within ten (10) days of receipt of a referral request and use reasonable efforts to consider and resolve the Dispute. The Parties will ensure that their respective representatives confer for a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of referral by either Party.· If final resolution cannot be achieved, the Parties may resort to the procedures described in Sections 22.3 and 22.4 hereunder. 22.2 Nothing contained in this Agreement will prevent or otherwise restrict either Party from pursuing its equitable rights, including injunctive relief and specific performance, in the event of a material breach by the other Party. 22.3 In the event of a Dispute between the Parties with respect to this Agreement or the enforcement of rights hereunder, either Party may, by notice to the other Party (the "Mediation Notice"), require such dispute to be submitted to non-binding mediation in Palo Alto, California, with a mediator acceptable to the Parties. If such mediation does not result in a settlement of the Dispute within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of the Mediation Notice, either Party may require such matter to be 091109 jb 0073245 17 submitted to non-binding arbitration in Palo Alto, California, under the rules of the American Arbitration Association. Action of any kind by either Party arising out of this Agreement must be commenced within one (1) year from the date the right, claim, demand or cause of action first arises. 22.4 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein, in no event will the FRIENDS interrupt or suspend or terminate its construction of the Facilities project or perform any action that prevents, impedes, or reduces in any way the construction of the project in a timely manner or the CITY's ability to exercise its rights under this Agreement, unless: (A) authority to do so is granted by the CITY or conferred by a court of competent jurisdiction; or (B) this Agreement has been validly terminated. 23. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. (a) This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California and the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Parties will comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws in the exercise of their rights and the performance of their obligations under this Agreement. (b) All provisions of this Agreement, whether covenants or conditions, will be deemed to be both covenants and conditions. (c) This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations and contracts, written or oral. This . Agreement may be amended by an instrument, in writing, signed by the Parties. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. (d) All exhibits referred to in this Agreement are by such references incorporated in this Agreement and made a part hereof. The following exhibits are made a part of this Agreement: Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Description of the Site and Facilities Installation Schedule and Conditions Precedent to Construction Itemized Budget Insurance Requirements Certificate of Nondiscrimination Quitclaim Deed (e) Upon request of the CITY, the FRIENDS will furnish to the CITY for its review and approval copies of its articles of organization, operating agreement, and other information relating to its organization status. . 091109 jb 0073245 18 (t) This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This provision will take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term or condition of this Agreement. (g) The Parties agree that the normal rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguity is to be resolved against the drafting party will not be employed in the interpretation of this Agreement or any amendment or Exhibit hereto. (h) 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 or in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. (i) The prevailing Party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. 0) If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement, the Exhibits, or any amendment thereto, is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement, the Exhibits, or any amendment thereto, will remain in full force and effect. (k) The term "day" means a calendar day, unless a "business day" is specified; for the purposes of this Agreement, "business day" excludes any "Regular Holiday" or "Other Special Day" referred to in P AMC Section 2.08.100 or any Friday that is considered a '9/80' day, when the CITY does not require employees, electing to work nine (9) business days in a ten-business-days biweekly period, to work on such days. II II II II II II II II II 091109 jb 0073245 19 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties by their duly authorized representatives have executed this Agreement on the Effective Date. APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF PALO ALTO Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager APPROVED: Director of Administrative Services 091109 jb 0073245 20 EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND FACILITIES The Junior Museum was founded by Josephine O'Hara in 1934 in the basement ofa local elementary school and moved to its current location, 1451 Middlefield Road in 1940 as part of Works Progress Administration fuvestment in Youth Recreation. The building has been remodeled and enlarged and currently totals 9000 square feet with classrooms, an exhibition hall, and offices. The Y2 acre Zoo was added to the Museum (on Rinconada Park Property) in 1969 and cares for over 230 animals representing some 50 species of invertebrates, fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The mission of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ) is to engage a child's curiosity for science and nature. The Site is in the southeastern quadrant of the existing Zoo and is bordered by Walter Hays Elementary School to the south and by Rinconada Park's walkway and Playground to the east. The northern boundary of the site is the existing duck pond within the Zoo and the western boundary is the supports for the third bay of the existing aviary. The Bobcat Ridge Exhibit will include demolition of 2/3rds of the existing aviary and construction of a bobcat exhibit and holding enclosures by the FRIENDS; The exhibit is approximately 1,000 square feet (SF) of which 800 SF are a landscaped habitat with a waterfall and pool for the cats covered with a protective stainless steel net. There is a view area with tempered laminated glass for nose to nose viewing, and behind- the-scenes management enclosures to facilitate veterinary care, animal introductions, and off-exhibit rest for the cats. The construction duration of the Bobcat exhibit is estimated to be four months. The contractor will be provided access through Rinconada Park so that the Zoo may remain open., : <,. .. " ~ i ......... 1" ..... · ... 3?~ .. ·_. ,. 091109 jb 0073245 21 Figure 1: Location of Bobcat Ridge Exhibit within the Junior Museum & Zoo 091109 jb 0073245 22 EXHIBITB INSTALLATION SCHEDULE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO CONSTRUCTION PART A Preliminary Milestone Schedule January 7,2010: February 28, ~010: March 30, 2010: April 28, 2010 May 30,2010: PARTB Notice To Proceed Completion of utilities, foundation, footings Completion of Structures Completion of Landscaping and Substantial completion Completion of Punch List, Deed to CITY and As-built Drawings The FRIENDS will not commence construction of the Facilities project pursuant to this Agreement, unless and until all the following conditions precedent have been satisfied: A. Designer. The FRIENDS shall have engaged the services of a professional designer to handle all aspects of design, engineering, and review of the project. B. Construction Manager. The FRIENDS shall have engaged the services of a qualified licensed engineer, an architect or other building construction professional, which provides these services in the ordinary course and scope of business, to serve as the construction manager. The construction manager will coordinate its services with the architect or the engineer; the FRIENDS' contract with the Construction Manager shall have received the prior review and approval of the PW Manager before the commencement of construction. The CITY will not unreasonably withhold or delay its approval of the FRIENDS' contract with the Construction Manager, provided that the Construction.Manager's responsibilities are set forth, as follows: (i) Represent the CITY and the FRIENDS on-site during the construction phase to assure confonnance with the project documents and high quality of workmanship. Oversee construction of the Project, including conducting on- site inspections. Monitor the Project's confonnance with the Construction Documents. Serve as the point of contract for the Parties' staffs coordination with the General Contractor concerning the Project, during construction and during the Tenn. Ensure that all new and refurbished equipment have been installed in accordance with the contract documents, 091109 jb 0073245 23 are working properly; as stand-alone equipment, and are working properly as part of a complete system. (ii) . Analyze the schedule for logical construction, constraints, and level of critical activities. Monitor the General Contractor's progress, and review the General Contractor's progress scheduled, as submitted. NotifY the Parties of any schedule slippage and coordinate with the General Contractor and the Architect or other design consultants on the recovery plan. (iii) Maintain accurate an up-to-date Project file, which includes all documentation required for the proper management of a construction project and will be delivered to the CITY upon completion of the Project. Prepare and maintain various logs such as request for infonnation, submittals, change orders, and so forth. Prepare all necessary documentation for the Proj ect, including daily construction inspection/progress reports, photographs and/or videos, requests for infonnation, and correspondence with the General Contractor and the Architect or other design consultants. Ensure the completion and delivery of all General Contractor-required close-out documentation, including Operation and Maintenance manuals, record drawings, warranties, and so forth. Review all of these materials for compliance with the contract documents and for completeness. a. Review progress payment requests submitted by the General Contractor, verifY the accuracy and percentage-of-completion against the schedule, and resolve any discrepancies in the invoices. Review the invoices and back-up infonnation for completeness and compliance with the contract documents, and make a recommendation to the Parties for payment of the progress payment requests. Review and evaluate all General Contractor extra work requests. Review the contract documents to determine entitlement, complete an independent estimate of the cost of the changes, and reconcile with the General Contractor's change order request(s). Prepare extra scope of work authorizations for the Parties' approvals and track all scope of work and schedule changes. b. Assist the CITY to manage the abatement process to ensure compliance with all applicable laws. Coordinate hazardous materials investigations, reports, and removal with contractor and the CITY's hazardous materials contractor, as may be required during the construction. c. Attend the following meetings: regularly scheduled site meetings with the General Contractor, such as weekly progress review meetings; site meetings with the CITY's staff, the Construction Manager, the Architect or engineer, and the General Contractor, to address and resolve issues; and attend meetings with various CITY department personnel as needed to coordinate the plans and construction logistics. 091109 jb 0073245 24 C. Construction Documents Approvals. The FRIENDS shall have obtained approval of the construction documents for the Project (the "Construction Documents") from the City Engineer and the CITY's Chief Building Official (the "Official"). The City Engineer's review of the Construction Documents shall have included those aspects of design pertaining to whether the Project can be effectively maintained after it is completed and the Facility transferred to the CITY for ongoing operation and maintenance. The Construction Documents shall include: (i) Complete architectural, landscape, systems and engineering plans; (ii) Complete structural calculations; (iii) Complete construction specifications; (iv) Complete construction contract form; (v) Proposed construction schedule; and (vi) A cost estimate at 100% design completion stage. D. CEOA Compliance. The FRIENDS shall have complied with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ("CEQA"), as amended, and all related CITY procedures for implementing CEQA, to allow the Project to be implemented. E. Permits. The FRIENDS shall have provided to the PW Manager proof, in writing, that all permits and approvals from any and all agencies having pre-construction jurisdiction over the Project, including, but not limited to, building permits, grading permits, street opening permits and health permits, have been authorized and are available. F. Certification to Official. The FRIENDS shall have submitted to the Official its written certification that the plans for any proposed building construction comply, in all respects, with current building codes, the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, including any implementing regulations and energy conservation requirements as set forth in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, for non-residential construction. G. Sufficient Funds. The FRIENDS shall have satisfied the City's Director of Administrative Services (the "ASD Director"), or designee, the RP Manager, that it has sufficient funds to construct the Project according to the several plans and documents· to be approved by the CITY, as set forth in this Agreement and the Exhibits, including the Construction Documents. The phrase "sufficient funds" for purposes of this paragraph shall mean the total amount of all actual construction costs for all proposed improvements under the applicable phase, as set forth in the General Contractor's and the Construction Manager's actual bid, plus such General Contractor's and the Construction Manager's overhead and profit, plus an additional ten percent (10%) of such cost as a reasonable contingency. Evidence of such assurance shall take one of the forms described below and shall guarantee the FRIENDS' full and faithful performance of all of the covenants, terms, and conditions of this Agreement: 091109 jb 0073245 25 (i) Completion bond naming the CITY as beneficiary; (ii) Performance and payment bonds, supplied by the FRIENDS' general contractor (or the Construction Manager) or subcontractors, provided the bonds are issued with both Parties named as beneficiaries; (iii) Irrevocable letter of credit from a financial institution naming the CITY as beneficiary; or (iv) Any combination of the above. Samples of the forms referred to above may be obtained from the CITY, including, but not limited to, the CITY's Purchasing Manager, upon request. All instruments referred to in G(i) -(iii) above must be issued by a company (or companies) qualified to do business in California, must be in a form acceptable to the ASD Director and the City Attorney, and must ensure the faithful and full observance and performance by the FFRIENDS of all of the covenants, terms, conditions and provisions relating to the construction of improvements in accordance with the Construction Documents to be approved by the CITY, as set forth in this Agreement. To the extent a letter of credit is utilized, the amount of the letter of credit shall be substantially equal to the estimated cost to complete all approved capital improvements and related construction, and the CITY shall cooperate, as practicable, with the FRIENDS to structure the letter of credit so that its amount may be periodically reduced to reflect the remaining cost to complete all approved construction, to permit the FRIENDS to recover from the issuer of the letter of credit any collateral to actually pay for the construction in progress with such collateral that is no longer needed. The FRIENDS shall have provided a revised estimated construction cost estimate upon the completion of the Construction Documents. The FRIENDS shall furnish this revised estimate promptly to the PW Manager. 091109 jb 0073245 26 EXHIBITC ITEMIZED BUDGET p r . re Immary It . dC t f B d t emlze ons ruc Ion U 1ge Item Netted Enclosure Caging and Hose down area Demolition -CMU wall, wood structure etc Viewing Shelter Utilities and Earthwork Landscape and Topsoil Viewing Barriers Subtotal Contingency 10% Total 091109 jb 0073245 27 Cost $ 74J OOO $ 60,000 $ 20,000 $ 52,000 $ 45,000 $ 40,000 $ 9,000 $ 300,000 $ 30,000 $ 330LOOO REQUIRED YES YES YES YES YES YES EXHIBITD INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS THE FRIENDS, AT ITS SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL DURING THE TERM OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH A BEST'S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. MINIMUM LIMITS TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE WORKER'S COMPENSATION STATUTORY AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY STATUTORY BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY COMBINED. BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 -EACH PERSON $1,000,000 $1,000,000 COMPREHENSIVE AUTOMOBILE -EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 LIABILITY, INCLUDING, OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, $1,000,000 $1,000,000 COMBINED PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: PROPOSER, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY PROPOSER AND ITS SUBCONSULTANS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSURES CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. COMPLIANCE WITH CITY'S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY-DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO THE CITY OF A CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY -SEE SECTION, SAMPLE AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES. II. SUBMIT CERTIFICATE(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE, OR COMPLETE THIS SECTION AND IV THROUGH V, BELOW. A. NAME ANDNDRESS 0,. COMP~ AFFORDING COVERAGE (NOT AGENT OR BROKER): O(\el'01\1 of ...LA.J \.\~ Pr\I( M-CA. B. NAME, ADDRESS, AND PHONE NUMBER OF YOUR INSURANCE AGENTIBROKER: 091109 jb 0073245 28 ACORD.. CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE OP ID D4 I OA TE (MMIOOtYYYY) l1'lUEN-B 09/18/09 PRODUCER Intert'lest Insurance License #0801094 330 Tres Pinos Road Hollister CA 95023 Phone: 831-636-4919 INSURED Services Suite A-1 Fax: 831-635-9237 Friends Of The palo Alto Jr. 1451 Middlefield Road Palo Alto CA 94301 COVERAGES THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND. EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. ! I INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE , !. ~~I!.~§!~.~: "._ ._,tI';In~r~!:.~.r.~ _!;'.~-"!';t,:"", ... At 1. taMe : INSURERS: ! INSURERC; ! I INSURER 0: r·----·--------..... --. ! INSURERE: I NAIC# , -! ! ..... . ... -' .~.. . -: ! TIiE POLICIES OF INSURANCE liSTED anow HAVE Ot:~N ISSUF.O TO THE INSURED NAME!) ABove FOR THE' POUCV PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING IINY H~Q(JIHI::MENT T!;RM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTIIER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERnFICATE MAY SF. ISSUEIl OR MAY I'I:IHAIN. ,HE lNSURIINCI: AFfORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS. EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS or SUCII PQUGI(S AGcmEGATf: lIMffS SHOWN MAY HAVE SEEN REDUCED SY PAID CLAIMS. INSRjADD'L LTR mSRD TYPE OF INSURANCE . ·-'·----Tl'"OIJCYEFFECTlVl: 'jP"OI:IC'fEXPIRIiTION r POLICY NUMBER I DATE iMMIDDIYY) DATE' (MMIDDrfYj" i LIMITS x A A GENERAL LIABILITY : xi COMMERCIAlOENEAAlLiABIUTY Q1200912184 ; ; ; .,' .. T' '---: j--'1 · : ; CLAII~S MADE ~J OCCUR · X : Liquor LiCll?'~_~!:¥ __ 11 · GELLAGGR~GATE LIMIT APP~~E5 P~R. ; "PRO·' i I ! POLICY I ! JECT ! i lOC . AUTOMoe:LE LIABILITY I i i ANY AUTO I : All OI'l'NED AUTOS . j SCHEDULED AUTOS X ! HIRED AUTOS · " I Q12009121B4 , ! i J _X !' NON,OWNED AUTOS i GA~AGE LIABI!.ITY j ANY AlJTO ! I I i ;. EX~ESSIUMBRELL!,_~~BILITY I , OCCUR CLAIMS MADE ! j DEDUCTIBtE i , ! RETENTION $ , WORKERS COMPENSATION AND : EMPLOVERS' LlABILlTV ANY ?ROPRIETORIPARTNERlEXECUTIVE OFFICf.!HIMEMBEH EXCLUDED? OTH"R Directors&Officers i I ! 01200912184 I I I 09/20/09 1 I ! ! i I I I , I I I I I i . i . I I I ! i i I i I I 09/20/091 I I I i I ! ! ! i i I I I i i I i I I 1 , I 1 09/20/09 i EACH OCCURRENCE 51,000! 0e>9 / I DAMAGE TO RENTED 09 20/10 p:~13FM!.§.;;,S'<'E.~occu,ence) s 100,000 ! MEP EXP (Any OM pOtSO.,) S 10 I 000 [r'r;r~SONAI&AOV;;J~;R~ 51,000000 ! GllNRRAl.AGGREGATF . $ 1,000,000 I j>1~ODucrs· COMPIOP A(3G : $ 1 , 000 1 000 I . .. ·····I~g!~~~~~lf;NGLE -Ll~IT ~~,~~o, 000 I BODilY INJURY i s (Par person) s 09/20/10 I BODILY INJURY (Per accident) . ! PROPERTY DAMAG~' . . . . s I (rer "cr.,dent) 09/20/10 I AlJmONlY'EAACClo.~N~. S I OTHER TH/,N EA ACe s AUTO ONLY' AGG ! S ! EACH OCCURRENCE ! $ I AGGREGA1'( 1 $ I 1$ 'I, i $ i$ I \TOWY:;L'I~:¥S i lvtin"; I E.L. EACH ACCIDENT I $ I E. L. DISEASE· EA EMPLOYEE! $ EL. UlSEIlSE ' POLICY LIMIT I $ Occurrenc Aggregate 1,000,000 2,000,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS I VEHICLES I EXCLUSIONS ADDEO BV ENDORSEMENT I SPECIAL PROVISIONS *10 day notice applies to non-payment of premium* CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANV OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30* DAYS WRITTeN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT. SUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL Proof of Insurance IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIveS. AU S ~""t> --;,(f£..t-, ,-~ ACORD 25 (2001/08) ® ACORD CORPORATION 1988 C. POLICY NUMBER(S): D. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNT(S) (DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY'S PRIOR APPROVAL): III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO "ADDITIONAL INSURES" A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSURES. B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSURES UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON·PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHtLL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON· PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. IV. UNDERSIGNED CERTIFIES THAT THE FRIENDS' INSURANCE COVERAGE MEETS THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS: THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS CERTIFItD CO ECT BY SIGNATURE(S) BELOW. ,."" I ! \ I. ·-r··· .. ··.- Finn: " .... t.~: :::,u'4<1L-V\"'y~' .. / -",;"a/~.-r.. .'. .." --<---. Signature: -, "'::·k'·"·"·"c<...r--,·"'/.li ~1/~"'/,.~ Name: ,":>.>tl Li I \:'l C0G-;'> I h '1--7-'1' (Print or type name) Signature: Name: (Print or type name) 0911 09 jb 0073245 29 NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: 091109 jb 0073245 PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303. 30 EXHIBITE CERTIFCATION 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 employment of any person because of race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person; that they are in compliance with all Federal, State and local directives and executive orders regarding nondiscrimination in employment. 1. If Proposer is INDIVIDUAL, sign here: Date: ------Proposer's Signature Proposer's typed name and title 2. If Proposer is PARTNERSHIP or JOINT VENTURE, at least (2) Partners or each ofthe Joint Venturers shall sign here: Partnership or Joint Venture N arne (type or print) Date: _____ _ Date: ------ Member of the Partnership or Joint Venture signature Member of the Partnership or Joint Venture signature 3. If Proposer is a CORPORATION, the duly authorized officer(s) shall sign as follows: The undersigned certify that they are respectively: P~~~i -PrJe~ lo~and l(\Q~~I];J, ~d~,,- Title I . Title Of the corporation named below; that they are designated to sign the Proposal Cost Form by resolution (attach a certified copy, with corporate seal, if applicable, notarized as to its authenticity or Secretary's certificate of authorization) for and on behalf of the below named CORPORATION, and that they are authorized to execute same for and on behalf of said CORPORATION. 091109 jb 0073245 31 091109 jb 0073245 32 CITY FROM: MANAGER DEPARTMENT: DECEMBER 7, 2009 CMR: 454:09 Approval of Agreement tbe Palo Apprenticeship Committee (CFFJAC) Transportability Study Physical Ability Professional Services RECOfdfdENDATION Staff recol11lnends that City Council approve and authorize the Purchasing Manager to execute the attached agreement with the California Fire Fighter Joint Apprenticeship Committee (CFFJAC) to conduct a transportability study. This study will allow the City to accept the Candidate Physical Ability Test (CPAT). CPAT is a testing process to ensure critical and physical fire fighting tasks can be performed to set standards. BACKGROUND The Candidate Physical Ability Test (CPAT) is an internationally recognized physical ability standard for entry-level firefighters. CPAT is a test to n1easure a candidate's abilities to perform the physically demanding tasks of firefighting. The program involves comprehensive recruitment of a diverse candidate pool, a Inentoring and training process to help candidates prepare for the demands of the CPAT, and a rigorous assessment of the physical abilities of the candidates. The CP AT contains the most contemporary and essential elements of a firefighter candidate physical ability test. It includes validation and transport procedures, specially designed equipment and props, entry-level firefighter physical abilities test components, orientation and administration instructions, and appropriate support infonnation to provide for successful administration. Majority of fire agencies in Santa Clara County subscribe to the CPAT process for their entry-level firefighters. In order for Palo Alto to subscribe, the Fire Department must first complete the transportability study to analyze whether the components of the CPAT are consistent and compatible with duties required of Palo Alto firefighters. Project Description The components and validation process of the CPAT are published and copyrighted as "The Fire Service Joint Labor Managen1ent Wellness/Fitness Initiative Candidate Physical Ability Test" CMR 454:09 PAGE10F3 (CPAT Manual) by the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF). grants licenses for the administration of the CPAT, as established in the CPAT Manual. The CPAT program is also endorsed by the International Association of Chiefs (IAPC). The California Fire Fighter Joint Apprenticeship COlnmittee (CFFJAC) is a unique collaboration (Health and Safety Code §13159.9) of the Office of the California State Fire Marshal, representing fire Inanagenlent, and the California Professional Firefighters, representing labor. A transpoliability study is required before a fire department can accept a CP AT card from a candidate when considering for hire. CFFJAC is licensed by to administer the CPAT and conduct a Transportability Study that documents the validation process and determines whether the CPAT provides an accurate simulation of the task critical to entry-level firefighters at the City's Fire DepaIilnent. The cost of such a study can run between $6,000 and $10,000 depending on consultaIlt used. CFFJAC will serve as consultant for the Transportability Study, however, if the City agrees to accept the CP AT card for a period of seven years, CFFJ AC will waive the cost of completing the study. If we do not agree to accept the CP AT card, or if the transportability study results show that CPAT tests are not applicable or appropriate for the City, the City will have to pay for the transportability study. Staff is recolIDllending this agreelnent with CFFJAC because the current practice of conducting our own Physical Agility test is costly, time consuming and would require our own validation process and would result in a greater amount of staff time and Fire Department overtinle. RESOURCE IMPACT Data gathering as a part of the process will involve minimal Fire Department staff and personnel time. The cost of the Transportability Study is approximately $7,000, however this cost will be waived when the City accepts the tenns of the agreement to accept the CFFJAC CPAT card. If the study indicates that the City should not accept the CP AT card, or if the City decides to tenninate the agreelnent before the end of the seven year period (see rate schedule provisions in Exhibit B of Attaclunent A), a pro rata share of the contract cost will be incurred. This contract is for a seven year period and requires Council approval. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation is consistent \vith existing City policies. The actions recommended in this report do not constitute a proj ect under the California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachment A: Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and California Fire Fighter Joint Apprenticeship Committee for Professional Services (CP AT Card of Completion and Transportability Study) CMR 454:09 PAGE 2 OF 3 PREPARED BY: Deputy Chief, Fire Support Services DEPARTMENT HEAD: NIJkMlk~ Fire Chief CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: J CMR 454:09 PAGE30F3 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. CI01337-H AGREE-'IENT BET\\'EEN THE CITY OF P~~LO ALTO A~D CALIFOR~IA FIRE FIGf-ITER JOINT APPRE~CTICESHIP CON1\IITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL S . RVICES (CPAT CARD OF COl'v1PLETION AND TRANSPORTABILITY STUDY) This AGREEMENT is entered into October 6, 2009 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered city and a municipal corporation of the State of California (,'CITY"), and California Fire Fighter Joint Apprenticeship Con1mittee, located at 1780 Creekside Oaks, Suite 201, Sacramento, CA 95833 ("CON SULTANT"). In consideration of the covenants, terms, and conditions set forth In this Agreement, the parties agree: SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perforn1 the Services described in Exhibit "A" (attached to and lnade a part of this Agreelnent) in accordance with the tern1S and conditions contained in this Agreement. The perforrnance of all Services shall be to the reg..sonable satisfaction of CITY. CONSULTANT's project director for this Agreelnent is Kevin, White, Field Services Director. SECTION 2. TERM. The tenn of this Agreement shall be for a seven year period frol11 the date of its full execution through November 30, 2016 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 18 of this Agreelnent. SECTION 3. SCI-IEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Tilne is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreen1ent. 17 CONSULTANT shall complete the Services in accordance with the schedule set fOlih in Exhibit "A". SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. CITY shall pay CONSULTANT for perfonnance of the Services, including both paYlnent for professional services and, if authorized, reilnbursable expenses, an an10unt not to exceed seven thousand Dollars ($7,000.00). No Additional Services are authorized. a. PaYlnent for Services. City shall pay CONSULTANT for Services perfonned in accordance with this Agreen1ent: (OPTION 1) r ' The totallnaxilTIUlTI lUlTIp sun1 cOlTIpensation of __ _ (OPTION 2, IF lVIORE TIIAN ONE RATE USE OPTIO~ 3) " The sun1 of _____ dollars ($ ~ per hour. (OPTIO.:"I 3 -) P A S1.1n1 calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set fOlih in Exhibit "B" attached to and Inade a pari of this Agreen1ent. 1 8261034 b. expenses reimbursen1ent c. (Optional) dollars ($ -_-.---' only by advanced, COKSULTANT shall scope of services, expenses, for such Agreement, CONSULTANT an10unt set forth be reilnbursed perfonnance of the set forth in Exhibit ~~B~~. and necessary \vith the expense Additional Services. The City set the sun1 of --~- Services. CONSULTANT provide Additional Services fron1 the City's project .lLlULLll.lp:;.,"-'.l. At the CITY~s request, a proposal for Additional a description of the and proposed 1naxinluDl including reimbursable Conlpensation shall be based on current rates set f01ih in are not rates or lU111p sum. Additional Services paYlnent 'would exceed all invoices to Blooln, Depm1n1ent: Proj ect IVlanager. 650-329-2265. (Option 1) for cOlnpletion of all Services. Invoices shall provide a detailed statenlent of Services fJ ...... .1..1.v.J..J..J..l'-,'-< and the fee for such Services. If reinlburse1nent is authorized, the invoice include supporting doclllnentation of the expense. (Option 2) be sublni tted Services """''''· ... 1-'' ... '''''' be subnlitted in arrears than 1110nthly. invoice period and shall include r)"",1,,"'A1""" subcol1sultants have "'J.J.U .. U.l~'-'-.1..l.l during the tenn of this to perfonn the Services. perfonned. Invoices shall not provide a detailed statenlent services. If reinlbursenlent of the expense. qualifications to licenses, pernlits, CONSULTANT's services shall be perfornled in '-'-'-'l,.tv'-"J and principles and shall nleet accordance \vith generally professional stand ard and '-'.til.LlU""'" knowledge and skill in the san1e discipline California under the sanle or -.Ju"" ... , ....... shall cOlnply Inay affect v1.1.;::;<'<';:;\,-"_l to perform such docunlentmion is prepared. CONSULTANT shall COlTect at no COS1 to CIT'{~ any and all elTors, Olnissions, or anlbiguities in the \vork product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT. This obligation shall survive tennination of the Agreernent. SECTION 9. INDEPENDE~T CONTRACTOR. In perfonning the Services CONSUL TA.NT is an independent contractor. Neither CONSULTANT nor any of CONSULTANT's officers, enlployees, agents or subcontractors, if any, is an agent or enlployee of the CITY by virtue of this Agreelnent or performance of any Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreenlent nor the perfonnance of any of CONSULTANT's obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city Inanager. SECTION 11. SUBCONTRi-\CTING. CONSULTANT Inay subcontract with Initiative Partners Group (IPG, LLC to c0111plete the Transportability Study described in Exhibit A to this agreelnent but shall not subcontract any other portion of the work to be perfonned under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any conlpensation due to subconsultants. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and Olnissions of a subconsultant. SECTION 12. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. All vvork product, including without linlitation, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, dOCl1l11ents, and other nlaterials developed or discovered by CONSULTANT or any other person engaged directly or indirectly by CONSULTANT to perfornl the Services, and copyright interests in the work product (including all copyrightable interests arising under the 1990 Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act), are the property of the CITY. CITY acknowledges that its use of the work product is lilnited to the purposes contenlplated by the scope of -work and that the C01-JSULTA1'-JT ITlakes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circunlstances not contelnplated by the scope of vvork. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall nlake any of such nlaterials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the city nlanager or designee. CONSULTANT vvill permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable tilne during the tenl} of this Agreelnent and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT's records pertaining to nlatters covered by this Agreenlent. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or' earlier ternlination of this Agreenlent. To the fullest extent penyjtted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harnlless CITY, its Council melnbers, ofIicers, enlployees and agents (each an "Indemnified Pmiy") frOln and against any and all denlands, clainls, or liabilities of any nature, including death or injury to any person, propeliy damage or 3 8261034 any other loss, including all costs and expenses of vvhatever nature including investigation and adn1inistrative expenses, attorneys fees, experts fees~ costs of alternativ-e dispute resolution, court costs and disbursectents (,Claims") resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to perfonnance or nonperfonnance by CONSULTANT, its officers, en1ployees, agents or contractors under this Agreelnent, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part or contributed to by an Indemnified Party. The foregoing indenlnity obligation shall not apply to Clail11s caused by the sole negligence or w-illfull11isconduct of an Indemnified Party. The acceptance of CONSULTANT's services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of Section 16 relating to insurance do not linlit the provisions of this Section 14. The provisions of this Section 14 shall survive the expiration or early ten11ination of this Agreen1ent. SECTI ON 15. NO IiVIPLIED \VAIVER. CITY's paYlllent or partial payment for, or acceptance or partial acceptance of, CONSULTANT's services shall not operate as a waiver by CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 16. INSURANCE. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 'VAlVED (a) Requirelnent. C01'JSULTANT, at its sole cost, shall purchase and 111aintain in full f-eree El-tH.IDg-the tenn of this Agreement, the insurance Goverage describeEl--i~it "e", attache4-te aB:E!--m-aEl~ of this }\:greement. Insurance must be provided by cOl11}7ftE:ies v·lith a Best's Key rati-ng of A, :\TII or higher, lvvl-rich-are--aEl-mitted to transact in-sBffiilce bU-s-i-BeS-S---i-H----tl1e--&t-at-e-ef G~l1iefr-a-re-e-1-flePNise accepta-e±e to the City's Risk }y1anager. The--Gity's RislE Ma·Ha-g-er-m-l.1st approve deductibles and self insured reteBtions. IH aEl-El-i-tion, al-l---p-el-iei-es, efiders-elTIefi ts, c ertificate-s-aB.~i-l-1fler-s-al:e--s-ubj ect to approval by th-e-RislrM-anage-F-a-S--t-e-ferm aH:El-€-OR-t-eB:k tbj-el1.aor-S-CHl6-Fl ts . C 01'J&Yb+AN-=f-s-li:a-l-l-e-btaffi-a-13e±-i.-cy--ei18,0·FSei1-1-6-Ht-B.-a-ming-:H1C--C-i-t-y-ef-l2al-e Alto--as an additiOl18:l--insured unEler-any-general Iffiel-ti-ty or a'<--tt-etB-eB-i-l-e-IJo-l-it-y. CONSULT-AN-J: s-hal-±----eB-1i-n-a~ment stattng-tftat-the-i-fisurance is---fH:fffmFyr--Be-veroge-and \vil-l-rte-t--be c-at-1c-eI-etl-Bf-ffi-atelq-a-l-l-y-retl-u€eEl--iR--€6-Veffi-g-e-e'F--l-i-Hl-i+s-tl-n{-i1--a-H6-r13rev-i~G-8:a-Y-5-IJ-l:fer---wr.itt-en HB-t:-ice--e-f-t-11e-GU:H-eci-l-a-tte1-1-BI-meB-i-ficatien--te-tl:re-Gtty-:.s-Pcis-lE:-M-a-l1a-g-er.- Et-~evi-El-eHce Regaired. C01'JSULTAl'JT-s-l'l-al-l provide cert-i-fH3-ales of s'cl€-h-130i-ic~-es--e-F-et-fler evid-eB€e of cev-erage sa-tisfactOlT-4o CITY's Fisk },1anager, t&g€ther 'ivith t:fie----reEtuired enElel~einerrts--anEl evidence of paY111~reFB-i-um-s-;-t-&-GI-H-OOl1€ttFreffil-y-wi-tB-{ne executien--ef t!-1-i-s-AgFeeH'le-l1t-aUfl-sllB:l-l-t-h:fG-Hg+1EH:l+-tll e-t-er :n-ef4fii-s-Agree-m.eH ~-re v i Ele-c HlTent--refti-fi-€-ates evi-B-encl--ng-tfle-reEtt--H-Fed-tfl5Uf-RBBe-C-e.:verages-anEl--e:nEl-erse±-11ents to the CITY's R-is-k-M-anag-e'l":- EEl~l3-c-en-1-rac-t 0 rs. C GNWLTA:1'tI-sl1ali--i-Hc-l-OO-e-a-l-l-su-b€0-n1-ra€-te-fs-as-ins-ureci-ttBB-el=-i-t-s-pei-ie-ies or--sh-al-l--eB-ta-i-n----afttl1 7ro-v-itl:e-tB CITY s ep arate c ertifi-€-ates~nd-ertder-semeffi~fur each s-uboon1rooter-t-l1at-meet-al-l---1-fle-rettttireiTIents-ef-4fti-s--s-eaiBB-:- (-e-)-Ne-L-i-ln-i-ta-t-iet-1-BfG-l?-ij-ga-tie-n-5-:-1'fie---t3 f68:! 1~eft-FeEttti-recl-f1ei-iaes-e-H-n5\:l1:.aRC e shall Ret G-per-a-te--te--l-i-rnit C01'JWLTAJ:JT's li-a-b-i-l-i-1-y or ohl-iga-t-i-eH-to--inElenmify CITY aRder this Ag-r-eemefl-h 4 8261034 CONSlTLTA.NT, by executing Agreement, certifies it is avvare of provisions of the Labor Code of State of California vvhich require en1ployer to insured against liability for vvorkers' con1pensation or to undertake self-insurance accordance vvith provisions of Code, and certifies that it vvill cOlnply such provisions, as applicable, before commencing and the of Services. city n1anager n1ay tern1inate this Agreement or abandon any pOliion the Services, giving ten (10) days' prior written notice to CONSULTANT. of such notice, CONSULTANT vvill perforn1 no fllliher Services except as specified Before the date tennination or abandonlnent CONSULTANT shall deliver Manager all work product related to the Services vvhether or not con1pleted, not othenvise previously delivered. City shall CONSULTANT for Services perforn1ed in accordance vvith this Agreen1ent before the of tern1ination. If paYlnent is to be 111ade on a hunp SUln for Services or by and tennination or abandonn1ent occurs before cOlnpletion the services or any defined task which was con11nenced the notice of termination, the for services perfol1ned shall be based on an amount Inutually agreed to by the and Consultant performed in confoDnance with Agreen1ent before the of termination. In addition, the CITY reilnburse CONSULTANT authorized expenses incurred and not previously reimbursed. The City shall not be for fees or costs associated with the tern1ination or abandOlunent except the and reimbursement of authorized expenses, payable pursuant to section (b) ~=-:...:::::-=:::::..;=-=-::...=:::::...~..::::........;:..:::..:.o= CONSULTANT, not in default or breach, Inay tenninate its obligation to provide further Services under this Agreelnent giving thiliy days prior written to but only in event of a default by which has not been cured within days the notice. be given in writing and Inailed, postage prepaid, by celiified n1ail, addressed as To CITY: Office City of Palo Alto Post Office 10250 Palo CA 94303 a to the Purchasing 1vianager the Proj ect Manager. To CONSULTANT: Attention the project at address of above 5 U I.l-l.l'-'U'Hu '''<lLl.'L1.~U, contractors .,...,0"",,,,,,\ who has or will any financial interest under this CITY; this interpreted accordance the Governnlent of the CONSUL T AKT is a as that tenn is by the Practices C01TInlission, CONSULTANT be required and ivlunicipal to file the appropriate financial disclosure dOCUlTIents required by the Palo Alto and the Political '-'-'-'-'-, ........ "'""'" Act. agrees that or applicant national V.1. .1.';;"l..L1., ·weight or i-l'-'l.I=',.LlL performance of enlploynlent of housing status, CONSULTANT agrees to nleet Ll-UJ,Hi-lF, to nondiscrilnination In set forth in Exhibit of the State Alto ivluncipal c01TIpleting the ,-,,-,",1"-",-",","Ll,-," will govern Agreenlent. --'----'==-=-' In the event an action is brought, parties agree of such action exclusively in the state courts of California or in the United Disnict Court District of California the County of Clara, State of California. connection entire and 11-.1'.on"-,,,Te,ri negotiations, representations, and Agreenlent is This Agreement tenTIS and conditions the parties this Agreenlent. consent of I..ULl"'J.l.L, which is without the a written to the fiscal of the Charter 6 sexual their This City by 61034 ---~--. of Palo Alto and the Palo A.lto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (i) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (ii) at any time within a fiscal year in the ev nt that funds are only appropriated for a portion of tha fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This Section 22(f) shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, conditio~ or provision of this Agreement IN ~SS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date fit~t above writteIL CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVED AS TO FORM! Deputy City Attorney APPROVED: ~Contract Administrator _Purchasing Manager ~Assistant City Manager Attachments~ EXHIBIT I'A": EXHIBIT nB": SCOPE OF WORK COM'PENSATION ~RNIA FIRE FIGHTER JOINT ~~HJPCOMMITI'EE ~~~~ """ Name: DAN TERliY Title: Chair IAdminis tratQt 7 8261034 Background EXHIBIT' A' SCOPE OF SERVICE S The Inten1ational Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and the International Association of fire Chiefs (IAFC) developed the fire Service Joint Labor rvlanagen1ent Candidate Physical Abilities Test (CPAT). The United States Depm1n1ent of Labor, labor attorneys, exercise physiologists, occupational health physicians, industrial psychologists, firefighters and fire officers, and statisticians further strengthened the CP AT development through cOlnprehensive revie'w and test validation processes. The CPAT contains the most contemporary and essential elelnents of a firefighter candidate physical ability test. It includes validation and transport procedures, specially designed equipn1ent and props, entry-level firefighter physical abilities test cOlnponents, orientation and adlninistration instructions, and appropriate supp0l1 inforn1ation to provide for successful adlninistration. The con1ponents and validation process of the CP AT are published and copywrited as "The Fire Service Joint Labor Managelnent Wellness/Fitness Initiative Candidate Physical Ability Test" (CPAT rv1anual) by the IAFF. The IAFF grants licenses for the adn1inistration of the CPAT, as established in the CPAT Manual. The California Fire Fighter Joint Apprenticeship Con1n1ittee (CFFJAC) is a unique collaboration (Health and Safety Code § 13159.9) of the Office of the California State Fire Marshal, representing fire n1anagelnent and the California Professional Firefighters, representing labor. This pminership creates a balance with labor and n1anagelnent that benefits all California fire departlnents and firefighters. This partnership places the CFFJAC in the position to transport the validation of the CPAT to the operations of the interested fire departlnents and to con1ply with the CP AT standards as published in the CPA T Manual. The California Fire Fighter Joint Apprenticeship Con1n1ittee (CFFJAC) is licensed by the IAFF to adrninister the CPAT. The CFFJi~C also has the 'written pern1ission and authorization fron1 the IAFF to reproduce, reprint and use the CP AT materials in their entirety. This license is granted to CFFJAC upon the express conditions that the CFFJAC Inust use the CPAT in whole and only for the purpose of candidate testing. With that trust, CFFJA.C is dedicated to the in1plementation and ad1l1inistration of the CP AT standard throughout the state of California, as printed in the CP AT Manual. Scope of Services CONSULTANT shall work with City to con1plete a Transportability Study that provides a con-elation of in1portance and physicality of the tasks included in the CPAT vvith the tasks performed by elnployees in City's Fire Departn1ent. The Transportability study shall include the following cOlnponents: 8 8261034 1. a. Equipn1ent Survev: To determine -vvhether the equipment City~s Fire Department uses is c0111parable to the equipn1ent used as pm1 of the CP A T~ CO)JSULT A~T shall provide City -vvith a complete equiplnent survey and instructions for properly completing the survey. b. Job Analvsis Survey: CONSuLTANT shall provide City -vvith instructions and materials for completing an accurate job analysis, including but not lin1ited to detern1ining the appropriate number of survey participants, selecting survey pmiicipants, and adlninistering the surveys. c. Incumbent Survey and Evaluation of CPA T: CONSULTANT shall provide City with instructions and materials for selecting the nun1ber and identity of City firefighters to evaluate the elelnents of CP AT. 2. Transportability Consultant shall produce a final Transportability Study report that docun1ents the validation process and results and analyzes and detennines whether the CPA T provides an accurate sin1ulation of the tasks critical to entry-level firefighters at the City's Fire Depmiment. The TranspOliability Study report shall cOlnply ,;yith the Equal En1ploYlnent 0ppOliunity Con1n1ission's Guidelines on Employee Selection (29 CFR 1607.15) and shall contain (1) an explanation of the study Inethods used, (2) the data obtained by the study, (3) an explanation and analysis of that data, and (4) a validation and conclusion as to whether the CPAT provides an accurate silTIulation of tasks required of City of Palo Alto firefighters. 9 8261034 EXHIBIT "B" Rc\TE SCI-IED LLE CITY shall pay CONSULTANT up to a total not to exceed mnount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000.00), including all expenses and reimbursables, calculated as set forth below for providing the City vvith a full Transportability Study and Report as set forth in Exhibit "A." In executing this Agreement, City agrees to exclusively accept the CFF J AC issued CPA T Card of Completion as proof of a candidate's physical ability for a period of 7 years from the date of the completed TranspOliability Study. If the TranspOliability Study does not validate the CPAT test as applied to the City's Fire DepaJiment, or if the City cancels the agreen1ent to exclusively accept CFFJAC issued CPAT card before the conclusion of the seven-year period, the City agrees to pay CFFJAC eighty-five dollars ($85.00) per n10nth for the nun1ber of full lTIonths of the seven years relTIaining, up to a total not to exceed an10unt of seven thousand dollars ($7,000.00), including all expenses and rein1bursables. 1 0 8261034 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2009 CMR:446:09 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Approval of a Purchase Order with Ironman Parts and Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $14,932 and a Purchase Order with Peterson Power Systems in an Amount Not to Exceed $261,567 for the Purchase and Installation of Diesel Emissions Retrofit Devices on a Total of Ten Heavy Duty Diesel Powered Trucks RECOMMENDA TION Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a purchase order with Ironman Parts and Services in the amount of $14,931.20; for the purchase and installation of a required best available control technology (BACT) diesel emissions retrofit device, cQmmonlyknown as a diesel particulate filter (DPF) on one heavy duty diesel powered truck. 2. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a purchase order with Peterson Power Systems in the amount of $261,566.19; for the purchase and installation of required best available control technology (BACT) diesel emissions retrofit devices, commonly known as diesel particulate filters (DPF) on a total of nine heavy duty diesel powered trucks. DISCUSSION The California Air Resources Board (CARB), established in 1967, requires the installation of diesel emission retrofit devices on certain City-owned heavy duty diesel powered trucks. California is the only state that is currently pennitted to have such a regulatory agency. The stated goals of the CARB include: attaining and maintaining healthy air quality; protecting the public from exposure to toxic air contaminants; and providing innovative approaches for complying with air pollution rules and regulations Diesel exhaUst contains a variety of harmful gases and over 40 other known cancer-causing compounds. In 1998, California identified diesel particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant based on its potential to cause cancer, premature death, and other health problems. The CARB Fleet Rule for Public Agencies and Utilities specifies compliance deadlines for installation of best available control technology (BACT), also known as diesel particulate tilters (DPF) on medium duty and heavy duty diesel powered vehicles. At the time the CARB diesel emissions reduction rules were established, the City's fleet included 51 vehicles that were subject to the regulations. The 51 vehicles are divided into three groups, CMR:446:09 Page I of3 based on engine production year. Group 1 consists of vehicles from 1960-1987, Group 2 from 1988-2002, and Group 3 from 2003-2006. The CARB Fleet Rule requires that 60% of the vehicles in each group be retrofitted with BACT devices by the compliance deadline of December 31,2009 and that the remaining vehicles be retrofitted by December 31,2011. The City's fleet includes one vehicle in Group 1, 36 vehicles in Group 2, and 14 vehicles in Group 3. The vehicle in Group 1 has a low use exemption. This exemption applies to vehicles which travel less than 1,000 miles per year and operate less than 100 hours per year. The 60% rule for Group 2 requires that 22 of the 36 vehicles be in compliance by December 31, 2009. Currently, eight vehicles have been retrofitted, 10 have been retired, two have been scrapped, and two have low use exemptions. No action is required for Group 2 at this time. The 14 remaining vehicles in Group 2 must be compliant by December 31, 2011. We anticipate that eight of those vehicles will remain in the fleet, and the other six will be retired. None of the 14 vehicles in Group 3 have been retrofitted. At this time, we intend to retrofit 10 of the Group 3 vehicles with the CARB required diesel particulate filters. The four remaining vehicles in Group 3 will require the installation of retrofit devices by December 31, 2011. Vehicle Replacement Fund Capital Improvement Project VR-07002 was established to facilitate compliance with the CARB requirements; it authorizes the purchase and installation of diesel emission retrofit devices for City-owned heavy duty diesel powered trucks. A Request for Quotation (RFQ) for diesel emissions retrofit devices was sent to 13 vendors on October 15, 2009. Bids were received from five qualified vendors on November 10, 2009 as listed on the attached bid summary (Attachment A). Bids ranged from a high of $291,519 of $120,342 (the low bidder did not bid all items). Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bids submitted by Ironman Parts and Services (item #1 only) and Peterson Power Systems (items #2 through #10) be accepted and that Ironman Parts and Services and Peterson Power Systems be declared the lowest responsible bidders. The base bid from A-Z Bus Sales did not meet specifications, therefore their bid was considered non-responsive. Western Truck Center did not bid on all items therefore their bid was considered non-responsive. The bid from Ironman Parts and Services was the lowest bid for item #1. Their DPF devices did not meet specifications for items #2 through #10. The bid from Peterson Power Systems was the lowest bid for items #2 through #10 meeting all the specifications. Staff has checked references supplied by the vendor for previous contracts and has found no significant complaints. RESOURCE IMPACT Funds have been budgeted for this purchase order In Vehicle Replacement Fund Capital Improvement Project VR-07002. CMR:446:09 Page 2 of3 POLICY IMPLICATIONS 'Ibis project furthers several initiatives outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan. These initiatives include Policy N-21, Policy N-26, and Program N-27. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is exempt under Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Bid Summary PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR:446:09 JOHN MORAN 7lJ~-- GLENN S. ROBERTS Director of Public Works CityN,Ia~ Page 3 of3 BID SUMMARY Diesel Emissions Retrofit Installation RFQ134327 Western Truck Center A-Z Bus Sales A-Z Bus Sales (Alternate Bid) Emissions Retrofit Group Peterson Power Systems Ironman Parts and Service ATTACHMENT A Bid Total $120,341.55 Bid Total $192,600.00 Bid Total $306,233.09 Bid Total $291,519.04 Bid Total $261,566.19 Bid Total $152,559.62 City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report ~-----~-~--.. ---~--".-----~---~--.--.-"-"-,.--.----"-.. -."-""---"----------------" ---"""-"---------1-1 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2009 CMR:452:09 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Approval of a Storm Drain Enterprise Fund Contract With Repipe- California, Inc. in the Amount of $394,981 for the Storm Drain Rehabilitation and Replacement (Phase III CIPP Lining) Project - Capital Improvement Program Project SD-06101 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with Repipe-Califomia, Inc., in the amount of $394,981 for Stonn Drain Rehabilitation and Replacement (Phase III CIPP Lining) Project -Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project SD-06101. 2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Repipe-Califomia, Inc., for related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $39,498. BACKGROUND In 2005, the property owners of Palo Alto voted to increase their monthly stonn drainage fee to fund a set of seven high-priority stonn drain-related capital improvement projects, including an increased budget for annual stonn drain rehabilitation and replacement. This project makes use of a portion of the funds for stonn drain rehabilitation and replacement for FY 2009-10. DISCUSSION Project Description A project location and overview map is shown on Attachment B. The project consists of the installation of plastic pipe liners in deteriorated corrugated metal pipes, vitrified clay pipes and concrete pipes beneath Embarcadero Road, Lytton Avenue, Lane 20 West, Hamilton Avenue, Regent PI~ce, Portal Place, Tevis Place, Coastland Drive, Ross Road, Walter Hays Drive, Channing I Avenue, and Addison Avenue. The liner restores the structural integrity and flow capacity of the damaged pipelines. The liners are inserted into the pipelines via existing manholes, thereby eliminating the open trenching of streets and related pavement damage and traffic impacts. CMR:452:09 Page 1 of3 Project Coordination The work included in this project has been coordinated with the City's street maintenance prograni and does not directly impact any other utility or street resurfacing project. The use of a trench less installation process will minimize the impacts to the integrity of existing streets. ummarvo 1 S fB'dP rocess Bid NamelNumber Storm Drain Rehabilitation and Replacement (Phase III CIPP Lining) Project -Capital Improvement Program Project SD-06101 I IFB #133992 Proposed Length of Project 60 calendar days Number of Bids Mailed to 15 Contractors Number of Bids Mailed to 12 Builder's Exchanges Total Days to Respond to Bid 22 Pre-Bid Meeting? No Number of Company Attendees at N/A Pre-Bid Meeting i Number of Bids Received: 7 . Bid Price Range * $394,981 -$932,760 *Bid summary provided in Attachment C. Staff has reviewed the bids submitted and recommends that the bid of $394,981 submitted by Repipe-California, Inc., be accepted and that Repipe-California, Inc., be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The bid is 40% below the engineer's estimate of $667,980. The change order amount of $39,498, which equals 10% of the total contract is requested to resolve unforeseen problems and/or conflicts that may arise during the construction period. Staff confirmed with the Contractor's State License Board that the contractor has an active license on file. RESOURCE IMPACT Funding for the Storm Drain Rehabilitation and Replacement (Phase III CIPP Lining) Project is available in Storm Drainage Capital Improvement Program Project SD-06101. Project SD- 06101 is funded annually on an ongoing basis in order to pay for the replacement or rehabilitation of deteriorated storm drain system components. The project is funded by the Storm Drainage Fee increase approved by property owners in 2005. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation does not represent any changes to existing City policies. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the prOVISIons of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines as repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of an existing facility and no further environmental review is necessary. CMR:452:09 Page 2 of3 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Contract Attachment B: Project Location Map Attachment C: Bid Summary PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: cc: Storm Drain Oversight Committee r , )J~~~ ~ RAJEEV D. HADA ~n~~ ~~ ________ _ GLENN S. ROBERTS Director of Public Works Page 3 r ; ATTACHMENT A .. of- PALO ALTO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Contract No. C10133992 City of Palo Alto and Repipe .. California, Inc. SECTION 1. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS .................................... 1 1.1 Recitals ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 1 SECTION 2. 'rHE PROJECT ................................................................................................... 1 SECTION 3. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ....................................................................... 1 LIST OF DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................................... 1 3.2 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE .... , .......................................................... ; ................ 2 SECTION 4. THE WORK .......... ~ ............................................................................................. 2 SECTION 5. PROJECT TEAM ................................................................................................ 2 SECTION 6. TIME OF COMPLETION ..................................................................................... 2 6.1 Time Is of Essence ............................................................................................................. 3 6.2 Commencement of Work ................................................................................................... 3 6.3 Contract Time ..................................................................................................................... 3 6.4 Liquidated Damages .......................................................................................................... 3 6.4.1 Entitlement ................................................................................................................... 3 6.4.2 Daily Amount ............................................................................................................... 3 6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy ....................................................................................................... 3 6.4.4 Other Remedies .......................................................................................................... 3 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time .......................................................................................... 3 SECTION 7. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR .............................................................. 4 7.1 Contract Sum ...................................................................................................................... 4 7.2 { Full Compensation ............................................................................................................. 4 7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work ........................................................................ 4 7.3.1 Self Performed Work ................................................................................................... 4 7.3.2 Subcontractors ................................................................................. .' .......................... 4 Construction Contract C10133992 Rev. October 9.2009 SECTION 8. STANDARD OF CARE ....................................................................................... 4 SECTION 9. INDEMNIFiCATION ............................................................................................ 5 9.1 Hold Harmless .................................................................................................................... 5 9.2 Survival ............................................................................................................................... 5 SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION ...................................................................................... 5 SECTION 11. INSURANCE AND BONDS ............ ; ................................................................... 5 SECTION 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS ............................................................ 5 SECTION 13. NOTICES ............................................................................................................ 6 13.1 Method of Notice ................................................................................................................ 6 13.2 Notice Recipients ............................................................................................................... 6 13.3 Change of Address .............. : ............................................................................................. 7 SECTION 14. DISPUTE RESOLUTION ................................................................................... 7 14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes ...................................................................................... 7 14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes ........................................................................................... 7 14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes ................................................................................................ 7 14.2.2 Litigation. City Election .................................................................................................. 7 14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute ...................................................................................... 8 14.3.1 By Contractor ............................................................................................................... 8 14.3.2 By City .......................................................................................................................... 8 14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process .............................................................................. 8 14.4.1 Direct Negotiations ...................................................................................................... 8 14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes ...................................................................................... 9 14.4.3 Mediation ..................................................................................................................... 9 14.4.4 Binding Arbitration ....................................................................................................... 9 14.5 Non-Waiver ....................................................................................................................... 10 SECTION 15. DEFAULT ......................................................................................................... 11 15.1 Notice of Default ............................................................................................................... 11 I" 15.21 Opportunity to Cure Default ............................................................................................ 11 SECTION 16. CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ................................................................... 11 16.1 Remedies Upon Default ................................................................................................... 11 Construction Contract C10133992 ii Rev.Ocrober9,2009 Delete Certain Services ............................................................................................. 11 16.1.1 16.1.2 16.1.3 16.1.4 16.1.5 16.1.6 Perform and Withhold ................................................................................................ 11 Suspend The Construction Contract ......................................................................... 11 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default.. ..................................................... 11 InVoke the Performance Bond ................................................................................... 11 Additional Provisions ................................................................................................. 12 16.2 Delays by Sureties ........................................................................................................... 12 16.3 Damages to City ............................................................................................................... 12 16.3.1 For Contractor's Default ............................................................................................ 12 16.3.2 Compensation for Losses ........................ , ................................................................. 12 16.5 Suspension·by City for Convenience ............................................................................. 12 16.6 Termination Without Cause ............................................................................................ 13 16.6.1 Compensation ........................................................................................................... 13< 16.6.2 Subcontractors .......................................................................................................... 13 16.7 Contractor's Duties Upon Termination .......................................................................... 13 SECTION 17. CONTRACTOR"S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES .................................................. 14 17.1 Contractor's Remedies .................................................................................................... 14 17.1.1 For Work Stoppage ................................................................................................... 14 17.1.2. For City's Non-Payment. ............................................................................................ 14 17.2 Damages to Contractor ................................................................................................... 14 SECTION 18. ACCOUNTING RECORDS ............................................................................... 14 18.1 Financial Management and City Access ........................................................................ 14 18.2 Compliance with City Requests ................. : .................................................................... 14 SECTION 19. INDEPENDENT PARTIES ................................................................................ 14 SECTION 20. NUISANCE ....................................................................................................... 15 SECTION 21. PERMITS AND LICENSES .............................................................................. 15 SECTION 22. WAiVER ............................................................................................................ 15 SEC'nON 23 GOVERNING LAW ........................................................................................... 15 SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT .............................................................................. 15 SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT ............................................................................. 15 Construction Contract C1 0133992 iii Rev.Ocmber9,2009 SECTION 26 SECTION 27 SECTION 28. SECTION 29. r I PREVAILING WAGES ...................................................................................... 15 NON APPROPRIATION ................................................................................... 15 GOVERNMENTAL POWERS .......................................................................... 17 SEVERABILITY ................................................................................................ 17 Construction Contract C1 0133992 iv Rev. October 9,2009 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on ("Execution Date") by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and REPIPE- CALIFORNIA, INC. ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. Contractor is a Corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of Delaware, Contractor's License Number 814303. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the State of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the obligations set forth in this Construction Contract. C. On October 19, 2009, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the Storm Drain Rehabilitation Project -CIPP Lining Phase I" ("Project"). In response to the IFB, Contractor submitted a bid. D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and other services as identified in the Bid Documents for the Project upon the following terms and conditions. NOW THEREFORE, in considerationofthe mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and suffiCiency of which are hereby acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS. 1.1 Recitals. All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference. 1.2 Definitions. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the General Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract and in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail. SECTION 2 THE PROJECT. The Project is the construction of the Storm Drain Rehabilitation Project -CIPP Lining Phase III ("Project"). SEC'nON3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 3.1 List of Documents. The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as "Agreement" or "Bid Documents") consist of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division r and are hereby incorporated by reference. i 1) Change Orders 2) Field Change Orders 3) Contract 4) Project Plans and Drawings Construction Contract C1 0133992 Rev. October 9, 2009 5) Technical Specifications 6) Special Provisions . , 7) Notice Inviting Bids 8) Instructions to Bidders 9) General Conditions 10) Bidding Addenda 11 ) Invitation for Bids 12) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Affidavit 13) Reports listed in the Bidding Documents 14) Public Works Department's Standard Drawings and Specifications dated 2007 and updated from time to time 15) Utilities Department's Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards dated 2005 and updated from time to time 16) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements 17) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations 18) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre- Qualification Checklist (if applicable) 19) Performance and Payment Bonds 20) Insurance Forms 3.2 Order of Precedence. For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies· between and among the provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence, the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best interests of the City. SECTION 4 THE WORK. The Work includes all labor, materials, equipment, services, permits, fees, licenses and taxes, and all other things necessary for Contractor to perform its obligations and complete the Project, including, without limitation, any Changes approved by City, in accordance with the Contract Documents and all Applicable Code Requirements. SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM. ,. In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Project requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the Project. SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION. Construction Contract C10133992 2 Rev. October 9, 2009 6.1 Time Is of Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents. 6.2 Commencement of Work. Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City's Notice to Proceed. 6.3 Contract Time. Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the city's Notice to Proceed and shall be completed within sixty (60) calendar days after the commencement date specified in City's Notice to Proceed. 6.4 Liquidated Damages. 6.4.1 Entitlement. City and Contr~ctor acknowledge and agree that if Contractor fails to fully and satisfactorily complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will suffer, as a result of Contractor's failure, substantial damages which are both extremely difficult and impracticable to ascertain. Such damages may include, but are not limited to: (i) Loss of publiC confidence in City and its contractors and consultants. Oi) Loss of public use of public facilities. (iii) Extended disruption to public. 6.4.2 Daily Amount. City and Contractor have reasonably endeavored, but failed, to ascertain the actual damage that City will incur if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. Therefore, the parties agree that in addition to all other damages to which City may be entitled other than delay damages, in the event Contractor shall fail to achieve Substantial Completion ofthe entire Work within the Contract Time, Contractor shall pay City as liquidated damages the amount of . $500 per day for each Day occurring after the expiration of the Contract Time until Contractor achieves Substantial Completion of the entire Work. The liquidated damages amount is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work. 6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy. City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that this liquidated damages provision shall be City's only remedy for delay damages caused by Contractor's failure to . achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. 6.4.4 Other Remedies. City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have where City's Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor's failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time. r I The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and agreed to by Change Order executed by City and Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. Construction Contract C10133992 3 Rev. October 9, 2009 SECTION 7 . COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR. 7.1 Contract Sum. Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the Contract Documents the Contract Sum of Three Hundred Ninety-Four Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty-One Dollars ($394.981.00). 7.2 Full Compensation. The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents. shall compensate City for all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of the Work until its Acceptance by City. all risks connected with the Work. and any and all expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance of the Work. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change Orders issued, executed and satisfactorily performed in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. 7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work. The Contract Sum shall be adjusted (either by addition or credit) for Changes in the Work involving Extra Work or Deleted Work on the basis of both of the following: (i) The sum of Allowable Costs as defined in Paragraph 7.2.5 of the General Conditions to be added (for Extra Work) or credited (for Deleted Work) and (ii) An additional sum (for' Extra Work) or deductive credit (for Deleted Work) based on Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups allowable pursuant to this Section. Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups set forth herein are the full amount of compensation to be added for Extra Work or to be subtracted for Deleted Work that is attributable to overhead (direct and indirect) and profit of Contractor and of its Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors, of every Tier. Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups, which shall not be compounded, shall be computed as follows: 7.3.1 Markup Self-Performed Work. 10% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be performed by Contractor with its own forces. 7.3.2 Markup for Work Performed by Subcontractors. 15% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be performed by a first Tier Subcontractor with its own forces, plus 2.5% thereon for Contractor's Markup. . SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE. Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project. r I Construction Contract C1 0133992 4 Rev. October 9, 2009 SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION. 9.1 Hold Harmless. To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its Oity Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City, from and against any and all Losses arising directly or indirectly from, or in any manner relating to any of, the following: (i) Performance or nonperformance of the Work by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors, of any tier; (ii) Performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub- subcontractors of any tier, of any of the obligations under the Contract Documents; (iii) The construction activities of Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors, of any tier, either on the Site or on other properties; (iv) The payment or nonpayment by Contractor to any of its employees, Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors of any tier, for Work performed on or off the Site for the Project; and (v) Any personal injury, property damage or economic loss to third persons associated with the performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub- subcontractors of any tier, of the Work. However, nothing herein shall obligate Contractor to indemnify any Indemnitee for Losses resulting from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitee. Contractor shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Nothing in the Contract Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee. 9.2 Survival. The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract. SEC"nON 10 NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS. On or before the Execution Date, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained insurance and Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions. Failure to do so shall be deemed a material breach of this Construction Contract. SECTION 12 PROHIBrrJON AGAINST TRANSFERS. City is entering into this Construction Contract based upon the stated experience and qualifications of the Contractor and its subcontractors set forth in Contractor's Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment, hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be null and void. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy shall result in changing the Construction Contract C10133992 5 Rev. October 9, 2009 control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity. SECTION 13 NOTICES. 13.1 Method of Notice. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following: (i) On the date delivered if delivered personally; (ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided; (iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission; (iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or (iv) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail. 13.2 ,Notice Recipients. All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Claims) from Contractor to City shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be addressed to City at: To City: City of Palo Alto City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Copy to:18! City of Palo Alto Public Works Administration 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Joe Teresi Or o City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be provided to the following: Palo Alto City Attorney's Office 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto. California 94303 Attn.: r All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail. Construction Contract C10133992 6 Rev. October 9, 2009 All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to: Repipe-California, Inc. 5525 E. Gibraltar Street Ontario, CA 91764 13,3 Change of Address. In the event of any change of address, the moving party shall notify the other party of the change of address in writing. Each party may, .by written notice only, add, delete or replace any individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided. " SECTION 14 DISPUTE RESOLUTION. 14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes. Contract Disputes shall be resolved by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this Section 14, in lieu of any and all rights under the law that either party have its rights adjudged by a trial court or jury. All Contract Disputes shall be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process set forth in this Section 14, which shall be the exclusive recourse of Contractor and City for such Contract Disputes. 14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes. r , 14.2.1 Non~ontract Disputes. Contract Disputes shall not include any of the following: (i) Penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation imposed by a governmental agency; (ii) Third party tort claims for personal injury, property damage or death relating to any Work performed by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub- SUbcontractors of any tier; (iii) False claims liability under California Government Code Section 12650, et. seq.; (iv) Defects in the Work first discovered by City after Final Payment by City to Contractor; (v) Stop notices; or (vi) The right of City to specific performance or injunctive relief to compel performance of any provision of the Contract Documents. 14.2.2 litigation, City Election. Matters that do not constitute Contract Disputes shall be resolved by way of an action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara. and shall not be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process. However, the City reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to treat such disputes as Contract Disputes. Upon written notice by City of its election as provided in the preceding sentence. such dispute shall be submitted by the parties and finally decided pursuant to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the manner as required for Contract Disputes, including. without limitation, City's right under Paragraph 14.4.2 to defer resolution and final determination until after Final Completion of the Work. Construction Contract C1 0133992 7 Rev. October 9, 2009 14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute. 14.3.1 By Contractor. Contractor's may commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process upon City's written response denying all or part of a Claim pursuant to Paragraph 4.2.9 or 4.2.10 of the General Conditions. Contractor shall submit a written Statement of Contract Dispute (as set forth below) to City within seven (7) Days after City rejects all or a portion of Contractor's Claim. Failure by Contractor to submit its Statement of Contract Dispute in a timely manner shall result in City's decision by City on the Claim becoming final and binding. Contractor's Statement of Contract Dispute shall be signed under penalty of perjury and shall state with specificity the events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the asserted effect on the Contract Sum and the Contract Time. The Statement of Contract Dispute shall include adequate supporting data to substantiate the disputed Claim. Adequate supporting data for a Contract Dispute relating to an adjustment of the Contract Time shall include both of the following: (i) All of the scheduling data required to be submitted by Contractor under the Contract Documents to obtain extensions of time and adjustments to the Contract Time and (ii) A detailed, event-by-event description of the impact of each event on completion of Work. Adequate data to support a Statement of Contract Dispute involving an adjustment of the Contract Sum must include both of the following: 14.3.2 By City. (a) A detailed cost breakdown and (b) Supporting cost data in such form and including such information and other supporting data as required under the Contract Documents for submission of Change Order Requests and Claims. City's right to commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall arise at any time following City's actual discovery of the circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute. City asserts Contract Disputes in response to a Contract Dispute asserted by Contractor. A Statement of Contract Dispute submitted by City shall state the events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the damages or other relief claimed by City as a result of such events. 14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process. ,. I The parties shall utilize each of the following steps in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the sequence they appear below. Each party shall participate fully and in good faith in each step in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process, and good faith effort shall be a condition precedent to the right of each party to proceed to the next step in the process. 14.4.1 Direct Negotiations. Designated representatives of City and Contractor shall meet as soon as possible (but not later than ten (10) Days after receipt of the Statement of Contract Dispute) in a good faith effort to negotiate a resolution to the Contract Dispute. Each party shall be represented in such negotiations by an authorized representative with full knowledge of the details of the Claims or defenses being asserted by such party in the negotiations, and with full authority to resolve such Contract Dispute then and there; subject only to City's obligation to obtain administrative and/or City Council approval of any agreed settlement or resolution. If the Contract Dispute involves the assertion of a right or claim by a Subcontractor or Sub-subcontractor, of any tier, against Contractor that is in turn being asserted by Contractor against City ("Pass- Through Claim"), then the Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor shall also have a Construction Contract C10133992 8 Rev. October 9, 2009 f I representative attend the negotiations, with the same authority and knowledge as described above. Upon completion of the meeting, if the Contract Dispute is not resolved, the parties may either continue the negotiations or any party may declare negotiations ended. All discussions that occur during such negotiations and all documents prepared solely for the purpose of such negotiations shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152. 14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes. Following the completion of the negotiations required by Paragraph 14.4.1, all unresolved Contract Disputes shall be deferred pending Final Completion of the Project, subject to City's right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to require that the Contract Dispute Resolution Process proceed prior to Final Completion. All Contract Disputes that have been deferred until Final Completion shall be consolidated within a reasonable time after Final Completion and thereafter pursued to resolution pursuant to this Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties can continue informal negotiations of Contract Disputes; provided, however, that such informal negotiations shall not be alter the provisions of the Agreement deferring final determination and resolution of unresolved Contract Disputes until after Final Completion. 14.4.3 Mediation. If the Contract Dispute remains unresolved after negotiations pursuant to Paragraph . 14.4.1, the parties shall submit the Contract Dispute to non-binding mediation before a mutually acceptable third party mediator . . 1 Qualifications of Mediator. The parties shall endeavor to select a mediator who is a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in mediating public works construction disputes. In addition, the mediator shall have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in mediation skills . • 2 Submission to Mediation and Selection of Mediator. The party initiating mediation of a Contract Dispute shall provide written notice to the other party of its decision to mediate. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a mediator within fifteen (15) Days after the receipt of such written notice, then the parties shall submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association (AAA) at its San Francisco Regional Office for selection of a mediator in accordance with the AAA Construction Industry Mediation Rules . . 3 Mediation Process. The location of the mediation shall be at the offices of City. The costs of mediation shall be shared equally by both parties. The mediator shall provide an independent assessment on the merits of the Contract Dispute and recommendations for resolution. All discussions that occur during the mediation and all documents prepared solely for the purpose of the mediation shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152. 14.4.4 Binding Arbitration. If the Contract Dispute is not resolved by mediation, then any party may submit the Contract Dispute for final and binding arbitration pursuant to the provisions of California Public Contract Code Sections 10240, et seq. The award of the arbitrator therein shall be final and may be entered as a judgment by any court of competent jurisdiction. Such arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the following: .1 Arbitration Initiation. The arbitration shall be initiated by filing a complaint in arbitration in accordance with the regulations promulgated pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 10240.5. Construction Contract C1 0133992 9 Rev. October 9, 2009 .2 Qualifications of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be approved by all parties. The arbitrator shall be a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in arbitrating public works construction disputes. In addition, the arbitrator shall have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in arbitration skills. In the event the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the provisions of California Public Contract Code Section 10240.3 shall be followed in selecting an arbitrator possessing the qualifications required herein . . 3 Hearing Days and Location. Arbitration hearings shall be held at the offices of City and shall, except for good cause shown to and determined by the arbitrator, be conducted on consecutive business days, without interruption or continuance . . 4 Hearing Delays. Arbitration hearings shall not be delayed except upon good cause shown . . 5 Recording Hearings. All hearings to receive evidence shall be recorded by a certified stenographic reporter, with the costs thereof borne equally by City and Contractor and allocated by the arbitrator in the final award . . 6 Limitation of Depositions. The parties may conduct discovery in accordance with the provisions of section 10240.11 of the Public Contract Code; provided, however, that depositions shall be limited to both of the following: (i) Ten (10) percipient witnesses for each party and 5 expert witnesses per party. Upon a showing of good cause, the arbitrator may increase the number of permitted depositions. An individual who is both percipient and expert shall, for purposes of applying the foregoing numerical limitation only, be deemed an expert. Expert reports shall be exchanged prior to receipt of evidence, in accordance with the direction of the arbitrator, and expert reports (including initial and rebuttal reports) not so submitted shall not be admissible as evidence .7 Authority of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall have the authority to hear dispositive motions and issue interim orders and interim or executory awards . . 8 Waiver of Jury Trial. Contractor and City each voluntarily waives its right to a jury trial with respect to any Contract Dispute that is subject to binding arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 14.4.4. Contractor shall include this provision in its contracts with its Subcontractors who provide any portion of the Work. 14.5 Non-Waiver. Participation in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall not waive, release or compromise any defense of City, including, without limitation, any defense based on the assertion that the rights or Claims of Contractor that are the basis of a Contract Dispute were : previously waived by Contractor due to Contractor's failure' to comply with the Contract Documents, including, without limitation, Contractor's failure to comply with any time periods for providing notice of requests for adjustments of the Contract Sum or Contract Time or for submission of Claims or supporting documentation of Claims. Construction Contract C1 0133992 10 Rev. October 9, 2009 SECTION 15 DEFAULT. 15.1 Notice of Default. In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. 15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default. Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations' under the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice, SECTION 16 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 16.1 Remedies Upon Default. r I If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set . forth above in Section 15, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including, without limitation, the following: 16.1.1 Delete Certain Services. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 16.1.2 Perform and Withhold. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion, appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs Contractor to resume Work, 16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default. City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part, upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 15. City's election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless otherwise provided therein, 16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond. City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond, Construction Contract C10133992 11 Rev. October 9, 2009 16.1.6 Additional Provisions. All of City's rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity. Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not waive the City's authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City's right to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the Agreement for breaches that are not material. City's determination of whether there has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City. 16.2 Delays by Sureties. Without limiting to any of City's other rights or remedies, City has the right to suspend the performance of the Work by Contractor's sureties in the event of any of the following: (i) The sureties' failure to begin Work within a reasonable time in such manner as to insure full compliance with the Construction Contract within the Contract Time; (ii) The sureties' abandonment of the Work; (iii) If at any time City is of the opinion the sureties' Work is unnecessarily or . unreasonably delaying the Work; (iv) The sureties' violation of any terms of the Construction Contract; (v) The sureties' failure to perform according to the Contract Documents; or (vi) The sureties' failure to follow City's instructions for completion of the Work within the Contract Time. 16.3 Damages to City. 16.3.1 For Contractor's Default. City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of Contractor's default under the Contract Documents. 16.3.2 Compensation for Losses. In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor's default under the Contract Documents, City shall be entitled to withhold monies otherwise payable to Contractor until Final Completion of the Project. If City incurs Losses due to Contractor's default, then the amount of Losses shall be deducted from the amounts withheld. Should the amount withheld exceed the amount deducted, the balance will be paid to Contractor or its designee upon Final Completion of the Project. If the Losses incurred by City exceed the amount withheld, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and shall promptly remit same to City. 16.4 Suspension by City for Convenience. City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a SuspenSion Order, Contractor shall, at City's· expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the SuspenSion or extension (' of the Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order, delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a SuspenSion Order is canceled or expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the Work. Construction Contract C1 0133992 12 Rev. October 9, 2009 16.5 . Termination Without Cause. City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or in whole by giving thirty (30) Days written notice to Contractor. The compensation allowed under this Paragraph 16.5 shall be the Contractor's sole and exclusive compensation for such termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated prOfits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination without cause. 16.5.1 Compensation. Following such termination alld within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 16.5, City shall pay the following to Contractor as Contractor's sole compensation for performance of the Work: .1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor . . 2 For Close-out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors for: (i) Demobilizing and (ii) Administering the close-out of its participation in the Project (including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty (30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination . . 3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work. 16.5.2 Subcontractors. Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section. 16.6 Contractor'.s Duties Upon Termination. I' I Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless the notice directs otherwise, do the following: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice; Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, eqUipment, services or facilities, except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not discontinued; Provide to City a description, in writing no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes, payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of the subcontract, purchase order or contract and anywritlen changes, amendments or modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract; Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City elects to accept by aSSignment and cancel, on the most favorable terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site or in transit thereto. Construction Contract C1 0133992 13 Rev. October 9, 2009 SECTION 17 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 17.1 Contractor's Remedies. Contractor may termihate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the following: 17.1.1 For Work Stoppage. The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a national emergency making material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any work stoppage resulting from the City's issuance of a suspension notice issued either for cause or for convenience. 17.1.2 For City's Non-Payment. If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract (30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor's intention to terminate the Construction Contract. 17.2. Damages to Contractor. In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided for in Paragraph 16.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect and inCidental damages, of any kind. SECTION 18 ACCOUNTING RECORDS. 18.1 Financial Management and City Access. Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take-offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts. purchase orders. vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of (i) final payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for such longer period as may be required by law. 18.2 Compliance with City Requests. Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 18 shall be a condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract Documents. City many enforce Contractor's obligation to provide access to City of its business and other records referred to in Section 18.1 for inspection or copying by issuance of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony. SEC;TION 19 INDEPENDENT PARTIES. Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint venturers of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set forth. Construction Contract C 10133992 14 Rev. October 9, 2009 SECTION 20 NUISANCE. Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract. SECTION 21 PERMITS AND LICENSES. Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor shall provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other government jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all costs and expenses for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non-City inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies. SECTION 22 WAIVER. A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW. This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California. SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT. The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the Construction Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities, payment obligations, and City's right to audit Contractor's books and records, shall remain in full force and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract. SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES. This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. The Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the pelformance and implementation of the Project, because the City, pursuant to its authority as a chartered city. has adopted Resolution No. 5981 exempting the City from prevailing wages. The City invokes the exemption from the state prevailing wage requirement for this Project and declares that the Project is funded one hundred percent (100%) by the City of Palo Alto. SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, 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 Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. Construction Contract C1 0133992 15 Rev.Ocrober9,2009 SECTION 28 AUTHORITY. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY. In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the date and year first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO o Purchasing Manager [gI City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney APPROVED: Public Works Director r I Construction Contract C 10133992 CONTRACTOR: REPIPE-CALIFORNIA, INC. 8y: ____________ _ Name: ________________________ _ Title: ____________ _ 17 Rev. Ocrober9. 2009 PROJEdT LodATION~ STORM DRAIN REHABILITATION PRO .. IECT PHASE "' -CIPP LINING . I ( PROJECT LOCATION MAP ATTACHMENT B STORM DRAIN REHABILITATION PROJECT -PHASE iii CIPP LlN.ING ~.~ IFB 133992 BID SUMMARY ATIACHMENTC Pipenology JF PacirIC Liners, Inc oesCRIPTION BID I UNIT I BID I PRICE I AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT I-General $16,000.001 $16,000.00 $24,000.00 $24,000.00 $24,500.001 $24,500.00 $11,000.00 $11,000.00 elPP Liner in 12' VCP Storm Pipe $30.001 $137,280.00 $26.65 $121,950.40 elPP Liner in 10' eMP Storm Pipe $47.001 $39,997.00 $45.501 $38,720.50 'ing video Inspection, Cleaning and Waste Material Disposal' CIP? Uner in 12" CM? Storm Pipe $43.001 $103,544.00 $44.501 $107,1 'ng video inspection, Cleaning and Waste Material Disposa 61linstaU elP? Uner in 12" Concrete Storm Pipe $83.001 $10,594.00 $69.001 $7,590.00 $94.00 $26,602.00 $83.00 $23,489.00 $125.00 $35,375.00 $50.00 $12,800.00 $SG.OO $14,336.00 $83.00 $21,248.00 video inspeeUon, Cleaning and Waste Material Dis Spot Repair (Up to 5' Deep, 12" Diameter to 18" $395.00 $23,700.00 $150.00 $9,000.00 $440.00 $26,400.00 Diameter Pipe) l1flopenTrenehSpot Repair (Up to 10' Deep, Greater than 18" 11 30 $27,300.00 $210.00 $5,300.00 $940.00 $19,200.00 Diameter Pipa to 30" Oiameter Pipe) Install City Std. Storm Drain Manhole per Sid. Drawing No. 312 $12,350.00 $4,760.0.0 $4,760.00 $7,375.00 $7,375.00 lor 314 (Including Cutting 12" ReP and 12" CMP Pipes, Exeava!ion Trench Restoration per City Standerd Drawing No. 401): Total $394,981 $397,380 I I $427,271 I Michaels Corporation ISouthwest Pipeline & Trenchless Corp. UNIT I AM:~NT I UNIT I BID I PRICE PRICE AMOUNT Insituform Hydrote.h Ine. UNIT I BID I UNIT BID PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT $12,288.0CI! $12,268.001 $15,000.001 $15,ooo.0CI1 $4,ooo.oor $4,ooo.ooh17,200.ool $17.200.00 $46,000.001 $46,000.001 $7,500.001 $7,500.ooh26,ooo.ool $26,ooo.ooh3o,15o.ool $30,150.00 $35.001 $160,160.001 $50.001 $226,600.001 $55.001 $46,805.00 $45.001 $38,295.00, .001 $84,280.00 $50.001 $120,400.00 $35.001 $5,860.00 $87.00 $110.00 $31,130.00 SSG.OO $14,336.0 $405.00 $24,300.00 $925.001 $27,750.00 $12,500.001 $12,500.00 I $474,999 $517,790 $34.001 $155,584.001 $88.001 $302,016.00 $45.501 $38,720.50 $55.001 $132,440.00 $8,855.00 =r= 12,000.001 $510,442 $353.00 $156.00 $505.001 $30.300.00 $735.00 ~ ~ ::::T 3 CD ::J 1"'+ () CI1'{ ~L~ December 7, 2009 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California Subject: Resolution Declaring Results of the Consolidated General and Special Municipal Elections Held on November 3, 2009 Dear Council Members: Attached is the resolution canvassing the results of the November 3, 2009, General and Special Municipal Elections. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution. Respectfully submitted, , ~U(J~ Iti~' DONNA J. G~Et'~MC City Clerk Attach ments /' RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE CONSOLIDATED GENERAL AND SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2009 WHEREAS, on November 3, 2009, a general municipal election was duly held in the City of Palo Alto pursuant to the provisions of Article III, Section 4 ofthe Charter of the City of Palo Alto for the purpose of electing five members to the City Council, each for a full term of four years expiring December 31,2013; WHEREAS, on November 3, 2009, a special election was consolidated with the general municipal election and duly held in the City of Palo Alto pursuant to Government Code Section 53724 and Election Code Section 9222, for the purpose of submitting Measure A to the voters of the City, in the form set forth below: Shall the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to establish a business license tax in order to help maintain the City's -ability to fund basic City services? WHEREAS, due and legal notice of the general and special municipal election was given as required by law; and WHEREAS, on the 3rd day of November 2009, at 7:00 a.m., the polls were duly and regularly opened for the general municipal election and the polls were continuously kept open until 8:00 p.m.; and WHEREAS, the Registrar of Voters of Santa Clara County has conducted a complete and official canvass of the returns of the eJection; and WHEREAS, Article III, Section 4 of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto requires the Council to act as the canvassing board to canvass the results of such elections; and WHEREAS, on December 7, 2009, the Council of the City of Palo Alto met at its usual place of meeting, canvassed the returns of the general and special municipal elections and declared the results thereof; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: r I SECTION 1. The Council finds and declares that (a) A general municipal election was dulyand regularly held on November 3,2009, according to the Charter ofthe City of Palo Alto, Resolution Number 8930, and the election laws of the State of California; (b) The total number of ballots cast in the City at the municipal election for the purpose of electing five council members for full terms including those votes cast upon absentee ballots was 59,929 on 14,802 ballots (40.8% turnout); (c) The total number of votes given and cast at the municipal election, including votes cast upon absentee ballots, was as follows for the candidates for City Council for full terms: DAN DYKWEL 4,412 VICTOR FROST 463 CHRIS GAITHER 1,302 TIMOTHY GRAY 2.127 JOHN HACKMANN 3,709 KAREN HOLMAN 7,688 LARRY KLEIN 7,829 LEON LEONG 5,016 COREY LEVENS 3,717 GAIL PRICE 7,533 GREGORY SCHARFF 5,939 NANCY SHEPHERD 6,455 BRIAN STEEN 3,007 MARK WEISS 732 TOTAL 59,929 (d) Karen Holman, Larry Klein, Gail Price, Gregory Scharff and Nancy Shepherd being the fiv~ candidates receiving the highest number of votes for the office of Council Member for a full four-year term, were duly and regularly elected for terms of four years commencing January 1,2010, to serve as Council Members of the City of Palo Alto. SECTION 2. The Council finds and declares that: (a) A special election consolidated with the general municipal election was duly and regularly held on November 3, 2009, pursuant to the Government Code Section 53724, Elections Code Section 9222, and the election laws of the State of California forthe purpose of considering Measure A. (b) The total number of votes cast in the City at said Special Election, including votes cast upon absentee ballots, was 14,308 on 14,802 ballots (40.8% turnout). (c) The total. number of votes given and cast for Measure A at said election, including votes cast upon absentee ballots, was as follows: YES NO TOTAL 6,113 8,195 14,308 SECTION 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference is the statement of the results as required by Section 10264 of the California Elections Code. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney EXHIBIT A CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION RESULTS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, Jesse Durazo, Registrar of Voters of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, hereby declare: 1. A Consolidated Elections was held in the County of Santa. Clara, for the City of Palo Alto, on November 3,2009 for the purpose of electing Five (5) Council Members to the Governing Board." 2. The official canvass of the returns of this election was conducted by the Office of the Registrar of Voters in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California. 3. The Statement of Votes Cast, now on file in my office, shows the number of votes for each candidate for the Governing Board of the City of Palo Alto and in each of the precincts and that the total shown for each candidate are true and correct. WITNESS my hand and Official Seal this 16th day of November, 2009. /' i CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION RESULTS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, Jesse Durazo, Registrar of Voters of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, hereby declare: 1. A Consolidated Elections was held in the County of Santa Clara, in the City of Palo Alto, on November 3, 2009 for the purpose of submitting the following measure to the voters: A . Shall the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to establish a business license tax in order to help maintain the City's ability to fund basic City services? 2. The official canvass of the retums of the election was conducted by the Office of the Registrar of Voters in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California. 3. The Statement of Votes Cast, now on file at my office, shows the whole number of votes cast for Measure A in each of the precincts and the total shown is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and Official Seal this 16th day of November, 2009. Jes e Durazo, Re~r of Voters Santa Clara County REGISTRATION & TURNOUT Santa Clara County Completed Precincts: 276 of 276 J9~,:~eglsfr#~Qri '\,,::::W<:;·:;:;;>::~;:: i.. . );;:"<:;)~;(~\'f~~?";"", ...•. , .. Official Final Results Cumulative Totals Member, City Council CITY OF CUPERTINO Number to Vote For: 3 Completed Precincts: 33 of 33 2009 UOEL November 3, 2009 Member of City Council CITY OF SUNNYVALE seat 2 Completed Precincts: 63 of 63 Precjil!:('R~I:I(?iUiigi!¥~UQ~:,¢!!~(.i,;:·;;·.;.:.,·.. ,,: ',' .'. '.:':: '141i¥ij4~i;'.~{~lt"!o qRRIN'·MAHoN,e,,(:.<.' . • ...• ; ;';'/4;82~:':11i;~:2&.11 MICHAEl!:ANTHON'i'FliOREs, ;"~;:":" .,.;, .. ":.: , .. :, ',' ;:7;888',,44162% I ~~t~\:~bBgl~\~ii!l,~}.jiga;'~~;?;j;:)f·;;':':;':D:Y";';';;~:~!~i~~~I~%I~;;~ ~r.:'J.$~~~~Qf ;:./.j::!:::'" ... ": ... " .. ·,::::,;i"';:;;f");W~;;~J~'''i}~i~t~: I Member of City Council CITY OF SUNNYVALE seat 3 MARTY MILLER 3,804 14,30% MAH:';$fiI::N.OfIAl;AN,if~.·;; .'<;;:i;:',~Y):;';li!'j;;i~?t:"(:::S\f'4~~~;'34~~§if~j~ij% DANIEL NGUYEN 3 309 12.44% CUPERTINO SCHOOL DISTRICT Number to Vote For: 3 Completed Precincts: 85 of 85 $A8X!.MqC,o.~~;·;:J::::,;;>;;'ii;i ';:<;·::>:r:>,:.·;/;;'>~;·:;dj)l'ii!'t';~lll;4~% BEN LIAO . 14,375 28.90% [~#~IW~if~$.:i;'f;;t~;.\~'k;;;'~;;E,';';'2J;.;;\yij;i:~~:.\;f::;*;f;FrH!;~l'~&~~h1i~~i~oo/.j KERN PENG 7315 14.71% LOS ALTOS SCHOOL DISTRICT DI\RC¥..iP.AU E;;,:<t: ·:,\:;~·,;:;;.i'i';:"·~"W:;~~<i<'.}!!if:;:);ir'E~ii:;;;~W!2!;968:<';f~;i;'16% Member, City Council CITY OF PALO ALTO Number to Vote For: 5 Completed Precincts: 39 of 39 , I ~ll~~~I~;~~:~}:j;~.;~~;;~';~:~~~~~:~;~~:;~;;~!~;~;~i~ill;;~tl!tt; NANCY SHEPHERD 6 455 10.77% :~ti:te.§§ff1!6t§.~H~R~(~;li\.r~ri:{i~;2g;);:E(i3i~f;!;~~j~:i't1~1!il:&~!t~flJf~~Ig1ji/4 Completed Precincts: 63 of 63 JAMES R. "JIM" GRIFFITH 996856.89% PENi\iil'MikElLY:i j~;;i;i.:;!·i:;'·:;"t.,;·:.'>: cr. ,j·c;;,::;·,:,;';:"'f:',i.r"!;7Is54'!;;;'it3l:1;h:% CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT Number to Vote For: 2 Completed Precincts: 50 of 50 Number to Vote For: 3 LEON LEONG 5,016 8.37% . gjf.fQ¥.)~:Wt;~~.;~;t;;i':tJ;V,ii;:!;W;iB~~Z~<\~%Jg£':'~t1~)~fV;r,-~;~tW~;!iji:2}f'~i'~~Mi ~1i@§~~®]iiH@'BRn"!i.t;i'i{1~~j~!~:A~A;~~(i.(~Njf:a~~~lgif~t;%~M~?14 COREY LEVENS 3 717 6.20% STEVE ANDREWS 5 250 32.05% Completed Precincts: 34 of 34 9.f;iBNi;MQR·RqWJJ\'ii9K~i9.!lr1H~:;tilf~f1~f;£H{ff,t\l~!a:~.g~)qJt~5~(~)fim:i p.W~§!l!1*1i~N~j>!rii\f('i!'>::)~~';:;~fi;i~Vf;~}:~;;~:"~?;f:;i'i!~;'itJi:t.rf~E~~jjjJfg:~~g¥6. BRIAN STEEN 3007 5.02% KEN KLiNKOWSKI 1 891 11.54% M~~,GQIN);'$':;~;}:::ij:~::t<$A:~~:/;':3i;::;;:"\+,<:>8ht&}i)i')iWt{4~!i:~QJN2~i~9.o/.! ;(.i.NiQf:Il¥!GB\A.Yi:fS>~\';'i?Y.'~?Nh;¥:;jrf~\~~f;;;~!i!;)l~ii\';\f~~idM2h;g,YJ~i,~&;~~rJ .-___________________ -, TAMARA LOGAN. 4,569 27.62% 9.'iR.I~.~AIIH~R , ... , .,0" .... m ......• "" ., ......... , .• , •. , .. taQ,~~ .. ?:1.l'r! \ MEASURE A -City of Palo Alto I'i@Q~I?A~$Mltf!.:f:,~i;:~':~:;;~;;,::;,;);;~;;; ,: 'fli:\',;':;; ,~ .. :);kJj~3;~~.~~;gg1.~:§;~ ~.K.1'l'l§'§:~Jr,/'~;,::~~;>:;;E','.l':\;!\i!.',~t~W!t,,:;)i;,iS;);ii;8~t;:Ll!;;i~nl',".~gr;;t~1~!1a2% JOHN RADFORD 2 64716.00% VICTOR FROST 463 077% ReWENE'kffliall~f~~~~~~;;';.!tf·1i~tW.;~f.§$j:!*~tA~~g~~r?~~fift~~1.:)~?~~8i6ff1~~i5~f>f% r. -----________________ ---, .---________ -'-____________ ---,,1 Member of City Council CITY OF SUNNYVALE seat 1 ORCHARD SCHOOL DISTRICT Number to Vote For. 3 Completed Precincts: 63 of 63 Completed Precincts: 10 of 10 ALAN FONG 450 28.02% Q~~~~~~£-i~S~M!~li~~~~~t(lJl".fif.:~]~KK~'~ii¥JMJf,;i!J~i;ri$~i~4lC)Jj~~i:~' , MmffiNJSm.~N~~~L(iJ1i.ii~,0.1?~i!,ii~+f!~!;:it!}\:(iii~t?i1i~~~!t~i1!~Jl.(ij:QJ;{g~lftJt~~I.r_----------------::-:~-:-:-:---------, BAMBI ANN FLEMING 364 22.67% "KE·N.~Ri1~E(~irt¥.~~;~~~ttg11.~~·~;}~~~;r./~\~t:l~:i{.0.~~tl~;~}~~~t(~~;~:~~~~~;~~rj1~;!~1136"2:1&j22~5ao/J Member of City Council CITY OF SUNNYVALE seat 2 Completed Precincts: 63 of 63 CHRISTOPHER R. MOYLAN 9,792 55.38% Run DatefTime: 11112/09 1:29:24 PM Completed Precincts: 39 of 39 N~i)ttitif,;;'XD :~:,\itN(;!i;>~,i .':,~;i·i;;i$~~;i~ir:~!j:ut~f.;ii~V0\'gr~!.;,l~~Y§l1Jj.§~~g]'m YES 6113 42.72% MEASURE B -City of Cupertino Completed Precincts: 33 of 33 ' .. Ilg$.;:ltif.;r),+\;i/i<;·f';''';';.:\i)t,~; .. ·~.ji1i;;~;i~:~;:t:.\\~10i;WJ,'!lfd1!%i},lit.'it}~t~~;?t~l:s'iiMi NO 2,523 24.03% Page 1 of2 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2009 CMR: 455:09 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution in Support of the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act of 2010 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution supporting the League of California Cities sponsored initiative entitled: Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act of2010. BACKGROUND In September this year, the League of California Cities proposed a ballot measure for the November 2010 Election. In short, the measure seeks to protect local revenues from state takeaways, a common occurrence given the on-going State budget crisis. The proposed measure was unanimously supported by the League's General Assembly at the League's Annual Conference. The measure was submitted to the Attorney General in October 2009. In early December the Attorney General is expected to provide the Title and Summary which will enable the collection of more than one million signatures to qualify the measure for the November 2010 election. The Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act of2010 is the only initiative sponsored by the League. Other groups have also proposed similar measures. The League encourages cities to not take a formal position on other measures until they have been reviewed and acted on early next year by the relevant League policy committees and the League board of directors. DISCUSSION The Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Act of2010 covers the following prOVISlOns: CMR: 455:09 Page 1 of3 • Protects Locally Imposed Taxes such as parcel, Utility User Tax, Transient Occupancy, and sales taxes. The measure prevents the legislature from taking or directing how these local taxes may be spent. • Property Tax Borrowing. The measure repeals the state's authority to borrow local property taxes. • Reallocation of Property Tax or Vehicle License Fees. The measure prohibits the state's ability to reallocate these revenues to payoff state mandates. • Borrowing or Stealing Local Highway User Tax Act (HUT A). The measure provides the same protection to any local highway user taxes and requires hearings and study before state and local shares are changed. • Borrowing or Stealing of Prop 42 Gas Tax. The measure also provides the same protection as HUT A taxes. • Borrowing or Stealing Public Transit Account (PTA) funds. The measure restricts the use of PTA funds for transportation planning and mass transportation purposes only and requires "Spillover" sales tax to be deposited in transit accounts. • Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Funds. The measure prohibits taking, borrowing or directing spending of RDA funds. This does not impact Palo Alto because its RDA does not collect tax increment revenue. • Enforcement. The measure provides a remedy requiring the State to re-pay funds taken illegally if a court so finds. RESOURCE IMPACT This Resolution will have no fiscal impact to the City. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation is consistent with prior Council direction. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Approval of this Resolution does not constitute a project requiring review under the California's Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ATTACHMENT Attachment A: Draft Resolution CMR: 455:09 Page 2 of3 PREPARED BY: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR: 455:09 STEVE EMSLIE Deputy City Manager Page 3 of3 Not Yet Approved Resolution No. --- Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto In Support of the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act of 2010 WHEREAS, California voters have repeatedly and overwhelmingly passed separate ballot measures to stop State raids of local government funds, and to dedicate the taxes on gasoline to fund local and state transportation improvement projects; and WHEREAS, these local government funds are critical to provide the police and fire, emergency response, parks, libraries, and other vital local services that residents rely upon every day, and gas tax funds are vital to maintain and improve local streets and roads, to make road safety improvements, relieve traffic congestion, and provide mass transit; and WHEREAS, despite the fact that voters have repeatedly passed measures to prevent the State from taking these revenues dedicated to funding local government services and transportation improvement projects, the State Legislature has seized and borrowed billions of dollars in local government and transportation funds in the past few years; and WHEREAS, this year's borrowing and raids of local government, redevelopment and transit funds, as well as previous, ongoing raids of local government and transportation funds have lead to severe consequences, such as layoffs of police, fire and paramedic first responders, fire station closures, stalled economic development, healthcare cutbacks, delays in road safety improvements, public transit fare increases and cutbacks in public transit services; and WHEREAS, State politicians in Sacramento have continued to ignore the will of the voters, and current law provides no penalties when state politicians take or borrow these locally-dedicated funds; and WHEREAS, a coalition of local government, transportation and transit advocates recently filed a constitutional amendment with the California Attorney General, called the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety, and Transportation Protection Act of 2010, for potential placement on California's November 2010 statewide ballot; and WHEREAS, approval of this ballot initiative would close loopholes and change the constitution to further prevent State politicians in Sacramento from seizing, diverting, shifting, borrowing, transferring, suspending or otherwise taking or interfering with tax revenues dedicated to funding local government services, including redevelopment, or dedicated to transportation improvement projects and mass transit. 091125 jb 0111333 1 Not Yet Approved NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council formally endorses the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act of 2010, a proposed constitutional amendment. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the listing of its name in support of the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act of 2010. Staff is hereby directed to fax a copy of this resolution to campaign offices at 916.442.3510. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager • City Attorney 091125 jb 0111333 2 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2009 REPORT TYPE: ACTION DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 442:09 SUBJECT: Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Adoption of (1) a Resolution Adopting an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map by Changing the Land Use Designation for 2180 EI Camino Real from Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use, and (2) an Ordinance Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 2180 EI Camino Real from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District to PC Planned Community for a Mixed Use Project Having 57,900 Square Feet of Floor Area For A Grocery Store, Other Retail Space, Office Space, and Eight Affordable Residential Units, With Two Levels Of Below-Grade Parking Facilities and Surface Parking Facilities For The College Terrace Centre, and Approval of Design Enhancement Exceptions to Allow a Sign Spire and Gazebo Roof to Exceed the 35-Foot Height Limit, and to Allow Encroachment Into A Minimum Setback on Oxford Avenue. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This project entails requests for the adoption of a Zone Change from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) to Planned Community (PC) and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use for a site located at 2180 El Camino Real. In addition, the project includes a request for Design Enhancement Exceptions to allow a sign spire and gazebo roof to exceed the 35-Foot Height Limit, and an encroachment into a minimum setback on Oxford Avenue. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been pr~pared for the proj ect, which includes the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of three new buildings for retail, office and residential uses over a new two-level, below-grade parking facility. The proposed public benefits for this PC include retaining a neighborhood grocery store (currently JJ&F), providing four Below Market Rate housing units, and a contribution to street tree planting in the El Camino Real median strip. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) have both recomnlended approval of the project, with conditions. CMR: 442:09 Page 1 of 11 RECOMMENDATION The PTC, ARB and staff recommend that the City Council: 1. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment K), 2. Adopt a Resolution for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use (Attachment A), and 3. Adopt the Planned Comnlunity Ordinance (Attachment B) and incorporated conditions of approval to change the zoning from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) to Planned Community (PC) and incorporating Design Enhancement Exceptions to allow a sign spire and gazebo roof to exceed the 35-Foot Height Limit and an encroachment into a minimum setback on Oxford Avenue, for the proposed mixed use development. The PTC recommendation also included an amendment, passed on a 4-3 vote, that the office floor area be reduced by 5% (1,950 square feet); either by eliminating square footage or by converting 5% of the proposed office area to retail, which is not included in the Planned Community Ordinance approval conditions. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is located as indicated on Exhibit A of Attachment B. The project site currently comprises four parcels with a total area of 50,277 square feet (s.f.) or 1.15 acres, containing the 8,712 s.f. JJ&F Market, a 4,315 s.f. retail building, and a 5,001 s.f. office building. The proposed project includes the demolition of all existing buildings on the side and construction of a mixed use PC project totaling 57,900 square feet (s.f.) of floor area. Components include retail (an 8,000 s.f. grocery store intended for JJ&F Market, plus 5,580 s.f. of other retail), an open air market, affordable housing (eight one-bedroom rental units with both private open space and access to the adjacent garden square serving as common open space), office space (38,980 s.f.), and parking facilities (227 automobile spaces within two levels below-grade and at the surface). The project includes requests for the zone change to a PC, a Comprehensive Plan Anlendment to assign the Mixed Use land use designation to the site, and Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE) to allow a sign spire and gazebo roof to exceed the 35-foot height limit and to allow encroachment into a minimum setback on Oxford Avenue. The proposed total floor area ratio (FAR) would be 1.15:1, inclusive of 1.04:1 non-residential FAR (0.77:1 FAR office and 0.27:1 FAR retail). Tables setting forth the project's conformance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and conlparing the project to Neighborhood Commercial zoning regulations are provided as Attachment C. The applicant's project description (Attachment D) is followed by their proposed PC Development Schedule (Attachment E). CITY COUNCIL REVIEW Planned Community (PC) rezoning typically follows a unique set of procedures and standards described in Chapter 18.38 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The PTC first reviews a development program statement, plan, and schedule. If the PTC acts favorably, the development plan, plot plan, landscape plan and design plans are submitted for ARB review in the same manner as any commercial or mixed-use project. The development plan recommended for CMR: 442:09 Page 2 of 11 approval by the ARB is then returned to the PTC, together with a draft zoning ordinance, for final review and recommendation to Council. The zoning ordinance identifies the pennitted and conditionally permitted uses, and site improvements, as well as a schedule for completion of the project. The City Council then reviews the proposal along with recommendations from the staff~ ARB and PTC, and acts on the proposed PC ordinance. In this instance, the PTC did not initiate the PC rezone request, so Council initiated the PC rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests on July 27,2009. Council voted 7-1 to initiate the PC and directed that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and recon1111end the project prior to review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). At the time of initiation, the. City Council specified the following five conditions for the project: 1. The maximum floor area shall not exceed 61,960 s.f.; 2. The project shall be fully parked per Palo Alto standards, including the reductions allowed by the City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance; 3. The project shall include up to eight (8) Below Market Rate (BMR) units; 4. Prior to Council approval, or when the PC zone change is adopted by Council, there must be a legal agreement (lease or other agreement between the applicant and the owners of JJ&F market) requiring John Garcia, on behalf of JJ&F Market, to operate a grocery store on the site and if for any reason Mr. Garcia cannot perform that condition, requiring the developer to obtain a grocery store operator of similar quality, subject to the City's discretionary approval; 5. The PTC and the ARB shall pay attention to walk-able streetscape on all four sides of the proj ect and evaluate and incorporate parking and traffic demand management measures as appropriate. The applicant has addressed the items specified by the City Council. The current proposal, for 57,900 s.f. of floor area, provides 4,060 s.f. less floor area than the limit established by Council. With the reduction in floor area and the proposed Transportation Demand Management measures, the project fully complies with the parking code limitations and provides three parking spaces more than the code requires. The residential units were reduced to eight units as directed by Council. The applicant has provided an agreement to lease with the JJ&F Market to lease the grocery space and conditions of approval have been added to require occupancy by a grocery tenant prior to occupancy of the office space. The ARB and PTC have reviewed the proposal to ensure walk-able streetscapes and have recommended approval with conditions. The ARB and PTC have reviewed the project and it is now before the City Council for final action. The CC reports and minutes from July 13 and 27, 2009, can be found on the City'S website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.orglknowzone/agendas/council.asp CMR: 442:09 Page 3 of 11 BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION Planning and Transportation Commission The PTC conducted preliminary reviews ("pre-screenings") of the PC proposal and Comprehensive Plan amendment on February 13, 2008 and October 1,2008. On April 29, 2009, the PTC formally considered the request to initiate the PC rezone and amend the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and voted 6-1 to deny the requests. After Council initiated the requests on July 27, 2009, the PTC recommended approval with conditions on October 14, 2009, including further review after recommendation by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). On December 2 the PTC unanimously confirmed (6-0, Commissioner Fineberg absent) its earlier recommendation, with conditions as follows: 1. The lease for the grocery store shall have, at minimum, a 20 year initial term; 2. The grocery tenant shall occupy and begin operations prior to any office tenant occupancy; 3. The PC shall be inspected at least once every three years for compliance with the PC district regulations and the conditions of the ordinance under which the district was created; 4. Ensure that the residents of the BMR units have access to the vegetated roof; 5. Include at least two car share vehicles as part of the TDM program; 6. Amendment to the noise condition to reference Section 18.23.060 (Performance Standards) and to locate noise-producing equipment as far away from residential sites as feasible to achieve acoustic level reductions; 7. There shall be a 5% reduction in the amount of office floor area (1,950 s.f.). This does not require a reduction in the overall floor area on the site (FAR). This was an amendment to the main motion that passed on a 4-3 vote; 8. Requirement that the outdoor market area use be limited exclusively for that purpose. 9. Clarification that any use not specifically permitted by the Planned Community (PC) ordinance shall require an amendment to the ordinance, except conversion of office to retail. 10. Staff is asked to investigate establishing time-limited parking on College and Oxford Avenues. Other minor editorial corrections were also recommended and have been incorporated into the Planned Community Ordinance. The Commission also noted that their action is premised on the provision of a lease agreement from the applicant with JJ&F Market, which has been provided by the applicant. The applicant has agreed to all of the applicable recommendations, except for the condition related to the additional 5% office reduction (1,950 square feet). When the City Council initiated the PC, the applicant had proposed 39,980 s.f. of office space. Knowing the PTC had outstanding concerns over the proposed amount of office space, the applicant reduced the office square footage by 1,000 s.f. The PTC amendment to reduce office floor area by an additional 5% (1,950 s.f.) passed by a 4-3 vote. At the December 2 meeting, Commissioners in the majority further explained their reasons for the reduction are 1) to achieve a better balance of retail and office, 2) to assure future grocery expansion doesn't encroach into other retail space, and 3) because the site is surrounded by 3 streets so some of the ground floor office space has CMR: 442:09 Page 4 of 11 street frontage that could be used for retail. The PTC also noted that the ordinance does not prohibit the conversion of office space to retail (but does prohibit conversion of retail to office). The applicant has stated that they cannot cut the additional office square footage from the proj ect and have it remain economically viable to support the preservation of the neighborhood grocery store. While most of the office area is proposed at the second and third floors of the buildings, the proposal does include 4,121 s.f. of office at the first Hoor. This is the area facing College Avenue and Staunton Court. The applicant has stated that they would not preclude this area from being used for uses other than office, such as retail or eating and drinking, provided they could pay the appropriate rental rates for the space. The ARB analyzed the design of the first floor office space to assure that it could readily accommodate retail use. While the reduction of 1,950 s.f. of office use would make little difference in terms of project impacts (traffic, visual, etc.) on the community, the applicant states that it would have a very significant impact on the viability of the project. Staff recommendation does not include the 5% reduction of office space and the approval conditions in Exhibit B of the PC Ordinance (Attachment B) do not include a condition requiring such reduction. Staff does not believe that the reduction in office space would reduce the project impacts (building massing, visual, traffic, etc.) in any substantive way and believes that the ground floor office space is designed in a way to readily accommodate retail uses if desired at a future date. Staff also notes that the applicant has reduced the office space by 1,000 s.f. since the Council's prior review. The October 14 PTC report and minutes are provided to Council members as Attachments G and H, respectively. The December 2, 2009 PTC report is provided to Council members as Attachment J. The December 2 minutes will be available at places at the Council meeting. These documents and the previous PTC reports and minutes regarding this project can be found on the City's website at http://www . cityofpaloalto. orglknowzone/agendas/planning. asp Architectural Review Board The ARB recommended approval of the project, including the Design Ep.hancement Exception (DEE) requests for the Oxford setback encroachment and sign and gazebo height over 35 feet, based upon staff recommended approval Findings, with a condition that the project return on consent calendar for final review and approval of the following detailed items: 1. Affordable housing unit floor plans; 2. Site circulation clarifications, pathway simplification (from stair to roof gazebo); 3. Elimination of the diagonal banding on the exterior stair to the roof top garden, along with stair redesign consideration; 4. Revision to exterior finish of the grocery store (review banding, consider one color with two different finishes); 5. Transformer screeninglfencing details; 6. Reconsideration of the use of tile roofing material on the office towers; 7. Modification of grocery walls on Oxford Avenue (consider mural, display windows etc.); 8. Additional information about the private open spaces and the materiality of it; 9. Additional information about the bridge, materials, underside, etc.; CMR: 442:09 Page 5 of 11 10. Striped tower redesign/reconsideration; 11. Ash tree species reconsideration; 12. Bamboo species and height information, related to the canted wall; 13. Detail to show how headlights of cars going below grade will not impact the BMR units; 14. BMR units fayade redesign to be equally as striking as the other buildings in the project; 15. Plant palette and conceptual plan for the green roof; 16. Further specification for screening elements and locations, potted plants/planting at the center of the project, and trellises at surface parking area. If the Council approves the project, these items will return to the ARB. The requested information and design changes that may result in addressing these issues would not impact the proposed land uses, general footprints, or massing of the buildings. The ARB findings related to the project and DEEs are incorporated into the PC Ordinance. (Attachment B). Exhibit B of the Ordinance contains the additional ARB conditions of approval to return to ARB on consent. The November 5, 2009 ARB report is provided to Council members as Attachment I and can be found on the City's website at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/architectura1.asp RESOLUTION AND ORDINANCE Land Use Designation and Resolution Adoption of the proposed Resolution (Attachment A) would change the site's Comprehensive Plan land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) to Mixed Use (MU). The project's extensive office component and 1.15:1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would not be consistent with the existing CN land use designation and prescribed development intensity. The MU land use designation, recommended as the most appropriate choice in relationship to the proposed development, allows for office, retail, and residential uses and up to 2.0 FAR for sites located along transit corridors and near multi modal centers. The purpose of an MU designation is to increase the types of spaces available for living and working to encourage a mix of compatible uses in certain areas, and to encourage the upgrading of certain areas with buildings designed to provide a high quality pedestrian oriented street environment. Exhibit A of the Resolution sets forth Findings as to why the Mixed Use (MU) land use designation is consistent with Conlprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, as reviewed and recommended by the PTC. Planned Community Ordinance Adoption of the proposed Planned Community Ordinance (Attachment B) would change the site's zoning from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) to PC for the proposed mixed use development and includes the approval of three Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE). Staff, the PTC and the ARB determined that the Findings can be made for approval of the PC. Staff and the ARB determined that the Findings could be made for the DEE. Although some members of the public and the PTC expressed concerns that these exceptions should be reviewed as variances rather than DEEs, staff believes that the exceptions meet the standards set forth in the Code for DEEs, and that the Variance process would not be warranted for these minor exceptions. The DEE findings are outlined in the ordinance. CMR: 442:09 Page 6 of 11 Land Use and Intensity As set forth in the PC Ordinance (Attachment B), the project includes the following use provisions: Pennitted Uses (subject to the limitations below under Section 4(b): (1) Multifamily Residential (2) Professional and General Business Offices (excluding medical offices) (3) Retail Services (excluding liquor stores) (4) Eating and Drinking Services (excluding drive-in and Take-out services) . (5) Personal Services Conditionally Pennitted Uses: (1) Fanners Markets (2) Businesses that operate or have associated activities at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (such businesses shall be operated in a manner to protect residential properties from excessive noise, odors, lighting, or other nuisances from any source during those hours) (3) Within the areas designated as office space: (a) Banks and Financial Services; (b) Commercial Recreation, and ( c) Private clubs, Lodges, and Fraternal Organizations Special limitations on land uses include the following: (1) A grocery store, with an area of at least 8,000 square feet, shall exist within the development for the useful life of the improvements; (2) The grocery store shall be a neighborhood serving grocery store that provides all the typical grocery store products and services of a neighborhood serving store such that it shall not become a convenience mart facility; (3) The grocery tenant shall occupy and begin operations prior to any office tenant occupancy. (4) (5) The below-market rate housing shall be occupied not later than 120 days after the first occupancy of the office building. No more than 50% of the office space shall be occupied prior to occupancy of the housing (6) No medical office shall be pennitted within the development; (7) A grocery store, with an area of at least 8,000 square feet, shall exist within the development for the life of the project; (8) The grocery store shall be a neighborhood serving grocery store that provides all the typical grocery store products and services of a neighborhood serving store such that it shall not become a convenience nlart facility; (9) The office uses within the project shall not exceed 38,980 square feet; (10) The 5,580 square feet of area designated as "Other Retail" on the development plan shall not be converted to ground floor office space; and (11) The "Other Retail" space may be occupied by retail uses, personal service use, or eating and drinking services only. (12) Use of the outdoor market area shall be limited to grocery related uses CMR: 442:09 Page 7 of 11 Public Benefits As included in the PC Ordinance (Attachment B) and summarized by the applicant (Attachment D), the PC public benefits include (1) the neighborhood serving grocery market to be provided for 99 years or the life of the improvements, (2) the provision of four Below Market Rate (BMR) rental housing units in addition to the four units also provided on the site that would otherwise be required by the City, and (3) a contribution of $5,000 dollars to help with the planting of new trees within the EI Camino Real median across from the project frontage. The Alma Plaza project, as approved, included a condition allowing approval of a building permit for residential development only after submittal to the Director of a lease agreement or other legally binding commitment from a grocery operator to occupy the grocery store use. The Alma Plaza grocery lease agreement was to require occupancy of the grocery store not later than 15 months after issuance of the first building permit. Other text was included regarding final inspection and occupancy, with an allowance for bonding or other financial security to be considered in lieu of the lease agreement requirement only upon review and approval by the City Council as an amendment to the PC ordinance. The PC ordinance provisions to ensure viable grocery use at this project are similar to those required in the Alma Plaza project, and require: (1) A signed lease for the grocery store (of at least 8,000 s.f.) shall be submitted ptjor to issuance of any building permits on the site, and (2) The grocery store shall be occupied prior to any occupancy of the office building. EI Camino Real Driveway Entrance The existing JJ&F driveway is on Staunton Court. The relocation of the main driveway to EI Camino Real is to prevent increase in traffic volume on the residential side streets and to keep College Terrace Centre traffic out of the neighborhood. Upon Council's MND approval, Cal Trans will act on the applicant's request to allow the driveway entry and exit on EI Camino Real. Caltrans will only act on the proposed driveway after the city council has granted the project entitlement. Development Schedule and Occupancy The November 18, 2009 schedule, prepared by the applicant (Attachment E), anticipates a timeline between mid-2010 and the end of 2014 for the preparation of design development documents through completion of construction of the proj ect shell and right of way improvements, with an additional year beyond that to lease spaces, construct tenant improvements and obtain Certificates of Occupancy. Parking and Transportation Demand Management A total of 227 parking spaces are to be provided on the site, with 11 surface parking spaces and the remaining spaces underground. A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program has been incorporated in the Development Plan to allow reductions in parking requirenlents. The TDM is shown in 'Exhibit C', attached to the PC Ordinance. The TDM measures include (1) provision of two carsharing vehicles on site, (2) an onsite transportation information kiosk, (3) an onsite transportation coordinator, and (4) designated vanpool/carpool parking. CMR: 442:09 Page 8 of 11 Time Limited Parking Planning and Transportation Division staff is working with staff of the City Attorney's office and Police Department on a potential time-limited parking program in the surrounding neighborhood. Staff will return to the PTC for review and recommendation ofa program to Council, for Council approval (if warranted) of a program that is intended to be installed prior to occupancy of this Planned Community project. Street Trees A total of 11 street trees are proposed for removal from the perimeter of the project site. The applicant proposes replacement with 41 London Plane street trees planted 25 feet on center around all sides of the project, in tree wells with grates. Public Works staffhas agreed to the removal. of the existing street trees for various reasons and is working with the applicant to select the appropriate tree species for the non-EI Camino Real frontages. The existing trees are unlikely to survive for the long term due to the construction activity associated with the new below grade parking structure that would be built right up to the sidewalk. The new tree wells with Silva Cells would be a better growing environment for the new street trees to allow for long term survival. The replacement with new trees, all the same age, would create a uniform tree canopy rather than an erratic situation of trees of varying sizes, locations, and conditions. RESOURCE IMPACT The project will add 8 new residential units, high-end retail space and about 34,000 square feet of new office space. The City would therefore receive additional annual revenues in the form of property taxes, sales taxes, utility user taxes, estimated in the $70,000 to $85,000 range. One-time revenues would include impact fees of approximately $393,685, but no documentary transfer tax, as the property will not change hands. On the expenditure side, the project's small residential portion will create a marginal additional demand for City services, but these will be offset by the developer impact fees mentioned above. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Resolution (Attachment A) details the project's conformance with Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, as provided to the PTC. In particular, Policy B-25 says to "Strengthen the commercial viability of businesses along EI Camino Real. Encourage development of pedestrian-oriented neighborhood retail and office centers along the EI Camino Real." This project would implement this policy in many ways. It ensures pedestrian-oriented neighborhood serving retail by preserving the neighborhood market and by providing other retail spaces. It also increases the economic viability of the other area businesses by providing an additional customer base with the new office and residential uses. The project is not on the list of Housing Opportunity sites in the City's Housing Element, and lies just outside the Transit Oriented Residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the office use does not conflict with the City'S housing policies. CMR: 442:09 Page 9 of 11 TIME LINE Action: Application Received: Planning and Transportation Commission: Planning and Transportation Commission: Planning and Transportation Commission: City Council (continued): City Council (Project Initiation): Plru.llling and Transportation Commission: Architectural Review Board: Planning and Transportation Commission: City Council: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Date: October 18, 2007 February 13, 2008 October 1, 2008 April 29, 2009 July 13, 2009 July 27, 2009 October 14,2009 November 5, 2009 December 2, 2009 December 7, 2009 An Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were completed and circulated for public review and comment on September 15,2009, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and then revised October 5,2009 (Attachment K). The MND has been further revised to make minor clarifications consistent with changes that have been made to the proj ect since October 2009. Recirculation is not required as these are minor corrections that do not result in any new impacts or significant effects. There are several mitigation measures relating to Aesthetics, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Transportation and Traffic. The mitigation related to Aesthetics is intended to ensure that the interior lighting from the office building will not be a nuisance to the residential uses adj acent to the proj ect. The mitigations related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials prescribe measures to be taken in advance of excavation to deal with any hazardous materials if they are encountered. The mitigation related to Noise addresses noise evaluation of mechanical equipment with the noise ordinance. The mitigations related to Transportation and Traffic are designed to ensure that the neighborhood streets are minimally impacted by trips generated by the new development and that programs are in place to reduce parking demand within the project. The findings of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) report, by Hexagon Transportation' Consultants, Inc. indicate that the project would not result in significant impacts. Several members of the public have commented on issues related to the MND, in writing and at the PTC meetings (attached). Staffwill address these issues as part of the presentation at the meeting. PREPARED BY: ~t2d; RUSS REICH Senior Planner CMR: 442:09 Page 10 of 11 DEPARTMENT HEAD: Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~");( ~ J ENE Cit anager ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachn1ent B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Attachment H: Attachment I: Attachment J: Attachment K: Attachment L: Attachment M: Attachment N Attachment 0: Resolution (with Exhibit A, Project Conformance with Con1prehensive Plan Goals and Policies) Planned Community Ordinance (with Exhibit A, Project Location Map and Exhibit B, Draft Conditions of Approval, Exhibit C, TDM plan*) Zoning Con1parison Table Applicant's project letter with attachments, December 1, 2009* Development Schedule* LEED and Multifamily Green Point Rated Green Building Checklists* October 14, 2009 PTC Report without attachments (Council only)** October 14, 2009 PTC minutes (Council only)** November 5, 2009 ARB Report without attachm~nts (Council only)** December 2,2009 PTC Report without attachments (Council only)** Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, October 5, 2009 Public Correspondence Questions from Commissioners Lease Agreement for the Grocery Store* (to be provided at places) Project Plans (Council members only)* * Items provided by applicant ** ARB reports (November 5,2009), PTC reports and minutes (February 13 and October 1, 2008, and April 29, October 14, and December 2,2009), and CC report and minutes (July 27, 2009) can be found on the City's website at www.cityofpaloalto.org COURTESY COPIES Linda Poncini, Carrasco Associates Tony Carrasco, Carrasco Associates Patrick Smailey, The Chilcote Trust Andrew Gregg Robin Kennedy William D. Ross Fred Balin Greg Tanaka Susan Rosenberg CMR: 442:09 Page 11 of 11 NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT A Resolution No. ---Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map by Changing the Land Use Designation for 2180. El Camino Real from Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing on October 14, 2009 recommended that the City Council amend the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth below, and confirmed their recommendation on December 2, 2009; and WHEREAS, upon consideration of said recommendation after a duly noticed public hearing held on December 7, 2009, the Council desires to amend the Land Use Map as hereinafter set forth; The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the public interest, health, safety and welfare of Palo Alto and the surrounding region would be furthered by an amendment of the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Section 2. SECTION 2. The proposed Land Use Map amendment is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as further described in 'Exhibit A,' attached to this document and incorporated by reference: 1. Land Use and Community Design Element Goals and Policies: Goal L-l, Policies L-4-6, L9, Lll, L12, Goal L-4, Policies L-18-22, Goal L-6, Policies L-48-50, Policy L-73, L-75 and L-78. 2. Transportation Element: Goal T-l, Policy T-l, Goal T-3, Policy T-19, Goal T-4, Policy T-23, Goal T-8. 3. Natural Environment Element: Goal N-3, Policy N-15, Policies N-17-18, Policies N-20 23, Policy N-25, Policies N-27-28, Policy N-42. 4. Business and Economic Element: Goal B-1, Policy B-2, Goal B-2, Policy B-4, Policy B-7, Goal B-3, Policy B-9, Policy B-17, Policy B-25 1 091203 syn 8261213 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 3. The City Council hereby amends the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by changing the designation of the area depicted in "Exhibit B" fronl Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use. "Exhibit B" is attached to this resolution and incorporated into it by this reference. SECTION 4. A mitigated negative declaration (MND) for the development project at 2180 EI Camino Real, which included this comprehensive plan amendment, was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and circulated for public review for a 30 day period beginning on October 9, 2009. The City Council approved the MND at its meeting of on December 7, 2009. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney 091203 syn 8261213 2 APPROVED: Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment Exhibit -A Planned Community District-College Terrace Centre 2180 El Can1ino Real 07PLN-OOOOO-00327 Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies Land Use and Community Design Element Exhibit A Goal L-J .' A well, designed, compact City, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping centers, public facilities and open space. The proposed development would be well designed, and of a reasonable density for its EI Camino Real location, and provide residences, office work spaces, retail spaces for shopping, and open plaza spaces available to the public. Policy L-4: Maintain Palo Alto's varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto's desirable qualities. Use of the PC process provides the City the opportunity to approve a project that would enhance the vitality of the California Avenue commercial area by providing an additional customer base for existing and new businesses. It also ensures the preservation of a neighborhood grocery store at this location. The proposal would be constructed on an existing commercial property and would provide transitions in scale and use to the adj acent residential neighborhood. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. The current proposal has mUltiple structures of varying heights and different design styles addressing the context along four streets. The project has incorporated use of colors, materials and detailing to reduce the overall scale and mass of the project such that it would not overwhelm the site. There are multiple buildings in close proximity to the project with similar heights. Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non- residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. The proposal avoids abrupt changes by concentrating the larger three story retrial/office building toward EI Camino Real and placing a two story residential building between the new commercial development of the project and the existing residential neighborhood. The closest existing residential use across the street from the project is a three story multifamily structure. A open landscaped plaza area separates the two story commercial/retail building from the residential neighborhood beyond. Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics of mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development. The proposal uses the PC to create the opportunity to build a mixed use proj ecL The PC would ensure the preservation of a much desired element of the community, the neighborhood grocery store. Policy L-ll: Promote increased compatibility, interdependence, and support between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. This proposal supports both the commercial and the residential community by placing a mixed use development between them that provides customers for the existing commercial uses and provides retail services, including a neighborhood grocery store, for the local residents. Policy L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The proposed structures within the development have been designed with a village concept in mind. The building designs indicate the uses of the spaces within and include a variety of materials and finishes. The new structures attempt to create an eclectic look to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood that does not have a definitive architectural style. Goal L-4: Inviting, Pedestrian-scale centers that offer a variety of retail and commercial services and provide focal points and community gathering places for the City's residential neighborhoods and employment districts. The proposed College Terrace Centre would be inviting to pedestrians, provide a variety of retail and commercial uses, and would contain focal points and public gathering spaces. There would be multiple pedestrian entry points from the new tree lined perimeter of the project giving people ample access to the new office, retail, and residential spaces. There would also be an open air market space to draw people to the grocery store and a landscaped open plaza where people could gather and relax outdoors. There would also be entry plaza spaces as well as tower elements to draw people in and provide a sense of place and identity to the Center. Policy L-20: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners with buildings that come up to the sidewalk or that form corner plazas. This proposal brings retail vitality to the street with the open air portion of the grocery market and with retail storefronts along EI Camino ReaL The proposal also includes comer plaza areas and buildings with display windows that come up to the sidewalk creating a desirable pedestrian environment. Policy L-21: Provide all centers with centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms, and public art. The proposed landscaped plaza area with its proposed trees and benches, would provide a comfortable gathering space and is easily accessible by all of the property users. April 29, 2009 Page 2 Policy L-22: Enhance the appearance of streets and sidewalks within all Centers through an aggressive maintenance, repair, and cleaning program; street improvements; and the use of a variety of paving materials and landscaping. The sidewalks arou11.d the perimeter of the project would be replaced with ne'vv side'vvalks, and nevv street trees would be planted exceeding the number of street trees that currently exist on the perimeter of the site. Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance City streets and public spaces. The buildings have been purposefully designed to improve and enhance the existing street frontage. The architectural review process will help to further refine the proposal, so that ARB approval findings including green building can be made. Policy L-48: Promote high-quality creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The proposal makes creative use of various colors and materials to break down the perceived mass of the buildings, and provides for a quality pedestrian environment to encourage continued use and vitality. Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an orderly variety of entries,·porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human scale details and massing. The proposed village concept of the project is geared toward providing a safe and inviting environment for pedestrians with human scale detailing, a large variety of entries, porches, and windows as well as easy access for people, bikes, and cars. Policy L-50: Encourage high-quality signage that is attractive, appropriate for the location, and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs. The architectural review process will ensure high-quality signage that is attractive, appropriate, and does not impede visibility or safety. Policy L-75: Minimize the negative physical impacts ofparking lots. Locate parking behind buildings or underground wherever possible. The parking for the project has been located primarily underground with some parking located behind the building. The small amount of surface parking spaces that are included in the project are proposed to have shade trellises to shade the vehicles and reduce the urban heat island effect of the paved parking surface. April 29, 2009 Page 3 Policy L-78: Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project by providing for shared use of parking areas. There are no designated parking spaces except for 24 spaces for carpool/vanpool, low-emission vehicles and two-car share spaces within the proposed development. All parking spaces are shared. Transportation Element Goal T-l: Less reliance on single occupancy vehicles. Policy T-l: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. Policy T-19: Improve and create additional, attractive, secure bicycle parking at both public and private facilities, including multi-modal transit stations, on transit vehicles, in City parks, at public facilities, in new private developments, and other community destinations. Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-site parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. Goal T-8: Attractive, convenient public and private parking facilities. The proposal meets the above listed Goals and Policies related to Transportation in the following ways: The density, location, and mix of uses within the proposed mixed use development would help to discourage the reliance on single occupancy vehicles and increases walking, biking, and transit use by , combing 'uses that allow people to work, live, and shop in the same location without the need to make vehicle trips. Providing an employment center and retail uses in close proximity to transit and other commercial and residential uses typically increases the use of mass transit. The proposal also provides 22 additional bike parking spaces above the number required by code, to encourage bicycle usage. The proposal includes a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan that includs an onsite transit kiosk, designated parking spaces for carpool/vanpool vehicles and low emission vehicles, two car share vehicles on site, and a part time onsite transportation coordinator to help the project users with local transit option information. A multitude of pedestrian friendly amenities are provided throughout the project to encourage pedestrian activity. The location of the grocery store and other retail spaces within walking distance of the existing residential neighborhood would also reduce the typical demand on vehicular traffic. Natural Environment Element Goal N-3: A thriving uUrban Forest" that prOVides ecological, economic, and aesthetic benefits for Palo Alto. Policy N-15: Require new commercial, multi-unit, and single-family housing projects to provide street trees and related irrigation systems. April 29, 2009 Page 4 Policy N-20: Maximize the conservation and efficient use ofwater in new and existing residences, businesses and industries. Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runofffrom residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. Policy N-23: Reduce the discharge of toxic materials into the City's sanitary sewer collection system by promoting the use of Best Management Practices. Policy N-25: Reduce pollutant levels in City wastewater discharges. Policy N-27: Reduce emission of particulates from wood burning stoves, construction activity, automobiles and other sources. Policy N-28: Encourage developers of new projects in Palo Alto, including City projects, to provide improvements that reduce the necessity of driving alone. Policy N-42: the City may require proposals to reduce noise impacts of development on adjacent properties through appropriate means including, but not limited to the following: • Construct noise walls when compatible with aesthetic concerns. • Screen and control noise sources such as parking, outdoor activities and mechanical equipment. • Increase setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings. • Whenever, possible, retain fences, walls or landscaping that serve as noise buffers although design, safety and other impacts must be addressed. • Use soundproofing materials and double-glazing windows. • Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise levels. The project is consistent with the above listed Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies related to Natural Environment in the following ways: The project would involve removal of 11 existing street trees and replace them with approximately 41 new street trees around the perimeter of the project. This would eventually provide a dense and lush tree canopy that would add to the vitality of the urban forest providing economic, ecological, and aesthetic benefits to the City. Best management practices to control particulates and hazardous materials are required during construction. Conditions related to stormwater runoff from the proj ect once constructed are also included. The proposal includes a green roof over a portion of the grocery/office building. A green roof can reduce and slow storm water runoff as well as filter pollutants and reduce heating and cooling costs for the building. As stated in the transportation section above, a multitude of measures and design strategies have been employed to reduce single occupancy trips. Design measures, requirements, and controls have been used to limit potential noise impacts. The parking has been placed underground, the loading dock/trash room for the grocery store has been designed within an enclosure, and the proposed mechanical equipment has been required to meet City noise ordinance standards. Requirements have also been established to require Conditional Use Permits for any businesses with late night hours of operation. April 29, 2009 PageS Business and Economics Goal B-1: A thriving business environment that is compatible with Palo Alto's residential character and natural environment. Policy B-2 Support a strong interdependence between existing commercial centers and the surroundirt£ neighborhoods as a way of encouraging economic vitality. Goal B-2: A diverse mix of Commercial, Retail, and Professional Service businesses. Policy B-4: Nurture and support established businesses as well as new businesses. Policy B-7: Encourage and support the operation of small, indeRendent businesses Goal B-3: New businesses that provide needed local services and municipal revenues, contribute to economic vitality, and enhance the city's physical environment. Policy B-17: Where redevelopment is desired, encourage owners to upgrade commercial properties through incentives such as reduced parking requirements, credit for on-street parking, and increases in allowable }100r area. Use such incentives only where they are needed to stimulate redeveloplnent or contribute to housing or community design goals. Policy B-25: Strengthen the commercial viability of businesses along El Camino Real. Encourage the development of pedestrian-oriented neighborhood retail and office centers along the EI Camino Real corridor. The project is consistent with the above listed Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies related to Business and Economics in the following ways: The construction of the project and the establishment of the proposed office, retail, and residential uses at the site will revitalize the site and the area. The employees of the office spaces and the new residents will help to provide an additional customer base for the existing businesses on EI Camino Real as well as the California A venue Business District. The proj ect provides spaces for a large variety of businesses as well as preserving the existing neighborhood serving grocery store. A multitude of new uses would have the opportunity to be located within the new retail and office center located on the EI Camino Real. Corridor. Specific limitations within the proposed PC zone ensure the preservation of the neighborhood grocery store and maintains 5,580 square feet of ground floor area for retail uses. Housing Policy H-4: Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality. Policy H-10: Encourage and foster diverse housing opportunities for very low, low and moderate- income households. April 29, 2009 Page 6 Policy H-23: Reduce the cost of housing by promoting energy efficiencYJ resource management, and conservation for new and existing housing. The project is consistent with the above listed Housing Policies in the following ways: While the proposal is primarily a commercial development, it does include eight Below Market Rate housing units to add to the City's affordable housing supply_ The units would be small one bedroom affordable units that are a rare and welcome addition to the City's BMR supply. The homes would be constructed to meet the city's Green Building requirements which promote energy efficiency, reduction in the use of resources, and improved indoor air quality_ April 29J 2009 Page 7 NOT YET APPROVED Ordinance No. --- Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 2180 EI Camino Real from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District to PC Planned Community for a Mixed Use Project Having 57,900 Square Feet of Floor Area For A Grocery Store (intended for JJ&F Market), Other Retail Space, Office Space, and Eight Affordable Residential Units, With Two Levels Of Below-Grade Parking Facilities and Surface Parking Facilities For The College Terrace Centre, and Approval of Design Enhancement Exceptions to Allow a Sign Spire and Gazebo Roof to Exceed the 35-Foot Height Limit, and to Allow Encroachment Into A Minimum Setback on Oxford Avenue. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. (a) Carrasco and Associates c/o Linda Poncini ("the Applicant") on behalf of The Clara Chilcote Trust c/o Patrick Smailey ("property owner") formally applied on October 18, 2007 to the City for approval of a rezoning application (the "amendment") from CN 'Neighborhood Commercial' to a Planned Community (PC) district for a site comprised of four parcels located at 2180 El Camino Real (the "Subject Property") to accommodate the uses set forth below. (b) The City Council, after duly noticed public hearings held on July 13, 2009 and July 27, 2009 initiated the amendment process, and forwarded the project to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) for review and recommendation, to be followed by Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and recommendation, and then final review and final action by the City Council. (c) The PTC, after a duly noticed public hearing held on October 14, 2009, reviewed, considered, and recommended approval of the revised Initial Study draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to rezone the Subject Property to Planned Community to permit construction of the proposed project located as shown on 'Exhibit A,' attached to this document and incorporated by reference. Draft conditions of project approval 'Exhibit B' attached to this 1 091203 syn 8261209 NOT YET APPROVED document and incorporated by reference were presented to the PTC for review and comments. (d) The ARB, after a duly noticed public hearing held on November 5, 2009, reviewed the project design and recommended that the City Council approve the project with associated draft conditions of approval 'Exhibit B.' ( e) The PTC, after a duly noticed public hearing held on December 2, 2009, confirmed their approval of the project and conditions of approval (Exhibit B). (t) The City Council, after a duly noticed public hearings held on December 7, 2009, and after due consideration of the proposed project, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the analysis of the project by City staff, and the modification of the proposed conditions recommended by the PTC and, the ARB, finds that the proposed Ordinance is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth. (g) The Council finds that (1) the Subject Property is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow for the Project; and (2) development of the Subject Property under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or conlbining districts, as set forth in Section (4)(c) hereof; and (3) the use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the proposed district are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Goals, Policies and proposed designation of Mixed Use for the Subject Property) and are compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of Subject Property from "CN Neighborhood Commercial" to "PC Planned Community __ ." SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the Subject Property that the project (the "Project") as depicted on Development Plans dated October 22, 2009, incorporated by reference, comprises a mixed-use development that includes the following components: (a) The replacement of 18,028 square feet of existing commercial space with 57,900 square feet of new commercial and residential space. The commercial space would include 8,000 square feet for a grocery store, 5,580 square feet of other ground floor retail space, and 38,980 square feet of office space; (b) Eight (8) residential below-market-rate (BMR) units, comprising 5,340 square feet; 2 091203 syn 8261209 NOT YET APPROVED ( c) Underground parking garage containing 216 parking spaces on two levels; (d) Surface parking lot accommodating 11 parking spaces; (e) 24 on-street parking spaces around the site's perimeter; (f) A landscaped plaza at the comer of Staunton Court and Oxford Avenue; (g) Removal of street trees along Staunton Court, and Oxford and College A venues and planting of new street trees within the sidewalk area; (h) Removal and replacement of some or all street trees along El Camino Real in tree wells; (i) Automobile driveways on El Camino Real, College Avenue and Stanton Court providing access to parking lots and an area for loading and deliveries. Access to the below grade parking would be provided from the El Camino Real driveway. SECTION 4. The Development Plan dated October 22, 2009, and any approved supplemental materials, for the Subject Property, as submitted by the applicant pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section (PAMC) 18.38.090, shall be subject to the following permitted and conditional land uses and special limitations on land uses, development standards, parking and loading requirements, modifications to the development plans and provisions of public benefits outlined below, and conditions of project approval, attached and incorporated as "Exhibit B". (a) Permitted and Conditionally Permitted land uses shall be allowed and limited as follows: 091203 syn 8261209 Permitted Uses (subject to the limitations below under Section 4(b): (1) Multifamily Residential (2) Professional and General Business Offices (excluding medical offices) (3) Retail Services (excluding liquor stores) (4) Eating and Drinking Services (excluding drive-in and Take-out services) (5) Personal Services Conditionally Permitted Uses: (1) Farmers Markets (2) Businesses that operate or have associated activities at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (such businesses shall be operated in a manner to protect residential properties from excessive noise, odors, lighting, or other nuisances from any source during those hours) 3 NOT YET APPROVED The following conditionally permitted uses are only permitted within the areas designated as office space on the development plan: (l) Banks and Financial Services (2) Commercial recreation (3) Private clubs, Lodges, and Fraternal Organizations (b) Special limitations on land uses include the following: (l) A grocery store, with an area of at least 8,000 square feet, shall exist within the development for the useful life of the improvements; . (2) The grocery store shall be a neighborhood serving grocery store that provides all the typical grocery store products and services of a neighborhood serving store such that it shall not become a convenience mart facility; (3) The grocery tenant shall occupy and begin operations prior to any office tenant occupancy. (4) The below-market rate housing shall be occupied not later than 120 days after the first occupancy of the office building. No more than 50% of the office space shall be occupied prior to occupancy of the housing. (5) No medical office shall be permitted within the development; (6) The office uses within the project shall not exceed 38,980 square feet; (7) The 5,580 square feet of area designated as "Other Retail" on the development plan shall not be converted to ground floor office space; and (8) The "Other Retail" space may be occupied by retail uses, personal service use, or eating and drinking services only. (9) Use of the outdoor market area as shown on the project plans as being approximately 2,000 square feet shall be limited to grocery related uses only. (c) Developnlent Standards: Development Standards for the site shall comply with the standards prescribed for the Planned Community (PC) zone district (Chapter 18.38), and as modified in Section 4( a) and (b) above. (d) Parking and Loading Requirements: 091203 syn 8261209 In addition to the parking and loading requirements specified in PAMC 18.52 and 18.54, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program has been incorporated in the Development Plan to allow reductions in parking requirements. The TDM is shown in 'Exhibit C' and is attached to this document and incorporated by reference. The final TDM plan shall provide for implementation and monitoring as provided in the conditions of approval. 4 NOT YET APPROVED (e) Modifications to the Development Plan and Site Development Regulations: Once the project has been constructed consistent with the approved Development Plan, any modifications to the exterior design of the Development Plan or any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or the site development regulations contained in Section 4 (a) -(c) above shall require an amendment to this Planned Community zone, unless the modification is a minor change as described in PAMC 18.76.050 (b) (3) (e), in which case the modification may be approved through the Minor Architectural Review process. Any use not specifically permitted by this ordinance shall require an amendment to the PC ordinance, except that conversion of designated office space to retail use shall not require amendment. (t) Public Benefits: Development of the Subject Property under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. The Project includes the following public benefits that are inherent to the Project and in excess of those required by City zoning districts: (1) Provision of an 8,000 square foot neighborhood-serving grocery market. (2) 4 Below Market Rate housing units. (3) A contribution of $5,000 dollars for tree planting within the EI Camino Real median. (g) Development Schedule: The Project is required to include a Development Schedule pursuant to P AMC 18.38.100. The approved Development Schedule is set forth below: Construction of the Project shall commence on or before December 2012, unless extension(s) are granted. The total time for project construction and occupancy of spaces is three (3) years, or by December 2015. SECTION 5. Council approves the Architectural Review application, finding that: (a) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city's Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Resolution No. __ , Adopting an Anlendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map by Changing the Land Use Designation for 2180 EI Camino Real From Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use. The proposed mixed use development containing office, residential, retail and commercial uses is consistent with the Mixed Use land use designation; 5 091203 syn 8261209 NOT YET APPROVED (b) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the proposed buildings are designed to meet the EI Camino Real Design Guidelines and be sensitive to the lower scale residential neighborhood beyond; (c) The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that the project has been designed to be pedestrian friendly, provide additional bike and vehicular parking, attract people to the project and provides unique amenity spaces; (d) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character. In this case, the building is not within an area of unified design character or historical character; (e) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses in that the project includes the proposal to locate the two story residential component across from the existing residential uses on Staunton Court to create a transitional buffer between the existing residential uses and the proposed commercial buildings; (f) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site in that the proposed buildings and other project improvements would blend well with the existing off site improvements by proposing to break up the proposal in to multiple buildings with varying heights to control the mass and scale; (g) The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community in that the proposed design reduces neighborhood traffic by placing the garage entry on EI Camino, improves the economic viability of the grocery market by placing it at the visible comer of EI Camino, brings light into the below grade parking structure with a large open bamboo garden, locates the commercial buildings away from existing residential uses, and provides landscaped open spaces; (h) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures in that several open spaces are provided to accommodate the various uses that may occur at the site. These spaces include the garden square at the comer of Staunton Court and Oxford Avenue, the roof top gazebo at the vegetated green roof and the arcade and open area at the comer of Staunton Court and College Avenue; (i) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project in that the proposal includes a large trash storage area, ample areas for bike parking, and an underground vehicle parking area; G) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in that the driveway to the underground garage has been designed such that vehicles existing the garage are level with the 6 091203 syn 8261209 NOT YET APPROVED sidewalk such that the drivers view of pedestrians is not impeded, extra bike and vehicle parking spaces have been provided and there are pedestrian pathways provided to allow access through the project; (k) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project. The site is already developed and contains, some mature trees that would be removed to accomnl0date the proposed podium over the below grade parking. The trees to be removed will be replaced with new plantings including approximately 41 new street trees around the perimeter of the project, a bamboo garden that would grow up through the center of the parking structure, various potted plantings throughout the project, and trees and plantings within the proposed garden square. (1) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function in that the proposal includes many detail elements to ensure the proposed architectural style is appropriately expressed; (m) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment in that landscape elements have been incorporated wherever they could over the concrete podium. There are planters at entry locations and the fronts of the buildings, there is a large bamboo garden growing up through the center of the project, a vegetated green roof over the grocery store, and a garden square; (n) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought- resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance in that the proposal includes many plant species that perform well within this environment; (0) The project exhibits green building and sustainable design that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be utilized in determining sustainable site and building design: 091203 syn 8261209 (l) Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation; (2) Design of landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects; (3) Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access; (4) Maximize on site stormwater management through landscaping and permeable paving; (5) Use sustainable building materials; 7 NOT YET APPROVED (6) Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy and water use; (7) Create healthy indoor environments; and (8) Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. (P) The design incorporates many of the above mentioned green building measures including photo voltaic panels on the roof and a green roof. (see LEED and Build It Green checklists, Attachment G) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review, to: (1) Promote orderly and harmonious development in the city; (2) Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city; (3) Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements; (4) Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas; and (5) Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other. SECTION 6. Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEEs) are approved as follows: (a) Height Exceptions for the proposed rooftop gazebo and the architectural signage spire above the grocery store, which would exceed the 35 foot limit by five feet and ten feet, respectively, with an additional seven feet of height for the metal pole atop the spire, rising to 52 feet. (b) Setback Exception to allow portions of the building along Oxford Avenue to encroach into a ten foot setback; specifically, to allow a 7'9" encroachment for the second floor of the grocery store building and parts of the first floor" and 3' 6" encroachment for the recessed first floor areas as set forth in the project plans. (c) DEE Findings: 091203syn 8261209 (1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district, in that, although the adjacent parcel on Oxford Avenue is not occupied by a residential use, its zoning is residential and forces the imposition of a more restrictive setback requirement upon a portion of the site. The intent of the more restrictive height and setback regulations is to ensure that the new commercial development is sensitive to the nearby residential uses. Being that the adjacent use is not residential the need for the sensitivity is diminished. 8 NOT YET APPROVED (2) The granting of these Exceptions will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requiremel1ts of Title 18 and the standards for review set forth in this Chapter, in that (a) the height exception for the gazebo would allow the construction of a shade structure that would provide an amenity space on the roof top and this space would provide views over the vegetated roof and would serve to help increase awareness of green roofs; (b) the height exception for the signage spire allows for the provision of a stronger element for the grocery store building to give the building more dominance at the corner, improving the significance of the building in this location; and (c) the setback encroachment improves the design of the streetscape in. this location since the project faces the EI Camino Real commercial strip and employing a similar urban setback and s~dewalk along Oxford Avenue preserves the continuity of the design, such that implementation of a ten foot setback and landscaped yard at this comer would appear odd in relationship to the use of a hotel across the street. (3) The Exception is related to a site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvement in the site vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience, in that ( a) the height exceptions are for minor architectural elements that improve the architecture, do not contribute to the bulk and mass of the structure, and are not in close proximity to residential uses such that they would have a negative impact upon them; and (b) the setback encroachment occurs opposite a residential zone but no residences would be impacted by encroachment since a hotel is located opposite the grocery store building and the encroaching wall of the grocery store building would be across the street from the back side of the hotel and even with the encroachment, a generous 14'-5" wide sidewalk would be provided. SECTION 7. Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indenmified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. SECTION 8. Acceptance by the applicant. If the Applicant does not accept the Proposed ~rdinance in writing prior to second reading of the ordinance and within 30 days of the Council's adoption, the question of the appropriate zoning of the Subject Property shall be referred to the Planning and Transportation Commission for their consideration and recommendation, which may include the CN zone, the CN zone plus various overlays, a newly 9 091203 syn 8261209 NOT YET APPROVED crafted zone applicable to Neighborhood Centers or such other zone as the Commission deems appropriate. SECTION 9. A mitigated negative declaration (MND) for this project was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and circulated for public review for a 30-day period beginning on October 9, 2009. The City Council approved the MND at its meeting of on December 7, 2009. SECTION 10. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment 091203 syn 8261209 APPROVED: Mayor City Manager 10 Legend ~~i l}:a :1! a;~ t:::l 2180 EI Camino Real (Project Site) Stanford Lands t=l Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels The City of Palo Alto mver •• Z001l·01·3O 15:14:36 (\1cc-mapslgis$lglsladmlnlPerwna!\n1vern.mdb) ....... i .' 2180 El Camino Real Zoning Districts Area Map Exhibit A cs (ASt) (Jo/ . This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS -. o· 250' This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. The Cily of Palo A110 assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 10 2006 City of Palo Allo Exhibit B 2180 E1 Cannno Real Conditions of Pro; ect Approval Planning and Transportation Division Conditions 1. The project shall be constructed as depicted on plans dated October 22,2009 and labeled as 'Approved Plans' and the project, inc shall be implemented in accordance with Section 4 of the PC Ordinance except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. The applicant shall return to the Architectural Review on consent calendar to address the following: a) Provide clarified floor plans for the BMR units (with room names) b) Clarify the site circulation, making it more clear; c) Consider redesign of the exterior stair to the roof top garden, this shall include the elimination of the diagonal banding; d) Consider simplifying the pathway from the exterior stairs to the gazebo area on the roof; e) Review the banding of the grocery store building, consider one color with the two different finishes; f) Provide details of the transformer fencing; g) Reconsider the tile roofs at the office towers; h) Consider some modification to the grocery walls facing Oxford Avenue such as a mural, display windows etc.; i) Provide additional information about the private open spaces and the materiality of it; j) Provide additional information about the bridge, materials, underside, etc.; k) Consider redesign of the striped tower; 1) Reconsider the selection of the Ash tree species; m) Provide additional information about the proposed bamboo (species and height) related to the canted wall; n) Provide detail to show how the headlights going into the below grade parking will or will not impact the BMR units; 0) Consider redesign of the BMR units such that they are equally as striking as the other buildings in the proj ect; p) Provide more information regarding the plant pallet and conceptual plan for the green roof; q) Provide more information about all screening elements and locations; and r) Provide additional information about potted plants and the planting at the open area at the center of the project as well as the planting for the trellises located at the at-grade parking area. 3. The ARB shall address making the vegetated roof maximally observable to owners, occupants, tenants and visitors during normal business hours of the office Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 1 building, provided, however, that enjoyment of the vegetative roof shall not interfere with or derogate from the health of the growth thereon. 4. The owners/occupants of the BMR units shall have access to view and enjoy the vegetated roof from the gazebo during normal business hours of the office building. 5. The PC shall be inspected at least once every three years for compliance with the PC district regulations and the conditions of the ordinance under which the district was created. 6. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of Palo Alto's noise ordinance, both during construction and following construction, for the life of the project as per Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and pursuant to P AMC Section 18.23.060, requiring an acoustical analysis at the time of building permit issuance, and demonstration and certification that it complies with the Noise Ordinance prior to final inspection. Any new noise producing equipment shall be placed as far away as is feasible from any existing residential sites and as close to EI Camino Real as is possible. 7. The building permit for the building in which the grocery store is to be located shall be pulled concurrently with the building permit for the other non-residential building in the development. 8. The lease for the grocery store shall have, at minimum, a 20 year initial term. 9. Development Impact fees, totaling approximately $393,684.70, shall be paid prior to issuance of-building permits. 10. The applicant shall file and receive approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map/Parcel Map to combine the four parcels into one. The Parcel Map shall be recorded with the County of Santa Clara prior to issuance of a demolition permit or building permit. 11. The commercial portions of the project shall be required to attain LEED Silver level of certification through the USGBC. The residential portion of the project shall be required to meet the Build It Green multifamily green building requirements. 12. The following mitigation measures from the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration are included below as project conditions: a. Mitigation Measure #1: The project shall include automatic night shades or other system such as motion sensors and timers for the office windows at the rear of the building. b. Mitigation Measure #2: Prior to any excavation the applicant shall prepare a site specific Health and Safety Plan that conforms to the requirements of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations (VFR) Section 1910.120, the California General Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 2 Industry Safety Order (GISO) and Title 8, California Code of Regulation (CCR) Section 5192. c. Mitigation Measure #3: All employees and subcontractors involved in excavation of potentially contaminated material shall be 40 hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) trained and certified. d. Mitigation Measure #4: Soils shall be field screened, tested, and properly profiled during redevelopment to determine appropriate reuse or off site disposal. e. Mitigation Measure #5: The proposed mechanical equipment shall be evaluated to ensure compliance with City of Palo Alto noise limit regulations. Measures such as equipment selection, equipment placement (location), and or the addition of barriers or enclosures shall be employed to ensure that any new noise producing equipment is in compliance with the City's noise ordinance. f. Mitigation Measure # 6: Cal Trans must approve the proposed curb cut on the EI Camino Real for the driveway to the underground parking garage. g. Mitigation Measure #7: A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program must be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Transportation Department prior to submittal of a building pernlit application. The TDM program shall outline parking and/or traffic demand measures to be implemented to reduce parking need and trip generation. Measures may include, but are not limited to: parking cash-out programs, provision of EcoPass (VTA) or Go Pass (Caltrain) for office tenants, shared parking, enhanced shuttle service, car sharing, providing priority parking spaces for car poolslvanpools or green vehicles, vehicle charging stations, additional bicycle parking facilities, 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 lor trip reductions, and indicate the basis for such estimates, and shall designate a single entity to implement the proposed measures. State of California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) Conditions 13. The design standard of the driveway on EI Camino Real (SR 82) must comply with the Highway Design Manual. 14. Work that encroaches onto the State right of way (ROW) requires an encroachment permit that is issued by the Cal Trans. To apply, a completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans clearly indicating State ROW must be submitted to the address below. Office of Permits California DOT, District 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 15. Traffic-related mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the construction plans during the encroachment permit process. Transportation Division Conditions Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 3 16. Do not include or add any monument signs, furniture, or other sight obstructions ( except trees) in the sight triangle on the northern frontage on EI Camino Real. This condition does not prevent the use of produce or flower stalls, or tables and chairs for grocery store patrons in the space designated as grocery store outdoor space, so long as the location of same is approved by the City's Transportation Department. 17. The TDM shall include at least two car share vehicles. The Final TDM plan monitoring and implementation shall be carried out in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.52.050 (d) TDM requirements, items (3) and (4) with respect to monitoring, and item (2) with respect to implementation related to performance targets for parking and trip reduction, and single entity to implement the TDM measures. Vehicle Parking 18. Spaces adjacent to walls required to be 9' wide (spaces adjacent to mechanical and utility rooms). Spaces adjacent to poles/columns would be required to be 9.0' wide based on the location of the columns right at the entry to the parking spaces. 19. Northern most HC spaces can also be labeled as "van accessible" if the combined opening is 26.0' (9' -8' -9'). 20. Include wheel stops where appropriate (all spaces that are at grade with pedestrian paths, lobbies, or bike locker areas) Bicycle Parking 21. Illustrate on plans the location of Long Term (lockers) and Short Term bike racks, including total count similar to vehicular parking. Adequate aisles between lockers and racks must be shown. 22. Include details of types of racks to be used (must be approved by City Staff). Plan appears to include inverted-U racks (approved type). 23. All short term bicycle parking (racks) need to be located on the street level and be located within 50 feet and distributed near each of the main entrances to the various buildings. (Office racks not in appropriate location) 24. Long term bike lockers are allowed in the garage, but need to be located near employee elevators/stairs (locations appears to be okay, but all lockers should be on the first level of garage). Building Division Conditions 25. The plans submitted for the building permit shall include the full scope of the construction of the entire building, including all site development, utility installations, Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 4 architectural, structural, electrical, plumbing and mechanical work associated with the proposed proj ect. 26. The applicant shall be required to schedule and attend a pre-application meeting with Building Division staff to review the permit application process and to verify that the permit application will include all items required by these conditions. 27. Due to the scale of the overall project, the applicant shall be required to utilize a 3rd party plan check agency to conduct the building code plan review. A list of the agencies approved by the City of Palo Alto is available at the Development Center. The City Building plan check fees are reduced by 75% when a 3rd party plan check agency is utilized. 28. The plans submitted for the building permit shall include an allowable floor area calculation that relates the mixed occupancies and type of construction. 29. The plans submitted with the permit application shall include the complete design for disabled access and exiting for the entire site. Disable access features and exiting within the unimproved offices spaces may be deferred to future tenant improvement permits. 30. The design of building components that are not included in the plans submitted for building permit and are to be deferred shall be limited to as few items as possible. The list of deferred items shall be reviewed and approved prior to permit application. 31. The plans submitted with the building permit application for the shell building shall include the construction of stairs, exit enclosures and exit passageways extending to the exterior of the, building. 32. All entrances and vertical clearances within the parking structures shall have a minimum vertical of 8 feet 2 inches where required for access to the accessible parking spaces per CBC Section 1130B. 33. The location of the building electrical service shall require prior approval by the Inspection Services Division and shall be located at an exterior location or in a room or enclosure accessible directly from the exterior. 34. A separate building permit shall be required for the construction of each building. 35. Plans submitted for plan review shall clearly indicate the proposed occupancy group(s) and type of construction of the building. 36. Plans for the residential units submitted for plan review shall comply with the latest requirements from the State of Cali fomi a [HCD lIAC] Chapter lIB of the 2007 Edition of the CBC. Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 5 37. Plans for the residential units shall include an acoustical analysis and the plans shall incorporate the report's recommendations needed to show the common walls and floor ceiling assernblies in compliance with the sound transmission control requirements in CBC Section 1207. 38. Normal and accessible parking stalls for the residential rental units must be separated from the stalls of the commercial building and their location must be identified on plans submitted for plan review. 39. Plans submitted for plan review shall indicate the required number of parking stalls for the residential units and commercial building. Plans shall also indicate number of accessible stalls is in compliance with HCD II AC Chapter 11A for residential units and with DSAI AC Chapter lIB for the commercial facilities. Parking stalls for each use shall be separated in accordance with recommendations of the Plruming Division. Fire Department Conditions 40. The Fire Department requires that the developer have a contingency plan in place to handle any contamination or abandoned underground tanks discovered during excavation. 41. Emergency Contractor must have State HAZ license. 42. Fire Department shall be notified during normal business hours at the earliest opportunity in the event of such a discovery. 43. A permit from the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health is required for any underground tank removal. 44. 3 nearest Street Hydrants shall be upgraded to Clow Rich Model 76. 45. Aerial Fire Apparatus access shall be provided for the entire EI Camino building Frontage. No overhead cable will be allowed on this side of the building. 46. Site address to be prominently posted on the building. (2001CFC901) Maximum vehicle weight bearing capacity for the podium deck shall be posted. 47. Please contact the Palo Alto Fire Department Training Office at 650-321-5617 if it is at all feasible to allow the Fire Department to use the structures to be demolished for training purposes. 48. A fire sprinkler system shall be provided which meets the requirements ofNFP A Standard No. 13,2002 Edition. (PAMC15.04.160) Fire Sprinkler system installations or modifications require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC15.04.083) Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 6 49. An exterior bell shall be provided, and an approved audible sprinkler flow alarm to alert the occupant shall be provided in the interior of the building in an approved location. (2001CBC904.3.2) Fire Alatm system installations or modifications require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMCI5.04.083) 50. Underground fire supply system installations or nlodifications require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau as well as the Public Works Department and the Water/Gas/Wastewater Section of the Utilities Department. (pAMCI5.04.083) 51. All sprinkler drains, including those for floor control valves and inspectorl,s test valves, as well as the main drain,shall not discharge within the building. Water discharged from these points shall be directed to an approved landscape location or to the sanitary sewer systenl. (99NFPAI3, Sec. 5-14.2.4.3) NOTE: Please check with Roland Ekstrand in Utilities for maximum flow capacity of sanitary sewer in the area. Main .. Drain test discharge flow rate shall be impounded and attenuated to below sanitary sewer capacity before discharge. 52. Elevator car shall be sized for Fire Department gurney access requirements based on gurney dinlensions of 24 in. x 84 in. plus a minimum of two emergency response personnel. (2007 Cal. Bldg. Code Sec. 3002.4a) 53. The maximum weight bearing capacity for the podium deck shall be posted. 54. A fire hydrant is required at the intersections of Oxford Ave.lStaunton Ct. and College A ve.lStaunton Ct. 55. Fire Department ground ladder access to the dwelling units bedroom egress windows shall be provided. 56. When the Main Electrical Shutoff is located in the interior of the building, an exterior shunt trip or other approved means of emergency shutoff shall be provided. Please contact the Building Div. for details. 57. An approved access walkway shall be provided to each bedroom egress/rescue . window. 58. Provide Fire Department access across the roof of the 3 story building. 11. If the residential units have a different address than EI Camino Real, provide a separate fire department connection at the housing building. Public Works Engineering 59. This project must meet the State Regional Water Quality Control Board's (SRWQCB) revised provision C.3. The applicant is required to satisfy all current storm water discharge regulations and shall provide calculations and documents to verify compliance. The project must also enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 7 guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to the first building occupancy sign-off. Off site property or ROW cannot be used to satisfy the C.3 requirements. Every effort should be made to use natural (non-mechanical) methods of stormwater treatment. The applicant is required to meet with Public Works Engineering (PWE) prior to final ARB to discuss and review the C.3 stormwater treatment plan. 60. The applicant shall meet with PWE prior to final ARB to discuss the shoring system to be used in the construction of the proj ect. Shoring systems must be on private property, out of the right-of-way (ROW) and the use of tie-back systems has specific requirements which will be discussed at the meeting. 61. The applicant shall, at minimum, submit an application for a minor subdivision with the Planning division prior to issuance of building permits. 62. The street frontages of the development shall be resurfaced (grind and overlay, full width) and the curbs, gutters, and sidewalks shall be removed and replaced. This work shall be detailed in the offsite improvement plans required for the final map process and it is highly encouraged that the work takes place near the end of the construction process. 63. The applicant shall install LED streetlights along the frontages of the development. Type, style and location, etc. shall be determined at the time of offsite improvement construction and in coordination and consultation with Palo Alto Utilities Department. 64. Any special surface (Le. sidewalk) treatments proposed within the ROW shall be reviewed by pWE' 65. The project must be constructed without the use of perimeter or sub grade drains outside the walls of the subgrade structure. In other words, the project shall be constructed "like a boat". 66. Provisions for a grease trap shall be made onsite. 67. The applicant is required to meet with Public Works Engineering (PWE) to verify the basic design parameters affecting grading, drainage and surface water infiltration. The applicant is required to submit a conceptual site grading and drainage plan that conveys site runoff to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. In order to address potential storm water quality impacts, the plan shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMP's) to be incorporated into the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required for the project. The SWPPP shall include permanent BMP' s to be incorporated into the proj ect to protect storm water quality. (Resources and handouts are available from Public Works -Engineering. Specific reference is made to Palo Alto's companion document to "Start at the Source", entitled Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 8 "Planning Your Land Development Project"). The elements of the PWE~approved conceptual grading and drainage plan shall be incorporated into the building permit plans. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT 68. The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering. This plan shall show spot elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, shall be maintained. 69. The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the applicant's monthly City utility bill will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets and instructions are available from Public Works Engineering. 70. A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto's Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. A handout describing these and other requirements for a construction logistics plan is available from Public Works Engineering. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT 71. Prior to building permit issuance, a digital copy of the parcel map or final map, in AutoCAD format, shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering and shall conform to North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD 1929 for vertical survey controls. 72. A detailed site-specific soil report prepared by a licensed soils or geo-technical engineer must be submitted which includes information on water table and basement construction issues. Measures must be undertaken to render the basement waterproof and able to withstand all projected hydrostatic and soil pressures. No pumping of ground water is allowed. In general, Public Works Engineering recommends that structures be constructed in such a way that they do not penetrate existing or projected ground water levels. 73. The applicant is required to paint the "No DumpingIFlows to Matadero Creek" logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 9 drainage plan. Include maintenance of these logos in the Hazardous Materials Management Plan, if such a plan is part of this project. 74. The project includes the construction of dumpster and recycling areas as part of a food service facility. Regulations require that the dumpster/recycling area be adequately roofed or covered. 75. The project includes the construction of dumpster and recycling areas. City guidelines require that this area be covered. 76. The project includes a loading dock. Design of the loading area shall comply with the Palo Alto Municipal Code (P AMC) Sec. 16.09.032(2). DURING CONSTRUCTION 77. The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. 78. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 79. The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP's) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the project. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (P AMC Chapter 16.09). 80. All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. PRIOR TO FINALIZATION 81. All sidewalks and curb and gutters bordering the project shall be removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. Sec. 12.08.010. 82. All unused driveways shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. Sec. 12.08.090. 83. All street surfaces along the frontages of the development shall be removed and replaced (grind and overlay, full-width). 84. The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign- Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 10 off Similarly, all as-builts, on-:-site grading, drainage and post-developments BMP's shall be completed prior to sign-off. 85. A curb ramp for the disabled will be required at comers of the development. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF PARCEL OR FINAL MAP 86. Subdivision Agreement is required to secure compliance with condition of approval and security of improvements onsite and offsite. No grading or building permits will be issued until Final or Parcel Map is recorded with County Recorder. 87. The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Fire, and Transportation Departments after approval of this map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. These improvement plans must be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal of a parcel or final map. 88. The project subdivision includes significant complexity involving, final map and coordination of infrastructure design and construction. Developer shall appoint a Project Manager to coordinate with City, Public Works and Utility, engineering staff. Public Works will conduct daily and longer term communication with appointed project manager in order to facilitate timely review and approval of design and construction matters. 89. All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City's jurisdiction shall conform to standard specifications of the Public Works and Utility Department. Sec. 12.08.060. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF P ARCELIFINAL MAP 90. The subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording of the final parcel or subdivision map to guarantee the completion of the "on" and "off' site condition(s) of approval. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Planning, Utilities and Public Works Departments. Public Works Recycling 91. Recommend that enclosure doors open full width of enclosure, service aisle and curbs do not restrict access to enclosure. 92. Enclosure access must not conflict with loading dock. 93. PASCO services enclosure from street and distance from street to enclosures is beyond standard service. Additional charges apply for service beyond 25 feet from street. 94. PASCO will not drive into loading dock to provide service. 95. Tallow bins must be segregated from refuse/recycling area of enclosure to eliminate slip hazardous due to spills. Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 El Camino Real 11 Electric Utility Engineering Department Conditions 96. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 97. The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 98. The Applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN SUBMITTALS FOR BUILDING PERMIT 99. A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all building permit applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal. 100. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. 101. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 102. This project requires a padmount transformer. The location of the transformer shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16. 103. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property as required by the City. Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 12 104. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer's switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 105. The customer shall maintain a minimum of six feet horizontal clearance between the nearest conductor at rest and any part of the new development. The customer shall meet all California General Order No. 95 clearance requirements. 106. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 107. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 108. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility's padmount transformer and the customer's main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 109. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 110. If the customer's total load exceeds 2500kVA, service shall be provided at the primary voltage of 12,470 volts and the customer shall provide the high voltage switchgear and transformers. Utilities Rule & Regulation #3. 111. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer's expense and must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. . 112. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. COMMENTS ON SUBMITTALS 113. Drawing ALI -First Floor & Site Plan Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 13 • Transfonner Pad size (and working spaces), boxes, conduit size and quantity will be detennined after Electric Load Sheets are submitted. A 3 'x5' primary box is required in front of each transfonner pad. • Three feet clearance is required on each side of the transfonner pad. There shall be eight feet of clearance in the front of the transfonner. Transfonner shall not be in an enclosed environment. 114. Drawing A2.2 -Elevations • Elevation drawings shall show that the proj ect meets California General Order No. 95 clearance requirements. Regional Water Quality Control Plant Conditions 115. Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system (P AMC 16.09.032(B)(17). 116. Substances containing copper in excess of 2.0 mg/L, tributyl tin in excess of 0.1 mg/L, or chromium in excess of 2.0 mg/L may not be added to cooling systems in Palo Alto. These concentrations apply to the substances prior to dilution with cooling system water. (Note: The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code has proposed additions to this requirement which include substances that may not be added to cooling towers containing Zinc in excess of2.0 mg/liter and Molybdenum in excess of2.0 nlg/liter.) (PAMC 16.09.115) 117. A flow meter shall be installed to measure the volume of blow down water from the new cooling tower. Cooling systems discharging greater than 2,000 gallons per day are required to meet a copper discharge limit of 0.25 milligrams per liter. 118. Prior to draining any existing closed loop chilled water, the water in each of the existing loops shall be tested for copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. Test results shall be submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. Treatment of the chilled loop water prior to draining may be required if the pollutant concentrations exceed discharge linlitations contained in the P AMC. 119. If thennometers will be installed on the chilled water supply and return piping. Non-mercury thennometers should be used for this application.(This is a recommendation and not required). 120. If the project is located in an area of known groundwater contamination with Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) then the plans must include the following procedure for construction dewatering pursuant to (PAMC 16.09.117, 16.09.110(h): 121. Prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering, the water shall be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using EPA Method 601/602. The Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 14 analytical results of the VOC testing shall be transmitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). If the concentration of any VOC exceeds 5 ug/L (5 ppb), the water may not be discharged to the storm drain system and an Exceptional Discharge Permit for discharge to the sanitary sewer must be obtained from the RWQCP prior to discharge. If the VOC concentrations exceed the toxic organics discharge limits contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a treatment system for removal ofVOCs will also be required prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. Additionally, any water discharged to the storm drain system must be free of sediment. 122. Connections to the storm drain shall not be permitted for loading docks where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled (P AMC 16.09.032). 123. Loading dock drains may be connected to the sewer only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the superintendent is provided. Any loading dock area with a sanitary sewer drain shall be equipped with a fail-safe valve, which shall be kept closed during periods of operation. 124. Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system (PAMC 16.09.032(b)(8). 125. New dumpster areas shall be covered. The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area and run-off from the area (PAMC 16.09.106(e) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities). Undesignated Retail Space 126. Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of the space with undesignated tenants or future use will need to meet all requirements that would have been applicable during design. and construction. If such undesignated retail space becomes a food service facility the following requirements must be met pursuant to PAMC Section 16.09.1 03 (a) Grease Control Devices for Food Service Facilities: • A grease control device (GCD) shall be installed with a minimum capacity of750 gallons. The GCD must be sized in accordance with the 2007 California Plumbing Code. The sizing calculation must be submitted with the plans. All grease generating drainage fixtures shall be connected to the GCD. The connection of any dishwashers or pasta cookers to a GCD is prohibited. All large, in-ground interceptors shall have a minimum of three manholes to allow visibility of each inlet piping, bafHe (divider) piping and outlet piping to ensure accessibility for inspection, cleaning and removal of all contents. The plans shall clearly indicate the number of manholes on the GCD and a list of all drainage fixtures connecting to the GCD. Two manholes may be allowed under certain conditions only granted by the Environmental Compliance Division of Public Works Department. Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 15 • To ensure all food service establishment drainage fixtures are connected to the correct lines, each drainage fixture shall be clearly labeled on the plans. Also a list of all fixtures and their discharge connection, i.e. sanitary sewer or grease waste line, shall be included on the plans. • New buildings constructed to house food service facilities shall include a covered area for a dumpster. The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. Drains that are installed within the enclosure for recycle and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins (used oil containers) serving food service facilities are optional. Any such drain installed shall be cOlmected to a GCD and the sanitary sewer. If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in the covered area (P AMC 16.09.032b(16) 'Covered Dumpsters for Food Service Facilities'). • The installation of a garbage grinder at any food service facility is prohibited after January 1, 2003. The kitchen cannot utilize a garbage grinder for food waste disposal to the sanitary sewer (pAMC 16.09.103(e) Prohibition Against Garbage Disposals). • Food service facilities shall have a sink or other area for cleaning floor mats, containers, and equipment, which is connected to a grease interceptor and the sanitary sewer (PAMC 16.09.032b(16) Large Item Cleaning Sink for Food Service Facilities.) Public Works Operations-Trees 127. Provide optimum public tree replacenlent for street trees. The plans shall show and provide a streetscape design with materials on the civil, landscape and irrigation drawings with the following information and direction: • EI Camino Real and Oxford Avenue Frontage: Utilize city-approved Silva Cell soil planter (approx. 30-inch depth) beneath the new sidewalk from comer to comer. Utilities shall be allowed to pass thru the planters. Provide automatic irrigation using a solar smart controller with two bubblers per tree. Utilize Public Works Planting Detail #604. Beneath each tree planting site, auger two 4-6" diameter drain holes 3ft deep below the bottom of the planter basin soil and backfill with medium sand (0.25 to 0.5 mm) or fine gravel. For EI Camino Real, utilize Platanus a. 'Columbia', Columbia Plane, #15 size, spaced 30-feet on center, a minimum of IS-feet from street lights and 10-feet from utilities and driveways. For Oxford Avenue, utilize Fraxinus a. 'Autumn Purple' , Autumn Purple Ash (or other species as may be agreed upon by the Directors of Planning and Conlffiunity Environnlent and Public Works), #15 (ball and burlap) B&B or 15 gallon minimum size, spaced 25-30 feet on center, a minimum of IS-feet from street lights and 10-feet from utilities and driveways. • Staunton Court and College Avenue Frontage: Provide automatic irrigation using a solar smart controller with two bubblers per tree. Utilize Public Works Planting Detail #604. Beneath each tree planting site, auger two 4-6" diameter drain holes 3ft deep below the bottom of the planter basin soil and backfill with mediunl sand (0.25 Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 16 to 0.5 mm) or fine gravel. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all street trees as required in landscape design conditions below. On College Avenue, utilize Fraxinus a. 'Autumn Purple', Autumn Purple Ash (or other species as may be approved by the Directors of Planning and Community Environment and Public Works), #15 B&B or 15 gallon minimum size, spaced 25-30 feet on center, a minimum of 15-feet from street lights and 10-feet from utilities and driveways. On Staunton Court frontage, utilize Fraxinus pennsylvanica 'Cimmzam', Red Ash (or other species as may be approved by the Directors of Planning and Community Environment and Public Works), #15 B&B or 15 gallon minimum size, spaced 25-30 feet on center, a minimum of 15-feet from street lights and 10-feet from utilities and driveways. Planning Department Arborist 128. LANDSCAPE PLANS. a. Provide a detailed landscape and irrigation plan encompassing on-and off- site plantable areas out to the curb shall be approved by the Architectural Review Board. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for the project. A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant will prepare these plans, to include: i) All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. ii) Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. iii) Irrigation schedule and plan. iv) Fence locations. v) Lighting plan with photometric data. vi) Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. vii) All new trees planted within the public right-of-way shall be installed per Public Works (PW) Standard Planting Diagram #603 or 604 (include on plans), and shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. viii) Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by I-inch. ix) Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. For trees, PW Detail #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers shall not be mounted inside an aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards. x) Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow device is adequately obscured with the appropriate screening to minimize visibility (planted shrubbery is Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 17 preferred, painted dark green, decorative boulder covering acceptable; wire cages are discouraged). b) Mandatory Landscape Architect (LA) Inspection Verification to the City. The LA of record shall verify the perfonnance measurements are achieved with a separate letter of verification to City Planning staff, in addition to owner's representative for each of the following: i) Tree and Shrub Planting Specifications, including delivered stock, meets Standards in the CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.30-3.50. Girdling roots and previously topped trees are subject to rejection. DURING CONSTRUCTION 129. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are -damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 130. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be pennitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and arQund the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY 131. LANDSCAPE INSPECTION. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of written verification that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. 132. PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner (650-329-2441) to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. POST CONSTRUCTION 133. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300- 2001 or current version). Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 18 N"II.II" •• rll consulting associates MEMORANDUM To: Patrick Smailey From: Jessica ter Schure Date: October 1, 2009 Subject: College Terrace Centre TOM Program Introduction ExhihitC 785 Market Street, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94103 (415) 284·1544 FAX: (415) 284·1554 The proposed College Terrace Centre is a mixed-use development in the City of Palo Alto. The project consists of 8 affordable multifamily residential rental units, 8,000 s.f. of grocery store use, 5,580 s.f. of general retail use, and 38,980 s.f. of office use. The project proposes a total of 227 parking spaces, of which 216 spaces will be located within ari underground garage accessible from EI Camino Real and the remaining 11 parking spaces at surface level and accessible from Staunton Court. All parking spaces are planned to be shared among all land uses (unless otherwise required by the City). Within this Memorandum, Nelson\Nygaard presents a number of Transportation Demand Management (TOM) measures that will enable the Applicant to encourage employees and residents to travel by modes other than driving alone. The list of planned measures includes: • Provision of two carshare vehicles onsite • Secure bicycle parking • Designated vanpoollcarpool parking • Onsite transportation information board/kiosk • Onsite transportation coordinator (part-time) TDM Programs This section discusses the TOM measures that the Applicant has agreed to adopt in order to reduce single-occupant vehicle travel to this site. Provision of Two Carsharing Vehicles Onsite The Applicant is proposing to subsidize two carsharing vehicles on-site. The Applicant will attract a carsharing operator by providing free carsharing vehicle parking, subsidizing memberships for residents, and encouraging employers to set up business accounts with the carsharing operator. These strategies will reduce residents' need for a car and encourage employers to use shared vehicles. This would also reduce the need for employees to drive to work, as they can use a carshare vehicle for errands and business meetings during the day. Also, by offering the two vehicles to the public and Stanford students, there will be a larger pool of potential users, which will help ensure the program's viability. Stanford University currently has 24 Zipcar (www.zipcjlr.com) vehicles in various locations throughout campus, with the closest pod (location with one or more carshare vehicles) within a 5-rninute walk from College Terrace Centre. Expansion to College Terrace Centre may therefore be more attractive to Zipcar than most other locations on the Peninsula, since there is already a growing demand for carshare vehicles in the direct vicinity of Stanford. The number of carsharing vehicles on-site will be based on demand. Initially, it makes sense to provide two vehicles in College Terrace Centre to ensure that residents and employees perceive that the service is available. Vehicles could be added as demand increases. To maximize usage, marketing information will be distributed as part of new employee and resident "welcome packs." Secure Bicycle Parking The City of Palo Alto requires bicycle parking according to land use and density. The proposed project will require a total of 38 bicycle spaces. According to the City's zoning code requirements, 29 of these spaces must be Class I facilities for long-term users and the remaining 9 parking spaces must be Class II facilities for short-term users. The Applicant will provide a total of 60 bicycle spaces, exceeding the minimum spaces required by 22 spaces or more than 50%. At least 9 of these spaces will be Class II or short-term spaces, located in near vicinity to the grocery store. The remaining parking spaces will be Class I spaces secured in the subterranean parking facility. The provision of plentiful secure bicycle parking will make it easier and more convenient for employees, residents, customers and visitors to access the site by bicycle. Onsite Transportation Information Kiosk An alternative transportation options kiosk with up-to-date information on transit, ridesharing (e.g. 511.org), carsharing, bicycling and other alternative transportation will be located on-site. The applicant will also provide transportation-related information online, for instance on the property management website, with links to relevant transportation information and trip planning resources. Onsite Transportation Coordinator (Part-Time) The applicant is proposing to designate a staff member within property management as the Transportation Coordinator. This person will be responsible for maintaining the TOM Program, including providing new employees and residents with a welcome package about transportation, updating the transportation information kiosk, monitoring bicycle parking usage and requesting more bicycle parking if need arises, etc. DeSignated Vanpool/Carpool Parking The Applicant will initially deSignate 5% (12 spaces) of the parking as preferential parking spaces for carpools and vanpools. These spaces will be located near the entrance of buildings or elevators in the parking facility. This measure encourages and incentivizes ridesharing among employees and is a cost-effective method to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips. Periodic monitoring of the usage of these spaces will determine whether fewer or more spaces should be deSignated as preferential parking. Page 2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Conclusions A TDM program consisting of onsite carsharing, secure bicycle parking, a strong ridesharing program and several supporting TDM programs can have a fairly large impact on trip generation. Coordinated marketing efforts of the program, including welcome·packages to new employees and residents, will help the College Terrace Centre achieve at least a 50/0 peak hour trip reduction. This is a conservative estimate based on Nelson\Nygaard's experience from developing, reviewing and monitoring several dozens of TDM programs throughout the Bay Area and North America. The project's favorable location in one of the Peninsula's most walkable communities and close to existing transit opportunities will further strengthen this program. Page 3 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. ] Attachment C Planned Community District-College Terrace Centre 2180 El Camino Real 07PLN-00000-00327 Table 1: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.38 (PC DISTRICT) Regulation Required Proposed Conformance* Building Height 50 foot limit Up to 55 for elevator No exception needed for towers elevator equip. Building Height (Within 35 feet 30 -33'-6" feet Conforms 150' of a residential zone district) Roof Top Gazebo 40' 5 feet too tall Signage spire 45' 10 feet too tall DEE requested Yard opposite an RM 10 feet 2' -3"Oxford St. l' -9" encroachment District (across Oxford across 66 feet of the Ave and Staunton Ct.) Oxford fac;ade. I DEE required Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) Parking Spaces Required Proposed Conformance Office Spaces @ 1 :250 155.84 Market and Retail 67.9 spaces Spaces @ 1 :200 Residential Units @ 13.8 spaces 1.5 per unit plus 1 guest space equal to 1 +1 0% of all units Total 237.54 spaces 227 spaces (deficient 11 spaces) Allowable 5% reduction (this is 3.46 spaces But conforms with the 223.54 extra) allowable reductions Bicycles spaces conforms 32 55 *18.52.050 allows a reduction in the required number of parking spaces at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Table 3: COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL for mixed use) Regulation CN District Regulations Proposed PC Minimum Site specifications Minimum Site Area None Required 50,277 square feet Min. Site Width None Required 294 feet Min. Site Depth None required 131 feet Minimum Setbacks Front Yard 0-10' to create an 8' -12' 5 foot setback effective sidewalk width (4'-2" setback is needed to The proposed setback of five feet provides achieve the required 12' room for the 12 foot wide sidewalk. sidewalk on EI Camino real) Rear Yard 10' for residential portion; no N/A the lot does not have a rear yard requirement for commercial portion. Rear Yard abutting 10 feet N/A the lot does not have a rear yard residential zone district Interior Side Yard if 10 feet N/A there are no interior side yards abutting residential zone district Street Side Yard 5 feet Oxford setback: 2'-3" Staunton Court setback: 7' res. 18' commer. College Avenue setback 2' Build-To-Lines 50% of frontage built to setback 30% EI Camino Real 33% of side street built to setback 59% Oxford 45% College 34% Staunton Court Perm itted Setback Balconies, awnings, porches, N/A Encroachments stairways, and similar elements may extend up to 6 feet into the setback. Cornices, eaves, fireplaces and similar architectural features (excluding flat or continuous walls or enclosures of interior space) may extend up to 4 feet into the front and rear setbacks and up to 3 feet into interior side setbacks. Maximum Site 50% 40% of the site is covered by buildings Coverage Landscape/Open 35% 25% podium level open space Space Coverage 4% basement planter areas open to above 11 % vegetated roof areas 2% Balconies ----------------------------- I ! I Total 35% I Useable Open 200 sq ft per unit for 5 or fewer 105 square feet per unit Space units; 150 sq ft per unit for 6 units or more Maximum Height Standard 40 feet Height varies up to 55 feet (due to EI Camino Real frontage) Within 150 feet of a 35 feet Grocery loffice 30 feet residential zone (40 feet to top gazebo roof) district (other than an RM-40 or PC Residential units 33 feet six inches zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site. I Daylight Plane for Daylight Plane height and slope NIA no residential zones directly abut any lot lines abutting shall be identical to those of the project lot lines one or more most restrictive residential residential zoning zoning district abutting the lot districts line Residential 15 Dwelling Units Per Acre = 17 8 Dwelling Units i Density units Maximum 0.5:1 0.1 :1 Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Maximum Non 0.5:1 1.05:1 i Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Total Mixed Use '1 :1 1.15:1 Floor Area Ratio Minimum Mixed 0.15:1 0.37:1 Use Ground Floor Commercial FAR Maximum office 25% of the lot = 12,569 sq. ft. 38,980 sq. ft. square footage without, CUP (25% of lot size Maximum Office Code allows Director Discretion 38,980 sq. ft. square footage No numeric limit is set. with a CUP There is 13,027 sq ft of existing ground floor retail. This area may not be converted to ground floor office. Applicant could propose 12,569 sf. ground floor retail and 12,569 sf. second floor office. (This scenario would reduce the ground floor retail but is ok because it is not replaced with ground floor office) This would reach the 0.5:1 FAR cap for Commercial sf. To go beyond the 12,569 sf. of office would require a variance to the i FAR limit in addition to the CUP I for additional office. CARRASCO & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS ATTACHMENT D COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2100 EI Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA Updated December 1, 2009 Project Overview College Terrace Centre is a two-and three-story mixed-use office, commercial/retail and residential transit-oriented development to be located on the block bounded by EI Camino Real, Oxford Avenue, Staunton Court and College Avenue. The proposed project comprises a neighborhood grocery store at the corner of Oxford and EI Camino Real; an open-air market area and retail shops along EI Camino Real; office space on College Avenue and at the second and third floors along EI Camino Real; and a free- standing townhouse apartment building of eight two-story 1-bedroom units facing Staunton Court. At the corner of Oxford and Staunton, the Garden Square provides a green, softening effect. There are 2 basement levels of parking and a small on-grade parking lot. College Terrace Centre is designed to be a LEED Silver Building, and incorporates many sustainable features. These features include, but are not limited to (1) a vegetated roof at the second floor; (2) clerestory windows at the third floor to introduce natural light into the center of the building; (3) photovoltaic panels on the sloping roofs of the clerestories; (4) reCYCled-content materials; (5) highly- energy efficient mechanical, lighting and control systems; (6) EnergyStar roofing; and (7) a cistern system for collection and storage of rainwater for re-use for landscape irrigation. A PC Zone Amendment is required for this project, as the existing CN zoning does not allow for the density proposed. A significant public benefit for the PC Zone is an 8,000 sq. ft. neighborhood-serving grocery store with an additional 2,447 sq. ft. of open-air market area to serve the grocery store. The grocery store will serve the immediate College Terrace neighborhood, Stanford University residents, and the surrounding areas of Palo Alto. In addition, 8 units of 1-bedroom below-market-rate townhouses are being provided in a free-standing townhouse apartment building that will front on Staunton Court. Existing Conditions There are currently seven existing buildings on the 50,277 sq. ft. site: JJ&F Market facing College Avenue, four sheds used by the market for storage (facing Staunton Court), a furniture store facing EI Camino (which previously housed a bank, then a bicycle shop), and a commercial building facing Staunton Court which currently houses an eco-friendly tableware company. A small parking lot for JJ&F and the small commercial building is accessed off Staunton, and the furniture store on EI Camino has two parking lots and a drive-through. Project Description The proposed project will consist of two buildings over a two-leveLundergr:oundparking .garage ... The main . building is divided among several components, beginning with the 2-story form at the corner of EI Camino and Oxford that contains the grocery market at the ground floor and offices above. The deep 29 foot setback from the curb at EI Camino allows the grocery store to benefit from an open air component fronting on EI Camino, bringing more focus, activity, color and interest to this corner. Three-story elements of the main building are placed beyond the driveway that runs between EI Camino and the underground parking. These elements wrap the corner at EI Camino and College, and are broken down to smaller masses punctuated with a clock tower and an entry plaza at the corner. At the opposite corner of the site, the Garden Square at Oxford and Staunton provides a pleasant socializing and relaxation area. The portion of the project facing Staunton Court includes a 2-story residential townhouse building containing eight below market rate rental units. The design of these units reflect that of the residential 1885 EI Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 PCSA\45106\791475.4 650.322.2288 Fax 650.322.2316 uses directly across Staunton. For example, the gable roof evokes the gable roof on the opposing condominium building as well as on other nearby houses. 2 By placing the 3-story mass along EI Camino, the commercial building buffers both the residential building and the College Terrace neighborhood 'from the noise of EI Camino traffic. The architecture combines elements and massing evocative of a European village and, like many villages, combines living, working, and social interaction spaces into one discrete block. Elevators are housed in towers that punctuate the architectural forms, provide visual cues to locations of entrances, and recall bell' towers and steeples that provide landmarks in traditional villages. These towers, and the gazebo on the vegetated roof, are roofed with Spanish-style clay tile. Exterior building materials include integrally-colored stucco in smooth and textured finishes and warm tan and gold colors. A subtle combination of smooth and textured stucco is featured on the grocery market and stair towers. The inside walls of arcades, decks and balconies are painted in a rust accent color to reflect the dark rust paint on exposed steel structure at the featured balconies .. Main building entries are announced by curved polycarbonate canopies, and white laminated glass awnings are installed at the retail storefronts. At the grocery's open air market space, retractable fabric awnings give a festive appearance consistent with the carts of colorful produce that will be displayed to draw shoppers to the Centre. A finely textured mesh fence marks the edge between the public sidewalk and the open air market. Another feature of the design is the canted wall that rises from the underground garage, behind the Bamboo Grove planted at the lower garage level. The angle of the wall and its windows serves to reduce glare to residential uses across Staunton Court and also reflects light down into the garage. Tall stalks and delicate leaves of the Bamboo Grove create a finely textured pattern of green and shadows against the canted wall. Viewed from off the site, the fagade is softened; viewed 'from the pedestrian arcade, a pleasant forest-like ambiance is created. Natural light streams into the underground garage through the Bamboo Grove, increasing a sense of openness and security. Landscaping takes several forms at College Terrace Centre, consistent with the variety of uses and building volumes. Street trees with tree grates and guards define the pedestrian edge on all four frontages of the site. The scored concrete sidewalk pattern continues around the site, also. At street level fronting EI Camino Real and College Avenue, a more urban approach is taken. Large planter pots with grasses and colorful native plants present a sophisticated statement consistent with the contemporary retail facades and office lobby entrances. The Bamboo Grove planted at the lower garage level grows up through the large lightwells to screen the view of cars below and add texture within the open space. The Garden Square at the corner of Oxford and Staunton provides a pleasant gathering place for all the , users of the site -residents, retail and office tenants, customers and neighbors. Large structured planters support the growth of trees and also serve as biofiltration for storm water that will be collected and run to the underground cisterns. Collected storm water will be used for irrigation, thus minimizing potable water use. Two alternative plans for the Garden Square are being presented. The initial design, which is shown on the detailed plans, uses a large L-shaped planter to create a double row of trees at the corner of Oxford and Staunton. A quiet area of decomposed granite with portable cafe style tables and chairs is located in the interior of the Square. This approach creates a more secluded place for people to gather, eat lunch and relax·while being buffered from the two streets by the height of the planter and double row of trees. The alternative design, which is presented as a conceptual plan with the Landscape drawings, reverses the elements. Large planters with trees are placed at the interior of the Garden Square and the corner is more open, to allow pedestrians to cross t~lrough and access the seating area more easily, PCSA\45106\791475.4 Both designs for the Garden Square include large trees to punctuate the space, accented with smaller- scale planters containing colorful native species. The first design provides a more formal atmosphere while the alternative is more casual and open. At the corner of College and Staunton, a series of landscaped pla.nters and benches along the perimeter provide a quiet seating space for use by office tenants and other users of the Centre. 3 One of the most unique features of College Terrace Centre is the vegetated roof, on the two-story building that houses the grocery store. This roof functions as a biomtration medium, provides insulation to the spaces below and provides a very pleasant view from the third floor offices. Stairs and an elevator to a tiled-roof gazebo make this area visually accessible to Centre users and the public during business hours. This gazebo provides the opportunity to view the vegetated roof and gain insight into green and sustainable building practices, much like the viewing area of the vegetated roof at the California Academy of Sciences building in San Francisco. Construction methods to be used include cast-in-place concrete structure below grade for the underground parking (2 levels), and a concrete post-tensioned floor at the grade level, that separates the commercial spaces above from the parking garage below. Building construction above the post-tensioned slab will be wood construction at the residential building and steel construction at the commercial/retail building. Compliance with Planning & Transportation Commission Recommended Conditions At its October 14, 2009 hearing, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended approval of the project subject to the following list of 11 underlined conditions. As discussed below, Applicant has either agreed to or has suggested minor modifications to each of these conditions with the exception of Cond ition no. 9. 1. The lease for the grocery store must be 20 years minimum. Applicant and John Garcia of JJ&F Market, the intended grocery store operator, have consented to this condition as will be evidenced in a binding executed agreement (the form of which has been approved by the City Attorney) submitted to Council prior to its December 7, 2009 hearing on the project. 2. The grocery store tenant must occupy its' premises prior to any other tenant in the project occupying its premises. Applicant has discussed this condition with staff and, due to the fact that the grocery store tenant improvements will likely take longer to complete than the tenant improvements for the rest of the project, proposes the following substitute condition: "1. No more than 25% of the office space in the project shall be occupied before the grocery store is open for business; 2. The grocery store shall be occupied no later than 90 days following the City's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building in which the grocery store is to be located; and 3. The building permit for the building in which the grocery store is to be located shall be pulled concurrently with the building permit for the other non-residential buildings in the development. " 3. The owner's compliance with the use conditions of the PC Zone must be inspected and enforced pursuant to applicable City code. Applicant consents to this condition. 4. The owners/occupants of the BMR units must have access to the vegetative roof and the applicant shall work with staff to ensure there is private open space for each of the BMR units. In light of the fact that (a) the vegetative roof would be destroyed if it were walked upon, and (b) each PCSA\45106\791475.4 BMR unit has its own private open space, applicant has proposed and staff has agreed to the following substitute condition: 'The owners/occupants of the BMR units must have access to view and enjoy the vegetated roof from the gazebo during normal business hours of the office building." 5. The project must include at least 2 car shares and a TOM program. Applicant originally proposed and thereby consents to this condition. 4 6. The Planning and Transportation Commission must have a second opportunity to review and approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment the Zoning Change and the project (subject to conditions) after the ARB has finished its review of the project and rendered its recommendations on the project to the City Council. This second opportunity will be a consent item that can be pulled from the consent calendar if either (a) it is inconsistent with "the Planning Commission recommendation or (b) the ARB recommends something that is inconsistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. ARB recommended approval of the project at its November 5, 2009 meeting (subject to the conditions discussed below). The project will return to the Planning and Transportation Commission as a consent item on December 2,2009. 7. Staff will work with the applicant to establish noise limits to the satisfaction of the immediate neighborhood. Applicant proposes and planning staff ag"rees to the following substitute condition which applies the existing noise limits adopted in Palo Alto's noise ordinance: "The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of Palo Alto's noise ordinance, both during construction and following construction, for the life of the project pursuant to Chapter 9. 10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 11 8. The ARB shall address the vegetated roof to make it more accessible as open space. The ARB addressed this matter in its recommendations (discussed below). 9. There shall be a reduction of 1,950 square feet in office space. At the applicant's option. some or all of this space can be either (a) removed entirely or (b) converted to ground floor retail on Oxford. For economic reasons stated at the Planning Commission October 14, 2009 hearing, Applicant has declined to agree to this condition. Applicant notes that ARB did not make any obj~ction to the square footage as proposed by the Applicant and clearly stated that any further reduction in area would not result in any building/exterior/massing changes. Applicant further notes that the ground floor space currently designated as Office Use is designed such that it could be used for Retail Use and Applicant agrees that it will rent it to a retail user if the retail tenant can pay rent equivalent to office space rents. 10. When the applicant brings the proiect to the ARB. it shall bring and present context-based drawings. Applicant complied with this condition at the November 5, 2009 ARB hearing. In addition, it also presented a scale model of the project, which will also be presented at the P&TC meeting of December 2, 2009 and City Council meeting of December 7, 2009. 11. Staff shall investigate and evaluate time-limited parking (of 30 minutes in length) on Oxford and College Avenues. Applicant defers to staff on this condition. Applicant has also agreed to the following condition suggested by the Planning Director: "The residential units shall be complete and ready for occupancy no later than 120 days after the first occupancy of any other portion of Col/ege Terrace Centre." PCSA\45106\791475.4 5 Compliance with Architectural Review Board Conditions The ARB recommended approval of the project, including the Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) requests for the Oxford setback encroachment and sign and gazebo height over 35 feet, with a condition that the project return on consent calendar for final review and approval of the following detailed items: 1. Affordable housing unit floor plans .. Although the unit floor plans were shown on the plan sheets, the room names were not shown. Room names and toilet/kitchen fixtures will be shown on the drawings that go to ARB for consent calendar review. 2. Site circulation clarifications. pathway simplification (from stair to roof gazebo). The stair to the roof gazebo will be redesigned to have a shorter path. 3. Elimination of the diagonal banding on the exterior stair to the roof top garden, along with stair redesign consideration. As part of stair redesign, the banding on the stair wall will be changed to horizontal and the wall will be shorter.- 4. Revision to exterior finish of th.e grocery store (review banding. consider one color with two different finishes). Banding on Grocery and the stair/elevator towers will be changed to one color with only textural difference to create the banding effect. 5. Transformer screening/fencing details. All screening and fencing details and materials will be provided. 6. Reconsideration of the use of tile roofing material on the office towers. Although Applicant prefers tile roofs, for a softer appearance that reflects the Ananda Church tile roof across EI Camino, Applicant nonetheless agrees tothis condition. 7. Modification of grocery walls on Oxford Avenue (consider mural, display windows etc.). The design intent is to incorporate "orange crate art" at the entrance to the grocery as well as on the recessed walls at the bike parking and cart areas. Graphic designs of fruits and vegetables, etc. from classic orange crates would be applied to the walls. Examples of these images will be provided to ARB. B. Additional information about the private open spaces and the materiality of it. Enlarged plans of the decks of the residential units will be provided to ARB. 9. Additional information about the bridge, materials, underside, etc. More details and reflected ceiling plan at the bridge will be provided to ARB. 10. Striped tower redesign/reconsideration. The stripes at the tower will be modified as noted in response to Condition #4: one color, texture change only. 11. Ash tree species reconsideration. Applicant has met with the Public Works Arborist and staff to discuss street tree options, and is continuing to work with the arborist to determine the preferred street tree species for College, Staunton and Oxford. The agreed-upon solution will be presented to ARB. 12. Bamboo species and height information. related to the canted wall. More information will be provided to ARB, including illustration of the height vs. the canted wall. 13. Detail to show how headlights of cars going below grade will not impact the BMR units. Graphic sections will be presented to ARB, and screening added if necessary. 14. BMR units facade redesign to be equally as striking as the other buildings in the project. More detailed fagade drawings will be presented to ARB. PCSA\45106\791475.4 .. . 6 15. Plant pa.lette and conceptual plan for the green roof. Detailed planting plan and more information will be provided to ARB. 16. Further specification for screening elements and locations. potted plants/planting at the center of the project. and trellises at surface parking area. These details will be provided to ARB. The items requested to return on ARB consent calendar will be reviewed by the ARB after Council approval of the project. The requested information and design changes that may result from these reconsiderations would not impact the proposed land uses, general footprints or massing of the buildings. PCSA\45106\791475.4 December 1 , 2009 Mayor Peter Drekmeier Vice-Mayor Jack Morton Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Re: Request for Council Approval of a PC-Zone for 2180 EI Camino Real (College Terrace Centre) and Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Mayor Drekmeier, Vice-Mayor Morton and Council Members: On behalf of the Trustees of The Clara Chilcote Trust, I write to request your approval·of the entitlements for College Terrace Centre -approval of a PC-Zone and of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The property owners who are the individual Trustees of the Chilcote Trust are part of a remarkable family that has had its roots in Palo Alto for the past eight decades. Over this time, the family grew strong and personal ties with the Garcia family, which has operated a grocery store on this block for more than six decades, as well as with the surrounding neighborhood. With the improvements on the block they own in increasing disrepair, the Trustees of the Clara Chilcote Trust believed (and continue to believe) that the right way to redevelop this wonderful block was to preserve JJ&F at the level of subsidized rent needed to ensure its long-term success. The development will provide the City and the College Terrace neighborhood with an outstanding, forward-thinking and environmentally sound mixed-use development that will work beautifully at this Palo Alto site along EI Camino Real. As you are aware, this mixed-use development has been in the works for more than five years. Under ordinary circumstances, the redevelopment of this city block under the existing CN-Zone would long have been completed by now. Both financing for the construction of the project and leases from strong credit tenants were abundant in 2006 and 2007, as was the demand for market-rate rental housing. The result would have been 500/0 commercial and 50% residential, but in that scenario JJ&F would have lost its Palo Alto home. The Planning and Transportation Commission and the Architectural Review Board recently recommended, between them, more than 25 modifications to the College Terrace Centre project proposal. With due respect for these two bodies, we have Mayor Peter Drekmeier Vice-Mayor Jack Morton Members of the City Council December 1, 2009 Page 2 accepted all but one of them --the further reduction of office space, which would render this undertaking financially infeasible. This is the right project at the right place at the right time. We hope that, at your meeting on December 7,2009, you will validate the decision of the property owners to tel d and that you will enthusiastically and unanimously approve this ng-awaited, commu' supported and valuable project. Enclosures: • Agreement to Lease with • BMR Agreement • Revised Project Description CARRASCO & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE PC ZONE APPLICATION 2100 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA ARB Submittal 10/23/09 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STATEMENT Necessity of the application for a PC district The project site comprises four legal parcels bounded by EI Camino Real, College Avenue, Staunton Court and Oxford Avenue, with a total area of 50,277 sq. ft. Existing zoning is CN. This proposal is for a mixed-use commercial/retail and office complex along with eight Below Market Rate residential rental units --all over two levels of underground parking. The site is so situated and the uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of the CN district does not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. The key element of the development -i.e., the "anchor tenant" --is an 8,000 sq. ft. neighborhood-serving grocery store with a 2,447 sq. ft. open-air component. This development will preserve and enhance an existing market that has served the College Terrace neighborhood as well as other Palo Alto and Stanford neighborhoods for more than 60 years. In addition, eight Below Market Rate one-bedroom rental townhouses will be constructed on the site. The market and four of the BMR rental units constitute the public benefits. To achieve the public benefits, most of the remainder of the site must be developed with offices whose higher market rate rents will subsidize the lower rent necessary for a neighborhood-serving grocery market to survive in north Palo Alto. As a consequence, more office square footage than would otherwise be permitted for a mixed commercial/residential project in the CN zone must be entitled. The project also includes retail square footage in addition to the grocery market, which will replace historic retail uses on the site. The allowable FAR for a mixed-use commercial/residential project in the CN zone on EI Camino Real is 0.5:1 for commerCial, limiting the area to 0.5 x 50,277, or 25,139 sq. ft., and 0.5:1 for residential, also equaling 25,139 sq. ft., for a total of 50,277 sq. ft. and an FAR of 1.0. As proposed, the project consists of 38,980 sq. ft. of office area, 13,580 sq. ft. of commercial/retail space including 8,000 sq. ft. of grocery store space, and 5,340 sq. ft. of residential. The total 'floor area of the proposed project is 57,900 sq. ft. for a total FAR of 1.15 -only slightly higher than that allowed under CN zoning. This necessitates a PC district, to achieve the needed additional area and FAR. 2. List of all uses proposed or potentially to be included within the PC district Retail Use: • 13,580 sq. ft. of enclosed space on the first (i.e., street level) floor, including: o 8,000 sq. ft. Indoor neighborhood-serving grocery store (with delivery and recycling space off Oxford Avenue); o Other retail spaces for lease total 5,580 sq. ft. Potential retail uses could be a pharmacy, stationery store, shoe repair, hair salon, bookstore, flower shop, toy store, or other neighborhood-serving retail. • 2,447 sq. ft of open air market. 1885 EI Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 650.322.2288 Fax 650.322.2316 2 Office Use: • 38,980 sq. ft. o 33,979 sq. ft. on the second and third floors, for professional general business offices o 5,001 sq. ft. on the first Hoor for professional and general offices and lobbies Residential Use: • 5,340 sq. ft. comprising eight Below Market Rate townhouse 1-bedroom rental housing units located on Staunton Court, located adjacent to the wrought-iron fenced garden square at the corner with Oxford Avenue. These 2-story, 665 sq. ft. units will be rented at below market rates to eligible tenants, as such eligibility is determined by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation; provided that the selection of particular tenants (City and PAUSD employees) and management, of the units will be done by the management company for the development. Each unit will have a small entry garden for private open space, and the garden square will provide additional common open space. Green Space: • At the corner of Oxford Avenue and Staunton Court is a garden square that will be available during business hours for the enjoyment of tenants, customers, residents and the public. The garden square will be surrounded by buildings and by a decorative wrought iron fence. After hours, a gate in the fence will secure the site. This garden square is intended to evoke the feeling of small parks in many European cities. Parking Areas • A small, on-grade 11-space parking lot adjacent to the residential building will be available to residential visitors and retail customers. • To minimize traffic onto Staunton Court, the two-level underground parking garage is accessed by a ramp from EI Camino Real. Exclusive parking for employees of the office and retail areas will be located on the second level of the garage, and will be secured by card-reader operated grilles. Residents of the eight residential units can park on the 'first level of the garage. Retail and office clients can park on the first and second levels of the garage, while Grocery Store customers can park on the first level, where there will be grocery cart storage areas and a large elevator to service the market only. After business hours, the ramp will b'e secured by a gate with card-reader, so only tenants can access the garage. Included in the parking garage will be an area for Car Share vehicles, which will be accessible to the public during business hours. The underground parking garage features a ground level vegetated (with bamboo) space, open to the sky, to provide more light and a greater sense of safety to garage users. Refuse and Recycling Area: • Refuse and recycling will be located adjacent to the grocery delivery area and also adjacent to the offices on the first '1:loor for convenience of the office tenants. These areas will be gated and screened from view. PCSA \45106\780970.8 3 Bicycle Parking: • Applicable code would require 23 bicycle parking spaces for the commercial/retail/office uses and 9 spaces for the residential users, for a total of 32 spaces. College Terrace Centre will instead provide a total of 55 bicycle parking spaces -46 for the commercial/retail/offices uses and 9 spaces for the residential users. Of the 55, 27 will be on-grade and 28 will be in the garage. Short-term (ST) commercial/retail/office spaces will be located adjacent to the Grocery Store, adjacent to entrances to office lobbies, and near tl1e small on-grade parking lot off Staunton Court. The spaces in the underground garage will be a combination of long-term (L T) and short- term (ST). LT bike parking (enclosed, secure parking) for the residences will be placed adjacent to the transformer enclosure on Staunton Court. 3. Nature of uses and need for differing regulations See description of uses noted above, for general information. The particular needs of the uses on the site, which in some circumstances require differing regulations than what would normally be allowed on this site are as follows: • Neig~Jborhood-serving Retail/Market: As expressed in public hearings before the Planning Commission, it is important to the community that a neighborhood-serving grocery market remain in this location. It helps to create a sense of community for the neighborhood. To be viable, however, a small neighborhood market requires a rental rate considerably lower than typical for this type of retail space, particularly given the high quality of the building being proposed. The strong desire to keep a neig~lborhood retail/market use in business at .this location has driven much of the chosen uses and the design of the development proposal. • Although zoned CN, the site itself is a key commercial location along EI Camino in the California Avenue Shopping District. Development of retail uses fronting EI Camino is a goal of the City of Palo Alto. Proximity to Stanford University and several neighborhoods, in addition to College Terrace, presents the opportunity to develop retail shops that can serve the local community. This is a location to which residents can walk or bike. • Proximity of the site to public transit is a vital factor. Bus lines 22, 89, 522, and the Dumbarton Express and Stanford Marguerite busses run on EI Camino. Bus line 22 has the highest ridership in Santa Clara county. The California Avenue Cal Train station is a few blocks away. Automobile access is also very convenient, as EI Camino Real (State Route 82) is a major thoroughfare. The proposed development is less than one-half mile from the Caltrain station; SB 375 recognizes development within such half mile radius of a transit hub as a "Transit Oriented District." • By placing offices on the upper floors of the building, the opportunity for local residents to walk, take transit, or bike to work is provided. • Small (665 sq. ft.) rental housing units are being proposed to transition from the commercial development to the surrounding neighborhood, and also to provide housing units that are affordable to a range of Palo Alto workers. The residential building is located such that the units are buffered from the traffic and noise of EI Camino by the new commercial building and are also directly adjacent to the only neighboring residences. This residential structure also provides a transition in scale from the commercial building and a soft texture to this edge of the College Terrace neighborhood. It will also help frame the garden square at the corner of Oxford Avenue and Staunton Court. • This project creates a small village-type community that will be interactive, lively and a focal point for the College Terrace neighborhood. While providing many public benefits, the areas of the retail and office uses must be sufficient to support the lower rent structure of a neighborhood- serving retail/Market tenant and of below-market rate housing. PCSA \45106\780970.8 4 • Per PAMC § 18.52.040, the parking requirement for office use is calculated at 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. For the market and retail spaces, the parking requirement is calculated at 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Parking for the residential component is calculated at 1.5 spaces per unit plus 1 space + 10% x number of units for visitors. This results in a total parking requirement of 238. Due to the proximity of public transit and the mixed-use nature of the project, the 227 parking spaces will be provided on-site. PAMC § 18.52.050 allows parking reductions based on use, proximity to transit and transportation demand measures. It has been determined that the project would qualify for a total reduction of 14 spaces based on these factors and therefore, the parking provided would actually exceed code requirements by 3 spaces~ Furthermore, parking provided on the site substantially exceeds requirements pursuant to ULI and ITE standards, the most highly regarded standards in the development industry nationally. In addition to the 227 parking spaces provided on-site, there are 24 on-street parking spaces surrounding the site. 4. Exemplary Design and Sustainable Features • College Terrace Centre will provide green, sustainable buildings that will be designed and constructed in conformance' with the U. S. Green Building Council's LEED criteria. The project's goal is to achieve LEED Silver Certification, and to express the sustainable features as part of the architectural character of the structure and site. • A vegetated roof over the 2-story portion of the building will provide a pleasant visual feature for offices on the third floor, as well as serve to collect ra.inwater which can then be channeled to underground cisterns. Rainwater will also be channeled from other roofs and decks to basement- level cisterns, from which it will be recycled for use in landscape irrigation. • Photovoltaic panels will be utilized to generate power. Design of the podium landscaping will incorporate native grasses, flowers and plants that are drought tolerant. North-facing clerestory glass at the roof level will bring natural light into the interior of the office spaces. • Provision for Car Share space in the parking garage will encourage employees to use alternative transportation • This new building will have a small energy footprint and will incorporate sustainable, recycled and renewable materials, which will make it a good neighbor and an environmentally-sensitive addition to the City of Palo Alto. • The development will meet or exceed Title 24 energy efficiency requirements. PCSA\45106\780970.8 5 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT: • Provide, for a period equal to the lesser of (a) 99 years or (b) the life of the improvements, the precise amount of square footage specified by JJ&F (8,000 sq. ft.) for a neighborhood-serving grocery market as a vital and universally desired neighborhood asset, prominently located at the corner of EI Camino Real and Oxford Avenue.1 • Provide eight units of below-market rate rental housing, located on Staunton Court. Four of the eight BMR units constitute public benefit because they are in excess of the four that will otherwise be required by the City. The residential component provides affordable housing for workers employed by either the City of Palo Alto or the Palo Alto Unified School District. This housing will create a coherent transition from the College Terrace neighborhood to the commercial component facing EI Camino Real. Since the housing is behind the commercial building, it is buffered 'from the traffic noise of EI Camino Real. ADDITIONAL BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT: • Working and shopping space near public transportation and within walking distance from the College Terrace neighborhood and the Stanford residential areas on the east side of campus. • SB 375 recognizes this location as a "Transit Oriented District" because it is within one-half mile of a transit hub (Caltrain station). • Wider sidewalks and more street trees along EI Camino Real. • Working, shopping and casual eating uses within walking distance of public transportation and the College Terrace and east campus Stanford neighborhoods. • Two car-share vehicles for use by the public. • Increased community-serving retail. • Bicycle parking spaces in an amount more than twice that required by ordinance. See attached DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE for projected dates of Public review, Agency approvals, construction permitting, construction duration and occupancy. 1 While not explicitly part of the public benefit, the owner of the site is contractually bound to John Garcia, proprietor of JJ &F, to grant a right of first refusal to lease and to provide a subsidized rent for the indoor grocery space, for a term of no less than 20years. In turn, John Garcia has publicly stated that he fully intends to return to the site with a new market, so long as the entitlements for the project are approved prior to his having to make a contractual commitment to the City of Mountain View and so long as financing is available prior to the commencement of the lease term to allow him to borrow funds to make the requisite tenant improvements. PCSA\45106\780970.8 College Terrace Centre Update Since appearing before City Council in July 2009, ARB and P&TC have recommended the following 29 conditions. We concur with 28 of the 29. Architectural Review Board I Staff Concur 1. Provide clarified floor plans for BMR units. 2. Clarify the site circulation plan. 3. Consider redesign of stairway to rooftop garden. 4. Consider simplifying pathway from stairs to the gazebo area. 5. Review the striping of the grocery store building. 6. Reconsider the tile roofs. 7. Consider a mural for grocery walls facing Oxford Avenue. 8. Provide information about the private open spaces. 9. Provide information about the bridge between buildings. 10. Consider redesign of the striped tower. 11. Reconsider tree species recommended by city arborist. 12. Provide information about the proposed bamboo. 13. Provide detail on headlights and possible impact on BMR units. 14. Consider fa9ade of BMR units. 15. Provide information regarding the green roof. 16. Provide information about screening elements and locations. 17. Provide information about plantings in the center of the project and at the trellises. Planning and Transportation Commission I Staff Concur 18. Grocery store lease shall have a minimum 20-year term. 19. Grocery tenant shall begin operations prior to office occupancy. 20. PC shall be inspected every 3 years for compliance with PC-Zone ordinance. 21. Ensure that residents of BMR units have access to vegetated roof. 22. Work with staff to identify private open space for BMR units. 23. Include at least two car share vehicles. 24. Project shall return to the P& TC on consent after ARB review. 25. Staff shall work with the applicant on noise related issues. 26. ARB shall look at ensuring vegetated roof area is accessible. 27. Staff to review time limited parking on College and Oxford Avenues. 28. Context drawings and photos shall be provided for ARB review. 29. There shall be a 5% reduction in the amount of office square footage. * Agree with Staff Recommendations ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S1 [1/2] J ~--~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~~~ lumenpulse LUMENFACADE #LOG -120 - CONTINUOUS VOLTAGE LENGTH OPTIC COLOR ARM TEMP. This outdoor grazing fixture (IP66) finds ideal applications on the outsides of buildings and other high vaulted interiors, as the system easily adapts to any given architectural geometry. Available in three color temperatures: 2700K, 3000K (warm white) and 4000K (cool white). Rated life '100 000 hrs due to low LEDs junction temperature. Consult factory for 277V. fl'WEW ....... --------~ 12", 24", 36" & 48/1 NOMINAL LENGTH SPECIFICATION SHEET LAMPING: .;:;;;;LE:.;;;...D..;;....s...:...,.14 ...... A-'--W--'I'--f_t ________ _ PROJECT NAME: TYPE: DIE CAST ALUMINUM END CAPS :···..j··3/16/1 2X(69/32" THRUAH REV: JUNE 06, 2009 P.l 3/41/- ···_·· .. T·_·-f 3/8/1 , 2 1/2" .1 MOUNTING PLATE HOLE PATTERN \ WEATHER·RESISTANT CONNEOION QUICK·CONNED IP66 o. -,. UNIVERSAL MOUNTING ARM SHOWN c/w ADJUSTABLE PIVOT 0-180° & LOCKING DEVICE \ EXT:UDED AWMINIUM HOUSING 8" CLEARANCE NECESSARY ON BOTH SIDES TO ALLOW ROTATIONAL MOTION ELEOROSTATIC POWDER COATED FINISH METALLIC SILVER SANDTEXT STAINLESS STEEl FASTENERS ELEVATION VIEW SIDE VIEW 80 LINEAR FEET OF FIXTURES MAX BY 15A CIRCUIT CONTINOUS INSTALLATION WITH STANDARD LEADER CABLE I~~:;B~:::~::~:::~IS-l ~~TEMP. ~::: :::: ~:: ~:: r UNIVERSAL MOUNTING ARM -uMA-OPTIONS ' CUSTOM MOUNTING ARM LENGTH ~ UMAS -STANDARD (1 3/8") o UMAC -CUSTOM LENGTH (1 l/2/10R MORE) PLEASE SPECIFY MOUNTING ARM LENGTH NEEDED (121N MAX) ~QUANTmES WILL BE PROVIDED ACCORDING TO EACH LINE REQUIREMENTS. ANCHORING FASTENERS BY OTHERS. IN ----- C®US SISTEMAWX 5455 de Gaspe suite 100, Montreal (Quebec) Canada H2T 3B3 P.: 514.523.1339 F.: 514.525.6107 ·SEALING CAPS (ORDER SEPARATELy) LOG END CAP _ CD LEADER CABLE LOGLC6 -6' LOGLC8 -S' LOGLClO -10' PLEASE SPECIFY QUANTITY ~ JUMPER CABLE LOGJCE • END TO END LOGJC1 • l' LOGJC2·2' LOGJC4·4' LOGJC8·8' LUMENFACADE CONTINUOUS ( ILUMIt;JAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE 81 [2/2] lumenpulse LUMENFACADE #LOG -120 -__ __ _ __ CONTINUOUS VOLTAGE LENGTH OPTIC COLOR ARM TEMP. This outdoor grazing fixture (IP66) finds ideal applications on the outsides of buildings and other high vaulted interiors, as. the system easily adapts to any given architectural geometry. Available in three color temperatures: 2700K, 3000K (warm white) and 4000K (cool white). Rated life 100 000 hrs due to low lEDs junction temperature. Consult factory for 277V. WALL MOUNTING ARM KIT OPTIONS 29/32"H I WALL f SPECIFICATION SHEET LAMPING: ..;;.;:LE=D..;:;..s ...:-.14..:..r..A..;..W....;...:.....;/ft~ ______ _ PROJECT NAME: TYPE: REV: JUNE 06, 2009 P.2 WALL 3 1/2" L WAM2 3 1/2" i o 2 inches· WAM2 t:== 12",24",36" &48" NOMINAllENGT , H , I [ I I I I I ! J I J J I I ~lfj::l I , ....a \ / I I c:flJ n \ ~Cn... l / I I l--..A. _ 42" I -v MAX FOR A 48 If FIXTURE TOP VIEW WALL BRACKET c@us I SIsrEMA!g~ 5455 de Gaspe suite 100, Montreal (Quebec) Canada H2T 3B3 P.:514.523.1339 F.:514.525.6107 [ o 6 inches· WAM6 o 10 inches· WAM10 o 12 inches· WAM 12 ' .... I-I S IfP I I I J I f ! , ) I J J J I J 1 -WAMXX t:Q~ a _________ . _____ .J I J 1_---- r----- I '\ 1 1 I I I ------- I I I I I A 421/ MAX FOR I I v-A 4811 FIXTURE----t TOP VIEW LUMENFACADE CONnNUOUS ) ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415~863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S1A [1/2] lumenpulse SPECIFICATION SHEET LUMENFACADE #LOG ~ 120 -__ __ _ CONTINUOUS VOLTAGE LENGTH OPTIC COLOR ARM TEMP. This outdoor grazing fixture (IP66) finds ideal applications on the outsides of buildings and other high vaulted interiors, as the system easily adapts to any given architectural geometry. Available in three color temperatures: 2700K, 30001( (warm white) and 4000K (cool white). Rated life 100 000 hrs due to low LEOs junction temperature. Consult factory for 277V. +I'VlEW f-+-------12", 2411, 3611 & 4811 NOMINAL LENGTH -....... UNIVERSAL MOUNTING ARM SHOWN c/w ADJUSTABLE PIVOT 0.1800 LAMPING: TYPE: & LOCKING DEVICE 8" CLEARANCE NECESSARY ON BOTH SIDES TO ALLOW ROTATIONAL MOTION EXTRUDED ALUMINIUM HOUSING ELECTROSTATIC POWDER COATED FINISH METALLIC SILVER SANDTEXT REV; JUNE 06. 2009 P.l ;.. -I 3116" 318/1·· --314 /J-. ,21/2" 1 314" 2XC/J9132" THRUAlL ··· ...• B- .i MOUNTING PLATE HOLE PATTERN STAINLESS STEEL FASTENERS ELEVATION VIEW SIDE VIEW 80 LINEAR FEET OF FIXTURES MAX BY lSA CIRCUIT CONTINOUS INSTAllATION WITH STANDARD LEADER CABLE *EXCEPT fOR THE 12" FIXTURE, THIS DIMENSiON is 2" ·-"O;~CS--·"-··"--·O"·"·-·---·~-~-~·~~-·~·-·~"~:·~"·~·~:---"'--"""-r'''''''SOURCE-''''''''--'''''''''''''''''''''O'''';-;''~'-;;~~~'(::"::-:~';~:';"'''''''''l COLOR TEMP. I ~ 30x60· 300 X 600 ~ 30 .. 3000K (warm white) I o 40 -4000K (0001 white) I r UNIVERSAL MOUNTING ARM -UMA~OPTIONS I cusTbM MOUNTING ARM LENGTH o UMAS . STANDARD (l 3/S!l) o UMAC· CUST()M LENGTH (l 1/211 OR MORE) • QUANTITIES WILL BE PROVIDED ACCORDING 70 EACH LINE REQUIREMENTS. ANCHORING FASTENERS BY OTHERS. PLEASE SPECIFY MOUNTING ARM LENGTH NEEDED (121N MAX) \ "SEALING CAPS (ORDER SEPARATELy) lOG END CAP . [f] PLEASE SPECIFY QUANTITY ~====================~ LEADER CABLE lOGLC6·6' LOGLC8·8' LOGlC10·l0' ~ JUMPER CABLE lOGJCE • END TO END LOGJCl • l' LOGJC2·2' LOGJC4·4' LOGJC8·8' SISTEMALUX ~'. :: f; .: I' c@us 5455 de Gaspe suite 100, Montreal (Quebec Canada H2T 3B P.: 514.523.1339 E: 514.525.6107 LUMENFACADE CONnNUOUS ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S1A [2/2J lumenpuise LUMENFACAOE #LOG -120 -___ _ CONTINUOUS VOlTAGE LENGTH OPTIC COLOR ARM TEM~. This outdoor graz.ing fixture (IP66) finds ideal applications on the outsides of buildings and other high vaulted interiors, as the system easily adapts to any given architectural geometry. Available in three color temperatures: 2700K, 30001< (warm white) and 4000K (cool white). Rated life 100 000 hrs due to low LEOs junction temperature. Consult factory for 277V. WALL MOUNTING ARM KIT OPTIONS 29132/1H t WAll SPECIFICATION SHEET LAMPING: ..:;;;;LE;;.;;;;.D..;;;..s ...;..14..:..t..,4...;..W....;..:/'-"-ft~ _____ -,--_ PROJECT NAME: TYPE: REV: JUNE 06, 2009 P.2 WAll 3 1/2" L WAM2 3 1/2" t o 2 inches· WAM2 ~ 12", 24", 36" & 48/1 NOMINAL LENGTH 1-" "I ( / I J I 1 I J J I I .,..II ~ ~ I, \ / , I I 1 I, t I I J I 1 '\ / I ) d~ ..... mr:n., / .l-.-.A _ 42" I -v MAX FOR A 48" FIXTURE TOP VIEW ;;.,. .. ----.......... ./" .. tb.. '\ / 't" +----'.,..-.....--+- I I I I I I \ \ + \, ' .................. WALL BRACKET 5455 de Gaspe suite 100, Montreal (Quebec) Canada H2T 3B3 P.: 514.523.1339 F.: 514.525.6107 {r.:I\j.l--f--WAM XX ~ 6 inches· WAM6 o 10 inches· WAM 10 o 12 inches· WAM12 ( ! Ill---------) ~-----------~l I~------------~ '~ ! cgr-" a I I I 1 1 1_----'--------- r----- I" " 1 , I I I I I I I A 42"MAX FOR I r----' 'y-A 48 II FIXTURE ---r TOP VIEW LUMENFACADE CONnNUOUS ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER Wall luminaires with cutoff optics Housing: Constructed of copper free die-cast aluminum alloy. The housing uses stainless steel inserts for enclosure attachment. Mounts over a standard 3 '12" or 4" octagonal wiring box. Enclosure: Tempered, etched glass lens. One piece die-cast. copper free, louvered, aluminum face plate secured to the housing with four captive socket head, stainless steel screws. Semi specular, anodized aluminum internal reflector. Fully gasketed for water tight operation using a silicone rubber gasket. Electrical: Compact fluorescent: Lampholder: 26 W, 32 W, and 42W multiwatt socket GX24q-3. GX24q-4 rotary lock lampholder rated 75 W. 600 V. Ballasts are internal and electronic universal voltage (120V through 277V). Finish: Available in five standard BEGA colors: Black (BLK). White (WHD. Bronze (BRZ), Silver (SLV). EurocoatTM (URO). To specify. add appropriate suffix to catalog number. Custom colors supplied on special order. U.L. listed. suitable for wet locations. Protection class IP 65. Options: FSC Fusing EMPK Integral emergency battery pack SMC Suliace conduit entry -A --c- Laillp Lumen A B ----.IIiI..... .--.-... -----.-------- --,.... 2240 P 1 42 W CF triple-4p ---- 11 11 3200 c 5% Type: BEGA Product: Project: Voltage: Color: Options: Modified: BEGA-US 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805)684-0533 FAX (805)566-9474 www.bega-us.com ©copyright BEGA-US 2008 UpdaterJ 2/08 TYPE S2 [1/1] LUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415·863.8800 F415-863.8808 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S3 [1/2] • 4.T1 EXCELLENCE IN A NEW LIGHT CLT-4 SEALED AND GASKETED ClEANROOM LAMINAR FLOW TEARDROP FLUORESCENT LIGHTING FOR COMPLEX ENVIRONMENTS 4 ft. long ~~~iI>~~~~:r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ • • APPLICATIONS • Cleanrooms • Electronics 'abs • Hospitab • Pharmaceutical labs • Biological Jabs Aerodynamically shaped housingsl which wHi not cause turbulence in lam inar flow room 51 smooth outside surface, and row mounting make CL T Series ideaUy suited for CLEANROOM, Hospitat and Sdentjfjc lab !reaSI where contamination Tree environment is a must. CROSS SECTION f: E 0 TOP VIEW 1--------.!!i:'.-m~ SPECifiCATIONS FEATURES' • .. Aerodynamlcal:ly shaped 20 gauge steel sea fed Housing ideally suited for laminar flow rooms • WOrkl with 1". 1 112-and 211 inverted 'T" ceiUng grid .. A ft~ fixture length matches nominal grid length • can be mounted in continuous, rows " Ga$keted lens with hlt&rnal prisms and smooth cuter sume-a • No en.riorhardware • Manufactured in accordance to NSf. FDA. USDA and federal Standard 2090 • Suitable for Cta. 10 .. Class 100.000 Cleanrooms I A 6" B m;:m J c • :::: A. HOUSING Die formed 20 gauge culd rolled steel HOtlsing. with E. lAMPS \\'elded seams and End Caps. 32W 1-6, 40W T& 12 Of 40W aiax lamps. See lamp Options. (lamps by othe~), B. RE.FLECrOR C, GASKET O. LENS Die {ormedone piece' 8 gauge cotd roUed $feel. Painted white . Closed etl'll gaskets preY~nt air and contaminanls from ent~ring the room. F', BALLAST G. FlNISH HPF~ Class P, Energy ;avlhg Balla$t (See Voltage, Sallas! Optlons). Polye$ter Powder coat white frni$h with 92"" reflectance. low brightness. lens with prisms up and smoolh side H. UL LISTED Suitable for Wet Locations. to, r()om for ease of <.leaning. (See Optiol'ls). ;;«>"'f?).~::<~¢$>'»'I'$tW~f;~'It~'ml1~~ffl:~~t~~**!k\~~JfW~ll1?'Jj\!>';)},*,,;l~~\lll~~II;'(lI~*I~~Il:!mtlill~!Yb~!~~~~~~~Wj~iflW;~~~;~~ CD Lighting, Inc. 10461 West 163rd Place, Orland Park. Illinois 60462 Tel. 708/873-9191 fax 708J873 .. 9222 ILU~INAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 F415-863.8808 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER CD Lighting tAMPS; m 32W T-& tH4OWT .. 12 ORDERING INFORMATION 4.T1 lAMPS: (2) 4rJWSlAX CLT·4· -"'W~ATt~A$~!-., -VO .... ·-t.t .... A-.GI .... · _. --W-·.lA-sr----L-.EH .... S~-We --....OPT-IO-fl .... 'S--- ~3.2=l1W~w (T-8} 4O=4&W2.tt'J. (1 .. 12) 12"OY.I! 120 Vola. E8=ae<:trotl~ CL=O •• r l.elns. 217=111 Volu 8a1lut Prl$matic: $47=3 .. , Votu Mlb:MaJnecle Ol=Opat lens SdfJ,t W=Ukra Vtohu: 4QBX=(l) .roW~tu -..... E8H=<~~ THO Yellow w. Biax Twin Tube EI. Ballast EXAMPLlh CLT'· 4 .. 32 ... 277 lOr ED.,; CL .. OF .. SH:P DESCRIPTION: RXTUl\E 1'YPi CLT .. 4 32 =-S~rlt$ el.f •• fMt nomlntt hmtth :: (t) 32 WlW T.e Lamp 277 :;: 2" Volt Op,,.,loll £8 =: BtlCtn'Wlte Wiatt CL :: CJev PrlttNdc J;.eo$ SF ::::: GLR Fun 'HP := Stah,lw Su:eI l1ou$ing. Ptlntftd CAT MOO NUMBER ClT--4· JOB NAMe APPROVAl.. DATE 0i1!t1'llW_ .tWI SjlIiClf\i:f;lk>I\i 5'11.".« to~. ~ 1»1.1« MUt't fWIl'an~td for crler-ar .p1nst m~ dlftcu il'l tNI~f.UI'*. )·9' ClT4 EM=Emerpl'lc,y lJghtin.c GF-Gu\Fl$.e AMP=Alumlnum Houtin" Palmed DBii':Ofmmtna 8affut CW==Cotd W.Uher .. talt SHP=Swnle" Steel HbUsin£ Painted RF=RadIo Frequtn¢)" Jnterferenc. ,.tw (More than on. Option <*1'\ be spedtled) COMMeNTS TYPE S3 [2/2] CLT-4 4 ft. tong • • • CD Lightlns •• nc. 10461 West 163rd Place, Orland Park. mlnols 60462 Tel. 108/873-9191 fax 7081873-9222 ; ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER miniFlex page 2 of 6 DATE lYPE Fixture Lamp/Ballast 2 1 FIXTURE WALL MOUNT Remote Ballast LED Output 3 Color External Options Internal Options 4 5 6 TYPE 84 [1/5] Short stainless steel yoke arm with a 25 ft/8 m waterproof cable for connection to a remote ballast. Ballast enclosure by others. Includes a 5"/125mm round cover plate for the wall if required. l\lot available with LED. o FMR Integral Ballast o FMSS ~ FMSC o FMLS D FIVILC D FMLSX Short arm Projection: 13.25"/340mm; Ht: 3.5"/90mm Short straight arm Projection: 17.2"/440mm; Ht: 7.8"/200mm Short curved arm Projection: 17.9"/445mm; Ht: 7.8"/200mm Long straight arm -Arm can be tilted up 30 degrees Projection: 22.5"/570mm; Ht: 7.8"/200mm Long curved arm Projection: 21.3"/540mm; Ht: 10.1 "/260mm Long straight arm and extension -Arm can be tilted up 30 degrees _______ P_r--'ojc.......e_C'I_:io __ n_: _2_2._5"/570mm; Ht: 14.2,_"'--/3_6_0_m_m _____________ , o FMLCX Long curved arm and extension Projection: 21.3"/540mm; Ht: 18.9"/480mm SOLD TO I PO # Architectural Area Lighting 14249 Artesia Blvd I La Mirada I CA 90638 P 714.994.2700 I F 714.994.0522 I aal.net Design patents, Copyright © 2009 Rev 06/2009 I JOB NAME Approvals < ... ~ ILUNlIJ'JAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER miniFlex page 3 of 6 DATE Fixture Lamp/Ballast LED Output Color External Options 1 2 3 4 5 POLE MOUNT Ballast is located in the post top fitter. Slips over a 4"/1 OOmm·O.D. pole. Short straight arm o FMSS4 ----Single short straight arm EPA._=_.3.:...1_8 __ _ 0 ' FMTSS4 Twin short straight arm EPA=.556 Short curved arm o FMSC4 Single short curved arm EPA=.339 o FMTCS4 Twin short curved arm EPA=.598 Long straight arm o FMLS4 Single long straight arm EPA=.370 o FMLS4XP Single long straight arm with extension EPA=.468 o FMTLS4 Twin long straight arm EPA=.660 o FMTLS4XP Twin long straight arm with extension EPA=.806 Long curved arm o FMLC4 Single long curved arm EPA=.384 o FMLC4XP Single long curved arm with extension EPA=.482 o FMTLC4 Twin long curved arm EPA=.688 o FMTLC4XP Twin long curved arm with extension EPA=.834 Architectural Area Lighting 14249 Artesia Blvd I La Mirada I CA 90638 P 714.994.2700 I F 714.994.0522 I aal.net Design patents, Copyright © 2009 Rev 06/2009 TYPE I nternal Options 6 • TYPE S4 [2/5] • ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S4 [3/5] miniFlex page 4 of 6 DATE TYPE Fixture Lamp/Ballast LED Output Color External Options Internal Options 2 3 4 5 6 2 BALLAST --tEl CF Compact fluorescent, electronic 120 thru 277 volt ballast. Use 4 pin lamps, 26, 32 or 42 watt. _ D 39MHT6EB D 50MH D 50MHEB D 70MH D 70MHEB D 70MHT6 D 70MHT6EB D 100MH D 100MHEB D 50HPS D 70HPS D 100HPS D 30LED-WW D 30LED-BW 39 watt electronic metal halide 120 thru 277 volt ballast. Use G12 base, T-6 ceramic lamp. 50 watt metal halide 120/277 volt ballast. Use medium base, EO-17 lamp. 50 watt electronic metal halide 120 thru 277 volt ballast. Use medium base, EO-17 lamp. 70 watt metal halide 120/208/240/277 volt ballast. Use medium base, EO-17 lamp. 70 watt electronic metal halide 120 thru 277 volt ballast. Use medium base, EO-17 lamp. 70 watt metal halide 120/277 volt ballast. Use G12 base, T-6 ceramic lamp. 70 watt electronic metal halide 120 thru 277 volt ballast. Use G12 base, T-6 ceramic lamp. 100 watt metal halide 120/208/240/277 volt ballast. Use medium base, EO-17 lamp. 100 watt electronic metal halide 120 thru 277 volt ballast. Use medium base, EO-17 lamp. 50 watt high pressure sodium 120/277 volt ballast. Use medium base, EO-17 lamp. 70 watt 11igh pressure sodium 120/208/240/277 volt ballast. Use medium base, EO-17 lamp. 100 watt high pressure sodium 120/208/240/277 volt ballast. Use medium base, EO-17 lamp. 30 light emitting diode array (32 watt). Warm white (3500K). 120 thru 277 volt. Uplight or down light only. Specify desired output option. 30 light emitting diode array (32 watt). Bright white (5100K). 120 thru 277 volt. Uplight or downlight only. Specify desired output option. All ballasts are factory wired for 277 volt, unless specified. Lamps not included (except LED option). All ballasts are EISA compliant 3 LED OUTPUT OPTION Must select one when LED option is chosen o LO-U LED light output upper (uplight) 4. COLOR g .......... ~W..I ......................................... _ ...................... 8r.Qt!Q ... Y.Yh.I!,S? ....................... _ ........................................................ .. .. g ........... ~.b.K ..................................................................... !2L?.g.~ .................... _ ................................ ; ................. '" ..................................... .. . g ........... MI~ .................................................................. M.?.t!§?.. ... !2.l.?9 .. ~ ........................................ _ ..... _ ............................... .. o DGN Dark Green --iJ ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .. g._ ... w..B.~ ........ _ ............. ___ ............ _~~E1Q.§.regJ?!..Q!l~?. ........ __ .... __ ......... .. .g ......... gB .. ~~'L .. __ ......... _ .. _ ........ _._ .. _Jy.l.§!?lliQ .. ~roQ .. ~ ..... ______ ... _ .......... __ ..... .. !;t ....... y!?.'=._ ......... _ ... _ .................... __ ._ .... _~~rQ§._!21Q~ ___ .............. __ ..... __ ............ __ .................. . o Architectural Area Lighting 14249 Artesia Blvd I La Mirada I CA 90638 P 714.994.2700 I F 714.994.0522 I aal.net Design patents, Copyright © 2009 Rev 06/2009 .Q .......... .M.~_l::._ .............................................................. M.?.U.€LAL~.!.TI.!.D.\::!!.!J ..................................................................... -....................... .. .,Q ........... N.I.Q .. g .................................... , ........................... M.§.Q.I!.~ .. !JJ .... Q!.~Y. ............................................................................................................ .. .Q ......... .8I~~t ....................................... _ ............ _ ......... Arl!!..g.\::!.~ ... 0..r~.~.Q ......................................................................................................... . .g_ ........ ~.Q .. y ........................... _ ..................................... .blg .. Q!..Qr.~y. __ ..... _ ........................................................................................ _ ............... . D RALIPREMIUM COLOR ..................... E.[Qy.Jg .. ~ .... §. ... RA.~ .... 4 .... Q.Lg.lL9.Q.lQL.D. .. y!Il.q.~.r ................................. _ .............................................................. .. D CUSTOM COLOR .. .................. E.!..??~.? .... p.[Q,y.l.g .. E?. .... ?. ... 9gJQr.. .. g.hJ.QJgL..r.D.?t9 .. t1.lng ............................................................................ .. I ILUMI!'NAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S4 [4/5] miniFlex page 5 of 6 DATE TYPE Fixture Lamp/Ballast LED Output Color External Options Internal Options 2 3 4 5 6 5 EXTERNAL OPTIONS The conical glass lens, angled shade, flared shade, flared cone, and solid ring options can be ordered to attach to the upper and/or lower lens frame. These options can be used separately or in combination with the other (except LED which is uplight or downlight only). All of the options, except for the conical glass, are field installed to the lens frame with three stainless steel screws. D CGL-U upper ~ CGL-L lower CONICAL GLASS Molded, tempered, frosted glass lens. o ANG-U upper o ANG-L lower ANGLED SHADE Spun aluminum shade with hemmed edge. Painted the same color as the fixture. 12.75"/325mm dia 2.50"/64mm Ht D ANGCOP-U upper D ANGCOP-L lower Unfinished copper will patina over time. o ANGSTS-U ~ o ANGSTS-L lower Brushed stainless steel. D SR-U upper D SR-L lower SOLID RINGS Two cast aluminum rings. o FLR-U upper o FLR-L lower FLARED SHADE Spun aluminum shade with rolled edge. Painted the same color as tile fixture. 12.87"/330mm dia 2.75"/70mm Ht D FLRCOP-U upper o FLRCOP-L lower Spun copper shade with rolled edge. Unfinished, will patina over time. D FLRSTS-U upper o FLRSTS-L lower Brushed stainless steel. Architectural Area Lighting 14249 Artesia Blvd I La Mirada I CA 90638 P 714.994.2700 I F 714.994.0522 I aal.net Design patents, Copyright © 2009 Rev 06/2009 D · DMC-U upper D DMC-L lower DOMED COVER Spun aluminum dome mimics the design of the Flex. o CON-U upper o CON-L lower FLARED CONE Spun aluminum cone. Painted the same color as the fixture. 3.4"/86mm Ht D CONCOP-U upper o CONCOP-L lower Unfinished copper will patina overtime. o CONSTS-U ~ o CONSTS-L lower Brushed stainless steel. 6 INTERNAL OPTIONS D QL Socket for T-4 mini-can lamp, field wired to a separate circuit. (Lamp wattage not to exceed ballast Wattage). Must be wired to a separate 120 volt circuit. Not available with LED o CFH Aluminum ring with three key hole slots to hold one color filter (by others). The holder accepts a filter that is 8"/200mm in diameter. o CFH-2 Two color filter holders. Not available with LED. Filters are available from Special FX, or other filter providers. o 347 120/277/347 volt magnetic ballast for all HID lamps, except the 50HPS and 50MH which are 347 volts only. Not available with LED. miniFlex page 6 of 6 Specifications ~.;.' ..• : ... ' •... ::. ~ : ~ wt: 10 Ibs LAMP MODULE The lamp housing is two-piece die cast aluminum. Two stainless steel arms join the lamp module and ballast module with four stainless steel bolts. The cable , between the lamp and ballast modules is sheathed in a flexible stainless steel hose with watertight stainless steel fittings. An internal lens cover is pre-installed on the upper lamp housing. The cover is movable to the lower housing to change the fixture to an uplight luminaire, or removed for a 50/50 uplight/downlight configuration. The LED option is only available as an uplight or down light. The lens, flat or conical, is tempered glass with a lightly diffused finish to obscure the lamp image and eliminate striations on the wall surface. The housing is sealed with a molded silicone gasket. One captive stainless steel screw is loosened to swing the door open allowing access to the lamp. WALL MOUNT The ballast housing is two-piece die cast aluminum. The back plate is mounted to an electrical box or fastened directly to the wall surface. The ballast housing holds the ballast components and attaches to the back plate with three captive stainless steel cap screws. LED not available with remote ballast. POST TOP MOUNT The ballast is mounted to a strap within the post top fitter. The fitter has a removable top cap for access and removal of the ballast assembly. Architectural Area Lighting 14249 Artesia Blvd I La Mirada I CA 90638 P 714.994.2700 I F 714.994.0522 I aal.net Design patents, Copyright © 2009 Rev 06/2009 DATE 1YPE ELECTRICAL Magnetic HID ballasts are high power factor, rated for -30°C starting. Electronic ballasts for metal halide lamps are sound rated A, 120 thru 277 volt. Compact fluorescent transformers are electronic, 120 thru 277 volt for 26, 32 or 42 watt 4 pin lamps. Sockets are pulse rated, medium base for EO-17 lamps, G12 for use with T6 lamps. LED components are 120 thru 277 volt with 30 light emitting diodes. Maximum system wattage is 32 watts. The miniFlex is factory supplied as a complete, prewired assembly including the lamp and ballast module. Ballasts are prewired to 277 volts, unless specified. FINISH Fixture finish consists of a five stage pretreatment regimen with a polymer primer sealer, oven dry off and top coated with a thermoset TGIC polyester powder coat finish. The finish meets the AAMA 605.2 performance specification which includes passing a 3000 hour salt spray test for corrosion resistance. EISA COMPLIANCE AAL is committed to complying with U.S. EISA requirements. All applicable products manufactured for sale in the United States after January 1, 2009, meet EISA requirements. CERTIFICATION The fixture is listed with ETL for outdoor, wet location use, in accordance to the UL 1598 and Canadian CSA Std. C22.2 nO.250 WARRANTY Fixture is warranted for three years. Ballast components carry the ballast manufacturer's limited warranty. Any unauthorized return, repair. replacement or modification of the Product(s) shall void this warranty. This warranty applies only to the use of the Product(s) as intended by AAL and does not cover any misapplication or misuse of said Product(s). or installation in hazardous or corrosive environments. Contact AAL for complete warranty language, exceptions, and limitations. ,ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 0-45° accent ...... pinhole i d.:f ; trkn assembl y t,'im with adjustment mechanism 0: housIng Tile 14" x 7.625" x 6"h flush trim (drywailonly) ceiling cutout dirnensions: 6 3/1(," COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S6 [1/3] Patenl Pending . overlap trim 11lJa"1 28mm 51/8" 130mm ceiling cutout dimensions: 4 \l/H," featureS The Intelligent OClwnlight -- FOCAL PDtNT< Trims available in Overlap flange or Flush mud-in for a seamless appearance. Gloves Off" hot aiming made simple with gear drive for both 45° vertical and 3630 horizontal adjustment; Self locking. Auto Memory remembers original lamp position after relamping. Lenses are independent of lamp, and remain undisturbed during t'elamping. Perfect FifM installation process provides seamless integration in plaster, drywall and acoustical tiles, while maintaining optics in any ceiling thickness. Adjustment mechanism provides for: • easy relarnping • locking of both vertical and hOI'izontal aiming • lowers fot' easy lamp and lens access. Smart LockUl I'ing al lows quick removal and re-assembly of trim components for field painting. Standard white finish is field paintable. Interchangeable lamp and trim mechanisms allow for maximum flexibility, even after luminaire is installed. trim option tt'im withollt black bevel pedO(lnar!ce lens accessories hex linear prismatic sand louver blasted Accent Pinhole with Black Bevel CMH20M RI6/830/S P12 ·------.-Ir----....; 2171 cd @ 30° (30~ tilt) everGre~r'''' ~:{'ri'l(:!I( [;: ii!1 H ilr,~lc~ ·)1 5,N·j ~f.::.k,fF~(L Visit fo(a1nointlig',I5.cOIn for r.omplpll? phol(lHlf~'I'ic: da.la. "ILUMI~~AE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S6 [2/3] lamp Ceramic Metal Halide 20W or 39W M R16 Lamp provides a crisp white light source, 30001< and BOCRI, with UV stop. It is a pI'otected lamp for use ill open fixture designs, constl'uctiol1 (T) Thermally protected housin9 for new construction applications without dil'ect contact with insulation. Unit is enclosed in a 20ga black painted Cr{S housing, which eliminates stray light into the plenum,. all a 20Ga CRS frame. T housing ships standard with butterfly brackets which mount to 1;2 emt or channel, vertically adjusts 2 inches. Bar hangers are an option alld must be specified when ordering thermally protected housing. Transformer is accessible from below ceiling. Unit may be relamped from above. Fixture will not exceed 7.5 Ibs. (Ie) Thermally pl'Otected for Insulated Ceiling housing for new construction applications with direct insulation contact. U nit is enclosed in a 20ga black painted CRS housing, wtlich eliminates stl'ay light into the plenum,. on a 20Ga CRS frame. IC housing ships standard with butterfly brackets which mount to 112 emt or channel, vertically adjusts 2 inches. Bar hangers are an option and must be specified when ordering thermally protected housing. Transformer is accessible from below ceiling. Unit may be relamped from above. Fixture will not exceed 7,S Ibs. electrical Ceramic Socket GXI0 for Metal Halide lamp, with permanently joined socket wires. Lamp is held by twist and lock SI(VA socket, ensuring simple lamp i11sel'tion and J'emoval. Large junction box 2x4xS,S" with W' and 'W' pryouts. U L listed for thru branch wiring, 4#12 90°C conductol's. Thermally isolated electronic ballast, replaceable from below, is mOlmted outside of the housing to ensure cool operation, Wiring compartment mounting provides additional thermal bl'eak fJ'Om the lamp. 120 or 277V, MBO or MlS6 ANSI spec ballast consumes 26 or 45 watts and >90% PF, 20% THD and end of life shut down Circuitry. 39W dimming is available. installation Adjustable throat allows infinite adjustment for W' to 1%" thick ceilings. Shipped in ,/," ceiling position. For thicker ceilings consult factory. Ceiling thickness adjustment sleeve locks with supplied 'Yo." hex driver. Sleeve allows fine tuning of the housing for a pel'fect fit. Comes with laser/string alignment guides. Housing ships with dust covel" triln aesthetics Diminutive black knife edge baffle minimizes brightness. Truncated Specular black reflector cone above en5UI'es glare free optics. Reflector is .040" spun aluminum. Matte white finish may be used as a primel' coat for field painting, Smal't Lock'" ring allows disassembly for custom field painting. adjustment mechanism Auto Memory for relamping, lamp returns to preset aiming pOSition, lVIechanism is matte black finish and holds lamp and lenses independently. Hot aiming with Philips screwdrivel' allows for 4So vertical tilt, and 3630 rotation and locks into position. Mechanism pulls down for quick and easy relamping. Vertical angle and horizont.al rotation indicatOi's display positioning. Tempel'ed soft foclls lens supplied as standard. Lens tray can hold up to two accessol'ies, up to '/."thick. L.enses I'emain undisturbed during I'elamping, optics 50" cutoff to the lamp and lamp image. constl'uctiol1 TI'im stays captive to hOllsing during relamping via torsion springs. Torsion springs pull trim ti~Jht to the ceiling, No visible fasteners within the trim, Mechanical light traps eliminate light leaks. Warp free die--cast aluminum faceplate, .040" thick flange on ovel'lap vel'sions. labels U L listed, Damp label standard. No visible labels when tl'im is insta!led. housing series FM4 Metal Halide Housing FM4 lamp MR --.. 20W or 39W CMH MR16 MR ballast type M1S6U+ MlS6 20W Electronic (120V and 277V) Ml30 39W Electronic MBOI (l20Vl Ml30 39W Electronic M1302 (277Vl MBO 39W Electronic Dimming Ml301D (120V) MBO 39W Electronic Dimming MB02D (277Vl faceplate type Round Flush RF + Round Overlap RO housing type ..... Thermally Protected, Non-IC T (39Wonly) Combined T and Ie Rated IC (20Wonlyl factory options Bar Hangers BH Chicago Plenum CP 30001< Lamp 12' Spot LSP 30001< Lamp 2S' Spot LFL ..-= 30001( Lamp 401( Wide Flood LWF trim aperture D1 1~" Apertw'e D1 faceplate type Round Flush (dl'ywall only) Round Overlap optic Pinhole with Black Bevel Pinhole without Black Bevel faceplate finish White Black Titanium Silver Aluminum Raw lens accessories (soft focus lens supplied as standard) Hex Louver Linear Spl'ead Lens Pl'ismatic Spread Lens Sand Blasted Lens Clear Lens UV Lens a complete unit consists of two line items, housing and trim example: FM4 .. M R-M1S6-R F-IC D1-RF-PIN-WH RF RO ..... PIN ....-= PINX WH ...... BI< TS AL HL ~ __ _ LSL PSL SBL CL UVL ~AE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S6 [3/3] /" .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. '.", rnd accent -pinhole . i d" CANDLEPOvVEH DKSTH[f.W TION -0' TlL Ci\NDLE POWEI~ DlSTRlSUnON .. :30" TIL T ;g .~ ~ ~ ::: Vertical Horizootal Angle Angle 0' 22.5' 4So 67.So 9~ N '" ~ Vertical Horizontal Angle ;! N !;) 0::> Angle O' 22.5' 4So 67.S" 90' ..... 0' 1753 1753 1753 1753 1753 0' 92 92 92 92 92 80' S' 2825 2672 2255 17% 1449 80' S' 178 164 133 103 85 70' ISO 1070 979 849 5S5 330 70' IS' 931 730 281 98 60 2S' 169 166 148 102 58 2S' 2171 1314 259 52 40 60' 60' 3S' 45 43 42 36 31 3S' 770 586 100 33 14 50' 4S" 50' 4S' 114 108 37 12 o· 10' 20' 30' 40' SSn 0 SS' 30 24 o· 10' 20' 30' 40' on fS;~ 45'-- - --- 90'---- 65" 0 7S" 0 8S' 6S' 0 o· ~t 7S' 0 4Sn ______ 90' 90°----8S' 0 90° 90' 0 rOO TCf\f\J[)LL VALUES ('" .................... -.. ~ ............•... , FOOTGANDLL VALU eS FOOTCf.\N()LE Vi\LUCS o' aiming angle -horizonal surface 30' aiming angle -horizontal surface 30' aiming angle -vertical surface Fe w Fe w Fe w 6' 49 1.3' 1.3' 6' 3.5' 25 1.7' 1.5' 2' 3.5' 79 1.7' 0.8' 8' 27 1.7' 1.7' 8' 4.6' 15 2.3' 1.9' 3' 5.2' 35 1.6' 1.3' 10' 18 2.1' 2.1' 10' 5.B' 2.8' 204' 4' 6.9' 20 3.5' 1.7' 12' 12 2.5' 2.5' 12' 6.9' 3.2' 2.9' 5' B.7' 13 4.3' 2.1' 14' 2.9' 2.9' l ....... 14' 8.1' 3.9' 304' 6' lOA' 5.2' 2.5' results based on AG132; off the shelf lamp in fixture, with soft focus lens; Refiectances=O/O/O; LLF=l Go to www.focalpolntlights.com for additional photometric data. ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S7 [1/1] SISTEMALUX SPECIFICATION SHEET MEGALIFT SQUARE 1 WINDOW #5.50_ -___ _ LAMPING: 1 X 70W T6 CDM-T METAL HALIDE G12 BASE MODEL VOLTAGE FINISH MEGALIFT SQUARE is an outdoor wall application. This die-cast aluminum application is powder painted for high corrosion resistance. It emits a 2° m:lrrow beam or a 60° wide beam, ideal for decorative illumination on architecture. PROJECT NAME: __________ _ TyPE: ____________________________ ___ LAST UPDATE: FEBRUARY 24th, 2009 rlJ S.5004 BOTTOM VIEW ELEVATION VIEW ACCESSORIES o S.5014 TEMPERED GLASS WI FROSTED TRIMS DIE-CAST ALUMINUM HOUSING AND BASE POWDER PAINTED FOR HIGH CORROSION RESISTANCE ISOMETRIC VIEW DIE-CAST ALUMINUM HOUSING POWDER ____ _ r----9-1/4"(235rnm) - ~80mm) PAINTED FOR HIGH CORROSION RESISTANCE 1 X 70W T6 G12 BASE ----METAL HALIDE ----_____ (NOT INCLUDED) ELECTRONIC BALLAST ------r-------.~ '0 FOR (1) 70W ------t...;..~-:----::-:---rE: ----METAL HALIDE - JUNCTION BOX -- (NOT INCLUDED) SIDE VIEW o 0 S.5020 -WIDE BEAM LENS «> COLORED FILTERS (ONLY FOR S.5014) 08.5016 -RED 0 5.5018 -YELLOW ( VOLTAGE o 120V 0 277 V ) METAL FINISH c@us 5455 de Gaspe suite 1 DO, Montreal (Quebec) Canada H2T 3B3 P.: 514.523.1339 F.: 514.525.6107 08.5017 -BLUE 0 5.5019 -GREEN o 01-WHITE ct5 14-ALUMINUM GREY MEGALIFT SQUARE 1 WINDOW , ILUMI~AE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 Wall luminaires -STAINLESS STEEL Housing: Fabricated from stainless steel with stainless steel fasteners supplied with mounting bracket for direct attachment to a single gang vertical switch box. Enclosure: One piece, hand blown three-ply opal glass, ga?keted using a high temperature molded O-ring gasket. Allow enough vertical space to slip diffuser Lip and out for relamping. Electrical: Fluorescent are type G24q-3, 4-pin (26 W) rated 75 W, 250 V. Ballasts are electronic, available in 120 V or 277 V -specify. Finish: #4 brushec.i stainless steel. Stainless steel requires regular cleaning and rnaintenance, much like household appliances, to maintain its luster and to prevent tarnishing or the appearance of rust like stains. U.L. listed, suitable for wet locations. Protection class: IP 65. , oc Lamp Lumen A B c -. 4031 P 1 26 W CF quad .. 4p 1800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER Type: BEGA Product: Project: Voltage: Color: Options: Modified: BEGA-US 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805)684-0533 FAX (805)566-9474 www.bega-us.com ©copyright BEGA-US 2008 Updated 2/08 TYPE 88 [1/1] · ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER Linear wall luminaires· unshielded Housing: Die-cast aluminum top and bottom connected to an extruded aluminum body. Provided with a flat mounting plate for direct attachment to the wall over a single gang vertical switch box. Requires free space of minimum 18" above luminaire for relamping Electrical: lamprlolcJer; 2G '11, 4 pin rated 75W, 600V. Ballasts are electronic universal voltage 120V through 277 V. Finish: Available in five standard BEGA colors: Black (BlK); White (WHT); Bronze (BRZ); Silver (SlV); Eurocoat™ (URO). To specify. add appropriate suffix to catalog number. Custom colors supplied on special order. U.L. listed, suitable for wet locations. Protection class: IP 44. B -A- Oc Lamp Lumen A B c --.4530P fi1~li:l 1 ~39W OF twin-4p 2900 30/16 34','0 3'S;iu Type: BEGA Product: Project: Voltage: Color: Options: Modified: BEGA-US 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805) 684-0533 FAX (805) 566-9474 www .bega-us .com ©copyright BEGA-US 2008 Updatecj 2/08 TYPE 89 [1/1] ILUIVIIJ'JAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER Unshielded wall luminaires· STAINLESS STEEL Housing: Stainless steel provided with a bracket for direct attachment to a 3 '/2" or 4" octagonal wiring box. Flat mounting plate fabricated from stainless steel. Enclosure: Hand blown U1ree-ply opal glass diffuser with screw neck. Wall mount only. Electrical: Lampholders; Fluorescent are type G24q-2, 4 pin (18 W), rated 75 W, 250 V. Ballasts are electronic 120 V or 277 V -specify. Finish: #4 brushed stainless steel. Stainless steel requires regular cleaning and maintenance, much like household appliances, to maintain its luster and to prevent tarnishing or the appearance of rust like stains. U.L. listed, suitable for wet locations. Protection class: IP 44. o Fluorescent Lamp Lumen A, __ B_ C ~3~4()P--~.ffi~ 118W CF~ad-;-125() --_. 9';1(\ 9 'Ii 0 3 3/4 Type: BEGA Product: Project: Voltage: Color: Options: Modified: BEGA-US 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805) 684-0533 FAX (805) 566-9474 www.bega-us.com ©copyrigllt BEGA-US 2008 Updated 2/08 TYPE S10 [1/1] (ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S11 [1/3] 0-45° accent .... -pinhole i d ,!; tdm asserl1bly tt'im with adjustment mechanism housing TIIC 14" x 7.625" x 6"h flush trim (drywall only) CMH overlap trim .(0 . 11lfe"1 28mm s1f " 130mm [J.-J--;~l I ';:<';;:;';:·1 I . I I , '"' ... " ............................................................. .,,' ceiling cutout dimensions: ceiling cutout dimensions: b 3/16" 4 1111&" feature;; The Intelligent Dowlllight .. -- FOCAL POINT' Trims available in Overlap flange or Flush mud-in for a seamless appearance. Gloves Off" hot aiming. made simple with gear drive for both 45° vertical and 3630 horizontal adjustment; Self locking. Auto Memory remembers original lamp positionaftet' relamping. Lenses al'e independent of lamp, and remain undisturbed during relamping. Perfect FifM installation process provides seamless integration in plaster, drywall and acoustical tiles, while maintaining optics in any ceiling thickness. Adjustr;lent mechanism provides for: .. easy relamping • locking of both vel'tical and horizontal aiming • lowel's for easy lamp and lens access. Smart Lock'M ring allows quick removal and re-assen,bly of trim components for field painting. Standard white finish is field paintable. Interchangeable iamp and trim mechanisms allow for maximum flexibility, even after luminaire is installed. trim option lens accessories hex linear prismatic sand louver blasted trim without black bevei Accent Pinhole with Black Bevel eM H20M R16/830/SP12 2171 cd @ 30° (30" ti Itl .' ...... Visit 'f,')(.alpollltli9IJh.r.OI11 for c:olllpl~lt' pholotnell'lc d.:.I.!. • ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER~: lamp Ceramic Metal Halide 20W or 39W M RIo Lamp provides a crisp white light SOUI'ce, 30001< and BOC RII with U V stop. It is a pJ'otected lamp for use in open fixture designs. constl'uction (T) Thel'nlally protected housing for new construction applications without direct contact with insulation, Unit is enclosed in a 20gablack painted CRS housing,. which eliminates stray light into the plenum,. on a 20Ga CRS frame. T housing ships standard with butterfly bl'ackets which mount to liz emt or channel, vertically adjusts 2 inches. Bar hangers are an option and must be specified when ordering thermally protected housing. Transfol'rner is accessible from below ceiling. Unit may be relamped from above. Fixture will not exceed 7.5 Ibs. (Ie) Thermally protected for Insulated Ceiling housing for new construction applications·with dil'ect insulation contact. Unit is enclosed in a 20ga blacl< painted CRS housing, which eliminatesstl'ay light into the plenum,. on a 20Ga CRS frame. IC housing ships standard with butterfly brackets which mount to II;; emt or channell vertically adjusts 2 inches. Bar hangers are·an option and must be specified when ordering thermally protected housing. Transformer is accessible from below ceiling. Unit may be relamped fl'om above. Fixture will not exceed 7.5 Ibs. electrical Ceramic Socket GX10 for Metal Halide lamp, with permanently joined socket wil'es. Lamp is held by twist and lock 51<VA socketl enSUring simple lamp insertion and removal. Large junction box 2x4x5.5" with '.1." and ';." pryouts. U L listed for thru branch wil'ing, 4#12 90°C conductors. Thermally isolated electronic ballastl replaceable from below, is mounted outside of the housing to ensure cool operation. Wiring compartment mounting provides additional thennal bl'eak from the lamp. 120 or 277V, Ml30 or M156 ANSI spec ballast consumes 26 or 45 watts and provides >90% P F, 20% T H D and end of lite shut down cij'cuitry. 39W dimming baliast is available. installation Adjustable throat allows infinite adjustment for ':1," to 1;;"" thick ceilings. Shipped in Y," ceiling position. For thicker ceilings consult factory. Ceiling thickness adjustment sleeve locks with supplied 'X," hex driver. Sleeveallo.ws fine, tuning of the housing for a perfect fit. Comes with laser/string alignment guides. Housing ships with dust covel'. aesthetiCS Diminutive black knife edge baffle minimizes brightness. Truncated Specular black I'eflector cone ~bove ensures glare free optics. Reflector is .040" spun aluminum. Matte white finish may be used as a primel' coat fOI' field painting. S mart Lock'" l'In9 allows disassembly for custom field painting. adjustment mechanism Auto Memory for relampin(J, lamp returns to preset aiming pOSition. Mephanism is matte black finish and holds lamp and lenses independently. Hot aiming with Phili~s screwdrivel' allows for 45° vel'tical tilt, and 3630 I'otation and locks into position. Mechanism pulls down for quick and easy , relamping. Vertical angle and horizontal ro.tation indicatOl's display positioning. Tempered soft focus lens supplied as standard. Lens tray can hold up to two acce5sol'iesl up to ,/," thick. Lenses I'emain undisturbed dlJring I'elamping. optics 500 cutoff to the lamp and lamp image. construction Trim stays capt.ive to hOllsing during relamping via torsion spl'ings. Torsion springs pull trim tight to the ceiling. No visible fasteners within the trim. Mechanical light traps eliminate light leaks. VJarp fl'ee die·--cast aluminum faceplate, .040" thick flange on ovel'lap versions. labels U l listedl Damp label standard. No visible labels when trim is installed. housing series Metal Halide Housing lamp 20W or 39W CMH MR16 ballast type M156 lOW Electronic (l20V and 277V) MBO 39W Electronic (l20V) Ml3D 39W Electronic (277V) MBO 39\/11 Electronic Dimming £l20V) MBO 39W Electronic Dimming (277Vl -faceplate type Round Flush Round Overlap housing type Thermaily Protected, Non-Ie '(39Wonly) Con.bined T and IC Rated (20Wonly) factory options Bar Hangers Chicago Plenum 30001< Lamp 12' Spot 30001< Lamp 25' Spot .30001< Lamp 40K Wide Flood trim aperture IX" Apertul'e faceplate type Round Flush (drywall only) Round Overlap optic Pinhole with Black Bevel Pinho:e without Blacl< Bevel faceplate finish White Black Titanium Silver Aluminurn Raw lens accessories (soft focus i~ns supplied as standard) 'Hex Louver Linear Spread Lens Pi'isillatic Spl'ead Lens Sand Blasted lens Clear lens UV Lens a complete unit' consists of two line items, housing and trim ex,1Il1pie: FM4-M R-M 156-R F -IC DI-RF-PIN .. WH TYPE S 11 [2/3] FM4 FM4 MR MR M156U+- Ml301 M1302 M1301D M1302D RF RO ....- T +- IC BH CP LSP +-LFL LWF s.:: :: <5.g ~~ ~~ D1 '&, ~ ~~ D1 ~ ! ~ ... E~ ~ .§ RF Ii +-RO ~.e .2 1:l @) .e PIN....-:§ ~ j~ PINX ~ ~ N ~ tt\V WH""- r::: B ~ ~, 81< --'i: <t '" TS ~:5 ; ~ AL ~ ~ r.: ~ t~ ~ ~ Hl....-~1 lSL PSL ~ ,g SBl u CL -g UVL Xl ~ vi ~ u ...J ...J ~~ ~ ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S11 [3/3] . . rnd accent .. -pinhole i d" , 0 In 0 In .0 8 ~ ~ In 80' 70·' 60' 50' 0' 10' ZO° 30' qo' I' ·0' 45"-- - ---90' 90'---- FODTC~\NDL[ Vh.LUES 00• aiming angle -hOl'izonal surface Fe w 6' 49 1.3' 1.3' 8' 27 1.7' 1.7' 10' 18. 2.1' 2.1' 12' 12 2.5' 2.5' 14' 2.9' 2.9' Vertical Angle O· O· 1753 S' 2825 IS' 1070 25' 169 35" 45 45' 55' oS' 75' 85" 90' - Horizontal Angle 22.5' 1753 2672 979 166 43 45' 1753 2255 849 148 42 07S 1753 1796 555 102 36 90' 1753 1449 330 58 31 /' ............................................ "~ ;. i ............. . .................................... ; results based all AGIJ2; off the shelf lamp in fixture, with soft focus lens; Refiectances=o/o/O; LLF=l C/\f\![JLE PO VvER Dl S1F;iB UlION ··30-TILT ~ ~ ~ Ii; vertical Horizontal Angle ~ ::;; ~ Angle O· 22.5' ,45' 07.5' 90' 90' 0' 92 92 . 92 92 92 80' 5', 178 164 133 103 85 70' 15° 931 730 281 98 60 25' 2171 1314 259 52 40 60' . 35° 770 586 100 33 14 50' 45' 11'1 108 37 12 55' 30 24 . O' 10' 20' 30' 40' 65° 0 0" f S ' 75" 45·----.:.-90' 90·----85" 90' FOO--fC;\NDLE Vf.~_L.UF:·:~~ rCOTCl\I\l [)L [ V(.\LlJ ES 300 aiming angle -horizontal surface 30° aiming angle -.vertical surface FC W FC W 6' 3.5' 25 '1.7' 1.5' 2' 3.5' 79 1.7' 0.8' 8' 4.6' 15 2.3' 1.9' 3' 5.2' 35 1.6' 1.3' 10' 5.8' 2.8' 2.41 4' 6.9' 20 3.5' 1.7' 12' 6.9' 3.2'-2.9' ,5' 8.7' 13 4.3' 2.1' 14' 8.1' 3.9' 3.4' 6' 10.4' 5.2' 2.5' Go to www.focalpoilltlights.com for additional photometric data. ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S13 [1/2] B Shown in Natural Bronze with optional hexcel louver. ECOINF10 METALS: Hood is made from bronze with 90% recycled content or for painted finishes, aluminum with 3()..40% recycled content. Backplate is made from 100% recycled aluminum. All metals are valuable and recyclable at the end of the product's useful life. For more information see "GENERAL INFO" FINISHING: Solid, natural metal finishes are hand satined. No paint or lacquer is used on the hood In order to avoid pollUtion assodated with the manufacture and application of these substances., .... Paint finishes are low voe and oven cured .• ENERGY: Designed e)(ctusively for compact fluorescent :.·' lamps using electronic ballasts. RDEN 719 WEDGE DOWNLIGHT WET LOCATION ~ print this page -=Ef5ZJ email this page to a colleague I] installation instructions ~i'nteractive submittal drawing COMPANION FEATURES • Smaller version of 720. • Solid bronze or stainless steel construction ensures long life. • Cutoff design combined with low glare. • Part of a family of three different sizes. MATERIALS • Solid bronze or stainless steel hood. Aluminum is used for painted finishes. Cast aluminum backplate is painted to match hood finish. • High transmission clear refractive acrylic lens. • Aluminum hexcellouver. FINISHES -+ NBZ Natural Bronze 555 Satin Stainless Steel 5GB Semi-Gloss Black 5GW Semi-Gloss White 5GBZ Semi-Gloss Bronze Learn more about Natural Bronze click here CCP Custom Color Painted finish CAA Clear Anodized Aluminum --~----'"" Standard metal finishes are hand satined. Other metal finishes are available. Contact factory. LAMPING 1 CF13DTlT, G24q base or 1-CF18WTTI, 2Gx24q. Lamps not included. BALLAST Integral electronic ballast for dedicated voltage. See "GENERAL INFO" for more detail. L I G H",T I N G 999 Montague St • San L.eUllfiro, CA 9·:\577 " ph 51 O.357.0l71 • tax 510.357.3832 • www.borcJen lighting.c.om ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S 13 [2/2] 719 WET LOCATION OPTIONS LENS: High transmission dear refracttve acrylic Is standard. For optional hel'{cel louver, specify HXL. NOTE: The optIonal hex<tel open cell IOllver offers lower glare with higher output directly below the fixture, but less light to the sides and front. EMERGENCY BATTERY PACK: Remote mounted SBp, speofy REM. NOTE: This fixture is suitable· for wet or dry locations. For wet locations use only as a downlight. MOUNTING: Standard J-box or plaster ring. WEIGHT: 41bs SPEC GUIDE SAMPLE SPEC: 719-CFl/lS-120-r\IBZ-HXL .lttii. -'l4~ili1l~rew -_".11_' -'jl~I'-ill -•• Ijil.lijl 0719 0 CFI/13 a 120 ~ NBZ ~ HXL ~ CFl/18 a 277 a SSS 0 REM B '" RDEN , a SGB o SGW a SGBZ a CCP , Learn more about Natural Bronze click hete '" .it) r--- r L ___ 5/8" I I 6" r---- ._. 65/8" PHOTOMETRies See LSI Report No. 23008 for model 720. o VARIATIONS I MODIFICATIONS • Special finishes • Special sizes NOTE: This fixtur~ is not supplied 'with a multi-volt ballast. Voltage must be specified. ~' IBEW labelled ~ Handcrafted ~ and Assembled In California 1 I G H"~T IN " 999 fV\ontague St • San L.eandro, CA 94577 • ph 510.357.0171 • fax 510.357.3832 ' www.bordenllghting.coI"l1 WINSCAPETM Project __________ _ Aspen LED • 12V LED-16 QUICK FIND #: QF·G Construction: Body, cap and knuckle machined from 6061 -T6 ALUMII~UM. Lens cut from tempered borosili.cate glass for superior clarity and strength. LED Unit: Winscape proprietary unit using three (3) High Output LEDs and an integral low voltage (iO.5V-15.5V) AC LED driver. Available in three (3) beam spreads; 10· Spot,20· Narrow Flood, and 36· Flood. Available in Warm White (3000K) and Cool White (6500K) color temps. Finishes: Available in 12 standard TGIC polyester powder coat finIshes. Custom powder coat finishes available (contact factory for more information). Features: Field replaceable lens. Tapered "Sure Lock"knuckle seat for infinite aiming and unparalleled locking ability. Any combination of up to 3 lens accessories/color filter/shielding can be specified in any Gap style and are held securely by a removable stainless steel clip ring. . General: This fixture requires a low voltage MAGNETIC transformer to function properly. Magnetic transformer must be purchased separately (see Accessories section on our website). Mounting must be specified separately (see Accessories section on our website). Available with 350· rotational knuckle. MOUNTING ~ ~ OPTIONS: GBOUND WAU MOU aUNT ~ d TREE SURFACE MODIFIED MOUNT .cUNT STANDARD NOTE: See Accessort~s on Our website for moun ng options. UL / cUl Listed: Wet location Indoor/Outdoor High Output LED Unit CAPC1 CAPC3 Qty: __ ~~_3/4" 1-5/8" (STD) . 0 2" (350R) CAPC4 win 0 n a I g h tin 3760 west fourth street • winona, minnesota 55987 • 507 -454-5113 • fax: 507 -454 -1814 winona lighting on the web • www.winonalighting.com Revised: 8-1-09 CAPCS Page 1 of 1 wi N 5 CAP E ™ .Project: _____ ------'----__ Power Mount ™ 60 STYLE A STYLEB STYLEC STYLE 0 The Power MountlM 60 is a series of ground-mounting options that allow for use of either remote or integral transformers for ground-mounted fixtures. These mountings can be used for 12V, 120V or MH fixtures. Stems are offered in lengths from 3" to 42". Construction: C~p and Power Mount Housing on style"B"machined from ALUMINUM. Stake below grade cut from UL approved P.Vc. All hardware is STAINLESS STEEL. Finishes: Available in 12 standard TGIC polyester powdercoat finishes. Custom powdercoat finishes available (contact factory for more information). Features: Style A: Adjustable up and down approximately 8" (with 12" below grade stake) or 14" (With 18" below grade stake), open angle cut bottom (12V only). Style B: In.eludes 60VA transformer and two 1/2" conduit adapters in endcap (120V only) .. Fixed Stem. Style C: Mount with two 1/2" conduit adapters in endcap. Fixed Stem. Style 0: Mount with open angle cllt'bottom (12V only). Fixed Stem. General: Styles liN: "B" and "D"notforuse with line voltage or MH fixtures, for line voltage and MH fixtures use style lie: Style "A" requires a stem length to be specified, IS3" ahd /lS6/1 (3" and 6" stems) are not recommended for use with style liN: All stems are 01" and threaded 1/2" NPS. STYLE liB" ® UL Listed: Wet location Outdoor 02-1/4" . ~027/32" Concrete Pour recommended (by installer) 1. PM MOUNT 2. 60 SERIES 3. 12V VOLTAGE 4. A STYlE 5. BRS FINISH 6. 18 . STAKE LENGTH 7. SO STEM LENGTH 8. STD ·SPECIAL Modification Descriptions: (if needed) STYLE A Qty: __ IPM = POWER MOUNT'" I 60 = 60 SERIES UV = 12 VOLT(STYLE A & D ONLy} UOV = 120 VOLT (STYLE B ONLY) UV = UNIVERSAL VOLTAGE (STYLE CONLY) A = ADJUSTABLE MOUNT B = TRANSFORMER MOUNTWI 60VA TRANSFORMER, FIXED STEM C = MOUNT WI CONDUIT ENTRY, FIXED STEM 0= MOUNT WI OPEN BOTTOM, FIXED STEM BICS = BLACK SMOOTH BKT = BLACK TEXTURED BRS = BRONZE SMOOTH BRT = BRONZETEXTURED WHS = WHITE SMOOTH WHT = WHITE TEXTURED SIS = SILVER SMOOTH . 12 = 12" BELOW GRADE 18 = 18" BELOW GRADE SO =NONE S3 =3"STEM S6 ";6" STEM S12 = 12"STEM S18=18"STEM I STD = STANDARD MOD = MODIFIED STYLE B STYLEC IVS = IVORY SOMOOTH CHS = CHROME SMOOTH ' NBS = NATURAL BRONZE VET ;,;, VERDE TEXTURED SAT =SAND TEXTURED CPF = CUSTOM FINISH S24 = 24" STEM S30 = 30" STEM S36 = 36" STEM S42 = 42" STEM . Stems available STYLE 0 winona I i g h tin 3760 west fourth street· winona, minnesota 55987 • 507 -454-5113 • fax: 507 -454 -1814 winona lighting on the web • www.winonalighting.com Revised: 8-1-09 Page 1 of 1 ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE 815 [1/1] SISTEMALUX EOS SQUARE #S.4609-__ VOLTAGE FINISH Eos square is a recessed luminaire in die cast aluminum. . It is designed with a stepped downward trim for lighting walkways and staircases. The glass diffuser is concealed for optimum vandal resistance. SPECIFICATION SHEET LAMPING: 1 X 18 W QUAD TUBE COMPACT FLUORESCENT 4-PIN, G24q-2 BASE PROJECT NAME: __________ _ TYPE: ______________________________ _ LAST UPDATE: FEBRUARY 24th, 2009 -------EXTERNAL TRIM TCPVIEW .. r-.. MEMORY RETENTIVE CLOSED CELL SILICONE GASKET SEALING STIPPLED ALUMINUM .REFLECTOR FOR OPTIMUM SYMMETRICAL LIGHT OUTPUT 1 X 18W 4-PIN QUAD WALL COMPACT FLOURESCENT-~~-n ~;;;-r-~~=~~ (NOT INCLUDED) ~ 7-5/8" I (195mm) liiiliiiii L ® IMPACT RESISTANT GLASS LENS, 1/8" THICK DIE CAST ALUMINUM .--EXTERNAL TRIM VANDAL RESISTANT ALLEN HEAD SCREWS ELEVATION VIEW ELECTRONIC BALLAST FOR 18W COMPACT FLUORESCENT SECTION VIEW NOTE: CONNECTIONS TO BE DONE INSIDE THE FIXTURE HOUSING.I VOLTAGE ACCESSORIES Q5 8.4343 RECESSING BOX ~ (DIM.: 8-1/4" X 7-3/8" X 3-7/8") c@us 5455 de Gaspe suite 100, Montreal (Quebec) Canada H2T 3B3 P.: 514.523.1339 F.: 514.525.6107 o 8.4350 BRIQUE / BOLLARD ACCESSORY e o 8.4372 FLANGE FOR BRIQUE / BOLLARD ~ WITH STAINLESS STEEL SCREWS ~ (TO BE ANCHORED IN CONCRETE) o 120V 0 277V METAL FINISH o O~-BLACK rt5 14-ALUMINIUM EOS SQUARE ":' ....... It .... . '. ' . • ,4." ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 ,! I COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER. Impact resistant ceiling, and wall luminaires . unshielded Housing: One piece die-cast aluminum suppiied with universal mounting bracket for direct attachment to 3Y2" or 4" octagonal wiring box. Enclosure: Molded clear glass refractor W thick with internal structure and translucent white ceramic coating, retained by one piece die-cast a]uminum frame/guard, secured by four (4) captive socket head, stainless steel screws threaded into stainless steel inserts. Interior of lamp compartment painted gloss white. Fully gasketed for weather tight operation in any mounting orientation using a molded silicone rubber 'U' channel gasket. , Electrical: Lampholders: Fluorescent are type G24d-3 (26W), rated 75 W, 250 V, . Ballasts: F'luorescent are magnetic, HPF, available in 120Vor 277V-specify. Finish: Available in five standard BEGAcolors: Black (BLK); White (WHT); Bronze (BRZ); Silver (SLV); EurocoaFM (URO). To specify, add appropriate suffix to catalog number. Custom colors supplied on special order. U.L. listed, suitable for wet locations. Protection class IP 65. - A - - G - Glass' Lamps Lumen ABC ---.2630P 1 26W CF quad-2p 1800 10 1/4 10'/t. 5 '/a Type: BEGA Product: Project: Voltage: Color: Options: Modified: BEGA"US 1 000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805) 684-0533 FAX (805) 566-9474 www.bega-us.com ©copyright BEGA-US 2008 Updated 2/08 TYPE S16 [1/1] WI NSCA PErM Project ___________ _ Qty: __ Palm • PAR-20 Metal Halide QUICK FI D : QF·9 Construction: Body, cap, and knuckle machined from 6061 -T6. Lens cut from tempered borosilicate glass for superior clarity and strength. Medium base 4kV pulse rated porcelain socket rated 600W-600V, with 18 gao 200·C, 600V leads. Finishes: Available in 12 standard TGIC polyester powdercoat finishes. Custom powdercoat finishes available (contact factory for more information). Features: Field replaceable lens. Tapered "Sure Lock" knuckle seat for infinite aiming and an unparalleled locking ability. Any combination of up to 3 lens accessories/color filter/shielding can be speCified for cap style and are held securely by a removable stainless steel clip ring. 350· rotational knuckle standard. General: Mounting must be speCified separately when used with "B3" or"B4" ballast housing (see Accessories section on our website). All lamps listed are medium base PAR-20 Metal Halide (MH) unless otherWise noted. See page 2 forballast housing information. MOUNTING ~ ~ OPTIONS: GROUND ALL , aUNT MOUNT ~ d TREE SURFACE aDIFIED aUNT MOU STA DARD NOTE! See ACCe$50ries on our webstte for mounting options. UL I cUL listed: Wet lociltion Indoor/outdoor = 39W PA 1.-SE-RI-ES------~I~p_A_~_AA_LM _______________ ~ 89 2. ____ ----' LAMP 96 = ·NO LAMp, 39W BALLAST 100 = NO LAMp, 20W BALLAST 88 = 20W PAR20/MH/SP8 89 =20W PAR20/MH/F12S 70 = 39W PAR20/MH/SP10 71 = 39W PAR20/MH/Fl30 UB::;: UNIVERSAL BALLAST (120V, 208V, 240V, 277V) 3; UB VOLT~GE 4. LO ACCESSORY LENS 5. BRS FINISH 6. FO COLOR FILTER 7. SH6 SHIELDING 8. C3 CAP STYLE LO= NONE L1 = PRISMATIC u= LINEAR BICS = BLACK SMOOTH BKT = BLACK TEXTU RED BRS = BRONZE SMOOTH BRT = BRONZE TEXTURED WHS = WHITE SMOOTH WHT = WHITE TEXTURED SIS = SILVER SMOOTH FO = NONE FM = MERCURY VAPOR FR =RED FRD =RED DICHROIC FP == PINK . FA =AMBER I SHO=NONE (1 = SHORT FLUSH Q = LENS RECESSED B1 =INGRADE B 1 B2 = VERTICAL WALL MOUNT 9. I B3 = REMOTE WALL MOUNT BALlAST HOUSING B4:: REMOTE INGRADE o ::;: NONE L3 = SOFTENING L4 = WATERSHED'" IVS == IVORY SOMOOTH CHS = CHROME SMOOTH NBS = NATU RAL BRONZE VET = VERDETEXTURED SAT = SAND TEXTURED CPF ::;: CUSTOM FINISH FG ::;: GREEN FGD ::;: GREEN DICHROIC . FLB = LIGHT BLUE FMB = MEDIUM BLUE FMBD = MEDIUM BLUE DICHROIC SH6 = HONEYCOMB WUVER 0=45' CUTOFF . B5 = TREE MOUNT B6 = SIMPLE WALL MOUNT B7 = SURFACE MOUNT 10. PC PC = CONCRETE POUR COLLAR (B1 AND B4 ONLY) BALLAST OPTIONS 11. STD r_S_TD_=_S_TA_ND_AR_D ____ M_O_D =_M_O_DI_FIE_D --------' SPECIAL Modification Descriptions: (if needed) 2" oe .~ ~PCle ~C2~ ~ 81 82 83 84 8S 86 87 winona i ~ h tin 3760 west fourth street· winona, minnesota55987 • 507 -454-5113 • fax: 507 -454 -1814 winona lighting on the web • www.winonalighting.com Revised: 8-'-09 Page 1 of2 'WINSCAPE™ Project ________ -.,-__ _ Qty: __ Ballast Housing 81 -INGRADE 86 -SIMPLE WALL MOUNT B1· hlgra'de .- • Cover plate made from ALUMINUM • Molded composite housing below grade • Hardware is STAINLESS STEEL • Includes six 1/2" conduit entries, two bottom entries and four side entries • Concrete pour collar option available Height = 12-5/8" rt:< Diameter = 12'7" ~ (7·1/4" wI Pour Collar) GROUND Height = 9" Width = 6-112" Depth = 3-112" B6 • Simple Wall Mount • Fabricated STAINLESS STEEL box with STAINLESS mounting plate • Hardware is STAINLESS STEEL , • Mounts to any, flat vertical surface • Three 1/2" or 3/4" conduit prOViSion~. on bottom side • Vertical Wall Mount onlx . ' ~ , WALL· ' , 82 -VERTICAL WALL MOUNT 87 -SURFACE MOUNT B2 • Vertical Wall Mount • Mount box made from ALUMINUM • Wall mounting plate made from STAINLESS • Hardware is STAINLESS STEEL • Mounts to standard 4" wet location J-box • No ~xterior conduit entry '~ • VertIcal Wall Mount only . ,~ · WALL 83 • REMOTE WALL MOUNT Height = 8-1/8" Width = 8·114" Depth = 4-112" B3 • Remote Wall Mount • Standard steel NEMA 3R wet location ballast box • Ballast box powdercoated in standard grey only • Mounts to any fiat vertical surface • Provisions for two 1/2" or 3/4" conduit, bottom entry • Max remote distance up to 50 feet • Special Wire requirements apply WAtL 84-REMOTEINGRADE . Height = 12·5/8" Diameter = 12'7" (7 -1/4" wI Pour Collar) 85 -TREE MOUNT Height = 9" Width = 6-1/2" Depth = 3-1/2" B4· Remote Ingrade • Cover plate made from ALUMINUM- • Molded composite housing below grade • Hardware is STAINLESS STEEL • Includes six 1/2" conduit entries, two B bottom entries and four side entries • Concrete pour collar option available • Max remote distance up to 50 feet • Special wire requirements apply ~ .' GROUND B5 • Tree Mount • Fabricated STAINLESS STEEL box with STAINLESS mounting tabs • Hardware is STAINLESS STEEL • Mounts to any tree with minimum trunk diameter of 9" using two outdoor rated polypropylene straps • Three 1/2" or 3/4" conduit Provisi06@ns.. on bottom side '~ , TREE Height = 8" Width =5" Depth = 3" B7 • Surface Mount • Extruded ALUMINUM two piece body • Die cast ALUMINUM endcaps • Hardware is STAINLESS STEEL • Mounts'to any J-box or fiat surface, in any orientation • Hinged cover opens for easy wiririg & service • Ends can be tapped for two 1/2" or zsI 3/4" conduit ! s!, i. Ballast Housing can be mounted in any direction GENERAL BALLAST INFORMATION: • All ballast are electronic ballasts for quiet operation, best lamp performance and are thermally protected. BALLAST INPUT INPUT NOMINAL WATIAGE VOLTAGE CURRENT INPUT POWER 120V '0'.20 Amps 20W 208V 0.12Amps' 24W 240V 0.10Amps 277V 0.09 Amps 120V 0.37 Amps ._ 39W 208V O.22AmJ),s 44W 240V O.19Am~s 277V ."Q,,1,§&np~.w. ' 120V 0.65 Amps 70W 208V 0.37 Amps 78W 240V 0.32 Amps 277V 0.28 Amps 120V 0.92 Amps 110W ;l 100W 277V OAOAmps J 120V 1.37 Amps 150W 277V 0.60 Amps 164W winona igh lin 3760 west fourth street • winona, minnesota 55987 • 507 -454-5113 • fax: 507 -454 -1814 winona lighting on the web • www.winonalighting.com Revised: 8-1-09 Page 2 of2 ~NAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S18 [1/1] .\\ 1 \'-.,.# . SISTEMALUX SPECIFICATION SHEET LAMPING: 1 X.35W T4.5 METAL HALIDE. BLITZ #S.408 4 WINDOWS MODEL VOLTAGE FINISH G8:5 BASE . BLITZ is an outdoor fixture for ground, wall or ceiling applications. It is available with many windows configuration, projecting 40 or 500 beam. The Blitz is powder painted for high corrosion resistance. PRO"IECT NAME: __________ _ TYPE: ______________ _ o S.4081 I--07-1/8"~ (180mm) BOTTOM VIEW 50° ~S.4087 I--07-1/8"~ (180mm) i WALL BASE ---------~ /}A ELECTRONIC VANDAL RESISTANT :, BALLAST FOR 35W' STAINLESS STEEL ./ METAL HALIDE . ALLEN HEAD ~ MOUNTING. SCREWS JUNCTION BOX (NOT INCLUDED) . LENS HOLDER --h;;==I;;~~~n-lC- TEMPERED GLASS OPTIC LENS --1+---- 1 X 35WT4.5 METAL HALIDE--1 •• E~=::~~~ (NOT INCLUDED) DIE-CAST ALUMINUM BODY POWDER PAINTED FOR HIGH CORROSION RESISTANCE SECTION VIEW 5455 de Gaspe suite 100, Montreal (Quebec) Canada H2T 3B3 7" (178mm) c@us P.: 514.523,1339 F.: 514.525.6107 --..J./, LAST UPDATE: FEBRUARY 24th, 2009 DICHROIC LENSES (ACCESSORIES NOT INCLUDED) NARROW COLORED DICHROIC LENSES (2C/4C) o S.4056 -RED [[] o S.4057 -BLUE o S.4058 -YELLOW o S.4059 -GREEN o S.4039 -CLEAR MEDIUM COLORED DICHROIC LENSES (3so/S0C) o S.4076 -RED 101 0 S.4077-BLUE . 0 S.4078 -YELLOW o S.4079 -GREEN o 8.4040 -CLEAR PLASTIC STAKE FOR GARDEN APPLICATION T o S.3554 09-BLACK VOLTAGE o 120V 0 277V METAL FINISH o 01 -WHITE Q5 14 -ALUMINUM GREY BLITZ 4 WINDOWS ([!:Q!~!LN~E 80UTERA8S0C. 415-863.8800 . COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE 819 [1/1] I-l '!!P . SISTEMALUX LIFT SQUARE #S.50 . , 2 WINDOWS MODEL VOLTAGE Fi'NiSH LIFT SQUARE is an outdoor wall application. This die-cast aluminum application is powder painted for high corrosion resistance. It emits 2° narrow beams or 60° wide beams, ideal for decorative illumination or1.architecture. o 5.5021 o 5.5031 \ SPECIFICATION SHEET LAMPING: 1 X 35W T4.5 METAL HALIDE, G8:5 BASE PROJECT NAME: _________ __ TYPE:~ ______________ ~ __________ __ r;t 5.5041 LAST UPDATE: FEBRUARY 24th, 2009 TEMPERED GLASS WI FROSTED TRIMS :~. . DIE-CAST ALUMINUM HOUSING AND BASE POWDER PAINTED FOR HIGH CORROSION RESISTANCE x 60.° BOTTOM VIEW 7"SO. (180mm) ELEVATION VIEW /' ACCESSORIES 0 0 DIE-CAST ALUMINUM HOUSING POWDER PAINTED FOR HIGH ---J~----CORROSION _______ ~:.:..:-._: RESISTANCE 'r,....-.-+-~--;t"'1t-----1 X 35W T4.5 ------_~~=-:~£ METAL HALIDE (NOT INCLUDED) JUNCTION BOX ---- -(NOT INCLUDED) . ELECTRONIC BALLAST _~~o:..-........,.,~u=--"'--"""""' ..... M/J -FOR(1)35W METAL HALIDE SIDE VIEW 8.5010 -WIDE BEAM LENS (ONLY FOR $.5021 -$.5031) o 277 V COLORED FILTERS ( VOLTAGE o 120V ) «>0 8.5006 -RED 8.5008 -YEllOW 8.5007 -BLUE 8.5009 -GREEN METAL FINISH 001-WHITE (lJ 14-ALUMINUMGREY c@us 5455 de Gaspe suite 10.0., Montreal (Quebec) Canada H2T 3B3 P.: 514.523.1339 F.:514.525.6107 LIFT SQUARE 2 WINDOWS l0£0lN!)E SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S20 [1/3] 14" FIXTURE DESCRIPTION LBS EPA IP LAMP/BALLAST SL CS14W opal lens, includes welded arm 24 1.44 56 ~ CF Compact fluorescent, electronic ballast 120 thru 277 volt. Use 4-pin, 26, 32 SL CS14CGR3 clear acrylic lens, type 3 glass 25 1.44 56 or 42 watt lamp. Only for SL CS 14 W. refractor, includes welded arm (ballast in arm) 50MH 50 watt metal halide, 120/277 SL CS14CL clear acrylic lens, low brightness 25 1.44 56 volt ballast. Use medium base, radial louvers, includes welded arm clear ED-17 lamps. 70MH 70 watt metal halide, 120/208/240/277 SL CS14LDL clear acrylic lightly diffused lens, 24 1.44 56 vo~ ballast. Use medium base, includes welded arm clear ED-1 7 lam ps. NOTE: Integral ballast for flourescent only, HID ballast are remote. 100MH 100 watt metal halide 120/208/240/277. volt ballast. Maximum wattage shall be 100 watts. Use medium base, clear ED-17 lamps. 150MH 150 watt metal halide 1 20/20812401277 volt ballast. Use medium base, clear ED-17 lamps. 18" FIXTURE DESCRIPTION LBS EPA IP 175MH 175 watt metal halide, ~SLCS18W opal lens 32 2.15 56 120/208/240/277 volt ballast. Use medium base, clear ED-17 lamps. SL CS18CGR3 clear acrylic lens, 35 2.15 56 250MH 250 watt metal halide, 120/208/240/277 type 3 glass refractor vo~ multitap ballast. Use mogul base, clear ED-28 lamps. (remote allast) SL CS18CGR5 clear acrylic lens, 35 2.15 56 50HPS 50 watt high pressure sodium, type 5 glass refractor 1 20/277 volt ballast. Use medium base, clear ED-17 lamps. SL CS18LDL clear acrylic lightly diffused lens 32 2.15 56 70HPS 70 watt high pressure sodium, SL CS18LDLT3 clear acrylic lightly diffused lens, 33 2.15 56 120/208/240/277 volt ballast. Use medium base, clear ED-17 lamps. type 3 upper reflector 100HPS 100 watt high pressure sodium, SL CS18LDLT5 clear acrylic lightly diffused lens, 33 2.15 56 120/208/240/277 volt ballast. type 5 upper reflector Use medium base, clear ED-17 lamps. NOTE: Maximum wattage shall be 175 watts. 150HPS 150 watt high pressure sodium, 120/208/240/277 volt ballast. Use medium base, clear ED-17 lamps. 250HPS 250 watt high pressure sodium, 120/208/240/277 volt multitap ballast. 20" FIXTURE DESCRIPTION LBS EPA IP Use mogul base, clear ED-28 lamps. (remote ballast) SL CS20W* opal lens 32 2.15 56 NOTE: Lamps not included. SL CS20CGR3* clear acrylic lens, 35 2.15 56 All fixtures prewired for 277 volts except SL CS14. type 3 glass refractor SL C$20CGR5* clear acrylic lens, 35 2.15 56 COLORS type 5 glass refractor ---> Standard AAL Colors. SL CS20LDL* clear acrylic lightly diffused lens 32 2.15 56 SL CS20LDLT3* clear acrylic lightly diffused lens, 33 2.15 56 OPTIONS type 3 upper reflector ~STSB Horizontal band of satin brushed stainless steel. SL CS20LDLT5* clear acrylic lightly diffused lens, 33 2.15 56 AD5 Adaptor for a 5" o.d. pole. type 5 upper reflector LDL Lightly diffused lens to "Remote ballast required on 250 watt fixtures. conceal fixture interior. 2 ARCHITECTURAL AREA LIGHTING IhU~(I,~~~ SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S20 [2/3] DIMENSIONS 8L C814 17" x 20" 'Projection ELEVATED SCALE . --. 8L C818 21" x 22" Slips over a 4' o,d, pole I ! 8L C820 23" x 24" Slips over a 4' Q,d, pole ~'i"""""""+""""""+!""""""'f",,'''''''''''f'''''''''' .. 'I .............. j ...... ~~ .... · .... ·+ .. · .......... i .......... ·~= .... + ........ · .. ·+ .... · ....... j ............ j ............. f ............. l ............................ i .............. i ........... 1v-~~~~f ~, .......... + ............ , ........ · .... +I V \( "" ~ 11.J/ ~ II II ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ( I ........ l\t='=¥)~ ............. t .............. f ............ + ..... ' .. ~ .. V .. r~ ..... :~~ ~~~r. ....... i~ .. J ......... j .... · .... · .. ··!f ............ ·j .... · ........ ··I· .......... j ...... j= = .. "'.+\ ............... + ............. ; ............... i .............. ; ........ Hl...... 1 ... 1 .. = ........... +"' .... 1 .. : ... : ..• ·'[ .. ·::::: .. •·· .. ····;··::·:·: .. ·· .. ·····::;·:r· .. 1 ~~ .. ~~# )iF 1 ...... · .. + ............ ·+· .... · ...... +· ........ · .. 1 1 .... · .... ·1 .. · .... ·· .. , .. 1 .... · .... · .... ·1 .... · .. ··•·· .. ;, .. 1 1 .. + .... ·· ...... · ... · .... · .. ~1-.... ,· ...... + · .............. 1 .. ·· .. , ...... + .. 1 1 1:1-~l:j-j-::-i -l III! rF~ ~~ I--+--r--I--II II-I--+--+---U H--+--" .-t,.--t----l---+I t=i F1 =F\I ... ~. \ -I- -- v / scale: 0.25" = l' head ARM POLE ......................... OPTIONS SL CS18 SL CS18LDL 2-SL CS20LDLT5 SLCS18CGR3 3-SL CS18CGR3 ................. .......... , ............. . ............................................................................................... , . WMA22 2-TRA 6U ........................................................................................................ _ ..........•........ DB9-4R10 DB8-4R16 DB6-4R12 .................... BBD4-18 ARCHITECTURAL AREA LIGHTING 2-SLA22U PR5-5R18 BC5-5 SLCS14W 3 I~ \JM)-~A~ SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE 820 [3/3] 4 The SL CS14W features a cast, wall mounted arm assembly. The horizontal band can be ordered in a different color than the body. Custom band designs can be specified in unlimit- ed configurations. STSB option shown. The threaded fitter offers secure, tool free access to the lamp. No springs to weaken from exposure to heat. A silicone gasl<et keeps the lamp compartment free of insects and dirt. SPECIFICATIONS HOUSING TI1e fixture frtter shall be one piece cast aluminum. The fitter shall house the electrical assembly (except 250 watt). The housing shall have a tool less access to the lamp by means of a threaded fitter on the lens. The opal lens shall be one piece formed acrylic, sealed to a cast aluminum threaded fitter for attaching to the fixture, with no hardware. The fixture is relamped by unscrewing the lens one full turn. The lamp chamber shall be sealed from the elements with a sil- icone compression gasket. REFRACTOR LENS The refractor shall be precIsion molded borosilicate glass. The refractor shall be gasketed, top and bottom, to allow for heat expansion. REFLECTOR MODULE The optical assembly shall consist of a polislled specular upper reflector and a satin finished lower reflector to control glare. The reflector module shall be mounted to the fitter assembly and remain stationary when the globe is removed. ELECTRICAL MOUNTING Fixture slips over a 4 inch 0.0. pole for post top mounting. FINISH Fixture finish consists of a five stage pretreatment regimen with a polymer primer sealer, oven dry off and top coated with a thermoset super TGIC polyester powder coat finish. The finish shall meet the AAMA 605.2 performance specification which includes passing a 3000 hour salt spray test for corrosion resistance. CERTIFICATION The fixture is listed with UL for outdoor, wet location use, UL 1598. IP Rating: 56. WARRANTY Fixture is wan"anted for three years. Ballast components carlY the ballast manufacturer's limited warranty. PHOTOMETRY Complete photometric data is available· in IES formatted files on AAL's website: www.aal.net. ARCHITECTURAL AREA LIGHTING '14:249 ,i:.,rTE;!3ia Boulevard, LEt rvlirada, (:A 90c33e tel (7'j 4) 994 ·2700. fax \7'14) 994 ·'()S?2 ® Electrical components shall be mounted and wired to a mounting plate within the fixture. The ballast compartment shall be sealed with an aluminum cover. All electrical components and materials shall be U.L. recognized. Ballasts are high power factor rated for -30" start- ing. Medium base porcelain sockets are 4KV rated. Mogul base porcelain sockets are 4KV rated. Fluorescent ballasts are electronic, rated for -5°F starting for use with 4 pin double twin tube T-4 lamps. www.aal.not Copyri(:jht~) 2005. AAL Hubbell Ughting, Inc. ARCHITECTURAL AREA LIGHTING ~~IAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 ';; )t .. '" , COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPES21 [1/2] -·-· _______ . __ ".u.· .•.. · _____ · Date: ____ . ____ ._ .. __ . __ .... ____ . ____ ._ Type: _._._. ________ . __ _ Firm Name: ______ . ______________ .. ____________ ... ___ _ Pmject: _._ .. _______ .. ___________________ .. _._ ... ____ . ____ _ ColorGraze Powercore 30° X 60° (niedium) beam angle Linear, color-changing LED surface light for wall washing and grazing ColorGraze ™ Powercore is a linear fixture optimized for surface grazing, wall-wash lighting, and efficient signage illumination. Superior beam quality offers uniform beam saturation. A compact, low-profile design combined with flexible mounting options allows for discreet placement within wide- ranging architectural details. Intelligent, controllable fixtures are available in standard full-color configurations. Build-to-order configurations with additional beam angles and custom channels of white or color LEDs are also available to support special applications. • Tailor light output to specific applications - Available in three lengths, with standard 100 x 600 or 300 x 600 beam ,angle options. 1 ft (305 mm) light addressing segments within each fixture allow fine control of color-changing effects and pre-programmed light shows. • High-performance illumination and beam quality -Superior beam quality for striation- free saturation as close as 6 in (152 mm) from fixture placement. Delivering up to 271 lumens of color-changing light projection per foot, ColorGraze Powercore accommodates end-to- end or incremental installation without visible light scalloping between fixtures. o Integrated Powercore technology -Efficiently and accurately processes power directly from line voltage, eliminating the need for low- voltage, external power supplies. The Philips Data Enabler merges line voltage with control data over a single standard cable, simplifying installation and lowering total system cost • Versatile installation options -Constant torque locking hinges offer simple and consistent position control from various angles. The low-profile aluminum housing accommodates placement within most architectural niches. • Renowned LED quality -LEDs provide 50,000 hours of use at 70% lumen maintenance. Optibin@ technology delivers the truest possible color quality and consistency. Active thermal management ensures consistent lifetime operation in high-temperature environments. ~~=:~. ~:: ~~::~;~~ :I~~:: ~::~~:: ~~j fl~) 1-----l.o(,r. (609 tt.n) Il61",(91~nrn) ' .. 8In(11"mm) ----II l 11:1 i 2.1 In (53nlm) .38 ill Jain~(?.snwn)(if.'n:~l) (H"on) ---1 2.361" US'ill (60 ... ) (JSmm) _ . .211,,(.Bmm)d Fb:WN .Btl In (2tnrn) o Digital control compatibility -ColorGraze Powercore works with the complete range of Philips Ethernet and DMX controllers, including Light System Manager, iPlayer® 3, and Video System Manager Pro, as well as with third-party DMX512 controllers. o Custom configurations for special applications -Standard configurations use three channels of LEDs (Red, Green, and Blue) for a full range of 16.7 million RGB colors. You can create custom configurations by exchanging the LEDs in any channel.Avaiiable LEDs include eight color temperatures ranging from warm 2700 K to cool 6500 K, Royal Blue, Blue, Green,Amber, and Red .Additional beam angles (9° x 9°, 10° x 300 , and 90° x 60°) are also available. See the ColorGraze Power-core Ordering Information specification sheet for complete details. For detailed product information. please refer to ColorGraze Powercore Product Guide at www.colorldnetics.comlls/rgb/colorgraze/ PHILI 5 ILV~lti~E SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S21 [2/2] Specifications Due to continuous improvements and innovations, specifications may change without notice. Item au Con LUm&Nt Lu~n M:untMlI\~; Inp VoItD&e Powar Consump em Interlaee Co (roj S)lSt m D",~Ion! (/-Iettht x WJdth x Depth) Welt Houtlng l Ftxru,.e ~n6aor" Hum! 'r.y 3 ~ (91-4 rnm) -4 ft (1219 mm) .506 759 101'2 16.7 million addft R{i8 colors; ton tin OtIsly I/\l '~3d~ti5'Z~mhlrto,li~if6.thi:pellM s~tUrli~ibh ; '.' 50,000 rs L70 @ SO· C ao,ooo hours L70 @ '25-C 100 -2040VAC.lutu-s tchin" SO 160 Hz 35W m&:l6{OOm at full OUtpu t ady $~tG 52.S W mlXlm m at full outpu st 0)'1 fA! ,Data E bier (OMX or Etha: flf) 70 V'I max mUm t full outpUt, ady.$tat(! Philips Ilnn&, of cootr'OlIe~ .In,luern, U&l t Sy~tem M "Ig ~ Ind I r 3. or Ird-puty DMX cOlltf'OlI (S 2..7 x 204)( 2.8 tn '2.7 x 16 x 2..8 in 27 x 48 x 2,8 In (69 x. 610 x 71 nvn) (69 x 9H)( 71 mm) (69)( 1219)( 71 mm) 4.91b (l.lkc) 8.1 Ib (161<g) 10.81b (".9 kC) Ex ded lnodlzed aluminum Oe;ar yC2rbqn~ul with holognphk Inte~1 ma~ / f male waterproof tonntcto/'$ • lodelll& hlo& s --to' -tl"F¥': ( .... 0· -SO' C) O~t)HiC ~. .... -12r F (-20· -50' C) StaraJp o ... 95%. no -conde.rlilng Ph otometr ics ColorGraze Powercore 2 ft, 30° x 60° (medium) Polar Candela Distribution VA:.O· 10' 20' .-O'H 30' 30' 40' • -90' H Illuminance at Di~;tan(e 4 ft ; .................... 1J...r~ .... . 8ft ...................... 1.~..r~ ....... 16ft i· .. · 20ft \._", •• _ .. ...J Bu m Width ......... ~~ .. ~ ...... ~:Lf~ ...... , .... l}:L~. 'j 24ft l .... __ ... _._ ....... __ ......... ___ .::.. 26 ft (J.9 m) IliIIVOl't.Spre.d:29.1' 1 fc maximum distance lUI Hori1:. Sp· .... d:7S.1· EffIcacy ,...5 FOI' lux multiply fc by '10.7 60' FlxtJJre Run Len&~ 1! i i~I';ii':~i~~~t2r~~~;~~'···· ,-7 \ .. -----../ LEO C s UL f dJL.. FCC aUI A. Ceo fiSE Ow 2 leRmt!~~c,t.« EnvIron~nt Dry I Damp tWo ( LocadO(),/P66 ; :-;.~/\ . til \ ~) \1 1/ t Lumen measurement complies with IES LM.79.08. D~" ~ C E: ~ For detailed product information, please refer to ColorGraze Powercore Product Guide at www.colorkinetics.com/ls/rgb/colorgraze/ t L70 = 70% maintenance of lumen output. (When light output drops below 70% of initial output.) *These figures. provided as a guideline, are accurate for this configuration only. Changing the configuration can affect the fixture run lengths. FixtLlI~es, Data Enablel~s, and Controllel~s leem CO!OrGr.n6 Powerco~ TyPt ze ~2ft 30· x 60-3 ft .. ft .. ··.r)Mi<)'., Ethcm t Ethernet, DVI Intem«l I:theme ComposIte Inte.mce .·.· ... · .. ·,~w, ..... w,.w.·_·'''=·_·'O'>···.·.;; .• w.;: ... )'o'' • .., ... ......,: leem rni>er Phil! 12NC . 123-000030.03 123-000030-04 910503700311 910503700312 123·000030.05 910503700311 JMiop~gp3~·q1· ... ~1.g4Q~3~~8Q1. 106.000003·05 910503700064 .. :"03~OQ.Qq~~t\QQi : . ~.10$Q~iQO~2's ; 10J·OOOO22~1 910503700455 . LiglitSx~~e,p M~n~g~~;:: &n~ec '1oil,~Q;QQ1~'PO' .< ~tQSP370.Q~21o': • CoIorO'at SynchronIzer· .l-1u}~~.~~chrooi~er PHILIPS e OMX. N.Aroerln Power Cord 103-000019-00 910040332710 DM><, Euro~;~o.'NerCoi'q '1 O?~0,C)pq1~.01 . 9'O~QV09.~92 OMX 103-000014·00 910401326901 DMX ' DMX Philips Color Kinetics 3 Burlington W oods Drive fo'3~qOoo6i ;;00 1Q3.000002.00 Burlington, Massachusetts 01803 USA Tel 888.385.5742 Tel 617.423.9999 Fax 617.423.9998 WVoMl.colorkinetics.com Accessories It m Type l ~ Ul/cUL Cable CE I PSE Ul/c:UL two Num p lip!! tlNC 50 ft (15.2 m) 108..()0()042·00 1 08.000042-00 50 ft (1.5.2 m) 108-0000-42-01 91051)3700323 End·to-End 108..000039-00 910503700314 1 ft (lOS mm) 108-000039·01 910503100315 5 ft (1.5 tTl) 108·000019-02 ~O503700316 End·to-End 109-0000040-00 91 05CJ3700317 1 f( (30S mm) 108.000040·01 910503700318 5 ft (1.5 m) 108..()()00049·01 91QS()3700319 12,o.Obb081.0Q .cj1dS03t~Q,7:45 . 120-000081-01 9105037007046 3 ft (914 m~t .·1:26,OQ0981 ~92 91.050370Q.'747 .. ft (1.2 m) 120-000081.03 9105037007"8 Use Item Number when ordering in North America. Copyright © 2008 2009 Philips Solid .. State Light!ng Solutions. Inc. All nghts reserved. Chromacore, Chromasic, CK the CK logo. Color Kinetics, the Color Kinetics logo, ColorBlast, ColorBlaze, ColorBurst. COlorGraze. ColorPIay. ColorReach, DIMand, EssentialWhite, eW, iColor, ICoior Cove, IntelliWhite, iW, iPlayer. Light W ithout Limits, Optib;r, and Powercore are either registered trademar"..s or trademarks of Philips Solid-State lighting Solutions, inc. in the United States and/or othel' couno·ies. All other brand or product names are trademar".s or registered trademar"s of their respective owners. Due to continllous improvements and Innovations. specifications may change wlthollt notice. DAS-000010-02 ROS 07-09 I I COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE -PC ZONE APPLICATION 2100 EI Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Discretionary Approvals City Council initiation of PC Zone Process ATTACHMENT E November 18, 2009 7/27/2009 Submit documents to Staff for Environmental Analysis and Departmental reviews 8/11/09 Submit P&TC package to Staff Planning & Transportation Commission hearing Submit documents to Staff for ARB Formal review ARB hearing (Formal) Planning & Transportation Commission hearing (consent calendar) City Council hearing and first reading of PC Zone Ordinance City Council second reading of PC Zone Ordinance City Departmental Approvals and Construction of the Project Prepare and complete design development documents Obtain approval from City for lot merger Prepare and complete construction documents Obtain required encroachment permit from Caltrans Subm it for Plan Check Secure construction financing Obtain Building Permits, pay fees and start construction Complete construction of Project shell and City improvements Lease spaces, construct Tenant Improvements and obtain Certificates Of Occupancy 10/01/09 10/14/09 10/22/09 11/05/09 12/02/09 12/07/09 12/14/2009 7/1/2010 12/01/2010 6/01/2011 6/01/2011 8/01/2011 6/01/2012 12/01/2012 12/01/2014 12/01/2015 Y N ~ 1 5 N 6 2 I 3 2 N tt I' 1 1 1 1 1 1 141 LEED 2009 for Core and Shell Development Project Checklist ustalna61e Sites Prereq 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Credit 1 Site Selection 1 Credit 2 Development Density and Community Connectivity 5 Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation-Public Transportation Access 6 Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation-Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms 2 Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation-Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles 3 Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation-Parking Capacity 2 Credit 5.1 Site Development-Protect or Restore Habitat Credit 5.2 Site Development-Maximize Open Space Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design-Quantity Control Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design-Quality Control Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect-Non-roof Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect-Roof Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction Credit 9 Tenant Design and Construction Guidelines ater fflC1en~ Possib e Pomts: 10 ~pre~l Water Use Reduction-20% Reduction 2 . Credit 1 Water Efficient Landscaping 2 to 4 N Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 2 2 1 Credit 3 Water Use Reduction 2 to 4 I 91 ! 6 I Ener~ and Atmos here Possible Points: 37 Prereq 1 Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems Prereq 2 Minimum Energy Performance Y I Prereq 3 Fundamental Refrigerant Management 3 2 Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance 3 to 21 2 Credit 2 On-Site Renewable Energy 4 2 Credit 3 Enhanced Commissioning 2 2 Credit 4 Enhanced Refrigerant Management 2 N Credit 5.1 Measurement and Verification-Base Building 3 2 Credit 5.2 Measurement and Verification-Tenant Submetering 3 2 Credit 6 Green Power 2 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE ~1 _6~1 __ ~~~==~==~=~~esour_ce_s ________ ~ ______ ~~~~ Y N ..-Y Prereq 1 Storage and Collection of Recyclables N Credit 1 Building Reuse-Maintain Existing Walls, Floors, and Roof 2 Credit 2 Construction Waste Management N Credit 3 Materials Reuse 2 Credit 4 Recycled Content 2 Credit 5 Regional Materials 1 Credit 6 Certified Wood 1 to 5 1 to 2 1 1 to 2 1 to 2 1 1-1 _8 .!-.! -...1.1...-;4...J,!.;..;.ln;,,;;(i;,,;;o..;;;,o,;..r . .;;;;E.;..;.hV1..;..;~ __ ro=n~m=en:..:..t=a:":""::::~~!-_____ I....-__ --=-P.::;o.=.::ss:.:..:ilj~le Points ...... : __...12 ____ _ fYl rv1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i.l' , 1 1 1 Ir·- Prereq 1 Prereq 2 Credit 1 Credit 2 Credit 3 Credit 4.1 Credit 4.2 Credit 4.3 Credit 4.4 Credit 5 Credit 6 Credit 7 Credit 8.1 Credit 8.2 Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring Increased Ventilation Construction IAQ Management Plan-During Construction Low-Emitting Materials-Adhesives and Sealants Low-Emitting Materials-Paints and Coatings Low-Emitting Materials-Flooring Systems Low-Emitting Materials:-Composite Wood and Agrifiber Products Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control Controllability of Systems-Thermal Comfort Thermal Comfort-Design Daylight and Views-Daylight Daylight and Views-Views Credit 1.1 Innovation in Desig,n: Specific Title Credit 1.2 Innovation in Design: Specific Tt'tle Credit 1.3 Innovation in Design: Speciflc Title Credit 1.4 Innovation in Design: Specific Title Credit 1.5 Innovation in Design: Specific Title Credit 2 LEED Accredited Professional g' 1 Credit 1.1 1 Credit 1.2 1 Credit 1.3 Credit 1.4 Regional Priority: WEc1, Opt. 1 Regional Priority: EAc2 (1%) --PVs Regional Priority: IEQcB.1 --Daylight Regional Priority: Specific Credit 1551 1181 ota Possible Points: 110 C '{t Ined 40 to 49 points SHv~r 50 to 59 points Gold 60 to 79 palnu P'-t"Inum eo to 11 {} 10/27/2009 LEED Calculator Page 1 » -I -I » (") J: S m z -I 'i1 LEED 2009 for Core and Shell Development Project Checklist Project Name Date [EI'O]2] Sustainable_S_it_e_s _________ ~ ___ ~ ___ P_ossible Points: Y N ,............. y 1 5 N 6 2 3 2 ~ N ~ N 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 Prereq 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Credit 1 Site Selection Credit 2 Development Density and Community Connectivity Credit 3 Brownfiel.d Redevelopment Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation-Public Transportation Access Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation-Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation-Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation-Parking Capacity Credit 5.1 Site Development-Protect or Restore Habitat Credit 5.2 Site Development-Maximize Open Space Credit 6.1 Stormwater D_esign-Quantity Control Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design-Quality Control Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect-Non-roof Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect-Roof Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction Credit 9 Tenant Design and Construction Guidelines Water Efficien [v=21 Prereq 1 rTl-_--t--..,....,.,..---.ICredit 1 Water Use Reduction-20% Reduction Water Efficient Landscaping [IJReduce by 50% le"""t2 Credit 3 D No Potable Water Use or Irrigation Innovative Wastewater Technologies Water Use Reduction ~Reduce by 30% 3 Reduce by 35% Reduce by 40% LEED 2009 for Core and Shell College Terrace Centre Commercial 5 1 6 2 3 2 10 2 to 4 2 4 2 2 to 4 2 3 4 1 0/27/2009 - 1 of 3 L prere.Q l y Prereq 2 Y Prereq 3 6 Credit 1 -. Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems Minimum Energy Performance Fundamental Refrigerant Management Optimize Energy Performance Possible Poin s: Improve by 12%for New Buildings or 8% for Existing Building Renovations Improve by 14% for New Buildings or 10% for Existing Building Renovations Improve by 16% for New Buildings or 12% for Existing Building Renovations 3 to 21 3 4 5 Improve by 18% for New Buildings or 14% for Existing Building Renovations 6 Improve by 20% for New Buildings or 16% for Existing Building Renovations 7 Improve by 22% for New Buildings or 18% for Existing Building Renovations 8 Improve by 24% for New Buildings or 20% for Existing Building Renovations 9 Improve by 26% for New Buildings or 22% for Existing Building Renovations 10 Improve by 28% for New Buildings or 24% for Existing Building Renovations 11 Improve by 30% for New Buildings or 26% for Existing Building Renovations 12 Improve by 32% for NeW Buildings or 28% for Existing Building Renovations 13 Improve by 34% for New Buildings or 30% for Existing Building Renovations 14 Improve by 36% for New Buildings or 32% for Existing Building Renovations 15 Improve by 38% for New Buildings or 34% for Existing Building Renovations 16 Improve by 40% for New Buildings or 36% for Existing Building Renovations 17 Improve by 42% for New Buildings or 38% for Existing Building Renovations 18 Improve by 44% for New Buildings or 40% for Existing Building Renovations 19 Improve by 46% for New Buildings or 42% for Existing Buildin'g Renovations 20 Improve by 48%+ for New Buildings or 44%+ for Existing Building Renovations 21 4 Credit 2 On-Site Renewable Energy 4 Credit 3 Enhanced Commissioning 2 2 -·1 - 2 Credit 4 Enhanced Refrigerant Management 2 N Credit 5.1 Measurement and Verification-Base Building ~ 3 2 Credit 5.2 Measurement and Verification-Tenant Submetering Credit 6 Green Power ~IITiJ Materials and Resources --------~----~----------~---Y N m N Prereql DI--~-""--fcredlt 1 [=u=I.-Jcredit 2 l0edlt l Credit 4 [;:;,;.;.;2;;..' _,L----L_-Ilcredit 5 L..[..;.. .•... _: -L-_..L....----.JICredit 6 ·Storage and Collection of Recyclables Building Reuse-Maintain Existing Walls, Floors, and Roof Reuse 25% Reuse 33% Reuse 42% Reuse 50% Reuse 75% Construction Waste Management b#irl~: ::~~~~:~:; ~:~:::~ Materials Reuse Recycled Content ~""'j10% of Content {f ' 20% of Content Regional Materials D 1 0% of Materials IT]20% of Materials Certified Wood LEED 2009 for Core and Shell College Terrace Centre Commercial 3 3 2 Possi ble Points: 1 3 1 to 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 to 2 1 2 1 to 2 1 2 1 to 2 1 2 1 0/27/2009 - 2 of 3 r---y !---Y ~ 1 1 - 1 I' 1 ,> --I 1 .I 1 ~J Indoor Envkonmental Qualit Possible Points: 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 Prereq 1 Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance Prereq 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring Credit 2 Increased Ventilation Credit 3 Construction Indoor Air Quality Management Plan-During Construction Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials-Adhesives and Sealants Credit 4.2 Low-Emitting Materials-Paints and Coatings Credit 4.3 Low-Emitting Materials-Flooring Systems Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting Materials-Composite Wood and Agrifiber Products Credit 5 Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control Credit 6 Controllability of Systems-Thermal Comfort Credit 7 Thermal Comfort-Design Credit 8.1 Daylight and Views-Daylight Credit 8.2 Daylight and Views-Views o [1] Innovation and Desi n Process ______ -L..o. ____ P...;;,o.;.;ss;...;.;ib;;..;l...;;,e_P..::.o_in...,:t.:..,.s: __ 6_----J 1·-~ I' '1'0 1 " 1 1 1 Credit 1.1 Innovation in Design: Specific Title Credit 1.2 Innovation in Design: Specific Title Credit 1.3 Innovation in Design: Specific Title Credit 1.4 Innovation in Design: Specific Title Credit 1.5 Innovation in Design: Specific Title Credit 2 LEED Accredited Professional ~~I Regiona' Priority C_re_d_i_ts ____________ _ ~credit.1 '1 Credit 1.2 Credit 1.3 Credit 1.4 [5"i I o I 19 I Total Regional Priority: Specific Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit Possi le Points: 4 Possible Points: 110 Cc-rtified 40 to 49 points Silver 50 to 59 points Gold 60 to '79 points Platinum 80 to 110 LEED 2009 for Core and Shell College Terrace Centre Commercial 1 0/27/2009 - 3 of 3 Multifamily GreenPoint Rated Checklist The GreenPoint Rated checklist tracks green features incorporated into the home. A home is only GreenPoint Rated if all features are verified by a Certified GreenPoint Rater through Build It Green. GreenPoint Rated is provided as a public service by Build It Green, a professional non-profit whose mission is to promote healthy, energy and resource efficient buildings in California. The minimum requirements for a GreenPoint Rated 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 B1 a (50% construction waste diversion), ABa. (exceed Title 24 requirements by 15%), C10a. (3-year subcontractor guarantee and 20-year manufacturer warranty for shingle roofing), and F1 (Incorporate Green Point Rated checklist in blueprints). The green buiJding practices listed below are .described in the GreenPoint Rated Multifamily Rating Manual. For more information please visit www.builditgreen.org/greenpointrated Enter Total Conditioned Floor Area of the Project: Enter Total NonNResidential Floor Area of Project: Percent of Project Dedicated to Residential Use COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE 7) Hair Care 10) Library 13) Public Park 16) Restaurant 19) Commercial Office 2) Place of Worship 5) Cleaners 8) Hardware 11) Medical/Dental 14) Pharmacy 17) School 20) Community Center Convenience Store Where Meat & Produce are Sold. 5 or more services within 1/2 10 or more services within 1/2 g. Developmentis Located within 1/2 Mile of a Major -·h:R·e;duced""Parklng-Ca·pacFiY:w""-.. "w ..... " ..... "",,.---- Less than 1.5 Parking Spaces Per Unit Less than 1.0 Per Unit 2. Mixed-Use Developments 12) Senior Care Facility 15) Post Office 18) After School Programs 21) Theater/Entertainment a. At least 2% of Development Floorspace Supports Mixed Use (Non-Residential Tenants) b. Half of Above Non-Residential Floors is Dedicated to Residents of the D ent & Visitors Gathering Places a. Outdoor Gathering Places for Residents (Average of 50 sf Per Unit Or More) b. Outdoor Gath Places Provide Natural Elements sites 6. Design for Safety and Natural Surveillance 10/27/2009 MF GreenPoint Checklist C T C Townhouses L .. C~~~t r§lrltT~~~I--'J--115] ~ ~. GreenPointRATED Page 1 of 6 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE a. All Main Entrances to the Building and b. Residence Entries Have Views to Cal ues 80% of Units b. Live/Work Units Include A Dedicated Commercial Entrance 11. Affordabllity a. A Percentage of Units are Dedicated to Households Making 80% or Less of AMI 10% o'f All Units 20% 30% 50% or More b. Development Includes Multi 1. Construction & Demolition Waste Management Divert a Portion of all Construction & Demolition Waste: Required: Divert 50% Divert 65% Divert 80% or more Construction Material Efficiencies a. Lumber is Delivered Pre-Cut from Supplier (80% or More of Total Board Feet) b. Components o'f the Project Are Pre-Assembled Off-Site & Delivered to the Project 25% of Total Square Footage 50% of Total Square Footage or More for Fill, Backfill & Other Uses 20% 30% or More 10/27/2009 MF GreenPoint Checklist eTC Townhouses uired Page 2 of 6 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE 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 a. 90% or More of All Floor & Ceiling Joists b. 90% or More of All Studs c. 90% or More of All Headers & Beams c.A Minimum of 80% of Kitchen 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 lVIore 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 Floor Area D Behind Windows is 2. Radiant Hydron a. lnstall Rad in All Residences 10/27/2009 MF GreenPoint Checklist eTC Townhouses Page 3 of 6 COLLEGE TERRACE CENlrRE 8n,,,,,,,riot,,, Fixture Selection Areas on Roof & in Mechanical b. Install Photovoltaics to Offset a Percemt of the Project's Total Estimated Electricity Demand 10% 20% 30% or more c. Educational Di is Provided in a Viewable Public Area to. Elevators a. Install ENERGY STAR Refrigerators in All Locations Install ENERGY STAR-Qualified and <25cuft Install ENERGY STAR-Qualified and <20cuft b. Install ENERGY STAR Dishwashers in All Locations All Dishwashers Are ENERGY STAR-qualified Residential-grade Dishwashers Use No More than 6.5 Gallons Per Cycle c. Install ENERGY STAR Clothes Washers In All Locations ' in Residences Facilities Are Provided for All or Less b. High-Efficiency Toilets Use 1.28 gpf or Less or Are Dual Flush In All Residences In All Non-Residential Areas c. Install High Efficiency Urinals (0.5 gpf or less) or No-Water Urinals Wherever Urinals Are Specified: Average flush rate is 0.5 gallons per flush or less flush rate is 0.1 Ions flush or less d. Flow Limiters Or Flow Control Valves Are Installed on All Faucets Residences: Kitchen -2.0 gpm or less Non-Residential Areas: Kitchen -2.0 gpm or less Residences: Bathroom Faucets-1.5 gpm or less Non-Residential Areas: Bathroom Faucets -1.5 gpm or less e. Non-Residential Areas: Install Pre-Rinse S Valves in Commercial Kitchens -1.6 or less 14. Water Efficiency a. Use Recycled Water for Landscape Irrigation or to Flush Toilets/Urinals b. Use Captured Rainwater for Landscape Irrigation or to Flush 5% of Toilets &/or Urinals c. Water is Submetered for Each Residential Unit & Non-Residential Tenant 1. Construction Indoor Air a. Perform a 2-Week W 2. Entryways a. Provide Permanent Walk-Off Mats and Shoe Storage at All Home Entrances b. Permanent Walk-Off Are Provided at All Main Build Entrances & In Common Areas Center In Each Unit 10/27/2009 MF GreenPoint Checklist eTC Townhouses Page 4 of 6 i-COLLEGE TERRACE CENl"RE -Ii -i I;I]t -lU-'§- D..U 5 c a ~.(Il I---~__:_:_---:-_::_:___:"':~_=_~__::__=___:_:----------------~------..:=--_+--~_+.-"Q..,? ,-~-""" -'" g", ___ Sf "~--4. Use Low/No-VOC Paints & Coatings a. Low-VOC Interior Paints «50 gpl VOCs (Flat) and <150 gpl VOCs (Non-Flat)) ~: ~~~~~;~~:ntiru Areas: b, Zero-VOC: InteriorPaints «5 gpl VOCs (Flat)) ~ In All Residences [~Jt In ~II Non-Residential Areas:. _"""._,,_"'''' __________ ,_ o 1 o c. Wood Coatings Meet the Green Seal Standards for Low-VOCs 00 :~ :~:~~~;~~:nti"!.Are~_-"'-,-,-_---,,--,-----.-,-,------,---____ .... __ . ____ ~ ______ "I--...;~~~' ... ' ... '-.... .w,;I, ..• , .... , .... "+ ... _ .. ~--.. -... +--,,_'._ ... M ... ; ••.•••••.••.••.•.•••• "1 d. Wood Stains Meet the Green Seal Standards for Low-VOCs ~ In All Residences 2 '1~~~f-2--T-"--r-- No InAIINon-Re~denti~Area~ _~~~~~~~._-~--~~~,-~~-_~~~~.~,~~-O-~-~-~-~--l~-~~~~ 5. Use Recycled-Content Exterior Paint ~ a. Use Recycled Content Paint on 50% of All Exteriors 0 "--'-"-"-("--'''-r-''--T--1'-''r-''''-'" 6. Low-VOC Construction Adhesives -ve:5l a. Use Low-VOC Construction Adhesives «70 gpl VOCs) for All Adhesives -!-"'~-r'-1'--r---'--:-'---' ~E~~nme~~~Pre~mb~M~~~s1~o~r~I-~~e~ri~o-r~F~in~~~h~----------------I--~.~--~--~--~-~.~~ Use Environmentally Preferable Materials for Interior Finish: A) FSC-Certified Wood B) Reclaimed Lumber """l----]----T-'-;----- C) Rapidly Renewable D) Recycled-Content or E) Finger-Jointed ,,1_ -----L __ .L_ a. Residences: At Least 50% of Each Material: ~ ~ i.Cabinets ~ ii. Interior Trim ~ iii. &helving Yes iv. Doors ~ v, Countertops ............-..-"-b~--Non-:ResidentiarA-reaS:'A-t -Le-a-s-t -5-0o-~-0-f-E-a-c-h-M-a-te-r-ia-I:--------··--'w ... -'.·"·'W''''_. ___ ·'.w.'''.'_'''.~·.'_'~ , 0 '1 1 -r-'''" ...... ,.,,+-_1"""""';"'''''''._.''''''.'''4 ~ ",.·.,·.w.w ... ""","" "","' .. __ ... '1 0 , 1 . ~ i. Cabinets I--O-+-·----,---r_~-_-,-JT'i-_-,,'-,2._ ,_".",_,_,_ No ii. Interior Trim ° "w, .. ,.,' 00 . : No iii. Shelving 0 No iv. Doors 0 . _".L .. ~::~"'~:_J_",.2."" ... L ___ ."."" .. " ~ ___ v._C_o_un_te_,"!?~ _____________ " ______________ ~_,_,,, •. _______ ._--t-...... O_+, ____ "'l.. ___ .1. ___ ,, __ J...._SL....L __ 8. Reduce Formaldehyde in Interior Finish Materials Reduce Formaldehyde in Interior Finish Materials (Section 01350) for At Least 90% of Each Material Below:, i. Cabinets ii. Interior Trim iii. Shelving iv. Subfloor 10/27/2009 MF GreenPoint Checklist eTC Townhouses ~ ~ Page 5 of 6 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE Install 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 Exterior Site Furnishings c. At Least 25% of All ied Interior Furniture has Environme Preferable Attributes 13. Deterrence udes Vandalism Resistant Finishes and Green Features is Included Points Achieved from Specific Categories Current Point Total Project has not yet met the recommended minimum requirements -Required measures ABa, 8.1a, C.10a, and/or F.1a 10/27/2009 MF GreenPoint Checklist eTC Townhouses Page 6 of 6 NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT A Resolution No. ---Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map by Changing the Land Use Designation for 2180. El Camino Real from Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing on October 14, 2009 recommended that the City Council amend the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth below, and confirmed their recommendation on December 2, 2009; and WHEREAS, upon consideration of said recommendation after a duly noticed public hearing held on December 7, 2009, the Council desires to amend the Land Use Map as hereinafter set forth; The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the public interest, health, safety and welfare of Palo Alto and the surrounding region would be furthered by an amendment of the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Section 2. SECTION 2. The proposed Land Use Map amendment is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as further described in 'Exhibit A,' attached to this document and incorporated by reference: 1. Land Use and Community Design Element Goals and Policies: Goal L-l, Policies L-4-6, L9, Lll, L12, Goal L-4, Policies L-18-22, Goal L-6, Policies L-48-50, Policy L-73, L-75 and L-78. 2. Transportation Element: Goal T-l, Policy T-l, Goal T-3, Policy T-19, Goal T-4, Policy T-23, Goal T-8. 3. Natural Environment Element: Goal N-3, Policy N-15, Policies N-17-18, Policies N-20 23, Policy N-25, Policies N-27-28, Policy N-42. 4. Business and Economic Element: Goal B-1, Policy B-2, Goal B-2, Policy B-4, Policy B-7, Goal B-3, Policy B-9, Policy B-17, Policy B-25 1 091203 syn 8261213 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 3. The City Council hereby amends the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by changing the designation of the area depicted in "Exhibit B" fronl Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use. "Exhibit B" is attached to this resolution and incorporated into it by this reference. SECTION 4. A mitigated negative declaration (MND) for the development project at 2180 EI Camino Real, which included this comprehensive plan amendment, was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and circulated for public review for a 30 day period beginning on October 9, 2009. The City Council approved the MND at its meeting of on December 7, 2009. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney 091203 syn 8261213 2 APPROVED: Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment Exhibit -A Planned Community District-College Terrace Centre 2180 El Can1ino Real 07PLN-OOOOO-00327 Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies Land Use and Community Design Element Exhibit A Goal L-J .' A well, designed, compact City, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping centers, public facilities and open space. The proposed development would be well designed, and of a reasonable density for its EI Camino Real location, and provide residences, office work spaces, retail spaces for shopping, and open plaza spaces available to the public. Policy L-4: Maintain Palo Alto's varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto's desirable qualities. Use of the PC process provides the City the opportunity to approve a project that would enhance the vitality of the California Avenue commercial area by providing an additional customer base for existing and new businesses. It also ensures the preservation of a neighborhood grocery store at this location. The proposal would be constructed on an existing commercial property and would provide transitions in scale and use to the adj acent residential neighborhood. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. The current proposal has mUltiple structures of varying heights and different design styles addressing the context along four streets. The project has incorporated use of colors, materials and detailing to reduce the overall scale and mass of the project such that it would not overwhelm the site. There are multiple buildings in close proximity to the project with similar heights. Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non- residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. The proposal avoids abrupt changes by concentrating the larger three story retrial/office building toward EI Camino Real and placing a two story residential building between the new commercial development of the project and the existing residential neighborhood. The closest existing residential use across the street from the project is a three story multifamily structure. A open landscaped plaza area separates the two story commercial/retail building from the residential neighborhood beyond. Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics of mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development. The proposal uses the PC to create the opportunity to build a mixed use proj ecL The PC would ensure the preservation of a much desired element of the community, the neighborhood grocery store. Policy L-ll: Promote increased compatibility, interdependence, and support between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. This proposal supports both the commercial and the residential community by placing a mixed use development between them that provides customers for the existing commercial uses and provides retail services, including a neighborhood grocery store, for the local residents. Policy L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The proposed structures within the development have been designed with a village concept in mind. The building designs indicate the uses of the spaces within and include a variety of materials and finishes. The new structures attempt to create an eclectic look to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood that does not have a definitive architectural style. Goal L-4: Inviting, Pedestrian-scale centers that offer a variety of retail and commercial services and provide focal points and community gathering places for the City's residential neighborhoods and employment districts. The proposed College Terrace Centre would be inviting to pedestrians, provide a variety of retail and commercial uses, and would contain focal points and public gathering spaces. There would be multiple pedestrian entry points from the new tree lined perimeter of the project giving people ample access to the new office, retail, and residential spaces. There would also be an open air market space to draw people to the grocery store and a landscaped open plaza where people could gather and relax outdoors. There would also be entry plaza spaces as well as tower elements to draw people in and provide a sense of place and identity to the Center. Policy L-20: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners with buildings that come up to the sidewalk or that form corner plazas. This proposal brings retail vitality to the street with the open air portion of the grocery market and with retail storefronts along EI Camino ReaL The proposal also includes comer plaza areas and buildings with display windows that come up to the sidewalk creating a desirable pedestrian environment. Policy L-21: Provide all centers with centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms, and public art. The proposed landscaped plaza area with its proposed trees and benches, would provide a comfortable gathering space and is easily accessible by all of the property users. April 29, 2009 Page 2 Policy L-22: Enhance the appearance of streets and sidewalks within all Centers through an aggressive maintenance, repair, and cleaning program; street improvements; and the use of a variety of paving materials and landscaping. The sidewalks arou11.d the perimeter of the project would be replaced with ne'vv side'vvalks, and nevv street trees would be planted exceeding the number of street trees that currently exist on the perimeter of the site. Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance City streets and public spaces. The buildings have been purposefully designed to improve and enhance the existing street frontage. The architectural review process will help to further refine the proposal, so that ARB approval findings including green building can be made. Policy L-48: Promote high-quality creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The proposal makes creative use of various colors and materials to break down the perceived mass of the buildings, and provides for a quality pedestrian environment to encourage continued use and vitality. Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an orderly variety of entries,·porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human scale details and massing. The proposed village concept of the project is geared toward providing a safe and inviting environment for pedestrians with human scale detailing, a large variety of entries, porches, and windows as well as easy access for people, bikes, and cars. Policy L-50: Encourage high-quality signage that is attractive, appropriate for the location, and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs. The architectural review process will ensure high-quality signage that is attractive, appropriate, and does not impede visibility or safety. Policy L-75: Minimize the negative physical impacts ofparking lots. Locate parking behind buildings or underground wherever possible. The parking for the project has been located primarily underground with some parking located behind the building. The small amount of surface parking spaces that are included in the project are proposed to have shade trellises to shade the vehicles and reduce the urban heat island effect of the paved parking surface. April 29, 2009 Page 3 Policy L-78: Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project by providing for shared use of parking areas. There are no designated parking spaces except for 24 spaces for carpool/vanpool, low-emission vehicles and two-car share spaces within the proposed development. All parking spaces are shared. Transportation Element Goal T-l: Less reliance on single occupancy vehicles. Policy T-l: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. Policy T-19: Improve and create additional, attractive, secure bicycle parking at both public and private facilities, including multi-modal transit stations, on transit vehicles, in City parks, at public facilities, in new private developments, and other community destinations. Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-site parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. Goal T-8: Attractive, convenient public and private parking facilities. The proposal meets the above listed Goals and Policies related to Transportation in the following ways: The density, location, and mix of uses within the proposed mixed use development would help to discourage the reliance on single occupancy vehicles and increases walking, biking, and transit use by , combing 'uses that allow people to work, live, and shop in the same location without the need to make vehicle trips. Providing an employment center and retail uses in close proximity to transit and other commercial and residential uses typically increases the use of mass transit. The proposal also provides 22 additional bike parking spaces above the number required by code, to encourage bicycle usage. The proposal includes a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan that includs an onsite transit kiosk, designated parking spaces for carpool/vanpool vehicles and low emission vehicles, two car share vehicles on site, and a part time onsite transportation coordinator to help the project users with local transit option information. A multitude of pedestrian friendly amenities are provided throughout the project to encourage pedestrian activity. The location of the grocery store and other retail spaces within walking distance of the existing residential neighborhood would also reduce the typical demand on vehicular traffic. Natural Environment Element Goal N-3: A thriving uUrban Forest" that prOVides ecological, economic, and aesthetic benefits for Palo Alto. Policy N-15: Require new commercial, multi-unit, and single-family housing projects to provide street trees and related irrigation systems. April 29, 2009 Page 4 Policy N-20: Maximize the conservation and efficient use ofwater in new and existing residences, businesses and industries. Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runofffrom residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. Policy N-23: Reduce the discharge of toxic materials into the City's sanitary sewer collection system by promoting the use of Best Management Practices. Policy N-25: Reduce pollutant levels in City wastewater discharges. Policy N-27: Reduce emission of particulates from wood burning stoves, construction activity, automobiles and other sources. Policy N-28: Encourage developers of new projects in Palo Alto, including City projects, to provide improvements that reduce the necessity of driving alone. Policy N-42: the City may require proposals to reduce noise impacts of development on adjacent properties through appropriate means including, but not limited to the following: • Construct noise walls when compatible with aesthetic concerns. • Screen and control noise sources such as parking, outdoor activities and mechanical equipment. • Increase setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings. • Whenever, possible, retain fences, walls or landscaping that serve as noise buffers although design, safety and other impacts must be addressed. • Use soundproofing materials and double-glazing windows. • Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise levels. The project is consistent with the above listed Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies related to Natural Environment in the following ways: The project would involve removal of 11 existing street trees and replace them with approximately 41 new street trees around the perimeter of the project. This would eventually provide a dense and lush tree canopy that would add to the vitality of the urban forest providing economic, ecological, and aesthetic benefits to the City. Best management practices to control particulates and hazardous materials are required during construction. Conditions related to stormwater runoff from the proj ect once constructed are also included. The proposal includes a green roof over a portion of the grocery/office building. A green roof can reduce and slow storm water runoff as well as filter pollutants and reduce heating and cooling costs for the building. As stated in the transportation section above, a multitude of measures and design strategies have been employed to reduce single occupancy trips. Design measures, requirements, and controls have been used to limit potential noise impacts. The parking has been placed underground, the loading dock/trash room for the grocery store has been designed within an enclosure, and the proposed mechanical equipment has been required to meet City noise ordinance standards. Requirements have also been established to require Conditional Use Permits for any businesses with late night hours of operation. April 29, 2009 PageS Business and Economics Goal B-1: A thriving business environment that is compatible with Palo Alto's residential character and natural environment. Policy B-2 Support a strong interdependence between existing commercial centers and the surroundirt£ neighborhoods as a way of encouraging economic vitality. Goal B-2: A diverse mix of Commercial, Retail, and Professional Service businesses. Policy B-4: Nurture and support established businesses as well as new businesses. Policy B-7: Encourage and support the operation of small, indeRendent businesses Goal B-3: New businesses that provide needed local services and municipal revenues, contribute to economic vitality, and enhance the city's physical environment. Policy B-17: Where redevelopment is desired, encourage owners to upgrade commercial properties through incentives such as reduced parking requirements, credit for on-street parking, and increases in allowable }100r area. Use such incentives only where they are needed to stimulate redeveloplnent or contribute to housing or community design goals. Policy B-25: Strengthen the commercial viability of businesses along El Camino Real. Encourage the development of pedestrian-oriented neighborhood retail and office centers along the EI Camino Real corridor. The project is consistent with the above listed Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies related to Business and Economics in the following ways: The construction of the project and the establishment of the proposed office, retail, and residential uses at the site will revitalize the site and the area. The employees of the office spaces and the new residents will help to provide an additional customer base for the existing businesses on EI Camino Real as well as the California A venue Business District. The proj ect provides spaces for a large variety of businesses as well as preserving the existing neighborhood serving grocery store. A multitude of new uses would have the opportunity to be located within the new retail and office center located on the EI Camino Real. Corridor. Specific limitations within the proposed PC zone ensure the preservation of the neighborhood grocery store and maintains 5,580 square feet of ground floor area for retail uses. Housing Policy H-4: Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality. Policy H-10: Encourage and foster diverse housing opportunities for very low, low and moderate- income households. April 29, 2009 Page 6 Policy H-23: Reduce the cost of housing by promoting energy efficiencYJ resource management, and conservation for new and existing housing. The project is consistent with the above listed Housing Policies in the following ways: While the proposal is primarily a commercial development, it does include eight Below Market Rate housing units to add to the City's affordable housing supply_ The units would be small one bedroom affordable units that are a rare and welcome addition to the City's BMR supply. The homes would be constructed to meet the city's Green Building requirements which promote energy efficiency, reduction in the use of resources, and improved indoor air quality_ April 29J 2009 Page 7 NOT YET APPROVED Ordinance No. --- Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 2180 EI Camino Real from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District to PC Planned Community for a Mixed Use Project Having 57,900 Square Feet of Floor Area For A Grocery Store (intended for JJ&F Market), Other Retail Space, Office Space, and Eight Affordable Residential Units, With Two Levels Of Below-Grade Parking Facilities and Surface Parking Facilities For The College Terrace Centre, and Approval of Design Enhancement Exceptions to Allow a Sign Spire and Gazebo Roof to Exceed the 35-Foot Height Limit, and to Allow Encroachment Into A Minimum Setback on Oxford Avenue. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. (a) Carrasco and Associates c/o Linda Poncini ("the Applicant") on behalf of The Clara Chilcote Trust c/o Patrick Smailey ("property owner") formally applied on October 18, 2007 to the City for approval of a rezoning application (the "amendment") from CN 'Neighborhood Commercial' to a Planned Community (PC) district for a site comprised of four parcels located at 2180 El Camino Real (the "Subject Property") to accommodate the uses set forth below. (b) The City Council, after duly noticed public hearings held on July 13, 2009 and July 27, 2009 initiated the amendment process, and forwarded the project to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) for review and recommendation, to be followed by Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and recommendation, and then final review and final action by the City Council. (c) The PTC, after a duly noticed public hearing held on October 14, 2009, reviewed, considered, and recommended approval of the revised Initial Study draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to rezone the Subject Property to Planned Community to permit construction of the proposed project located as shown on 'Exhibit A,' attached to this document and incorporated by reference. Draft conditions of project approval 'Exhibit B' attached to this 1 091203 syn 8261209 NOT YET APPROVED document and incorporated by reference were presented to the PTC for review and comments. (d) The ARB, after a duly noticed public hearing held on November 5, 2009, reviewed the project design and recommended that the City Council approve the project with associated draft conditions of approval 'Exhibit B.' ( e) The PTC, after a duly noticed public hearing held on December 2, 2009, confirmed their approval of the project and conditions of approval (Exhibit B). (t) The City Council, after a duly noticed public hearings held on December 7, 2009, and after due consideration of the proposed project, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the analysis of the project by City staff, and the modification of the proposed conditions recommended by the PTC and, the ARB, finds that the proposed Ordinance is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth. (g) The Council finds that (1) the Subject Property is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow for the Project; and (2) development of the Subject Property under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or conlbining districts, as set forth in Section (4)(c) hereof; and (3) the use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the proposed district are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Goals, Policies and proposed designation of Mixed Use for the Subject Property) and are compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of Subject Property from "CN Neighborhood Commercial" to "PC Planned Community __ ." SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the Subject Property that the project (the "Project") as depicted on Development Plans dated October 22, 2009, incorporated by reference, comprises a mixed-use development that includes the following components: (a) The replacement of 18,028 square feet of existing commercial space with 57,900 square feet of new commercial and residential space. The commercial space would include 8,000 square feet for a grocery store, 5,580 square feet of other ground floor retail space, and 38,980 square feet of office space; (b) Eight (8) residential below-market-rate (BMR) units, comprising 5,340 square feet; 2 091203 syn 8261209 NOT YET APPROVED ( c) Underground parking garage containing 216 parking spaces on two levels; (d) Surface parking lot accommodating 11 parking spaces; (e) 24 on-street parking spaces around the site's perimeter; (f) A landscaped plaza at the comer of Staunton Court and Oxford Avenue; (g) Removal of street trees along Staunton Court, and Oxford and College A venues and planting of new street trees within the sidewalk area; (h) Removal and replacement of some or all street trees along El Camino Real in tree wells; (i) Automobile driveways on El Camino Real, College Avenue and Stanton Court providing access to parking lots and an area for loading and deliveries. Access to the below grade parking would be provided from the El Camino Real driveway. SECTION 4. The Development Plan dated October 22, 2009, and any approved supplemental materials, for the Subject Property, as submitted by the applicant pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section (PAMC) 18.38.090, shall be subject to the following permitted and conditional land uses and special limitations on land uses, development standards, parking and loading requirements, modifications to the development plans and provisions of public benefits outlined below, and conditions of project approval, attached and incorporated as "Exhibit B". (a) Permitted and Conditionally Permitted land uses shall be allowed and limited as follows: 091203 syn 8261209 Permitted Uses (subject to the limitations below under Section 4(b): (1) Multifamily Residential (2) Professional and General Business Offices (excluding medical offices) (3) Retail Services (excluding liquor stores) (4) Eating and Drinking Services (excluding drive-in and Take-out services) (5) Personal Services Conditionally Permitted Uses: (1) Farmers Markets (2) Businesses that operate or have associated activities at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (such businesses shall be operated in a manner to protect residential properties from excessive noise, odors, lighting, or other nuisances from any source during those hours) 3 NOT YET APPROVED The following conditionally permitted uses are only permitted within the areas designated as office space on the development plan: (l) Banks and Financial Services (2) Commercial recreation (3) Private clubs, Lodges, and Fraternal Organizations (b) Special limitations on land uses include the following: (l) A grocery store, with an area of at least 8,000 square feet, shall exist within the development for the useful life of the improvements; . (2) The grocery store shall be a neighborhood serving grocery store that provides all the typical grocery store products and services of a neighborhood serving store such that it shall not become a convenience mart facility; (3) The grocery tenant shall occupy and begin operations prior to any office tenant occupancy. (4) The below-market rate housing shall be occupied not later than 120 days after the first occupancy of the office building. No more than 50% of the office space shall be occupied prior to occupancy of the housing. (5) No medical office shall be permitted within the development; (6) The office uses within the project shall not exceed 38,980 square feet; (7) The 5,580 square feet of area designated as "Other Retail" on the development plan shall not be converted to ground floor office space; and (8) The "Other Retail" space may be occupied by retail uses, personal service use, or eating and drinking services only. (9) Use of the outdoor market area as shown on the project plans as being approximately 2,000 square feet shall be limited to grocery related uses only. (c) Developnlent Standards: Development Standards for the site shall comply with the standards prescribed for the Planned Community (PC) zone district (Chapter 18.38), and as modified in Section 4( a) and (b) above. (d) Parking and Loading Requirements: 091203 syn 8261209 In addition to the parking and loading requirements specified in PAMC 18.52 and 18.54, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program has been incorporated in the Development Plan to allow reductions in parking requirements. The TDM is shown in 'Exhibit C' and is attached to this document and incorporated by reference. The final TDM plan shall provide for implementation and monitoring as provided in the conditions of approval. 4 NOT YET APPROVED (e) Modifications to the Development Plan and Site Development Regulations: Once the project has been constructed consistent with the approved Development Plan, any modifications to the exterior design of the Development Plan or any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or the site development regulations contained in Section 4 (a) -(c) above shall require an amendment to this Planned Community zone, unless the modification is a minor change as described in PAMC 18.76.050 (b) (3) (e), in which case the modification may be approved through the Minor Architectural Review process. Any use not specifically permitted by this ordinance shall require an amendment to the PC ordinance, except that conversion of designated office space to retail use shall not require amendment. (t) Public Benefits: Development of the Subject Property under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. The Project includes the following public benefits that are inherent to the Project and in excess of those required by City zoning districts: (1) Provision of an 8,000 square foot neighborhood-serving grocery market. (2) 4 Below Market Rate housing units. (3) A contribution of $5,000 dollars for tree planting within the EI Camino Real median. (g) Development Schedule: The Project is required to include a Development Schedule pursuant to P AMC 18.38.100. The approved Development Schedule is set forth below: Construction of the Project shall commence on or before December 2012, unless extension(s) are granted. The total time for project construction and occupancy of spaces is three (3) years, or by December 2015. SECTION 5. Council approves the Architectural Review application, finding that: (a) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city's Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Resolution No. __ , Adopting an Anlendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map by Changing the Land Use Designation for 2180 EI Camino Real From Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use. The proposed mixed use development containing office, residential, retail and commercial uses is consistent with the Mixed Use land use designation; 5 091203 syn 8261209 NOT YET APPROVED (b) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the proposed buildings are designed to meet the EI Camino Real Design Guidelines and be sensitive to the lower scale residential neighborhood beyond; (c) The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that the project has been designed to be pedestrian friendly, provide additional bike and vehicular parking, attract people to the project and provides unique amenity spaces; (d) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character. In this case, the building is not within an area of unified design character or historical character; (e) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses in that the project includes the proposal to locate the two story residential component across from the existing residential uses on Staunton Court to create a transitional buffer between the existing residential uses and the proposed commercial buildings; (f) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site in that the proposed buildings and other project improvements would blend well with the existing off site improvements by proposing to break up the proposal in to multiple buildings with varying heights to control the mass and scale; (g) The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community in that the proposed design reduces neighborhood traffic by placing the garage entry on EI Camino, improves the economic viability of the grocery market by placing it at the visible comer of EI Camino, brings light into the below grade parking structure with a large open bamboo garden, locates the commercial buildings away from existing residential uses, and provides landscaped open spaces; (h) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures in that several open spaces are provided to accommodate the various uses that may occur at the site. These spaces include the garden square at the comer of Staunton Court and Oxford Avenue, the roof top gazebo at the vegetated green roof and the arcade and open area at the comer of Staunton Court and College Avenue; (i) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project in that the proposal includes a large trash storage area, ample areas for bike parking, and an underground vehicle parking area; G) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in that the driveway to the underground garage has been designed such that vehicles existing the garage are level with the 6 091203 syn 8261209 NOT YET APPROVED sidewalk such that the drivers view of pedestrians is not impeded, extra bike and vehicle parking spaces have been provided and there are pedestrian pathways provided to allow access through the project; (k) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project. The site is already developed and contains, some mature trees that would be removed to accomnl0date the proposed podium over the below grade parking. The trees to be removed will be replaced with new plantings including approximately 41 new street trees around the perimeter of the project, a bamboo garden that would grow up through the center of the parking structure, various potted plantings throughout the project, and trees and plantings within the proposed garden square. (1) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function in that the proposal includes many detail elements to ensure the proposed architectural style is appropriately expressed; (m) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment in that landscape elements have been incorporated wherever they could over the concrete podium. There are planters at entry locations and the fronts of the buildings, there is a large bamboo garden growing up through the center of the project, a vegetated green roof over the grocery store, and a garden square; (n) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought- resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance in that the proposal includes many plant species that perform well within this environment; (0) The project exhibits green building and sustainable design that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be utilized in determining sustainable site and building design: 091203 syn 8261209 (l) Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation; (2) Design of landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects; (3) Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access; (4) Maximize on site stormwater management through landscaping and permeable paving; (5) Use sustainable building materials; 7 NOT YET APPROVED (6) Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy and water use; (7) Create healthy indoor environments; and (8) Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. (P) The design incorporates many of the above mentioned green building measures including photo voltaic panels on the roof and a green roof. (see LEED and Build It Green checklists, Attachment G) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review, to: (1) Promote orderly and harmonious development in the city; (2) Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city; (3) Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements; (4) Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas; and (5) Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other. SECTION 6. Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEEs) are approved as follows: (a) Height Exceptions for the proposed rooftop gazebo and the architectural signage spire above the grocery store, which would exceed the 35 foot limit by five feet and ten feet, respectively, with an additional seven feet of height for the metal pole atop the spire, rising to 52 feet. (b) Setback Exception to allow portions of the building along Oxford Avenue to encroach into a ten foot setback; specifically, to allow a 7'9" encroachment for the second floor of the grocery store building and parts of the first floor" and 3' 6" encroachment for the recessed first floor areas as set forth in the project plans. (c) DEE Findings: 091203syn 8261209 (1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district, in that, although the adjacent parcel on Oxford Avenue is not occupied by a residential use, its zoning is residential and forces the imposition of a more restrictive setback requirement upon a portion of the site. The intent of the more restrictive height and setback regulations is to ensure that the new commercial development is sensitive to the nearby residential uses. Being that the adjacent use is not residential the need for the sensitivity is diminished. 8 NOT YET APPROVED (2) The granting of these Exceptions will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requiremel1ts of Title 18 and the standards for review set forth in this Chapter, in that (a) the height exception for the gazebo would allow the construction of a shade structure that would provide an amenity space on the roof top and this space would provide views over the vegetated roof and would serve to help increase awareness of green roofs; (b) the height exception for the signage spire allows for the provision of a stronger element for the grocery store building to give the building more dominance at the corner, improving the significance of the building in this location; and (c) the setback encroachment improves the design of the streetscape in. this location since the project faces the EI Camino Real commercial strip and employing a similar urban setback and s~dewalk along Oxford Avenue preserves the continuity of the design, such that implementation of a ten foot setback and landscaped yard at this comer would appear odd in relationship to the use of a hotel across the street. (3) The Exception is related to a site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvement in the site vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience, in that ( a) the height exceptions are for minor architectural elements that improve the architecture, do not contribute to the bulk and mass of the structure, and are not in close proximity to residential uses such that they would have a negative impact upon them; and (b) the setback encroachment occurs opposite a residential zone but no residences would be impacted by encroachment since a hotel is located opposite the grocery store building and the encroaching wall of the grocery store building would be across the street from the back side of the hotel and even with the encroachment, a generous 14'-5" wide sidewalk would be provided. SECTION 7. Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indenmified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. SECTION 8. Acceptance by the applicant. If the Applicant does not accept the Proposed ~rdinance in writing prior to second reading of the ordinance and within 30 days of the Council's adoption, the question of the appropriate zoning of the Subject Property shall be referred to the Planning and Transportation Commission for their consideration and recommendation, which may include the CN zone, the CN zone plus various overlays, a newly 9 091203 syn 8261209 NOT YET APPROVED crafted zone applicable to Neighborhood Centers or such other zone as the Commission deems appropriate. SECTION 9. A mitigated negative declaration (MND) for this project was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and circulated for public review for a 30-day period beginning on October 9, 2009. The City Council approved the MND at its meeting of on December 7, 2009. SECTION 10. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment 091203 syn 8261209 APPROVED: Mayor City Manager 10 Legend ~~i l}:a :1! a;~ t:::l 2180 EI Camino Real (Project Site) Stanford Lands t=l Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels The City of Palo Alto mver •• Z001l·01·3O 15:14:36 (\1cc-mapslgis$lglsladmlnlPerwna!\n1vern.mdb) ....... i .' 2180 El Camino Real Zoning Districts Area Map Exhibit A cs (ASt) (Jo/ . This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS -. o· 250' This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. The Cily of Palo A110 assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 10 2006 City of Palo Allo Exhibit B 2180 E1 Cannno Real Conditions of Pro; ect Approval Planning and Transportation Division Conditions 1. The project shall be constructed as depicted on plans dated October 22,2009 and labeled as 'Approved Plans' and the project, inc shall be implemented in accordance with Section 4 of the PC Ordinance except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. The applicant shall return to the Architectural Review on consent calendar to address the following: a) Provide clarified floor plans for the BMR units (with room names) b) Clarify the site circulation, making it more clear; c) Consider redesign of the exterior stair to the roof top garden, this shall include the elimination of the diagonal banding; d) Consider simplifying the pathway from the exterior stairs to the gazebo area on the roof; e) Review the banding of the grocery store building, consider one color with the two different finishes; f) Provide details of the transformer fencing; g) Reconsider the tile roofs at the office towers; h) Consider some modification to the grocery walls facing Oxford Avenue such as a mural, display windows etc.; i) Provide additional information about the private open spaces and the materiality of it; j) Provide additional information about the bridge, materials, underside, etc.; k) Consider redesign of the striped tower; 1) Reconsider the selection of the Ash tree species; m) Provide additional information about the proposed bamboo (species and height) related to the canted wall; n) Provide detail to show how the headlights going into the below grade parking will or will not impact the BMR units; 0) Consider redesign of the BMR units such that they are equally as striking as the other buildings in the proj ect; p) Provide more information regarding the plant pallet and conceptual plan for the green roof; q) Provide more information about all screening elements and locations; and r) Provide additional information about potted plants and the planting at the open area at the center of the project as well as the planting for the trellises located at the at-grade parking area. 3. The ARB shall address making the vegetated roof maximally observable to owners, occupants, tenants and visitors during normal business hours of the office Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 1 building, provided, however, that enjoyment of the vegetative roof shall not interfere with or derogate from the health of the growth thereon. 4. The owners/occupants of the BMR units shall have access to view and enjoy the vegetated roof from the gazebo during normal business hours of the office building. 5. The PC shall be inspected at least once every three years for compliance with the PC district regulations and the conditions of the ordinance under which the district was created. 6. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of Palo Alto's noise ordinance, both during construction and following construction, for the life of the project as per Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and pursuant to P AMC Section 18.23.060, requiring an acoustical analysis at the time of building permit issuance, and demonstration and certification that it complies with the Noise Ordinance prior to final inspection. Any new noise producing equipment shall be placed as far away as is feasible from any existing residential sites and as close to EI Camino Real as is possible. 7. The building permit for the building in which the grocery store is to be located shall be pulled concurrently with the building permit for the other non-residential building in the development. 8. The lease for the grocery store shall have, at minimum, a 20 year initial term. 9. Development Impact fees, totaling approximately $393,684.70, shall be paid prior to issuance of-building permits. 10. The applicant shall file and receive approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map/Parcel Map to combine the four parcels into one. The Parcel Map shall be recorded with the County of Santa Clara prior to issuance of a demolition permit or building permit. 11. The commercial portions of the project shall be required to attain LEED Silver level of certification through the USGBC. The residential portion of the project shall be required to meet the Build It Green multifamily green building requirements. 12. The following mitigation measures from the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration are included below as project conditions: a. Mitigation Measure #1: The project shall include automatic night shades or other system such as motion sensors and timers for the office windows at the rear of the building. b. Mitigation Measure #2: Prior to any excavation the applicant shall prepare a site specific Health and Safety Plan that conforms to the requirements of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations (VFR) Section 1910.120, the California General Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 2 Industry Safety Order (GISO) and Title 8, California Code of Regulation (CCR) Section 5192. c. Mitigation Measure #3: All employees and subcontractors involved in excavation of potentially contaminated material shall be 40 hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) trained and certified. d. Mitigation Measure #4: Soils shall be field screened, tested, and properly profiled during redevelopment to determine appropriate reuse or off site disposal. e. Mitigation Measure #5: The proposed mechanical equipment shall be evaluated to ensure compliance with City of Palo Alto noise limit regulations. Measures such as equipment selection, equipment placement (location), and or the addition of barriers or enclosures shall be employed to ensure that any new noise producing equipment is in compliance with the City's noise ordinance. f. Mitigation Measure # 6: Cal Trans must approve the proposed curb cut on the EI Camino Real for the driveway to the underground parking garage. g. Mitigation Measure #7: A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program must be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Transportation Department prior to submittal of a building pernlit application. The TDM program shall outline parking and/or traffic demand measures to be implemented to reduce parking need and trip generation. Measures may include, but are not limited to: parking cash-out programs, provision of EcoPass (VTA) or Go Pass (Caltrain) for office tenants, shared parking, enhanced shuttle service, car sharing, providing priority parking spaces for car poolslvanpools or green vehicles, vehicle charging stations, additional bicycle parking facilities, 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 lor trip reductions, and indicate the basis for such estimates, and shall designate a single entity to implement the proposed measures. State of California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) Conditions 13. The design standard of the driveway on EI Camino Real (SR 82) must comply with the Highway Design Manual. 14. Work that encroaches onto the State right of way (ROW) requires an encroachment permit that is issued by the Cal Trans. To apply, a completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans clearly indicating State ROW must be submitted to the address below. Office of Permits California DOT, District 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 15. Traffic-related mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the construction plans during the encroachment permit process. Transportation Division Conditions Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 3 16. Do not include or add any monument signs, furniture, or other sight obstructions ( except trees) in the sight triangle on the northern frontage on EI Camino Real. This condition does not prevent the use of produce or flower stalls, or tables and chairs for grocery store patrons in the space designated as grocery store outdoor space, so long as the location of same is approved by the City's Transportation Department. 17. The TDM shall include at least two car share vehicles. The Final TDM plan monitoring and implementation shall be carried out in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.52.050 (d) TDM requirements, items (3) and (4) with respect to monitoring, and item (2) with respect to implementation related to performance targets for parking and trip reduction, and single entity to implement the TDM measures. Vehicle Parking 18. Spaces adjacent to walls required to be 9' wide (spaces adjacent to mechanical and utility rooms). Spaces adjacent to poles/columns would be required to be 9.0' wide based on the location of the columns right at the entry to the parking spaces. 19. Northern most HC spaces can also be labeled as "van accessible" if the combined opening is 26.0' (9' -8' -9'). 20. Include wheel stops where appropriate (all spaces that are at grade with pedestrian paths, lobbies, or bike locker areas) Bicycle Parking 21. Illustrate on plans the location of Long Term (lockers) and Short Term bike racks, including total count similar to vehicular parking. Adequate aisles between lockers and racks must be shown. 22. Include details of types of racks to be used (must be approved by City Staff). Plan appears to include inverted-U racks (approved type). 23. All short term bicycle parking (racks) need to be located on the street level and be located within 50 feet and distributed near each of the main entrances to the various buildings. (Office racks not in appropriate location) 24. Long term bike lockers are allowed in the garage, but need to be located near employee elevators/stairs (locations appears to be okay, but all lockers should be on the first level of garage). Building Division Conditions 25. The plans submitted for the building permit shall include the full scope of the construction of the entire building, including all site development, utility installations, Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 4 architectural, structural, electrical, plumbing and mechanical work associated with the proposed proj ect. 26. The applicant shall be required to schedule and attend a pre-application meeting with Building Division staff to review the permit application process and to verify that the permit application will include all items required by these conditions. 27. Due to the scale of the overall project, the applicant shall be required to utilize a 3rd party plan check agency to conduct the building code plan review. A list of the agencies approved by the City of Palo Alto is available at the Development Center. The City Building plan check fees are reduced by 75% when a 3rd party plan check agency is utilized. 28. The plans submitted for the building permit shall include an allowable floor area calculation that relates the mixed occupancies and type of construction. 29. The plans submitted with the permit application shall include the complete design for disabled access and exiting for the entire site. Disable access features and exiting within the unimproved offices spaces may be deferred to future tenant improvement permits. 30. The design of building components that are not included in the plans submitted for building permit and are to be deferred shall be limited to as few items as possible. The list of deferred items shall be reviewed and approved prior to permit application. 31. The plans submitted with the building permit application for the shell building shall include the construction of stairs, exit enclosures and exit passageways extending to the exterior of the, building. 32. All entrances and vertical clearances within the parking structures shall have a minimum vertical of 8 feet 2 inches where required for access to the accessible parking spaces per CBC Section 1130B. 33. The location of the building electrical service shall require prior approval by the Inspection Services Division and shall be located at an exterior location or in a room or enclosure accessible directly from the exterior. 34. A separate building permit shall be required for the construction of each building. 35. Plans submitted for plan review shall clearly indicate the proposed occupancy group(s) and type of construction of the building. 36. Plans for the residential units submitted for plan review shall comply with the latest requirements from the State of Cali fomi a [HCD lIAC] Chapter lIB of the 2007 Edition of the CBC. Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 5 37. Plans for the residential units shall include an acoustical analysis and the plans shall incorporate the report's recommendations needed to show the common walls and floor ceiling assernblies in compliance with the sound transmission control requirements in CBC Section 1207. 38. Normal and accessible parking stalls for the residential rental units must be separated from the stalls of the commercial building and their location must be identified on plans submitted for plan review. 39. Plans submitted for plan review shall indicate the required number of parking stalls for the residential units and commercial building. Plans shall also indicate number of accessible stalls is in compliance with HCD II AC Chapter 11A for residential units and with DSAI AC Chapter lIB for the commercial facilities. Parking stalls for each use shall be separated in accordance with recommendations of the Plruming Division. Fire Department Conditions 40. The Fire Department requires that the developer have a contingency plan in place to handle any contamination or abandoned underground tanks discovered during excavation. 41. Emergency Contractor must have State HAZ license. 42. Fire Department shall be notified during normal business hours at the earliest opportunity in the event of such a discovery. 43. A permit from the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health is required for any underground tank removal. 44. 3 nearest Street Hydrants shall be upgraded to Clow Rich Model 76. 45. Aerial Fire Apparatus access shall be provided for the entire EI Camino building Frontage. No overhead cable will be allowed on this side of the building. 46. Site address to be prominently posted on the building. (2001CFC901) Maximum vehicle weight bearing capacity for the podium deck shall be posted. 47. Please contact the Palo Alto Fire Department Training Office at 650-321-5617 if it is at all feasible to allow the Fire Department to use the structures to be demolished for training purposes. 48. A fire sprinkler system shall be provided which meets the requirements ofNFP A Standard No. 13,2002 Edition. (PAMC15.04.160) Fire Sprinkler system installations or modifications require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC15.04.083) Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 6 49. An exterior bell shall be provided, and an approved audible sprinkler flow alarm to alert the occupant shall be provided in the interior of the building in an approved location. (2001CBC904.3.2) Fire Alatm system installations or modifications require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMCI5.04.083) 50. Underground fire supply system installations or nlodifications require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau as well as the Public Works Department and the Water/Gas/Wastewater Section of the Utilities Department. (pAMCI5.04.083) 51. All sprinkler drains, including those for floor control valves and inspectorl,s test valves, as well as the main drain,shall not discharge within the building. Water discharged from these points shall be directed to an approved landscape location or to the sanitary sewer systenl. (99NFPAI3, Sec. 5-14.2.4.3) NOTE: Please check with Roland Ekstrand in Utilities for maximum flow capacity of sanitary sewer in the area. Main .. Drain test discharge flow rate shall be impounded and attenuated to below sanitary sewer capacity before discharge. 52. Elevator car shall be sized for Fire Department gurney access requirements based on gurney dinlensions of 24 in. x 84 in. plus a minimum of two emergency response personnel. (2007 Cal. Bldg. Code Sec. 3002.4a) 53. The maximum weight bearing capacity for the podium deck shall be posted. 54. A fire hydrant is required at the intersections of Oxford Ave.lStaunton Ct. and College A ve.lStaunton Ct. 55. Fire Department ground ladder access to the dwelling units bedroom egress windows shall be provided. 56. When the Main Electrical Shutoff is located in the interior of the building, an exterior shunt trip or other approved means of emergency shutoff shall be provided. Please contact the Building Div. for details. 57. An approved access walkway shall be provided to each bedroom egress/rescue . window. 58. Provide Fire Department access across the roof of the 3 story building. 11. If the residential units have a different address than EI Camino Real, provide a separate fire department connection at the housing building. Public Works Engineering 59. This project must meet the State Regional Water Quality Control Board's (SRWQCB) revised provision C.3. The applicant is required to satisfy all current storm water discharge regulations and shall provide calculations and documents to verify compliance. The project must also enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 7 guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to the first building occupancy sign-off. Off site property or ROW cannot be used to satisfy the C.3 requirements. Every effort should be made to use natural (non-mechanical) methods of stormwater treatment. The applicant is required to meet with Public Works Engineering (PWE) prior to final ARB to discuss and review the C.3 stormwater treatment plan. 60. The applicant shall meet with PWE prior to final ARB to discuss the shoring system to be used in the construction of the proj ect. Shoring systems must be on private property, out of the right-of-way (ROW) and the use of tie-back systems has specific requirements which will be discussed at the meeting. 61. The applicant shall, at minimum, submit an application for a minor subdivision with the Planning division prior to issuance of building permits. 62. The street frontages of the development shall be resurfaced (grind and overlay, full width) and the curbs, gutters, and sidewalks shall be removed and replaced. This work shall be detailed in the offsite improvement plans required for the final map process and it is highly encouraged that the work takes place near the end of the construction process. 63. The applicant shall install LED streetlights along the frontages of the development. Type, style and location, etc. shall be determined at the time of offsite improvement construction and in coordination and consultation with Palo Alto Utilities Department. 64. Any special surface (Le. sidewalk) treatments proposed within the ROW shall be reviewed by pWE' 65. The project must be constructed without the use of perimeter or sub grade drains outside the walls of the subgrade structure. In other words, the project shall be constructed "like a boat". 66. Provisions for a grease trap shall be made onsite. 67. The applicant is required to meet with Public Works Engineering (PWE) to verify the basic design parameters affecting grading, drainage and surface water infiltration. The applicant is required to submit a conceptual site grading and drainage plan that conveys site runoff to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. In order to address potential storm water quality impacts, the plan shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMP's) to be incorporated into the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required for the project. The SWPPP shall include permanent BMP' s to be incorporated into the proj ect to protect storm water quality. (Resources and handouts are available from Public Works -Engineering. Specific reference is made to Palo Alto's companion document to "Start at the Source", entitled Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 8 "Planning Your Land Development Project"). The elements of the PWE~approved conceptual grading and drainage plan shall be incorporated into the building permit plans. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT 68. The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering. This plan shall show spot elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, shall be maintained. 69. The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the applicant's monthly City utility bill will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets and instructions are available from Public Works Engineering. 70. A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto's Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. A handout describing these and other requirements for a construction logistics plan is available from Public Works Engineering. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT 71. Prior to building permit issuance, a digital copy of the parcel map or final map, in AutoCAD format, shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering and shall conform to North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD 1929 for vertical survey controls. 72. A detailed site-specific soil report prepared by a licensed soils or geo-technical engineer must be submitted which includes information on water table and basement construction issues. Measures must be undertaken to render the basement waterproof and able to withstand all projected hydrostatic and soil pressures. No pumping of ground water is allowed. In general, Public Works Engineering recommends that structures be constructed in such a way that they do not penetrate existing or projected ground water levels. 73. The applicant is required to paint the "No DumpingIFlows to Matadero Creek" logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 9 drainage plan. Include maintenance of these logos in the Hazardous Materials Management Plan, if such a plan is part of this project. 74. The project includes the construction of dumpster and recycling areas as part of a food service facility. Regulations require that the dumpster/recycling area be adequately roofed or covered. 75. The project includes the construction of dumpster and recycling areas. City guidelines require that this area be covered. 76. The project includes a loading dock. Design of the loading area shall comply with the Palo Alto Municipal Code (P AMC) Sec. 16.09.032(2). DURING CONSTRUCTION 77. The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. 78. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 79. The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP's) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the project. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (P AMC Chapter 16.09). 80. All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. PRIOR TO FINALIZATION 81. All sidewalks and curb and gutters bordering the project shall be removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. Sec. 12.08.010. 82. All unused driveways shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. Sec. 12.08.090. 83. All street surfaces along the frontages of the development shall be removed and replaced (grind and overlay, full-width). 84. The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign- Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 10 off Similarly, all as-builts, on-:-site grading, drainage and post-developments BMP's shall be completed prior to sign-off. 85. A curb ramp for the disabled will be required at comers of the development. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF PARCEL OR FINAL MAP 86. Subdivision Agreement is required to secure compliance with condition of approval and security of improvements onsite and offsite. No grading or building permits will be issued until Final or Parcel Map is recorded with County Recorder. 87. The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Fire, and Transportation Departments after approval of this map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. These improvement plans must be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal of a parcel or final map. 88. The project subdivision includes significant complexity involving, final map and coordination of infrastructure design and construction. Developer shall appoint a Project Manager to coordinate with City, Public Works and Utility, engineering staff. Public Works will conduct daily and longer term communication with appointed project manager in order to facilitate timely review and approval of design and construction matters. 89. All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City's jurisdiction shall conform to standard specifications of the Public Works and Utility Department. Sec. 12.08.060. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF P ARCELIFINAL MAP 90. The subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording of the final parcel or subdivision map to guarantee the completion of the "on" and "off' site condition(s) of approval. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Planning, Utilities and Public Works Departments. Public Works Recycling 91. Recommend that enclosure doors open full width of enclosure, service aisle and curbs do not restrict access to enclosure. 92. Enclosure access must not conflict with loading dock. 93. PASCO services enclosure from street and distance from street to enclosures is beyond standard service. Additional charges apply for service beyond 25 feet from street. 94. PASCO will not drive into loading dock to provide service. 95. Tallow bins must be segregated from refuse/recycling area of enclosure to eliminate slip hazardous due to spills. Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 El Camino Real 11 Electric Utility Engineering Department Conditions 96. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 97. The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 98. The Applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN SUBMITTALS FOR BUILDING PERMIT 99. A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all building permit applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal. 100. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. 101. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 102. This project requires a padmount transformer. The location of the transformer shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16. 103. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property as required by the City. Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 12 104. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer's switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 105. The customer shall maintain a minimum of six feet horizontal clearance between the nearest conductor at rest and any part of the new development. The customer shall meet all California General Order No. 95 clearance requirements. 106. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 107. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 108. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility's padmount transformer and the customer's main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 109. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 110. If the customer's total load exceeds 2500kVA, service shall be provided at the primary voltage of 12,470 volts and the customer shall provide the high voltage switchgear and transformers. Utilities Rule & Regulation #3. 111. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer's expense and must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. . 112. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. COMMENTS ON SUBMITTALS 113. Drawing ALI -First Floor & Site Plan Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 13 • Transfonner Pad size (and working spaces), boxes, conduit size and quantity will be detennined after Electric Load Sheets are submitted. A 3 'x5' primary box is required in front of each transfonner pad. • Three feet clearance is required on each side of the transfonner pad. There shall be eight feet of clearance in the front of the transfonner. Transfonner shall not be in an enclosed environment. 114. Drawing A2.2 -Elevations • Elevation drawings shall show that the proj ect meets California General Order No. 95 clearance requirements. Regional Water Quality Control Plant Conditions 115. Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system (P AMC 16.09.032(B)(17). 116. Substances containing copper in excess of 2.0 mg/L, tributyl tin in excess of 0.1 mg/L, or chromium in excess of 2.0 mg/L may not be added to cooling systems in Palo Alto. These concentrations apply to the substances prior to dilution with cooling system water. (Note: The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code has proposed additions to this requirement which include substances that may not be added to cooling towers containing Zinc in excess of2.0 mg/liter and Molybdenum in excess of2.0 nlg/liter.) (PAMC 16.09.115) 117. A flow meter shall be installed to measure the volume of blow down water from the new cooling tower. Cooling systems discharging greater than 2,000 gallons per day are required to meet a copper discharge limit of 0.25 milligrams per liter. 118. Prior to draining any existing closed loop chilled water, the water in each of the existing loops shall be tested for copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. Test results shall be submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. Treatment of the chilled loop water prior to draining may be required if the pollutant concentrations exceed discharge linlitations contained in the P AMC. 119. If thennometers will be installed on the chilled water supply and return piping. Non-mercury thennometers should be used for this application.(This is a recommendation and not required). 120. If the project is located in an area of known groundwater contamination with Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) then the plans must include the following procedure for construction dewatering pursuant to (PAMC 16.09.117, 16.09.110(h): 121. Prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering, the water shall be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using EPA Method 601/602. The Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 14 analytical results of the VOC testing shall be transmitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). If the concentration of any VOC exceeds 5 ug/L (5 ppb), the water may not be discharged to the storm drain system and an Exceptional Discharge Permit for discharge to the sanitary sewer must be obtained from the RWQCP prior to discharge. If the VOC concentrations exceed the toxic organics discharge limits contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a treatment system for removal ofVOCs will also be required prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. Additionally, any water discharged to the storm drain system must be free of sediment. 122. Connections to the storm drain shall not be permitted for loading docks where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled (P AMC 16.09.032). 123. Loading dock drains may be connected to the sewer only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the superintendent is provided. Any loading dock area with a sanitary sewer drain shall be equipped with a fail-safe valve, which shall be kept closed during periods of operation. 124. Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system (PAMC 16.09.032(b)(8). 125. New dumpster areas shall be covered. The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area and run-off from the area (PAMC 16.09.106(e) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities). Undesignated Retail Space 126. Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of the space with undesignated tenants or future use will need to meet all requirements that would have been applicable during design. and construction. If such undesignated retail space becomes a food service facility the following requirements must be met pursuant to PAMC Section 16.09.1 03 (a) Grease Control Devices for Food Service Facilities: • A grease control device (GCD) shall be installed with a minimum capacity of750 gallons. The GCD must be sized in accordance with the 2007 California Plumbing Code. The sizing calculation must be submitted with the plans. All grease generating drainage fixtures shall be connected to the GCD. The connection of any dishwashers or pasta cookers to a GCD is prohibited. All large, in-ground interceptors shall have a minimum of three manholes to allow visibility of each inlet piping, bafHe (divider) piping and outlet piping to ensure accessibility for inspection, cleaning and removal of all contents. The plans shall clearly indicate the number of manholes on the GCD and a list of all drainage fixtures connecting to the GCD. Two manholes may be allowed under certain conditions only granted by the Environmental Compliance Division of Public Works Department. Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 15 • To ensure all food service establishment drainage fixtures are connected to the correct lines, each drainage fixture shall be clearly labeled on the plans. Also a list of all fixtures and their discharge connection, i.e. sanitary sewer or grease waste line, shall be included on the plans. • New buildings constructed to house food service facilities shall include a covered area for a dumpster. The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. Drains that are installed within the enclosure for recycle and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins (used oil containers) serving food service facilities are optional. Any such drain installed shall be cOlmected to a GCD and the sanitary sewer. If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in the covered area (P AMC 16.09.032b(16) 'Covered Dumpsters for Food Service Facilities'). • The installation of a garbage grinder at any food service facility is prohibited after January 1, 2003. The kitchen cannot utilize a garbage grinder for food waste disposal to the sanitary sewer (pAMC 16.09.103(e) Prohibition Against Garbage Disposals). • Food service facilities shall have a sink or other area for cleaning floor mats, containers, and equipment, which is connected to a grease interceptor and the sanitary sewer (PAMC 16.09.032b(16) Large Item Cleaning Sink for Food Service Facilities.) Public Works Operations-Trees 127. Provide optimum public tree replacenlent for street trees. The plans shall show and provide a streetscape design with materials on the civil, landscape and irrigation drawings with the following information and direction: • EI Camino Real and Oxford Avenue Frontage: Utilize city-approved Silva Cell soil planter (approx. 30-inch depth) beneath the new sidewalk from comer to comer. Utilities shall be allowed to pass thru the planters. Provide automatic irrigation using a solar smart controller with two bubblers per tree. Utilize Public Works Planting Detail #604. Beneath each tree planting site, auger two 4-6" diameter drain holes 3ft deep below the bottom of the planter basin soil and backfill with medium sand (0.25 to 0.5 mm) or fine gravel. For EI Camino Real, utilize Platanus a. 'Columbia', Columbia Plane, #15 size, spaced 30-feet on center, a minimum of IS-feet from street lights and 10-feet from utilities and driveways. For Oxford Avenue, utilize Fraxinus a. 'Autumn Purple' , Autumn Purple Ash (or other species as may be agreed upon by the Directors of Planning and Conlffiunity Environnlent and Public Works), #15 (ball and burlap) B&B or 15 gallon minimum size, spaced 25-30 feet on center, a minimum of IS-feet from street lights and 10-feet from utilities and driveways. • Staunton Court and College Avenue Frontage: Provide automatic irrigation using a solar smart controller with two bubblers per tree. Utilize Public Works Planting Detail #604. Beneath each tree planting site, auger two 4-6" diameter drain holes 3ft deep below the bottom of the planter basin soil and backfill with mediunl sand (0.25 Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 16 to 0.5 mm) or fine gravel. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all street trees as required in landscape design conditions below. On College Avenue, utilize Fraxinus a. 'Autumn Purple', Autumn Purple Ash (or other species as may be approved by the Directors of Planning and Community Environment and Public Works), #15 B&B or 15 gallon minimum size, spaced 25-30 feet on center, a minimum of 15-feet from street lights and 10-feet from utilities and driveways. On Staunton Court frontage, utilize Fraxinus pennsylvanica 'Cimmzam', Red Ash (or other species as may be approved by the Directors of Planning and Community Environment and Public Works), #15 B&B or 15 gallon minimum size, spaced 25-30 feet on center, a minimum of 15-feet from street lights and 10-feet from utilities and driveways. Planning Department Arborist 128. LANDSCAPE PLANS. a. Provide a detailed landscape and irrigation plan encompassing on-and off- site plantable areas out to the curb shall be approved by the Architectural Review Board. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for the project. A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant will prepare these plans, to include: i) All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. ii) Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. iii) Irrigation schedule and plan. iv) Fence locations. v) Lighting plan with photometric data. vi) Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. vii) All new trees planted within the public right-of-way shall be installed per Public Works (PW) Standard Planting Diagram #603 or 604 (include on plans), and shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. viii) Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by I-inch. ix) Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. For trees, PW Detail #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers shall not be mounted inside an aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards. x) Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow device is adequately obscured with the appropriate screening to minimize visibility (planted shrubbery is Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 17 preferred, painted dark green, decorative boulder covering acceptable; wire cages are discouraged). b) Mandatory Landscape Architect (LA) Inspection Verification to the City. The LA of record shall verify the perfonnance measurements are achieved with a separate letter of verification to City Planning staff, in addition to owner's representative for each of the following: i) Tree and Shrub Planting Specifications, including delivered stock, meets Standards in the CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.30-3.50. Girdling roots and previously topped trees are subject to rejection. DURING CONSTRUCTION 129. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are -damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 130. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be pennitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and arQund the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY 131. LANDSCAPE INSPECTION. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of written verification that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. 132. PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner (650-329-2441) to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. POST CONSTRUCTION 133. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300- 2001 or current version). Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 EI Camino Real 18 N"II.II" •• rll consulting associates MEMORANDUM To: Patrick Smailey From: Jessica ter Schure Date: October 1, 2009 Subject: College Terrace Centre TOM Program Introduction ExhihitC 785 Market Street, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94103 (415) 284·1544 FAX: (415) 284·1554 The proposed College Terrace Centre is a mixed-use development in the City of Palo Alto. The project consists of 8 affordable multifamily residential rental units, 8,000 s.f. of grocery store use, 5,580 s.f. of general retail use, and 38,980 s.f. of office use. The project proposes a total of 227 parking spaces, of which 216 spaces will be located within ari underground garage accessible from EI Camino Real and the remaining 11 parking spaces at surface level and accessible from Staunton Court. All parking spaces are planned to be shared among all land uses (unless otherwise required by the City). Within this Memorandum, Nelson\Nygaard presents a number of Transportation Demand Management (TOM) measures that will enable the Applicant to encourage employees and residents to travel by modes other than driving alone. The list of planned measures includes: • Provision of two carshare vehicles onsite • Secure bicycle parking • Designated vanpoollcarpool parking • Onsite transportation information board/kiosk • Onsite transportation coordinator (part-time) TDM Programs This section discusses the TOM measures that the Applicant has agreed to adopt in order to reduce single-occupant vehicle travel to this site. Provision of Two Carsharing Vehicles Onsite The Applicant is proposing to subsidize two carsharing vehicles on-site. The Applicant will attract a carsharing operator by providing free carsharing vehicle parking, subsidizing memberships for residents, and encouraging employers to set up business accounts with the carsharing operator. These strategies will reduce residents' need for a car and encourage employers to use shared vehicles. This would also reduce the need for employees to drive to work, as they can use a carshare vehicle for errands and business meetings during the day. Also, by offering the two vehicles to the public and Stanford students, there will be a larger pool of potential users, which will help ensure the program's viability. Stanford University currently has 24 Zipcar (www.zipcjlr.com) vehicles in various locations throughout campus, with the closest pod (location with one or more carshare vehicles) within a 5-rninute walk from College Terrace Centre. Expansion to College Terrace Centre may therefore be more attractive to Zipcar than most other locations on the Peninsula, since there is already a growing demand for carshare vehicles in the direct vicinity of Stanford. The number of carsharing vehicles on-site will be based on demand. Initially, it makes sense to provide two vehicles in College Terrace Centre to ensure that residents and employees perceive that the service is available. Vehicles could be added as demand increases. To maximize usage, marketing information will be distributed as part of new employee and resident "welcome packs." Secure Bicycle Parking The City of Palo Alto requires bicycle parking according to land use and density. The proposed project will require a total of 38 bicycle spaces. According to the City's zoning code requirements, 29 of these spaces must be Class I facilities for long-term users and the remaining 9 parking spaces must be Class II facilities for short-term users. The Applicant will provide a total of 60 bicycle spaces, exceeding the minimum spaces required by 22 spaces or more than 50%. At least 9 of these spaces will be Class II or short-term spaces, located in near vicinity to the grocery store. The remaining parking spaces will be Class I spaces secured in the subterranean parking facility. The provision of plentiful secure bicycle parking will make it easier and more convenient for employees, residents, customers and visitors to access the site by bicycle. Onsite Transportation Information Kiosk An alternative transportation options kiosk with up-to-date information on transit, ridesharing (e.g. 511.org), carsharing, bicycling and other alternative transportation will be located on-site. The applicant will also provide transportation-related information online, for instance on the property management website, with links to relevant transportation information and trip planning resources. Onsite Transportation Coordinator (Part-Time) The applicant is proposing to designate a staff member within property management as the Transportation Coordinator. This person will be responsible for maintaining the TOM Program, including providing new employees and residents with a welcome package about transportation, updating the transportation information kiosk, monitoring bicycle parking usage and requesting more bicycle parking if need arises, etc. DeSignated Vanpool/Carpool Parking The Applicant will initially deSignate 5% (12 spaces) of the parking as preferential parking spaces for carpools and vanpools. These spaces will be located near the entrance of buildings or elevators in the parking facility. This measure encourages and incentivizes ridesharing among employees and is a cost-effective method to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips. Periodic monitoring of the usage of these spaces will determine whether fewer or more spaces should be deSignated as preferential parking. Page 2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Conclusions A TDM program consisting of onsite carsharing, secure bicycle parking, a strong ridesharing program and several supporting TDM programs can have a fairly large impact on trip generation. Coordinated marketing efforts of the program, including welcome·packages to new employees and residents, will help the College Terrace Centre achieve at least a 50/0 peak hour trip reduction. This is a conservative estimate based on Nelson\Nygaard's experience from developing, reviewing and monitoring several dozens of TDM programs throughout the Bay Area and North America. The project's favorable location in one of the Peninsula's most walkable communities and close to existing transit opportunities will further strengthen this program. Page 3 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. ] Attachment C Planned Community District-College Terrace Centre 2180 El Camino Real 07PLN-00000-00327 Table 1: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.38 (PC DISTRICT) Regulation Required Proposed Conformance* Building Height 50 foot limit Up to 55 for elevator No exception needed for towers elevator equip. Building Height (Within 35 feet 30 -33'-6" feet Conforms 150' of a residential zone district) Roof Top Gazebo 40' 5 feet too tall Signage spire 45' 10 feet too tall DEE requested Yard opposite an RM 10 feet 2' -3"Oxford St. l' -9" encroachment District (across Oxford across 66 feet of the Ave and Staunton Ct.) Oxford fac;ade. I DEE required Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) Parking Spaces Required Proposed Conformance Office Spaces @ 1 :250 155.84 Market and Retail 67.9 spaces Spaces @ 1 :200 Residential Units @ 13.8 spaces 1.5 per unit plus 1 guest space equal to 1 +1 0% of all units Total 237.54 spaces 227 spaces (deficient 11 spaces) Allowable 5% reduction (this is 3.46 spaces But conforms with the 223.54 extra) allowable reductions Bicycles spaces conforms 32 55 *18.52.050 allows a reduction in the required number of parking spaces at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Table 3: COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL for mixed use) Regulation CN District Regulations Proposed PC Minimum Site specifications Minimum Site Area None Required 50,277 square feet Min. Site Width None Required 294 feet Min. Site Depth None required 131 feet Minimum Setbacks Front Yard 0-10' to create an 8' -12' 5 foot setback effective sidewalk width (4'-2" setback is needed to The proposed setback of five feet provides achieve the required 12' room for the 12 foot wide sidewalk. sidewalk on EI Camino real) Rear Yard 10' for residential portion; no N/A the lot does not have a rear yard requirement for commercial portion. Rear Yard abutting 10 feet N/A the lot does not have a rear yard residential zone district Interior Side Yard if 10 feet N/A there are no interior side yards abutting residential zone district Street Side Yard 5 feet Oxford setback: 2'-3" Staunton Court setback: 7' res. 18' commer. College Avenue setback 2' Build-To-Lines 50% of frontage built to setback 30% EI Camino Real 33% of side street built to setback 59% Oxford 45% College 34% Staunton Court Perm itted Setback Balconies, awnings, porches, N/A Encroachments stairways, and similar elements may extend up to 6 feet into the setback. Cornices, eaves, fireplaces and similar architectural features (excluding flat or continuous walls or enclosures of interior space) may extend up to 4 feet into the front and rear setbacks and up to 3 feet into interior side setbacks. Maximum Site 50% 40% of the site is covered by buildings Coverage Landscape/Open 35% 25% podium level open space Space Coverage 4% basement planter areas open to above 11 % vegetated roof areas 2% Balconies ----------------------------- I ! I Total 35% I Useable Open 200 sq ft per unit for 5 or fewer 105 square feet per unit Space units; 150 sq ft per unit for 6 units or more Maximum Height Standard 40 feet Height varies up to 55 feet (due to EI Camino Real frontage) Within 150 feet of a 35 feet Grocery loffice 30 feet residential zone (40 feet to top gazebo roof) district (other than an RM-40 or PC Residential units 33 feet six inches zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site. I Daylight Plane for Daylight Plane height and slope NIA no residential zones directly abut any lot lines abutting shall be identical to those of the project lot lines one or more most restrictive residential residential zoning zoning district abutting the lot districts line Residential 15 Dwelling Units Per Acre = 17 8 Dwelling Units i Density units Maximum 0.5:1 0.1 :1 Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Maximum Non 0.5:1 1.05:1 i Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Total Mixed Use '1 :1 1.15:1 Floor Area Ratio Minimum Mixed 0.15:1 0.37:1 Use Ground Floor Commercial FAR Maximum office 25% of the lot = 12,569 sq. ft. 38,980 sq. ft. square footage without, CUP (25% of lot size Maximum Office Code allows Director Discretion 38,980 sq. ft. square footage No numeric limit is set. with a CUP There is 13,027 sq ft of existing ground floor retail. This area may not be converted to ground floor office. Applicant could propose 12,569 sf. ground floor retail and 12,569 sf. second floor office. (This scenario would reduce the ground floor retail but is ok because it is not replaced with ground floor office) This would reach the 0.5:1 FAR cap for Commercial sf. To go beyond the 12,569 sf. of office would require a variance to the i FAR limit in addition to the CUP I for additional office. CARRASCO & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS ATTACHMENT D COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2100 EI Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA Updated December 1, 2009 Project Overview College Terrace Centre is a two-and three-story mixed-use office, commercial/retail and residential transit-oriented development to be located on the block bounded by EI Camino Real, Oxford Avenue, Staunton Court and College Avenue. The proposed project comprises a neighborhood grocery store at the corner of Oxford and EI Camino Real; an open-air market area and retail shops along EI Camino Real; office space on College Avenue and at the second and third floors along EI Camino Real; and a free- standing townhouse apartment building of eight two-story 1-bedroom units facing Staunton Court. At the corner of Oxford and Staunton, the Garden Square provides a green, softening effect. There are 2 basement levels of parking and a small on-grade parking lot. College Terrace Centre is designed to be a LEED Silver Building, and incorporates many sustainable features. These features include, but are not limited to (1) a vegetated roof at the second floor; (2) clerestory windows at the third floor to introduce natural light into the center of the building; (3) photovoltaic panels on the sloping roofs of the clerestories; (4) reCYCled-content materials; (5) highly- energy efficient mechanical, lighting and control systems; (6) EnergyStar roofing; and (7) a cistern system for collection and storage of rainwater for re-use for landscape irrigation. A PC Zone Amendment is required for this project, as the existing CN zoning does not allow for the density proposed. A significant public benefit for the PC Zone is an 8,000 sq. ft. neighborhood-serving grocery store with an additional 2,447 sq. ft. of open-air market area to serve the grocery store. The grocery store will serve the immediate College Terrace neighborhood, Stanford University residents, and the surrounding areas of Palo Alto. In addition, 8 units of 1-bedroom below-market-rate townhouses are being provided in a free-standing townhouse apartment building that will front on Staunton Court. Existing Conditions There are currently seven existing buildings on the 50,277 sq. ft. site: JJ&F Market facing College Avenue, four sheds used by the market for storage (facing Staunton Court), a furniture store facing EI Camino (which previously housed a bank, then a bicycle shop), and a commercial building facing Staunton Court which currently houses an eco-friendly tableware company. A small parking lot for JJ&F and the small commercial building is accessed off Staunton, and the furniture store on EI Camino has two parking lots and a drive-through. Project Description The proposed project will consist of two buildings over a two-leveLundergr:oundparking .garage ... The main . building is divided among several components, beginning with the 2-story form at the corner of EI Camino and Oxford that contains the grocery market at the ground floor and offices above. The deep 29 foot setback from the curb at EI Camino allows the grocery store to benefit from an open air component fronting on EI Camino, bringing more focus, activity, color and interest to this corner. Three-story elements of the main building are placed beyond the driveway that runs between EI Camino and the underground parking. These elements wrap the corner at EI Camino and College, and are broken down to smaller masses punctuated with a clock tower and an entry plaza at the corner. At the opposite corner of the site, the Garden Square at Oxford and Staunton provides a pleasant socializing and relaxation area. The portion of the project facing Staunton Court includes a 2-story residential townhouse building containing eight below market rate rental units. The design of these units reflect that of the residential 1885 EI Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 PCSA\45106\791475.4 650.322.2288 Fax 650.322.2316 uses directly across Staunton. For example, the gable roof evokes the gable roof on the opposing condominium building as well as on other nearby houses. 2 By placing the 3-story mass along EI Camino, the commercial building buffers both the residential building and the College Terrace neighborhood 'from the noise of EI Camino traffic. The architecture combines elements and massing evocative of a European village and, like many villages, combines living, working, and social interaction spaces into one discrete block. Elevators are housed in towers that punctuate the architectural forms, provide visual cues to locations of entrances, and recall bell' towers and steeples that provide landmarks in traditional villages. These towers, and the gazebo on the vegetated roof, are roofed with Spanish-style clay tile. Exterior building materials include integrally-colored stucco in smooth and textured finishes and warm tan and gold colors. A subtle combination of smooth and textured stucco is featured on the grocery market and stair towers. The inside walls of arcades, decks and balconies are painted in a rust accent color to reflect the dark rust paint on exposed steel structure at the featured balconies .. Main building entries are announced by curved polycarbonate canopies, and white laminated glass awnings are installed at the retail storefronts. At the grocery's open air market space, retractable fabric awnings give a festive appearance consistent with the carts of colorful produce that will be displayed to draw shoppers to the Centre. A finely textured mesh fence marks the edge between the public sidewalk and the open air market. Another feature of the design is the canted wall that rises from the underground garage, behind the Bamboo Grove planted at the lower garage level. The angle of the wall and its windows serves to reduce glare to residential uses across Staunton Court and also reflects light down into the garage. Tall stalks and delicate leaves of the Bamboo Grove create a finely textured pattern of green and shadows against the canted wall. Viewed from off the site, the fagade is softened; viewed 'from the pedestrian arcade, a pleasant forest-like ambiance is created. Natural light streams into the underground garage through the Bamboo Grove, increasing a sense of openness and security. Landscaping takes several forms at College Terrace Centre, consistent with the variety of uses and building volumes. Street trees with tree grates and guards define the pedestrian edge on all four frontages of the site. The scored concrete sidewalk pattern continues around the site, also. At street level fronting EI Camino Real and College Avenue, a more urban approach is taken. Large planter pots with grasses and colorful native plants present a sophisticated statement consistent with the contemporary retail facades and office lobby entrances. The Bamboo Grove planted at the lower garage level grows up through the large lightwells to screen the view of cars below and add texture within the open space. The Garden Square at the corner of Oxford and Staunton provides a pleasant gathering place for all the , users of the site -residents, retail and office tenants, customers and neighbors. Large structured planters support the growth of trees and also serve as biofiltration for storm water that will be collected and run to the underground cisterns. Collected storm water will be used for irrigation, thus minimizing potable water use. Two alternative plans for the Garden Square are being presented. The initial design, which is shown on the detailed plans, uses a large L-shaped planter to create a double row of trees at the corner of Oxford and Staunton. A quiet area of decomposed granite with portable cafe style tables and chairs is located in the interior of the Square. This approach creates a more secluded place for people to gather, eat lunch and relax·while being buffered from the two streets by the height of the planter and double row of trees. The alternative design, which is presented as a conceptual plan with the Landscape drawings, reverses the elements. Large planters with trees are placed at the interior of the Garden Square and the corner is more open, to allow pedestrians to cross t~lrough and access the seating area more easily, PCSA\45106\791475.4 Both designs for the Garden Square include large trees to punctuate the space, accented with smaller- scale planters containing colorful native species. The first design provides a more formal atmosphere while the alternative is more casual and open. At the corner of College and Staunton, a series of landscaped pla.nters and benches along the perimeter provide a quiet seating space for use by office tenants and other users of the Centre. 3 One of the most unique features of College Terrace Centre is the vegetated roof, on the two-story building that houses the grocery store. This roof functions as a biomtration medium, provides insulation to the spaces below and provides a very pleasant view from the third floor offices. Stairs and an elevator to a tiled-roof gazebo make this area visually accessible to Centre users and the public during business hours. This gazebo provides the opportunity to view the vegetated roof and gain insight into green and sustainable building practices, much like the viewing area of the vegetated roof at the California Academy of Sciences building in San Francisco. Construction methods to be used include cast-in-place concrete structure below grade for the underground parking (2 levels), and a concrete post-tensioned floor at the grade level, that separates the commercial spaces above from the parking garage below. Building construction above the post-tensioned slab will be wood construction at the residential building and steel construction at the commercial/retail building. Compliance with Planning & Transportation Commission Recommended Conditions At its October 14, 2009 hearing, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended approval of the project subject to the following list of 11 underlined conditions. As discussed below, Applicant has either agreed to or has suggested minor modifications to each of these conditions with the exception of Cond ition no. 9. 1. The lease for the grocery store must be 20 years minimum. Applicant and John Garcia of JJ&F Market, the intended grocery store operator, have consented to this condition as will be evidenced in a binding executed agreement (the form of which has been approved by the City Attorney) submitted to Council prior to its December 7, 2009 hearing on the project. 2. The grocery store tenant must occupy its' premises prior to any other tenant in the project occupying its premises. Applicant has discussed this condition with staff and, due to the fact that the grocery store tenant improvements will likely take longer to complete than the tenant improvements for the rest of the project, proposes the following substitute condition: "1. No more than 25% of the office space in the project shall be occupied before the grocery store is open for business; 2. The grocery store shall be occupied no later than 90 days following the City's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building in which the grocery store is to be located; and 3. The building permit for the building in which the grocery store is to be located shall be pulled concurrently with the building permit for the other non-residential buildings in the development. " 3. The owner's compliance with the use conditions of the PC Zone must be inspected and enforced pursuant to applicable City code. Applicant consents to this condition. 4. The owners/occupants of the BMR units must have access to the vegetative roof and the applicant shall work with staff to ensure there is private open space for each of the BMR units. In light of the fact that (a) the vegetative roof would be destroyed if it were walked upon, and (b) each PCSA\45106\791475.4 BMR unit has its own private open space, applicant has proposed and staff has agreed to the following substitute condition: 'The owners/occupants of the BMR units must have access to view and enjoy the vegetated roof from the gazebo during normal business hours of the office building." 5. The project must include at least 2 car shares and a TOM program. Applicant originally proposed and thereby consents to this condition. 4 6. The Planning and Transportation Commission must have a second opportunity to review and approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment the Zoning Change and the project (subject to conditions) after the ARB has finished its review of the project and rendered its recommendations on the project to the City Council. This second opportunity will be a consent item that can be pulled from the consent calendar if either (a) it is inconsistent with "the Planning Commission recommendation or (b) the ARB recommends something that is inconsistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. ARB recommended approval of the project at its November 5, 2009 meeting (subject to the conditions discussed below). The project will return to the Planning and Transportation Commission as a consent item on December 2,2009. 7. Staff will work with the applicant to establish noise limits to the satisfaction of the immediate neighborhood. Applicant proposes and planning staff ag"rees to the following substitute condition which applies the existing noise limits adopted in Palo Alto's noise ordinance: "The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of Palo Alto's noise ordinance, both during construction and following construction, for the life of the project pursuant to Chapter 9. 10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 11 8. The ARB shall address the vegetated roof to make it more accessible as open space. The ARB addressed this matter in its recommendations (discussed below). 9. There shall be a reduction of 1,950 square feet in office space. At the applicant's option. some or all of this space can be either (a) removed entirely or (b) converted to ground floor retail on Oxford. For economic reasons stated at the Planning Commission October 14, 2009 hearing, Applicant has declined to agree to this condition. Applicant notes that ARB did not make any obj~ction to the square footage as proposed by the Applicant and clearly stated that any further reduction in area would not result in any building/exterior/massing changes. Applicant further notes that the ground floor space currently designated as Office Use is designed such that it could be used for Retail Use and Applicant agrees that it will rent it to a retail user if the retail tenant can pay rent equivalent to office space rents. 10. When the applicant brings the proiect to the ARB. it shall bring and present context-based drawings. Applicant complied with this condition at the November 5, 2009 ARB hearing. In addition, it also presented a scale model of the project, which will also be presented at the P&TC meeting of December 2, 2009 and City Council meeting of December 7, 2009. 11. Staff shall investigate and evaluate time-limited parking (of 30 minutes in length) on Oxford and College Avenues. Applicant defers to staff on this condition. Applicant has also agreed to the following condition suggested by the Planning Director: "The residential units shall be complete and ready for occupancy no later than 120 days after the first occupancy of any other portion of Col/ege Terrace Centre." PCSA\45106\791475.4 5 Compliance with Architectural Review Board Conditions The ARB recommended approval of the project, including the Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) requests for the Oxford setback encroachment and sign and gazebo height over 35 feet, with a condition that the project return on consent calendar for final review and approval of the following detailed items: 1. Affordable housing unit floor plans .. Although the unit floor plans were shown on the plan sheets, the room names were not shown. Room names and toilet/kitchen fixtures will be shown on the drawings that go to ARB for consent calendar review. 2. Site circulation clarifications. pathway simplification (from stair to roof gazebo). The stair to the roof gazebo will be redesigned to have a shorter path. 3. Elimination of the diagonal banding on the exterior stair to the roof top garden, along with stair redesign consideration. As part of stair redesign, the banding on the stair wall will be changed to horizontal and the wall will be shorter.- 4. Revision to exterior finish of th.e grocery store (review banding. consider one color with two different finishes). Banding on Grocery and the stair/elevator towers will be changed to one color with only textural difference to create the banding effect. 5. Transformer screening/fencing details. All screening and fencing details and materials will be provided. 6. Reconsideration of the use of tile roofing material on the office towers. Although Applicant prefers tile roofs, for a softer appearance that reflects the Ananda Church tile roof across EI Camino, Applicant nonetheless agrees tothis condition. 7. Modification of grocery walls on Oxford Avenue (consider mural, display windows etc.). The design intent is to incorporate "orange crate art" at the entrance to the grocery as well as on the recessed walls at the bike parking and cart areas. Graphic designs of fruits and vegetables, etc. from classic orange crates would be applied to the walls. Examples of these images will be provided to ARB. B. Additional information about the private open spaces and the materiality of it. Enlarged plans of the decks of the residential units will be provided to ARB. 9. Additional information about the bridge, materials, underside, etc. More details and reflected ceiling plan at the bridge will be provided to ARB. 10. Striped tower redesign/reconsideration. The stripes at the tower will be modified as noted in response to Condition #4: one color, texture change only. 11. Ash tree species reconsideration. Applicant has met with the Public Works Arborist and staff to discuss street tree options, and is continuing to work with the arborist to determine the preferred street tree species for College, Staunton and Oxford. The agreed-upon solution will be presented to ARB. 12. Bamboo species and height information. related to the canted wall. More information will be provided to ARB, including illustration of the height vs. the canted wall. 13. Detail to show how headlights of cars going below grade will not impact the BMR units. Graphic sections will be presented to ARB, and screening added if necessary. 14. BMR units facade redesign to be equally as striking as the other buildings in the project. More detailed fagade drawings will be presented to ARB. PCSA\45106\791475.4 .. . 6 15. Plant pa.lette and conceptual plan for the green roof. Detailed planting plan and more information will be provided to ARB. 16. Further specification for screening elements and locations. potted plants/planting at the center of the project. and trellises at surface parking area. These details will be provided to ARB. The items requested to return on ARB consent calendar will be reviewed by the ARB after Council approval of the project. The requested information and design changes that may result from these reconsiderations would not impact the proposed land uses, general footprints or massing of the buildings. PCSA\45106\791475.4 December 1 , 2009 Mayor Peter Drekmeier Vice-Mayor Jack Morton Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Re: Request for Council Approval of a PC-Zone for 2180 EI Camino Real (College Terrace Centre) and Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Mayor Drekmeier, Vice-Mayor Morton and Council Members: On behalf of the Trustees of The Clara Chilcote Trust, I write to request your approval·of the entitlements for College Terrace Centre -approval of a PC-Zone and of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The property owners who are the individual Trustees of the Chilcote Trust are part of a remarkable family that has had its roots in Palo Alto for the past eight decades. Over this time, the family grew strong and personal ties with the Garcia family, which has operated a grocery store on this block for more than six decades, as well as with the surrounding neighborhood. With the improvements on the block they own in increasing disrepair, the Trustees of the Clara Chilcote Trust believed (and continue to believe) that the right way to redevelop this wonderful block was to preserve JJ&F at the level of subsidized rent needed to ensure its long-term success. The development will provide the City and the College Terrace neighborhood with an outstanding, forward-thinking and environmentally sound mixed-use development that will work beautifully at this Palo Alto site along EI Camino Real. As you are aware, this mixed-use development has been in the works for more than five years. Under ordinary circumstances, the redevelopment of this city block under the existing CN-Zone would long have been completed by now. Both financing for the construction of the project and leases from strong credit tenants were abundant in 2006 and 2007, as was the demand for market-rate rental housing. The result would have been 500/0 commercial and 50% residential, but in that scenario JJ&F would have lost its Palo Alto home. The Planning and Transportation Commission and the Architectural Review Board recently recommended, between them, more than 25 modifications to the College Terrace Centre project proposal. With due respect for these two bodies, we have Mayor Peter Drekmeier Vice-Mayor Jack Morton Members of the City Council December 1, 2009 Page 2 accepted all but one of them --the further reduction of office space, which would render this undertaking financially infeasible. This is the right project at the right place at the right time. We hope that, at your meeting on December 7,2009, you will validate the decision of the property owners to tel d and that you will enthusiastically and unanimously approve this ng-awaited, commu' supported and valuable project. Enclosures: • Agreement to Lease with • BMR Agreement • Revised Project Description CARRASCO & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE PC ZONE APPLICATION 2100 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA ARB Submittal 10/23/09 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STATEMENT Necessity of the application for a PC district The project site comprises four legal parcels bounded by EI Camino Real, College Avenue, Staunton Court and Oxford Avenue, with a total area of 50,277 sq. ft. Existing zoning is CN. This proposal is for a mixed-use commercial/retail and office complex along with eight Below Market Rate residential rental units --all over two levels of underground parking. The site is so situated and the uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of the CN district does not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. The key element of the development -i.e., the "anchor tenant" --is an 8,000 sq. ft. neighborhood-serving grocery store with a 2,447 sq. ft. open-air component. This development will preserve and enhance an existing market that has served the College Terrace neighborhood as well as other Palo Alto and Stanford neighborhoods for more than 60 years. In addition, eight Below Market Rate one-bedroom rental townhouses will be constructed on the site. The market and four of the BMR rental units constitute the public benefits. To achieve the public benefits, most of the remainder of the site must be developed with offices whose higher market rate rents will subsidize the lower rent necessary for a neighborhood-serving grocery market to survive in north Palo Alto. As a consequence, more office square footage than would otherwise be permitted for a mixed commercial/residential project in the CN zone must be entitled. The project also includes retail square footage in addition to the grocery market, which will replace historic retail uses on the site. The allowable FAR for a mixed-use commercial/residential project in the CN zone on EI Camino Real is 0.5:1 for commerCial, limiting the area to 0.5 x 50,277, or 25,139 sq. ft., and 0.5:1 for residential, also equaling 25,139 sq. ft., for a total of 50,277 sq. ft. and an FAR of 1.0. As proposed, the project consists of 38,980 sq. ft. of office area, 13,580 sq. ft. of commercial/retail space including 8,000 sq. ft. of grocery store space, and 5,340 sq. ft. of residential. The total 'floor area of the proposed project is 57,900 sq. ft. for a total FAR of 1.15 -only slightly higher than that allowed under CN zoning. This necessitates a PC district, to achieve the needed additional area and FAR. 2. List of all uses proposed or potentially to be included within the PC district Retail Use: • 13,580 sq. ft. of enclosed space on the first (i.e., street level) floor, including: o 8,000 sq. ft. Indoor neighborhood-serving grocery store (with delivery and recycling space off Oxford Avenue); o Other retail spaces for lease total 5,580 sq. ft. Potential retail uses could be a pharmacy, stationery store, shoe repair, hair salon, bookstore, flower shop, toy store, or other neighborhood-serving retail. • 2,447 sq. ft of open air market. 1885 EI Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 650.322.2288 Fax 650.322.2316 2 Office Use: • 38,980 sq. ft. o 33,979 sq. ft. on the second and third floors, for professional general business offices o 5,001 sq. ft. on the first Hoor for professional and general offices and lobbies Residential Use: • 5,340 sq. ft. comprising eight Below Market Rate townhouse 1-bedroom rental housing units located on Staunton Court, located adjacent to the wrought-iron fenced garden square at the corner with Oxford Avenue. These 2-story, 665 sq. ft. units will be rented at below market rates to eligible tenants, as such eligibility is determined by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation; provided that the selection of particular tenants (City and PAUSD employees) and management, of the units will be done by the management company for the development. Each unit will have a small entry garden for private open space, and the garden square will provide additional common open space. Green Space: • At the corner of Oxford Avenue and Staunton Court is a garden square that will be available during business hours for the enjoyment of tenants, customers, residents and the public. The garden square will be surrounded by buildings and by a decorative wrought iron fence. After hours, a gate in the fence will secure the site. This garden square is intended to evoke the feeling of small parks in many European cities. Parking Areas • A small, on-grade 11-space parking lot adjacent to the residential building will be available to residential visitors and retail customers. • To minimize traffic onto Staunton Court, the two-level underground parking garage is accessed by a ramp from EI Camino Real. Exclusive parking for employees of the office and retail areas will be located on the second level of the garage, and will be secured by card-reader operated grilles. Residents of the eight residential units can park on the 'first level of the garage. Retail and office clients can park on the first and second levels of the garage, while Grocery Store customers can park on the first level, where there will be grocery cart storage areas and a large elevator to service the market only. After business hours, the ramp will b'e secured by a gate with card-reader, so only tenants can access the garage. Included in the parking garage will be an area for Car Share vehicles, which will be accessible to the public during business hours. The underground parking garage features a ground level vegetated (with bamboo) space, open to the sky, to provide more light and a greater sense of safety to garage users. Refuse and Recycling Area: • Refuse and recycling will be located adjacent to the grocery delivery area and also adjacent to the offices on the first '1:loor for convenience of the office tenants. These areas will be gated and screened from view. PCSA \45106\780970.8 3 Bicycle Parking: • Applicable code would require 23 bicycle parking spaces for the commercial/retail/office uses and 9 spaces for the residential users, for a total of 32 spaces. College Terrace Centre will instead provide a total of 55 bicycle parking spaces -46 for the commercial/retail/offices uses and 9 spaces for the residential users. Of the 55, 27 will be on-grade and 28 will be in the garage. Short-term (ST) commercial/retail/office spaces will be located adjacent to the Grocery Store, adjacent to entrances to office lobbies, and near tl1e small on-grade parking lot off Staunton Court. The spaces in the underground garage will be a combination of long-term (L T) and short- term (ST). LT bike parking (enclosed, secure parking) for the residences will be placed adjacent to the transformer enclosure on Staunton Court. 3. Nature of uses and need for differing regulations See description of uses noted above, for general information. The particular needs of the uses on the site, which in some circumstances require differing regulations than what would normally be allowed on this site are as follows: • Neig~Jborhood-serving Retail/Market: As expressed in public hearings before the Planning Commission, it is important to the community that a neighborhood-serving grocery market remain in this location. It helps to create a sense of community for the neighborhood. To be viable, however, a small neighborhood market requires a rental rate considerably lower than typical for this type of retail space, particularly given the high quality of the building being proposed. The strong desire to keep a neig~lborhood retail/market use in business at .this location has driven much of the chosen uses and the design of the development proposal. • Although zoned CN, the site itself is a key commercial location along EI Camino in the California Avenue Shopping District. Development of retail uses fronting EI Camino is a goal of the City of Palo Alto. Proximity to Stanford University and several neighborhoods, in addition to College Terrace, presents the opportunity to develop retail shops that can serve the local community. This is a location to which residents can walk or bike. • Proximity of the site to public transit is a vital factor. Bus lines 22, 89, 522, and the Dumbarton Express and Stanford Marguerite busses run on EI Camino. Bus line 22 has the highest ridership in Santa Clara county. The California Avenue Cal Train station is a few blocks away. Automobile access is also very convenient, as EI Camino Real (State Route 82) is a major thoroughfare. The proposed development is less than one-half mile from the Caltrain station; SB 375 recognizes development within such half mile radius of a transit hub as a "Transit Oriented District." • By placing offices on the upper floors of the building, the opportunity for local residents to walk, take transit, or bike to work is provided. • Small (665 sq. ft.) rental housing units are being proposed to transition from the commercial development to the surrounding neighborhood, and also to provide housing units that are affordable to a range of Palo Alto workers. The residential building is located such that the units are buffered from the traffic and noise of EI Camino by the new commercial building and are also directly adjacent to the only neighboring residences. This residential structure also provides a transition in scale from the commercial building and a soft texture to this edge of the College Terrace neighborhood. It will also help frame the garden square at the corner of Oxford Avenue and Staunton Court. • This project creates a small village-type community that will be interactive, lively and a focal point for the College Terrace neighborhood. While providing many public benefits, the areas of the retail and office uses must be sufficient to support the lower rent structure of a neighborhood- serving retail/Market tenant and of below-market rate housing. PCSA \45106\780970.8 4 • Per PAMC § 18.52.040, the parking requirement for office use is calculated at 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. For the market and retail spaces, the parking requirement is calculated at 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Parking for the residential component is calculated at 1.5 spaces per unit plus 1 space + 10% x number of units for visitors. This results in a total parking requirement of 238. Due to the proximity of public transit and the mixed-use nature of the project, the 227 parking spaces will be provided on-site. PAMC § 18.52.050 allows parking reductions based on use, proximity to transit and transportation demand measures. It has been determined that the project would qualify for a total reduction of 14 spaces based on these factors and therefore, the parking provided would actually exceed code requirements by 3 spaces~ Furthermore, parking provided on the site substantially exceeds requirements pursuant to ULI and ITE standards, the most highly regarded standards in the development industry nationally. In addition to the 227 parking spaces provided on-site, there are 24 on-street parking spaces surrounding the site. 4. Exemplary Design and Sustainable Features • College Terrace Centre will provide green, sustainable buildings that will be designed and constructed in conformance' with the U. S. Green Building Council's LEED criteria. The project's goal is to achieve LEED Silver Certification, and to express the sustainable features as part of the architectural character of the structure and site. • A vegetated roof over the 2-story portion of the building will provide a pleasant visual feature for offices on the third floor, as well as serve to collect ra.inwater which can then be channeled to underground cisterns. Rainwater will also be channeled from other roofs and decks to basement- level cisterns, from which it will be recycled for use in landscape irrigation. • Photovoltaic panels will be utilized to generate power. Design of the podium landscaping will incorporate native grasses, flowers and plants that are drought tolerant. North-facing clerestory glass at the roof level will bring natural light into the interior of the office spaces. • Provision for Car Share space in the parking garage will encourage employees to use alternative transportation • This new building will have a small energy footprint and will incorporate sustainable, recycled and renewable materials, which will make it a good neighbor and an environmentally-sensitive addition to the City of Palo Alto. • The development will meet or exceed Title 24 energy efficiency requirements. PCSA\45106\780970.8 5 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT: • Provide, for a period equal to the lesser of (a) 99 years or (b) the life of the improvements, the precise amount of square footage specified by JJ&F (8,000 sq. ft.) for a neighborhood-serving grocery market as a vital and universally desired neighborhood asset, prominently located at the corner of EI Camino Real and Oxford Avenue.1 • Provide eight units of below-market rate rental housing, located on Staunton Court. Four of the eight BMR units constitute public benefit because they are in excess of the four that will otherwise be required by the City. The residential component provides affordable housing for workers employed by either the City of Palo Alto or the Palo Alto Unified School District. This housing will create a coherent transition from the College Terrace neighborhood to the commercial component facing EI Camino Real. Since the housing is behind the commercial building, it is buffered 'from the traffic noise of EI Camino Real. ADDITIONAL BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT: • Working and shopping space near public transportation and within walking distance from the College Terrace neighborhood and the Stanford residential areas on the east side of campus. • SB 375 recognizes this location as a "Transit Oriented District" because it is within one-half mile of a transit hub (Caltrain station). • Wider sidewalks and more street trees along EI Camino Real. • Working, shopping and casual eating uses within walking distance of public transportation and the College Terrace and east campus Stanford neighborhoods. • Two car-share vehicles for use by the public. • Increased community-serving retail. • Bicycle parking spaces in an amount more than twice that required by ordinance. See attached DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE for projected dates of Public review, Agency approvals, construction permitting, construction duration and occupancy. 1 While not explicitly part of the public benefit, the owner of the site is contractually bound to John Garcia, proprietor of JJ &F, to grant a right of first refusal to lease and to provide a subsidized rent for the indoor grocery space, for a term of no less than 20years. In turn, John Garcia has publicly stated that he fully intends to return to the site with a new market, so long as the entitlements for the project are approved prior to his having to make a contractual commitment to the City of Mountain View and so long as financing is available prior to the commencement of the lease term to allow him to borrow funds to make the requisite tenant improvements. PCSA\45106\780970.8 College Terrace Centre Update Since appearing before City Council in July 2009, ARB and P&TC have recommended the following 29 conditions. We concur with 28 of the 29. Architectural Review Board I Staff Concur 1. Provide clarified floor plans for BMR units. 2. Clarify the site circulation plan. 3. Consider redesign of stairway to rooftop garden. 4. Consider simplifying pathway from stairs to the gazebo area. 5. Review the striping of the grocery store building. 6. Reconsider the tile roofs. 7. Consider a mural for grocery walls facing Oxford Avenue. 8. Provide information about the private open spaces. 9. Provide information about the bridge between buildings. 10. Consider redesign of the striped tower. 11. Reconsider tree species recommended by city arborist. 12. Provide information about the proposed bamboo. 13. Provide detail on headlights and possible impact on BMR units. 14. Consider fa9ade of BMR units. 15. Provide information regarding the green roof. 16. Provide information about screening elements and locations. 17. Provide information about plantings in the center of the project and at the trellises. Planning and Transportation Commission I Staff Concur 18. Grocery store lease shall have a minimum 20-year term. 19. Grocery tenant shall begin operations prior to office occupancy. 20. PC shall be inspected every 3 years for compliance with PC-Zone ordinance. 21. Ensure that residents of BMR units have access to vegetated roof. 22. Work with staff to identify private open space for BMR units. 23. Include at least two car share vehicles. 24. Project shall return to the P& TC on consent after ARB review. 25. Staff shall work with the applicant on noise related issues. 26. ARB shall look at ensuring vegetated roof area is accessible. 27. Staff to review time limited parking on College and Oxford Avenues. 28. Context drawings and photos shall be provided for ARB review. 29. There shall be a 5% reduction in the amount of office square footage. * Agree with Staff Recommendations ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S1 [1/2] J ~--~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~~~ lumenpulse LUMENFACADE #LOG -120 - CONTINUOUS VOLTAGE LENGTH OPTIC COLOR ARM TEMP. This outdoor grazing fixture (IP66) finds ideal applications on the outsides of buildings and other high vaulted interiors, as the system easily adapts to any given architectural geometry. Available in three color temperatures: 2700K, 3000K (warm white) and 4000K (cool white). Rated life '100 000 hrs due to low LEDs junction temperature. Consult factory for 277V. fl'WEW ....... --------~ 12", 24", 36" & 48/1 NOMINAL LENGTH SPECIFICATION SHEET LAMPING: .;:;;;;LE:.;;;...D..;;....s...:...,.14 ...... A-'--W--'I'--f_t ________ _ PROJECT NAME: TYPE: DIE CAST ALUMINUM END CAPS :···..j··3/16/1 2X(69/32" THRUAH REV: JUNE 06, 2009 P.l 3/41/- ···_·· .. T·_·-f 3/8/1 , 2 1/2" .1 MOUNTING PLATE HOLE PATTERN \ WEATHER·RESISTANT CONNEOION QUICK·CONNED IP66 o. -,. UNIVERSAL MOUNTING ARM SHOWN c/w ADJUSTABLE PIVOT 0-180° & LOCKING DEVICE \ EXT:UDED AWMINIUM HOUSING 8" CLEARANCE NECESSARY ON BOTH SIDES TO ALLOW ROTATIONAL MOTION ELEOROSTATIC POWDER COATED FINISH METALLIC SILVER SANDTEXT STAINLESS STEEl FASTENERS ELEVATION VIEW SIDE VIEW 80 LINEAR FEET OF FIXTURES MAX BY 15A CIRCUIT CONTINOUS INSTALLATION WITH STANDARD LEADER CABLE I~~:;B~:::~::~:::~IS-l ~~TEMP. ~::: :::: ~:: ~:: r UNIVERSAL MOUNTING ARM -uMA-OPTIONS ' CUSTOM MOUNTING ARM LENGTH ~ UMAS -STANDARD (1 3/8") o UMAC -CUSTOM LENGTH (1 l/2/10R MORE) PLEASE SPECIFY MOUNTING ARM LENGTH NEEDED (121N MAX) ~QUANTmES WILL BE PROVIDED ACCORDING TO EACH LINE REQUIREMENTS. ANCHORING FASTENERS BY OTHERS. IN ----- C®US SISTEMAWX 5455 de Gaspe suite 100, Montreal (Quebec) Canada H2T 3B3 P.: 514.523.1339 F.: 514.525.6107 ·SEALING CAPS (ORDER SEPARATELy) LOG END CAP _ CD LEADER CABLE LOGLC6 -6' LOGLC8 -S' LOGLClO -10' PLEASE SPECIFY QUANTITY ~ JUMPER CABLE LOGJCE • END TO END LOGJC1 • l' LOGJC2·2' LOGJC4·4' LOGJC8·8' LUMENFACADE CONTINUOUS ( ILUMIt;JAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE 81 [2/2] lumenpulse LUMENFACADE #LOG -120 -__ __ _ __ CONTINUOUS VOLTAGE LENGTH OPTIC COLOR ARM TEMP. This outdoor grazing fixture (IP66) finds ideal applications on the outsides of buildings and other high vaulted interiors, as. the system easily adapts to any given architectural geometry. Available in three color temperatures: 2700K, 3000K (warm white) and 4000K (cool white). Rated life 100 000 hrs due to low lEDs junction temperature. Consult factory for 277V. WALL MOUNTING ARM KIT OPTIONS 29/32"H I WALL f SPECIFICATION SHEET LAMPING: ..;;.;:LE=D..;:;..s ...:-.14..:..r..A..;..W....;...:.....;/ft~ ______ _ PROJECT NAME: TYPE: REV: JUNE 06, 2009 P.2 WALL 3 1/2" L WAM2 3 1/2" i o 2 inches· WAM2 t:== 12",24",36" &48" NOMINAllENGT , H , I [ I I I I I ! J I J J I I ~lfj::l I , ....a \ / I I c:flJ n \ ~Cn... l / I I l--..A. _ 42" I -v MAX FOR A 48 If FIXTURE TOP VIEW WALL BRACKET c@us I SIsrEMA!g~ 5455 de Gaspe suite 100, Montreal (Quebec) Canada H2T 3B3 P.:514.523.1339 F.:514.525.6107 [ o 6 inches· WAM6 o 10 inches· WAM10 o 12 inches· WAM 12 ' .... I-I S IfP I I I J I f ! , ) I J J J I J 1 -WAMXX t:Q~ a _________ . _____ .J I J 1_---- r----- I '\ 1 1 I I I ------- I I I I I A 421/ MAX FOR I I v-A 4811 FIXTURE----t TOP VIEW LUMENFACADE CONnNUOUS ) ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415~863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S1A [1/2] lumenpulse SPECIFICATION SHEET LUMENFACADE #LOG ~ 120 -__ __ _ CONTINUOUS VOLTAGE LENGTH OPTIC COLOR ARM TEMP. This outdoor grazing fixture (IP66) finds ideal applications on the outsides of buildings and other high vaulted interiors, as the system easily adapts to any given architectural geometry. Available in three color temperatures: 2700K, 30001( (warm white) and 4000K (cool white). Rated life 100 000 hrs due to low LEOs junction temperature. Consult factory for 277V. +I'VlEW f-+-------12", 2411, 3611 & 4811 NOMINAL LENGTH -....... UNIVERSAL MOUNTING ARM SHOWN c/w ADJUSTABLE PIVOT 0.1800 LAMPING: TYPE: & LOCKING DEVICE 8" CLEARANCE NECESSARY ON BOTH SIDES TO ALLOW ROTATIONAL MOTION EXTRUDED ALUMINIUM HOUSING ELECTROSTATIC POWDER COATED FINISH METALLIC SILVER SANDTEXT REV; JUNE 06. 2009 P.l ;.. -I 3116" 318/1·· --314 /J-. ,21/2" 1 314" 2XC/J9132" THRUAlL ··· ...• B- .i MOUNTING PLATE HOLE PATTERN STAINLESS STEEL FASTENERS ELEVATION VIEW SIDE VIEW 80 LINEAR FEET OF FIXTURES MAX BY lSA CIRCUIT CONTINOUS INSTAllATION WITH STANDARD LEADER CABLE *EXCEPT fOR THE 12" FIXTURE, THIS DIMENSiON is 2" ·-"O;~CS--·"-··"--·O"·"·-·---·~-~-~·~~-·~·-·~"~:·~"·~·~:---"'--"""-r'''''''SOURCE-''''''''--'''''''''''''''''''''O'''';-;''~'-;;~~~'(::"::-:~';~:';"'''''''''l COLOR TEMP. I ~ 30x60· 300 X 600 ~ 30 .. 3000K (warm white) I o 40 -4000K (0001 white) I r UNIVERSAL MOUNTING ARM -UMA~OPTIONS I cusTbM MOUNTING ARM LENGTH o UMAS . STANDARD (l 3/S!l) o UMAC· CUST()M LENGTH (l 1/211 OR MORE) • QUANTITIES WILL BE PROVIDED ACCORDING 70 EACH LINE REQUIREMENTS. ANCHORING FASTENERS BY OTHERS. PLEASE SPECIFY MOUNTING ARM LENGTH NEEDED (121N MAX) \ "SEALING CAPS (ORDER SEPARATELy) lOG END CAP . [f] PLEASE SPECIFY QUANTITY ~====================~ LEADER CABLE lOGLC6·6' LOGLC8·8' LOGlC10·l0' ~ JUMPER CABLE lOGJCE • END TO END LOGJCl • l' LOGJC2·2' LOGJC4·4' LOGJC8·8' SISTEMALUX ~'. :: f; .: I' c@us 5455 de Gaspe suite 100, Montreal (Quebec Canada H2T 3B P.: 514.523.1339 E: 514.525.6107 LUMENFACADE CONnNUOUS ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S1A [2/2J lumenpuise LUMENFACAOE #LOG -120 -___ _ CONTINUOUS VOlTAGE LENGTH OPTIC COLOR ARM TEM~. This outdoor graz.ing fixture (IP66) finds ideal applications on the outsides of buildings and other high vaulted interiors, as the system easily adapts to any given architectural geometry. Available in three color temperatures: 2700K, 30001< (warm white) and 4000K (cool white). Rated life 100 000 hrs due to low LEOs junction temperature. Consult factory for 277V. WALL MOUNTING ARM KIT OPTIONS 29132/1H t WAll SPECIFICATION SHEET LAMPING: ..:;;;;LE;;.;;;;.D..;;;..s ...;..14..:..t..,4...;..W....;..:/'-"-ft~ _____ -,--_ PROJECT NAME: TYPE: REV: JUNE 06, 2009 P.2 WAll 3 1/2" L WAM2 3 1/2" t o 2 inches· WAM2 ~ 12", 24", 36" & 48/1 NOMINAL LENGTH 1-" "I ( / I J I 1 I J J I I .,..II ~ ~ I, \ / , I I 1 I, t I I J I 1 '\ / I ) d~ ..... mr:n., / .l-.-.A _ 42" I -v MAX FOR A 48" FIXTURE TOP VIEW ;;.,. .. ----.......... ./" .. tb.. '\ / 't" +----'.,..-.....--+- I I I I I I \ \ + \, ' .................. WALL BRACKET 5455 de Gaspe suite 100, Montreal (Quebec) Canada H2T 3B3 P.: 514.523.1339 F.: 514.525.6107 {r.:I\j.l--f--WAM XX ~ 6 inches· WAM6 o 10 inches· WAM 10 o 12 inches· WAM12 ( ! Ill---------) ~-----------~l I~------------~ '~ ! cgr-" a I I I 1 1 1_----'--------- r----- I" " 1 , I I I I I I I A 42"MAX FOR I r----' 'y-A 48 II FIXTURE ---r TOP VIEW LUMENFACADE CONnNUOUS ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER Wall luminaires with cutoff optics Housing: Constructed of copper free die-cast aluminum alloy. The housing uses stainless steel inserts for enclosure attachment. Mounts over a standard 3 '12" or 4" octagonal wiring box. Enclosure: Tempered, etched glass lens. One piece die-cast. copper free, louvered, aluminum face plate secured to the housing with four captive socket head, stainless steel screws. Semi specular, anodized aluminum internal reflector. Fully gasketed for water tight operation using a silicone rubber gasket. Electrical: Compact fluorescent: Lampholder: 26 W, 32 W, and 42W multiwatt socket GX24q-3. GX24q-4 rotary lock lampholder rated 75 W. 600 V. Ballasts are internal and electronic universal voltage (120V through 277V). Finish: Available in five standard BEGA colors: Black (BLK). White (WHD. Bronze (BRZ), Silver (SLV). EurocoatTM (URO). To specify. add appropriate suffix to catalog number. Custom colors supplied on special order. U.L. listed. suitable for wet locations. Protection class IP 65. Options: FSC Fusing EMPK Integral emergency battery pack SMC Suliace conduit entry -A --c- Laillp Lumen A B ----.IIiI..... .--.-... -----.-------- --,.... 2240 P 1 42 W CF triple-4p ---- 11 11 3200 c 5% Type: BEGA Product: Project: Voltage: Color: Options: Modified: BEGA-US 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805)684-0533 FAX (805)566-9474 www.bega-us.com ©copyright BEGA-US 2008 UpdaterJ 2/08 TYPE S2 [1/1] LUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415·863.8800 F415-863.8808 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S3 [1/2] • 4.T1 EXCELLENCE IN A NEW LIGHT CLT-4 SEALED AND GASKETED ClEANROOM LAMINAR FLOW TEARDROP FLUORESCENT LIGHTING FOR COMPLEX ENVIRONMENTS 4 ft. long ~~~iI>~~~~:r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ • • APPLICATIONS • Cleanrooms • Electronics 'abs • Hospitab • Pharmaceutical labs • Biological Jabs Aerodynamically shaped housingsl which wHi not cause turbulence in lam inar flow room 51 smooth outside surface, and row mounting make CL T Series ideaUy suited for CLEANROOM, Hospitat and Sdentjfjc lab !reaSI where contamination Tree environment is a must. CROSS SECTION f: E 0 TOP VIEW 1--------.!!i:'.-m~ SPECifiCATIONS FEATURES' • .. Aerodynamlcal:ly shaped 20 gauge steel sea fed Housing ideally suited for laminar flow rooms • WOrkl with 1". 1 112-and 211 inverted 'T" ceiUng grid .. A ft~ fixture length matches nominal grid length • can be mounted in continuous, rows " Ga$keted lens with hlt&rnal prisms and smooth cuter sume-a • No en.riorhardware • Manufactured in accordance to NSf. FDA. USDA and federal Standard 2090 • Suitable for Cta. 10 .. Class 100.000 Cleanrooms I A 6" B m;:m J c • :::: A. HOUSING Die formed 20 gauge culd rolled steel HOtlsing. with E. lAMPS \\'elded seams and End Caps. 32W 1-6, 40W T& 12 Of 40W aiax lamps. See lamp Options. (lamps by othe~), B. RE.FLECrOR C, GASKET O. LENS Die {ormedone piece' 8 gauge cotd roUed $feel. Painted white . Closed etl'll gaskets preY~nt air and contaminanls from ent~ring the room. F', BALLAST G. FlNISH HPF~ Class P, Energy ;avlhg Balla$t (See Voltage, Sallas! Optlons). Polye$ter Powder coat white frni$h with 92"" reflectance. low brightness. lens with prisms up and smoolh side H. UL LISTED Suitable for Wet Locations. to, r()om for ease of <.leaning. (See Optiol'ls). ;;«>"'f?).~::<~¢$>'»'I'$tW~f;~'It~'ml1~~ffl:~~t~~**!k\~~JfW~ll1?'Jj\!>';)},*,,;l~~\lll~~II;'(lI~*I~~Il:!mtlill~!Yb~!~~~~~~~Wj~iflW;~~~;~~ CD Lighting, Inc. 10461 West 163rd Place, Orland Park. Illinois 60462 Tel. 708/873-9191 fax 708J873 .. 9222 ILU~INAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 F415-863.8808 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER CD Lighting tAMPS; m 32W T-& tH4OWT .. 12 ORDERING INFORMATION 4.T1 lAMPS: (2) 4rJWSlAX CLT·4· -"'W~ATt~A$~!-., -VO .... ·-t.t .... A-.GI .... · _. --W-·.lA-sr----L-.EH .... S~-We --....OPT-IO-fl .... 'S--- ~3.2=l1W~w (T-8} 4O=4&W2.tt'J. (1 .. 12) 12"OY.I! 120 Vola. E8=ae<:trotl~ CL=O •• r l.elns. 217=111 Volu 8a1lut Prl$matic: $47=3 .. , Votu Mlb:MaJnecle Ol=Opat lens SdfJ,t W=Ukra Vtohu: 4QBX=(l) .roW~tu -..... E8H=<~~ THO Yellow w. Biax Twin Tube EI. Ballast EXAMPLlh CLT'· 4 .. 32 ... 277 lOr ED.,; CL .. OF .. SH:P DESCRIPTION: RXTUl\E 1'YPi CLT .. 4 32 =-S~rlt$ el.f •• fMt nomlntt hmtth :: (t) 32 WlW T.e Lamp 277 :;: 2" Volt Op,,.,loll £8 =: BtlCtn'Wlte Wiatt CL :: CJev PrlttNdc J;.eo$ SF ::::: GLR Fun 'HP := Stah,lw Su:eI l1ou$ing. Ptlntftd CAT MOO NUMBER ClT--4· JOB NAMe APPROVAl.. DATE 0i1!t1'llW_ .tWI SjlIiClf\i:f;lk>I\i 5'11.".« to~. ~ 1»1.1« MUt't fWIl'an~td for crler-ar .p1nst m~ dlftcu il'l tNI~f.UI'*. )·9' ClT4 EM=Emerpl'lc,y lJghtin.c GF-Gu\Fl$.e AMP=Alumlnum Houtin" Palmed DBii':Ofmmtna 8affut CW==Cotd W.Uher .. talt SHP=Swnle" Steel HbUsin£ Painted RF=RadIo Frequtn¢)" Jnterferenc. ,.tw (More than on. Option <*1'\ be spedtled) COMMeNTS TYPE S3 [2/2] CLT-4 4 ft. tong • • • CD Lightlns •• nc. 10461 West 163rd Place, Orland Park. mlnols 60462 Tel. 108/873-9191 fax 7081873-9222 ; ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER miniFlex page 2 of 6 DATE lYPE Fixture Lamp/Ballast 2 1 FIXTURE WALL MOUNT Remote Ballast LED Output 3 Color External Options Internal Options 4 5 6 TYPE 84 [1/5] Short stainless steel yoke arm with a 25 ft/8 m waterproof cable for connection to a remote ballast. Ballast enclosure by others. Includes a 5"/125mm round cover plate for the wall if required. l\lot available with LED. o FMR Integral Ballast o FMSS ~ FMSC o FMLS D FIVILC D FMLSX Short arm Projection: 13.25"/340mm; Ht: 3.5"/90mm Short straight arm Projection: 17.2"/440mm; Ht: 7.8"/200mm Short curved arm Projection: 17.9"/445mm; Ht: 7.8"/200mm Long straight arm -Arm can be tilted up 30 degrees Projection: 22.5"/570mm; Ht: 7.8"/200mm Long curved arm Projection: 21.3"/540mm; Ht: 10.1 "/260mm Long straight arm and extension -Arm can be tilted up 30 degrees _______ P_r--'ojc.......e_C'I_:io __ n_: _2_2._5"/570mm; Ht: 14.2,_"'--/3_6_0_m_m _____________ , o FMLCX Long curved arm and extension Projection: 21.3"/540mm; Ht: 18.9"/480mm SOLD TO I PO # Architectural Area Lighting 14249 Artesia Blvd I La Mirada I CA 90638 P 714.994.2700 I F 714.994.0522 I aal.net Design patents, Copyright © 2009 Rev 06/2009 I JOB NAME Approvals < ... ~ ILUNlIJ'JAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER miniFlex page 3 of 6 DATE Fixture Lamp/Ballast LED Output Color External Options 1 2 3 4 5 POLE MOUNT Ballast is located in the post top fitter. Slips over a 4"/1 OOmm·O.D. pole. Short straight arm o FMSS4 ----Single short straight arm EPA._=_.3.:...1_8 __ _ 0 ' FMTSS4 Twin short straight arm EPA=.556 Short curved arm o FMSC4 Single short curved arm EPA=.339 o FMTCS4 Twin short curved arm EPA=.598 Long straight arm o FMLS4 Single long straight arm EPA=.370 o FMLS4XP Single long straight arm with extension EPA=.468 o FMTLS4 Twin long straight arm EPA=.660 o FMTLS4XP Twin long straight arm with extension EPA=.806 Long curved arm o FMLC4 Single long curved arm EPA=.384 o FMLC4XP Single long curved arm with extension EPA=.482 o FMTLC4 Twin long curved arm EPA=.688 o FMTLC4XP Twin long curved arm with extension EPA=.834 Architectural Area Lighting 14249 Artesia Blvd I La Mirada I CA 90638 P 714.994.2700 I F 714.994.0522 I aal.net Design patents, Copyright © 2009 Rev 06/2009 TYPE I nternal Options 6 • TYPE S4 [2/5] • ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S4 [3/5] miniFlex page 4 of 6 DATE TYPE Fixture Lamp/Ballast LED Output Color External Options Internal Options 2 3 4 5 6 2 BALLAST --tEl CF Compact fluorescent, electronic 120 thru 277 volt ballast. Use 4 pin lamps, 26, 32 or 42 watt. _ D 39MHT6EB D 50MH D 50MHEB D 70MH D 70MHEB D 70MHT6 D 70MHT6EB D 100MH D 100MHEB D 50HPS D 70HPS D 100HPS D 30LED-WW D 30LED-BW 39 watt electronic metal halide 120 thru 277 volt ballast. Use G12 base, T-6 ceramic lamp. 50 watt metal halide 120/277 volt ballast. Use medium base, EO-17 lamp. 50 watt electronic metal halide 120 thru 277 volt ballast. Use medium base, EO-17 lamp. 70 watt metal halide 120/208/240/277 volt ballast. Use medium base, EO-17 lamp. 70 watt electronic metal halide 120 thru 277 volt ballast. Use medium base, EO-17 lamp. 70 watt metal halide 120/277 volt ballast. Use G12 base, T-6 ceramic lamp. 70 watt electronic metal halide 120 thru 277 volt ballast. Use G12 base, T-6 ceramic lamp. 100 watt metal halide 120/208/240/277 volt ballast. Use medium base, EO-17 lamp. 100 watt electronic metal halide 120 thru 277 volt ballast. Use medium base, EO-17 lamp. 50 watt high pressure sodium 120/277 volt ballast. Use medium base, EO-17 lamp. 70 watt 11igh pressure sodium 120/208/240/277 volt ballast. Use medium base, EO-17 lamp. 100 watt high pressure sodium 120/208/240/277 volt ballast. Use medium base, EO-17 lamp. 30 light emitting diode array (32 watt). Warm white (3500K). 120 thru 277 volt. Uplight or down light only. Specify desired output option. 30 light emitting diode array (32 watt). Bright white (5100K). 120 thru 277 volt. Uplight or downlight only. Specify desired output option. All ballasts are factory wired for 277 volt, unless specified. Lamps not included (except LED option). All ballasts are EISA compliant 3 LED OUTPUT OPTION Must select one when LED option is chosen o LO-U LED light output upper (uplight) 4. COLOR g .......... ~W..I ......................................... _ ...................... 8r.Qt!Q ... Y.Yh.I!,S? ....................... _ ........................................................ .. .. g ........... ~.b.K ..................................................................... !2L?.g.~ .................... _ ................................ ; ................. '" ..................................... .. . g ........... MI~ .................................................................. M.?.t!§?.. ... !2.l.?9 .. ~ ........................................ _ ..... _ ............................... .. o DGN Dark Green --iJ ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .. g._ ... w..B.~ ........ _ ............. ___ ............ _~~E1Q.§.regJ?!..Q!l~?. ........ __ .... __ ......... .. .g ......... gB .. ~~'L .. __ ......... _ .. _ ........ _._ .. _Jy.l.§!?lliQ .. ~roQ .. ~ ..... ______ ... _ .......... __ ..... .. !;t ....... y!?.'=._ ......... _ ... _ .................... __ ._ .... _~~rQ§._!21Q~ ___ .............. __ ..... __ ............ __ .................. . o Architectural Area Lighting 14249 Artesia Blvd I La Mirada I CA 90638 P 714.994.2700 I F 714.994.0522 I aal.net Design patents, Copyright © 2009 Rev 06/2009 .Q .......... .M.~_l::._ .............................................................. M.?.U.€LAL~.!.TI.!.D.\::!!.!J ..................................................................... -....................... .. .,Q ........... N.I.Q .. g .................................... , ........................... M.§.Q.I!.~ .. !JJ .... Q!.~Y. ............................................................................................................ .. .Q ......... .8I~~t ....................................... _ ............ _ ......... Arl!!..g.\::!.~ ... 0..r~.~.Q ......................................................................................................... . .g_ ........ ~.Q .. y ........................... _ ..................................... .blg .. Q!..Qr.~y. __ ..... _ ........................................................................................ _ ............... . D RALIPREMIUM COLOR ..................... E.[Qy.Jg .. ~ .... §. ... RA.~ .... 4 .... Q.Lg.lL9.Q.lQL.D. .. y!Il.q.~.r ................................. _ .............................................................. .. D CUSTOM COLOR .. .................. E.!..??~.? .... p.[Q,y.l.g .. E?. .... ?. ... 9gJQr.. .. g.hJ.QJgL..r.D.?t9 .. t1.lng ............................................................................ .. I ILUMI!'NAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S4 [4/5] miniFlex page 5 of 6 DATE TYPE Fixture Lamp/Ballast LED Output Color External Options Internal Options 2 3 4 5 6 5 EXTERNAL OPTIONS The conical glass lens, angled shade, flared shade, flared cone, and solid ring options can be ordered to attach to the upper and/or lower lens frame. These options can be used separately or in combination with the other (except LED which is uplight or downlight only). All of the options, except for the conical glass, are field installed to the lens frame with three stainless steel screws. D CGL-U upper ~ CGL-L lower CONICAL GLASS Molded, tempered, frosted glass lens. o ANG-U upper o ANG-L lower ANGLED SHADE Spun aluminum shade with hemmed edge. Painted the same color as the fixture. 12.75"/325mm dia 2.50"/64mm Ht D ANGCOP-U upper D ANGCOP-L lower Unfinished copper will patina over time. o ANGSTS-U ~ o ANGSTS-L lower Brushed stainless steel. D SR-U upper D SR-L lower SOLID RINGS Two cast aluminum rings. o FLR-U upper o FLR-L lower FLARED SHADE Spun aluminum shade with rolled edge. Painted the same color as tile fixture. 12.87"/330mm dia 2.75"/70mm Ht D FLRCOP-U upper o FLRCOP-L lower Spun copper shade with rolled edge. Unfinished, will patina over time. D FLRSTS-U upper o FLRSTS-L lower Brushed stainless steel. Architectural Area Lighting 14249 Artesia Blvd I La Mirada I CA 90638 P 714.994.2700 I F 714.994.0522 I aal.net Design patents, Copyright © 2009 Rev 06/2009 D · DMC-U upper D DMC-L lower DOMED COVER Spun aluminum dome mimics the design of the Flex. o CON-U upper o CON-L lower FLARED CONE Spun aluminum cone. Painted the same color as the fixture. 3.4"/86mm Ht D CONCOP-U upper o CONCOP-L lower Unfinished copper will patina overtime. o CONSTS-U ~ o CONSTS-L lower Brushed stainless steel. 6 INTERNAL OPTIONS D QL Socket for T-4 mini-can lamp, field wired to a separate circuit. (Lamp wattage not to exceed ballast Wattage). Must be wired to a separate 120 volt circuit. Not available with LED o CFH Aluminum ring with three key hole slots to hold one color filter (by others). The holder accepts a filter that is 8"/200mm in diameter. o CFH-2 Two color filter holders. Not available with LED. Filters are available from Special FX, or other filter providers. o 347 120/277/347 volt magnetic ballast for all HID lamps, except the 50HPS and 50MH which are 347 volts only. Not available with LED. miniFlex page 6 of 6 Specifications ~.;.' ..• : ... ' •... ::. ~ : ~ wt: 10 Ibs LAMP MODULE The lamp housing is two-piece die cast aluminum. Two stainless steel arms join the lamp module and ballast module with four stainless steel bolts. The cable , between the lamp and ballast modules is sheathed in a flexible stainless steel hose with watertight stainless steel fittings. An internal lens cover is pre-installed on the upper lamp housing. The cover is movable to the lower housing to change the fixture to an uplight luminaire, or removed for a 50/50 uplight/downlight configuration. The LED option is only available as an uplight or down light. The lens, flat or conical, is tempered glass with a lightly diffused finish to obscure the lamp image and eliminate striations on the wall surface. The housing is sealed with a molded silicone gasket. One captive stainless steel screw is loosened to swing the door open allowing access to the lamp. WALL MOUNT The ballast housing is two-piece die cast aluminum. The back plate is mounted to an electrical box or fastened directly to the wall surface. The ballast housing holds the ballast components and attaches to the back plate with three captive stainless steel cap screws. LED not available with remote ballast. POST TOP MOUNT The ballast is mounted to a strap within the post top fitter. The fitter has a removable top cap for access and removal of the ballast assembly. Architectural Area Lighting 14249 Artesia Blvd I La Mirada I CA 90638 P 714.994.2700 I F 714.994.0522 I aal.net Design patents, Copyright © 2009 Rev 06/2009 DATE 1YPE ELECTRICAL Magnetic HID ballasts are high power factor, rated for -30°C starting. Electronic ballasts for metal halide lamps are sound rated A, 120 thru 277 volt. Compact fluorescent transformers are electronic, 120 thru 277 volt for 26, 32 or 42 watt 4 pin lamps. Sockets are pulse rated, medium base for EO-17 lamps, G12 for use with T6 lamps. LED components are 120 thru 277 volt with 30 light emitting diodes. Maximum system wattage is 32 watts. The miniFlex is factory supplied as a complete, prewired assembly including the lamp and ballast module. Ballasts are prewired to 277 volts, unless specified. FINISH Fixture finish consists of a five stage pretreatment regimen with a polymer primer sealer, oven dry off and top coated with a thermoset TGIC polyester powder coat finish. The finish meets the AAMA 605.2 performance specification which includes passing a 3000 hour salt spray test for corrosion resistance. EISA COMPLIANCE AAL is committed to complying with U.S. EISA requirements. All applicable products manufactured for sale in the United States after January 1, 2009, meet EISA requirements. CERTIFICATION The fixture is listed with ETL for outdoor, wet location use, in accordance to the UL 1598 and Canadian CSA Std. C22.2 nO.250 WARRANTY Fixture is warranted for three years. Ballast components carry the ballast manufacturer's limited warranty. Any unauthorized return, repair. replacement or modification of the Product(s) shall void this warranty. This warranty applies only to the use of the Product(s) as intended by AAL and does not cover any misapplication or misuse of said Product(s). or installation in hazardous or corrosive environments. Contact AAL for complete warranty language, exceptions, and limitations. ,ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 0-45° accent ...... pinhole i d.:f ; trkn assembl y t,'im with adjustment mechanism 0: housIng Tile 14" x 7.625" x 6"h flush trim (drywailonly) ceiling cutout dirnensions: 6 3/1(," COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S6 [1/3] Patenl Pending . overlap trim 11lJa"1 28mm 51/8" 130mm ceiling cutout dimensions: 4 \l/H," featureS The Intelligent OClwnlight -- FOCAL PDtNT< Trims available in Overlap flange or Flush mud-in for a seamless appearance. Gloves Off" hot aiming made simple with gear drive for both 45° vertical and 3630 horizontal adjustment; Self locking. Auto Memory remembers original lamp position after relamping. Lenses are independent of lamp, and remain undisturbed during t'elamping. Perfect FifM installation process provides seamless integration in plaster, drywall and acoustical tiles, while maintaining optics in any ceiling thickness. Adjustment mechanism provides for: • easy relarnping • locking of both vertical and hOI'izontal aiming • lowers fot' easy lamp and lens access. Smart LockUl I'ing al lows quick removal and re-assembly of trim components for field painting. Standard white finish is field paintable. Interchangeable lamp and trim mechanisms allow for maximum flexibility, even after luminaire is installed. trim option tt'im withollt black bevel pedO(lnar!ce lens accessories hex linear prismatic sand louver blasted Accent Pinhole with Black Bevel CMH20M RI6/830/S P12 ·------.-Ir----....; 2171 cd @ 30° (30~ tilt) everGre~r'''' ~:{'ri'l(:!I( [;: ii!1 H ilr,~lc~ ·)1 5,N·j ~f.::.k,fF~(L Visit fo(a1nointlig',I5.cOIn for r.omplpll? phol(lHlf~'I'ic: da.la. "ILUMI~~AE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S6 [2/3] lamp Ceramic Metal Halide 20W or 39W M R16 Lamp provides a crisp white light source, 30001< and BOCRI, with UV stop. It is a pI'otected lamp for use ill open fixture designs, constl'uctiol1 (T) Thermally protected housin9 for new construction applications without dil'ect contact with insulation. Unit is enclosed in a 20ga black painted Cr{S housing, which eliminates stray light into the plenum,. all a 20Ga CRS frame. T housing ships standard with butterfly brackets which mount to 1;2 emt or channel, vertically adjusts 2 inches. Bar hangers are an option alld must be specified when ordering thermally protected housing. Transformer is accessible from below ceiling. Unit may be relamped from above. Fixture will not exceed 7.5 Ibs. (Ie) Thermally pl'Otected for Insulated Ceiling housing for new construction applications with direct insulation contact. U nit is enclosed in a 20ga black painted CRS housing, wtlich eliminates stl'ay light into the plenum,. on a 20Ga CRS frame. IC housing ships standard with butterfly brackets which mount to 112 emt or channel, vertically adjusts 2 inches. Bar hangers are an option and must be specified when ordering thermally protected housing. Transformer is accessible from below ceiling. Unit may be relamped from above. Fixture will not exceed 7,S Ibs. electrical Ceramic Socket GXI0 for Metal Halide lamp, with permanently joined socket wires. Lamp is held by twist and lock SI(VA socket, ensuring simple lamp i11sel'tion and J'emoval. Large junction box 2x4xS,S" with W' and 'W' pryouts. U L listed for thru branch wiring, 4#12 90°C conductol's. Thermally isolated electronic ballast, replaceable from below, is mOlmted outside of the housing to ensure cool operation, Wiring compartment mounting provides additional thermal bl'eak fJ'Om the lamp. 120 or 277V, MBO or MlS6 ANSI spec ballast consumes 26 or 45 watts and >90% PF, 20% THD and end of life shut down Circuitry. 39W dimming is available. installation Adjustable throat allows infinite adjustment for W' to 1%" thick ceilings. Shipped in ,/," ceiling position. For thicker ceilings consult factory. Ceiling thickness adjustment sleeve locks with supplied 'Yo." hex driver. Sleeve allows fine tuning of the housing for a pel'fect fit. Comes with laser/string alignment guides. Housing ships with dust covel" triln aesthetics Diminutive black knife edge baffle minimizes brightness. Truncated Specular black reflector cone above en5UI'es glare free optics. Reflector is .040" spun aluminum. Matte white finish may be used as a primel' coat for field painting, Smal't Lock'" ring allows disassembly for custom field painting. adjustment mechanism Auto Memory for relamping, lamp returns to preset aiming pOSition, lVIechanism is matte black finish and holds lamp and lenses independently. Hot aiming with Philips screwdrivel' allows for 4So vertical tilt, and 3630 rotation and locks into position. Mechanism pulls down for quick and easy relamping. Vertical angle and horizont.al rotation indicatOi's display positioning. Tempel'ed soft foclls lens supplied as standard. Lens tray can hold up to two accessol'ies, up to '/."thick. L.enses I'emain undisturbed during I'elamping, optics 50" cutoff to the lamp and lamp image. constl'uctiol1 TI'im stays captive to hOllsing during relamping via torsion springs. Torsion springs pull trim ti~Jht to the ceiling, No visible fasteners within the trim, Mechanical light traps eliminate light leaks. Warp free die--cast aluminum faceplate, .040" thick flange on ovel'lap vel'sions. labels U L listed, Damp label standard. No visible labels when tl'im is insta!led. housing series FM4 Metal Halide Housing FM4 lamp MR --.. 20W or 39W CMH MR16 MR ballast type M1S6U+ MlS6 20W Electronic (120V and 277V) Ml30 39W Electronic MBOI (l20Vl Ml30 39W Electronic M1302 (277Vl MBO 39W Electronic Dimming Ml301D (120V) MBO 39W Electronic Dimming MB02D (277Vl faceplate type Round Flush RF + Round Overlap RO housing type ..... Thermally Protected, Non-IC T (39Wonly) Combined T and Ie Rated IC (20Wonlyl factory options Bar Hangers BH Chicago Plenum CP 30001< Lamp 12' Spot LSP 30001< Lamp 2S' Spot LFL ..-= 30001( Lamp 401( Wide Flood LWF trim aperture D1 1~" Apertw'e D1 faceplate type Round Flush (dl'ywall only) Round Overlap optic Pinhole with Black Bevel Pinhole without Black Bevel faceplate finish White Black Titanium Silver Aluminum Raw lens accessories (soft focus lens supplied as standard) Hex Louver Linear Spl'ead Lens Pl'ismatic Spread Lens Sand Blasted Lens Clear Lens UV Lens a complete unit consists of two line items, housing and trim example: FM4 .. M R-M1S6-R F-IC D1-RF-PIN-WH RF RO ..... PIN ....-= PINX WH ...... BI< TS AL HL ~ __ _ LSL PSL SBL CL UVL ~AE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S6 [3/3] /" .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. '.", rnd accent -pinhole . i d" CANDLEPOvVEH DKSTH[f.W TION -0' TlL Ci\NDLE POWEI~ DlSTRlSUnON .. :30" TIL T ;g .~ ~ ~ ::: Vertical Horizootal Angle Angle 0' 22.5' 4So 67.So 9~ N '" ~ Vertical Horizontal Angle ;! N !;) 0::> Angle O' 22.5' 4So 67.S" 90' ..... 0' 1753 1753 1753 1753 1753 0' 92 92 92 92 92 80' S' 2825 2672 2255 17% 1449 80' S' 178 164 133 103 85 70' ISO 1070 979 849 5S5 330 70' IS' 931 730 281 98 60 2S' 169 166 148 102 58 2S' 2171 1314 259 52 40 60' 60' 3S' 45 43 42 36 31 3S' 770 586 100 33 14 50' 4S" 50' 4S' 114 108 37 12 o· 10' 20' 30' 40' SSn 0 SS' 30 24 o· 10' 20' 30' 40' on fS;~ 45'-- - --- 90'---- 65" 0 7S" 0 8S' 6S' 0 o· ~t 7S' 0 4Sn ______ 90' 90°----8S' 0 90° 90' 0 rOO TCf\f\J[)LL VALUES ('" .................... -.. ~ ............•... , FOOTGANDLL VALU eS FOOTCf.\N()LE Vi\LUCS o' aiming angle -horizonal surface 30' aiming angle -horizontal surface 30' aiming angle -vertical surface Fe w Fe w Fe w 6' 49 1.3' 1.3' 6' 3.5' 25 1.7' 1.5' 2' 3.5' 79 1.7' 0.8' 8' 27 1.7' 1.7' 8' 4.6' 15 2.3' 1.9' 3' 5.2' 35 1.6' 1.3' 10' 18 2.1' 2.1' 10' 5.B' 2.8' 204' 4' 6.9' 20 3.5' 1.7' 12' 12 2.5' 2.5' 12' 6.9' 3.2' 2.9' 5' B.7' 13 4.3' 2.1' 14' 2.9' 2.9' l ....... 14' 8.1' 3.9' 304' 6' lOA' 5.2' 2.5' results based on AG132; off the shelf lamp in fixture, with soft focus lens; Refiectances=O/O/O; LLF=l Go to www.focalpolntlights.com for additional photometric data. ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S7 [1/1] SISTEMALUX SPECIFICATION SHEET MEGALIFT SQUARE 1 WINDOW #5.50_ -___ _ LAMPING: 1 X 70W T6 CDM-T METAL HALIDE G12 BASE MODEL VOLTAGE FINISH MEGALIFT SQUARE is an outdoor wall application. This die-cast aluminum application is powder painted for high corrosion resistance. It emits a 2° m:lrrow beam or a 60° wide beam, ideal for decorative illumination on architecture. PROJECT NAME: __________ _ TyPE: ____________________________ ___ LAST UPDATE: FEBRUARY 24th, 2009 rlJ S.5004 BOTTOM VIEW ELEVATION VIEW ACCESSORIES o S.5014 TEMPERED GLASS WI FROSTED TRIMS DIE-CAST ALUMINUM HOUSING AND BASE POWDER PAINTED FOR HIGH CORROSION RESISTANCE ISOMETRIC VIEW DIE-CAST ALUMINUM HOUSING POWDER ____ _ r----9-1/4"(235rnm) - ~80mm) PAINTED FOR HIGH CORROSION RESISTANCE 1 X 70W T6 G12 BASE ----METAL HALIDE ----_____ (NOT INCLUDED) ELECTRONIC BALLAST ------r-------.~ '0 FOR (1) 70W ------t...;..~-:----::-:---rE: ----METAL HALIDE - JUNCTION BOX -- (NOT INCLUDED) SIDE VIEW o 0 S.5020 -WIDE BEAM LENS «> COLORED FILTERS (ONLY FOR S.5014) 08.5016 -RED 0 5.5018 -YELLOW ( VOLTAGE o 120V 0 277 V ) METAL FINISH c@us 5455 de Gaspe suite 1 DO, Montreal (Quebec) Canada H2T 3B3 P.: 514.523.1339 F.: 514.525.6107 08.5017 -BLUE 0 5.5019 -GREEN o 01-WHITE ct5 14-ALUMINUM GREY MEGALIFT SQUARE 1 WINDOW , ILUMI~AE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 Wall luminaires -STAINLESS STEEL Housing: Fabricated from stainless steel with stainless steel fasteners supplied with mounting bracket for direct attachment to a single gang vertical switch box. Enclosure: One piece, hand blown three-ply opal glass, ga?keted using a high temperature molded O-ring gasket. Allow enough vertical space to slip diffuser Lip and out for relamping. Electrical: Fluorescent are type G24q-3, 4-pin (26 W) rated 75 W, 250 V. Ballasts are electronic, available in 120 V or 277 V -specify. Finish: #4 brushec.i stainless steel. Stainless steel requires regular cleaning and rnaintenance, much like household appliances, to maintain its luster and to prevent tarnishing or the appearance of rust like stains. U.L. listed, suitable for wet locations. Protection class: IP 65. , oc Lamp Lumen A B c -. 4031 P 1 26 W CF quad .. 4p 1800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER Type: BEGA Product: Project: Voltage: Color: Options: Modified: BEGA-US 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805)684-0533 FAX (805)566-9474 www.bega-us.com ©copyright BEGA-US 2008 Updated 2/08 TYPE 88 [1/1] · ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER Linear wall luminaires· unshielded Housing: Die-cast aluminum top and bottom connected to an extruded aluminum body. Provided with a flat mounting plate for direct attachment to the wall over a single gang vertical switch box. Requires free space of minimum 18" above luminaire for relamping Electrical: lamprlolcJer; 2G '11, 4 pin rated 75W, 600V. Ballasts are electronic universal voltage 120V through 277 V. Finish: Available in five standard BEGA colors: Black (BlK); White (WHT); Bronze (BRZ); Silver (SlV); Eurocoat™ (URO). To specify. add appropriate suffix to catalog number. Custom colors supplied on special order. U.L. listed, suitable for wet locations. Protection class: IP 44. B -A- Oc Lamp Lumen A B c --.4530P fi1~li:l 1 ~39W OF twin-4p 2900 30/16 34','0 3'S;iu Type: BEGA Product: Project: Voltage: Color: Options: Modified: BEGA-US 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805) 684-0533 FAX (805) 566-9474 www .bega-us .com ©copyright BEGA-US 2008 Updatecj 2/08 TYPE 89 [1/1] ILUIVIIJ'JAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER Unshielded wall luminaires· STAINLESS STEEL Housing: Stainless steel provided with a bracket for direct attachment to a 3 '/2" or 4" octagonal wiring box. Flat mounting plate fabricated from stainless steel. Enclosure: Hand blown U1ree-ply opal glass diffuser with screw neck. Wall mount only. Electrical: Lampholders; Fluorescent are type G24q-2, 4 pin (18 W), rated 75 W, 250 V. Ballasts are electronic 120 V or 277 V -specify. Finish: #4 brushed stainless steel. Stainless steel requires regular cleaning and maintenance, much like household appliances, to maintain its luster and to prevent tarnishing or the appearance of rust like stains. U.L. listed, suitable for wet locations. Protection class: IP 44. o Fluorescent Lamp Lumen A, __ B_ C ~3~4()P--~.ffi~ 118W CF~ad-;-125() --_. 9';1(\ 9 'Ii 0 3 3/4 Type: BEGA Product: Project: Voltage: Color: Options: Modified: BEGA-US 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805) 684-0533 FAX (805) 566-9474 www.bega-us.com ©copyrigllt BEGA-US 2008 Updated 2/08 TYPE S10 [1/1] (ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S11 [1/3] 0-45° accent .... -pinhole i d ,!; tdm asserl1bly tt'im with adjustment mechanism housing TIIC 14" x 7.625" x 6"h flush trim (drywall only) CMH overlap trim .(0 . 11lfe"1 28mm s1f " 130mm [J.-J--;~l I ';:<';;:;';:·1 I . I I , '"' ... " ............................................................. .,,' ceiling cutout dimensions: ceiling cutout dimensions: b 3/16" 4 1111&" feature;; The Intelligent Dowlllight .. -- FOCAL POINT' Trims available in Overlap flange or Flush mud-in for a seamless appearance. Gloves Off" hot aiming. made simple with gear drive for both 45° vertical and 3630 horizontal adjustment; Self locking. Auto Memory remembers original lamp positionaftet' relamping. Lenses al'e independent of lamp, and remain undisturbed during relamping. Perfect FifM installation process provides seamless integration in plaster, drywall and acoustical tiles, while maintaining optics in any ceiling thickness. Adjustr;lent mechanism provides for: .. easy relamping • locking of both vel'tical and horizontal aiming • lowel's for easy lamp and lens access. Smart Lock'M ring allows quick removal and re-assen,bly of trim components for field painting. Standard white finish is field paintable. Interchangeable iamp and trim mechanisms allow for maximum flexibility, even after luminaire is installed. trim option lens accessories hex linear prismatic sand louver blasted trim without black bevei Accent Pinhole with Black Bevel eM H20M R16/830/SP12 2171 cd @ 30° (30" ti Itl .' ...... Visit 'f,')(.alpollltli9IJh.r.OI11 for c:olllpl~lt' pholotnell'lc d.:.I.!. • ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER~: lamp Ceramic Metal Halide 20W or 39W M RIo Lamp provides a crisp white light SOUI'ce, 30001< and BOC RII with U V stop. It is a pJ'otected lamp for use in open fixture designs. constl'uction (T) Thel'nlally protected housing for new construction applications without direct contact with insulation, Unit is enclosed in a 20gablack painted CRS housing,. which eliminates stray light into the plenum,. on a 20Ga CRS frame. T housing ships standard with butterfly bl'ackets which mount to liz emt or channel, vertically adjusts 2 inches. Bar hangers are an option and must be specified when ordering thermally protected housing. Transfol'rner is accessible from below ceiling. Unit may be relamped from above. Fixture will not exceed 7.5 Ibs. (Ie) Thermally protected for Insulated Ceiling housing for new construction applications·with dil'ect insulation contact. Unit is enclosed in a 20ga blacl< painted CRS housing, which eliminatesstl'ay light into the plenum,. on a 20Ga CRS frame. IC housing ships standard with butterfly brackets which mount to II;; emt or channell vertically adjusts 2 inches. Bar hangers are·an option and must be specified when ordering thermally protected housing. Transformer is accessible from below ceiling. Unit may be relamped fl'om above. Fixture will not exceed 7.5 Ibs. electrical Ceramic Socket GX10 for Metal Halide lamp, with permanently joined socket wil'es. Lamp is held by twist and lock 51<VA socketl enSUring simple lamp insertion and removal. Large junction box 2x4x5.5" with '.1." and ';." pryouts. U L listed for thru branch wil'ing, 4#12 90°C conductors. Thermally isolated electronic ballastl replaceable from below, is mounted outside of the housing to ensure cool operation. Wiring compartment mounting provides additional thennal bl'eak from the lamp. 120 or 277V, Ml30 or M156 ANSI spec ballast consumes 26 or 45 watts and provides >90% P F, 20% T H D and end of lite shut down cij'cuitry. 39W dimming baliast is available. installation Adjustable throat allows infinite adjustment for ':1," to 1;;"" thick ceilings. Shipped in Y," ceiling position. For thicker ceilings consult factory. Ceiling thickness adjustment sleeve locks with supplied 'X," hex driver. Sleeveallo.ws fine, tuning of the housing for a perfect fit. Comes with laser/string alignment guides. Housing ships with dust covel'. aesthetiCS Diminutive black knife edge baffle minimizes brightness. Truncated Specular black I'eflector cone ~bove ensures glare free optics. Reflector is .040" spun aluminum. Matte white finish may be used as a primel' coat fOI' field painting. S mart Lock'" l'In9 allows disassembly for custom field painting. adjustment mechanism Auto Memory for relampin(J, lamp returns to preset aiming pOSition. Mephanism is matte black finish and holds lamp and lenses independently. Hot aiming with Phili~s screwdrivel' allows for 45° vel'tical tilt, and 3630 I'otation and locks into position. Mechanism pulls down for quick and easy , relamping. Vertical angle and horizontal ro.tation indicatOl's display positioning. Tempered soft focus lens supplied as standard. Lens tray can hold up to two acce5sol'iesl up to ,/," thick. Lenses I'emain undisturbed dlJring I'elamping. optics 500 cutoff to the lamp and lamp image. construction Trim stays capt.ive to hOllsing during relamping via torsion spl'ings. Torsion springs pull trim tight to the ceiling. No visible fasteners within the trim. Mechanical light traps eliminate light leaks. VJarp fl'ee die·--cast aluminum faceplate, .040" thick flange on ovel'lap versions. labels U l listedl Damp label standard. No visible labels when trim is installed. housing series Metal Halide Housing lamp 20W or 39W CMH MR16 ballast type M156 lOW Electronic (l20V and 277V) MBO 39W Electronic (l20V) Ml3D 39W Electronic (277V) MBO 39\/11 Electronic Dimming £l20V) MBO 39W Electronic Dimming (277Vl -faceplate type Round Flush Round Overlap housing type Thermaily Protected, Non-Ie '(39Wonly) Con.bined T and IC Rated (20Wonly) factory options Bar Hangers Chicago Plenum 30001< Lamp 12' Spot 30001< Lamp 25' Spot .30001< Lamp 40K Wide Flood trim aperture IX" Apertul'e faceplate type Round Flush (drywall only) Round Overlap optic Pinhole with Black Bevel Pinho:e without Blacl< Bevel faceplate finish White Black Titanium Silver Aluminurn Raw lens accessories (soft focus i~ns supplied as standard) 'Hex Louver Linear Spread Lens Pi'isillatic Spl'ead Lens Sand Blasted lens Clear lens UV Lens a complete unit' consists of two line items, housing and trim ex,1Il1pie: FM4-M R-M 156-R F -IC DI-RF-PIN .. WH TYPE S 11 [2/3] FM4 FM4 MR MR M156U+- Ml301 M1302 M1301D M1302D RF RO ....- T +- IC BH CP LSP +-LFL LWF s.:: :: <5.g ~~ ~~ D1 '&, ~ ~~ D1 ~ ! ~ ... E~ ~ .§ RF Ii +-RO ~.e .2 1:l @) .e PIN....-:§ ~ j~ PINX ~ ~ N ~ tt\V WH""- r::: B ~ ~, 81< --'i: <t '" TS ~:5 ; ~ AL ~ ~ r.: ~ t~ ~ ~ Hl....-~1 lSL PSL ~ ,g SBl u CL -g UVL Xl ~ vi ~ u ...J ...J ~~ ~ ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S11 [3/3] . . rnd accent .. -pinhole i d" , 0 In 0 In .0 8 ~ ~ In 80' 70·' 60' 50' 0' 10' ZO° 30' qo' I' ·0' 45"-- - ---90' 90'---- FODTC~\NDL[ Vh.LUES 00• aiming angle -hOl'izonal surface Fe w 6' 49 1.3' 1.3' 8' 27 1.7' 1.7' 10' 18. 2.1' 2.1' 12' 12 2.5' 2.5' 14' 2.9' 2.9' Vertical Angle O· O· 1753 S' 2825 IS' 1070 25' 169 35" 45 45' 55' oS' 75' 85" 90' - Horizontal Angle 22.5' 1753 2672 979 166 43 45' 1753 2255 849 148 42 07S 1753 1796 555 102 36 90' 1753 1449 330 58 31 /' ............................................ "~ ;. i ............. . .................................... ; results based all AGIJ2; off the shelf lamp in fixture, with soft focus lens; Refiectances=o/o/O; LLF=l C/\f\![JLE PO VvER Dl S1F;iB UlION ··30-TILT ~ ~ ~ Ii; vertical Horizontal Angle ~ ::;; ~ Angle O· 22.5' ,45' 07.5' 90' 90' 0' 92 92 . 92 92 92 80' 5', 178 164 133 103 85 70' 15° 931 730 281 98 60 25' 2171 1314 259 52 40 60' . 35° 770 586 100 33 14 50' 45' 11'1 108 37 12 55' 30 24 . O' 10' 20' 30' 40' 65° 0 0" f S ' 75" 45·----.:.-90' 90·----85" 90' FOO--fC;\NDLE Vf.~_L.UF:·:~~ rCOTCl\I\l [)L [ V(.\LlJ ES 300 aiming angle -horizontal surface 30° aiming angle -.vertical surface FC W FC W 6' 3.5' 25 '1.7' 1.5' 2' 3.5' 79 1.7' 0.8' 8' 4.6' 15 2.3' 1.9' 3' 5.2' 35 1.6' 1.3' 10' 5.8' 2.8' 2.41 4' 6.9' 20 3.5' 1.7' 12' 6.9' 3.2'-2.9' ,5' 8.7' 13 4.3' 2.1' 14' 8.1' 3.9' 3.4' 6' 10.4' 5.2' 2.5' Go to www.focalpoilltlights.com for additional photometric data. ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S13 [1/2] B Shown in Natural Bronze with optional hexcel louver. ECOINF10 METALS: Hood is made from bronze with 90% recycled content or for painted finishes, aluminum with 3()..40% recycled content. Backplate is made from 100% recycled aluminum. All metals are valuable and recyclable at the end of the product's useful life. For more information see "GENERAL INFO" FINISHING: Solid, natural metal finishes are hand satined. No paint or lacquer is used on the hood In order to avoid pollUtion assodated with the manufacture and application of these substances., .... Paint finishes are low voe and oven cured .• ENERGY: Designed e)(ctusively for compact fluorescent :.·' lamps using electronic ballasts. RDEN 719 WEDGE DOWNLIGHT WET LOCATION ~ print this page -=Ef5ZJ email this page to a colleague I] installation instructions ~i'nteractive submittal drawing COMPANION FEATURES • Smaller version of 720. • Solid bronze or stainless steel construction ensures long life. • Cutoff design combined with low glare. • Part of a family of three different sizes. MATERIALS • Solid bronze or stainless steel hood. Aluminum is used for painted finishes. Cast aluminum backplate is painted to match hood finish. • High transmission clear refractive acrylic lens. • Aluminum hexcellouver. FINISHES -+ NBZ Natural Bronze 555 Satin Stainless Steel 5GB Semi-Gloss Black 5GW Semi-Gloss White 5GBZ Semi-Gloss Bronze Learn more about Natural Bronze click here CCP Custom Color Painted finish CAA Clear Anodized Aluminum --~----'"" Standard metal finishes are hand satined. Other metal finishes are available. Contact factory. LAMPING 1 CF13DTlT, G24q base or 1-CF18WTTI, 2Gx24q. Lamps not included. BALLAST Integral electronic ballast for dedicated voltage. See "GENERAL INFO" for more detail. L I G H",T I N G 999 Montague St • San L.eUllfiro, CA 9·:\577 " ph 51 O.357.0l71 • tax 510.357.3832 • www.borcJen lighting.c.om ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S 13 [2/2] 719 WET LOCATION OPTIONS LENS: High transmission dear refracttve acrylic Is standard. For optional hel'{cel louver, specify HXL. NOTE: The optIonal hex<tel open cell IOllver offers lower glare with higher output directly below the fixture, but less light to the sides and front. EMERGENCY BATTERY PACK: Remote mounted SBp, speofy REM. NOTE: This fixture is suitable· for wet or dry locations. For wet locations use only as a downlight. MOUNTING: Standard J-box or plaster ring. WEIGHT: 41bs SPEC GUIDE SAMPLE SPEC: 719-CFl/lS-120-r\IBZ-HXL .lttii. -'l4~ili1l~rew -_".11_' -'jl~I'-ill -•• Ijil.lijl 0719 0 CFI/13 a 120 ~ NBZ ~ HXL ~ CFl/18 a 277 a SSS 0 REM B '" RDEN , a SGB o SGW a SGBZ a CCP , Learn more about Natural Bronze click hete '" .it) r--- r L ___ 5/8" I I 6" r---- ._. 65/8" PHOTOMETRies See LSI Report No. 23008 for model 720. o VARIATIONS I MODIFICATIONS • Special finishes • Special sizes NOTE: This fixtur~ is not supplied 'with a multi-volt ballast. Voltage must be specified. ~' IBEW labelled ~ Handcrafted ~ and Assembled In California 1 I G H"~T IN " 999 fV\ontague St • San L.eandro, CA 94577 • ph 510.357.0171 • fax 510.357.3832 ' www.bordenllghting.coI"l1 WINSCAPETM Project __________ _ Aspen LED • 12V LED-16 QUICK FIND #: QF·G Construction: Body, cap and knuckle machined from 6061 -T6 ALUMII~UM. Lens cut from tempered borosili.cate glass for superior clarity and strength. LED Unit: Winscape proprietary unit using three (3) High Output LEDs and an integral low voltage (iO.5V-15.5V) AC LED driver. Available in three (3) beam spreads; 10· Spot,20· Narrow Flood, and 36· Flood. Available in Warm White (3000K) and Cool White (6500K) color temps. Finishes: Available in 12 standard TGIC polyester powder coat finIshes. Custom powder coat finishes available (contact factory for more information). Features: Field replaceable lens. Tapered "Sure Lock"knuckle seat for infinite aiming and unparalleled locking ability. Any combination of up to 3 lens accessories/color filter/shielding can be specified in any Gap style and are held securely by a removable stainless steel clip ring. . General: This fixture requires a low voltage MAGNETIC transformer to function properly. Magnetic transformer must be purchased separately (see Accessories section on our website). Mounting must be specified separately (see Accessories section on our website). Available with 350· rotational knuckle. MOUNTING ~ ~ OPTIONS: GBOUND WAU MOU aUNT ~ d TREE SURFACE MODIFIED MOUNT .cUNT STANDARD NOTE: See Accessort~s on Our website for moun ng options. UL / cUl Listed: Wet location Indoor/Outdoor High Output LED Unit CAPC1 CAPC3 Qty: __ ~~_3/4" 1-5/8" (STD) . 0 2" (350R) CAPC4 win 0 n a I g h tin 3760 west fourth street • winona, minnesota 55987 • 507 -454-5113 • fax: 507 -454 -1814 winona lighting on the web • www.winonalighting.com Revised: 8-1-09 CAPCS Page 1 of 1 wi N 5 CAP E ™ .Project: _____ ------'----__ Power Mount ™ 60 STYLE A STYLEB STYLEC STYLE 0 The Power MountlM 60 is a series of ground-mounting options that allow for use of either remote or integral transformers for ground-mounted fixtures. These mountings can be used for 12V, 120V or MH fixtures. Stems are offered in lengths from 3" to 42". Construction: C~p and Power Mount Housing on style"B"machined from ALUMINUM. Stake below grade cut from UL approved P.Vc. All hardware is STAINLESS STEEL. Finishes: Available in 12 standard TGIC polyester powdercoat finishes. Custom powdercoat finishes available (contact factory for more information). Features: Style A: Adjustable up and down approximately 8" (with 12" below grade stake) or 14" (With 18" below grade stake), open angle cut bottom (12V only). Style B: In.eludes 60VA transformer and two 1/2" conduit adapters in endcap (120V only) .. Fixed Stem. Style C: Mount with two 1/2" conduit adapters in endcap. Fixed Stem. Style 0: Mount with open angle cllt'bottom (12V only). Fixed Stem. General: Styles liN: "B" and "D"notforuse with line voltage or MH fixtures, for line voltage and MH fixtures use style lie: Style "A" requires a stem length to be specified, IS3" ahd /lS6/1 (3" and 6" stems) are not recommended for use with style liN: All stems are 01" and threaded 1/2" NPS. STYLE liB" ® UL Listed: Wet location Outdoor 02-1/4" . ~027/32" Concrete Pour recommended (by installer) 1. PM MOUNT 2. 60 SERIES 3. 12V VOLTAGE 4. A STYlE 5. BRS FINISH 6. 18 . STAKE LENGTH 7. SO STEM LENGTH 8. STD ·SPECIAL Modification Descriptions: (if needed) STYLE A Qty: __ IPM = POWER MOUNT'" I 60 = 60 SERIES UV = 12 VOLT(STYLE A & D ONLy} UOV = 120 VOLT (STYLE B ONLY) UV = UNIVERSAL VOLTAGE (STYLE CONLY) A = ADJUSTABLE MOUNT B = TRANSFORMER MOUNTWI 60VA TRANSFORMER, FIXED STEM C = MOUNT WI CONDUIT ENTRY, FIXED STEM 0= MOUNT WI OPEN BOTTOM, FIXED STEM BICS = BLACK SMOOTH BKT = BLACK TEXTURED BRS = BRONZE SMOOTH BRT = BRONZETEXTURED WHS = WHITE SMOOTH WHT = WHITE TEXTURED SIS = SILVER SMOOTH . 12 = 12" BELOW GRADE 18 = 18" BELOW GRADE SO =NONE S3 =3"STEM S6 ";6" STEM S12 = 12"STEM S18=18"STEM I STD = STANDARD MOD = MODIFIED STYLE B STYLEC IVS = IVORY SOMOOTH CHS = CHROME SMOOTH ' NBS = NATURAL BRONZE VET ;,;, VERDE TEXTURED SAT =SAND TEXTURED CPF = CUSTOM FINISH S24 = 24" STEM S30 = 30" STEM S36 = 36" STEM S42 = 42" STEM . Stems available STYLE 0 winona I i g h tin 3760 west fourth street· winona, minnesota 55987 • 507 -454-5113 • fax: 507 -454 -1814 winona lighting on the web • www.winonalighting.com Revised: 8-1-09 Page 1 of 1 ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE 815 [1/1] SISTEMALUX EOS SQUARE #S.4609-__ VOLTAGE FINISH Eos square is a recessed luminaire in die cast aluminum. . It is designed with a stepped downward trim for lighting walkways and staircases. The glass diffuser is concealed for optimum vandal resistance. SPECIFICATION SHEET LAMPING: 1 X 18 W QUAD TUBE COMPACT FLUORESCENT 4-PIN, G24q-2 BASE PROJECT NAME: __________ _ TYPE: ______________________________ _ LAST UPDATE: FEBRUARY 24th, 2009 -------EXTERNAL TRIM TCPVIEW .. r-.. MEMORY RETENTIVE CLOSED CELL SILICONE GASKET SEALING STIPPLED ALUMINUM .REFLECTOR FOR OPTIMUM SYMMETRICAL LIGHT OUTPUT 1 X 18W 4-PIN QUAD WALL COMPACT FLOURESCENT-~~-n ~;;;-r-~~=~~ (NOT INCLUDED) ~ 7-5/8" I (195mm) liiiliiiii L ® IMPACT RESISTANT GLASS LENS, 1/8" THICK DIE CAST ALUMINUM .--EXTERNAL TRIM VANDAL RESISTANT ALLEN HEAD SCREWS ELEVATION VIEW ELECTRONIC BALLAST FOR 18W COMPACT FLUORESCENT SECTION VIEW NOTE: CONNECTIONS TO BE DONE INSIDE THE FIXTURE HOUSING.I VOLTAGE ACCESSORIES Q5 8.4343 RECESSING BOX ~ (DIM.: 8-1/4" X 7-3/8" X 3-7/8") c@us 5455 de Gaspe suite 100, Montreal (Quebec) Canada H2T 3B3 P.: 514.523.1339 F.: 514.525.6107 o 8.4350 BRIQUE / BOLLARD ACCESSORY e o 8.4372 FLANGE FOR BRIQUE / BOLLARD ~ WITH STAINLESS STEEL SCREWS ~ (TO BE ANCHORED IN CONCRETE) o 120V 0 277V METAL FINISH o O~-BLACK rt5 14-ALUMINIUM EOS SQUARE ":' ....... It .... . '. ' . • ,4." ILUMINAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 ,! I COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER. Impact resistant ceiling, and wall luminaires . unshielded Housing: One piece die-cast aluminum suppiied with universal mounting bracket for direct attachment to 3Y2" or 4" octagonal wiring box. Enclosure: Molded clear glass refractor W thick with internal structure and translucent white ceramic coating, retained by one piece die-cast a]uminum frame/guard, secured by four (4) captive socket head, stainless steel screws threaded into stainless steel inserts. Interior of lamp compartment painted gloss white. Fully gasketed for weather tight operation in any mounting orientation using a molded silicone rubber 'U' channel gasket. , Electrical: Lampholders: Fluorescent are type G24d-3 (26W), rated 75 W, 250 V, . Ballasts: F'luorescent are magnetic, HPF, available in 120Vor 277V-specify. Finish: Available in five standard BEGAcolors: Black (BLK); White (WHT); Bronze (BRZ); Silver (SLV); EurocoaFM (URO). To specify, add appropriate suffix to catalog number. Custom colors supplied on special order. U.L. listed, suitable for wet locations. Protection class IP 65. - A - - G - Glass' Lamps Lumen ABC ---.2630P 1 26W CF quad-2p 1800 10 1/4 10'/t. 5 '/a Type: BEGA Product: Project: Voltage: Color: Options: Modified: BEGA"US 1 000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805) 684-0533 FAX (805) 566-9474 www.bega-us.com ©copyright BEGA-US 2008 Updated 2/08 TYPE S16 [1/1] WI NSCA PErM Project ___________ _ Qty: __ Palm • PAR-20 Metal Halide QUICK FI D : QF·9 Construction: Body, cap, and knuckle machined from 6061 -T6. Lens cut from tempered borosilicate glass for superior clarity and strength. Medium base 4kV pulse rated porcelain socket rated 600W-600V, with 18 gao 200·C, 600V leads. Finishes: Available in 12 standard TGIC polyester powdercoat finishes. Custom powdercoat finishes available (contact factory for more information). Features: Field replaceable lens. Tapered "Sure Lock" knuckle seat for infinite aiming and an unparalleled locking ability. Any combination of up to 3 lens accessories/color filter/shielding can be speCified for cap style and are held securely by a removable stainless steel clip ring. 350· rotational knuckle standard. General: Mounting must be speCified separately when used with "B3" or"B4" ballast housing (see Accessories section on our website). All lamps listed are medium base PAR-20 Metal Halide (MH) unless otherWise noted. See page 2 forballast housing information. MOUNTING ~ ~ OPTIONS: GROUND ALL , aUNT MOUNT ~ d TREE SURFACE aDIFIED aUNT MOU STA DARD NOTE! See ACCe$50ries on our webstte for mounting options. UL I cUL listed: Wet lociltion Indoor/outdoor = 39W PA 1.-SE-RI-ES------~I~p_A_~_AA_LM _______________ ~ 89 2. ____ ----' LAMP 96 = ·NO LAMp, 39W BALLAST 100 = NO LAMp, 20W BALLAST 88 = 20W PAR20/MH/SP8 89 =20W PAR20/MH/F12S 70 = 39W PAR20/MH/SP10 71 = 39W PAR20/MH/Fl30 UB::;: UNIVERSAL BALLAST (120V, 208V, 240V, 277V) 3; UB VOLT~GE 4. LO ACCESSORY LENS 5. BRS FINISH 6. FO COLOR FILTER 7. SH6 SHIELDING 8. C3 CAP STYLE LO= NONE L1 = PRISMATIC u= LINEAR BICS = BLACK SMOOTH BKT = BLACK TEXTU RED BRS = BRONZE SMOOTH BRT = BRONZE TEXTURED WHS = WHITE SMOOTH WHT = WHITE TEXTURED SIS = SILVER SMOOTH FO = NONE FM = MERCURY VAPOR FR =RED FRD =RED DICHROIC FP == PINK . FA =AMBER I SHO=NONE (1 = SHORT FLUSH Q = LENS RECESSED B1 =INGRADE B 1 B2 = VERTICAL WALL MOUNT 9. I B3 = REMOTE WALL MOUNT BALlAST HOUSING B4:: REMOTE INGRADE o ::;: NONE L3 = SOFTENING L4 = WATERSHED'" IVS == IVORY SOMOOTH CHS = CHROME SMOOTH NBS = NATU RAL BRONZE VET = VERDETEXTURED SAT = SAND TEXTURED CPF ::;: CUSTOM FINISH FG ::;: GREEN FGD ::;: GREEN DICHROIC . FLB = LIGHT BLUE FMB = MEDIUM BLUE FMBD = MEDIUM BLUE DICHROIC SH6 = HONEYCOMB WUVER 0=45' CUTOFF . B5 = TREE MOUNT B6 = SIMPLE WALL MOUNT B7 = SURFACE MOUNT 10. PC PC = CONCRETE POUR COLLAR (B1 AND B4 ONLY) BALLAST OPTIONS 11. STD r_S_TD_=_S_TA_ND_AR_D ____ M_O_D =_M_O_DI_FIE_D --------' SPECIAL Modification Descriptions: (if needed) 2" oe .~ ~PCle ~C2~ ~ 81 82 83 84 8S 86 87 winona i ~ h tin 3760 west fourth street· winona, minnesota55987 • 507 -454-5113 • fax: 507 -454 -1814 winona lighting on the web • www.winonalighting.com Revised: 8-'-09 Page 1 of2 'WINSCAPE™ Project ________ -.,-__ _ Qty: __ Ballast Housing 81 -INGRADE 86 -SIMPLE WALL MOUNT B1· hlgra'de .- • Cover plate made from ALUMINUM • Molded composite housing below grade • Hardware is STAINLESS STEEL • Includes six 1/2" conduit entries, two bottom entries and four side entries • Concrete pour collar option available Height = 12-5/8" rt:< Diameter = 12'7" ~ (7·1/4" wI Pour Collar) GROUND Height = 9" Width = 6-112" Depth = 3-112" B6 • Simple Wall Mount • Fabricated STAINLESS STEEL box with STAINLESS mounting plate • Hardware is STAINLESS STEEL , • Mounts to any, flat vertical surface • Three 1/2" or 3/4" conduit prOViSion~. on bottom side • Vertical Wall Mount onlx . ' ~ , WALL· ' , 82 -VERTICAL WALL MOUNT 87 -SURFACE MOUNT B2 • Vertical Wall Mount • Mount box made from ALUMINUM • Wall mounting plate made from STAINLESS • Hardware is STAINLESS STEEL • Mounts to standard 4" wet location J-box • No ~xterior conduit entry '~ • VertIcal Wall Mount only . ,~ · WALL 83 • REMOTE WALL MOUNT Height = 8-1/8" Width = 8·114" Depth = 4-112" B3 • Remote Wall Mount • Standard steel NEMA 3R wet location ballast box • Ballast box powdercoated in standard grey only • Mounts to any fiat vertical surface • Provisions for two 1/2" or 3/4" conduit, bottom entry • Max remote distance up to 50 feet • Special Wire requirements apply WAtL 84-REMOTEINGRADE . Height = 12·5/8" Diameter = 12'7" (7 -1/4" wI Pour Collar) 85 -TREE MOUNT Height = 9" Width = 6-1/2" Depth = 3-1/2" B4· Remote Ingrade • Cover plate made from ALUMINUM- • Molded composite housing below grade • Hardware is STAINLESS STEEL • Includes six 1/2" conduit entries, two B bottom entries and four side entries • Concrete pour collar option available • Max remote distance up to 50 feet • Special wire requirements apply ~ .' GROUND B5 • Tree Mount • Fabricated STAINLESS STEEL box with STAINLESS mounting tabs • Hardware is STAINLESS STEEL • Mounts to any tree with minimum trunk diameter of 9" using two outdoor rated polypropylene straps • Three 1/2" or 3/4" conduit Provisi06@ns.. on bottom side '~ , TREE Height = 8" Width =5" Depth = 3" B7 • Surface Mount • Extruded ALUMINUM two piece body • Die cast ALUMINUM endcaps • Hardware is STAINLESS STEEL • Mounts'to any J-box or fiat surface, in any orientation • Hinged cover opens for easy wiririg & service • Ends can be tapped for two 1/2" or zsI 3/4" conduit ! s!, i. Ballast Housing can be mounted in any direction GENERAL BALLAST INFORMATION: • All ballast are electronic ballasts for quiet operation, best lamp performance and are thermally protected. BALLAST INPUT INPUT NOMINAL WATIAGE VOLTAGE CURRENT INPUT POWER 120V '0'.20 Amps 20W 208V 0.12Amps' 24W 240V 0.10Amps 277V 0.09 Amps 120V 0.37 Amps ._ 39W 208V O.22AmJ),s 44W 240V O.19Am~s 277V ."Q,,1,§&np~.w. ' 120V 0.65 Amps 70W 208V 0.37 Amps 78W 240V 0.32 Amps 277V 0.28 Amps 120V 0.92 Amps 110W ;l 100W 277V OAOAmps J 120V 1.37 Amps 150W 277V 0.60 Amps 164W winona igh lin 3760 west fourth street • winona, minnesota 55987 • 507 -454-5113 • fax: 507 -454 -1814 winona lighting on the web • www.winonalighting.com Revised: 8-1-09 Page 2 of2 ~NAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S18 [1/1] .\\ 1 \'-.,.# . SISTEMALUX SPECIFICATION SHEET LAMPING: 1 X.35W T4.5 METAL HALIDE. BLITZ #S.408 4 WINDOWS MODEL VOLTAGE FINISH G8:5 BASE . BLITZ is an outdoor fixture for ground, wall or ceiling applications. It is available with many windows configuration, projecting 40 or 500 beam. The Blitz is powder painted for high corrosion resistance. PRO"IECT NAME: __________ _ TYPE: ______________ _ o S.4081 I--07-1/8"~ (180mm) BOTTOM VIEW 50° ~S.4087 I--07-1/8"~ (180mm) i WALL BASE ---------~ /}A ELECTRONIC VANDAL RESISTANT :, BALLAST FOR 35W' STAINLESS STEEL ./ METAL HALIDE . ALLEN HEAD ~ MOUNTING. SCREWS JUNCTION BOX (NOT INCLUDED) . LENS HOLDER --h;;==I;;~~~n-lC- TEMPERED GLASS OPTIC LENS --1+---- 1 X 35WT4.5 METAL HALIDE--1 •• E~=::~~~ (NOT INCLUDED) DIE-CAST ALUMINUM BODY POWDER PAINTED FOR HIGH CORROSION RESISTANCE SECTION VIEW 5455 de Gaspe suite 100, Montreal (Quebec) Canada H2T 3B3 7" (178mm) c@us P.: 514.523,1339 F.: 514.525.6107 --..J./, LAST UPDATE: FEBRUARY 24th, 2009 DICHROIC LENSES (ACCESSORIES NOT INCLUDED) NARROW COLORED DICHROIC LENSES (2C/4C) o S.4056 -RED [[] o S.4057 -BLUE o S.4058 -YELLOW o S.4059 -GREEN o S.4039 -CLEAR MEDIUM COLORED DICHROIC LENSES (3so/S0C) o S.4076 -RED 101 0 S.4077-BLUE . 0 S.4078 -YELLOW o S.4079 -GREEN o 8.4040 -CLEAR PLASTIC STAKE FOR GARDEN APPLICATION T o S.3554 09-BLACK VOLTAGE o 120V 0 277V METAL FINISH o 01 -WHITE Q5 14 -ALUMINUM GREY BLITZ 4 WINDOWS ([!:Q!~!LN~E 80UTERA8S0C. 415-863.8800 . COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE 819 [1/1] I-l '!!P . SISTEMALUX LIFT SQUARE #S.50 . , 2 WINDOWS MODEL VOLTAGE Fi'NiSH LIFT SQUARE is an outdoor wall application. This die-cast aluminum application is powder painted for high corrosion resistance. It emits 2° narrow beams or 60° wide beams, ideal for decorative illumination or1.architecture. o 5.5021 o 5.5031 \ SPECIFICATION SHEET LAMPING: 1 X 35W T4.5 METAL HALIDE, G8:5 BASE PROJECT NAME: _________ __ TYPE:~ ______________ ~ __________ __ r;t 5.5041 LAST UPDATE: FEBRUARY 24th, 2009 TEMPERED GLASS WI FROSTED TRIMS :~. . DIE-CAST ALUMINUM HOUSING AND BASE POWDER PAINTED FOR HIGH CORROSION RESISTANCE x 60.° BOTTOM VIEW 7"SO. (180mm) ELEVATION VIEW /' ACCESSORIES 0 0 DIE-CAST ALUMINUM HOUSING POWDER PAINTED FOR HIGH ---J~----CORROSION _______ ~:.:..:-._: RESISTANCE 'r,....-.-+-~--;t"'1t-----1 X 35W T4.5 ------_~~=-:~£ METAL HALIDE (NOT INCLUDED) JUNCTION BOX ---- -(NOT INCLUDED) . ELECTRONIC BALLAST _~~o:..-........,.,~u=--"'--"""""' ..... M/J -FOR(1)35W METAL HALIDE SIDE VIEW 8.5010 -WIDE BEAM LENS (ONLY FOR $.5021 -$.5031) o 277 V COLORED FILTERS ( VOLTAGE o 120V ) «>0 8.5006 -RED 8.5008 -YEllOW 8.5007 -BLUE 8.5009 -GREEN METAL FINISH 001-WHITE (lJ 14-ALUMINUMGREY c@us 5455 de Gaspe suite 10.0., Montreal (Quebec) Canada H2T 3B3 P.: 514.523.1339 F.:514.525.6107 LIFT SQUARE 2 WINDOWS l0£0lN!)E SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S20 [1/3] 14" FIXTURE DESCRIPTION LBS EPA IP LAMP/BALLAST SL CS14W opal lens, includes welded arm 24 1.44 56 ~ CF Compact fluorescent, electronic ballast 120 thru 277 volt. Use 4-pin, 26, 32 SL CS14CGR3 clear acrylic lens, type 3 glass 25 1.44 56 or 42 watt lamp. Only for SL CS 14 W. refractor, includes welded arm (ballast in arm) 50MH 50 watt metal halide, 120/277 SL CS14CL clear acrylic lens, low brightness 25 1.44 56 volt ballast. Use medium base, radial louvers, includes welded arm clear ED-17 lamps. 70MH 70 watt metal halide, 120/208/240/277 SL CS14LDL clear acrylic lightly diffused lens, 24 1.44 56 vo~ ballast. Use medium base, includes welded arm clear ED-1 7 lam ps. NOTE: Integral ballast for flourescent only, HID ballast are remote. 100MH 100 watt metal halide 120/208/240/277. volt ballast. Maximum wattage shall be 100 watts. Use medium base, clear ED-17 lamps. 150MH 150 watt metal halide 1 20/20812401277 volt ballast. Use medium base, clear ED-17 lamps. 18" FIXTURE DESCRIPTION LBS EPA IP 175MH 175 watt metal halide, ~SLCS18W opal lens 32 2.15 56 120/208/240/277 volt ballast. Use medium base, clear ED-17 lamps. SL CS18CGR3 clear acrylic lens, 35 2.15 56 250MH 250 watt metal halide, 120/208/240/277 type 3 glass refractor vo~ multitap ballast. Use mogul base, clear ED-28 lamps. (remote allast) SL CS18CGR5 clear acrylic lens, 35 2.15 56 50HPS 50 watt high pressure sodium, type 5 glass refractor 1 20/277 volt ballast. Use medium base, clear ED-17 lamps. SL CS18LDL clear acrylic lightly diffused lens 32 2.15 56 70HPS 70 watt high pressure sodium, SL CS18LDLT3 clear acrylic lightly diffused lens, 33 2.15 56 120/208/240/277 volt ballast. Use medium base, clear ED-17 lamps. type 3 upper reflector 100HPS 100 watt high pressure sodium, SL CS18LDLT5 clear acrylic lightly diffused lens, 33 2.15 56 120/208/240/277 volt ballast. type 5 upper reflector Use medium base, clear ED-17 lamps. NOTE: Maximum wattage shall be 175 watts. 150HPS 150 watt high pressure sodium, 120/208/240/277 volt ballast. Use medium base, clear ED-17 lamps. 250HPS 250 watt high pressure sodium, 120/208/240/277 volt multitap ballast. 20" FIXTURE DESCRIPTION LBS EPA IP Use mogul base, clear ED-28 lamps. (remote ballast) SL CS20W* opal lens 32 2.15 56 NOTE: Lamps not included. SL CS20CGR3* clear acrylic lens, 35 2.15 56 All fixtures prewired for 277 volts except SL CS14. type 3 glass refractor SL C$20CGR5* clear acrylic lens, 35 2.15 56 COLORS type 5 glass refractor ---> Standard AAL Colors. SL CS20LDL* clear acrylic lightly diffused lens 32 2.15 56 SL CS20LDLT3* clear acrylic lightly diffused lens, 33 2.15 56 OPTIONS type 3 upper reflector ~STSB Horizontal band of satin brushed stainless steel. SL CS20LDLT5* clear acrylic lightly diffused lens, 33 2.15 56 AD5 Adaptor for a 5" o.d. pole. type 5 upper reflector LDL Lightly diffused lens to "Remote ballast required on 250 watt fixtures. conceal fixture interior. 2 ARCHITECTURAL AREA LIGHTING IhU~(I,~~~ SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S20 [2/3] DIMENSIONS 8L C814 17" x 20" 'Projection ELEVATED SCALE . --. 8L C818 21" x 22" Slips over a 4' o,d, pole I ! 8L C820 23" x 24" Slips over a 4' Q,d, pole ~'i"""""""+""""""+!""""""'f",,'''''''''''f'''''''''' .. 'I .............. j ...... ~~ .... · .... ·+ .. · .......... i .......... ·~= .... + ........ · .. ·+ .... · ....... j ............ j ............. f ............. l ............................ i .............. i ........... 1v-~~~~f ~, .......... + ............ , ........ · .... +I V \( "" ~ 11.J/ ~ II II ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ( I ........ l\t='=¥)~ ............. t .............. f ............ + ..... ' .. ~ .. V .. r~ ..... :~~ ~~~r. ....... i~ .. J ......... j .... · .... · .. ··!f ............ ·j .... · ........ ··I· .......... j ...... j= = .. "'.+\ ............... + ............. ; ............... i .............. ; ........ Hl...... 1 ... 1 .. = ........... +"' .... 1 .. : ... : ..• ·'[ .. ·::::: .. •·· .. ····;··::·:·: .. ·· .. ·····::;·:r· .. 1 ~~ .. ~~# )iF 1 ...... · .. + ............ ·+· .... · ...... +· ........ · .. 1 1 .... · .... ·1 .. · .... ·· .. , .. 1 .... · .... · .... ·1 .... · .. ··•·· .. ;, .. 1 1 .. + .... ·· ...... · ... · .... · .. ~1-.... ,· ...... + · .............. 1 .. ·· .. , ...... + .. 1 1 1:1-~l:j-j-::-i -l III! rF~ ~~ I--+--r--I--II II-I--+--+---U H--+--" .-t,.--t----l---+I t=i F1 =F\I ... ~. \ -I- -- v / scale: 0.25" = l' head ARM POLE ......................... OPTIONS SL CS18 SL CS18LDL 2-SL CS20LDLT5 SLCS18CGR3 3-SL CS18CGR3 ................. .......... , ............. . ............................................................................................... , . WMA22 2-TRA 6U ........................................................................................................ _ ..........•........ DB9-4R10 DB8-4R16 DB6-4R12 .................... BBD4-18 ARCHITECTURAL AREA LIGHTING 2-SLA22U PR5-5R18 BC5-5 SLCS14W 3 I~ \JM)-~A~ SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE 820 [3/3] 4 The SL CS14W features a cast, wall mounted arm assembly. The horizontal band can be ordered in a different color than the body. Custom band designs can be specified in unlimit- ed configurations. STSB option shown. The threaded fitter offers secure, tool free access to the lamp. No springs to weaken from exposure to heat. A silicone gasl<et keeps the lamp compartment free of insects and dirt. SPECIFICATIONS HOUSING TI1e fixture frtter shall be one piece cast aluminum. The fitter shall house the electrical assembly (except 250 watt). The housing shall have a tool less access to the lamp by means of a threaded fitter on the lens. The opal lens shall be one piece formed acrylic, sealed to a cast aluminum threaded fitter for attaching to the fixture, with no hardware. The fixture is relamped by unscrewing the lens one full turn. The lamp chamber shall be sealed from the elements with a sil- icone compression gasket. REFRACTOR LENS The refractor shall be precIsion molded borosilicate glass. The refractor shall be gasketed, top and bottom, to allow for heat expansion. REFLECTOR MODULE The optical assembly shall consist of a polislled specular upper reflector and a satin finished lower reflector to control glare. The reflector module shall be mounted to the fitter assembly and remain stationary when the globe is removed. ELECTRICAL MOUNTING Fixture slips over a 4 inch 0.0. pole for post top mounting. FINISH Fixture finish consists of a five stage pretreatment regimen with a polymer primer sealer, oven dry off and top coated with a thermoset super TGIC polyester powder coat finish. The finish shall meet the AAMA 605.2 performance specification which includes passing a 3000 hour salt spray test for corrosion resistance. CERTIFICATION The fixture is listed with UL for outdoor, wet location use, UL 1598. IP Rating: 56. WARRANTY Fixture is wan"anted for three years. Ballast components carlY the ballast manufacturer's limited warranty. PHOTOMETRY Complete photometric data is available· in IES formatted files on AAL's website: www.aal.net. ARCHITECTURAL AREA LIGHTING '14:249 ,i:.,rTE;!3ia Boulevard, LEt rvlirada, (:A 90c33e tel (7'j 4) 994 ·2700. fax \7'14) 994 ·'()S?2 ® Electrical components shall be mounted and wired to a mounting plate within the fixture. The ballast compartment shall be sealed with an aluminum cover. All electrical components and materials shall be U.L. recognized. Ballasts are high power factor rated for -30" start- ing. Medium base porcelain sockets are 4KV rated. Mogul base porcelain sockets are 4KV rated. Fluorescent ballasts are electronic, rated for -5°F starting for use with 4 pin double twin tube T-4 lamps. www.aal.not Copyri(:jht~) 2005. AAL Hubbell Ughting, Inc. ARCHITECTURAL AREA LIGHTING ~~IAE SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 ';; )t .. '" , COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPES21 [1/2] -·-· _______ . __ ".u.· .•.. · _____ · Date: ____ . ____ ._ .. __ . __ .... ____ . ____ ._ Type: _._._. ________ . __ _ Firm Name: ______ . ______________ .. ____________ ... ___ _ Pmject: _._ .. _______ .. ___________________ .. _._ ... ____ . ____ _ ColorGraze Powercore 30° X 60° (niedium) beam angle Linear, color-changing LED surface light for wall washing and grazing ColorGraze ™ Powercore is a linear fixture optimized for surface grazing, wall-wash lighting, and efficient signage illumination. Superior beam quality offers uniform beam saturation. A compact, low-profile design combined with flexible mounting options allows for discreet placement within wide- ranging architectural details. Intelligent, controllable fixtures are available in standard full-color configurations. Build-to-order configurations with additional beam angles and custom channels of white or color LEDs are also available to support special applications. • Tailor light output to specific applications - Available in three lengths, with standard 100 x 600 or 300 x 600 beam ,angle options. 1 ft (305 mm) light addressing segments within each fixture allow fine control of color-changing effects and pre-programmed light shows. • High-performance illumination and beam quality -Superior beam quality for striation- free saturation as close as 6 in (152 mm) from fixture placement. Delivering up to 271 lumens of color-changing light projection per foot, ColorGraze Powercore accommodates end-to- end or incremental installation without visible light scalloping between fixtures. o Integrated Powercore technology -Efficiently and accurately processes power directly from line voltage, eliminating the need for low- voltage, external power supplies. The Philips Data Enabler merges line voltage with control data over a single standard cable, simplifying installation and lowering total system cost • Versatile installation options -Constant torque locking hinges offer simple and consistent position control from various angles. The low-profile aluminum housing accommodates placement within most architectural niches. • Renowned LED quality -LEDs provide 50,000 hours of use at 70% lumen maintenance. Optibin@ technology delivers the truest possible color quality and consistency. Active thermal management ensures consistent lifetime operation in high-temperature environments. ~~=:~. ~:: ~~::~;~~ :I~~:: ~::~~:: ~~j fl~) 1-----l.o(,r. (609 tt.n) Il61",(91~nrn) ' .. 8In(11"mm) ----II l 11:1 i 2.1 In (53nlm) .38 ill Jain~(?.snwn)(if.'n:~l) (H"on) ---1 2.361" US'ill (60 ... ) (JSmm) _ . .211,,(.Bmm)d Fb:WN .Btl In (2tnrn) o Digital control compatibility -ColorGraze Powercore works with the complete range of Philips Ethernet and DMX controllers, including Light System Manager, iPlayer® 3, and Video System Manager Pro, as well as with third-party DMX512 controllers. o Custom configurations for special applications -Standard configurations use three channels of LEDs (Red, Green, and Blue) for a full range of 16.7 million RGB colors. You can create custom configurations by exchanging the LEDs in any channel.Avaiiable LEDs include eight color temperatures ranging from warm 2700 K to cool 6500 K, Royal Blue, Blue, Green,Amber, and Red .Additional beam angles (9° x 9°, 10° x 300 , and 90° x 60°) are also available. See the ColorGraze Power-core Ordering Information specification sheet for complete details. For detailed product information. please refer to ColorGraze Powercore Product Guide at www.colorldnetics.comlls/rgb/colorgraze/ PHILI 5 ILV~lti~E SOUTER ASSOC. 415-863.8800 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTER TYPE S21 [2/2] Specifications Due to continuous improvements and innovations, specifications may change without notice. Item au Con LUm&Nt Lu~n M:untMlI\~; Inp VoItD&e Powar Consump em Interlaee Co (roj S)lSt m D",~Ion! (/-Iettht x WJdth x Depth) Welt Houtlng l Ftxru,.e ~n6aor" Hum! 'r.y 3 ~ (91-4 rnm) -4 ft (1219 mm) .506 759 101'2 16.7 million addft R{i8 colors; ton tin OtIsly I/\l '~3d~ti5'Z~mhlrto,li~if6.thi:pellM s~tUrli~ibh ; '.' 50,000 rs L70 @ SO· C ao,ooo hours L70 @ '25-C 100 -2040VAC.lutu-s tchin" SO 160 Hz 35W m&:l6{OOm at full OUtpu t ady $~tG 52.S W mlXlm m at full outpu st 0)'1 fA! ,Data E bier (OMX or Etha: flf) 70 V'I max mUm t full outpUt, ady.$tat(! Philips Ilnn&, of cootr'OlIe~ .In,luern, U&l t Sy~tem M "Ig ~ Ind I r 3. or Ird-puty DMX cOlltf'OlI (S 2..7 x 204)( 2.8 tn '2.7 x 16 x 2..8 in 27 x 48 x 2,8 In (69 x. 610 x 71 nvn) (69 x 9H)( 71 mm) (69)( 1219)( 71 mm) 4.91b (l.lkc) 8.1 Ib (161<g) 10.81b (".9 kC) Ex ded lnodlzed aluminum Oe;ar yC2rbqn~ul with holognphk Inte~1 ma~ / f male waterproof tonntcto/'$ • lodelll& hlo& s --to' -tl"F¥': ( .... 0· -SO' C) O~t)HiC ~. .... -12r F (-20· -50' C) StaraJp o ... 95%. no -conde.rlilng Ph otometr ics ColorGraze Powercore 2 ft, 30° x 60° (medium) Polar Candela Distribution VA:.O· 10' 20' .-O'H 30' 30' 40' • -90' H Illuminance at Di~;tan(e 4 ft ; .................... 1J...r~ .... . 8ft ...................... 1.~..r~ ....... 16ft i· .. · 20ft \._", •• _ .. ...J Bu m Width ......... ~~ .. ~ ...... ~:Lf~ ...... , .... l}:L~. 'j 24ft l .... __ ... _._ ....... __ ......... ___ .::.. 26 ft (J.9 m) IliIIVOl't.Spre.d:29.1' 1 fc maximum distance lUI Hori1:. Sp· .... d:7S.1· EffIcacy ,...5 FOI' lux multiply fc by '10.7 60' FlxtJJre Run Len&~ 1! i i~I';ii':~i~~~t2r~~~;~~'···· ,-7 \ .. -----../ LEO C s UL f dJL.. FCC aUI A. Ceo fiSE Ow 2 leRmt!~~c,t.« EnvIron~nt Dry I Damp tWo ( LocadO(),/P66 ; :-;.~/\ . til \ ~) \1 1/ t Lumen measurement complies with IES LM.79.08. D~" ~ C E: ~ For detailed product information, please refer to ColorGraze Powercore Product Guide at www.colorkinetics.com/ls/rgb/colorgraze/ t L70 = 70% maintenance of lumen output. (When light output drops below 70% of initial output.) *These figures. provided as a guideline, are accurate for this configuration only. Changing the configuration can affect the fixture run lengths. FixtLlI~es, Data Enablel~s, and Controllel~s leem CO!OrGr.n6 Powerco~ TyPt ze ~2ft 30· x 60-3 ft .. ft .. ··.r)Mi<)'., Ethcm t Ethernet, DVI Intem«l I:theme ComposIte Inte.mce .·.· ... · .. ·,~w, ..... w,.w.·_·'''=·_·'O'>···.·.;; .• w.;: ... )'o'' • .., ... ......,: leem rni>er Phil! 12NC . 123-000030.03 123-000030-04 910503700311 910503700312 123·000030.05 910503700311 JMiop~gp3~·q1· ... ~1.g4Q~3~~8Q1. 106.000003·05 910503700064 .. :"03~OQ.Qq~~t\QQi : . ~.10$Q~iQO~2's ; 10J·OOOO22~1 910503700455 . LiglitSx~~e,p M~n~g~~;:: &n~ec '1oil,~Q;QQ1~'PO' .< ~tQSP370.Q~21o': • CoIorO'at SynchronIzer· .l-1u}~~.~~chrooi~er PHILIPS e OMX. N.Aroerln Power Cord 103-000019-00 910040332710 DM><, Euro~;~o.'NerCoi'q '1 O?~0,C)pq1~.01 . 9'O~QV09.~92 OMX 103-000014·00 910401326901 DMX ' DMX Philips Color Kinetics 3 Burlington W oods Drive fo'3~qOoo6i ;;00 1Q3.000002.00 Burlington, Massachusetts 01803 USA Tel 888.385.5742 Tel 617.423.9999 Fax 617.423.9998 WVoMl.colorkinetics.com Accessories It m Type l ~ Ul/cUL Cable CE I PSE Ul/c:UL two Num p lip!! tlNC 50 ft (15.2 m) 108..()0()042·00 1 08.000042-00 50 ft (1.5.2 m) 108-0000-42-01 91051)3700323 End·to-End 108..000039-00 910503700314 1 ft (lOS mm) 108-000039·01 910503100315 5 ft (1.5 tTl) 108·000019-02 ~O503700316 End·to-End 109-0000040-00 91 05CJ3700317 1 f( (30S mm) 108.000040·01 910503700318 5 ft (1.5 m) 108..()()00049·01 91QS()3700319 12,o.Obb081.0Q .cj1dS03t~Q,7:45 . 120-000081-01 9105037007046 3 ft (914 m~t .·1:26,OQ0981 ~92 91.050370Q.'747 .. ft (1.2 m) 120-000081.03 9105037007"8 Use Item Number when ordering in North America. Copyright © 2008 2009 Philips Solid .. State Light!ng Solutions. Inc. All nghts reserved. Chromacore, Chromasic, CK the CK logo. Color Kinetics, the Color Kinetics logo, ColorBlast, ColorBlaze, ColorBurst. COlorGraze. ColorPIay. ColorReach, DIMand, EssentialWhite, eW, iColor, ICoior Cove, IntelliWhite, iW, iPlayer. Light W ithout Limits, Optib;r, and Powercore are either registered trademar"..s or trademarks of Philips Solid-State lighting Solutions, inc. in the United States and/or othel' couno·ies. All other brand or product names are trademar".s or registered trademar"s of their respective owners. Due to continllous improvements and Innovations. specifications may change wlthollt notice. DAS-000010-02 ROS 07-09 I I COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE -PC ZONE APPLICATION 2100 EI Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Discretionary Approvals City Council initiation of PC Zone Process ATTACHMENT E November 18, 2009 7/27/2009 Submit documents to Staff for Environmental Analysis and Departmental reviews 8/11/09 Submit P&TC package to Staff Planning & Transportation Commission hearing Submit documents to Staff for ARB Formal review ARB hearing (Formal) Planning & Transportation Commission hearing (consent calendar) City Council hearing and first reading of PC Zone Ordinance City Council second reading of PC Zone Ordinance City Departmental Approvals and Construction of the Project Prepare and complete design development documents Obtain approval from City for lot merger Prepare and complete construction documents Obtain required encroachment permit from Caltrans Subm it for Plan Check Secure construction financing Obtain Building Permits, pay fees and start construction Complete construction of Project shell and City improvements Lease spaces, construct Tenant Improvements and obtain Certificates Of Occupancy 10/01/09 10/14/09 10/22/09 11/05/09 12/02/09 12/07/09 12/14/2009 7/1/2010 12/01/2010 6/01/2011 6/01/2011 8/01/2011 6/01/2012 12/01/2012 12/01/2014 12/01/2015 Y N ~ 1 5 N 6 2 I 3 2 N tt I' 1 1 1 1 1 1 141 LEED 2009 for Core and Shell Development Project Checklist ustalna61e Sites Prereq 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Credit 1 Site Selection 1 Credit 2 Development Density and Community Connectivity 5 Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation-Public Transportation Access 6 Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation-Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms 2 Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation-Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles 3 Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation-Parking Capacity 2 Credit 5.1 Site Development-Protect or Restore Habitat Credit 5.2 Site Development-Maximize Open Space Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design-Quantity Control Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design-Quality Control Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect-Non-roof Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect-Roof Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction Credit 9 Tenant Design and Construction Guidelines ater fflC1en~ Possib e Pomts: 10 ~pre~l Water Use Reduction-20% Reduction 2 . Credit 1 Water Efficient Landscaping 2 to 4 N Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 2 2 1 Credit 3 Water Use Reduction 2 to 4 I 91 ! 6 I Ener~ and Atmos here Possible Points: 37 Prereq 1 Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems Prereq 2 Minimum Energy Performance Y I Prereq 3 Fundamental Refrigerant Management 3 2 Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance 3 to 21 2 Credit 2 On-Site Renewable Energy 4 2 Credit 3 Enhanced Commissioning 2 2 Credit 4 Enhanced Refrigerant Management 2 N Credit 5.1 Measurement and Verification-Base Building 3 2 Credit 5.2 Measurement and Verification-Tenant Submetering 3 2 Credit 6 Green Power 2 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE ~1 _6~1 __ ~~~==~==~=~~esour_ce_s ________ ~ ______ ~~~~ Y N ..-Y Prereq 1 Storage and Collection of Recyclables N Credit 1 Building Reuse-Maintain Existing Walls, Floors, and Roof 2 Credit 2 Construction Waste Management N Credit 3 Materials Reuse 2 Credit 4 Recycled Content 2 Credit 5 Regional Materials 1 Credit 6 Certified Wood 1 to 5 1 to 2 1 1 to 2 1 to 2 1 1-1 _8 .!-.! -...1.1...-;4...J,!.;..;.ln;,,;;(i;,,;;o..;;;,o,;..r . .;;;;E.;..;.hV1..;..;~ __ ro=n~m=en:..:..t=a:":""::::~~!-_____ I....-__ --=-P.::;o.=.::ss:.:..:ilj~le Points ...... : __...12 ____ _ fYl rv1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i.l' , 1 1 1 Ir·- Prereq 1 Prereq 2 Credit 1 Credit 2 Credit 3 Credit 4.1 Credit 4.2 Credit 4.3 Credit 4.4 Credit 5 Credit 6 Credit 7 Credit 8.1 Credit 8.2 Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring Increased Ventilation Construction IAQ Management Plan-During Construction Low-Emitting Materials-Adhesives and Sealants Low-Emitting Materials-Paints and Coatings Low-Emitting Materials-Flooring Systems Low-Emitting Materials:-Composite Wood and Agrifiber Products Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control Controllability of Systems-Thermal Comfort Thermal Comfort-Design Daylight and Views-Daylight Daylight and Views-Views Credit 1.1 Innovation in Desig,n: Specific Title Credit 1.2 Innovation in Design: Specific Tt'tle Credit 1.3 Innovation in Design: Speciflc Title Credit 1.4 Innovation in Design: Specific Title Credit 1.5 Innovation in Design: Specific Title Credit 2 LEED Accredited Professional g' 1 Credit 1.1 1 Credit 1.2 1 Credit 1.3 Credit 1.4 Regional Priority: WEc1, Opt. 1 Regional Priority: EAc2 (1%) --PVs Regional Priority: IEQcB.1 --Daylight Regional Priority: Specific Credit 1551 1181 ota Possible Points: 110 C '{t Ined 40 to 49 points SHv~r 50 to 59 points Gold 60 to 79 palnu P'-t"Inum eo to 11 {} 10/27/2009 LEED Calculator Page 1 » -I -I » (") J: S m z -I 'i1 LEED 2009 for Core and Shell Development Project Checklist Project Name Date [EI'O]2] Sustainable_S_it_e_s _________ ~ ___ ~ ___ P_ossible Points: Y N ,............. y 1 5 N 6 2 3 2 ~ N ~ N 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 Prereq 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Credit 1 Site Selection Credit 2 Development Density and Community Connectivity Credit 3 Brownfiel.d Redevelopment Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation-Public Transportation Access Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation-Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation-Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation-Parking Capacity Credit 5.1 Site Development-Protect or Restore Habitat Credit 5.2 Site Development-Maximize Open Space Credit 6.1 Stormwater D_esign-Quantity Control Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design-Quality Control Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect-Non-roof Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect-Roof Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction Credit 9 Tenant Design and Construction Guidelines Water Efficien [v=21 Prereq 1 rTl-_--t--..,....,.,..---.ICredit 1 Water Use Reduction-20% Reduction Water Efficient Landscaping [IJReduce by 50% le"""t2 Credit 3 D No Potable Water Use or Irrigation Innovative Wastewater Technologies Water Use Reduction ~Reduce by 30% 3 Reduce by 35% Reduce by 40% LEED 2009 for Core and Shell College Terrace Centre Commercial 5 1 6 2 3 2 10 2 to 4 2 4 2 2 to 4 2 3 4 1 0/27/2009 - 1 of 3 L prere.Q l y Prereq 2 Y Prereq 3 6 Credit 1 -. Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems Minimum Energy Performance Fundamental Refrigerant Management Optimize Energy Performance Possible Poin s: Improve by 12%for New Buildings or 8% for Existing Building Renovations Improve by 14% for New Buildings or 10% for Existing Building Renovations Improve by 16% for New Buildings or 12% for Existing Building Renovations 3 to 21 3 4 5 Improve by 18% for New Buildings or 14% for Existing Building Renovations 6 Improve by 20% for New Buildings or 16% for Existing Building Renovations 7 Improve by 22% for New Buildings or 18% for Existing Building Renovations 8 Improve by 24% for New Buildings or 20% for Existing Building Renovations 9 Improve by 26% for New Buildings or 22% for Existing Building Renovations 10 Improve by 28% for New Buildings or 24% for Existing Building Renovations 11 Improve by 30% for New Buildings or 26% for Existing Building Renovations 12 Improve by 32% for NeW Buildings or 28% for Existing Building Renovations 13 Improve by 34% for New Buildings or 30% for Existing Building Renovations 14 Improve by 36% for New Buildings or 32% for Existing Building Renovations 15 Improve by 38% for New Buildings or 34% for Existing Building Renovations 16 Improve by 40% for New Buildings or 36% for Existing Building Renovations 17 Improve by 42% for New Buildings or 38% for Existing Building Renovations 18 Improve by 44% for New Buildings or 40% for Existing Building Renovations 19 Improve by 46% for New Buildings or 42% for Existing Buildin'g Renovations 20 Improve by 48%+ for New Buildings or 44%+ for Existing Building Renovations 21 4 Credit 2 On-Site Renewable Energy 4 Credit 3 Enhanced Commissioning 2 2 -·1 - 2 Credit 4 Enhanced Refrigerant Management 2 N Credit 5.1 Measurement and Verification-Base Building ~ 3 2 Credit 5.2 Measurement and Verification-Tenant Submetering Credit 6 Green Power ~IITiJ Materials and Resources --------~----~----------~---Y N m N Prereql DI--~-""--fcredlt 1 [=u=I.-Jcredit 2 l0edlt l Credit 4 [;:;,;.;.;2;;..' _,L----L_-Ilcredit 5 L..[..;.. .•... _: -L-_..L....----.JICredit 6 ·Storage and Collection of Recyclables Building Reuse-Maintain Existing Walls, Floors, and Roof Reuse 25% Reuse 33% Reuse 42% Reuse 50% Reuse 75% Construction Waste Management b#irl~: ::~~~~:~:; ~:~:::~ Materials Reuse Recycled Content ~""'j10% of Content {f ' 20% of Content Regional Materials D 1 0% of Materials IT]20% of Materials Certified Wood LEED 2009 for Core and Shell College Terrace Centre Commercial 3 3 2 Possi ble Points: 1 3 1 to 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 to 2 1 2 1 to 2 1 2 1 to 2 1 2 1 0/27/2009 - 2 of 3 r---y !---Y ~ 1 1 - 1 I' 1 ,> --I 1 .I 1 ~J Indoor Envkonmental Qualit Possible Points: 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 Prereq 1 Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance Prereq 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring Credit 2 Increased Ventilation Credit 3 Construction Indoor Air Quality Management Plan-During Construction Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials-Adhesives and Sealants Credit 4.2 Low-Emitting Materials-Paints and Coatings Credit 4.3 Low-Emitting Materials-Flooring Systems Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting Materials-Composite Wood and Agrifiber Products Credit 5 Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control Credit 6 Controllability of Systems-Thermal Comfort Credit 7 Thermal Comfort-Design Credit 8.1 Daylight and Views-Daylight Credit 8.2 Daylight and Views-Views o [1] Innovation and Desi n Process ______ -L..o. ____ P...;;,o.;.;ss;...;.;ib;;..;l...;;,e_P..::.o_in...,:t.:..,.s: __ 6_----J 1·-~ I' '1'0 1 " 1 1 1 Credit 1.1 Innovation in Design: Specific Title Credit 1.2 Innovation in Design: Specific Title Credit 1.3 Innovation in Design: Specific Title Credit 1.4 Innovation in Design: Specific Title Credit 1.5 Innovation in Design: Specific Title Credit 2 LEED Accredited Professional ~~I Regiona' Priority C_re_d_i_ts ____________ _ ~credit.1 '1 Credit 1.2 Credit 1.3 Credit 1.4 [5"i I o I 19 I Total Regional Priority: Specific Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit Possi le Points: 4 Possible Points: 110 Cc-rtified 40 to 49 points Silver 50 to 59 points Gold 60 to '79 points Platinum 80 to 110 LEED 2009 for Core and Shell College Terrace Centre Commercial 1 0/27/2009 - 3 of 3 Multifamily GreenPoint Rated Checklist The GreenPoint Rated checklist tracks green features incorporated into the home. A home is only GreenPoint Rated if all features are verified by a Certified GreenPoint Rater through Build It Green. GreenPoint Rated is provided as a public service by Build It Green, a professional non-profit whose mission is to promote healthy, energy and resource efficient buildings in California. The minimum requirements for a GreenPoint Rated 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 B1 a (50% construction waste diversion), ABa. (exceed Title 24 requirements by 15%), C10a. (3-year subcontractor guarantee and 20-year manufacturer warranty for shingle roofing), and F1 (Incorporate Green Point Rated checklist in blueprints). The green buiJding practices listed below are .described in the GreenPoint Rated Multifamily Rating Manual. For more information please visit www.builditgreen.org/greenpointrated Enter Total Conditioned Floor Area of the Project: Enter Total NonNResidential Floor Area of Project: Percent of Project Dedicated to Residential Use COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE 7) Hair Care 10) Library 13) Public Park 16) Restaurant 19) Commercial Office 2) Place of Worship 5) Cleaners 8) Hardware 11) Medical/Dental 14) Pharmacy 17) School 20) Community Center Convenience Store Where Meat & Produce are Sold. 5 or more services within 1/2 10 or more services within 1/2 g. Developmentis Located within 1/2 Mile of a Major -·h:R·e;duced""Parklng-Ca·pacFiY:w""-.. "w ..... " ..... "",,.---- Less than 1.5 Parking Spaces Per Unit Less than 1.0 Per Unit 2. Mixed-Use Developments 12) Senior Care Facility 15) Post Office 18) After School Programs 21) Theater/Entertainment a. At least 2% of Development Floorspace Supports Mixed Use (Non-Residential Tenants) b. Half of Above Non-Residential Floors is Dedicated to Residents of the D ent & Visitors Gathering Places a. Outdoor Gathering Places for Residents (Average of 50 sf Per Unit Or More) b. Outdoor Gath Places Provide Natural Elements sites 6. Design for Safety and Natural Surveillance 10/27/2009 MF GreenPoint Checklist C T C Townhouses L .. C~~~t r§lrltT~~~I--'J--115] ~ ~. GreenPointRATED Page 1 of 6 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE a. All Main Entrances to the Building and b. Residence Entries Have Views to Cal ues 80% of Units b. Live/Work Units Include A Dedicated Commercial Entrance 11. Affordabllity a. A Percentage of Units are Dedicated to Households Making 80% or Less of AMI 10% o'f All Units 20% 30% 50% or More b. Development Includes Multi 1. Construction & Demolition Waste Management Divert a Portion of all Construction & Demolition Waste: Required: Divert 50% Divert 65% Divert 80% or more Construction Material Efficiencies a. Lumber is Delivered Pre-Cut from Supplier (80% or More of Total Board Feet) b. Components o'f the Project Are Pre-Assembled Off-Site & Delivered to the Project 25% of Total Square Footage 50% of Total Square Footage or More for Fill, Backfill & Other Uses 20% 30% or More 10/27/2009 MF GreenPoint Checklist eTC Townhouses uired Page 2 of 6 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE 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 a. 90% or More of All Floor & Ceiling Joists b. 90% or More of All Studs c. 90% or More of All Headers & Beams c.A Minimum of 80% of Kitchen 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 lVIore 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 Floor Area D Behind Windows is 2. Radiant Hydron a. lnstall Rad in All Residences 10/27/2009 MF GreenPoint Checklist eTC Townhouses Page 3 of 6 COLLEGE TERRACE CENlrRE 8n,,,,,,,riot,,, Fixture Selection Areas on Roof & in Mechanical b. Install Photovoltaics to Offset a Percemt of the Project's Total Estimated Electricity Demand 10% 20% 30% or more c. Educational Di is Provided in a Viewable Public Area to. Elevators a. Install ENERGY STAR Refrigerators in All Locations Install ENERGY STAR-Qualified and <25cuft Install ENERGY STAR-Qualified and <20cuft b. Install ENERGY STAR Dishwashers in All Locations All Dishwashers Are ENERGY STAR-qualified Residential-grade Dishwashers Use No More than 6.5 Gallons Per Cycle c. Install ENERGY STAR Clothes Washers In All Locations ' in Residences Facilities Are Provided for All or Less b. High-Efficiency Toilets Use 1.28 gpf or Less or Are Dual Flush In All Residences In All Non-Residential Areas c. Install High Efficiency Urinals (0.5 gpf or less) or No-Water Urinals Wherever Urinals Are Specified: Average flush rate is 0.5 gallons per flush or less flush rate is 0.1 Ions flush or less d. Flow Limiters Or Flow Control Valves Are Installed on All Faucets Residences: Kitchen -2.0 gpm or less Non-Residential Areas: Kitchen -2.0 gpm or less Residences: Bathroom Faucets-1.5 gpm or less Non-Residential Areas: Bathroom Faucets -1.5 gpm or less e. Non-Residential Areas: Install Pre-Rinse S Valves in Commercial Kitchens -1.6 or less 14. Water Efficiency a. Use Recycled Water for Landscape Irrigation or to Flush Toilets/Urinals b. Use Captured Rainwater for Landscape Irrigation or to Flush 5% of Toilets &/or Urinals c. Water is Submetered for Each Residential Unit & Non-Residential Tenant 1. Construction Indoor Air a. Perform a 2-Week W 2. Entryways a. Provide Permanent Walk-Off Mats and Shoe Storage at All Home Entrances b. Permanent Walk-Off Are Provided at All Main Build Entrances & In Common Areas Center In Each Unit 10/27/2009 MF GreenPoint Checklist eTC Townhouses Page 4 of 6 i-COLLEGE TERRACE CENl"RE -Ii -i I;I]t -lU-'§- D..U 5 c a ~.(Il I---~__:_:_---:-_::_:___:"':~_=_~__::__=___:_:----------------~------..:=--_+--~_+.-"Q..,? ,-~-""" -'" g", ___ Sf "~--4. Use Low/No-VOC Paints & Coatings a. Low-VOC Interior Paints «50 gpl VOCs (Flat) and <150 gpl VOCs (Non-Flat)) ~: ~~~~~;~~:ntiru Areas: b, Zero-VOC: InteriorPaints «5 gpl VOCs (Flat)) ~ In All Residences [~Jt In ~II Non-Residential Areas:. _"""._,,_"'''' __________ ,_ o 1 o c. Wood Coatings Meet the Green Seal Standards for Low-VOCs 00 :~ :~:~~~;~~:nti"!.Are~_-"'-,-,-_---,,--,-----.-,-,------,---____ .... __ . ____ ~ ______ "I--...;~~~' ... ' ... '-.... .w,;I, ..• , .... , .... "+ ... _ .. ~--.. -... +--,,_'._ ... M ... ; ••.•••••.••.••.•.•••• "1 d. Wood Stains Meet the Green Seal Standards for Low-VOCs ~ In All Residences 2 '1~~~f-2--T-"--r-- No InAIINon-Re~denti~Area~ _~~~~~~~._-~--~~~,-~~-_~~~~.~,~~-O-~-~-~-~--l~-~~~~ 5. Use Recycled-Content Exterior Paint ~ a. Use Recycled Content Paint on 50% of All Exteriors 0 "--'-"-"-("--'''-r-''--T--1'-''r-''''-'" 6. Low-VOC Construction Adhesives -ve:5l a. Use Low-VOC Construction Adhesives «70 gpl VOCs) for All Adhesives -!-"'~-r'-1'--r---'--:-'---' ~E~~nme~~~Pre~mb~M~~~s1~o~r~I-~~e~ri~o-r~F~in~~~h~----------------I--~.~--~--~--~-~.~~ Use Environmentally Preferable Materials for Interior Finish: A) FSC-Certified Wood B) Reclaimed Lumber """l----]----T-'-;----- C) Rapidly Renewable D) Recycled-Content or E) Finger-Jointed ,,1_ -----L __ .L_ a. Residences: At Least 50% of Each Material: ~ ~ i.Cabinets ~ ii. Interior Trim ~ iii. &helving Yes iv. Doors ~ v, Countertops ............-..-"-b~--Non-:ResidentiarA-reaS:'A-t -Le-a-s-t -5-0o-~-0-f-E-a-c-h-M-a-te-r-ia-I:--------··--'w ... -'.·"·'W''''_. ___ ·'.w.'''.'_'''.~·.'_'~ , 0 '1 1 -r-'''" ...... ,.,,+-_1"""""';"'''''''._.''''''.'''4 ~ ",.·.,·.w.w ... ""","" "","' .. __ ... '1 0 , 1 . ~ i. Cabinets I--O-+-·----,---r_~-_-,-JT'i-_-,,'-,2._ ,_".",_,_,_ No ii. Interior Trim ° "w, .. ,.,' 00 . : No iii. Shelving 0 No iv. Doors 0 . _".L .. ~::~"'~:_J_",.2."" ... L ___ ."."" .. " ~ ___ v._C_o_un_te_,"!?~ _____________ " ______________ ~_,_,,, •. _______ ._--t-...... O_+, ____ "'l.. ___ .1. ___ ,, __ J...._SL....L __ 8. Reduce Formaldehyde in Interior Finish Materials Reduce Formaldehyde in Interior Finish Materials (Section 01350) for At Least 90% of Each Material Below:, i. Cabinets ii. Interior Trim iii. Shelving iv. Subfloor 10/27/2009 MF GreenPoint Checklist eTC Townhouses ~ ~ Page 5 of 6 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE Install 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 Exterior Site Furnishings c. At Least 25% of All ied Interior Furniture has Environme Preferable Attributes 13. Deterrence udes Vandalism Resistant Finishes and Green Features is Included Points Achieved from Specific Categories Current Point Total Project has not yet met the recommended minimum requirements -Required measures ABa, 8.1a, C.10a, and/or F.1a 10/27/2009 MF GreenPoint Checklist eTC Townhouses Page 6 of 6 TO: FROM: ATTACHMENT G PLANNING &,TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Russ Reich, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: October 14, 2009 SUBJECT: 2180 El Camino Real: (1) a Zone Change from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District to Planned Community (PC) District for a mixed use project having 57,360 square feet of floor area including 8,000 square feet of grocery (intended for JJ&F Market), 5,580 square feet of other retail, 8 affordable one-bedroom residential units (4,800 square feet), 38,980 square feet of office use, and two levels of below-grade parking facilities and surface parking facilities providing 227 parking spaces on the property, and (2) a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to assign the Mixed Use land use designation to a site currently designated as Neighborhood Commercial. Environnlental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review the Initial studyIMND, the proposed Planned Community (PC) and the proposed Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Mixed Use for the subject property and forward a recommendation to the Architectural Review Board and City douncil. Attachment F is the revised Draft Initial StUdy. The Draft Planned Community Ordin~nce and Draft Resolution are provided as Attachments A and B, respectively. Attachment B includes an analysis of the projecf's conformance with the applicable goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit A) BACKGROUND Proj ect Description The project site is an entire block bounded by EI Camino Real to the east, Staunton Court to the City of Palo Alto Page 1 - west, Oxford Avenue to the north, and College Avenue to the south. A proj ect location map is , provided as Exhibit A of Attachment A. The project proposes to redevelop four parcels of land having a total site area of 50,277 square feet (1.15 acres). There are currently several buildings on the site including the 8,712 sq. ft. JJ&F Market, a 4,315 sq. ft. retail building, and a 5,001 sq. ft. office building which would be removed as part of the project, and the four lots would be combined into one parcel. The project includes the following components: • The replacement of 18,028 square feet of existing commercial space with 57,360 square feet of new commercial and residential space. The commercial space would include 8,000 square feet for a grocery store, 5,580 square feet of ground floor retail space, and 38,980 square feet of office space; • Eight (8) residential below-market-rate (BMR) units, comprising 4,800 square feet; • Underground parking garage containing 216 parking spaces on two levels; • Surface parking lot accommodating 11 parking spaces; • 24 on-street parking spaces around the site's perimeter; • A landscaped plaza at the comer of Staunton Court and Oxford Avenue; • Removal of street trees along Staunton Court, and Oxford and College Avenues and planting of new street trees within the sidewalk area subject to further evaluation; • Removal and replacement of some or all street trees along El Camino Real in tree wells, subject to further evaluation; • Automobile driveways on El Camino Real, College Avenue and Stanton Court providing access to parking lots and an area for loading and deliveries. Access to the below grade parking would be provided from the El Camino Real driveway. City Council Initiation The City Council reviewed the request to initiate the Planned Community rezone and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment on July 13, 2009 and continued the item to July 27,2009 for further discussion. The City Council voted 7-1 to initiate the Plrumed Community (PC) process and directed that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review the project prior to the Architectural Review Board (ARB). City Council minutes and the City Manager's Report are provided as Attachment E. The City Council specified the following five items for the project: 1. The maximum floor area shall not exceed 61 ,960 sq. ft.; 2. The project shall be fully parked per Palo Alto standards, including the parking reductions allowed by the City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance; 3. The project shall include up to 8 Below Market Rate (BMR) units; 4. Prior to Council approval, or when the PC zone change is adopted by Council, that there must be a legal agreement (lease or other agreement between the applicant and the owners City of Palo Alto Page 2 of JJ&F market) requiring John Garcia, on behalf of JJ&F Market, to operate a grocery store on the site and that if for any reason Mr. Garcia cannot perform that condition, the developer shall obtain a grocery store operator of similar quality, subject to the City's discretionary approval; 5. The PTC and the ARB shall pay attention to walkable streetscape on all four sides of the proj ect and evaluate and incorporate parking and traffic management measures as appropriate. Planning and Transportation Commission Review The PTC last reviewed the application on April 29, 2009. A summary of the PTC's concerns is included in the attached City Manager's Report to City Council. In addition to the items identified by City Council above, the PTC is requested to review and make recommendation on the items outlined in Section 18.38.110 of the Municipal Code to ensure that the Draft PC ordinance is consistent with the Municipal Code. DISCUSSION This discussion describes how the project addresses the five items directed by Council: 1. Floor Area Reduction The proposal has been modified to reduce the gross floor area of the project from 61,960 square feet to 57,360 square feet. While not required by City Council, the floor area was reduced by 4,600 square feet. This includes a 1,000 square foot reduction in the total amount of office floor area and a 3,600 square foot reduction in floor area associated with the elimination of six residential units. 2. Parking Spaces The reductions in the number of housing units and the amount of office space has reduced the number of parking spaces required for the project. Application of the parking code, without approval of the allowed reductions, would yield a requirement of238 parking spaces. The current proposal for 227 parking spaces yields a deficiency of 11 spaces. With the code-allowed parking space reductions for affordable housing, proximity to transit, and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan measures, the project complies with the City'S parking regulations. With these reductions, the proposal includes three parking spaces more than the code requires. The applicant has provided a detailed memo from the project transportation consultant that provides a breakdown of the parking requirements. This is included as Exhibit -1 within the applicant's Development Proposal (Attachnlent G). It also includes the TDM program as Exhibit-2 within the Development Proposal. 3. Residential Reduction Allowing Grocery Expansion Area The applicant has eliminated six of the originally proposed 14 residential units as directed by the City Council with the understanding that this provides additional space for a potential future expansion of the grocery store. The project now includes a total of eight, 600 square foot, one- bedroom, residential units. The future retail expansion area is the proposed garden plaza area at the comer of Staunton Court and Oxford Street just behind the proposed grocery store. City of Palo Alto Page 3 4. Grocery Tenant In order to help guarantee that JJ&F return to the site, the City Council stipulated that John Garcia, owner of JJ&F, must sign an agreement with the property owner binding him to lease the grocery store space, prior to Council approval, if the project is approved. The property owner would also be required to offer JJ &F the right of first refusal to lease the proposed grocery store space at a subsidized rental rate. The property owner has also offered to record a deed restriction that would dedicate the proposed grocery store space, and a rent subsidy for that space for the life of the improvements. In addition, the PC ordinance would require that a space be provided for a grocery store by whatever nleans the applicant deems necessary to make that happen. If JJ &F is unable to return or should no longer be in business in the future, the City would have discretionary approval of any future grocery tenant. 5. Walkable Streetscapes The City Council requested that the PTC and the ARB evaluate the project to ensure that walkable streetscapes are created on all four sides of the project and that parking and traffic management measures be incorporated as appropriate. The proposal includes wide sidewalks around the entire perimeter of the site and new street trees to ensure the establishment of an aesthetically compatible and successful tree canopy on all four streets. Currently there are only 11 trees of varying condition around the entire perimeter of the site. The proposal includes the removal of all street trees and the planting of up to 41 new street trees around the perimeter of the project. The removal of regulated, individual trees, and the replacement tree species and sizes are to be further evaluated during this design review process. Further public outreach may be required by the City regarding streetscape changes. Further specificity regarding replacement trees and design would be provided in detailed landscape plans required for City staff and ARB review. Street tree replacements on EI Camino Real are proposed at a spacing of25 feet on center, which is consistent with the EI Camino Real Master Plan and Guidelines. The street tree proposal is currently under review by the Public Works Arborist, to ensure there would be no conflict with utility lines and the proposed driveway. Each side of the building would have elements to enhance the pedestrian experience. Along El Camino Real, there would be retail uses with storefront glass facing the sidewalk and an open air market area in front of the grocery store. On the College Avenue frontage, there would be an entry plaza and storefront window system along the sidewalk. At the Staunton Court side of the proj ect, there would be an arcade with openings for architectural interest and residential units with entry doors to the street. On the Oxford Avenue side, there would be a landscaped plaza that opens to the sidewalk, and that side of the grocery store would provide recessed areas for bike racks. The side elevation of the grocery store on the Oxford Avenue frontage could be inlproved to enhance the pedestrian experience. While the recent proposal indicates the use of street tree grates around the perimeter, staffis evaluating alternatives to address the specific context of each street frontage, such as planting strips along portions of the non-EI Camino Real frontages. Drawings with additional detail including architectural and landscape plans will be provided to the ARB. City of Palo Alto Page 4 The following discussion items relate to the contents of the Planned Community ordinance: 6. Land Uses The following is a list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses within the proposed development and included in the draft PC Ordinance (Attachment A): Permitted Uses (subject to the special limitations below) • Multifamily Residential; • Professional and General Business Offices (excluding medical offices); • Retail Services (excluding liquor stores); • Eating and Drinking Services (excluding drive-in and Take-out services); and • Personal Services. Conditionally Permitted Uses • Farmers Markets; • Businesses that operate or have associated activities at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. such businesses shall be operated in a manner to protect residential properties from excessive noise, odors, lighting, or other nuisances from any source during those hours; and The following conditionally permitted uses are only permitted within the areas designated as office space on the development plan: • Banks and Financial Services • Commercial recreation • Private clubs, Lodges, and Fraternal Organizations Specia1limitations on land uses also included within the PC Ordinance are the following: • No medical office shall be permitted within the development; • A grocery store, with an area of at least 8,000 square feet, shall exist within the development for the life of the project; • The grocery store shall be a neighborhood serving grocery store that provides all the typical grocery store products and services of a neighborhood serving store such that it shall not become a convenience mart facility; • The office uses within the project shall not exceed 38,980 square feet; • The 5,580 square feet of area designated as "Other Retail" on the development plan shall not be converted to ground floor office space; and • The "Other Retail" space may be occupied by retail uses, personal service use, or eating and drinking services only. 7. Development Schedule Chapter 18.38 of the Municipal Code requires subnlittal of a development schedule. The applicant has provided a development schedule (Attachment D) anticipating that construction would begin by Decelnber 2012, would take approximately two years to complete and require another year to fully occupy the tenant spaces. The Planned Community zone regulations note that projects should be occupied within two years from the start of construction, but can be City of Palo Alto PageS phased to extend this period. On October 5,2009 Council adopted the un-codified ordinance allowing one year automatic extensions of Planned Communities approved prior to June 30, 2010, following the one-year Director's extension allowed per Title 18, plus an additional one year extension if approved by Council following PTC review. The PTC may wish to provide a recommendation as to the proposed schedule and phasing of occupancy. 8. Exceptions Height Exceptions The PC zone district has a 50 foot height limit. An exception to the 50 foot height limit is requested for two of the three elevator towers. Two of the elevator towers would exceed the 50 foot height limit by a total of 5 feet. The project is also subject to a special height restriction of 35 feet on a portion of the site due to it's proximity (within 150 feet) to the RMD (NP) zone district. The proposed rooftop gazebo above the grocery store building and the architectural signage spire of the grocery store would exceed the 35 foot limit. The gazebo would exceed the height limit by five feet and the spire would exceed the height limit by ten feet. The exceptions could be approved by Council as Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE) following ARB recommendation. Setback Exceptions Where the project is located within 150 feet of a low density residential zone district, a ten foot setback is required. This occurs along Oxford Avenue and a portion of Staunton Court. At Oxford Avenue the grocery store is proposed with a 2' -3" setback. This will encroach 7'-9" into the required ten foot setback. At Staunton Court the residential building is proposed to be located within seven feet of the property line resulting in an encroachment of three feet into the required ten foot setback. These exceptions could be DEEs approved by Council following ARB recommendation, if the extent of the encroachments are determined to be minor. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were completed and circulated for public review and comment on September 15,2009 as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA document categories for which mitigations are proposed include Aesthetics, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Transportation and Traffic. The mitigation related to Aesthetics is intended to ensure that the interior lighting from the office building will not be a nuisance to the residential uses adjacent to the project. The mitigations related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials prescribe measures to be taken in advance of excavation to deal with any hazardous materials if they are encountered. The mitigation related to Noise addresses noise evaluation of mechanical equipment with the noise ordinance. The mitigations related to Transportation and Traffic are designed to ensure that the neighborhood streets are minimally impacted by trips generated by the new development and that programs are in place to reduce parking demand within the project. To address the applicant's proposed removal and replacement of all street trees, staffprepared a revised Initial Study/MND (Attachment F) and an advertisement in a local newspaper appeared on October 9,2009. The review period will end on November 9,2009. The revised project City of Palo Alto Page 6 description and aesthetic analysis notes the removal of all street trees and replacement at a ratio of approximately 4: 1; however, a detailed landscape plan describing tree replacen1ents is required to be submitted for staff and ARB evaluation. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A. -Attachment B. Attachment C. Attachment D. Attachment E. --Attachment F. Attachment G. Attachment H. Attachment I. Attachment J. Draft Planned Community Ordinance (with Exhibit A, Project Location and Exhibit B, Draft Conditions) Draft Resolution (with Exhibit A, Project Conformance with Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies) Zoning Comparison Table Development Schedule* CMR 304:09 (w/o attachments) and Excerpt Minutes for July 13, 2009 and July 27, 2009 City Council hearings. Revised Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, October 5, 2009 Applicant's Development Proposal (Commissioners only)* Public Correspondence Neighborhood Survey and Letter from Chatnber of Commerce submitted by Applicant * ( available at this linle http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaifilebankiblobdload.asp?BlobID=15579) Plans (Con1IDissioners only)* *Provided by applicant COURTESY COPIES: Linda Poncini, Carrasco Associates Tony Carrasco, Carrasco Associates Patrick Smailey, The Chilcote Trust Robin Kennedy, Manatt, Phelps, Philips William DRoss Fred Balin Greg Tanaka Susan Rosenberg Prepared by: Russ Reich, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Amy French, Manager of Current Planning DepartmentIDivision Head Approval: ~-._Q_-~ ~ Julie Caporgno, Acting Director City of Palo Alto Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 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 46 ATTACHMENT H PLANNING& TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES EXCERPT ITEM #1 ===MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26==== Special Meeting of Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 6:30 PM ROLL CALL: 6:34 Commissioners: Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Staff: Daniel Garber -Chair Samir Tuma -V-Chair Susan Fineberg Julie Caporgno, Chief Planning and Transp. Official Donald Larkin, Assistant City Attorney Karen Holman Arthur Keller Lee 1 Lippert Eduardo Martinez AGENDIZED ITEMS: Amy French, Current Planning Manager Russ Reich, Senior Planner ChUra MoUra, Planner Zariah Betten, Admin. Assoc. 1. 2180 EI Camino Real (The New College Terrace Centre) 2. Review and discussion of major themes and vision statements of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. -Continued NEW BUSINESS Public Hearing: 1. 2180 EI Camino Real (The New College Terrace Centre)*: Zone Change from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District to Planned Community (PC) District for a mixed use project having 57,360 square feet of floor area including 8,000 square feet of grocery (intended for JJ&F Market), 5,580 square feet of other retail, 8 affordable one- bedroom residential units, 38,980 square feet of office use, and two levels of below-grade parking facilities and surface parking facilities providing 227 parking spaces on the property, and (2) a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to assign the Mixed Use land use designation to a site currently designated as Neighborhood Commercial. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Mr. Russ Reich, Senior Planner: Yes, thank you. Good evening Chair Garber and Commissioners. The application for a Planned Community zone change and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Amendment has been before the Commission on three prior occasions. The last time the Commission saw the project was on April 29, 2009 and the Commission voted to deny the initiation of the PC rezone and the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Amendment request. The Commission had ongoing concerns including the following key items: the size of the grocery store as to whether or not it was large enough; City of Palo A Ito October 14, 2009 Page 1 of83 1 expandability of the grocery store; the amount of office square footage proposed within the 2 project; the adequacy of the public benefits; and the adequacy of the number of parking spaces 3 provided. 4 5 Upon the Commission's recommendation for denial the project was forwarded to the City 6 Council for their review. On July 27,2009 the City Council voted to initiate the project with the 7 following stipulations: that the floor area not exceed 61,960 square feet; that the project shall be 8 fully parked per City standards including the parking reductions allowed by the ordinance; th:;tt 9 the project shall include up to eight BMR units; that the legal agreement between JJ&F and the 10 property owner shall be provided prior to Council approval; and that the Commission and the 11 ARB pay attention to walkable streetscapes on all sides of the project, and that traffic and 12 parking management measures be incorporated as appropriate. 13 14 The current proposal includes a reduction in the total square footage by 4,600 square feet. This 15 includes a 1,000 square foot reduction in the amount of office area and a 3,600 square foot 16 reduction in residential area. This was due to the requirement by City Council that they reduce 1 7 the Below Market Rate units by six. Based on the current proposal without the allowable 18 parking reductions from the code the project will be required to provide 238 parking spaces. 19 This is 11 spaces fewer than what is currently proposed. With the proposed parking reductions 20 of25 percent for the affordable housing units and the five percent reductions for the proximity to 21 transit and the implementation of the Transportation Demand Management Plan the project is 22 required to provide a total of 224 parking spaces. With 220 spaces proposed the project would 23 actually include three extra spaces beyond what is required. A detailed analysis of this has been 24 provided in your Staff Report. This analysis was created in conjunction with the City'S 25 Transportation Engineering Staff and they concur with the findings provided. 26 27 At the Council's direction the applicant has eliminated six of the proposed Below Market Rate 28 residential units to provide room such that the grocery store could possibly expand at some point 29 in the future. This possible future expansion is not proposed at this time nor would it be entitled 30 by this PC request. Any future expansion of the grocery store market would require an 31 amendment to the PC Ordinance that would require review by the ARB, Planning Commission, 32 and City Council. 33 34 The proposal has been designed to be pedestrian friendly as detailed in the Staff Report and 35 Comprehensive Plan Compliance Table. The project will have wide sidewalks all the way 36 around the project and new street tree canopy with 41 trees replacing the 11 that exist today. A 37 multitude of other features including special lighting, retail storefronts, and outdoor area for the 38 market, and ample bike parking are included. 39 40 The current proposal includes few elements that would require Design Enhancement Exceptions. 41 Two of the elevator towers would exceed the 50 foot height limit by approximately five feet. 42 The signage spire would exceed the 35 foot height limit by ten feet, and the roof of the gazebo 43 placed atop the grocery store would exceed the 35 foot height limit by five feet. There is also 44 one setback encroachment proposed for the rear portion of the grocery store along Oxford 45 Avenue. 46 47 The Staff Report includes an error related to the setback encroachments that would be required. 48 The residential building facing Staunton Court is not adjacent to a residential zone and is not City of Palo Alto 14,2009 Page 2 of83 1 subject to the ten-foot setback. The Staff Report had mistakenly described a three-foot setback 2 that would be needed in this location but that is not the case. It also describes the need for the 3 entire length of the grocery store along Oxford A venue needing to comply with the ten foot 4 setback but this is also not the case as only a portion of the proposed grocery store, I believe 66 5 feet or so, is adjacent to a residential zone. This portion happens to be across the street from the 6 backside of a hotel rather than a residential use. From a design perspective the residential 7 setback in this location would not be appropriate. 8 9 At places you have a number of additional items. One of the items is a summary of the project 10 as it has progressed along throughout the various hearings. This was requested by 11 Commissioners Garber and Tuma, and includes the square footages, floor areas, number of units 12 proposed based on the different times that it went to hearing. Also at places was distributed a 13 large packet of information that was requested I believe by Commissioner Holman that was 14 provided to the City Council previously. It was part of their project application and again it 15 includes a number of items. 16 1 7 The applicant is here to make a brief presentation and answer any questions that you may have. 18 Thank you. 19 20 Chair Garber: Thank you. Just as a heads up to the Commissioners and those assembled, the 21 applicant will now have 15 minutes to speak, we will then go to questions that the 22 Commissioners would have of the applicant and/or Staff and then we will go to the public's 23 comment, and then we will come back to the Commission for discussion and action. With that 24 does the applicant have a presentation? 25 26 Mr. Shawn Patrick Smailey, representing project owners and development team: Good evening 27 Commissioners. We are happy to return to you tonight with the revised College Terrace Center 28 project that directly responds to input from this body, the community, and the Council. 29 30 At the direction of the Council and in an attempt to address your concerns we have eliminated 31 six Below Market Rate units adjacent to the proposed grocery store. This revision allows space 32 for a potential future expansion of a market that many of you indicated you favored. As Russ 33 pointed out any such future expansion would be subject to a separate approval and is not a part of 34 our entitlement proposal. This change reduces the square footage of the project by 3,600 square 35 feet. Although not directed by Council and in response to concerns voiced by this body we also 36 voluntarily reduced the office square footage by an additional 1,000 square feet. The office and 37 BMR unit reductions total 4,600 square feet. 38 39 These changes have resulted in a new FAR of 1.14 reduced from the 1.23 FAR when we last 40 appeared before you. To put this reduction in further perspective our original proposal in 41 November of2005 had an FAR of 1.49. As a result of these changes the project will be fully 42 parked per City code. 43 44 This project continues to offer tremendous public benefit. It provides eight affordable housing 45 units. It offers at least two car share vehicles for the public use, and it guarantees a 46 neighborhood grocery store at this location for the life of the improvements. John Garcia of 47 JJ&F has agreed to sign a binding agreement to lease the new grocery store space effective upon City 0/ Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 3 0/83 1 final approval by Council. In addition, the owners have voluntarily offered to record a Deed 2 Restriction limiting the use of this space to a grocery store only. 3 4 Honorable Conunissioners, we are very proud of what we believe to be a forward thinking, smart 5 growth, transit-oriented, mixed use project here. It enjoys widespread conununity support as 6 evidenced by over 500 signatures by residents and local businesses, as well as significant 7 favorable attendance at a series of public hearings on this project. We respectfully request that 8 you forward a favorable recommendation to ARB and to Council. Thank you very much for 9 your time this evening and with that I will tum it over to Tony Carrasco, our project architect. 10 11 Mr. Tony Carrasco, Architect: Good evening Commissioners. I will address the Council 12 requested changes from the plan that you last saw. The first issue is the pedestrian access issue. 13 As you can see the building is constructed so that people can walk through this building at 14 several places. Those are the walkways. The pedestrian experience along the sidewalks is of 15 wide sidewalks, 12 feet in that place, and similarly wide sidewalks along the edges. Of 16 particular importance is the access through the site in several places. 17 18 The' second issue is the creation of what we are calling Garden Square. This area allows us a 19 four-foot soil along that edge with a double row of trees enclosing a common open space here 20 that will be shared by both the residents there as well as people who might want to eat a 21 sandwich at lunch or people in the office who might want to take a break in that little enclosed, 22 protected, private space. Any recommendations on how we could use that space actually would 23 be much appreciated, as you know that area was created by Council by the removal of the six 24 units of housing. 25 26 The office space was reduced by 1,000 square feet and that has allowed us to create a plaza-like 27 space here that will have decomposed granite and again a row of trees in a pleasant sort of very 28 sunny area. As you know this is the south side and there is going to be a lot of sun in that place. 29 Suggestions on how that might be used would also be appreciated. Our view is that it is a 30 passive, quiet buffer between the office uses and the sidewalk. You can see this again happening 31 at Homer. It is this kind of space that we are planning on creating. 32 33 Access to the vegetated roof is now conveniently accessed from a stair that goes up there and . 34 onto the roof. The vegetated roof will be available to people in the building as well as residents 35 or patrons of Jrs with a gazebo setup upstairs and accessible during business hours. 36 37 I would like to show you a simple diagram of how this building compares with what the zone 38 compliant building is. The public benefits of this project are about .207 and the actual profit- 39 making project is less than a .1 FAR, at whatever that is .886. I would like to show you a simple 40 graphic of AB 375, which shows where this zone is. SB 375 will ask cities to increase densities 41 in this area. I think Commissioner Garber mentioned at one time but how does this site relate to 42 the business district. SB 375 will connect that and PTOD area would be that circle. In addition, 43 obviously this site also abuts residential. So what we have planned is a residential looking 44 building on our site that will face the residential abutting across the street with the same kind of 45 roof slopes and so on. With that I will let John Garcia speak to you. 46 47 Mr. John Garcia, JJ&F Market: Thank you Commissioners. I am an owner of JJ&F Market. 48 We have been at our College Terrace location for 60 years. We are very excited about building City Page 4 0[83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 and operating a new store that is bigger, much more functional, efficient, and attractive, and in a more visible location. These qualities will greatly enhance our business. Our current building is obsolete, and we desperately need a new store. This proposal will provide the store we need, and the size we need, and at the location that we need. We have worked out a strong and fair agreement with the property owners that enables us to stay afloat during the construction period and then come back better than ever. At the Council's direction we are also willing to sign a binding agreement to lease the new grocery space if the project is approved. We care deeply about our friends and customers. This arrangement will allow us to serve the College Terrace neighborhood, the neighborhood that we love, for the next six decades. Commissioners, I strongly urge you to recommend this project for the approval. Thank you. Chair Garber: Thank you. That completes your presentation I assume? Okay. Commissioners I have lights from Keller and then Tuma. Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I basically have one question that sort of fits together in various pieces and I am not sure who I should ask this question of but I will present the question and then you can figure out who should answer it. You may have seen this question telegraphed by the question I sent to Staff last night. You have reduced the BMR units by 4,000 square feet and presumably there is a savings associated with the reduction of having to construct that, and you have reduced the office space by 1,000 square feet. So there are two questions that I would consider in sort of an either/or kind of thing. It seems to me that the savings from reducing 4,000 square feet of residential might afford a higher reduction than 1,000 square feet of office space. If you think about how much it costs the office space to subsidize if you will the residential. Alternatively one of the comments that have been made by the public is that if you go down College A venue the next block of College Avenue further from EI Camino is a retail block and it will be broken up by the office space on the ground floor. So as an alternative to reducing the amount of office space it would be interesting to consider having the rest of the ground floor space on College other than the entry area to the upstairs be also a retail space. So I am wanting to respond to that issue and talk about the economics of that or the feasibility of that and how that fits into your potential plans. 35 Mr. Patrick Smailey, Applicant: Good evening. The reduction in the BMRs was basically an 36 attempt to allow for the future expansion of the grocery store if desired at some point in the 37 future by an operator, JJ&F, or a subsequent operator. 38 The 1,000 square feet that we took out of the office portion was something that we discussed 39 with City Council, it was an offer that I made at that presentation, and I felt obligated to stand 40 . behind that offer. That is why it came out of the plans as they exist today. There is no 41 correlation between the 1,000 square feet and the six units, the 3,600 square feet ofBMR. The 42 office portion of this project has never been used as a subsidy for the BMR units. They have 43 always been a standalone entity or investment portion of the project. 44 45 46 47 48 As to the future of retail on College Avenue there are two retail operations on the street today. One is Common Ground and the other is JJ&F. The rest of the retail operations on that street have been abandoned. It is not a viable, in my opinion, retail location for traditional retail users. However, it is our opinion that when we get the project done the vibrancy and the viability of City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 5 of83 1 that block is going to be so much greater than it is today that Conunon Ground will see an 2 increase patronage rather than a stagnation. In addition, it may bring additional retail users to the 3 rest of that block. We have already in the design pulled the retail back down College in a modest 4 way but did not put retail on the ground floor where the office is because we didn't think it 5 would survive there. 6 7 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma followed by Fineberg. 8 9 Vice-Chair Tuma: A couple of questions for the project architect. Could you explain for us in 10 the eventuality of an expansion of the grocery store would be desirable in the future how that 11 would happen? My concern, and it may just be how I look at it visually, maybe a drafting error, 12 or maybe something is out of whack but when I look at the front cover of the packet that you 13 gave us, the colored rendered drawing it looks as if the access for deliveries and the structure that 14 encompasses that goes all the way down beyond where the BMR units are. At the same time 15 when I looked at the actual floor plan that comer of the grocery store in the back is what looks 16 like it would be storage for now. So if you were to expand into the space down there into the 17 lower left hand comer of the drawing how would that be accomplished, and is it possible that the 18 space would be contiguous or would it need to be separated? 19 20 Mr. Carrasco: Commissioner Tuma, we have at this point just provided the ability to expand out 21 here. We have in no way thought out how that expansion would happen because it is not part of 22 our plan. It is not part of JJ&F' s needs. This expansion I imagine 50 or 60 years from now 23 would have to go through its own space planning process as well as its own environmental 24 review. To answer your question sort of tangentially this space here would be the connector 25 between the expansion to a grocery store that would happen here as well as through that space. 26 It would be the loading dock either there or in 50 or 60 years it could be that the loading dock 27 might move. I don't know what the uses would be or what that Commission might do 60 years 28 from now. 29 30 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Not the answer I was hoping for because I hear you saying on the one 31 hand it is not part of the proposal, on the other hand it is being touted as sort of a way to addre~s 32 a concern that we had. So I think if it is going to be presented as a way to address a concern for 33 the expansion I think it has to be at least somewhat viable. I don't think it is 50 or 60 years from 34 now it could be ten years from now, it could be in a much shorter period of time. 35 36 The reason that I asked the question is because I am wondering at this point in the project to plan 37 for this at least conceptually I think would be smart. It could provide the opportunity to do it 38 later. If the project is presented now it would mean that you would have to change that ramp and 39 there would be significant disruptions then is it ever really going to be a possibility? So one 40 question or something to think about would be is there any way to bring that ramp in off of 41 Staunton instead of off of Oxford to have the deliveries have the come in that way? That way 42 you don't have a drive or something impeding the expansion back on that piece of property. 43 44 Mr. Carrasco: Can I answer that one? Absolutely. That driveway could very well be located off 45 of Staunton with a much more contiguous grocery store there. That is very much another 46 possibility and an option. 47 City Page 1 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Is there any reason not to do that at this stage? I guess that is a bit of a 2 tough question because you would have to really go and study it but it is something I would very 3 much encourage study. Ifwe are going to have this space over here as a possible expansion then 4 I think it should be as feasible as one might make it at this point. 5 6 Mr. Carrasco: Yes. Maybe Robin should answer at this point. 7 8 Ms. Robin Kennedy, Attorney: The reason that we didn't put it on Staunton was in response to 9 all the comments that we got from the neighborhood that they didn't want any traffic on 10 Staunton. In fact, we moved the main entrance from Staunton to EI Camino in response to all of 11 those concerns from the neighborhood. So we could easily have done that but we were trying to 12 give due regard to the requests of the neighbors that there not be, especially, particularly truck 13 traffic. We have been through all the comments and there have been quite a lot of them to that 14 end. 15 16 Mr. Carrasco: Can I add one more? One more, Commissioner Tuma, is that there is a pretty 1 7 large blank wall along that edge there. It is the parking garage to the hotel at the back and one 18 office use that sits here. Our opinion is that locating the deliveries at this location here would 19 impact the area less than putting it on Staunton. 20 21 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. I respect all that. I know that area very well. I actually drove it just 22 the other day with this thought in mind and in fact that is where the deliveries happen today is in 23 the back. There was a truck making a delivery there. The related question to this, and then I will 24 cede, and I know this is a question that other had asked in email is that if you were to do that, and 25 again I know probably have not sketched all this out but again if it is being offered as a 26 possibility, how would you park it? 27 28 Mr. Carrasco: Ten years down the road parking ratios will change or they might not change, but 29 that is an issue we will have to deal with ten years or 50 years down the road. The JJ lease goes 30 for 60 years. 31 32 Chair Garber: Fineberg followed by Holman. 33 34 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. I have a question for Staff regarding some instructions to 35 the Commission regarding the review of this project on page three of tonight's Staff Report. It 36 says the PTC is requested to review and make recommendations on the items outlined in Section 37 18.38.110 of the Municipal Code to ensure that the Draft PC Ordinance is consistent with the 38 Municipal Code. So does that mean that we get to consider all aspects of all items that are in 39 18.38.110 and make comments? I brought copies of it for distribution if anybody else wants to 40 see it. It includes pennitted uses, conditional uses, site development regulations, parking and 41 loading requirements, special requirements, development plan, development schedule, and 42 definitions. So would all of the items listed in that Municipal Code -I don't know if City 43 Attorney or Staffwants to say yes, in which case I would like to distribute a copy of this to each 44 of my colleagues and a couple to Staff. It is the page of the Municipal Code 18.38.110. I will 45 get to some details, some questions about that later. Right now I want to go over sort of my 46 clarifying questions. 47 City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 7 of 83 1 The other question is could Staff tell us a little bit more about the review process that will happen 2 for this project after tonight? I could not parse a straight timeline of whether it goes from us to 3 ARB to Council, or us to ARB back to us because I am seeing inconsistencies within different 4 places. So could we get the latest update on that? 5 6 Mr. Reich: The project will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board following your 7 recommendation and then move onto City Council. It would not come back to the Planning 8 Commission. 9 10 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. What happens then if the ARB changes the design? Ifwe are 11 commenting before there has been extensive design review how does Council know whether the 12 PTC has reviewed the project that will come before them? How do we fix that disconnect? 13 14 Mr. Reich: It would depend on how extensive any changes the ARB might recommend were. If 15 they affected like square footage of use, if something were to change in terms of the parameters 16 that were established here by the Planning Commission then it may have to go back to the 17 Planning Commission if something was drastically different. If they just look at design issues 18 and don't change anything related to use or sigilificantly alter the image that you see here in 19 terms of the envelope of what is proposed then it would move onto Council, but if it does alter 20 significantly we would be heading back to you guys. 21 22 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. So does that mean they would not be able to make significant 23 changes to site development regulations, which would include maximum and minimum 24 dimensions, setbacks, height, density, or could they? I don't get how we could comment on it, it 25 could get changed, and then not come back, and go to Council. 26 27 Mr. Reich: They could be changed slightly but not in any significant way. If tonight there is a 28 proposal for a five foot exception to the height limit but if the ARB is somehow wanting to see 29 something like an additional three, four or five feet higher than that then that would be a different 30 project so it would have to come back to the Commission. So minor changes in the parameters 31 and like I said the envelope of the project but anything more significant would definitely come 32 back to you. 33 34 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez and then Lippert. 35 36 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. I have a couple of questions for the architect. Mr. 37 Carrasco first I find the project quite nicely designed and I want to commend you for that. 38 39 One of the items that concerned me is the parking garage entrance on EI Camino Real. We are 40 parking 200-p1us cars in two levels and the ramp driveway seems to split the site, disrupt the 41 most important pedestrian way, cause traffic along EI Camino Real to slow and queue. We have 42 a bus stop that is sort of conflicting with the traffic turning into the parking drive. The 43 configuration sort of ruins the center of the project area for any of those architectural images, 44 which were quite nice that you included in your submittal. I am wondering, I heard a comment 45 that you were considering access on Staunton but did you consider driveway access on College 46 as a potential way to access parking without the kind of disruption that you would have on EI 47 Camino Real and also have the possibility of considering signalization so that you can have a City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 8 of83 1 north-south tum without the required U-turning that is going to be required of what we are 2 looking at now? I am sorry those are a lot of questions. 3 4 Mr. Carrasco: There are several questions there. Let me just talk to you about the first one. The 5 first one is the access to the parking garage from El Camino at this location here. Going to the 6 last question, we did consider access from this area here but the stacking lane in here was too 7 short and there was not enough time to turn in or tum out fast enough. We looked at it here. Let 8 me finish this one. This area, that location or an earlier version had the access coming in off 9 Staunton was considered and it did increase neighborhood traffic pretty considerably, not 10 significantly by our standards, but more than what the neighbors wanted and I believe more than 11 the Planning Commission wanted. So we located the area here. N ow this lane here is a bus lane 12 as well as a no parking lane. So there is enough space here to stack. In addition, the ramp does 13 not start right where the property line starts as most projects do. There is about a three-car length 14 here where the cars are flat and then it tapers down into a well-lit courtyard in the garage back 15 there. The continuity, the reason why we had proposed it there was the issue of continuity. You 16 cannot have continuity and the garage ramp in this location. 17 18 I think there were several people on the Commission who spoke about the continuity of retail. 19 We have now paved this section to look like it is part of the sidewalk so it is easy for people to 20 signal from a visual point of view that that experience is continuous. There are office entrances 21 there, there is retail along that edge, and then most important is a grocery exhibition area sort of 22 display area ~f vibrant fruits and vegetables and produce, and seating that will happen in this 23 location here thus allowing the pedestrian to be able to connect visually the experience that they 24 might have from that point to this point. I think I got all those questions. 25 26 Commissioner Martinez: I agree with you that the urban design experience along El Camino 27 will be fairly nice. I just feel that the driveway entrance creates some conflict with the pedestrian 28 walkable experience as has been described that we are trying to achieve in this location. I accept 29 your reasoning for this I just feel if there is anything more you can do to try to diminish the 30 inlpact of cars coming in and out I would ask you to do that. I would especially ask you to look 31 at those light wells that you are creating for the parking garage and really see if you can come up 32 with a more substantial kind of courtyard design that really makes some of those people places 33 that you showed in your images really begin to come to life. I think it would begin to sort of pull 34 it all together. Overall I think it is -one small comment, it looked to me that the loading dock on 35 Oxford seemed a little shallow. The front of the truck would be sticking out on the sidewalk and 36 I would just ask you to double-check that. 37 38 Mr. Carrasco: If I can answer that question, we have checked the dimension of the truck and 39 John Garcia will not be loading off the 40-foot trailers they will be the smaller delivery trucks 40 that fit completely within the delivery area. we have a gate that can close down so that noise 41 does not penetrate through that thing and we have the top of it covered so the noise of the 42 deliveries do not permeate through that structure into the neighborhood. 43 44 Commissioner Martinez: That addresses the current proposed operator but we were also talking 45 about somebody else potentially in the future, I hope not, but then it does not permit longer 46 trucks. Is that what you are saying? 47 City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 9 of83 1 Mr. Carrasco: That is correct. We do not want longer trucks. As with Whole Foods or the JJ &F 2 Market now they do not deliver with these very long trailers. 3 4 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, thank you. 5 6 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Lippert and then Holman and then Garber. 7 8 Commissioner Lippert: Thank you very much. I am trying to understand the constraints that we 9 need to stay inside the lines so to speak, the direction that City Council is giving us. I want to 10 focus in for a moment on the BMR units as well as the parking, or actually the maximum square 11 footage on the parking that they made as one of their constraints. 12 13 If I take a look at what the underlying zoning is, the CN zone, it is required that 50 percent of the 14 'FAR is allowed to be residential. So that is about 25,000 square feet plus or minus. If I were to 15 take 15 percent of that it would be basically 3,700 square feet that would be allocated to BMR 16 units according to our current ordinance. Again, I am only doing this by square footage because 17 we don't have numbers of units to judge it against. They are proposing 4,800 square feet of 18 BMR units here. So with that what I am looking at is that this is well over ten percent of the 19 housing that would be required or actually mandated by the state in terms ofSB 1818. The 20 reason I am going there is I am beginning to say that the ten percent threshold of housing then 21 stretches what some of our regulations might be. 22 23 If you look at what the Council required here in terms of parking what they are saying here is 24 that the project shall be fully parked per Palo Alto standards including parking reductions 25 allowed by the City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance. So the nut of my question is do the state 26 mandates in SB 18 actually subvert or make subservient the City's ordinance thereby an 27 additional parking reduction or are they allowed to take advantage of an increase in FAR for 28 additional housing units because ofSB 1818 and going outside the envelope of FAR? I know it 29 is sort of convoluted. 30 31 Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: I think what you are saying is could they ask for a 32 concession under SB 1818 because they are providing conceptually more than ten percent as we 33 would normally require if there were the minimum threshold for units. 34 35 Commissioner Lippert: Correct. Correct. 36 37 Ms. French: Because it is a PC they don't need concessions. If it weren't a PC could they ask 38 for concessions under SB 1818? 39 40 Chair Garber: May I ask, if I may interrupt, does it apply in the circumstances where you have 41 PCs? 42 43 Ms. Julie Caporgno, Chief Planning and Transportation Official: No, because they are 44 requesting a specific zoning. So we are complying with the parking ordinance and they have not 45 requested any concession. 46 47 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, that answers my questions, again not the answer that I am looking 48 for. Then with regard to SB 375 that specifically addresses a half mile radius but what they are City olPalo Page 100183 1 looking for in that is mixed use. Again, it is very, very, very specific in terms of what that mixed 2 use should be. It is not just office it is a mix of office, retail, and they look at office and retail 3 together, and then housing. So in the documentation we received here they have cited SB 375, 4 does SB 375 apply because they have not really provided enough residential? 5 6 Mr. Reich: I think what they are trying to show with the radius, I could defer to the attorney 7 related to the state bill, but I think what they are trying to show with that image is that they are 8 within a half mile of the train station, and for that reason they would qualify for a reduction in 9 the amount of parking required. 10 11 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, thank you. 12 13 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman and then Garber. 14 15 Commissioner Holman: Yes. I am not recalling that the setback exceptions were requested 16 previously. Is that accurate or were they part of the proposal before and I just don't recall them? 17 18 Mr. Reich: They were noted in the Zoning Compliance Table but they had not been formally 19 requested in any manner. 20 21 Commissioner Holman: I remember reading somewhere in the Staff Report or one of the sheets 22 we have that they might be DEEs or Variances as the Commission determined, but I can't find 23 that notation when I tried to find it again now. 24 25 Mr. Reich: It was actually noted in the Zoning Compliance Table that the exceptions might be a 26 DEE or a Variance it wasn't as the Commission determined. But upon further review of the 27 specifics we have determined that a DEE would be appropriate for the various exceptions that 28 would be required. 29 30 Commissioner Holman: Thank you for the response. That was in the Zoning Compliance 31 Table? 32 33 Mr. Reich: Right, I believe it is Attachment C. 34 35 Commissioner Holman: Okay. The sidewalks. We get a lot of comments in this community, 36 and I have to say my personal response too is that I am in favor of pulling buildings up to the 37 street but the sidewalks seem to be really minimal and don't lead to pedestrian friendly 38 experience from my experience. I know a lot of other people have commented that they feel 39 pushed off the sidewalk. So is it standard practice that what the City is doing is measuring the 40 effective sidewalk from the curb to the building? How are we interpreting what the effective 41 sidewalk is if you have to use say four feet approximately for the tree wells, how are we having 42 an effective 12-foot sidewalk? 43 44 Ms. French: This is taken from the El Camino Real Guidelines, basically this effective sidewalk 45 concept. The 12 feet is curb to building so that it can be interrupted by tree wells, some planting 46 next to the building, the sidewalk might go in and out but that is what the effective sidewalk is 47 considered, curb to building. 48 City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 11 of83 1 Mr. Reich: That still gives you a significantly wider sidewalk than is typical. A typical sidewalk 2 is five feet wide. The free and clear width would be at least eight feet although the tree wells 3 would have grates on them so the tree wells wouldn't necessarily take up four feet of the 4 potential sidewalk. It would be much less than that. It is just the distance that the actual tree 5 trunk is away from the curb would be the reduction in the 12-foot width. 6 7 Commissioner Holman: Can't help but smile on that because people don't walk on tree grates. 8 So I guess my interpretation of effective sidewalk is different. It is not just they avoid the tree 9 they avoid the grates and such too. 10 11 I was interested also in my· first question having to do with the ordinance and what we nlight 12 require in terms of subsidizing the rent for the grocer. I need some help with this because if we 13 are trading development, let's say we are trading office square footage per the applicant's 14 comments for a grocery store because it has to be subsidized but there is no commitment in an 15 ordinance that the grocery store will be subsidized what are we going to end up with, and how is 16 that a taking any different than let's say, make some comparisons. So if it is BMR units those 17 are subsidized of course. We are already dedicating this to grocery so one could make the 18 argument with this line of logic as I am seeing it that that's a taking. So how would requiring a 19 subsidy or requiring the first right of refusal for a local grocer -help me understand how that is a 20 taking. 21 22 Ms. Melissa Tronquet, Deputy City Attorney: The local grocer issue is a Constitutional problem 23 really. It is a travel and you can't require local companies and things like that. 24 25 Commissioner Holman: Just to clarify, I said first right of refusal not requiring it. 26 27 Ms. Tronquet: Sorry? 28 29 Commissioner Holman: I was proposing first right of refusal not requiring a local grocery. 30 31 Ms. Tronquet: It is still a Constitutional problem that we have concerns with. The ordinance as 32 proposed limits it to grocery. It is essentially self-executing because you are limiting it to 33 grocery. Essentially the market will sort of -a grocery store will be required and they will do 34 whatever they need to do to get a grocery store there. But if you are dictating the rent in terms of 35 subsidies and things like that is a different issue. We think it is sufficient just to limit it to 36 grocery and they will be required to or they will do whatever they have to do to get a grocer there 37 but the City would not be limiting the rent they could get in that case. 38 39 Mr. Reich: I will defer to the applicant but I believe at the City Council hearing was the 40 applicant that offered to provide some kind of agreement but it is not Staff s position that any 41 kind of agreement related to rents should be included. The ordinance as Melissa was saying 42 specifies that an 8,000 square foot grocery store shall exist on the property and that is enough by 43 whatever means the property owner needs to do, whether they need to offer that space for free or 44 some reduced rent or somehow to get a grocery tenant there, but that tenant space has. to be 45 occupied by a grocery store. It is not really appropriate that we start dictating the rental rates 46 because that stuff fluctuates over time and we have no means to really control that. They did 47 offer to provide that agreement to Council to make them feel more comfortable that in fact it 48 would be JJ&F that would the one to return. City 0/ Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 120/83 1 2 Commissioner Holman: I think my tum is up by I guess my concern here is that the public is 3 getting a larger building because the applicant has made the argument that JJ&F, everything is 4 couched around JJ&F and what they can pay. A lot of things are designed around JJ&F too as 5 far as the building components, which I think is, well I will comment on that later. There doesn't 6 seem to be a quid pro quo and I will just leave it at that. 7 8 Chair Garber: Thank you. Mr. Carrasco, you have been involved in doing a number of given 9 office buildings around town. What is currently the average or the range of construction costs 10 for an office building these days? 11 12 Mr. Carrasco: It depends on how much parking you are required to provide and if it is under two 13 stories or if it is on red and so on. So the range is about $350.00 a square foot for no parking to 14 $600.00 a square foot if you include parking. You are talking about only construction costs, 15 right? 16 17 Chair Garber: Okay. Yes, only construction costs although the question of land does come up. 18 So Mr. Smailey on your table, the Subsidy Summary, your total cost assuming reduced 19 construction costs in a down economy is $800.00 a square foot. I am assuming you are not 20 buying the land. The land is already part of the deal, yes? Or is there something else? How are 21 you coming up with the $800.00? 22 23 Mr. Patrick Smailey: The $800.00 a square foot is an all in number so that includes the money 24 we paid to Tony, to the various other consultants we have. 25 26 Chair Garber: That would explain $700.00 of that number. 27 28 Mr. Patrick Smailey: That is exactly it. The other $100.00 is just what we get'for bonus. It is an 29 all in number including carry, cost of cash, time to get through the development process, and we 30 do allocate a land value to that. The land has become encumbered through the process. 31 32 Chair Garber: I will leave it at that for the moment. One other question for Staff. In the 33 Council's deliberations at the very end of the motion Council Member Burt mentioned that the 34 Council was to give the Planning Commission and the ARB latitude. What do you think that 35 means? 36 37 Mr. Reich: I think it means a reasonable amount of freedom to review the project and make 38 recommendations on what you feel is appropriate. 39 40 Chair Garber: So if the Commission were to recommend not 1,000 square feet being taken off 41 but 10,000 that might be reasonable or unreasonable? Just say. I am throwing a number out. 42 43 Mr. Reich: Reasonable depends on what the applicant can do or can't do. It would seem to me 44 that the Council initiated the project with the understanding that it would have up to the 38,960 45 square feet. 46 47 Chair Garber: Totaling the 61,000 and change. 48 City Page 13 oJ83 1 Mr. Reich: Right. They actually have reduced from that but I can't get into the Council's mind, 2 I don't assume that they were giving a lot of leeway in terms of that number because there was a 3 lot of discussion at the Council Meeting about the square footage. There was a motion to reduce 4 it, which failed, but I can't say what their expectation was as to whether or not you would request 5 them to further reduce that. I would assume it wouldn't be by a significant amount. 6 7 Chair Garber: For the applicant. Just out of curiosity how did you come up with the 1,000 8 square foot reduction in the office as opposed to some other number? 9 10 Mr. Patrick Smailey: The 1,000 square foot reduction? 11 12 Chair Garber: In the office space. 13 14 Mr. Patrick Smailey: It is something that we looked at. We had been asked by you to consider a 15 reduction. To be very honest it didn't have any more blood in the rock to squeeze out but I felt 16 that I needed to do something to let you know that we were listening. It is the most I thought I 17 cQuld take out, create the little breezeway on the back comer that would be a spillover from that 18 office space, and that is what we could offer. 19 20 To add to my prior response to you it is going to cost us between $8.0 and $10.0 million to build 21 the parking structures below grade and that is a large component as to how we get to the $800.00 22 per square foot to build the project. 23 24 Chair Garber: Thank you. We have now gone through one question round. Commissioner 25 Tuma. 26 27 Vice-Chair Tuma: I just had one follow on and clarification from Staff. At the Council Meeting 28 the motion that failed was for a ten percent reduction, is that correct? 29 30 Mr. Reich: I believe so. That is what I said. 31 32 Vice-Chair Tuma: You had said a reduction but you didn't indicate what it was. So ten percent? 33 Presumably what Council was saying was ten percent wasn't something that they were willing to 34 buy into? Okay. But whether or not something between 1,000 square feet and ten percent 35 reduction is "reasonable" that is part of what we are here to discuss. 36 37 Mr. Reich: Right, obviously the Commission can specify what feel is reasonable but the Council 38 didn't go on to say well, how about seven or how about six, they left it alone with the 39 understanding that it could be up to the amount proposed. 40 41 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners, we have all had a chance to have one question. 42 There are a couple of additional questions that the Commissioners would like to ask. I would 43 like to ask the couple of members of the public who would like to speak to hang on for just 44 awhile longer so we can go through. Also, as a reminder I would like to target us trying to get 45 through this item by 9:30 or thereabout. We will how well we can do keeping to that schedule. 46 47 Commissioner Keller, followed by Tuma, Fineberg, and then Holman. 48 City Page 140[83 I Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Hopefully our questions will inform the members of the 2 public who wish to speak so it focuses what their able to talk about. 3 4 I was going to follow up on a question asked by Vice-Chair Tuma and it was with respect to 5 potential expansion of the grocery store towards Staunton. The ability to expand in part depends 6 on the construction techniques and whether there is sufficient foundation already laid over the 7 garage in order to provide the ability to build the loading dock in various locations and in order 8 to build the structure for the remainder of the building over what is going to be a planting area. 9 So can you talk about the extent to which these construction techniques, the specifications for 10 that will allow for whatever loading is required for that building? 11 12 Mr. Carrasco: Commissioner Keller, we will certainly consider it but on the face of it it looks 13 like the construction that we are planning for the rest of this understructure, the columns and grid 14 and so on, shouldn't preclude that. 15 16 Commissioner Keller: Okay, great, thank you. To follow up on a question from Commissioner 1 7 Holnlan, I understand that it is a condition that in order for this to nl0ve forward there has to be a 18 binding agreement for a grocery store to occupy a space assuming it is built. What happens at 19 the subsequent point in time if it were to come to pass that the grocery store contemplated in the 20 original agreement failed to continue to occupy as a grocery store at this particular location, what 21 recourse would the City have in order to enforce that a new grocery store would replace the 22 existing grocery store in a timely manner, not like a convenience store but a true grocery store? 23 The fact that it says 'a grocery store shall occupy' how does the City enforce that that in fact 24 occurs and what penalties would there be on the owners of the building to ensure that a 25 replacement grocery store were to be procured reasonably speedily? 26 27 Ms. Tronquet: Well because it will be required to be grocery there couldn't be anything there 28 but grocery. 29 30 Commissioner Keller: There could be something called, vacant. 31 32 Ms. Tronguet: And that happens but the only thing that it could be replaced with is grocery. 33 34 Commissioner Keller: I understand but we have had other locations for which grocery stores 35 make plenty of sense, which developers have taken off the market for one reason or another. So 36 what I am wondering is how do we force that if the proposed agreement for a grocer if that 37 grocer ten, 20, 30 years down the road were to cease to occupy as a grocery store to ensure that it 38 would always be occupied as a grocery store. I think the applicant wishes to speak to that, so 39 maybe you can answer that. 40 41 Ms. Kennedy: I think how I would describe this would be incentive compatibility. That is it is 42 certainly not in the interest of the owner of the property to have vacant space. As you yourself 43 pointed out earlier we are going to have to do whatever we have to do to get a grocery in there 44 and reduce the rent to such a point that we can get a grocer in there. So the condition of approval 45 will be that that comer can be used only for a grocery store. If after a year of trying to lease it we 46 couldn't lease it, we would have to come back and ask the City to amend the PC zone so it would 47 be back in the City's court. So we are motivated to have a grocer, and you want a grocer, and we 48 would have to come back if it needed to be anything other than a grocer. So I don't see it as a City o[ Palo Alto October 14. 2009 Page 15 0[83 1 problem for the City. I think perhaps in other situations there has not been an explicit use 2 provision about a specific portion of property but we are certainly imagining that that is going to 3 be the case here, and we are ready to deal with it. 4 5 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I appreciate that. I have a particular property in mind, which 6 was vacant for a number of years because of something that the owner did on that property. So I 7 hope that that doesn't happen here. 8 9 Ms. Kennedy: We don't want it to either. Thank you. 10 11 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma. 12 13 Vice-Chair Tuma: A quick question for both the applicant and Mr. Garcia. Do you gentlemen 14 have some idea of what the initial term of the lease would be length-wise? 15 16 Mr. Patrick Smailey: I am pushing 50 and I am hoping for another 20 or 30 years. 17 18 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. 19 20 Chair Garber: What a good time to start negotiating. 21 22 Ms. Kennedy: We have offered up to 30 years as an initial term if they want it. 23 24 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, so it sounds to me that neither of the parties, Mr. Garcia or the 25 applicant, would have a problem with a condition that the initial term of the lease be at a 26 minimum 20 years, let's say. Is that correct? 27 28 Ms. Kennedy: We certainly don't. 29 30 Vice-Chair Tuma: If we could just get that on the record from both of you guys. 31 32 Mr. Garcia: I don't have a problem with that. 33 34 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, great. Thanks very much. Another question, it is a quick question 35 with maybe not a quick answer for Mr. Carrasco. This has to do with the request to exceed the 36 height limit. As I understand it there are two elevator towers where this occurring, and is there 37 an additional place? Could you explain to us the reasons why we can't keep it at 50 feet? 38 39 Mr. Carrasco: Yes, sure. The elevators sit in that tower there and this tower here. It is required 40 because we have access to this roof garden that that access has to be handicap accessible. So the 41 top of that elevator is required to go to 15 feet above that 40-foot height because the most energy 42 efficient elevators on the market are ones with the elevator room, the machine room, on top so 43 that it can drag that elevator up and let it down easily. If you put that machine room on the 44 bottom and we are able to drop it down the energy that it takes to get that elevator up and down 45 is higher. So in order to reduce energy, which is one of the LEED issues, and as you know 46 probably the biggest issue on global warming is the cutting down of energy. Wetried every little 47 detail to be able to get it done right. So we need that 15 feet. 48 City o[ Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 160[83 1 Vice-Chair Tuma: Can you quantify that for me? In other words, if you were to use a different 2 configuration that allowed you to keep it 50 feet can you in some way quantify on an annual 3 basis or in some material way what the difference is we are talking about in terms of energy 4 consumption. 5 6 Mr. Carrasco: I don't have that off the top of my head, Commissioner Tuma. It is lower if you 7 get that machine room on top. Do you have it? 8 9 Ms. Linda PoncinL Carrasco and Associates: Yes, the elevator that we are looking at, which is 10 called an eco-space elevator uses one-third the energy of a regular elevator. That is according to 11 the manufacturer. They are saying one-third the energy. 12 13 Vice-Chair Tuma: That is helpful on a relative scale but how much energy does a normal 14 elevator use? 15 16 Ms. Poncini: Unfortunately I don't have that information. 17 18 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Thanks. 19 20 Mr. Carrasco: Can I answer a little bit further on this issue? It is not only energy consumption 21 butit is also related to noise. Early on in our discussions with neighborhoods, the people in the 22 neighborhoods, and our advisors, noise was a sensitive and big issue. One of those issues is that 23 we need to raise this parapet wall here in order to get beyond the City'S zoning requirements. 24 Right now we have shown it at a height that will meet Palo Alto's Noise Ordinance. We could 25 raise that wall a little bit and cover the elevator equipment, or the mechanical equipment thereby 26 drastically decreasing the decibel levels that permeate out into that area beyond Palo Alto's 27 Noise Ordinance. That also gets us LEED points. 28 29 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Then there is one other place in which the project exceeds the 35-foot 30 limit and it has to do with the proposed rooftop gazebo above the grocery store building, and 31 architectural signage spire of the grocery store. Can you address that request as well? 32 33 Mr. Carrasco: Sure. The gazebo sits out here and the ability to experience a vegetated roof is an 34 important one from LEED as well as from our point of view. The ability to sit out there and eat a 35 sandwich or talk to your neighbor or talk to your friends under a shelter we thought was a good 36 thing, but that exceeded the height limit. 37 38 The spire here on the sign is an old traditional sign at a grocery store is important for the 39 Garcia's for someone going north to be able to see that there is a grocery store. So it is signaled 40 not only with that sign but also the displays that the Garcia's will have out there. It is also 41 therefore visible from the other direction and that exceeds the height limit. 42" 43 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, so just to summarize and encapsulate what you said because this is the 44 tradeoff that someone is going to have to make here. Essentially on the elevators you are saying 45 you need the excess height in order to accommodate some yet to be quantified energy savings 46 and also some noise reduction. On the gazebo and signage it is to have a better experience for 47 people sitting out on the gazebo and the signage is to provide better visibility for the retail usage, 48 the grocery store. City of Palo A Ito October 14, 2009 Page 17 of83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Mr. Carrasco: Yes. Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, so that is the tradeoff that you are making for the height. Mr. Carrasco: Right, they are all sort of publicly minded issues. Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, thank you. Mr. Reich: I would also argue that the spire actually adds to the architectural interest of the building. I think it is a cool feature. Chair Garber: The spire in this case being the signage? Thank you. Commissioners Fineberg and then Holman. Commissioner Fineberg: Question for Staff about Attachments A and B in our Staff Report. Attachment A is the Not Yet Approved Ordinance of Council. Section C in it says the PTC after duly noticed public hearing held tonight, October 14, reviewed, considered, and recommended approval of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. Is that. ... Mr. Reich: The date would be modified to reflect the Council date that they actually take action. Commissioner Fineberg: You are talking about Planning Commission. 25 Ms. French: Yes, we do this, creating a positive recommendation and then we modify it 26 . depending on what actually happens tonight and what actually happens with the ARB. This is 27 the draft that shows you what might go to Council as far as the various Boards and Commissions. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, understood. So does that mean that part oftonighfs task for us is to review the Mitigated Negative Declaration and what are the required findings for us to approve it? I don't remember having seen any notations of that other than we have a copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration itself. Ms. French: The Mitigated Negative Declaration itself contains findings. So we can find them for you and tell you which page. Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so we just review what is in the Mitigated Negative Declaration itself. Okay. On Attachment B for the Resolution of City Council Adopting an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map by Changing the Land Use Designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use, first paragraph says the Planning and Transportation Commission after duly noticed public meeting, I am paraphrasing, tonight recommends that the Council amend the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth below. Again the same questions. Do we have any findings that we would apply when recommending a change for a Land Use Map? I believe if I am correct when we considered it at our last meeting we found the findings were not present which is why we didn't initiate. City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 18 of83 1 Ms. French: Excuse me I think they are in the Resolution. There is the Ordinance forthe PC 2 approval. Then there is the Resolution for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and I believe 3 they should be in there. That is Draft Resolution, which is Attachment B. 4 5 Ms. Caporgno: And it is under Sections 1 and 2, I believe. 6 7 Commissioner Fineberg: So the findings referred to in Section 1 the Council finds and it never 8 talks about the PTC, us, having findings. So how are we having a review and recommendation 9 without ever dealing with any findings? 10 11 Mr. Reich: Ultimately it is the Council's decision but the Planning Commission makes a 12 recommendation to the City Council so the Council will decide. So this specifies that the 13 Council finds but the Council makes that finding based upon all of the input that they get 14 including your recommendation. 15 16 Commissioner Fineberg: So tonight we are not just making comments we are recommending 17 approval? Okay. 18 19 Is it precedented that the Commission recommends approval without reviewing findings for 20 Comprehensive Plan changes? 21 22 Ms. Caporgno: I think what Russ has just said is that you would be making findings it is just the 23 way they are structured here we are asking you to look at this Resolution and indicate if you 24 agree with the findings that are stated here that we are asking the Council to make. 25 26 Commissioner Fineberg: Aren't there specific findings? I can go through my Municipal Code, 27 but aren't there specific findings and Municipal Codes for PCs rather than just consistency with 28 four or five goals and projects? Maybe my memory is not correct but if there are specific 29 findings for PCs wouldn't we refer to them and then consider them tonight? 30 31 Ms. Caporgno: This Resolution is for the change to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map so it 32 is separate from the PC findings that you would be finding for the ordinance itself. 33 34 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, got you, thank you. Okay, that was the beginning. Then I had 35 one more question. I will catch it on the next round. Thanks. 36 37 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman and then Martinez. 38 39 Commissioner Holman: I have a question and it has to do with height. What is the height of the 40 floors in the building for the proposed projects? 41 42 Mr. Carrasco: Commissioner Holman, I don't have that in my head but that 40 feet is divided 43 pretty evenly between three floors. I am hearing 13 feet, one inch. 44 45 Commissioner Holman: Pardon? 46 47 Mr. Carrasco: Thirteen feet, one inch floor-to-floor. 48 City of Palo Alto October J 4, 2009 Page 19 of83 1 Commissioner Holman: So the retail heights are the same as the office heights? 2 3 Mr. Carrasco: The retail height on the ground floor is 13 feet, one inch, yes. The floor up here 4 for handicap reasons must connect and so therefore that second floor is the same height as that 5 second floor. 6 7 Commissioner Holman: Okay, thank you. Then a question for Staff. In response to a number of 8 the questions that I had posed, the comparisons that we got in our Staff Report were to the CN 9 zone so we had some means of comparing how the project lays out in some kind of consistency 10 with some standard. But the responses to my questions, some of them said there is no 11 requirement for open space in a PC, and there is no requirement for this in a PC. But we do have 12 standards for review and kind of standards for development, for instance private open space, 13 public open space. There is a threshold that provides a good project versus a not good project, 14 and I am speaking in extremes here. I guess I was a little concerned about the responses. I don't 15 know if Staff wants to comment back on those, or re-comment, or amend their comments. My 16 point is just because a PC ordinance doesn't require something does that mean that we just 17 shouldn't provide it? 18 19 Ms. French: It doesn't mean it shouldn't be provided itJust means this is its own animal. It does 20 not have to follow the CN requirement for open space. So sure you could look at what is 21 required for CN and compare that but it is not required to follow that CN open space. 22 23 Commissioner Holman: I understand that. What I am looking for though is something that 24 refers to what good planning and what good proj ects would include whether it was CN, PC, or 25 ABC. 26 27 Ms. French: Okay. Well if you were to look at the standards in the zoning code 50 square feet 28 private open space in a balcony and that kind of thing that would be something that we would 29 normally see on a residential apartment building on its own standard zoned lot. That would be a 30 for instance. 31 32 Commissioner Holman: Thank you, I appreciate the clarification. 33 34 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez. 35 36 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. For Staff, earlier in the week I had asked about the El 37 Camino Real Guidelines and what you felt applied or what we should be looking at. I was a little 38 bit surprised when Amy's response was really only about two items the kind of walk able streets 39 and the 75 percent urban wall kind of concept, which obviously we are not considering here. 40 Are there other issues about parking, about massing, about other things in the guidelines that we 41 should be considering? 42 43 Ms. French: Commissioner Martinez is referring to the Addendum to Item 1. It did show what 44 had been in the Staff Report from April 29 regarding the effective sidewalk. It discussed the fact 45 that there are three guidelines. There is the plan of 2003 that talks about street tree planting 46 along El Camino. There are the 2002 recommended guidelines that the ARB has recommended 47 but the Council has not adopted. Then there are the 1979 guidelines that are somewhat outdated 48 say with respect to the street tree species. The focus for tonight was going to be the street trees City of Palo Alto Page 200f83 1 and building placement, those were the two, and I guess the objectives to look at overall because 2 that relates to the guidelines are called out in the Comprehensive Plan as something to be looked 3 at. As far as what normally happens with guidelines is we would have some more detailed plans 4 for the Architectural Review Board. It is their purview to look carefully at the details for the 5 sidewalks, paving, architectural detail, fa~ades, all of those things are in the realm of the ARB. 6 So that is where we would, if we pass this stage, we would do a thorough analysis of the El 7 Camino Real Guidelines as recommended by the ARB for the ARB's consideration. 8 9 Mr. Reich: There are also several elements of the El Camino Real Guidelines that would be 10 applicable like how parking is addressed, taking that sea of parking from the frontage of El 11 Camino and putting it behind the buildings or under-grounding it and things like that. So we 12 have reviewed those and certainly analyzed the project against the guidelines and believe it is 13 compliance with those. Related to building massing, bringing two and three story buildings to El 14 Camino, I think the building wall thing was already discussed. So we have actually gone 15 through that and apologize that there isn't a detailed listing of what the guidelines suggest and 16 how the project has included those, but Staff has looked at those and believes the project is in 1 7 compliance with those guidelines. Certainly as the Commission you are welcome to provide 18 comment as to whether there are elements of the project that you feel are not incompliance with 19 those guidelines or could be improved. That feedback is certainly welcome. 20 21 Commissioner Martinez: I was really more concerned that I was missing something. This is 22 such an important site, such an'important boulevard, that the opportunity to make sure we are 23 either applying the guidelines, being critical of the guidelines, but somehow acknowledging them 24 in some way I just felt I was missing. I appreciate that you have gone through that. 25 26 I have a question for the Chair. We received a lot, probably more than I have experienced yet, of 27 comments, emails and like that with concerns from the public. Are we going to have a chance to 28 sort of go through that? 29 30 Chair Garber: We certainly can. We are scheduled to take a break at 8:30 but we could also 31 listen to the public and take a break at that point before we come back to discussion and give 32 ourselves some time to read through those documents if you like. 33 34 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, that's fine. 35 36 Chair Garber: Have you completed your questions. Just one last question I think for Mr. 37 Carrasco. I was a little confused by your comments in responding to Commissioner Holman 38 regarding the floor-to-floor heights. If I understood you correctly you said the floor-to-floor 39 heights were all the same, 13 foot, one inch. Then you made a reference to handicap 40 requirements and those heights having something to do with the handicap requirements. What 41 was that? 42 43 Mr. Carrasco: The handicap requirements are that we do not want to change the heights of this 44 structure here as compared with the second floor of the structure here. So a handicapped person 45 would be able to get from that office space to this office space without a long ramp. 46 47 Chair Garber: But if both of those floors were higher or lower but the same elevation that would 48 be fine. City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 21 of83 1 2 Mr. Carrasco: That is true, but you can barely get mechanical stuff within the steel beam 3 construction that we have and get the floor heights that we on the second and third floors, by 4 changing the height. If you increase the height by one foot we can increase the lower floor 5 height by that one foot. Actually this one has less of a problem. If you can recommend to 6 Council that we can go to 41 feet then this lower floor can go to 14 feet, one. If you go two feet 7 high it can go to 15 feet, one. 8 9 Chair Garber: So what is your floor-to-ceiling in the office as opposed to slab-to-slab? 10 11 Mr. Carrasco: Probably nine feet. 12 13 Chair Garber: So you have a four-foot interstitial space? 14 15 Mr. Carrasco: Right, with ducts and so on. 16 1 7 Chair Garber: Okay. Commissioners, unless there are any other questions we will go to the 18 public. With that we have two persons from the public that would like to speak. They will each 19 have three minutes. Robert Moss followed by Jonathan Rabinortz, and we have some more 20 cards coming. 21 22 Mr. Robert Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Garber and Commissioners. A couple of 23 comments. First I agree that there should be some private open space for the residential units. I 24 suggest that that be required and the open space that is required for the homes be reduced from 25 the office space, so the office space is reduced. Ideally I would like to see the office space 26 reduced by about 10,000 square feet but I suspect that is not going to happen. 27 28 One of the real issues is this is a PC where there is supposed to be a public benefit. The problem 29 we have had with PCs over the decades is the public benefits are not always well defined and are 30 never enforced. So I have a suggestion for how we can balance a real PC and real enforcement. 31 I was thinking exactly along the lines that Commissioner Keller was, as usual great minds think 32 alike. Here is how we do it. Since the primary PC's benefit to the public is a grocery store, 33 ideally JJ&F, only 12,500 square feet of office space shall be occupied until after a grocery store 34 is open and operating. No additional office space shall be leased without a grocery store. 35 36 Second, grocery stores mayor may not stay in business. So what happens if JJ&F goes out of 37 business for whatever reason? You have heard how they are going to look for years and years to 38 try to find a new tenant. So here is how you satisfy that requirement. If the grocer ceases to 39 operate for more than 60 days, on the 61 st day notice shall be given to occupants of at least 9,700 40 square feet of office space that they will have to cease occupying that space in 60 days if a new 41 grocer is not identified and brought into the space. And every 60 days after that another 9,700 42 square feet of office space is noticed that they shall have to vacate. This should really 43 incentivize the owner of the property to truly provide the PC benefit to the community. Now you 44 can adjust the number of days that you have to give notice or you have to terminate the lease or 45 the occupants, but the principle is the same. If a grocery store goes away so do the office 46 tenants. It is enforceable by a fine that the City can impose if the office space continues to be 47 occupied after a grocery store leaves. 48 City of Palo Alto October.l4, 2009 Page 22 of83 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Chair Garber: Thank you. Jonathan Rabinortz followed by Doria Summa. Mr. Jonathan Rabinortz, Palo Alto: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I appreciate all the work you guy's have put irito this. I have a big financial stake in this issue. My 16-year old son works one day a week at JJ&F. I have shopped at JJ&F since I moved to College Terrace in 1998, and I now live in Midtown but my children live part of the time in College Terrace and part of the time with me. I want Palo Alto to be a nice place for them to spend the rest of their lives and JJ&F is one of the things that make it home for them and for me. I am not versed on the technicalities of this issue but I strongly believe that you should find a way to move this project forward. If the Senate Finance Committee could pass a healthcare reform bill yesterday even though many of the members had some pretty severe questions about it I think that you guys could find a way to get this forward. John Garcia has worked hard to keep a small business going, a business that we all love. I have faith that he is committed to do what is best to keep this special place alive and an asset to the neighborhood and community at large. Please make sure that it will still be there for the future generations to enjoy. Please approve the Staff recommendations. Thank you. Chair Garber: Thank you. Doria Summa followed by Fred Balin. 22 Ms. Doria Summa, Palo Alto: Thank you. I live in College Terrace and I am also a member of 23 the College Terrace Residents Association Board. I want to draw your attention to the fact that 24 the Board resubmitted our original statement and addendum today. I think the reason we did that 25 . is because from the point of view of what we know to be our neighborhood's concerns that were 26 based on a survey the statement was based on that, the real main concerns have not been 27 mitigated thouih changes have been made. So from our statement the transformation of a 28 neighborhood center into a regional business district that remains very much the same. I think 29 largely it is because of the amount of office space. I agree that there have been changes and 30 improvements but I would say that there have not been enough. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 We were also concerned that the preponderance of office space to the diminishment of other possible uses and I think you have brought that up tonight in your discussion about retail on the ground t100r along College and Staunton. The level of traffic and parking with medical offices, obviously the medial office is not going to be a part of it now. On a personal note, I am also very concerned about the agreement with the grocery, hopefully JJ&F, I love them. I hope they stay. My concern is that if they really can't find a grocer tenant for that space that it could be empty. I think another public benefit should be thought of for that space if it is not realistic to have a grocer there. There is no guarantee of that. So I think those are my main points. Thank you. Chair Garber: Thank you. Fred Balin followed by Herb Borock. Mr. Fred Balin, Palo Alto: Good evening. A few comments. The draft of the binding agreement between developer and grocery is not here for study although interaction between Council Member Yeh and Attorney Baum at the July 29 City Council Meeting indicated it would be. I find that there is no trigger mechanism in the PC to deal with an expanded grocery as a problem. City of Palo Alto October J 4, 2009 Page 23 of83 1 Also the fact that there is nothing in the PC with regard to any binding agreement is a problem. 2 Parking of course is also a problem. What should really happen here is that you should ' 3 anticipate that the additional space will be used, the additional 4, 600 square feet that we are 4 below at this point, which would amount to another 23 spaces, and that should be taken into the 5 mix. 6 7 Retail, we have 13,027 square feet on the site today and 13,580 is proposed, a miniscule four 8 percent increase. Five thousand square feet of office today, 39,000 proposed, is a 680 percent 9 increase. This huge imbalance should be partially addressed via added retail on College Avenue 10 to protect and enhance common ground, and promote a true walkable and enjoyable 11 environment. 12 13 Environmental study, population, and housing, creation of substantial imbalance between 14 employed residents andjobs is deemed less than significant because "the project alone and 15 cumulatively would not add substantially to the jobslhousing imbalance." Eight BMRs and 16 39,000 square feet of office, come on. 17 18 The environmental study, noise, potentially significant impact unless mitigated. This must be 19 handled very, very carefully. The noise and vibration section of the revised performance 20 standards of 2007 stems directly from a long battling College Terrace over an unannounced 21 research park clean room. Now it requires acoustical analysis before and after but that will not 22 be enough because it is based on the Noise Ordinance, outdated, unfair, was not updated during 23 the Comprehensive Plan period, which it was supposed to be. Baseline ambient levels plus 24 pennit escalators in the residential area that abut commercial zones is 12 decibels higher than 25 when facing the same or another residential zone. So the minimum allowed is 48 decibels no 26 matter what the ambient is and just as bad once such a "compliant" noise generator is situated it 27 becomes the new baseline ambient for the next noise-producing device. We musfhave quiet 28 equipment, effective noise attenuation, and appropriate decibel limit written into the PC that will 29 protect neighbors from the impacts of this project. Thank you. 30 31 Chair Garber: Thank you. Herb Borock followed by Dennis Garcia. 32 33 Mr. Herb Borock, Palo Alto: Good evening Chair Garber and Commissioners. There are at least' 34 three procedural problems that cause violations of the California Environmental Quality Act and 35 the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance, which lead to prejudicial abuses of discretion. 36 37 The first is the Council's action initiating the PC zone change where the discussion between 38 Commissioners and Staff seemed to indicate that it restricted your freedom of action on how 39 much reduction you can make in the office square footage. The Council only placed a ceiling on 40 the amount of office floor area. They did that prior to the time that the environmental assessment 41 was done. They didn't have access to the Mitigated Negative Declaration but you do. It is on 42 the basis of that environmental review that you can further reduce that office floor area. Saying 43 ,that there is some restriction on your freedom of action is a violation of CEQA. 44 45 The second is reversing the order of the process in the Planned Community Zone District 46 regulations. That is a three-step process. The first is initiation, the second is review and 47 recommendation by the Architectural Review Board, and the third is review and 48 recommendation by this Commission. You have been told to do it in the reverse order, step three City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 24 of83 1 before step two. That is a violation of process as well. You should not have to make your 2 recommendation until after you hear what the ARB says. 3 4 The third relates to the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. You have not been provided with the 5 detailed information about that to enable you to make a recommendation on it. The reason for 6 that is related to the second item I mentioned, and that is that information is not going to be 7 prepared until this project goes before the ARB. In the normal PC review process you would 8 hear it after the ARB hearing so you would have that information available to you. 9 10 So for all those reasons this project is at risk. The reason this project needs a PC zone change is 11 that it wants to provide three times as much office floor area as is permitted in the current zone 12 district. The proposed public benefits are not enough to compensate for that increased floor area 13 or for the change in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation. That creates a potentially 14 significant effect that has not been mitigated to date. Thank you. 15 16 Chair Garber: Thank you. Dennis Garcia followed by Robin Kennedy. 17 18 Mr. Dennis Garcia, Palo Alto: Good evening Mayor and Council Members. I just want to 19 express the fact that our family is very enthusiastic about this project. It becomes very difficult 20 in today's competitive world of grocery business to compete in a building that is outdated, and 21 very small, and cramped. If you would see it possible to let this project go on for a zone change 22 so that we may have our grocery store so we could continue our business we would really greatly 23 appreciate it. Thank you. 24 25 Chair Garber: Thank you. Ms. Kennedy you are the last speaker so are you responding to the 26 team and their? 27 28 Ms. Kennedy: I actually wanted to respond to one of the comments that were made. 29 30 Chair Garber: So this would be the applicant's closing comments? 31 32 Ms. Kennedy: Do we have a closing comment? I think it is our closing comment, yes. 33 34 Chair Garber: Okay, there are three minutes. 35 36 Ms. Kennedy: Okay, I don't think I need all of that. I did want to respond toBoh Moss's 37 comment and recommendation. In addition to being a land use attorney I am also a real estate 38 transactional attorney. Over the last 30 years I have participated in financing for probably 200 to 39 300 projects. I can tell you unequivocably that there is no way that you can finance a project 40 with a lender unless you have your leases in place and signed. So the suggestion that a lease 41 wouldn't be signed or that a premises couldn't be occupied would render this project completely 42 un-financeable. So that made me nervous and I just wanted to shar'e that nervousness with you. 43 I concede the rest of my time. 44 45 Mr. Shawn Patrick Smailey: I think there are a few key things to address here. One is to Mr. 46 Martinez directly. I want to personally apologize because we did not provide all of the 47 background and some of the information that we have in the past due to our prior meetings. So 48 we are certainly open to questions and other inquiries that you might have. City oj Palo Alto October 14. 2009 Page 25 oJ83 1 2 Beyond that one of the things that continues to come up and we have discussed in the past, and 3 this is included in some of your materials, is that folks are correct we could build a CN compliant 4 project. That is not what the family was choosing to do. The family was choosing to maintain a 5 60-year relationship with the Garcia family and provide a public benefit that they truly believe in 6 to the city. That is the reason for the PC. We get a Jot of different things thrown around here 7 and that is not the goal of this family. They have been there for 80 years. Their beneficiaries 8 grew up on the site. This has been shared previously but I think it needs to be reiterated. We are 9 not talking about an international conglomerate. We are talking about a family trust that truly 10 believes in this city, cares for the site, and cares for the Garcia family as well as the residents. 11 12 To close I will just go back to what we talked about before. We believe this is a smart project. It 13 is transit oriented, it is smart growth, it makes sense for the future, and it is something that we 14 truly believe you can and should support to move forward to the ARB and the Council. Thank 15 you. 16 17 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Keller, you had a question of the applicant. 18 19 Commissioner Keller: Yes. Could you please put up the chart that was at the beginning with the 20 summary of prior hearings on the College Terrace Center? I was going to ask, there was a 21 question, which was to Ms. Kennedy please. You talked about financing and you were 22 responding to Mr. Moss from the public comments. I recognize that there is a problem in 23 kicking people out in the middle of a lease that you are somewhat liable for that. What I am 24 wondering is the first of his suggestions is that there not be occupancy by an office tenant until 25 the retail store was occupied and operating. Could you talk about that and the degree to which 26 that is problematic? 27 28 Ms. Kennedy: Only in one respect, Mr. Keller and that is the following. The office, since we are 29 not having medical offices, is just going to be plain vanilla offices. Tenant improvements on 30 plain vanilla offices don't take very long. Tenant improvements on a grocery store, from my 31 conversations with John and Dennis, take longer. So if we were ready to open and they needed 32 another month it wouldn't make sense to us to forfeit rent from office tenants for a month or two 33 months while they were finishing their tenant improvements. 34 35 We are certainly committed to having a signed lease and the lease commencement date be the 36 date that the project opens. So no other lease commencement date would be prior to that but 37 actually occupancy might take a couple of more months because of the complexity of the tenant 38 improvements. That would be the only reason that it wouldn't open first. 39 40 Ms. Camma Steinmetz, Menatz: I am another land use attorney on the project. I think that our 41 request on this condition would be that we follow the precedent of Alma Plaza condition. 42 43 Commissioner Keller: I am not sure that is the best precedent for you to want to follow. 44 45 Ms. Steinmetz: I think that legally, and this is something that we have discussed with Staff, is 46 that the condition here is that no building permit shall be approved prior to the submittal of a 47 lease agreement, and that lease agreement requires that occupancy occur within a certain amount City 0/ Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 26 0/83 1 of days after the building pennit is issued. That is a condition that I think we would feel more 2 comfortable with and would obtain the same objectives. 3 4 Commissioner Keller: So let me ask a question about that. 5 6 Chair Garber: Actually, Arthur Commissioner Tuma has a follow up to your question there. 7 8 Vice-Chair Tuma: My understanding was that there was going to be a lease agreement executed 9 prior to approval of the project of the PC not prior to building pennit. 10 11 Ms. Steinmetz: Yes, so that will already be satisfied that portion will either be a lease agreement 12 or it will be a binding agreement to lease and the details of the lease will be worked out. I am 13 not working on that part of it. Maybe Robin can speak to that. 14 15 Ms. Kennedy: There will be a binding agreement between JJ&F and the owner, and perhaps 16 with the City. We haven't yet had an opportunity to converse with the City Attorney as to 17 whether the City wants to be a party to that agreement. If it is a lease the City would not be a 18 party to it. If it is an agreement to lease then the City might well want to be a party to that. We 19 are open to that at the behest of the City Attorney's Office. 20 21 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, but I just want to clarify the timing of all of that would be such that 22 that would be agreed and executed prior to the approval of this action by Council. 23 24 Ms. Kennedy: Exactly, yes. Effective upon approval and we are drafting it now. 25 26 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, great. 27 28 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 29 30 Commissioner Keller: Thank you Vice-Chair Tuma for that interaction. So let me just continue 31 to follow up. So my understanding is that the lease will indicate that the grocery store will be 32 operating within X days of the Certificate of Occupancy being granted on the building. Is that 33 the idea? 34 35 Ms. Steinmetz: Well we have not worked out those details but as far as obtaining the objective 36 of ensuring occupancy of JJ&F we are looking at the Alma Plaza condition, which basically 37 required this lease be in place before building penn it was issued. In our case it will be in place 38 before the PC zoning will even be approved. The requirement is that the lease require occupancy 39 within a certain amount of months after the building pennit is issued. 40 41 Commissioner Keller: Great. So let's suppose that ..... 42 43 Ms. Steinmetz: And that something we would be willing to do. 44 45 Commissioner Keller: Right. So that provides a deadline for operations of the grocery store. 46 City o[ Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 27 0[83 1 Ms. Steinmetz: Right, and per our development schedule that is included in your packet we are 2 looking at a two-year build out for the shell and a one-year for the tenant improvements and 3 occupancy. 4 5 Commissioner Keller: Great. I am going to ask a hypothetical question, which I realize that you 6 are not necessarily prepared to answer. So if you want to think about it for a little while that is 7 okay. It is ~along the lines of what Mr. Moss suggested but actually different. Suppose that what 8 happens is rather than interfering with the occupancy of the office space by the office tenants the 9 penalty for not having an operating grocery store following that date that you have indicated of 10 when the grocery store is supposed operate, or any time in the future for a period of 60 days or 11 whatever we agree on is the right amount of time then the office rent in excess of 12,569 square 12 feet pennitted by CN would be forfeited in favor of the City for whatever purposes the City felt 13 was appropriate. 14 15 Ms. Kennedy: I have to make the same point about the financing. If you have a provision like 16 that I don't think a lender is going to lend money. Their security interest is called a Deed of 17 Trust, Assignment of Rents and Profits. What that means is if we default on our loan the rents 18 and the profits go to the lender not to the City. So again it renders it un-financeable. 19 20 I think we are so committed to this grocery store that in a way to us this seems like angels 21 dancing on the head of a pin. I think we would probably prefer an actual monetary penalty that 22 we had to pay $50.00 a day or something for every day beyond .... In other words, if we are 23 . transitioning tenants there would be an exception. If there were an act of God there would be an 24 exception. If we were at war there would be an exception. If there is going to be a penalty it 25 should be related just within the confines of the grocery store. 26 27 Commissioner Keller: So you do agree that it makes sense to have some sort of reasonable 28 penalty and whatever that number should be is a matter of consideration. 29 30 Ms. Kennedy: Well, my boss here who pays my bill ..... 31 32 Mr. Shawn Patrick Smailey: I would like to make the point that every day we don't get rent we 33 can't go back and get it. That is the penalty. I have had long conversations with some of the 34 folks in the neighborhood and they just don't seem to believe me when I say our incentive is to 35 build a project that will be occupied and benefit the community_ With no occupancy and no 36 income we are sucking wind. 37 38 Commissioner Keller: I recognize that. 39 40 Mr. Patrick Smailey: The penalty will be the vacancy. 41 42 Commissioner Keller: But I do point out that the building will hopefully be here 50 years or 43 longer. The Garcia family is planning to run it for the next 30 years, which is fantastic. Your 44 mortgages and loans will probably be exhausted within 30 years, I presume, your construction 45 loans. Therefore what happens beyond the 30 years of this is something that we have the ability 46 to concern ourselves with and probably there will be another generation of people running the 47 store or running the trust and being lawyers here. So in some sense when I think of thing I 48 always think of a 50-year view. So I am thinking of the last 20 years of the 50-year view. City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 28 of83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ' 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 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 46 47 48 Ms. Kennedy: Well, I think if we impose a deed restriction, which we have agreed to do, which . is similar to the kind of deed restrictions that are put on BMR units as an example. If there is a condition of approval of the project that the only kind of tenant that can occupy that space is a grocery store, and we are as Patrick Smailey just said, stuck with 8,000 square feet and we are not producing any rent. I don't think you need more incentive than that but I what I would say is give us an opportunity to work with the City Attorney's Office on this in a way that doesn't affect our ability to finance the project. We are fully committed and want to work and are open to suggestions that don't kill the project. Commissioner Keller: I appreciate that. I notice that the project that you cite, Alma Plaza, was left vacant for 15 years and the owners of that seem to be perfectly happy with that arrangement. I realize that you are not in that case. In addition, Downtown seems to have a lot of vacancies that people seem to tolerate. Let me switch to a second topic if I may. Chair Garber: Actually, before you do Commissioner Tuma had a follow up. Vice-Chair Tuma: This may be a question for or maybe for the architect. It has to do with timing and the construction process. The hypothetical or the scenario you were talking about with these shells getting built, it sounded like you were talking about that happens in parallel and then the TIs for the grocery store are going to take considerably longer than the TIs for the office. So you could imagine a situation where the office is up and ready to go and the grocery store is not. That sort of presupposes that that is sort of happening in parallel. Isn't there a scenario under which you could focus the construction effort on the grocery store so we can get in a situation where if we had a requirement that said the grocery store needs to be occupied by a tenant prior to, not entering into a lease agreement but occupancy, by the office tenants. Isn't there a scenario under which that would work? Ms. Kelmedy: Just to clarify your question, are you saying that the grocery store would actually be operating or that the lease commencement date would have occurred? . Vice-Chair Tuma: Grocery store would be operating, tenant would be in, and grocery store would be operating as a condition to occupancy of the building by the office. Not entering into a lease agreement, not in any way inhibiting your ability to enter into those agreements, but that the tenants couldn't occupy the office until the tenants were occupying the grocery. If you focused on the construction effort and the TIs for the grocery couldn't that accelerate that so that that could happen first? Ms. Kennedy: I think I can say that we are certainly willing to consider that. We have not talked about it but we are certainly willing to look at it. Just one clarification is that all the tenants including the grocery store are doing their own TIs. We are not doing TIs. We are providing everybody with a shell. So they are all going to have their own subs to do their TIs. So to a certain extent that is out of our control but in principle we are definitely willing to look at that model. City o[ Palo Alto October J 4. 2009 Page 29 0[83 1 Mr. Reich: If I could interrupt for just a second. Just to clarify the current ordinance is written 2 that the grocery store shall be the first tenant to occupy the project. So it is kind of a moot point. 3 It is already in there unless you decide to recommend otherwise. That is stipulated in the 4 ordinance that the grocery store will be the first occupant. 5 6 Vice-Chair Tuma: I recognize that. I understand that but what I am trying to do is avoid a 7 situation where at Council this discussion goes in a different direction because somehow now 8 that is not possible and there are arguing against that. So I understand what you are saying. 9 What I am trying to do is to have a project that if we were to recommend it going forward and 10 the conditions that we put on it and the things that are in the ordinance that we would be 11 recommending are palatable, are workable. So I am trying to work to consensus and I think that 12 is appropriate so that doesn't get derailed. 13 14 Ms. Kennedy: And I appreciate that, we all appreciate that. 15 16 Ms. Steinmetz: I am glad that you are raising that because it is in the ordinance and we have 17 discussed with Staff that we would prefer this other scenario where the condition be that the 18 lease require occupancy within a certain amount of months of the building permit issuance as 19 opposed to first occupancy because of how variable the tenant improvements are and how much 20 longer it would take for the grocery store to be up and running. 21 22 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, thank you. 23 24 Chair Garber: Commissioners, let's close the public hearing. We can open it again if we need 25 to. 26 27 Mr. Shawn Patrick Smailey: Can I quickly just say something? As soon as we get this lease 28 going I will be starting to plan this and get this built. Even though there isn't a hole dug and 29 there isn't a shell this will be in the plan before they have built the shell. So it shouldn't take too 30 long, or it should be done, it will be done quite often at the same time, I assume as this thing is 31 being built. So it shouldn't be that long after it is finally done that the store should be running. 32 33 Chair Garber: Okay, thanks. Commissioners, do you think you can get through reading in five 34 or seven minutes? Ten minutes? We will take a ten-minute break then come back for discussion 35 and a motion. Again, I would like to try and aim for 9:30 we will probably be a little pressed for 36 that, but we will do our best. We will reconvene in ten minutes. 37 38 I believe Commissioner Keller had one more question and then we will get into discussion on the 39 item. Commissioner Keller. 40 41 Commissioner Keller: Thank you, Chair. My question relates to the chart that is up there. It 42 appears that in February I am going to ask one question related to the chart but it is actually 43 broken down into a series of questions, if that is okay. So in the first column that is dated 44 February 13,2008 at one point in time there was a proposal that involved 19,566 square feet of 45 other retail. I assume that is retail besides the grocery store. I am wondering where was that 46 retail and how was it viable? 47 48 Mr. Carrasco: Commissioner Keller, actually it has been so long ago that I don't recall. City of Palo A Ito October /4, 2009 Page 30 of83 1 2 Commissioner Keller: Might that have included retail along College Avenue? 3 4 Mr. Patrick Smailey: I am not sure that I am remembering. I think it was an L-shaped 5 configuration that wrapped the comer at Oxford but it was primarily all ofEI Camino Real. 6 7 Mr. Shawn Patrick Smailey: It was a three-story structure along EI Camino Real, contiguous not 8 broken up that then came back in a wing towards the rear and that is how we were able to fit all 9 of that square footage with the ingress/egress on Staunton Court. 10 11 Commissioner Keller: Right, so where was the L? Was it on Staunton? Was it on College? 12 13 Mr. Shawn Patrick Smailey: Well, we had a portion that somewhat came back. It wasn't a true 14 L, there was a small wing. Originally what we were doing is retaining JJ&F as it stood and we 15 were going to try to fit in. It was obviously determined though when we got folks much smarter 16 than myself to actually look at what that would entail, seismically it was not feasible. 17 18 Commissioner Keller: Okay. Thank you. So do you remember what side street that retail was 19 on? 20 21 Mr. Carrasco: The side street was College. It is the same location as JJ&F was at the present 22 location. But they didn't like that location because they cannot survive, and John can speak to it 23 better than I can. They cannot survive just on the neighborhood walking. They need regional 24 traffic going up and down EI Camino to be visible so the change of location to that more visible 25 comer. 26 27 Commissioner Keller: So JJ&F was on College and they needed the frontage on EI Camino. Is 28 that what you are saying? 29 30 Mr. Shawn Patrick Smailey: Well yes and no. They had the opportunity to expand to the EI 31 Camino Real frontage. The original intention was to continue to provide a subsidized rent to 32 them in their current location. They would become a part of the other building and have the 33 opportunity to move into the EI Camino frontage but they would pay closer to or at market rents 34 for that portion because it is a much more premier spot, as we will call it. Just to clarify, the 35 additional retail was not part of going down College Avenue it was all of the frontage within EI 36 Camino Real, so deep bays with frontage on EI Camino Real. 37 38 Commissioner Keller: So part of the retail that was lost was by putting the driveway on EI 39 Camino that reduced the amount of retail potential. 40 41 Mr. Shawn Patrick Smailey: That would reduce some of it. It was also the request that we not 42 have what was finally coined the monolithic design that folks called the original intention, which 43 was pushing everything up to EI Camino Real. Then it was also the result that Tony was just 44 speaking to and John can certainly elaborate on, retail doesn't work when it is hidden down a 45 street and everyone is flying by EI Camino Real and has no idea you are there. You need to get 46 your attention out towards the street. That is where you visibility is, that is where you can truly 47 flourish, that is your premier spot as we called it earlier. 48 City Page 1 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Looking at the next column you have office space being 2 listed there as 37,439 and it looks like the rest of the parameters of the project are comparable. 3 The same size grocery store, the other retail is within 100 square feet, the BMRs are significantly 4 higher there are 3,600 square feet more, and 1,600 square feet of public meeting space. What I 5 am wondering is if that kind of thing worked why it doesn't make sense to say that we will use 6 that square footage number instead of38,980. 7 8 Mr. Reich: Just to clarify the numbers in the February 13 column and the October 1 column 9 didn't include a number of items that are included in the 39,080 number and the 38,980 number. 10 The applicant can elaborate more but the number that they put in their documents didn't reflect 11 things that we would typically count as floor area in a space. So that is why those numbers are 12 smaller. So they are actually underrepresented as they are included there. 13 14 Mr. Carrasco: I think 'Russ described it accurately. There were elevator shafts and stair shafts 15 and lobbies that were not included in those numbers that are now fully included in the entire 16 floor area that we have. Camma just reminded me that i~ would have been higher in that earlier 1 7 submittal if we had included the shafts and elevators and so on. 18 19 Commissioner Keller: So you are saying that if it had included all of that it would be higher than 20 the 39,980. 21 22 Mr. Carrasco: Yes. 23 24 Commissioner Keller: Okay. Thank you. 25 26 Mr. Shawn Patrick Smailey: Just to add, this is outlined and I apologize I don't know exactly 27 where in the package, but there is a letter in some detail that speaks to this. Then also just an 28 apology on our part we did not put this table together so we don't have immediate answers to all 29 of the details contained in that table. 30 3 1 Commissioner Keller: Well, I appreciate your trying to respond nonetheless. Thank you. 32 33 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Fineberg you had another question. 34 35 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes. Could Staff explain why the Comprehensive Plan zone change is 36 going to mixed use rather than PC? 37 38 Mr. Reich: PC is not a land use designation within the Comprehensive Plan. 39 40 Conunissioner Fineberg: Okay. Can you then piece together, we can comment on the findings 41 for the PC not findings because Council has done that but the elements for the regulations for the 42 PC based 18.38.110. When we are talking about the zone change to mixed use .... 43 44 Mr. Reich: You mean the Comprehensive Plan? 45 46 Commissioner Fineberg: I'm sorry, the Comprehensive Plan designation, thank you, to mixed 47 use is our purview then. I am struggling with how to evaluate consistency with Comprehensive City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 32 of83 1 Plan guidelines when none of those matter because the zoning change is it is going to be a PC so 2 none of those regulations apply. Can you just discuss that a little? 3 4 Mr. Reich: Well, compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan still applies. There are lots, and 5 lots, and lots of goals and policies within the Comprehensive Plan that are applicable. It is for 6 the Commission to decide if they feel that the project is in compliance with those. The project is 7 not in conlpliance with the current Land Use Designation but that is not to say that the project is 8 not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Designation would have to be 9 altered because the proposed project does not fit within that but there is a designation within the 10 Comprehensive Plan, Mixed Use, that the project would comply with and that is why that is 11 proposed to be the one. 12 13 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, I get that part. The part 14 I am struggling with, and forgive me if I am not expressing this eloquently, Municipal Code 15 18.16.060 are the development standards for mixed use. Are we not to look at whether we are 16 consistent with those standards even though that is the change for the Comprehensive Plan zone 1 7 designation, because we are not changing to that zoning. 18 19 Mr. Reich: You are mixing the terms. You would be looking at the Mixed Use Land Use 20 Designation parameter and as to whether the project is meeting those. That has actually been 21 detailed in prior Staff Reports to the Commission that the Land Use Designation of Mixed Use 22 does fit the proposal. Obviously, if you believe it doesn't then you can comment on that as to 23 why you believe it isn't. But you are charged with looking at that as one of the elements of the 24 requested amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation as to whether Mixed 25 Use is appropriate for this project for this location. 26 27 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners, what I would like to do now is for each of to take a 28 turn making comments. If you would attempt to direct your comments to the specific portions of 29 the project that you believe requires potentially conditioning. I don't think we are there yet to 30 understand whether the Commission's voice is aligned on a particular action or not but if you 31 could focus in on the specific issues of the project that you have concerns for, the might be 32 conditioned, or that might be deal breakers for you, etc. That will help us get a sense as to how 33 we can pull a motion together. Commissioner Tuma, you have your light on. 34 35 Vice-Chair Tuma: So my biggest concern since day one about this project has been around the 36 public benefit and a lot of the questions that I have focused on and delved into have dealt with 37 learning more and more about that. Given what' Council Member Klein introduced into this 38 process at their meeting, which was the agreement that would be binding that would be executed 39 prior to the approval, and also given sort of how I have seen or my perception of the relationship 40 develop between the grocery store tenant and the developer I have become considerably more 41 comfortable with the public benefit as is being proposed. I think there are still lots of details to 42 be worked out but I am increasingly confident that not only will we get a grocery store but that 43 we will get JJ&F back. It may not happen. All sorts of things could happen between now and 44 then but I have become convinced that it is truly the best intentions of the applicant as well as the 45 grocery that that happen. Best intentions don't always work out but at some point we have to 46 move forward and try to make that happen. 47 City Page 1 Another concern that I have expressed repeatedly had to do with parking. I am-not thrilled with 2 what is being proposed here by way of parking but I think it is better in light of the fact that we 3 have reduced square footage, reduced number of units, and I am comfortable that this is an area 4 that I frequent, that I go to, the proximity to California A venue and the proximity to transit I am 5 comfortable with the reductions that has asked in terms of parking. So not ideal but I think it is 6 pretty doggone good. One condition that I have not seen, I don't believe, is actually the draft 7 conditions but that has been offered by the applicant is around the shared cars. So I envision that 8 that be an actual condition if we were to move forward. 9 10 I am not thrilled at the idea of it exceeding 50 feet. Not a sword to die on from my perspective. 11 I would like to see if there is some way we could bring that down, if the four feet of interstitial 12 space is really necessary. Are there ways that we could bring that down make it closer to 50 13 feet? It is only at a couple of points, I realize that there is value in that, I don't have complete 14 heartburn over 50 feet but if we could bring that down I think that would be good. 15 16 The one aspect of the project that still does bother.me is the expansion potential. I think that if 1 7 some energy was put into figuring out a way to truly make the expansion potential as seamless as 18 possible so that if it does come to pass that that space is necessary, if thought could be put into 19 the design to make that work, that there is an obvious path to that expansion, whether that is 20 moving the delivery access back to Staunton, I realize that is not ideal from some perspectives, 21 or I don't know. I am not an architect I don't know how to do that but there are people that 22 could figure that out. So I think if some more attention could be paid to making the expansion 23 seamless if it does need to happen. There is certainly some weight being put towards that. 24 25 So I don't think we are at the point of a motion but given what I have seen in the evolution at this 26 point I am supportive of the idea of moving this forward with conditions of some of the things 27 that I have expressed, and I am sure that there will be some other conditions others will suggest 28 that would contribute to that. 29 30 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert and then I will go and then Commissioner Holman. 31 32 Commissioner Lippert: Generally I agree with just about everything that Vice-Chair Tuma has 33 said and I would just like to build on that a little bit more. I did a little number calculation here 34 while the presentation was going on. If we look at the proposal as of today it is really three -the 35 office space represents 310 percent of what we would normally allow in the way of office space. 36 When you add in the retail component as well minus the grocery store we are almost at three and 37 a half percent of what we could currently allow in the way of office space. From the very 38 beginning I always felt that this was very top-heavy in the way of commercial space. The 39 Council didn't quite see it that way. I always thought that for a true mixed use building you 40 really needed to have a mix of commercial and residential, and that the grocery space really 41 represented icing on the cake. That is the part that I am really troubled about, the overwhelming 42 amount of office space that is being proposed here. At a time when we have such a glut of office 43 space do we really need to be building more office space is the question that keeps bothering me. 44 45 When we look at what we need to do in terms of greenhouse gas emission reduction it is really 46 the reduction of office and getting more residential and more mixed use buildings in place that 47 will help us achieve that, and having it near transit is where the density bonuses begin to play in. 48 Now I am just going to sort of put that aside because those are really my aching concerns. City o[ Palo Alto October 14. 2009 Page 34 0[83 1 2 I love the idea of having a grocery store. I love the idea of having BMR units there. I think it is 3 a great sell. I like the idea of having reduction in parking because of its proximity to transit. All 4 in all I think we have to just sort of move forward with this. I agree with Commissioner Tuma in 5 that respect. 6 7 When I look at the overall building configuration and I guess it is the bottom line, it is the 1.14: 1 8 ratio. If I remove from that the grocery component alone, the 8,000 square feet of grocery, we 9 are at a 1: 1 ratio and that is the clincher for me. It is almost 49,000 square feet and we are at 10 50,000 plus or minus. So I can go along with what is being proposed here. Again, I am not 11 really thrilled about the office component but I think it is time to sort of move this thing along. 12 13 I just wanted to make one other comment, which is with a ten percent reduction, if we were to 14 look at a ten percent reduction in terms of the office square footage that would basically bring it 15 down to about 35,000 square feet of office space. I just throw that out there. It is still within the 16 realm of something that is very viable I think in the way of an office building. 17 18 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman. 19 20 Commissioner Holman: Is it possible to still ask a couple of questions of Staff? 21 22 Chair Garber: Sure. 23 24 Commissioner Holman: One thing really jumped out at me and that is on page 5 of the Staff 25 Report and it is in the Ordinance too but I found this first. Under Conditionally permitted uses, 26 second bullet, businesses that operate or have associated activities at any time between the hours 27 of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM such business shall be operated in a manner to protect residential 28 properties, etc. What businesses would operate between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM? 29 30 Mr. Reich: Business such as a restaurant. Not during that whole time but past 10:00 PM. 31 32 Commissioner Holman: Okay, 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM. 33 34 Ms. French: This is taken from our performance standard ordinances for others. It is the donut 35 shop memorial condition. 36 37 Mr. Reich: That is another example, a donut shop. 38 39 Commissioner Holman: There are some landmark instances aren't there? The gazebo, I am 40 going to ask Staff not the applicant, I presume you know. What is the height of the gazebo that it 41 is requiring this height exception? 42 43 Mr. Reich: The gazebo reaches a height of 40 feet, which is five feet over the 35-foot height 44 limit in that part of the proj ect. 45 46 Commissioner Holman: Yes, I am asking what the height is of the gazebo itself. 47 48 Mr. Reich: The height above the roof of the building? City o[Palo Alto October J 4, 2009 Page 35 0[83 1 2 Commissioner Holman: Yes. 3 4 Mr. Reich: I don't know. We only had the height to the peak of the roof. 5 6 Chair Garber: Mr. Carrasco. 7 8 Mr. Carrasco: Ten feet to the midpoint of the roof. 9 10 Commissioner Holman: Thank you for that. 11 12 Chair Garber: That was ten feet? To the peak of the roof, thank you. Midpoint of the roof. 13 Commissioner Fineberg. 14 15 Commissioner Fineberg: Is that the midpoint where it is at its highest or is it higher in a location 16 other than the midpoint? 17 18 Mr. Reich: It is higher at the top. Per the code the height is measured for a sloped roof, gabled 19 or sloped roof like that is measured at the midpoint and not the very peak. 20 21 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman, I apologize, back to you. 22 23 Commissioner Holman: It's okay. If this project gets forwarded to the ARB and I will just state 24 that I don't think the setbacks are DEEs because they involve significant portions of the building 25 because they cover different floors of the building. We would have no access to seeing what 26 those findings are but by putting our names if you will on the PC Ordinance we are saying that 27 we have reviewed this project, and approve it, and bless it, and think it is just peachy keen. But 28 we really will not have seen what the final project is. So there is a bit of an issue there for me. 29 30 To perhaps address that the standard review process is that the ARB look at PC projects and then 31 the Commission look at projects. So could this Commission ask that this come back to us after 32 the ARB, consistent with our standard established process? 33 34 Mr. Reich: Unfortunately I would say no. Unfortunately the Council it was their determination, 35 not at our request, to flip the process-. They didn't explain why but they required that it go to you 36 first unfortunately. Then it goes to ARB and then onto the Council. 37 38 Commissioner Holman: As I read the minutes from the Council Meeting it didn't seem to me 39 that they precluded this coming back to the Planning Commission after the ARB. It just said 40 they wanted it to come to us first. I didn't see any reference to them flip-flopping the process. 41 42 Mr. Reich: I believe in the discussion with Director, Curtis Williams, he specified that it would 43 not be goingback to Planning Commission after this review. 44 45 Commissioner Holman: I think that is why there might be some confusion because at one point 46 in the minutes Mr. Williams said that it would go, if memory serves, would go PTC, ARB, PTC, 47 and then Council. 48 City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 36 of83 1 Mr. Reich: . I don't recall seeing that but if you can point that it would be great. 2 3 Commissioner Holman: I will try to find that. 4 5 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman, Commissioner Keller has a follow up to that. 6 7 Commissioner Keller: Maybe the attorney might want to weigh in but I am wondering if the 8 Council's motion on this said that it should go to the PTC first or should go to the PTC only 9 once, because I am not sure to the extent to which the discussion is controlling on that or whether 10 their intent was because the PTC had rejected to initiate they wanted our input before it went to 11 the ARB but was not necessarily precluding it coming back to us after the ARB as is standard 12 practice. 13 14 Mr. Reich: Again, they didn't give us their reasoning behind it. They just specified that the PTC 15 shall see it before the ARB. 16 17 Commissioner Keller: The wording you said says that we have to see it before the ARB. It 18 doesn't say that we can't see it after the ARB. 19 20 Mr. Reich: They didn't put that stipulation in there but the process wouldn't typically dictate 21 that you would see it multiple times. This is the fourth time before you. 22 23 Commissioner Keller: The process would however have us see it after the ARB. That is a 24 standard practice. 25 26 Mr. Reich: That is typical but Council contradicted that by specifying that you see it before the 27 ARB. 28 29 Ms. Tronquet: We will review it. Unfortunately none of the Staff members who were really at 30 that meeting were available today. There is a dispute over this. It is not clear in the minutes. I 3 1 watched part of the video today and it is not particularly clear although it does indicate that they 32 intended for it to come to you first. When we take the ordinance to Council we can change the 33 finding that Commissioner Holman mentioned to reflect exactly what the Commission approved 34 to make it a little bit nlore accurate if that would help clarify what the Comnlission's action 35 tonight was. 36 37 Chair Garber: Vice-Chair Tuma may have something that would help. 38 39 Vice-Chair Tuma: So I had the pleasure of attending that meeting. I will tell you that this was a 40 particular issue that I focus in on to try to see what the order would be. My very specific 41 recollection was that they changed the order but in no way precluded it from coming back to us. 42 Unfortunately our Planning Director is not here this evening. I have had subsequent 43 conversations with him about the downside to it not coming back to us. I don't want to put 44 words in his mouth, but my point of view was that it could create the very problem that we are 45 talking about now. It could create a problem where if there is something that the Architectural 46 Review Board proposes that we, the Planning Commission, felt would be inconsistent with what 47 we had recommended then that puts Council in a bit ofa quandary. We have recommended one 48 thing, the ARB has something else, and what project the applicant chooses to put in front of the City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 37 of83 1 ARB mayor may not take into account any recommendations that we have made. So to be 2 honest with you I think it makes quite a bit of sense that it come back to us. Now maybe we can 3 talk about how it comes back us. Maybe it comes back to us on Consent or some other 4 mechanism like that. If there is a problem in reading the documentation that it appears to us that 5 there is a substantial change to what we had recommended then we could pull it off of Consent 6 and deal with the narrow issues that are raised by inconsistencies. To me that seems like a fairly 7 logical process to go through and I don't think is in any way inconsistent with Council's 8 direction. Council's direction merely was to flip the order but nothing in the discussions that I 9 remember seeing or hearing precluded it from then coming back to us, and I think it makes an 10 awful lot of sense. 11 12 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman you still have the floor. Commissioner Keller has 13 something he might like to add. 14 15 Commissioner Keller: Yes, the way I would put is rather than the order being flipped that the 16 PTC review was inserted before the ARB review as the direction of the Council. 17 18 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman. 19 20 Commissioner Holman: Yes, I am still probably satisfied on that end of the discussion, that 21 piece of the discussion. I am finding myself challenged to see the quid pro quo, if you will, for 22 the grocery and the anlount of square footage that is being proposed here. The agreement that is 23 referenced by the Council Members is a private agreement. I am pretty convinced that the 24 applicant and the grocery store owner are well intentioned but I have forgotten what the saying is 25 about something built on good intentions, but there is no assurance for the community. This is 26 as, Commissioner Lippert mentioned, it is multiple times over what office space would be 27 allowed. So I am not convinced of the assurance of the need for this much square footage. 28 29 There are some things that are right about this, such things as the BMR units being separated 30 from, to a degree, from the trash and deliveries system. There are separate buildings not just one 31 big monolithic building. There are some things that are good about it like this. 32 33 There are other things that I am going to want'to see incorporated in this, which by the way, this 34 has come to us now, this is the fourth time. But I have to say that it has come to us this many 35 times because the applicant was not responsive to Commissioner's comments. When it came 36 back to us we essentially had the same project with very little differentiation. So I don't than 37 onus is on the Commission. 38 39 Does Staff have any comments about --it is not added as a condition of approval that I read, the 40 addition of the median trees per Susan Rosenberg's request and per prior meeting when Staff 41 said that could be a condition of approval? 42 43 Ms. French: This was in the response provided at places. We have done this is past instances, 44 the Sunrise Planned Community there was a condition for the applicant, actually it wasn't a 45 condition it was a public benefit that was offered by the applicant to pay for the cost of trees, put 46 money in a fund for the cost of trees, and eventually that would get used to plant the trees. So 47 that is an example. That is I think in my response to your question. 48 City 0/ Palo Alto October J 4, 2009 Page 38 0/83 1 Ms. Caporgno: I just want to add one thing. We can't condition it to require that median 2 planting because El Camino is not a City facility. We would have to go through Caltrans. So I 3 think the intent is to provide money and then we would work with Caltrans to eventually 4 implement it. 5 6 Commissioner Holman: I had understood last time that there was a nexus. So the nexus for the 7 contribution of funds. Okay. 8 9 I have a number of points here. There are some specific things that maybe I will just wait until 10 there is a motion. You all have heard me mention before that I think there is an absolute 11 necessity for private open space for residential units for instance. I would like to see that all 12 tenants on the site, whether it is BMR unit tenants or retail or office tenants, that they all have 13 access to the vegetated roof. One of the things that is missing here that is very important to me 14 and to the neighborhood, and actually I hear the Architectural Review Board comment on this 15 quite frequently is that there is no context provided. There are no illustrations, no photos, and no 16 drawings that show what the context of this proj ect is. That is really important. One of our 17 requirements and one of the ARB's requirements but one of ours too in approving PC projects is 18 they have to be compatible projects. It is part of the ordinance. 19 20 I have another question for the Staff. One of my questions had to do with the inspections. The 21 zoning code, the PC Ordinance had a requirement for inspections for PC projects every three 22 years. Can anybody tell me when the last inspection was? I don't know that there has been one. 23 So is there any problem with putting a frequency in this ordinance for when the inspections will 24 be conducted? My understanding is too that those inspections are always done at the City's 25 expense and can we deviate from that in specific ordinances? It is one of the failings of our PC 26 ordinance. 27 28 Ms. French: Well currently Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.38.160 does set forth the inspections at 29 least once every three years, so whether or not we are following that that's a discussion for 30 another time. That code does not require the applicant to pay those inspection fees but we do 31 have penalties for code violations already established in the City's Administrative Penalties 32 Schedule. So if there is a desire to amend that section of Palo Alto Municipal Code with respect 33 to that I guess that is a discussion that could happen. 34 35 Commissioner Holman: I guess my question is could we state an inspection schedule in this 36 ordinance so that there is clarity and so there is a record that is perhaps more clear since the other 37 seems to get lost? 38 39 Ms. Tronquet: For this it needs to be consistent with the PC Ordinance. So we could restate 40 what is in the ordinance in terms of inspection every three years in this PC Ordinance. 41 42 Commissioner Holman: Obviously we can't deviate from that one would presume. 43 44 Ms. Tronquet: Right. 45 46 Commissioner Holman: But there is no harm in stating it here. 47 48 Ms. Tronquet: Sure. City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 39 of83 1 2 Commissioner Holman: Okay. I have some other comments but I think I am going to cede the 3 floor other people to comment. I will have a motion when we are ready for that. 4 5 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg was next but I thought if I may I might go first. In 6 general, I am in agreement with many of Vice-Chair Tuma's comments. My particular interest 7 in this project is how it supports the community in the larger sense, the larger planning sorts of 8 issues there. I have a variety of concerns that I have heard some of the other Commissioners 9 state with, the heights and the setbacks, those issues, the expansion space, the amount of the 10 office space. 11 12 There was a great learning, perhaps more than one, with Alma Plaza but the recognition that one 13 of the key aspects that makes projects such as this and that is the relationship between an outdoor 14 space and the project itself such that the community and the immediate neighborhood can 15 understand and see the space,that they can occupy, they can own. That in large part has to do 16 with how a community recognizes it as being a community center. Thinking about that and 17 thinking about the architect's sort of open query to us about what to do with the garden space. 18 What to do with that and to emphasize that and to help the community have a way to identify and 19 recognize the role that it plays there is to activate that space through a connection to the grocery 20 store, such that when you get your cup of coffee you go sit in the garden, and you have that sort 21 of use/utility for it. 22 23 The 1,000 square feet 'that was taken out of office rather than adding it to essentially the width of 24 the sidewalk on Staunton Court I would have found much more utility in that if that could have 25 found its way to the outdoor garden space itself. That would mean presumably a slight shifting 26 of the mass and a slight reorientation of where the parking is. It would slide more towards 27 College Avenue presumably but it may give you greater utility out of what that space is, and in 28 particular syncs up with the comments that Commissioner Martinez had suggested to you that to 29 find a better way of utilizing the interior of your project such that you have a sense of the center 30 of it, the centeredness of it. 31 32 Those design topics but what they really get to is the utility that this plays not only for the 33 neighborhood or I should say the utility that the neighborhood can find in this building, so that it 34 is just not the back of the building but it really becomes an active part that relates to the 35 immediate neighborhood and the scale of that neighborhood that is on the backside of the 36 project. I am going to leave my comments there for the moment. We will go to Fineberg, 37 Martinez, and Keller, and then let's get to a motion. Commissioner Fineberg. 38 39 Commissioner Fineberg: In my mind this project is very similar to the project that came before 40 the Planning Commission in our last review. It has lost 1,000 feet of office space and four BMR 41 units. Not a significant change. Yes, that is smaller but relative to the scope and scale of the 42 project not a material change. At the previous review we were as a body concerned with the 43 density of the development, its height relative to the neighborhood, and the zoning and 44 Comprehensive Plan, the amount of office space relative to housing or retail in a mixed use 45 development, an inadequacy of parking, and inadequacy of public benefits. So we have seen 46 1,000 feet of office space go and we have lost half of the BMR units. So I still feel the same way 47 that there aren't adequate public benefits, the scale and intensity is too great. 48 City of Palo Alto October J 4, 2009 Page 400f83 1 The good part is if this manages to retain JJ&F the public benefit to the neighborhood of keeping 2 a beloved family institution is huge. But that is the best part I can point to. I am concerned that , 3 the potential and the reality of the expansion spaces seem not to coincide. Something that would 4 be viable 50 to 60 years isn't something that has legs now. The 50 foot height limit is something 5 that is within our Municipal'Code 18.38.110. In Site Development Regulations, Section Cit 6 says in no event shall the maximum height exceed 50 feet except as provided in Chapter 18.76. I 7 am stuck on this one. The only reason that this project has to exceed the 50 feet is because the 8 requirement for the nUlTlber of floors puts the height tall enough that those roof accessory 9 structures have to pierce the limit. I understand it is small piercing but it is a piercing 10 nevertheless. There are ways the building could be redesigned that wouldn't require it but it 11 would be a smaller building. So the question is does our height limit mean anything? If it 12 doesn't, let's get rid of it. If the public and Council are not getting rid of the height limit then 13 let's adhere to it and there is a reason it is there. Saying it is only for a pagoda or an elevator 14 shaft or sign it is still piercing the limit. So that causes me great concern. 15 16 I am inclined to see the excess office space in a mixed use'project as being detrimental to the 17 public health and well-being. It does not create a mixed use project, which reduces traffic or 18 trips. It acts as a regional hub to get car trips, people to go drive to those offices, and it is going 19 to require additional residential development to house those new jobs that are created. I am 20 concerned that, and would love to see if this goes forward, that there be some condition, there 21 has been some discussion, but some condition that there be a penalty for noncompliance if the 22 grocery store doesn't come to be. The economics of the situation while I know the applicants 23 fully intend and desires to have a grocery in there there may be economic incentives to just 24 leaving this site empty versus ..... 25 26 Chair Garber: Commissioner, forgive me, the Council who is behind us are not actually here to 27 oversee what we are doing but actually procedurally need to complete their meeting. So we will 28 take a quick break here for the Council to adjourn their meeting. We will be back in about two 29 minutes. 30 31 Commissioner Fineberg: So in the Municipal Code, I keep referring to it, Section 18.38.110 it 32 talks about action by the Commission on the basis of evidence and testimony and the PTC should 33 determine if the public interest will be served. Maybe somebody can convince me otherwise but 34 I don't see how the public interest is served by having a PC with a project that is so heavily 35 loaded with office space when another project could be built on the site that has no constraints, 36 no physical constraints, and the public benefit that we are getting, the retention of a grocery store 37 and four BMRs simply doesn't weigh in that balance for me. I was also talking about if there 38 could be I don't know if that time included our little recess but I will wrap up with I don't 39 know how if this does get approved if we could have conditions or some better penalty for 40 noncompliance. We see other projects where there are no inspections or where there are 41 conditions of approval placed by the ARB and where occupancy permits are granted. If the 42 burden is a $50.00 a day payment or some Staff member has to call on a dally basis that is 43 simply not something that is going to get a private party to act. So I am not sure what we could 44 do but I think there needs to be something other than just there shall be a signed lease because 45 that doesn't deliver any assurance of there being an operating grocery store. That's it. 46 47 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Keller. I apologize, Commissioner Martinez. 48 City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 41 0[83 1 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. I would like to sort of go back to the urban design aspects 2 of the proj ect and sort of use that couch how I sort of see it. Starting with El Camino Real I 3 wanted to just touch on the idea of the canopy of trees. I agree that the trees would be an 4 important aspect of El Camino Real but I would rather see it more part of a comprehensive urban 5 design plan led by the City rather than piecemealed by each development along the way. As you 6 drive El Camino Real right now you will see that kind of inc.onsistency, sort of lack of 7 inspiration of some blocks will have trees, some will have trees that are not doing well, some that 8 are ready to be taken out. I would rather have us visualize a plan that really sort of works for all 9 of El Camino Real. So I would look forward to that but not as part of this development. 10 11 Also along El Camino Real I think what we are getting in terms of the street frontage is 12 something pretty good. Better than the 75 percent urban wall as we talked about before, which I 13 believe should be revisited sometime. An active street frontage with people buying tomatoes and 14 onions and filling the space and not just empty cafe tables along a storefront. This could be quite 15 an exciting place to be, definitely something more special than sort of what we have seen in other 16 recent developments. I think as we go around the development we get this series of small 17 setbacks, and the building moving closer to the street, and taken in its totality on College or 18 Staunton or Oxford the setback as a setback of five feet or ten feet tends to mean less. It is really 19 this dynamic movement and things happening, the bike racks, the planting, the building moving 20 closer to the edge, the street trees that the idea that we should hold to a setback along this street 21 edge I think becomes less important. Because there are other things like soft comers with the 22 small parks, and the walkways, and the little plaza areas at each edge and a major one on El 23 Camino with the outdoor produce area these really say something about setbacks that are more 24 important than the conventional ten feet or 25 feet, and I think make this project interesting. 25 26 I am not that happy with the idea that we are reducing the BMR units from 14 to eight, but I 27 accept that that is something of a Council directive. I think the site could have worked well with 28 the 14, and 14 is a good number of residential units to sort of be on that site. 29 30 I am pleased with the plaza, the park area, on the comer. I am not sure what is going to happen 31 in ten or 20 years when the developer wants to expand the market and the neighborhood is here 32 protesting, we don't want to lose our urban space. We don't want to lose the place where we 33 have been drinking coffee for 20 years. So that is a fight that I am going to let you fight in the 34 future. It is to be a pleasant space. It is an interesting comer. It is opposite to modest single- . 35 family units and it seems like it is in the perfect location to serve not just the supermarket but 36 also serve the neighborhood. 37 38 Regarding the height I agree that the 50-foot height limit means something. It means that we 39 should pay attention to when a developer wants to build six stories, seven stories, wants to really 40 ignore the fact that we are trying to establish a limit. When we have two towers that are interior 41 to a project it is not quite the same thing. It is intelligently proposed as a way to provide energy 42 savings, which I think we should look at each opportunity to do that, and it actually to me the 43 verticality of it is kind of one of the more interesting design aspects of the project. So again with 44 that violation of the ordinance I think we need to look at it in a more progressive and broader 45 way that it is really purposeful. It is not a developer's greed. It is not ignorance of our building 46 regulations. It has a purpose and the purpose of serving this rooftop garden is also something 47 that the developer is not required to do but providing an amenity to shoppers and the 48 neighborhood I think is something that makes it worth considering. City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 42 of83 1 2 Regarding parking I think the idea that a developer would propose to excavate 25 feet of an 3 entire site to dispose of parking on grade, parking lots, and visual sort of negative aspects of 4 most large scale development is quite laudable. I think we should take to heart their intention to 5 build a quality project on this site. I would ask them to not take for granted the fact that we are 6 in a transit significant area. It does not always work that people won't drive because there is a 7 Caltrain half a mile away, or they won't drive because there are five bus stops in the 8 neighborhood. I think we have to measure that in a way that says let's err" on the side of caution. 9 If there is a way to increase parking below grade by another 10 percent, 20 more spaces, I think 10 that would provide not only the cushion for the present but a cushion for that future expansion of 11 the market that I don't think has yet been addressed. 12 13 There is one thing that a member of the public asked for and I think we should ask that there be 14 some limit on the noise proliferation of the project from mechanical units, from rooftop units, 15 from things that we know can go badly, ifnot at first over a period of five or ten years. I would 16 like to include that in our approval. Thank you. 17 18 Chair Garber: Thank you. All right Commissioners, I think we are very close here to a motion 19 but there are two topics that I think require -did I forget you? Commissioner Keller. 20 21 Commissioner Keller: First let me say that I am quite pleased that we have a project that allows 22 for the continuation of JJ&F. I do believe the intent of the developer, of the property owner, of 23 the architect, of the grocery store to have an occupancy of JJ&F in this location. Although I 24 don't necessarily agree with his politics I agree with the saying by President Reagan, trust but 25 verify. I think that means that there should be a significant penalty per day of grocery store not 26 being there at a certain point. We can figure out the parameters but considering that the rent 27 being collected for the justification of the grocery store subsidy is according to this $116,000 a 28 month and the grocery store is $18,000 a month. Losing the grocery store revenue is not that 29 significant compared to loss of the revenue from the office. Therefore it seems to me something 30 on the range of four figures, $1,000 or more, a day makes more sense. That is the benefit we are 31 trying to get there. Obviously there need to be some sort of parameters that say that if the 32 grocery store fails to occupy you get a period of time for getting a new tenant and getting them in 33 there, reasonable parameters for that, but that is the kind of thing that makes sense to me. 34 35 I understand the interest of the owner of the property from not encumbering the property by 36 having residential condominiums. If 50 percent of the FAR was used for residential 37 condominiums that would pay for the cost of the development and subsidize the grocery store in 38 some way we wouldn't have as much problem here because in some sense that would be within 39 the zoning. So in some sense the massing does represent that. 40 41 I am in favor with the idea that office space near transit is more promoting of transit use than 42 housing near transit. Statistics from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission are that office 43 space within a half of a mile or a quarter of a mile of transit is twice as transit inducing as 44 residential space within a half a mile or a quarter of mile correspondingly of transit. That data is 45 because you can get from your home to your transit by driving or whatever but once you get to 46 the side where your job is you don't have your car. So the limitation there is much more severe. 47 City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 43 of83 1 So going through the other issues I think it would be helpful to have an expansion potential 2 drawing or plan just showing how that would work for this. I think that the ARB should 3 consider whether the interstitial space between the first and second floor, and between the second 4 and third floor can be shrunk. I think the ARB should consider whether access to the green area 5 should be from the three-story building going over the part to the two-story building to avoid the 6 need for the gazebo. I can understand how the elevator and the gazebo might be considered 7 DEEs but I can't consider how the setbacks are considered DEE setbacks or Variances. That is 8 justification enough for having this come back to us for us to consider the Variances if those 9 designs are not changed, and justification of those Variances because we are not approving 10 Variances and setbacks are not DEEs. I think that there needs to be some follow up in terms of 11 the Transportation Demand Management and that is particularly why it is leverage for office 12 space, for jobs, to force them to use transit is because you have the TDM requirement onjob 13 producing things but you don't have the TDM on residential producing things. I want to say that 14 I think it makes sense to have funding for the median trees that will enhance the look of the 15 property on that block, and that of course the installation of those median trees be done in 16 conjunction with a project that involves Caltrans and is a larger project. In addition, I am not 17 quite convinced of the need for exactly that amount of office space. What is interesting, the 18 thing that has come to my idea is that one thing that might make sense for putting around the side 19 on College Avenue, which would actually fit very well with drawing people down College 20 Avenue and revitalizing that as a retail space and enhancing common ground as perhaps putting 21 a restaurant on there with tables in the open space that has been created along Staunton Court. 22 That is something to consider. The reduced BMRs, I think I may have suggested that last time in 23 conjunction with having a park there, or in conjunction with having the grocery expansion there. 24 I think it is great that in the interim it is being used as a park if that expansion is not needed or 25 until that expansion is needed. I am quite sympathetic with the idea mentioned by Commissioner 26 Martinez of noise. If that requires the parapets be raised slightly I think the City code sort of 27 allows parapets that hid noise-producing things to exceed the 40 foot height limit. So I think that 28 is part of the code. I think that hopefully this will come back before us so that we can deal with 29 the setback and the Variance issue. I look forward to a successful project being built with happy 30 neighbors. 31 32 Chair Garber: Okay. Commissioners, I think we are very close but I think there are two topics 33 that we need a little bit more discussion on. The first is this concern a number of the 34 Commissioners have of returning the project to the Commission. Julie. 35 36 Ms. Caporgno: I did find in the minutes the discussion. It will probably take two minutes to go 37 through this. On page 41 it starts out with Council Member Burt stated that zone change could 38 in itself allow potential changes, although under the Staff proposal it would not return to the PTC 39 so any use and intensity would not be reviewed again. Mr. Williams stated no, the process 40 would begin again with any changes. He stated the changes would be reviewed by the PTC, the 41 ARB, and the Council. Council Member Burt asked for clarification on the sequence of the ARB 42 reviewing the design review then to the PTC to review the intensity and use changes after it had 43 gone through extensive design review. Mr. Williams stated the code called for that sequence of 44 action in a Planned Community (PC) zone change. 45 46 Then again on page 43 the discussion is resumed. Council Member Espinoza asked for 47 clarification on Staff s concerns of the process of returning the project to the PTC, the ARB, and 48 then returning to Council. Mr. Williams stated the ordinance specified the order of review and City Page 44 0/83 1 although there were no substantive concerns he wanted to verify with the City Attorney the order 2 of review would not become a concern. Mr. Baum stated he reviewed the Planned Community 3 Ordinance and found there was adequate. flexibility should the Council make a specific direction 4 to alter the order of review. 5 6 So I think then the motion included that statement of going to PTC, then to ARB, so I think that 7 is what was being done at the time. Now, what I would suggest if the Planning Commission still 8 has concerns we can confer after the meeting with the City Attorney to find out if in fact it can 9 come back to you. If this was the direction to just restrict it to this order. But 1 would like to, if lOwe are going to come back to you we can continue this item to a date specific so they don't have 11 to re-notice again. Does that make sense? So we could do it after the ARB meeting and if it 12 came back to you maybe you could do it on Consent like you suggested. But somehow if we 13 have to re-notice after ARB I know that the applicants would like to get to this Council since this 14 Council has discussed this item, so since we are getting so close to the end of the year that is my 15 suggestion. If you elect to give us some time to further discuss with the City Attorney that you 16 continue it at least to a date certain. 17 18 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman, thoughts? 19 20 Commissioner Holman: Yes, I have thoughts. I would want to see this again whether it was 21 Consent or in whatever fashion. I also have some concerns about the project as proposed, and 22 experience in the past for when we make recommendations to the ARB those changes just don't 23 really much get addressed. I feel like I am a little bit stuck here on how to best do that. 24 25 Chair Garber: Relative to Staff s suggestion about continuing the item to a date certain. 26 27 Commissioner Holman: Yes, but that is continuing it to a date certain after ARB. 28 29 Chair Garber: Yes, that is what I meant. That was your proposal, yes? 30 31 Commissioner Holman: Let me just play out a scenario here. So what would happen if we had 32 recommendations that we wanted to see changed in the project or things we wanted to see be 33 addressed, and the project goes to the ARB and those are not addressed. Then it comes back to 34 the Planning Commission. How would Staff see that playing out? 35 36 Ms. Caporgno: Well, I think that I had heard the Commission previously indicate that they 37 would like to discuss the project after it went to ARB. However, if in fact you wanted to 38 continue this item to allow the applicant to further discuss some of the issues that you have 39 raised we could do that prior to the ARB meeting but then I don't think we would support going 40 back to the Commission again after the ARB. So we could continue this item to either October 41 28, which is a week before the ARB meeting and you could discuss it further with the applicant, 42 and that wouldn't affect the schedule. Or we could continue it to sometime in November after 43 the ARB meeting and you would have the benefit of the ARB comments. So those are the two 44 suggested processes that I could come up with. Melissa, I don't know if you want to weight in 45 on that. We also could further discuss this with the City Attorney to find out if there is the 46 flexibility for coming back to the Planning Commission again based on a Council motion. This 47 way, if we have a continued date that would at least facilitate that occurring if we can come back. 48 City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 45 of83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg you have a question? Commissioner Fineberg: What happens if we continue to a date certain after the ARB hearing, which would affect what recommendations we would make and what our conclusions might be tonight. What happens if the City Attorney's Office then says PTC doesn't get it again after the ARB? Ms. French: I am just going to jump in on the ARB because we are very much involved with that. The ARB has not seen this project so getting out of the ARB in one meeting is highly unlikely. So that meeting, which is meeting looking at November 5 I would say is highly likely to go another couple of weeks if not more than that to conclude their review of it. Ms. Tronguet: What would happen if this didn't come back to you is we would still forward all of your comments, changes, suggested changes, recommendations along with all of the ARB's suggestions to the Council. The Council would make a decision based on the recommendations of both Boards. So they will get your comments either way. Ms. Caporgno: I think one of the questions is from a legal standpoint is if we continue the item and then we can't hear it what would be the process then. Ifwe continued it tonight to October 28 let's say, and we talk to the City Attorney and he says that the Council direction was very clear that -well, I guess that wouldn't make any difference because this is before the ARB. If we continued it to after the ARB and the City Attorney said that the Council motion was clear, the order of events was Planning Commission, ARB ..... Ms. Tronquet: If you continue it tonight though you are continuing it based on some decision make that you need to continue it and you need additional time or whatever, the applicant needs additional time to evaluate things. So you would still have the ability to evaluate or look at this again, what you are considering tonight, at the next meeting. I am just not sure it would probably just be that we wouldn't bring all of the issues that the ARB raised if that is the case. So you could continue your discussion, we would just continue it without the ARB issues if that is the case. Chair Garber: I have a couple of lights, forgive me for interrupting. Commissioner Tuma and then Keller. 36 Vice-Chair Tuma: The essence of what we are talking about isn't so we can chat some more it is 37 because we want to look at what the ARB says. That is what this discussion is about. This 38 notion that one person is going to glean what the direction was here to me is false. There wasn't 39 a clear direction given at that meeting as to whether this could come back or not. The only 40 direction that was given was to change the order. So what you are going to be asking the City 41 Attorney to do is to somehow come up a conclusion. There wasn't a conclusive discussion. 42 There was a changing of the order but there wasn't anything that precluded it from coming back 43 . to us. So we have the Assistant City Attorney here tonight. If somehow there is this clarity that 44 it was precluded from coming back to us then let's hear that, let's talk about that, but there 45 wasn't anything in the record that precluded it from coming back to us. So we don't want to 46 continue it so we can just have more discussion. We don't want to continue it so we see -we 47 want to continue it because we want to understand what if anything the ARB is going to do that 48 is inconsistent with the recommendation that we have made. City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 46 of83 1 2 Also, if we make a recommendation for a substantive change that the applicant chooses not to 3 make when they go to the ARB then where are we? We are with a project that has a 4 recommendation that we have made that hasn't been followed but the ARB is looking at a 5 project that we have not recommended go forward. 6 7 Ms. Tronquet: In that case everything would go to Council and the Council would decide. It all 8 ends up with the Council in one bundle no matter whether it comes back to you or not. 9 10 Vice-Chair Tuma: But the very reason that our ordinance normally has it the other way around 11 is so that if there are changes that ARB recommends that affect the use and intensity, the things 12 that are within our purview, we have the opportunity to comment on those. 13 14 Mr. Reich: If there are items that affect use and intensity we would bring it back to Commission. 15 We talked about that earlier. 16 17 Vice-Chair Tuma: Or whether something is a DEE or a Variance because Variances are within 18 our purview. 19 20 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 21 22 Commissioner Keller: So two things. First thing is that the PC Ordinance requires that after a 23 PC Ordinance goes to the ARB then it goes to the PTC. Are you saying that is not what the 24 standard PC Ordinance requires? 25 26 Mr. Reich: As was read back by Julie Caporgno their discussion with the City Attorney was that 27 it didn't have to follow that order. The Council had the authority to switch it. 28 29 Commissioner Keller: I am referring to the standard PC Ordinance, not this particular initiation. 30 31 Ms. French: Yes, the standard ordinance is Planning Commission first to initiate it, then ARB, 32 then Planning Commission to look at the ordinance itself. 33 34 Commissioner Keller: That's right. So what happened is that typically the ordinance goes to 35 the ARB and then to the Planning Commission and then to the Council. What happened here is 36 that the Council initiated the PC Ordinance for this particular PC. Okay? It is not clear, and I 37 am not a lawyer, but it is not clear to me whether in the process of initiating a PC Ordinance the 38 Council can cause the valuation of that PC Ordinance not to follow our standard PC practice. 39 What it can do is it can say that there is an additional review. It can insert into the process 40 additional steps but not delete steps as far as I can tell. That is the first thing. 41 42 The second thing is that the question of the DEE versus a Variance for setback. I do not believe 43 that setbacks are DEE type things and that if a Variance is required we haven't been given 44 findings for a Variance for the setbacks. 45 46 Ms. French: We, Staff, have looked at this and we believe that a Design Enhancement Exception 47 is appropriate. In fact, the applicability portion of Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.76 has setbacks City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 47 of83 1 as one of the applicable features for a Design Enhancement Exception. Just a point of 2 clarification. I 3 4 Chair Garber: I need to interrupt just briefly. Procedurally we are just past ten and the question 5 is will we get to our second item here? I suspect that the answer is no. I would suggest that the 6 Commissioners let me query you to say that we push off item number two to a date certain, 7 which would be next week when that would then bump the Annual Report to Council to the 8 following week. Do I see any? I think we are agreed with that. Do we need a motion on that, to 9 move item number two to a date certain of next week? 10 11 Other Items; 12 2. Review and discussion 'of major themes and vision statements of the adopted 13 Comprehensive Plan. 14 15 MOTION 16 17 Commissioner Lippert: So moved. 18 19 SECOND 20 21 Chair Garber: Thank you. I will second. 22 23 MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0) 24 25 All those in favor? (ayes) All those opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you. 26 Commissioner Holman. 27 28 Commissioner Holman: Just one quick question though. Can we keep Annual Report to Council 29 on that meeting should we get to it as opposed to automatically just bouncing it forward? 30 31 Chair Garber: Sure. 32 33 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. 34 35 Chair Garber: So let me see, I interrupted. 36 37 Ms. Tronguet: So the City Attorney did determine at the Council Meeting that there was 38 adequate flexibility for the Council to make a specific direction to alter the order of review. The 39 motion was to have it go to the PTC before ARB. There was no reason to make the motion if 40 they weren't making a change. So I can't conceive of why they would have made the motion if 41 they weren't making such a change. 42 43 Chair Garber: There is nothing in that language that would exclude us from making a 44 recommendation that it comes back to us however, or making that return to us a condition of the 45 motion that we might make on this item. Would it? 46 47 Commissioner Keller: They did change the order. They inserted the PTC prior to the ARB, 48 which was not the standard thing. City Page 1 2 Ms. Tronquet: I don't know that they inserted it. They said that it should go to the PTC first. 3 That language was not that specific so I don't know what they did. 4 5 Chair Garber: Let's see if we can find a way through this. 6 7 Ms. Tronguet: If you want it to come back to you .... 8 9 Chair Garber: We should just condition the action to do that. 10 11 Ms. Tronquet: That's fine but I think you get to the same end point if you make your 12 recommendations, the ARB makes their recommendations, and all of them go to Council 13 together. Otherwise this is a never-ending process. 14 15 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert had his light on and then Fineberg. 16 17 Commissioner Lippert: Thank you. I don't want to divine what Council intended here but we 18 are not looking at a loaf of bread here where you canjust simply slice off pieces of it. They 19 wanted the maximum floor area not to exceed 61,000 square feet. So really it is within our 20 purview here to really get the building mass down to something that the ARB can review. So I 21 believe that that might be the intent here as to why the Council wants us to look at this. 22 23 Without getting it down in terms of its mass the ARB can do review all it wants but the truth is 24 that is not going to meet requirements of what the Council is looking for here. So in relationship 25 to those five points that they made that we are making our review and findings. We deal with 26 use and zoning. ARB deals with quality and character issues. Without getting those use and 27 zoning issues settled the ARB has nothing to review. 28 29 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman. 30 31 Commissioner Holman: I am sorry if this is beating the dog but I think there is a difference and 32 it is a distinct and I think important difference whether there is an additional step added that 33 doesn't significantly alter the intention of the ordinance. If with due respect to the City Attorney 34 if what he was saying that those two, and I am not sure that is what he was saying, was that these 35 two could be flipped and that's it period. That is the only review that would happen. Then the 36 Council was without proper notification changing the ordinance. I don't think that is in the 37 purview that City Council I mean you can't do that is my perspective. You can't on an ad hoc, 38 one-time basis change the ordinance. So to me -and it is important. I may seem like to the 39 public that we are hammering on something but it is very, very important because our 40 recommendations from this point may be hinging very significantly on whether this will come 41 back to us or not. So we are not splitting hairs this is a critical point. 42 43 Chair Garber: So I am not exactly sure how to get through this particular topic here. I do want 44 to get, it is ten minutes after 10:00 here, and before 11 :00 I want to get to various 45 recommendations that Commissioners have that could condition an approval with conditions. 46 Sure, go right ahead Commissioner Keller. 47 City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 49 of83 1 Commissioner Keller: My understanding of what you said, it goes to the PTC prior to the ARB 2 is that we have to act on it prior to the ARB. So I do not believe that it is available for us to 3 continue it until after the ARB meets because then we would not give the ARB the direction that 4 the Council wants. So the issue is that unless we could make a motion that passes and then 5 continue it I am not sure that we can continue an item after we make motions on it that are 6 actually enacted, but that is a different story. That actually passed. But the thing is that it is 7 certainly reasonable, and I think Commissioner Holman's comments are quite appropriate. What 8 the City Council did is initiate the PC Ordinance with conditions. Among those conditions are 9 that it go to the PTC first that in and of itself is not amending the PC Ordinance in order to allow 10 for a reversal of the steps in there. You can insert additional steps of review but the PC 11 Ordinance as far as I understand is clear that it goes to the PTC after the ARB has made its 12 recommendation. 13 14 Ms. Tronquet: I talked to six different people about this this afternoon, read the minutes, and 15 watched the video, and I don't think it is particularly clear exactly what the Council intended. I 16 think it is an unusual motion. Probably the fairest and most reasonable thing to do in this case is 17 to simply add this PTC review as a step, send it to the ARB, and follow the normal process after 18 this. I don't know that we will gain any clarity if we try to figure it out because it seems like 19 everyone has different positions. 20 21 Chair Garber: Okay. Vice-Chair Tuma. 22 23 Vice-Chair Tuma: So when we get to our motion, whether this is part of the motion or not, I am 24 going to make a recommendation that we add the following. That we will have our 25 recommendations of conditions for approval if we are going to move for approval, and that the 26 matter come back to the Planning Commission after the ARB, and that it is put on our Consent 27 Calendar with the ability to remove it from the Consent Calendar if either of the following two 28 conditions arise. One, that the project that the applicants submits to the ARB is inconsistent with 29 the recommendations that the Planning Commission had made, or two, that the ARB makes a 30 recommendation that is in any way inconsistent with the conditions or recommendations that the 31 Planning Commission made. So it will come back to us and we can remove it if either of those 32 two conditions arise. That is what I am going to recommend that we do so that we can move 33 forward with the discussion and the motion on all the other conditions, and then that should take 34 care of the procedural issue. 35 36 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg. 37 38 Commissioner Fineberg: A couple of things. 39 40 Commissioner Holman: Chair Garber, I am sorry Ms. Caporgno had a comment. 41 42 Chair Garber: I apologize. 43 44 Ms. Caporgno: I was just going to ask if that could referred to a date certain, and we would 45 suggest December 2, and that way it would give the ARB two hearing dates in which to discuss 46 the item. That way it will still be able to go. I think right now the item is tentatively scheduled 47 to go to Council December 14 so that way it would fit into that schedule. 48 City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 50 of83 1 Chair Garber: Let's let Commissioner Fineberg speak and then we will get back to Holman. 2 3 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. I think it would be a great idea to have it come back on a 4 Consent Calendar, but I believe we already have a protocol in place for how this body would pull 5 something from Consent Calendar. It is either two or three Commissioners. I would hesitate, 6 and maybe the City Attorney can remind us what that number is, but I would hesitate to impose 7 conditions that are that demanding because then who gets to decide, whose vote is it that gets to 8 make the determination of whether that condition has been met so it should be pulled? Does 9 Staff make the decision for the body? Does the Chair and Vice-Chair? So I think following the 10 standard protocoJ if there are the two or three people and we just know that those are the reasons 11 why we do it, and have to justify that that's why it is being pulled. I would suggest that we stick 12 to the normal protocol. 13 14 I am still, struggling with understanding this process if it is going to come back to us for our 15 normal review after the ARB review then does that mean we make our decisions on changing the 16 land use and the Mitigated Negative Declaration at that next meeting and not tonight? Then our 1 7 recommendations tonight stay just within the scope of size, mass, development issues, parking so 18 that the ARB then has the scope of the proj ect that we recommend? Because if we act and 19 recommend approval of changing the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation then what is it 20 that we are doing the next time it comes back to us? So I think it takes those off the table for 21 tonight. 22 23 Chair Garber: Vice-Chair Tuma. 24 25 Vice-Chair Tuma: Well, the intent of what I was discussing is that we do in fact make our 26 complete recommendations, and that the only reason that we would take this up at a hearing as 27 opposed to keeping it on Consent is if it falls into one of the two categories that I had said. So 28 yes, I would envision that we would recommend approval, recommend change of the 29 Comprehensive Plan, and that we put any other conditions on the project that we intend to. And 30 that only if those conditions are not met or if the ARB recommends something that is 31 inconsistent that we then take -it up. 32 33 Commissioner Fineberg: So again, I am sorry but this absolutely critical to the motion and the 34 decision tonight. If we were to vote on a motion to recommend approval of either of these 35 pieces, the Comprehensive Plan change or the zoning, can we un-recommend them at a future 36 date? Or once it is recommended that is the recommendation? So I don't think we can come 37 back and revisit and undo it because it changed. We have to not make the formal 38 recommendation. 39 40 Ms. French: We would suggest you make the recommendation on the environmental document, 41 the Comprehensive Plan, and the Plam1ed Community uses, development schedule. Take a look 42 at those things that are really the Land Use sections and send it off to the ARB for working on all 43 those design issues that are of concern to everybody. Then if you are going to do the Consent it 44 is more follow up. Follow up to see what the ARB did, to let you know what they did, hopefully 45 all is good. The idea of a Consent Calendar is a follow up it is not to make the decision because 46 the main decision should be made tonight. 47 City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 51 of83 1 Commissioner Fineberg: So if we can't undo the recommendation. Let's say ARB changes it 2 and then when we look at it again the general consensus is it is a different project. We can't un- 3 recommend a recommendation .. So why bother? 4 5 Ms. French: It wouldn't be a different project with respect to Land Use because the ARB is not 6 going to go there. The ARB is going to look at design issues. If it is different design-wise then 7 they are doing their job because they are improving upon the design. That is the point of the 8 ARB. But the land use itself, the nlix of uses, the conditional permitted uses, all those should be 9 in what the Planning Commission is looking at tonight. 10 11 Ms. Tronquet: You need to make a recommendation tonight. It is clear in the Council's motion 12 that it is supposed to go to the PTC for some form of recommendation. I also believe it is 13 consistent with 18.3.065, which is our standard process for PCs. That does provide that the 14 Planning Commission sees it twice and makes some recommendation on the project. So it would 15 come back to you under Subsection C for a final recommendation, but I think that you do need to 16 make a recommendation on it tonight, and that would be consistent with both the Council 1 7 direction as well as the code. 18 19 Chair Garber: Let me get to Commissioner Holman who has been waiting patiently, then Vice- 20 Chair Tuma if yours is a follow up to Commissioner Fineberg, then we will go to Keller. Then 21 we need to do one other thing before we get to a motion. 22 23 Vice-Chair Tuma: We make our recommendation, it comes back to us on Consent, is there 24 anything legally that would prohibit us from modifying our recommendation at that time? 25 26 Ms. Tronquet: I don't believe so. There is nothing in the code that talks about it. The code 27 describes two separate processes for PTC consideration. 28 29 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 30 31 Commissioner Keller: Yes, I wanted to address the issue of setback, and in particular in DEEs 32 under 18.76.050, paragraph B, sub number (3). It says generally Design Enhancement 33 Exceptions are limited to minor changes to setback, daylight plane, height, lot coverage, parking 34 lot design and landscaping, and additional flexibility in the required portion between private and 35 common open space. In this particular there is a proposal for two feet, three inches setback on 36 Oxford Street with a seven foot, nine inch encroachment across the entire Oxford fa9ade. 37 38 Mr. Reich: That information was corrected in the initial Staff Report this evening to let you 39 know it is only half of that. 40 41 Commissioner Keller: Okay, half of the Oxford fa9ade thank you. That makes more sense. So I 42 am wondering whether a seven foot, nine inch exception as encroachment of a ten-foot setback is 43 considered minor. 44 45 Ms. French: We have in the past considered something less than ten feet as minor, yes, 46 depending on what the setback is. There is precedent for it is what I am saying. 47 City 0/ Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 52 0/83 1 Commissioner Keller: Yes, I think the Commission has indicated in the past its heartburn with 2 the idea that a 75 percent encroachment is minor. 3 4 Chair Garber: Okay. Commissioners, bear with me here. If we can have some quick discussion 5 around one last topic, and then I am going to make a motion here, and that is the.amount of 6 square footage of the office. The instruction has come to us from the Council that it be reduced 7 by the 1,000 square feet that the applicant has proposed. I know that there has been some 8 concern about that number. Can I hear some discussion about that particular topic? Vice-Chair 9 Tuma. 10 11 Vice-Chair Tuma: Personally, I don't have a lot of heartburn over reducing the office any more. 12 I don't want to rehash all the discussion we have had about this, 1,000 square feet in my mind is 13 not ideal but I wouldn't support a significant reduction beyond the 1,000 square feet. What is 14 significant remains to be seen, but nine percent instead of ten percent that too is significant. 15 16 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman and then Martinez, and then Keller. 17 18 Commissioner Holman: I think we are flying a little bit in the blind as far as what the 19 appropriate reduction would be. As I referenced earlier we don't have any context drawings, no 20 context photography. So we don't know about the compatibility issues here. If you look at just 21 the numbers provided by the applicant, and some of them are unclear, the subsidy for the grocery 22 store that is needed, the pages are not numbered so I don't know how to lead you there. 23 24 Chair Garber: This is the chart, Subsidy Summary? 25 26 Commissioner Holman: It is this screened chart. It says that the office rent needed to subsidize 27 the grocery store rent is $28,865 a month. On the next page it talks about the rent a year for the 28 office I think this is over the amount that would be allowed, is $116,000 a month. So that is 29 several times over what is required to subsidize the grocery store. So there is the physical aspect 30 of how much office space is there. There is the financial aspect of again of is this really a quid 31 pro quo? Is the public getting a good trade here? Then there is the aspect that also has been 32 brought up earlier that Commissioner Lippert brought up about how much office we are creating 33 here and how much housing demand we are creating here. I personally don't think it is a good 34 practice to look at projects one by one by one in terms of their impact and say this project by 35 itself doesn't create a housing deficit that is significant in the context of the city. It creates a 36 housing deficit as far as ABAG is concerned. So that is where I am on square footage. 37 38 Chair Garber: To summarize, more than 1,000 square feet. 39 40 Commissioner Holman: More than 1,000 square feet. 41 42 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez and then Keller. 43 44 Commissioner Martinez: Having seen the Council video this afternoon it was pretty clear that 45 there was not much support for a significant reduction in the size of the office. There was a 46 proposal to reduce it by ten percent and that vote fell pretty flat. 47 City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 53 of83 I I think we are trying to micromanage how much the developer should be compensated for 2 building this grocery store. Looking at the community support, the 60-year history I would say 3 that it appears to me that that grocery store is priceless, and that we can't measure how big the 4 office area should be to justify the grocery store. I think we are getting a tremendous asset for 5 the community as everyone has attested to. The developer isn't doing it just for the sake of a 6 grocery store. I can't see that continuing to whittle down the size of the office does anything to 7 improve or diminish the massing. There is an issue about the parking, which I acknowledge, but 8 I don't think trying to find a way to shave 500 or 1,000 or 1,500 square feet off of the, office 9 building will do anything more than make it more difficult to build this project. Thank you. 10 11 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller and then Lippert. 12 13 Commissioner Keller: Well, I think that there does appear to be more office space than may be 14 required in order to fund the grocery store. I certainly appreciate everybody's desire to have the 15 grocery store. I do think however that there is this notion that retail loves retail, and right now 16 there is some continuity of retail on College. Essentially, with this office space on the ground 17 floor that will be a dead block that will discourage people from continuing down further onto 18 what was once more retail. I guess now there is only Common Ground there. It seems to me 19 that I could see justification for having the massing being what it is on the second and third floor 20 if all the ground floor were used for grocery or retail. I actually think that that might make an 21 interesting space. It is about 4,000 square feet, not quite, it is a little bit less than that, and it 22 seems to me a good space for some sort of eatery that might go very well there, some other use 23 might there. I think that that is the kind of thing that would tie this block with the rest of College 24 and allow that to return as retail. I think that otherwise we end up with this continuous dead 25 zone. Failing that I think that there is more office space than is -there isn't as much justification 26 for all that office space. The jobs/housing imbalance that ABAG will beat us over the head with, 27 although I don't agree with it a lot of people in the community want us to follow the ABAG 28 numbers and we will be under increasing pressure to do so. I think that there is also the traffic 29 issue and the parking issue. 30 31 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert. 32 33 Commissioner Lippert: I guess the disappointment to me is that it preserves the intense office 34 use at the expense of the BMR units. So in some ways what I think has happened here is that in 35 the haste to reduce the building's FAR it is easier to just jettison the BMR units and get rid of 36 those and preserve the office use. This is a tremendous amount of office space that is being 37 asked for here. I agree with my colleague, Commissioner Keller, that there could be some 38 trimming there. I think if we go to the full ten percent reduction I think it is going to be difficult 39 to persuade the applicant and the City Council to go along with our recommendation. What I 40 would have difficulty doing is having it appealed. If we were to go for something a little bit 41 more modest both the applicant and the City Council will find it palatable and proceed along 42 those lines. So I think somewhere between say five to ten percent trimming will be something 43 that would be palatable. 44 45 MOTION 46 47 Chair Garber: All right. I would like to move that the Commission recommend to the City 48 Council the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to assign the Mixed Use Land Use Designation to City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 54 of83 1 a site currently designated as the Neighborhood Commercial, and that we accept the 2 environmental assessment as a Mitigated Negative Declaration that has been prepared and 3 presented to us. secondly, that we recommend that a zone change from Neighborhood 4 Commercial (CN) District to Planned Community (PC) District for a mixed use project having 5 57,360 square feet of floor area including 8,000 square feet of grocery intended for JJ&F Market, 6 5,580 square feet of other retail, eight affordable one-bedroom residential units for a total of 7 4,800 square feet, 38,980 square feet of office use, and two levels of below grade parking 8 facilities and surface parking facilities providing 227 parking spaces on the property to be 9 conditioned as follows: 1) that the lease for the grocery store tenant have an initial term of 20 10 years minimum; 2) that the grocery store tenant occupy and operate in that space prior to the 11 occupancy of any office tenant, as has already been described in the Staff Report; 3) that the PC 12 be inspected as required by the City code and Staff can fill in the code number at the appropriate 13 time; 4) that the BMRs have access to the vegetated roof, and that the applicant work with Staff 14 to find the amount and the location of private open space for each one of the units; 5) that the 15 project be conditioned to include two car shares and the TDM program, at least two car shares; 16 and I believe there are a couple of recommendations that I would accept as friendly amendments 17 and/or comments that are recommendations to this. 18 19 SECOND 20 21 Vice-Chair Tuma: Second. 22 23 Chair Garber: So seconded by Vice-Chair Tuma. Discussion by the maker -none. Is there 24 discussion by the other Commissioners? The seconder has no comments either. Commissioner 25 Holman. 26 27 Commissioner Holman: Yes, a number of points here. Did you list all of your comments? 28 29 Chair Garber: Yes, but I missed one and that was that the item return to the PTC after it has been 30 reviewed by the ARB, and it be pulled from the Consent Calendar if 1) the project is inconsistent 31 with the recommendations that the PTC is making, or 2) that the ARB recommends other 32 changes that are in addition or inconsistent with the ones that the PTC is making. That occurs by 33 December 2, a date certain. 34 35 Vice-Chair Tuma: The seconder agrees with those as well. 36 37 Commissioner Holman: I am pressing here because I believe there as another one. 38 39 Chair Garber: Sorry, I am happy to be nudged because I apologize, which one was it? Noise? 40 41 Commissioner Holman: That is one. 42 43 Chair Garber: That Staff work with the applicant to establish requirements that are in addition to 44 those typically found in t1:l;e City code to the satisfaction of the immediate neighborhood. What 45 else am I missing, Commissioner Holman? 46 47 Commissioner Holman: I believe you had an FAR component. 48 City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 55 of83 1 Chair Garber: The office space? Given the other comments that I have heard I decided to pull 2 that particular one. You are welcome to test it on Commissioners here. 3 4 Commissioner Holman: Okay, so I have a few. You have picked up a lot of them so I have a 5 few amendments to offer. One is to reduce the office component of the project by nine percent. 6 I look for acceptance of that by the maker. 7 8 Chair Garber: I am not going. to support that. 9 10 MOTION 11 12 Commissioner Holman: I will make a separate motion to that end. Again, we are kind of 13 shooting in the dark here because we don't have compatibility drawings but I don't think the 14 numbers that are proposed justify this amount of office space. I might make as a part of this that 15 the office component be reduced by that amount of square footage but that also the retail be 16 wrapped around the comer onto College. So part of that reduction may not be an FAR reduction 17 it may be a reduction of office space but not floor area ratio. 18 19 Chair Garber: Perhaps we might do those as two separate pieces? 20 21 Commissioner Holman: If you wish. 22 23 Commissioner Keller: May I? 24 25 Chair Garber: Please. 26 27 Commissioner Keller: Are you suggesting that nine percent of the ground floor space or nine 28 percent of the FAR ..... 29 30 Commissioner Holman: Let me clarify. I was suggesting that nine percent of the office space be 31 reduced or the office space be reduced by nine space, but that the FAR on the College side be 32 converted from office to retail. 33 34 Commissioner Keller: Let me just try to get this straight because I have to figure out whether I 35 can second it. So are you suggesting that if nine percent plus the conversion or nine percent, 36 which includes the conversion of the Oxford Street ground floor to retail? 37 38 Commissioner Holman: The latter. 39 40 SECOND 41 42 Commissioner Keller: Then I will second it. 43 44 Chair Garber: I apologize, could you restate that so I understand what you are suggesting here? 45 I am looking on page AO.7 the Ground Floor Plan. 46 City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 56 of83 1 Commissioner Holman: Okay, so the retail wrap around the comer from El Camino onto 2 College and the elimination of that street facing retail would be a part of the nine percent 3 reduction of office. 4 5 Chair Garber: Street-facing office becoming retail. 6 7 Commissioner Holman: Exactly. And, if there is concern, and I appreciate this, concern about 8 that being viable because people don't go down the side streets, signage does a great amount of 9 help. We also have the common ground across the street to support that. Retail does get 10 supported by the existence of other retail. 11 12 Chair Garber: Okay, the motion has been made so we need to action that before we go forward. 13 Does the maker have any further comments? 14 15 Commissioner Holman: No but the seconder has not spoken to his second. 16 17 Commissioner Keller: I think I talked about this earlier. 18 19 MOTION FAILED (3-4-0-0, Commissioners Holman, Keller, and Finberg in favor) 20 Chair Garber: All those in favor of supporting the motion and I believe there are two pieces to 21 this. That the office component being reduced by nine percent of its total and that a subset of 22 that nine percent would be taken out of the ground floor office space that is on College such that 23 that becomes retail. Correct? All those in favor of that motion say aye. (ayes) I am hearing 24 three. All those opposed? (nays) The motion fails three to four with Commissioners Holman, 25 Keller, and Fineberg voting for it and Commissioners Lippert, Tuma, Garber, and Martinez 26 voting against. 27 28 We will return to the primary motion. Commissioner Holman, you had some other suggestions. 29 30 Commissioner Holman: I do.· That there be a contribution made to the replacement of median 31 trees as a condition of approval per the El Camino Design Guideline tree planting. 32 33 Chair Garber: Before I take a position on that let me ask Staff. This is the median that here out 34 in the middle ofEl Camino? 35 36 Commissioner Holman: Adjacent to and in front of the project. As Staff has mentioned it has 37 been accomplished before like with the Sunrise project and last time we saw this Curtis Williams 38 said that it would be appropriate and there is a nexus. 39 40 Chair Garber: I will support it. Seconder? 41 42 Vice-Chair Tuma: I have a question for the maker. Is there in some amount? Th~ contribution, 43 is that a dollar or $1.0 million? Is there some way to quantify that? 44 45 Commissioner Holman: I leave that for Staff to determine based on the number of trees and the 46 basis that was determined for the Sunrise project. If Staff would like to comment on that if we 47 can get Staff attention. 48 City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 57 0[83 1 Ms. French: I am listening. The El Camino Real schematic design plan, there are four words 2 that mean plan there, didn't specify how many trees so I can't tell you what that might be. We 3 would have to analyze that but perhaps that could be done prior to CounciL 4 5 Chair Garber: The intent is that the applicant would be providing trees. 6 7 Ms. French: The funding. 8 9 Chair Garber: The funding for the trees, for the planting of the trees and the cost of the tree 10 itself. 11 12 Vice-Chair Tuma: So let me ask the question a different way. Are you saying 100 percent of 13 that funding? 14 15 Commissioner Holman: I think that was what was done with Sunrise. 16 17 Mr. Reich: New information has come up that Caltrans doesn't allow the planting of trees in the 18 median unless the median is at least 12-feet wide. This is only a four-foot wide median. So we 19 wouldn't actually be able to put trees in the median unless the median was widened by Caltrans 20 at some point in the future. So this money would sit until that happened. 21 22 Chair Garber: So then perhaps it stands as a recommendation should the opportunity come to 23 add them. 24 25 Commissioner Holman: Too bad that didn~t come to our attention before. 26 27 Chair Garber: So we will suggest that the seconder does not second and we will drop that. 28 29 Commissioner Holman: Let's see, also recommend that -this is going to sound like a nit, I 30 understand that, but I am actually not supportive of the gazebo. I think there are reasons to 31 violate the 50-foot height limit and reasons not to violate the 50-foot height limit. This is really 32 going to be taller. I understand how we measure to the midpoint of the roof but this is really 33 going to be taller than what is indicated. I have seen other vegetated roofs that do just fine with 34 either no cover or with umbrellas and tables that don't exceed the height limit or would not 35 exceed the height limit. So I would prefer to see that as opposed to a gazebo that is a hard 36 structure that violates the 50-foot height limit. 37 38 Mr. Reich: The gazebo doesn't violate the 50-foot height limit. 39 40 Commissioner Holman: I'm sorry not the 50-foot height limit, but I mean the height limit. And, ·41 how would we make the finding? So I am not supporting the gazebo. 42 43 Chair Garber: I am not hearing an amendment just yet but let me just ask a question. Would this 44 be something that you would feel comfortable allowing the ARB to weight in on? 45 46 AMENDMENT 47 City of Palo Alto October J 4, 2009 Page580f83 1 Commissioner Holman: I can foresee an outcome. I would propose as a friendly amendment 2 that we eliminate the gazebo. 3 4 Chair Garber: Again, before I support that let me ask if there is other discussion from the 5 Commissioners. Commissioner Keller. 6 7 Commissioner Keller: My understanding is the purpose of the gazebo is partly to get up to that 8 floor, is that right? To get up to the vegetated roof? 9 10 Mr. Reich: The gazebo is actually in the amenity space up there. You can't actually walk on the 11 vegetated green roof. The gazebo provides a shady place as a destination for people to be able to 12 sit at a table and enjoy that space. If the gazebo goes away then there is not really much point of 13 going up there. 14 15 Commissioner Keller: How do you get to the vegetated roof? 16 1 7 Commissioner Holman: Didn't understand that. 18 19 Mr. Reich: There is an elevator as well as a stair. 20 21 Commissioner Keller: And the gazebo is at the elevator and the stairs? 22 23 Mr. Reich: No, the gazebo is this feature in the middle of the roof above the building. You can 24 see it here on the front cover of your plans. You see the green roof on top of the grocery store 25 with the red kind of square. It is a covered roof but it is an open structure on all four sides with 26 posts. It is just a shade structure to create a destination space on top of there so you can look out, 27 enjoy from an elevated position. You have this green roof up there to enjoy. But if you remove 28 the gazebo then there is no reason to go up on the roof. 29 30 Chair Garber: Well, they are not getting rid of the paving, presumably. 31 32 Mr. Reich: Which paving? 33 34 Chair Garber: The paving underneath the gazebo. 35 36 Mr. Reich: They could still provide a paving but without some kind of shade structure or 37 something it wouldn't really be a hospitable space for people to spend time. 38 39 Commissioner Holman: So might I make an amendment to that? 40 41 Chair Garber: Sure. 42 43 AMENDMENT 44 45 Commissioner Holman: The ARB addresses the vegetated roof and makes it more accessible, 46 more functional as an open space. 47 48 Chair Garber: I am happy to accept that wording. City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 59 of83 1 2 Vice-Chair Tuma: So would I as seconder. 3 4 Chair Garber: Okay. Something else? 5 6 Commissioner Holman: Yes, that the sidewalks be 12-foot functional sidewalks at 12 feet and 7 not the, what's the word that is use, not the effective but actual 12-foot sidewalks. The reason is 8 because, I think I stated earlier that I hear so many people comment about how much more 9 pleasant it is for instance in Mountain View to walk because the sidewalks are wider. When I 10 see how many projects that we are building here and people say what are we doing, why are we 11 providing such narrow sidewalks, especially when we have tall buildings abutting them? I am all 12 for moving the buildings forward but we are providing such narrow sidewalks because we are 13 counting to the curb and not to the functional space. 14 15 Chair Garber: Would you please refer me to a drawing so I can see specifically where your 16 concern is? 17 18 Commissioner Holman: Well, you can look at sheet AO.S for one. That is for instance 12 feet, 19 11 inches on the other retail space but that is 12 feet, 11 inches to the curb. If you take out the 20 three to four feet, more typically four feet, for trees and.grates, which again people just don't' 21 walk on, that means you have really an eight foot, 11 inch functional sidewalk. 22 23 Chair Garber: What you are suggesting is that the building would have to move back some three 24 feet or so. 25 26 Commissioner Holman: Yes. 27 28 Chair Garber: In the EI Camino Guidelines what is the recommended sidewalk width? 29 30 Mr. Reich: It is my understanding that it is 12 feet inclusive of the area for the trees.' That is 31 what has been approved on prior projects. So this would actually be inconsistent with what we 32 have done up and down EI Camino already. 33 34 Commissioner Holman: Might I add that is just exactly my point. I don't think it is hard, fast 35 written in the EI Camino Design Guidelines, and correct me if I am wrong, that it is from the 36 building to the curb that is how it has been implemented in the past. There is great 37 dissatisfaction in the community about that including my own. 38 39 Chair Garber: My concern is that we have this guideline in place and we are staring to deal with 40 it on an ad hoc basis as opposed to trying to go back and deal with it globally in some way. 41 42 Commissioner Holman: If I might, my perspective is that we might be correcting a wrong 43 instead of just continuing along the same path that we are doing now, which is generating 44 ongoing very negative comments. 45 46 Chair Garber: I hear that from you. I have not heard it from others, which doesn't mean it 47 doesn't exist. Commissioner Lippert, did you have a comment there? 48 City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 60 of83 1 Commissioner Lippert: Not on that item. 2 3 Chair Garber: I apologize that was from before and I didn't recognize you. Commissioner 4 Keller. 5 6 Commissioner Keller: I have in this body repeatedly complained about the EI Camino Design 7 Guidelines and what occurred to me is the reason I am complaining about them is because the 8 sidewalk width with the trees and whatever is too narrow. I think that the idea that you have a 9 monolithic, everybody building to exactly the same depth doesn't seem to make as much sense to lOme as allowing some degree of variation that creates interest. So I actually would be in favor of 11 modifying the EI Camino Design Guidelines if we were to get to that to actually have an 12 effective 12-foot sidewalk as a distance from the inward edge of the tree grate to the building as 13 opposed to including the tree grate. 14 15 Chair Garber: May I suggest to Commissioner Holman that we do this as an amendment as we 16 can vote on it? 17 18 Ms. French: Can we insert something that is critical? 19 20 Chair Garber: Yes. 21 22 Ms. French: We have been talking about this as if it is only in the EI Camino Guidelines when it 23 actually is in the zoning code if were in CN. It is shown as figure 3-4 on page 24 of Chapter 24 18.18 showing the 12-foot effective sidewalk going from the curb to the building, and then 25 having a setback for outdoor seating, which this project does provide. So it is not just in the 26 guidelines it is actually in the zoning code as well as context based design criteria. So if there is 27 dissatisfaction with that maybe that is someplace you look at. 28 29 Commissioner Holman: If I understood correctly you said if this were zoned CN. 30 31 Ms. French: Right. I just wanted to make clear that there is a precedent that is not just based on 32 ARB recommended guidelines it is also Council adopted zoning code. 33 34 Ms. Caporgno: Yes and the Planning Commission reviewed that. That is why I asked Amy to 35 look at that because Planning Commission reviewed that when we went through the CS and CN 36 zones and that was something that was incorporated from the EI Camino Guidelines. 37 38 Chair Garber: So .... 39 40 Commissioner Holman: Just a clarification if I might. Does that say also effective sidewalk? 41 42 Ms. French: I am going to bring it up. 43 44 Ms. Caporgno: It does. 45 46 Commissioner Holman: I think it is an interpretation issue not a specific wording. Okay. Okay, 47 thank you for the clarification. I know what I want to change. 48 City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 61 of83 1 Chair Garber: I apologize. So where are you with this topic? 2 3 Commissioner Holman: Well, that is in the CN code but at least in the CN and CS it does give 4 demonstration that the effective as being to the curb. So that is something I think we need to 5 look at changing but I don't suppose we could change it for this. Looking to City Attorney, 6 could we since they are guidelines for the EI Camino Design Guidelines and this is a PC, so 7 could we change it for this project? 8 9 Ms. Caporgno: Yes, I think we were just trying to point out to the Commission that when you 10 were comparing to the CN previously there is precedent for this type of setback. It is not 11 something just in the guidelines. 12 13 Chair Garber: So if it were offered as a friendly amendment I would turn it down. However, I 14 am happy to entertain it as a motion such that we can vote on it. 15 16 MOTION 17 18 Commissioner Holman: Okay. I would move that the sidewalks be literal 12-foot sidewalks not 19 effective sidewalks so that the measurement be to the functional space and not to the curb on EI 20 Camino and also on Oxford. 21 22 Ms. French: I am going to jump in again here. I'm sorry but again in the code for context-based 23 guidelines it talks about 12-foot sidewalk on EI Camino, eight foot elsewhere. So just a point of 24 information. 25 26 Commissioner Holman: Understood. 27 28 Chair Garber: Okay, so do we have a second? 29 30 SECOND 31 32 Commissioner Keller: Second. 33 34 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller seconds. Would the maker like to speak to their motion? 35 The seconder? 36 37 Commissioner Keller: Let me just first say that on Staunton Court it does not appear to be an 38 eight-foot sidewalk there even currently. If you look at the dotted line that says setback it 39 appears that there might be less than an eight-foot setback. I can't tell. 40 41 Mr. Reich: We talked with Public Works about this. Between the property line and the curb 42 there is not room to achieve that and Public Works does not want the public sidewalk on private 43 property in that location, or anywhere typically. It has been done on a very minimal basis. We 44 have asked them about that on this specific project and they don't recommend it. They are not 45 interested in doing that. 46 47 Chair Garber: I am assuming you are keeping your second. 48 City of Palo Alto October J 4, 2009 Page 62 0[83 1 Commissioner Keller: Yes, I am keeping my second but if the guidelines are for having eight- 2 foot sidewalks all along other than on EI Camino I am wondering how to handle Staunton Court. 3 On EI Camino if people build a 12-foot sidewalk, which means that their side of the sidewalk is 4 on the inward side of the property line how does Public Works deal with that? 5 6 Mr. Reich: I am sorry what was the question? 7 8 Commissioner Keller: In the cases where the property line is closer than 12 feet to the curb 9 currently and therefore in order to have an effective 12-foot sidewalk width under what was 10 some interpretation wouldn't the sidewalk have to be on private property to some extent? 11 12 Mr. Reich: It would, and that is why Public Works does accept that in certain circumstances but 13 on Staunton Court they didn't feel that the volume of pedestrian traffic necessitated the need to 14 put the public sidewalk on private property. 15 16 MOTION FAILED (2-5-0-0, Commissioners Holman and Keller in favor) 17 18 Chair Garber: Let's vote. All those in favor of the motion as stated say aye. (ayes) I hear two. 19 All those opposed? (nays) That motion fails with Commissioners Holman and Keller voting for 20 and Commissioners Lippert, Fineberg, Tuma, Garber, and Martinez voting against. 21 22 Back to the primary motion~ Commissioner Holman, something else? 23 24 Commissioner Holman: There is. Two things, because we don't have benefit for the findings 25 for the Variances requested and because this is over an acre property I am not supportive of those 26 setback Variances. I do believe them to be Variances because of the length of them and because 27 of the percentage of intrusion that they are. So I am not supportive of those. 28 29 Mr. Reich: Just to clarify, there is only one Variance. You said plural. The Staff Report talks 30 about two but I clarified that the one on Staunton no exception is required there. 31 32 Commissioner Holman: The one then, okay. Thank you. 33 34 Ms. French: Again, a clarification is that we have not received a request for a Variance. The 35 applicant is seeking a ,DEE. If the ARB can't support a DEE then they would have to adjust the 36 building or request a Variance. 37 38 Commissioner Holman: If I might, what difference does it make what the applicant is requesting 39 if we determine that it can't be a DEE and that it needs to be a Variance, or if Staff would make 40 that determination, what difference does it make what the applicant is asking for? 41 42 Ms. French: Well, the point is it is not the Planning Commission's determination it is the 43 Council's. So you can recommend to the Council that it is a Variance but the ARB may 44 recommend on the DEE. We get into this .... 45 46 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert has his light on. Commissioner Lippert. 47 City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 63 of83 I Commissioner Lippert: I am going to make a friendly amendment here. What I am going to ask 2 for ... 3 4 Chair Garber: To the motion that is on the floor? 5 6 Commissioner Lippert: I am sorry, this is on square footage. It is not on the current amendment 7 that is on the floor. 8 9 Chair Garber: I apologize. So you are making a friendly amendment to the main motion. What 10 I am asking for is a five percent reduction in the office square footage. What that represents is 11 basically 1,949 or 1,950 square feet. If you look at the cumulative reduction from what went 12 before the City Council it actually represents a seven percent reduction in office square footage. 13 Do you want me to continue? 14 15 Chair Garber: Forgive me we have a point of order here because I am not sure. I may have 16 recognized you prior. 17 18 Commissioner Lippert: That is what I was trying to avoid and that is why twice before I said just 19 wait. 20 21 Commissioner Holman: He should continue. Go ahead. 22 23 Chair Garber: I apologize. 24 25 Commissioner Keller: I will second the amendment. 26 27 Commissioner Lippert: It is a friendly amendment so either the Chair is going to accept it or not. o 28 29 Chair Garber: I apologize forgive me, if you could restate it. 30 31 Commissioner Lippert: Sure. My friendly amendment is a five percent reduction in the office 32 square footage basically it represents 1,949 to 1,950 square feet, but if you look at what went 33 before Council in terms of the 39,980 square feet cumulatively with the 1,000 square foot 34 reduction previously it represents a seven percent reduction in the office square footage overall. 35 Part of the reason for doing that is with the additional heights that it does allow for more 36 articulation in the building and thereby begins to balance out the height the higher elements with 37 perhaps some reduced massing in some other areas. 38 39 Chair Garber: Interesting tradeoffs you are suggesting there. Before I make a decision let me 40 ask the Commissioners is there any discussion on the topic? We have had one amendment that 41 was looking at reducing it by nine percent and we are now at a different one. Commissioner 42 Tuma. 43 44 Vice-Chair Tuma: I would not be supportive of this. I think this goes to Commissioner 45 Martinez's comment before about sort of micromanaging around these relatively small amounts 46 of square footage. I don't think that it significantly increases the quality of the project. As you 47 noted before we have already voted once on reducing square footage. I realize this is a slightly 48 different proposal but I wouldn't be supportive of it. City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 64 of83 1 2 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 3 4 Commissioner Keller: I would be supportive of it. If it were not accepted as a friendly 5 amendment I would be willing to second it. 6 7 AMENDMENT 8 9 Commissioner Lippert: Since the Vice-Chair and the seconder of the motion didn't accept it I 10 will make it an amendment. 11 12 Chair Garber: Okay, to be seconded by? 13 14 SECOND 15 16 Commissioner Keller: I will second it. 17 18 Chair Garber: There is some question or discussion by Commissioner Fineberg. Before you do 19 that does the maker have any comments to make to their motion? 20 21 Commissioner Lippert: No. 22 23 Chair Garber: And the seconder? 24 25 Commissioner Keller: No. 26 27 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg. 28 29 Commissioner Fineberg: I have a comment on the motion. I would be supportive of it. Council 30 sent it back to us, if I can use the term, out of order rather than having it go directly to ARB they 31 sent it back to us I should say maybe in an unusual order with five areas to look at. One is floor 32 area reduction, two is the parking spaces, three is residential reduction allowing grocery 33 expansion area, four is grocery tenant, and five is walkable streetscape, reading that directly from 34 page 3 of our Staff Report. They didn't direct us to reduce space and they had indeed reduced 35 some of the office square footage, but they didn't tell us not to reduce it either. So I know there 36 is the puzzle of what is the sweet spot, where do we go from micromanaging versus making too 37 big of a change versus too little and immaterial of a change? But they indicated that they 38 addressed the project, made that change and they sent it back to the Planning Commission. So I 39 would be in favor of reducing the office space by the five percent. 40 41 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez. 42 43 Commissioner Martinez: I didn't get the sense in watching their video that they were asking us 44 to look for ways to reduce the square footage of the office building. Instead I got the sense that 45 if there were a reasoned manner for reducing square footage that they wanted to hear about that. 46 They wanted our recommendation. What I heard more was that they didn't want the square 47 footage to go over this up set amount that they prescribed but they wanted to know if there was 48 something they weren't seeing that could be justification for reducing the square footage. In the City o[ Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 65 0[83 1 amendment I have not heard that. I have heard that maybe you can use the reduction to make the 2 building more interesting perhaps but I don't really see that it is achieving making the project 3 better, reducing some sort of impact on the street. I feel1ike it is just another way of looking at 4 intuitively making the building smaller. I don't really feel comfortable with that. 5 6 'Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, quickly and then we will vote. 7 8 Commissioner Keller: Quickly, my intent and as I stated earlier for reducing the office space is 9 to reduce the parking needs, and particularly to increase the parking reserve potential for if a 10 grocery store is ever increased. Since this area is particularly impacted in parking, reducing the 11 parking needs is useful. Thank you. 12 13 Chair Garber: Quickly, Commissioner Fineberg. 14 15 Commissioner Fineberg: I neglected to also mention reducing the mass or the square footage of 16 office space would also reduce the job producing impacts. 17 18 MOTION PASSED (4-3-0-0, Commissioners Lippert, Fineberg, Keller, and Holman in favor) 19 20 Chair Garber: Let's vote. All those in favor of the motion as stated say aye. (ayes) All those 21 opposed? (nays) The motion passes with Commissioners Lippert, Fineberg, Keller, and Holman 22 voting for it and Commissioner~ Martinez, Garber, and Tuma voting against. 23 24 Commissioner Holman, I apologize, back to you. 25 26 Commissioner Holman: It's okay. I think where we were was on the setbacks. I believe is 27 where we were. I refer to those as Variances not DEEs and do not see how findings could be 28 made for either. The findings for both are similar and I don't see how the findings could be 29 made for those. So I would propose as a friendly amendment to eliminate the one setback 3 0 Variance. 31 32 Chair Garber: Again, Commissioners? 33 34 Commissioner Holman: Do you accept that as a friendly amendment? 35 36 Chair Garber: I am hedging because I certainly understand the argument. However, the impact 37 here given that it is a PC and given where it occurs on the site doesn't have a lot of impact. I am 38 willing to be swayed. So if any of the Commissioners would like to weigh in? I would have to 39 accept or reject before we get to that but I am not seeing any lights on the board. So then I will 40 not support it. Would you like to offer it as an amendment? 41 42 MOTION 43 44 Commissioner Holman: Sure. 45 46 Chair Garber: Is there a second to the amendment? Commissioner Keller? 47 48 SECOND City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 660f83 1 2 Commissioner Keller: Second. 3 4 MOTION FAILED (3-4-0-0, Comnlissioners Holman, Keller, and Fineberg in favor) 5 6 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller seconds the amendment. Would the maker like to speak to 7 it? The seconder? Is there any discussion? All those in favor of the motion as stated say aye. 8 (ayes) I think I heard three was there a fourth? Just three. All those opposed? (nays) The 9 motion fails with Commissioners Holman, Keller, and Fineberg supporting it and Commissioner 10 Lippert, Tuma, Garber, and Martinez not supporting it. 11 12 Commissioner Holman: Okay, we are almost there. 13 14 Chair Garber: Next one. 15 16 Commissioner Holman: That when this project goes to the ARB that context drawings and 17 photographs be provided for their purposes. 18 19 Chair Garber: I would support that. Seconder? 20 21 Vice-Chair Tuma: So would I. 22 23 i Chair Garber: Anything else? 24 25 Commissioner Holman: This one is more complicated because it addresses one of the proposals 26 and indications made by the applicant, but in fact it just doesn't accomplish this. So when this 27 goes to the ARB I would recommend that as a friendly amendment that they address the potential 28 future expansion of the grocery store and parking requirements. If you will accept as a friendly 29 amendment at least for the moment I will state why. Or I will say why now that makes it easier. 30 The reason is because we need to call a spade a spade. Let's not pretend that this is something 31 that is not. We are either designing for a specific tenant or we are not. To my mind we are '32 designing for a specific tenant that is what this project does. So let's not say, and consider that 33 there is potential expansion for a future larger grocery store when it is not feasibly possible either 34 from an expansion potential or a parking potential. So let's either address it or call it what it is. 35 36 Chair Garber: So your proposal would be to make what modifications to the project to allow that 37 expansion? 38 39 Commissioner Holman: I am leaving that in the ARB's hands. I am suggesting that the ARB 40 address how that could be possible. It is not a use decision. It is a ..... 41 42 Ms. Tronquet: It is going to raise fairly significant CEQA issues because that will change the 43 project. It will require new conceptual designs, things like that, and it will affect the CEQA 44 review. 45 46 Commissioner Holman: Then we should just not refer to this as having potential expansion 47 possibilities if can't. 48 City o[ Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 670[83 1 Mr. Reich: The Council directed that the plan be changed such that there is potential. Providing 2 that open space such that it is not built upon provides the potential. Now in terms of parking that 3 does raise a concern but the applicant actually thinks that the project is going to be far over- 4 parked based on their analysis, not over-parked in terms of our code, but over-parked in terms of 5 what is going to be required. So at the time that some future grocery wants to expand it may be 6 that they have extra parking within the development. That would be studied at that time. So if a 7 future expansion was ever desired there may actually be an opportunity that there would be extra 8 parking. Plus, as people have indicated things may change over time in terms of parking demand 9 and what people are doing socially. I don't know that I could see that happe1).ing in the near 10 future but who knows when that possibility of expansion may exist. By providing -does 11 provide opportunity for future expansion however unlikely that that may be. 12 13 Commissioner Holman: Well, there is also the issue of the configuration. 14 15 Mr. Reich: The configuration doesn't hinder future expansion. That loading dock and storage 16 area can be pushed back and the store expanded into that space. It is just a construction issue. 17 18 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, you have a comment? 19 20 Commissioner Keller: May I suggest and alternative wording of Commissioner Holman's 21 suggestion? My suggestion is that the amendment be that the ARB review drawings showing the 22 feasibility of a potential future expansion of the grocery store. 23 24 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman? I will accept that. 25 26 Ms. Tronguet: Just so the Commission is aware, I still think that creates risks with the CEQA 27 analysis because it makes it look like a phased project, like there will be a second phase at some 28 point. 29 30 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert. 31 32 Commissioner Lippert: I think also what it does is this body as well as the Council and the 33 Architectural Review Board as well as our standards for review change. So what you are doing 34 is reviewing something under something that in the future may not even apply. It is cumbersome 35 to the applicant. It adds additional steps to the review board and I agree with the City Attorney 36 with regard to it implies that there is approval or buy-in to the process. I think it is good enough 37 to just state that there might be expansion in the future. I think a really good example of that is 38 the Channing House project. That was a PC and as they needed to change with the times in 39 terms of having .... 40 41 Chair Garber: They repurposed the parking lot. 42 43 Commissioner Lippert: Exactly. But that is a PC and it needed to come back before us. 44 45 Chair Garber: Comnlissioner Keller. 46 47 Commissioner Keller: I am not suggesting that such drawings be approved but simply the idea is 48 to assess the feasibility of doing such an expansion. Because if such an expansion is not feasible City oj Palo Alto 2009 Page 68 1 under some appropriate assessment we might want to do things for example realign where the 2 BMR units are. So that is what my intent is, to assure that the design is compatible with the 3 potential not the requirement, not the approval, of such an expansion. 4 5 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Martinez. 6 7 Commissioner Fineberg: I would wonder whether another way of thinking about it is we not try 8 and detennine whether it is feasible now because we don't know what zoning regulations or 9 demand or the greater environment will bring 20 or 30 years from now. Commissioner Keller 10 made me realize though was maybe the way to preserve it for the potential expansion is that 11 there be a condition that the grocery tenant have first right of refusal for any project that might 12 potentially be built, notice the vague language. So the owner doesn't come and want to build 13 something else precluding it without the grocery being able to expand. 14 15 Mr. Reich: I would say that we wouldn't need that because any expansion on the site, grocery or 16 otherwise, would require an amendment to the PC that would come back to the Planning 1 7 Commission, ARB, and Council. So if they didn't feel it appropriate that that space be usurped 18 by some other use other than grocery then they wouldn't approve that. 19 20 Chair Garber: Let's get to the point here. I think I will not support this. My belief here is that 21 the fact is that that particular area of the project is void and vacant at the moment. So it creates 22 the potentiality for a project to be considered in the future should that occur. That is enough in 23 this particular case. Would you like to make this a separate motion? 24 25 Commissioner Holman: It was Arthur's not mine. 26 27 Commissioner Keller: I guess I created the motion for Commissioner Holman. I am not going 28 to bother making it a separate motion. 29 30 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma. 31 32 Vice-Chair Tuma: I don't know whether you have actually withdrawn your motion or not. 33 34 Chair Garber: I believe he did. 35 36 Commissioner Lippert: I seconded that. 37 38 Commissioner Keller: Wait, I am confused. 39 40 Chair Garber: I think he was joshing or in this case 'Leeing.' 41 42 Vice-Chair Tuma: I actually would be supportive of such a requirement because I think while 43 we can talk about what the parking requirements mayor may not be, if you put the BMR housing 44 in the wrong place for example, or design this in such a way that makes it financially infeasible 45 then you are precluding that from ever being developed. So I think it does make sense to look at 46 this. I think I was the first one to raise it this evening because I think that possibly having that 47 space for expansion if that is not on the table then let's just take it off the table and say it is not 48 part of the project. But that is certainly not the proposal. That is not the way that this was put City 0/ Palo Alto October J 4, 2009 Page 69 0/83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 forward to us, and for a lot of reasons I think we should try to preserve it. So I think it is worth looking at at the ARB level to see if there is a way to do that. Chair Garber: Would you like to state that as an amendment or a motion in some way? Vice-Chair Tuma: I will let Arthur do that. Chair Garber: Commissioner. Commissioner Keller: I guess this is an amendment to the main motion technically? . Chair Garber: Yes. Commissioner Keller: I will make an amendment to the main motion that the ARB review drawings showing the feasibility of potential future expansion of the grocery store. Ms. Tronquet: I want to be clear again that I do think that this creates a significant risk for a CEQA challenge. I think it has the potential to significantly impact the project's CEQA analysis. Mr. Reich: And feasibility is incredibly relative to the time and place. I mean feasibility at what point in the future? Anyone can come up with a drawing showing a footprint of an expanded building if that is what you are looking for, I don't know. But to actually really address the feasibility goes far beyond. It is actually adding another component to this project, which is not proposed. 26 . Commissioner Keller: Would you suggest a different word other than 'feasibility?, 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Mr. Reich: I would suggest that you remove the motion to add it. Ms. Tronquet: I think the way the proj ect is proposed now addresses your concern. Chair Garber: Vice-Chair Tuma. Vice-Chair Tuma: As I heard the applicant say part of this proposal is to set aside this area for future expansion. So I see that as part and parcel of what they are proposing. I am not saying they are proposing to build something there now but they are proposing that this space be set aside for future expansion. Perhaps it would be better to say instead of 'analyze the feasibility,' say 'look at the possibility. ' Commissioner Keller: May I? Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Okay, my amendment to the main motion is that the ARB review drawings showing potential future expansion of the grocery store, showing the possibility of a potential future expansion of the grocery store. City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 70 of83 1 Chair Garber: Attorney, this is an amendment so it would require a second, is that correct? Or it 2 is being offered as a ... if I accept it as a friendly amendment, which I am not doing just yet. 3 4 So Commissioner Keller and Commissioner Tuma I am not likely to support it in its current form 5 because of the reasons I have already stated in addition to the ears perking up on the four Staff 6 members here. However, I do believe that the fact that it is vacant I would be in a certain sense 7 to try and structure the opportunity occur in the future and yet not make it part of the project. 8 Maybe another way to think about this is to, and this is sort of inverse here, but perhaps to keep 9 the garden function immediately adjacent to the existing grocery store such that in some 10 opportunity that occurs at some later time that space can be utilized. Commissioner Keller. 11 12 Commissioner Keller: Once more with feeling. That the ARB review the placement of the 13 BMR units to ensure that they do not preclude the potential future expansion of the grocery store. 14 15 Chair Garber: I am not sure that is going to relieve the Attorney of their concern. 16 1 7 Mr. Reich: The current placement of the BMR units does preclude the future expansion of the 18 grocery store. The corner is left open. Nothing is constructed there. There is nothing for the 19 ARB to comment or examine. There is just nothing there. 20 21 Chair Garber: So let's do this. I am not going to accept it. Would you like to make it as an 22 amendment? 23 24 MOTION 25 26 Commissioner Keller: So moved. 27 28 Chair Garber: Is there a second? 29 30 SECOND 31 32 Vice-Chair Tuma: Second. 33 34 Chair Garber: Any discussion by the maker? The seconder? I see one light from Commissioner 35 Holman. 36 37 Commissioner Holman: I have a question. So if the CEQA issue arises how is it that the 38 applicant can suggest that this is the location for future potential expansion but we can't? So I 39 am confused on that. 40 41 Chair Garber: May I? Because it is just talk as opposed to a part of the project. 42 43 Ms. Tronquet: It will come before you. If in the event they decide to expand it that will come 44 before you as a new project, and we will go through this whole process all over again. 45 46 Commissioner Holman: But they are including it as part of their project description. So if it is 47 part of the project description, as I understood it they changed the projected description to 48 include, and maybe I am not reading it correctly. City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 71 of83 1 2 Mr. Reich: They described the space as being available for some possible future expansion but 3 they have not in their project description described this as -it is not a given that the grocery store 4 will ever expand in their project description. It is not intended that that would necessarily ever 5 happen. It is just intended that that space could satisfy the requirement by Council to provide 6 room if is should ever be desired in the future. 7 8 Commissioner Holman: How is that different than what we are asking for? I am not seeing .... 9 10 Mr. Reich: Because you are asking that they actually analyze that aspect, and formally move 11 forward to analyze a prop'osal of expansion. 12 13 Chair Garber: To look at a project that would actually have that element in place. 14 15 Mr. Reich: Correct. 16 17 Commissioner Holman: That is not how I am hearing the amendment. 18 19 Mr. Reich: That is what the amendment effectively does the way it is worded. 20 21 Ms. Tronquet: To be clear, the potential for expansion is not in the project description of the 22 Mitigated Negative Declaration. It describes square footages of office space, housing, other 23 improvements, but it does not .... 24 25 Commissioner Holman: I understand it is not in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. How I read 26 it at least was the applicant had changed the proj ect description in response to the Council's 27 actions. 28 . 29 Ms. Tronquet: I don't think there is a record of any change to the project description. I have it 30 right here. I can read it. 31 32 Ms. French: The motive for providing the garden space is to provide the potential for the future 33 but everyone understands that it has to go back through another environmental review and 34 Planning Commission, and Council, and ARB if they in fact do an expansion. 35 36 Ms. Tronquet: I suggest that the Commission say something like it supports the current location 37 of the garden. 38 39 Chair Garber: I have lights from Commissioners Lippert and Keller. Commissioner Lippert. 40 41 Commissioner Lippert: I think one of the things that it does is asks us to divine or look into the 42 future or a crystal ball and say we are married to a certain expansion or use. Whereas in the 43 future it might be some other use that really takes precedence over that. I am just reaching into 44 my crystal ball and saying well, we have an aging population, why not have that comer become 45 more housing for senior housing? That might be the profit motive or appropriate 30 years in the 46 future. Or for something else it might be a neighborhood clinic of some kind. To say feasibility . 47 for a grocery store expansion really begins to marry the use to that parcel and it just begins to tie 48 our hands or a future Commission's hands. City 0/ Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 720/83 1 2 Chair Garber: Julie, and then Commissioners Keller and Tuma. 3 4 Ms. Caporgno: I just wanted to clarify that in the Staff Report it talks about the project includes 5 the following components. The way it lists that area is says a landscape plaza at the corner of 6 Staunton Court and Oxford Avenue. So that can be used for anything. Obviously in the body of 7 the Staff Report there is a discussion that that's a possibility in the future but that is not a 8 component of the project. 9 10 Chair Garber: Keller and then Tuma. 11 12 Commissioner Keller: My intent in having the ARB review drawings is not to require, not to 13 require that any future grocery store ever be built on the location, or to preclude any other use of 14 that location that the applicant, that the Commission, and that the ARB, and the Council 15 subsequently approve. But rather, since the intent of having this space is to have a -the reason 16 that the BMR was removed, the reason that this space was put there is in fact to allow the 1 7 potential that mayor may not be realized in the future that that be a place for the grocery store to 18 be expanded. Therefore the intent of the amendment is that the ARB would review it and say 19 yes that space is there for that potential as sort of a reserve if you will, and that it is understood 20 by everybody that in the event that a project is created that expands the grocery store that it will 21 go through all the proper CEQA analysis, and it will go through all the building code, and all the 22 other stuff, and the full ARB, and PTC, and Council review that is in effect at that time. 23 24 Ms. Tronquet: What I am saying is that from a CEQA perspective going through that process of 25 analysis looks like you are anticipating a second phase to the project and that is what creates the 26 risk to our current CEQA review. It changes the project. It doesn't really matter when you are 27 planning on building it but right now you are analyzing some new or different use. 28 29 Chair Garber: Commissioners one moment. Commissioner Tuma and then Fineberg. 30 31 Vice-Chair Tuma: Based on the discussion we have had and further input from Staff I am going 32 to withdraw my support for this amendment. 33 34 Chair Garber: In that case we need to ask if the amendment has someone else that will second it. 35 36 Vice-Chair Tuma: I am not removing my second I am just letting everybody know that I am not 37 going to be voting for it. 38 39 Chair Garber: I see. So the motion is still on the floor. Commissioner Fineberg and then 40 Martinez. 41 42 Commissioner Fineberg: I guess I am wondering whether Council's request that there be some 43 potential future expansion didn't in and of itself trigger the quandary you are saying for CEQA. 44 I am seeing Staff nodding their head no. 45 46 If Council has said figure out some way to generate potential future expansion space if it exists 47 as a theoretical possibility and that doesn't trigger additional CEQA review then why can't ARB 48 look at it and say does the current configuration theoretically satisfy Council's request? City Page 730[83 1 2 Ms. Tronquet: Basically, you are going from something speculative, this is an open space that 3 someday could be used for something and we don't know when, to something that is reasonably 4 foreseeable. We are going through an analysis of one option of exactly what could occur there in 5 the future. It turns it from it could be anything into something pretty specific and that is the 6 problem from the CEQA perspective. 7 8 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. So if we cannot ask the ARB to theoretically analyze whether 9 that space potentially meets Council's needs should we include a comment that simply states that 10 we are unable as a body to determine its adequacy and explain why? Then Council will 11 understand that they can't count on that definitively being an adequa~ expansion space. 12 13 Ms. Caporgno: That isn't part of the Council's motion. The Council's motion was number one 14 that initiate the Planned Community process, PTC to review project prior to ARB review, 15 maximum square footage not to exceed current proposal, project to be fully parked, project to 16 include up to eight Below Market Rate units, and that at or before the PC zone change is 17 approved by Council there has to be a legal agreement between the applicant and the grocery 18 store owner. Then they added that the PTC and the ARB work to define the BMR units and the 19 office space, and they wanted the streets capes on all four fronts to evaluate and incorporate 20 parking and traffic, and that is it. There wasn't any indication in a motion that I can find that 21 indicates ... 22 23 Chair Garber: Julie, thank you. Commissioner Fineberg. 24 25 Commissioner Fineberg: Point three, page 88 of I believe it was the second day when they 26 continued, it says the requirement for a grocery store at least the size as currently proposed. So 27 by that 'at least' I am reading that as the language that would be that maybe it might be more. Is 28 that where they are wrapping up the expansion potential? 29 30 Ms. Tronquet: I don't think so. I think maybe that might be more now but a separate expansion 31 I think is an entirely different issue. 32 33 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez, if you will forgive me I am going to ask Commissioner 34 Keller to come in before you. Commissioner Keller. 35 36 MOTION WITHDRAWN 37 38 Commissioner Keller: Based on the nature of the discussion by our attorney, which I appreciate, 39 I am going to withdraw my motion. However, I will take very much to heart and appreciate the 40 attorney's vociferous defense of making sure that CEQA includes the whole of the action, which 41 I think that I yam certainly in support of that defense. I will remind you of that at certain future 42 times when certain CEQA actions come before us, be assured. 43 44 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez do you have anything else you' would like to add before 45 we ask if there is anything else that would like to be added to the primary motion? 46 47 Commissioner Martinez: No, that kind of precludes what I had to say. 48 City of Palo Alto October J 4, 2009 Page 74 of83 1 Chair Garber: Commissioners, anything else, he said looking to his left. 2 3 Commissioner Holman: This one hopefully is pretty easy but we will see. A question for Staff 4 real quickly. Because EI Camino Real is a highway and not under our jurisdiction can we put a 5 time limit parking situation on El Camino? 6 7 Ms. Tronguet: I am not sure but don't believe that we can. I think that is not under our 8 jurisdiction. 9 10 Commissioner Holman: Okay. So what I would propose as a friendly amendment is to propose 11 that Oxford and College have 30-minute maximum parking limits. The reason is to support the 12 retail because people who go to grocery stores like best to park on the surface. JJ&F is on the 13 corner of EI Canlino and Oxford and time limited parking there will help support the retail use. 14 15 Chair Garber: I would be supportive of that if we could reword it slightly for Staff to investigate 16 to see if such parking is feasible and safe, etc. I don't know if it meets all those criteria. 17 18 Commissioner Holman: How would it not be safe? 19 20 Chair Garber: With the street, other stuff going in and out, etc. I just don't know if the .... 21 22 Commissioner Holman: Maybe Staff could comment. 23 24 Ms. French: It would be ideal if there was a way to study that before we just take that to the 25 Council. Whether 30-minutes is appropriate or one hour or what have you, how many spaces? 26 There is a lot to look at. 27 28 Ms. Tronquet: I also think we sometimes, and correct me if I am wrong, but I think we typically 29 get feedback from like the Police Department and Public Works Department on parking. 30 31 Mr. Reich: There has been no community outreach on that kind of proposal in this location. 32 33 Commissioner Holman: It is just limiting the amount of time people can park not taking away 34 parking places. We need community feedback on this to support retail services? 35 36 Mr. Reich: Changes like that we do need community input on. You don't just make changes 37 like that without talking to the community first. 38 39 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg. 40 41 Commissioner Fineberg: What currently exists there? Is there now two-hour limited parking on 42 College or is all unlimited? 43 44 Mr. Reich: I am not aware of any time limits. Maybe the applicant is more familiar with that 45 frontage. I don't shop at JJ&F. I don't live in town. 46 47 Ms. Caporgno: I am pretty sure that there aren't any limitations because we are working on the 48 residential permit parking for College Terrace and it extends almost up to El Camino, but just City of Palo Alto October J 4, 2009 Page 750f83 1 where the residential ends. It is halfway through those blocks and there aren't any time limits on 2 those blocks now. 3 4 Commissioner Holman: So let me propose it this way. That Staff investigate time limited 5 parking to support the retail services on College and Oxford. 6 7 Chair Garber: I am in general support of that. Commissioner Lippert you had a comment, and 8 Commissioner Fineberg you have completed your comments? 9 10 Commissioner Fineberg: I would just appreciate it if we could hear from the applicant since they 11 know their parking conditions the best. 12 13 Mr. Reich: He just specified to me that there are no perimeter time limits currently. 14 15 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert. 16 17 Commissioner Lippert: I agree with your rewording of that. I think what is appropriate there is 18 that also there are loading zones. Loading zones are also vital to retail in terms of them being 19 able to get quick deliveries of merchandise and goods, particularly the other retail components 20 because they don't have the benefit of a loading dock. 21 22 Chair Garber: So I will support it. The seconder? 23 24 Vice-Chair Tuma: As will 1. 25 26 Chair Garber: Something else? 27 28 Commissioner Holman: Not having to do with the motion. If anybody else has any amendments 29 then we should go to that. I do have a question having to do with procedure so other 30 amendments first. 31 32 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 33 34 Commissioner Keller: I believe that we did not address the amendment in terms of penalties for 35 not having retail use. 36 37 Ms. French: I am sorry we are confused over here at the Staff table. Did that friendly 38 amendment 15 actually pass? 39 40 Chair Garber: It has been added in a friendly manner so no vote was taken. 41 42 Ms. French: Okay. 43 44 Commissioner Keller: I am up to 16 so I am not sure how your numbering is. I would like to 45 make a friendly amendment. That Staff should propose what penalties are applied in the event 46 that there is not initial retail occupancy or subsequent retail occupancy during the life of the 47 project and make that as part of what comes back to us when it comes back to the Commission. I 48 am sorry, grocery store. In other words, if there is not occupancy by the grocery store initially or City o[ Palo Alto October J 4, 2009 Page 76 0[83 1 at subsequent time during the life of the project then the Staff could propose penalties that apply 2 to that lack of grocery store. 3 4 Chair Garber: You are looking for monetary penalties. 5 6 Commissioner Keller: I am looking for monetary penalties per day if you wish that are 7 significant that Staff is to propose and to come back to the Commission with when it comes back 8 to us after ARB review. 9 10 Chair Garber: Yes? 11 12 Ms. Tronquet: We already have penalties. The violation would be failure to comply with the PC 13 regulations that apply to that district. What I you are suggesting I think is to create special, not 14 really to create penalties, but to add regulations related to occupancy. The violation itself would 15 be a violation of the PC Ordinance, which we already have penalties for. 16 1 7 Commissioner Keller: How much is that penalty? 18 19 Ms. Tronquet: I don't recall. Typically they are between $100.00 and probably $500.00 but I 20 don't know off the top of my head. 21 22 Commissioner Keller: Howoften? Is it per day? 23 24 Ms. Tronguet: Yes. 25 26 Commissioner Keller: So the violation is per day, is that correct? 27 28 Ms. Tronguet: Yes, but for what you are talking about I think you are suggesting that you want a 29 condition in the ordinance that it needs to be continuously occupied. 30 31 Commissioner Keller: Right, and obviously there are exceptions in terms of what the 32 requirement is initially, and there are exceptions if JJ&F were to go out of business and there 33 would be a reasonable time for finding a new grocery store. But if there is failure to do that there 34 would be some sort of penalty. 35 36 Ms. Tronguet: That is sort of an extensive set of regulations. It can't be linlited to what you just 37 said it needs to be much more specific than what you outlined. 38 39 Commissioner Keller: Well, I am suggesting that Staff draft such conditions and that we don't 40 sit here writing one. That Staff draft such conditions, discuss it with the applicant, and that that 41 come back to us when we have PC Ordinance review after the ARB. 42 43 Chair Garber: Understood. Commissioner Tuma and then Lippert. 44 45 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller it sounds like there were two components of that, at 46 least is one way to break it down. One is if they don't initially occupy and then the second is if 47 JJ&F leaves and then there is no grocery store occupying it. Is that correct? 48 City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 77 of83 1 Commissioner Keller: Those are the two scenarios under which there would be a penalty. 2 3 ViCe-Chair Tuma: Right. scenario number one though, the first of those, I thought we had 4 already addressed that by.saying that if they don't have the grocery store occupying the property 5 initially their penalty is they cannot have the office occupied. 6 7 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So maybe we should just talk about only the subsequent, if 8 JJ&F were to leave that they have to get a replacement within a certain period of time or there 9 are penalties that are applied. 10 11 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert. 12 13 Commissioner Lippert: The only thing I wanted to say is that by asking Staff to lock this in and 14 making it part of the ordinance in terms of a dollar amount or something very specific, what 15 happens is that over the course of time what may seem like a large fine today may in fact in the 16 future may seem very, very minor. I think that we are better off relying on the language in the 17 Municipal Code that describes what civil penalties are and using that language. If there was 18 son1ething useful here that maybe what we want to say is that once a grocery store has vacated 19 the site perhaps the building is no longer in compliance or the use is on longer in compliance. 20 21 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 22 23 Commissioner Keller: I think it would be reasonable to say that the failure of an operating 24 grocery store for a certain period of time to be determined by Staff whether it is two months or 25 six months, whatever the right period of time is, that during the life of the building that each day 26 beyond that of failure to have a grocery store operating during that period is considered a 27 separate violation of the PC Ordinance. That may be the way to handle the issue. Obviously you 28 can have appropriate exceptions that the applicant talked about about acts of God, war, and 29 earthquakes. 30 31 Chair Garber: Vice-Chair Tuma, did you have a comment? 32 33 Vice-Chair Tuma:Yes. I think the way to deal with this is you just say that they would be fined 34 the maximum amount permissible under the Municipal Code. Then if at some point in future we 35 feel that the dollars in the Municipal Code are not adequate then the Municipal Code could be 36 modified. 37 38 Chair Garber: If I am understanding the Attorney correctly the Municipal Code does not deal 39 with this circumstance. 40 41 Ms. Tronguet: The Municipal Code provides for penalties if there is a violation of the PC 42 Ordinance. What we don't have in this ordinance that I think that Commissioner Keller is 43 suggesting is something that essentially legislated occupancy and the duration. 44 45 Chair Garber: What I am hearing and Commissioner Keller and/or you can tell me otherwise is 46 that JJ&F is occupying the store and in year 12 they decide that they are not going to occupy the 47 store and they go away. The store is left vacant and at some time period the City comes in and 48 says okay, we are going to charge you $500.00 a day because it is vacant. City of Palo Alto October 14. 2009 Page 780f83 1 2 Ms. Tronguet: Vacancy currently is not a violation. Tenants leave. ·It happens. 3 4 Chair Garber: Right. Exactly. 5 6 Ms. Tronguet: So under our current code having a vacancy for a period of time is not a 7 violation. Any condition in your PC Ordinance ..... . 8 9 Chair Garber: That vacancy would not violate the PC Ordinance. 10 11 Ms. Tronguet: Right. 12 13 Chair Garber: So now, Commissioner Keller am I getting the scenario correct? 14 15 Commissioner Keller: That is correct. If for example, hypothetically, if JJ&F were to leave after 16 20 years and for say a period of say six months thereafter there was no grocery store there that 17 would be a violation. That should be considered a violation of the PC Ordinance and penalties 18 would kick in. 19 20 Chair Garber: Okay, so I will not support that because I believe that penalties that are above and 21 beyond in that sort of way are draconian unless they are directly affecting health and safety of 22 the population, and I do not see that occurring here. Would you like to consider that as a 23 separate amendment? 24 25 MOTION 26 27 Commissioner Keller: Yes I will. 28 29 MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF A SECOND 30 31 Chair Garber: Is there a second to that? I am hearing none so that motion would fail. 32 33 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 34 35 Chair Garber: Commissioners, anything else? Commissioner Holman. 36 37 Commissioner Holman: A couple of procedural things, three procedural things. If this goes to 38 the ARB on the two dates in November and returns to us December 2 what if ARB doesn't 39 resolve the issues and it can't come to us by December 2? 40 41 Ms. Caporgno: We could continue the item again. The ARB meetings that we are targeting are 42 November 5 and November 19. 43 44 Commissioner Holman: The reason I am bringing this up is I don't want our December 2 or the 45 City Council's December 14 meeting to be such imperative drivers that the ARB isn't allowed to 46 do its job. If we can get Commissioners to nod or whatever on that. 47 City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 790f83 1 Ms. French: By code the ARB has three cracks, three hearings. So they are allowed three 2 meetings if necessary to come to a recommendation. 3 4 Commissioner Holman: And they have not seen this at all. 5 6 Ms. French: Yes, they have not seen this at all. 7 8 Chair Garber: They are going to be so excited. 9 10 Commissioner Holman: So just be clear on that, I find myself in a bit of a bind here because if I 11 vote to support the motion even as amended I don't have benefit again of context, don't know 12 what the ARB is going to do with it, so if I vote to support the motion it looks like I am 13 supporting it as it is propose. Comnlissioner Tuma is looking puzzled. 14 15 Vice-Chair Tuma: If I may, but it is going to come back to us. So we will have the benefit of 16 their discussions. 17 18 Commissioner Holman: So what my point is though is if I vote in favor of the motion with all 19 these considerations, if it still comes back with the context drawings provided and it looks too 20 big to me and incompatible then I would find myself in the position of voting against the project. 21 So that is how it is a little bit of a ... you know? 22 23 Vice-Chair Tuma: If I may once again, I think we clarified that before when I asked the question 24 about if it comes back to us and we wanted to modify our recommendations based on what 25 comes back to us would we be able to do that? The answer from Staff and City Attorney was yes 26 we would. 27 28 Commissioner Holman: Thank you for that clarification on your language. So that is very 29 helpful. Then the other piece that I hope will come back to us, and I don't feel optimistic that it 30 will, I am still not convinced or comfortable that even with the best of intentions that we are 31 going to get JJ&F back. I am still not convinced either that they are going to be offered the 32 space at a subsidized rate because we have no evidence of that. So that is my concern and it has 33 been stated many times over by many people in the public. I hope to goodness that at the time 34 this comes back to us that that issue is resolved. 35 36 Chair Garber: No other? 37 38 Commissioner Holman: No. Just one last point on that to punctuate is because the agreement 39 that has been indicated at the City Council for the applicant and the market to enter into is a 40 private agreement. . So that is the other cause for concern. So I anl looking for some kind of 41 clarity and better evidence when this comes back. 42 43 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 44 45 Mr. Reich: The applicant has indicated that the City can be a party to that agreement. So it is 46 not necessarily going to be a private agreement. 47 48 Commissioner Holman: But we have not seen that and the City hasn't agreed to be a part. City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 80 of83 1 2 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 3 4 Commissioner Keller: Two things. First of all, we don't currently have a PTC meeting on 5 December 2 so this would be a new meeting. If the ARB approval were not finished by 6 December 2 would we have to come back and say adjourn it to the future? 7 8 Ms. Caporgno: We can have a special meeting on that night. Given the fact that you are 9 delaying all these Comprehensive Plan items I think we would have adequate fodder for you to 10 review. 11 12 Commissioner Keller: The second thing is I am actually disappointed that we were not willing to 13 consider penalties because even the applicant had suggested that. 14 15 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg. 16 17 Commissioner Fineberg: I just want to make a quick correction for the record of an earlier 18 comment I made. When I was summing up my ideas I talked about the BMR count being 19 reduced fronl eight to four. I indeed misspoke because it had been a reduction from 14 to eight. 20 I would like it to be understood that my point still remains in my mind valid even if I misquoted 21 the numbers. My apologies and thank you. 22 23 Chair Garber: Commissioners, it is time to vote. I don't even know if I want to attempt to 24 reiterate, what are at 19 conditions? 25 26 Commissioner Keller: Seventeen. 27 28 Ms. French: I have 11 after all of the failures and passages. 29 30 Mr. Reich: I have 11 as well. 31 32 Chair Garber: Would you please read them off, Amy? 33 34 Ms. French: Happy to. We had recommend approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration, 35 Comprehensive Plan Planned Community with conditions: 1) lease for grocery 20-year initial 36 term; 2) grocery tenant occupy and operate prior to office occupancy; 3) Planned Community 37 inspected as required by code; 4) Below Market Rate access to vegetated roof and applicant 38 work with staff on private open space for each unit; 5) Include at least two car-shares in TDM 39 program; 6) item to return to the Planning Commission on December 2, after ARB on Consent 40 and will be pulled if inconsistent with the Planning Commission recommendation or the ARB 41 recommends something that is inconsistent with the Planning Commission recommendation; 42 7) Staff work with applicant on noise to satisfy the neighbors; 8) ARB address vegetated roof 43 and make more accessible as open space; 9) a five percent reduction in office space, 1950 square 44 feet and what I heard was that this is not overall FAR it can be flipped into retail use instead. It 45 is not an overall removal of floor area from the FAR, is that right? 46 47 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert would you clarify? 48 City of Palo Alto October J 4, 2009 Page 81 of83 I 1 Commissioner Lippert: I didn't state it either way so that is fine. 2 3 Ms. French: Okay, it is open to interpretation. 4 5 Commissioner Lippert: If they want to allocate more to retail I will go with that. 6 7 Ms. French: Okay. 10) context drawings to ARB; 11) Oxford and College Avenues, staff 8 investigate time-limited parking. That's it. 9 10 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller was there something that we missed? Okay. 11 12 Commissioner Holnlan: I have a clarification. 13 14 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman. 15 16 Commissioner Holman: Pardon me. From what I understood Vice-Chair Tuma to say in 17 response to my question about what if this comes back and it isn't an acceptable project from our 18 perspective, if we vote in favor of the motion now, does that preclude us from voting no later? 19 What. I understood the two statements to be was if our concerns are not addressed or if the ARB 20 makes som.e recommendations inconsistent with our recommendations that causes concern is 21 different than once seeing it in context and how it pans out whether I would still support it or not. 22 That is very different. 23 24 Chair Garber: Let me just ask you, if the project incorporates all of these different topics why 25 wouldn't you support it? 26 27 Commissioner Holman: It is very heavy office. I had suggested reducing the office lower for 28 one, and retail wrapping around Oxford. Those are two major issues for me. 29 30 Chair Garber: So yes, those would be presumably things that you would have to evaluate 31 whether you would support or not support in the context of this motion regardless. 32 33 Commissioner Holman: Could do it that way. Part of it also has to do with the mass and context 34 of how it looks too, and I won't know that until it comes back. 35 36 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 37 38 Commissioner Keller: We have indicated the conditions in which it will be pulled from the 39 Consent Calendar. However, if the requisite number of Commissioners wish to pull it from the 40 Consent Calendar anyway could that be done? 41 42 Chair Garber: Yes. 43 44 Ms. Tronguet: I am not sure you really even need to have conditions to pull it. It may help to 45 focus your discussion a little bit if you do but you can pull it from your Consent Calendar 46 regardless. I am not really sure you even need the conditions. 47 48 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. City of Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 82 of83 1 2 Chair Garber: Well, part of the reason that it was brought up was Commissioner Fineberg's 3 concern that even if the three votes couldn't be found but it was found to be lacking in those two 4 conditions that it would be automatically pulled off the Consent Calendar. That is what I believe 5 we have supported here in this motion. Commissioner Keller's comment is that for any reason, 6 even if it does support the two conditions there, any three Commissioners can pull it out of the T Consent Calendar tegardless of those criteria or not. So I think-we are confirming your comment 8 there. 9 10 MOTION PASSED (5-2-0-0, with Commissioners Holman and Fineberg against) 11 Commissioners, let's vote. Those in favor of the motion as stated say aye. (ayes) Those 12 opposed? (nays) Commissioners Holman and Fineberg oppose the motion. Commissioners 13 Lippert, Tuma, Garber, Keller, and Martinez support it. The motion passes. 14 15 Commissioner Holman: Might I state it is those two reasons. It is the excessive amount of . 16 office primarily and the lack of retail on College. 17 18 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg any final comments? 19 20 Commissioner Fineberg: I would concur with Commissioner Holman's comments. I am also 21 very uncomfortable voting to recommend a project which has not undergone ARB review, and it 22 is unclear where the assurances are that we can take back a recommendation are accurate, and 23 tha{makes me very uncomfortable voting to recommend in favor of any project. 24 25 Chair Garber: Thank you. Thanks to Staff, applicant, and other observers for their patience. 26 Have a good evening or morning. 27 City o[ Palo Alto October 14, 2009 Page 830[83 Agenda Date: To: From: Subject: November 5, 2009 Architectural Review Board Russ Reich, Senior Planner ATTACHMENT I Architectural Review Board Staff Report Department: Planning and Community Environment 2180 EI Camino Real (The New College Terrace Centre) 07PLN-00327: Application by Carrasco and Assoc. Architects for the Clara Chilcote Trust for Architectural Review of a proposed Planned Community (PC), a mixed use development containing three two-and three-story buildings with 57,900 sq. ft. of floor area for retail, office and residential use (8 affordable units), below-grade and surface parking facilities, with a Design Enhancement Exception application for height and setback exceptions: (1) one ten-foot height encroachment for a signage spire, (2) one five-foot encroachment for a gazebo roof, and (3) one 7' -9" setback encroachment for 66 feet of a grocery store wall on Oxford. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to a Mixed Use designation is also requested. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board make a recommendation of approval to the City Council, based upon the findings in Attachment B and subject to the suggested Conditions of Approval set forth in Attachment A. BACKGROUND Project Description The project site is an entire block bounded by EI Camino Real to the east, Staunton Court to the west, Oxford Avenue to the north, and College Avenue to the south. A project location map is provided as Exhibit A of Attachment A. The project is the redevelopment of four parcels of land having a total site area of 50,277 square feet ( 1.15 acres). There are currently several buildings on the site including the 8,712 sq. ft. JJ&F Market, a 4,315 sq. ft. retail building, and a 5,001 sq. ft. office building which would be removed as part of the project, and the four lots would be combined into one parcel. The project includes the following components: College Terrace Centre 12180 EI Camino Real Page 1 • The replacement of 18,028 square feet of existing commercial space with 57,900 square feet of new commercial and residential space. The comnlercial space would include 8,000 square feet for a grocery store, 5,580 square feet of ground floor retail space, and 38,980 square feet of office space; • Eight (8) residential below-market-rate (BMR) units, comprising 5,340 square feet; • Underground parking garage containing 216 parking spaces on two levels; • Surface parking lot accommodating 11 parking spaces; • 24 on-street parking spaces around the site's perimeter; • A landscaped plaza at the comer of Staunton Court and Oxford A venue; • Removal and replacement of all street trees around the site's perimeter; • Automobile driveways on El Camino Real, College Avenue and Stanton Court providing access to parking lots and an area for loading and deliveries. Access to the below grade parking would be provided from the El Camino Real driveway. City Council Initiation The City Council reviewed the request to initiate the Planned Community rezone and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment on July 13,2009 and continued the item to July 27,2009 for further discussion. The City Council voted 7-1 to initiate the Planned Community (PC) process and directed that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review the project prior to the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The City Council specified the following five items for the project: 1. The maximum floor area shall not exceed 61,960 sq. ft.; 2. The project shall be fully parked per Palo Alto standards, including the parking reductions allowed by the City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance; 3. The project shall include up to 8 Below Market Rate (BMR) units; 4. Prior to Council approval, or when the PC zone change is adopted by Council, there must be a legal agreement (lease or other agreement between the applicant and the owners of JJ&F market) requiring John Garcia, on behalf of JJ&F Market, to operate a grocery store on the site and if for any reason Mr. Garcia cannot perform that condition, requiring the developer to obtain a grocery store operator of similar quality, subject to the City's discretionary approval; 5. The PTC and the ARB shall pay attention to walkable streetscape on all four sides of the project and evaluate and incorporate parking and traffic management measures as appropriate. Planning and Transportation Commission Review The PTC last reviewed the application on October 14,2009. On a 8-1 vote, the PTC recommended approval of the project with the following conditions: College Terrace Centre 12180 EI Camino Real Page 2 PTC Comments/Conditions: • The lease for the grocery store shall have, at minimum, a 20 year initial term; • The grocery tenant shall occupy and begin operations prior to any office'tenant occupancy; • The PC shall be inspected at least once every three years for compliance with the PC district regulations and the conditions of the ordinance under which the district was created; • Ensure that the residents of the BMR units have access to the vegetated roof; • Work with staff to find the appropriate amount of private open space area for each of the residential units; • Include at least two car share vehicles as part of the TDM program; • The item shall return to the PTC on consent after ARB review; • Staff shall work with the applicant on noise related issues to the satisfaction of the neighbors; • The ARB shall look at making the vegetated roof more accessible; • There shall be a 5% reduction in the amount of office square footage (1,950 sq. ft.). This does NOT require a reduction in the overall square footage on the site (FAR). • Context drawings/photos shall be provided for ARB review. • Staff is asked to investigate time limited parking on College and Oxford Avenues. Revised plan sets were submitted to staff on October 22, 2009, to address the PTC concerns. The applicant has chosen not to reduce the amount of office floor area, which was the most significant design-related comment made by the PTC. The applicant has submitted an updated project description letter (Attachment D) and will present to the ARB how the revised plans address the other PTC comments. DISCUSSION EI Camino Real Design Guidelines There are two sets of EI Camino Real Guidelines. The first set was adopted by Council in 1979. The second set was recommended by the ARB in 2002 but have not been formally adopted by City Council. The EI Camino Real Master Schematic Design Plan adopted in 2003 is also in effect, and is used to direct imprQvement plans of the public right of way. Objectives The 2002 South El Camino Real Design Guidelines (SECRDG) state, "in order to realize the overall vision and goals for EI Camino Real, the design guidelines encourage property owners, merchants, public officials and the community to: 1. Support land uses that locate higher density developnlent adjacent to transit nodes, and provide a compatible mix of uses in aesthetically pleasing well-sited buildings; 2. Create an identity that is specific to south Palo Alto; 3. Encourage design that compliments the streetscape concept and attracts additional private College Terrace Centre I 2180 EI Camino Real Page 3 investment; and 4. Ensure a healthy and vibrant market for new development projects, both large and small. One of the guiding principles of these guidelines is to encourage two and three story buildings, and prominent facades facing El Camino Real. The project follows this guiding principle. Street Trees The proj ect includes removal of 11 street trees and planting of approximately 41 street trees at approximately 25 feet on center. The 1979 El Camino Real Design Guidelines (ECRDG) recommend, for private projects, one street tree for every 25 feet of street frontage along El Camino, and note a 15 gallon size (30 feet spacing is also noted for planting along both El Camino Real and streets intersecting El Camino Real), with installation done during property improvements, and approval of the locations by the Parks and Recreation Department (and the trees specified are Liquidambers in the sidewalks and medians, and Redwoods and Canary Pines in the medians). The 2003 El Camino Real Master Schematic Design Plan states that the tree spacing can range between 25 and 33 feet on center. The 2002 guidelines only address tree planting related to surface parking areas. The street tree planting proposal would be consistent with these guidelines and the Plan. Building Placement The 1979 ECRDG state that when possible, buildings should be set back from the front property line, with landscaping or people-oriented plaza in front. The project has plaza areas on El Camino. The 2002 SECRDG encourage buildings to be built up to the sidewalk to reinforce the definition and importance of the street and specify that a minimum 75% of the buildings in Node Areas should be placed at "build-to" lines, and state that when the building is set back from the build-to line, low walls and hedges are encouraged to maintain the continuity of streetscapes. Furthermore, for corner parcels in Node Areas, the building should continue at the side street setback for a minimum of 50% of the side street property frontage. Finally, the 2002 guidelines state that increased setbacks are permitted only if the additional setback provides a public amenity such as a wider sidewalk, outdoor seating or outdoor dining. Due to the plazas and entries, the 75% of building at the build-to line is not observed for this project. Architectural Design Staff requests that the board evaluate the proposed use of silver aluminum framed windows for the commercial components of the project. Staff is concerned that the silver aluminum door and window frames may not be appropriate when proposed in conjunction with the warm and earthy tones of the stucco walls and Spanish tile roof elements. The silver aluminum would appear to be better suited for a more modern design concept that included more metal and glass. Staff has suggested that a dark bronze window and door system may be more appropriate for the proposed architecture of the building. Along this same line, staff is concerned about the proposed design and materials for the balconies as the silver metal mesh screens and the silver railings may clash with the warmer materials proposed for the building. College Terrace Centre 12180 EI Camino Real Page 4 On the first floor, at the rear portion of the building, the proposal includes an office space that opens to a large colonnade. Staff would like the board to review and comment on the viability of this space for other uses in the future. F or example, would the space be conducive for retail or restaurant use? Are there alterations that would be recommended to ensure that the space would have the flexibility to be viable for other uses in the future? The current design has the ground floor office pulled back such that the second and third floor office space sits above it. The upper floor office spaces are supported by a series of columns creating a colonnade. As proposed, the colonnade space does not appear to serve any particular use or user. The colonnade opens to an open space area t~at faces Staunton Court and has some pots for planting. The plans are not very clear as to what this space would look like and how that space would be used. Urban Design Consultant Comments The City requested that Bruce Fukuji, a private urban design consultant, provide the City with comments on the conceptual design of the project plans that were filed prior to PTC review. He noted as positive elements the architectural design with height, massing and scale of the project as it relates to EI Camino Real as well as the mix and location of uses. He noted that it could be denser with more housing. He commented that the orientation to EI Camino Real was positive in relationship to the sidewalk environment and setbacks with commercial entries and available bike parking. Other positive elements were the retail and outdoor grocery market space and the large bamboo garden coming up through the center of the parking structure. There were other elements of the design concept that he did question. He noted that there are many architectural ideas without a unifying concept. He commented that the canted wall needs more coherence and that the architecture where open to the parking below is odd. He questioned the fact that the gable roofs of the residential units only occur there and nowhere else within the project. He stated that the purpose of the colonnade area on Staunton Court needs to be clarified. He wondered who would use that space and what the programmatic elements would be to facilitate user groups. And finally, he commented that the open space plaza at Staunton Court and Oxford A venue was not well developed. He believes that it should not be privatized. He commented that the open space should better relate to the residential uses and to the market through access and orientation. Pedestrian Access/Circulation The City Council requested that the PTC and the ARB evaluate the project to ensure that walk- able streetscapes are created on all four sides of the project and that parking and traffic management measures be incorporated as appropriate. The proposal includes wide sidewalks around the entire perimeter of the site and new street trees to ensure the establishment of an aesthetically compatible and successful tree canopy on all four streets. Each side of the building would have elements to enhance the pedestrian experience. Along EI Camino Real, there would be retail uses with storefront glass facing the sidewalk and an open air market area in front of the grocery store. On the College Avenue frontage, there would be an entry plaza and storefront window system along the sidewalk. At the Staunton Court side of the College Terrace Centre I 2180 EI Camino Real Page 5 project, there would be an arcade with openings for architectural interest and residential units with entry doors to the street. On the Oxford Avenue side, there would be a landscaped plaza that opens to the sidewalk, and that side of the grocery store would provide recessed areas for bike racks and shopping carts. The side elevation of the grocery store on the Oxford A venue frontage could be improved to enhance the pedestrian experience. The current design provides no fenestration at the street level. Staff would recommend the addition of landscape elements such as potted plants or vines, high windows and/or merchandise display windows in this location in order to enhance the blank fa9ade at the ground level. The board is requested to comment on the walk-ability around the project as well as the way- finding through the project. As proposed, the paving around the project would blend with the grey concrete of the typical city sidewalk. Staff believes there are more opportunities to enhance the pedestrian experience by using special paving or accents to draw pedestrians into and through the project. To get through the project from front to back at the surface level a person would need to move through the building, through a covered colonnade, around the open bamboo light well and past the surface parking to the other side. Access to specific destinations within the two-level parking structure should also be considered. There should be clear directional cues to help people know where they are going. Parking Application of the parking code, without approval of the allowed reductions, would yield a requirement of238 parking spaces. The current proposal for 227 parking spaces yields a deficiency of 11 spaces. With the code-allowed parking space reductions for affordable housing, proximity to transit, and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan measures, the project complies with the City's parking regulations. With these reductions, the proposal includes three parking spaces more than the code requires. Staffwould encourage that attention be paid to way- finding within the two below grade garage levels. Landscaping The proposal includes a number of landscape features. It would include the planting of 41 new street trees around the perimeter of the project, a bamboo garden that would grow up through the center of the project, a vegetated roof over the grocery building, a landscaped plaza, and various planters around the buildings and at office entrances. Staff requests that the ARB review the proposed landscape elements Outdoor Market Area The proposal includes an outdoor market space. The space is proposed to be accessed from within the grocery store building and would contain outdoor sales space for items such as produce and would provide room for tables and chairs for customers to enjoy items they have purchased from the deli. The space would have retractable awnings and a metal fence as an enclosure. While the space is intended to be a flexible space for sales and display, staffrequests that the board comment on the proposed design elements and determine if additional details should return to the ARB for further review. College Terrace Centre 12180 EI Camino Real Page 6 Garden Plaza The proposal includes a garden plaza at the corner of Staunton Court and Oxford Avenue. The current design includes a four foot tall L-shaped planter for trees that surrounds a courtyard with tables and chairs. While the current proposal does create a place of seclusion, it also creates a space that may feel inaccessible to the public. The tall planter creates an access barrier from the public sidewalk to the open space inside. As proposed, one would need to access the space along a narrow walkway and turn into a gated space. Staff requests that the ARB provide direction to the applicant regarding the appropriateness of the current design and direction for an alternative solution if the ARB finds one is necessary. The alternative design provided on page L6 provides more public access but chops up the space with individual tree planters. Staff suggests an approach that inverts the L shaped tree planter such that the open space is provided at the corner to make it more accessible to the pUblic. Smaller planters with openings between them could be introduced around the perimeter of the square to create a sense of enclosure and yet make is more accessible to the public at the same time. The space could use some kind of feature within it to create a focal point and give people a reason to be there. Street Trees Currently there are only 11 street trees of varying condition around the entire perimeter of the site. The proposal includes the removal of all street trees and the planting of up to 41 new street trees around the perimeter of the project. Street tree replacements on EI Camino Real are London Plane trees proposed at a spacing of 25 feet on center, which is consistent with the EI Camino Real Master Schematic Design Plan and Guidelines. The Public Works Department has ~een requested to provide comments on tree species for Staunton Court As well as Oxford and College A venues, and the comments are to be available at the ARB hearing. Noise There will be new mechanical equipment placed on top of the building and within the below grade parking structure. Concerns over additional noise generation from the project have been raised by neighbors within the community. It is too early in the design process to have selected the exact equipment to be installed, so a mitigation measure has been drafted and included as a condition of approval to ensure that the noise level does not vioJate the noise ordinance. Beyond the noise ordinance, the PTC has recommended an additional condition that the staff ensure that the noise levels are satisfactory to the neighbors. Compliance with Development Standards (DEEs) The applicant has requested that the ARB review and recommend approval of the following exceptions to height and setbacks as Design Enhancement Exceptions: Height Exceptions The project is subject to a special height restriction of 35 feet on a portion of the site due to it's proximity (within 150 feet) to the RM-30 and the RMD (NP) zone district. The proposed roof top gazebo above the grocery store building and the architectural signage spire of the grocery College Terrace Centre 12180 EI Camino Real Page 7 store would exceed the 35 foot limit. The gazebo would exceed the height limit by five feet and the spire would exceed the height limit by ten feet. The sign spire adds architectural interest to the front favade of the grocery store building and the gazebo provides an ameriity space to view the proposed green roof. Setback Exception Where the project is located within 150 feet of a low density residential zone district, a ten foot setback is required. This occurs along Oxford Avenue across 162 feet of the property line, a total open space of 1,620 square feet within the setback area. Staff is of the opinion that a Design Enhancement Exc,eption (DEE) is appropriate for the grocery store setback encroachnlellt, since the garden square open space is provided across 66 feet of the property line where it is most needed across from residential use -and the encroachment is not producing greater floor area than if the building were to comply with the setback requirement at all locations. The encroachment is proposed opposite the back wall of the hotel on Oxford and an adequate sidewalk and building setback is provided for functionality. At Oxford Avenue the grocery store is proposed with a 2'-3" setback across a total of 14 feet of the 75 foot building face (19% of the favade at the first floor), encroaching 7'-9"into the required ten foot setback at three locations, two of which are the columns supporting the upper floor. The setback to the curb at the closest point is 14' 5", and 18 feet at its greatest distance. Since the proposed grocery store encroachment is only 8.6% of the total frontage that is subject to this 1 0 foot setback, it can be considered minor and therefore eligible for a DEE. The building is recessed behind the columns to provide convenient bicycle and grocery cart storage. The entire second floor above the grocery store would also encroach 7'9" into this setback across a distance of75 feet, for a total of 46% of the street frontage subject to the 10 foot encroachment. The airspace of the project at the second floor level would achieve 64% of the required airspace at second floor level across the 162 feet of the 10 foot required setback. The covered trash/recycling enclosure is shown as encroaching 7'9" into the 10 foot setback, across a distance of24 feet. The applicant has stated that the encroachment can be eliminated for this portion of the building, so that the DEE is not needed for the trash/recycling enclosure area. The grocery building could be moved over to comply with the ten foot setback but doing so would necessitate moving the building closer toward Staunton Court reducing the size of the corner plaza. In conclusion, staff believes that the design is improved with approval of a DEE which would allow the space that would otherwise be associated with the 10 foot setback to be allocated to the plaza area instead. The reduced setback is not across from a residential use and it would be more appropriate to have a more urban setback in this location. TIME LINE Action: Application Received: College Terrace Centre I 2180 EI Camino Real Date: October 18,2007 Page 8 Planning and Transportation Commission: Planning and-Transportation Commission; Planning and Transportation Commission: City Council (continued): City Council (Project Initiation): Planning and Transportation Commission: Architectural Review Board: Planning and Transportation Commission: City Council: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT February 13,2008 October 1, 2008 April 29, 2009 July 13,2009 July27,2009 October 14, 2009 Novetnber 5, 2009 December 2, 2009 December 7, 2009 An Initial Study and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were completed and circulated for public review and comment on September 15,2009 as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)( Attachment H). The CEQA document categories for which mitigations are proposed include Aesthetics, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Transportation and Traffic. The mitigation related to Aesthetics is intended to ensure that the interior lighting from the office building will not be a nuisance to the residential uses adjacent to the project. The mitigations related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials prescribe measures to be taken in advance of excavation to deal with any hazardous materials if they are encountered. The mitigation related to Noise addresses noise evaluation of mechanical equipment with the noise ordinance. The mitigations related to Transportation and Traffic are designed to ensure that the neighborhood streets are minimally impacted by trips generated by the new development and that progranls are in place to reduce parking demand within the project. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A. Attachment B. Attachment C. Attachment D. Attachment E. Attachment F. Attachment G. Attachment H. Attachment 1. Draft Planned Community Ordinance (with Exhibit A, Project Location Map and Exhibit B, Draft Conditions of Approval) Draft Resolution (with Exhibit A, Project Conformance with Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies) Zoning Comparison Table Applicant's Project Description (Board members only)* Development Schedule* Draft PTC Hearing Minutes, October 14,2009 (ARB members only) LEED and Multifamily Green Point Rated Green Building Checklists* Revised Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, October 5,2009 Plans (ARB nlembers only)* *Provided by applicant College Terrace Centre 12180 EI Camino Real Page 9 COURTESY COPIES Linda Poncini, Carrasco Associates Tony Carrasco, Carrasco Associates Patrick Smailey, The Chilcote Trust Robin Kennedy, Manatt, Phelps, Philips William DRoss Fred Balin Greg Tanaka Susan Rosenberg Prepared by: Russ Reich, Senior Planner Manager Review: Amy French, Manager of Current Planning Filing Index: S :PLAN/PLADIV ICurrent Planning/ARB/ARB (Staff Reports)/2009/2180ECRIARB Staff Report Nov. 5.doc College Terrace Centre 12180 EI Camino Real Page 10 TO: FROM: ATTACHMENT J PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Russ Reich, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Commm1ity Environment AGENDA DATE: December 2, 2009 SUBJECT: 2180 EI Camino Real: Confirmation of the Planning and Transportation Commission's recommendation to approve a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto adopting an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map by Changing the Land Use Designation for 2180 EI Camino Real from Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use and an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to change the Classification of Property Known as 2180 EI Camino Real from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District to PC Planned Community for a Mixed Use Project Having 57,900 Square Feet of Floor Area For A Grocery Store (intended for JJ&F Market), Other Retail Space, Office Space, and Eight Affordable Residential Units, With Two Levels Of Below-Grade Parking Facilities and Surface Parking Facilities For The College Terrace Centre, and Approval of Design Enhancement Exceptions to Allow a sign Spire and Gazebo Roof to Exceed the 35-Foot Height Limit, and to Allow Encroachn1ent Into A Minimum Setback on Oxford Avenue With Conditions. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) confirm their October 14,2009 approval with conditions of the Comprehensive Plan land use map Amendment and PC Ordinance for this project. The project plans and the ARB recommendation that the Council approve the project are generally consistent with the P&TC's October 14, 2009 recommendation. The Vice Chairman will report on the outcome of this meeting during the Council meeting presentation of this project. City of Palo Alto Page 1 of5 BACKGROUND Planning and Transportation Commission Review On October 14, 2009, the PTC recommended approval with conditions on a 5-2 vote with the provision that it return to the PTC on consent after ARB review, to remove from consent only if substantial changes are made. The October 14, 2009 PTC minutes are provided as Attachment A. The PTC recommendation for approval included the following comments and conditions: 1. The lease for the grocery store shall have, at minimum, a 20 year initial term; 2. The grocery tenant shall occupy and begin operations prior to any office tenant occupancy; 3. The PC shall be inspected at least once every three years for compliance with the PC district regulations and the conditions of the ordinance under which the district was created; 4. Ensure that the residents of the BMR units have access to the vegetated roof; 5. Work with staff to find the appropriate amount of private open space area for each of the residential units; 6. Include at least two car share vehicles as part of the TDM program; 7. The item shall return to the PTC on consent after ARB review; 8. Staff shall work with the applicant on noise related issues to the satisfaction of the neighbors; 9. The ARB shall look at making the vegetated roof more accessible; 10. There shall be a 5% reduction in the amount of office square footage (1,950 sq. ft.). This does NOT require a reduction in the overall square footage on the site (FAR). This was an amendment to the original motion that passed by a 4-3 vote. 11. Context drawings/photos shall be provided for ARB review. 12. Staff is asked to investigate time limited parking on College and Oxford Avenues. Architectural Review Board Review On November 5, 2009, the ARB recommended approval of the project with the condition that it come back to them on consent to review the following iten1s: City • Provide clarified floor plans for the BMR units (with room names) • Clarify the site circulation, making it more clear; • Consider redesign of the exterior stair to the roof top garden, this shall include the elimination of the diagonal banding; • Consider simplifying the pathway from the exterior stairs to the gazebo area on the roof; • Review the banding of the grocery store building, consider one color with the two different finishes; • Provide details of the transformer fencing; • Reconsider the tile roofs at the office towers; • Consider some modification to the grocery walls facing Oxford Avenue such as a mural, display windows etc.; • Provide additional information about the private open spaces and the materiality of it; • Provide additional information about the bridge, materials, underside, etc.; • Consider redesign of the striped tower; • Reconsider the selection of the Ash tree species; Alto Page 2 of5 • Provide additional information about the proposed bamboo (species and height) related to the canted wall; • Provide detail to show how the headlights going into the below grade parking will or will not impact the BMR units; • Consider redesign of the BMR units such that they are equally as striking as the other buildings in the project; • Provide more information regarding the plant pallet and conceptual plan for the green roof; • Provide more information about all screening elements and locations; and • Provide additional information about potted plants and the planting at the open area at the center of the project as well as the planting for the trellises located within the at grade parking area. DISCUSSION The project plans are generally consistent with the conditions the PTC recommended at the October 14, 2009 meeting. The PTC conditions of approval will be reflected in the project conditions, except for the condition (#10) requiring reduction of the office square footage and three conditions (#7, 11, 12) that are no longer relevant. Office Reduction Condition The applicant did not agree to the PTC recommendation to reduce the office space by 5%. The applicant states the additional 5% (1,950 s.f.) office reduction would result in a non- economically viable project that would not support preservation of the neighborhood grocery store. As presented October 14, 2009, the plans removed 1,000 s.f. of office area from the Council-initiated project containing 39,980 s.f. of office space. Most of the office area is proposed at the second and third floors of the buildings, with 4,121 s.f. of office area placed at the first floor, facing College Avenue and Staunton Court. The applicant has stated that they would not preclude this area from being used for uses other than office, such as retail or eating and drinking, provided the tenant could pay the appropriate rental rates for the space. The ARB analyzed the design of the first floor office space to assure that it could readily accommodate retail use. The applicant states that, while the additional reduction would make little difference in terms of project impacts (traffic, visual, etc.) on the community, it would have a very significant impact on the viability of the project. Staff and ARB are not recommending the 5% reduction of office space. However, the Council . will be informed of this PTC recommendation when it considers the project on Decenlber 7th, Review. and Street Tree Conditions PTC conditions 7 and 11, which related to ARB review or PTC review, have been addressed and do not need to be included in the final conditions of approval. PTC condition 12 is a staff issue and will be addressed at a later date. In addition, the applicant's street tree replacement and supplemental planting plan proposing London Plane trees in planting wells and conditions from Public Works requiring Ash trees on Oxford, Staunton and College were reviewed by the ARB. The ARB was not supportive of Public Works' Ash tree recommendation and asked for reconsideration. Planning and Public Works staffhave met to discuss the selection of street tree species and are working with the applicant to make the most appropriate choice. There is a condition for ARB consent calendar review of the final street tree planting plans. City of Palo Alto Page 3 of5 Grocery Lease/Construction and Residential Construction Regarding the grocery store construction and occupation, conditions were added that require the grocery lease to be in place before issuance of any building permits, and that the grocery and BMR units be built and occupied concurrent with or prior to occupancy of more than 25% of the office space. While occupancy of the grocery would not be required prior to any occupancy of the office space, it would be required not more than 90 days thereafter and prior to occupancy of more than 25% of the office space. Included below is the original motion from the P&TC and the modified wording. P&TC Recommendation: The grocery tenant shall occupy and begin operations prior to any office tenant occupancy. Staff Recommendation with Modified Wording: 1. No more than 25% of the office space in the project shall be occupied before the grocery store is open for business; 2. The grocery store shall be occupied no later than 90 days following the City's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building in which the grocery store is to be located; and 3. The building permit for the building in which the grocery store is to be located shall be pulled concurrently with the building permit for the other non-residential building in the development. Other P&TC Condition of Approval Modifications Some of the other conditions recommended by the P &TC have been modified as indicated below for purposes of clarity and such that they are legally appropriate and enforceable and / or acceptable to the applicant. The PTC recommendations will be provided to the Council along with the staff recommendations. P&TC Recommendation: Ensure that the residents of the BMR units have access to the vegetated roof. Staff Recommendation with Modified wording: The owners/occupants of the BMR units shall have access to view and enjoy the vegetated roof from the gazebo during normal business hours of the office building. P&TC Recommendation: Staff shall work with the applicant on noise related issues to the satisfaction of the neighbors. Staff Recommendation with Modified wording: The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of Palo Alto's noise ordinance, both during construction and following construction, for the life of the project as per Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. P&TC Recommendation: The ARB shall look at nlaking the vegetated roof more accessible. City Page 40f5 Staff Recommendation with Modified wording: The ARB shall address making the vegetated roof maximally observable to owners, occupants, tenants and visitors during normal business hours of the office building, provided, however, that enjoyment of the vegetative roof shall not interfere with or derogate from the health of the growth thereon. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The revised Initial Study and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) review and COlnment period ended on October 15,2009. Correspondence received on Noverrlber 9,2009 from a member of the public will be provided to the City Council. The PTC recommended approval of the Initial StudylMND on October 14, 2009. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A. Minutes of October 14, 2009 PTC meeting Attachment B. Planned Community Ordinance Attachment C. Revised Plans (Commissioners only)* *Provided by applicant COURTESY COPIES: Linda Poncini, Carrasco Associates Tony Carrasco, Carrasco Associates Patrick Snlailey, The Chilcote Trust Robin Kennedy, Manatt, Phelps, Philips William DRoss Fred Balin Greg Tanaka Susan Rosenberg Prepared by: Russ Reich, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Amy French, Manager of Current Planning DepartmentlDivision Head APproval:_~C~~II!P'~'&"""';""~" --l\'d-jJ-~..3000~.p.l~''''~~'~L..,.......;301I------ Curtis Williams, Director City Alto Page 5 0/5 ATTACHMENT K City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date: December X, 2009 Application Nos.: 07PLN-00000-00327 Address of Project: 2180 EI Camino Real Assessor's Parcel Number: 137-01-029,030,131,135 Applicant: Linda Poncini of Carrasco and Associates Architects 1885 EI Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 Owner: The Clara Chilcote Trust 274 Redwood Shores Parkway, #202 Redwood City, CA 94065 Project Description and Location: The project includes the demolition of all existing buildings on the 1.15 acre site located at 2180 EI Camino Real and construction of a mixed use project having 57,900 square feet of floor area, including 8,000 square feet of grocery (intended for JJ&F Market), 5,580 square feet of other retail, 8 below market rate rental one-bedroonl residential units, 38,980 square feet of office use, and two levels of below-grade parking facilities and surface parking facilities providing a total of 227 parking spaces. The project includes a request for initiation of a Planned Community Zone, and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to assign the Mixed Use land use designation to the site which is currently designated as Neighborhood Commercial. Design Enhancement Exceptions for height and setback are also included. The project site comprises four parcels with a total area of 50,277 square feet ( 1.15 acres) containing the 8,712 sq. ft. JJ&F Market, a 4,315 sq. ft. retail building, and a 5,001 sq. ft. office building. While the EI Camino Real is designated as a California Registered Historical Landmark, there are no historic structures on the site. The surrounding land uses include multifamily and commercial uses to the northwest across Oxford Avenue and is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN). There are single family and multifamily uses to the south west across Staunton Court zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District with a Neighborhood-Preservation Combining District (RMD (NP». There are commercial uses to the southeast across College Avenue zoned Neighborhood Commercial (eN). There are commercial and church uses to the northeast across EI Camino Real zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and Two Family Residential District (R-2). 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 located at 3000 Alexis Dr. could have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: x The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. Although the proj ect, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the proj ect and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential environnlental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required for the proj ect. In addition, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project: Mitigation Measure #1: The project shall include automatic night shades or other system such as motion sensors and timers for the office windows at the rear of the building. Mitigation Measure #2: Prior to any excavation the applicant shall prepare a site specific Health and Safety Plan that conforms to the requirements of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations (VFR) Section 1910.120, the California General Industry Safety Order (GISO) and Title 8, California Code of Regulation (CCR) Section 5192. Mitigation Measure #3: All employees and subcontractors involved in excavation of potentially contaminated material shall be 40 hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) trained and certified. Mitigation Measure #4: Soils shall be field screened, tested, and properly profiled· during redevelopment to determine appropriate reuse or off site disposal. Mitigation Measure #5: The proposed mechanical equipment shall be evaluated to ensure compliance with City of Palo Alto noise limit regulations. Measures such as equipment selection, equipment placement (location), and or the addition of barriers or enclosures shall be employed to ensure that any new noise producing equipment is in compliance with the City's noise ordinance. Mitigation Measure # 6: Cal Trans must approve the proposed curb cut on the El Camino Real for the driveway to the underground parking garage. Mitigation Measure #7: A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program must be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Transportation Department prior to submittal of a building permit application. The TDM program shall outline parking and/or traffic demand measures to be implemented to reduce parking need and trip generation. Measures may include, but are not limited to: parking cash- out programs, provision of EcoPass (VTA) or Go Pass (Caltrain) for office tenants, shared parking, enhanced shuttle service, car sharing, providing priority parking spaces for car poolslvanpools or green vehicles, vehicle charging stations, additional bicycle parking facilities, 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 lor trip reductions, and indicate the basis for such estimates, and shall designate a single entity to implement the proposed measures. Project Planner Date Director of Planning and Community Environment Date ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment PROJECT DESCRIPTION REVISED INITIAL STUDY FOR EXTENDED PUBLIC REVIEW (based upon October 1, 2009 plans) 1. PROJECT TITLE College Terrace Centre 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 Russ Reich City of Palo Alto (650) 617-3119 4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS Linda Poncini of Carrasco and Associates 1885 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 5. APPLICATION NUMBER 07PLN-OOOOO-00327 6. PROJECT LOCATION 2180 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA Parcel Nurnbers: 137-01-029, 030, 131, 135, The project site is located in the central section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and east of U.S. Highway 280 on State Route 82 (El Camino Real), as shown on Figure 1, Regional Map. The site is bounded by El Camino Real to the north east, 2180 EI Camino Real Page 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration College A venue to the south east, Oxford Avenue to the north west, and Staunton Court to the south west, as shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map. 7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The site is designated as Neighborhood Commercial in the Palo Alto 1998 -2010 Comprehensive Plan. This land use designation includes a multitude of various uses including retail, office, and residential uses. 8. ZONING The site is zoned CN, Neighborhood Commercial. The CN zone district is intended to create and maintain neighborhood shopping areas primarily accommodating retail sales, personal service, eating and drinking, and office uses of moderate size serving the immediate neighborhood, under regulations that will assure maximum compatibility with surrounding residential areas. The project's proposed uses are permitted in this zone district. 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project, pursuant to plans dated October 1, 2009, includes the demolition of all existing buildings on the 1.15 acre site located at 2180 EI Camino Real, the removal of all vegetation on the site and along the street frontages, and the construction of a mixed use project having 57,900 square feet of floor area, including 8,000 square feet of grocery (intended for JJ&F Market), 5,580 square feet of other retail, 8 below market rate rental one-bedroom residential units, 38,980 square feet of office use, and two levels of below-grade parking facilities and surface parking facilities providing a total of 227 parking spaces. The project also includes the planting of approximately 40 new trees along the project's street frontages, and approximately 14 trees on the project site, as well as other vegetation and site improvements. The project includes a Planned Community Zone change, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to assign the Mixed Use land use designation to the site which is currently designated as Neighborhood Commercial, and Design Enhancement Exceptions for height and setback encroachments. The project would also include the merger of the four existing legal lots into one single parcel of 1.15 acres. 10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The project site comprises four parcels with a total area of 50,277 square feet (1.15 acres) containing the 8,712 sq. ft. JJ&F Market, a 4,315 sq. ft. retail building, and a 5,001 sq. ft. office building. While the EI Camino Real is designated as a California Registered Historical Landmark, there are no historic structures on the site. The surrounding land uses include multifamily and commercial uses to the northwest across Oxford Avenue and is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN). There are single family and multifamily uses to the south west across Staunton Court zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District with a Neighborhood-Preservation Combining District (RMD (NP)). There are commercial uses to the southeast across College Avenue zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN). There are commercial and church uses to the northeast across EI Camino Real zoned Neighb,orhood Commercial (CN) and Two Family Residential District (R-2). 11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES • County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder • Regional Water Quality Control Board 2180 EI Camino Real Page 2 Mitigated Negative Declaration • California State Clearinghouse • Cal Trans 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) (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) 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 Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 2180 EI Camino Real Page 3 Mitigated Negative Declaration 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. 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 <iegrade the existing visual X character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1,2,8 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a public view or view corridor? 1,2,8 X MapL4 c) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within 1,2 X a state scenic highway? MapL4, L7 d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan 2 policies regarding visual resources? X e) Create a new source of substantial light or X glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1, 8 f) Substantially shadow public open space 1,2 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 project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site. The site is currently developed with several different buildings built at different times and of different architectural styles. The new buildings and site improvements would replace all existing buildings on site. The proposal will also be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board to ensure that the design meet the City's architectural review findings for approval and the intent of the EI Camino Real Design Guidelines. 2180 EI Camino Real Page 4 Mitigated Negative Declaration The existing frontage improvements include six street trees along EI Camino Real, four street trees along Oxford Avenue, and one street tree along College Avenue. The project would include the removal of these street trees and site vegetation, and the planting of new street trees per conceptual landscape plans, as follows: • along EI Camino Real, Yarwood London Plane trees spaced at approximately 25 feet on center in accordance with the 2003 EI Camino Real Master Schematic Design Plan and EI Camino Real Guidelines (approximately 10 to 13 trees, size to be determined in ARB review), • along Oxford Avenue, approximately eight trees, species/sizes to be determined via ARB), • along Staunton Court, approximately 12 to 14 trees, species/sizes to be determined via ARB), • along College Avenue, approximately six trees, species/sizes to be determined via ARB). The frontage improvements would include replacement of sidewalks, curbs and gutters, installation of engineered soil (or approved equivalent) to ensure the health of the replacement trees, placement of tree guards and grates, and potential replacement of street lights. Standard conditions of approval addressing street frontage improvements would be included with proj ect approvals. New site vegetation is proposed within the project, including approximately 14 shade trees in a "garden square", bamboo groves in the center of the site, vine covered trelliage covering the surface parking spaces, and a vegetated roof. The building would not obstruct a public view corridor and is not located within a state scenic highway. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive plan relative to visual resources. The office windows facing the residential neighborhood at the rear of the building have the potential to be a visual nuisance to the adjacent residences. Night shades or other system such as motion sensors and timers would prevent the potential impact of night-time light glare from the office windows to the residential neighbors behind. The building would not shadow a public open space. Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure #1: The project shall include automatic night shades or other system such as motion sensors and timers for the office windows at the rear of the building. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant 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. 2180 EI Camino Real Page 5 Mitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared X pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and 1, 14, 15 Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,2,3 use, or a Williamson Act contract? MapL9, X c) Involve other changes in the existing X environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of 1 Farmland, to non-agricultural use? DISCUSSION: The site is not located in a "Prime Fannland", "Unique Fannland", or "Fannland of Statewide Importance" 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 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 of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay 1,8 Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air 1, 8 X quality violation indicated by the following: i. Direct and/or indirect operational 8 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 fme particulate matter of less than 10 microns in diameter (PMIO); I ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) 1,8,10 X concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine 2180 EI Camino Real Page 6 Mitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as 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)? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net X increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality 1, 8 standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels X e) f) of toxic air contaminants? 1, 8 i. Probability of contracting cancer for the X Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl) exceeds lOin one million ii. Ground-level concentrations of non-1, 8 X carcinogenic TACs would result in a hazard index greater than one (1) for the MEl Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? 1, 8 Not implement all applicable construction 1,8 X emission control measures recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines? DISCUSSION: The City of Palo Alto uses the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) thresholds of significance for air quality impacts, as follows: Construction Impacts: The project would involve demolition, excavating, grading, and paving activities which could cause localized dust related impacts reSUlting in increases in particulate matter (PMlO). Dust related impacts are considered potentially significant but would be minimized with the application of standard dust control measures. Construction equipment would also emit NOx and ROC. However, in order for emissions from construction equipment to be considered significant, the project must involve the extensive use of construction equipment over a long period of time. Based on the size of the proposed project, and anticipated 18 month construction period, emissions of NOx and ROC are anticipated to be less than significant. Long Term Impacts: Long-term project emissions primarily stem from motor vehicles associated with the proposed project. The project is not expected to result in a large number of new vehicle trips. Therefore, long- term air-quality impacts are expected to be less than significant. 2180 EI Cam ino Real Page? Mitigated Negative Declaration ! The project would be subject to the following City's standard conditions of approval: 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 permit. • Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. 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, X or special status species in local or regional 1,2,8 plans, policies, or regulations, or by the . MapN-1 California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, 1,2,8 X policies, regulations, including federally MapN-1 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 any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or 1,2,8 X migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use MapN-1 of native wildlife nursery sites? 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 1,2,8,9, Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance 13 I (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? 2180 EI Camino Real Page 8 Mitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No e) Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Conflict with any applicable Habitat 1,2 Conservation Plan, Natural Community X Conservation Plan, or other approved local, I regional, or state habitat conservation plan? I ! DISCUSSION: In the immediate vicinity of the project, there are no riparian or natural tree habitats 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. There are 41 trees on the project site and 11 city street trees around the perimeter. None of the 41 trees on site are "protected" trees per city ordinance and none have been detennined to be large enough or special in any way as to be considered significant. The 11 city street trees are "regulated" trees that can be renloved and replaced as may be approved by City Council as a component of the Planned Community. The project would result in approximately 40 city street trees around the perimeter of the site. The removal and replacement of both on-site trees and street trees is considered under the Aesthetics section of this analysis. Mitigation Measures: None E. CULTURAL 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) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council 1,2 I X resolution? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource 1,2 X pursuant to 15064.5? MapL-8 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique 1,2 X geologic feature? MapL-8 d) Disturb any human remains, including those 1,2 interred outside of formal cemeteries? MapL-8 X e) 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? : MapL-7 f) Eliminate important examples of major periods 1,2 X 2180 EI Camino Real Page 9 Mitigated Negative Declaration I Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated of California history or prehistory? MapL-7 DISCUSSION: The site is adjacent to State highway 82, the el Camino Real which is designated as a California Registered Historical Landmark. There are no historic resources identified at the project site. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site is within an archaeological resource zone of moderate sensitivity. 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. 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. This would be included as a standard condition of approval. Mitigation Measures: None F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than I 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, as delineated on the most recent X Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on 1,2,4,6 other substantial evidence of a known MapsN- fault? Refer to Division of Mines and 5, N-10 I Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 6 MapN-10 X iii) Seismic-related grQund failure, X including liquefaction? 6 MapN-5 iv) Landslides? 1,6 X MapN-5 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss X of topsoil? 1,8 c) Result in substantial siltation? 1,8 X d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 2180 EI Camino Real Page 10 Mitigated Negative Declaration I I unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral 6 X spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or MapN-5 collapse? e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to 1,2,6 X life or property? MapN-5 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 1,2,6 X geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? 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 liquefaction or violent ground shaking in the event of an earthquake but is within an area subject to expansive soils and strong ground shaking. Development of the proposed project would be required to conform to all requirements in the 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. The potential onsite exposure to geological hazards will therefore be less than significant. No mitigation is required. As indicated in the "Geotechnical Investigation" produced by TRC, from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, the site is suitable for the proposed improvements, provided the recommendations presented in the report are implemented in the design and construction of the project. Some of the highlighted issues that specific recommendations are provided for are: the presence of undocumented fill, liquefaction-induced settlements, and excavation depth near ground water. The project includes implementation of all the geotechnical engineering recommendations made by TRC in its report. No additional measures are required beyond those recommended. Mitigation Measures: None G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources I Potentially I Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues . Unless Impact Mitigation I , Incorporated 2180 EI Cam ino Real Page 11 Mitigated Negative Declaration a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, X or disposal of hazardous materials? 1,7,11, 18 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable X upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the 1, 7, 11, environment? 18 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous X or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or 1,2 proposed school? MapCl d) Construct a school on a property that is subject 1, 8 X e) 1) g) h) i) j) to hazards from hazardous materials contamination, emissions or accidental release? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant X to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a 1,2,7, result, would it create a significant hazard to 11, 18 the public or the environment? MapN-9 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been X adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a I safety hazard for people residing or working in 1,2 the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private X airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the 1,2 project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response 1, 8, 16 X plan or emergency evacuation plan? MapN-7 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 1, 9, 17 intermixed with wildlands? MapN-7 Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1, 7, 8, X environment from existing hazardous materials 11, 18 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: The proposed project may involve the handling, transportation, use, disposal, or emission of hazardous materials. The project is likely to encounter groundwater during excavation of the underground parking structure. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) above the detection limit were found in one boring sample. Cam 17 metals were also found reported in groundwater samples. While the VOC concentration levels 2180 EI Camino Real Page 12 Mitigated Negative Declaration did not exceed the Region 9 Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) or the California Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) the mitigation measures below are required. A gas station was previously located at the project site on the comer of College Avenue and EI Camino Real. The site is not listed as an open or closed Leaking Underground Fuel Tank site. While detectable levels of petroleum related hydrocarbons were discovered they did not exceed ESLs. Cam 17 metals were also found reported in soil samples at various concentrations above the detection limits. The concentrations present in the soil are below established ESLs. The project site is not identified by either the California Environmental Protection Agency or the California State Water Resources Control Board as a hazardous materials site. The project is not expected to pose airport-related safety hazards. The proposed project will not interfere with either emergency response or evacuation. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure #2: Prior to any excavation the applicant shall prepare a site specific Health and Safety Plan that conforms to the requirements of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations (VFR) Section 1910.120, the California General Industry Safety Order (GISO) and Title 8, California Code of Regulation (CCR) Section 5192. Mitigation Measure #3: All employees and subcontractors involved in excavation of potentially contaminated material shall be 40 hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) trained and certified. Mitigation Measure #4: Soils shall be field screened, tested, and properly profiled during redevelopment to determine appropriate reuse or off site disposal. 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? 1,9, X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or X interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local 1,2,6,9 groundwater table level (e.g., the production MapN-2 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)? I 2180 EI Camino Page 13 Mitigated Negative Declaration 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? I 1, 8, 16 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 X surface runoff in a manner which would result 1,2,8, in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide X substantial additional sources of polluted 1,8,16 runoff? t) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,8,16 X g) Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard I Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 1,2,8 X Ma~N-6 ! h) Place within a lOO-year flood hazard area , i) j) k) structures which would impede or redirect 1,2,8 X flood flows? MapN-6 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 2,8 X levee or dam or being located within a lOO-year MapN-8 flood hazard area? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 2,8 X MapN-6, N-8 i Result in stream bank instability? 1,8 X DISCUSSION: During demolition, grading and construction, storm water pollution could result. Non-point source pollution is a serious problem for wildlife dependant on the waterways and for people who live near polluted streams or baylands. Standard conditions of architectural review approval would require the incorporation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Non-Point Source Pollution Control Program, and submittal of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) in conjunction with building permit plans to address potential water quality impacts. City development standards and standard conditions of project approval would reduce potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant. The project would also introduce measures to reduce and slow the runoff of storm water from the site. A vegetated "green roof' is proposed over the grocery market building. The green roof would slow and reduce stormwater runoff by capturing rain water in the soil pockets and releasing it back into the atmosphere through transpiration from the plant material and evaporation. The project will also have large cisterns within the basement to capture stormwater run off to be released slowly at a later time to reduce the chances of flooding. The project site is not located in an area of groundwater recharge, and will not deplete groundwater supplies. The project site is not located in a 100-year flood hazard area and would not impede or redirect flood flows. The 2180 EI Camino Real Page 14 Mitigated Negative Declaration project site is not in an area that is subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The project includes a two level basement, providing parking spaces for the project, located below the groundwater table. The basement construction is such that underground water will flow around the basement. Since there are no adjoining properties as the development is on the entire block, there would be adjoining properties being potentially impacted with any groundwater flow changes. The nearest properties are across streets -Oxford, Staunton and College, 60 feet, 50 and 70 feet in Right of Way width, and EI Camino Real, which is approximately 120 feet in ROW width. Mitigation Measures: None I. LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2,8 X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 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 X for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an 1,2,3,8 I environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community 1,2,8 X conservation plan? I d) Substantially adversely change the type or 1,2,8, X intensity of existing or planned land use in the 10 area? e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with 1,2,3,8 X the general character of the surrounding area, including density and building height? f) Conflict with established residential, 1,8 X recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area? I g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or 1, 14, 15 X farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to I non-agti.cultural use? DISCUSSION: The proposed project includes allowable uses (office, retail, and housing) as regulated by the City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan land use designations. The land use designation for the project site is Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and the site is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN). While the proposed uses of the project would comply with the zoning and land use designation, the quantity of proposed square footage for the office use would not. The proposed 38,980 square feet of office use exceeds the allowable office square footage by 26,411 square feet. The proposed project would comply with the proposed Land Use Designation. The application includes the request to amend both the land use designation and the zone district. The land use designation would be amended to Mixed Use which would allow the proposed amount of office square footage 2180 EI Page 15 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the zoning would be amended to a Planned Community which would also permit the proposed amount of office square footage. The EI Camino Real is a State Highway and a significant vehicular and pedestrian artery that runs through the City. It is a predominantly urban environment as it runs from San Francisco down the peninsula and through Palo Alto to San Jose. Three story buildings constructed close to the street are common along this corridor. The project would not adversely impact existing land uses and would not be incompatible with land uses across the streets surrounding the project, nor with the character of the area. The Planned Community zone has height and setback standards which have been observed in the design of the proposed project, with minor exceptions proposed for setback and height. The October 1, 2009 plans show the grocery store building set back 2'3" from the Oxford Avenue property line, whereas the PC regulations require a 10 feet setback, since the site is across the street from a residential zone district. Plans indicate protrusions into the 35 foot height limit include: (1) a grocery store signage "spire" that is 10 feet above the 35 foot height limit and (2) gazebo that is five feet above the 35 foot height limit. These exceptions may be processed as Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE), with ARB recommendation and Council approval, if they are determined to be minor and findings for approval can be made. The purpose of the DEE process for new development is to permit minor exceptiones) to "enhance the design of a proposed project without altering the function or use of the site or its impact on surrounding properties." The DEE process requires recommendation by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) prior to action by City Council on the project application. The ARB and staff would three DEE findings are set forth in PAMC Section 18.76.050. The encroachments, if approved by Council, would have less than significant impacts. Mitigation Measures: none 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 mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1,2 X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan 1,2 X 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-1). 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. 2180 EI Camino Real Page 16 Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Measures: None K. NOISE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation I Incorporated a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise X levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or 1, 5, 8 applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of X excessive ground borne vibrations or ground 1,5,8 borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels 1,5,8 existing without the project? Maps N- 3 N-4 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1,5,8 MapN-3 e) For a project located within an airport land use X plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to 1,2 excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private X airstrip, would the project expose people i residing or working in the project area to 1,2 excessive noise levels? g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to 1,5,9 X increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB? h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in 1,5,9 X an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB? i) Cause an increase of3.0 dB or more in an 1,5,9 X existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB? j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1,5,9 X development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 1 5,9 X than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or I greater? ! 1) Generate construction noise exceeding the 1, 5, 9 X daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors I by 10 dBA or more? 2180 EI Camino Real Page 17 Mitigated Negative Declaration DISCUSSION: Construction activities will result in temporary increases in local ambient noise levels and vibrations during the permitted hours of construction. Typical noise and vibration sources would include mechanical equipment associated with excavation, grading and construction, which will be short term in duration. Standard approval conditions would require the project to 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 noise impacts that are expected to be less than significant. Any ground borne vibrations produced would likely be associated with basement excavation, such that they would be short term in duration. Interior noise levels must adhere to standard building code requirements. No special mitigations are required to ensure code compliance. Long term noise associated with the project will be produced by HV AC mechanical equipment and exhaust fans placed on the roof of the building, vehicles, building occupants, the transformer, and the loading doc area of the grocery store. The loading doc would be relocated from its current location and would be moved further away from sensitive receptors. The new loading doc would also be enclosed with solid walls and a trellised roof to reduce visual and noise impacts. The selection of quieter equipment and a high parapet wall would help to mitigate the noise of the rooftop equipment. Due to the fact that the specific equipment has not yet been selected, the mitigation measure below has been required. The City's standard conditions of approval will be applied to the project to ensure the long term noise sources and the construction noise will be reduced to a level of insignificance. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure #5: The proposed mechanical equipment shall be evaluated to ensure compliance with City of Palo Alto noise limit regUlations. Measures such as equipment selection, equipment placement (location), and or the addition of barriers or enclosures shall be employed to ensure that any new noise producing equipment is in compliance with the City's noise ordinance. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant L. POPULATION AND HOUSING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than Nolmpact I Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Induce substantial population growth in an X area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for 1,2,8 example, through extension of roads or other I infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing X housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1, 8 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, X necessitating the construction of replacement 2180 EI Camino Real Page 18 Mitigated Negative Declaration ! Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated housing elsewhere? 1, 8 d) Create a substantial imbalance between 1,2 X e) employed residents and jobs? Cumulatively exceed regional or local 1,2,8 X population proj ections? DISCUSSION: The project does propose more office space than housing units. The increased office space would add new jobs that would add to the current jobs to housing imbalance but the project alone and cumulatively would not add substantially to the overall jobs to housing imbalance. The project only proposes eight residential units. This is not enough to significantly increase population. There are no existing residential units being displaced by the development. In addition, the residential units offered will be below market rate rental housing. State housing policy, as implemented in the Bay Area by ABAG, identifies the greatest need for housing as that provided to low-income (and very low income) residents. The criteria for eligibility for the betow-market-rate units set by the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation mirrors :State policy. Furthermore, the residents who will live at the project would likely be those who already work in the City of Palo Alto. There are presently three businesses operating on the site, so an employee base already exists. Mitigation Measures : None 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 a) 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 public services: Fire protection? 1, 16 X Police protection? 1,16 X Schools? 1 X Parks? 1 X ! 2180 EI Camino Real Page 19 Mitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Other public facilities? 1,8, 16 X DISCUSSION: The proposed project would not impact fire service to the area. The conditions of approval for the project contain requirements to address all fire prevention measures. The site is located within the jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Police Department. The facility would not by itself result in the need for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities. No significant demand for school services would result from the project, which is not expected to generate a substantial increase in Palo Alto's residential population due to the fact that only eight, 600 square foot residential units are proposed. No significant direct demand for additional parks would result from the project, which is not expected to generate a substantial increase in Palo Alto's residential population. Mitigation Measures: None N. RECREATION Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Would the project increase the use of X existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the 1, 8 facility would occur or be accelerated? I b) Does the project include recreational X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the 1, 8 environment? DISCUSSION: The site would not have any significant impact on existing parks, nor include or require construction of recreational facilities off site. Impacts on local parks from new employees are considered less than significant due to the fact that only small numbers of employees would typically use public park spaces. The project will provide a "garden square" at the comer of Oxford Avenue and Staunton Court that will be available during business hours for the enjoyment of tenants, customers, residents and the public. This would provide open spaces on the site such that it would reduce the likelihood of larger numbers of employees venturing off site to use open spaces. With only eight new housing units at only 600 square feet in size, there will be very few new residents to impact parks and recreational facilities. Community facilities development impact fees will be paid as required. 2180 EI Camino Real Page 20 Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Measures: None O. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Issues and Supporting Information Resources . Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., 8,10 result in a substantial increase in either the X number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections )? ! b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for 8, 10 X designated roads or highways? c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, X including either an increase in traffic levels I or a change in location that results in 1,8 substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible 1,8, 10 I uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1, 8, 10, 16 X t) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 3,8,10 X g) Connict with adopted policies, plans, or X programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & 1,2, 8, 10 bicycle facilities)? h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection 8, 10, 16 X to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) D and cause an increase in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more and the critical volumelcapacity ratio (VIC) value to increase by 0.01 or more? ! i) Cause a local intersection already operating at 8, 10, 16 X 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 8, 10, 16 X 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 2180 EI Camino Real Page 21 Mitigated Negative Declaration I more? k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F 8, 10, 16 X 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 8, 10, 16 X increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more? m) Cause queuing impacts based on a 1, 8, 10, 16 X 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. I n) Impede the development or function of 1, 8, 10, 16 X planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? 0) Impede the operation of a transit system as a 1, 8, 10, 16 X result of congestion? p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1,8, 10, 16 X DISCUSSION: Currently, other than the El Camino Real, the streets surrounding the site have low traffic volumes. In order to ensure that these streets are not adversely impacted by significantly higher volumes of traffic, the driveway to the below grade parking structure must be placed on the El Camino Real where heavy traffic volumes already exist. To place a new curb cut on the El Camino Real requires the approval of Cal Trans. This approval would be an essential mitigation to prevent increased traffic volumes on the other adjacent roadways. The incremental increase from the project on the El Camino Real would not create a significant impact. The proposed two level below grade parking structure would have the capacity for 216 parking spaces and an additional 11 spaces are proposed in an at grade lot. This would be a total of 227 parking spaces. Based on the total square footage of the proposed uses, the code would typically require that 238 parking spaces be provided. The proposal would fall short of the required number of parking spaces by 11. A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce the demand for parking shall be a required mitigation to ensure there is no parking impact. With the code-allowed parking space reductions for affordable housing, proximity to transit, and TDM measures, the project complies with the City's parking regulations and actually provides three spaces more than is required by code. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure # 6: Cal Trans must approve the proposed curb cut on the El Camino Real for the driveway to the underground parking garage. Mitigation Measure #7: A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program must be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Transportation Department prior to submittal of a building permit application. The TDM program shall outline parking and/or traffic demand measures to be implemented to reduce parking need and trip generation. Measures may include, but are not limited to: parking cash-out programs, provision of EcoPass (VTA) or Go Pass (Caltrain) for office tenants, shared parking, enhanced shuttle service, car sharing, 2180 EI Camino Real Page 22 Mitigated Negative Declaration I providing priority parking spaces for car poolslvanpools or green vehicles, vehicle charging stations, additional bicycle parking facilities, 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 lor trip reductions, and indicate the basis for such estimates, and shall designate a single entity to implement the proposed measures. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact a) b) c) d) e) 1) g) h) Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of X the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? I 1,8, 16 Require or result in the construction of new X water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant 1,8, 16 environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new 1,8, 16 X storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the proj ect from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded 1,8, 16 X entitlements needed? Result in a determination by the wastewater X treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the proj ect' s proj ected demand in addition to the provider's existing 16 commitments? Be served by a landfill with sufficient X permitted capacity to accommodate the I project's solid waste disposal needs? 16 Comply with federal, state, and local statutes X and regulations related to solid waste? 16 Result in a substantial physical deterioration 1,8, 16 X of a public facility due to increased use as a result of the project? I DISCUSSION: The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems, or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Standard conditions of approval require the applicant to submit calculations by a registered civil engineer to show that the on-site and off site water, sewer and fire systems are capable of serving the needs of the development and adjacent properties during peak flow 2180 EI Camino Real Page 23 Mitigated Negative Declaration demands. Trash and recycling facilities exist on site to accommodate the expected waste and recycling streams that would be generated by the expected uses within the building. The new construction is also required by code to reach the Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) Silver level of certification which will ensure that resources are used efficiently. Mitigation Measures: None Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation I Incorporated a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, I substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the X range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major 1,2, 8, 16, periods of California history or prehistory? 17 MapsN-1, L-8 b) Does the project have impacts that are c) individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" X means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, 1,8, 17 the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects X on human beings, either directly or 1,6, 8, 17 indirectly? DISCUSSION: Global Climate Change Impacts: The potential effect of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on global climate change is an emerging issue that warrants discussion under CEQA. Unlike the pollutants discussed previously that may have regional and local effects, greenhouse gases have the potential to cause global changes in the environment. In addition, greenhouse gas emissions do not directly produce a localized impact, but may cause an indirect impact if the local climate is adversely changed by its cumulative contribution to a change in global climate. Individual projects contribute relatively small amounts of greenhouse gases that when added to all other greenhouse gas producing activities around the world result in increases in these emissions that have led many to conclude is changing the global climate. However, no threshold has been established for what would constitute a cumulatively considerable increase in greenhouse gases for individual development projects. 2180 EI Camino Real Page 24 Mitigated Negative Declaration The State of California has taken several actions that help to address potential global climate change impacts. Although not originally intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6: California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of2006. AB 32 describes how global climate change will impact the environment in California. The impacts described in AB 32 include changing sea levels, changes in snow pack and availability of potable water, changes in storm flows and flood inundation zones, and other impacts. The list of impacts included in AB 32 may be considered substantial evidence of environmental impacts requiring analysis in CEQA documents. AB 32 focuses on reducing GHG in California. The GHG emissions reductions found in AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05, signed in June 2005, are consistent with the climate stabilization models produced by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These climate stabilization models show that if GHG emissions are reduced to the levels shown in Executive Order S-3-05, the climate will stabilize at approximately a 2 degree Celsius rise, averting the worst impacts associated with global climate change. GHG as defined under AB 32 include: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. AB 32 requires the CARB, the State agency charged with regulating statewide air quality, to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020. In June 2008, the California's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued an interim Technical Advisory on the role of CEQA in addressing climate change and GHGs. As part of the advisory, OPR asked the California Air Resources Board (ARB) staff to recommend a method for setting statewide thresholds of significance for GHG emissions, to encourage consistency and uniformity in the CEQ A analysis for GHG emissions throughout the state. ARB is currently developing recommended statewide interim thresholds of significance for GHGs that may be adopted by local agencies for their own use. On October 24, 2008, ARB released the Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal on the Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposal, which is currently undergoing public review, focuses on common project types that, collectively, are responsible for substantial GHG emissions specifically, industrial, residential, and commercial projects. The report proposes a quantitative threshold of 7,000 metric tons of C02 equivalent per year (MTC02e/year) for operational emissions (excluding transportation) associated with industrial projects, and performance standards for construction and transportation emissions. ARB staff intends to make its final recommendations on thresholds in 2009, but currently no quantitative, significant criterion has been adopted for determining impact significance. According to the OPR interim Technical Advisory, in the absence of clearly defined thresholds for GHG emissions, CEQ A requires that lead agencies disclose and mitigate such emissions to the extent feasible whenever the lead agency determines that the project contributes to a significant, cumulative climate change impact. The advisory recommends identifying and quantifying, to the extent possible, GHG emissions, assessing the significance of the impact, and identifying alternatives or mitigation measures to reduce impact significance, as appropriate. In the absence of adopted significance thresholds for GHG emissions, the following discussion is provided to disclose qualitatively the potential effects of the proposed project (from both construction and operation) on global climate change. The project would generate GHGs during construction and ongoing operations. During construction, the operation of heavy construction equipment would be the primary source of GHGs. However, these emissions would in effect be temporary, for approximately 18 months, and would cease upon completion of construction. For that reason and given the relatively small-scale of construction, the project is not expected to result in a net increase in GHG emissions that would significantly delay or hinder the State's ability to meet the reduction 2180 EI Camino Real Page 25 Mitigated Negative Declaration targets contained in California Governor's Executive Order S-3-05 and the impact is considered less than significant. As part of obtaining LEED Silver certification, the Project will include the following construction management measures that will help reduce the Project's GHG emissions: a. The contractor will be required to reduce emissions through any of the following options or others that achieve reduction in overall emissions: use late-model engines, low-emission diesel products or alternative fuels (e.g., Lubrizol, Puri NOx, biodisel fuel) in all heavy duty off-road equipment. b. The contractor will be required to minimize idling time for all heavy-duty equipment when not engaged in work activities, including on-road haul trucks while being loaded or unloaded onsite. The contractor will also ensure proper maintenance of these construction vehicles and equipments, such as tuning up and filtering of the mufflers of the vehicles. c. A City-approved Construction Waste and Demolition Diversion program will be in place prior to start of project construction. The plan will satisfy the LEED Credits of Construction Waste Management effectively diverting 75% or higher of construction waste from landfills, pursuant to LEED Silver Certification. The Plan will demonstrate the diversion from landfills and recycling of all nonhazardous, salvageable and re-useable wood, metal, plastic and paper products during construction and demolition activities. The project will be constructed of all new products, many of which will have high-recycled-material content. Construction materials and products will be delivered to the site by trucks via designated truck routes. Additionally, the developer may consider recycling some of the existing asphalt and concrete from demolition of the buildings on site and use them as base rock for the basement garage. Inclusion of LEED requirements to use raw materials and building products produced and extracted locally/regionally will reduce the distance materials have to be transported, thus reducing GHGs from trucking. LEED-compliant products being installed in the project emphasize low energy use in manufacturing and the inclusion of high percentages of recycled and rapidly-renewable materials. This reduces the GHG emissions of the manufacturing processes used to produce the building materials and components. Following construction the use of the new building is expected to generate minor quantities of GHG emissions over the long-term. The primary sources of GHG emissions would be associated with vehicle trips of customers, employees, and residents as well as energy use within the building. The new building is required by City ordinance to reach the LEED silver level of certification. The following is a summary of strategies and technologies that the project will employ to reduce GHG emissions: A. Encourage the use of bikes, renewable energy vehicles and public transportation, to minimize the use of conventional fuel-vehicles, which is a primary source of GHGs: Selection of the specific site, located on a major thoroughfare (State highway) adjacent to existing established commercial centers and residential neighborhoods, reduces the number and frequency of automobile trips to/from the site and thus, GHG emissions. Public transit along EI Camino Real and a commuter Train station within walking distance allow for further reduction in auto trips and GHGs. As the project site is located within close proximity of public transit routes and stations, dissemination of public transportation information will reduce vehicular trips. The property's management will establish a program to educate the residents and tenants about the availability of public transportation options to facilitate commuting via train, bus or bicycle. 2180 EI Camino Real Page 26 Mitigated Negative Declaration B. Residents from adjacent neighborhoods can walk or bike to the site to shop or work. Shared parking within this mixed-use development further reduces the need for auto trips. A total of 55 bicycle parking spaces have been designed in the basement garage and plazas for residents, retail tenants/customers, office users and visitors. The provision of bike parking has exceeded both City's and LEED requirements. Shower facilities are planned for employee use. Priority parking for carpools and fuel-efficient vehicles and car-share vehicles will be provided in the underground garage. Energy-efficiency emissions): Factors that will reduce energy use within the Project (thus reducing GHG 1. Highly efficient HV AC systems, to require 18% less energy use than is allowed under California Title 24 energy standards. 2. Vegetated roof areas to provide insulation as well as filter rainwater. 3. Photovoltaic panels to generate energy on-site and reduce the need for remotely-generated energy. 4. Power required in addition to that provided by the PV panels will be purchased from the City of Palo Alto Utility (CP AU) which has made a significant commitment to purchase renewable "green" energy supplies. The project can also subscribe to CP AU commercial green pricing rate schedule so there is no cumulative HGH increase contribution from the project. 5. The new buildings will be properly insulated and equipped with latest models of HV AC equipment, including those which eliminate or reduce refrigerants though a careful selection, operation and monitoring of the iIV AC systems. Energy Star electrical appliances will be installed in the residential units. 6. The developer also plans to achieve LEED Energy and Atmosphere credits that include enhanced commissioning, refrigerant management and use of green power. These measures that adhere to strict industry standards, again, will minimize GHG emission. 7. Tenant Design and Construction Guidelines (LEED credit SS 9) will be provided to all building tenants. This will reduce the GHG emissions potentially generated by tenants during outfitting of their spaces and on-going operations during occupancy. C. Design features of the buildings which will result in reduced GHG emissions over the life of the buildings: 1. This project will satisfy LEED credits under Materials and Resources (MR) and Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) of using low-emitting materials and finishes including, but not limited to, paints, adhesives, sealants, carpets and composite wood products. 2. Shading devices on windows, high-efficiency glass and the use of landscaping to shade windows and walls on south and west facades will reduce the need for cooling. 3. Thickened exterior walls allow for higher insulation values and thus reduce the need for operating heating and cooling equipment. 2180 EI Camino Real Page 27 Mitigated Negative Declaration 4. Natural daylight is brought into offices by ample windows and clerestory glass, thus reducing the need for artificial lighting (and the electricity to power it) during the day. 5. Substantial landscape features will cool the site as well as produce carbon dioxide to offset GHGs: Garden Square with double row of trees and large planter areas; groves of Bamboo planted at the lower garage level and growing up through the large openings; trellises with vines at the on-grade parking lot; increased street tree planting on all four sides of the site. Given the overwhelming scope of global climate change, it is not anticipated that a single development 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. 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 and size of this project, and the proposed measures to reduce GHG 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. As such, impacts are considered less than significant. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. Project Planner's knowledge of the site and the proposed project 2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010 3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 -Zoning Ordinance 4. Required compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standards for Seismic Safety and Windload 5. Acoustical Report, Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., March 13,2009 6. Geotechnical Investigation, TRC Solutions, July 20,2007 7. Environmental Subsurface Investigation, ATC Associates Inc., April 7, 2008 8. Project Plans, Carrasco and Associates Architects, Dated October 1,2009 9. Arborist Report, Barrie D. Coate and Associates, July 5,2005 10. Transportation Inlpact Analysis, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. February 18,2009 11. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, ATC Associates Inc , Novetnber 21, 2005 12. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map 13. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.030, June 2001 14. Agricultural Preserves Map, California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection, 2001. 15. Important Farmland in California Map, California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2004. 16. Departmental communication/memos. 17. Green House Gas qualitative analysis, Carrasco and Associates, September 10, 2009 18. Santa Clara Valley Water District Ground Water Plume Map, April 12, 2004 2180 EI Camino Real Page 28 Mitigated Negative Declaration 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 will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the X project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED 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 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 IMPACT 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. Project Planner Date 2180 EI Real Page 29 Mitigated Negative Declaration Reich, Russ From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Commissioners: Pria Graves [priag@birketthouse.com] Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1 :03 PM Planning Commission . Attachment L Caporgno,Julie; French, Amy; Williams, Curtis; Emslie, Steve; Reich, Russ 2180: Staffs Recommended Change to Noise Provision Allow me to second Fred Balin's excellent comments on the inappropriate wording of the staff recommendation regarding noise! As he reminds us, each time a building is constructed, it is allowed to exceed the ambient baseline with the result that the ambient baseline ends up being adjusted upward! Our neighborhood already suffers from a great deal of outside noise, ranging from events at Stanford, the clean room Fred mentioned, the traffic on El Camino, etc. Allowing this project to add to the ambient noise, particularly at night is simply intolerable. And air handling equipment located 30+ feet in ~he air is extremely likely to do so. I second Fred's request for a firm decibel limit as part of the PC and a requirement that it be implemented in conjunction with the recently revised procedures in the performance standards. Regards, Pria Graves 2130 Yale Street 1 1~/a2/2aa9 16:21 2138921519 LAW OFF WDROSS PAGE a2/05 " 1 I " Wi1IiadlD.~ KJP"lA G. H05tetter Karla A. BriR3S I.bel Dirnata LRWOMceot William D. Ross 520 South Grand Avenu.e, Stdte 300 Los Anaeles, CA 90071·2610 Telephone; (213) 892"lS9Z Facsimle: (213) 8'2 .. 1519 December 2, 2009 VIA ELECTRQ,NIC MAIL and FACSIMILE Planning.comlnission@cityofpaioalto.org (650) 617·3108 .The Honorable Daniel Garber, Chait And Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto. CA 94301 ,a19 Alto 0IrIS,: 400 L-.l1lbert Street Polo Alto. CalifGI'Dia 914* 1'8II!pIlOlJ~ (550) 843-8010 Faeabdea ("0) 84..1-8093 Pile No: 1110 Rc: Commission Meeting Date; December 2,2009; Consent Item: 2180 El CaminoRea1 Dear Chairperson Garbet and Commission Members: This communication requests as a resident and taxpayer within College Ten-ace that the currently agendized consent matter with respect to the 2180 EJ Camino Real Project JJ&F Market (the "Projecf') be taken off the Consent portion of your Agenda for discretionary action and review. Commission discretionary review should require a Comprehensive Plan consistency analysis by Staff and a recirculation of the existing Project Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND"') for the reasons set forth in this communication. Initially. reference is made to an April 29. 2009 conununication diteCted to the Commission concerning the timing of when environmental review of the Project as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. '~CEQA") should be accomplished. As noted in Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, 4S Cal.4th 116 (2009) C'Sav~ Taran ) the California Supreme Court clarified what con..'fritutes a project and when evalUtJtion of a project should commence. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that when an action is taken by a public agen.cy in the land use context that: Q:\OOl.Olo\WDR. Per&OnaI\JJ&P\LTRS\(JaJ"ber (ComminKm Mcetlftg Con..wnt T.ttm) 120209.dol; 1~/02/2009 16:21 2138921519 LAW OFF WDROSS . ' The Honorable Daniel Garber., Chair And Members of the Planning & Transportation Conunission City of palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 2 ... commits the public agency as a practical matter to the Project, the simple insertion of a CEQA compliance condition will not save the action from being considered and approval requiring envirorunental review. Save Tara, Supra. 45 Ca1.4th at 1.32. Accordingly, when the Council initiated the PC Zone request for this Project enviromnental review should have been initiated and accomplished. PAGE 03/05 Notwithstanding the Save Tara obligation as just stated, the Project MND needs to be recirculated as the Project description and analysis did not consider the now contemplated utilization' of Design Enhancement Exceptions ("DEEs") for the Project. The Staff recommendation before the Commission., among other things is to: ... Allow Encroachment Into A Minimum Setback on Oxford Avenue with Conditions. Staff Report, page 1. How this encroachment came about is not the result of a land use condition but apparently the result of an Architectural Review Board ("ARB") condition, which i.s not set forth directly in the Staff Report. See ARB Summary, pages 2-3 of the Staff Report. However, in the proposed Ordinance which your Commission would recommend to the Council, Section S sets forth DEBs which would allow for a setback exception for the Project building along Oxford A.venue. It is noted that the use of DEEs encroaches upon the land use authority of the Commission. The ARB has no authority to impose setbacks, something that can only be accomplished by way of a variance. It is also again noted that in the Staff Report summ,ary of the ARB action of November 5. 2009, no mention is made of the ARB provision for DEEs which apparently served as the basis for Section S of the draft ordinance for your Commission consideration. O:\OOI.OlO\WOR Pcnnnal\U&F\l.1'Rs\Oarbct' (Comml\1slon Mc::c:ting Consent Item) 12D209.doc 1~/02/2009 16:21 2138921519 LAW OFF WDROSS j , , . The Honorable Daniel Qarber, Chair And Members of the Planning &. Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 3 The MND does not mention the DEEs in the Project Description and Location section (pages 1 and 2) nor does it mention the utilization of DEBs as a Project entitlement in the textual Project Description (pages 1 through 4)~ The only mention of DEEs in the entire MND is on page 16 where thefollowing is provided: *** a 7'9 encroachment into the 1.0 foot setback is proposed on Oxford Avenue. Similarly, a 3 foot encroachment into the 10 foot setback is proposed to the residential building. *** These exceptions may be processed as Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE) with ARB recommendation and Council approval if they are determined to be minor and fin.dings where approval can be made. First, these DEEs are not authorized under the Municipal Code as a land use constraint, e.g., something that should be handled by way of v81iance. The ARB does not have jurisdiction to impose land use conditions and again those conditions are not even mentioned in the summary of the November 5, 2009 ARB action. Even if the ARB bad this power, which is contrary to the expressed. meaning of the Municipal Code, the proposed setbacb are not minor. The one setback constitutes 70% of that which is required and the other constitutes 30% of the required setbact. Stated differently, there is no substantial evidence to support the Staff position. that the setbacks are in fact min!.)t. Further, there is no analysis that such setbacks are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It should be recalled that a consistency analysis is required for all development approvals. See, Families Una/raid to Uphold Rule Etc., County v. Board of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App.4tb 1332t 1336. . G:\OOI.OIO\WDR Perlloonal\Jl&F\LTRS\C'IM'ber (Commiss.ion Mietmg Consent Item) 120109.(ioc 12/02/2009 16:21 2138921519 LAW OFF WDROSS PAGE 05/05 J • The Honorable Daniel Garber, Chair And Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 4 Such a consistency analysis is entirely lacking from any portion of the record concerning the Project. It is noted that th.e consistency analysis must be substantive. As stated in Napa Citizens/or Honest Government v. Napa County ofSupervi.~ors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342. 379: We are of the opinion that the consistency doctrine requires more than that the [applicable land use permit] recite goals and policies that are consistent with those set forth in the [City's General Plan] ... The proper question is whether development of the Project ... is compatible with all and will not frustrate the General Plan goals and policies. A review of the Staff Report before you, as well as that from October 14, 2009 contains no sllch substantive consistency analysis and that is especially true with respect to the DEEs and the deviation from the requirement that your Commission recommend the imposition of land use controls, not the ARB. For all the foregoing reasons it is requested, and recommended, that the Commission remove the Project from the Consent agenda, review the substantive reconlmendations of Staff finding that there is a lack of a consistency analysis of the Project as presently proposed., fmd that setback requirements cannot be imposed by way of DEBs and require that the MND does not adequately analyze this aspect of the Project and that it be recirculated for further public review. WDR:sf cc; Fred Balin fbaHn@gmail.com Very truly yours, w~2).~ William D. Ross O:\OOl.OIo\WDR Persona1\JJ&f\LTRS\Garbcr (Commi~!l1on Meeting Consent r~rn) 120:Z09,doc Comnlents on the environmental impact asseSSDlent of 2180 EI Camino Real A.a,b/d (and D.d) Degradation of existing visual character etc. Dismissing the removal of the existing trees as "less than significant" is inappropriate. Once again, relatively mature trees are to be removed and replaced by much smaller trees, delaying further the development of a mature urban tree canopy. The plan should be re-evaluated to determine whether any of the existing trees can be saved. Convenience during construction is not a valid reason for tree removal. A.e Substantial light or glare source The discussion and proposed mitigations deal only with lighting from within the building. The lighting for the vegetated roof area and gazebo will also create a source of light and glare which will be a visual nuisance to adjacent and nearby residences and must be addressed. H.d Substantially alter existing drainage pattern This area has a significant subterranean water flow on top of a compacted layer several feet below the surface of the ground (a perched water table). Construction penetrating that compacted layer tends to affect the flow through the nearby area in unpredictable ways. There is some concern that the creation of this vast hole could have impacts on groundwater flow much farther removed than anticipated. Unfortunately, the effects may not be evident until a wet winter occurs at which time crawl spaces and basements previously not subjected to flooding may be impacted. This possibility must be evaluated and a course of action considered. Ld,e Substantially adversely change the use of the area Stating that the application includes the request to amend the land use designation and the zone district AND includes Design Enhancement Exceptions allowing it to exceed even the vastly more liberal allowances under the new zoning and then using that designation and zoning to determine that the project would not adversely impact existing land uses and would not be incompatible with land uses and character of the surrounding area is specious. The adjoining area is residential, despite the continued attempts to erode it's character. The impact of this development is opening the gate to further large buildings adjoining this neighborhood. K.b Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibrations or ground borne noise levels. The ground borne vibrations are dismissed as less than significant because they are "short term in duration". This is not a valid response. ALL construction noise is relatively short in duration by its very nature yet CEQA requires that construction noise be evaluated and mitigated where necessary. During the construction of the basement at 585 College, a much smaller project, the contractor found it necessary to bring in a large machine to sufficiently compact the loose rock before the basement construction could proceed. Despite the fact that the noise from the compaction was not particularly loud, the vibrations traveled through the rock and rendered our basement unusable for the duration of the project. This n1.uch larger project is likely to have a similar impact for a much longer period of time. Suitable mitigations must be provided. K.c Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. The location of the mechanical equipment on the roof of this very tall structure increases the likelihood that the noise will have impacts at a much greater distance, perhaps exceeding those near the perimeter of the property at ground level. This must be considered in assuring compliance with mitigation measure 5. K.d Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. Although the discussion of noise acknowledges that the building occupants will constitute a component of the long-term noise associated with the project, it does not address the increased problem that may arise from the nighttime use of the vegetated roof area and gazebo. Despite the belief expressed by City staff that this area is a "quiet amenity space" I used only for building occupants to "eat a sandwich", the plans provide no such assurance of restricted use. Any nighttime use of space located 30 feet in the air poses the potential for a significant source of noise permeating into the surrounding neighborhood, even if there is no mechanical noise source involved. A suitable mitigation would be requiring that the space be secured after normal business hours (which should allow the removal of the lighting, mitigating A.e as well). L.d Create a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs The discussion fails to adequately address this point. It acknowledges that the project adds more office space than housing units but beyond stating that an employee base already exists on site, it offers no discussion of how the addition of a vast new amount of office space (with some large but unspecified number of new employees on site) is offset by 8 housing units. O.a,l Traffic impacts The discussion assun1.es that mitigation measure 6 will result in all of the traffic impact occurring on El Camino simply because the access to the parking structure will be located there. This ignores the fact that some people will choose to drive through and/ or park on surface streets in the adjoining neighborhood. Mitigation number 7 addresses the impact of total trips but still fails to address this likely affect of the project on the surrounding streets. An additional mitigation is required to protect nearby neighbors. Suitable traffic calming measures (partial closure of Yale at Oxford, center islands on Oxford at Yale and on Staunton at College, etc.) might be sufficient. O.f Inadequate parking capacity In addition to the insufficiency of parking provided by the project (addressed by mitigation measure 7), there is also the fact that many people simply prefer to park on surface streets rather than using underground parking. This impact needs to be addressed. The effect of the project on surface street parking must be monitored and the project developers must be responsible for funding any-necessary changes to the permit program to ensure that the effect is mitigated. Betten, Zariah From: Sent: To: Cc: Fred Balin [fbalin@gmail.com] Tuesday, December 01, 2009 9:54 PM Planning Commission Reich, Russ; French, Amy; Caporgno, Julie; Williams, Curtis Subject: 2180: Staff's Recommended Change to Noise Provision Staffs proposed modification to the commission's wording on noise abatement completely guts the recommendation. PTC 10/14 Recommendation: Staff shall work with the applicant on noise-related issues to the satisfaction of the neighbors. Staff Recommendation with Modified Wording: Page 1 of 1 The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto's noise ordinance, both during construction and following construction, for the life of the project as per Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The noise ordinance was not addressed during the zoning ordinance revision cycle of the current Comprehensive Plan even though the Comp Plan specifically stated that it was outdated and should be updated. In College Terrace, many of us know the problems of noise and of the noise ordinance from a very trying experience and long- term residents' effort to combat the impacts of a biotech clean room and its rooftop and basement ventilation systems. This renovation of an existing building was completed without public notice or input and it led to a continuous 24 x 7 drone for a number of years, before neighbors were able to first convince the landowner to engage an outside, acoustical expert to create a mitigation plan, and then to get the tenant to implement it. This effort also directly led to an important 2007 revision of the Performance Standards (pAMC 18.23.060), which applies to PCs (and some other districts) when they are within 150 feet of residences. It included a mandate for acoustical analysis before issuing a building permit as well as verification prior to building occupancy that the noise level generated is within 5 db of the noise ordinance. But the noise ordinance (P AMC 9.10) is a tenuous foundation and puts residents who are near commercial zones in a precarious position. That is because it allows a baseline ambient and permitted "escalators," that can total 12 decibels more than required when facing a low-density residential zone. For example, in College Terrace next to Research Park prior to the development of the clean room, the ambient was in the low 30-decibel range in the evening. The cleam room was permitted (as per the Noise Ordinance) a baseline ambient of 40 db plus an escalator of 8 db, causing a huge impact in the residential neighborhood. Also this starting point of 48 db, then becomes the new baseline ambient for any future development in the area. That is why at the Oct 14 meeting I advocated for an appropriate decibel limit written into the Pc. and that it be implemented in conjunction with the recently revised procedures in the performance standards. Staying with the ambient and escalator of the noise ordinance is an invitation to severe hardship within the neighborhood. -Fred Balin 2385 Columbia Street That is baseline ambient noise level 12/2/2009 Page 1 of 1 Betten, Zariah From: Fred Balin [fbalin@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 8:32 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: DEEs and 2180 EI Camino Commissioners, In the staff report to your Oct 14 meeting, staff writes that various exceptions to heights and setbacks "could be approved by council as Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEEs) following ARB recommendation." During the hearing and in response to the stated concerns of two commissioners, staff states that "We, Staff, have looked at this, and we believe a Design Enhancement Exception is appropriate." In a submittal of Monday, November 2, three days before the November 5 ARB hearing, the applicant submits a 3-page request for DEEs together with justifications for how the findings can be made. The staff report for the ARB released later that day, details approval for the exceptions. Neither of these documents, nor the discussion at ARB is available to you as part of your packet. At places and on the back table at ARB shortly before the 2180 EI Camino Real agenda item, staffs findings are released. They are included as part of the ordinance you are asked to approve on the consent calendar. Staff has bypassed the commission, circumventing both the proper process and reviewing body. On the specific area of setback encroachments, similar requests currently going through the city processes and in past projects are generally applied for as variances. In addition, the justifications from the applicant and staff for the DEEs are unsatisfactory: Setback regulations are implemented by the zoning designation only. The current usage of a property adjacent to a PC cannot be used as a finding. Neither can assumptions of future use within the adjacent zone. The owners of the neighboring property should not be denied their rights to develop their site within the current zoning requirements as long it remains residential, and have the adjacent property comply with its required zoning. In addition, it is not correct to state findings of extraordinary circumstances with regard to a neighboring property (i.e., the hotel), and then apply it to the applicant's site. The clear zoning requirements of the PC district with an R-zoning neighbor should be implemented. But there's a bigger picture here as well. The Oxford setback-exception request is not only for a ground-floor exception crenelating between between 2' and 8', but also for a second-story office space to encroach in the setback by 7' 9" for a length of65'. This is not designed, as described by the applicant, as a nice protective covering for bicycles and grocery carts. This is an encroachment of 503 sf of office space, 250/0 of the square footage the commission has recommended be reduced and which the applicant has refused to do. For a PC application with an office-space request of 210% more than allowed under CN zoning standards and with retail space just 4% over what exists on the site now, the requested Oxford setback exception is just another example of pushing the office envelope at the expense of a truly neighborhood-serving project. Fred Balin 2385 Columbia Street 12/2/2009 Betten, Zariah From: Sent: To: Subject: Commissioners, Fred Balin [fbalin@gmail.com] Monday, November 30, 2009 9:48 PM Planning Commission Why 2180 EI Camino Should Come Off the Consent Calendar Agenda Item 1, 2180 EI Camino Real, should come off Wed,nesday's consent calendar for open discussion for the following reasons: 1. Staff has made changes to several recommendations made by the commission on October 14, and those changes are reflected in the draft ordinance. It makes no sense for the commission to consider approval of a document that changes its position via a mechanism that prohibits commission discussion. If staff has proposed changes to the commission1s recommendations, each should be presented directly to the commission for questions, discussion, consideration, deliberation and/ or vote. 2. Concern over the applicability of requests for height and setback exceptions as Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEEs) on this project has been voiced by some commissioners. [See October 14 PTe minutes (Le., Attachment B), Page 31, lines 19 to 24 and Page 49, lines 11 to 19.] The applicant requested DEEs, staff determined applicability, findings were presented at places at ARB, and the board approved them. It is very important for this matter to be aired at the commission. 3. On the issue of the commission's recommendation of a 5'0 office space reduction, the staff report1s description of the ARB recommendation is misleading. (i.e., Page 3: "Staff and ARB are not recommending the 5'0 reduction of office space. ") It is true that staff is not recommending the reduction. Staff also asked ARB to include this matter in their recommendation. But the board declined to do so feeling it was not within their purview as it had no bearing on the architecture. [You can view the relevant discussion at ARB, beginning at 1 h 56 min into Item 3 at http://www.midpenmedia.org/watch/pacc_webcast/November/PAARB_110509.html .] The staff report is misleading in stating that ARB does not support the reduction. Rather ARB concluded that the commission' s proposal had no bearing on their deliberations. Fred Balin 1 Betten, Zariah From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Planner Reich, Fred Balin [fbalin@gmail,com] Tuesday, December 01, 2009 5:37 PM Reich, Russ Planning Commission PC Setback Special Requirement: Which Wording is Correct Kindly provide the operative, controlling term or combination of terms in the code for ascertaining special setback requirements when a PC is near a residential zone? The Mitigated Negative Declaration (Discussion part of Section I, ULand Use and Planning"), speaks in terms of a distance, i.e., "within 150 feet of a low density residential zone district" in reference to both the grocery store on Oxford and residential (BMR) housing on Staunton. However at the 10/14 commission hearing, you noted an error in the staff report with regard to the residential building facing Staunton, because the BMR units are Unot adjacent to a residential zone. It Which is correct? Adjacency? 150' radius? Both? If just adjacency, does the'MND require correction? -Fred Balin 2385 Columbia Street 1 Response to Questions from Commissioner Keller Item No. 1 -2180 EI Camino Real December 2, 2009 Attachment M 1. The staff report and applicant state that the project is uneconomic with the reduction in office FAR. However, the applicant does not provide an economic analysis of the project as a whole, so this statement is merely conclusory. Please have the applicant provide an economic analysis of the project to justify this statement. Has staff verified any economic analysis provided by the applicant or performed its own economic analysis, or is staff merely relying on applicant assertions regarding economic viability? RESPONSE: The applicant did provide responses to questions. They are attached. In the CMR, under Resource Impacts, the following draft text is proposed: "The project will add 8 new residential units, high-end retail space and about 34,000 square feet of new office space. The City would therefore receive additional annual revenues in the form of property taxes, sales taxes, utility user taxes, estimated in the $70,000 to $85,000 range. One-time revenues would include impact fees of (still being calculated), but no documentary transfer tax, as the property will not change hands. On the expenditure side, the project's small residential portion will create a marginal additional demand for City services, but these will be offset by the developer impact fees mentioned above." 2. The application does not include a complete development program statement. See, in particular, Section 18.38.080(d). Section 18.38.080(e) allows the director to request the information in item 1 above, as the applicant has repeatedly cited economic reasons as justification. Please provide the missing information. RESPONSE: A development program statement dated 10/23/09 was attached to the ARB report. It is attached to this email response for Commissioners and will be attached to the CMR for Council consideration. 3. Please provide" a development schedule, as required by Section 18.38.100. RESPONSE: The updated development schedule, dated November 18, 2009 is attached to this response. 4. Please make clear in the documents that four of the BMR units are NOT a public benefit, but are the residential component allowing the project to be considered a mixed use project. What would be the maximum FAR for the combination of office and retail and minimum FAR for retail for the project under the regular CN zoning? RESPONSE: Under the CN zoning regulations the maximum FAR for a non mixed use project of office and retail only(no housing)would be 0.5:1 OR 25,138.5 square feet. The minimum amount of retail that would be required would be 12 /569 square feet. 5. What is the economic value of the other four BMR units (i.e., what would it cost PARC to build a comparable 4-unit building)? RESPONSE: Typically it would cost approximately between $1,068,000 and $1,201,500 (based on construction and soft costs of $400 to $450 per square foot, and approximately 2,670 sq. ft. for the 4 units) to construct/build a comparable 4-unit building excluding land and demolition costs. The land and demolition costs could be an additional $70-90 per square foot depending on the size and configuration of the land, and other constraints. 6. The grey areas of Section 4 (b) are confusing. Please provide a standard redline and a clean version of the PC ordinance. RESPONSE: Attached to this email response is a clean version of the ordinance. Commissioner Holman/s Questions and their Responses 2180 ECR \, December 21 2uu~ Can staff please be prepared to respond to Each of the questions raised by Fred Balinl In particular the DEE issue as to setback which is an ongoing concern by many. RESPONSES: DEE: note what was in staff report -% of length of setback: total area of encroachment; reduced from what they saw originally; re: height -equipment/elevator don/t require variance or exception; findings are included in the PC ordinance. The method of exception should not be the issue. The issue should be the appropriateness of the exception itself. The Commission has the ability to make comment and recommendation on the project including the exceptions. If there is an issue with any of the exception the Commission should explain what the issue is and include that in their recommendation to the Council for their consideration. Noise: amended condition to reference 18.23; we can/t set decibel levels for each project Special setback for PC: 11m not sure what this is about I but sounds like the answer is that 150 1 applies only to zoning on adjacent site l not residential units on same property. Clarification as to why the time-limited parking is limited to a staff issue. RESPOSE: parking limitations may only be imposed by Council ordinance after review by staff (planning and police particularly) I based on analysis of many factors; can/t commit to that right now and is not necessary as mitigation measure Why is the access to the roof by the residents limited to office hours? RESPOSE: The roof is accessed through the office space as well as a side access. The ownership would like to control usage on the roof such that people are not up there at all hours. A member of the public also expressed concerns over nighttime usage of the roof so this would solve that perceived problem. Who makes determination as to health of vegetative roof and then access? RESPONSE: Would be code enforcement issue if complaints or upon inspection. The number of items going to ARB on consent are considerable and tr\ I ! substantive. Is this typical and in particular, I am interested in the private open space issues. RESPONSE: The extent and amount of items that comes back to the ARB varies widely from project to project. What is being requested'to come back is not unusual. What flexibilities can staff identify in the ordinance that might lead to the deterioration of the intentions of the PC project and in particular the grocery story component? RESPONSE: The only flexibility is an amendment to the ordinance that would need City Council approval to change the permitted use. The statements on occupancy are unclear as to how much can be occupied by office prior to the g store opening. For instance, is the 25% office occupancy concurrent with the office space above the g store? Or can 25% office be granted 0 permits in addition to the office above the g store but in same building prior to the g store opening? RESPOSE: The 25% relates to the total office square footage within the project and is not related to any particular building where office space my occur. ICOUNCIL MEETING \1-~I-W()tj f'i) Placed Before M ~eting I ) Received at Meetlng Memorandum 09 DEC -7, DH I). 07 I if ,-. TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 17 December 7,2009 FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2009 CMR: 442:09 REPORT TYPE: ACTION SUBJECT: Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Adoption of (1) a Resolution Adopting an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map by Changing the Land Use Designation for 2180 EI Camino Real from Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use, and (2) an Ordinance Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Mnnicipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 2180 EI Camino Real from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District to PC Planned Community for a Mixed Use Project Having 57,900 Square Feet of Floor Area For A Grocery Store, Other Retail Space, Office Space, and Eight Affordable Residential Units, With Two Levels Of Below-Grade Parking Facilities and Surface Parking Facilities For The College Terrace Centre, and Approval of Design Enhancement Exceptions to Allow a Sign Spire and Gazebo Roof to Exceed the 35-Foot Height Limit, and to Allow Encroachment Into A Minimum Setback on Oxford Avenue. This memo is to provide additional information and a condition of approval regarding the signing of the lease agreement which was inadvertently left out ofthe Planned Community Ordinance. 1. The following condition should be added to s.4(b) of the PC ordinance: "A signed lease for the grocery store shall be submitted prior to issuance of any building permits on the site." 2. Attached to this memo are four documents for consideration by the City Council: A: December 2, 2009 Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes B: Agreement to Lease (prepared by Applicant) C: Responses to Comments on CEQA Document D: November 2, 2009 Email from Susan Rosenberg _~lw\~ CURTIS WILLIAMS Director of Planning and Community Environment Attachments ATTACHMENT A I Planning and Transportation Commission 2 Special Meeting of Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 6:00 PM 3 Verbatim Minutes 4 5 DRAFT EXCERPT 6 7 8 2180 EI Camino Real (JJ&F Market): Confirmation of the Planning and Transportation 9 Commission's recommended approval and conditions for the revised Planned Community 10 zoning and project plans as conditionally recommended by the Architectural Review Board. 11 12 Commissioner Keller: Yes, I move to pull the item and put it on the regular calendar. 13 14 Chair Garber: The Chair acknowledges Commissioner Keller pulling the item. We will then go 15 immediately to the pUblic. I see three cards. If there are other members that would like to speak 16 on this item they should bring a card to the Secretary and they will be heard. 17 18 The first person to speak is Joy Ogawa followed by Doria Summa. You will have three minutes 19 to speak. 20 21 Ms. Joy Ogawa, Palo Alto: Thank you. I have lived at the comer of Yale Street and Cambridge 22 Avenue for over 20 years. I have seen the intersection of Cambridge and El Camino Real 23 become more congested and more dangerous over time with increasing cut-through traffic from 24 the Research Park and from College Avenue. Because there is no traffic signal on College 25 Avenue drivers who want to tum left onto El Camino from College will cut over to Cambridge to 26 be able to use the traffic light. This is especially true during the afternoon and evening hours 27 when traffic on EI Camino is bumper-to-bumper and a left tum from College onto El Camino is 28 virtually impossible. 29 30 Cambridge Avenue is also the preferred crossing point for many pedestrians to cross El Camino 31 to reach the California Avenue business district or to get to the train station. It is also the 32 preferred crossing point for bicyclists to cross EI Camino when using the California Avenue 33 bicycle underpass to cross the train tracks and Alma because everyone knows that bicycling on 34 California Avenue in the business district is scary and dangerous with the potential of diagonally 35 parked cars backing out into defenseless bicyclists. These bicyclists include Jordan Middle 36 School students from College Terrace and Stanford. 37 38 The Cambridge Avenue-EI Camino intersection is only one small block away from this project. 39 It is the closest signalized intersection downstream to traffic exiting the project onto EI Camino 40 yet the Cambridge-El Camino intersection was not included in the traffic impact analysis for this 41 proj ect. We do not know how traffic or safety at this intersection will be impacted because it 42 was not included in the study. Ironically, even though study of the traffic impacts at the 43 Cambridge-EI Camino intersection was not included in the traffic impact analysis the analysis 44 itself points to potentially significant impacts from this project at this very intersection on pages 45 37-38 of the analysis prepared by Hexagon. The study says, "The stop controlled northbound 46 left turn at the El Camino Real-College Avenue intersection is projected to operate at LOS F City 0/ Palo A Ito December 2, 2009 Page 1 0/43 1 during the AM and PM peak hours in the year 2015 both without and with the proposed project. 2 The poor levels of service projected for this movement is a result of heavy traffic volumes on El 3 Camino Real. It should be noted that vehicles attempting to make a northbound left turn have 4 the option of making a northbound right tum and completing a U-turn at the signalized 5 intersection of EI Camino Real and Cambridge A venue." 6 7 The analysis thus admits that the project will send addition traffic to make U-turns at the 8 signalized Carnbridge-EI Camino intersection but the analysis then fails to analyze the traffic 9 impacts at this intersection. Therefore the Mitigated Negative Declaration is inadequate and 10 incomplete. Analysis of the impacts with respect to traffic and pedestrian and bicycle safety at 11 Cambridge Avenue and El Camino must be done. The Mitigated Negative Declaration must be 12 revised to incorporate all feasible mitigations necessary to reduce any potentially significant 13 impacts to less than significant levels and must be re-circulated for public review before the 14 project can be approved. Thank you. 15 16 Chair Garber: Thank you. Before you one of the Commissioners has a question of you. 17 Commissioner Keller. 18 19 Commissioner Keller: So my question is are you suggesting a particular mitigation or are you 20 just simply suggesting the process go through another cycle? 21 22 Ms. Ogawa: I think they have to include that intersection in the traffic impact analysis and they 23 have not done it. They have not included that intersection which is a really important 24 intersection. It is right next to the project. They may come up with a reason like oh, it is not an 25 intersection that is included in the projected analysis of the City so we didn't include it because 26 the City didn't include it in the City's analysis. 27 28 Commissioner Keller: So if a traffic light was put at College and EI Camino would that 29 alternatively satisfy your interests? 30 31 Ms. Ogawa: My interest is that the environmental analysis, the whole purpose of environmental 32 analysis is to inform the public, inform everybody about what the impact are, and this is an 33 intersection that is vitally important, that is hugely impacted, that is right next to the project, it 34 wasn't even analyzed. So we don't even know what the impacts are because it wasn't even 35 analyzed. It needs to be analyzed. Thank you. 36 37 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 38 39 Chair Garber: Thank you. Doria Summa followed by Fred Balin. 40 41 Ms. Doria Summa, Palo Alto: Thank you for letting me speak to you tonight. I would like to 42 commend the Planning Commission for your previous thoughtful discourse on this project. 43 There have been many problems with the process and the applicant's information through the 44 time this project has been in the public arena. Unfortunately it has been from my point of view 45 as a resident and a homeowner kind of an unsatisfactory process. it is troubling to me that there 46 won't be sufficient time for the City Council and residents to have an opportunity to read the City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 2 of43 I transcript ofthis meeting before the project comes to the City Council for the final time next 2 Monday. 3 4 Assurance that the only public benefit offered by the applicant ofthis project, the retention of an 5 honest to goodness grocery store, is not being protected by Staff and in fact the protection is 6 being diminished. The ARB agreed that the application itself was incomplete as the drawings 7 were vague and/or did not show all views of the buildings. Then they facilely dismissed their 8 concerns. 9 10 The. Mitigated Negative Declaration dismisses concerns at nearby intersection redirecting traffic 11 to the Cambridge-EI Camino Real intersection while at the same time offering no analysis of the 12 traffic at that intersection. I can see that intersection from my house and I know from nearly 20 13 years of experience how much confusion and congestion already exists there. Additionally, 14 Jordan Middle School students are told to use Cambridge as a safer alternative to California 15 Avenue. 16 17 Instead of enhancing existing neighborhood commercial retail ground floor office space on 18 College Avenue it will greatly harm it. 19 20 I urge you to make recommendations to curtail the negative impacts of this project ensuring 21 actual public benefit. Not allowing Variances to be dismissed as minor design enhancements on 22 a project already massively out of step with the current zoning and completely at odds with what 23 residents and the College Terrace Residence Association said that they didn't want, which was a 24 regional office center that is not related in any way to the neighborhood. Thank you. 25 26 Chair Garber: Thank you. Fred Balin, our last speaker. Let me again ask if anyone else would 27 like to speak and to please fill out a card and we are happy to hear you. . 28 29 Mr. Fred Balin, Palo Alto: Good evening. There are a number of relevant matters for your 30 discussion tonight. I will raise three. First, the tactic by the applicant and regrettably approved 31 by Staff to specify proposed land use exceptions as design enhancements and in doing so 32 completely bypassing the Commission, except for asking you to approve findings you had no 33 part in reviewing and that should have been presented here in the first place. An eight foot 34 second story encroachment of a required ten-foot setback on Oxford Avenue is not minor. Nor is 35 it to be considered a design enhancement. It is a veiled mechanism to increase office floor area 36 by over 500 square feet, more than 25 percent ofthe total the Commission recommended be 37 reduced. That brings us to related matters. 38 39 Staff has asked for your approval without discussion and via the Consent Calendar for deletions 40 from and modifications to the recommendations you made in October. Your decision even 41 though split to reduce office space by five percent is very important for a number of reasons, not 42 the least of which is that it would create a viable mechanism for retail to be increased on College 43 A venue or elsewhere, maybe even upstairs above the market. 44 45 Remember, Council's decision on the motion to reduce office space by up to ten percent initially 46 failed on a four-four vote with one Council Member absent. Proposed office space is at 210 City of Palo Alto December 2. 2009 Page 3 of43 I percent over current zoning standards, retail is at just four percent over what exists now. The 2 additional five percent traded for retail or lose it mechanism makes perfect sense. 3 4 Finally, Staff has gutted your recommendation for noise abatement and that is unacceptable. The 5 outdated Noise Ordinance is of no protection here. It allows a high baseline ambient plus 6 escalator when commercial development is near low density residential. In College Terrace we 7 know the consequences from painful experience. Think ofthe oversize and imbalanced mix of 8 this project. Now envision the rooftop equipment, HVACs and air condensers needed for each 9 tenant, three rooftop elevators with their motors, numerous solar panels that contribute to 10 mechanical noise direction, and the equipment for refrigeration for and ventilation supply and II return to the grocery. To avoid a high likelihood of a very adverse impact the surrounding 12 neighborhood as well as the BMR tenants an appropriate decibel limit must be written into the 13 PC and implemented in conj unction with the recently revised performance standards. Thank 14 you. 15 16 Chair Garber: Thank you. Robert Moss followed by Robin Kennedy. 17 18 Mr. Robert Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Garber and Commissioners. One of the 19 things that seem to have been overlooked in this entire process is the basic principle of zoning 20 and land use. Zoning goes with the land, not the landowner, or the user. In this case, the City is 21 being asked to make changes to the zoning and land use in order to benefit a specific user, the 22 grocery store. That is not good planning and not a good way to develop a community oriented 23 project. As we know, once the building is built if anything happens and the occupant leaves the 24 public benefit leaves with it. 25 26 27 28 One of the things I find very amusing is the developer says that ifhe is required to reduce the 29 office space by 1,950 square feet the project is not viable. What kind of an incompetent 30 businessman do we have who tells us the project is not viable ifhe loses less than $9,000.00 per 31 month in office rent, which is what the current rate for office space is in Palo Alto. I can't make 32 it ifI can't get another $9,000.00 a month? Do you believe that? I certainly don't. 33 34 What we should be looking at isn't what makes him wealthy or viable but what makes the City 35 and the neighborhood acceptable and what makes the project something that we can be proud of 36 not something that we shudder at every time we go by. 37 38 I think that reducing the office space by only 2,000 square feet is modest. I personally would 39 like to see it go down by about 5,000 but I am willing to compromise and go with only 3,000. I 40 think accepting the argument that a development can do something because it isn't economically 41 feasible to do it right is exactly the wrong way to do business in Palo Alto. It is exactly the 42 wrong way to look at whether a project is viable for the community. It is exactly the wrong way 43 to create precedent for other people coming in the future and giving you the same argument. So 44 I would strongly urge that you do what you think is right, ignore the comments that came in from 45 Staff saying you should change your mind because the Staff thinks it is better or the developer 46 thinks it is better, and do what is reasonable and right for the community. Suggest that the size 47 of the development be reduced, the number of design exceptions and Variances be minimized if City of Palo Alto December 2. 2009 Page 4 of43 I not eliminated totally, and that they come in with a project that is compatible with the 2 community not compatible with the maximum profit for the developer. 3 4 Chair Garber: Thank you. Robin Kennedy. 5 6 Ms. Robin Kennedy, Applicant's Attorney: I am land use counsel for the developer and the 7 owner of the project. As a member of this community I would like to request that the 8 Commissioners do their best to ask the public to eliminate ad hominem comments. I don't think 9 that is particularly constructive. I know you all agree with me and that you don't appreciate 10 them either. 11 12 Ijust wanted to make one statement with respect to Mr. Balin's point about the Noise Ordinance. 13 That is that we do have an ordinance and the way to amend ordinances is well known to all of 14 you and there is a legal process to do that. To make a sui generis change for one particular 15 property owner is in my view deprivation of due process. Thank you. 16 17 Chair Garber: Thank you. I think we have one last speaker, Herb Borock. Mr. Borock will be 18 our last speaker unless I receive any additional cards. Mr. Borock. 19 20 Mr. Herb Borock, Palo Alto: Thank you Chair Garber and Commissioners. First I would like to 21 take note of the letter you received from William Ross and expert on land use law indicating to 22 you the necessity for re-circulating the Mitigated Negative Declaration and his statements in 23 regard to the Design Enhancement Exception. 24 25 I would also like to comment on the remarks of the previous speaker which indicates I guess in a 26 way there has now been a hierarchy oftestimony for about the past ten years, which has been 27 getting worse, namely a developer pays an attorney to tell the Commission how to order the 28 public to speak and what they should say. Those of you in the development community maybe 29 think that is the way things should be run but as anyone has noticed that over the past ten years 30 as it has been easier for developers to get more intensive developments such as the project before 31 you the quality of life in the city has gotten worse and the economic health of the city has gotten 32 worse as well. It perhaps would be better if we went back to the way it used to be where all 33 speakers were treated equally and no one thought that they had the place to say what other . 34 people should testify to. 35 36 Finally, I believe you have a problem with your process. This is a public hearing item and it is 37 not the Commission to decide whether or not there should be a public hearing. You didn't need 38 Commissioner Keller to take this off the Consent Calendar. This kind of item should have never 39 been on the Consent Calendar. There are changes that have been made since the last time it was 40 here and under the California Environmental Quality Act we all have the right to speak about the 41 item and the new information you received from Staff. It is inappropriate to require the request 42 of even one Commissioner to give the public the right because we have that by law. Thank you. 43 44 Chair Garber: Thank you. I have no more cards. Would Commissioner Keller like to speak to 45 his request? 46 City 0/ Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 5 0/43 I Commissioner Keller: Yes. First, I believe that regarding the members of the public being 2 allowed to speak even on the Consent Calendar before we voted on the motion to accept the 3 Consent Calendar we I assume would have taken public comment at that time. So Ijust wanted 4 to put that out. 5 6 Before I go into the questions that I address let me just sort of get questions addressed to the 7 public comments. Is that reasonable? 8 9 Chair Garber: Sure. 10 11 Commissioner Keller: Okay. 12 13 Commissioner Lippert: I thought procedurally you would have requested that the person that 14 pulled it from the Consent Calendar speak to why they wished it to be pulled from the Consent 15 Calendar before we went into questions. 16 17 Chair Garber: I am assuming that Commissioner Keller will do that. 18 19 Commissioner Keller: Sure, I will address that first. 20 21 Commissioner Lippert: I believe that is the order in which you had stated that this would be 22 addressed. 23 24 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I submitted six questions to the Staff for which I have gotten 25 written responses and I would like to address those a little bit more. Secondly, I think I will take 26 the opportunity first to address the comments from the public since they didn't have an 27 opportunity to submit their questions in advance to the Staff and the applicant or whatever. 28 29 So the first question is with respect to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. What is the time 30 period for responding to comment to that and could you explain that process and whether within 31 that there are issues about re-circulating particularly with respect to Cambridge and El Camino? 32 33 Mr. Williams: Yes, the official time period for responding was November 9. The Mitigated 34 Negative Declaration would need to be re-circulated only if there were new significant impacts 35 or new mitigation measures proposed that were not in there on November 9, basically in the 36 version that was reviewed. I don't have the specific traffic study in front of me but the Mitigated 37 Negative Declaration indicates that in general the cross streets have low traffic volumes around 38 this area, that EI Camino has high traffic volumes, and the conclusion is that under our criteria 39 for traffic analysis there would not be a significant impact on any of the intersections on EI 40 Camino. So the Mitigated Negative Declaration itself doesn't break down intersection by 41 intersection but they would have looked at that. They may not have called it out specifically as 42 one ofthe intersections for an LOS, Level of Service, analysis if they felt like for instance 43 California Avenue had more traffic going across it. That might have had some thresholds that 44 would require that analysis whereas Cambridge wouldn't. I don't know the specifics ofthat and 45 we were not prepared to respond specifically to that, but that is obviously a new issue that was 46 brought up. The conclusions in the Mitigated Negative Declaration based our City Traffic City o/Palo A 110 December 2, 2009 Page 6 0/43 1 Engineer's review is that there would not be significant impacts anywhere along EI Camino from 2 this project. 3 4 Commissioner Keller: So I recommend just for the purpose of responding to the public as far as 5 the CMR is concerned to indicate what the increase of delay would be at Cambridge and El 6 Camino from the traffic study and show whether or not it was within the significance criteria. 7 8 Mr. Williams: We will look at that before it goes to Council. 9 10 Commissioner Lippert: Excuse me. 11 12 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert. 13 14 Commissioner Lippert: Again, I thought that the procedure was going to be that the person who 15 had requested that it be pulled from Consent speak to the item first as to why they wished it to be 16 pulled. Again, Commissioner Keller asked a question. Are we going to follow that procedure? 17 Because I am very interested in understanding why this has been pulled from Consent before we 18 get into the line of questioning. 19 20 Chair Garber: Yes. He gave two reasons. One was that he wanted to ask questions and two that 21 he wanted to follow up on the public's questions as well. 22 23 Commissioner Lippert: That's it? 24 25 Chair Garber: That's it. This was a conversation that we had with the City Attorney's Office 26 earlier this afternoon as to the reasons why, and there can be any number of reasons. It can't be 27 just that somebody wants to potentially change, they can also ask a question, they can pull it for 28 the question and clarifications. 29 30 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, thank you. 31 32 Chair Garber: Yes, so those were the reasons, Commissioner Keller. Then the way that we are 33 organizing this is we will do questions from all the Commissioners and then when we have 34 completed that we will then go to discussion and sort of follow the same format that any normal 35 item would. Commissioner Keller, sorry. 36 37 Commissioner Keller: No problem. While some people may have heartburn with some ofthe 38 Design Enhancement Exceptions is it correct that by Municipal Code Design Enhancement 39 Exceptions are not within the purview of the Planning Commission? 40 41 Mr. Williams: That is correct that they are not and you are not required to review findings for 42 them. However, I think we pointed out in response to one of the questions you are as part of the 43 Planned Community process reviewing the site plan for this project. If there is a component of 44 that where you feel like a setback that has been provided or proposed is not adequate then you 45 need to enumerate why that is, explain that, but you can recommend modification of that through 46 the PC review process. It doesn't have to rely on the Design Enhancement Exception criteria but City of Palo Alto December 2.2009 Page 70f43 1 the strict answer to your question is no the Commission does not have purview over the Design 2 Enhancement Exception findings. 3 4 Commissioner Keller: Because it is a PC we could look at for example that overhang issue 5 mentioned by a member of the pUblic. 6 7 Mr. Williams: You could, yes. 8 9 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Then there was a comment made by another member ofthe 10 public with respect to the applicant's attorney with respect to noise regulations and the issue of 11 spot zoning. To what extent can additional restrictions be placed on a PC that has additional 12 development on it where noise might potentially be a bigger issue because of the increased 13 development to make concern about the compatibility of that noise with the neighbors in contrast 14 to the standard zoning ordinance? Is that fair game because of the increased development of the 15 PC? 16 17 Mr. Williams: Generally not. First of all let me say that we fully agree with Mr. Balin's 18 contention that 18.23 Performance Standards should probably be the predominant criteria that we 19 use in reviewing particularly equipment. We do have that provision in there and it would apply 20 but we should specifically include that, and I think we provided you language that we would 21 include that as part of the conditions of approval. It has been added to the conditions of 22 approval. So we fully agree with that and that was put in there for PCs, for commercial, 23 industrial, any particularly any type of nonresidential, although it applies to multifamily as well, 24 that we require that they provide specifications in advance on what equipment generation would 25 be, what the decibel level would be at property lines, and compatibility of that with whatever the 26 neighboring use is, and that we actually have monitoring of that or testing of that before final 27 inspection on the project to be sure that it does comply with requirements. So we don't relay 28 solely on the Noise Ordinance, which does have some difficulties in terms of its enforcement. 29 30 What we don't think we can do and Melissa can be more direct about this from a legal 31 standpoint. It gets to be an arbitrary type of criteria to establish a decibel level for one project or 32 one site. We have the criteria in there and I know the Commission's condition was more general 33 about working with neighbors to find something and that is not really an enforceable condition 34 for us. That is why we came back to you with compliance but want to add to that the 18.23.060 35 or whatever the specific section is that has the criteria for the noise measurements. 36 37 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair in going over the 38 public's questions. I think it is important for the public to feel that they have been heard and 39 listened to. 40 41 I am going to go now to the particular questions that I raised which are the ones I specifically 42 want to address when I pulled item. So the first question and answer, I am not sure how the 43 response really answers my question. I am not talking about the economic analysis with respect 44 to the City's revenue. I am talking about the economic analysis of the project. From my 45 perspective the issue is that the developer has made an assertion which is conclusory in nature, 46 namely that the project is un-economic and without an economic analysis showing the project as City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 80f43 1 a whole is un-economic with the five percent conversion of square footage, or asking exactly 2 how much office square footage they need in some sense the burden of proof is from my 3 perspective on the developer to say why they need instead of the other way around. In some 4 sense it is our job to provide land use issues. So I don't see the economic analysis so has there 5 been an economic analysis that you have done that we haven't seen or that the applicant has 6 shown you and that we haven't? 7 8 Mr. Williams: No there has not. That same question came up when the Council talked about 9 cutting it by 5,000 square feet, is there any kind of analysis? And there is not. Staffs suggestion 10 is not based on whether it is feasible. What we have put in this report is that the applicant has 11 indicated that it is not feasible for them. Our review of it is based on massing and impacts and 12 that kind of thing. Our feeling is the Council sort of decided that 5,000 square foot issue, 13 certainly there is an opening for the Commission to come back and suggest something less or 14 even at 5,000. 15 16 Then secondly our sense is that the 1,950 square feet does not make a material impact on 17 reducing the mass and scale of the project, on changing traffic impacts, or other impacts. So we 18 don't see from a land use perspective that there is any appreciable difference to doing that. But 19 certainly that is the Commission's prerogative to suggest any type of reduction but you would 20 like to but it should be based on land use criteria not on economic. 21 22 Ms. French: Excuse me. For the record we were passed two notes. One from Robin Kennedy 23 saying we told the City Council we would walk if the 5,000 square feet were deleted. A second 24 note from Fred Balin saying am I allowed to pass you a note as well? 25 26 Mr. Williams: We should note that anything we do receive like that or comments we will pass 27 on to you. 28 29 Commissioner Keller: I appreciate that. 30 31 Commissioner Holman: Point of order if I might. Could I just ask that .... 32 33 Chair Garber: That we not have notes passed. 34 35 Commissioner Holman: Please. Ifthere is a member of the public or an applicant party or any 36 one if they want to be recognized to make a comment that they do so in pub lic and they will be 37 acknowledged by the Chair. 38 39 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Lippert. 40 41 Commissioner Lippert: Actually as a point of order is the public hearing still open or is it 42 closed? 43 44 Chair Garber: It is still open. I have not closed it. I will close it and ask if the Commissioners 45 would like members of the public to speak that they can call on them. Okay? Commissioner 46 Keller you were going to continue I believe. City oJ Palo A Ito December 2, 2009 Page 90J43 1 2 Commissioner Keller: Yes, so with respect to moving onto my question number two we do have 3 a development statement, which does include development schedules in terms ofpoint number 4 three. Point number two, I believe that IS.3S.0S0(d) refers to the rental or sales price of housing, 5 which I am not sure has been provided. I realize it is BMR housing but that is an example of the 6 kind of thing that was not provided in terms of this at least I don't see it. Section IS.3S.0S0(e) 7 allows the Director to request information such as the one in item one, an economic analysis. 8 Particularly I realize that the Commission and the Council do not have the right to ask for 9 additional information but the Director has the right to ask for additional information according 10 to code. Particularly since the Council was wondering about the amount of square footage and 11 the appropriate amount of square footage and as Commissioner Lippert mentioned that motion 12 failed on a four to four vote it would seem to me that an economic analysis justifying this square 13 footage would be worthwhile. So I think that that is the kind of thing that the Director is within 14 the PC Ordinance has the discretion to request. 15 16 Mr. Williams: I am sorry, I don't want to belabor the point, but I do want to point out that we 17 have been down this road a bit before. It is virtually impossible to do an economic analysis that 18 is going to do what you want. It is so dependent on what the rental rates are that fluctuate from 19 time to time, and any number of other factors. It is just especially at this scale very difficult to 20 do. I appreciate that and again if you think from a land use standpoint there is some reason to 21 not go there then you are free to make that recommendation. 22 23 Commissioner Keller: Well, going to the next question four, basically the comments are that this 24 is mixed use because of four BMR units. As a comment that was made in response that ifthis 25 was CN without a mixed use component then the maximum of office and retail would 25,13S.5 26 square feet and retail would be 12,569. The amount of retail actually provided in enclosed 27 space, which is the square footage that counts, is 13,5S0 square feet. So in some sense the 28 amount of retail provided at a PC project compared to a CN project is an additional 1 ,011 square 29 feet. So the reason why I think the perspective from a land use analysis is that when the motion 30 was made at the previous meeting to have five percent reduction in office space my 31 understanding ofthat motion is either that could be done by a combination of converting office 32 space to retail or reducing the office space and reduce the massing, and either of those techniques 33 would be allowed. In other words, we were not requiring reducing the total FAR but it could be 34 done by replacing that amount of office space with retail space. Part ofthe issue to me is that 35 essentially what we are doing for the public benefit, the primary public benefit is the grocery 36 store, and what we are doing is providing 1,011 square feet more of grocery store than is actually 37 required, and presumably requiring it at a rent that is viable for the grocery store. That is 38 justifying a great more additional FAR and therefore part of the issue is since we didn't want to 39 require the additional retail to give the applicant the option of providing additional retail and 40 saving their money to not redesign the building or reducing the office space. So that was 41 certainly my understanding in seconding the motion. Was that the understanding of the maker of 42 that amendment? I believe that was Commissioner Lippert. 43 44 Commissioner Lippert: That was the basic understanding, the idea that they could either reduce 45 the square footage ofthe building or they could simply allocate it as retail or some other use that 46 is compatible with the zoning. City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 100f43 1 2 Commissioner Keller: Right. So to me that does fall within a land use issue. With those 3 comments I will turn the baton over to whoever is next. 4 5 Chair Garber: Commissioners, are there other questions or other clarifications? Commissioner 6 Holman. 7 8 Commissioner Holman: Yes, I have some procedural difficulties with the project. I will just be 9 frank my preference would be that this be continued because we got the resolution this evening. 10 There is no opportunity to confirm that the Comprehensive Plan policies are applicable. We 11 received Exhibit B, the Conditions of Approval, at places, which means the public has had no 12 opportunity to review them. I presume the applicant has had access to those. It would make 13 sense that they would have. We do not have Exhibit A, which is not the biggest deal-breaker in 14 the world. It is the Site Map I think so that is not the biggest deal. We do not have Attachment 15 B, which I am not even sure what that is, it is referenced on page 7 of the Ordinance, Section 16 65(1). It says the design is consistent and compatible with the applicable elements ofthe City's 17 Comprehensive Plan as set for in Exhibit A of Attachment B of the Draft Resolution. 18 \ 19 Commissioner Lippert: Is this the Draft Resolution? 20 21 Commissioner Holman: Okay. Now Exhibit B is the Conditions of Approval. 22 23 Mr. Russ Reich, Senior Planner: Attachment B is the Draft Resolution. Exhibit B is the 24 Conditions of Approval attached to Attachment A, which is the PC Ordinance all of which was 25 provided at the previous Planning Commission meeting. 26 27 Commissioner Holman: Okay. Attachment B is not identified as Attachment B that is part of 28 the confusion here. It doesn't have any identification on it at alL 29 30 Mr. Reich: It wasn't intended to be provided to you. It was something that was asked for today 31 and was run off quickly to get it to you. 32 33 Commissioner Holman: Okay, all right. Well, those are reasons I think that would be preferable 34 for this item to be continued. Aside from that I have several other issues, concerns, or maybe 35 clarifications of the ordinance. Starting nowhere in particular, there was an email from Staff 36 yesterday I think it was saying that the applicant had offered -we had discussion at this body 37 about the street trees in the median. There was an email from Staff yesterday saying that the 38 applicant had offered $5,000 for a street tree fund to support Canopy in planting of trees in EI 39 Camino Real median. There is absolutely no reference to that that I have found in looking 40 tonight in the Conditions of Approval. It is certainly not in the Ordinance. There is no 41 indication of what $5,000 would contribute to that and there is no commitment on the part in any 42 of the records that we have. Would Staff care to comment on that? 43 44 Mr. Williams: Sure. It is in the Ordinance as a public benefit. What I think we anticipated is if 45 that is something you wanted us to add that we would add that as part ofthese recommendations. 46 Russ thought it got in the Ordinance. It may not be there. City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 11 0/43 1 2 Commissioner Holman: One thing that might be helpful is we receive a new Ordinance at our 3 places. I have no idea what the differences are between that Ordinance and what was provided to 4 us in our packets. If Staff could go through what those changes are I think everybody would be 5 enlightened. 6 7 Mr. Williams: Russ, can you go through what changes were made since the last time they saw 8 the Ordinance? 9 10 Mr. Reich: One ofthe larger changes was the addition of ..... 11 12 Commissioner Holman: Can you identify locations, please, in the ordinance? I would appreciate 13 that. 14 15 Mr. Reich: The pages are not numbered. 16 17 Chair Garber: Location numbers? 18 19 Mr. Reich: It is under item (f) Public Benefits. There is (f) (3) the change is that the 20 contribution of $5,000 has been added for tree planting in the median. 21 22 One of the other changes was related to the timing of occupancy for the grocery store. 23 24 Commissioner Holman: Page please. 25 26 Mr. Reich: I am looking for that. 27 28 Commissioner Keller: Top of page 4, item (1). 29 30 Mr. Reich: Yes, that is it. That language was added. It is discussed in the Staff Report in terms 31 ofthe change. It was pulled from a Condition of Approval and brought into the Ordinance. 32 33 Item (2) was also added. Basically the below market rate housing shall be occupied no later than 34 120 days after first occupancy of the office building. This is to ensure that the BMR units get 35 built and occupied prior to full occupancy of the office spaces. No more than 50 percent ofthe 36 office space shall be occupied prior to occupancy of the housing. 37 38 Commissioner Keller: If I may? 39 40 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 41 42 Commissioner Keller: I assume that in the fifth page, Development Schedule, actually should be 43 given its own paragraph, presumably (g). 44 45 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman. 46 City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 12 of43 I Commissioner Holman: Are those the only changes to the Ordinance? 2 3 Mr. Reich: The only ones I can think of off-hand. 4 5 Commissioner Holman: Okay. 6 7 Mr. Reich: Excuse me, the findings for architectural review approval and Design Enhancement 8 Exceptions were also added. Those had not been prepared at the time that it went to Planning 9 Commission last time. 10 11 Chair Garber: That is Section 6? 12 13 Mr. Reich: Yes, Section 6. And Section 5. 14 15 Chair Garber: So just to summarize. In Section 4, item (b) (1) and (2), Section 5, and Section 6. 16 17 Mr. Reich: Yes. 18 19 Chair Garber: Thank you. And (f) (3) Public Benefits. 20 21 Commissioner Holman: So my question having to do with (f) (3) under Public Benefits what 22 will $5,000 do? 23 24 Mr. Reich: Five thousand dollars would roughly cover the cost of planning five trees. In 25 looking at the wider part of the median where trees potentially could be planted it looked like 26 there is room possibly for five trees 20 feet on center to be planted there. So that should cover 27 the cost of materials to plant those trees. 28 29 Commissioner Holman: I had another question that I had submitted which was about the ARB's 30 Consent Calendar. The number of items but really the extent of the items, in other words the 31 magnitude of the items that are going back to the ARB. We are being asked to approve a project 32 without knowing a whole lot of things some ofthat having to do with plantings. Private open 33 space is also one of the items that is going back to them I see in the ARB review. There is no 34 indication in the Staff Report or in the Ordinance anything about private open space that I found. 35 If it exists, how it is being addressed, what is going to happen. that is one of the issues that is 36 going back to ARB but what might happen there we have no idea, and it was one of the issues 37 that was raised by the Commission at our prior meeting. 38 39 Mr. Reich: Provided at places there is an image that shows the private open spaces that are 40 provided for each of the units. It is basically 81 square feet is the open space, It has been on the 41 plans from the beginning but it wasn't really known or identified or called out as private open 42 space. There are porches in front of each of the units and those are the private open spaces 43 totaling 81 square feet for each of the residences. 44 45 Chair Garber: I am sorry I am not seeing that. 46 City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 13 of 43 1 Commissioner Keller: Is it in this document in the back? 2 3 Chair Garber: Is that the November 2, Carrasco & Associates document? Okay. 4 5 Commissioner Keller: It looks like it is this. Go to the back and turn back one page. 6 7 Commissioner Holman: What does the front of that look like, please? 8 9 Commissioner Keller: The front of it looks like this. It says Carrasco & Associates, ARB 10 Submittal, PC Zone, ARB Submittal 1 0-23, however it contains other documents not just that. It 11 includes a letter from Robin Kennedy. It includes the development schedule and it includes this 12 diagram. I am not sure I can figure out what the context of this diagram is. 13 14 Mr. Reich: If you look at the floor plan behind you you can see that this diagram is basically 15 showing you these porches here in front of each of the units. 16 17 Commissioner Holman: You are correct that that had not been called to our attention previously 18 so you are correct on that. The question also went to again the number of things that the ARB is 19 going to be reviewing again, the magnitude of them, and what we are being asked to approve. 20 We are not privy to what their outcome is going to be. What would affect or be of interest to this 21 Commission probably mostly would be the plantings and we don't know what those are going to 22 be. 23 24 Mr. Reich: Are you referring to the particular tree species? 25 26 Commissioner Holman: Size, anything. 27 28 Mr. Reich: I am not sure why the Planning Commission ... 29 30 Commissioner Holman: Because it started the site development and the Commission always 31 reviews, I can't think of a time when the Commission doesn't weigh in on those kinds of aspects 32 of a project. 33 34 Mr. Williams: The Commission, again I understand that we are here tonight and generally things 35 are open but that the Commission had an opportunity to weigh in on those items previously. 36 They passed along to ARB. Mr. Lew is here and can speak to this but I don't think it is 37 particularly unusual and he can tell you the nature of those and why they thought they were 38 minor enough that they didn't affect the overall site layout or some of the substantive issues in 39 there. It is certainly not unusual at all unusual that ARB sees the detailed planting plans. I 40 would have expected that if the Commission had wanted to see those that you would have asked 41 specifically for those plans. This process was set in motion to have the Commission in this case, 42 unlike in others, review the project before the ARB does. I have a bit of concern if the 43 Commission starts to now take on the ARB's role after they have reviewed it here. Do you want 44 to add anything? 45 City of Palo A Ito December 2, 2009 Page 14 of43 1 Mr. Alex Lew:, Chainnan, Architectural Review Board: I did want to sort of follow up with you 2 about the plantings. There are a couple of issues with regard to the landscape. 3 4 . Commissioner Holman: Just be specific so we don't take a lot of time. I was only really 5 addressing the tree size because that is typically something we do care about. Not the whole 6 plantings that is all ARB. The units and the private open space we have had no knowledge about 7 that previously so that is why it was a question having to do with ARB review. 8 9 Mr. Lew: Typically we look at all of the plantings and we did list our main concerns in the 10 conditions for the Consent Calendar. I don't recall the tree sizes offhand. I don't have the 11 drawings with me. 12 13 Mr. Reich: The size wasn't an issue. The species was an issue and that is under discussion 14 between the applicant and Public Works. The Conditions of Approval do contain the proposed 15 size as recommended by Public Works. They don't want to see larger trees planted. They 16 actually feel that smaller trees planted grow more quickly and are more successful than planting 17 a large tree. So it is a 15-gallon size tree that Public Works has recommended be planted. 18 19 Chair Garber: May I ask a follow up? Did the ARB have any other specific comments other 20 than speaking about the reconsideration of the selection of the Ash tree species and the 21 comments about bamboo? Where there other discussion items regarding landscape specifically 22 in terms of the location ofthose trees or their density or anything else? 23 24 Mr. Lew: No. I think the only other item is actually the green roof that the applicant really 25 didn't provide any planting details for what was happening on the green roof. So we asked for 26 some details about that. I think they only provided like a construction detail but nothing about 27 the character or the design. 28 29 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Holman. 30 31 Commissioner Holman: I am sorry I do. One of the questions I asked was about flexibility in 32 tenns of modification of the Pc. On page 5 of the previous Ordinance, I don't know what page 33 it is on in the replacement Ordinance here, it talks about modifications to the plan. I don't have 34 issue with one part of it I do have issue with another part. This is in the Ordinance that was in 35 our packet, page 5 (e). For the public's benefit, once the project has been constructed consistent 36 with the approved Development Plan, any modification of the exterior design of the 37 Development Plan or any new construction, and here is where I have trouble, or use not 38 specifically pennitted by the Development Plan or the site development regulations contained in 39 Section 4 (a)-(c) above shall require an amendment to the Planned Community zone, unless the 40 modification is a minor change as described in Municipal Code, etc., in which case the 41 modification may be approved through the Minor Architectural Review process. My concern 42 there is a change of use because we have been very specific about the uses allowed on this site. 43 So to me I wish that read consistent with what the Staff response was that says the only 44 flexibility is an amendment to the Ordinance that would need City Council approval to change 45 the permitted use. But that is not how the Ordinance reads. 46 City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page /5 of43 1 Mr. Williams: I agree and I think we should strike the word 'use' there and then probably add a 2 sentence that says that any use not specifically pennitted by this Ordinance requires an 3 amendment to the Pc. 4 5 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. You will make note of that so we can refer back to it 6 perhaps in a few moments. 7 8 This may sound like a nitpick but I think it is important. On page 2 at the very bottom of the 9 page, (a) the last sentence. Just so there is no confusion. The commercial space would include 10 8,800 square feet of grocery store, 5,580 square feet of ground floor retail space, and 38,980 11 square feet of office space. Just adding the word 'other,' 5,580 of other ground floor retail, 12 which is consistent with the language elsewhere in the Ordinance I think would clarify that they 13 are not the same spaces. I do think it is critical. 14 15 Mr. Williams: Where is that again? 16 17 Commissioner Holman: It is at the bottom of page 2, the last sentence under (a). 18 19 Chair Garber: Section 3 (a). 20 21 Commissioner Holman: It just makes them discreet which is consistent with other references in 22 the ordinance. 23 24 Mr. Williams: The commercial space would include 8,800 square feet of grocery store, 5,580 25 square feet of other ground floor retail space. 26 27 Commissioner Holman: Which is consistent. 28 29 Mr. Williams: Okay. 30 31 Commissioner Holman: There was much conversation about the plans last time and the 32 possibility of expanding a grocery store in the future. There is no reference anywhere in the 33 Ordinance such that the landscape area now what its potential future use might be and what the 34 flexibility of that space might be. It was something the applicant brought forward as a great 35 opportunity but it is not referred to at all. Can explain why that might not be important to 36 include? 37 38 Mr. Reich: Possible future expansion of the grocery store is not part of the current proposal so 39 the current Ordinance would not mention any that. Any possible future expansion would be 40 another PC application. 41 42 Mr. Williams: Unless the Commission specifically directed that the allowable uses could include 43 an increase in the grocery store space. 44 45 Mr. Reich: That hasn't been analyzed. 46 City of Palo A Ito December 2. 2009 Page 16 of43 1 Mr. Williams: 1 see that is true that is why. That would need an additional environmental 2 review to look at that as a different use than office space, which has some different 3 characteristics. So at this point we couldn't do that. There would have to be an amendment and 4 a further environmental review. 5 6 Chair Garber: without benefit of our minutes that is my recollection as well. We spent some 7 time going through that. 8 9 Commissioner Holman: 1 do recall that. My question really goes to can we not make reference 10 to what the purpose of this is? Not allowing it in the Ordinance but what the purpose is, it is 11 space provided to allow for potential future expansion of the grocery store. That doesn't permit 12 anything. 13 14 Ms. Tronquet: 1 would be concerned that it still touches on the issue of environmental review 15 where a different use than what was in the project description in the Mitigated Negative 16 Declaration is contemplated. So even mentioning that that could be a possible use 1 would be 17 concerned that that would jeopardize the environmental review. 18 19 Commissioner Holman: Okay. One other issue is the ..... 20 21 Commissioner Keller: Can 1 ask a follow up? 22 23 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 24 25 Commissioner Keller: Yes, thank you. 1 believe we had directed or requested that the ARB 26 explore the issue of whether the design was compatible with an expanded grocery store. Maybe 27 this is a good opportunity for the ARB Representative to respond to that. 28 29 Mr. Lew: Yes, and that was put into our Staff Reports to comment on that. 1 would say, trying 30 to characterize everybody's feelings, 1 don't think that there was any strong opinion about the 31 expansion. It was a speculative thing and there was no proposal included in the packet so it was 32 hard for us to comment on it other than there is a space there that could be transformed into or 33 expanded into. 34 35 Commissioner Keller: If 1 may? 36 37 Mr. Lew: Yes. 38 39 Commissioner Keller: I think our intent was not to look at any particular design but to sort of 40 give us a gut check as to whether based on your knowledge and experience it would be feasible 41 to expand the grocery store in the direction of that planting area and reconfigure it in such a way 42 that that was a feasible thing or whether there was something being done in the design or the 43 building'S construction or configuration that would preclude that. We wanted to make sure that 44 it was not precluded. 45 City of Palo Alto December 2. 2009 Page 17 of43 1 Mr. Lew: I can't speak for all ofthe members of the Board but I don't the Board would say - I 2 don't think we came to consensus to say that there is nothing in there that would preclude 3 expansion of the grocery store but there wasn't anything there that struck the Board that it would 4 be a significant problem. It would involve redesign of the loading dock and the stairs to the 5 rooftop garden so that is significant. It would change some of the pathways around the BMR 6 units. 7 8 Commissioner Keller: May I paraphrase what you are saying as you didn't do a specific analysis 9 but that you didn't see any show stoppers? 10 11 Mr. Lew: That is correct. 12 13 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 14 15 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman. 16 17 Commissioner Holman: Just a couple of more things here I think. I was trying to check 18 something from previous to the new Ordinance. Perhaps I will do that in a moment. What had . 19 pointed me to, I found my reference, to the trees area was again an Ordinance we are looking to 20 approve. It is page 3 of the Ordinance that is in our packet. Page 3 (g) and (h). It talks about 21 removal of street trees along College, Oxford, and Staunton Court, and planting new street trees 22 in the sidewalk area. Removal and replacement of some or all street trees along EI Camino Real 23 in tree wells. Again, this is an Ordinance we are looking to approve but we don't have -are we 24 replenishing in like number or greater than. That is what had prompted the question initially. I 25 am sorry I didn't find my reference earlier. 26 27 Mr. Reich: Currently there are 11 street trees surrounding the project and the project proposal 28 includes the planting of 41. So the plan is significantly greater than what is existing. 29 30 Commissioner Holman: The plans are dated October 22 that is what is referred to in the 31 Ordinance. Ifthere are sheets that are changed how does that work? I will leave that to you to 32 work out but sheets in the plans might change and they are not going to be actually the October 33 22 plan so how is that tracked? 34 35 Another question I had was the open-air market that has been proposed all along. There is no 36 reference to that. It is not a building but it is space on the site. So can the Commission indicate 37 that that area is to be used exclusively for open-air market for use by the grocery store? There is 38 no reference at all to it in Ordinance that I found. 39 40 Mr. Williams: It is in the Development Plan. As far as the use of it for that purpose if the 41 Commission wanted to include that that could be added here under Uses or as a Condition of 42 Approval. 43 44 Commissioner Holman: Okay, great. I think maybe just one more thing, which is the outdoor 45 seating. By the way, before I forget I wanted to thank the ARB very much for looking at the City 0/ Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 180/43 1 retail office space along College so to make sure that it was practical for both office and retail. I 2 want to thank you very much for that. 3 4 The outdoor seating and planters on College and Staunton Court I didn't find it as a Condition of 5 Approval. Is that just something that would be required to stay because it is what is on the 6 plans? What is the maintenance of both the garden square and outdoor seating planters? What is 7 the maintenance of those? 8 9 Mr. Reich: As a PC they are required to be maintained as proposed. There is a Condition of 10 Approval that specifies that landscaping shall be maintained as per, I don't know if we can dig it 11 out and read it to you, but there is a general condition that we put in most of our projects where 12 landscaping is involved requiring that the landscape be maintained. So if planting dies or 13 irrigation fails it is required to be replaced. It is Condition 133, all landscape and trees shall be 14 maintained, water, fertilized, and pruned according to the best management practices. Pruning as 15 ANSIA 300 2001 a current version, any vegetation that dies shall be replaced, or failed 16 automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. 17 18 Commissioner Holman: Okay. Last question and this has come up numerous times before in 19 terms of review of especially PCs but not only PCs. Who pays for the inspections and are there 20 any penalties associated with nonconformance or noncompliance? 21 22 Ms. Tronquet: The City's Code Enforcement Division typically handles these inspections. 23 There are many, many ways that we use to gain compliance but in terms of penalties we have an 24 administrative penalty schedule, and there are penalties set forth in that for violations of the 25 Zoning Ordinance. I can't recall what they are right now. Generally they range from $50 up to 26 $1,000. Ijust don't remember what the zoning penalties are right now, but citation and other 27 methods to gain compliance, which is the most important issue to us. The penalties are per day 28 and Code Enforcement enforces that. 29 30 Commissioner Holman: That really addresses all of my questions and concerns. I did want to 3 1 pile in on the noise issue however we can best address that. If there is some way that Staff can 32 see that we can better mitigate that. 33 34 Chair Garber: I have been trying to keep track of your various comments. If I may, let me go 35 through them and see if I have gotten all of them. I think I missed one or two at the very 36 beginning. Section 4, modification to item (b), which is the changing of the word to 'any use not 37 permitted.' 38 39 Commissioner Holman: It requires a little bit more clarification than that per Curtis' language I 40 think. 41 42 Chair Garber: Okay. If you have it there that is fine otherwise we can come back to it. 43 44 Mr. Reich: Any change in use shall require an amendment to the PC Ordinance. 45 46 Mr. Williams: And striking the word 'use.' City oj Palo A Ito December 2, 2009 Page 19 oJ43 I 2 Mr. Reich: So striking the word 'use' in the third line of Section (e) and then adding the 3 sentence at the end saying any change in use shall require an amendment to the PC Ordinance. 4 5 Chair Garber: Then on Section item (a) presumably that is where we would specify the open 6 market area? 7 8 Mr. Williams: This is Section 4, item (a) is that what you are talking about? 9 10 Chair Garber: Yes. 11 12 Mr. Williams: Actually, we are talking about outdoor areas are permitted as part of the eating 13 and drinking or as part of the retail services. So I think it really is on (b) under Special 14 Limitations on Land Uses. What we would want to say is that that outdoor market area must be 15 retained for that use, 16 17 Chair Garber: So it could be added as item number 9 on that. 18 19 Mr. Williams: Yes, I think that is probably the best place. 20 21 Chair Garber: Karen, you also had a modification there to Section 3 (a) and I am not 22 remembering what that was. 23 24 Mr. Williams: That was adding the word 'other.' 25 26 Chair Garber: Other, right. 27 28 Coinmissioner Lippert: If I might make a minor suggestion here. Rather than describe that as 29 open market actually say open market use. 30 31 Chair Garber: Okay. Thank you. 32 33 Commissioner Holman: We would need to say exclusive because that is what it is identified to 34 be, right? 35 36 Mr. Williams: Right. That the area designated for outdoor market use shall be retained for that 37 use or something like that, exclusively for that use. 38 39 Commissioner Holman: Yes, okay. 40 41 Chair Garber: Then we had Section 3 and going to revise the verbiage that directs to specific 42 documents we need to allow for the modification ofthat over time and Staff can come up with 43 the correct language for that. 44 45 CommissionerHolman: Which one was that? 46 City 0/ PaLo ALto December 2, 2009 Page 20 0/43 1 Chair Garber: That was item 3, your comments regarding the comprised of mixed use 2 developments depicted on Development Plans date October 22 and your comment was what 3 happens when it is modified? We need to be able to capture that and some mechanics of that 4 need to be incorporated. 5 6 You talked about a bunch of other things and I am really just focusing on the ones we need to 7 take specific action on. There was the topic of noise, which we can come back to. What else 8 have I missed? I am not including the conversation about the expansion of the grocery store. 9 You also had comments that I am thinking that those were satisfied relative to the conversations 10 that we'had around items (g) and (h) in Section 3, the outdoor seating and planters. 11 12 I think there were two comments at the very beginning that I didn't capture. One about the 13 Comprehensive Plan possibly. 14 15 Commissioner Holman: I am understanding that this hasn't changed, the Resolution, which is 16 Attachment B. 17 18 Mr. Williams: Correct, yes. 19 20 Commissioner Holman: Attachment B, which is not identified as such, that that has not changed 21 since last we saw it. 22 23 Mr. Williams: Right. What has changed are those items that Russ mentioned in the Ordinance 24 and the Conditions of Approval that were outlined in the Staff Report modified by what you have 25 been given tonight relative to the noise condition. Not in the Resolution. I said in the Conditions 26 of ApprovaL 27 28 Chair Garber: Satisfied there? Some confusion? 29 30 Commissioner Holman: Some confusion, yes. So hang on here. So the Conditions of Approval 31 are Exhibit B and the Resolution is Attachment B. 32 33 Ms. Tronguet: Commissioner Holman I noticed this earlier and it is supposed to refer to the 34 Resolution. So I will make sure that change is made before it goes to Council. 35 36 Commissioner Holman: So I am not crazy. 37 38 Ms. Tronguet: No you are not. 39 40 Commissioner Holman: Okay. 41 42 . Chair Garber: Would the City Attorney give me a sentence there that answers Commissioner 43 Holman's concern? 44 City of Palo Alto December 2. 2009 Page 21 of43 1 Commissioner Keller: May I interj ect for a moment? There are actually two Exhibit Bs. There 2 is an Exhibit B to the Resolution and an Exhibit B to the Ordinance. Exhibit B to the Resolution 3 is a map basically of the parcel it looks like. 4 5 Mr. Reich: Exhibit B to the Resolution is the Comprehensive Plan Compliance Table or 6 analysis. Exhibit B to the PC Ordinance is the Conditions of Approval. 7 8 Commissioner Keller: Wait, Section 2 of the Ordinance says Exhibit B is a land use map in the 9 area so it has to be a map or something like that. 10 11 Ms. Tronquet: I didn't develop specific language yet but my intention is to clarify it so it 12 referred to the Resolution as a whole. 13 14 Chair Garber: Thank you. 15 16 Commissioner Holman: I think my other comments would have to do with the changes and 17 inclusions that have been added to the replacement Ordinance that was in front of us. For 18 instance the page 5 (g) having to do with the $5,000 for plantings on EI Camino Real median. 19 There were a couple of other corrections that were made. 20 21 Chair Garber: Those are the ones that I went through earlier. 22 23 Commissioner Holman: To be incorporated. 24 25 Chair Garber: Yes, and if necessary I do have notes of them and can reiterate them. Anything 26 else? 27 28 Commissioner Holman: The other thing is just a comment. I know this is not what Staff wants 29 to hear but this Commission has talked often about the use ofDEEs versus Variances. I still 30 contend that the setback is a Variance not a DEE. I know it is not a winnable argument this 31 evening but I think to be consistent I am still putting it out there. 32 33 Chair Garber: Thank you. Other Commissioners? Commissioner Lippert. 34 35 Commissioner Lippert: I have a couple of questions for Staff. In terms of Staffs 36 recommendation not going along with our square footage reduction in terms of office can I get 37 some understanding behind that? I know originally you spoke about that whether it is retail or 38 office it doesn't really make much of a difference. Why wouldn't you support what we are 39 recommending here in terms of -let just digress a little bit here and give you some background. 40 41 As Commissioner Keller has mentioned if this was a mixed use zone we would require a 15 42 percent retail component associated with this. Now taking the grocery store out because that has 43 already been identified as a public benefit, and knowing what the Council's deliberations were in 44 terms of saying gee, we want a little more office taken out ofthis project, we have come up with 45 a way of approaching that by saying we think that an additional 1,900 square feet needs to come 46 out in terms of office use. So I am trying to get an understanding as to why Staff isn't supporting City of Palo A Ito December 2, 2009 Page 22 af43 1 what we are recommending if we are trying to grapple with a solution for making this work iri 2 terms of meeting closing to what our guidelines are. 3 4 Mr. Williams: I think our position is just that we have not seen any compelling reason to do that. 5 It just feels arbitrary, the picking a number out. We don't see that there is an impact that that 6 ameliorates or reduces massing or traffic, well those are impacts. Understand that there may be 7 that rationale behind it. We don't feel that. Certainly if you do that is fine and we will present 8 that to the Council as well. I am not sure. I am just not getting a sense of what the significance 9 is. Are we going to notice that in any way, shape, or form? I think that is sort of our concern 10 that it is not really having any substantive effect on the project. 11 12 Frankly, my sense would be that ifthere is an issue, and I know you brought it up at one of the 13 early meetings, is why isn't it almost flipped and have a lot more residential and lot more office. 14 That is a basic fundamental difference in the project, the mix of uses, and that I understood. 15 Council sort of settled that in the big picture way on that issue. So now I don't think we object 16 to, it doesn't matter particularly the 1,950 square feet to Staff It does to the applicants. Again, 17 not seeing that there is a compelling basis for that. 18 19 Commissioner Lippert: That is a very good point. I guess what I would want then is for Staff to 20 ask us in this meeting what are the compelling reasons and in some ways for us to persuade Staff 21 or myself to remove that. 22 23 My rationale behind it is different than Commissioner Holman's or Commissioner Keller's but 24 we were able to formulate a consensus as to why we felt it was important. My rationale might 25 hold water with several City Council Members and Commissioner Holman's thoughts might 26 resonate with other City Council Members by which we would be able to find some middle 27 ground or some rationale behind doing that. But what I see is that Staff doesn't hold any 28 compelling rationale or reasoning behind it so they are backing up the applicant without any firm 29 compelling reasons behind their rationale. 30 31 Mr. Williams: Well, I don't feel that it is our role in a meeting like this to debate those merits. I 32 think you make those arguments in your minutes or deliberations and I guess Vice-Chair Tuma 33 will be there to represent that and it very well may be that the Council sees that. At this point we 34 are not going to fall on our sword for 1,950 square feet one way or the other. 35 36 Commissioner Lippert: Yes, and I don't mean to put you on the spot in terms of doing that. All 37 that I am really interested in finding out is what the rationale behind that Staff recommendation 38 is because when I see it usually I would want Staff to come along with our recommendation that 39 we are making to Council. Ifthere was a distinct planning rationale behind it I would want that 40 to come forward as well. 41 42 My rationale if you are interested in knowing is that I believe that there are a couple of 43 components here. Number one, if in fact there is an opportunity for the grocery store to expand 44 it would not eat into the retail component on the ground floor. This is just what I am thinking. 45 Often times you see a standalone sandwich component or a pharmacy associated with a grocery 46 store. It is connected to the grocery store. You see it all the time. However, it could very well City of Palo A Ito December 2, 2009 Page 23 of43 1 be that because we have is open market that a sandwich shop component that is run by the 2 grocery store could exist in the retail component without supplanting additional retail space. So 3 that would be one way of doing it. That would be my approach. In fact, that sandwich 4 component could actually stay open later or close earlier and not affect the grocery store. 5 6 The second rationale behind it is that here we have a site that bound by three streets Oxford, EI 7 Camino Real, College, and Staunton Court. By having additional retail on the ground floor it 8 actually allows for the possibility of wrapping that retail component on the ground floor around 9 the site and therefore making it more pedestrian friendly. I don't object to having a small office 10 component on the ground floor but it should be in some ways subservient to what the retail 11 component is. 12 13 Lastly, I think that in terms of when we look at this in terms of a mixed use building it is 14 desirable to try to achieve as best as possible to have that 15 percent retail component associated 15 with mixed use. I know that we really pushed for that on the Alma Plaza project trying to get 16 that 15 percent. In this case it is another PC I would want us to have as close to that 15 percent 17 retail component. Now you could very well say the grocery store along with the retail virtually 18 achieves that 15 percent, but we are looking at that grocery store as a public benefit. So I would 19 pun that out of that 15 percent retail and then want that in addition. So that is my main reasoning 20 behind it. I don't know if any of my other Commissioners have additional thoughts that they 21 would want to share along those lines. 22 23 Commissioner Martinez: Yes, I do. 24 25 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez. 26 27 Commissioner Martinez: I jump at the rare opportunity to agree with Commissioner Lippert. In 28 this case it is a little bit odd because I didn't vote in support of reducing the size of the office 29 space. I felt we were kind of meddling in sort ofland use where it was somewhat arbitrary. 30 However, when I considered it more I thought well, you know we are not saying that the project 31 has to be smaller. We are asking for more retail space and the project could use more retail 32 space. It is pretty significantly out of balance. So I think we kind of gave the developer the 33 opportunity to look at being creative with it. To look for a way to recoup this sort of exchange, 34 to increase the development potential, and really give the neighborhood and the city back 35 something a little bit more than it was proposing in the beginning. So I don't think it was a 36 draconian kind of move to kill the project. I thought it was reasonable planning. 37 38 In reading the recommendation to Council I sort of felt that Staffhad sort of diminished' that 39 position from the PTC. I felt like it was important to state that we were really suggesting that the 40 project office component could be smaller to the benefit ofthe project. I think by coming out 41 and say Staff and the ARB recommends approval it made us kind of out to be like we are the bad 42 guys trying to stop the development. But in another way of looking at we were actually really 43 proposing I think a much more vital project. So I would really ask you to sort of state that in a 44 way that fairly represents what the Commission consensus was. 45 City of Palo A Ito December 2, 2009 Page 24 of43 lOne last point I want to agree with Commissioner Holman, who I always agree with, that the 2 setbacks really aren't a Design Enhancement. I am trying to think of why wouldn't it be? 3 Moving a building closer to the street, why is that a Design Enhancement? Perhaps if it were a 4 public benefit of some kind that brought it closer to the community I suppose we could stretch it 5 to make it that. But it really is a Variance and I hope in our study session we begin to look at 6 that. Thank you. 7 8 Commissioner Lippert: If I might, retail closer to the street would be a public benefit. 9 10 Commissioner Martinez: Sometimes. 11 12 Commissioner Lippert: I think Commissioner Keller had a follow up as to his rationale. 13 14 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 15 16 Commissioner Keller: Sure, I pretty much agree with the comments of Commissioner Lippert. I 17 just want to point out that there is this nice courtyard space over on the comer of College and 18 Staunton and a sandwich shop eating away from some of the office space that served 19 sandwiches. People could sit outside in that wonderful courtyard area with tables and eat their 20 sandwiches. I can tell you that I have seen many an office complex that had such a facility that 21 people took advantage of. I think that is the kind of use that Commissioner Lippert referred to 22 and I think that would be an excellent location for it to the extent that that use was not part of 23 JJ&F. It could be run by JJ&F or however that was done but that is the kind of thing I have seen 24 being done. So there are opportunities for an eatery to be located on that and that may be more 25 compatible with JJ&F. I am not sure the extent to which JJ&F is selling sandwiches and other 26 eatery things but there often are things like that that could be used. So I think that is another 27 example of such a use that would take advantage of that courtyard. 28 29 Chair Garber: Why don't you finish up if you have something more? 30 31 Commissioner Lippert: Why don't we have the Commissioners finish up as to their rationale for 32 the reduction of square footage? 33 34 Chair Garber: Sure. Where there other comments on this specific topic? Then I just have one 35 other quick query of Staff regarding it. What are the impacts for the Commission to add this to 36 the recommendation, add this sort of a condition because it would be a new condition? 37 38 Mr. Williams: It is already there. 39 40 Vice-Chair Tuma: In our last meeting this five percent reduction was added by a vote of four to 41 three. So it wouldn't be adding any additional. 42 43 Chair Garber: Maybe I am misunderstanding. What I was understanding Commissioner Lippert 44 to suggest here is that we require that there be 15 percent of retail in addition. 45 46 Commissioner Lippert: No. City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 25 of43 1 2 Chair Garber: I apologize. 3 4 Commissioner Lippert: It wasn't 15 percent. All that it really was was just reaffinning our last 5 vote in which we had asked for the 1,900 square feet in reduction of office space in which we 6 had a split vote, actually we had a four-three vote on it. Staff had drafted their recommendation 7 in variance to the PTC's recommendation and the reason why that I got from Director Williams 8 is basically that our rationale was not strong enough. So I am bolstering that recommendation 9 with additional rationale and hoping that the other Commissioners that voted in support would 10 add their words to that. 11 12 Chair Garber: Okay, got it. I was tracking down a different path. Commissioner Tuma. 13 14 Vice-Chair Tuma: Just two things. One is that there is on page 3 of the Staff Report under 15 Discussion, under Office Reduction Condition there is a two-sentence paragraph that says, Staff 16 and ARB are not recommending the five percent reduction of office space. I was present at the 17 ARB meeting and I am glad that a representative from the ARB is here this evening. I find the 18 first sentence of that paragraph to be misleading. My very distinct impression and recollection 19 was that the ARB members when pushed several times by Staff to comment on the five percent 20 reduction pushed back and said that they did not feel that it was within their purview and they 21 were not prepared to comment or make a recommendation with respect to the five percent. I am 22 happy to be corrected or that be modified but that is my very distinct recollection. 23 24 Mr. Lew: That is my recollection as well. I think that it was not part of our three to one vote on 25 the project. I think that the Staff was actually trying to get us to include it as part ofthe motion 26 and I don't think we clearly distinguished that. So I suspect it would have been like two 27 members who would have been willing to or who wanted to abstain completely from the issue. I 28 think there were two who were willing to go either way with whatever the PTC recommended. 29 30 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you. With respect to the recommended modifications that Staff is 31 making, modifications to our recommendation, by and large I am comfortable with those 32 changes with respect to access to the vegetated roof, and noise related issues particularly with the 33 use ofthe provisions that were talked about earlier. However, I am not at all comfortable with 34 the recommendation that no more than 25 percent of the office space in the project be occupied 35 before the grocery store is open for business. Our original recommendation is that the grocery 36 store tenant not occupy or begin operations prior to any office tenant occupancy. 37 38 Commissioner Holman: The other way around. 39 40 Commissioner Keller: The other way around. 41 42 Vice-Chair Tuma: Sorry? 43 44 Commissioner Keller: No office occupancy prior to .... 45 City of Palo Alto December 2. 2009 Page 260f43 1 Vice-Chair Tuma: In any event the grocery store is -we could talk about other small public 2 benefits of a few thousand dollars for street trees, and I do acknowledge the BMR units, but the 3 grocery store is what it is all about. I think that needs to up and running and occupied. The 4 discussions we had with the applicant last time I simply don't see why through proper 5 construction management and timing and scheduling that those can't happen in the order that 6 they should. I don't think we want to get into a situation where we have an enforcement issue, is 7 25 percent occupied, is more than that occupied, is it now 130 days or 100 days? I don't think 8 that we want to go down that path. The driving reason that they are getting the office space that 9 they are asking for if the grocery store. We should stick hard and fast to having the grocery store 10 up and running before the occupancy of the office space. Beyond that I am comfortable with the 11 other changes that Staff had recommended. 12 13 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman. 14 15 Commissioner Lippert: I didn't get to finish the rest of my questions. It's okay. 16 17 Chair Garber: It's okay? Commissioner Holman and then we will go back. 18 19 Commissioner Holman: Is Commissioner Lippert not complete? 20 21 Commissioner Lippert: Then we were going to ask Mr. Smailey if we wanted to comment. 22 23 Chair Garber: Yes, I had not forgotten. 24 25 Commissioner Lippert: So I am interested in hearing what Mr. Smailey has to say. 26 27 Chair Garber: Would the applicant please approach? 28 29 Mr. Patrick Smailey, Applicant: Speaking to the issue of retail on the ground floor there has 30 been a lot of discussion about the viability of the comer back at Staunton and College. I ask that 31 you all please keep in mind that one ofthe primary reasons JJ&F wants to leave that comer is 32 that it is not a viable retail location. We have however always maintained a configuration for the 33 ground floor that should a retail user want to wrap the comer and go down College the building 34 will support that. As to whether or not we will rent to a retail user on the ground floor into what 35 we now consider office space we have said publicly that we will do that if we can get a retail 36 user that will pay the fees, rents, commensurate with an office type user. 37 38 Lastly, and I am using round numbers, we have approximately 40,000 square feet of office and 39 approximately 6,000 square feet of additional retail, which is a 15 percent allocation. 40 41 Commissioner Lippert: Thank you for your thoughts. 42 43 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Keller. 44 45 Commissioner Keller: What do you mean by 6,000 square feet of additional retail? 46 City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 27 of43 I Mr. Smailey: In addition to the grocery store. 2 3 Commissioner Keller: I don't want to debate you but if 15 percent is required for a CN zone is 4 only 1,011 square feet less than the amount of retail that you are actually providing so I am 5 confused by your 6,000 number. 6 7 Mr. Smailey: I am giving you the office allocation per the plans versus the additional retail not 8 including the grocery store the percentage of retail could be about 15 percent of the proposed 9 office. 10 11 Commissioner Lippert: Actually, I did a quick calculation and what I came up with is that they 12 would need to provide 8,900 square feet of retail and that is taking all the square footages 13 combined. So it would be taking the housing. 14 15 Chair Garber: Including the grocery store. 16 17 Commissioner Lippert: Correct. What I am doing is taking what CN zone would be and I 18 applied the 15 percent to the gross square footage ofthe building and 15 percent of that would 19 need to be a retail component. Anyway, that is the number I come up with. I understand what 20 you are doing. You are netting it out. 21 22 Chair Garber: Anything else? 23 24 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. I had a question and I don't want to blindside you, for Tony 25 Carrasco. Tony Carrasco has been instrumental and very involved with street trees for EI 26 Camino Real. What I want him to just chat a little bit about is the viability of the street trees in 27 the median and what his point of view is on that because we are requesting that they put up 28 money for it. I think that it should be fair that they talk a little bit about it. 29 30 Chair Garber: Mr. Carrasco. 31 32 Mr. Tony Carrasco, Applicant: My opinion is the more the better. Having said that we have 33 struggled for many years with Caltrans and the ability to put median trees in less than I believe 34 six-foot wide curb-to-curb dimension. In this project there are about 100 or 120 feet or so of 35 median that is wider than six feet, six feet or wider. That takes about five trees so that is the 36 reason why the five trees to the size of median that Caltrans will allow median trees in. I wish 37 they would allow trees in medians that are smaller than six feet but they don't. 38 39 Commissioner Lippert: But what is being proposed will work? 40 41 Mr. Carrasco: Will work meaning Caltrans will accept it? Yes. 42 43 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Great. 44 45 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Holman. 46 City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 28 of43 1 Commissioner Holman: Just one. Can Staff remind me, I think we addressed this before but can 2 the Ordinance require that first right of refusal I know we can't write an Ordinance for a 3 specific tenant that is very clear, but can we require that first right of refusal be granted to a 4 specific tenant? 5 6 The whole purpose ofthis and the whole neighborhood support for this from those that support it 7 has been because of the popularity and very justified popularity for JJ &F Market. Yet, in written 8 documents there is not word one about JJ&F. So could we add that language? 9 10 Mr. Williams: I will let the City Attorney answer sort of whether legally we could add that. 11 There is a requirement the Council had that when this comes back to them that there be 12 essentially a lease agreement and my understanding is that has been provided, and will go to 13 Council acknowledging that they wil1lease. You have seen it, right? 14 15 Commissioner Holman: So then why could the Ordinance not reference that document or 16 Condition of Approval reference that document and what that might say? That is my question. 17 18 Ms. Tronguet: We have legal concerns about limiting it to a specific tenant. 19 20 Commissioner Holman: We are not limiting it wejust giving first right of refusal. 21 22 Ms. Tronguet: Well, but a right of first refusal gets very close. I can tell you that I saw the 23 agreement to lease yesterday. It does essentially have that condition in it for JJ&F Market. So it 24 will be provided to the Council when this goes to Council but there is already an existing 25 agreement that essentially does that already without putting something into the Ordinance that 26 could be called into question. 27 28 Commissioner Holman: That is one ofthe frustrations of reviewing this project is there has been 29 such a keep-away of documents from this body. It has been very frustrating. We have not seen 30 that document. I am sure the public has not either. 31 32 Ms. Tronguet: It was a draft when I saw it. 33 34 Commissioner Holman: Anyway. 35 36 Chair Garber: Would the applicant like to speak to the topic? 37 38 Ms. Kelmedy: We have been in conversations with the Garcia's, John Garcia, for more than a 39 year and a half. We supplied a somewhat redacted version of the Letter of Intent that was signed 40 over a year ago that was binding on us, that is the applicant. So the applicant was required to 41 provide essentially what Commissioner Holman is talking about, a right of first refusal to the 42 applicant. That was not sufficient for Council Member Klein and so his condition that he 43 imposed was that there be a document that would bind us the applicant as well as John Garcia. 44 We have worked since the Council Meeting on approving that document. We were required to 45 submit it to the City Attorney's Office. I would be glad to provide a copy ofit to all of you. It is 46 being circulated for signature. Two of our Trustees are, one of them is in Montana, one of them City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 290f43 1 is in Idaho so the document is right now on a FedEx airplane. So we don't have it signed yet but 2 it has been approved. The City Attorney's Office has vetted it and it does accomplish what you 3 are asking for. I will leave it to Melissa to confirm that it does satisfy the concern that you are 4 expressmg. 5 6 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. 7 8 Chair Garber: Commissioners, there is only one other item that I think we should probably have 9 some discussion around and that is the topic of noise. Can Staff help us with how we can 10 address that? I know we touched on it briefly but I am not sure we gave it a full airing. 11 12 Mr. Williams: Condition number 6 in your Conditions of Approval, Exhibit B or whichever 13 attachment it is has added that it comply with the applicable provisions ofthe Noise Ordinance 14 and the Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.23.060 requiring acoustical analysis at time of 15 building permit issuance, demonstration, certification that it complies with the Noise Ordinance 16 prior to final inspection. So we have added that language referencing that performance standard 17 section and we think that is adequate and basically as far as we can go without being as I said 18 arbitrary about setting our own standards on a site-by-site basis. 19 20 Chair Garber: Do Commissioners have any suggestions to modify? 21 22 Commissioner Keller: Mr. Balin I think you were the one to address the noise issue. Do you 23 want to indicate whether this satisfies your concern? 24 25 Mr. Balin: Thank you. I have not seen the section there but I believe the Director is referring to 26 what have been the performance standards for the past two years. So what he is referring to is 27 what is in the code now. It refers to conditions that for new building construction that applicants 28 have to have an acoustical analysis beforehand and then before occupancy there has to be a 29 comparison with the acoustical analysis to see that you are within five decibels of it. That and 30 other conditions came in a number of years ago. That is in the code. That should have been 31 mentioned earlier. 32 33 The Noise Ordinance is the weak under-bearing ofthat element. The Noise Ordinance is part of 34 the Comprehensive Plan. In the Comprehensive Plan it says it should have been updated. It was 35 not. So it stays as it is except for changes with regard to the leaf blower ordinance. The Noise 36 Ordinance has a baseline ambient level of 40 decibels that you start at when a low-density 37 residential area is adjacent to a cOnllnercial area. It is hard to understand the ordinance, then you 38 get either a six or eight decibel escalator. 39 40 Now if you go into College Terrace on a quiet evening the ambient is about 32, 33, 34 depends 41 where you are. So if you got an escalator of six after that if you are residential to residential, if 42 someone was having a party next door, you would be below 40. On a commercial development 43 you start at 40 and you are allowed six or eight higher depending on how you interpret it. So it is 44 a high barrier to go with and then of course that becomes the baseline ambient for the next 45 project. So the whole issue of the Noise Ordinance is that it is not satisfactory for residential City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page30of43 1 neighborhoods that are very close to commercial developments. That is why we were asking for 2 these provisions. 3 4 Chair Garber: Commissioners? Commissioner Martinez. 5 6 Commissioner Martinez: It seems to me that trying to solve the noise problem prior to the 7 issuance of a building permit is pretty late in the game. I would really look to see first placement 8 of equipment, options for that, alternatives. 9 10 Chair Garber: Baffling barriers. 11 12 Commissioner Martinez: Exactly, early on that the applicant has done all that they could do at 13 the beginning to lower the noise levels. At that point have an understanding that where the noise 14 level is supposed to be whether below 40 or 32 or 42, whatever works for both a functional 15 operation of the project and to the peace of the neighborhood. I would really look to start earlier 16 than when construction documents are being turned into the City. 17 18 Chair Garber: We can also condition the project for potentially ... 19 20 Would the applicant architect like to speak to the topic? 21 22 Mr. Carrasco: This was an issue that the neighborhood and our neighborhood advisors brought 23 up early, like four years ago. We paid really close attention to it both in terms of the mechanical 24 units that we have chosen. We went back and forth between our noise consultant, Charles Salter, 25 who is one of the best noise consultants in the Bay Area. We have raised walls. If you look at 26 the model out there there is a baffle wall that goes up higher than the normal parapet precisely to 27 do that, to keep the sound on the EI Camino side, to bounce it back onto the EI Camino side. In 28 fact the mechanical consultant wanted to use a specific energy efficient machine that would not 29 quite make the quality of sound that we wanted and that would meet the Noise Ordinance 30 internally in our project. So we changed it to a less energy efficient machine that is smaller and 31 shorter and more of them in order to meet that criteria on our site. It is not only to the neighbors 32 but we don't want a noisy site internally. So we have looked at this issue very carefully and as 33 Commissioner Martinez says we have to do that early on. You can't do it at the time of the 34 building permit. So we have done that and we will continue to do that. 35 36 Chair Garber: All right. Commissioner Keller, a motion perhaps? 37 38 Commissioner Keller: Yes, just one quick question. Is it the USGBC that does certification of 39 LEED Silver or is it another? 40 41 Chair Garber: It is the USGBC. 42 43 MOTION 44 45 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. 46 City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 3] of43 1 So here is the motion and it is going to include several parts. IfI miss anything please add it. So 2 the first thing is the Planning and Transportation Commission confirms its earlier 3 recommendation the 1,950 square foot reduction in office space which could be accomplished by 4 reducing the building size or conversion of that office space to retail space or a combination 5 thereof. Second, with respect to Section 4 (e) of the Ordinance the language be modified to 6 clarify that any change in uses of any kind requires an Ordinance amendment other than 7 conversion of office space to retail use. Third, Section 3 (a) ofthe Ordinance adds the word 8 'other' on the third line preceding ground floor retail space. Fourth, Section 4 (b) (9) be 9 referenced an open-air market use in the Ordinance with the Staff developing the appropriate 10 wording. Fifth, Section 3, reference to the Development Plans dated October 22, 2009 11 appropriate language be used to indicate that their future.replacement sheets are compatible with 12 those drawings and does not substantively change them. Section 4 (f) (3) the wording that says 13 tree planning should say tree planting. Section 4 (b) (1) indicate that the grocery store shall be 14 occupied prior to any first occupancy of the office building and not a reference of90 days and 15 not a reference of 25 percent, any occupancy of the office space. I believe that is the complete 16 list. 17 18 SECOND 19 20 Commissioner Lippert: Second. 21 22 Chair Garber: Second made by Commissioner Lippert. Would the maker like to speak to their 23 motion? 24 25 Commissioner Keller: Well, I think that it is important to retain a grocery store at this location. 26 I think that it is useful that the applicant has created a project that does incorporate the grocery 27 store. I believe Commissioner Lippert will speak more to the issue of the comments about the 28 reduction in office space with potential conversion of that office space to retaiL I think that the 29 applicant's willingness to have retail on the ground floor on College Avenue however, to charge 30 office space rent for that space is exactly why we have an ordinance precluding conversion of 31 retail space to office space in Downtown and other sections ofthe city precisely because the 32 increase in rent from retail use to office use that potentially forces out retaiL It seems to me that 33 if the applicant were to charge an appropriate retail rent rather than office space rent that retail 34 could potentially viably go there. 35 36 I also note that in the development schedule the complete construction of projects and city 37 improvements occurs on December 1, 2014. The leased spaces, construct tenant improvements 38 and obtain certificates of occupancy occurs on December 1, 2015. During that year period of 39 time during which the completion from the shell to complete building for tenant occupancy the 40 construction of the grocery store could occur in parallel with that process so that the grocery 41 store could be ready to be occupied on December 1, 2015 at the same time that tenant 42 improvements are allowed for other than the grocery store. So I do not think that that would be a 43 particular hardship. I will end there. 44 45 Chair Garber: Seconder? 46 City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 32 of43 1 Commissioner Lippert: I think I have made my comments with regard to the reason why that 2 should be additional retail space. I think I have made those reasons and don't need to restate 3 those again. 4 5 I do have a friendly amendment that I would like to entertain. That in the definition of the office 6 space that if it were to go to an all retail use on the ground floor that it would not have to have a 7 PC amendment. 8 9 Commissioner Keller: I think that the way I worded the change in use as allowing conversion 10 from office to retail. 11 12 Chair Garber: Why don't you read it again so we are all clear? 13 14 Commissioner Keller: I believe what I said was any change in use other than office to retail 15 requires an Ordinance amendment. 16 17 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, great. 18 19 Commissioner Keller: So I think I addressed that. 20 21 Commissioner Lippert: Then I think we have it. 22 23 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez. 24 25 Commissioner Martinez: I would like to offer one friendly amendment that one year after 26 occupancy that the developer be required to conduct an acoustical study that demonstrates that 27 the noise level is within the limits established in their design studies and their construction 28 documents and submittals to the City. 29 30 Chair Garber: Can I suggest another way? 31 32 Commissioner Martinez: Yes. 33 34 Chair Garber: That perhaps a year after construction that Staff reach out to the adjacent 35 neighbors to determine ifthere are other noise related issues that need to be addressed. 36 37 Commissioner Martinez: And then what? 38 39 Chair Garber: I don't know. They would presumably work to try and find ways to either bring it 40 back within the permitted decibels or find ways to address specific issues that the neighbors are 41 having with noise. 42 43 Commissioner Keller: May I ask Staff, I believe you brought a copy of the ordinance here. Do 44 you still have it? With respect to I believe it is 18.23.060 if you could tell us what kinds of post 45 comparisons or studies are done in that ordinance. That would indicate whether that is sufficient 46 or whether anything else needs to be done. City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 33 of43 1 2 Mr. Williams: The code reads that at the time of building permit issuance for new construction 3 or for installation of any such interior or exterior mechanical equipment the applicant shall 4 submit an acoustical analysis by an acoustical engineer demonstrating projected compliance with 5 the Noise Ordinance. The analysis shall be based on acoustical readings equipment 6 specifications, and proposed sound reduction measures such as equipment enclosures or 7 insulation, which demonstrates a sufficient degree of sound attenuation to assure that the 8 prescribed noise levels will not be exceeded. The next part of it says, upon completion of 9 construction or installation the City shall where the acoustical analysis projected noise levels at 10 or within five decibels less than the Noise Ordinance limits shall require demonstration ofthe 11 installed equipment and certification that it complies with the anticipated noise levels and the 12 Noise Ordinance prior to final building inspection approval. 13 14 Commissioner Keller: Well I think that the intent of Commissioner Martinez's comment is that 15 that be verified one year following occupancy where the building is actually in full use and the 16 equipment is actually making its noise. So I think what I would suggest if I may is that one year 17 following completion and a certificate of occupancy being granted that noise measurements be 18 made verifying that the building is in compliance with Ordinance 18.23.060. 19 20 Commissioner Martinez: The only problem I have with that is that the studies and the measures 21 that the applicant undertakes might actually be below the Ordinance maximums and the 22 neighborhood might be satisfied with that. But when it is actually installed it might be at the 23 Ordinance maximum for which I am suggesting that is not what the neighborhood was looking 24 for. There has been some suggestion that the Ordinance doesn't go quite far enough to satisfy 25 the neighborhood requirement. 26 27 Mr. Williams: I am confused because the Ordinance does require after installation that you test 28 it and make sure that it meets the acoustical analysis that was done and at the prescribed. 29 30 Commissioner Martinez: I didn't really hear that when you read it. 31 32 Mr. Williams: It was both that and the Noise Ordinance. 33 34 Chair Garber: Again, forgive me for interrupting but I think Commissioner Martinez was 35 responding to a member of the public that was stating that that Ordinance was setup for 36 neighbors that were of commercial to commercial and this is a circumstance where we have 37 commercial to residential and therefore you may need higher levels of requirements than would 38 otherWise be found in the Ordinance. Am I getting to your concern at all or am I making that 39 up? 40 41 Commissioner Martinez: That is it. 42 43 Chair Garber: So therefore since the Ordinance doesn't in itself define that, or does it? Okay. 44 45 Mr. Williams: The ordinance talks about the adjacent uses. I agree that the Noise Ordinance 46 could certainly use improvements but what we are talking about here is doing an analysis City of Palo A Ito December 2, 2009 Page 34 of43 1 separate from the Noise Ordinance starting with that, coming up with what the projected levels 2 would be, and that ifit is within five decibels so we are giving ourselves some room, ifit is 3 within five decibel levels of the Noise Ordinance so it is clearly getting close to, approaching 4 even that number then you have to go back in after it is installed and do all the testing. I 5 understand there are concerns with the Noise Ordinance. I have a very significant concern about 6 us trying to project-by-project define what those levels should be and somehow differing with 7 that. If the Noise Ordinance is the issue since we have had this in place a few years now and . 8 we have had a number of projects built under it I think it is seriously addressed that issue. The 9 problem previously was that we didn't have a very good mechanism for even looking at 10 mechanical equipment and the noise on it. It would come through and it was sort of ancillary to 11 the building pennit and gets installed and then we would hear complaints later on. This really 12 puts that up front. I certainly agree that we should be looking also at where it is placed and there 13 are some guidelines for that in the Ordinance too as far as placement of equipment away from 14 residential properties. So I don't know that you couldn't add something as far as subsequent 15 testing but I don't know what it would ... 16 17 Chair Garber: Accomplish. 18 19 Mr. Williams: Accomplish and I think it would be sort of problematic as far as enforcement. 20 21 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman. 22 23 Commissioner Holman: One question of interest I guess is from Staff's perspective and perhaps 24 the applicant might like to weigh in is the proj ect going to be below and how much below the 25 Noise Ordinance requirements? What have been the studies? 26 27 Mr. Williams: They are saying they don't have a number at this point. 28 29 Commissioner Holman: That is not reassuring. 30 31 Chair Garber: Understood. 32 33 Commissioner Holman: Not meaning insult. Ijust would have thought based on the comments 34 from the architect they would already know what the impact would be and there has been a 35 Mitigated Negative Declaration done and so I would have thought that those detenninations 36 would have been made. That is the point of my question. 37 38 Chair Garber: All right, let's come back to the action. Shall we pursue this? 39 40 Commissioner Martinez: My only concern was that I kind of understood that the project was 41 going to do better than the Ordinance from what Mr. Carrasco was describing. I was trying to 42 come back to that standard rather than the Ordinance itself. So meeting the Ordinance I know 43 you have to do that. That will be compelled. But doing better than that because it is close to a 44 residential area was I think my expectation. So what I am asking is for the applicant to live up to 45 the design guidelines, the design standards, and the perfonnance of the equipment that it says it 46 is going to do in its application for a building pennit and in the installation of this equipment. If City of Palo A Ito December 2, 2009 Page 350f43 1 it is below, if it is 32 and not 40, then that is the standard that it should meet that is what I am 2 asking for. 3 4 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert. 5 6 Commissioner Lippert: I have some difficulty with this and it is only because we have 7 prescribed in our Ordinance what the rules are for all buildings. Ifwe find fault with the 8 Ordinance we should change the Ordinance. We shouldn't make additional conditions upon the 9 applicant. We have already described what we want in terms ofthe building and that wasn't part 10 and parcel of what we requested here. So I find it difficult to support that. Again, when it comes 11 to the Comprehensive Plan review that we are going to update, that we are going to be doing, if 12 what you are describing is important let's address it there in the Comprehensive Plan and the 13 Noise Ordinance. Let's not place additional burdens on this applicant. 14 15 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman. 16 17 Commissioner Holman: My question was very much tracking along with Commissioner 18 Martinez's comments. I have a little bit different approach than Commissioner Lippert on this 19 particular point, which is that and again referencing the comments that I agree with from 20 Commissioner Martinez this applicant is getting several concessions so I feel like we can ask 21 more because they are getting more. If their analysis indicates that they can exceed the 22 requirements of the Noise Ordinance then we do have the justification to require that they live up 23 to that. This is not a code compliant project. This is an exceptions project. 24 25 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller also has a comment but Planning Director. 26 27 Mr. Williams: Just one hopefully last comment from me. Just looking at the adjacent uses there 28 is very little residential near this project and the residential that there is is the residential 29 component of this project. So I could understand having more of this discussion if this were 30 sitting in the middle of single-family homes on all four sides or something like that or property 31 lines that abutted it. The units that are there are across the street, generally multifamily it looks 32 like, and again it is across the street from the eight BMR units and that building. The whole 33 BMR complex is between the grocery store and any ofthe residential. The office is right up for 34 the most part on El Camino. So it just seems like .... 35 36 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez and then we will go to Keller. 37 38 Commissioner Martinez: I don't think I am asking for concessions. It is kind oflike the 39 applicant saying this is going to be LEED Silver but they come in and say well we are close. 40 They are making a promise that it is going to be a sustainable project. We kind of accept that 41 they are going to do that. In this case, I am saying well, they are saying that they are going to be 42 better than the Ordinance. We are asking you to be better, just meet that criteria that's all. So it 43 is not a concession it is doing what you say you are going to do. 44 45 Chair Garber: City Attorney. 46 City o/Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 360/43 1 Ms. Tronquet: Well, it really is a due process issue with this noise concern because we have a 2 Noise Ordinance. It sets sort of our baselines for what we have said is acceptable noise in this 3 city. To the extent that you are looking at changing it on a project-by-project basis raises 4 concerns that it is arbitrary. You have done it for reasons other than the reasons that the Noise 5 Ordinance was enacted and the underlying findings that the City Council made when they passed 6 the Ordinance. So it is a concern legally to try to change those standards that for every other 7 project in the city we have considered acceptable up until now. 8 9 Chair Garber: Commissioners Keller, Lippert, and then Tuma. 10 11 Commissioner Keller: So let me try to tease out the various pieces ofthe issue. There is the 12 inspection that is in the current Ordinance that is done essentially at building occupancy, but 13 when the building is actually used the amount of noise that happens may be different from when 14 it is occupied with systems running. So that is why I was thinking about having potentially, and 15 this mayor may not be an issue about the Ordinance but having an actual study of how much 16 noise is actually being made a year from that and seeing whether it still conforms is an 17 interesting question. I am just pointing that out as one issue. 18 19 The second issue is the question as to the applicant basically has put together some sort of 20 process of determining what the noise should be. That determines a certain amount of noise. So 21 I hear Commissioner Martinez saying well you said it would be quiet, let's hold you to the 22 standard ofthe quietness the applicant said it was going to be. However, there is a perverse 23 incentive of that and the issue is if we did it standardly then people would not try to be more 24 quiet than they are required to by the Ordinance. They would actually be noisier so they 25 wouldn't be held to the quiet standard. So what happens is you basically get sort oflike the kind 26 of perverse effect and a you get about the tragedy of the commons, and in this case the commons 27 are quietness. So that is what happens there. 28 29 On the third hand, we have the phenomenon that this is a PC and a PC has public benefits. There 30 is some potential to add a public benefit that the project be quiet. If there is a public benefit that 31 the project be quiet, which we could require, then the kind of requirement that Commissioner . 32 Martinez was referring to would be in support of the public benefit that the project be quiet. 33 34 Chair Garber: Okay. Commissioner Lippert. 35 36 Commissioner Lippert: Ijust want to make a couple of corrections here. When it comes to 37 LEED Certification it is required that for LEED Silver I believe that when the building is 38 commissioned it is certified that it is LEED Silver. So it is not like saying well, we have come as 39 close as we can to LEED Silver. When they say that they are going to do LEED Silver they have 40 to actually justify and have it basically certified that it is LEED Silver. 41 42 The same thing with the Noise Ordinance. They need to come back and prove or demonstrate 43 that they are within the guidelines of the Ordinance. Now, I don't want to wind up splitting hairs 44 here. I think that Director Williams made a very valid point, which is number one we are on El 45 Camino Real here. That a very small portion of the site is near the residences. The mechanical 46 equipment is really located what is reasonably as distant from those residential portions as City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 37 of43 1 possible. All I could possibly add to that is that perhaps we ask for in our motion or request that 2 the applicant locate the mechanical equipment as far away from the residential portion and 3 closest to the commercial or EI Camino Real as feasibly possible that it achieves additional 4 sound reductions. It just merely be stated as a request. 5 6 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma. 7 8 Vice-Chair Tuma: A question of counsel. Can the Commission unilaterally impose a 9 requirement for a public benefit without the applicant agreeing to it? 10 11 Mr. Williams: I don't think you can. I think the public benefit portion is essentially what the 12 applicant is offering and you are accepting and you are making that tradeoff. 13 14 Vice-Chair Tuma: My recollection from previous projects is that we can't do that. So I am 15 happy to be corrected on that but that is my recollection. 16 17 Ms. Tronguet: I think you can always assess and it is your job to assess the adequacy of the 18 public benefits being provided but it would be difficult. 19 20 Vice-Chair Tuma: Right. Okay, great. 21 22 Ms. Tronguet: I just want to add that the other enforcement mechanism that we have here 23 whether it is one year down the road or 20 years down the road is Code Enforcement. We get 24 Code Enforcement complaints all the time about noise and that is what our Code Enforcement 25 Staff does. So that is another mechanism. Whether it is effective or not I know is debatable but 26 that is a mechanism that we have on an ongoing basis. 27 28 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. I would like to ask Mr. Carrasco, you have now be characterized as 29 saying that this will be better than code or quieter than code or something like that. Is that 30 accurate? Is that what you are saying? 31 32 Mr. Carrasco: No it is not, Commissioner Tuma. There are several variables on this thing in 33 can expand a little bit. There is the height ofthe sound wall that we don't want to exceed 15 feet 34 because of code. There is the energy portion of it. There is cost. So we have to balance out not 35 just one issue it is many issues. So thank you for asking that question. 36 37 Vice-Chair Tuma: So while I am sympathetic with the notion that this is a PC and they are 38 getting some things so we should be asking for some things. I think those discussions have 39 happened and we sort of had that negotiation and we have gotten a certain level of public benefit. 40 I don't think we can now on top of it add another public benefit at this point in the process. I 41 think that the applicant has said that they will do what they can to make it quiet but that they 42 absolutely will comply with the Ordinance. I agree with Commissioner Lippert, if we have a 43 problem with the Ordinance then let's change the Ordinance. But to impose these conditions at 44 this stage ofthe process adding an additional public benefit or somehow enhancing a code 45 section that we are stuck with you simply can't do that. I would think that there would be huge 46 due process problems with that particularly at this point in the process. So I think we can sit here City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 38 of43 1 it is perfectly clear that we and the neighbors, and I think even the applicants would like this to 2 be as quiet a project as it can but we have certain laws that we are stuck with for better or for 3 worse. Let's change them if they need to be changed but trying to add on this additional 4 requirement at this point in the process seems to me to be undoable. 5 6 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez, how would you like to proceed? 7 8 Commissioner Martinez: I will withdraw my amendment. Thank you. 9 10 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 11 12 Commissioner Keller: I am wondering if Commissioner Lippert wanted to make the suggestion 13 he had as an amendment to the motion or not. 14 15 Commissioner Lippert: Sure, I don't think there is any harm in that. As an amendment I would 16 recommend to the applicant that they locate the mechanical equipment as far away from the 17 adjacent residential sites and as close to El Camino Real and the adjacent commercial sites as 18 feasible that it achieves the acoustic reductions that we are seeking. 19 20 Commissioner Keller: I will accept that friendly amendment. 21 22 Chair Garber: All right. Then the last thing that I may add and I am not sure it is really an 23 amendment. It maysimply be a comment. That was that the City Attorney was going to clean 24 up some ofthe language regarding the word 'resolution' in all the various places that that occurs. 25 Then finally, also not as an amendment, but as a comment that Staff will revise their Staff Report 26 relative to the characterization ofthe ARB, etc. relative to the PTC's comments. 27 28 Commissioner Tuma and then Holman. 29 30 Vice-Chair Tuma: I did want to ask that Staff revise the Ordinance to reflect the Commission's 31 motion with respect to the timing of the occupancy of the grocery stores vis-a.-vis occupancy of 32 the office. 33 34 Mr. Williams: Yes, we will do that. 35 36 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. The other thing that I wanted to just clarify in this motion the first 37 item stated in the motion was that we are reaffirming the 1,950 square foot reduction in office 38 space. I want to make it clear, I intend to vote for this motion but I want to make it clear that I 39 am not in any way changing my position that I took at the previous hearing, which was that I am 40 not supportive of that component ofthe recommendation. 41 42 Chair Garber: Just for clarification, Commissioner Keller you had included in your initial 43 motion Commissioner Tuma's first comment, did you not or was Commissioner Tuma 44 substantially changing that in some way? 45 46 Commissioner Keller: No, I think that I was .... City of Palo A Ito December 2, 2009 Page390f43 1 2 Let me just clarify. Commissioner Keller touched on the point. My request 3 of Staff is that not only is it our recommendation which it was before but that the actual draft 4 Ordinance that goes to Council reflect our recommendation not the 25 percent and 90 day and 5 Staffhas agreed to do that. So our recommendation would be the starting point not the current 6 draft of the Ordinance. 7 8 Commissioner Keller: I think there are two points. One is the issue of grocery store prior to 9 office space occupancy, and Staff has agreed to have that in their recommendation to Council in 10 the Ordinance directly to adopt that. I assume you are going to adopt everything else with the 11 potential exception of the confirmation of our 1,950 reduction or conversion from office space to 12 retail. I think Commissioner Tuma was indicating that his personal disagreement with that but 13 that he was going to vote for motion because we are confirming what we had already decided 14 last time. 15 16 Correct. 17 18 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman. 19 20 Commissioner Holman: Just a couple of comments. One is that with apologies to the public I 21 would say that when we get a lot of documents late, when we get them at places, our process gets 22 messy and it gets time consuming. That is not directed at any person that is directed at our 23 process. This doesn't work and it leads to messy protracted meetings with probably not the best 24 outcomes. So that said. That may be to some people's advantage but it is not to our advantage. 25 26 If I might, to get clarity for how this goes to Council perhaps the reaffirmation of the reduction 27 might be forwarded, we could vote on that comment being forwarded to Council. I don't know 28 if that is what the Commission wants to do. 29 30 I have two other comments that I would like to have forwarded to Council we can vote on or not 31 as Chair's discretion might be. One comment is that the Planning Commission is relying on the 32 indicated existence ofa binding agreement on the part of both the applicant and JJ&F Market. 33 34 Commissioner Keller: I would be happy to add that as a friendly amendment. 35 36 Commissioner Lippert: Sorry? 37 38 Commissioner Keller: Commissioner Holman said that we are relying on the Staff's statement 39 that there is a binding agreement for the grocery store. 40 41 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. 42 43 Commissioner Holman: So if that is acceptable as an amendment then great. The other 44 comment probably not all Commissioners will agree with but perhaps enough that we could 45 continue this or include this. Again, it is a comment that the setback DEE should be a Variance. City of Palo A Ito December 2, 2009 400/43 1 This is just to get that issue back in front of the Council. So if the maker would accept that as a 2 comment. 3 4 Commissioner Keller: I am not sure what the legality of accepting that as a comment. 5 6 Commissioner Holman: That is why I was saying to the Chair too that we might just vote on that 7 as a separate comment to forward to the Council. 8 9 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma. 10 11 Vice-Chair Tuma: Does that put us in the situation where if it is our opinion that it is a Variance 12 and we have not made the findings for the Variance doesn't that sort of put is in a sort oflegal 13 limbo? 14 15 Ms. Tronguet: With respect to opinion you haven't analyzed whether this is a DEE or a 16 Variance and you really have not been asked to do that. 17 18 Commissioner Holman: We were at the last meeting. We were asked to comment, if! recall 19 correctly, whether these were Variances or DEEs and some of the Commissioners said that they 20 are Variances. 21 22 Commissioner Keller: May I make a suggestion? What I feel comfortable with is that the 23 Commission is not convinced that the setback on Oxford satisfies the requirements for a DEE. 24 Rather than us saying that it needs to be a Variance we are skeptical as to whether it is a proper 25 DEE or it fits the criteria for a DEE. 26 27 Chair Garber: But taking no action on that. 28 29 Commissioner Keller: That's right. 30 31 Chair Garber: What does that mean Staff? It is just comments that are a part of .... 32 33 Ms. Tronguet: You can give comments but I would be cautious about giving opinions on things 34 that the Commission as a whole has not analyzed. So perhaps something like several 35 Commissioners have concerns about distinguishing between Variances and DEEs, should alert 36 the Council that the difference between those two things is a concern to the Commission. 37 38 Chair Garber: So I guess the Chair's recommendation would be to save it as a comment but not 39 include it as part of the motion. 40 41 Commissioner Holman: Fine by me. 42 43 Commissioner Keller: That is fine by me. May I say one more thing? Are you finished? That 44 is Commissioner Tuma pointed out the wording on page 3 of the sentence Staff and ARB are not 45 recommending the five percent reduction in office space. That is sort oflike saying I am not ten 46 feet tall. It is written in a negative way. My mother is not recommending a five percent City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 41 of43 1 reduction in office space either but the question is has she weighed in on it, does she agree with it 2 or not? It is written in the most strange way. So the ARB has not weighed in on it according to 3 the ARB. If Staff recommends against the five percent reduction then say so. If Staff is not 4 making a comment about the five percent, you obviously are recommending against the five 5 percent reduction by not putting that in your recommendation. So I think a better wording for 6 that is Staff should say if Staff believes the five percent reduction in office space is unwarranted 7 then Staff should say so and give its reasons for disagreeing with the recommendation of the 8 Commission. That is perfectly reasonable to do but putting it this way is sort of odd. 9 10 Chair Garber: You are making this as a comment as opposed to making it part of your motion. 11 12 Commissioner Keller: I am just making a separate request that if Staff persists in recommending 13 against a five percent reduction of office space that it say.it that way and actually say why; 14 15 Commissioner Lippert: I might weight in on this. I think that this is really going to wind up 16 being one ofthe more substantive points that the City Council is going to be discussing. They 17 already have weighed in on it and have gone from one extreme to the other. This is going to be I 18 believe the nut of what they are going to be discussing. There are two things that I think are 19 important here. Number one, our rationale, or reasoning behind the five percent reduction is 20 particularly important. What I hear is that Vice-Chair Tuma is going to be representing us on 21 this item and he is not in support of our rationale. So the question is whether number one, should 22 there be a different representative to the City Council on this item so that this point is particularly 23 well fleshed out or should there be another Commissioner making the points at the City Council 24 with Commissioner Tuma making the majority of the points there? 25 26 Now, in addition to that what I want to say is that I concur with Commissioner Keller in terms of 27 we have our reasons behind it and I don't have a problem with Staff being in variance to that or 28 antithetical. But they should be required to belly up to the bar and give their rationale or their 29 reasoning behind not supporting the five percent reduction. 30 31 Chair Garber: Okay, one topic at a time from both sides of the table here. First, the 32 Representative has ajob to do and he will be responsible for making the correct representations 33 of the Commission's actions to the City Council. I would expect both Commissioner Tuma as 34 well as Commissioner Lippert to do so regardless of how they voted on a topic. Commissioner 35 Keller. 36 37 Commissioner Keller: I would reaffirm that I trust Vice-Chair Tuma to properly represent the 38 position of the Commission. May I recommend that if the Staff decides to go along with the 39 reaffirmed recommendation, assuming we pass this as stated, to reduce office space by five 40 percent possibly by converting all or part of it to retail use then no issue? If Staff decides not to 41 go along with that recommendation then Staff as part of the discussion indicates a summary of 42 the Planning Commission's expressed reasons for making the reduction and indicates Staff s 43 opinions or judgments or whatever word you want to use as to why it does not agree with that 44 assessment. This way it is simply laid out for the Council to be able to make the appropriate 45 decision. Just as I trust Commissioner Tuma to appropriately represent the Commission on this I City of Palo A Ito December2, 2009 Page 42 of43 1 would trust Staff in this case to appropriately represent both sides of the issue fairly to the 2 Council and public to understand that in the Staff Report. 3 4 Chair Garber: With that let's vote. All those in favor of the motion as stated say aye. (ayes) All 5 those opposed? The motion passes unanimously with Commissioners Holman, Martinez, 6 Garber, Tuma, Keller, and Lippert voting yea and Commissioner Fineberg absent. 7 8 Thank you very much for your patience. We will take a ten-minute break and return for item 9 number two. 10 City of Palo Alto December 2, 2009 Page 43 of43 ATTACHMENT B AGREEMENT TO LEASE THIS AGREEMENT TO LEASE (this "Agreement") is entered into as of this first day of December, 2009 (the "Effective Date") by and between JOSEPH E. OESCHGER, ELDORA O. MILLER and COMERICA BANK, all as trustees of the CLARA E. CHILCOTE TRUST ("Owner") and JOHN GARCIA, an individual ("Grocer"), with respect to certain real property to be located on the northwest corner of 2180 EI Camino Real, City of Palo Alto, County of Palo Alto, State of California (the "Premises"). Owner and Grocer are collectively referred to herein as the "Parties"; each of Owner and Grocer is individually referred to herein as a "Party." RECITALS WHEREAS, Owner has owned the city block on which the Premises is located (the "City Block") for more than eighty (80) years; and WHEREAS, Grocer's family has leased a portion of the City Block for more than sixty (60) years and has operated thereon a family-owned grocery store during all that time; and WHEREAS, Owner has made application to the City of Palo Alto for a PC Zone for the City Block for the purposes of redeveloping the entire City Block (the "Application"); and WHEREAS, the name of the new development of the City Block is College Terrace Centre; and WHEREAS, the Applicant includes a plan to locate a grocery store of eight thousand (8,000) square feet on the Premises, along with an outdoor market of approximately two thousand (2,000) square feet immediately adjacent thereto and approximately six hundred (600) square feet of dry storage in the basement garage (collectively, the "New Grocery Store"); and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to document Grocer's intention to lease the Premises for the purpose of operating the New Grocery Store upon completion of construction of College Terrace Centre in satisfaction of a condition of approval in the "initiation" of the PC Zone pursuant to requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by the Palo Alto City Council (the "City Council") at the July 27,2009 Palo Alto City Council hearing, which condition of approval was that, prior to final approval of the PC Zone by the City Council, the Parties would enter into a legal agreement (lease or other agreement), binding on Grocer, regarding Grocer's intention to lease the Premises; and WHEREAS, on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Grocer hereby enters into such legal agreement with Owner. NOW, THEREFORE, FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows: PCSA\45106\791128.3 1 AGREEMENT 1. Agreement to Lease. 1.1 So long as, by no later than January 15, 2010, the City Council gives final approval to PC Zone and the site and design plan for College Terrace Centre in their entirety with all appropriate and/or necessary authorizations and entitlements, including but not limited to those approvals required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Grocer, in the name of JJ&F or a yet-to-be formed entity (either, the "New Entity"), shall enter into a lease for the Premises on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement (the "Lease") as follows: 1.1.1 By no earlier than three (3) business days after the last to occur of the following: (a) the expiration of the statute of limitations period on a legal challenge by a third party to the City Council's approval of College Terrace Centre, including its approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, without the timely filing of any applicable actions by any such third party or (b) the final disposition in a court of law of any legal action brought by a third party to challenge the City Council's approval of College Terrace Center and the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and 1.1.2 By no later than the date that is eighteen (18) months prior to the expected completion of construction of College Terrace Centre and the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the development (the "Final Lease Date"), Owner will provide Grocer with written notice of the Final Lease Date at least sixty (60) days in advance thereof. 1.2 If Grocer has not entered into a Lease by the Final Lease Date, Owner shall vigorously market the opportunity to lease the Premises to other potential grocer owner/operators, and neither Party shall have any further obligation to the other hereunder. 2. Lease Terms. 2.1 The Premises shall comprise eight thousand (8,000) square feet of interior space ("Interior Space"), approximately two thousand (2,000) square feet of outdoor space ("Outdoor Space") immediately adjacent thereto and approximately six hundred (600) square feet of dry storage ("Storage Space") in the basement garage. 2.2 The initial term of the lease (the "Term") shall be a minimum of twenty (20) years. At Grocer's option, the Term may be as long as thirty (30) years. 2.3 The Term will commence on the first day of the month following the issuance by the City of Palo Alto of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building in which the Premises are located (the "Commencement Date"). PCSA \45106\791128.3 2 3. Rent. 3.1 If the Certificate of Occupancy for the building in which the Premises are located is issued before January 1,2012, triple net base monthly rent for the first five (5) years of the term of the Lease shall be as specified in Attachment A-1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference ("Base Monthly Rent"). 3.2 "Triple net" means that the Grocer will be responsible for payment of property taxes, insurance and utilities. Utilities (with the possible exception of water, which Owner may not be able to separately meter) will otherwise be separately metered. The Grocer will maintain all of its equipment, including but not limited to HVAC. 3.3 Notwithstanding the provisions in Section 3.1, during the first three (3) months of the Term, Base Monthly Rent will be waived completely and, during the following three (3) months of the Term, Base Monthly Rent will be reduced by fifty percent (50%). 3.4 The rent will be subsidized by the Owner and their successors-in-interest, if any, for as long as Grocer, any other grocer owner/operator and their successors-in- interest for the earlier of (a) the useful life of the improvements, (b) the taking of the Premises by eminent domain, or (c) the destruction of the Premises by fire or natural disaster. 3.5 If the Certificate of Occupancy for the building in which the Premises are located is issued on or after January 1,2012, the Base Monthly Rental shall be as set forth in Attachment A-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3.6 During the Term, the Base Monthly for each respective element of the Premises (Le., the Indoor Space, the Outdoor Space and the Storage Space) will increase, every five (5) years, by the amount of increase, if any, in the San Francisco- San Jose-Oakland CPI Index over the previous five (5)-year period. 4. Termination of Agreement / Termination of Lease. Prior to the Commencement Date, but no later than six (6) months following the Final Lease Date, Grocer shall have the unilateral right to terminate this Agreement or the Lease, as the case may be, without liability to Owner or to any third party, under any of the following circumstances: 4.1 Grocer is disabled or otherwise incapacitated from performing his duties of owning and operating the New Grocery Store; 4.2 JJ&F or the New Entity, as the case may be, is unable to obtain, after exercising its good faith efforts, adequate and commercially reasonable debt financing required for the purchase and installation of those tenant improvements, equipment and fixtures necessary, in Grocer's reasonable judgment, to operate the New Grocery Store, such financing to be at an annual interest rate not to exceed two percent (2.0%) over PCSA\45106\791128.3 3 the prime interest rate (as determined by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. on the last day of the calendar month preceding the month in which Grocer plans to initiate construction and installation of such tenant improvements, equipment and fixtures); or 4.3 Grocer determines, in good faith, that changed business circumstances, economic conditions, or Grocer's own financial or personal conditions will not permit him to operate the New Grocery Store to Grocer's reasonable satisfaction. 5. General Provisions. 5.1 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Owner and Grocer and their respective estates, personal representatives, heirs, devisees, legatees, successors and assigns. 5.2 Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of California, and according to its fair meaning, and not in favor of or against either Party. 5.3 Entire Agreement; Amendment. This Agreement (which includes the Addendum hereto) embodies the entire agreement and understanding between the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof, and all prior negotiations, agreements and understandings, oral or written, related to the subject matter hereof are hereby revoked, cancelled and rescinded and are all merged herein and superseded hereby. To be effective, any amendment to this Agreement including but not limited to any oral modification supported by new consideration, must be reduced to writing and signed by both Parties. 5.4 Waiver. To be effective, any waiver of the performance of any covenant, condition or promise by either Party must be in a writing signed by the Party who has allegedly waived the covenant, condition or promise in question. The waiver by either Party of a breach of a provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach, whether of the same of another provision of this Agreement. 5.5 Severability. Should any part, term or provision of this Agreement or any document required herein to be executed or delivered be declared invalid, void or unenforceable, all remaining parts, terms and provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be invalidated, impaired or affected thereby. 5.6 Interpretation. The neuter gender includes the feminine and masculine, and vice-versa, and the singular number includes the plural. The word "person" includes, in addition to any natural person, a corporation, partnership, firm, trust, association, governmental body or other entity. The captions of the sections of this Agreement are for convenience and reference only, and the words contained therein shall in no way be held to explain, modify, or aid in the interpretation, construction or meaning of the provisions of this Agreement. 5.7 Litigation. If either Party files any action or brings any proceeding against the other arising from this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover as PCSA\45 106\791 128.3 4 an element of its costs of suit, and not as damages, reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees and litigation expenses to be fixed by the court. Under no circumstances shall either Party be liable for consequential, special or punitive damages. 5.8 Construction. The Parties agree that each Party and its counselor advisor have reviewed and revised this Agreement and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting Party shall not apply in the interpretation of this Agreement or any amendments or exhibits hereto. 5.9 Time Periods. As used in this Agreement, (1) a "day" is a calendar day and (2) a "business day" is a calendar day other than a Saturday or Sunday upon which (a) the Office of the County Clerk of Santa Clara County is open and accepting documents for recording, (b) the United States Postal Service is delivering first class mail, and (c) banks in Santa Clara County are generally open for business. If, pursuant to this Agreement, a Party must act by a particular time, or an act is effective only if done by a particular time, and the last date for the doing or effectiveness of such act falls upon a day other than a business day, the time for the doing or effectiveness of such act shall be extended to the next succeeding business day. 5.10 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of all provisions of this Agreement. 5.11 Assignment. Grocer acknowledges that Owner is entering into this Agreement because of the particular skills, knowledge, expertise, tenure in the Palo Alto Community and reputation of Grocer. As a consequence, Grocer agrees that it is fair and reasonable that Grocer shall not be permitted to assign this Agreement, or the Lease, in whole or in part to any third party. No other person, firm, corporation, partnership or other legal entity shall have any right, title, interest or claim to any matters covered herein, or the right to demand performance of this Agreement. 5.12 Further Assurances. Each of the Parties shall execute such other and further documents and do such further acts (provided the same do not expand or increase such Party's obligations hereunder or reduce or diminish such Party's rights hereunder) as may be reasonably required to effectuate the intent of this Agreement. [THIS SPACE INTENTIONALL Y LEFT BLANK] PCSA\45 106\79 I 128.3 5 I N WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. OWNER: THE.CHILCOTE TRUST By: Name: By: Name: PCSA\45 106\791 128.3 6 Attachment A-1 Calendar Year 2012 $-- Calendar Year 2013 $-- Calendar Year 2014 $-- Calendar Year 2015 $-- Calendar Year 2016 $-- PCSA\45 1 06\791 128.3 7 Attachment A-2 Calendar Year 2012 $-- Calendar Year 2013 $-- Calendar Year 2014 $- Calendar Year 2015 $- Calendar Year 2016 $-- PCSA \45106\791128.3 8 2180 EI Camino Real (College Terrace Centre) RESPONSE TO CEQA QUESTIONS From Pria Graves and Joy Ogawa ATTACHMENT C The following comments regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration were received on November 9,2009 and December 2nd respectively. Staffs responses follow each comment. These comments are related to issues that are already raised and addressed in the MND, and do not raise any new substantial impacts. Therefore, Staff concludes that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is adequate as presented to the City Council. Response to Pria Graves Written Comments: 1. A.a,b,d (and D.d) Degradation of existing visual character, etc. Staff Response: There is no significant impact since the street trees to be removed, while mature and healthy, are not protected trees, and replacement will result in a substantially greater number of trees, in support of the City's program for street tree enhancement along El Camino Real. 2. A.e Substantial light or glare source. Staff Response: There is no significant impact since the City's regulations (Palo Alto Municipal Code (P AMC) Chapter 18.23 Performance Standards) already require that such outdoor lighting be shielded so that no off-site impacts would result. Also, the location of the vegetated roof and gazebo are not adjacent to residential properties, and the conditions limit use ofthis area to business hours. 3. H.d Substantially alter existing drainage pattern. Staff Response: The comments do not cite any specific evidence, other than a generalized "concern," that the project could have such an impact on the existing drainage pattern. There is no significant impact since such perched water tables are common and many other basements have been constructed in such circumstances without adverse impacts. The groundwater impacts of such construction are negligible on the overall subsurface regime. 4. I.d,e Substantially adversely change the use of the area. Staff Response: There would be a change in the use of the area, but it would not comprise a significant impact under CEQA unless it then results in significant physical impacts, which are addressed by the remainder of the MND. Neighborhood commercial uses supporting the adjacent residential area are to be retained, and the more intensive commercial uses are located along the El Camino Real frontage. The assertion that this project is "opening the gate" to other large buildings in this area is a generalized concern that is not supported by evidence. To the extent any other projects are proposed, they will be evaluated based on existing conditions and impacts at the time of the application. 5. K.b Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibrations or ground borne noise levels. 2180 EI Camino Real: Responses to CEQA Comments December 7,2009 Page 2 Staff Response: Temporary noise or vibration from construction is not considered "significant" except in rare cases of very large projects with long phased construction (e.g., Stanford University Medical Center). City code limits hours of construction operation to minimize impacts on adjacent properties. Also, unlike 585 College, this project is not immediately adjacent to a single-family residence. PAMC Section 18.23.070(c)(iv) notes that construction and demolition work is exempt from the vibration standard otherwise applicable to sites within 150 feet of residential property. 6. K.c Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Staff Response: No significant impact would result as the City's codes require compliance with Section 18.23.060, which requires demonstration at the time of building permit that the mechanical equipment will comply with noise limits and then requires demonstration after installation (before building occupancy) that the operating equipment meet the criteria outlined at the building permit stage. 7. K.d Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels Staff Response: No significant impact would result as the area would generally only be accessible during office hours (daytime). It is in any event a relatively small area for quiet enjoyment and not likely to be a significant noise-generating location. Again, the nearby low-density residential areas are not immediately adjacent to the commercial portions of the site, including the vegetated roof and gazebo. 8. L.d Create a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs. Staff Response: No significant impact would result because the overall ratio of jobs t6 employed residents is not significantly affected by the project. This assessment is not made limited to the specific proj ect at hand, or otherwise every office building would comprise a significant impact. 9. O.a,l Traffic impacts. Staff Response: No significant impact on residential streets was predicted in the traffic study. The study did not assume that all of the trips will travel only on EI Camino, but instead concluded that other trips (outside those on EI Camino) would not cause a significant level of increase on residential streets. 10. O.f Inadequate parking capacity. Staff Response: No significant impact is anticipated. Although there may be some who park on the neighboring streets rather than in the parking garage, the parking spaces provided meet the requirements of the Municipal Code. In addition, the College Terrace Permit Parking Program is just underway, and staff has committed to evaluate the program to ascertain if it should be extended closer to El Camino Real due to parking issues in this area. Response to Joy Ogawa Comments at December 2 PTC Meeting: 2180 El Camino Real: Responses to CEQA Comments December 7, 2009 Page 3 1. Traffic impacts: the intersection of Cambridge and EI Camino was not analyzed and the Mitigated Negative Declaration should be modified and re-circulated. Staff Response: A focused Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) typically analyzes the site access and immediately adjacent intersections, and at City staffs . discretion/judgment, other intersections that are part of the regular monitoring program and/or are known to have other traffic issues. The intersections of El Camino Real at California A venue and Page Mill Road are included in the annual monitoring program, and were therefore included in the analysis. The intersection of EI Camino Real and Cambridge is not included in the annual monitoring program and was not required as part of the TIA. Since the intersections of California A venue, College Avenue, and Oxford Avenue with EI Camino Real were all analyzed, and were all found to have no significant impact, the Cambridge/ECR intersection would not be anticipated to experience significant level of service impacts, and doesn't require separate analysis. The Cambridge intersection is not immediately adjacent to the project. The traffic analysis was prepared for the larger project that included six additional dwelling units and 1,000 square feet additional office space. The number of net new peak PM trips resulting from the revised project are therefore less than the 77 trips cited in the analysis. The Congestion Management Agency (VTA) does not require analyses of intersection impacts when projects add less than 100 net new peak PM trips. Reich, Russ From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Russ, Susan Rosenberg [susanpa@sonic.net] Sunday, November 29, 2009 10:59 AM Reich, Russ Karen Holman; Martineau, Catherine; Williams, Curtis EI Camino median trees ATTACHMENT 0 In reading the minutes of the October 14th, 2009, Planning and Transportation Commission meeting on the 2180 EI Camino Real project, you made the comment (page 59, line 22-25) that because the ECR median is only four-feet wide, Cal trans will not allow the planting of trees. Please take a closer look. That portion of the EI Camino Real median stretches from Stanford Ave. to College Ave. Most of it is only four feet wide, but there is a section, between Oxford St. and College Ave. that is 12' wide and currently has several trees (gingko, evergreen pear). Commissioner Karen Holman has raised the issue several times that the developer of this project be required, as a condition of approval, to replace the existing median trees. In light of the fact that the City of Palo Alto is working on the EI Camino Real I Stanford Ave. Intersection and Streetscape Project that will widen this particular median in some parts, I would encourage you to coordinate with Shahla Yazdy and Eric Krebs. This is an opportunity for the City to get the entire median replanted as part of the plan developed for the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Thank you, Susan Rosenberg 1 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2009 CMR: 444:09 REPORT TYPE: ACTION ITEM SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT CENTER AND BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As directed by the City Council on June 8, 2009, staff has developed a plan to identify and implement measures to streamline the Building Permit process. Additionally, staff believes there are opportunities to further improve service delivery and enhance customer satisfaction at the Development Center by restructuring staff, integrating new technologies into existing operations and initiating various customer service enhancements as part of a broader process improvement strategy. This report identifies the specific near-tenn measures that will be implemented to streamline the Building Pennit process and recommends that proposals from management or development services consultants be solicited to support the broader restructuring efforts at the Development Center. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council accept this report regarding the Development Center and the Building Permit process and direct staff to: 1) implement feasible permit process streamlining measures, and 2) return with a consultant proposal to further evaluate Development Center restructuring options aimed towards improving service delivery and enhancing customer service. BACKGROUND At its meeting on June 8, 2009, during discussion of proposed amendments to the Grading Ordinance, the City Council directed staff to return with a plan for identifying and implementing measures to further streamline the Building Permit process. Since then, staff met with Councilmember Barton to discuss his concerns about the permit process and ideas for permit streamlining, convened several inter-departmental staff meetings around the topic and met with staff from other area jurisdictions that operate one-stop permit centers similar to Palo Alto's Development Center. From the feedback received, staff has developed a plan to implement several immediate measures designed to simplify the Building Permit process and a strategy for CMR:444:09 Page 1 of 8 identifying and initiating more fundamental reforms at the Development Center that will further streamline plan review and permitting processes and improve the overall delivery of services. DISCUSSION Staff has reviewed activity levels and performance metrics that relate to the building permit process, evaluated short-term streamlining measures, and prepared a blueprint for potential restructuring of the Development Center. Development Center Activity & Performance Levels The following table summarizes key activity and service performance levels at the Development Center over the past five years: FY04/05 FY05/06 FY06/07 FY 07/08 FY08/09 # Visitors 17,701 16,544 15,459 14,873 14,375 # Building Permit 3,219 3,296 3,236 3,253 3,496 Applications submitted # Building Permits 3,081 3,081 3,136 3,046 2,543 Issued Building Permit $214,957,201 $276,981,25 $298,731,42 $358,864,55 $172,148, valuation 0 8 7 452 Avg. # days to 24 28 27 23 31 initial plan check A vg. # days to 94 98 102 80 63 permit issuance % of Building 69% 78% 76% 53% 75% Permits requiring plan check issued over-the-counter Based on permit activity data, staff experience and input from Development Center customers, staff offers the following summary and conclusions: • Building Permit processing is the primary service that is delivered at the Development Center. On average, roughly 60% of the visitors to the Development Center require assistance from and interaction with Building Division staff, as compared to just 28% with Planning Division staff, 10% with Public Works staff and 2% with Fire Department staff. • The decrease in the number of visitors to the Development Center over the five year period can be attributed to two factors: 1) a change in the method by which visitors are counted -in prior years, one visitor was counted multiple times if interaction with staff from different departments was required whereas now, such a visitor is only counted once, and 2) the reassignment of Utilities Department staff from the Development Center to Elwell Court in FY 06/07, resulting in a shift of visitors from one location to the other. CMR: 444:09 Page 2 of 8 • The number of Building Permit applications has remained relatively steady over the past five years. • Correspondingly, the number of Building Permits issued has remained relatively steady until last year when the slumping economy caused a roughly 17.5% decline and a more than 50% drop in permit valuation. This trend appears to be continuing in the current year and is not expected to change until both the economy and access to construction financing improve. • The average time to issue Building Permits for projects requiring plan review has dropped by nearly 40% in the past three years. This is due to both an increase in the number of applications being processed over-the-counter and implementation of an expedited (3-5 day) review process for simple addition, remodel and commercial tenant improvement projects. As a result however, the average number of days required for plan check staff to provide initial plan review comments for the more complex projects has increased to 31 days. While this is still an acceptable level of performance, staff would like to reduce the average response time for initial plan review of these projects to between 20 and 25 days. • Building Permit applications occasionally do get stuck in the plan review and permitting processes for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, staffing fluctuations, implementation of new ordinance and/or code requirements, and lack of inter- departmental coordination and communication. Additionally, it should be noted that there has been significant turnover of Building Division staff responsible for the processing and plan review of Building Permit applications over the past three years and in the past year alone, two counter and plan check positions out of seven were eliminated due to budget cutbacks. Despite commendable performance by the limited staff involved in the issuance of Building Permits, ample opportunities exist to improve service delivery at the Development Center through a combination of simple, short-term streamlining measures and longer-term restructuring efforts. Short-Term Permit Streamlining Measures Staff has identified several short-term measures that should help to streamline the Building Permit process. These include: • Encouraging more pre-submittal meetings with applicants to resolve issues of code interpretation, submittal requirements, plan review expectations, and processing questions, etc. The more informed that applicants and staff can be about a project when a Building Permit application is submitted, the more thorough the application materials will generally be, thereby increasing the likelihood for a quicker initial plan review and eventual issuance of the Building Permit. • Assigning appropriate initial plan review times for Building Permit applications. As noted above, staff has created an expedited (3-5 day) review time for simple projects and attempts to perform as many over-the-counter plan reviews as possible. Staff will explore creating additional assigned review times for other categories of projects, such as one and two week reviews, but may be limited by the abilities of other departments/divisions to meet these deadlines. Further, staff will examine the assigned 444:09 Page 3 of 8 times allotted for second and subsequent plan reviews, along with plan revisions, in an effort to reduce the overall time for plan check approvals and permit issuance. • Publishing clear plan check guidelines to assist architects, designers, engineers, contractors and applicants with understanding what the expectations of plan check staff are for various types of projects and to promote consistency amongst plan check staff when they perform plan reviews. Similarly, written protocols for outside (3fd Party) plan review consultants are being developed to promote greater consistency among the firms that are authorized to provide these services and to improve the quality of plan checking overall. • Redlining comments on plans rather than creating lengthy plan check correction letters. To the extent plan check staff can correct a set of plans by incorporating redline comments on them, then the re-submittal of some plan sets may be avoided thus allowing Building Permits for those projects to be issued sooner. • Reducing the number of plan sets required for Building Permit submittals. Staff believes that certain city departments/divisions can review the same plan set, thus reducing paper waste and ultimately, cost to applicants. • Reducing the number of plan sheets by referencing the city's standard details and requirements on-line. Again, staff believes that paper waste and applicant costs can be reduced through simplifying plan sets by eliminating standard information that can otherwise be accessed on-line or in other formats. Examples of these include stormwater pollution prevention requirements, tree protection guidelines, Public Works and Utilities Standard Details, etc. • Committing to Accela protocols. Accela is the application and permit tracking database used by the City and is accessible to applicants on-line through Velocity Hall, which allows applicants to monitor the progress of their projects during the plan review, permitting and construction phases. It is used by Building, Planning, Green Building, Fire, Public Works, Utilities and Code Enforcement staff. Unfortunately, there are inconsistencies with how staff from the various departments and divisions use Accela, so a renewed commitment to certain standard protocols is in order. These include entering data thoroughly, providing complete contact information of the staff assigned to each project, entering plan review comments in a consistent format, updating project status information whenever it changes and entering approvals when appropriate. Staff believes most of these measures can be implemented at little cost within the next six months. Blueprint for a New Development Center Beyond the short-term streamlining measures noted above, staff believes that significant opportunities to improve service delivery at the Development Center and ultimately, the entire customer service experience, exist and can be realized through a more holistic restructuring effort that better integrates development review and permitting services and coordinates the activities of all the staff providing them. Currently, applicants seeking Building Permits are forced to deal with many different staff from various departments and divisions spread throughout the city. Applicants have no single point of contact, which is especially significant because inter-departmental coordination is lacking. Further, staff productivity is diminished due CMR:444:09 Page 4 of8 to the amount of time and effort spent routing and tracking application materials rather than actually processing permits and communications between applicants and the city are inconsistent and occur in many different formats. The result is that applicants are, in many instances, forced to act as Project Managers to navigate the city's processes rather than being treated as customers. With this in mind, staff has conceived a "Blueprint for a New Development Center" as a plan to identify and initiate process improvements and restructuring that could lead to better service delivery, staff utilization and customer service at the Development Center. The Blueprint contains the following five elements, which are described in further detail below and are outlined in presentation format in Attachment A: 1. Convene a Development Center Focus Group 2. Solicit staff input 3. Evaluate the organizational structure of the Development Center 4. Implement technology upgrades 5. Identify and implement customer service enhancements Development Center Focus Group The Focus Group would be comprised of roughly a dozen architects, engineers and contractors who frequently use the Development Center. As frequent customers, these individuals are best positioned to offer the type of constructive feedback that will inform management staff about how well services are being delivered at the Development Center and areas of strengths and weaknesses. Presumably their experiences with other Permit Centers will also shed light on best practices occurring elsewhere that could be implemented at the Development Center. The Focus Group can assist with establishing performance metrics, assessing existing practices, recommending process improvements and defining success indicators. It can also help to interpret the results of the ongoing customer survey that is available to all Development Center customers. It is envisioned that the Focus Group would meet quarterly and that it could eventually evolve into a type of Development Center Advisory Committee. Soliciting Staff Input This is a fundamental best practice that needs to be institutionalized and should include staff from all departments and divisions that are either already delivering or could be envisioned to deliver services at the Development Center. The intent is to provide a forum for staff to focus on Development Center operations and identify process improvements. Smaller work teams could also be formed as needed to develop and implement pilot programs that would drive organizational change. Evaluate Development Center Organizational Structure The purpose of the Development Center should be re-evaluated given how development priorities in the city and the regulatory framework that impacts development have changed since it originally opened. If it is expected that the Development Center should operate as a true one- stop permit center, then the proper mix of staffing and services that should be provided at the CMR: 444:09 Page 5 of 8 Development Center needs to be identified and put into place in order to meet that expectation. Presently, there is no single source of management oversight at the Development Center so the staff there is not always working towards common objectives. The evaluation may include any or all of the following: 1. Consideration should be given to creation of a Development Center Manager who would be given the authority for all Development Center operations along with the accountability for results. 2. An Office Coordinator who, among other things, could act as an ombudsman for applicants who run into difficulties would be a significant customer service enhancement and should also be considered. 3. Certain staff, such as Technicians who currently operate in three separate divisions, should be cross-trained to better balance workloads and minimize the number of han doffs between departments that applicants currently must endure. 4. The question of whether the Utilities Department should have a presence at the Development Center needs to be re-examined since CPAU has an integral role to play in most building projects and applicants naturally expect to interact with them at the Development Center. The Development Center could also be a venue for promoting Utilities resource conservation programs as part of a broader Green Building program that should operate there. S. The city might consider creation of a separate Development Services Enterprise or Special Revenue Fund to account for all development related revenues and expenditures. This could relieve pressure on the General Fund by ensuring that all direct and indirect development related services are fully paid for by development fees and that the general taxpayer is not subsidizing the costs of development in any way. Evaluation of these structural changes is likely to require additional funding or other resources, such as retention of a management or development services consultant. If Council directs, staff will return to Council in February with a consultant proposal to undertake such an analysis, geared to begin implementation of recommended changes by July 1, 2010. Technology Upgrades Given the number of staff working at the Development Center, the diversity of operations and the amount of record-keeping and data management that occurs, the Development Center should have a dedicated Technology Support person. Beyond maintaining existing systems, the Tech Support staff would be charged with identifying and implementing new technologies to improve customer service and staff productivity. Examples of this include applications for on-line permit submittals and plan reviews, on-line payment systems, self-help kiosks, electronic plan vaults, etc. Customer Service Enhancements There are a number of other customer service enhancements that have been suggested over the past few months, which should be explored for implementation at the Development Center. These include: CMR:444:09 Page 6 of 8 • Real-time appointment based plan reviews for certain types of projects that would allow applicants to obtain all plan review comments in one scheduled visit • Increased self-help capabilities that would allow applicants and visitors to the Development Center to conduct business without having to wait for or interact with staff • Adjusting the hours of operation to ensure that staff has dedicated blocks of time to process permit applications and perform related work without interruptions • Creation of an Applicant Bill of Rights that would set forth customer service expectations • Improved and increased marketing, messaging and branding of services provided at the Development Center • Use of social networking tools such as Facebook and Twitter to better communicate with Development Center customers • Creation of a Building Official or Development Center Manager blog on the Development Center website to communicate relevant information and promote new services as they become available Conclusions The Development Center is a valuable city resource that provides critical professional and technical services to thousands of customers annually. While it generally functions well, there are opportunities to improve staff productivity and the delivery of services, which ultimately will lead to improved customer service and satisfaction. The opportunities exist in the form of short- term streamlining measures and longer-term restructuring efforts. Staff is committed to implementing the short-term measures and has formulated a plan for pursuing the longer-term restructuring based on direction that the City Council may provide. Staff is also prepared to report periodically to the City Council on the progress made towards implementation of these recommendations. RESOURCE IMPACT No resource impacts are anticipated for implementation of the short-term process improvements identified. Potential restructuring of the Development Center, technology upgrades and some of the customer service enhancements outlined, however, cannot be evaluated and implemented with current staff resources. Staff expects that such an evaluation could be conducted by a management or development services consultant at a cost of between $30,000 and $45,000 over a 90-day period. The costs of implementing program recommendations would be outlined in the study. Staff would return to the Council in early 2010 with a contract intended to result in implementation of recommendations by July 1,2010. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The actions recommended in this report are consistent with City Council direction and Comprehensive Plan policies to streamline the development review process. CMR: 444:09 Page 7 of8 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The recommendations contained in this report do not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act that requires environmental review. ATTACHMENTS A. Blueprint for a New Development Center Presentation/Summary PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR: 444:09 -2J1tuy i01dvJ kLL 6CIL Larry I. Perlin, PE Chief Building Official C1t:uJ~ C . W·lr 04 Page 8 of 8 Blueprint for a New Development Center It's about more than streamlining the permit process Why a New Development Center? o Better integration of services o Improved staff productivity o Market sustainability programs o Communications & outreach o Full cost recovery o Enhanced customer service ATTACHMENT A 1 Who our customers are FY 08/09 -14,375 visitors 590/0 III Building • Planning II Public Works II Fire OJ Green Buildin Building Permit Activity Levels 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 - ~ ---Building Permit Applications i -.>-Building Permits Issued 2 Plan Check Performance 120 90 00 100 70 80 g 60 50 _ A'IIQ, # days to 1st response ~ _ A\tJ. # days to permit issuance! 40 -+-% Plan Checks orc 40 30 20 10 FY 041Q5 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 FY 07108 FY Oat09 Conclusions o Building Permits drive activity at the DC o Building Permit applications have remained steady over past 5 years o 75% of Building Permits requiring plan check are issued over-the-counter o Avg. time to issue Building Permits has dropped 40% in past 3 years o Avg. time for initial plan check response has remained steady over past 5 years o Permit applications occasionally do get stuck 3 More conclusions Despite adequate performance by limited staff involved in the issuance of permits, there are opportunities to significantly improve service delivery at the DC through a combination of simple, short-term fixes and longer- term restructuring. Short-term simple fixes o Encourage pre-submittal meetings o Assign appropriate review times o Publish plan check guidelines o Redline comments whenever possible o Reduce # of plan sets o Reference standard plan sheets on-line o Commit to Accela protocols 4 Accela protocols o Enter data thoroug h Iy o Enter staff contact information o Enter plan review comments o Enter plan review status o Enter approvals Remember -Applicants rely on Accela via Velocity Hall DC Restructuring o Currently, applicants seeking Building Permits are forced to deal with too many different staff from too many different City Departmentsji:>ivisions, spread throughout the City o Applicants have no single point of contact to rely upon o Considerable time and effort is spent routing plans rather than processing plans o Comments are inconsistent and come in many different formats o Inter-departmental coordination is lacking 5 The Blueprint 1. Convene DC Focus Group 2. Solicit staff input 3. Evaluate DC organizational structure 4. Technology upgrades 5. Customer service enhancements DC Focus Group o Comprised of frequent architects and contractors o Review survey results o Establish goals, assess existing practices, recommend process improvements, define success indicators o Meet quarterly or semi-annually o Morph into a DC Advisory Board 6 Solicit staff input o Institutionalize o Form workgroups as needed to implement process changes Evaluate DC organizational structure o What is the purpose of the DC? A one-stop shop or an office annex to City Hall? o Consider need for DC Czar or Development Services Manager o Need staffing authority to go with accountability for results o Consider DC Office Coordinator (Ombudsman) o Cross-train staff (e.g. Technicians) to balance workload o Determine whether CPAU is in or out o Consider separate enterprise fund for DC to realize full cost recovery 7 Technology upgrades o Need dedicated tech support o Accela v360 o On-line permit applications o On-line plan submittals o On-line payments o Self help kiosks Customer service enhancements o Adjust hours of operation o Real-time appointment based plan reviews o Increased self-help capabilities o Applicant Bill of Rights o Applicant Ombudsman o Assign CPAU Customer Service Rep o Solicit continued customer feedback via surveys o Marketing, messaging and branding o Improved networking via Facebook, Twitter, etc. o CBO Blog 8 Summary "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -Einstein 9 DATE: December 7, 2009 TO: City Council Colleagues FROM: Mayor Drekmeier and Council Members Burt, Schmid and Yeh SUBJECT: Approval of a resolution acknowledging the costs associated with climate change on Palo Alto's financial health and quality of life and supporting the exploration of new approaches to funding the costs associated with burning fossil fuels for energy production, and recommendation to create a task force to address the potential impacts of climate change on Palo Alto. Recommendation We ask our Council colleagues to join us to: 1) Approve the attached resolution titled "Resolution of the City of Palo Alto Recognizing the Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Palo Alto and the Externality Costs Associated with the Burning of Fossil Fuels and Acknowledging the Importance of True Cost Pricing"; and 2) Encourage the 2010 Mayor and Council to consider creating a task force to assess the potential impacts and costs of climate change on Palo Alto using existing data and to recommend potential funding sources to help the City adapt to those expected changes. Background Problems caused by climate change will impact every community, including Palo Alto. Locally we will likely see an increased risk of flooding from both the bay and local creeks. Potable water will likely become scarcer and hydropower generation will decline. The risk of wildfires in our foothills will likely increase. Current projections by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) suggest that ocean and bay levels will rise 16 inches by 2050 and 55 inches by 2100, threatening low-lying coastal areas such as much of Palo Alto. According to the Governor's Climate Action Team, the cost to California of adapting to sea level rise by constructing and improving levees and seawalls will reach billions of dollars per year. The California Department of Finance has projected that California's population will likely increase from 38 million today to 60 million by 2050. Much of this new growth will take place in the Bay Area. At the same time, the Sierra snowpack is projected to decrease by 12% to 50% as a result of climate change, threatening our ability to store water for urban and agricultural uses. As a result of changes in precipitation, climate change will have a significant impact on Palo Alto's energy supply. Currently, over 50% of the City's electricity comes from clean hydrogeneration produced by the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) and NCPA's Calaveras facilities. Projections from the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) strongly suggest that climate change could reduce hydrogeneration by 20% to 40%. The CDWR also predicts that higher levels of volatility in preCipitation will produce significantly greater variability in electricity availability in the summer months when the City is most reliant on hydropower. Palo Alto is doing much to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, however, even in a best-case scenario; we will face many challenges caused by global climate change. To prepare ourselves for the projected impacts, we should begin planning now. These impacts will carry significant costs which will be borne by Palo Alto. In order to mitigate those costs, the City is encouraged to look at pricing and costing approaches that bear in mind true costs. Purpose of Task Force The purpose of the Climate Change Adaptation Task Force would be to: 1) Assess the potential impacts of climate change on Palo Alto. 2) Assess the risk from inundation to low lying facilities including the RWQTP, Airport, and Utility Control Center. 3) Analyze the potential costs of adapting to climate change. 4) Evaluate approaches to assessing the true costs of energy generation from fossil fuels. 5) Identify and recommend possible funding sources to help Palo Alto prepare for these impacts. Resource Impacts Direct costs are expected to be minimal. Assessment of staff support will be evaluated when the initiative is launched. This is not expected to be an exhaustive study, but rather the beginning of an ongoing dialogue. We expect the task force to utilize existing data prepared by organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (lPCC), BCDC, the Governor's Climate Action Team, the Pacific Institute and San Francisco Planning and Urban Research. This Colleagues Memo has been reviewed by Staff. Attachment: Resolution of the City of Palo Alto Recognizing the Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Palo Alto and the Externality Costs Associated with the Burning of Fossil Fuels and Acknowledging the Importance of True Cost Pricing. Resolution No. -- Resolution of the City of Palo Alto Recognizing the Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Palo Alto and the Externality Costs Associated with the Burning of Fossil Fuels and Acknowledging the Importance of True-Cost Pricing . WHEREAS, adapting to climate change caused by burning fossil fuels will likely cost California billions of dollars per year, according to the Governor's Climate Action Team; and WHEREAS, externality costs are hidden costs associated with the production, transportation, use and disposal of goods and services that mask their true costs; and WHEREAS, externality costs place an unfair burden on society as a whole and future generations that will bear the hidden costs of current consumer practices; and WHEREAS, externality costs give an unfair market advantage to products and services with high hidden costs and penalize products and services with low hidden costs; and WHEREAS, externality costs often create unfunded liabilities; and WHEREAS, burning fossil fuels costs the United States about $120 billion per year in health costs, mostly due to premature deaths caused by air pollution, according to the National Academy of Sciences; and WHEREAS, in a fair market-based economy, prices should reflect the true costs of products and services; and WHEREAS, true-cost pricing incorporates externality costs into the price of products and services so as to reflect their hidden costs; and WHEREAS, the movement to true cost pricing represents a dramatic shift in current utility pricing policy in the United States; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes that significant dialogue and review with the community, Utility Advisory Committee, our customers and other key stakeholders will be necessary to develop an effective true-cost pricing plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council recognizes the externality costs associated with burning fossil fuels for energy production. The City Council hereby supports exploring the concept of true-cost pricing in which externality costs are incorporated into price structures whenever possible. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager City Attorney CITY OF PALO ALTO COLLEAGUES MEMORANDUM Date: December 7, 2009 To: City Council Colleagues From: Council Members Kishimoto, Espinosa, Burt and Yeh Subject: Update of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan The City of Palo Alto has recently received $55,000 in funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to update the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (Plan). Funding also included $40,000 for bicycle signage and $50,000 for bike racks. The updated Plan will enable the City to work in concert with the City's ongoing Comprehensive Plan Amendment and regional efforts, such as SB 375, to enhance safety and convenience of cyclists, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and minimize greenhouse gases from the Palo Alto community. While Palo Alto is often recognized as an attractive place for bicycling, there remain many obstacles to encouraging additional ridership. Other cities in the U.S. and internationally are making extensive commitments towards better balancing the use of bicycles with other modes, particularly relative to automobiles. This memo requests that staff proceed, with the assistance of multiple affected stakeholders, to actively engage in the Plan update and implementation in a creative and aggressive manner. Some of the elements of the Plan effort should include, but are not limited to: 1. Specifying quantified goals to achieve a 10% bicycle mode share by 2015 and a 20% share by 2020 (current mode share is approximately 6%) and measurement/monitoring techniques to ascertain progress; 2. Committing to an increased share of resources to support bicycling to "balance" mode use, particularly relative to the use of automobiles; 3. Involving a broad cross-section of the Palo Alto community, including schools and PTAs, businesses (downtown, midtown, other shopping areas, Research Park), Stanford, neighborhoods, the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), the Planning and Transportation Commission, the Parks and Recreation Commission, etc.; 4. Evaluation of the following components of the Plan: a. Identification of safe routes to school, transit facilities, and employment b. Treatment of designated streets as "complete" streets to provide equal room on such streets for bicycles as for cars Colleagues Memo: Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan December 7, 2009 Page 2 c. Bicycle sharing programs, in concert with regional programs (VTA) and city-specific programs, such as use of the bicycles donated from the Senior Games d. Extensive bicycle parking facilities with high visibility, such as parking "corrals" in downtown, at transit stations, neighborhood shopping centers, etc. e. Integration with paths and trails in/through parks and the Baylands, and exploration of opportunities to provide for creekside trails (the 2003 Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan specifically identifies future bike paths along segments of Adobe and Matadero Creeks) f. Vehicle parking strategies (parking cash-out, metered parking, unbundled parking, etc.) to reduce demand for cars and enhance use of bicycles g. Improvements to increase the use of bicycles to and from transit stations and corridors h. Enhanced visibility of bicycle· facilities and usage through signage, outreach, social networking, etc.; and i. Revisions to the City's traffic analysis methodology to regularly include review of bicycle counts and levels of service (LOS); and j. Work with neighboring cities, Stanford University, and regional transportation agencies to create seamless cycling networks regionally. 5. Identification of implementation resources and strategies to include: a. Grant funding opportunities b. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project priorities, particularly to address areas of key obstacles to providing for continuous safe and convenient bicycle routes c. Shared infrastructure and maintenance resource allocations balanced among bike, pedestrian, transit, and road use d. Innovative long-term funding mechanisms, such as public/private partnerships, assessments, or other tools; and e. Create policy framework so development applicants can help fund sections of plan to offset expected traffic increases Recommendation: We recommend Council direct staff to proceed with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update in the 2010 year, and to address all of the items outlined above. Staff has estimated that the grant funds would be sufficient to prepare the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update as directed without additional commitments from the City's General Fund. The Plan would then identify the costs of implementation of detailed planning, new infrastructure, and maintenance costs. Funding will be highly dependent on the availability of grant funding and the City's success in obtaining such funding. Increased maintenance costs would need to be addressed in the City's budget priorities or through new mechanisms for funding. TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 21 FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2009 CMR: 451:09 SUBJECT: Approval of Amendment Number 4 to the Management Agreement with Brad Lozares for Golf Professional Services at 1875 Embarcadero Road, Extending the Term One Year to December 31, 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report recommends that the Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached Amendment No.4 to the Management Agreement with Brad Lozares (Golf Professional) for golf course professional services at the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, 1875 Embarcadero Road (Golf Course), extending the term one year to December 31, 2010. The current Management Agreement will expire on December 31,2009. IRS rules relating to tax exempt bond issuance at the golf course to finance Golf Course improvements requires a management agreement be in place. Options for how to proceed in managing the Golf Course in the short term are limited. Staff and the golfing public remain very satisfied with Brad Lozares despite the decline in golf play. Staff proposes to extend the current Management Agreement one additional year at its current level of compensation in order to allow time for staff to present to the Finance Committee and Council recommendations made in the Golf Course Analysis and to discuss long-term plans to make the Golf Course self-supporting, which will include an evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of private versus public golf course maintenance. The economic downturn continues to impact the number of golf rounds needed to fully recover direct and indirect expenses for the Golf Course operation. Although the Golf Course remains competitive with golf courses in the region, the unfortunate reality is all golf courses are experiencing a decline in play, similar to or worse than Palo Alto. Golf Course expenses exceeded revenue in Fiscal Year 2009 by $326,000. After the first quarter review of revenues and expenses a deficit is also expected in Fiscal Year 2010 estimated at $240,000. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached Amendment No.4 to the Management Agreement with Brad Lozares (Golf Professional) for golf course professional services at the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, 1875 Embarcadero Road (Golf Course), extending the term one year to December 31,2010. CMR: 451:09 Page 1 of4 Staff acknowledges that such losses and impact on the General Fund, given the worsening financial outlook for the City as a whole, may engender detailed questions and discussion by Council. Staff will be prepared to respond at the meeting. BACKGROUND On March 16, 1998, the City issued tax-exempt bonds to finance Golf Course improvements. Prior to the bonds being issued, the City and the Golf Professional had operated under one lease agreement for both professional services and the lease of the City-owned facility. When the bonds were issued in 1998, IRS regulations required that there be two agreements, a management agreement for Golf Course professional services and a lease to operate the golf retail establishment (Pro Shop). In 1998, Council approved a 20-month Agreement and a IS-year lease with the Golf Professional. The original management agreement was amended three times prior to Council approval of a new restated management agreement (Agreement) on January 27, 2003. The new Agreement set the fixed fee at $322,251 and removed the annual CPI adjustment. Cart rentals and driving range fees were split, with the Golf Professional receiving 40 percent of revenue and the City receiving 60 percent. The agreement also provided a productivity reward equal to a stated dollar amount based on increases of golf rounds, power golf cart rentals and driving range sales. On May 1, 2006, Council approved Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement which: 1) extended the term for an additional eighteen months; 2) increased the fixed fee compensation by 3 percent; and 3) reimbursed the golf professional for 60 percent of the bank's credit card merchant charges attributed to the golf cart rentals. In 2007, the Council authorized staff to proceed with an operational analysis of the Golf Course. On May 14, 2007, the Council approved Amendment No.2 to the Agreement which: 1) extended the term for one year to December 31, 2008, pending the outcome of the operational analysis; and 2) increased the fixed fee compensation by two percent. On October 20, 2008, Council approved Amendment No.3 which: 1) extended the agreement for one year to December 31, 2009, pending Council review and direction of the operational analysis; 2) increased the fixed fee by two percent; and 3) adjusted the Golf Professional's productivity reward to reflect current market conditions. On November 17, 2008, Council reviewed the Golf Course Operational Analysis at a study session, but it is yet to go before the Finance Committee and the full Council due to the uncertainly of flood control alternatives for San Francisquito Creek and possible budget reductions for Golf Course maintenance. DISCUSSION In Fiscal Year 2009, the Golf Course expenses exceeded revenue by $326,000. This was due to insufficient rounds of golf played and to the unavailability of reclaimed irrigation water for the Golf Course resulting from capital improvement projects to the reclaimed water system. The use of reclaimed water helps keep water costs down, when it is unavailable and additional potable water is needed water costs rise dramatically. In Fiscal Year 2009 water costs were $130,000 higher than the prior year. Based on first quarter revenue and expense trends and year-end projections (see attached five-year Golf Course Financial Summary), it is estimated that Fiscal Year 2010 expenses will exceed revenues by $240,000. During the 2010 budget planning process staff were concerned that the Golf Course would again struggle to reach full cost recover in CMR: 451:09 Page 2 of4 2010. In an effort to mitigate concerns staff eliminated a full time Golf Course Maintenance person, reduced supplies and material costs by $70,000 and continues to ration potable water use to lessen potential losses. Moreover, staff and Brad Lozares continue to provide regular promotional opportunities, special events and other incentives to generate more play. Unfortunately, even with these efforts staff anticipates 72,000-74,000 golf rounds this year, when 76,000 to 78,000 rounds are needed to generate enough revenue to cover direct and indirect costs in 2010. It is important to point out that the Golf Course is on track to cover all operating costs and debt service but will likely fall short of covering the full Cost Plan allocation of $332,155. The bond debt, which after 10 years is still over $550,000 annually, will retire in 2018. The Cost Plan charges mentioned above represent overhead services provided by the City to the operating departments. These overhead services include: Accounting and Budget, Purchasing, Human Services, Cash Management and other required services to support the administration of the operating departments. The methodology to allocate Cost Plan is based on the number of FTE within each department and program therein; it is not determined by the actual overhead costs for a specific program or service area, as this is very difficult to accurately ascertain. Although the Golf Course operation is a General Fund activity, it is expected to recover the allocated overhead expenses. Notwithstanding the drop in revenue from the number of rounds played, the service level the Golf Professional and his staff provide is very professional and greatly appreciated by our golfing public. The Golf Professional is very well regarded throughout the golf community for outstanding customer service. Despite the significant drop in the number of annual rounds played, from a high of over 100,000 in the late 1980's to its current level of approximately 72,000 rounds, the Golf Course still ranks in the top ten golf courses in the bay area. The Golf Course Operational Analysis pointed out that the reduction in number of rounds was due to the substantial increase in the number of golf courses built over the past 20 years and the challenging economic conditions we are experiencing. The current Management Agreement will expire on December 31, 2009. In order for the Golf Professional to manage the Golf Course and receive compensation, IRS rules require that there mu~t be an agreement in place. Under IRS regulations, the management agreements must be for no more than 60 months. The agreements and amendments between the City and Golf Professional have been for less than 60 months, in order to allow both parties to make refinements to the agreement that reflect economic conditions and needs of the Golf Course. Staff proposes to extend the current Management Agreement one additional year at its current level of compensation to allow time for staff to discuss with the Finance Committee and Council recommendations made in the Golf Course Analysis, and to consider alternatives for making the Golf Course self-supporting over the long term which will include an evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of pri vate versus public golf course maintenance. Once the Golf Course is in a better financial position, the Golf Course Operation will reimburse the General Fund for past deficits. CMR: 451:09 Page 3 of4 RESOURCE IMPACT The impact on the resources for Fiscal Year 2010 for this contract is estimated to be the same as Fiscal Year 2009. The cost of compensation to the Golf Professional including fixed and percentage payments is estimated to be approximately $650,000, and this amount is included in the FY 2010 adopted budget. Overall, if Golf Course revenues fall short of overall costs the General fund will need to absorb the difference, which in 2010 is anticipated to be $240,000. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed one-year extension is consistent with prior Council direction and will keep the Golf Course operational until a long-term plan can be implemented to reduce or eliminate the General Fund subsidy. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Approval of the amendment does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); therefore, no environmental assessment is required. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Amendment No.4 to Management Agreement Attachment B: Golf Course FinanCial:ummary, '2 PREPARED BY: ~c/~~ ROBDEGEUS Di~.~n Manager, Recreation & Golf Services //0. , DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL: (.'~~~ CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: cc: Golf Professional CMR: 451:09 Interim Director, Community Services Department ./ --------~+-~~~~~~~~-------- Page 4 of4 Attachment A AMENDMENT NO.4 TO MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND BRAD LOZARES GOLF SHOP FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AT 1875 EMBARCADERO ROAD, PALO ALTO THIS AMENDMENT NO.4 to the Management Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Brad Lozares Golf Shop for Professional Services at the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, ("Agreement,") is made and entered into this day of December 2009, by and between the City of Palo Alto, a municipal corporation (the "CITY") and Brad Lozares Golf Shop, a sole proprietorship ("GOLF PROFESSIONAL"). RECITALS A. GOLF PROFESSIONAL has assumed responsibility for and continued the operation and management of course play for the Golf Course facility on behalf of the CITY on the terms and conditions set forth in the Management Agreement dated January 28,2003. B. On May 15, 2006, the parties amended the Agreement to extend the term December 31, 2007, and to increase the fixed fee to $27,660.25 per month and reimburse GOLF PROFESSIONAL for sixty percent (60%) of finance charges associated with the payment of service charges for golf carts by credit card. C. On May 15" 2007, the parties amended the Agreement to extend the term to December 31, 2008, and to increase the fixed fee to $28,213.46 per month. D. On October 20, 2008, the parties amended the Agreement to extend the term to December 31, 2009, and to increase the fixed fee to $28,777.73 per month. E. The parties now wish to amend the Agreement to extend the term of the agreement to December 31, 2010 at the current level of compensation established for 2009. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree as follows: SECTION 1. Section III ("Term") is amended in its entirety to read, as follows: "III. TERM The term of this Agreement shall commence on January 1, 2010, and end on December 31,2010. SECTION 2. Section IV, A ("Compensation"), is amended in its entirety to read, as follows: "IV. COMPENSATION 1 091120 jb 0073262 During the term of the Agreement, GOLF PROFESSIONAL shall receive a fixed fee and percentage fees. as defined below (collectively the "Management Fee"). A. Fixed Fee GOLF PROFESSIONAL shall receive a fixed fee during the term of this Agreement for GOLF PROFESSIONAL's Golf Course and driving range management, Golf Course marshaling and starting and cart rental services. The fixed fee for the term of this agreement will be $345,333 annually, based on a calendar year. The fixed fee shall be paid in 12 equal monthly installments. During the eighteen-month extension term from July 1, 2006 to December 31, 2007, GOLF PROFESSIONAL shall receIve a fixed fee payable monthly in the amount of $27,660.25. During the twelve-month extension term from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008, GOLF PROFESSIONAL shall receive a fixed fee in the amount of $28,213.46, monthly. During the twelve-month extension term from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009, GOLF PROFESISONAL shall receive a fixed fee, in the amount of $28,777.73, monthly. During the twelve-month extension term from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010, GOLF PROFESISONAL shall receive a fixed fee, in the amount of $28,777.73, monthly. The CITY shall forward the fixed fee by the 5th working day of the CITY's working month for the amount due for that month to the GOLF PROFESSIONAL. If not received within ten calendar days after the fifth working day of the month, a late charge of one percent of monthly payment due and unpaid plus an administrative fee of $45.00 shall be added to the payment due and unpaid, and the total monthly sum shall become immediately due and payable to GOLF PROFESSIONAL. The parties agree that such late charges represent a fair and reasonable estimate of the costs that GOLF PROFESSIONAL will incur by reason of the CITY's late payments and that acceptance of such late charges in no event constitutes a waiver of the CITY's default with respect to such overdue payment, nor prevents GOLF PROFESSIONAL from exercising any of the other rights and remedies granted hereunder or by any provision of law." B. Percentage Fees In addition to the fixed fee, GOLF PROFESSIONAL shall receive 38% percent of the gross revenues of the driving range and retain 40% of the gross revenue of the golf carts, golf club and pull cart rentals. Percentage 2 091120 jb 0073262 fees for each month will be calculated and paid no later than the 10th day of the following month. In no event, however, shall the cumulative percentage fees paid to GOLF PROFESSIONAL for a single calendar year exceed the total fixed fee payments described in section IV -A herein for that same calendar year. C. Golf Cart Fuel Reimbursement GOLF PROFESSIONAL shall reimburse the CITY quarterly for fuel supplied to gas golf carts. Reimbursement shall be at the current retail full service pump price on the date of billing for unleaded fuel, determined quarterly by the CITY. GOLF PROFESSIONAL shall reimburse the CITY by no later than by the 20th day of the month following the close of each quarter. Productivity Reward (Incentives) In order to enhance overall golf division business incomes, customer service and golf professional revenues, a productivity reward equal to a stated dollar amount based on increases of golf rounds, gross power golf cart rentals and driving range sales becomes effective with this agreement. In addition to the fixed and percentage fees, the golf professional shall receive the following productivity rewards based on exceeding the following blaseline golf rounds and gross sales: PAID GOLF ROUNDS: (FEE, DISCOUNT CARD & REPLAY ROUNDS) * Greater than 77,500 rounds $3.00 PER ROUND POWER GOLF CART RENTALS: * Greater than $300,000 DRIVING RANGE SALES: * Greater than $440,000 $100 PER $1,000 INCREASE $200 PER $1,000 INCREASE SECTION 3. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Agreement, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. LL LL 091120 jb 0073262 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No 4 to Management Agreement on the date first written above. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney APPROVED: Director, Administrative Services 091120 jb 0073262 BRAD LOZARES GOLF SHOP By: f);v.Bf f{~afl#J Name: f6r~ 1-.o1.are.5 --~--~~---------- Title: OWN<'~ ! PG-A jClIl-~fclreS~/QN'\.l Taxpayer Identification No. 4 Attachment B GOLF COURSE FINANCIAL SUMMARY B M NOS W X 2 =~~~=-~ ___ =--==-=_====±=~~~!-=::;=b~~;:!±~~ H=~b~~~ ~ ~I;~~~=~~~~ ~=-=-=1=~~~-~~~~~I~~!e=1jl 7 00';0, mo" i 382,463 ! 353,691 t 346,447 I 365,908 i 415,000 j,; " 415:dQo, : .-;,::~;;;--·.------=-~.=~:tt~:3}!:i.==.~;:::E=~~~~ 1··· __ .3~~p"~~~~ :: -~~!~:~t;;:' .. ' ...... ··------I--~;;t_--;~:;~t_;!:;;,t-:~:: ~ .-;;;~L:d:S~ 12 -:::;;;;';;;~o-;;;m";'~~';'=:::::=:::::::~--=--=;:;:;;:;;:::::=;:ii~t-=--=:;~.:r---=;~;;.+==~;;;cl·: ... ~.~~.,-.... ~.-~.?"~j .• ~ ..• ~. 13 To.I~~~~EN.!:!~ _____________________________ ~ ___ 1,04~L55~_~ ____ ;1.'!~!~.Q.1. 3, 111 ,9~.J ___ ~~42, 72.!~_~~!~ 170 J", ,3,.Q.44;1,09~ ::~:C;;i;~~~m:;C;~~'::PG-::r-2:;t::~;~~~E~:-~5:t=:~~z~I~'ti :~ _1:::~~~~~~~~~~~========~~==~====j===~;;;~:==~==~~~~~~==~~:~!:i===~~~;j=~~!~~~I===~:~! 25 J~EfJ!,,!~i!!gJ=~E!!!I~!!..~ _______________________ J __________ ~ ___ ----------~--------J---------~----------~-----'--- 26 __ ~.0.!:!~ ______ ---------------______ ~-------~9-~~-L--481 ~_1..~ __ Jil~512~------~1.~~7 ! ____ j~~~~+~-,.--i~iih 27 ___ __ S.E3~E3!i!~ ________________________________________________ J _________ ~?_M!_i_~-------~~~"Q~l.. ________ .!~_'?_:"L?J--------i1Ql~.I3.~-------~~i"i?-~-~~~---_.3_~l,i~?_ 29 30 31 32 33 ___ ,6.y9_~~~.Q.f_l!arg_~ _______________________ J-------~i~~~_~l-_____ i:!E"1.!~ ___ 1~i,~~flJ------I?~.9-'-'!E8 L---iZ.~?J-~1:.~-,'.-1. -.1 6, 6_Q~_ I '" . " .... 34 Cost Plan Charges I 357,361 ; 379,884 337,590 f 318,969 i 312,500 <332,155 -----------------------------------------i--------------~-------------------------j--------I---------7~,-:-::~.~_::7T· 35 -~!!.~!!J..~'!!....-------------------------i----!L~E.~!I..~~+----!t§J.~di~ _..!L.B..50, 16"-~----1.~!E,-~ii---!L~il?r?!~-.:;,j-~~-M.!J~§- :: --q~~!:~I~!~~~!!..~----·-------------------------------T------~-~~~~-;-r-------~~~;;;--------~~;-~;±--------~~,~;~ I ----~2,93-~-~~~~~:f'~~~ ::=~!::====-=-=~=-~=-==J~~=t~~: =-~~~:;~t~~=~~~ 41 Club rentals : 7,422 6,438 6,473 i 6,197; 6,800 I: .. ·.,::5,951 --- ------------------------------------------------r ----------------,-----------------------------1----------------l------------::-~~~'~·~t~,;~.~~---· :: --_:I:~~e~~~:!~!:~~~~~I-~~~~S~~~~~~~lE~~-j----l~~~~T----~~~!~ ____ ~;,!~-I----l;;~~ 1---1!;,~~~ Ij=-~~~~! 44 Subtotal ----------------------------r------~~;,;~T-------664~~;r-----~~~~;1-------;~2,~~-------,;;,~~~-.. r1r;-;~~~;-· 47 TO~~-~-;~~~~;;-----·-----------------------r---;~~;,;o~T-----;,~~,78; ----~,-;~~~;61---~~~-;:_;~---;,301,~~-?,7:;gr;;~; :: ~~~~:~~;;~:====:::: ... ~=-.~~;!:.~=--;4~~ =;2!F($~~:J ... .::::~r~1! ---------------------------------------1------------,-.'. -------------------------------~,----------ri----~--.'-----_-. ;,';. " 51 GOLF ROUNDS 76,000 i 76,241 74,630 72,1701 76,OOON,'~.72,()00