Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017-10-23 City Council Agenda Packet
City Council 1 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. Monday, October 23, 2017 Special Meeting Council Chambers 5:00 PM Council Member Fine will be participating from: Club Quarters Hotel Main Lobby, 1628 Chestnut St, Philadelphia, PA 19103 Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 11 days preceding the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Closed Session 5:00-6:00 PM Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY Subject: Written Liability Claim Against the City of Palo Alto By Sarah Syed (Claim No. C16-0081) Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 6:00-6:10 PM Oral Communications 6:10-6:25 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. 2 October 23, 2017 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. Consent Calendar 6:25-6:30 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 2.Adoption of a Resolution Donating a Surplus Fire Engine to our Sister City, Oaxaca, Mexico and Accepting $5,000 From Neighbors Abroad as the Purchase Price of the Fire Engine 3.Approval of a Contract Number C18168777 With Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. (NCE) in the Amount of $191,300 for the Sidewalk Assessment Study to Determine Next Steps Following the Completion of the Sidewalk District Cycle for Capital Improvements Program Project PO-89003 4.SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Of Palo Alto to Update the Fiscal Year 2018 Municipal Fee Schedule to Adjust Development Services Department Fees (FIRST READING: October 2, 2017 PASSED: 7-1 Tanaka no, Scharff Absent) Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 6:30-7:45 PM 5.PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 3001 El Camino Real [16PLN- 00097 and 16PLN-00220]. Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Site and Design Review to Allow for Construction of a Four-story Mixed-use Development With 19,800 Square Feet of Retail and 30 Residential Units in the CS Zone as Well as a Three-story Multi- family Residential Building With 20 Units in the RM-30 Zone. The Project Also Includes a Request for Approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map for a Lot Merger to Allow for the Proposed Development, a Design Enhancement Exception, and a Parking Adjustment for Shared Parking. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was Circulated for Public Review on July 3, 2017 and the Circulation Period Ended on August 2, 2017. A Final MND is Available for Review. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial), RM-30 (Multi- family Residential), and R-1 (Single-family Residential) 7:45-10:30 PM 6.Discussion and Consideration of the Planning & Transportation Commission's Recommendations Regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update and Adoption of Resolutions Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Comprehensive Plan Update; Adopting Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Adopting the Updated Comprehensive Plan Dated June 30, 2017 With Desired Corrections and Amendments, Which Comprehensively Comp Plan Final EIR MEMO MEMO 3 October 23, 2017 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. Updates and Supersedes the City's 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan (Two Public Hearings Will Be Held: October 23, 2017 and November 13, 2017. On October 23, 2017, the City Council may Consider Action on the Planning & Transportation Commission’s Recommendations, Providing Direction to Staff, and Certification of the Final EIR. Other Actions Will be Deferred Until the Hearing on November 13, 2017.) Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) 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. 4 October 23, 2017 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. Additional Information Council and Standing Committee Meetings Sp. Council Meeting-Board and Commission Interviews October 24, 2017 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report Quarterly Report to City Council on Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units Public Letters to Council Set 1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 8470) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/23/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Donation of a Surplus Fire Engine to Oaxaca, Mexico Title: Adoption of a Resolution Donating a Surplus Fire Engine to our Sister City, Oaxaca, Mexico and Accepting $5,000 From Neighbors Abroad as the Purchase Price of the Fire Truck From: City Manager Lead Department: Fire Recommended Motion Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution accepting $5,000 from Neighbors Abroad as the purchase price for a surplus fire engine that will be transferred to the Sister City of Oaxaca, Mexico. Background Neighbors Abroad, a volunteer community organization operating under the auspices of the City of Palo Alto, directs the activities of Palo Alto’s officially recognized Sister Cities Program. Its purpose is to promote international and intercultural understanding. Neighbors Abroad was founded on January 18, 1963 after the Palo Alto City Council initiated a Sister City organization in concert with President Eisenhower’s Town Affiliation Program. Neighbors Abroad has received recognition from the United Nations and was given the Tall Tree Award from the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce for Outstanding Community Organization. It has also received awards from Sister Cities International for several of its programs, including the 25th Anniversary Celebration, the Observatory and Planetarium in Oaxaca, a Reforestation Program in Oaxaca, and the Vocational Resource Center in Palo Alto. Oaxaca became a sister city in 1964. Summer exchanges by groups of high school students have been a longtime tradition, along with periodic visits by groups of Palo Altans organized by Neighbors Abroad. On several occasions, the City of Palo Alto has contributed surplus fire equipment to Oaxaca and provided training for its firefighters. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Discussion The fire engine that is recommended to be donated to Oaxaca, Mexico is a 1991 Pierce fire engine. This unit has 130,212 miles and is no longer of any use to the Palo Alto Fire Department due to its age and increased maintenance costs. The Fire Department recently purchased a new Pierce fire engine to add to the fleet of fire apparatus replacing the 1991 Pierce fire engine described above. This most recent fire engine purchase completed the Department’s goal of having identical engines for the Palo Alto Fire Department to serve the community of Palo Alto. Staff estimates the value of the 1991 Pierce fire engine at approximately $35,000. Neighbors Abroad offered $5,000 towards the purchase price and requests that Council waive the remaining $30,000 of the salvage value as part of the donation to the Sister City of Oaxaca. Resource Impact The 1991 fire engine has a salvage value of $35,000. Neighbors Abroad of Palo Alto has extended an offer of $5,000 for the purchase of the 1991 Pierce fire engine. Neighbors Abroad requests that the City make an in-kind donation contribution of the remaining salvage value of $30,000. Policy Implications This donation is consistent with the existing City policies and furthers international and intercultural understanding. Attachments: Original Title for Unit #6116 (1991 Pierce) Resolution Attachments: Attachment A: 6116 orig Title Attachment B: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. ____ RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO DONATING SURPLUS FIRE EQUIPMENT TO OAXACA, MEXICO WHEREAS, the Council did in 1964, establish a sister city affiliation with Oaxaca, Mexico; and WHEREAS, 2017 marks the 53nd anniversary of the sister city relationship between City of Palo Alto and Oaxaca, Mexico; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to continue to serve the community interests of international and intercultural understanding; and WHEREAS, the Fire Department has a surplus fire engine; and WHEREAS, Neighbors Abroad is a volunteer organization that maintains and carries out the activities of the City of Palo Alto’s officially recognized Sister City Program; and WHEREAS, Neighbors Abroad has collaborated with the Fire Department to donate this surplus fire engine to Oaxaca, Mexico; and WHEREAS, the surplus fire engine would serve the Fire Department of Oaxaca, Mexico; and WHEREAS, the Palo Alto Fire Department has communicated with the Fire Chief of Oaxaca and has confirmed the desire to accept the surplus fire engine; and WHEREAS, Neighbors Abroad has agreed to coordinate the transfer of said surplus fire engine; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 37110 authorizes a city to spend money for promotion of sister city and town affiliation programs. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. To authorize the City Manager to cause the donation and transfer of the surplus fire engine to the City of Palo Alto’s Sister City of Oaxaca, Mexico. SECTION 2. To authorize the Fire Chief of Palo Alto to coordinate with the Fire Chief of Oaxaca, Mexico, and the Palo Alto Neighbors Abroad for the delivery of the surplus fire engine. SECTION 3. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES; NOES; ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: ___________________________________ ____________________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________ City Manager ___________________________________ ____________________________________ Chief Asst. City Attorney Fire Chief City of Palo Alto (ID # 8339) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/23/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Sidewalk Assessment Study Title: Approval of a Contract With Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. (NCE) in the Amount of $191,300 for the Sidewalk Assessment Study to Determine Next Steps Following the Completion of the Sidewalk District Cycle for Capital Improvements Program Project PO-89003 From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation 1. Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Contract No. C18168777 (Attachment A) with Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. (NCE) in an amount not-to-exceed $191,300 for the Sidewalk Assessment Study including $173,800 for basic services and $17,500 for additional services for the Sidewalk Assessment Study, Capital Improvement Program project PO-89003. Background The City has over 250 miles of existing sidewalk. In 1985 a sidewalk survey was conducted by Public Works staff to determine the existing sidewalk conditions and amount of damaged sidewalk requiring repair. Following the 1985 survey, the City was divided into 23 sidewalk districts: Districts 11 to 17 and Districts 21 to 36 (Attachment B). The 23 sidewalk districts were ranked (from high to low) based on the amount of damaged sidewalk. The City’s annual sidewalk repair program started in 1986. The program objectives were to alleviate the existing sidewalk repair backlog, eliminate pedestrian hazards, and enhance pedestrian safety; improving sidewalk conditions reducing potential for sidewalk-related injuries. The City’s annual City of Palo Alto Page 2 sidewalk repair program consisted of two programs: sidewalk repair capital contract program and sidewalk repair in-house program. The program was contracted out each year to the lowest responsible bidder and scope of work restricted to the availability of annual funding that varied from $500,000 to $2,000,000 with approximately $600,000 used to fund the in-house program. Sidewalk Repair Capital Contract Program The annual sidewalk repair Capital Contract Program for the 23 sidewalk districts, administered by Public Works Department’s Engineering Services Division, was scheduled using the district ranking assigned in the 1985 survey. The program concentrated on a district-by-district repair. The program’s scope of work included the removal and replacement of damaged sidewalk in accordance with the City’s approved criteria for sidewalk replacement, curb and gutter if integral to the sidewalk to be repaired, installation of curb ramps on street corners to comply with American with Disabilities Act (ADA), and sidewalk grinding and other associated work. The program completed all 23 sidewalk districts in 2016, a 30 year (1986 to 2016) sidewalk repair district cycle. The 23 sidewalk districts and fiscal year of completion are shown in Attachment B. Sidewalk Repair In-House Program The sidewalk repair in-house program, administered by Public Works Department’s Public Services Division, handled sidewalk repair requests from the public and City employees independent of the current sidewalk repair Capital Contract Program districts. The program concentrated on damaged sidewalk (hot spots) and severely broken sidewalk. The sidewalks were typically repaired with a temporary asphalt patch until a full repair can be made. Discussion With the recent completion of the 30-year cycle, staff wants to evaluate the overall program and implement potential improvements before beginning a new cycle. The planned study has been described in the Sidewalk Repairs Capital Improvement Program budget page and in previous Council reports (Staff Report ID #6267). City of Palo Alto Page 3 A Request for Proposals (RFP) for the project was sent to prospective consultants and posted on the City’s website on June 15, 2017. On July 11, 2017 staff received two proposals from California Tree and Landscape Consulting, Inc. and NCE. Summary of Solicitation Process Proposal Description/Number Sidewalk Assessment Study/ RFP #168777 Proposed Length of Project 90 calendar days Number of Consultants Contacted 17 Number of Builders Exchanges 3 Number of websites 1 (PlanetBids) Total Days to Respond to Proposal 26 Number of Proposals Received 2 Company Name Address California Tree & Landscape Auburn, CA NCE Richmond, CA Proposal Basic Services Fee Range: $170,280 to $172,200 Non-respondents who City staff contacted after the close of the RFP indicated they did not submit proposals due to their current workload; the scope of work’s focus on management rather than detailed engineering work; and their inability to provide the services under the given budget. Staff reviewed and evaluated the two proposals and selected NCE because of the proposal quality, performance and effectiveness of the solutions, and the proposer’s experience and staff to be assigned to the project and prior record of performance with the city and other cities. NCE has worked with multiple California cities on similar sidewalk assessment studies. NCE will inspect 20 percent of each of the 23 sidewalk districts to identify the types and locations of sidewalk distresses. NCE will use this information in combination with historical information from the sidewalk repair capital contract program to model the needed repairs for each district in relation to the elapsed time since the last capital contract, and to determine estimated costs for several different potential cycle lengths (i.e. 30 years, 25 years, 20 years). NCE will also prioritize repair locations, propose alternate construction materials, methods and costs; and recommend methods to minimize future sidewalk lifts and tree root City of Palo Alto Page 4 damage. NCE will survey all existing curb ramps to identify those that are not compliant with ADA. NCE will have a certified arborist to perform field reviews in areas where there are tree root issues. Once the survey is complete, staff will issue a construction contract to repair identified locations of sidewalk distress. Non-compliant curb ramps will be built into the new district cycle work. Resource Impact Funding for this project is available in Capital Improvement Program project PO- 89003 Sidewalk Repairs. Policy Implications This contract is in conformance with City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan and does not represent any changes to existing City policies. Environmental Review Preparation of reports is not a project for the purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The work contemplated under the proposed study would be exempt under Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines. Attachments: Attachment A: Nichols Consulting Engineers C18168777 Attachment B: Sidewalk District Map Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C18168777 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, CHTD. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 23rd day of October, 2017, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Chtd., a Nevada Corporation, located at 501 Canal Blvd., Suite 1, Pt. Richmond, CA 94804 and authorized to do business in California ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to implement the Sidewalk Assessment Study (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to assess the sidewalk and curb ramps in connection with the Project (“Services”). B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described at Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from its full execution and expires upon satisfactory completion of the Services in accordance with the Schedule, but in no event later than June 30, 2018 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and DocuSign Envelope ID: DF3C5C67-D532-47F3-BCAC-B974D6400204 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 2 made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”), and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred Seventy Three Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($173,800). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Basic Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed One Hundred Ninety One Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($191,300). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out at Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit “A”. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C-1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall email all invoices to the City’s project manager at pweinvoices@CityofPaloAlto.org. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or DocuSign Envelope ID: DF3C5C67-D532-47F3-BCAC-B974D6400204 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 3 similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT is solely responsible for costs, including, but not limited to, increases in the cost of Services, arising from or caused by CONSULTANT’s errors and omissions, including, but not limited to, the costs of corrections such errors and omissions, any change order markup costs, or costs arising from delay caused by the errors and omissions or unreasonable delay in correcting the errors and omissions. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Option A: No Subcontractor: CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee. Option B: Subcontracts Authorized: Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: HortScience, Inc. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning DocuSign Envelope ID: DF3C5C67-D532-47F3-BCAC-B974D6400204 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 4 compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Margot Yapp as the principal in-charge to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and Hal Williams as the project manager to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. CITY’s project manager is Holly Boyd, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, email: holly.boyd@cityofpaloalto.org, Telephone: 650-329-2612. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. [Option A applies to the following design professionals pursuant to Civil Code Section 2782.8: architects; landscape architects; registered professional engineers and licensed professional land surveyors.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts DocuSign Envelope ID: DF3C5C67-D532-47F3-BCAC-B974D6400204 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 5 fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) to the extent the Claims arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement. [Option B applies to any consultant who does not qualify as a design professional as defined in Civil Code Section 2782.8.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is DocuSign Envelope ID: DF3C5C67-D532-47F3-BCAC-B974D6400204 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 6 primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Chief Procurement Officer during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: DF3C5C67-D532-47F3-BCAC-B974D6400204 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 7 SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the CITY’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste DocuSign Envelope ID: DF3C5C67-D532-47F3-BCAC-B974D6400204 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 8 Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, CONSULTANT shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: (a) All printed materials provided by CCONSULTANT to CITY generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. (b) Goods purchased by CONSULTANT on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in accordance with CITY’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Division’s office. (c) Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT, at no additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONSULTANT shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. COMPLIANCE WITH PALO ALTO MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE. CONSULTANT shall comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage), as it may be amended from time to time. In particular, for any employee otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who performs at least two (2) hours of work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of the City, CONSULTANT shall pay such employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.030 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. In addition, CONSULTANT shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.060. SECTION 25. NON-APPROPRIATION 25.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 26. PREVAILING WAGES AND DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS 26.1 This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. CONSULTANT is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project in accordance with SB 7 if the contract is not a public works contract, if the contract does not include a public works construction project of more than $25,000, or the contract does not include a public works alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance (collectively, DocuSign Envelope ID: DF3C5C67-D532-47F3-BCAC-B974D6400204 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 9 ‘improvement’) project of more than $15,000. OR 26.1 CONSULTANT is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Copies of these rates may be obtained at the Purchasing Division’s office of the City of Palo Alto. CONSULTANT shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONSULTANT shall comply with the provisions of all sections, including, but not limited to, Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1782, 1810, and 1813, of the Labor Code pertaining to prevailing wages. 26.2 CONSULTANT shall comply with the requirements of Exhibit “E” for any contract for public works construction, alteration, demolition, repair or maintenance. SECTION 27. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 27.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 27.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 27.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 27.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 27.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 27.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. DocuSign Envelope ID: DF3C5C67-D532-47F3-BCAC-B974D6400204 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 10 27.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 27.8 In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the exhibits hereto or CONSULTANT’s proposal (if any), the Agreement shall control. In the case of any conflict between the exhibits hereto and CONSULTANT’s proposal, the exhibits shall control. 27.9 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, CITY shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 27.10 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 27.11 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. 27.12 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: DF3C5C67-D532-47F3-BCAC-B974D6400204 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 11 CONTRACT No. C18168777 SIGNATURE PAGE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager (Contract over $85k) APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney or designee (Contract over $25k) NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Chtd. (NCE) Officer 1 By: Name: Title: Officer 2 (Required for Corp. or LLC) By: Name: Title: Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF SERVICES EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “C-1”: HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS DocuSign Envelope ID: DF3C5C67-D532-47F3-BCAC-B974D6400204 Margot Yapp Vice President Debbie Smith Chief Financial Officer Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 12 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES CONSULTANT will provide a Sidewalk Assessment Study per task listed below: Task 1 – Kick-Off and Progress Meetings a. CONSULTANT will meet with CITY staff involved with the sidewalk repair programs (both in-house and contract) to kick-off the project by reviewing the project approach and goals. In addition, administrative matters that may need to be addressed will be included. At a minimum, items to be discussed will include the following: - Scope of work, project schedule, budget, and invoicing requirements - Points of contacts - Relevant information on sidewalk repairs, such as: Existing criteria for identifying distresses Repair alternatives Historical records of repairs Standard plans and specifications Field work, including: Scheduling and access requirements Public safety concerns, requirements, and procedures ADA requirements and checklists Criteria for data collection Hardware and accuracy requirements - Other issues as appropriate b. A maximum of three additional progress meetings will be scheduled with City staff at appropriate milestones to review the work performed and to address questions or issues that arise as the work progresses. Typically, these meetings will cover issues, such as: - Questions on review of documents and materials reviewed - Final acceptance of criteria to be used for identifying repairs - Anomalies that do not match criteria - Repair recommendations - Progress updates c. In addition, CONSULTANT will provide monthly progress reports to the City indicating the status of the data collection and other tasks. d. Deliverables. CONSULTANT shall prepare: - Agenda for meetings - Technical memoranda summarizing meetings. Task 2A – Data Collection – Sidewalks CONSULTANT will review CITY’s historical records of sidewalk repairs from the CITY’s in-house DocuSign Envelope ID: DF3C5C67-D532-47F3-BCAC-B974D6400204 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 13 program to identify both the location of repairs and the type and quantity of repairs, as well as cost information. This information is not all geographically mapped, but is available electronically. For locations that are known, the Consultant will map locations and determine if trends exist. If there is a trend, then Consultant will analyze in Task 3 to see if relationship exists between underlying contributory factors, such as age of sidewalks, materials, type and date of repairs. CONSULTANT will perform sidewalk condition surveys on 20% of the approximately 275 miles of sidewalks within the CITY’s sidewalk network. The 20% will be distributed across all districts. Prior to conducting the surveys, CONSULTANT and CITY will discuss and finalize the survey criteria. They may include the following elements: - Vertical displacements or slab uplifts - Cracking - Holes - Other damage around utility poles - Brick or concrete improvements that are not level with sidewalk - Obstacles - Severities – High Priority, Medium Priority, and Low Priority - Sensitive sidewalk locations, e.g., schools, senior housing, public buildings, transit routes/stops, commercial areas, and high-use pedestrian areas CONSULTANT will develop a survey list for sidewalk distress identifying the principal distresses, e.g., cracking, faulting, vaulting, and holes. Typically, CONSULTANT recommends narrowing the focus of the assessment to damage that would pose a tripping hazard and filter out “cosmetic” damage that poses no threat to public safety. CONSULTANT will work with CITY staff to refine and develop the criteria. The following data elements will be collected: - Location of sidewalk by street name - Sidewalk distress and severity level - Repair Quantities Task 2B – Field Data Collection – Curb Ramps CONSULTANT will include a survey of the curb ramps throughout the entire sidewalk network. CONSULTANT will on identifying the locations of ramps that may not be in compliance with the ADA and the necessary costs to bring them to compliance. Curb ramps on private driveways and mid-block (where no intersection exists) are not included in the scope of work. The following data elements will be included in this task: - Location of curb ramp (X,Y coordinates, Northing and Easting) - Compliance with ADA Task 3 – Analysis (Priority Ranking and Costs) A. Determine Relationships/Trends In this task, CONSULTANT will review the data collected from Task 2A to determine the locations of sidewalk distresses. CONSULTANT will create geodatabase and maps using DocuSign Envelope ID: DF3C5C67-D532-47F3-BCAC-B974D6400204 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 14 geographical locations from historical logs and the following information: - Age of sidewalk - Tree species nearby - Past sidewalk repairs - Material of sidewalk (e.g., asphalt, concrete) - Sidewalk district boundaries - Others, such as underlying soils (expansive clays), recent utility work, e.g., replacement of laterals, undergrounding. CONSULTANT will then determine if trends are present, particularly as they relate to past repairs. B. Prioritization Criteria Most prioritization criteria used in cities are based on risk management practices, i.e., the highest priority is on areas where the risks of trip hazards are highest. Examples include: - Connectivity to key facilities, such as: Commercial/retail centers with high pedestrian traffic, e.g., downtown Schools or other educational institutions Community or senior centers Hospitals or other medical facilities where wheelchairs may be present - Demographics and volume of pedestrian traffic - Tree species - Premature failures in sidewalk materials (e.g., alkali-silica reactivity) - Premature failures in past repair practices - Coordination with street paving program Typical Pedestrian Master Plans will include the factors above. CONSULTANT will discuss with City staff the above factors and additional factors that are not included. CONSULTANT will then develop a weighting system (can be low/moderate/high, 1-10 scale, or other) so that the repairs can be prioritized. C. Cost Analysis/Replacement Cycle CONSULTANT will then analyze the data collected above and determine appropriate repair strategies and to determine funding required for various replacement cycles including 5, 10, 20, 25 and 30-year cycles. Task 4 – Program Options/Findings This task will be performed concurrently with Task 3 as they are inter-related. Under this task, CONSULTANT will identify the types of sidewalk distresses and the types of repairs required for each one. Alternate Construction Materials and Methods Grinding, patching, and removal/replacement of the slabs are the most common repair techniques employed for sidewalks. However, there are additional methods and materials that may be considered (most accommodate tree root issues), including: DocuSign Envelope ID: DF3C5C67-D532-47F3-BCAC-B974D6400204 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 15 Steel Plate Sidewalk Rubber Sidewalks Mitigate Tree Root Damage Permeable Sidewalks Bridging CONSULTANT will review the City’s existing studies/reports and make recommendations on additional construction materials and methods as appropriate. CONSULTANT will also review standard plans and specifications, revise if necessary, or prepare additional specifications as needed. The examples described above are possible options for discussion. Task 5 – Report At the completion of Tasks 1 to 4, CONSULTANT will prepare a draft report for the City’s review that will contain the following: - Description of methodology for data collection - Description of survey criteria used - Prioritization criteria - Summaries of existing condition of sampled sidewalks and curb ramps Condition assessment of sidewalks and curb ramps Prioritized list of locations and repairs - Cost estimate to perform repairs Trends for future repairs - Recommendations for: Repair strategies Replacement cycles Recommended annual budget - Detailed drawings (AutoCAD and pdf) for: Sidewalk repair guidelines and alternate construction methods Technical specifications for sidewalk repair Finally, a meeting with CONSULTANT and CITY will be scheduled to review the draft report and discuss questions. Upon receipt of the CITY’s comments, CONSULTANT will prepare a final report: five (5) hard copies, as well as an electronic copy. Deliverables: Draft report (one electronic copy) Final report (5 hard copies and one electronic copy) Geodatabase with sidewalk distresses containing the attributes and data collected Geodatabase with curb ramps containing the attributes and data collected DocuSign Envelope ID: DF3C5C67-D532-47F3-BCAC-B974D6400204 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 16 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. Milestones Completion No. of Weeks From NTP 1. Complete Data Collection( Sidewalks) 4 weeks 2. Complete Data Collection (Ramps) 7 weeks 3. Submit Draft Report 12 weeks 4. Submit Final Report 18 weeks DocuSign Envelope ID: DF3C5C67-D532-47F3-BCAC-B974D6400204 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 17 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, and the total compensation for Additional Services do not exceed the amounts set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1 $12,900 (Meetings) Task 2 $88,800 (Data Collection) Task 3 $18,100 (Analysis) Task 4 $29,300 (Program Options/Findings) Task 5 $24,700 (Report) Sub-total Basic Services $173,800 Reimbursable Expenses $0 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $173,800 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $17,500 Maximum Total Compensation $191,300 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES DocuSign Envelope ID: DF3C5C67-D532-47F3-BCAC-B974D6400204 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 18 The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: N/A A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees. B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost. There are no reimbursable expenses. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement Work required because the following conditions are not satisfied or are exceeded shall be considered as additional services: DocuSign Envelope ID: DF3C5C67-D532-47F3-BCAC-B974D6400204 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 19 EXHIBIT “C-1” HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Principal $245 per hour Associate $195 per hour Senior $170 per hour Project $140 per hour Staff $125 per hour TECHNICAL SERVICES Senior Construction Manager $130 per hour Senior Designer $135 per hour Senior Technician/Construction Inspector $120 per hour CAD Technician $110 per hour Senior Field Scientist $115 per hour Field Scientist $95 per hour Project Administrator $95 per hour Field/Engineering Technician $95 per hour Technical Word Processing $80 per hour Clerical $80 per hour DocuSign Envelope ID: DF3C5C67-D532-47F3-BCAC-B974D6400204 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 20 EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE AT THE FOLLOWING URL: https://www.planetbids.com/portal/portal.cfm?CompanyID=25569. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. DocuSign Envelope ID: DF3C5C67-D532-47F3-BCAC-B974D6400204 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 21 B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON- PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. VENDORS ARE REQUIRED TO FILE THEIR EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE AND ANY OTHER RELATED NOTICES WITH THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AT THE FOLLOWING URL: HTTPS://WWW.PLANETBIDS.COM/PORTAL/PORTAL.CFM?COMPANYID=25569 OR HTTP://WWW.CITYOFPALOALTO.ORG/GOV/DEPTS/ASD/PLANET_BIDS_HOW_TO.ASP DocuSign Envelope ID: DF3C5C67-D532-47F3-BCAC-B974D6400204 Attachment B CITY OF PALO ALTO TO: FROM: AGENDA DATE: CITY OF PALO ALTO MEMORANDUM HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS 10/23/2017 ID#: 8339 SUBJECT: Approve Agreement for Sidewalk Assessment Study 3 The City conducts sidewalk repairs based on complaints (in-house crews) and through the CIP program (annual contracts). Both of these programs utilize standards that are intended to ensure that sidewalks are safe for public use. Temporary repairs are only made through the complaint-based program, and there is no inventory of temporary repairs awaiting a full replacement. Under the current program, sidewalks with temporary repairs are replaced when the CIP program does work in the sidewalk district. The sidewalk assessment includes evaluation of the City's standards for sidewalk repairs. C) c: • D6cf? ~ J. Michael Sartor Director of Public Works /!"-James Keene City Manager CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK October 23, 2017 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Of Palo Alto to Update the Fiscal Year 2018 Municipal Fee Schedule to Adjust Development Services Department Fees(FIRST READING: October 2, 2017 PASSED: 7-1 Tanaka no, Scharff Absent) This ordinance was first heard by the City Council on October 2, 2017 and was passed 7-1 with Council Member Tanaka voting no, and Mayor Scharff absent. It is now before the City Council for the second reading. During the discussion there were questions regarding several of the fees, these will be re-examined during the Fiscal Year 2019 budget cycle. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Ordinance (PDF) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 Not Yet Approved 1 Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Update the Fiscal Year 2018 Municipal Fee Schedule to Adjust Development Services Department Fees The City Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and declarations. A. In 2016, the Development Services Department completed Phase I of a fee study to update certain non‐valuation‐based fees for services, reserving an update of valuation‐based fees for Phase II of the fee study. B. In 2017, the Development Services Department completed Phase II of the fee study, which recommended adjustments to the Department’s valuation‐based fees, the adoption of an operating reserve, and associated changes. C. On September 19, 2017, the Finance Committee reviewed the fee study and recommended adoption of an ordinance updating Development Services Department fees in accordance with the study’s recommendations, adjusted by the annual salary and benefits adjustment of 5.5 percent. SECTION 2. The Council of the City of Palo Alto adopts the Development Services Department Reserve Fund Policy, as set forth in Exhibit “1” and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. The Council of the City of Palo Alto adopts the changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule as set forth in Exhibit "2" and incorporated herein by reference. When effective, such fees shall supersede any prior inconsistent fees charged by the Development Services Department. SECTION 4. The amount of the new or increased fees and charges is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, and the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payer bears a fair and reasonable relationship to the payer's burden on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity. SECTION 5. Fees in the Municipal Fee Schedule are for government services provided directly to the payor that are not provided to those not charged. The amount of this fee does not exceed the reasonable costs to the City of providing the services. Consequently, pursuant to Art. XIII C, Section l(e)(2), such fees are not a tax. SECTION 6. Effective Date. The fee increases proposed for FY 2017 described in Exhibit A shall become effective no sooner than sixty (60) days from the date of adoption of this ordinance. Attachment A 2 SECTION 7. CEQA. The adoption of user fees is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15273.) INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Deputy City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Development Services ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services Attachment A Page 1 of 2 Development Services Department Reserve Fund Policy Section 1. Purpose The purpose of the Development Services Department Reserve Fund (DSDRF) is to build and maintain an adequate level of unrestricted funds available to cover any unforeseen shortfalls that arise outside of the regular budget planning process, as well as one‐time, nonrecurring expenses that will build long‐term capacity The fund may not be used to create or hire new full time benefited positions. The department intends for the operating reserve to be used and replenished within a reasonable period of time. This policy will be implemented in conjunction with the other financial policies of the City and is intended to support the goals and strategies contained in those related policies and in strategic and operational plans. Section 2. Definitions and Goals The DSDRF is a designated fund set aside by action of the City Council. The target of the DSDRF is equal to three (3) months of average recurring operating costs; with a range of 23 (minimum) to 27 (maximum) percent with a target of 25 percent of average recurring operating cost. The DSDRF is dynamic and will be reviewed and adjusted in response to internal and external changes. In addition to calculating the actual reserve at the fiscal year‐end, the reserve fund minimum, target and maximum can be adjusted by the Council as necessary each year during the annual budget development process. These reserves will be reported to the Finance Committee and City Council. Section 3. Funding of Reserves The DSDRF will be funded by a five (5) percent increase to all Development Services Department fees as listed in the City’s Municipal Fee Schedule beginning in Fiscal Year 2018, upon City Council approval, through Fiscal Year 2022. The City Council may, from time to time, direct that a specific source of revenue be set aside for the DSDRF. Section 4. Accounting for Reserves The DSDRF will be recorded in the City’s accounting system and financial statements titled as the Development Services Department Reserve Fund. The DSDRF will be maintained in accordance with the City’s investment policy. Section 5. Authority to Use the DSDRF Authority to use the DSDRF will remain with the City Council. The City Manager will submit a request to use the DSDRF to the City Council. The Director of Development Services Department will prepare the report identifying the need for access to the DSDRF and confirm that the use is consistent with the purpose of the reserves as described in this policy. Determination of need requires analysis of the sufficiency of the current level of reserve funds, the availability of any other sources of funds before using reserves, and evaluation of the time period for which the funds will be required and replenished. Exhibit 1Attachment A Page 2 of 2 Section 6. Fee or Rate Stabilization DSDRF may be added to the Development Services Department revenue projections by action of the City Council and held to manage the trajectory of future year rate increases. Section 7. Reappropriation of DSDRF At the end of each fiscal year the DSDRF will be reappropriated to the following fiscal year in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.28.090. Section 8. Relationship to Other Policies The City Manager maintains City Council approved policies, which may contain provisions that affect the creation, sufficiency, and management of the DSDRF. It will be the responsibility of the City Manager and Director of Administrative Services Officer to notify the Director of Development Services if changes to city‐wide policies impact the DSDRF. These policies may be City Council approved policies such as the Investment Policy or administrative policies within the confines of the Municipal Code. Section 9. Reporting, Monitoring and Review of Policy The Director of Development Services is responsible for ensuring that the DSDRF is maintained and used only as described in this policy. Upon approval of the use of DSDRF, the Director of Development Services and the Director of Administrative Services will maintain records of the use of funds and plan for replenishment. Staff will provide reports to the City Council within the annual budget process, or sooner if warranted by internal or external events. Exhibit 1Attachment A Municipal Fee Schedule Proposed Fee Business Registry Fee $50.00 Technology Surcharge Note: This surcharge will be added to all fees in Development Services. 1.8% per fee A. $1.00 ‐ $1,000.00 Delete B. $1,000.01 ‐ $2,000.00 Delete C. $2,000.01 ‐ $25,000.00 Delete D. $25,000.01 ‐ $50,000.00 Delete E. $50,000.01 ‐ $100,000.00 Delete F. $100,000.01 ‐ $500,000.00 Delete G. $500,000.01 ‐ $1,000,000.00 Delete H. $1,000,000.01 and Up Delete Building Permit Fee Restructured to be 1.44% of Construction Valuation based on the ICC Table I. Building Demolition Permit $498.00 J. Commercial Interior Non‐Structural Demolition Permit $179.00 Commercial and Multi‐Family Projects greater than or equal to $25,000.00 in Valuation $305.00 See Above Current Fee $412.00 per permit $1,895.94 for the first $100,000.00 plus $10.63 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000.00 $6147.94 for the first $500,000.00 plus $9.03 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000.00 $10,662.94 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $7.12 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof If valuation exceeds $5,000,000.00, an alternative fee arrangement may be established by the Chief Building Official to achieve full cost recovery. $431.00 (does not include C&D fees) per permit $196.00 (does not include C&D fees) per permit Construction & Demolition Building Permit Fees $73.00 Base Fee $73.00 for the first $1,000.00 plus $5.80 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00 $131.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus $26.53 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00 $741.19 for the first $25,000.00 plus $19.69 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00 $1,233.44 for the first $50,000.00 plus $13.25 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Business Registry $50.00 per business Miscellaneous 1.8% of each transaction Building Exhibit 2Attachment A Municipal Fee Schedule Single Family and Two Family Projects greater than $25,000.00 and less than $75,000.00 in Valuations1 $163.00 Single Family and Two Family Projects greater than $75,000.00 in Valuation1 $210.00 A. Base Fee $115.00 B. New or Remodeled Square Footage Delete Air Conditioners $70.00 Busway, Power Duct, or Floor Duct Per Foot $58.00 Conditional Utility Agreement $236.00 Each Additional Meter $153.00 Fixtures, Switches, and Outlets $58.00 Lighting, Power and/or Control Panel Board, Switchboard Cabinet or Panel $70.00 Motor $58.00 Motor Generator $441.00 Range, Electric Clothes Dryer, or Water Heater $58.00 Service Conductor/Switch ‐ Greater than 800 amp $209.00 Service Conductor/Switch ‐ Less than 200 amp Delete Service Conductor/Switch ‐ Less than 800 amp $367.00 Special Circuit (Not Listed Herein)$58.00 Temporary Power Pole $58.00 Temporary Wiring for Construction $58.00 Commercial (Level 1 and 2)$357.00 plus $67.00 for each additional station Commercial (Level 3 and 4)$426.00 plus $83 for each additional station Residential (Level 1 and 2)$154.00 Residential (Level 3)$235.00 Commercial System (less than 10 kW)$557.00 Commercial System (10kW ‐ 49kW)$557.00 Commercial System (greater than 49kW)$748.00 Residential Systems (greater than 10kW)$357.00 $976.00 each $340.00 each $518.00 plus $102.00 for each additional station each $188.00 per station $264.00 per station Electrical Permits ‐ Photovoltaic Systems $600.00 each $901.00 each $181.00 each $75.00 each $75.00 each $75.00 each Electrical Permits ‐ Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations $427.00 plus $83.00 for each additional station $75.00 each $75.00 each $75.00 each $75.00 each $272.00 each $136.00 each $0.02 per square foot per square foot $91.00 per unit $75.00 each $265.00 each $75.00 each $75.00 each DEVELOPMENT SERVICES $172.00 per permit $252.00 per permit Electrical Permits $92.00 per permit Exhibit 2Attachment A Municipal Fee Schedule Residential Systems (less than 10kW)$165.00 Address Change $505.00 single; $244.00 each additional All Other Publications $16.00 Construction/Maintenance Vehicles $80.00 Electric Service and Safety Inspection $197.00 Extension of Building Permit or Building Permit Application $79.00 Inspections and Investigations ‐ Outside Normal Business Hours Note: Inspections and investigations outside normal business hours (2‐ hour minimum). $369.00 per 1.5x OT Hour; $492.00 per 2.0x OT hour Inspections and Investigations ‐ Unclassified Note: Inspections and investigations for which no fee is specifically indicated (2‐hour minimum). $246.00 Reactivation of Expired Building Permit ‐ All Others $222.00 Reactivation of Expired Building Permit ‐ Final Inspection Only $256.00 Reactivation of Expired Building Permit Application $156.00 Real Property Research Fee (1‐hour minimum)$229.00 Records Retention $6.00 per plan sheet Reinspection Fee ‐ Multi‐Family Residential and Non‐ Residential $137.00 Reinspection Fee ‐ Single Family Residential $76.00 each secondary inspection type; $141.00 each primary inspection type per Request for Release of Building Plans $77.00 Residential Inspection Guidelines Note: Available free online No Change Alterations and additions for single and multifamily > 1,000 sq ft $728.00 Alterations and additions for single family and multifamily < 1,000 sq ft and increases conditioned space $441.00 If the project is over $100,000 Energy Star is required after 12 months of occupancy $144.00$140.00 per review $247.00 each secondary inspection type; $315.00 each primary inspection type per inspection $85.00 each $37.00 each Green Building $708.00 per review $429.00 per review 50% of original Building Permit Fee not to exceed the full cost to perform remaining inspections as determined by the Chief Building Official $283.00 or 50% of original Building Permit Fee, whichever is less $211.00 per permit plus Plan Check Fees as applicable per permit $271.00 per hour $6.00 per plan sheet $315.00 each $18.00 each $81.00 per space per week. This includes FY 18 adjustment rate of 6%. $169.00 per hour $95.00 per application $408.00 per 1.5x OT Hour; $544.00 per 2.0x OT hour $254.00 per hour $91.00 each General & Miscellaneous Fees $399.00 single address; $192.00 each additional address DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Exhibit 2Attachment A Municipal Fee Schedule Landscape Inspection $190.00 Landscape Plan Review ‐ Non‐Residential & Multi‐Family $1,939.00 Landscape Plan Review ‐ Single Family Residential $1,193.00 Multi Family New Construction of 1‐3 (attached) units $949.00 Multi Family New Construction of 4 or More $1,523.00 New Commercial >50,000 SF $1,810.00 New Commercial 1,000 ‐ 25,000 SF $1,236.00 New Commercial 25,001 ‐ 50,000 SF $1,523.00 New Single Family $949.00 Tenant improvements, renovations or alterations > $200,000 in valuation (and not triggered by a Calgreen Tier) $662.00 Tenant improvements, renovations or alterations > 5,000 SF Note: includes replacement or alteration of at least two of the following: HVAC systems, building envelope, hot water system, or lighting system and project greater than $200,000 $662.00 A. Base Fee $115.00 B. New or Remodeled Square Footage Delete Air Handlers up to and including 10,000 cfm $47.00 Boilers, Compressors and Absorption Systems: For the installation or reloacation of each boiler or compressor up to 30 hp or each absorption system up to and including 1,000,000 Btu/h $93.00 Boilers, Compressors, and Absorption Systems: For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor exceeding 30 hp, or each absorption system exceeding 1,000,000 Btu/h $93.00 Furnace, Flue and Associated Ducts $93.00 Miscellaneous Note: For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by this code, but not classed in other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed. $47.00 Process Piping System $46.00 Process Piping System ‐ Hazardous $47.00 Swimming Pool Heater $56.00 Ventilation and Exhaust $47.00$60.00 each Plan Review Fees $182.00 each $182.00 each $60.00 each $60.00 per permit $145.00 per permit $72.00 per permit $644.00 per review Mechanical Permits $92.00 per permit $0.02 per square foot $60.00 each $122.00 each $1761.00 per review $1202.00 per review DEVELOPMENT SERVICES $1481.00 per review $923.00 per review $644.00 per review $185.00 per inspection $1886.00 per review $1161.00 per review $923.00 per review $1481.00 per review Exhibit 2Attachment A Municipal Fee Schedule Additional Plan Review Note: Required by changes, additions, or revisions to plans including Alternative Means and Methods (2‐hour minimum). For Elective (3rd party) and over‐the‐counter reviews (half hour minimum). $191.00 Building Plan Check 75% Certified Access Specialist (CASp) Review/Consultation $367.00 Elective Plan Check 35% Fire and Life Safety Plan Check 54% Public Works Plan Check 44% Zoning Plan Check 35% A. Base Fee $115.00 B. New or Remodeled Square Footage Delete Atomospheric‐type vaccum Breakers $115.00 Backflow protective device other than atomospheric‐type $167.00 Gas Piping System $167.00 Industrial Waste Pretreatment Interceptor Note: Including trap and vent, except kitchen‐type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps $167.00 Medical Gas Piping System $167.00 Plumbing Fixtures Note: For each plumbing fixture on one trap or a set of fixtures on one trap (including water, drainage piping, and backflow protection). $116.00 Plumbing Fixtures: For each building sewer $112.00 Rain Water Systems Delete Solar Hot Water System Note: Does not include Plan Check fee. $167.00 Storm Drain System $167.00 Swimming Pool $56.00 Water Heater, Vent or Other $84.00 Water Piping Note: Installation, alteration or repair of water piping, water treatment equipment or both $84.00 Clotheswasher System $70.00 Complex System $167.00 Simple System $70.00 SB 1473 Fee $109.00 each $109.00 each Plumbing Permits ‐ Graywater Systems $91.00 each $217.00 plus plan review at cost $91.00 plus plan review at cost $91.00 each $145.00 each $91.00 each $217.00 each $217.00 each $72.00 each DEVELOPMENT SERVICES $109.00 each $217.00 each $217.00 each $217.00 each $217.00 each 45% of Building Permit fee 12% of Building Permit fee 30% of Building Permit fee Plumbing Permits $92.00 per permit per permit $0.02 per square foot $225.00 per hour 80% of Building Permit fee Actual cost of CASp Consultant plus 15% per hour. Restructured to a flat fee. 35% of Building Plan Check fee Exhibit 2Attachment A Municipal Fee Schedule A. $1.00 ‐ $25,000.00 Permit Valuation No change B. $25,001.00 ‐ $50,000.00 Permit Valuation No change C. $50,001.00 ‐ $75,000.00 Permit Valuation No change D. $75,001.00 ‐ $100,000.00 Permit Valuation No change E. Each $25,000.00 Increment or Fraction Thereof Above $100,000.00 No change F. Minimum No change Commercial No change Residential No change Certificate of Use and Occupancy $1,095.00 Certificate of Use and Occupancy ‐ Replacement $228.00 SB 1186 Mandated Fee Note: Does not include fees collected by the Fire Department. No change Temporary Occupancy Permit ‐ Multi‐Family Residential, Non‐Residential, and Other Commercial $826.00 Temporary Occupancy Permit ‐ Single Family Residential and Commercial Tenant Improvement less than 10,000 sq. ft. $606.00 Additional Non‐Residential Long‐Term (More than 5 days) Monthly No Change Dumpster, Container No Change Non‐Residential ‐ Single Day No Change Non‐Residential Long‐Term (More than 5 days)No Change Non‐Residential Short‐Term (Less than 5 days)No Change A. 101 ‐ 1,000 cubic yards No Change B. 1,001 ‐ 10,000 cubic yards No Change Public Works Engineering $197.00 for the first 100 cubic yards, plus $197.00 for each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof $1970.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards plus $186.00 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof Encroachment Permit $746.00 per month $310.00 each $1,249.00 each $2,039.00 each $1,466.00 each $123.00 each DEVELOPMENT SERVICES $1.00 each $673.00 each $498.00 each $1.00 minimum Strong Motion Instrument Program $28.00 per $100,000.00 permit valuation ($0.50 minimum) $13.00 per $100,000.00 permit valuation ($0.50 minimum) Use & Occupancy Permits $287.00 each $1.00 per valuation increment $2.00 per valuation increment $3.00 per valuation increment $4.00 per valuation increment Add $1.00 per valuation increment Exhibit 2Attachment A Municipal Fee Schedule C. 10,001 or more cubic yards No Change Tree Inspection for Private Development No Change Construction in Public Right‐of‐Way ($1.00 ‐ $5,999) Note: Including public or private subdivision streets No Change Construction in Public Right‐of‐Way ($6,000 ‐ $25,999) Note: Including public or private subdivision streets No Change Construction in Public Right‐of‐Way ($26,000 ‐ $100,999) Note: Including public or private subdivision streets No Change Construction in Public Right‐of‐Way ($101,000 +) Note: Including public or private subdivision streets No Change Storm Drain Plan Check Fee No Change Temporary Discharge to Storm Drain from Construction Site Dewatering No Change Additional Temporary Discharge to Storm Drain from Construction Site Dewatering No Change Wet Season Construction Site Stormwater Inspection Note: MRP requirement for sites >1 acre and/or high priority (hillside, near creek, prior violation) No Change Emergency Response Fee ‐ Hazmat (PAMC 17.24.050)$350.00 Installation or Closure Without Approved Plans and/or Permits No Change Emergency Planning Guide No Change Long‐term Offsite Document Storage No Change Microfilm Copy/Print No Change Photographs No Change Fire $30.00 first print; $0.55 each additional print Hazardous Materials Classification Permits Up to $1,212.00 for each incident up to 100% cost recovery $275.00 ‐ $813.00 average fee range Documents $253.00 each $0.25 per page $3.25 per blueprint page; $0.30 per specification/ calculation page $4,093 per request to discharge $313.00 per week for the duration of dewatering activities DEVELOPMENT SERVICES $287.00 per month, charge monthly October through April Compliance Fees Permit Fees $712.00 per occurrence $712.00 + 8.8% of value greater than $6,000.00 $2472.00 + 10.8% of value greater than $26,000.00 10,572.00 + 9% of value greater than $100,000.00 $743.00 per project $3830.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards plus $711.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yard or fraction thereof Inspection Fees $139.00 per inspection Exhibit 2Attachment A Municipal Fee Schedule Compressed Gas $351.00 Corrosives $351.00 Cryogenic Fluid $351.00 Flammable and Combustible Liquids $351.00 Flammable Gas $351.00 Flammable Solids $351.00 Health Hazard (Liquids & Solids)$351.00 Liquefied Petroleum Gases $351.00 Organic Coatings $351.00 Organic Peroxides $351.00 Other Hazardous Materials ‐ Unclassified Note: Inspections and investigations for which no fee is specifically indicated (1‐hour maximum) $351.00 Ovens ‐ Industrial Baking or Drying $351.00 Oxidizers (Liquids & Solids)$351.00 Oxidizing Gas $351.00 Pyrophoric Gas $351.00 Pyrophoric Materials (Liquids & Solids)$351.00 Pyrotechnical Special Effects Material $351.00 Radioactive Materials $351.00 Refrigeration Equipment $351.00 Spraying/Dipping $351.00 Tire Recapping/Tire Storage $1,397.00 Toxic, Highly Toxic, Moderately Toxic, Health Hazard Gas Note: Includes pesticides, fumigants, and etiologic agents. $351.00 Toxic, Highly Toxic, Moderately Toxic, Health Hazard Materials $351.00 Unstable Reactive Gas $351.00 Unstable Reactive Materials (Liquids & Solids)$351.00 Water Reactive Materials (Liquids & Solids)$351.00 Additional Approvals for Hazardous Materials Storage Permit Note: Additional approval for permit to construct, temporary closure, permanent closure, otherwise modify a hazardous materials storage facility. See CEQA for additional fees. $761.00 per occurrence plus $498.00 per hour for time above two hours per occurrence Business Plan (HMBP)$498.00 Late Fee for Hazardous Materials Storage Permit No Change $848.00 per occurrence plus $554.00 per hour for time above two hours per occurrence $554.00 per location annually 25% of total Hazardous Material permit fee $391.00 annually $391.00 annually $391.00 annually $391.00 annually $391.00 annually Hazardous Materials Storage Permits $391.00 annually DEVELOPMENT SERVICES $391.00 annually $391.00 annually $391.00 annually $1,561.00 annually $391.00 annually $391.00 annually $391.00 annually $391.00 annually $391.00 annually $391.00 annually $391.00 annually $391.00 annually $391.00 annually $391.00 annually $391.00 annually $391.00 annually $391.00 annually $391.00 annually $391.00 annually $391.00 annually Exhibit 2Attachment A Municipal Fee Schedule Level I Facility Note: Minimal storage as defined by having no hazardous materials over CFC permit amounts as specified in CFC section 105. $351.00 Level II Facility Note: Quantities exceeding CFC permit threshold, but less than 50 gal., 500lbs or 200 cu. ft. Category also includes dry cleaning, fixed medical gas, auto or aircraft repair, and service stations. $703.00 Level III Facility Note: Quantities exceed 50 gal. 500lbs, or 200 cu. ft. and not categorized as Level II. $1,406.00 Petroleum Aboveground Storage Tank Note: Includes 2 hrs inspection time. $703.00 Provisional (6 Month)$703.00 Additional Inspection or Reinspection Fee $699.00 for up to 2 hours reinspection plus $349.00 per hour (during business hours) After Hours Inspection Fee Note: Fee for before or after normal business hours; weekends and holidays included. Fee is to be paid in advance of inspection. $524.00 As‐Built Plan Check and Additional Work $699.00 Care Facility Inspection Including Fire Clearance $349.00 for facilities with 7‐25 clients; $699.00 for facilities with more than 25 Christmas Tree Lot/Pumpkin Patch $349.00 High Rise Building ‐ Certificate of Compliance Note: Certificate of compliance inspection for each high rise building which is required by state law to be inspected and certified annually as meeting minimum compliance with applicable state of California fire and life safety standards for existing high rise b ildi (CFC11143) $1456.00 annually for up to 4 hours; $349.00 for each additional hour Outside Cooking Booths $524.00 Standby Fire Watch Note: Per person. $349.00 Use and Occupancy Fire Inspection $349.00 Additional Hours Over Plan Review/Inspection $249.00 Alternate Means and Methods Application Note: 2 hr maximum. $746.00 Appeals to Decisions $349.00 Consultation Fee $349.00 Hydrant Flow Fee $349.00$391.00 per occurrence Life Safety & Fire Protection $148.00 per inspection Investigations & Consultations $308.00 per hour $735.00 per application $391.00 per hour $391.00 per hour $390.00 for facilities with 7‐25 clients; $780.00 for facilities with more than 25 clients per inspection $391.00 each DEVELOPMENT SERVICES $1626.00 annually for up to 4 hours; $391.00 for each additional hour $210.00 each $391.00 per hour $782.00 annually $782.00 plus other hazardous materials classification permit fees if applicable. Includes 2 hrs inspection time. Inspection Fees $781.00 for up to 2 hours reinspection plus $390.00 per hour (during business hours) per inspection $585.00 per hour; 4 hour minimum $780.00 per review $391.00 annually per location. Includes 1 hr inspection time. $782.00 annually per location plus other hazardous materials classification permit if applicable. Includes 2 hrs inspection time. $1565.00 annually per location plus other hazardous materials classification permit if applicable. Includes 4 hrs inspection time. Exhibit 2Attachment A Municipal Fee Schedule Hydrant Installation/Modification ‐ Private $175.00 Automatic Fire Sprinkler Installation/Modification Note: Includes hydrostatic test $1543.00 for 1‐19 Sprinkler Heads; $1,724.00 plus $3.00 per head for 20 or Express Fire Protection Plan Check Fee No Change Fire Alarm System Installation and Modification $948.00 plus $21.00 a device or contract point Fire and Life Safety Plan Check ‐ Commercial Note: Includes one inspection and reinspection. $0.54 Fire Prevention Inspection of Private Schools $699.00 Fire Protection and Fire Access Plan Review for New Single Family Dwellings or Additions $773.00 Multifamily dwellings, hotels & motels 51‐100 units $699.00 Multifamily dwellings, hotels & motels greater than 100 units $1,048.00 Multifamily dwellings, hotels, motels 4‐50 Units $349.00 Other Automatic Fire Extinguishing System Note: Includes hood and duct, FM 200, Inergen, and C02. If a system has a release panel, Fire Alarm fees apply as well. $948.00 Site Disaster Planning $349.00 Standpipe System ‐ Wet, Dry, or Combination $699.00 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $757.00 Underground Fire Service Line Note: Includes 4 hrs of inspection and 1 hr of plan check $1,647.00 Verification of Fire Protection System Maintenance and Certification $64.00 Aerosol Products $437.00 Bowling Alley and Pin Refinishing Involving the use of Flammable Liquids $1,019.00 Candles and Open Flames in Assembly Areas $349.00 Carnivals and Fairs $1,456.00 Cellulose Nitrate Storage/Nitrate Film $102.00 Hot Work (Welding) Operations No Change Liquid or Gas‐Fueled Powered Equipment/Generator $349.00 Malls ‐ Covered $699.00 Occupant Load Increase ‐ Temporary Public Assembly $349.00 Open Burning $349.00 $113.00 annually $391.00 each $391.00 each $782.00 annually $391.00 each $391.00 each DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Specific Hazard Permits $488.00 annually $1,138.00 each $391.00 annually $189.00 each $1,090.00 per occurrence $390.00 per hour $780.00 per riser $377.00 per occurrence $1,870.00 per occurrence $88.00 annually The Fire and Life Safety Plan Review Fee is 45% of the Building Plan Check Fee and is collected by the Building Division at the time an application of a Building Permit is submitted. $780.00 annually $894.00 each $780.00 annually $1,170.00 annually $391.00 annually $195.00 per device $780.00 for 1‐19 Sprinkler Heads; $1,724.00 plus $4.80 per head for 20 or more Sprinkler Heads $173.00 per occurrence $1090.00 plus $23.00 a device or contract point Exhibit 2Attachment A Municipal Fee Schedule Open Flame/Flame Producing Devices $349.00 Operate a Tank Vehicle to Transport Flammable/Combustible Liquids $495.00 Parade Float $351.00 Place of Assembly $703.00 Place of Public Assembly ‐ Temporary $349.00 Tent or Air Supported Structure Note: Tent or air‐supported structure having an area in excess of 200 sq. ft. or canopies in excess of 400 sq. ft. Fee includes a public assembly permit of $125.00 for all tents. $734.00 Commercial & Residential windows, skylights and doors, New and alteration (structural) (per 5) $279.00 Commercial & Residential windows, skylights and doors, New and alteration (structural) (per 10) $140.00 Residential Reroof $279.00 Residential Reroof (overlay)$70.00 Commercial and multifamily reroof (first 5000 sf)$279.00 commercial and multifamily reroof (each additional 2500 sf)$70.00 Kitchen (non structural) per each $210.00 Bathroom (non structural) per each $279.00 Commercial & Residential Siding replacement or repair $140.00 commercial & Residential Stucco replacement or repair $210.00 Commercial doors, new and alteration (structural) per 5 doors $210.00 Commercial doors, new and alteration (structural) per 10 doors $140.00 Residential dry rot repair and replacement $70.00 Deck, new or repair up to 1000 sf $210.00 Deck, new or repair each additional 1000 SF $70.00 Sign permit $116.00 Residential and commercial window awnings (group of 5)$70.00 Cell Tower Equip $210.00 Building New Fees $391.00 each $553.00 per vehicle $122.00 per hour $782.00 per occurrence $391.00 each $307.00 each Exhibit 2Attachment A Municipal Fee Schedule Utilities Handling Fee $116.00 Progress and partial inspections $56.00 Green Building ‐ Special Inspector applications and qualifications (internal review) $395.00 Green Building ‐ Special Inspector applications and qualifications (renewal update) $197.00 Special Inspections ‐ materials testing lab certification (up to 4 hours)$1,579.00 Miscellananeous Building ‐ base fee $115.00 Retaining Walls ‐ first 100 LF $93.00 Retaining Walls ‐ each additional 100 LF $46.00 Fees not listed above will either be based on an applicable hourly rate or at the given valuation TCO fee for Vendors/Stock Occupancy (requires at least one additional inspection $1,125.00 Emergency Responder Radio Coverage (testing) fee $492.00 Fire New Fee Certifications Exhibit 2Attachment A • CITY OF PALO ALTO TO: FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF PALO ALTO MEMORANDUM HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager October 23, 2017 10/23 Council Meeting Agenda Item 4: 2018 Municipal Fee Schedule continued to the November 13, 2017 council meeting. 4 Item 4: 2018 Municipal Fee Schedule will be continued to November 13, 2017 to allow staff additional time to do further analysis before being brought to Council. c~ ED SHIKADA Assistant City Manager City of Palo Alto (ID # 8257) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/23/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 3001 El Camino Real: Mixed Use With 19,800 Square Feet of Retail and 50 Residential Units Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 3001 El Camino Real [16PLN-00097 and 16PLN-00220]. Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Site and Design Review to Allow for Construction of a Four-story Mixed-use Development With 19,800 Square Feet of Retail and 30 Residential Units in the CS Zone as Well as a Three-story Multi-family Residential Building With 20 Units in the RM-30 Zone. The Project Also Includes a Request for Approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map for a Lot Merger to Allow for the Proposed Development, a Design Enhancement Exception, and a Parking Adjustment for Shared Parking. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND) was Circulated for Public Review on July 3, 2017 and the Circulation Reriod Ended on August 2, 2017. A Final MND is Available for review. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial), RM-30 (Multi-family Residential), and R-1 (Single-family Residential) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council take the following action(s) regarding the proposed development at 3001 El Camino Real: 1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and 2. Adopt the Record of Land Use Action approving a Site and Design application, including a Director’s Parking Adjustment and Design Enhancement Exception, as well as a Preliminary Parcel Map for the merger of three parcels based on findings and subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment B. The Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) City of Palo Alto Page 2 have recommended approval of this project. Executive Summary The proposed project would construct two buildings with a total of 50 dwelling units and 19,800 square feet (sf) of retail space on the east side of El Camino Real between Olive Avenue and Acacia Avenue. The project would replace the existing two retail buildings totaling 9,100 sf that are currently occupied by Mike’s Bikes, as well as surface parking lots. A Preliminary Parcel Map is also required to merge three existing parcels to create the resulting parcel for the proposed development. The project as proposed requires two exceptions: 1) a Director’s Parking Adjustment for six shared parking spaces and one on-street loading space; and 2) a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow the below-grade garage and associated ramp to encroach five feet into the required 10-foot rear setback. The Preliminary Parcel Map, Director’s Parking Adjustment, and DEE Requests have been deferred to Council in accordance with PAMC 18.40.170, which allows all project components to be reviewed by the City Council when one of the applications is subject to Council approval. Because the project is a mixed-use project that includes more than nine residential units it is subject to Site and Design review, which requires Council’s decision on the proposed project. The project is subject to the El Camino Real Design Guidelines, South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, context-based design criteria (for both mixed-use and for multi-family residential, as applicable to each proposed building), as well as the Performance Criteria. The project would provide 50 market rate rental housing units on a housing inventory site that was projected to provide up to nine units in the City’s Housing Element. Background and Discussion On November 3, 2016, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the proposed project and provided initial feedback on the Site and Design proposal in the form of a study session. A link to the staff report is available at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54499. A transcript of the hearing is available at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54892. On July 12, 2017, following circulation of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, the PTC reviewed the project and recommended approval to Council. A link to the PTC staff report is available at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58657 and a transcript of the hearing is available at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59548 City of Palo Alto Page 3 On August 17, 2017, the ARB completed a second formal review of the project and recommended that the project be continued, asking that the applicant return to address a list of specific changes identified by the board. A copy of the ARB staff report is available at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59084. A transcript of the hearing is available at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59388. On October 5, 2017 the ARB held a hearing for a third formal review of the project and recommended approval. A copy of the ARB staff report is available at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59723. A video of the hearing is available at http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-71/. The applicant’s current proposal addresses prior comments made by the PTC and ARB and the analysis section below builds upon the information contained in earlier reports for those hearings with modifications to reflect recent project changes. The Record of Land Use Action has also been updated to reflect comments made by the PTC and ARB and to incorporate final conditions based on input from all departments. The proposed project includes a request for approval of a preliminary parcel map to merge three existing parcels into one 85,588 square feet (sf) parcel (1.97 acres) and to redevelop the resulting parcel with two buildings, a mixed-use development and a multi-family residential development. The resulting parcel would have split zoning, which requires each zoned portion of the lot to be developed based on the respective zoning. The portion of the lot along the El Camino Real frontage is zoned Service Commercial (CS) and includes a 49,927 sf area; a portion of the lot along Acacia Avenue is zoned medium density multi-family residential (RM-30) and includes 30,738 sf; and a portion of the interior of the lot that parallels Acacia Avenue is zoned single-family residential (R-1) and includes 4,930 sf. Attachment A includes a map of the proposed parcel with the zoning district boundaries. The project plans are included in Attachment I. The proposed mixed-use building would be located within the CS zone and the multi-family residential building would be in the RM-30 zone. No buildings are proposed in the R-1 zone. The CS building along El Camino Real would be four-stories with 36 surface parking spaces and one level of below-grade parking with 116 spaces. This building would have 30 residential units and 19,798 sf of ground-floor retail. The second building, located within the portion of the parcel zoned RM-30, would be three-stories and include covered, partially below-grade parking (29 spaces) and surface parking (8 spaces) for 20 residential units. This development backs up to single-family homes for the length of the parcel and allows for an access easement through the property to enter the Fry’s site at the northeast edge of the subject property. Based on final coordination with the City of Palo Alto Utility Division, some refinements to the species and exact placement of street trees selected along Acacia may be necessary to ensure City of Palo Alto Page 4 the protection of existing utilities that will remain. This is addressed as a utilities condition of approval in Attachment B. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines1 The subject site has a split land use designation of Service Commercial; Multiple Family Residential; Single Family Residential. The proposed project components are consistent with the land use descriptions outlined in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Design Element for each respectively designated area of the site. The draft findings in Attachment B include a consistency analysis with specific goals and policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. As detailed in Attachment B, staff finds that on balance, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. South El Camino Real and El Camino Real Design Guidelines The project site is located within the California-Ventura corridor area and is identified as a Cal- Ventura strategic site in the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The guidelines note that development of mixed uses in this area along the eastern El Camino Real frontage should accommodate pedestrian activity with attractive sidewalks and landscaping. New buildings should front El Camino Real with prominent facades and be clearly visible and easily accessible to pedestrians. As detailed in the Architectural Review findings in Attachment B, the proposed project is consistent with both the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan The location, use, and required off-site improvements associated with the proposed project are consistent with the goals of the City’s 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP). The City’s BPTP goals include converting discretionary vehicle trips to walking and biking trips as a mechanism to reduce greenhouse emissions by 15 percent and doubling rates of bicycling and walking. Mixed-use development located near transit (0.5 miles from Caltrain and 600-2,000 feet from several bus stops including VTA Route 22, 101, 102, 103 and the Dumbarton Express line DB-1) and housing allows persons to access a greater share of destinations while reducing the need for single-occupancy vehicle trips. Direct pedestrian connectivity from the public sidewalk is provided for both commercial and residential uses, promoting increased bicycle and pedestrian use both from residents and those accessing the site from surrounding areas. Zoning Compliance2 Staff has performed a detailed review of the project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards. Summary tables comparing the project to zoning requirements for the CS and RM-30 1 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca City of Palo Alto Page 5 zoning districts are provided in Attachments C and D, respectively. The project complies with all applicable codes, or is seeking, through the requested permits, permission to deviate from certain code standards in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, as discussed below. Although a portion of the proposed site is zoned R-1, no buildings are proposed within this site area; therefore, no summary table is provided for this zoning. Landscaping and landscape features are allowed within required setbacks and are consistent with zoning code requirements. Staff finds that with approval of the requested parking adjustment and DEE, the project would be consistent with the zoning code. Context-Based Design Criteria The proposed development requires that the City make the findings outlined in PAMC Section 18.16.090, Context-Based Design Criteria, for the CS building and the findings outlined in 18.12.060, Multi-family Context-Based Design Criteria, for the RM-30 building. A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with these context-based design criteria has been performed. Summary tables comparing the proposed project to these criteria are provided in Attachment E. Staff finds that the proposed project is consistent with the context-based design criteria. Performance Criteria Because the proposed mixed-used development would be located within a CS zone, this portion of the development would be subject to the performance criteria outlined in Section 18.23 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). An analysis of the project’s consistency with the performance criteria is included in Attachment F. As discussed above, the applicant is seeking a DEE to allow for the ramp to be located 5 feet from the property line where the performance criteria require a 10 foot landscape strip. With the granting of the Design Enhancement Exception to allow for this reduced setback, staff finds that the project, on balance, is consistent with the performance criteria. Summary of Key Issues Design Enhancement Exception The proposed building in the CS zone is set back substantially (between 75 to 90 feet) from the rear lot line and areas of the site within a different zone district. However, the below grade parking garage and associated ramp is located five feet from a lot line where a 10-foot setback is required in accordance with PAMC Section 18.16.060. In addition, PAMC Section 18.23.050(B)(vi) requires that a minimum 10-foot planting and screening strip be provided abutting a low density residential district. Placement of the parking garage ramp within the required setback allows for only a 5-foot setback and planting strip along a portion of the site between the CS and R-1 zone districts. City of Palo Alto Page 6 To approve the Design Enhancement Exception, Council must make the findings for approval for the exception, as outlined in PAMC 18.76.050. The location/design of the roundabout allows cars to enter from Olive Avenue but does not allow cars exiting below-grade parking to exit toward Olive Avenue. Only a car parked in one of the 28 surface parking spaces adjacent Olive Avenue would be allowed to exit onto that street. This parking lot circulation design reduces traffic on Olive Avenue, adjacent to single-family residences and also allows for underground parking to reduce visual impacts of surface parking along El Camino Real as well as allowing for a design that eliminates all curb cuts along El Camino Real. Staff finds that the findings for approval of this DEE can be made; the draft findings for approval of the DEE are included in Attachment B. Parking The project is seeking a Director’s adjustment to allow for six shared parking spaces in accordance with PAMC Section 18.52.050. The shared parking adjustment would allow shared use of four guest parking spaces with retail commercial uses and two at grade parking spaces to be restricted during trash pickup hours, which would occur in the morning, outside of peak periods. The total shared parking reduction would be three percent. The Parking Management Plan in Attachment G shows that based on parking demand throughout the day for each use, the total number of spaces provided will be effective in providing sufficient parking. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Director’s adjustment to allow for one on-street loading space. The site design, which places parking where it would be less visible from El Camino Real and reduces vehicle trips out to Olive Avenue, would make circulation of larger trucks on-site infeasible. Parking spaces would need to be further restricted during morning loading/unloading hours and trucks would have to back up into the site, which could result in noisy back-up beepers going off during morning hours. Policy L-77 encourages alternatives to surface parking lots to minimize the amount of land that must be devoted to parking, provided that economic and traffic safety goals can still be achieved. The location of one shared loading space off-site on Acacia would be consistent with this goal because it would devote less land to parking. Loading would be restricted to non-peak business hours for both the project site and adjacent commercial activities to ensure that economic and safety goals can still be achieved. With approval of the Director’s parking adjustment for shared use parking and on-street loading, as allowed in accordance with 18.52.050, the project would be consistent with municipal code requirements for vehicle parking and loading. Although the applicant is not requesting a parking reduction based on reduced trips, because a parking adjustment is requested, a Transit Demand Management Plan will be required as a condition of approval in accordance with PAMC 18.52.030(i). One member of the public commented that the existing surface parking adjacent the Fry’s site is currently utilized and therefore should be replaced. The existing surface parking along El City of Palo Alto Page 7 Camino Real is roped off and is not currently used. Although the lot adjacent the Fry’s site is often used by adjacent commercial and retail uses, is not required parking for any adjacent development and is therefore not required to be replaced. Public Comment During the first formal hearing with the ARB, one member of the public expressed concerns regarding the displacement of parking from the existing at grade parking lot and concerns regarding massing along the El Camino Real façade. The commenter asked that more attention be made to the façade to make it more attractive and break up the vertical facade. During the formal PTC hearing on July 12, 2017 one member of the public, whom identified herself as a nearby resident on Olive Avenue, expressed concerns about the size of the project, noting that she felt that the project was too large based on the size of the lot. She also expressed more general concerns about the City’s follow up on development projects in the area to ensure that requirements (e.g. landscaping) are being maintained and the fact that parcels along Olive Avenue should be allowed to rezone to multi-family residential. During the second formal ARB hearing one commenter noted concerns about added traffic in this area and encouraged the placement of driveway entrances on side streets, away from El Camino Real. The commenter also noted that the accents of the building should be less vertical and asked for as much landscaping as possible on El Camino Real. More vegetation was added in planters in response to this comment and comments from the ARB. The project is already designed to eliminate existing curb cuts on El Camino Real and driveway entrances and exits are placed on side streets. Design changes to create a stronger base, body, and roof were incorporated throughout the process and the final design was approved by the ARB. No public comments were received at the final ARB hearing. Policy Implications The development would include a total of 50 units with more than two-thirds of the proposed units being smaller (approximately 550 to 750 square feet) and therefore, presumably commanding a lower rent than the other larger units. Proposed housing supports the Comprehensive Plan Goal of providing housing to support the City’s fair share of regional housing needs and the location of this housing within the proximity of job opportunities within the City (including the 10-story Palo Alto Square office complex and Stanford Research Park) is consistent with the City’s goal of improving the existing job/housing imbalance in Palo Alto. Moreover, the proposed project is located on a Housing Inventory Site (HIS) which was projected to provide a maximum yield of nine units (only one of the three parcels was listed as a HIS), and the project proposes 50 units, more than five times the anticipated number. As rental housing, the project is not subject to the City’s inclusionary requirements for affordable housing; thus the project is not required to include deed-restricted affordable units. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Nonetheless, the project consists of smaller rental units, and will contribute to the City’s affordable housing funds through payment of impact fees. The project is adjacent to the large parcel commonly referred to as the “Frys site” and to an area that is proposed for development of a coordinated area plan using grant funds available to Priority Development Areas. The project site is not within the Priority Development Area and thus will not be part of that planning area, nonetheless, the coordinated area plan is expected to assess opportunities for connections to adjacent areas and the El Camino Real transit corridor. Resource Impact There are no fiscal or budgetary impacts to the City associated with this private development. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s environmental regulations. Specifically, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated on July 3, 2017 and was circulated for a 30 day period through August 2, 2017. Three comments were received during the circulation period. These included letters from the Native American Heritage Commission, the California Department of Transportation, and the County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Division. Although not required, a formal response to comments was prepared to address comments from these agencies. Responses to comments are included in Appendix G of the environmental document. The Final Mitigated Negative Declaration as well as the Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan is included in Attachment H. Mitigation has been included, in particular, to address construction noise, construction over the California-Olive-Emerson plume, and pedestrian circulation. Construction or in-lieu payment of a crosswalk across El Camino Real would be required. Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Record of Land Use Action (PDF) Attachment C: CS Zoning Consistency (DOCX) Attachment D: RM-30 Zoning Consistency (DOCX) Attachment E: Context-Based Design Criteria (DOCX) Attachment F: Performance Criteria (DOCX) Attachment G: Parking Management Plan (PDF) Attachment H: Environmental Analysis (DOCX) Attachment I: Project Plans and Preliminary Parcel Map (DOCX) Attachment J: Public Comment (PDF) 35 20 4 18 20 10 35 10 35 50 110.0'110.0' 150.0'191.7' 95.8' 109.9' 47.9' 705.1' 47.9' 150.0' 199.7' 149.7' 65.6' 149.7' 65.7' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 49.9' 150.0' 49.9' 150.0' 100.0' 149.8' 150.0' 149.8' 150.0' 100.0' 40.0' 149.7' 200.0' 49.9' 150.0' 199.7' 10.0' 49.9' 150.0' 49.9' 150.0' 200 50.0' 200.0' 198.3' 100.0' 199.7' 105.3' 144.3' 58.1' 68.3' 590.8' 705.1' 90.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0'50.0' 199.7' 276.0' 100.0' 242.1' 29.5' 54.7' 26.3' 200 50.0' 200.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 65.7'119.7' 65.7' 139.5' 50.0' 139.5' 50.0' 139.6' 50.0' 139.6' 50.0' 109.9' 754.2' 570.4' 7 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 136.1' 50.0' 138.1' 50.0' 18.5' 100.0' 19.8' 100.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 139.5' 50.0' 139.5' 50.0' 66.9' 200.0' 66.9' 200.0' 134.7' 65.7' 134.7' 65.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.6' 55.3' 65.0' 79.4' 60.3' 79.4' 52.7'95.9' 50.0' 95.9' 51.8'109.3' 50.0' 109.3' 51.1' 119.6' 50.0' 119.3' 55.3' 105.6' 127.3' 50.3' 132.6' 50.0' 119.6' 50.6' 127.3' 50.0' 132.6' 50.1' 136.1' 50.0' 32.0' 17.5'34.6' 97.9' 165.0' 137.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 119.7' 65.7'119.7' 65.6' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7'50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 47.9' 150.0' 47.9' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 142.5' 300.0'112.5' 49.8' 61.8' 49.0' 62.8' 63.3' 200.0' 8.8'12.1'13.1' 15.0' 9.1' 200.0' 72.6' 200.0' 72.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.7'134.7' 115.7' 134.7' 115.6'134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.6'134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.6'134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.7'134.7' 115.7' 134.7' 115.7' 100.0' 42.5' 100.0' 42.5' 100.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 235.0' 31.4' 145.6' 112.5' 65.6' 142.5' 100.0' 142.6' 99.3' 53.2' 83.7' 150.0' 10.0'10.0' 118.6' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 245.3' 200.0' 44.0' 706.6' 498.2' 526.6' 129.8' 129.8' 51.2' 50.0' 129.8' 129.8' 129.8' 51.4' 50.0' 308.6' 308.5' 206.0' 206.5' 95.8' 110.0' 40.0' 148.7' 51.0' 51.0' 148.7' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 150.0' 150.0' 99.8' 99.8' 199.7' 199.7' 199.7'100.0' 165.4 85.1 34.6 150.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 149.7' 149.7' 149.7' 115.7' 165.7' 100.0'50.0' 85.1 199.7' 149.7' 250.0' 151.5' 275.2' 14.4' 108.7' 108.7' 52.8' 52.8' 98.8' 67.2' 166.4'166.4' 30.0' 30.0' 18.0' 18.0' 275.2' 185.2' 190.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 250.0' 250.0' 20.0' 20.0' 78.5'78.5' 605.7' 605.7' 78.5' 53.4' 150.0' 69.3' 199.9' 50.0'65.2' 149.0' 150.0' 149.0' 150.0' 370.9' 427.3' 95.8' 164.9 199.7 6 5 1 2 3 Day Care 3 4 Fry's Electronics A B Palo Alto Square 2 PARKING GARAGE PF CN M-40 PC-4354 PC-4463 PC-4637 PC-2952 RM-30R-1 GM CS CS ROLM CS RP GM C-4831 CS(D) 3225 3239 3255 3295 455 3305 3337 3339 3150 3170 3200 3300 447 3375 3345 417 429 451 441 431 421 411 405 399 3159 411 435 3250425 435 3200 455 460 3200 3201 395 385 375 450 430 400 425 32753261 3251 220 230 336 340 370 380 3101 210 365 345 315 305 295 285 245 265 275 3040 400 402 404 408 411 423 433 420 441 430 440 450 460 471 461 451 4702805 2865 2875 412 420 430 440 450 451 441 431 421 411 2904 456 470 471 461 2999 29512905 461 2755 3000 3017 3001 412 410 2701 404 345 3128 755 406 3127 600 3111 473 435 3225 440 31802700 620 630 360 200 429 660 445 481 3215 3275 3327 3399 601 3333 3201 3051 3101 3160 2790 2705 3260 419 2825 3265 LAMBERT AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL HANSEN WAY EL CAMINO REAL SHERIDAN AVENUE SHERIDAN ASH STREET ACACIA AVENUE PORTAGE AVENUE OLIVE AVENUEPEPPER AVENUE ASH STREET PAGE MILL ROAD E MILL ROAD EL CAMINO REAL PAGE MILL ROAD EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Zone District Boundaries 3001 El Camino Real (Project Site) abc Zone District Labels 0'250' 3001 El Camino RealProposed Site Parcel with Zoning DistrictsArea Map CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O RATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2016-10-05 14:08:323001 ECR CH (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) Attachment A Attachment B APPROVAL NO. 2017-__ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 3001 EL CAMINO REAL: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW, PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP, DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION, PARKING ADJUSTMENT, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN [FILE NOs. 16PLN-00097 and 16PLN-00220] On October 23, 2017, the City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approved the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; the Preliminary Parcel Map for the merger of three lots; the Site and Design Review to allow demolition of two existing structures total 9,100 sf and construction of two buildings totaling 49,494 square feet (sf) of multi-family residential housing and 19,800 sf of retail space with both below and at-grade parking located at 3001 El Camino Real; the Design Enhancement Exception; and a parking adjustment making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. BACKGROUND. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On June 21, 2016 The Sobrato Organization applied for a Preliminary Parcel Map [16PLN- 00220] for the development of a 1.97 acre parcel. B. The project site is comprised of three lots (APN Nos. 132-37-055; 13-37-056; and 132-38- 072) that are 0.32 acres, 0.33 acres, and 1.32 acres, respectively. The site contains two structures currently used for retail. Single family residential land uses are located to the northeast. Other surrounding uses include office, retail, and commercial recreation uses. C. On March 15, 2016 The Sobrato Organization applied for a Site and Design Review [16PLN- 00097] to allow demolition of two existing structures totaling 9,100 square feet and to construct one new three story, 20 unit multi-family residential building with partially below-grade parking and one new four-story mixed use building with 30 residential units totaling 19,800 square feet of floor area with below and at-grade parking and other site improvements. D. Staff has determined that the proposed project is in compliance with the applicable CS, RM- 30, and R-1 development standards, as applicable to each portion of the site. E. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) and recommended adoption of the MND, approval of the MMRP, and approval of the Site and Design on July 12, 2017 subject to conditions of approval. F. Following staff and Planning and Transportation Commission review the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the project and considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) and recommended adoption of the MND, approval of the MMRP, and approval of the Site and Design and Design Enhancement Exception on October 5, 2017 subject to conditions of approval. G. On October 23, 2017, the City Council reviewed the project design and the MND and MMRP. After hearing public testimony, the Council voted to approve the Site and Design, Preliminary Parcel Map, Design Enhancement Exception, and Parking Adjustment subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of this Record of Land Use Action. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan approved by the City Council on October 23, 2017. The Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment with mitigation as proposed. The MND is available for review in Attachment H and all mitigation measures as stated in the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. The MMRP is included in Exhibit A of this Record of Land Use Action. SECTION 3. SITE AND DESIGN OBJECTIVE FINDINGS. The project is consistent with the Site and Design Objective Findings outlined in Chapter 18.30(G).060 of the PAMC. Objective (a): To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The proposed project is consistent with Objective A because the proposed use of the site is consistent with the goals and policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan for this particular area of the City and the proposed uses are consistent with permitted uses within each of their respective zone districts on this split-zoned site. The proposed project eliminates light spillover to adjacent residences; screens mechanical equipment, trash, etc., placing it away from adjacent residences; and places most parking underground. It provides ample open space and screening between adjacent uses and the El Camino Real frontage encourages pedestrian and bicyclist activity. The frontage of both sites is articulated with setbacks, changes in height, and changes in material in order to reduce massing, incorporate and highlight natural elements from nearby sites, and to provide appropriate transitions both along the frontage and between the site and adjacent single family residential uses. Objective (b): To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. The proposed project is consistent with Objective B because it includes retail uses on the ground floor close to adjacent office uses and also provides housing, placing residents in close proximity to office uses, commercial recreation uses, and retail both on and off-site. Objective (c): To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. The proposed project is consistent with Objective C in that the project use encourages pedestrian and bicycle activity, and situates both housing and additional retail in a location close to extensive transit opportunities as well as adjacent retail and office uses, which helps to reduce vehicle trips. The building is also designed to comply with Calgreen plus Tier 2 requirements and all plants will be drought resistant. The project will comply with C3 and MWELO requirements. Although several trees on site are planned to be removed, these will be replaced in kind in a manner that creates functional open space area for retail users and residents. More than three times the existing number of trees will be added. None of the trees planned for removal are protected. Existing mature street trees along El Camino Real and Olive Avenue would be retained and protected during construction. Objective (d): To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project is consistent with Objective D because the project promotes medium density residential development within the El Camino Real corridor and areas in close proximity to transit. As outlined in Table 1 below, the project is consistent with several policies and goals outlined in the Housing Element, Natural Element, Land Use and Design Element, and Transportation Element. With implementation of conditions of approval, which require design features to reduce exposure to air contaminants from the California-Olive-Emerson plume and air contaminants from vehicles and generators on El Camino Real, the project would be consistent with Policy N-29, which requires that toxic air contaminants be mitigated. Therefore, the proposed use of the site, with the conditions of approval, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Table 1: Comprehensive Plan Analysis Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is split between Service Commercial, Multi-family Residential, and Single-Family Residential The project adheres to the Comprehensive Plan by providing mixed use development and multi-family housing in a transit-oriented area and providing high quality design and public amenities that improve the aesthetic quality and vitality of the area, as discussed in further detail below. Housing Element Policy H2.1: Identify and implement strategies to increase housing density and diversity, including mixed-use development and a range of unit styles, near community services. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and mixed-income housing to support the City’s fair share of the regional housing needs and to ensure that the City’s population remains economically diverse. The proposed development includes both a mixed-use building along El Camino Real and an exclusively multi- family residential building at the rear of the lot. The development would include a total of 50 units with more than two-thirds of the proposed units being smaller (approximately 550 to 750 square feet) and therefore, presumably commanding a lower rent than the other larger units. Land Use and Community Design Element Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. The project maintains the appropriate scale and character based on the respective zoning for each building. It has appropriate density for each site and includes mixed use along the El Camino Real corridor and multi-family development along Acacia in close proximity to Caltrain. The Cal-Ventura area in which this development is located is specifically identified in the Comprehensive Plan as being an ideal location for mixed- use and multi-family residential development. The retail tenants are within walking distance to nearby residential neighborhoods and office locations. The project has been designed to be compatible with adjacent single-family residential uses by concentrating the bulk and mass of the building toward El Camino Real, consistent with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and zoning code build-to-line requirements, and set back Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development Policy L-12: Preserve the character residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures Policy L-17: Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches, and other amenities that favor pedestrians 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. substantially from the rear neighbors. Easy pedestrian and bicyclist access is provided to both residential and retail uses along El Camino Real to encourage alternate transit in a transit-oriented area. The project improves street trees and provides improved sidewalks and bulb outs. It would be required to provide a crosswalk across El Camino Real. The project includes pedestrian amenities that create public spaces to sit and rest at each corner of the development and vehicle access to the site is oriented away from El Camino Real in accordance with City and Caltrans goals. Attractive and inviting small plazas that are open to the public are included at each corner of the development and vehicle access to the site is oriented away from El Camino Real in accordance with City goals. The project has been designed to highlight natural materials (i.e. wood) and the colors are subdued in accordance with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Therefore, the project is consistent with these Land Use Element Comprehensive Plan policies. Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance city streets and public spaces. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Goal L-9: Attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that enhance the image and character of the City. Transportation Element Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles. The project provides for all of its auto parking needs with the approval of shared parking, is located next to transit, supports walking due to having a mix of local and regional serving retail tenants near residential neighborhoods. Easy pedestrian and bicyclist access is provided to both residential and retail uses along El Camino Real to encourage alternate transit in a transit-oriented area. Policy T-1: 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. Local serving retail immediately adjacent to residential neighborhoods can increase walking and bicycling by its proximity and easy access. Bicycle parking is also required as part of the project. Provision of bicycle parking spaces supports increasing bicycle trip mode share. In addition, a space for the future bike share location is provided. The proposed project would include improvements to sidewalks, street trees, and public spaces and would also provide pedestrian amenities. Site lighting would also be updated, which in turn would promote an improved pedestrian environment. Policy T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit stations. 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-20: Improve maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. 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. Natural Environment Element Goal N-4: Water Resources that are Prudently Managed to Sustain Plant and Animal Life, Support Urban Activities, and Protect Public Health and Safety. The project is required to comply with the NPDES Stormwater Permit and includes bio-retention areas for stormwater management. Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. SECTION 4. ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD FINDINGS. The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The proposed use of each building is consistent with the permitted uses for each respectively zoned area of the site. With the exception of the Design Enhancement Exception and Director’s shared parking adjustment requested in accordance with the municipal code allowances, the project is consistent with the applicable development standards for each zone district. There are no applicable coordinated area plans that have been adopted that would apply to the subject property. The project is consistent with applicable design guides, including the Context-Based Design Criteria as well as the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The map and proposed improvements are consistent with several Comprehensive Plan goals and policies outlined in the Housing Element, Land Use and Design Element, Transportation Element, and Natural Element as discussed in Table 1 above. The project promotes medium density residential development within the El Camino Real corridor and areas in close proximity to transit (bus and Caltrain). The design of the development is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in that the project will include high quality design compatible with surrounding development. More specifically, the Cal-Ventura area in which this development is located is specifically identified in the Comprehensive Plan as being an ideal location for mixed-use and multi- family residential development. The project has been designed to be compatible with adjacent single-family residential uses by concentrating the bulk and mass of the building toward El Camino Real, consistent with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and zoning code build-to-line requirements, and set back substantially from the rear neighbors. Easy pedestrian and bicyclist access is provided to both residential and retail uses along El Camino Real to encourage alternate transit in a transit-oriented area. These areas include pedestrian amenities that create public spaces to sit and rest at each corner of the development and vehicle access to the site is oriented away from El Camino Real in accordance with City goals. The project has been designed to highlight natural materials (i.e. wood) and the selected colors are not bright, in accordance with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning code, and applicable design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The project proposes merging three parcels into a single parcel and redeveloping the resulting parcel with a mixed-use retail/residential building as well as a multi-family residence. The frontage along El Camino Real incorporates pedestrian amenities including benches built into planters and open gathering areas at entrances to the retail and residential use that are desirable for occupants and visitors. The project materials incorporate inspiration from the large redwood trees on neighboring properties by highlighting wood as a material throughout the buildings. It preserves all mature trees along the main El Camino Real frontage, which helps reduce massing of the proposed project. The proposed project is also consistent with the context-based design criteria, performance criteria, South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, and El Camino Real Design Guidelines, which are all applicable to the proposed project, as outlined in the body of the staff report and Attachments H and I of the staff report. The project has substantial setbacks between the main building and the single-family residential uses and the design takes into account the unique three-way split zoning of the site by providing appropriate uses and applying applicable development requirements within each respectively zoned area of the project site. The project enhances living conditions on the site by providing appropriate and usable open space areas for both developments and connects the two buildings to provide shared open space areas across the site. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The design is of high aesthetic quality, providing pedestrian amenities and gathering areas across the site. It integrates natural materials inspired by adjacent natural features (i.e. mature redwood trees). The materials are of a high quality and the selected colors are not bright, in accordance with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Individual entries and detailed materials reinforce the pedestrian scale. Proposed landscaping enhances both the streetscapes and transitions between adjacent residential uses. The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The proposed project eliminates at grade parking and curb cuts along El Camino Real and provides parking below-grade or at grade but not visible from El Camino Real, which is consistent with City goals. Vehicular access to the property and circulation are respectful of these goals and also reduces traffic adjacent single-family residences. Pedestrian oriented features have been incorporated into the frontage of both buildings and access to both retail and residential uses has been provided from El Camino Real. Access for pedestrians and cyclists is convenient and safe. The project would not impact the potential for a future Class II bicycle path along El Camino Real but would provide, in accordance with Mitigation Measure (MM) T-1, improved pedestrian access from the new residential and retail uses to other retail, commercial recreation, and office uses across El Camino Real along this block. The project is designed to provide shared open space to residents across the site but provides sufficient open space to meet all code requirements for each respectively zoned area of the site. Specific signage is not proposed as part of the project; however, the proposed concept for signage shows that it would be pedestrian oriented. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project in that the existing street trees along El Camino Real and Olive Avenue consists of mature trees. This site asset will be preserved in the new design. Additional landscaping will be provided throughout the site and particularly along shared property lines with adjacent single-family residential uses to provide appropriate screening. The building materials, textures and colors are complimentary to the environmental setting and the landscape design utilizes drought tolerant and native plants that are appropriate to the site. Exterior pathways connect one building to another and provide outdoor areas throughout the site that are functional and serve as gathering places for residents and retail users. These outdoor areas are compatible with the buildings and natural features of the site. Approximately seventy percent of the plants proposed would be indigenous as shown on Sheet L4.11 of the project plans. Those species that are not indigenous to the area, such as specific succulents or the vines over the arbor in the parking lot, were selected to provide more evergreen foliage with color and texture accents while still maintaining low water use. The native species selected as well as the few non-native species selected are suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained, and are of a variety that would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. The extensive number of proposed trees would provide desirable habitat for avian species. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. The project will use low water-use, drought resistant plants and will comply with C3 and MWELO requirements. SECTION 5. PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP FINDINGS. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Parcel Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474): 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451: The site does not lie within a specific plan area and is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, as discussed further below. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans: The map and proposed improvements are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and no specific plans are applicable to the project site. Merging the three parcels allows for use of the site for a development that increases the City’s housing inventory on a site that was identified as a Housing Inventory Site. The project promotes medium density residential development within the El Camino Real corridor and areas within the 0.5 miles of the Caltrain station. The design of the development is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in that the project will include high quality design compatible with surrounding development. More specifically, the Cal-Ventura area in which this development is located is specifically identified in the comprehensive plan as being an ideal location for mixed-use and multi-family residential development. The project has been designed to be compatible with adjacent single-family residential uses by concentrating the bulk and mass of the building toward El Camino Real, consistent with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and build-to-line requirements, and set back substantially from the rear neighbors. Easy pedestrian and bicyclist access is provided to both residential and retail uses along El Camino Real to encourage alternate transit in a transit-oriented area. These areas include pedestrian amenities that create public spaces to sit and rest at each corner of the development. Vehicle access to the site is oriented away from El Camino Real in accordance with City and Caltrans goals. The project has been designed to highlight natural materials (i.e. wood) and the colors are subdued in accordance with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Specific policies and goals with which the project would be consistent are included in Attachment C of the staff report. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development: The siting of the new mixed use and multi-family residential buildings is consistent with uses encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan for this area and are permitted uses within their respectively zoned portion of the site. The subject property is located within the Cal-Ventura area. As stated in the Comprehensive Plan, the California Avenue/Ventura Area (Cal-Ventura) has an established pattern of mixed use, with service commercial, light industrial and housing. Continued mixing of land uses is encouraged. The Comprehensive Plan also states that the proximity of this area to transit and services makes it an excellent location for both housing and commercial uses. In addition, the project site is a housing inventory site as identified in the City’s adopted Housing Element. The lot merger would allow for the development to not only meet but exceed the housing inventory allocation for this site, contributing positively to a reduction in the jobs/housing imbalance in the City. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: The proposed density is consistent with densities outlined for multi-family uses in the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, The Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Design Element notes that the permitted number of housing units for Multi-Family Residential land use will vary by area, depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping and environmental problems. Net densities range from 8 to 40 units. Density should be on the lower end of the scale next to single family residential areas. The proposed project, at a density equivalent to 28 units per acre, is consistent with the density allowances for this land use designation. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat: This merger will not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat. The project site is located within a developed area. The nearest water feature is Matadero Creek, located over 750 feet west of the project site. There is no recognized sensitive wildlife or habitat on the project site or in the immediate project vicinity. 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: The merging of three parcels to create one combined parcel for a mixed-use and multi-family development will not cause serious public health problems, because the site is designated for such permitted uses. The site is located within the California-Olive-Emerson (COE) plume; however, implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan as well as the conditions of approval outlined in Section 7 would ensure that, potential impacts associated with earth disturbing activities in the plume would not result in health impacts to existing or future residents within the area. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. There is a City of Palo public utility easement along the property line between the CS portion of the site and the adjacent single family residence. The ramp would be partially located within this easement. This easement currently provides power to the existing retail at the project site. However, as a condition of approval of the preliminary parcel map this easement would be vacated. A new easement from Acacia Avenue to a preferred central location would provide power to the resulting parcel. Therefore, the proposed preliminary parcel map would not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the subdivision. SECTION 6. DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION FINDINGS. In order for Council to approve a design enhancement exception, the project must comply with the following Findings for a Design Enhancement Exception as required in Chapter 18.76.050 of the PAMC. The proposed design enhancement is requested to allow for the location of the garage ramp leading to the below grade parking garage to be located five feet from the property line where a ten foot setback and landscaping strip is required. The proposed exception enhances the design of the site circulation by reducing vehicle trips leaving toward Olive Avenue in order to reduce traffic adjacent single-family residential uses. Finding #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; The proposed project site is extraordinary in that it has three-way split zoning and three-way split land use designation on the site, which results in the need to develop the site consistent with the zoning and land use requirements of each respective portion of the site (e.g. meeting development standards such as setbacks as well as ensuring that the use of each portion is consistent with permitted uses within that specific zone district as well as consistent with the land use designation) despite the fact that the preliminary parcel map results in a single parcel. Although two-way split zoning does occur in some areas of the City it is not very common and three-way split zoning is extremely rare. This, combined with the project’s location on El Camino Real, which makes it subject to the South El Camino Real design guidelines, as well as its proximity to nearby residential uses and therefore associated development standards for areas within 150 feet of these uses, creates restraints with respect to where the buildings and parking can be located. The South El Camino Real Design Guidelines as well as development standards require that buildings along El Camino Real be built up to the build-to-line and encourage parking to be located in areas that are not visible from the street frontage. In addition, height restrictions and attention to privacy limit where the buildings can be located with respect to the adjacent residences. The location of the ramp is designed to meet all applicable requirements and guidelines and is also located as to reduce overall trips leaving the site toward Olive Avenue where they could be more impactful to single-family residents in the area. Finding #2: The granting of the application 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 requirements of this title (Zoning) and the architectural review findings set forth in Section 18.76.020(d); and The location of the ramp five feet into the required ten foot setback/landscaping strip is critical to the proposed site circulation, which is designed to reduce impacts on adjacent single-family residential uses by reducing traffic on Olive Street. In addition, the circulation design eliminates curb cuts and parking on/visible from El Camino Real by providing it at the rear of the property and underground, which is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, and Caltrans. It enhances views from El Camino Real by eliminating parking visible along the corridor and enhances views from single-family residences by providing most parking underground. The ramp only encroaches on a portion of the setback and still allows room for landscaping to be provided along the length of the property line. Finding #3: The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The exception relates to an encroachment of the garage ramp five feet closer to the property line than would typically be allowed in accordance with PAMC Sections 18.16.060(B) and 18.23.050(B)(vi). The proposed exception would reduce vehicle trips leaving toward Olive Avenue, reducing traffic adjacent single-family residential uses. A 5- foot landscaping strip would still be provided. A sound wall would be provided along the entire project site adjacent single-family residential uses to ensure that operational noise would not be impactful to existing single-family residents. Therefore, the proposed exception would not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements. SECTION 7. Site and Design Conditions of Approval. PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "3001 El Camino Real Site Development Permit-Resubmittal 3,” stamped as received by the City on October 10, 2017 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If, during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program associated with the project and attached here as Exhibit A is incorporated by reference and all mitigation measures shall be implemented as described in such document. 6. TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: To comply with Comprehensive Plan Policy N-29 the applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce exposure of proposed residences to toxic air contaminants emissions from vehicles on El Camino Real: a. Submit to the City of Palo Alto a ventilation proposal prepared by a licensed design professional for all on-site buildings that describes the ventilation design and how that design ensures all dwelling units would be below the excess cancer risk level of 10 in one million established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. b. If the proposed buildings would use operable windows or other sources of infiltration of ambient air, the development shall install a central HVAC system that includes high efficiency particulate filters (a MERV rating of 13 or higher). These types of filters are capable of removing approximately 90 percent of the DPM emissions from air introduced into the HVAC system. The system may also include a carbon filter to remove other chemical matter. Filtration systems must operate to maintain positive pressure within the building interior to prevent entrainment of outdoor air indoors. c. If the development limits infiltration through non-operable windows, a suitable ventilation system shall include a ventilation system with filtration specifications equivalent to or better than the following: (1) American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers MERV-13 supply air filters, (2) greater than or equal to one air exchanges per hour of fresh outside filtered air, (3) greater than or equal to four air exchanges per hour recirculation, and (4) less than or equal to 0.25 air exchanges per hour in unfiltered infiltration. These types of filtration methods are capable of removing approximately 90 percent of the DPM emissions from air introduced into the HVAC system. d. Windows and doors shall be fully weatherproofed with caulking and weather-stripping that is rated to last at least 20 years. Weatherproof should be maintained and replaced by the property owner, as necessary, to ensure functionality for the lifetime of the project e. Where appropriate, install passive (drop-in) electrostatic filtering systems, especially those with low air velocities (i.e., 1 mph) f. Ensure an ongoing maintenance plan for the HVAC and filtration systems. Manufacturers of these types of filters recommend that they be replaced after two to three months of use. g. The applicant shall inform occupants regarding the proper use of any installed air filtration system. 7. VAPOR MITIGATION SYSTEM: The below-grade parking garage will be designed to include a passive vapor mitigation system to protect future residents and retail users. 8. LOADING SPACE: The proposed on-street loading space shall be restricted to non-peak business hours for both the project site and adjacent commercial activities to ensure that economic and safety goals can still be achieved. Proposed loading hours shall be submitted and approved by the Transportation Division prior to occupancy. 9. NOISE: In accordance with PAMC Section 9.10.040 no person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine or device, or any combination of same, on commercial or industrial property, a noise level more than eight dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. 10. ARB SUBCOMMITTEE: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall return to the ARB subcommittee for approval of the following items, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment: a. Remove the 6 inch tall recessed band along the roofline. b. Reconsider the proposed material for the stair tower enclosures. 11. INDEMNITY: 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 indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for 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 own choice. 12. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Estimated Development Impact Fees and Residential In-lieu fees in the amount of $1,679,542.30 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 13. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 14. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. Transportation Division 15. PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN: A four space off-street parking reduction from the required ten designated guest off-street parking spaces is included as part of the CS portion of the project and has been reviewed in accordance with the city’s parking adjustment standards. The 3001 El Camino Real Parking Management Plan, dated August 4, 2017 follows the city’s standards and demonstrates a portion of the designated guest and retail parking stalls may be shared as stipulated in the parking management plan. Should the proposed parking adjustment be approved as part of the project, signage and striping as recommended in the parking management plan shall be shown on plans submitted for a building permit and installed prior to building permit final. 16. LONG TERM BICYCLE PARKING: Plans reviewed at the entitlement stage identify use of a two-tier bicycle parking fixture to meet the requirements for long-term bicycle parking. A two-tier system is conditionally approved by the Transportation Division provided the applicant submits a product specification with building permit plans demonstrating the selected fixture includes a lift-assist system for the second level. 17. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: Inclusive of requirements from other city departments or public agencies, the following off-site improvements shall be constructed as part of the project. Topographic survey, electrical, utility, grading and drainage, and plans from any other discipline to the extent necessary for implementing required improvements shall be submitted to the City of Palo Alto for review in accordance with established permitting procedures: a. PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON: As part of this project, a new Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) shall be installed at the intersection of El Camino Real and Olive Avenue to provide a controlled, marked pedestrian crossing of El Camino Real. Pending detailed evaluation of the site, the crosswalk may be located on the north or south side of the intersection, but shall include all civil, electrical, and utility improvements necessary to provide a fully operational PHB with crossing facilities which meet current accessibility standards, including curb ramps and bulb-outs on the western side of the intersection. Bulb- outs are necessary on both sides of the crossing to minimize the pedestrian clearance time for the PHB, reduce pedestrian crossing distance, and improve pedestrian visibility. Additionally, PHB shall be physically interconnected with the traffic signal system to the extent necessary to achieve synchronization and operational efficiencies described in the 3001 El Camino Real Transportation Impact Analysis. The design and finish of the new poles, mast arms, luminaires, and associated equipment shall match the aesthetic appearance of signal equipment installed at the Stanford Avenue and El Camino Real intersection, information for which are available from the Transportation Division. b. BULB OUTS: Bulb outs are required along the project frontage and at one location on the west side of the El Camino Real/Olive avenue intersection as part of the PHB installation. On the El Camino Real frontage, the bulb-outs shall extend not further than 4-feet from the existing face of curb to allow for potential future Class II bicycle lanes. Bulb-outs on the intersecting side streets may extend between four and six feet from the existing face of curb. c. SIGNAGE, STRIPING, & CURBSIDE MANAGEMENT: The off-site plans shall include a signage and striping plan which clearly identifies: the location of existing and new sign panels and poles; proposed striping. Due to the width of Acacia Avenue, on-street parking may need to be restricted on one side of the street for all or a portion of the roadway segment along the project frontage. 18. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT: In accordance with PAMC 18.52.03(i)(1), the applicant shall prepare a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment prior to the issuance of building permits. The TDM plan shall include measures and programs to achieve the goal of reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips to the site by a minimum of 30%. The TDM plan shall include an annual monitoring plan to document mode share and vehicle trips to the project site. At minimum, the monitoring plan shall be conducted by a qualified third party professional with reports submitted to the Director two years after building occupancy and again every year thereafter. The Director may require the TDM plan be revised in the future if the minimum reduction goal is not achieved through the measures and programs initially implemented. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING PRIOR TO AN EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT SUBMITTAL 19. Subdivision Improvement Agreement is required to secure compliance with condition of approval and security of improvements onsite and offsite per PAMC Section 21.16.220. 20. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: Submit a copy of the off-site improvement plans that includes the replacement of curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities, landscape, etc. Provide Caltrans standard details along the project frontage. Plans shall include the proposed public access easement, grades along the conforms. 21. Submit a construction cost estimate associated with the off-site improvements. 22. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to building permit demolition that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. Plan shall include the following, but not limited to, construction fence, construction entrance and exit, stockpile areas, equipment and material storage area, workers parking area, construction office trailer, temporary bathroom, measures for dewatering if needed, crane location, working hours, contractor’s contact information, truck traffic route, setbacks from environmentally sensitive areas, erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented during construction. 23. DEMOLITION PLAN: Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and Demolition Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division contact 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”. Also plot and label the tree protection zone. 24. PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT: Owner shall create a public access easement for the additional area behind the property line needed to create a 12-foot wide sidewalk along El Camino Real. Plot and label the Public Access Easement along El Camino Real that provides the 12-foot wide sidewalk. 25. MAPPING: The proposed project appears to be located within 4 or 5 parcel. In addition it’s not clear from the plans how many parcels (at grade and air space parcels) the applicant intends to create as part of the new development. The parcels shall be merged and subdivided recorded prior to issuance of a building and/or grading and excavation permit. This project may trigger either a Minor or Major Subdivision Application. Five parcels would trigger a major subdivision. Please clarify the total number of proposed parcels associated with this project. If retail, commercial or residential units intend to be sold then new parcels would be required. Public Works’ Tentative Maps and Preliminary Parcel Maps checklist must accompany the completed application. All existing and proposed dedications and easements must be shown on the submitted map. The map would trigger further requirements from Public Works, see Palo Alto Municipal Code section 21.12 for Preliminary Parcel Map requirements and section 21.16 for Parcel Map requirements. If a Map is required, it shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit or excavation and grading permit. 26. STREET LIGHTING: The applicant is required to install decorative street lights along the El Camino Real sidewalk frontage. New pedestrian-scale luminaires, poles and bases shall be centered between the roadway lighting to provide a combined spacing of roughly 60-ft O.C. Decorative roadway and pedestrian scale lighting standards are available from Public Works staff. Plot and label the new lights on the proposed Site Plan and/or Utility Plan. 27. GRADING PERMIT: The grading and drainage plan must include an earthworks table with the estimated cut and fill volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 28. Provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, basement elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, shoring for the proposed basement, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for the basement access, crane locations (if any), etc. Plans submitted for the Grading and Excavation Permit, shall be stand-alone, and therefore the plans shall include any conditions from other divisions that pertain to items encountered during rough grading for example if contaminated groundwater is encountered and dewatering is expected, provide notes on the plans based Water Quality’s conditions of approval. Provide a note on the plans to direct the contractor to the approve City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map, which is available on the City’s website. 29. Provide the following note on the Rough Grading Plan and the Final Grading Plan: “In my professional judgement, the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade.” 30. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works or Caltrans. 31. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 32. DEWATERING: Proposed underground garage excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April 1 through October 31 due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level; if the proposed project will encounter groundwater, the applicant must provide all required dewatering submittals for Public Works review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. Public Works has dewatering submittal requirements and guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 33. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: Provide a separate Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by a qualified licensed engineer, surveyor or architect. Plan shall be wet-stamped and signed by the same. Plan shall include the following: existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes (cut and fill in CY), pad, finished floor, garage elevation, base flood elevation (if applicable) grades along the project conforms, property lines, or back of walk. See PAMC Section 16.28.110 for additional items. Projects that front directly into the public sidewalk, shall include grades at the doors or building entrances. Provide drainage flow arrows to demonstrate positive drainage away from building foundations at minimum of 2% or 5% for 10- feet per 2013 CBC Section 1804.3. Label the downspouts, splashblocks (2-feet long min) and any site drainage features such as swales, area drains, bubble-up locations. Include grate elevations, low points and grade breaks. Provide dimensions between the bubblers and property lines. In no case shall drainage across property lines exceed that which existed prior to grading per 2013 CBC Section J109.4. In particular, runoff from the new garage shall not drain into neighboring property. For additional grading and drainage detail design See Grading and Drainage Plan Guidelines for Residential Development. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 34. “NO DUMPING” LOGO: The applicant is required to paint the “No Dumping/Flows to Matadero Creek” logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all onsite 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 drainage plan. Similar medallions shall be installed near the catch basins that are proposed to be relocated. Provide notes on the plans to reference that medallions and stencils. 35. STAIRWELLS AND LIGHTWELLS: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A separate drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 36. STORM WATER TREATMENT: Provide a note on the plans to indicate that at the time of installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, a third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings. 37. Applicant shall be aware that the project may trigger water line and meter upgrades or relocation, if upgrades or relocation are required, the building permit plan set shall plot and label utility changes. If a backflow preventer is required, it shall be located within private property and plotted on the plans. Similarly if a transformer upgrade or a grease interceptor is required it shall also be located within the private property. Plot and label these on the Utility plan. 38. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right- of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and/or Caltrans standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center and from Caltrans. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 39. CALTRANS: Caltrans review and approval of this project is required. Caltrans right-of-way across El Camino Real extends from back-of-walk to back-of walk. The City has a maintenance agreement with Caltrans that requires the City to maintain the sidewalk and to issue Street Work Permits for work done on the sidewalks by private contractors. Caltrans has retained the right to review and permit new ingress/egress driveways off El Camino Real as well as the installation of Traffic Control devices as part of this project. Submit a permit from Caltrans to perform the proposed work. 40. The following note shall be shown on the plans adjacent to the area on the Site Plan: “Any construction within the city right-of-way must have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” 41. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinate to keep materials and equipment onsite or within private property. 42. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace all existing sidewalk, curbs, gutters and driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work (at a minimum all curb and gutter and sidewalk along the project frontage) The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. Include the 12-foot wide dimension on the plans and verify that the sidewalk is unobstructed. 43. PAVEMENT: Contractor shall be aware that Olive Avenue was resurfaced in 2015, any cutting into the pavement will trigger additional pavement requirements. Add the following note to the Site Plan: “Applicant and contractor may be responsible for resurfacing portions of the three project frontages based the roadway surface condition after project completion and limits of trench work. At a minimum pavement resurfacing of the full width of the street along the project frontage may be required.” Plot and label the area to be resurfaced as hatched on the site plan. 44. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650-496-5953). 45. OIL/WATER SEPARATOR: Parking garage floor drains within covered levels shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The oil/water separator shall be located within private property. Plot and label the proposed location of oil/water separator. 46. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 47. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 48. ADJACENT NEIGHBORS: For any improvements that extend beyond the property lines such as tie-backs for the basement, provide signed copies of the original agreements with the adjacent property owners. The agreements shall indicate that the adjacent property owners have reviewed and approved the proposed improvements (such as soldier beams, tiebacks) that extend into their respective properties 49. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of the grading or building permits. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. 50. SWPPP: The proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant will be required to comply with the State of California’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and preparing and implementing a site specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses both construction-stage and post-construction BMP’s for storm water quality protection. The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. Also, include the City's standard "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet in the building permit plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at the Development Center. 51. Based on the City’s GIS there may be plume monitoring wells within the project site. Typically these wells are maintained by Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The proposed work shall not destroy any of the monitoring well or affect the function and use of these. Contact SCVWD to verify the well location. Plot and label them on the plans and provide notes to protect wells as required by the district. 52. It’s unclear what the double dashed line surrounding the building represents on C2.0 as there is no Civil legend, but underground structures are not allowed to have perforated pipe drainage systems that pump groundwater. Please clarify what that represents and revise design accordingly. 53. Material of storm drain in ROW needs to be called out and propose materials per Engineering Design Guidelines. 54. Please include any applicable City standard details in the plan set and call them out on plans. PUBLIC WORKS UTILITIES DIVISION 55. The Existing electric manhole located near the corner of Acacia and El Camino Real must be relocated at the cost of the applicant such that sufficient clearance is provided. The revised location will be determined in coordination with CPAU prior to issuance of the building permit. 56. The conduit path from the meter room to the transformer shall be shown on the building permit plans to the satisfaction of CPAU prior to issuance of a building permit. The conduit path shall not exceed 270 degrees and shall not be located under the building foundation. Proper clearance, including three feet on all sides, eight feet on the front and 30 feet vertical clearance) must be provided for the transformer and shown on the building plans. 57. Existing utility poles must be shown on the building permit site plan. 58. Label the existing pole and transformer on Acacia in front of the RM-30 building and its clearance from the proposed storm drain. 59. Label the existing pole on the fry’s site where electric will be rerouted. Guy wire may be required on this pole to ensure that existing pole lines in both directions are stable. 60. Final tree species selection and location along Acacia shall be coordinated with and approved by utilities prior to issuance of a building permit in order to ensure that utility infrastructure is not impacted. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 61. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b)* verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and changes are incorporated in the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (d) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. * (b above) other information. The Building Permit submittal set shall be accompanied by the project site arborist’s certification letter that the plans have incorporated said design changes and are consistent with City Tree Technical Manual Standards, Regulations and information: a. Provide a project arborist’s Updated Tree Protection Report (TPR) with building permit level mitigation measures, (e.g., resolve grading proximity issues with Public tree #2 and neighbor trees #3 and 5; exact TPZ scaled in feet). Provide plan revision directions to minimize root cutting conflicts that are obvious in the civil, basement, sidewalk improvement sheets. Specifically address new sidewalk replacement over El Camino Real trees. b. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Construction Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC 8.10.080. 62. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #1-7 applies) b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, (John McLenahan, dated June 2, 2016) shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index. c. Plans to show protective tree fencing. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show the correct configuration of Type I, Type II or Type III fencing around each Regulated Tree, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1; City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans); or by using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. 63. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS: In addition to showing TPZ fencing, add the following Notes on the specified Plan Sheets. a. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated on Sheet T-1, in the Tree Protection Report and the approved plans”. b. Note #2. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans and relevant sheets shall add a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Site Arborist at 650-321-0202"; c. Note #3. Utility (sanitary sewer/gas/water/backflow/electric/storm drain) plan sheets shall include the following note: “Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T-1 for instructions.” d. Note #4. “Pruning Restrictions. No pruning or clearance cutting of branches is permitted on City trees. Contractor shall obtain a Public Tree Permit from Urban Forestry (650-496-5953) for any work on Public Trees” 64. NEW TREES—SOIL VOLUME. Unless otherwise approved, new right-of-way trees each new tree shall be provided with 800 cubic feet of rootable soil area, utilizing Standard Dwg. #604/513. Rootable soil shall mean compaction less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas except when mitigated. Sidewalk or asphalt base underlayment [in lieu of compacted base rock] shall use an Alternative Base Material method such as structural grid (Silva Cell). Design and manufacturer details shall be added to relevant civil and landscape sheets. Each parking lot tree in small islands and all public trees shall be provided adequate rootable soil commensurate to mature tree size. Note: this expectation requires coordination with the engineer, arborist and landscape architect. a. Minimum soil volume for tree size growth performance (in cubic feet): Large: 1,200 cu.ft. Medium: 800 cu.ft. Small: 400 cu.ft. b. Landscape Plan. When qualifying for parking area shade ordinance compliance (PAMC 18.40.130) trees shall be labeled (as S, M or L). c. Engineered Soil Mix (ESM). When approved, Engineered Soil Mix base material shall be utilized in specified areas, such as a sidewalk base or channeling to a landscape area, to achieve expected shade tree rooting potential and maximum service life of the sidewalk, curb, parking surfaces and compacted areas. Plans and Civil Drawings shall use CPA Public Works Engineering ESM Specifications, Section 30 and Standard Dwg. #603a. Designated areas will be identified by cross-hatch or other symbol, and specify a minimum of 24" depth. The technology may be counted toward any credits awarded for LEED or Sustainable Sites certification ratings. DURING CONSTRUCTION 65. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section (derek.sproat@cityofpaloalto.org). The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 66. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 67. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, (John McLenahan of McLenahan Consulting, LCC, 650-326- 8781), or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 68. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 69. 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. 70. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around 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 71. LANDSCAPE CERTIFICATION LETTER. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of a verification letter 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. 72. PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to written request for temporary or final occupancy, the contractor shall provide to the Planning Department and property owner a final inspection letter by the Project Arborist. The inspection shall evaluate the success or needs of Regulated tree protection, including new landscape trees, as indicated on the approved plans. The written acceptance of successful tree preservation shall include a photograph record and/or recommendations for the health, welfare, mitigation remedies for injuries (if any). The final report may be used to navigate any outstanding issues, concerns or security guarantee return process, when applicable. POST CONSTRUCTION 73. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2008 or current version) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. Building Division 74. Spiral stairs can be utilized to access residential areas no more than 250 square feet in size. 75. Separate reviews and permits are required for PV (solar) and EVSE (vehicle charging stations. Please show this on the plans in some way. 76. Common areas outdoors shall be made accessible for all elements. 77. The review and approval of this project does not include any other items of construction other than those written in the ARB project review application included with the project plans and documents under this review. If the plans include items or elements of construction that are not included in the written description, it or they may not have been known to have been a part of the intended review and have not, unless otherwise specifically called out in the approval, been reviewed. Watershed Protection Division The following conditions are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.: 78. DISCHARGE OF GROUNDWATER: The project is located in an area of suspected or known groundwater contamination with Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). If groundwater is encountered then the plans must include the following procedure for construction dewatering (PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040): Prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering, the water shall be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using EPA Method 601/602 or Method 624. The analytical results of the VOC testing shall be transmitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) 650-329-2598. Contaminated ground water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain system or creeks. If the concentrations of pollutants exceed the applicable limits for discharge to the storm drain system then an Exceptional Discharge Permit must be obtained from the RWQCP prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. If the VOC concentrations exceed the toxic organics discharge limits contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) a treatment system for removal of VOCs will also be required prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. Additionally, any water discharged to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system must be free of sediment. 79. UNPOLLUTED WATER: Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system (PAMC 16.09.055). And PAMC 16.09.175 (b) General prohibitions and practices Exterior (outdoor) drains may be connected to the sanitary sewer system 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. For additional information regarding loading docks, see section 16.09.175(k) 80. COVERED PARKING: 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 (PAMC 16.09.180[b][9]) 81. CARWASH: In accordance with PAMC 16.09.180(b)(11) New Multi-family residential units and residential development projects with 25 or more units shall provide a covered area for occupants to wash their vehicles. A drain shall be installed to capture all vehicle wash waters and shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. The oil/water separator shall be cleaned at a frequency of at least once every six months or more frequently if recommended by the manufacturer or the Superintendent. Oil/water separators shall have a minimum capacity of 100 gallons. The area shall be graded or bermed in such a manner as to prevent the discharge of storm water to the sanitary sewer system. This requirement can be exempted if no washing is allowed on-site via rental/lease agreement and any hose bibs must be fitted with lock-outs or other connections controls and signage indicating that car washing is not allowed. 82. ARCHITECTURAL COPPER: Per PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) on and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory. 83. LOADING DOCKS: Per PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2) (i) Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. (ii) Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled or used within the loading dock area, a drain to the storm drain system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. The area in which the drain is located shall be covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading. Appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided for all rainwater contacting the loading dock site. 84. CONDENSATE FROM HVAC: Per PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 85. COOLING TOWERS: Per PAMC 16.09.205 No person shall discharge or add to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system, or add to a cooling system, pool, spa, fountain, boiler or heat exchanger, any substance that contains any of the following: (1) Copper in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; (2) Any tri-butyl tin compound in excess of 0.10 mg/liter; (3) Chromium in excess of 2.0 mg/liter. (4) Zinc in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; or (5) Molybdenum in excess of 2.0 mg/liter. The above limits shall apply to any of the above-listed substances prior to dilution with the cooling system, pool, spa or fountain water. A flow meter shall be installed to measure the volume of blowdown 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. 86. COPPER PIPING: Per PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing. 87. MERCURY SWITCHES: Per 16.09.180(12) Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps. 88. COOLING SYSTEMS, POOLS, SPAS, FOUNTAINS, BOILERS and HEAT EXCHANGERS: Per PAMC 16.09.205(a) It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm drain system. 89. Storm Drain Labeling: Per PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping - Flows to Bay," or equivalent UTILITILES - WATER, GAS, WASTEWATER PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 90. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures. 91. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT 92. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes, electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 93. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet per parcel/lot for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 94. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 95. The utility plan (C3.0) show 1.5” irrigation, 4” domestic, and 8” fire water on Olive Ave. The water main on this street is only 6”PVC. The maximum water service connection to this water main is 6”. The propose sewer lateral is 8” (existing 4” lateral), sewer flow studies may require. The plan also show propose 8” sewer lateral on Acacia Ave. (existing 6” sewer main). See current WGW engineering standards in CPAU website. A meeting with WGW and Electrical engineering is recommending prior to building department permit application. 96. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 97. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. After the work is complete but prior to sign off, the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of the contractor installed water and wastewater mains and services per City of Palo Alto Utilities record drawing procedures. For contractor installed services the contractor shall install 3M marker balls at each water or wastewater service tap to the main and at the City clean out for wastewater laterals. 98. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 99. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU’s approval). Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 100. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities or building inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 101. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 102. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 103. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 104. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For service connections of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant's contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 105. A new water service line installation for fire system usage may require. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements. 106. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must conform to utilities standard details. 107. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans 108. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for facilities installed in private property. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies of the public utilities easement across the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the development. 109. Where public mains are installed in private streets/PUEs for condominium and town home projects the CC&Rs and final map shall include the statement: “Public Utility Easements: If the City’s reasonable use of the Public Utility Easements, which are shown as P.U.E on the Map, results in any damage to the Common Area, then it shall be the responsibility of the Association, and not of the City, to Restore the affected portion(s) of the Common Area. This Section may not be amended without the prior written consent of the City”. 110. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 111. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 112. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout at the front of the building. This cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can be videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is installed by directional boring. 113. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 114. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for all utility work in the El Camino Real right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW engineering section. 115. Due to high demands outside City’s control, a three to six month wait time for water and gas meters are expected. The applicant is strongly encouraged to provide the application load sheet demands as early in the design process as possible to the WGW utilities engineering department. Once payment is made, anticipate service installations completed within said time frame (3 – 6 months). GREEN BUILDING 116. CALGreen Checklist: If the project is a new construction residential building, then the project must meet the California Green Building Code Mandatory requirements outlined in Chapter 4, (with local amendments) plus Tier 2 minimum pre-requisites and electives outlined in Appendix A4* (with local amendments). The project must hire a Green Building Special Inspector for a pre-permit third-party design review and a third-party green building inspection process. The project must provide a preliminary GB-1 sheet for planning entitlement approval. Submittal requirements are outlined on the Development Services Green Building Compliance webpage. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/compliance.asp PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) *Note: Projects subject to Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2016 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18. EVSE Transformer Location: 117. EVSE Transformer Location: If the project triggers the EVSE requirements in Part B of these comments, then applicant must identify transformer requirements associated with EVSE mentioned and show the appropriate transformer location and size on the Planning Application. The applicant must contact the Electric Engineering Department within Utilities to confirm the any transformer requirements associated with the proposed EVSE. For questions, contact the Electric Engineering mainline at 650-566-4500. Local Energy Reach Code for Residential Projects 118. Energy Efficiency Option 1: No Photovoltaic System. If the project includes new construction, then the project triggers the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. For all new single-family residential and multi-family residential, non-residential construction, the performance approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed new-single family residential or multi- family construction is at least: 10 percent less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design if the proposed building does not include a photovoltaic system. (Ord. 5383 § 1 (part), 2016) Green Building Requirements for Residential Projects 119. CALGREEN CHECKLIST: If the project is a new construction residential building, then the project must meet the California Green Building Code Mandatory requirements outlined in Chapter 4, (with local amendments) plus Tier 2 minimum pre-requisites and electives outlined in Appendix A4* (with local amendments). The project must hire a Green Building Special Inspector for a pre-permit third-party design review and a third-party green building inspection process. The project must select from the City’s list of approved inspectors found on the Green Building Compliance Webpage. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) *Note: Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2016 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18. *Note: Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2013 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18. 120. MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: If the new residential development project has an aggregate (combined) landscape area equal to or greater than 500 square feet, the project is subject to the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) and the project will require an separate permit for Outdoor Water Efficiency. See Outdoor Water Efficiency Submittal Guidelines and permit instructions at the following link. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/outdoor_water_efficiency_.asp 121. RECYCLED WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FOR LANDSCAPE: If the project is either a new construction or a rehabilitated landscape and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must install a dedicated irrigation meter related to the recycled water infrastructure. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. If the project is outside the boundaries of the recycled water project area and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must install recycled water infrastructure for irrigation systems. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 122. CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION: For residential construction projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 requirements, the project must meet the enhanced construction waste reduction at 80% construction waste reduction. PAMC 16.14.260 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. https://www.greenhalosystems.com 123. EVSE: If the project is a new multifamily residential project, then the project must comply with the City of Palo Alto Green Building Ordinance 5393. For resident parking, the project must supply one EVSE-Ready Outlet or EVSE Installed for each residential unit in the structure. For guest parking, the project shall provide Conduit Only, EVSE Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for at least 25% of the guest parking, among which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall be EVSE installed. See PAMC 16.14.420 for definitions on the types of EVSE parking. (Ord. 5393 § 2, 2016). 124. EVSE: If the project is a new multifamily residential project, with attached parking, then the project must comply with the City of Palo Alto Green Building Ordinance 5393. For resident parking, the project must supply one Conduit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet or EVSE Installed for each newly constructed residence in a multi-family residential structure featuring (1) a parking space attached to the residence and (2) a shared electrical panel between the residence and parking space (e.g. a multi-family structure with tuck-under garages). See PAMC 16.14.420 for definitions on the types of EVSE parking. (Ord. 5393 § 2, 2016) 125. EVSE TRANSFORMER LOCATION: If the project triggers the EVSE requirements in Part B of these comments, then applicant must identify transformer requirements associated with EVSE mentioned and show the appropriate transformer location and size on the Permit Plans. The applicant must contact the Electric Engineering Department within Utilities to confirm the any transformer requirements associated with the proposed EVSE. For questions, contact the Electric Engineering mainline at 650-566-4500. SECTION 8. Preliminary Parcel Map Conditions of Approval PRIOR TO PARCEL MAP SUBMITTAL 116. Proposed S.W.E. along El Camino Real should be changed and labeled as Public Access Easement. 117. Any proposed transformer is to be shown and kept on private property. 118. The Parcel Map shall include CITY ENGINEER STATEMENT, CITY SURVEYOR STATEMENT and DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT STATEMENT. 119. The utility easement from Olive Avenue between the property line and the adjacent single family residence must be vacated prior to approval of the Parcel Map. 120. The new utility easement from Acacia must be shown on the Parcel Map. PRIOR TO PARCEL MAP RECORDATION. 121. The City of Palo Alto does not currently have a City Surveyor we have retained the services of Siegfried Engineering to review and provide approval on behalf of the City. Siegfried will be reviewing, signing and stamping the Parcel Map associated with your project. In effort to employ the services of Siegfried Engineering, and as part of the City’s cost recovery measures, the applicant is required to provide payment to cover the cost of Siegfried Engineering’s review. Our intent is to forward your Parcel Map to Siegfried for an initial preliminary review of the documents. Siegfried will then provide a review cost amount based on the complexity of the project and the information shown on the document. We will share this information with you once we receive it and ask that you return a copy acknowledging the amount. You may then provide a check for this amount as payment for the review cost. The City must receive payment prior to beginning the final review process. 122. Submit wet signed and stamped mylar copy of the Parcel Map to the Public Works for signature. Map shall be signed by Owner, Notary and Surveyor prior to formal submittal. SECTION 9. Term of Approval. Site and Design, Design Enhancement Exception, and Parking Adjustment Approval. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the Site and Design approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. SECTION 10. Preliminary Parcel Map Approval Granted. Preliminary Parcel Map approval is granted by the City Council under PAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.20 and the California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 8 of this Record. Approval of the Preliminary Parcel Map prepared by Kier and Wright, “Preliminary Parcel Map City of Palo Alto County of Santa Clara 3001 El Camino Real October, 2017”, consisting of three lots to be merged into one lot, dated October 10, 2017, is strictly limited to those features required to be included on a preliminary parcel map under PAMC Section 21.12.040. No development rights shall vest under PAMC Chapter 21.13 or the Subdivision Map Act as a result of this approval. SECTION 11. Parcel Map Conformance. The Parcel Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council shall be in substantial conformance with the Preliminary Parcel Map prepared by Kier and Wright, “Preliminary Parcel Map City of Palo Alto County of Santa Clara 3001 El Camino Real October, 2017”, consisting of three lots to be merged, dated October 10, 2017, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 8. A copy of this plan is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Environment, Current Planning Division. Within two years of the approval date of the Preliminary Parcel Map, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and a Parcel Map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Preliminary Parcel Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Section 21.16 and submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]). PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment MITIGATION MONITORING + REPORTING PROGRAM PROJECT NAME 3001 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project APPLICATION NUMBER 16PLN-00097 APPLICANT/OWNER Sobrato Organization (Tim Steele) 10600 N. DeAnza Boulevard, #200 Cupertino, CA 95014 DATE July 3, 2017 The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 3001 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project identifies the mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the impacts associated with the project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was amended in 1989 to add Section 21081.6, which requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to proposed development. As stated in section 21081.6(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, “... the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” Section 21081.6 also provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined as part of adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The mitigation monitoring table lists those mitigation measures that would be included as conditions of approval for the project. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 2 Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1: Nesting Bird Protection. To avoid disturbance of nesting and special-status birds, including raptorial species protected by the MBTA and CFGC, activities related to the project, including, but not limited to, vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and construction and demolition shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (February 1 through August 30). If construction must begin during the breeding season, then a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 3 days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting bird pre- construction survey shall be conducted on foot inside the Project Boundary, including a 300-foot buffer (500-foot for raptors), and in inaccessible areas (e.g., private lands) from afar using binoculars to the extent practical. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in southern California coastal communities. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer (dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site) shall be determined and demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the avian biologist has confirmed that breeding/ nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist. Applicant or designee/ Construction contractor If work occurs during bird breeding season, pre- construction survey no more than three days prior to construction. If nests are found, buffers set prior to start of construction. CPA Planning Department BIO-2: Tree Preservation and Protection Plan. To avoid disturbance and injury to on-site trees, the recommendations for tree preservation in the Arborist Report dated October 22, 2014 (Revised June 2, 2016) shall be implemented. These recommendations include, but are not limited to, tree protection fencing to enclose as much of the tree protection zone (TPZ) as feasible around City trees on El Camino Real and Olive Avenue, no grading encroachments closer than 6 inches to the tree trunk diameter, and periodic inspections by the Site Arborist during construction activities. Applicant or designee and site arborist/ Construction contractor Fencing installed prior to construction, inspections periodically during construction. CPA Urban Forestry Division CULTURAL RESOURCES CR-1: Resource Recovery Procedures. In the event that archaeological, paleontological, or Tribal Cultural resources are unearthed during project construction, all earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist, paleontologist, or Tribal Cultural representative has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. A Native American representative shall be retained to monitor any mitigation work associated with Native American cultural material. Applicant or designee/ Construction contractor During Construction CPA Planning Department CR-2: Human Remains Recovery Procedures. If human remains are unearthed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition pursuant to the Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission. Additional surveys will be required if the Project changes to include unsurveyed areas. Applicant or designee/ Construction contractor During Construction CPA Planning Department City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 3 Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HAZ-1: Site Sampling Plan. Prior to issuance of any construction related permits, the developer shall conduct site sampling to examine the extent of on-site contamination. As a large portion of the project area once comprised railroad tracks, soil matrix samples shall be taken and analyzed for CAM 17 total metals and TPH fuel fingerprint. In addition, soil matrix samples shall be collected from 1.0-1.5, 2.5-3.0, and 4.5-5.0 feet below grade and all samples shall be analyzed for TPH and total metals. Following completion of the sampling, a report shall be prepared and sent to the City of Palo Alto for review and approval. If results of the sampling identify soil contamination, a clean-up goal will be established by the local oversight agency. The soil sampling results will be compared to a clean-up goal established by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB or the County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health. If a site specific clean-up goal is not determined, then the contamination would be remediated to below the established Environmental Screening Level (ESL)’s. Applicant or designee/Construc tion contractor Prior to issuance of construction related permits CPA Planning Department HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY HAZ-2: Soil Management Plan. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall prepare a soil management plan for all excavation projects conducted within the project site to be implemented in the event that excavation is occurring in an area documented to contain contaminants and for instances when contaminants not previously identified are suspected or discovered. The plan shall identify appropriate measures to be followed if contaminants are encountered during excavation. The appropriate measures shall identify personnel to be notified, emergency contacts, and a sampling protocol. If dewatering is to occur at the site, the soils management plan shall identify proper sampling and disposal of the water removed. The excavation and demolition contractors shall be made aware of the possibility of encountering known and unknown hazardous materials, and shall be provided with appropriate contact and notification information. The plan shall include a provision stating at what point it is safe to continue with the excavation or demolition, and identify the person authorized to make that determination. Removal, transportation, and disposal of impacted soil should be performed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. The plan shall be submitted to the City of Palo Alto for review and approval. Applicant or designee/Construc tion Contractor Prior to issuance of building permit and during construction CPA Planning Department NOISE N-1: Mufflers. During project construction, all equipment, fixed or mobile, should be operated with closed engine doors and should be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards. Use of manufacturer-certified mufflers associated with construction equipment has been shown to reduce noise levels by 8 to 10 dBA (City of West Hollywood 2014). Construction contractor During Construction CPA Planning Department N-2: Electrical Power. Whenever feasible, electrical power shall be used to run compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment. Construction contractor During Construction CPA Planning Department N-3: Equipment Staging. All stationary equipment shall be staged as far away from the adjacent residences as possible. Construction contractor During Construction CPA Planning Department City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 4 Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation N-4: Equipment Idling. Construction vehicles and equipment shall not be left idling for longer than five minutes when not in use. Construction contractor During Construction CPA Planning Department N-5: Workers’ Radios. All noise from workers’ radios shall be controlled to a point that they are not audible at sensitive receptors near construction activity. Construction contractor During Construction CPA Planning Department N-6: Disturbance Coordinator. A disturbance coordinator shall be designated by the contractor. The noise disturbance coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g. starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site. Construction contractor Prior to and during Construction CPA Planning Department N-7: Temporary Noise Attenuation Barrier. Temporary sound attenuation barriers should be used along the northern boundary of the site, separating the site from the adjacent single family residences. Temporary sound attenuation barriers should be high enough and long enough to break the line-of- site between the sound source and the receivers, and must be continuous with no gaps or holes between panels or the ground. Temporary sound barriers can include noise curtains, sound blankets, or solid temporary barriers. Installation of a temporary noise barrier between construction activities and adjacent sensitive receptors typically provides up to a 10 dBA attenuation (FHWA 2006). Construction contractor Prior to and during Construction CPA Planning Department TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC T-1: Traffic Mitigation. Prior to issuance of a final occupancy permit for the project, the applicant shall obtain the necessary permits and install a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon and associated improvements (e.g. crosswalk markings and ramps) at the El Camino Real and Olive Avenue intersection. At the request of Caltrans, the applicant may pay the necessary fee toward installation of the Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon as an alternative to installing the crosswalk and hybrid beacon. Determination of the necessary fee shall be determined through consultation with the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department and Caltrans. Applicant or designee Prior to issuance of final occupancy permit CPA Planning Department ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3001 El Camino Real, 16PLN-00097 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) Mixed-Use Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None Currently 3 parcels 1.97 acres (49,927 sf in CS Zone) Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 11 feet to create a 19’ sidewalk 4’ setback to provide 12’ wide effective sidewalk Rear Yard 10’ 70’ 5 feet for ramp; 75 feet for building (Design Enhancement Exception requested) Interior Side Yard 10’ N/A N/A Street Side Yard (Acacia Avenue) 5’ N/A (surface parking lot) 5’ Street Side Yard (Olive Avenue) 5’ 0’ 5’ Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2) 70’ 5’ for ramp; 75 feet for building (See above: DEE requested) Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on El Camino Real(7) (total frontage 239’7”) 33% of side street built to setback on Acacia Avenue (total side street 189’11”) 33% of side street built to setback on Olive Avenue (189’11”) 0% N/A (surface parking lot) 113’ (56.5%) 137’10” (57%) 63’10” (33%) 79’6” (42%) Special Setback 24 feet – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps N/A N/A Permitted Setback Encroachment Balconies, awnings, porches, stairways, and similar elements may extend up to 6' into the setback. N/A Balconies extend up to 4’ into the 12’ front setback. Max. Site Coverage 50% (24,963 sf) APN 132-37-056: 42% APN 132-37-055: 37% APN 132-38-072: N/A (surface parking lot) 47% (23,310 sf) Minimum Landscape Open Space 30% (8,989 sf) Not provided (all surface parking lot) 42% (21,212 sf) Max. Building Height 50 ft or 35 ft within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site Two buildings 14 feet and 18 feet in height 50 feet; steps down to 35’ Residential density (net) 30 None 30 Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Residential 0.6:1 (29,956 sf) Retail 0.4:1(19,971 sf) Residential: None Retail: APN 132-37-056: 0.42 APN 132-37-055: 0.37 Residential 0.6:1 (29,952 sf) Retail 0.4:1 (19,798 sf) Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone (6) Appears to comply with 16 feet at 60 degrees Complies with 16 feet at 60 degrees (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage 18.16.080 Performance Standards. As further described in a separate attachment, all development in the CS district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Retail and Residential Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking Retail: 1 space/200 sf= 99 Studio Units (12): 1.25 spaces/unit= 15 One bedroom Units (6): 1.5 spaces/unit= 9 Two+ Bedroom Units (12): 2 spaces/unit= 24 Residential guest parking: 33% of units= 10 Total of 157 parking spaces required 11 spaces (additional surface parking lot roped off) 152 spaces (shared parking adjustment requested) Bicycle Parking Retail: 1/2,000 sf (20% long term and 80% short term) equals 2 LT and 8 short term spaces; Guest: 3 ST Residential: Studio: 12 LT One bedroom: 6 LT Two+ bedroom units: 12 LT None 43 spaces (32 long term, 11 short term) Loading Space 1 loading spaces 5,000 – 29,999 sq. ft. 1 on street and one part-time loading (required further resolution) ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3001 El Camino Real, 16PLN-00097 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-30 DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70 foot width, 100 foot depth Complies (currently 3 lots) 30,738 sf (0.7 acres) Minimum Front Yard (2) 20 feet Parking lot 20 feet Rear Yard 10 feet Parking lot 28’3” above and below grade Interior Side Yard 6 feet Parking lot 20’6” and 70’ above and below grade Street Side Yard 16 feet Not applicable Not applicable Max. Building Height 35 feet Parking lot 33’ Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle Not Applicable Complies Rear Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at rear setback line then 45 degree angle Not Applicable Complies Max. Site Coverage 40% (12,295.2 sf) Parking lot 38% (11,710 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 60% (18,443 sf) Parking lot 0.63 (19,535 sf) Does not comply; requires revision prior to decision Minimum Site Open Space 30% (9,221.5 sf) Not Applicable 41.5% (12,738 sf without R-1 portion) Minimum Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit (3,000 sf for 20 units) Not Applicable 222 sf per unit (4,440 sf) Minimum Common Open Space 75 sf per unit (1,500 sf for 20 units) Not Applicable 222 sf per unit (4,440 sf) Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit (sf) Not Applicable 90-230 sf per unit Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multiple-Family Residential Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking 2 spaces per unit, of which at least one space per unit must be covered. 29 spaces required Guest Parking: 33% of total number of units. 7 required 29 spaces 8 spaces Bicycle Parking 1 space per unit (100% long term) plus 1 short term space per 10 units 20 LT and 2 ST Attachment E: Context-Based Design Criteria 3001 El Camino Real 16PLN-00097 Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to the CS Zoned portion of this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment Project Consistency The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides bike racks near the building entrances for short term use as well bike lockers in the garage to support the bicycle environment. The street facades provide canopy coverage along the sidewalks and provide pedestrian shelter, which supports street activity. The site circulation with a central plaza and walkway provides an easy connection for pedestrians to travel within the site. 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that project provides substantial sidewalks to allow for pedestrian ease of use and includes canopies for shelter; the street facades are primarily storefront windows that supports an interior connection with the street and pedestrians; and the placement of an open plaza along the El Camino Real frontage provides a strong connection with the street and supports accessory outdoor activities on the site. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project complies with the CS zone setback requirements while also meeting the build-to line requirements in accordance with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and the design incorporates appropriate articulation and materials as well balconies that help break-up the mass of the building. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties. The proposed buildings are both set back substantially further than required from the property lines and the project is consistent with height requirements within the 150 foot radius of single-family residential uses. 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides open space with private balconies for the residents and an at-grade plaza and walkways for all to use. 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project’s parking is located and accessed from side streets and the project eliminates parking lots and curb cuts along El Camino Real. Also, the majority of parking spaces are located within a below-grade garage. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood. Although the proposed street façade along El Camino Real may seem tall in comparison to adjacent buildings, the façade built up to the build-to-line, is encouraged in accordance with design criteria for El Camino Real, which notes that buildings should be a minimum 25 feet in height to provide a presence in scale with El Camino Real. Gathering spaces clearly define entrance areas along the frontage. Project elements such as balconies are provided along the frontage to signal habitation and entrances to both retail and residential uses are provided along the frontage. The proposed building along El Camino Real includes ground floor retail with extensive windows that provide visibility into the retail stores as well as an outdoor seating area on the corner of Acacia and El Camino Real. These design features contribute positively to the pedestrian experience. 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is subject to the California Green Building Code (CalGreen, Tier 2) and includes a variety of sustainable elements. The project will utilize low-water use plants and will comply with C3 and MWELO requirments. Pursuant to PAMC 18.13.060, the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to the RM-30 Zoned portion of this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in multi-family residential districts. The purpose is to encourage development in a multi-family residential district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Massing and Building Facades Project Consistency Massing and building facades shall be designed to create a residential scale in keeping with Palo Alto neighborhoods, and to provide a relationship with street(s). The project provides most parking below-grade and includes windows, doors, and balconies along the frontage to provide a human scale and signal habitation. The entries are in keeping with the scale of the building and are oriented toward the street. Pedestrian amenities, new landscaping, and new street trees provide visual interest and human scale along the frontage. The materials are of a high quality and the project frontage uses balconies and a variety in the setbacks to provide articulation. The project is set back further than the required setback along the side lot lines and rear of the property. In addition, the majority of the building is 25 feet tall where 35 feet is allowed which provides a better transition between the adjacent single-family residential uses. All exposed sides of the building are designed with the same level of care and integrity. 2. Low-Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower- scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties. The project is set back further than the required setback along the side lot lines and rear of the property. In addition, the majority of the building is approximately 25 feet tall where 35 feet is allowed adjacent single-family residential uses. This proposed height provides a better transition between the adjacent single-family residential uses. All exposed sides of the building are designed with the same level of care and integrity. As discussed above, the project setbacks both on the side property lines as well as along the rear property line are greater than the setbacks required to comply with the municipal code. This area is also planned to be heavily landscaped. As shown on the landscaping plan sheets, the proposed trees along the rear property line are expected to be 15 feet tall at 5 years and would grow to a mature height of 40-50 feet to provide a substantial buffer between the project and adjacent single-family residences. The project is well below the rear daylight plane requirements ensuring that sun and shade impacts on the neighboring residential uses would not be an issue. 3. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of a site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the open space is designed for both passive and active uses, incorporating seating into the landscaped areas as well as providing a BBQ. Both private and common open space is provided beyond the minimum requirements and common open space is sheltered from noise and wind to provide useable gathering spaces. Gathering spaces and pedestrian amenities are provided along the frontage to increase eyes on the street and activate the pedestrian areas. 4. Parking Design Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project’s parking is mostly provided below-grade with guest parking stalls provided at grade for convenience. The applicant has set the first floor at 4 feet above grade in order to provide privacy for the first floor residence but to maintain the pedestrian scale. 5. Larger (multi-acre sites) Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed mixed-use development responds to its immediate environment by reducing the height of the majority of the building to approximately 25 feet where 35 feet is allowed adjacent single-family residences. Gathering spaces and pedestrian amenities improve the pedestrian experience in the immediate area and the project includes street level bicycle parking where none was previously provided. 6. Housing Variety and Units on Individual Lots Multifamily projects may include a variety of unit types such as small-lot detached units (Figure 6-1), attached rowhouses/townhouses (Figure 6-2), and cottage clusters in order to achieve variety and create transitions to adjacent existing development. The proposed project includes a single multi-family residential building in the RM-30 zone and therefore is not subject to these additional requirements for small-lot detached units, townhouses or cottage clusters. The project is consistent with all applicable code requirements for developments within the RM-30 Zone District. 7. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is subject to the California Green Building Code (CalGreen, Tier 2) and includes a variety of sustainable elements. The project will utilize low-water use plants and will comply with C3 and MWELO requirments. The project is designs to provide a comfortable microclimates in common open space areas at the rear of the building and parking areas meet vegetation shading requirements to reduce the heat island effect. Short term bicycle parking is provided at most doors and exceeds requirements to provide convenience for bicyclists. The project is located in close proximity to several bus stops and the California Avenue Caltrain station. Attachment F Performance Criteria 18.23 3001 El Camino Real 16PLN-00097 These performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. The project includes trash enclosure facilities at the rear of each building. The facilities are fully enclosed and not in clear sight of any public right-of-way or neighbors. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The proposed exterior lighting is sufficient to provide safe circulation and is directed downward to reduce glare and impacts to the project’s residents as well as adjacent residents. The photometric studies show that there is no light spillover. The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick-up. Current project proposal does not include late night uses or activities. Future commercial tenants that would like this will need to file for a Conditional Use Permit, as required per the Zoning Code. Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. The project is adjacent to residential uses and provides landscape screening across the parking lot and along the property boundaries between residential uses and the project. The buildings are set back substantially further than the required distance providing extra space and daylight plane to ensure light, air, and privacy. Mechanical equipment and service areas are screened. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 18.23.030 Lighting 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. Loading, refuse storage, and all mechanical equipment is set back substantially from adjacent single-family residential uses. Although the proposed ramp to the parking garage is located in close proximity to an adjacent residence, landscaping and a sound wall are provided to limit noise. Also, by constructing the ramp in this location the circulation reduces car trips toward Olive Avenue, reducing noise from cars leaving the site as well as traffic on Olive Avenue adjacent these single family residential uses. The project would comply with PAMC 9.10. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The project’s parking is primarily located below grade and is designed to be focused away from the street frontages where they are more visible. The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The site circulation facilitates easy access for all modes of transportation. The project includes short-term and long-term bike parking. The project eliminates a curb cut along El Camino Real and provides a pedestrian hybrid beacon crosswalk across El Camino Real, which would make a safer pedestrian experience. The proposed circulation design also significantly reduces trips leaving the site toward Olive Avenue, reducing impacts on adjacent single-family residences along Olive Avenue. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. No uses on the site would produce odor or toxic air. Future uses are required to comply with these performance standards. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to ensure that air quality would not result in impacts to future residents at the site. In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. This is not applicable to the proposed uses associated with the project. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials Memorandum Date: August 4, 2017 To: Mr. Robert Tersini, The Sobrato Organization From: Gary Black, Ricky Williams, and Jane Clayton Subject: Parking Management Plan for 3001 El Camino Real Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a Parking Management Plan for the mixed-use development at 3001 El Camino Real in Palo Alto, California. The project consists of two buildings that are referred to as the CS and RM-30 buildings, in reference to the existing zoning regulations for the parcels that make up the site. The CS site includes the development of a three/four-story mixed-use building along the El Camino Real frontage with 19,798 square feet (s.f.) of first-floor retail space and 30 residential dwelling units. The RM-30 site includes the development of a partially below-grade, three-story residential building along the Acacia Avenue frontage with 20 residential units. This Parking Management Plan is based on the site plan provided by The Sobrato Organization and Steinberg Architects, dated May 22, 2017. The purpose of this plan is to identify the parking requirements of the proposed project and parking strategies to ensure that the parking supply is adequate. Parking Requirements The parking requirements for the project are based on the City of Palo Alto municipal code. Based on this code, the project would be required to provide adequate parking on each site for its respective use. Based on the City parking requirements, the project would need to provide parking on-site at the following rates: Residential: 1.25 spaces per studio unit; 1.5 spaces per 1-bedroom unit; 2 spaces per 2- bedroom or larger unit Residential Guest: 33% of the number of residential units Retail: 1 parking space per 200 s.f. of gross floor area Based on the above requirements, the project would be required to provide a total of 193 parking spaces, including 99 retail spaces, 77 residential spaces, and 17 residential guest spaces. The required 77 residential spaces are based on the following for the project as a whole: Studios: 24 units x 1.25 = 30 parking spaces 1-Bedroom units: 10 units x 1.5 = 15 parking spaces 2 or more bedroom units: 16 units x 2 = 32 parking spaces The requirement for 17 residential guest parking spaces is based on a total of 50 units (50 x .33 = 17) because the Palo Alto municipal code requires 33% guest parking if more than one space per unit is assigned or secured. The project will provide secured residential parking that is separate from the retail parking in the below-grade garage of the CS structure. Residential parking will be 3001 El Camino Real Parking Management Plan August 4, 2017 Page | 2 assigned in both structures. It should be noted that the 33% parking requirement for residential guests is higher than the residential guest parking requirements in surrounding municipalities. Table 1 summarizes the parking requirements and parking provided for each of the sites. Table 1 Parking Summary for 3001 El Camino Real Size or Parking Parking Parking Site and Use d.u.Requirement a Required Provided Location of Spaces CS Site Retail 19, 798 s.f. 1 per 200 s.f. 99 99 68 below grade, 31 surface Residential Studio 12 units 1.25 per unit 15 15 1-bedroom 6 units 1.5 per unit 9 9 2+ bedroom 12 units 2 per unit 24 24 Total Residential 30 units 48 48 48 below grade Residential Guest 33% of units 10 5 5 surface Total CS Site 157 152 116 below grade, 36 surface RM-30 Site Residential Studio 12 units 1.25 per unit 15 15 1-bedroom 4 units 1.5 per unit 6 6 2+ bedroom 4 units 2 per unit 8 8 Total Residential 20 units 29 29 29 below grade Residential Guest 33% of units 7 8 8 surface Total RM-30 Site 36 37 29 below grade, 8 surface Total Project 193 189 145 below grade, 44 surface Note: (a) Parking requirements are per Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 18.52.040 Figure 1 Below-Grade Parking (6) 3001 El Camino Real TDM Plan Figure 2 Ground-Level Parking 3001 El Camino Real TDM Plan 3001 El Camino Real Parking Management Plan August 4, 2017 Page | 5 Parking Supply Parking for the project would be provided in four areas. Both the CS site and the RM-30 site would include below-grade parking areas and both would also include surface parking areas. Figures 1 and 2 show the below-grade and ground level parking areas, respectively. These parking areas would provide a total of 189 parking spaces, including 99 retail spaces, 77 secured residential spaces, and 13 residential guest spaces. Access to the CS site is provided through two driveways, one on Olive Avenue and one on Acacia Avenue, while access to the RM-30 site is provided through one driveway on Acacia Avenue. The project would provide four fewer parking spaces than would be required for the residential guest parking. Hexagon does not believe that this would cause any on-site parking demand issues based on the shared nature of the parking supply. A shared parking analysis was conducted in order to support this claim. The project has also provided for potential additional parking needs on the CS site by including a pit below some of the secured residential parking spaces in the below-grade garage. The pit would allow conversion of those parking spaces for use with mechanical parking lifts, providing space for two cars per stall in the future if necessary. In that case, the residential gate would be moved to keep the same number of residential spaces utilizing the lifts and increase the number of retail spaces. It is not currently anticipated that these additional spaces would be needed, but if one of the retail space occupants were a restaurant with greater parking needs, this foresight will provide the needed flexibility to adjust the parking supply in the future. Shared Parking Analysis Since the project would include complementary land uses on the CS site, on-site parking can be shared between the retail and residential guest uses. The shared parking analysis is based on the Urban Land Institute’s publication entitled Shared Parking, which provides parking occupancy rates for many land uses according to time of day. Based on the land uses provided on the CS site and the City’s municipal code, the project is required to provide 157 parking spaces, including 99 retail spaces, 48 residential spaces, and 10 residential guest spaces. The project site is proposing 152 parking spaces (99 retail, 48 residential, and 5 residential guest spaces) on the CS site, which is five fewer guest spaces than required. Because one more space than required is being provided on the RM-30 site, the project as a whole is providing four fewer spaces than required. As shown on the below-grade parking plan (see Figure 1), the 48 parking spaces for the residents of the CS site in the below-grade parking area would be fenced off from the portion of the garage open to retail employees and customers. Thus, the residential spaces are not included in the shared parking analysis, since only the retail and residential guest spaces would be shared. The combined requirement for the shared uses is 109 spaces (99 for retail and 10 for residential guests). According to the shared parking analysis (see Table 2), the project would only need to provide 104 shared spaces to meet the on-site parking demand for the two proposed uses. This is because the peak demand for the retail use and the peak demand for residential guest spaces do not occur at the same time of the day. Peak demand for retail occurs mid-day, and peak demand for residential guests occurs in the evening hours. The combined peak demand occurs at 7:00 PM on weekdays. Therefore, the 104 spaces provided would be adequate to meet this peak demand. 3001 El Camino Real Parking Management Plan August 4, 2017 Page | 6 Table 2 CS Site Shared Parking Analysis Based on the site plan, two parking spaces located in the surface parking area would be needed during certain hours for access to the trash enclosure. Two spaces near the Olive Avenue driveway would be located by the trash enclosure and parking would be prohibited during trash pick-up times. Therefore, when parking is restricted for these two parking spaces, the project would provide 102 total shared parking spaces. However, the parking restrictions would be in effect during the morning hours only. During the afternoon and evening when the site is expected to experience its peak parking demand, there would be no restriction on the use of these spaces, therefore leaving all 104 spaces available. Because combined demand reaches 101 spaces by 1:00 PM, the project should ensure that the two trash collection spaces are unrestricted by noon. As long as the parking restrictions for the spaces adjacent to the trash collection area are in effect only during the morning hours, the number of spaces provided on site would be adequate to meet the estimated parking demand for the CS site. The project would provide 37 total spaces on the RM-30 site. Per the City’s requirements, a total of 36 spaces would be required on this site, including 29 for the residential use, and 7 for residential guests. The RM-30 site would provide 29 residential spaces and 8 guest spaces, which is one space more than the requirement. The additional guest space would also be open to guests of the CS building residents. Wkdy Wknd Wkdy Wknd Wkdy Wknd 6 a.m. 3 3 0 0 3 3 7 a.m. 7 7 1 2 8 9 8 a.m. 20 16 2 2 22 18 9 a.m. 43 39 2 2 45 41 10 a.m. 68 56 2 2 70 58 11 a.m. 86 70 2 2 88 72 Noon 95 83 2 2 97 85 1 p.m.99 91 2 2 101 93 2 p.m. 95 99 22 97101 3 p.m. 91 99 22 93101 4 p.m. 91 95 2 2 93 97 5 p.m. 94 90 4 4 98 94 6 p.m. 94 80 6 6 100 86 7 p.m. 94 75 10 10 104 85 8 p.m. 81 66 10 10 91 76 9 p.m. 54 52 10 10 64 62 10 p.m. 32 37 10 10 42 47 11 p.m. 11 15 8 8 19 23 Midnight 0 0 5 5 5 5 Max. Demand 99 99 10 10 104 101 Source: Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking, 2nd Edition, 2005 . Total DemandHour of Day Residential GuestRetail Parking Demand by Hour 3001 El Camino Real Parking Management Plan August 4, 2017 Page | 7 Parking Management Measures To ensure that the parking supply is used efficiently and as intended the following measures should be implemented. Residents should be prohibited from parking in the retail and guest spaces. The retail and guest spaces should be marked and signed as “RETAIL/GUEST PARKING ONLY.” The curb adjacent to each retail and guest parking space should be painted green. If no curb is present, the parking lane lines and/or parking stop should be painted green. The retail and guest spaces should be clearly marked and signed. All driveways and the entrances to the residential secured parking areas should include a “PARKING RESTRICTED 24 HRS A DAY” sign. Furthermore, it is recommended that the project establish a monitoring system for the on-site parking. The monitoring system would monitor residential violators, i.e., residents that park outside the residential secured parking areas in one of the retail and guest parking spaces, and issue warnings accordingly. The monitoring system would be established and maintained by the project’s property manager and/or the manager of the residential units. If violations persist, the project should consider a towing ordinance and the appropriate accompanying tow away signs. Conclusions Based on the shared parking analysis, the project would provide adequate parking to meet the anticipated parking demand on-site. The project should ensure that the two spaces adjacent to the trash collection area are unrestricted after noon. Also, the project should ensure that the retail and guest parking spaces, driveways, and entrances to the residential secured parking areas are marked and signed as described above. In addition, the project should establish a monitoring system for the on-site parking. Attachment H Environmental Documents Hardcopies of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration are provided to Commissioners. This document is available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Environmental Documents online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “3001 El Camino Real” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “Final Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration” and “Final Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendices” Attachment I Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans and Preliminary Parcel Map are provided to Commissioners. These plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “3001 El Camino Real” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “2017-1010 Project Plans” 6. Open the attachment named “2017-1010 Preliminary Parcel Map” City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/11/2017 9:00 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Pepper Person <pepperxigua@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2017 8:57 AM To:Council, City Cc:Rebecca Sanders Subject:3001 El Camino Dear City Council (cc: VNA), We received notice of a very special public hearing of the city council for 3001 El Camino Real... And in this notice, you state that a draft MND was circulated for public review on 7/3/2017. Circulated where? To what public? Let's go back to the article in the Mercury News ( http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/19/50-apartment-project-on-el- camino-gets-ok-from-palo-alto-commission/ ). In that article, Commissioner Gardias wondered why there was a lack of community discussion around the project at 3001 El Camino. Here, Planning Director Hillary Gitelman hypothesized that the "likely answer could be that the project is not asking for any zoning variances." Well, now there is a Design Enhancement Exception. Maybe that will bring out the community. But there are obviously a few questions to answer. First, why isn't there any tip for how to find the final MND on this notice? Why not provide a link? The assertion that the draft MND was circulated should be qualified, to note that it was an extremely limited circulation. Sending out notices saying that a draft MND was circulated and now there's a final MND, without any guidance as to find those, is disingenuous at best. Do you really think that people will call each project's representative, or piddle around the CoPA website, to find these items? You specify the representative, why not add a simple link? Second, is it possible for a developer to build something in Palo Alto without an MND? Could there actually be a project without a document full of negatives? Third, is it possible for a developer to build something in Palo Alto without a cornucopia of variances? How many will follow this one? Why even have rules, if they're so rarely followed? These projects seem to follow a familiar tack. Get approval without variances. Add variances. Get approval. Perhaps we should merge Palo Alto with Mountain View, or rebrand as Mountain Alto, since we obviously look at our neighbors to the south as role models on how to grow. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/11/2017 9:00 AM 2 Regards, Jason Robinson, PhD, MBA Jieming Robinson City of Palo Alto (ID # 8106) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/23/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Comprehensive Plan EIR Certification and Plan Adoption Title: Discussion and Consideration of the Planning & Transportation Commission's Recommendations Regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update and Adoption of Resolutions Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Comprehensive Plan Update; Adopting Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Adopting the Updated Comprehensive Plan Dated June 30, 2017 With Desired Corrections and Amendments, Which Comprehensively Updates and Supersedes the City's 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan (Two Public Hearings Will Be Held: October 23, 2017 and November 13, 2017. On October 23, 2017, the City Council May Consider Action on the Planning & Transportation Commission’s Recommendations, Providing Direction to Staff, and Certification of the Final EIR. Other Actions will be Deferred until the Hearing on November 13, 2017.) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Receive and consider the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) report and recommendations regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update (Attachment A) and adopt a motion thanking the PTC and identifying specific changes to the June 30, 2017 Comprehensive Plan Update desired as a result of the Commission’s work; 2. Adopt a resolution (Attachment B) certifying that the Council has reviewed and considered the Comprehensive Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated August 30, 2017, the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Palo Alto; 3. Adopt a resolution (Attachment C) making required CEQA findings, including adoption of City of Palo Alto Page 2 mitigation measures, findings related to alternatives, findings of overriding considerations, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP); 4. Adopt a resolution (Attachment D) adopting the updated Comprehensive Plan dated June 30, 2017 with the specific additional corrections and changes included in Attachment E, comprehensively updating and superseding the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan in its entirety, preserving the Housing Element adopted in 2014; 5. Direct Staff to prepare and disseminate electronic and paper copies of the updated Comprehensive Plan with appropriate formatting, illustrations, and acknowledgements; and 6. Direct staff to return to Council for another review of the implementation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan in 2018 and in the interim, prioritize the following implementing actions to bring forward to Council on future agendas in the near term: A. Adoption of an Updated Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance; B. Adoption of Comprehensive Plan Implementing Ordinance #1 amending Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Municipal Code to support the production of new housing and the preservation of existing units; C. Initiation of a Coordinated Area Plan for the North Ventura area (also referred to as the Fry’s site); and D. Initiation of discussions with Stanford University about the potential for developing housing in the Stanford Research Park, Stanford Shopping Center, and Stanford University Medical Center vicinity. Note: This is the first of two hearings planned for consideration of these recommendations. This evening, staff requests that the Council act on the first two items (PTC Report and EIR certification) and specify any changes or additions requested to the list of corrections and changes in Attachment E. The second hearing for plan adoption is currently scheduled for November 13, 2017. The August 30, 2017 Final EIR is available at: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/eir/ and the June 30, 2017 the Comprehensive Plan Update is available at: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/07/PACompPlan_June30_PTC_we breduced.pdf. Hard copies of both documents are also available for review at the Planning Department and at local libraries. The Planning Department is located on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue in Palo Alto. Executive Summary The City has been working on a comprehensive update to its general plan, the Palo Alto 1998- 2010 Comprehensive Plan, for many years and the City Council will have an opportunity to complete this effort at tonight’s meeting and a second meeting currently scheduled for November 13, 2017. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Overall, the CAC and the Council have crafted a Comprehensive Plan Update that seeks to preserve the vision and values of the current Comprehensive Plan, while updating its goals, policies, and programs to reflect the world of today. The updates are aimed at: Land Use & Community Design stimulating housing through a host of implementation programs, supplementing policies and programs in the City’s Housing Element; making the non-residential development cap apply citywide and focusing it on office/R&D development only so square footage converted from another use like warehouse or retail to office/R&D development will count against the cap; preserving ground floor retail and limiting the displacement of existing retail; ensuring regular coordination with Palo Alto Unified School District regarding land use and development; recognizing and incorporating the goals of other recent planning efforts, such as the Urban Forest Master Plan and the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan; guiding operation and improvements at the Palo Alto Airport, which was transitioned from the County to the City in recent years; Transportation reducing reliance on single occupant vehicles (SOV), making alternatives to the automobile more convenient, and addressing the needs of transit-dependent communities; establishing specific quantitative goals for trip reduction from new development prioritizing Caltrain grade separations; recognizing the State-mandated transition from Level of Service (LOS) to Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)as a methodology for analyzing traffic impacts under CEQA, while preserving LOS as a methodology for ensuring Comprehensive Plan consistency; Natural Environment establishing a new focus on connected ecosystems, consistent with the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan; recognizing open space, the urban forest, and a healthy natural environment as contributors to public health; seeking opportunities for adding open space, including connections between Skyline Ridge and San Francisco Bay; addressing climate changes and climate adaption; ensuring resilient supply and management of water in Palo Alto, including additional policies to protect groundwater as a resource and to respond to drought; encouraging energy efficiency, energy conservation, and renewable energy sources; City of Palo Alto Page 4 Safety updating policies on natural and man-made threats and hazards, with a focus on preparedness; expanding policies on community safety and emergency management; Community Services & Facilities perpetuating policies about new and existing parks and public open spaces; adding new policies and programs specifically tailored to the needs of youth and of seniors; sustaining the health and well-being of residents, consistent with the Council’s Heathy Cities, Healthy Communities resolution; Business and Economics promoting a comprehensive approach to fiscal sustainability; supporting the small local-serving businesses, start-ups, non-profit organizations, and professional services that make up Palo Alto’s business diversity. The updated Comprehensive Plan will serve as the City’s “constitution,” with policies that will inform development and implementation of land use regulations and infrastructure investments for many years to come. The updated Plan also contains implementation programs that are intended to advance the goals and policies of the Plan, and that may be reexamined and reprioritized by the City Council on a regular basis. Tonight, the City Council will first consider a report and recommendations from the PTC (Attachment A), as well as a draft resolution that would certify the Final EIR (Attachment B). Staff is also requesting that the City Council identify any final changes it would like to incorporate into the June 30, 2017 version of the Draft Plan. This document incorporates City Council comments and adjustments to the Citizens Advisory Committee’s (CAC’s) work products. Changes recommended by the PTC to this draft are shown in Table 2 and 3 in this report which are also included in Attachment A. An errata or list of corrections and clarifications developed by staff since the June 30th version was published has been provided In Attachment E. At the November 13th meeting, staff will be asking the City Council to consider and adopt required CEQA findings (including a “statement of overriding considerations” and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program), and adopt the Comprehensive Plan Update with the desired changes and adjustments specified this evening. Staff will also be asking for direction to prepare and disseminate electronic and paper copies of the plan, as well as direction to return to Council for an in depth discussion of the Implementation Chapter and to identify a City of Palo Alto Page 5 handful of near term implementation priorities. Background The City’s current Comprehensive Plan, Embracing the New Century, Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan, was adopted in 1998 and sets goals, policies, and programs related to land use and development issues, including transportation, housing, natural resource, community services, and safety. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Update contains chapters or “elements” that address topics required by State law, as well as optional elements and topics. This relationship is shown in Table 1. The Plan includes a total of seven Elements; two are optional. All of these draft elements are based on the existing Comprehensive Plan, revised to reflect the City Council’s direction regarding vision and goals, as well as input from the PTC’s proposed revisions and public input. The elements included in the June 30, 2017 draft Comprehensive Plan Update are the product of hundreds of hours of work by the Council, the PTC, the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), CAC subcommittees, staff, and consultants. Table 1. State-Mandated and Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Elements State-Mandated Element Comprehensive Plan Element Land Use Land Use & Community Design Circulation Transportation Housing Housing (adopted 2014 – not part of PTC review) Open Space Conservation Noise Natural Environment Safety Safety Optional Elements Business & Economics Community Services & Facilities Note: The previous Safety Element Goals, Policies and programs were part of the 1998 Natural Environment Element. The Comprehensive Plan also includes Governance and Implementation chapters, as well as an introduction and glossary. Source: Planning & Community Environment, September 2017 The City Council recognized the need to update the Plan and initiated the update in 2006. The PTC then spent close to six years working on the Comprehensive Plan Update (from 2008 to 2014), ultimately sending its recommendation to the City Council in April of 2014. Upon receipt of the PTC’s recommendations, the City Council adopted a schedule and strategy for “reframing” the long-running update to include expanded community engagement and a full evaluation of alternatives, cumulative impacts and mitigation strategies. A community-wide City of Palo Alto Page 6 Summit was attended by over 350 people in May 2015, and was followed by creation of the CAC to engage in further community dialog and inform the Council’s deliberations. Between July 2015 and May 2017, the full CAC met 23 times to review elements of the existing Comprehensive Plan, review recommendations advanced by the PTC, and receive and review community input. The CAC also formed subcommittees to discuss each Element, as well as a Sustainability subcommittee that considered sustainability-related issues in several Elements. There were a total of 29 meetings of CAC subcommittees. All CAC meetings were noticed and open to the public and included time for public comment. The CAC forwarded its recommended draft Comprehensive Plan Update to the Council on May 16, 2017. All meeting materials and minutes from CAC meetings are available here: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-advisory-committee/ In addition, the City Council met independently to review elements of the existing Comprehensive Plan, review recommendations advanced by the PTC and the CAC, and receive and review community input. The City Council discussed the Comp Plan goals and vision statements, EIR scenarios, and draft Elements at 24 meetings since 2010. City Council agendas, staff reports, and other relevant materials for Comp Plan discussion items are available here: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/city-council/ On June 12, 2017, the City Council referred the Comprehensive Plan Update Draft to the PTC for review and a recommendation within 90 days. The draft Plan that was sent to the PTC (referred to in this report as the “June 30, 2017 Draft Plan”) reflects the Citizens Advisory Committee’s (CAC) May 16, 2017 recommendations to the Council and incorporates changes based on Council’s review up to and including the Council meeting on June 12th. At the June 14, 2017 PTC meeting, the PTC passed a motion to focus its 90 day review on the Land Use and Transportation Elements of the Comprehensive Plan Update. The PTC completed its review and recommendations on these two Elements on September 27, 2017, within the 90 day period. The Commission’s report and recommendations are in Attachment A. The Comprehensive Plan Update cannot be adopted until the City complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a State law requiring California agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and describe feasible measures that can be taken to avoid or mitigate those impacts. Concurrent with the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan Update, the City has prepared what is referred to as a “program-level” EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168), which assesses the potential cumulative impacts of development that may occur during the life of the plan, considers potential alternatives, and identifies mitigation measures that should be adopted to reduce or avoid significant impacts. This is the same level of environmental analysis that was prepared for the existing 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Discussion With the requested actions, the City Council would accept and consider the PTC’s recommendations, address CEQA requirements, and adopt a new general plan for the City of Palo Alto. Once adopted, the plan would constitute a policy framework to guide decisions about land use and development, transportation, and infrastructure for the next 13 to 15 years. Each requested action is described briefly below, with a focus on any unresolved issues. The Planning & Transportation Commission’s Report & Recommendations At the beginning of July, the PTC was sent a bound copy of the June 30, 2017 draft of the Comp Plan, which was used throughout the PTC’s review (available at: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/07/PACompPlan_June30_PTC_w ebreduced.pdf). At the outset of their review, the PTC decided to focus on the Land Use and Transportation Elements. The PTC met on July 12, 2017 for an orientation to the Comp Plan document and agreed on a schedule for review of the Land Use and Transportation Elements. The July 12 PTC staff report provided an overview of the Comprehensive Plan Update legal requirements and key issues in the Land Use and Transportation Elements. This is a link to that report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58650. The objectives of the PTC review were: To recommend needed high-level adjustments to policies and programs in the Land Use Element, Transportation Element, and the Implementation Plan, to better address major policy issues. To identify any inconsistencies or redundancies between the elements for clarification or elimination in order to make the document more useable for the PTC and the public. Over the course of an additional five meetings in July, August, and September, the PTC reviewed first the Transportation Element, then the Land Use Element, providing comments and suggestions on background narrative, maps, goals, policies, and programs. After each meeting, staff organized those comments, identified areas of consensus and returned at the next PTC meeting with a synthesized list of comments for the commission’s review and further discussion. At their fourth and fifth meetings, the PTC reviewed a compiled list of comments, identified those comments that seemed most significant for further discussion, and engaged in more in-depth discussion and debate on approximately 20 topics. The outcomes of this discussion are relayed to the Council in Attachment A. Table 2 lists the nine consensus comments that the Commissioners viewed as non-controversial comments that had the overall consensus of the PTC. Seven of these general consensus City of Palo Alto Page 8 comments are related to the Transportation Element. These transportation comments range from adding more language about pedestrian safety to considering adding policies about High Speed Rail. The two Land Use Element comments cover making sure the goals, policies and programs are clear and actionable and placing more emphasis on creating neighborhoods, not just building housing units. Table 2: PTC GENERAL CONSENSUS COMMENTS PTC COMMENT 1. Land Use Element Overall/General The Element should place more emphasis on creating neighborhoods, not just building housing units. 2. Land Use Element Overall/General Goals, policies, and programs throughout should be clear and actionable, and the City should be able to track progress toward achievement. 3. Transportation Element Overall/General Don’t build the Plan around specific technologies. The ultimate consequences of new or emerging trends such as transportation network companies ( TNCs – e.g. Lyft, Uber) or autonomous vehicles may be positive or negative and cannot be predicted. 4. Transportation Element Narrative and Maps Geng Road improvement is too specific for the Comp Plan. Re-state more broadly as a policy to reduce traffic on East Bayshore.” 5. Transportation Element Narrative and Maps Support for Caltrain grade separation. 6. Transportation Element Goal T-1: Sustainable Transportation Program T1.2.2: Add reference to stable, sustained funding for the TMA, but don’t be proscriptive or limit the City’s options for funding. 7. Transportation Element Goal T-4: Neighborhood Impacts Policy T4.1: Policy should recognize that residential arterials, along with local and collector streets, are also school commute corridors. Policy should state that safety on residential arterials is also important. 8. Transportation Element Goal T-6: Road Safety Policy T-6.6: Policy and related programs discuss education for bicyclists. Language should be updated to reflect that pedestrian safety is also included. 9. Transportation Element Goal T-8: Regional Collaboration and Coordination Consider adding a policy statement about a potential future High Speed Rail station and/or other aspects of High Speed Rail. Source: Department of Planning & Community Environment; Approved by the Planning Commission on September 27, 2017. City of Palo Alto Page 9 At their August 30 PTC meeting, the Commission determined that their report to the City Council would have more impact and be more persuasive if the Commission also identified their highest priority recommended changes. The Commission created a process to identify these high priority PTC changes/ comments. At their final two meetings, the PTC reviewed a compiled list of comments, identified those comments that seemed most significant for further discussion, and engaged in more in-depth discussion and debate on 21 topics. The outcomes of this discussion are shown in Table 3. Table 3 includes 11 PTC high priority recommended changes and indicates the vote associated with each. Most are changes to the Land Use Element. The PTC recommended unanimously that support for BMR housing should be strengthened. There are several changes recommended by a majority of the PTC to support housing. The PTC recommended policies that support more family oriented housing for all demographics, state a strong preference for affordable housing and housing that is affordable and commit to increasing the supply of housing over time consistent with the Housing Element. Another recommendation, supported unanimously by the PTC, was to strengthen policies supporting walkable neighborhoods to ensure that space for professional and personal services, as well as retail, is available near neighborhoods. Staff expects that the City Council will want to consider these recommendations and provide direction to incorporate some or all of them as changes to the draft plan. Staff will have to prepare specific language to implement any of these recommendations that the Council wishes to implement, and return with that language on November 13th. The PTC recognized that their recommendations would require changes to the current draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update and adopted a motion (See Attachment A ) that if the City Council approves any of the PTC’s recommendations, the PTC recommends and welcomes the City Council to direct that these changes be returned to the PTC to be worked into the Plan. (This recommendation is not reflected in the staff recommendation or timeline/next steps discussion at the end of this staff report.) Table 3: PTC Highest Priority Changes to the Transportation and the Land Use Elements PTC COMMENT MOTION* VOTE 1 Land Use Element Goal L-1: Growth Management We need a strong commitment to creating BMR housing inventory for purchase and rental. It is too tentative appearing at a program level. Suggest we make Program L1.3.1 into a separate policy – perhaps having a quantifiable goal for ten years in the future. The PTC supports a strong commitment to creating BMR housing inventory for purchase and rental. It is too tentative appearing at a program level. The PTC recommends that the Council make Program L1.3.1 into a separate policy consistent with and in support of the quantified goals for 7:0 City of Palo Alto Page 10 PTC COMMENT MOTION* VOTE housing production in the adopted Housing Element. 2 Land Use Element Narrative and Maps The distinction between commercial districts and employment districts is a fundamental linchpin of the previous comp plan that largely seems lost in the draft. We need to test the draft commercial district definition to ensure it still provides space in the commercial districts for the sort of walkable services the neighborhoods expect. These include not just retail, but also services like doctors, dentists, veterinarians, accountants, lawyers, therapists, auto repair… Also spaces for not-for-profits, maker spaces, performance spaces, clubs, dance and music schools, gymnastics and other uses catering to the entire age range including families, kids, and seniors. We need to test that retail includes spaces where lower margin and more specialized retail businesses can operate. OR we need to look at some new definitions for mixed use districts so we don’t undermine commercial districts. We also need to discuss whether the land use map contains proper spaces for neighborhood services. The PTC recommends that the Council strengthen policies supporting walkable neighborhoods to ensure that space for professional and personal services as well as retail uses is available near neighborhoods, recognizing that all of these uses are desirable in thriving commercial centers. Similar attention is needed to provide space to accommodate non-profits and small medical offices in our community. (Note: After an extensive discussion of this item, the Commission approved a motion to have staff prepare a statement that summarized the Commission’s recommendation. At the Commission’s request, this language was developed by staff to reflect the Commission’s discussion.) 7:0 3 Land Use Element Goal L-1: Growth Management Strengthen Policy L-1.3 about infill development to indicate not just that infill should be compatible but that “infill development should be preferred or promoted.” Add the following policy: Identify development opportunities for BMR and more affordable market rate housing on city owned properties, like alleys and parking lots 5:2 4 Land Use Element Overall/ General We need to expand our stock of family-oriented housing. Where do we have spaces to accommodate this use? How do we ensure new neighborhoods receive full investment in schools, parks, adjacent commercial districts and other services we traditionally offer to neighborhoods. Our current neighborhoods are built out, and don’t provide substantial spaces for new family-oriented development. In light of Palo Alto’s traditional family orientation, we need housing policies that encourage building more family-oriented housing for all demographics. The PTC recommends that the Council add policies to Goals L-4 and L-5 to accommodate larger scale family- oriented housing development in retail and commercial districts, and policies to ensure school and other service impacts are fully mitigated. 5:2 City of Palo Alto Page 11 PTC COMMENT MOTION* VOTE 5 Land Use Element Goal L-4:Commercial Centers & Hotels Support for Program L4.6.1 to prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for Downtown, which is a huge undertaking. Revise the Program to add that the Coordinated Area Plan should consider converting parts of University Avenue to a pedestrian-only zone. The PTC supports Program L4.6.1 to prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for Downtown, which is a huge undertaking. The PTC recommends that the Council revise the Program to add that the Coordinated Area Plan should study converting parts of University Avenue to a pedestrian-only zone. 5:2 6 Transportation Element Goal T-1: Sustainable Transportation PTC members had different views on the offering incentives for TDM achievements. Some suggested lowering parking requirements for projects with successful TDM programs; other felt that permanent parking reductions are not appropriate for uncertain future trip reductions. The PTC recommends that the Council add language to ensure full participation among Palo Alto employers in TMA. 5:2 7 Land Use Element Overall/General Include stronger emphasis on taking on responsibility for dramatically increasing housing supply in Palo Alto. Both BMR housing and “housing that is affordable,” including housing for the middle class. Recommend that the Council include language that expresses a strong preference for affordable housing and housing that is affordable and a commitment to increasing Housing supply over time consistent with the goals set by the City Council through the Housing Element Process. 5:1:1 8 Land Use Element Goal L-1: Growth Management Comments on Goal L-1: Concerns 1. Why not put vision statement this section by the goal (instead of on page 1) so we know what we are committed to accomplish? 2. Goal does not call for diversity in demographic groups. 3. Neighborhoods are not prioritized as the most important. 4. Passive wording and relegation to project level does not suggest COMMITMENT to future action. Suggestions for change: 1. Goal L-1 should read “A compact and resilient city prioritizing diverse and vibrant neighborhoods – and Recommend the following changes: 1. Goal L-1 should read “A compact and resilient city prioritizing diverse and vibrant neighborhoods – and existing compatibly with shopping and services, workplaces, public facilities, parks and open space.” 2. Policies: Swap L1.1 and L1.2 for emphasis on neighborhoods – substituting “prioritize” for “strengthen” in current 1.2 4:1:2 City of Palo Alto Page 12 PTC COMMENT MOTION* VOTE existing compatibly with shopping and services, workplaces, public facilities, parks and open space.” 2. Policies: Swap L1.1 and L1.2 for emphasis on neighborhoods – substituting “prioritize” for “strengthen” in current 1.2 9 Land Use Element Goal L-1: Growth Management Strengthen Policy L-1.3 about infill development to indicate not just that infill should be compatible but that “infill development should be preferred or promoted.” Add a sentence at the beginning of Policy L-1.3 stating that Palo Alto has a preference for infill housing 4:2:1 10 Land Use Element Overall/General The Introduction to the Comp Plan describes a different city than the land use element. The introduction describes a walkable suburb oriented around residential neighborhoods. Land Use describes a mini-city-office-park and is largely silent on neighborhoods and neighborhood services. Either the introduction is wrong or the land use element is wrong. How do we reconcile the different views? Reconcile the narratives, description and goals with the policies and programs, where there appear to be contradictions 4:2:1 11 Land Use Element Goal L-1: Growth Management Some PTC members felt that the Citywide growth cap on office/R&D development and annual limit on office/R&D development (enacted as a separate ordinance) were appropriate growth management tools. Others expressed that the consensus at the 2015 Our Palo Alto Summit was that a Citywide cap is not the right tool, and policies should manage the impacts of office/R&D growth (such as traffic) rather than setting a cap on square footage. The PTC recommends that the Council keep the growth cap, focus on offsets and quality of life and other indication metrics that are based on the impact of development, including traffic, noise, pollution, etc. Set specific goals for a couple of key quality of life measures and other indication metrics. 4:3 12 Land Use Element Narrative and Maps The distinction between commercial districts and employment districts is a fundamental linchpin of the previous comp plan that largely seems lost in the draft. We need to test the draft commercial district definition to ensure it still provides space in the commercial districts for the sort of walkable services the neighborhoods expect. These include not just retail, but also services like doctors, dentists, The PTC recommends that the Council strengthen policies supporting walkable neighborhoods to ensure that space for professional and personal services as well as retail uses is available near neighborhoods, recognizing that all of these uses are desirable in thriving 7:0 City of Palo Alto Page 13 PTC COMMENT MOTION* VOTE veterinarians, accountants, lawyers, therapists, auto repair… Also spaces for not-for-profits, maker spaces, performance spaces, clubs, dance and music schools, gymnastics and other uses catering to the entire age range including families, kids, and seniors. We need to test that retail includes spaces where lower margin and more specialized retail businesses can operate. OR we need to look at some new definitions for mixed use districts so we don’t undermine commercial districts. We also need to discuss whether the land use map contains proper spaces for neighborhood services. commercial centers. Similar attention is needed to provide space to accommodate non-profits and small medical offices in our community. (Note: After an extensive discussion of this item, the Commission approved a motion to have staff prepare a statement that summarized the Commission’s recommendation. At the Commission’s request, this language was developed by staff to reflect the Commission’s discussion.) 13 Land Use Element Goal L-1: Growth Management Strengthen Policy L-1.3 about infill development to indicate not just that infill should be compatible but that “infill development should be preferred or promoted.” Add the following policy: Identify development opportunities for BMR and more affordable market rate housing on city owned properties, like alleys and parking lots 5:2 14 Land Use Element Overall/ General We need to expand our stock of family-oriented housing. Where do we have spaces to accommodate this use? How do we ensure new neighborhoods receive full investment in schools, parks, adjacent commercial districts and other services we traditionally offer to neighborhoods. Our current neighborhoods are built out, and don’t provide substantial spaces for new family-oriented development. In light of Palo Alto’s traditional family orientation, we need housing policies that encourage building more family-oriented housing for all demographics. The PTC recommends that the Council add policies to Goals L-4 and L-5 to accommodate larger scale family- oriented housing development in retail and commercial districts, and policies to ensure school and other service impacts are fully mitigated. 5:2 * Staff will draft specific language for any recommendations that the Council wishes to implement for consideration at the next hearing on November 13. Source: Department of Planning & Community Environment Based on Commission actions at their meetings of September 13 and 27, 2017. EIR Certification Preparation of an EIR is a time-consuming process, involving many steps, each of which take considerable time. In the case of the Comprehensive Plan Update EIR, the process began in earnest with issuance of a Notice of Preparation in mid-2014. The entire process, including City City of Palo Alto Page 14 Council sessions to discuss the EIR and EIR scenarios is summarized in Table 4, below. Table 4. City Council EIR Review – Key Dates Date Action July 28, 2008 City Council and Planning & Transportation Commission held a joint study session on the work program for the Comp Plan and EIR May 30, 2014 Notice of Preparation issued for the Draft EIR August 4, 2014 City Council scoping session on the Draft EIR August 6, 2014 City Council continued scoping session on the Draft EIR January 19, 2016 City Council and Citizens Advisory Committee held a joint study session on the Draft EIR; City Council discussed two new Comp Plan scenarios (Scenarios 5 & 6) for analysis in the EIR February 5 to June 8, 2016 124-day Public comment period for the February 2016 Draft EIR February 8, 2016 City Council continued discussion of Scenarios 5 & 6 May 16, 2016 City Council provided staff with basic parameters for Scenarios 5 & 6 June 6, 2016 City Council public comment hearing on the February 2016 Draft EIR January 30, 2017 City Council directed staff to develop a preferred scenario for inclusion in the Final EIR and defined some of its characteristics (regarding housing sites, non-residential development cap, transportation investments, etc.) February 10 to March 31, 2017 49-day Public comment period for the Supplement to the Draft EIR March 20, 2017 City Council public comment hearing on the Supplement to the Draft EIR August 30, 2017 Final EIR transmitted to the PTC and City Council. Made available at libraries, City Hall and to commenters. September 27, 2017 PTC recommended that the City Council certify the Final EIR. Source: Planning & Community Environment, September 2017 The Final EIR was published in late August 2017 and was available for PTC review in September along with its review of the Comprehensive Plan Update. The Final EIR responds to comments on the February 2016 Draft EIR and the Supplement to the Draft EIR, describes the “preferred scenario” based on the Council’s input on March 27, 2017 and May 1, 2017, and presents revisions to the February 2016 Draft EIR and the Supplement to the Draft EIR. For a good summary of the EIR’s conclusions, please see Table 1-3, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, in the Final EIR. This table is reprinted from the Supplement to the Draft City of Palo Alto Page 15 EIR with revisions resulting from the public review process. Where changes have been made, they are shown in strikethrough and underline. As shown in Table 1-3, several adjustments have been made to the mitigation measures in the EIR. Most of these revisions are to ensure that implementation of mitigation measures is consistent with the policy approach arrived at through the Comprehensive Plan Update process. None of these revisions weaken the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Chapter 2 of the Final EIR includes a good summary of the Preferred Alternative and a comparison to other EIR scenarios (See Table 2-4). The City received 29 comment letters on the February 2016 Draft EIR and 18 letters on the Supplement to the Draft EIR, as well as oral comments made during public meetings. Chapter 5 of the Final EIR provides responses to every comment received on the EIR. Chapter 5 of the Final EIR also contains three “master responses” that provide comprehensive responses to common topics that arose in the comments received: Master Response 1 addresses comments related to the merits of the Comp Plan Update, as opposed the EIR analysis. Because CEQA does not require the Final EIR to respond to comments on the merits of the proposed project, Master Response 1 explains how the City considers these non-CEQA comments. Master Response 2 addresses comments that requested that the EIR analysis include recent cumulative projects and plans in nearby jurisdictions that have been proposed or approved since the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Comprehensive Plan EIR was issued. The response explains that the EIR analysis is based on regional projections that are large enough to accommodate planned and approved projects in the region through the year 2030. Master Response 3 addresses comments regarding the EIR’s analysis of impacts to schools. The response corrects and supplements information presented in the Supplement to the Draft EIR and responds to specific comments from the School District and others on the scope and conclusions of the analysis. To ensure that the EIR is responsive to concerns regarding potential impacts to schools, the City has coordinated with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) at various junctures in the EIR process. Master Response 3 summarizes the information received from the public and PAUSD during the EIR’s public review period. Since preparing the Final EIR, the City has also received additional data from the PAUSD regarding school capacity (see Attachment F). The updated capacity data is intended to capture factors that lower the effective capacity of schools, and varies from the capacity data presented in the EIR as follows: elementary school capacity is lower than presented in the EIR by approximately 1,000 students, middle school capacity is the same as presented in the EIR, and high school capacity is lower by 100 students. This reduced capacity data is important for planning purposes but does not substantively affect the conclusions of the EIR, which as required by State statute, concludes that the payment of City of Palo Alto Page 16 school fees would offset and mitigate potential impacts to schools. Importantly, the City Council has addressed the issue of school impacts as a policy matter by including a related policy in the draft Plan: Policy L-2.11: Ensure regular coordination between the City and PAUSD on land development activities and trends in Palo Alto, as well as planning for school facilities and programs. Under State law, impacts on school facilities cannot be the basis for requiring mitigation beyond the payment of school fees or for denying development projects or legislative changes that could result in additional housing units. The City will, however, assess the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of development projects that result in new school construction or enrollment. Under CEQA, the City Council must consider and “certify” the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the plan itself. The Resolution in Attachment B would accomplish this and certify that the EIR: (1) has been completed in compliance with CEQA, (2) was presented to the Council and reviewed and considered by them prior to making a decision on the project, and (3) reflects the City’s independent judgement and analysis. At the PTC’s final meeting, the Commission received a number of comments on the Final EIR and the Comprehensive Plan Update itself, which have been summarized and responded to in Attachment G. In addition, at least one commenter seemed to suggest that any plan or EIR with significant and unavoidable impacts would be unacceptable. As the Council is aware, CEQA anticipates the potential that agencies will approve projects with significant and unavoidable impacts, and allows agencies to do so if they adopt findings that the project’s benefits outweigh the impacts; this is referred to in CEQA as a statement of overriding considerations. These findings are included in Attachment C, and are necessitated because the actions and development contemplated under the Comprehensive Plan Update will have significant and unmitigable impacts related to: contributions of air pollutants to a region that is in “non- attainment” for ozone and particulates; contributions to traffic congestion at area intersections; contributions to traffic congestion at freeway ramps; and transit delays due to traffic congestion. In all cases, the City is proposing to implement mitigation measures, and is conservatively concluding that the impact will remain significant even after mitigation. As noted in the proposed findings, these conclusions would be the same for virtually any plan (and any planning scenario) proposed in the region if it were analyzed using the same thresholds of significance. In other words, there is no getting away from the fact that we live in a congested region and that any programmatic EIR that fairly examines cumulative growth over a period of time will conclude there are unmitigable impacts. CEQA Findings City of Palo Alto Page 17 Under CEQA, the City Council must also make certain “findings” as part of a decision to undertake a project for which an EIR has been prepared. The Resolution in Attachment C contains these findings, which include: Findings concerning significant impacts and mitigation measures, Findings concerning the infeasibility of alternatives, A statement of overriding considerations, and Adoption of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). The findings concerning significant impacts and mitigation measures summarize each impact identified in the EIR, describe the applicable mitigation measures, and state the findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the mitigation measures. The findings concerning the infeasibility of alternatives explain that there are no feasible alternatives that would substantially lessen the significant impacts of the project and the statement of overriding considerations states that there are specific project benefits that outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts. The MMRP is a program spells out how the City will implement and monitor measures that the EIR incorporates to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. In many cases, these mitigation measures are being implemented by adopting Comprehensive Plan policies that specifically address the impact identified. For example, policies in the plan regarding land use compatibility ensure that future developments -- and future capital projects -- are designed to ensure compatibility and these policies will be implemented as these future projects are reviewed for conformance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. In some cases, the mitigation measures are implemented by making changes to the City’s CEQA procedures or sections of the Municipal Code and the MMRP provides a timeline for these actions. The June 30, 2017 Comprehensive Plan Update On June 12, 2017, City Council referred the current draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update to the PTC for review and a recommendation. The June 30, 2017 draft Plan reflects the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) May 16, 2017 recommendations to the Council and incorporates changes based on Council review. Following Council adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, staff and consultants will create the final Comprehensive Plan by making any substantive changes to Plan that are directed by Council motion, including the corrections and changes listed in Attachment E if or as directed by the City Council. As noted in the recommendation section, above, staff also recommends non- content (formatting) revisions to create the final Plan. These non-content revisions include: City of Palo Alto Page 18 A graphically rich cover An Acknowledgement section An index Formatting clean-ups, such as updating the footer on each page to say “Adopted [date]” Agency Consultation A key part of any general plan update consists of consultation with State and regional agencies and Native American tribes, as required by various sections of the California Government Code. Consistent with these requirements, staff provided notice to Native American Tribes in early February, and copies of the Safety and Natural Environment Elements to State agencies in early August 2017. Notice to adjacent cities, LACFO, PAUSD, and other agencies were provided in late-September. All periods for agency comments (45-days in some cases and 90 days in others) will close prior to the Council’s second hearing on November 13, 2017. In staff’s experience, the City may receive last minute comments from one or more agency that require immediate responses or revisions. If this is the case, staff will provide a recommendation for the Council’s consideration. The List of Corrections and Amendments Attachment E includes a list of corrections to the June 30, 2017 Comprehensive Plan that have been identified by staff since its publication in June 2017. These changes correct mistakes, clarify wording, and shift some programs to policies, primarily to be consistent with the Final EIR mitigation measures. None of these revisions would affect the intent or effect of a policy or program. Some notable corrections and clarifications listed in Attachment E include: Rewording the Regional/Community Commercial designation to more accurately reflect Council’s motion on May 1, 2017 that software development is an allowed use Downtown, rather than allowed throughout the Regional/Community Commercial designation, which also includes Stanford Shopping Center and Town and Country Village. Revising Policy L-5.4 to remove reference to East Meadow Circle Concept Plan because some of its policies are not consistent with the draft Comprehensive Plan Update, while keeping policy wording to maintain the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor areas as diverse business and light industrial districts. Rewording Policy L-6.5 to clarify that the policy is intended to preserve views up City streets to the hills, not from a street across private property. Rewording Program T2.3.1 to clarify that maintaining City standards for both VMT and LOS analysis of proposed projects is consistent with new State CEQA requirements under SB 743. City of Palo Alto Page 19 Attachment E also includes a small mapping errata in the Comp Plan and Final EIR. Implementation Priorities The Implementation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan repeats implementation programs included in all Elements of the Plan and the City Council has reviewed the programs in that context. The implementation table also identifies the lead department or agency for each program, as well as each item’s relative priority and level of effort. These notations (department, relative priority, level of effort) have not been previously reviewed by the City Council and currently reflect relative priorities as they were identified by the CAC. While the City Council’s input on this Chapter is welcome as part of plan adoption, the Chapter is intended to be reviewed and revised on an annual basis. Staff’s recommendation is to (1) schedule a separate, in depth discussion of the table in 2018, and (2) identify a few key priorities that the City Council would like to prioritize in the interim. The Implementation Chapter is a key mechanism to link the Comprehensive Plan to Palo Alto’s budget process. The priorities, timing and resource estimates in this chapter are intended to be modified depending on the city’s budget, available staff resources and other changes over time and do not require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The PTC is scheduled to review and provide a report on this chapter before the end of the year and the Council will have an opportunity for in depth review upon receipt of the PTC’s annual report. The specific interim actions that staff are recommending that the City Council prioritize include: 1. consideration of an updated nexus study and Transportation Impact Fee ordinance by the Finance Committee and the Council; 2. consideration of the first of several implementing ordinances to amend the Zoning Ordinance to address Comprehensive Plan programs, prioritizing programs related to housing production and preservation (for example, incentives for small units, preserving cottage clusters, minimum densities in multifamily zoning districts, etc.); 3. consideration of actions necessary to initiate a Coordinated Area Plan for the North Ventura (aka Fry’s) area; and 4. initiation of discussions with Stanford University about the potential for developing housing in the Stanford Research Park, Stanford Shopping Center, and Stanford University Medical Center vicinity. These items are recommended for prioritization based on individual Councilmember statements during hearings on the Comprehensive Plan and the EIR, and the Council as a whole may alter these immediate priorities or defer discussion on them if desired. Many communities City of Palo Alto Page 20 follow adoption of a new general plan with an update of their zoning ordinance. Staff recommends Palo Alto address necessary changes with a series of ordinances addressing different subjects, with the first one focusing on housing. If Council wishes to take an alternate approach, staff will need to return with a detailed scope and cost estimate. Policy Implications The Comprehensive Plan is the City’s “constitution” when it comes to land use and development issues, including transportation and the protection of the environment. The Comprehensive Plan Update has been crafted by the Citizens Advisory Committee, Planning and Transportation Commission, and the City Council to perpetuate the overall vision and values of the current plan, while updating some of its goals, policies, and implementation programs. Resource Impact The Comprehensive Plan Update has been a time consuming and costly project for the City. Current contracts are sufficient to complete the project in accordance with the current schedule, which envisions plan adoption before Thanksgiving and publication (searchable pdf and hard copies) thereafter. Additional budgetary resources – and a contract amendment -- would be required if the City Council wishes staff to work with the consultants to develop an interactive, on-line “users guide” as originally envisioned. Timeline/Next Steps Tonight’s hearing is the first of two hearings scheduled for plan adoption. It is expected that the City Council will use this first hearing to review and discuss the PTC’s report and recommendations, discuss any additional changes or corrections that should be included in Attachment E, and take action on EIR certification. A second hearing has been scheduled for November 13 to allow the City Council to consider adoption of the CEQA findings and the Comprehensive Plan Update itself. If the Comprehensive Plan Update is not adopted before the end of the year, a new State requirement will take effect requiring revisions to the Draft Plan to address Environmental Justice (SB 1000), which will further delay adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Staff has also requested the City Council’s direction to prioritize a short list of priority implementation tasks. (See implementation discussion above.) The current schedule for related activities is provided in Table 5 below: Table 5: Schedule of Upcoming Events (Subject to Modification) Priority Actions Next Steps Accept grant and initiate North Ventura (aka “Fry’s”) Coordinated Area Plan process City Council Grant Acceptance Scheduled for November 6. City of Palo Alto Page 21 City Council Initiation/Scope Discussion to Follow (Date TBD). City participation in "On the Table” Community Conversation about Housing sponsored by Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF) November 15 Transportation Nexus Study & Updated Impact Fee Ordinance Finance Committee hearing tentatively scheduled for November 28. City Council housing “retreat” to discuss housing issues and implementation actions. Date TBD at the end of November or early December. Comp Plan Implementing Ordinance #1 (Housing Unit Production & Preservation) PTC and City Council Hearing schedule TBD Initiate Discussions with Stanford University about Housing in the Research Park, Shopping Center, and SUMC vicinity Steps and schedule TBD Source: Planning & Community Environment, October 2017 Environmental Review A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared and is proposed for certification. The Final EIR responds to substantive comments on the Draft EIR and the Supplement to the Draft EIR and describes the “preferred scenario” based on the Council’s input this spring. Following certification of the Final EIR, the City Council will consider adoption of CEQA findings, including adoption of mitigation measures, a statement of overriding considerations, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). Attachments: Attachment A: PTC Report to the City Council on Comprehensive Plan Update Adoption (PDF) Attachment B: RESO Certifying EIR for Comp Plan Update (PDF) Attachment C: RESO Adopting CEQA Findings for Comp Plan Update (PDF) Attachemnt D: RESO Adopting Comp Plan Update (PDF) Attachment E: CompPlan_Errata_20171002 (PDF) Attachment F: Updated School Capacities (PDF) Attachment G: Responses to Comments Received at the PTC Meeting of September 27, 2017 (DOCX) PTC Report to Council September 27, 2017 Page 1 Planning and Transportation Commission Report to the City Council on the Comprehensive Plan Update Adoption, September 27, 2017 On June 12, 2017, the City Council referred the draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update to the Planning and Transportation Commission for a report on the proposed plan. The City Council referenced the 90 day timeframe contained in Section 19.04.080 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code for the PTC review, with the 90 days beginning on June 30, 2017. The PTC held six public hearings and focused its 90 day review on the Land Use and Transportation Elements of the June 30th version of draft Comprehensive Plan Update. The PTC completed its review and recommendation on September 27, 2017, within the 90 day period. At the September 27, 2017 PTC meeting, the PTC adopted a series of motions approving the transmittal of this report to the City Council and: • Recommending the PTC’s highest priority changes to the Transportation and Land Use Elements and the Comprehensive Plan Update as shown in Table 1 below; • Transmitting the PTC General Consensus Comments as shown in Table 2 below; • Transmitting the Minutes from the six PTC hearings on the Comprehensive Plan Update per Table 3 below; • Recommending certification of the Comprehensive Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated August 30, 2017 as completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and reflecting the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis; • Deferring the PTC’s review of the Transportation and Land Use Sections of the Implementation Plan Table; and • If and when any of the PTC’s 11 Highest Priority recommendations are approved by the Council, recommending and welcoming the City Council to direct that these changes be returned to the PTC to be worked appropriately into the Comp Plan. PTC Report to Council September 27, 2017 Page 2 Table 1: PTC Highest Priority Changes to Transportation and Land Use Elements and the June 30, 2017 Draft Comprehensive Plan Update ORIGINAL PTC COMMENT MOTION VOTE 1 Land Use Element Goal L-1: Growth Management We need a strong commitment to creating BMR housing inventory for purchase and rental. It is too tentative appearing at a program level. Suggest we make Program L1.3.1 into a separate policy – perhaps having a quantifiable goal for ten years in the future. The PTC supports a strong commitment to creating BMR housing inventory for purchase and rental. It is too tentative appearing at a program level. The PTC recommends that the Council make Program L1.3.1 into a separate policy consistent with and in support of the quantified goals for housing production in the adopted Housing Element. 7:0 2 Land Use Element Narrative and Maps The distinction between commercial districts and employment districts is a fundamental linchpin of the previous comp plan that largely seems lost in the draft. We need to test the draft commercial district definition to ensure it still provides space in the commercial districts for the sort of walkable services the neighborhoods expect. These include not just retail, but also services like doctors, dentists, veterinarians, accountants, lawyers, therapists, auto repair… Also spaces for not- for-profits, maker spaces, performance spaces, clubs, dance and music schools, gymnastics and other uses catering to the entire age range including families, kids, and seniors. We need to test that retail includes spaces where lower margin and more specialized retail businesses can operate. OR we need to look at some new definitions for mixed use districts so we don’t undermine commercial districts. We also need to discuss whether the land use map contains proper spaces for neighborhood services. The PTC recommends that the Council strengthen policies supporting walkable neighborhoods to ensure that space for professional and personal services as well as retail uses is available near neighborhoods, recognizing that all of these uses are desirable in thriving commercial centers. Similar attention is needed to provide space to accommodate non-profits and small medical offices in our community. 7:0 3 Land Use Element Goal L-1: Growth Management Strengthen Policy L-1.3 about infill development to indicate not just that infill should be compatible but that “infill development should be preferred or promoted.” Add the following policy: Identify development opportunities for BMR and more affordable market rate housing on city owned properties, like alleys and parking lots 5:2 4 Land Use Element Overall/ General We need to expand our stock of family- oriented housing. Where do we have spaces to In light of Palo Alto’s traditional family orientation, we need housing policies that encourage building more family- 5:2 PTC Report to Council September 27, 2017 Page 3 ORIGINAL PTC COMMENT MOTION VOTE accommodate this use? How do we ensure new neighborhoods receive full investment in schools, parks, adjacent commercial districts and other services we traditionally offer to neighborhoods. Our current neighborhoods are built out, and don’t provide substantial spaces for new family-oriented development. oriented housing for all demographics. The PTC recommends that the Council add policies to Goals L-4 and L-5 to accommodate larger scale family- oriented housing development in retail and commercial districts, and policies to ensure school and other service impacts are fully mitigated. 5 Land Use Element Goal L-4: Commercial Centers & Hotels Support for Program L4.6.1 to prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for Downtown, which is a huge undertaking. Revise the Program to add that the Coordinated Area Plan should consider converting parts of University Avenue to a pedestrian-only zone. The PTC supports Program L4.6.1 to prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for Downtown, which is a huge undertaking. The PTC recommends that the Council revise the Program to add that the Coordinated Area Plan should study converting parts of University Avenue to a pedestrian-only zone. 5:2 6 Transportation Element Goal T-1: Sustainable Transportation PTC members had different views on the offering incentives for TDM achievements. Some suggested lowering parking requirements for projects with successful TDM programs; other felt that permanent parking reductions are not appropriate for uncertain future trip reductions. The PTC recommends that the Council add language to ensure full participation among Palo Alto employers in TMA. 5:2 7 Land Use Element Overall/General Include stronger emphasis on taking on responsibility for dramatically increasing housing supply in Palo Alto. Both BMR housing and “housing that is affordable,” including housing for the middle class. Recommend that the Council include language that expresses a strong preference for affordable housing and housing that is affordable and a commitment to increasing Housing supply over time consistent with the goals set by the City Council through the Housing Element Process. 5:1:1 8 Land Use Element Goal L-1: Growth Management Comments on Goal L-1: Concerns: 1. Why not put vision statement this section by the goal (instead of on page 1) so we know what we are committed to accomplish? 2. Goal does not call for diversity in demographic groups. 3. Neighborhoods are not prioritized as the most important. 4. Passive wording and relegation to project Recommend the following changes: 1. Goal L-1 should read “A compact and resilient city prioritizing diverse and vibrant neighborhoods – and existing compatibly with shopping and services, workplaces, public facilities, parks and open space.” 2. Policies: Swap L1.1 and L1.2 for emphasis on neighborhoods – substituting “prioritize” for “strengthen” in current 1.2 4:1:2 PTC Report to Council September 27, 2017 Page 4 ORIGINAL PTC COMMENT MOTION VOTE level does not suggest COMMITMENT to future action. Suggestions for change: 1. Goal L-1 should read “A compact and resilient city prioritizing diverse and vibrant neighborhoods – and existing compatibly with shopping and services, workplaces, public facilities, parks and open space.” 2. Policies: Swap L1.1 and L1.2 for emphasis on neighborhoods – substituting “prioritize” for “strengthen” in current 1.2 9 Land Use Element Goal L-1: Growth Management Strengthen Policy L-1.3 about infill development to indicate not just that infill should be compatible but that “infill development should be preferred or promoted.” Add a sentence at the beginning of Policy L-1.3 stating that Palo Alto has a preference for infill housing 4:2:1 10 Land Use Element Overall/General The Introduction to the Comp Plan describes a different city than the land use element. The introduction describes a walkable suburb oriented around residential neighborhoods. Land Use describes a mini-city-office-park and is largely silent on neighborhoods and neighborhood services. Either the introduction is wrong or the land use element is wrong. How do we reconcile the different views? Reconcile the narratives, description and goals with the policies and programs, where there appear to be contradictions 4:2:1 11 Land Use Element Goal L-1: Growth Management Some PTC members felt that the Citywide growth cap on office/R&D development and annual limit on office/R&D development (enacted as a separate ordinance) were appropriate growth management tools. Others expressed that the consensus at the 2015 Our Palo Alto Summit was that a Citywide cap is not the right tool, and policies should manage the impacts of office/R&D growth (such as traffic) rather than setting a cap on square footage. The PTC recommends that the Council keep the growth cap, focus on offsets and quality of life and other indication metrics that are based on the impact of development, including traffic, noise, pollution, etc. Set specific goals for a couple of key quality of life measures and other indication metrics. 4:3 Source: Department of Planning & Community Environment Based on Commission actions at their meetings of September 13 and 27, 2017. PTC Report to Council September 27, 2017 Page 5 Table 2: PTC General Consensus Comments PTC GENERAL CONSENSUS COMMENTS 1. Land Use Element Overall/General The Element should place more emphasis on creating neighborhoods, not just building housing units. 2. Land Use Element Overall/General Goals, policies, and programs throughout should be clear and actionable, and the City should be able to track progress toward achievement. 3. Transportation Element Overall/General Don’t build the Plan around specific technologies. The ultimate consequences of new or emerging trends such as transportation network companies ( TNCs – e.g. Lyft, Uber) or autonomous vehicles may be positive or negative and cannot be predicted. 4. Transportation Element Narrative and Maps Geng Road improvement is too specific for the Comp Plan. Re-state more broadly as an improvement or a policy to reduce traffic on East Bayshore.” 5. Transportation Element Narrative and Maps Support for Caltrain grade separation. 6. Transportation Element Goal T-1: Sustainable Transportation Program T1.2.2: Add reference to stable, sustained funding for the TMA, but don’t be proscriptive or limit the City’s options for funding. 7. Transportation Element Goal T-4: Neighborhood Impacts Policy T4.1: Policy should recognize that residential arterials, along with local and collector streets, are also school commute corridors. Policy should state that safety on residential arterials is also important. 8. Transportation Element Goal T-6: Road Safety Policy T-6.6: Policy and related programs discuss education for bicyclists. Language should be updated to reflect that pedestrian safety is also included. 9. Transportation Element Goal T-8: Regional Collaboration and Coordination Consider adding a policy statement about a potential future High Speed Rail station and/or other aspects of High Speed Rail. Source: Department of Planning & Community Environment; Approved by the Planning Commission on September 27, 2017. Due to the volume of the PTC minutes for the six meetings (around 600 pages total), the minutes have not been attached in a hard copy. Electronic copies are available at the following links: Table 3: PTC Minutes PTC Hearing Date Link July 12, 2017 (Approved) http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59548 July 26, 2017 (Approved) http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59549 August 9, 2017 (Approved) http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59550 August 30, 2017 (Approved) http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59731 PTC Report to Council September 27, 2017 Page 6 September 13, 2017 (Draft) http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/PTC- 09.13.17-Item-3-Excerpt-Minutes.pdf September 27, 2017 (Draft) www.paloaltocompplan.org/planning-and-transportation-commission/ Not Yet Approved 170901 jb Lee/Planning/LongRange/Comp Plan Resolution No _____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Certifying Adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act RECITALS A. The City of Palo Alto, a chartered municipal corporation (“City”) has prepared that certain comprehensive update to its general plan, entitled “Our Palo Alto 2030” (referred to herein as the “Comprehensive Plan Update”), proposed for approval and adoption by the City Council. B. Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Update would constitute a project under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with related state implementation guidelines promulgated thereunder (“CEQA”). C. The City, in compliance with CEQA, prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to provide an assessment of the potential environmental consequences of adopting and implementing the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update and associated zoning amendments. The environmental review process under CEQA commenced and was undertaken concurrently with the preparation and consideration of the Comprehensive Plan Update. D. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) for the Comprehensive Plan Update was prepared analyzing four alternatives (also referred to as “scenarios”) in equal level of detail, and was circulated for public review from February 5, 2016 to June 8, 2016. The City held several public hearings to receive comments on the Draft EIR. E. During the Comprehensive Plan development and review process, the City Council directed the evaluation of two additional alternatives or scenarios, which were subsequently analyzed in a Supplement to the Draft EIR that was circulated for public review from February 10, 2017 to March 31, 2017, during which time the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission held additional public hearings to receive comments on the Draft EIR and the Supplement. F. Through its review of the Citizens Advisory Committee’s recommendations over several duly noticed public hearings, the City Council identified the parameters of the preferred alternative for the Comprehensive Plan Update. G. A Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared, which Final Environmental Impact Report is comprised of the Draft EIR dated February 5, 2016, together with the Supplement to the Draft EIR dated February 10, 2017, and the Final Environmental Impact Report dated August 30, 2017 (collectively, all of said documents are referred to herein as the “Final EIR”). H. Prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the Planning and Transportation Commission of the City of Palo Alto, on September 27, 2017, reviewed the Final EIR prepared for the Comprehensive Plan Update (also sometimes referred to herein as the “Project”), held a public hearing, and recommended to the City Council that it certify and find the Final EIR was completed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Not Yet Approved 170901 jb Lee/Planning/LongRange/Comp Plan I. Public notice was duly given that on October 23, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California, the Council would hold a public hearing where interested persons could appear, be heard, and present their views with respect to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update and the Final EIR, and at the noticed date and time, the Council gave all persons full opportunity to be heard and to present their views with respect to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update and the Final EIR. J. The Council is the decision-making body for adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AS FOLLOWS: The City Council (hereinafter the “Council”), in the exercise of its independent judgment as the decision-making body for the City of Palo Alto as Lead Agency, makes and adopts the following findings and certifications in compliance with the requirements of CEQA: 1. The Council has independently reviewed and considered the Final EIR. 2. The Council does hereby find and certify that the Final EIR has been prepared and completed in compliance with CEQA. 3. The Council does hereby find and certify that the Final EIR reflects the City of Palo Alto’s independent judgment and analysis. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment Not Yet Approved 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 1 Resolution No _____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Making Certain Findings Concerning Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Alternatives, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Comprehensive Plan Update, For Which an Environmental Impact Report Was Prepared in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act RECITALS A. The City of Palo Alto, a municipal corporation (“City”) has prepared that certain comprehensive update to its general plan, entitled “Our Palo Alto 2030” (referred to herein as the “Comprehensive Plan Update”), proposed for approval and adoption by the City Council. B. Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Update would constitute a project under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with related state implementation guidelines promulgated thereunder (“CEQA”). C. The City Council, in compliance with CEQA, prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to provide an assessment of the potential environmental consequences of adopting and implementing the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update and associated zoning amendments. D. The environmental review process under CEQA commenced and was undertaken concurrently with the preparation and consideration of the Comprehensive Plan Update, which included the participation of a Citizens Advisory Committee (“CAC”) that met for almost two years and hearings before the City Council to consider the CAC recommendations. This process allowed the Comprehensive Plan Update to take into account any potential environmental impacts identified in the EIR and include policies to address those impacts. E. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) for the Comprehensive Plan Update was prepared analyzing four alternatives (also referred to as “scenarios”) in equal level of detail. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review from February 5, 2016 to June 8, 2016, during which time the City held several public hearings to receive comments on the Draft EIR. F. During the Comprehensive Plan development and review process, the City Council directed the evaluation of two additional alternatives or scenarios, which were subsequently analyzed in a Supplement to the Draft EIR that was circulated for public review from February 10, 2017 to March 31, 2017, during which time the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission held additional public hearings to receive comments on the Draft EIR and the Supplement. 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 2 G. After receiving the CAC’s recommendations on the Comprehensive Plan Update, the City Council identified the parameters of the preferred alternative through several public hearings. H. A Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared, which Final Environmental Impact Report is comprised of the Draft EIR dated February 5, 2016, together with the Supplement to the Draft EIR dated February 10, 2017, and the Final Environmental Impact Report dated August 30, 2017 (collectively, all of said documents are referred to herein as the “EIR”). I. Prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the Planning and Transportation Commission of the City of Palo Alto, on September 27, 2017, reviewed the EIR prepared for the Comprehensive Plan Update (also sometimes referred to herein as the “Project”), held a public hearing, and recommended to the City Council that it certify and find the Final EIR was completed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. J. On ___________, the Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Update and EIR, and certified the EIR in accordance with CEQA by adoption of Resolution No. _______. K. The Council is the decision-making body for adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. L. CEQA requires that in connection with approval of a project for which an environmental impact report has been prepared that identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project, the decision-making body of a public agency make certain findings regarding those effects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AS FOLLOWS: The City Council, in the exercise of its independent judgment, makes and adopts the following findings to comply with the requirements of CEQA, including Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, based upon the entire record of proceedings for the Project. All statements set forth in this Resolution constitute formal findings of the City Council, including the statements set forth in this paragraph and in the recitals above. 1. The City Council was presented with, and has independently reviewed and analyzed the EIR and other information in the record and has considered the information contained therein prior to acting upon and approving the Project, and bases the findings stated below on such review. 2. The EIR provides an adequate basis for considering and acting upon the Comprehensive Plan Update Project. The City Council has considered all of the evidence and arguments presented during consideration of the Project and the Final EIR. In determining whether the Project may have a significant impact on the environment, and in adopting the findings set forth herein, the City Council certifies that it has complied with Public Resources Code Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21082.2. 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 3 3. The City Council agrees with the characterization of the EIR with respect to all impacts initially identified as “less than significant” and finds that those impacts have been described accurately and are less than significant as so described in the Final EIR. This finding does not apply to impacts identified as significant or potentially significant that are reduced to a less than significant level by mitigation measures included in the EIR. The disposition of each of those impacts and the mitigation measures adopted to reduce them are addressed specifically in the findings below. 4. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) includes all mitigation measures adopted with respect to the Project and explains how and by whom they will be implemented and enforced. 5. The EIR considers a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives, sufficient to foster informed decision making, public participation and a reasoned choice, in accordance with CEQA. 6. The Final EIR contains responses to comments received on a Draft EIR and a Supplement to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR also contains corrections and clarifications to the text and analysis of the Draft EIR and Supplement to the Draft EIR, where warranted. The City Council does hereby find that such changes and additional information are not significant new information under CEQA because such changes and additional information do not indicate that any of the following would result from approval and implementation of the Project: (i) any new significant environmental impact or substantially more severe environmental impact (not already disclosed and evaluated in the DEIR and Supplement to the Draft EIR), (ii) any feasible mitigation measure considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft EIR and Supplement to the Draft EIR that would lessen a significant environmental impact of the Project has been proposed and would not be implemented, or (iii) any feasible alternative considerably different from those analyzed in the DEIR and the Supplement to the Draft EIR that would lessen a significant environmental impact of the Project has been proposed and would not be implemented. The City Council does find and determine that recirculation of the Final EIR for further public review and comment is not warranted or required under the provisions of CEQA. 7. The City Council does hereby make the following findings with respect to significant effects on the environment of the Project, as identified in the EIR, with the understanding that all of the information in this Resolution is intended as a summary of the full administrative record supporting the EIR, which full administrative record should be consulted for the full details supporting these findings. I. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS Significant effects of the Comprehensive Plan Update project were identified in the Draft EIR and the Supplement to the Draft EIR. CEQA §21081 and CEQA Guidelines §15091 require that the Lead Agency prepare written findings for identified significant impacts, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. Less than significant effects (without mitigation) of the project were also identified in the Draft EIR and the Supplement to the Draft EIR. CEQA does not require that the Lead Agency prepare written findings for less than significant effects. 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 4 CEQA requires that the Lead Agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur with implementation of the project. Project mitigation or alternatives are not required, however, where substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with another agency. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines §15091 states: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. The “changes or alterations” referred to in §15091(a)(1) above, that are required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects of the project, may include a wide variety of measures or actions as set forth in Guidelines §15370, including avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, or reducing the impact over time, or compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources. II. FINDINGS ON SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City Council hereby makes these findings with respect to the potential for significant environmental impacts from adoption and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Update and Zoning Code amendments ("proposed project") and the means for mitigating those impacts. For the purpose of these findings, the term “Environmental Impact Report” (EIR) means the Draft EIR, Supplement to the Draft EIR, and Final EIR documents collectively, unless otherwise specified. These findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the EIR. Instead, the findings provide a summary description of each impact, describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the EIR and adopted by the City, and state the findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the EIR. These findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the EIR that support the EIR's determinations regarding significant project impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. The facts supporting these findings are found in the record as a whole for the project. 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 5 In making these findings, the City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the analysis and explanation in the EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the determinations and conclusions of the EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent that any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings. Aesthetics Impact AES-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the area and its surroundings. Mitigation Measure AES-1: To ensure that increased residential densities would not degrade the visual character or quality of the area, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: High-quality building and site design. Compatibility with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Enhancement of existing commercial centers. Requirements for landscaping and street trees. Preservation and creation of a safe and inviting pedestrian environment. Appropriate building form, massing, and setbacks. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies that collectively ensure implementation of this mitigation measure during the course of development proposals and capital improvement projects. For example: Policy L-2.12: Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. Policy L-3.1: Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Policy L-4.5: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as a major commercial center of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. Policy L-4.7: Maintain Stanford Shopping Center as one of the Bay Area’s premiere regional shopping centers. Promote bicycle and pedestrian use and encourage any new development at the Center to occur through infill. Policy L-4.8: Maintain the existing scale, character and function of the California Avenue business district as a shopping, service and office center intermediate in function and scale between Downtown and the smaller neighborhood business areas. Policy L-4.10: Recognize and preserve Town and Country Village as an attractive retail center serving Palo Altans and residents of the wider region. Future development at this site should preserve its existing amenities, pedestrian scale and architectural character while also improving safe access for bicyclists and pedestrians and increasing the amount of bicycle parking. 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 6 Policy L-4.15: Encourage maximum use of Neighborhood Centers by ensuring that the publicly maintained areas are clean, well-lit and attractively landscaped. Policy L-5.2: Provide landscaping, trees, sidewalks, pedestrian path and connections to the citywide bikeway system within Employment Districts. Pursue opportunities to include sidewalks, paths, low water use landscaping, recycled water and trees and remove grass turf in renovation and expansion projects. Policy L-6.1: Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Policy L-6.2: Use the Zoning Ordinance, design review process, design guidelines and Coordinated Area Plans to ensure high quality residential and commercial design and architectural compatibility. Policy L-9.3: Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide and maintain continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches and other amenities that promote walking and “active” transportation. Policy T-3.7: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, gathering spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art and interesting architectural details. Policy T-3.8: Add planting pockets with street trees to provide shade, calm traffic and enhance the pedestrian realm. Policy T-6.1: Continue to make safety the first priority of citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle and automobile safety over motor vehicle level of service at intersections and motor vehicle parking. Policy N-2.8: Require new commercial, multi-unit and single-family housing projects to provide street trees and related irrigation systems. The incorporation of relevant policies into the proposed Plan ensures that future development and capital improvements under the proposed Plan would avoid significant degradation of the existing visual character and quality. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact AES-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to substantially shadow public open space (other than public open streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21. Mitigation Measure AES-4: The City shall amend its local CEQA guidelines to require development projects of a certain size or location to prepare an analysis of potential shade/shadow impacts. The analysis shall focus on potential impacts to public open spaces (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21. The analysis shall identify whether the project would shadow open spaces during these times, explain how the project meets City design requirements and other City policy goals, and describe ways to mitigate substantial shade and shadow impacts through feasible building and site design features. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 7 Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measure AES-4 would amend the City’s local CEQA guidelines to require project-level analysis of potential shade/shadow impacts, as well as measures to mitigate potential impacts through feasible building and site design features. Implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure the future development projects and capital improvement projects that are subject to CEQA would disclose and avoid potential shade/shadow impacts to the extent feasible. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Air Quality Impact AIR-1: Without inclusion of air quality policies, implementation of the proposed Plan could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Mitigation Measure AIR-1: To ensure consistency with the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Reduction in emissions of particulates from automobiles, manufacturing, construction activity, and other sources (e.g., dry cleaning, wood burning, landscape maintenance). Support for regional, State, and federal programs that improve air quality. Support for transit, bicycling, and walking. Mix of uses (e.g., housing near employment centers) and development types (e.g., infill) to reduce the need to drive. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies that collectively ensure implementation of this mitigation measure during the course of development proposals and capital improvement projects. For example: Policy L-1.1: Limit future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. The boundary of the urban service area is otherwise known as the urban growth boundary. Retain undeveloped land west of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances made for very low-intensity development consistent with the open space character of the area. Retain undeveloped land northeast of Highway 101 as open space. Policy L-2.1: Maintain a citywide structure of Residential Neighborhoods, Centers and Employment Districts. Integrate these areas with the City’s and the region’s transit and street system. Policy L-2.2: Enhance connections between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods by promoting walkable and bikeable connections and a diverse range of retail and services that caters to the daily needs of residents. Policy L-2.3: As a key component of a diverse, inclusive community, allow and encourage a mix of housing types and sizes designed for greater affordability, particularly smaller housing types, such as studios, cohousing, cottages, clustered housing, accessory dwelling units and senior housing. 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 8 Policy L-2.4: Use a variety of strategies to stimulate housing near retail, employment, and transit. Policy L-2.6: Create opportunities for new mixed use development consisting of housing and retail. Policy T-1.1: Take a comprehensive approach to reducing single-occupant vehicle trips by involving those who live, work and shop in Palo Alto in developing strategies that make it easier and more convenient not to drive. Policy T-1.6: Encourage innovation and expanded transit access to regional destinations, multi-modal transit stations, employment centers and commercial centers, including those within Palo Alto through the use of efficient public and/or private transit options such as rideshare services, on-demand local shuttles and other first/last mile connections. Policy T-1.16: Promote bicycle use as an alternative way to get to work, school, shopping, recreational facilities and transit stops. Policy T-1.19: Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling and walking. Policy T-5.12: To promote bicycle use, increase the number of safe, attractive and well- designed bicycle parking spaces available in the city, including spots for diverse types of bicycles and associated equipment, including trailers, prioritizing heavily travelled areas such as commercial and retail centers, employment districts, recreational/cultural facilities, multi- modal transit facilities and ride share stops for bicycle parking infrastructure. Policy T-6.1: Continue to make safety the first priority of citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle and automobile safety over motor vehicle level of service at intersections and motor vehicle parking. Policy N-5.1: Support regional, State, and federal programs that improve air quality in the Bay Area because of its critical importance to a healthy Palo Alto. Policy N-5.2: Support behavior changes to reduce emissions of particulates from automobiles. Policy N-5.3: Reduce emissions of particulates from, manufacturing, dry cleaning, construction activity, grading, wood burning, landscape maintenance, including leaf blowers and other sources. The incorporation of relevant policies into the proposed Plan ensures that future development projects and capital improvement projects under the proposed Plan will support emissions reductions, support air quality improvement programs, support alternative modes of transport, and support reduced driving. In this way, Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would support BAAQMD’s implementation of control measures in the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact AIR-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan could violate an air quality standard; contribute substantially to an existing or project air quality violation; and/or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Mitigation Measure AIR-2a: The City shall amend its local CEQA Guidelines and Municipal Code to require, as part of the City’s development approval process, that future development projects to comply with the current BAAQMD basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10 (Table 8-2, Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for All Proposed Projects, of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines). 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 9 Mitigation Measure AIR-2b: The City shall amend its local CEQA Guidelines to require that, prior to issuance of construction permits, development project applicants that are subject to CEQA and have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD screening-criteria listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines prepare and submit to the City of Palo Alto a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with BAAQMD methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If construction- related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, as identified in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the City of Palo Alto shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures (Table 8-3, Additional Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for Projects with Construction Emissions Above the Threshold, of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines or applicable construction mitigation measures subsequently approved by BAAQMD) to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities to below these thresholds. These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City. Mitigation Measure AIR-2c: To ensure that development projects that have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD screening criteria air pollutants listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines reduce regional air pollutant emissions below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, the proposed Plan shall include policies that require compliance with BAAQMD requirements, including BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measure AIR-2d: Implement Mitigation Measures TRANS-1a and TRANS-1b. In addition, to reduce long-term air quality impacts by emphasizing walkable neighborhoods and supporting alternative modes of transportation, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connections between commercial and mixed-use centers. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Section III, Findings Concerning Alternatives. Rationale for Finding: The City is located in a region that is in “nonattainment” for ozone and particulates. While the mitigation measures listed below would reduce emissions of these pollutants, they cannot eliminate Palo Alto’s contribution to regional air quality problems. Mitigation Measure AIR-2a would require adherence to the current BAAQMD basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10. Mitigation Measure AIR-2b would require implementation of BAAQMD-approved mitigation measures, if future development projects in Palo Alto could generate construction exhaust emissions in excess of the BAAQMD significance thresholds. An analysis of emissions generated from the construction of specific future projects under the proposed Plan would be required to evaluate emissions compared to BAAQMD’s project-level significance thresholds during individual environmental review. 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 10 To implement Mitigation Measure AIR-2c, the proposed Plan includes Policy N-5.2 and would apply to future development projects and capital improvements projects that are subject to CEQA. Policy N-5.2 states: “Support the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in its efforts to achieve compliance with existing air quality regulations by continuing to require development applicants to comply with BAAQMD construction emissions control measures and health risk assessment requirements.” Through Mitigation Measure TRANS-1a and proposed Policy L-2.2, the City would ensure that future development projects and capital improvement projects: “Enhance connections between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods by promoting walkable and bikeable connections and a diverse range of retail and services that caters to the daily needs of residents.” However, , analysis of post-mitigation conditions in the Supplement to the Draft EIR shows that implementation of transportation mitigation measures would nominally reduce emissions but would not reduce emissions below BAAQMD’s project- level thresholds, which, based on BAAQMD guidance, are generally used to determine if a project generates a substantial increase in emissions. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are available and the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact AIR-3: Implementation of the proposed Plan would expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollution. Mitigation Measure AIR-3a: The City of Palo Alto shall update its CEQA Procedures to require that future non-residential projects within the city that: 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered TRUs, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes), as measured from the property line of a proposed project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Palo Alto prior to future discretionary project approval or shall comply with best practices recommended for implementation by the BAAQMD. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds the BAAQMD significance thresholds, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential cancer and non-cancer risks to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. Mitigation measures and best practices may include but are not limited to: Restricting idling on-site beyond Air Toxic Control Measures idling restrictions, as feasible. Electrifying warehousing docks. Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles. Restricting off-site truck travel through the creation of truck routes. 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 11 Mitigation measures identified in the project-specific HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of a proposed project. Mitigation Measure AIR-3b: To ensure that new industrial and warehousing projects with the potential to generate new stationary and mobile sources of air toxics that exceed the BAAQMD project-level and/or cumulative significance thresholds for toxic air contaminants and PM2.5 listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines reduce emissions below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, amend the City’s CEQA guidelines to require compliance with BAAQMD requirements. Mitigation Measure AIR-3c: The proposed Plan shall include policies to mitigate potential sources of toxic air contaminants through siting or other means to reduce human health risks and meet the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s applicable threshold of significance. Policies shall also require that new sensitive land use projects (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, parks or playgrounds, and day care centers) within 1,000 feet of a major stationary source of TACs and roadways with traffic volumes over 10,000 vehicles per day consider potential health risks and incorporate adequate precautions, such as high-efficiency air filtration, into project design. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measures AIR-3a and AIR-3b would ensure that mobile sources of TACs not covered under BAAQMD permits are considered during subsequent project- level environmental review and development of individual projects would be required to achieve the incremental risk thresholds established by BAAQMD. Mitigation Measures AIR-3c would ensure that potential health risks are considered for new sensitive land uses sited near potential sources of toxic air contaminants, and that adequate precautions are incorporated into such projects. The proposed Plan includes Policy N-5.5 to ensure exposure to pollutants and resulting health risks are considered during the siting of sensitive land uses: “Mitigate potential sources of toxic air contaminants through siting or other means to reduce human health risks and meet the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s applicable threshold of significance. When siting new sensitive receptors such as schools, day care facilities, parks or playgrounds, medical facilities and residences within 1,000’ of stationary sources of toxic air contaminants or roadways used by more than 10,000 vehicles per day, require projects to consider potential health risks and incorporate adequate precautions such as high-efficiency air filtration into project design.” Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact AIR-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan could create or expose a substantial number of people to objectionable odors unless policies are integrated into the proposed Plan. Mitigation Measure AIR-4: To reduce odor impacts, the proposed Plan shall include policies requiring: 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 12 Buffers, mechanical, and other mitigation methods to avoid creating a nuisance. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes Policy N-5.4 to ensure that future development projects and capital improvement projects do not result in objectionable odors: “All potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants shall be adequately buffered, or mechanically or otherwise mitigated to avoid odor and toxic impacts that violate relevant human health standards.” This policy, along with CEQA review of projects using BAAQMD’s odor screening distances and compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 7, would ensure that odor impacts are minimized and reduced to a less-than-significant level. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Cultural Resources Impact CULT-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan could adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory. Mitigation Measure CULT-1: To ensure the protection of potentially historic resources, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Process for reviewing proposed demolition or alteration of potentially historic buildings. Protection of archaeological resources. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes the policies that collectively support implementation of this mitigation measure. For example: Policy L-7.2: If a proposed project would substantially affect the exterior of a potential historic resource that has not been evaluated for inclusion into the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, City staff shall consider whether it is eligible for inclusion in State or federal registers prior to the issuance of a demolition or alterations permit. Minor exterior improvements that do not affect the architectural integrity of potentially historic buildings shall be exempt from consideration. Examples of minor improvements may include repair or replacement of features in kind, or other changes that do not alter character-defining features of the building. Policy L-7.14: Protect Palo Alto’s archaeological resources, including natural land formations, sacred sites, the historical landscape, historic habitats and remains of settlements here before the founding of Palo Alto in the 19th century. The incorporation of relevant policies into the proposed Plan ensures that the potential historic resources would be considered for inclusion on State and federal registers prior to demolition or alteration, and that archaeological resources would be protected. Through implementation of 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 13 these measures, the City would ensure the ongoing protection of potential historic and archaeological resources that have not already been identified and protected. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact CULT-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan could eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. Mitigation Measure CULT-2: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Through implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1, the City would maintain processes and procedures to ensure the ongoing protection of historic and archaeological resources, including important examples of California’s history and prehistory. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact CULT-3: Implementation of the proposed Plan could cause damage to an important archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measure CULT-3: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1. In addition, to ensure that future development would not damage archaeological resources, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Archaeological surveys and mitigation plans for future development projects. Developer compliance with applicable regulations regarding the identification and protection of archaeological and paleontological deposits, and unique geologic features. Appropriate tribal consultation and consideration of tribal concerns. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies that collectively support implementation of this mitigation measure. For example: Policy L-7.15: Appropriate tribal consultation and consideration of tribal concerns. Policy L-7.16: Archaeological surveys and mitigation plans for future development projects. Policy L-7.17: Developer compliance with applicable regulations regarding the identification and protection of archaeological and paleontological deposits, or unique geologic features. The incorporation of relevant policies into the proposed Plan ensures that the City would require archaeological surveys and mitigation plans for future development projects and capital improvement projects that are subject to CEQA review, as well as compliance with archaeological protection regulations and tribal consultation. Implementation of these policies would avoid significant impacts to archaeological resources. In addition, through implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1, the City would maintain processes and procedures to ensure the ongoing protection of archaeological resources. 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 14 Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact CULT-5: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Mitigation Measure CULT-5: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measure CULT-3 would incorporate policies into the proposed Plan to require compliance with paleontological protection regulations. These policies would ensure that future development projects and capital improvement projects subject to CEQA would avoid significant impacts to paleontological resources and unique geologic features. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact CULT-7: Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to cultural resources. Mitigation Measure CULT-7: Implement Mitigation Measures CULT-1 and CULT-3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Through implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1, the City would maintain processes and procedures to ensure the ongoing protection of historic and archaeological resources. These processes and procedures would protect historic and archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure CULT-3 would incorporate policies into the proposed Plan to require archaeological surveys and mitigation plans for future development projects and capital improvement projects, as well as compliance with archaeological and paleontological protection regulations and tribal consultation. These policies would ensure that future projects avoid significant impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources and that the City’s contribution to potential cumulative impacts to historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact GHG-3: The proposed Plan would expose people or structures to the physical effects of climate change, including but not limited to flooding, extreme temperatures, public health, wildfire risk, or other impacts resulting from climate change, requiring mitigation. Mitigation Measure GHG-3: To address the potential impacts associated with exposing people to the effects of climate change, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 15 Monitoring and response to flooding risks caused by climate change-related changes to precipitation patterns, groundwater levels, sea level rise, tides, and storm surges. Cooperative planning with federal, State, regional, and local public agencies on issues related to climate change (including sea level rise and extreme storms). Preparation of response strategies to address sea level rise, increased flooding, landslides, soil erosion, storm events, and other events related to climate change. Implementation of adaptive strategies to address impacts of sea level rise on Palo Alto’s levee system. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies and programs that collectively support implementation of this mitigation measure. For example: Policy N-4.12: Encourage Low Impact Development (LID) measures to limit the amount of pavement and impervious surface in new development and increase the retention, treatment and infiltration of urban stormwater runoff. Include LID measures in major remodels, public projects and recreation projects where practical. Policy N-8.2: With guidance from the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) and its subsequent updates and other future planning efforts, reduce greenhouse gas emissions from City operations and from the community. Policy N-8.4: Continue to work with regional partners to build resiliency policy into City planning and capital projects, especially near the San Francisco Bay shoreline, while protecting the natural environment. Program N8.4.1: Prepare response strategies that address sea level rise, increased flooding, landslides, soil erosion, storm events and other events related to climate change. Include strategies to respond to the impacts of sea level rise on Palo Alto’s levee system. Policy S-1.9: Design Palo Alto’s infrastructure system to protect the life and safety of residents, ensure resiliency in the face of disaster and minimize economic loss, including in the context of climate change and sea level rise. Program S1.10.3: Implement the mitigation strategies and guidelines provided by the LHMP, including those that address evolving hazards resulting from climate change. Policy S-2.9: Prohibit new habitable basements in the development of single-family residential properties within 100-year flood zones of the FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Area. Policy S-2.10: Monitor and respond to the risk of flooding caused by climate change-related changes to precipitation patterns, groundwater levels, sea level rise, tides and storm surges. Policy S-2.11: Support regional efforts to improve bay levees. Program S2.11.1: Work cooperatively with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority to provide flood protection from high tide events on San Francisco Bay, taking into account the impacts of future sea level rise, to provide one percent (100-year) flood protection from tidal flooding, while being sensitive to preserving and protecting the natural environment. Program S2.11.2: Work with regional, State, and federal agencies to develop additional adaptive strategies to address flood hazards to existing or new development and infrastructure, including environmentally sensitive levees. 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 16 The incorporation of relevant policies into the proposed Plan ensures that the City considers the impact of climate change when making future decisions about development projects and capital improvement projects. The programs listed above illustrate ways the City is engaging in planning and strategies to reduce the risks associated with the effects of climate change. The policies and programs collectively ensure that the City reduces potential climate change hazards to the extent feasible. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Hydrology Impact HYD-2: The proposed Plan could substantially degrade or deplete ground water resources or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Mitigation Measure HYD-2: To reduce potential impacts associated with construction dewatering the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Avoidance of the impacts of basement construction for single-family homes on the natural environment and safety. Conservation of subsurface water resources. Construction techniques and recharge strategies to reduce subsurface and surface water impacts. Monitoring of dewatering and excavation projects. Cooperation with other jurisdictions and regional agencies to protect groundwater. Protection of groundwater as a natural resource. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies and programs that collectively support implementation of this mitigation measure. For example: Policy L-3.5: Avoid negative impacts of basement construction for single-family homes on adjacent properties, public resources and the natural environment. Policy N-4.7: Ensure regulation of groundwater use to protect it as a natural resource and to preserve it as a potential water supply in the event of water scarcity. Policy N-4.8: Conserve and maintain subsurface water resources by exploring ways to reduce the impacts of residential basement dewatering and other excavation activities. Program N4.8.1: Research and promote new construction techniques and recharge strategies developed to reduce subsurface and surface water impacts and comply with City dewatering policies. Program N4.8.2: Explore appropriate ways to monitor dewatering for all dewatering and excavation projects to encourage maintaining groundwater levels and recharging of the aquifer where needed. The incorporation of relevant policies into the proposed Plan ensures that the City would continue to work to reduce the environmental effects associated with construction dewatering, 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 17 including impacts to adjacent properties and subsurface water resources. The programs listed above illustrate the City commitment to advancing these policies. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-2 would also ensure cooperation with other agencies to protect groundwater resources and would reduce impacts to groundwater resources to a less-than-significant level. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Land Use Impact LAND-1: The proposed Plan could adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use patterns in the area. Mitigation Measure LAND-1: To ensure that the intensity of future development would not adversely change the land use patterns or affect the livability of Palo Alto neighborhoods, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Strengthening of residential neighborhoods. Vitality of commercial areas and public facilities. High-quality building and site design. Architectural compatibility of new development. Compatible infill development. Avoidance of abrupt changes in the scale of development where residential districts abut more intense uses. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies that collectively support implementation of this mitigation measure. For example: Policy L-1.2: Maintain and strengthen Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. Policy L-3.1: Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Policy L-6.1: Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Policy L-6.2: Use the Zoning Ordinance, design review process, design guidelines and Coordinated Area Plans to ensure high quality residential and commercial design and architectural compatibility. Policy L-6.7: 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. Policy L-9.4: Maintain and enhance existing public gathering places and open spaces and integrate new public spaces at a variety of scales. 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 18 Policy L-9.6: Create, preserve and enhance parks and publicly accessible, shared outdoor gathering spaces within walking and biking distance of residential neighborhoods. The incorporation of relevant policies into the proposed Plan ensures that the City will require development and capital improvements allowed under the proposed Plan to achieve high- quality design, architectural compatibility, and context-sensitive building design, strengthening residential and commercial areas and avoiding adverse effects associated with the type or intensity of land use patterns. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact LAND-2: The proposed Plan would allow development that could be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the surrounding area, including density and building height. Mitigation Measure LAND-2: Implement Mitigation Measure LAND-1. In addition, to further reduce potential impacts to visual character and ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Use of City procedures, plans, and requirements to ensure high-quality building design and architectural compatibility. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies that collectively support implementation of this mitigation measure. For example: Policy L-6.2: Use the Zoning Ordinance, design review process, design guidelines and Coordinated Area Plans to ensure high quality residential and commercial design and architectural compatibility. Policy L-6.7: 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 incorporation of relevant policies into the proposed Plan ensures that the City will require development projects and capital improvement projects to provide appropriate land use transitions and adhere to design requirements for compatibility and high-quality design, and to avoid adverse effects associated with incompatible land uses, effectively avoiding adverse effects associated with the intensity of planned land uses. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact LAND-5: The proposed Plan could physically divide an established community. Mitigation Measure LAND-5: To avoid potential impacts from physically dividing an established community, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Enhanced connections to and from parks, schools, and community facilities for all users. 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 19 Safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections between residential areas and commercial centers. Cooperation with other agencies to improve circulation connections. Grade separation of rail crossings. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies that collectively support implementation of this mitigation measure during the course of development proposals and capital improvement projects. For example: Policy L-1.6: Use coordinated area plans to guide development in areas of Palo Alto where significant change is foreseeable. Address both land use and transportation, define the desired character and urban design traits of the areas, identify opportunities for public open space, parks and recreational opportunities, address connectivity to and compatibility with adjacent residential areas; and include broad community involvement in the planning process. Policy L-2.2: Enhance connections between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods by promoting walkable and bikeable connections and a diverse range of retail and services that caters to the daily needs of residents. Policy T-1.17: Require new office, commercial and multi-family residential developments to provide improvements that improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity as called for in the 2012 Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Policy T-1.21: Maintain pedestrian- and bicycle-only use of alleyways Downtown and in the California Avenue area where appropriate to provide connectivity between businesses and parking and transit stops, and consider public art in the alleyways as a way to encourage walking. Policy T-3.2: Enhance connections to, from and between parks, community centers, recreation facilities, libraries and schools for all users. Policy T-3.13: Work with Caltrans, Santa Clara County and VTA to improve east and west connections in Palo Alto and maintain a circulation network that binds the city together in all directions. Policy T-3.15: Pursue grade separation of rail crossings along the rail corridor as a City priority. Policy T-8.12: Support the development of the Santa Clara County Countywide Bicycle System, and other regional bicycle plans. The incorporation of relevant policies into the proposed Plan ensures that future development projects and capital improvement projects will enhance connections with community facilities, improve safety for non-automotive connections, address grade separation of rail crossings, and involve cooperation with other agencies to improve circulation. City action consistent with these policies would improve accessibility throughout the city and ensure that established communities are not physically divided. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 20 Noise Impact NOISE-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to cause the average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a: To ensure that average 24-hour noise levels associated with long-term operational noise would not increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments. Use of the guidelines in the “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment” table in the proposed Plan to evaluate the compatibility of proposed land uses with existing noise environments. Clear guidelines for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas. Adherence to the interior noise requirements of the State of California Building Standards Code (Title 24) and the Noise Insulation Standards (Title 25). Inclusion of a noise contour map in the proposed Plan. Reduction of noise impacts of development on adjacent properties. Evaluation of noise impacts on existing residential, open space, and conservation land. Requirement for new projects in the Multiple Family, Commercial, Manufacturing, or Planned Community districts to demonstrate compliance with the Noise Ordinance. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1b: To reduce potential impacts to new land uses from aircraft noise, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Compliance with the airport-related land use compatibility standards for community noise environments. Prohibition of incompatible land use development within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of the Palo Alto airport, as established in the adopted County of Santa Clara Airport Land Use Commission Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Palo Alto Airport. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1c: To reduce potential impacts to new land uses from railway noise, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Minimization of noise spillover from rail-related activities into adjacent residential or noise- sensitive areas. Building design that reduces impacts from noise and ground borne vibrations associated with rail operations. Guidelines for interior noise levels. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies that collectively support implementation of this mitigation measure during the course of development proposals and capital improvement projects. For example: Policy N-6.1: Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments. Use the guidelines in Table N-1 to evaluate the compatibility of proposed 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 21 land uses with existing noise environments when preparing, revising, or reviewing development proposals. Acceptable exterior, interior and ways to discern noise exposure include: The guideline for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn of 60 dB. This level is a guideline for the design and location of future development and a goal for the reduction of noise in existing development. However, 60 Ldn is a guideline which cannot necessarily be reached in all residential areas within the constraints of economic or aesthetic feasibility. This guideline will be primarily applied where outdoor use is a major consideration (e.g., backyards in single-family housing developments, and recreational areas in multiple family housing projects). Where the City determines that providing an Ldn of 60 dB or lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use should be reduced to as close to the standard as feasible through project design. Interior noise, per the requirements of the State of California Building Standards Code (Title 24) and Noise Insulation Standards (Title 25), must not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB in all habitable rooms of all new dwelling units. Policy N-6.2: Noise exposure(s) can be determined from (a) the noise contour map included in this plan, (b) more detailed noise exposure studies, or (c) on area-specific or project- specific noise measurements, as appropriate. Policy N-6.5: Protect residential and residentially-zoned properties from excessive and unnecessary noise from any sources on adjacent commercial or industrial properties. Policy N-6.7: While a proposed project is in the development review process, the noise impact of the project on existing residential land uses, public open spaces and public conservation land should be evaluated in terms of the increase in existing noise levels for the potential for adverse community impact, regardless of existing background noise levels. If an area is below the applicable maximum noise guideline, an increase in noise up to the maximum should not necessarily be allowed. Policy N-6.8: The City may require measures to reduce noise impacts of new development on adjacent properties through appropriate means including, but not limited to, the following: Orient buildings to shield noise sensitive outdoor spaces from sources of noise. Construct noise walls when other methods to reduce noise are not practical and when these walls will not shift similar noise impacts to another adjacent property. Screen and control noise sources such as parking lots, outdoor activities and mechanical equipment, including HVAC equipment. Increase setbacks to serve as a buffer between noise sources and adjacent dwellings. Whenever possible, retain fences, walls or landscaping that serve as noise buffers while considering design, safety and other impacts. Use soundproofing materials, noise reduction construction techniques, and/or acoustically rated windows/doors. Include auxiliary power sources at loading docks to minimize truck engine idling. Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts. Policy N-6.9: Continue to require applicants for new projects or new mechanical equipment in the Multifamily, Commercial, Manufacturing or Planned Community districts to submit an 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 22 acoustical analysis demonstrating compliance with the Noise Ordinance prior to receiving a building permit. Policy N-6.12: Ensure compliance with the airport related land use compatibility standards for community noise environments, shown in Table N-1, by prohibiting incompatible land use development within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of the Palo Alto airport. Policy N-6.13: Minimize noise spillover from rail related activities into adjacent residential or noise-sensitive areas. Policy N-6.14: Reduce impacts from noise and ground borne vibrations associated with rail operations by requiring that future habitable buildings use necessary design elements such as setbacks, landscaped berms and soundwalls to keep interior noise levels below 45 dBA Ldn and ground-borne vibration levels below 72 VdB. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a incorporates policies into the proposed Plan to require adherence to noise guidelines, reduce potential noise impacts for adjacent properties, ensuring that long- term operational noise in residential areas would not increase by unacceptable levels. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1b would incorporate policies into the proposed Plan to require compliance with airport-related compatibility standards and prohibit development within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour of the Palo Alto Airport, ensuring that new sensitive receptors are not exposed to unacceptable levels of noise from operation of the Palo Alto Airport. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1c would incorporate policies into the proposed Plan to address impacts associated with rail operations and require interior noise level guidelines and vibration impact analyses, ensuring that new construction near the rail corridor is adequate to address railway noise and vibration, to the extent feasible. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact NOISE-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to cause the Ldn to increase by 3 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB. Mitigation Measure NOISE-2: Implement Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, and NOISE-1c. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, and NOISE-1c would be implemented by including policies in the proposed Plan to ensure that noise levels in residential areas would not increase by unacceptable levels and ensure that new noise sources would be controlled and/or mitigated so as to comply with City standards. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact NOISE-3: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to cause an increase of 3 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB. 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 23 Mitigation Measure NOISE-3: Implement Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, and NOISE-1c. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, and NOISE-1c would be implemented by including policies in the proposed Plan to ensure that noise levels in residential areas would not increase by unacceptable levels and would ensure that new noise sources would be controlled and/or mitigated so as to comply with City standards. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact NOISE-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to result in indoor noise levels for residential development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB. Mitigation Measure NOISE-4a: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a. Mitigation Measure NOISE-4b: The Land Use Noise Compatibility Guidelines established in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan shall be maintained. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a would be implemented by including policies in the proposed Plan to ensure that long-term operational noise in residential areas would not increase by unacceptable levels by maintaining the City’s Land Use Noise Compatibility Guidelines, which would be used to evaluate new development projects and capital improvement projects. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact NOISE-5: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to expose persons to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. Mitigation Measure NOISE-5a: To ensure that future development would not result in significant construction-related vibration impacts, the proposed Plan shall include policies that limit the hours of construction around sensitive receptors, and require formal, ongoing monitoring and reporting throughout the construction process for larger development projects, as well as the use of pertinent industry standards and City guidelines to avoid significant vibration impacts during construction or operations. Mitigation Measure NOISE-5b: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-1c. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 24 Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes the following policy and program that collectively ensure implementation of this mitigation measure during the course of development proposals and capital improvement projects: Policy N-6.11: Continue to prioritize construction noise limits around sensitive receptors, including through limiting construction hours and individual and cumulative noise from construction equipment. Program N6.11.1: For larger development projects that demand intensive construction periods and/or use equipment that could create vibration impacts, such as the Stanford University Medical Center or major grade separation projects, require a vibration impact analysis, as well as formal, ongoing monitoring and reporting of noise levels throughout the entire construction process, pertinent to industry standards. The monitoring plan should identify hours of operation and could include information on the monitoring locations, durations and regularity, the instrumentation to be used and appropriate noise control measures to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. The incorporation of this policy and program into the proposed Plan requires vibration analyses and vibration mitigation plans, as well as limits for vibration around vibration-sensitive receptors. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact NOISE-6: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to expose people to noise levels in excess of established State standards. Mitigation Measure NOISE-6: Implement Mitigation Measures NOISE-4a and NOISE-4b. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a would be implemented by including policies in the proposed Plan to ensure that new land uses would be reviewed for compatibility with their surroundings and would not increase noise by unacceptable levels, and Mitigation Measure NOISE-4b would be implemented by maintaining the City’s Land Use Noise Compatibility Guidelines in the proposed Plan. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact NOISE-7: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Mitigation Measure NOISE-7: Implement Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, NOISE-1c, NOISE-4a, and NOISE-4b. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 25 Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, and NOISE-1c would be implemented by including policies in the proposed Plan to ensure that residential areas would not be affected by new noise sources and would maintain the City’s Land Use Noise Compatibility Guidelines. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact NOISE-8: Implementation of the proposed Plan could result in a potentially substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Mitigation Measure NOISE-8: To ensure that future development would not result in significant impacts to sensitive receptors from construction noise, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Construction noise limits around sensitive receptors. Monitoring and reporting plans for construction noise levels of larger development projects. Noise control measures to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes the following policy and program that collectively ensure implementation of this mitigation measure during the course of development proposals and capital improvement projects: Policy N-6.11: Continue to prioritize construction noise limits around sensitive receptors, including through limiting construction hours and individual and cumulative noise from construction equipment. Program N6.11.1: For larger development projects that demand intensive construction periods and/or use equipment that could create vibration impacts, such as the Stanford University Medical Center or major grade separation projects, require a vibration impact analysis, as well as formal, ongoing monitoring and reporting of noise levels throughout the entire construction process, pertinent to industry standards. The monitoring plan should identify hours of operation and could include information on the monitoring locations, durations and regularity, the instrumentation to be used and appropriate noise control measures to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. The incorporation of this policy and program into the proposed Plan limits construction noise around sensitive receptors, requires monitoring and reporting plans for construction noise of larger development projects, and requires noise control measures, reducing temporary or periodic increases to ambient noise levels to less-than-significant levels. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact NOISE-11: Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, may result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to noise. 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 26 Mitigation Measure NOISE-11a: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-1c. Mitigation Measure NOISE-11b: To address overall community noise impacts from train noise to the extent such noise is within the City’s control and in excess of established State and/or City standards, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Efforts to develop and implement technological methods to reduce train whistle noise from Caltrain. Evaluation of at-grade rail crossings as potential Quiet Zones based on Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) rules and guidelines. Grade separation of rail crossings as a City priority. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies and programs that would collectively implement this mitigation measure during the course of development proposals and capital improvement projects. For example: Policy T-3.15: Pursue grade separation of rail crossings along the rail corridor as a City priority. Policy N-6.13: Minimize noise spillover from rail related activities into adjacent residential or noise-sensitive areas. Program N6.13.1: Encourage the Peninsula Corridors Joint Powers Board to pursue technologies and grade separations that would reduce or eliminate the need for train horns/whistles in communities served by rail service. Program N6.13.2: Evaluate changing at-grade rail crossings so that they qualify as Quiet Zones based on Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) rules and guidelines in order to mitigate the effects of train horn noise without adversely affecting safety at railroad crossings. The incorporation of these policies and programs into the proposed Plan ensures the City’s focus on methods to reduce train whistle noise from Caltrain, evaluation of at-grade crossings as potential Quiet Zones, and the prioritization of grade separation. In addition, Mitigation Measure NOISE-1c would address new sources of noise in existing residential areas. Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1c and NOISE-11b would minimize the possibility for community-wide ambient noise increases due to cumulative sources to the extent feasible. After implementation of the new policies and mitigation measures, impacts from cumulative noise increases would be considered less than significant. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Public Services Impact PS-7: Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in an adverse physical impact from the construction of additional parks and recreation facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards. 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 27 Mitigation Measure PS-7: To address the potential physical impacts of park construction/improvement, the Comprehensive Plan Update shall include policies that achieve the following: Evaluation and mitigation of the construction impacts associated with park and recreational facility creation and expansion. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes the following policy that ensures implementation of this mitigation measure during the course of development proposals and capital improvement projects: Policy N-1.13: Evaluate and mitigate the construction impacts associated with park and recreational facility creation and expansion. The incorporation of this policy into the proposed Plan requires evaluation and mitigation of construction impacts associated with the creation or expansion of park and recreational facilities. Facility construction projects developed consistent with this policy would avoid adverse physical impacts to the extent feasible. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact PS-8: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to result in substantial cumulative adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks and recreational facilities, need for new or physically altered parks and recreation facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives. Mitigation Measure PS-8: Implement Mitigation Measure PS-7. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure PS-7 would ensure that facility construction projects developed consistent with referenced policies would avoid adverse physical impacts to the extent feasible. Therefore, the creation of new parkland would not contribute to potential significant cumulative impacts associated with new park construction. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Transportation Impact TRANS-1: Implementation of the project would cause an intersection to drop below its motor vehicle level of service standard, or deteriorate operations at representative intersections that already operate at a substandard level of service. Mitigation Measure TRANS-1a: Adopt a programmatic approach to reducing motor vehicle traffic, with the goal of achieving no net increase in peak-hour motor vehicle trips from new 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 28 development, with an exception for uses that directly contribute to the neighborhood character and diversity of Palo Alto (such as ground-floor retail and below-market-rate housing). The program should, at a minimum, require new development projects above a specific size threshold to prepare and implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan to achieve the following reduction in peak-hour motor vehicle trips from the rates included in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual for the appropriate land use category and size. These reductions are deemed aggressive, yet feasible, for the districts indicated. 45 percent reduction in the Downtown district 35 percent reduction in the California Avenue area 30 percent reduction in the Stanford Research Park 30 percent reduction in the El Camino Real Corridor 20 percent reduction in other areas of the city TDM Plans must be approved by the City and monitored by the property owner or the project proponent on an annual basis. The Plans must contain enforcement mechanisms or penalties that accrue if targets are not met and may achieve reductions by contributing to citywide or employment district shuttles or other proven transportation programs that are not directly under the property owner’s control. Mitigation Measure TRANS-1b: Require new development projects to pay a Transportation Impact Fee for all those peak-hour motor vehicle trips that cannot be reduced via TDM measures. Fees collected would be used for capital improvements aimed at reducing motor vehicle trips and motor vehicle traffic congestion. Mitigation Measure TRANS-1c: The proposed Plan shall include policies to ensure collaboration with regional agencies and neighboring jurisdictions, and identification and pursuit of funding for rail corridor improvements and grade separation. Policies shall support grade separation of rail crossings along the rail corridor as a City priority, and the undertaking of studies and outreach necessary to advance grade separation of Caltrain to become a “shovel ready” project. Mitigation Measure TRANS-1d: Consistent with State requirements, the City shall adopt a Multimodal Improvement Plan to address impacts to Congestion Management Program facilities. In addition, the proposed Plan shall include policies to engage in regional transportation planning and advocate for specific transit improvements and investments, such as Caltrain service enhancements and grade separations, Dumbarton Express service, enhanced bus service on El Camino Real with queue-jump lanes and curbside platforms, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)/high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, and additional VTA bus service. Mitigation Measure TRANS-1e: The proposed Plan shall include policies to encourage the PAUSD to analyze decisions regarding school assignments to reduce peak-period motor vehicle trips to and from school sites. Finding: Palo Alto is located in a dynamic region with a transportation network that is often quite congested. In this context, even small changes over time can contribute to significant traffic congestion. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 29 identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Section III, Findings Concerning Alternatives. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies and programs that collectively support implementation of this mitigation measure during the course of the City’s review of development proposals and capital improvement projects. For example: Program T1.2.2: Formalize TDM requirements by ordinance and require new developments above a certain size threshold to prepare and implement a TDM Plan to meet specific performance standards. Require regular monitoring/reporting and provide for enforcement with meaningful penalties for noncompliance. The ordinance should also: Establish a list of effective TDM measures that include transit promotion, prepaid transit passes, commuter checks, car sharing, carpooling, parking cash-out, bicycle lockers and showers, shuttles to Caltrain, requiring TMA membership and education and outreach to support the use of these modes. Allow property owners to achieve reductions by contributing to citywide or employment district shuttles or other proven transportation programs that are not directly under the property owner’s control. Provide a system for incorporating alternative measures as new ideas for TDM are developed. Establish a mechanism to monitor the success of TDM measures and track the cumulative reduction of peak hour motor vehicle trips. TDM measures should at a minimum achieve the following reduction in peak hour motor vehicle trips, with a focus on single-occupant vehicle trips. Reductions should be based on the rates included in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual for the appropriate land use category: - 50 percent reduction in the Downtown district - 35 percent reduction in the California Avenue area - 30 percent reduction in the Stanford Research Park - 30 percent reduction in the El Camino Real Corridor - 20 percent reduction in other areas of the city Require new development projects to pay a Transportation Impact Fee for all those peak- hour motor vehicle trips that cannot be reduced via TDM measures. Fees collected would be used for capital improvements aimed at reducing vehicle trips and traffic congestion. Policy T-2.6: Work with PAUSD to ensure that decisions regarding school assignments are analyzed to reduce peak period motor vehicle trips to and from school sites. Policy T-3.15: Pursue grade separation of rail crossings along the rail corridor as a City priority. Program T3.15.1: Undertake studies and outreach necessary to advance grade separation of Caltrain to become a “shovel ready” project and strongly advocate for adequate State, regional and federal funding for design and construction of railroad grade separations. Policy T-8.1: Engage in regional transportation planning and advocate for specific transit improvements and investments, such as Caltrain service enhancements and grade separations, Dumbarton Express service, enhanced bus service on El Camino Real with queue jumping and curbside platforms, HOV/HOT lanes and additional VTA bus service. 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 30 Policy T-8.2: Participate in regional planning initiatives for the rail corridor and provide a strong guiding voice. Implementation of the TDM measures and other measures to reduce driving under Mitigation Measures TRANS-1a through TRANS-1e would result in a lower auto mode share, higher number of transit trips, lower VMT, and lower VMT per capita compared to pre-mitigation conditions. However, affected intersections are operating close to or below LOS standards under existing conditions, so even small increases in traffic at these intersections would trigger impacts. Under Mitigation Measure TRANS-1d, the City will prepare and adopt a Multimodal Improvement Plan to address impacts to Congestion Management Program (CMP) facilities. The EIR identifies significant impacts at three intersections included in the County’s CMP: El Camino Real (State Route 82) at San Antonio Road (in Mountain View) (referred to as Intersection #8 in the EIR analysis), Foothill Expressway/Junipero Serra Boulevard at Page Mill Road (Intersection #9), and Foothill Expressway at Arastradero Road (Intersection #10). VTA’s Congestion Management Agency (CMA) guidelines state that, “Deficiency plans should be prepared by the Member Agency in which the deficient CMP System facility or set of facilities is located.” Multimodal Improvement Plan requirements will be met for these three intersections as follows: Intersection #8 (El Camino Real at San Antonio Road) is located in Mountain View and Los Altos. Therefore, planning for the intersection is not under the jurisdiction of the City of Palo Alto. The City of Mountain View is currently drafting a Multimodal Improvement Plan that includes this intersection and can and should adopt the Multimodal Improvement Plan when it is complete. As required by VTA, acting as the Congestion Management Agency (“CMA”), the City of Palo Alto will participate in development of this Multimodal Improvement Plan. Intersection #9 (Foothill Expressway/Junipero Serra Boulevard at Page Mill Road) is located within the city but is under the County’s jurisdiction. This intersection was grandfathered in with an automobile LOS of F in 1991. Freeway segments and congestion management program (CMP) intersections that operated at LOS F when monitoring began in 1991 are considered exempt from meeting the CMP standard. Therefore, it is exempt from the requirement to prepare a Multimodal Improvement Plan. Intersection #10 (Foothill Expressway at Arastradero Road) is located within the city but is under the County’s jurisdiction. The City of Palo Alto will be adopting a new Transportation Nexus Study and Transportation Impact Fee shortly after adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update and the certification of the Comprehensive Plan Update EIR. This nexus study, and impact fee calculation, will address the City’s share of a full grade-separation at this intersection. Preliminary designs and cost estimates for this grade-separation project have been developed by the Santa Clara County Department of Roads and Airports. With the construction of this project, this intersection should operate at an acceptable level of service, and no longer require the development of a Multimodal Improvement Plan. All of the above traffic mitigation measures would reduce, but not eliminate, Impact TRANS-1. Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 31 Impact TRANS-3: Implementation of the project would cause a freeway segment or ramp to drop below its level of service standard, or deteriorate operations that already operate at a substandard level of service. Mitigation Measure TRANS-3a: The City shall require new development projects to prepare and implement TDM programs, as described in TRANS-1a. TDM programs for worksites may include measures such as private bus services and free shuttle services to transit stations geared towards commuters. Mitigation Measure TRANS-3b: The proposed Comprehensive Plan shall include policies that advocate for efforts by Caltrans and the Valley Transportation Authority to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow on existing freeway facilities consistent with Statewide GHG emissions reduction initiatives. Policies shall support the application of emerging freeway information, monitoring, and control systems that provide non-intrusive driver assistance and reduce congestion. Policies shall support, where appropriate, the conversion of existing traffic lanes to exclusive bus and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)/high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes on freeways and expressways, including the Dumbarton Bridge, and the continuation of an HOV lane from Redwood City to San Francisco. Finding: Palo Alto is located in a dynamic region with a transportation network that is often quite congested. In this context, even small changes over time can contribute to significant traffic congestion. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Section III, Findings Concerning Alternatives. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies that collectively ensure implementation of this mitigation measure during the course of development proposals and capital improvement projects. For example: Policy T-8.6: Advocate for efforts by Caltrans and the Valley Transportation Authority to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow on existing freeway facilities consistent with Statewide GHG emissions reduction initiatives. Policy T-8.7: Support the application of emerging freeway information, monitoring and control systems that provide non-intrusive driver assistance and reduce congestion. Policy T-8.8: Where appropriate, support the conversion of existing traffic lanes to exclusive bus and HOV lanes or Express/HOT lanes on freeways and expressways, including the Dumbarton Bridge, and the continuation of an HOV lane from Redwood City to San Francisco. The TDM measures called for in Mitigation Measures TRANS-1a and TRANS-3b, which include a TDM mitigation program and other measures, would reduce but not eliminate the impacts on freeway segments. 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 32 Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact TRANS-6: Implementation of the project would impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion. Mitigation Measure TRANS-6: The proposed Comprehensive Plan shall include policies to collaborate with transit agencies in planning for and implementing convenient, efficient, coordinated, and effective bus service. Finding: Palo Alto is located in a dynamic region with a transportation network that is often quite congested. In this context, even small changes over time can contribute to significant traffic congestion. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Section III, Findings Concerning Alternatives. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes the following policy that ensures implementation of this mitigation measure: Policy T-1.12: Collaborate with transit agencies in planning and implementing convenient, efficient, coordinated and effective bus service in Palo Alto that addresses the needs of all segments of our population. The incorporation of this policy into the proposed Plan ensures that the City would pursue methods to give priority to buses and transit facilities. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-6, congestion at all intersections and on all roadway segments where buses operate would not be eliminated. Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact TRANS-8: Implementation of the project would create the potential demand for through traffic to use local residential streets. Mitigation Measure TRANS-8: The proposed Comprehensive Plan shall include policies to identify specific improvements that can be used to discourage drivers from using local, neighborhood streets to bypass traffic congestion on arterials. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes the following policy that ensures implementation of this mitigation measure: Policy T-4.3: Identify specific improvements that can be used to discourage drivers from using local, neighborhood streets to bypass traffic congestion on arterials. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-8 would ensure that the City pursues improvements to reduce the use of local streets as bypass routes to avoid congestion on 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 33 arterials. The EIR notes that implementation of traffic calming is highly site-specific, depending on the physical characteristics of the street, the circulation pattern of a neighborhood, and whether the residents support specific measures, among many other factors. It is not possible at the Comprehensive Plan level to determine where traffic calming measures would be appropriate or feasible or which specific measures should be implemented along a given roadway or at a given intersection. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact TRANS-9: Implementation of the project would create an operational safety hazard. Mitigation Measure TRANS-9: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-8. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Under Mitigation Measure TRANS-8, the City would pursue improvements to reduce the use of local streets as bypass routes to avoid congestion on arterials. Implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure that safety hazards associated with through traffic are reduced to a less-than-significant level. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Utilities Impact UTIL-15: Without the adoption of policies to promote recycling and conservation, the proposed Plan could potentially fall out of compliance with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Mitigation Measure UTIL-15: To ensure that future development would comply with applicable solid waste regulations, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Ninety-five percent landfill diversion by 2030, and ultimately zero waste. Reduced solid waste generation. Use of reusable, returnable, recyclable, and repairable goods, through enforcement of the 2016 Plastic Foam Ordinance expansion. Enhanced recycling and composting programs for all waste generators. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies that collectively support implementation of this mitigation measure. For example: Policy S-3.8: Strive for 95 percent landfill diversion by 2030, and ultimately zero waste, by enhancing policies and programs for waste reduction, recycling, composting and reuse. Policy S-3.9: Reduce solid waste generation through requiring salvage and reuse of building materials, including architecturally and historically significant materials. Policy S-3.11: Encourage the use of reusable, returnable, recyclable and repairable goods, and discourage the use of single use plastic water bottles and extended polystyrene 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 34 (Styrofoam), through enforcement of the City’s 2016 Plastic Foam Ordinance expansion and continued incentives, education and responsible City purchasing policies. The incorporation of relevant policies into the proposed Plan ensures the City’s ongoing commitment to recycling and conservation in compliance with federal, State, and local laws. Implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-15 would ensure that the City complies with applicable solid waste regulations. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant Impact UTIL-17: The proposed Plan would not result in a substantial increase in natural gas and electrical service demands that would require the new construction of energy supply facilities and distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing alterations to existing facilities. However, without the adoption of policies in support of energy efficiency and conservation, the proposed Plan would result in a potentially significant impact, requiring mitigation. Mitigation Measure UTIL-17: To ensure that future development would maximize energy efficiency and conservation the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Maximized conservation and efficient use of energy. Continued procurement of carbon-neutral energy. Investment in cost-effective energy efficiency and energy conservation programs. Provision of public education programs addressing energy conservation and efficiency. Use of cost-effective energy conservation measures in City projects and practices. Adherence to State and federal energy efficiency standards and policies. Consideration of a transition to a carbon-neutral natural gas supply. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The proposed Plan includes policies and programs that collectively support implementation of this mitigation measure. For example: Policy N-7.1: Continue to procure carbon neutral energy for both long-term and short-term energy supplies, including renewable and hydroelectric resources, while investing in cost- effective energy efficiency and energy conservation programs. Policy N-7.4: Maximize the conservation and efficient use of energy in new and existing residences and other buildings in Palo Alto. Program N7.4.1: Continue timely incorporation of State and federal energy efficiency standards and policies in relevant City codes, regulations and procedures and higher local efficiency standards that are cost-effective. Program N7.4.3: Incorporate cost-effective energy conservation measures into construction, maintenance and City operation and procurement practices. Program N7.4.5: Continue to provide public education programs addressing energy conservation and efficiency. Program N7.7.1: Evaluate the potential for a cost-effective plan for transitioning to a completely carbon-neutral natural gas supply. Policy N-7.8: Support opportunities to maximize energy recovery from organic materials such as food scraps, yard trimmings and residual solids from sewage treatment. 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 35 Policy S-3.10: Continue to implement the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policy and programs to reduce waste, toxic product use, resource consumption and to maximize energy efficiency. The incorporation of relevant policies and programs into the proposed Plan ensures that the City will continue its ongoing commitment to energy efficiency and conservation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-17 would ensure that the City is engaging in planning to reduce natural gas and electricity demands in order to reduce potential impacts associated with the construction of energy supply facilities. Resulting Significance: Less than Significant III. FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES Significant and Unavoidable Impacts CEQA provides that decision-makers should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures that would substantially lessen the significant impacts of the project (CEQA Section 21002). The EIR identified feasible mitigation measures that would reduce several of the potentially significant impacts to less than significant, as further set forth in the Section II findings above. However, the following impacts in the EIR remain significant after mitigation (i.e., significant and unavoidable) and no feasible mitigation or project alternative is identified to reduce impact to less than significant: 1. Impact AIR-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan could violate an air quality standard; contribute substantially to an existing or project air quality violation; and/or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). 2. Impact TRANS-1: Implementation of the project would cause an intersection to drop below its motor vehicle level of service standard, or deteriorate operations at representative intersections that already operate at a substandard level of service. 3. Impact TRANS-3: Implementation of the project would cause a freeway segment or ramp to drop below its level of service standard, or deteriorate operations that already operate at a substandard level of service. 4. Impact TRANS-6: Implementation of the project would impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion. All of these significant and unavoidable impacts arise from Palo Alto’s place within a growing region where traffic increases are projected due to forces well beyond the City’s control. Evaluations of virtually any long-range plan developed in this region would reach similar conclusions using the thresholds of significance relied upon in the City’s environmental documents. And even if the City does not update its Comprehensive Plan (as represented by EIR Scenario 1), these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after the City’s best efforts at mitigation. 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 36 In compliance with CEQA, the following findings address whether there are any feasible alternatives or any additional feasible mitigation measures available that would reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR for the proposed project to less than significant. Project Alternatives CEQA requires that an EIR "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project ..." (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). “If a project alternative will substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of a proposed project, the decision-maker should not approve the proposed project unless it determines that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, ... make the project alternative infeasible.” (CEQA Sections 21002 and 21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3).) The City Council hereby makes these findings with respect to alternatives. The project objectives are set forth in Chapter 3 of the Supplement to the Draft EIR. As explained in Chapter 2 of the Final EIR and referenced sections of the February 2016 Draft EIR and the Supplement to the Draft EIR, the City has assessed a “range of reasonable alternatives” throughout the environmental document, in the form of four planning scenarios (in the Draft EIR), two additional planning scenarios (in the Supplement to the Draft EIR), and a hybrid “preferred scenario” (in the Final EIR). In addition, Chapter 6 of the February 2016 Draft EIR and Supplement to the Draft EIR discuss a “No Growth Scenario” and an “Environmentally Superior Alternative,” and both the Draft EIR and the Supplement to the Draft EIR discuss alternatives considered and rejected, with an explanation as to why certain concepts were not carried forward for detailed analysis. As further set forth below, the City Council has considered all of the possible alternatives (including the planning scenarios) identified and analyzed in EIR and has elected to adopt the preferred scenario described in Chapter 2 of the Final EIR. None of the other scenarios and alternatives would eliminate the significant impacts identified above, and the City finds that doing so would be infeasible for specific economic, social, or other considerations pursuant to CEQA Sections 21002 and 21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3). For CEQA purposes, “feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, technological, and legal factors. (CEQA Section 21061.1, CEQA Guidelines Section 15364.) 1. No Project Alternative (Scenario 1) CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires that a "No Project Alternative" be evaluated as part of an EIR. Scenario 1 represents a “Business as Usual” scenario that approximates what is expected to occur if the 1998 Comprehensive Plan is not updated and the proposed Plan is not adopted. Thus Scenario 1 represents the “no project alternative” required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e). 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 37 Scenario 1 would be expected to result in less residential development than the preferred scenario, but would result in a higher increase in employment than the preferred scenario. As shown in Table 1-3 of the Supplement to the Draft EIR, Scenario 1 would not avoid any of the significant and unavoidable impacts identified for the scenarios. Scenario 1 would also not include any of the policy adjustments included in the June 30, 2017 Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update, new innovations in housing or new approaches to address the high cost of housing or high jobs-to-employed-residents balance in the city. Under Scenario 1, the Comprehensive Plan would also not be updated to include new policies related to climate change, transportation demand management (TDM), and transit-oriented development. Without policies to address these key issues, Scenario 1 would not fully achieve the City’s objectives to updates the vision for Palo Alto’s future to reflect current conditions and anticipated trends. Finding: The City Council considered a No Project Alterative and declines to adopt it because it does not reduce the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts and is inconsistent with several of the project objectives including: Provide a legally adequate Comprehensive Plan that updates the vision for Palo Alto’s future to reflect current conditions and anticipated trends. Establish performance standards to ensure that future development contributes to and does not detract from Palo Alto’s quality of life. Identify needed roadway improvements to address congestion related to future development. Enable resiliency and adaptation to respond to the consequences of climate change. Support Palo Alto’s leadership in relationships with neighboring jurisdictions and State and regional agencies. A comprehensive plan is intended to be an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of city policies. State law requires that comprehensive plans be periodically reviewed and revised as necessary (Government Code Sections 65040.5, 65300, 65300.5). Retaining the current comprehensive plan, last comprehensively updated in 1998, without an update to reflect changes in the City’s vision for its development and preservation would not be consistent with State planning law. For all of these reasons, this alternative is infeasible, as supported by the administrative record for the proposed project. 2. No Growth Scenario Appendix H of the Supplement to the Draft EIR provides a discussion and analysis of a “No Growth Scenario,” conducted as a purely hypothetical exercise to highlight the extent to which the proposed Plan’s significant and unavoidable impacts result from regional growth outside of Palo Alto. The No Growth Scenario analysis assumes that the proposed Plan is not adopted and that no growth in population, employment, or square footage would occur in Palo Alto by 2030 beyond the amount of development existing in 2014, plus new growth permitted by fall 2016. Although the No Growth Scenario would result in less development than the preferred scenario, as discussed in Appendix H of the Supplement to the Draft EIR, the No Growth Scenario would not avoid any of the significant and unavoidable impacts identified for the project. This illustrates that, even if Palo Alto were to put measures in place to halt future growth entirely, 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 38 the surrounding region would continue to grow, and as a result many of the impacts identified in the EIR would still occur. The No Growth Scenario is purely hypothetical and would not include strategies to address housing needs, climate change goals, or TDM strategies. Therefore, the No Growth Scenario would not meet the project objectives. Moreover, it is infeasible to implement, as it would be impractical and/or illegal for the City to prevent existing residents from adding to their households or families, and stopping residential growth would violate State housing laws that require local governments to participate in “accommodat[ing] the housing needs of Californians of all economic levels” (California Government Code Section 65580 et seq.). In terms of job growth, while the City could conceivably prevent development of additional non-residential square footage, it would be very difficult to stop employers from adding new employees to existing buildings, and such a moratorium would create intense demand for office space in Palo Alto, increasing commercial rents and creating pressure for non-residential uses such as retail/service business and lower-rent office uses to convert to high-rent, tech-based office and research and development (R&D) uses. Finding: The City Council considered the No Growth Scenario and declines to adopt it because it is infeasible, does not reduce the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts, and is inconsistent with several of the project objectives, including: Provide a legally adequate Comprehensive Plan that updates the vision for Palo Alto’s future to reflect current conditions and anticipated trends. Guide future land use and development decisions and assist staff and decision-makers in balancing sometimes competing interests. Address the needs of a changing population and accommodate additional housing. Establish performance standards to ensure that future development contributes to and does not detract from Palo Alto’s quality of life. Reduce the impacts of cars on the environment and improve options for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit-users. Preserve existing single-family neighborhoods while allowing the development of diverse types of housing affordable to all members of the community. Identify needed roadway improvements to address congestion related to future development. Enable resiliency and adaptation to respond to the consequences of climate change. Enable the City to deliver top-quality community services to all residents. Retain existing businesses, maintain vital commercial areas, and attract quality new businesses. Support Palo Alto’s leadership in relationships with neighboring jurisdictions and State and regional agencies. For all of these reasons, this alternative is infeasible, as supported by the administrative record for the proposed project. 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 39 3. Hybrid Alternative Chapter 6 of the February 2016 Draft EIR and Supplement to the Draft EIR provide a discussion of a “Hybrid Alternative.” The discussion of the Hybrid Alternative explains that the scenario adopted by the City as the Comprehensive Plan Update would not be expected to be identical to any of the scenarios analyzed in the February 2016 Draft EIR and Supplement to the Draft EIR, but would rather draw from the scenarios and combine components of various scenarios. The discussion also explains that the Hybrid Alternative would be developed based, in part, on the data and analysis that the February 2016 Draft EIR and Supplement to the Draft EIR provide. Based on the EIR’s conclusions, the Supplement to the Draft EIR states that a Hybrid Alternative would likely be one that combines the moderate rates of housing growth in Scenarios 3 and 5 with the sustainability initiatives tested in Scenarios 4 through 6. The Supplement to the Draft EIR did not predict the number of jobs that would be included in the Hybrid Alternative, but did explain that a lower level of job growth, such as under Scenario 5, would result in fewer GHG emissions. Overall, the Hybrid Alternative would have impacts similar to those of Scenarios 1 through 6. Aesthetics, land use, and population/housing impacts would be similar to Scenarios 3 and 5 if housing sites along San Antonio and South El Camino are eliminated and replaced by higher densities on existing sites closer to transit and services, and if growth control measures are similar to those adopted by the City Council on an interim basis in 2015. The Hybrid Alternative would also have similar less-than-significant impacts to Scenario 2, 3, or 5 in the topic areas of biological resources, cultural resources, geology, hazardous materials, hydrology, public services, and utilities. The Hybrid Alternative could further reduce the transportation, air quality, noise, and greenhouse gas emission impacts associated with Scenario 3 by incorporating some of the sustainability features included in Scenarios 4 through 6 to reduce traffic and vehicle miles traveled. Although, as with Scenarios 1 through 6, proposed mitigation measures could address some of the Hybrid Alternative’s impacts related to transportation, air quality, and noise, some impacts related to transportation and air quality, although reduced, would remain significant even after mitigation measures are applied. The Hybrid Alternative contemplates lower levels of job growth than the preferred scenario, but it also includes lower rates of housing growth than the preferred scenario, so the Hybrid Alternative would be expected to result in a higher jobs-to- employed-residents ratio than the preferred scenario, and therefore would not meet the City’s goals to reduce this ratio. Finding: The City Council considered the Hybrid Alternative and declines to adopt it because it does not reduce the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts and it does not promote as well as the preferred scenario the City’s policy goals and objectives of accommodating anticipated housing growth and improving the City’s jobs to housing (employed resident) imbalance, all as supported by the administrative record for the proposed project. 4. Planning Scenarios 2 Through 6 Scenarios 2 through 6 in the Draft EIR and the Supplement to the Draft EIR are part of the reasonable range of alternatives the City has considered because they present different ways 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 40 that the City could plan for its future and vary in terms of the housing and employment projected to occur by the horizon year of 2030. The preferred scenario that has been selected for adoption shares many characteristics with these other planning scenarios, and was developed by the City Council based on extensive community input and deliberations. As described in Chapter 2 of the Final EIR, the preferred scenario is essentially a hybrid of the other Scenarios, and represents the evolution of a long public planning process. There are not substantial differences in the number or extent of environmental impacts among the scenarios evaluated in the February 2016 Draft EIR and Supplement to the Draft EIR. While the majority of potential impacts could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, all of the scenarios would result in the same significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality and transportation, and the preferred scenario would result in the same significant and unavoidable impacts. However, there are differences of degree among the scenarios, as described below. A. Scenario 2 Although similar to the preferred scenario, Scenario 2 would result in slightly lower motor vehicle trips than the preferred scenario. Scenario 2 would also result in a lower level of population and jobs growth. Therefore, Scenario 2 would result in lower greenhouse gas and air quality emissions than the preferred scenario. However, Scenario 2 would result in a greater jobs/housing imbalance than the preferred scenario and would not meet the City’s goal to expand housing options as well as the preferred scenario. B. Scenario 3 Scenario 3 would result in more motor vehicle trips than the preferred scenario. Scenario 3 would result in a level of population growth equal to the lower end of the preferred scenario, and a higher level of job growth. Therefore, Scenario 3 would result in higher levels of greenhouse gas and air quality emissions than the preferred scenario. Overall, Scenario 3 would result in a greater jobs/housing imbalance than the preferred scenario and would not meet the City’s sustainability goals as well as the preferred scenario. C. Scenario 4 Scenario 4 would result in lower motor vehicle trips than the preferred scenario. Scenario 4 would result in a level of population growth equal to the higher end of the preferred scenario, and a higher level of job growth. Overall, due to its lower motor vehicle trips, Scenario 4 would be expected to result in lower greenhouse gas and air quality emissions than the preferred scenario. However, Scenario 4 would result in a greater jobs/housing imbalance than the preferred scenario, which would conflict with City goals. D. Scenario 5 Scenario 5 would result in the fewest motor vehicle trips of all the scenarios (including the preferred scenario). Scenario 5 would result in a level of population growth equal to the lower end of the preferred scenario, and less jobs growth than the preferred scenario. Overall, Scenario 5 would result in a similar jobs/housing balance as the preferred scenario (slightly higher than the preferred scenario within the city but lower within the city plus Sphere of Influence). In addition, Scenario 5 would include the sustainability measures of Scenarios 4 and 6. Overall, due to its lower motor vehicle trips, lower overall growth, and similar jobs/housing balance, Scenario 5 would be expected to result in lower greenhouse gas and air quality 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 41 emissions than the preferred scenario. By combining the rigorous sustainability initiatives of Scenarios 4 and 6 with the modest housing growth of Scenario 3 and low job growth of Scenario 6, Scenario 5 would be the environmentally preferred scenario. However, Scenario 5 would not meet the City’s goals to expand housing options. E. Scenario 6 Scenario 6 would result in lower motor vehicle trips than the preferred scenario. Scenario 6 would result in more population growth and less jobs growth than the preferred scenario and would achieve the lowest jobs-to-employed-residents ratio of all the scenarios (including the preferred scenario). In addition, Scenario 6 would include the sustainability measures of Scenarios 4 and 5. Overall, due to its lower motor vehicle trips and jobs/housing balance, Scenario 6 would be expected to result in lower greenhouse gas and air quality emissions than the preferred scenario. Scenario 6 would have the highest population growth of any scenario, exceeding regional projections and resulting in the greatest demand for schools, parkland, and services provided to residents. As a result, Scenario 6 would not meet the project objective regarding service delivery as well as the preferred scenario. Finding: The City Council considered Scenarios 2 through 6 and declines to adopt any of these scenarios. Scenario 3 would not reduce the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts. Scenarios 2, 4, 5, and 6 would somewhat lessen, but would not avoid, the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts, but are less responsive to the project objectives than the preferred scenario, particularly to the objective to address the needs of a changing population, accommodating additional housing, and enabling delivery of top-quality community services to all residents. IV. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City Council of the City of Palo Alto adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant, unavoidable impacts of the Project and the anticipated benefits of the Project. General. The City is considering approval of the Comprehensive Plan Update 2030 (“proposed project”). CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable impacts when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects may be considered acceptable, and the agency must state the specific reasons to support the action in a “statement of overriding considerations” supported by substantial evidence in the record. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15903). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable impacts of the project in connection with approval of the project. The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the EIR will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted with the EIR and implemented with future development and actions taken under the project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that the implementation of the project carries with it significant and unavoidable environmental effects, as identified in the EIR. 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 42 Adoption of the June 30, 2017 Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update 2030, with the specific changes included in the City Council’s resolution, would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts: 5. Impact AIR-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan could violate an air quality standard; contribute substantially to an existing or project air quality violation; and/or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). 6. Impact TRANS-1: Implementation of the project would cause an intersection to drop below its motor vehicle level of service standard, or deteriorate operations at representative intersections that already operate at a substandard level of service. 7. Impact TRANS-3: Implementation of the project would cause a freeway segment or ramp to drop below its level of service standard, or deteriorate operations that already operate at a substandard level of service. 8. Impact TRANS-6: Implementation of the project would impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion. Overriding Considerations The City Council has carefully considered each significant unavoidable project impact in reaching its decision to approve the project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that implementation of the project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects, as identified in the EIR. The City Council specifically finds that, to the extent that the identified significant adverse impacts for the project have not been reduced to acceptable levels through feasible mitigation or alternatives, there are specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits that outweigh the project’s significant unavoidable impacts and support approval of the project. Any one of these benefits as set forth below is sufficient to justify approval of the project. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits is in the record as a whole. The following statement identifies the reasons why, in the City’s judgment, specific benefits of the project outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects. The City finds that each of the project benefits discussed below is a separate and independent basis for these findings. The reasons set forth below are based on the Final EIR and other information in the administrative record. Economic Benefits 1. The proposed Plan strengthens strategies to preserve retail. 2. The proposed Plan includes a cumulative “cap” on the amount of new office/research and development (R&D) space that would allow up to 1.7 million square feet of new office/R&D uses over the life of the plan. 3. The proposed Plan allows the City to remain a competitive and innovative business destination. Legal Benefits 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 43 1. The proposed Plan updates sections of the City’s Comprehensive Plan that are required by State law, and the State recommends that local jurisdictions update their plans every 10 years. Social Benefits 1. The proposed Plan was developed to reflect community priorities and concerns, with extensive input from the general public, a Citizens Advisory Committee, the Planning and Transportation Commission, and the City Council. 2. The proposed Plan responds to community concerns about housing affordability and availability. 3. The proposed Plan would allow a balance of development that would help to reduce the City’s jobs/housing imbalance. 4. The proposed Plan would preserve existing parks, recreational facilities, and open space areas. 5. The proposed Plan would protect and preserve existing residential neighborhoods. Technological Benefits 1. The proposed Plan supports Caltrain modernization, including electrification. Environmental Benefits 1. The proposed Plan updates the City’s policy framework to address important contemporary environmental issues, including as climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. 2. The proposed Plan includes a program to formalize transportation demand management (TDM) requirements. 3. The proposed Plan would protect and enhance the urban forest as natural infrastructure. 4. The proposed Plan concentrates growth in existing corridors and nodes, and thereby results in fewer impacts from the construction of new infrastructure and reduces vehicle miles traveled per capita, which translates into air quality and greenhouse gas emissions benefits and increases in resources and energy efficiency. 5. The proposed Plan includes policies that encourage conservation of water and energy resources in conformance with the City’s sustainability goals. 171003 JB SL/PLANNING/LONGRANGE/COMP PLAN 44 V. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and incorporated and adopted as part of this Resolution herein is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) for the Project required under Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. The MMRP identifies impacts of the Project, corresponding mitigation, timing for implementation, and designation for responsibility for mitigation implementation and monitoring. VI. LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which the City Council based the foregoing findings and approval of the Project are located at the Department of Planning and Community Environment, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. The official custodian of the record is the Planning and Community Environment Director at the same address. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________________ _________________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________ City Manager _______________________________ Assistant City Attorney _________________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment PLACEWORKS 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the City of Palo Alto is intended to ensure the implementation of mitigation measures identified as part of the environmental review for the proposed project. The proposed project is the adoption and implementation of an updated Comprehensive Plan for the City of Palo Alto, along with associated amendments to the City of Palo Alto Zoning Code. The MMRP includes the following information: A list of mitigation measures. The timing for implementation of each mitigation measure. The agency responsible for monitoring implementation. The monitoring action and frequency. The City of Palo Alto must adopt this MMRP, or an equally effective program, if it adopts the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update and associated Zoning Code amendments with the mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project adoption. EXHIBIT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 2 AUGUST 2017 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency Aesthetics and Visual Resources AES-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the area and its surroundings. AES-1: To ensure that increased residential densities would not degrade the visual character or quality of the area, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: High-quality building and site design. Compatibility with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Enhancement of existing commercial centers. Requirements for landscaping and street trees. Preservation and creation of a safe and inviting pedestrian environment. Appropriate building form, massing, and setbacks. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment (PCE) Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies continue to mitigate this impact. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments AES-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to substantially shadow public open space (other than public open streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21. AES-4: The City shall amend its local CEQA guidelines to require development projects of a certain size or location to prepare an analysis of potential shade/shadow impacts. The analysis shall focus on potential impacts to public open spaces (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21. The analysis shall identify whether the project would shadow open spaces during these times, explain how the project meets City design requirements and other City policy goals, and describe ways to mitigate substantial shade and shadow impacts through feasible building and site design features. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Within twelve months of proposed Comprehensive Plan adoption City of Palo Alto PCE Department Confirm update of CEQA guidelines. Once COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PLACEWORKS 3 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency Air Quality AIR-1: Without inclusion of air quality policies, implementation of the proposed Plan could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. AIR-1: To ensure consistency with the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Reduction in emissions of particulates from automobiles, manufacturing, construction activity, and other sources (e.g., dry cleaning, wood burning, landscape maintenance). Support for regional, State, and federal programs that improve air quality. Support for transit, bicycling, and walking. Mix of uses (e.g., housing near employment centers) and development types (e.g., infill) to reduce the need to drive. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies continue to mitigate this impact. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments AIR-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan could violate an air quality standard; contribute substantially to an existing or project air quality violation; and/or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). AIR-2a: The City shall amend its local CEQA Guidelines and Municipal Code to require, as part of the City’s development approval process, that future development projects comply with the current BAAQMD basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10 (Table 8-2, Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for All Proposed Projects, of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines). City of Palo Alto PCE Department Within twelve months of proposed Comprehensive Plan adoption City of Palo Alto PCE Department Confirm update of CEQA guidelines and Municipal Code. Once AIR-2b: The City shall amend its local CEQA Guidelines to require that, prior to issuance of construction permits, development project City of Palo Alto PCE Department Within twelve months of proposed City of Palo Alto PCE Department Confirm update of CEQA guidelines. Once COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4 AUGUST 2017 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency applicants that are subject to CEQA and have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD screening-criteria listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines prepare and submit to the City of Palo Alto a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with BAAQMD methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, as identified in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the City of Palo Alto shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures (Table 8-3, Additional Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for Projects with Construction Emissions Above the Threshold, of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines or applicable construction mitigation measures subsequently approved by BAAQMD) to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities to below these thresholds. These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City. Comprehensive Plan adoption AIR-2c: To ensure that development projects that have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD screening criteria air pollutants listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines reduce regional air pollutant emissions below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, the proposed Plan shall include policies that require compliance with BAAQMD requirements, including BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies continue to mitigate this impact. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments AIR-2d: Implement Mitigation Measures TRANS-1a and TRANS-1b. In addition, to reduce long-term air quality impacts by emphasizing walkable neighborhoods and supporting alternative modes of Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies continue to mitigate this impact. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PLACEWORKS 5 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency transportation, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connections between commercial and mixed-use centers. AIR-3: Implementation of the proposed Plan would expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollution. AIR-3a: The City of Palo Alto shall update its CEQA Procedures to require that future non-residential projects within the city that: 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel- powered TRUs, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes), as measured from the property line of a proposed project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Palo Alto prior to future discretionary project approval or shall comply with best practices recommended for implementation by the BAAQMD. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds the BAAQMD significance thresholds, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. Mitigation measures and best practices may include but are not limited to: Restricting idling on-site beyond Air Toxic Control Measures idling restrictions, as feasible. Electrifying warehousing docks. Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Within twelve months of Plan adoption City of Palo Alto PCE Department Confirm update of CEQA Procedures. Once COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6 AUGUST 2017 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency Restricting off-site truck travel through the creation of truck routes. Mitigation measures identified in the project-specific HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of a proposed project. AIR-3b: To ensure that new industrial and warehousing projects with the potential to generate new stationary and mobile sources of air toxics that exceed the BAAQMD project-level and/or cumulative significance thresholds for toxic air contaminants and PM2.5 listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines reduce emissions below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, amend the City’s CEQA guidelines to require compliance with BAAQMD requirements. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies continue to mitigate this impact. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments AIR-3c: The proposed Plan shall include policies to mitigate potential sources of toxic air contaminants through siting or other means to reduce human health risks and meet the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s applicable threshold of significance. Policies shall also require that new sensitive land use projects (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, parks or playgrounds, and day care centers) within 1,000 feet of a major stationary source of TACs and roadways with traffic volumes over 10,000 vehicles per day consider potential health risks and incorporate adequate precautions, such as high-efficiency air filtration, into project design. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies continue to mitigate this impact. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments AIR-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan could create or expose a substantial number of people to objectionable odors unless policies are AIR-4: To reduce odor impacts, the proposed Plan shall include policies requiring: Buffers, mechanical, and other mitigation methods to avoid creating a nuisance. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies and programs in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PLACEWORKS 7 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency integrated into the proposed Plan. Cultural Resources CULT-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan could adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory. CULT-1: To ensure the protection of potentially historic resources, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Process for reviewing proposed demolition or alteration of potentially historic buildings. Protection of archaeological resources. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments CULT-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan could eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. CULT-2: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1. See Mitigation Measure CULT-1. CULT-3: Implementation of the proposed Plan could cause damage to an important archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. CULT-3: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1. In addition, to ensure that future development would not damage archaeological resources, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Archaeological surveys and mitigation plans for future development projects. Developer compliance with applicable regulations regarding the identification and protection of archaeological and paleontological deposits, and unique geologic features. Appropriate tribal consultation and consideration of tribal concerns. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments CULT-5: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique CULT-5: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-3. See Mitigation Measure CULT-3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 8 AUGUST 2017 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency geologic feature. CULT-7: Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to cultural resources. CULT-7: Implement Mitigation Measures CULT-1 and CULT-3. See Mitigation Measures CULT-1 and CULT-3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change GHG-3: The proposed Plan would expose people or structures to the physical effects of climate change, including but not limited to flooding, extreme temperatures, public health, wildfire risk, or other impacts resulting from climate change, requiring mitigation. GHG-3: To address the potential impacts associated with exposing people to the effects of climate change, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Monitoring and response to flooding risks caused by climate change-related changes to precipitation patterns, groundwater levels, sea level rise, tides, and storm surges. Cooperative planning with federal, State, regional, and local public agencies on issues related to climate change (including sea level rise and extreme storms). Preparation of response strategies to address sea level rise, increased flooding, landslides, soil erosion, storm events, and other events related to climate change. Implementation of adaptive strategies to address impacts of sea level rise on Palo Alto’s levee system. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PLACEWORKS 9 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency Hydrology and Water Quality HYD-2: The proposed Plan could substantially degrade or deplete ground water resources or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. HYD-2: To reduce potential impacts associated with construction dewatering the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Avoidance of the impacts of basement construction for single-family homes on the natural environment and safety. Conservation of subsurface water resources. Construction techniques and recharge strategies to reduce subsurface and surface water impacts. Monitoring of dewatering and excavation projects. Cooperation with other jurisdictions and regional agencies to protect groundwater. Protection of groundwater as a natural resource. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments Land Use and Planning LAND-1: The proposed Plan could adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use patterns in the area. LAND-1: To ensure that the intensity of future development would not adversely change the land use patterns or affect the livability of Palo Alto neighborhoods, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Strengthening of residential neighborhoods. Vitality of commercial areas and public facilities. High-quality building and site design. Architectural compatibility of new development. Compatible infill development. Avoidance of abrupt changes in the scale of development where residential districts abut more intense uses. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments LAND-2: The proposed Plan would allow development that could be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of LAND-2: Implement Mitigation Measure LAND-1. In addition, to further reduce potential impacts to visual character and ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 10 AUGUST 2017 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency the surrounding area, including density and building height. Use of City procedures, plans, and requirements to ensure high-quality building design and architectural compatibility. LAND-5: The proposed Plan could physically divide an established community. LAND-5: To avoid potential impacts from physically dividing an established community, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Enhanced connections to and from parks, schools, and community facilities for all users. Safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections between residential areas and commercial centers. Cooperation with other agencies to improve circulation connections. Grade separation of rail crossings. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments Noise NOISE-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to cause the average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB. NOISE-1a: To ensure that average 24-hour noise levels associated with long-term operational noise would not increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments. Use of the guidelines in the “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment” table in the proposed Plan to evaluate the compatibility of proposed land uses with existing noise environments. Clear guidelines for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas. Adherence to the interior noise requirements of the State of California Building Standards Code (Title 24) and the Noise Insulation Standards (Title 25). Inclusion of a noise contour map in the proposed Plan. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PLACEWORKS 11 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency Reduction of noise impacts of development on adjacent properties. Evaluation of noise impacts on existing residential, open space, and conservation land. Requirement for new projects in the Multiple Family, Commercial, Manufacturing, or Planned Community districts to demonstrate compliance with the Noise Ordinance. NOISE-1b: To reduce potential impacts to new land uses from aircraft noise, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Compliance with the airport-related land use compatibility standards for community noise environments. Prohibition of incompatible land use development within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of the Palo Alto airport, as established in the adopted County of Santa Clara Airport Land Use Commission Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Palo Alto Airport. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments NOISE-1c: To reduce potential impacts to new land uses from railway noise, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Minimization of noise spillover from rail-related activities into adjacent residential or noise- sensitive areas. Building design that reduces impacts from noise and ground borne vibrations associated with rail operations. Guidelines for interior noise levels. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments NOISE-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to cause the Ldn to increase by 3 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby NOISE-2: Implement Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, and NOISE-1c. See Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, and NOISE-1c. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 12 AUGUST 2017 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB. NOISE-3: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to cause an increase of 3 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB. NOISE-3: Implement Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, and NOISE-1c. See Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, and NOISE-1c. NOISE-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to result in indoor noise levels for residential development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB. NOISE-4a: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a. See Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a. NOISE-4b: The Land Use Noise Compatibility Guidelines established in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan shall be maintained. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments NOISE-5: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to expose persons to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. NOISE-5a: To ensure that future development would not result in significant construction-related vibration impacts, the proposed Plan shall include policies that limit the hours of construction around sensitive receptors, and require formal, ongoing monitoring and reporting throughout the construction process for larger development projects, as well as the use of pertinent industry standards and City guidelines to avoid significant vibration impacts during construction or operations. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments NOISE-5b: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-1c. See Mitigation Measure NOISE-1c. NOISE-6: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to expose people to noise levels in excess of established State standards. NOISE-6: Implement Mitigation Measures NOISE-4a and NOISE-4b. See Mitigation Measures NOISE-4a and NOISE-4b. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PLACEWORKS 13 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency NOISE-7: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. NOISE-7: Implement Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, NOISE-1c, NOISE-4a, and NOISE-4b. See Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, NOISE-1c, NOISE-4a, and NOISE-4b. NOISE-8: Implementation of the proposed Plan could result in a potentially substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. NOISE-8: To ensure that future development would not result in significant impacts to sensitive receptors from construction noise, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Construction noise limits around sensitive receptors. Monitoring and reporting plans for construction noise levels of larger development projects. Noise control measures to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments NOISE-11: Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, may result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to noise. NOISE-11a: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE- 1c. See Mitigation Measure NOISE-1c. NOISE-11b: To address overall community noise impacts from train noise to the extent such noise is within the City’s control and in excess of established State and/or City standards, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Efforts to develop and implement technological methods to reduce train whistle noise from Caltrain. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 14 AUGUST 2017 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency Evaluation of at-grade rail crossings as potential Quiet Zones based on Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) rules and guidelines. Grade separation of rail crossings as a City priority. Public Services and Recreation PS-7: Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in an adverse physical impact from the construction of additional parks and recreation facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards. PS-7: To address the potential physical impacts of park construction/improvement, the Comprehensive Plan Update shall include policies that achieve the following: Evaluation and mitigation of the construction impacts associated with park and recreational facility creation and expansion. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments PS-8: Implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to result in substantial cumulative adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks and recreational facilities, need for new or physically altered parks and recreation facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives. PS-8: Implement Mitigation Measure PS-7. See Mitigation Measure PS-7. Transportation and Traffic TRANS-1: Implementation of TRANS-1a: Adopt a programmatic approach to City of Palo Alto Within six City of Palo Alto Confirm program adoption. Once COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PLACEWORKS 15 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency the project would cause an intersection to drop below its motor vehicle level of service standard, or deteriorate operations at representative intersections that already operate at a substandard level of service. reducing motor vehicle traffic, with the goal of achieving no net increase in peak-hour motor vehicle trips from new development, with an exception for uses that directly contribute to the neighborhood character and diversity of Palo Alto (such as ground- floor retail and below-market-rate housing). The program should, at a minimum, require new development projects above a specific size threshold to prepare and implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan to achieve the following reduction in peak-hour motor vehicle trips from the rates included in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual for the appropriate land use category and size. These reductions are deemed aggressive, yet feasible, for the districts indicated. 45 percent reduction in the Downtown district 35 percent reduction in the California Avenue area 30 percent reduction in the Stanford Research Park 30 percent reduction in the El Camino Real Corridor 20 percent reduction in other areas of the city TDM Plans must be approved by the City and monitored by the property owner or the project proponent on an annual basis. The Plans must contain enforcement mechanisms or penalties that accrue if targets are not met and may achieve reductions by contributing to citywide or employment district shuttles or other proven transportation programs that are not directly under the property owner’s control. PCE Department, Transportation Division (responsible for program adoption) months of proposed Comprehensive Plan adoption PCE Department Project applicants (responsible for TDM plans) Prepare TDM Plan, if required, prior to issuance of occupancy permits. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Property owner or project proponent Review and approve TDM Plans. Monitor enforcement of TDM Plans consistent with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.34.040(d)(4) Once Annually TRANS-1b: Require new development projects to pay a Transportation Impact Fee for all those peak-hour City of Palo Alto PCE Department Ongoing City of Palo Alto PCE Department Verify collection of fees. Ongoing COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 16 AUGUST 2017 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency motor vehicle trips that cannot be reduced via TDM measures. Fees collected would be used for capital improvements aimed at reducing motor vehicle trips and motor vehicle traffic congestion. TRANS-1c: The proposed Plan shall include policies to ensure collaboration with regional agencies and neighboring jurisdictions, and identification and pursuit of funding for rail corridor improvements and grade separation. Policies shall support grade separation of rail crossings along the rail corridor as a City priority, and the undertaking of studies and outreach necessary to advance grade separation of Caltrain to become a “shovel ready” project. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments TRANS-1d: Consistent with State requirements, the City shall adopt a Multimodal Improvement Plan to address impacts to Congestion Management Program facilities. In addition, the proposed Plan shall include policies to engage in regional transportation planning and advocate for specific transit improvements and investments, such as Caltrain service enhancements and grade separations, Dumbarton Express service, enhanced bus service on El Camino Real with queue-jump lanes and curbside platforms, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)/high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, and additional VTA bus service. City of Palo Alto PCE Department, Transportation Division (responsible for Multimodal Improvement Plan) See “Monitoring Action” notes regarding Multimodal Improvement Plans. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Three CMP intersections would be affected by this impact. Intersection #8 (El Camino Real at San Antonio Road) is located in Mountain View and Los Altos. The City of Mountain View is currently drafting a Multimodal Improvement Plan that includes this intersection. The City of Palo Alto shall participate in development of this Multimodal Improvement Plan. The other two intersections will not require Multimodal Improvement Plans. Intersection #9 (Foothill Expressway/Junipero Serra Boulevard at Page Mill Road) is grandfathered in with an automobile LOS of F and is therefore exempt from meeting the CMP standard. For Intersection #10 (Foothill Expressway at Arastradero Road), the City shall make a fair share Ongoing COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PLACEWORKS 17 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency contribution toward a full grade separation project. With the construction of the grade- separation project, this intersection should operate at an acceptable level of service, and no longer require the development of a Multimodal Improvement Plan. The City shall monitor the progress of the grade separation project and confirm with the County and VTA that no Multimodal Improvement Plan is required following its completion. Policy implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments TRANS-1e: The proposed Plan shall include policies to encourage the PAUSD to analyze decisions regarding school assignments to reduce peak-period motor vehicle trips to and from school sites. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Ongoing, as part of regular collaboration and communication with the Palo Alto Unified School District City of Palo Alto PCE Department Confirm communication. Ongoing TRANS-3: Implementation of the project would cause a freeway segment or ramp to drop below its level of service standard, or deteriorate operations that already operate at a substandard level of service. TRANS-3a: The City shall require new development projects to prepare and implement TDM programs, as described in TRANS-1a. TDM programs for worksites may include measures such as private bus services and free shuttle services to transit stations geared towards commuters. See Mitigation Measure TRANS-1a. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 18 AUGUST 2017 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency TRANS-3b: The proposed Comprehensive Plan shall include policies that advocate for efforts by Caltrans and the Valley Transportation Authority to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow on existing freeway facilities consistent with Statewide GHG emissions reduction initiatives. Policies shall support the application of emerging freeway information, monitoring, and control systems that provide non-intrusive driver assistance and reduce congestion. Policies shall support, where appropriate, the conversion of existing traffic lanes to exclusive bus and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)/high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes on freeways and expressways, including the Dumbarton Bridge, and the continuation of an HOV lane from Redwood City to San Francisco. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments TRANS-6: Implementation of the project would impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion. TRANS-6: The proposed Comprehensive Plan shall include policies collaborate with transit agencies in planning for and implementing convenient, efficient, coordinated, and effective bus service. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments TRANS-8: Implementation of the project would create the potential demand for through traffic to use local residential streets. TRANS-8: The proposed Comprehensive Plan shall include policies to identify specific improvements that can be used to discourage drivers from using local, neighborhood streets to bypass traffic congestion on arterials. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments TRANS-9: Implementation of the project would create an operational safety hazard. TRANS-9: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-8. See Mitigation Measure TRANS-8. Utilities and Service Systems UTIL-15: Without the adoption of policies to promote recycling and conservation, the proposed UTIL-15: To ensure that future development would comply with applicable solid waste regulations, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF PALO ALTO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PLACEWORKS 19 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency Plan could potentially fall out of compliance with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Ninety-five percent landfill diversion by 2030, and ultimately zero waste. Reduced solid waste generation. Use of reusable, returnable, recyclable, and repairable goods, through enforcement of the 2016 Plastic Foam Ordinance expansion. Enhanced recycling and composting programs for all waste generators. UTIL-17: The proposed Plan would not result in a substantial increase in natural gas and electrical service demands that would require the new construction of energy supply facilities and distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing alterations to existing facilities. However, without the adoption of policies in support of energy efficiency and conservation, the proposed Plan would result in a potentially significant impact, requiring mitigation. UTIL-17: To ensure that future development would maximize energy efficiency and conservation the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following: Maximized conservation and efficient use of energy. Continued procurement of carbon-neutral energy. Investment in cost-effective energy efficiency and energy conservation programs. Provision of public education programs addressing energy conservation and efficiency. Use of cost-effective energy conservation measures in City projects and practices. Adherence to State and federal energy efficiency standards and policies. Consideration of a transition to a carbon-neutral natural gas supply. Implementation is complete with the adoption and implementation of the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Palo Alto PCE Department Review future Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to ensure that relevant policies are not removed or weakened. Prior to Comprehensive Plan policy amendments Not Yet Approved 170901 jb Lee/Planning/LongRange Resolution No _____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update RECITALS A. The City Council is authorized by Title 19 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and state law to adopt and, from time to time, amend the general plan (known as the Comprehensive Plan in the City of Palo Alto) governing the physical development of the City of Palo Alto. B. In 1998, the City Council adopted the Comprehensive Plan entitled, “Embracing the New Century, Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan,” which Plan has since been amended by the Council. This Plan is referred to herein as the “1998 Comprehensive Plan”. C. Through an extensive and lengthy public process including the convening of a Citizens Advisory Committee (“CAC”) and numerous public hearings held by the CAC, the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council, the City of Palo Alto has prepared that certain comprehensive update to the 1998 Comprehensive Plan entitled “Our Palo Alto 2030,” proposed for approval and adoption by the City Council. D. In accordance with Title 19 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, all Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals are referred to the Planning and Transportation Commission of the City of Palo Alto for review and recommendation prior to City Council consideration of the amendments. On June 12, 2017, after receiving the CAC recommendation and holding additional public hearings, the City Council identified a preferred planning scenario and forwarded the draft Comprehensive Plan Update to the Planning and Transportation Commission. The draft Comprehensive Plan Update is referred to herein as the “June 30, 2017 Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update” which reflects the date that the Plan was transmitted to the Planning and Transportation Commission. E. From July 12, 2017 to September 27, 2017, the Planning and Transportation Commission held five public hearings to consider the draft Comprehensive Plan Update, at which interested persons were given the opportunity to appear and present their views with respect to the Comprehensive Plan Update. F. At the conclusion of the final public hearing on September 27, 2017, the Planning and Transportation Commission transmitted its recommendations to the City Council on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. G. Concurrently with the Planning and Transportation Commission review, City staff prepared a list of minor corrections and clarifications to June 30, 2017 Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update (the “Errata”). H. An original of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update is on file in the office of the Director of Planning and Community Environment of the City, with a copy submitted to the City Council for its consideration. Not Yet Approved 170901 jb Lee/Planning/LongRange I. Pursuant to Title 19 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, public notice was given that on October 23, 2017, at 5:00 p.m. and November 13, 2017, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California, the Council would hold a public hearing where interested persons could appear, be heard, and present their views with respect to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. J. The Council held a duly noticed public hearing at the dates and times in Recital I above and gave all persons full opportunity to be heard and to present their views with respect to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. K. On __________, the Council reviewed, considered and certified that certain Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update by Resolution No. ________, and on ___________, the Council adopted adopted related findings by Resolution No. _________, all in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Both actions were taken prior to the Council making its determination on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. L. The Council is the decision-making body for adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. The Public Hearing Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update dated June 30, 2017 (referred to herein as the “June 30, 2017 Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update”) is hereby adopted, subject to the modifications set forth in the Errata document, the modifications recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission, and the additional modifications approved by the Council, all of which modifications are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. [Exhibit A to be prepared upon Council action on the Errata, PTC recommendations, and further Council direction at the plan adoption hearings.] The Council finds and determines that the Final Environmental Impact Report adequately evaluated and provides a sufficient basis to approve the Comprehensive Plan Update including these modifications, and that the modifications, individually and collectively, do not change any of the conclusions of the Final Environmental Impact Report. The Council further finds that the modifications, individually and collectively, do not constitute significant new information under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because such changes and additional information do not indicate that any of the following would result from approval and implementation of the Project: (i) any new significant environmental impact or substantially more severe environmental impact (not already disclosed and evaluated in the DEIR and Supplement to the Draft EIR), (ii) any feasible mitigation measure considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft EIR and Supplement to the Draft EIR that would lessen a significant environmental impact of the Project has been proposed and would not be implemented, or (iii) any feasible alternative considerably different from those analyzed in the DEIR and the Supplement to the Draft EIR that would lessen a significant environmental impact Not Yet Approved 170901 jb Lee/Planning/LongRange of the Project has been proposed and would not be implemented. SECTION 2. The Implementation Table attached to the Comprehensive Plan Update restates the programs in the Comprehensive Plan and identifies the lead department or agency, the relative prioritization and planned timeframe, and the anticipated level of resources and effort for their implementation. While the programs are substantive parts of the Comprehensive Plan Update, the other information in the Implementation Table, including the prioritization of the programs are not intended to be incorporated as substantive elements and may be modified by the City Council without a formal amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 3. City staff may perform minor, non-substantive edits to the Comprehensive Plan Update without additional Council review. These include such things as formatting, illustrations, and acknowledgements. SECTION 4. This Comprehensive Plan Update supersedes the adopted 1998 Comprehensive Plan, except for the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Council in November 2014 (“Housing Element”), which remains in full force and effect and is incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan Update. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment October 2, 2017 1 ERRATA TABLE /COMP PLAN CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS Change ID Policy/ Program Number Error to Be Corrected Recommended Change 1 Inside front cover Add City Hall contact information General City Information: (650) 329-2100 Planning & Community Environment Department: (650) 329-2442 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/iwantto/ http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/services/paloalto311/ 2 Table of Contents Inclusion of Housing as Number 4 on table of contents A foot note shall be added: “The Housing Element is incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and can be found at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/37935. 3 Regional Commercial Designation Fix reference to software development to accurately reflect Council motion that it should be allowed Downtown only; not in other shopping areas. Regional/Community Commercial: Larger shopping centers and districts that have a wider variety of goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. They rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores, furniture stores, toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theaters and non- retail services such as banks. Examples include Stanford Shopping Center, Town and Country Village and University Avenue/Downtown. Non-retail uses such as medical and dental offices and software development may also locate in this designation; office uses including software development are appropriate Downtown. Examples include Stanford Shopping Center, Town and Country Village and University Avenue/Downtown. In some locations, residential and mixed use projects may also locate in this category. Non-residential FARs range from 0.35 to 2.0. 4 Map L-3: City Structure Show road lines See revised map L-3 5 Map L-6: Land Use Designations Correct map for consistency with actual land use Modify the land use designation for the former Hyatt Rickey’s site to remove the Hotel Overlay (see attached map), so that the property is designated only Multifamily Residential. October 2, 2017 2 Change ID Policy/ Program Number Error to Be Corrected Recommended Change 6 Programs L-2.4.2 and L-2.4.3 Focus Program L2.4.2 on housing in Stanford Shopping Center to reduce confusion. Put all the language about housing in Stanford Research Park in one policy-L-2.4.3. Key language about housing at Stanford Research Park inadvertently left out of 6.30.17 version of L-2.4.3. 1. Reword L-2.4.2 to read: Allow housing on the El Camino Real frontage of the Stanford Research Park and at Stanford Shopping Center, provided that adequate parking and vibrant retail is maintained and no reduction of retail square footage results from the new housing. 2. Reword L-2.4.3 to read: Allow housing on the El Camino Real frontage of the Stanford Research Park. Explore multi-family housing elsewhere in the Stanford Research Park and near Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC). 7 Policy L-2.9 Move policy to Goal L-4 Commercial Centers to be with other retail-related policies. 1. Move Policy L-2.9 to become Policy L-4.2 Preserve ground-floor retail, limit the displacement of existing retail from neighborhood centers and explore opportunities to expand retail. 2. Put programs L4.1.1 and L4.1.2 under this policy and renumber them program LL4.2.1 and L4.2.2 8 Program L4.8.1 Remove reference to “Fry’s site” as the current tenant may not be in this site for the life of the Comp Plan. Reword to “North Ventura area.” Prepare a coordinated area plan for the Fry's site North Ventura area and surrounding California Avenue area. The plan should describe a vision for the future of the Fry's site North Ventura area as a walkable neighborhood with multi-family housing, ground floor retail, a public park, creek improvements and an interconnected street grid. It should guide the development of the California Avenue area as a well-designed mixed use district with diverse land uses and a network of pedestrian-oriented streets. 9 Policy L-5.4 Reword to remove reference to East Meadow Circle Concept Plan because the policies of this concept plan encourage the attraction and expansion of high end technology companies that is not consistent with Comp Plan growth management policies. Maintain the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor areas as diverse business and light industrial districts with the approved East Meadow Circle Concept Plan (Appendix Y of this Comprehensive Plan). 10 Policy L-6.5 Clarify that policy is about views up City streets, not from a street across private property to the hills Guide development to respect views of the foothills and East Bay hills from along public streets corridors in the developed portions of the City. 11 Program L-6.6.1 Correct wording – City does not have design standards specifically for mixed use developments. Modify design standards for mixed use projects to ensure that mixed use development promotes a pedestrian-friendly relationship to the street, including elements such as screened parking or underground parking, street-facing windows and entries, and porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways, and landscaping, and trees along the street. Avoid blank or solid walls at street level. October 2, 2017 3 Change ID Policy/ Program Number Error to Be Corrected Recommended Change 12 Policy L-7.17 Revise wording to be consistent with EIR mitigation measure. Add ",and unique geologic features." Require project proponents to meet State codes and regulations regarding the identification and protection of archaeological and paleontological deposits, and unique geologic features. 13 Policy L-9.10 Redundant with Policy N-2.1. Delete. Policy N-2.1: Recognize the importance of the urban forest as a vital part of the city’s natural and green infrastructure network that contributes to public health, resiliency, habitat values, appreciation of natural systems and an attractive visual character which must be protected and enhanced. L-9.10 Recognize the urban forest as City infrastructure to be maintained in accordance with applicable guidelines and requirements. [NEW POLICY] [L138] 14 Program T1.2.2 Revise wording in the last two bullets to be consistent with EIR Mitigation Measure TRANS-1a. Establish a mechanism to monitor the success of TDM measures and track the cumulative reduction of peak hour motor vehicle trips. TDM measures should at a minimum achieve the following reduction in peak hour motor vehicle trips, with a focus on single-occupant vehicle trips. Reductions should be based on the rates included in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual for the appropriate land use category and size: - 50 45 percent reduction in the Downtown district - 35 percent reduction in the California Avenue area - 30 percent reduction in the Stanford Research Park - 30 percent reduction in the El Camino Real Corridor - 20 percent reduction in other areas of the city Require new development projects to pay a Transportation Impact Fee for all those daily peak-hour motor vehicle trips that cannot be reduced via TDM measures. Fees collected would be used for capital improvements aimed at reducing vehicle trips and traffic congestion. October 2, 2017 4 Change ID Policy/ Program Number Error to Be Corrected Recommended Change 15 Program T1.12.3 Revise to start “Work with VTA to…” to clarify that collaboration is needed on any study regarding bus service. Program T1.12.3: Work with VTA to study the feasibility of, and if warranted provide, traffic signal prioritization for buses at Palo Alto intersections, focusing first on regional transit routes. Also, advocate for bus service improvements on El Camino Real such as queue jump lanes and curbside platforms. 16 Program T2.3.1 Clarify that VMT/LOS program is not inconsistent with SB 743 requirements. When adopting new CEQA significance thresholds for VMT for compliance with SB 743 (2013), adopt standards for vehicular LOS analysis for use in evaluating the consistency of a proposed project with the Comprehensive Plan, and also explore desired standards for MMLOS, which includes motor vehicle LOS, at signalized intersections for use in evaluating the consistency of a proposed project with the Comprehensive Plan. 17 Program T4.2.1 Change to a Policy to be consistent with EIR mitigation measure TRANS-8. Program T4.2.1 Policy T4.3: Identify specific improvements that can be used to discourage drivers from using local, neighborhood streets to bypass traffic congestion on arterials. 18 Policy T-5.12 Reword to reference diverse bike types, not just trailers. Policy T-5.12: To promote bicycle use, increase the number of safe, attractive and well-designed bicycle parking spaces available in the city, including spots for diverse types of bicycles and associated equipment, including bicycle trailers, prioritizing heavily travelled areas such as commercial and retail centers, employment districts, recreational/cultural facilities, multi-modal transit facilities and ride share stops for bicycle parking infrastructure. 19 Policies and Programs under Goal T-8, Regional Collaboration and Coordination Revise to eliminate redundancy and improve readability and usability. Policy T-8.1: Engage in regional transportation planning to reduce congestion and reduce single-occupant vehicle trips, and advocate for specific transit improvements and investments, such as Caltrain service enhancements and grade separations, Dumbarton Express service, enhanced bus service on El Camino Real with queue jumping and curbside platforms, HOV/HOT lanes and additional VTA bus service. Program T8.6.21.2.2: Advocate for improved connectivity to transit to serve workers who live in the South Bay and work in Palo Alto. Policy T-8.2 Participate in regional planning initiatives for the rail corridor and provide a strong guiding voice. Policy T-8.3 Collaborate effectively with and engage in October 2, 2017 5 Change ID Policy/ Program Number Error to Be Corrected Recommended Change regional partnerships and solutions with a range of stakeholders, including regional agencies, neighboring jurisdictions and major employers, on issues of regional importance such as traffic congestion, reduced reliance on single-occupant vehicles and sustainable transportation. Program T8.3.1: Continue to participate in regional efforts to develop technological solutions that make alternatives to the automobile more convenient and thereby contribute to reducing congestion. Policy T-8.4: Coordinate with local and regional agencies and Caltrans to support regional efforts to maintain and improve transportation infrastructure in Palo Alto, including the Multi-Modal Transit Center. Policy T-8.5 Support the efforts of MTC to coordinate transportation planning and services for the Mid-Peninsula and the Bay Area that emphasize alternatives to the automobile. Policy T-8.6: Advocate for efforts by Caltrans and the Valley Transportation Authority to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow on existing freeway facilities consistent with Statewide GHG emissions reduction initiatives. (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure Trans-3b)] Program T8.6.1: Advocate for provision of a new southbound entrance ramp to Highway 101 from San Antonio Road, in conjunction with the closure of the southbound Charleston Road on-ramp at the Rengstorff Avenue interchange in Mountain View. Policy T-8.7: Support the application of emerging freeway information, monitoring and control systems that provide non- intrusive driver assistance and reduce congestion. (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure Trans-3b)] Policy T-8.8: Where appropriate, support the conversion of existing October 2, 2017 6 Change ID Policy/ Program Number Error to Be Corrected Recommended Change traffic lanes to exclusive bus and HOV lanes or Express/HOT lanes on freeways and expressways, including the Dumbarton Bridge, and the continuation of an HOV lane from Redwood City to San Francisco. (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure Trans-3b)] Policy T-8.9: Support State and federal legislation to reduce motor vehicle emissions, noise and fuel consumption. Policy T-8.10: Support plans for intra-county and transbay transit systems that link Palo Alto to the rest of Santa Clara County and adjoining counties. Ensure that these systems and enhancements do not adversely impact the bay. Program T8.10.1: Work with regional transportation providers, including BART and Caltrain, to improve connections between Palo Alto and the San Francisco International Airport and Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport. Policy T-8.11: Support regional bicycle and pedestrian plans, to complete including development of the Bay Trail, and the Bay-to- Ridge Trail, and the Santa Clara County Countywide Bicycle System. Policy T-8.12 Support the development of the Santa Clara County Countywide Bicycle System, and other regional bicycle plans. 20 Program N4.7.2 Change to a policy for consistency; insert new policy number and renumber subsequent policies and programs under Goal N-4. Program N4.7.2 Policy N-4.9: Work with neighboring jurisdictions and regional agencies to protect groundwater. 21 Program N5.1.2 Change to a Policy to be consistent with EIR mitigation measure AIR-2c. Program N5.1.2 Policy N-5.5: Support the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in its efforts to achieve compliance with existing air quality regulations by continuing to require development applicants to comply with BAAQMD construction emissions control measures and health risk assessment requirements. October 2, 2017 7 Change ID Policy/ Program Number Error to Be Corrected Recommended Change 22 Policy N-5.5 Add for consistency with EIR mitigation measure AIR-3c. NEW POLICY: Mitigate potential sources of toxic air contaminants through siting or other means to reduce human health risks and meet the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s applicable threshold of significance. When siting new sensitive receptors such as schools, day care facilities, parks or playgrounds, medical facilities and residences within 1,000’ of stationary sources of toxic air contaminants or roadways used by more than 10,000 vehicles per day, require projects to consider potential health risks and incorporate adequate precautions such as high-efficiency air filtration into project design. 23 Program N6.12.1 Add an “also” to separate two ideas in this program. Program N6.12.1: Continue working to reduce noise associated with operations of the Palo Alto Airport. Also, eEnsure compliance with the land use compatibility standards for community noise environments, shown in Table N-1, by prohibiting incompatible land use development within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of the airport. 24 Program N6.11.1 Revise to reference pertinent industry standards for consistency with EIR mitigation measure NOISE-5a. For larger development projects that demand intensive construction periods and/or use equipment that could create vibration impacts, such as the Stanford University Medical Center or major grade separation projects, require a vibration impact analysis, as well as formal, ongoing monitoring and reporting of noise levels, throughout the entire construction process, pertinent to industry standards. The monitoring plan should identify hours of operation and could include information on the monitoring locations, durations and regularity, the instrumentation to be used and appropriate noise control measures to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. [(NEW PROGRAM)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE- 1c, 5a)] [N152] October 2, 2017 8 Change ID Policy/ Program Number Error to Be Corrected Recommended Change 25 Safety narrative Add description on location and extent of utilities to narrative UTILITIES In Palo Alto, utility services are provided by The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU), a city-owned utility. Today, CPAU provides six services that include electric, fiber optic, natural gas, water and wastewater services. Initially formed in 1896 with the installation of a water supply system, CPAU expanded between the years 1898 and 1917 to include wastewater, electric, and natural gas distribution services; in 1996 it began to provide fiber optic services. Through its mission to provide safe, reliable, environmentally sustainable and cost effective services to Palo Alto residents, CPAU offers cost-effective service rates to residents and re-invests proceeds to support other City community services and facilities. For example, CPAU provides financial support to the Palo Alto library and parks system, as well as to support police and fire protection services. 26 Program S-1.10.3 Reword for clarity to: “…including those that address evolving…” Implement the mitigation strategies and guidelines provided by the LHMP, including those that address evolving hazards resulting from climate change. 27 Program S- 2.8.3 Change to Policy since this is a “specific statement of guiding action that implies clear commitment.” Program S-2.8.3 Policy S-2.9: Partner with appropriate agencies to expand flood zones as appropriate due to sea level rise, changes in creek channels, street flooding or storm drain overload due to increased likelihood of extreme storm events caused by climate change. 28 Glossary Update the definition of Infill to cover various types of possible sites, not only vacant land. Infill: Development of vacant or underused lots in built up sites or areas. ERRATA TABLE /EIR CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS Change ID Figure Error to Be Corrected Recommended Change 1 Figure 2-2 (Same as Map L-6) Revise for consistency with Map L-6 in the Comprehensive Plan Update Modify the land use designation for the Hyatt Rickey’s site to remove the Hotel Overlay. RESPONSES TO COMMENT S RECEIVED SEPTEMBER 29, 2017 1 There were a number of comments made at the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting on September 29, 2017 that staff did not have an opportunity to respond to on the record. This attachment provides a brief summary of the comments and staff’s responses. Comment 1: One or more commenters suggested that the proposed Comp Plan would allow a significant increase (or “double”) the rate of office growth and that proposed growth management strategies are inadequate. The proposed Comprehensive Plan lowers the non-residential growth cap in the current Comprehensive Plan to reflect past development and improves on that cap by focusing on Office/R&D rather than uses the City wants, like retail. The Plan does not propose or allow more rapid office growth than the current Comprehensive Plan and includes policies and programs to focus on housing growth, rather than job-generating office uses. More detail is provided below. Currently, the City tracks non-residential square footage under Policy L-8 of the 1998 Comp Plan, which contains a city-wide cap on non-residential development in nine “monitored areas.” Based on the data collected under Policy L-8, there were 24,886,880 square feet of non-residential development in Palo Alto in May 1987. From May 1987 through September 2015, a total of 3,805,020 square feet of non-residential space was added, including both square footage subject to the growth monitoring provisions under Policy L-8 and square footage that was not subject to monitoring, such as the SUMC expansion, which was approved in 2012 under the 1998 Comp Plan and is exempt from Policy L-8. The average rate over the 28 years was about 117,000 sf per year. The proposed Comp Plan would replace Policy L-8 with a new non-residential growth management policy, Policy L-1.9. This policy would establish a Citywide cap of 1.7 million new square feet of office/R&D development, using January 1, 2015 as the baseline. This cap is based on the allowed square footage remaining under the existing Policy L-8 cap; it does not increase the Policy L-8 cap currently in place. The Final EIR Preferred Scenario talks about 3M square feet because it adds the 1.3 M sq. ft. of approved space that is still being built out at SUMC to the new 1.7M cap. Over the 15- year horizon of the Comp Plan (January 2015 to 2030), an allowance of 1.7 million square feet equates to an average of 113,333 sf per year, which is lower than the annual average over 28 years described above. RESPONSES TO COMMENT S RECEIVED SEPTEMBER 29, 2017 2 Actually seeing this much square footage in a year is unlikely because the City Council is also proposing to perpetuate (by ordinance) a 50,000 sq. ft. annual limit on new office/R&D development in parts of the City. In both cases – with the cap in Policy L-1.9 and the annual limit -- the focus is on net new office/R&D space, so any conversion of space from warehouse or retail to office/R&D will count towards the cap/limit, which has not been true in the past. Table 1. Non-Residential Growth Comparison 1998 COMP PLAN (POLICY L-8) PROPOSED COMP PLAN (POLICY L-1.9) Non-residential square footage 3,270,000 1,700,000 Number of years 28 (1987-2015) 15 (2015-2030) Average rate of increase per year 116,786 113,333 Source: Planning & Community Environment, September 2018 There are four important differences between the way growth is monitored under Policy L-8 and how it would be monitored under Policy L-1.9 in the proposed Comp Plan. Specifically: Policy L-8 monitors all types of non-residential development, including uses that might be desirable for the community, such as retail. Policy L-1.9 focuses specifically on office/R&D development as the use the City is most concerned to monitor. Policy L-8 only counts net new non-residential square footage towards the cap. So a project that removes 5,000 square feet of retail and adds 10,000 square feet of office is recorded as an addition of only 5,000 square feet. Policy L-1.9 would count the full 10,000 square feet of office towards the cap. Policy L-8 only applies to the “monitored areas” identified on Map L-6, so the data does not present a full picture of non-residential development in the City. Policy L- 1.9 covers the entire City (but continues the exemption of medical offices associated with SUMC). Policy L-8 is silent on what to do as the growth cap is neared or reached. Policy L-1.9 is supported by a new Program, L1.9.1, to re-evaluate the cap when entitled office/R&D square footage reaches 67% of the allowed increase. Please also see Response to Comment PUB14-02 in the Final EIR (p. 5-93). The commenter suggests a long-term historical average of 94K square feet per year between 1989 and 2015, illustrating that it’s possible to get different annual averages depending on the years used for the analysis. These various calculations does not change the value or effectiveness of Policy L-1.9 in the proposed Comp Plan carries forward the existing non-residential growth cap in Policy L-8 with no increase, while expanding the coverage of the cap Citywide, targeting it to office/R&D development, and making it more restrictive by counting all new square footage rather than only net change. Staff believes the cumulative effect of these policy refinements RESPONSES TO COMMENT S RECEIVED SEPTEMBER 29, 2017 3 will be more aggressive, rather than less aggressive, management of non-residential growth in Palo Alto – particularly when combined with a new annual limit ordinance and with policies and programs aimed at supporting the development of housing. For example, proposed Program L2.4.5 proposes zoning changes to support mixed use with retail and residential -- not office, and Program L2.4.4 proposes converting commercial development potential (floor area ratio or FAR) to residential FAR. Comment 2: One or more commenters suggested that the Comp Plan does not identify funding mechanism to mitigate the traffic impacts of future growth. The proposed Plan (and the EIR) present policies (and mitigation) to require new development to adopt and implement TDM plans aimed at meeting aggressive performance standards specifically targeted to geographic areas of the City. Consistent with Program T- 1.2.2, new development projects would be required to pay a Transportation Impact Fee for all those peak hour motor vehicle trips that cannot be reduced via TDM measures. Fees collected would be used for capital improvements aimed at reducing vehicle trips and traffic congestion. As noted in the staff report, City staff is recommending that the Council direct staff to prioritize implementation of the updated impact fee program (called for in Program T- 1.25.1), and is hoping to bring a draft nexus study forward for review by the Council’s Finance Committee at the end of November. In addition, the proposed Comp Plan includes an entirely new section on funding transportation improvements. Policies T-1.25, T-1.26, and T-1.27 guide the City to pursue a range of funding opportunities; to collaborate with adjacent communities to ensure that Palo Alto and its immediate neighbors receive their fair share of regional transportation funds; and to advocate for transportation regulatory changes, such as an increase in the gasoline tax. The Comp Plan is long-range policy guidance document; the City also does many things outside of the Comp Plan to manage its budget and plan for capital improvements, and transportation funding also comes to the City from federal, State, regional, and County sources. For example, Palo Alto will receive funds from Measure B, a countywide sales tax approved by voters in November 2016 that are anticipated to be used to fund Caltrain grade separation and other transportation projects and programs. Comment 3: One or more commenters suggested that the EIR does not assume an increase in water use, even though it assumes more housing and office development. The EIR shows an increase in water use in the City and Sphere of Influence under all 6 scenarios. However, for the City limits only, the EIR anticipates a decrease in demand from existing conditions by 2030. The EIR analyzes future water use in Chapter 4.14, Utilities and RESPONSES TO COMMENT S RECEIVED SEPTEMBER 29, 2017 4 Service Systems, in both the February 2016 Draft EIR and the February 2017 Supplement to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR includes Table 2-4, which shows future water demand under all 6 scenarios, as well as the Preferred Scenario, at the bottom of page 2-17. Table 2 below is an excerpt of that table. Table 2. Existing and Projected Future Water Use Utilities Impacts 2014 Existing Conditions Preferred Scenario Low End of Range High End of Range City Water Demand (GPD) 3,706,077,880 3,647,353,578 3,647,621,801 City & SOI Water Demand (GPD) 4,230,635,205 4,485,665,218 4,485,933,441 City Water Demand Acre-Feet/Year (AFY) 11,374 11,193 11,194 City & SOI Water Demand AFY 12,983 13,766 13,767 Source: Final EIR, August 2017 Table 2 from the EIR shows an increase in water use in the City and SOI under all 6 scenarios. However, for the City limits only, the EIR anticipates a decrease in demand from existing conditions by 2030. This conclusion may be non-intuitive, but, as is required by law, the projections in the EIR were developed in consultation with City of Palo Alto Utilities staff and are based on the projections of the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), adopted unanimously by Council in June 2016 (Resolution 9589). The 2015 UWMP includes data showing the City’s potable water use since 1988 and a projection of water supplies through 2040. Present water consumption at its lowest level in the more than 25-year history covered in the UWMP. The reduction in water consumption is the result of state mandated water reductions and permanent water conservation measures implemented during the past 25 years, and these trends are expected to continue. The 2015 UWMP cites the following reasons for its projections that future water use will remain flat and that per capita water use will continue to decline over time: Many permanent water use changes, including landscape conversion, occurred as a result of rebate programs and public outreach, Public attitudes regarding water use are shifting New construction in every sector is subject to increasingly stringent regulations regarding water‐using appliances and fixtures. Based on these factors, the UWMP anticipates total water demand decreasing from 10,177 acre-feet/year (AFY) in 2015 to 10,108 AFY in 2040. See pages 39 through 42 of the 2015 UWMP for a detailed discussion of future water demand. RESPONSES TO COMMENT S RECEIVED SEPTEMBER 29, 2017 5 Comment 4: In noting that the Comprehensive Plan should support additional affordable housing, one commenter stated that the Council recently lowered housing impact fees. The Council updated housing impact fees earlier this year, adding a fee on market rate rental apartments and increasing the fee on office/R&D from around $20/ft to $35/ft. The earlier fees and the new fees are summarized in Table 3, below. Table 3A: Housing In Lieu and Housing Impact Fees for Residential Uses Table 3B: Non-Residential Housing Impact Fees Prior to 6/19/2017 (per sq. ft.) As of 6/19/2017 (per sq. ft.) Hotel $20.37 $20.37 Retail, Restaurants and Other Non- Residential Uses $20.37 $20.37 Office, Medical Office and Research and Development $20.37 $35 Source: Planning & Community Environment, September 2017 In Lieu Fees (For Residential Ownership Projects) Prior to 6/19/2017 As of 6/19/2017 (per sq ft) Single Family Detached Home 7.5% of the sales price $75 Single Family Attached Home 7.5% of the sales price $50 Condominiums 7.5% of the sales price $50 Impact Fees (For Residential Rental Projects) None $20 City of Palo Alto (ID # 8068) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 10/23/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Accessory Dwelling Unit Quarterly Report Title: Quarterly Report to City Council on Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Executive Summary This is a quarterly report to the City Council on the implementation of Ordinance No. 5412, the City’s updated Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations. The new regulations, amending Title 18, became effective as of June 8, 2017 and were aimed at bringing the City into compliance with State laws intended to encourage the construction of accessory dwelling units. The City Council directed that staff provide quarterly reports on permits filed for the construction of accessory dwelling units following the implementation of the ordinance. There have been a total of ten ADU applications filed with the City between January 1 and September 8, 2017, and an additional three applications received in 2016 have been processed in accordance with the new ordinance. (The new ordinance applies to applications regardless of application filing dates if building permits have not been issued.) The City has so far issued nine building permits for ADUs in 2017. Six of the building permits issued involved applications filed in 2017, and three involved applications filed in 2016. There are currently four ADU applications pending. Background The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5412 on May 8, 2017, which amended Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to implement new State requirements related to ADUs and to encourage the construction of accessory dwelling units. The ordinance can be found at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57945. Some of the changes established by Ordinance 5412 are summarized in Attachment A. Importantly: ADUs are permitted on more parcels than they were previously, subject to revised development standards, City of Palo Alto Page 2 only one ADU or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) is permitted per lot, ADUs may not be used for short term (less than 30 day) rentals, and the primary residence and ADU must be under single ownership. The purpose of this quarterly report is to provide the City Council with the number of ADU applications that have been received and processed from January 1, 2017 (after the implementation of new State regulations) and since the adoption of the City of Palo Alto’s ADU Ordinance No 5412. This first report includes information on the types of ADUs proposed (attached/detached), and whether the ADU is new construction or conversion of existing living space or garage conversion. The City has been tracking the number of permitted ADUs (previously known as Second Dwelling Units) for the last fifteen years. Historic data shows that Palo Alto averaged construction of approximately four accessory dwelling units per year prior to the adoption of the new ordinance. ADU Applications January 1 - September 8, 2017 This report focuses on the thirteen building permit applications that were submitted or active between January 1 and September 8, 2017. Ten building permit applications for ADUs were filed in 2017 and there were three pending applications from 2016 for ADUs at the start of this year. Seven of the new applications filed in 2017 were filed before the ordinance went into effect in June, while three were filed between the effective date and September 8, 2017. The City has issued nine building permits for ADUs in 2017; seven were issued before June 8 and two after the effective date of the City’s ordinance. Three of the nine building permits issued involved applications which were filed in 2016. (As noted earlier, the new ordinance applies to building permit applications regardless of application filing dates if building permits have not been issued before June 8, 2017.) There are currently four ADU applications pending applicant resubmittals for which building permits have not been issued. Eight of the proposed thirteen ADUs applications are for new detached units, while the rest are for garage, accessory structure or other conversions. All except one of the applications is for a one bedroom unit. The three proposed projects filed after June 8, 2017 are for new detached one bedroom ADUs. No applications were filed for Junior Accessory Dwelling Units. Observations & Next Steps There has been a lot of interest expressed by the community on the changes brought about by the new ADU regulations, however, the regulations have only been in effect for a short time, and it is probably too early to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the ordinance or any resulting issues. Also, while the City has certainly received and processed more applications (about ten) than in past years (our average was four), the number of applications received is still relatively small. This may have to do with the cost of construction and the fact that City of Palo Alto Page 3 architects and contractors are extremely busy at the moment, and it may be because people are still becoming familiar with the requirements of the new ordinance. Staff hopes to be able to draw more conclusions in early 2018, and will also be comparing notes with staff of other nearby jurisdictions to learn about their experiences implementing the new State law. On December 13, 2017, staff has scheduled a study session with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) to discuss the new regulations as directed by the City Council. Staff will provide an overview of the ordinance and its implementation thus far, public input received to date, and request PTC feedback if any changes are warranted. The PTC will have an opportunity to discuss several site-specific issues and questions that have come up during the implementation of the ordinance, including questions about parking within a street side setback, setbacks required for a through lot, and maximum lot coverage of all structures within the rear setback. Staff will return to the City Council with the PTC recommendations if any adjustments are proposed to the ordinance. Attachments: Attachment A: Summary of ADU Ordinance (PDF) Photo courtesy of Henry Wood Lot Coverage: An attached or detached ADU does not count toward lot coverage in the R1, RE, RMD, or OS Zoning Districts under the following conditions: •The site is already developed with an existing single family residence •The property is substandard by no more than 10% of the minimum lot size requirement, or larger •The site would exceed the permitted lot coverage with the addition of the proposed ADU Floor Area: An attached or detached ADU may exceed site floor area requirements up to 175 square feet subject to the following conditions: •The site is already developed with an existing single family residence •The site would exceed the maximum floor area with the addition of the proposed ADU •The proposed ADU is one story EXCEPTIONS For All ADUs & JADUs • May not rent for periods less than 30 days • May not be sold separately from the primary residence • Only one ADU or JADU may be located on a lot that also has a single-family dwelling unit • The property owner shall occupy the ADU/JADU or main residence, unless both units are rented to the same tenant; sub-leasing is prohibited • Fire sprinklers are only required when it is also required for the main residence • Street addresses are required • A Deed Restriction recorded with the County will be required prior to permit issuance • ADU/JADUs are not considered a new residential use when calculating utility connection fees • Basement used in the guide is a defined term and subject to specific standards • For property located in the DHS district - refer to the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan Phase I • Minimum ADU and JADU unit size is 150 square feet City of Palo Alto Summary Guide to ADUs and Junior ADUs . New ADUs on properties that are listed in the city’s historic inventory, the California Register or National Register of Historic Places shall comply with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; for more information visit: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/preservation.asp Protected trees may not be removed to accommodate an ADU; for more information visit: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/ depts/pwd/trees/regulated.asp * Junior ADUs may include separate bathroom, or may share a bathroom with the existing structure, and must have an efficiency kitchen with the following: • Sink w/maximum 1.5-inch waste line diameter • Cooking facility with appliances that do not require more than 120 volts, natural, or propane gas • Food preparation counter and storage cabinets Prepared by the Planning and Community Environment Department This document is a summary of the new ADU/JADU regulations and not a substitute for the specific regulations available in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.42.040. The New ADU/JADU regulations become effective on June 8, 2017. For more information, call 650-617-3117, or visit: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/advance/accessory_dwelling_units_regulations_update.asp version date: 5/24/17 Guide to Accessory Dwelling Units Standard Attached ADU Detached ADU Conversion of Floor Area Existing and Permitted as of January 1, 2017 Junior ADU* Permitted Zoning Districts R1 | R2 | RE | RMD | OS RM 15/30/40 when property is used for a single-family dwelling R1 | R2 | RE | RMD | OS RM 15/30/40 when property is used for a single-family dwelling R1 | RE (conversions in other districts subject to attached or detached ADUs standards) R1 | RE | RMD | R2 | OS RM 15/30/40 when property is used for a single-family dwelling Minimum Lot Area 5,000 square feet (10 Acres in OS) 5,000 square feet (10 Acres in OS) None None Maximum ADU Size (Area) Lesser of 600 square feet, or 50% of existing living area 900 square feet None, must be located within existing residence or structure 500 square feet, must include the conversion of existing bedroom Maximum ADU Height 1-Story / 17 Feet 2-Stories / 30 feet in the RE District 2-Stories / 25 feet in the OS District 1-Story / 17 feet None, must be located within existing residence or structure None, must be located within existing residence Daylight Plane (height limitation that defines a building envelope) Same as residence (underlying base district) Begins at a height of 8 feet at the property line and extends upward at a 45-degree angle None, must be located within existing residence or structure None, must be located within existing residence Minimum ADU Setbacks Same as main residence (underlying base district) 5 feet min from side/rear property lines when located above garage in the RE/OS 6 feet from interior side/rear property line 16 feet from street side yard Not permitted in the front yard setback None, except as required for fire safety None Lot Coverage (ADU) Same as residence (underlying district) See Exceptions on back page Same as residence (underlying district) See Exceptions on back page None, must be located within existing residence or structure Same as residence (underlying district) Floor Area (ADU) Counts toward site floor area requirements / house size Basement area may be exempt in some districts, but included in Maximum ADU Size (Area) See Exceptions on back page Counts toward site floor area requirements Basement area may be exempt in some districts, but included in Maximum ADU Size (Area) See Exceptions on back page None, must be located within existing residence or structure Same as residence (underlying base district) Main residence may exceed maximum floor area by 50 square feet to accommodate Junior ADU Parking None required, some standards apply if ADU parking proposed Any required parking displaced by an ADU must be restored on site None required, some standards apply if ADU parking proposed Any required parking displaced by an ADU must be restored on site None required, some standards apply if ADU parking proposed Any required parking displaced by an ADU must be restored on site None required, some standards apply if JADU parking proposed Any required parking displaced by an ADU must be restored on site Privacy 2-Story ADUs in RE / OS, use techniques to lessen views on neighbors, such as, landscaping, obscure glazing, and windows above eye level None 2-Story ADUs in all permitted districts, use techniques to lessen views on neighbors, such as, landscaping, obscure glazing, and windows above eye level None Entryways Independent exterior access Except for corner lots, must face different property line than main residence or located on rear half of lot Independent exterior access Independent exterior access Independent exterior access Interior entry to the main living area