Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2018-12-17 City Council Agenda Packet
PALO ALTO City Council Monday, December 17, 2018 Regular Meeting Council Chambers 6:00 PM 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. Public comment may be addressed to the full City Council via email at City.Council@cityofpaloalto.orq. 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 Oral Communications 6:00-6:15 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. Study Session 6:15-7:15 PM 1. Study Session With Santa Clara County Supervisor Simitian Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7:15-8:15 PM 2. Discussion and Direction on the Status and use of the Roth Building, Extension of Fundraising Period With the Palo Alto History Museum, and Adoption of a Resolution for County Grant Application to use the Roth Building Consistent With Park use for 20 Years 8:15-9:45 PM 3. Project Update on Connecting Palo Alto and Consider the Following Actions: a) Separate From Study all Alternatives for the Palo Alto 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. Avenue Crossing (Closure and Hybrid) and Include Palo Alto Avenue in a Separate Comprehensive Planning Effort; b) Separate From Study the Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing of the Caltrain Corridor in the Vicinity of Loma Verde Avenue and Assess Feasibility in a Future Study; c) Address the Rail Committee's Recommendation Regarding a Deep Bore Tunnel by Modifying the Alternative to be South of California Avenue Only and Further Explore the Scope and Budget for an Alternative With Freight Trains on the Surface and Passenger Trains Underground for the Meadow and Charleston Crossings; and d) Adopt a Modified List of Grade Separation Alternatives. 9:45-10:45 PM 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: 429 University Avenue [18PLN- 00240]: Appeal of the Planning and Community Environment Director's Denial of a Minor Architectural Review Application for Proposed Exterior Building Materials, Colors, and Craftsman Related to a Previously Approved Mixed -Use Project. Environmental Assessment: Use of Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for 14PLN-00222. Zoning District: CD-C(G)(P) (Downtown Commercial With Ground Floor and Pedestrian Shopping Overlay) (Continued From December 3, 2018) 10:45-11:00 PM 5. Approval of Annual Amendments to the Employment Agreements Between the City of Palo Alto and Council Appointed Officers State/Federal Legislation Update/Action 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. 2 December 17, 2018 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. CITY OF PALO ALTO City of Palo Alto (ID # 9767) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/17/2018 Summary Title: Roth Building Update, Next Steps and Approval of Resolution for County Grant Application Title: Discussion and Direction on the Status and use of the Roth Building, Extension of Fundraising Period With the Palo Alto History Museum, and Adoption of a Resolution for County Grant Application to use the Roth Building Consistent With Park use for 20 Years From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation Staff provides this update regarding the fundraising and planning for rehabilitation of the Roth Building at 300 Homer Avenue, as requested by City Council and recommends that Council: 1) Extend the deadline by six months for the Palo Alto History Museum to achieve the goal of raising $1.75 million as set by Council in 2017; and If proceeding with the Palo Alto History Museum project at the Roth Building, then 2) Direct staff to revise and update lease agreement between the Palo Alto History Museum and return to City Council in six months for approval; and 3) Approve the attached resolution designating the Roth Building as a park and committing to use the Roth Building consistent with park use for a period of no less than 20 years and making other representations to apply for historic preservation grant funds from the County of Santa Clara to rehabilitate the Roth Building roof (Attachment A). Executive Summary Over the decade, the Palo Alto History Museum (PAHM) has engaged in various strategies and activities to raise funds from private and public sources to undertake a seismic and historical rehabilitation of the Roth Building and to operate a historical museum at this location. This staff report is intended to provide an update on the direction provided to staff at the December 2017 City, grant additional fundraising time to the PAHM and approve a resolution necessary to complete a grant application for historic preservation funding from the County of Santa Clara. The Option to Lease between the City and PAHM expired on November 30, 2018. PAHM is City of Palo Alto Page 1 requesting another one-year extension of the Option to Lease agreement on the Roth Building (Attachment B). Rather than grant a one-year extension of the option agreement at this time, staff is recommending a six-month extension to the fundraising goal deadline and returning to the City Council with updated option and lease agreements at that time. At the time of the printing of this report, the PAHM reported new fundraising activity that brought them close to the goal of $1.75 million set by Council last year, however staff has not verified this. This six- month extension would allow staff to corroborate the fundraising efforts and refresh the lease agreement documents. In collaboration with the PAHM, the City, on November 21, 2018, submitted a grant application package to the County of Santa Clara requesting $305,000 in funds to rehabilitate the Roth Building roof. The grant requires that the Council approve a resolution (Attachment A) with certain conditions including designating the Roth Building as parkland for twenty years.' PAHM has an Executive Director with strong local ties to the City to spearhead the fund-raising efforts. As of December 4, 2018, the total funding raised by PAHM, the City (including TDR proceeds), new pledges, restricted and unrestricted donations since the beginning of the year stands at $7.6 million. PAHM continues to work on fundraising and has articulated an expectation of other donations in the very near future. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Architectural Plan Review for the historical Museum expired at the end of December of 2014. PAHM applied on behalf of the City to renew and update the expired Condition Use Permit (CUP) and was granted approval on February 18, 2016 which was effective until March 3, 2017. The City granted a one-time extension pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Ch.18.77.090 to extend the approved entitlement to March 3, 2018. In November 2017, the proposed project was resubmitted for a minor architectural review approval to again renew and update the permit with some minor changes. On December 3, 2018, the City approved the CUP, historic architectural review, and minor exceptions to not provide onsite parking and to encroach into the front yard setback. A building permit is pending. 1 The City has informed County staff that Palo Alto has not and is not contemplating formally dedicating the Roth Building as parkland for purposes of the City Charter and Municipal Code. The County nevertheless requires the City to use the language in the County's grant template, including a statement that the Roth Building "is dedicated parkland" for 20 years from the date of project completion. While adoption of the grant resolution will not dedicate the Roth as parkland for City Charter purposes, it will commit the City to use and operate the Roth as a park facility for the next 20 years. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Background The City acquired the Roth Building in April 2000. In 2002, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for proposed uses of the Roth Building, and received one response, from the PAHM. In 2007, the City and PAHM entered into a two-year option agreement to lease the Roth Building. Since 2007, PAHM personnel and City staff have examined a variety of proposals to fund the capital and operating needs of the Roth Building historical museum and the City Council has extended the option agreement several times. Additional background information can be found by referring to prior staff reports, CMRs: 2197, 2891, 4703, 5365, 5551 and 5879. The option agreement was extended a number of times over the past 11 years, but neither it nor the underlying lease agreement have been updated. Most recently, on December 11, 2017 (CMR 8612) staff provided an update to the City Council regarding this property and potential partnership with PAHM. City Council approved a six -part motion as follows: A. Approve an extension of the Option to Lease the Roth Building between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto History Museum (PAHM) until November 30, 2018; and B. Direct Staff to simultaneously develop options for a Request for Proposal (RFP) for leasing the building to another organization and return to Council; and C. At least 50 percent of the funds needed for Phase 1 ($1,750,000) must be raised by November 2018, or Staff shall return to Council to discuss releasing an RFP; D. The Mayor will create a fundraising auxiliary committee of three City Council Members. They will meet with the Board of Directors of the Museum on a regular basis; and E. Direct Staff to return to Council at the 6 -month mark with an update regarding the Palo Alto History Museum; and F. Authorize the use of the Sea Scout Building Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) proceeds ($665,000) for historical restoration as a challenge grant for the next year, this $665,000 amount would not count towards the $1,750,000 included in Part C. Staff has prepared and coordinated with the Executive Director of the Palo Alto History Museum, where appropriate, on the updates on each part of the motion in the "Discussion" section below. In addition, staff has worked with the County of Santa Clara to prepare a grant application for rehabilitation of the Roth Building roof and this is also discussed in the staff report along with the required Council resolution. City Council Previous Funding Actions The City Council has approved two primary funding sources thus far. 1) Council approved the designation of the Roth Building as a "Sender Site" in the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. Staff followed the provisions for eligible City owned buildings to participate in the TDR program as outlined in Chapters 18.18.080 and 18.28.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). The program allows a Category 2 resource, (the Roth Building) to be eligible as a "sender site" for a 9,592 square foot City of Palo Alto Page 3 floor area bonus. The TDRs were put to bid and sold raising $2.88 million. 2) On December 15, 2015, City Council passed a motion instructing staff to identify $1.0 million to fund rehabilitation costs for the Roth Building. All potential sources were examined, and staff recommended that the Budget Stabilization Reserve be drawn down to provide the $1.0 million. The Museum representatives asserted that with this contribution and the sale of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs), further fundraising would gain traction. On June 29, 2015, the Council approved a budget amendment in the Capital Improvement Fund to establish a Roth Building rehabilitation reserve in the fund in the total amount of $3.88 million. Discussion Included in this report are two primary sections for review. 1) Status update on each component of the prior City Council direction in regard to the Roth Building plans and 2) in the context of the six-month extension of the fundraising timeframe a discussion of the actions necessary at this time. Status updates on the City Council direction from December 11, 2017: (Council direction is italicized for ease of review) A. Approve an extension of the Option to Lease the Roth Building between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto History Museum (PAHM) until November 30, 2018. In December 2017, the City Council granted an extension, through November 30, 2018, however, this extension has lapsed expiring December 1, 2018. The PAHM is requesting another one-year extension discussed later in the report. B. Direct Staff to simultaneously develop options for a Request for Proposal (RFP) for leasing the building to another organization and return to Council. In order to solicit options, the high-level steps to complete an RFP include: • Prepare a draft scope of services and timeline for the RFP • Present the draft scope of services to the Council for review, comment and direction • Solicit a request for qualifications to set a prequalification level which firms must meet to respond to the RFP • Issue the RFP to qualified firms • Allow a one -to -two -month window for firms to respond • Hold interviews and presentations with firms, with City and community representatives • Consider alternatives presented by proposing firms and develop options for review with the City Manager • Present options and a recommendation to the Council along with related contract awards City of Palo Alto Page 4 Staff anticipates the need to use a prequalification process given the range and potential complexities involved in such a solicitation. It is estimated that the RFP selection process would take approximately one-year to complete. Currently the facility has restrictive zoning, public facility, which would limit the eligible bidders unless this zoning was changed. C. At least 50 percent of the funds needed for Phase 1 ($1,750,000) must be raised by November 2018, or Staff shall return to Council to discuss releasing an RFP. As part of the December 2017 report (CMR 8612) total project costs for phase one (construction) were contracted with Vance Brown by the PAHM at $9.2 million with a capital funding gap of $3.5 million identified. Council directed that at least 50 percent of this gap, or $1.75 million, of funds be raised by November 2018. The PAHM has reported that they have raised $1,400,000 in new funds since December 2017, including $250,000 each from both the Hewlett and Packard foundations. At the time of the printing of this report the PAHM reported that they received an additional pledge resulting in them reaching the $1.75 million goal. Overall, PAHM has raised over $12.7 million in 12 years and $7.4 of the $9.2 million needed for rehabilitation for the Roth Building. D. The Mayor will create a fundraising auxiliary committee of three City Council Members. They will meet with the Board of Directors of the Museum on a regular basis. The auxiliary committee met on June 29, 2018 to discuss the status of the PAHM with the Executive Director and President and learn about fundraising activity. PAHM remains interested in continuing conversations and setting up subsequent meetings with the auxiliary committee. E. Direct Staff to return to Council at the 6 -month mark with an update regarding the Palo Alto History Museum. Staff was unable to meet this deadline and did not provide a six-month progress update. This report provides a comprehensive review of all steps. F. Authorize the use of the Sea Scout Building Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) proceeds ($665,000) for historical restoration as a challenge grant for the next year, this $665,000 amount would not count towards the $1,750,000 included in Part C. The TDR funds have been set aside in a reserve in the Capital Improvement Fund and are available as a challenge grant. Over the past year the funds have helped the PAHM in their fundraising efforts. Actions needed during the six-month extension Understanding the status of the most recent list of action items, if the City Council wishes to City of Palo Alto Page 5 grant a six-month extension for the PAHM to meet its fundraising goal, Council should consider the following actions: First the City must confirm the written and verbal pledges that make up the PAHM reported fundraising amount of $1.75 million. Second the City must review the 2007 option and lease agreements with PAHM and update the outdated portions before presenting a new recommendation to offer a one-year extension of the option agreement as requested by the PAHM. If Council approves the recommended actions in this report, City staff will engage with the PAHM to negotiate an updated option and lease agreements for the Council's consideration next year. Third, last month, the City collaborated with the PAHM to submit a grant application package to the County of Santa Clara for the potential of obtaining $305,000 in funds to rehabilitate the Roth Building roof. The grant does have requirements in order to be accepted including City Council approval of a resolution designating the Roth Building as a park for twenty years. As noted above, this designation will not make the Roth Building dedicated parkland for City Charter purposes but will commit the City to use and operate the Roth as a park facility, open to Santa Clara County residents, for 20 years. After 20 years, if the City wanted to use the building for non -park purposes, a vote of the people will not be required. The resolution is attached for Council's review and determination (Attachment A). The County's resolution template has been modified to reflect the City's circumstances, to clarify that all project approvals have not yet been provided, given that the PAHM lease agreement (which includes rehabilitation of the Roth) has not been approved. County staff stated that the resolution should not be modified; the City's proposed modifications are only to conform the template resolution to the factual circumstances and are shown in tracked changes. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Additional grant requirements include: • Completed grant application package submitted by November 23 (completed) • Documentation of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance (Notice of Exemption filed with the County on December 4, 2018) • Historic designation documentation (included in the grant application) • Photos and write up of the project included in the grant application • Project use diagram, budget and timeline included in the grant application package Currently, the zoning of the parcel is "public facility" or PF and this resolution would not change that. If Council approves the resolution, staff will add it to the grant package by the December 28, 2018 due date. This due date reflects a one-time extension, which the County granted in order to give time for the resolution to be presented for City Council consideration. The current grant process timeframe anticipates that grant packages will be evaluated by the County Parks Commission in January 2019 and a decision will follow shortly thereafter. It is important to note that it is not required that the City Council approve this resolution to continue to pursue a partnership with PAHM. This resolution is only required if the City wishes to continue to pursue the application of grant funding with the County of Santa Clara for the potential of obtaining $305,000 in funds to rehabilitate the Roth Building roof under the terms as required by the grant. Should the City receive the grant funding from the County, the City would be required to enter into a grant agreement with the County reaffirming the action taken in adopting the resolution — making the commitment to use the Roth Building as a park facility — and contractually binding the City to do so for at least 20 years from project completion. The City would not be able to convert the use in the Roth Building to a non -park use for that duration, even if, for any reason, the contemplated museum closed or ceased operation. The roof project is part of the larger Roth Building rehabilitation project described in the last update to the City Council on December 11, 2017 (CMR 8612). Costs for the roof work will be invoiced separately to the City of Palo Alto. Once the City pays the invoices the City will be authorized to submit the invoices to the County for reimbursement under the grant terms. Timeline Staff will return to Council in the future with updates or as directed by Council. In the meantime, the Palo Alto History Museum plans to continue its effort for fund raising until it is ready to exercise its option to enter into a lease with City for Roth Building and to begin the rehabilitation of the Roth Building. Under the term of the option, staff must verify that all funds are available to start and complete the rehabilitation of the Roth Building. In 2019 the County is anticipated to make additional grant funding opportunities available that could benefit the Roth Building project. A letter from Supervisor Simitian describes these and is City of Palo Alto Page 7 included as Attachment C. Resource Impact Total Project Phase 1 Financial Needs As of July 2016 the phase one of the rehabilitation of the Roth Building was contracted at $9.2 million with a capital funding gap of $3.5 million identified. This total cost does not include initial capital project investments such as architectural, arborist, City and contractor fees which PAHM has funded. PAHM has raised $7.6 million toward the construction goal including funds from the City. City Financial Contributions As discussed earlier, the City Council previously took actions to set aside $3.88 million in resources for the Roth Building rehabilitation. Funding primarily resulted from the sale of TDRs ($2.88 million), plus an additional contribution from the Budget Stabilization Reserve ($1.0 million). These funds plus interest earned remain accounted for in the General Capital Improvement Fund (471) in a reserve; as of June 30, 2018, this reserve stands at $4.02 million. In addition, the Sea Scout Building Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) proceeds ($665,000) for historical restoration only also remain in a reserve in the General Capital Improvement Fund; as of June 30, 2018, this reserve stands at $667,000. These funds have not been counted towards any of the project funding figures and therefore if directed, would provide additional funding to reach the $9.2 million goal. Environmental Review The Roth Building rehabilitation project, of which the option to lease and County grant application are a part, is Categorically Exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15331, Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation, as a project limited to maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation in accordance with the secretary of interior standards for historic preservation. Attachments: • Attachment A: Grant Resolution • Attachment B: PAHM Letter requesting extension and council report Dec 2018 • Attachment C: Letter from Supervisor Simitian City of Palo Alto Page 8 Not Yet Adopted Resolution No. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING CITY OF PALO ALTO'S APPLICATION FOR A COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA HISTORICAL HERITAGE GRANT FOR THE ROTH BUILDING ROOF REHABILITATION PROJECT IN HERITAGE PARK WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara ("County") has established the Historical Heritage Grant program to promote historic preservation and the awareness of significant cultural, historical, and archaeological resources within Santa Clara County ("Grant Program"); and WHEREAS, the County funds the Grant Program with County Park Charter Development Funds, which must be used for the development of real property for county park purposes; and WHEREAS, the County requires that the property on which the grant -funded project is located be continually used for park purposes for a minimum of 20 years and be open to all Santa Clara County residents on a non-discriminatory basis; and WHEREAS, the applicant City of Palo Alto proposes that the County award Grant Program funds for the Roth Building Roof Rehabilitation project ("Project") in Heritage Park ("Park"); and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto ("Owner") has reviewed the proposed Project and has provided all required planning approvals for the Project in the Park, including but not limited to, any licenses, permits, or environmental review or operational agreements required prior to authorizing construction; and WHEREAS, to provide additional assurance as to compliance with the Grant Program requirements, the County requires that the Owner execute the grant agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby makes the following determinations: 1. The Project is located on land that will be continually used for park purposes for a minimum of 20 years and, subject to Constitutional or Charter limits on appropriations for future years, will be open to all Santa Clara County residents on a non-discriminatory basis; and 3. The City of Palo Alto has reviewed the proposed Project and has provided all required approvals for planning entitlement of the Project in the Park, including but not limited to, any licenses, permits, or environmental review or operational agreements required prior to authorizing construction; and 1 2018121201 4. The City Manager or designee is hereby delegated authority to execute the grant agreement on the Owner's behalf. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby approves of the City of Palo Alto's application for County's Grant Program funds for the Roth Building Roof Rehabilitation Project in Heritage Park. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto on by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney City Manager Director of Administrative Services Director of Community Services 2 2018121201 ATTACHMENT B PALO ALTO MUSEUM HONORARY CHAIR Dean Clark BOARD OF DIRECTORS Rich Green, President Patricia Sanders, Vice President Barbara Wallace, Secretary - Treasurer Susan Beall Beth Bunnenberg Kevin Curry John King Doug Kreitz Hal Mickelson John Northway Amado Padilla Steve Staiger Lanie Wheeler STAFF Laura Bajuk, Director Lindsey Ragatz, Asst. to the Director Janet Tang, Bookkeeper Kitzi Tanner, Construction Project Manager A community -driven effort supported by numerous individuals, corporations, foundations, and the City of Palo Alto. Founding Supporters: Palo Alto Historical Association University South Neighborhood Assn. Palo Alto -Stanford Heritage Museum of American Heritage Endorsed by: Palo Alto Woman's Club Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Stanford Historical Society Stanford Special Collections and University Archives Palo Alto Housing Corporation Canopy November 15, 2018 - updated December 4, 2018 James Keene City Manager, City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Jim: We look forward to the December 17, 2018 Council meeting. With David Ramberg's counsel, we are preparing accordingly and request that two actions be considered: 1) Renewal of the Museum's lease option to develop the Roth Building as a history museum, and 2) Changing the land designation of the building to make it eligible for County funding. It will be almost exactly a year since the December 11, 2017 resolution was passed challenging the Museum to raise $1.75 million. We took that challenge very seriously and believe we're on course to meet that goal. Since the day after the resolution was unanimously passed by Council, we have realized over $1.4 million in donations and pledges - including a new $350,000 challenge pledge. When that new pledge is matched - we will meet or exceed the City goal. New thinking and fresh perspectives have been welcomed, encouraged and put into play. As a result, giving has increased exponentially: • We've added nearly 200 new donors to our rolls. $500k in recent foundation grants were given to inspire individual donations - and it's working. • Our donors are more loyal, and giving larger gifts than before. People give to people they know, so we changed our focus to those with capacity who have already engaged with the project. It's working. • Our advocates are engaging their networks. House parties have built new support and turned prospects into donors. A special standout is our recent success in the Chinese community in Palo Alto: over $150,000 has been raised so far, with more expected. Other friends of the Museum have stepped forward to offer similar access to segments of our community, and we will tap them. In addition, we have the potential to add over $2.3M from major partners and County funds. As soon as the criteria are released in December, we're poised to jump on new one-time County funds for historic preservation established by Supervisor Joe Simitian, a champion of this project. An additional fund to encourage women's history is also on our radar. Council's support of the land use designation is key to being eligible for these funds. And, if we meet with Council support on December 17 for meeting the goal, adding the $665,000+ in Sea Scouts TDRs from the City will take us that much closer to construction. We have a plan for the final million needed to begin construction. PALO ALTO HISTORY MUSEUM j ID 77-0634933 PO Box 676, Palo Alto, CA 94302 650.322.3089 PaloAltoMuseum.org As you know, the Roth Building is unusable without expensive rehabilitation. We've done the math, and feel that the Museum project makes the best sense for the City of Palo Alto: 1) The Museum offers the most cost-effective option to rehabilitate the Roth Building. We've raised over $12M in 12 years, from over 650 households, foundations and businesses. Our financial history is strong and stable. We've never overspent our resources; we operate in the black. Our donor base is growing. 3) There are many competing priorities for City funding, and none include the Roth rehab. Through the Museum, community members are supporting over 90% of the construction for a City -owned building. We've paid over $1.2M in prep costs (including $25k for the RFP response) and have now raised $7.2 of the $9.2M construction budget. (The potential funds referenced above would close that gap, if not by November 30.) 5) The Museum will have virtually NO annual budget impact on the City. PAHM will be self-supporting and be responsible for almost all building maintenance. Contrast that to the capital and annual budget support given to other cultural organizations in the City, and the PAHM deal is a better financial arrangement. 7) No other tenant can do the rehab for less. Rising construction costs could make the final tab for a new group 11/ or twice as high. We have the best, vetted, not to exceed contract from an experienced company with deep local roots, Vance Brown. 9) We can rehabilitate the Roth faster than any other tenant. Starting over with a new tenant could take 5-10 years (assuming great acceleration over our 14 -year trajectory) and hundreds of hours of commission, staff and Council time distracted from higher priorities. Our planning is complete, meets state standards and we've applied for our final permit. 11) A Museum fits the limited uses allowed under PF/SOFA I and is neighbor -approved. This reuse complements the Roth's national and local historic landmark status, allows the use of TDR funding —and it avoids the community meetings and time needed to consider new users, or a zoning change. Moving beyond the practical to the philosophical, I think we all agree that a Museum is good for Palo Alto. A true community treasure, it will build empathy within our diverse community, nourish pride and civic engagement, professionally preserve and interpret historical treasures like the City archives and tell Palo Alto's incredible stories in a modern Museum that will inspire this —and future —generations. All for little public money. We ask for City support, by: • Renewing the lease option. Give us time to finish the construction campaign without issuing a new RFP. • Supporting the resolution designating the land under the Roth to make it eligible for county funding - opening up as much as $1.3M for the project. • Showing public support for the Museum rehabbing the Roth Building. One statement, positive or negative, is all it takes to make, or break, community support. Jim, we thank you for the changes you and your team have made in our community under your tenure. We very much appreciate your leadership and vision - and the strong continuity you have provided with Ed Shikada, Kiely Nose and David Ramberg. You've built a great team. It has been an honor and a pleasure working with you, and we wish you all the best. Sincere Laura Bajuk, Exec e Director CC: Rich Green, David Ramberg PALO ALTO HISTORY MUSEUM ID 77-0634933 PO Box 676, Palo Alto, CA 94302 650.322.3089 PaloAltoMuseum.org ATTACHMENT C S. JOSEPH SIMITIAN PRESIDENT, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SUPERVISOR, FIFTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, EAST WING 70 WEST HEDDING STREET, 10TH FLOOR SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110' TEL: (408) 299-5050 or (650) 965-8737 FAX: (408) 280-0418 supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org • www.supervisorsimitian.com December 4, 2018 The Honorable Liz Kniss, Mayor City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mayor Kniss: I'm delighted to see the progress being made towards standing up a Palo Alto History Museum. I know it's a substantial project and the City and its non-profit partners are to be commended for their work to date. My office and I have been working closely with your staff to ensure the City's eligibility for funding consideration under the County's Historical Heritage Grant program. As you may have heard from your staff, due to the funding source being the County's Park Charter Fund, the eligibility criteria are quite rigorous. Despite that, I'm hopeful that once the City files its CEQA paperwork with the County and moves to adopt the Resolution that will be before you on December 171h, we'll have addressed the two remaining hurdles with respect to eligibility. In addition to the Historical Heritage Grant program, there is a one-time historical grant program that is funded from the County general fund which will be open to applicants in 2019. I anticipate the guidelines for that program to come before the Board of Supervisors for approval on December 18th. This program is funded at one million dollars per Supervisorial District ($5 million total) and as I mentioned should be open to applicants shortly thereafter. The third and final funding opportunity that may be of interest to the City is one that relates to historical recognition for women in Santa Clara County. This project is funded countywide at a level of $5 million. While it's unclear exactly The Honorable Liz Kniss December 4, 2018 Page 2 when the funding guidelines will be available to the public, I expect it to be in 2019 and the record is clear that the intent is not to restrict the type of projects funded to "granite monuments". My expectation is there may be aspects of the larger History Museum project that lend themselves to funding through this program, as well. I know the Council has challenging decisions to make about funding priorities and I wanted to be sure those discussions were fully informed as to the multiple opportunities to partner with the County to provide complementary financial support for the creation of a Palo Alto History Museum. Please feel free to contact me or Kristina Loquist of my staff if we can be of further assistance. I look forward to working with you and your colleagues to ensure this important project moves forward. Sincerely, Joseph Simitian County Supervisor, Fifth District cc: Jim Keene CITY OF PALO ALTO City of Palo Alto (ID # 9891) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/17/2018 Summary Title: Project Update and Possible Action on Rail Grade Separation Alternatives Title: Project Update on Connecting Palo Alto and Consider the Following Actions: a) Separate From Study all Alternatives for the Palo Alto Avenue Crossing (Closure and Hybrid) and Include Palo Alto Avenue in a Separate Comprehensive Planning Effort; b) Separate From Study the Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing of the Caltrain Corridor in the Vicinity of Loma Verde Avenue and Assess Feasibility in a Future Study; c) Address the Rail Committee's Recommendation Regarding a Deep Bore Tunnel by Modifying the Alternative to be South of California Avenue Only and Further Explore the Scope and Budget for an Alternative With Freight Trains on the Surface and Passenger Trains Underground for the Meadow and Charleston Crossings; and d) Adopt a Modified List of Grade Separation Alternatives. From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that Council receive a project update on Connecting Palo Alto and consider the following actions: a) Separate from study all alternatives for the Palo Alto Avenue crossing (closure and hybrid) and include Palo Alto Avenue in a separate comprehensive planning effort; b) Separate from study the bicycle and pedestrian crossing of the Caltrain corridor in the vicinity of Loma Verde Avenue and assess feasibility in a future study; c) Address the Rail Committee's recommendation regarding a deep bore tunnel by modifying the alternative to be South of California Avenue only and further explore [the Scope and Budget] for an alternative with freight trains on the surface and passenger trains underground [for the Meadow and Charleston crossings]. d) Adopt a Modified List of Grade Separation Alternatives: City of Palo Alto Page 1 SOUTH PALO ALTO 1 Deep -Bore Rail Tunnel CHURCHILL AVE. 1 Full or Partial Closure & Add Improvements (CAX) MEADOW DR. & CHARLESTON RD. 1 Hybrid (MCL) MEADOW DR. & CHARLESTON RD. 1 Rail Trench or Tunnel (MCT) MEADOW DR. & CHARLESTON RD. 1 Viaduct (MCV) Executive Summary Connecting Palo Alto, the City's rail corridor grade separation planning effort, is approaching the goal of selecting a preferred solution by February 2019. The current stage of the process focuses on narrowing the remaining grade separation alternatives based on Rail Committee recommendations, Community Advisory Panel (CAP) suggestions, public feedback, technical design development, and ultimately City Council direction. For the City's four at -grade crossings, the City Council voted and gave staff direction at the May 29, 2018 City Council meeting to narrow the alternatives down to ten grade separation alternatives. The ten alternatives were further narrowed to eight at the June 19, 2018 City Council meeting, due to the elimination and modification of alternatives at Churchill Avenue. At the December 17, 2018 meeting, the City Council has an opportunity to further narrow the list of remaining alternatives before the February City Council meeting which, based on the current schedule, is the target meeting for selecting a preferred solution. The current alternatives still in consideration based on the City Council direction in June 2018 are listed here. In addition to these alternatives, at the November 27th Rail Committee meeting, the Committee recommended that staff and the consultant further explore [the scope and budget for] an alternative with freight trains on the surface and passenger trains underground. Members of the public advocated for this additional alternative with the intention for it to be specific to the Meadow and Charleston crossings as opposed to citywide though that specificity was not provided in the Rail Committee's recommended motion. Rail Alternatives Still in Consideration as of June 19, 2019 Council Action: a. WBP CITYWIDE 1 Deep -Bore Rail Tunnel City-wide deep -bore railroad under roadway tunnel within Palo Alto city limits with two new underground rail stations; b. PAH PALO ALTO AVE. 1 Hybrid Continue proposed Menlo Park railroad over roadway hybrid and/or viaduct across San Francisquito Creek and Palo Alto Avenue; c. PCX PALO ALTO AVE. 1 Full Closure Palo Alto Avenue Crossing Closed; improvement options include: build an Everett Avenue bike/pedestrian undercrossing and widen University Avenue; d. CAX CHURCHILL AVE. 1 Full or Partial Closure & Add Improvements City of Palo Alto Page 2 Study additional options for addressing traffic in the Embarcadero Road underpass area including actions to minimize redirected traffic onto residential streets in adjacent neighborhoods and commit to adopting appropriate mitigations to address the impacts; c. MCL MEADOW DR. & CHARLESTON RD. 1 Hybrid Meadow Drive and Charleston Road railroad over roadway hybrid and build Loma Verde Avenue bike/pedestrian crossing to connect to Margarita Avenue bicycle boulevard; d. MCT MEADOW DR. & CHARLESTON RD. 1 Rail Trench or Tunnel Meadow Drive and Charleston Road roadway over railroad trench or tunnel Alma street would not be within trench or tunnel (maintains Alma Street connections to Meadow Drive and Charleston Road) with Alma Street in its existing alignment or a new alignment; e. MCV MEADOW DR. 8t CHARLESTON RD. 1 Viaduct Meadow Drive and Charleston Road railroad over roadway viaduct. f. MCR MEADOW DR. & CHARLESTON RD. 1 Reverse Hybrid Meadow Drive & Charleston Road roadway over railroad reverse hybrid and build Loma Verde Avenue bike/pedestrian crossing to connect to Margarita Avenue bicycle boulevard. On August 15, 2018 Rail Committee recommended merging this alternative with MCT. Since the June 19, 2018 City Council meeting, the Rail Committee and CAP discussed potential policy considerations for the Palo Alto Avenue crossing given its unique context near Downtown and the Transit Center, and potential land use coordination opportunities. Staff recommends that the City Council at the December 17, 2018 meeting consider putting the Palo Alto Ave grade crossing alternatives analysis on a separate but parallel planning track as part of a Downtown Coordinated Area Planning effort. If Council agrees, this would remove the PAH and PCX alternatives above from study. In addition to the action related to the Palo Alto Avenue crossing, staff is also recommending that the City Council at the December 17, 2018 meeting consider removing from study the bicycle and pedestrian crossing of the Caltrain corridor in the vicinity of Loma Verde Avenue and assess feasibility in a future study. This study was included in the June 19, 2018 City Council motion for the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road hybrid alternative (MCL). Due to the need to coordinate bicycle access with crosstown circulation, staff recommends that this be removed from study with the grade separation alternatives. Further technical analysis, conceptual engineering, and interagency communication related to the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road alternatives illuminated key differences between the three options for these two crossings. In addition to the greatest construction cost and disruption, the trench option (MCT) has substantial engineering and regulatory challenges related to drainage, groundwater, and creek diversion. The viaduct (MCV) and hybrid (MCL) are expected to have relatively lower capital construction cost but would introduce visual changes along the affected areas of the corridor and potentially new noise impacts. A detailed comparison of the alternatives is presented in the Discussion section of this report. Background and Project Update City of Palo Alto Page 3 The following is a summary of the eight grade separation design alternatives presently under consideration as part of Connecting Palo Alto, and direction received at two City Council meetings which informed the scope and extent of these alternatives. While Council has discussed grade separation at many past City Council meetings, this report highlights Council decisions which concern selection of the narrowed ten design alternatives and subsequent action to narrow the range of alternatives in pursuit of a preferred solution by February 2019. This section of the report will primarily summarize City Council action, key Rail Committee recommendations, CAP suggestions, and interagency feedback as it relates to the remaining alternatives. Full summaries and minutes of CAP and Rail Committee meetings are available via the project website: connectingpaloalto.org. Attachment A also contains a list of meetings held related to this project. City Council Action on Grade Separation Alternatives Initially narrowed by City Council: Revised by City Council: May 29, 2018 June 19, 2018 MAY 29, 2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING —TEN ALTERNATIVES City Council selected ten discrete grade separation alternatives for further study at the May 29, 2018 Council meeting, representing a significant milestone in the Connecting Palo Alto planning process. In project nomenclature, this decision constituted a transition from a vast constellation of design "ideas," to ten design "alternatives." Design "ideas" are general in nature and "alternatives" are more distinctly defined to allow for more detailed study and community discussion. This action initiated the current stage of the Connecting Palo Alto planning process, which involves continual refinement and narrowing of alternatives until a preferred solution is reached. JUNE 19, 2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING —CHURCHILL AVENUE To date since the May 29, 2018 Council meeting, City Council met once to discuss and act upon rail design alternatives (on June 19, 2018). As a result of City Council direction received at this meeting, the Churchill Avenue Hybrid and Reverse Hybrid were removed from further consideration and the Churchill Avenue closure alternative was modified to remove the widening of the Embarcadero Road underpass from the description of the closure option. Instead, traffic impacts of the closure would be evaluated through a comprehensive traffic study. Finally, a "partial closure" alternative at Churchill Avenue was added as part of the closure option. Following City Council's direction at this meeting, the number of alternatives under study reduced from ten to eight and one alternative was modified. The outcome of this decision is reflected in the list of alternatives shown in the Executive Summary.. Summer & Fall Developments In the months following the June 19, 2018 Council meeting, several Rail Committee and CAP meetings centered on technical issues related to the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings. Also discussed were the policy, planning, and coordination opportunities around the Palo Alto Avenue crossing and its relationship to Downtown and the Transit Center and land use issues. City staff and the consultant team conducted interagency meetings with Caltrain and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) to augment project design criteria and identify areas of risk or where deviation from standard practices would be necessary. AUGUST 15, 2018 RAIL COMMITTEE — MEADOW DR & CHARLESTON RD. REVERSE HYBRID MERGER City of Palo Alto Page 4 As a result of the property impacts projected as part of the Churchill Avenue hybrid alternative, staff and the consultant team accelerated design development of the four alternatives at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road to ascertain the degree of potential property impacts. The design progression revealed two key findings for Meadow Drive and Charleston Road: no full property acquisition was required and few geometric differences existed between the reverse hybrid and full trench alternatives to warrant further study as separate alternatives. Based on conceptual designs, permanent property impacts for the Meadow and Charleston hybrid consisted of modifications to existing driveways. The trench alternative was found to require minimal property acquisition above ground (Note: analysis conducted later in the fall revealed a need for underground easements for a structural anchor system to support the trench). The viaduct requires no property acquisition. The second outcome of this process revealed the design of the reverse hybrid (Alternative MCR) had few benefits as a discrete alternative relative to the full trench alternative (Alternative MCT). Accordingly, the Rail Committee recommended that variations in the vertical alignment of the rail trench be considered as part of Alternative MCT, the full trench alternative. Due to this recommendation, staff focused analysis effort on Alternative MCT and presented results to the CAP, Rail Committee, and at the November 28 Community Meeting. OCTOBER 2018 — CALTRAIN 8< SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT INTERAGENCY MEETINGS During October, City staff and the AECOM consultant team met with counterparts at Caltrain and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) to discuss technical engineering issues related to the grade separation design alternatives. Discussion topics included approval processes and criteria for designs with railroad grades steeper than one percent; maintenance responsibilities for grade separation structures during their lifespan; and drainage design criteria related to below -grade alternatives. Caltrain engineering indicated that grades steeper than one percent were permitted at the recently -completed San Bruno grade separation project, but that such exceptions are granted on a case -by -case basis. The City sent a letter to Caltrain seeking additional clarity on these matters and are awaiting a response. A copy of the letter is attached to this report as Attachment B. One meeting and subsequent correspondence with SCVWD concentrated on issues related to the four locations where creeks cross the rail corridor within the city. Of concern were scenarios where below - grade alternatives obstruct existing creek beds, necessitating an engineering method to divert creek outflow around the below -ground rail structures. Comments from SCVWD staff (Attachment C) regarding the design alternatives and their relationship to waterways are discussed in greater detail in following sections. NOVEMBER 27, 2018 RAIL COMMITTEE — MODIFIED TUNNEL WITH FREIGHT ON SURFACE At the November 27, 2018 Rail Committee meeting they recommended the City Council direct staff and the consultant team to further explore [the scope and budget for] an alternative with freight trains on the surface and passenger trains underground. Members of the public advocated for this additional alternative with the intention for it to be specific to the Meadow and Charleston crossings as opposed to citywide though that specificity was not provided in the Rail Committee's recommended motion. Based on very preliminary estimates, the technical analysis, 3-D rendering, conceptual schematics and costing for the tunnel alternative currently assumes that both the passenger and freight trains are in the deep bore tunnel for the citywide tunnel. To conduct the same level of study for a passenger train only City of Palo Alto Page 5 in the tunnel and freight train on the surface for the Meadow and Charleston crossings, additional budget and time will be needed. Depending on the analysis scope, the increased costs to conduct the analysis is expected to be at least $100,000. Beyond the cost and schedule needed, the AECOM consultants have indicated that the construction cost savings for a passenger only tunnel are unlikely to yield significant savings compared to a tunnel that includes freight. In addition, the land value capture of a tunnel is lost if freight remains on the surface, which is also something to consider. However, the issues raised could be evaluated by refocusing the current citywide tunnel to South Palo Alto only. If the City Council directs staff to proceed with the additional study, staff will return to the City Council with a budget change order request. NOVEMBER 28, 2018 COMMUNITY MEETING — MEADOW DR. & CHARLESTON RD. FOCUS A summary of the main feedback received at the community meeting will be provided at the City Council meeting. A meeting summary will also be available online on the connectingpaloalto project website. Discussion and Key Findings As noted above, the focus of staff and the consultant team centered on the three active grade separation alternatives at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. The Citywide Rail Tunnel and Churchill Avenue alternatives are under development with results scheduled for distribution and feedback at the CAP, City Council, and public in early 2019. The following section highlights key aspects of the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road alternatives based on the City Council adopted screening criteria; recommendations regarding Palo Alto Avenue alternatives; and developing information around creeks, groundwater, and drainage. Drainage, Creek Crossings, & Groundwater Presently, conceptual designs for the two below -ground alternatives, the Citywide Deep -Bore Rail Tunnel (WBP) and the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road trench (MCT), obstruct existing creek corridors, are within areas of shallow groundwater, and would require extensive stormwater drainage systems. Groundwater and stormwater can be managed with pump systems, but the creek crossings are of greatest concern from an engineering feasibility, regulatory, and maintenance cost standpoint. Presently, staff is not recommending the below -grade options be removed from consideration as further engineering analysis is required and underway. However, staff wanted to share the following preliminary findings as they will figure prominently in forthcoming feasibility evaluations. Alternative WBP would obstruct Adobe Creek and Alternative MCT would obstruct Adobe and Barron Creeks. This occurs due to the physical geometry requirements and project limits defined in the alternative descriptions. Based on preliminary analysis, a pump system, known as a lift station, appears to be the only solution potentially capable of managing the water flow rates within the affected creeks, but further engineering feasibility of this pump system is necessary and is underway. Should an engineering solution be technically possible, the City would need to obtain approval from various state, regional, and federal agencies with regulatory authority and meet strict environmental regulations. The following are a summary of preliminary standards and criteria from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) for engineering solutions to the creek obstructions introduced by the below -ground alternatives: • Provide the same conveyance capacity as existing conditions; • Provide equivalent SCVWD maintenance requirements as the existing condition and not City of Palo Alto Page 6 increase District maintenance costs; • Be functional during all flow events with sediment and debris loading; • Allow fish passage; • Be designed to not increase the potential for flooding or adversely impact existing flooding conditions; • Be permitted by various regulatory agencies, potentially including but not limited to: California State Department of Fish and Wildlife, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and • Waterways within or related to a FEMA floodplain must also be examined by the City's Floodplain administrator to demonstrate the project will not adversely affect the risk of flooding or follow the process to modify floodplain boundaries. If all engineering and environmental criteria are satisfied, the pump and lift stations will require ongoing maintenance to ensure reliable operation during storms. Meadow Drive & Charleston Road Exclusive of the citywide tunnel, three grade separation options for the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings have been analyzed and developed to a greater degree: MCT, MCL, and MCV. This approach was based on a CAP suggestion that it would be beneficial to center on Meadow Drive and Charleston Road at the November 28 Community Meeting, culminating with the citywide tunnel, Churchill Avenue, and Palo Alto Avenue at the January 23 Community Meeting. Development of the reverse hybrid alternative (MCR), and an ancillary feature of the hybrid alternative, the Loma Verde bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing, was not advanced. The former was not advanced based on Rail Committee recommendations and staff finding there were few practical differences between the reverse hybrid (MCR) and trench (MCT) as discrete alternatives. Staff is recommending City Council merge MCR with MCT due to the previous findings and Rail Committee recommendation. The general location of the Loma Verde bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing, which is presently included as part of the hybrid (Alternative MCL), was ultimately found to be outside the construction limits for Alternative MCL and introduces design challenges which would benefit from analysis in a future study. This finding was based on a preliminary feasibility analysis of the crossing, conducted as part of the City's 2016 Midtown Connector Feasibility Study. Challenges noted in the study include obtaining right-of-way to complete the connection on the west side of the rail corridor to Park Boulevard. On the east side of Alma, utility relocation would be necessary to construct the undercrossing tunnel portal. Accordingly, staff is recommending City Council remove the Loma Verde bicycle and pedestrian crossing from further study within Connecting Palo Alto and resume detailed analysis in a future effort. For the remaining three alternatives, as described in the Attachment D engineering memos, the Council - adopted screening criteria are a critical tool for evaluating the differences between the three alternatives at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. The consultant team, in collaboration with staff and the CAP worked to assign values on an "impact -improvement" scale for each criterion. Of the ten screening criteria, the discussion will focus on the six where key differences exist between the design options. Criteria A, B, C, and H will not be further discussed at this time since each option offers a similar City of Palo Alto Page 7 degree of improvement toward meeting that goal. While the Council Criteria were initially broken down into Tier 1 and Tier 2 criteria, staff is working under the assumption that there is less need for the tiers and instead only the need to use one set of criteria to be more consistent with Council direction. The chart below is the matrix which applies the Council Criteria to the Meadow and Charleston alternatives. Council Adopted Evaluation Criteria Applied to the Meadow and Charleston Alternatives: Criteria Trench (MCT) Hybrid (MCL) Viaduct (MCV) A Improve east -west connectivity B Reduce traffic congestion and delays C Provide clear, safe routes for pedestrians and bikes D Support continued rail operations E Finance with feasible funding sources F Minimize right-of-way acquisition G Reduce rail noise and vibration H Maintain or improve local access I Minimize visual changes along the corridor J Minimize disruption and duration of construction 5 years 4 years 2 years K Order of magnitude cost $600M- $200M- $400M - $800M* $250M* $450M* Impact -Improvement Scale Improvement Impact *Total preliminary construction costs in 2018 dollars (subject to change) CRITERIA D 1 SUPPORT CONTINUED RAIL OPERATIONS The viaduct was ranked with the highest color tile since it has the least impact to rail operations both during and after construction. During construction, both the hybrid and trench alternatives require temporary railroad detour tracks, known as a "shoofly," whereas the viaduct can be constructed without the shoofly track. Following completion, the trench option will have greater maintenance costs due to the required pump systems for groundwater storm water, and at the Barron and Adobe Creek crossings. CRITERIA E 1 FINANCE WITH FEASIBLE FUNDING SOURCES Further financial analysis is underway. More detailed analysis will be presented in February. The current information is available on the connectingpaloalto website in the Community Meeting Presentation materials. CRITERIA F 1 MINIMIZE RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITON Based on results from this stage of the design process, full property acquisition is not necessary for any City of Palo Alto Page 8 of the three alternatives. The trench alternative requires the most property acquisition, but primarily in the form of underground easements to permit construction and protection of a permanent structural anchor system. These anchors would radiate horizontally away from the trench walls and function as structural support to the wall system. Building and landscaping would be restricted within the easements to protect the integrity of the anchor system. The extent of the easement is contingent on the number of anchors required based on soil conditions and the project team are presently conducting further analysis on this factor. A secondary potential property need for the trench is for the pump stations which are necessary at the creek crossings and at one or more locations along the trench to remove stormwater and groundwater. The hybrid will require some modifications to existing driveways where the roadways approaching the undercrossing are lowered from their existing height to go beneath the railroad. The viaduct is currently shown to require no property acquisition. CRITERIA G 1 REDUCE RAIL NOISE AND VIBRATION All alternatives eliminate train horn noise and warning bells and have some degree of noise impact or improvement. In a trench, noise could reflect off walls and impact properties farther away, but noise levels adjacent to the rail corridor could be reduced. The viaduct and hybrid alternatives could elevate wheel noise levels. In all cases, mitigation is possible, but would require further analysis. CRITERIA I 1 MINIMIZE VISUAL CHANGES ALONG THE CORRIDOR The trench has train below grade with landscaping option limited to bushes or plants with shallow root systems; the hybrid has train approximately 15 feet above grade with feasible landscaping with trees for screening. Attachment E identifies how to access the visuals for each of these alternatives. CRITERIA J 1 MINIMIZE DISRUPTION AND DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION The trench has extended road closures at Meadow and Charleston during construction; hybrid has extended road reductions at Alma, Meadow, and Charleston during construction; viaduct has minimal road closures (weekend/ nights only). Among the MCT, MCL, and MCV options each one has benefits and tradeoffs based on the screening criteria, but the trench appears to have the greatest degree of impact with the exception of noise and potential visual changes. Furthermore, substantial engineering challenges around drainage, groundwater, and creek diversion. Palo Alto Avenue The Palo Alto Avenue crossing is characterized by its unique setting. Situated in the shadow of the El Palo Alto tree, adjacent to the historic rail bridge spanning San Francisquito Creek, and at the edge of Downtown and Downtown North, and the transit center, the crossing is worthy of its "Primary Gateway" designation in the Comprehensive Plan 2030. These characteristics, among other factors, are the primary reasons for staff recommending separating the Palo Alto Avenue crossing from the current Connecting Palo Alto analysis and completing separate parallel planning effort as part of a Downtown Coordinated Area Plan. See Attachment F for a defined problem statement and recommendation for Council. The two alternatives under consideration for Palo Alto Avenue, the closure (PCX) and hybrid (PAH) would benefit from the holistic analysis of the coordinated area plan process, as recommended in the City of Palo Alto Page 9 Comprehensive Plan 2030. Impacts of the closure option would benefit from a circulation analysis that accounts for potential land use changes and projects such as the pedestrianization of University Avenue, which is identified in the comprehensive plan as a vision to consider. Modified Deep Bore Tunnel The AECOM team had begun initial evaluations of the citywide deep bore tunnel concept before being redirected to prioritize the development of alternatives for Meadow Avenue and Charleston Road crossings. By that time, however, they had identified a number of key constraints, such as the cost and physical limitations of station impacts at the Caltrain Palo Alto (University Avenue) and California Avenue stations, the location and property impacts of bore pits in north and south Palo Alto, and property impacts for shoofly construction -period rail realignments. As noted above, the Rail Committee directed staff to bring back information to further evaluate an alternative involving a south Palo Alto deep bore tunnel for passenger rail only with freight trains at surface level. This variation raises some of the same issues as a deep bore tunnel for both passenger and freight rail, while potentially avoiding station impacts. While recognizing significant issues with either concept, staff notes that City Council direction on December 17, 2018 to modify the deep bore tunnel to South Palo Alto only (south of California Avenue) would facilitate this evaluation. All letters to Council about rail grade separation received between late September and early December 2018 are included with this report in Attachment G. Policy Implications Connecting Palo Alto is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan 2030 goals, policies, and programs: Policy L-1.7: Use coordinated area plans to guide development, such as to create or enhance cohesive neighborhoods 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. Program 14.8.1: Prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for Downtown. Policy L-9.7 Strengthen the identity of important community -wide gateways, including the entrances to the City at Highway 101, El Camino Real and Middlefield Road; the Caltrain stations; entries to commercial districts; Embarcadero Road at El Camino Real and between Palo Alto and Stanford. Program T1.11.1: Collaborate with Stanford University, VTA, Caltrain and other agencies to pursue improvements to the Palo Alto Transit Center area aimed at enhancing the pedestrian experience and improving circulation and access for all modes, including direct access to El Camino Real for transit vehicles. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Policy T-1.25: Pursue transportation funding opportunities for ongoing transportation improvements that will help mitigate the impacts of future development and protect residents' quality of life. When other sources are unavailable, continue to fund improvements, operations and maintenance through the general fund. Policy T-1.26: Collaborate with adjacent communities to ensure that Palo Alto and its immediate neighbors receive their fair share of regional transportation funds, proportional to the need and demand for transportation improvements within these communities to address region -wide transportation issues. Program T1.26.1: In collaboration with regional agencies and neighboring jurisdictions, identify and pursue funding for rail corridor improvements and grade separation. 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. Program T3.15.2: Conduct a study to evaluate the implications of grade separation on bicycle and pedestrian circulation. Policy T-3.18: Improve safety and minimize adverse noise, vibrations and visual impacts of operations in the Caltrain rail corridor on adjoining districts, public facilities, schools and neighborhoods with or without the addition of High -Speed Rail. Resource Impact Funding for grade separation alternatives evaluation is included in the Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted Capital Budget in CIP PL -17001, Railroad Grade Separation. Environmental Review The proposed action is part of a planning study for a possible future action, which has not been approved, adopted, or funded and is therefore exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15262. The future decision to approve construction of any one of the identified potential alternatives would be subject to CEQA and require preparation of an environmental analysis. Attachments: • Attachment A -List of Meetings Held • Attachment B -Palo Alto Letter to Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) • Attachment C -Water District Letter to Palo Alto • Attachment D-AECOM Meadow and Charleston Alternatives Memos • Attachment E -Project Plans • Attachment F -Palo Alto Ave University Problem Statement 121018 • Attachment G- Letters to Council Regarding Rail Grade Separation- Sept -Dec. 2018 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Attachment A: Summary of Key Meetings Held Related to Grade Separation Project List of Engagement Meetings: In addition to all of the meetings mentioned in the staff report, the following meetings have occurred related to Palo Alto's Rail Grade Separation: Community Meetings • August 23, 2018 — focused on getting feedback on progress to date. • November 28, 2018 —focused on the Meadow and Charleston alternatives with 3D visuals of each; early conversation about traffic study and financing options. • Upcoming: January 23, 2019 —will focus on Palo Alto Ave., Churchill Ave., and the citywide Tunnel alternatives with 3D visuals and follow up traffic and financing information. Rail Committee Meetings • April 18, 2018 • June 13, 2018 • August 15, 2018 • September 26, 2018 • October 17, 2018 • November 14, 2018 • November 27, 2018 Community Advisory Panel (CAP) Meetings • August 15, 2018 • September 17, 2018 • October 10, 2018 • November 7, 2018 • December 12, 2018 • Upcoming: January 9, 2019 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meetings • November 5, 2018 • December 10, 2018 Stakeholder Meetings • Santa Clara Valley Water District • Caltrain • Safe Routes to School (community partners and City staff) Upcoming City Council Meetings • December 17, 2018 • February 2019 Screening Criteria & CAP review • CAP input to focus each community meeting by location Attachment B -Letter to Caltrain City of Palo Alto Office of the Mayor and City Council October 25, 2018 Jeannie Bruins, Chair Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 1250 San Carlos Ave San Carlos, California 94070-1306 Dear Ms. Bruins, The City of Palo Alto and members of our community are actively working to identify a preferred solution for our four existing at -grade rail crossings. While we are making progress there are several recurring technical questions that we need answered by Caltrain for the City to be able to evaluate the feasibility of alternatives under consideration. This letter requests your assistance in responding to these time sensitive and highly critical questions. The questions are generally: what are the economic, engineering, and regulatory constraints that impact our grade separation options? Please clarity current constraints, and how and where Caltrain might be flexible with design criteria exceptions? Specifically, the questions City staff, community and consulting team have are as follows: 1. Under what conditions would Caltrain accept a grade variance from 1% to 2%, and what would the approval process be? 2. Under what conditions would Caltrain accept a variance to the existing vertical clearance for poles and wires, and what would the approval process be? 3. How are grade separation design criteria and constraints likely to change in the future? 4. What should the City of Palo Alto assume regarding freight on the Caltrain right of way in the future? 5. What is Caltrain's criteria regarding Shooflies that are likely needed for several grade separation under consideration (e.g. trench for East Meadow Ave and Charleston Road alternative) 6. What level of funding support needed to grade separate because of the PCEP can or could be expected from Caltrain? 7. The cost of maintenance for grade separation alternatives may vary greatly, what should the City of Palo Alto assume regarding who will pay for the cost of maintenance? P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2477 650.328.3631 fax p nted y -based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine The City of Palo Alto appreciates your attention to these questions so that we can effectively and efficiently proceed with our community focused effort to define a preferred solution for our four at grade crossings. Thank you, of Cory Wolbach Chair, Rail Committee On behalf of Mayor Liz Kniss cc: Caltrain Board of Directors Palo Alto City Council Attachment C - Santa Clara Valley Water District Letter to Palo Alto 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, CA 95118-3614 ) (408) 265-2600 1 www.valleywater.org File: 33812 Various November 5, 2018 Mr. Jarrett Mullen, Senior Transportation Planner Office of Transportation City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Santa Clara Valley 6 Water District Subject: Palo Alto Grade Separation Study —Technical and Regulatory Factors for Waterways • Dear Mr. Mullen: Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) has reviewed the four conceptual design alternatives for the subject project, presented at our October 12, 2018 meeting. The alternatives are varying vertical alignment options along the existing Caltrain corridor, within the City of Palo, to replace existing at -grade road crossings with grade separated crossings. The Caltrain corridor crosses San Francisquito Creek, Matadero Creek, Barron Creek and Adobe Creek. The District has easement rights over Matadero, Barron, and Adobe Creek across the Caltrain corridor, and any modification to those creeks will require the District's approval and issuance of a Water Resources Protection Ordinance encroachment permit. Although the District has no right of way over San Francisquito Creek at the Caltrain bridge, the District has an interest in ensuring that flood conveyance and stream stability is maintained. The District has the following comments on the four design options presented: Option 1: Citywide Tunnel 1 a. San Francisquito Creek— This creek is not shown on the plans for this option, and the crossing is assumed to be at -grade, similar to the existing bridge crossing. If the new crossing does not constrict the channel and has a soffit elevation equal or higher to the existing bridge soffit, then the District does not anticipate that significant hydraulic impacts will need to be addressed. 1 b. Matadero Creek and Barron Creek —The top of the tunnel would be at least 15 feet below the invert of either creek; therefore, there should be no impacts to flood capacity. Impacts to the creek during construction and any groundwater impacts should be studied. 1 c. Adobe Creek —The Caltrain crossing is proposed to be in a trench which would intersect Adobe Creek. Any modification to Adobe Creek would need to: • provide the same conveyance capacity as existing conditions; • provide equivalent District maintenance requirements as the existing condition and not increase District maintenance costs; Our mission is to provide Silicon Valley safe, clean water for a healthy life, environment, and economy. Mr. Jarrett Mullen Page 2 November 5, 2018 • be functional during all flow events with sediment and debris loading; • allow fish passage; • be designed to not increase the potential for flooding or adversely impact existing flooding conditions; and • be permitted by various regulatory agencies (depending on the proposed creek modification). Option 2: Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Hybrid 2a. Barron Creek and Adobe Creek —The plan includes at -grade crossings at Barron Creek and Adobe Creek, similar to the existing condition. If the new crossing does not constrict the channel and has a soffit elevation equal or higher to the existing bridge soffit, then the District does not anticipate that significant hydraulic impacts will need to be addressed. 2b. San Francisquito Creek and Matadero Creek —These two creeks are not shown on the plans for this option, and the crossings are assumed to be at -grade, similar to the existing bridge crossings. If the new crossings do not constrict the channel and has a soffit elevation equal or higher to the existing bridge soffit, then the District does not anticipate that significant hydraulic impacts will need to be addressed. Option 3: Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Viaduct and Full Trench The plan shows either a viaduct over or full trench through Barron and Adobe Creeks. 3a. Viaduct over Barron Creek and Adobe Creek —This plan would raise the crossing at Barron Creek and Adobe Creek higher than the existing condition. If the foundations for the viaduct are located outside the District's easement for each creek, then the District anticipates no direct impacts. 3b. Full trench through Barron Creek and Adobe Creek —The Caltrain crossing is proposed to be in a trench that would intersect both Barron Creek and Adobe Creek. See comment 1 c, above, for impacts that would need to be addressed for both the creeks. 3c. San Francisquito Creek and Matadero Creek— These two creeks are not shown on the plans for this option, and the crossings are assumed to be at -grade, similar to the existing bridge crossings. If the new crossings do not constrict the channel and has a soffit elevation equal or higher to the existing bridge soffit, then the District does not anticipate that significant hydraulic impacts will need to be addressed. Option 4: Palo Alto Avenue Hybrid 4a. San Francisquito Creek —The Caltrain crossing is proposed to be at -grade or higher than the existing crossing. If the new crossing does not constrict the channel and has a soffit elevation equal or higher to the existing bridge soffit, then the District does not anticipate that significant hydraulic impacts will need to be addressed. 4b. Matadero Creek, Barron Creek, and Adobe Creek —These three creeks are not shown on the plans for this option, and the crossings are assumed to be at -grade, similar to the existing Mr. Jarrett Mullen Page 3 November 5, 2018 bridge crossings. If the new crossings do not constrict the channel and has a soffit elevation equal or higher to the existing bridge soffit, then the District does not anticipate that significant hydraulic impacts will need to be addressed. In addition to the above comments, the District has provided responses to your questionnaire dated October 29, 2018 (attached). If you have any questions, you may contact me at (408) 630-2319, or by e-mail at yarroyo(a�valleywater.orq. Please reference District File No. 33812 on future correspondence regarding this project. Sincerely, Yvonne Arroyo Associate Engineer Community Projects Review Unit Enclosure: Completed Questionnaire provided in City's October 29, 2018 letter cc: U. Chatwani, S. Tippets, M. Richardson, Y. Arroyo, D. Mody, C. Houston, C. Grande, J. Codianne, File ENCLOSURE Connecting Palo Alto Follow -Up questionnaire to SCVWD & Hyperlinks to Grade Separation Design Options 1. What are the key regulations that apply to lowering or covering an existing creek corridor? There are four creeks that are crossed by the Caltrain corridor (owned in fee title by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board) being analyzed for grade separation. The District has no right of way at the San Francisquito Creek crossing. The District has easement at the Matadero Creek, Barron Creek, and Adobe Creek crossings. Modifications to creeks where the District has easement will require a District Water Resources Protection Ordinance encroachment permit. Prior to issuance of a District encroachment permit to lower or cover an existing creek, the District must make the findings defined in Section 2.3.3A of the Water Resources Protection Ordinance, which may be found here: https://www.valleywater.org/sites/default/files/WRPO.pdf 2. What other regulatory agencies have oversight of creeks, such as the RWQCB and Army Corps of Engineers? Lowering or covering any of the four creeks will require regulatory approval from other agencies, including but not limited to California State Department of Fish and Wildlife, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and the US Army Corps of Engineers. Additionally, in areas within a FEMA floodplain, the City's floodplain administrator must follow National Flood Insurance Program regulations to demonstrate the project will not adversely affect the risk of flooding or follow the process to modify the floodplain limits. 3. Have syphons or other engineering solutions been used to redirect creek corridors for projects of similar magnitude? District staff does not recall an instance where a creek corridor has been placed in siphons to accommodate an infrastructure crossing (i.e. highway, road, utility, rail, etc.) or for any other reason. The infrastructure crossings of creeks in Santa Clara County involve crossings over the top of the creek via a bridge or culvert structure. Any creek modification will need to provide the same conveyance capacity as existing conditions, provide equivalent District maintenance requirements as the existing condition and not increase District maintenance costs, be functional during all flow events with sediment and debris loading, allow fish passage, be designed to not increase the potential for flooding or adversely impact existing flooding conditions, and be permitted by various regulatory agencies (depending on the proposed creek modification). Additionally, a siphon design will need to address flooding impacts which may result from sediment, debris loads, and blockages at or in the siphon during high flow events. 4. Can SCVWD remove sediment in the creek? • Does SCVWD have an existing permit for this type of maintenance? If yes, are there restrictions? Page 1 of 3 The District has several permits to remove sediment from creeks in accordance with our Stream Maintenance Program (SMP). Information on our SMP, including our permits to conduct the program, can be found on our website at: https://www.valleywater.org/flooding-safety/stream-maintenance- program The SMP and our regulatory permits have several limitations, including how much sediment can be removed, where it can be removed, when it can be removed, mitigation requirements, etc. A siphon design will have to consider equipment access and address working in confined spaces in order to remove sediment. 5. What are the historic flows within Matadero, Barron, and Adobe creeks? • Has there been historic flooding in these creeks? If so, when? • What are the ordinary high water elevations at Alma Street? Please see attached exhibit for recorded historic flooding limits (excluding the flooding limits from the Christmas flood of 1955 prior to District flood protection improvements on each channel) on Matadero, Barron, and Adobe creeks. Also, on the exhibit is a table of flows and corresponding water surface elevations on each creek at a point just upstream of the Caltrain crossing for the 100 -year flow and "ordinary flow" or 2.33 -year event. The District has completed improvements on each of the three creeks to provide 100 -year flood protection in areas that include the Caltrain crossing. 6. Who owns the Matadero, Barron, Adobe, and San Francisquito creek right-of-way? • Is flood control also in the SCVWD jurisdiction? See answer to Question 1 on District right of way at the crossings owned in fee title by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. In accordance with the District Act (https://www.valleywater.org/sites/default/files/Santa%20CIara%20Valley%20Water%20District%20- %20District%20Act.pdf ), the District provides flood protection to Santa Clara County, in addition to providing wholesale water supply and advancing stream stewardship. Hyperlinks to Remaining Design Options 1. Citywide Tunnel: https://pagradesep.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Citywide-Tunnel-WBP- Profile.pdf 2. Meadow Drive & Charleston Road Hybrid: https://pagradesep.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/08/Meadow-Dr-Charleston-Rd-Hybrid-MCL.pdf 3. Meadow Drive & Charleston Road Viaduct & Full Trench: https://pagradesep.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/08/Meadow-Dr-Charleston-Rd-Viaduct-Full-Trench-MCV-MCT.pdf 4. Palo Alto Avenue Hybrid: https://pagradesep.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Palo-Alto-Ave- Hybrid-PAH.pdf Page 2 of 3 `fit. Nalco nada 7 y Pak aller bm:nlary r 17x1 #, • Recorded Historical Flooding on Adobe, Matadero, ,& Barron Creeks CI rJ u� :�,g•, Pena nwln �® Education o Center Town eni Country Vdinge \Fie e\ Pub Alb �3. Nqh 9ehnnl say Kle+n flea of ,Armen rNan®nd P krn Hrn4. q. 4�r nade' v ,Lcr Enrndldo EMmrnmry School Ps C'e Lucile h! Nilson Elamenla is rp School 2. ,,?..44,1i,,, y V 4 3 NO - es 474 Carbiin Nqh School 4j. Gry Il �a s Fo [; • tree orhtr!'�' Y Prolessorville a' Old Pa ! Ouyeneck ! St Francis Peers Park e` p'c Q'p ha ,combust Lhu.ernty c„,,nte H.14 „ra al to r `itiro C.t 2,30g s L;� 2,300 tip Gtee Taalr,,+2-`' Neal VA Pab A l b Care Sy slam Are: t r •; lesltrn ra Pinewood tgh School CT dos Altos Hills 600 etEothNt5 e Henry NI Gunn Hyh he ,I Alta Mesa Ala rewla +_I ''t,rrc,s:1 Juana Slbne; EImnntar, Fn.6r%dYf ur Allan Mee elree�r, Ohbnes Elena nl any �r Schwl 7P Midtown South Ventura Charleston Meadow Middle School Midtown North t Palo Verde i Charleston Gardens h9kddit t'al S Iwo! CL: L)rs_A5 Ave Cha,hnon Censer Gnesndst Sc tool San Kohtt San Antonio Anlargo i Rengstortf Gs nler Walmarl aar� fire C" se Y Ave - C ha. skin Pb ae Chariest o at co liel S4}'a,ylo'r.. Si Monts Loma Elementary School Castro City T,ura;k.ni Fork Creek Adobe Barron Matadero 100 -year flow (cfs) 2700 250 2700 100 -year WSE (ft) 39.9 28.1 28.0 Ordinary Flow (cfs) 500 230 480 Ordinary WSE (ft) 30.1 28.0 21.6 1.1 Lieu", r. I '.bell Ln Villncie s Notes: All values are referenced to upstream of Caltrain/UPRR crossings and elevations are in 1988 datum. The Ordinary Flow event is a 2.33 year event. 23-1 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intel -map, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,`NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, Mapf ylndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community V iLu Buena Ae'c North Las, A1», Nqh School I-Gl'ndd- Ave ' qtr ict NI HamalInn Ave Lo'Altos 17-, v, nth Ave L , fP14 'II sya';` N,4; t\ Fop-,rn' Spool Ain na1f R•9 Argela I+, alli 6r u rtrlluk:.s A. A lmorl Avc rn E td,rh A," Llawasune A':e a Camellia Fact G, 44%, ter Legend Creek Route 1982 Flooding 1983 Flooding 1995 Flooding Attachment D - Memos from AECOM Regarding Meadow and Charleston Crossings /� _COM Imagine it. AECOM /�� Delivered. 300 Lakeside Drive Suite 400 Oakland CA 94612 aecom.com Project name: Palo Alto Rail Program Management Services Project ref: To: 60577356 Robert De Geus City of Palo Alto From: City Manager's Office Etty Mercurio 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Date: December 13, 2018 CC: Millette Litzinger, AECOM John Maher, AECOM Memo Subject: Narrative Description for the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Trench (MCT) Alternative The following is based on a conceptual engineering evaluation and is intended for discussion purposes only. Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Trench (MCT) This narrative describes the railroad and roadway geometry required to lower the railroad tracks in a trench under Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. At the end of the narrative is a listing of an initial assessment of potential impacts associated with this alternative. Railroad Description during Construction Phase: Temporary tracks (also referred to as a shoofly) are required to bypass the existing/permanent tracks and structures in order to maintain rail service during construction. The temporary tracks will be constructed on the east side of the existing tracks. Starting at the north end and travelling south, the tracks will swing eastward starting around Loma Verde Avenue, run parallel to the existing tracks and Alma Street and then swing back westward into the existing tracks near Ferne Avenue about 600 feet before the north end of the San Antonio Caltrain Station platform. An existing track crossover located within this 600 feet (before San Antonio Station) would need to be relocated. The shoofly will be constructed to the same elevation (grade) as the existing track for the entire length between Loma Verde Avenue and Ferne Avenue. The temporary tracks will not encroach onto Alma Street between intersections, but they will encroach approximately 20 feet into Alma Street at its intersections with Meadow Drive and Charleston Road with the southbound right turning lanes eliminated during construction; however, the turning movements will still be allowed. The total length of temporary track is approximately 8,400 feet. The temporary track would also have an overhead catenary system for train electrification. The temporary tracks are designed with the required safety and construction clearances and for a maximum speed of 75 mph. Railroad protection devices would be provided at the temporary track grade crossings at Meadow and Charleston and would include standard vehicle and pedestrian/bicycle gates, flashing warning lights, and bells. Railroad Description Post -Construction: The proposed mainline vertical alignments (profiles) are controlled by the required length of vertical curves, length of tangents between curves and the overall length of new track that can be built once the temporary track is offset 25 feet from the new track. The permanent horizontal alignment will match the existing track. At Meadow and Charleston crossings, the trench will be a minimum depth of 29.5 feet from the top -of -rail elevation to the roadway surface. This assumes a 24.5 -foot clearance to the bottom surface of the bridge and an assumed 5 -foot bridge structure depth. A 2% grade will be required to achieve the 29.5 -foot depth (it should be noted that Caltrain design criteria specifies a 1% maximum grade and that grades exceeding 1% would require a design exception approval from Caltrain on a case -by -case basis for new construction). The permanent tracks would begin descending into a trench 900 feet south of Loma Verde Ave and continue at a depth of approximately 30 feet crossing under Meadow and Charleston and then rising at 1 of 3 Memo — Narrative Description for Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Trench (MCT) Alternative 2% to meet the existing Caltrain tracks 1,200 feet north of the San Antonio Station. The total length of mainline construction is 6,300 feet. Roadway Description: The roadways at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road would have the same configuration that exists today once construction is completed with some minor adjustments. However, during construction of the roadway bridges over the proposed trench, Meadow Drive would be closed to all traffic (vehicles, pedestrian and bicycles) while the roadway structure is constructed over the trench at Charleston Road. Once the Meadow structure is completed, Charleston Road would be closed to all traffic and the Charleston structure would be completed. Class II Buffered Bike Lanes will be provided on Charleston Road, which is consistent with the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project. Drainage Description: The preliminary trench alignment and elevations would obstruct the passage of Adobe Creek and Barron Creek. In order to maintain the existing drainage pattern of the creeks a culvert that consists of an inverted siphon and a pump/lift station would be required at both crossings. The inverted siphon would conceptually consist of a drop structure at the upstream end of the creek that would capture the flow from the creek and would drop to an elevation that is under the proposed trench elevation plus the required cover depth. The culvert would then convey the flow to the downstream end of the creek at a minimal slope. Once the trench section has been cleared, an additional drop structure would be constructed at the downstream end of the culvert. The downstream drop structure would discharge into the existing creek. A significant amount of flow could pass through the inverted siphon through the pressure of the hydraulic grade. However, for large storm events and for maintenance purposes, a pump/lift station would be required on the downstream end of the inverted siphon to increase capacity and to remove standing water from the siphon low point. The location of the pump/lift stations has not yet been determined. A pump/lift station that would convey the necessary flow rates to mitigate any increases in water surface elevation upstream during large storm events would be significant and would require continuous maintenance and a reliable energy source. A major risk would be potential upstream flooding if the pump/lift station were to fail during a large storm event. Similar designs have been implemented before, but not on the scale that would be required for this project, which would require a full creek diversion with 100 -year flow rates greater than 2,500 cubic feet per second (cfs). Due to this, the regulatory risks and challenges are difficult to estimate. There are several regulatory authorities that would need to review and approve the proposed design including FEMA, Santa Clara Valley Water District, United States Army Corps of Engineers, and California Fish and Wildlife. In addition, a pump station for groundwater seepage and for stormwater removal within the trench will be required at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. Properties will need to be identified and acquired to accommodate a pumping plant for each location. Initial Assessment of Potential Impacts: • Removal of all existing trees in the buffer between Alma Street and the mainline tracks (east side) to construct the temporary double tracks and maintain the Caltrain revenue service. • To accommodate the temporary tracks, the width of Alma Street will be temporarily reduced approximately 20 feet at the intersections of Meadow Drive and Charleston Road where there are turning lanes — there would be no dedicated right - turning lanes from Alma Street during construction. • Easements will be required for a ground anchor system to support deep trench retaining walls. The ground anchor system will encroach below Alma Street and below backyards west of the Caltrain right-of-way. Buildings and landscaping will be restricted within easements. Plants with large root systems such as trees will not be permitted as they can impact the structural integrity of the ground anchor systems. • Utility relocations are required at the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road roadway crossings. • Construction will close Meadow Drive and Charleston Road when erecting bridge structures over the trench impacting automobile, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. At least one crossing will remain open during construction. • Fire protection measures will be required in the trench that will require standpipes and fire department hose connections. AECOM 2 of 3 Memo — Narrative Description for Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Trench (MCT) Alternative • Emergency egress locations, from inside the trench, will be required that may require additional right-of-way. • High fencing will be required along trench walls for safety to protect high -voltage lines. • The trench will obstruct Adobe Creek and Barron Creek, requiring inverted siphons to pass the stormwater under the trench. There are no inverted syphons within Santa Clara Valley Water District's system. These types of systems have high maintenance issues/costs and can be prone to blockage with sediment with potential to cause upstream flooding. • Modification to Adobe and Barron Creeks will require approval from regulatory agencies including FEMA, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and California Fish and Wildlife. • The trench will require a pump station for groundwater seepage and for stormwater removal. Property will need to be identified and acquired for pumping plant. • Design exception approval required from Caltrain for 2% grade. • Train horn noise and warning bells will be eliminated with the replacement of the at -grade crossings with grade separations. In the trench, noise could reflect off the walls and impact properties further away; however, this can be mitigated. AECOM 3 of 3 A=COMImagine it. AECOM Delivered. 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 aecom.com To: Robert De Geus City of Palo Alto City Manager's Office 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CC: Millette Litzinger, AECOM John Maher, AECOM Memorandum Project name: Palo Alto Rail Program Management Services Project ref: 60577356 From: Etty Mercurio Date: December 13, 2018 Subject: Narrative Description for the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Viaduct (MCV) Alternative The following is based on a conceptual engineering evaluation and is intended for discussion purposes only. Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Viaduct (MCV) This narrative describes the railroad and roadway geometry required to raise the railroad tracks in a viaduct over Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. At the end of the narrative is a listing of an initial assessment of potential impacts associated with this alternative. Railroad Description during Construction Phase: The existing tracks will remain in service during construction. New tracks, the viaduct and an overhead catenary system for train electrification, will be constructed between the existing tracks and Alma Street. An existing track crossover located north of the San Antonio Caltrain Station will be relocated. Upon completion of the new tracks and viaduct, the existing tracks and the railroad crossing gates and warning lights at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road will be removed. Railroad Description Post -Construction: The new tracks and viaduct will be located between the existing tracks and Alma Street. Starting at the north end and travelling south, the tracks would swing eastward beginning at a point 400 feet north of Loma Verde Avenue, run parallel to the existing tracks and Alma Street and then swing back westward into the existing tracks 500 feet south of Ferne Avenue. The tracks will encroach into Alma Street approximately two feet for the portions north of Meadow Drive and south of Charleston Road, resulting in reduced lane widths on Alma Street. There will be no encroachment between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. The total length of the new track is 8,400 feet and is designed for 110 mph. The proposed mainline vertical alignments (profiles) are controlled by the required length of vertical curves, length of tangents between curves and the overall length of new track that can be built once the temporary track is offset 25 feet from the new track. At the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings, the viaduct top -of -rail elevation will be a minimum of 20.5 feet above the existing roadway. This assumes a 15.5 -foot vertical clearance from the roadway surface to the underside of a bridge structure and an assumed 5 -foot bridge structure depth. The new tracks will begin rising 700 feet south of Loma Verde Avenue at a 1.0% grade. They will be on retained fill for approximately 700 feet and then continue on the viaduct structure over Meadow Drive, stay on an elevated viaduct structure over Charleston Road, and then descend at 1.4% (it should be noted that Caltrain design criteria specifies a 1 % maximum grade and that grades exceeding 1 % would require a design exception approval from Caltrain on a case -by -case basis for new construction). The viaduct will end at a point 600 feet south of Charleston where the tracks will again be on retained fill for approximately 500 feet. The total length of retained fill is 1,200 feet. The total length of viaduct is 4,200 feet. 1 of 2 Memo — Narrative Description - Grade Separate Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Viaduct (MCV) Alternative Roadway Description: The roadways at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road will have the same configuration that exists today or match what is proposed/under construction for these roadways currently. During construction, falsework (scaffolding) will be constructed above Meadow Drive and Charleston Road to allow motor vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists to continue to use these roads without disruption during weekdays. Falsework construction will require either weekend or night-time closures to erect (assemble) and to take down (disassemble) the falsework. Class II Buffered Bike Lanes will be provided on Charleston Road, which is consistent with the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project. This will require expanding the width of the road to maintain bike lanes through the underpass of the railroad to accommodate the new column to supporting the railroad structure. There appears to be sufficient space to accommodate this width and, ideally this could be provided as a Class IV separated bikeway given the change in vehicle lanes at the column location. Initial Assessment of Potential Impacts: • Removal of all existing landscaping, including trees, in the buffer area between Alma Street and the existing tracks in order to construct the new tracks. • To accommodate the new tracks, the width of Alma Street will be reduced approximately two feet for the portions north of Meadow Drive and south of Charleston Road, resulting in reduced lane widths on Alma Street. There will be no encroachment between Meadow and Charleston. • The tracks will encroach into Alma Street approximately two feet for the portions north of Meadow Drive and south of Charleston Road, resulting in reduced lanes on Alma Street. There will be no encroachment between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. • No private property impacts. • No impacts to existing creeks. • Minor utility impacts. • Visual impacts with the elevated structure. • Train horn noise and warning bells will be eliminated with the replacement of the at -grade crossings with grade separations. With the elevated track, train wheel noise could radiate out, however, this can be mitigated. • Construction will require falsework over roadways at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road, but access for all modes will be maintained at most times. • Design exception approval required from Caltrain for 1.4% grade. • Opportunity for landscaping upon construction completion between new tracks and properties to the west. AECOM 2 of 2 A=COMImagine it. AECOM Delivered. 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 aecom.com To: Robert De Geus City of Palo Alto City Manager's Office 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CC: Millette Litzinger, AECOM John Maher, AECOM Memorandum Project name: Palo Alto Rail Program Management Services Project ref: 60577356 From: Etty Mercurio Date: December 13, 2018 Subject: Narrative Description for the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Hybrid (MCL) Alternative The following is based on a conceptual engineering evaluation and is intended for discussion purposes only. Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Hybrid (MCL) This narrative describes the railroad and roadway geometry required to raise the railroad tracks and lower the roadways at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. At the end of the narrative is a listing of an initial assessment of potential impacts associated with this alternative. Railroad Description during Construction Phase: Temporary railroad tracks (also referred to as a shoofly) are required to bypass the existing/permanent tracks and structures in order to maintain rail service during construction. The temporary tracks will be constructed on the east side of the existing tracks. Starting at the north end and traveling south, the tracks will swing eastward starting 350 feet south of Loma Verde Avenue, run parallel to the existing tracks and Alma Street and then swing back westward into the existing tracks 250 feet north of Ferne Avenue. The shoofly will be constructed to the same elevation (grade) as the existing track for the entire length between Loma Verde and Ferne Avenue. The temporary tracks will not encroach onto Alma Street between intersections, but they will encroach approximately 20 feet onto Alma Street at its intersections with Meadow Drive and Charleston Road with southbound right turning lanes eliminated during construction; however, the turning movements will still be allowed. Vertical clearance under Meadow Drive and Charleston Road would be temporarily limited to 12 feet during construction, which will require a design exception from Caltrain. The total length of temporary track is approximately 6,400 feet. The temporary track would also have an overhead catenary system for train electrification. The temporary tracks are designed with the required safety and construction clearances and for a maximum speed of 75 mph. Standard railroad protection devices would be provided at the temporary track grade crossings, including vehicle and pedestrian gates, warning lights, and bells. Railroad Description Post -Construction: The proposed mainline vertical alignments (profiles) are controlled by the required length of vertical curves, length of tangents between curves and the overall length of new track that can be built once the temporary track is offset 25 feet from the new track. The permanent horizontal railroad alignment will match the existing track. The permanent track will rise near El Verano Avenue at a grade of 1.0% on retained fill into a 350 -foot long vertical curve over Meadow Drive. This places the top -of -rail 14 feet above the existing Meadow Drive roadway elevation. It continues at a slope of 0.4% into a 760 -foot long vertical curve over Charleston Road. This places the top -of -rail 14 feet above the existing Charleston Road roadway elevation. The track then descends at a 1% grade on retained fill to meet the existing mainline track 1,150 feet north of Ferne Avenue. The Meadow Drive and Charleston Road roadways will be lowered to provide a minimum 15.5 -foot vertical clearance between the road surface and the bottom of the rail bridge structure. The total length of mainline construction is 5,000 feet. 1 of 2 Memo — Narrative Description for the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Hybrid (MCL) Alternative Roadway Description: Between Park Boulevard and Alma Street, Meadow Drive will be lowered at a maximum grade of 5%. Beginning at Park Boulevard to the west, it will be lowered a maximum of seven feet from existing grade below the railroad tracks and then it will rise to meet the existing grade approximately 170 feet east of Alma Street. The total length of roadway impacted on Meadow Drive is 460 feet. The total length of roadway impacted on Alma Street 680 feet, 280 feet to the north and 400 feet to the south of Meadow Drive. Alma Street will be lowered a maximum of four feet from the existing grade to maintain the existing intersection with Meadow Drive. The maximum grade on Alma Street will be 1.5%. The design speed for Meadow Drive is 25 MPH and 35 MPH for Alma Street. Between Park Boulevard and Alma Street, Charleston Road will be lowered at a maximum grade of 5%. Beginning at Park Boulevard to the west, it will be lowered a maximum of seven feet from the existing grade below the railroad tracks and then it will rise to meet the existing grade approximately 190 feet east of Alma Street. The total length of roadway impacted on Charleston Road is 530 feet. The total length of roadway impacted on Alma Street is 540 feet, 270 feet to the north and 270 feet to the south of Charleston Road. Alma Street will be lowered a maximum of 4 feet from the existing grade to maintain the existing intersection with Charleston Road. The maximum grade on Alma Street will be 2.0%. The design speed on Charleston Road is 25 MPH and 35 MPH on Alma Street. Class II Buffered Bike Lanes will be provided on Charleston Road, which is consistent with the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project. This will require expanding the width of the road to maintain bike lanes through the underpass of the railroad to accommodate the new column to support the railroad structure. There appears to be sufficient space to accommodate this width and, ideally this could be provided as a Class IV separated bikeway given the shift in vehicle lanes at the column location. Drainage Description: A pump station for groundwater seepage and for stormwater removal may be required between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. Properties will need to be identified and acquired to accommodate a pumping plant at each location. Initial Assessment of Potential Impacts: • Removal of the existing trees in the buffer area between Alma Street and the existing tracks to construct the temporary tracks (shoofly) in order to maintain Caltrain service during construction. • During construction the width of Alma Street will be temporarily reduced approximately 20 feet at the intersections of Meadow Drive and Charleston Road to accommodate the temporary tracks. There would be no dedicated right -turn lanes from Alma Street, but all turns would be permitted. • Property impacts are relatively minor (driveway modifications only). • Major utility relocations for utilities located in Alma Street, Meadow Drive and Charleston Road are required to accommodate the excavation for the lowered roadways. • A pump station may be required for each of the lowered roadways (to pump surface runoff from lowered roadways). Properties will need to be identified and acquired to accommodate a pumping plant at each location. • Visual impacts with elevated railroad embankment. • Train horn noise and warning bells will be eliminated with the replacement of the at -grade crossings with grade separations. With the elevated track, train wheel noise could radiate out, however, this can be mitigated. During construction, one lane in each direction would be closed on portions of Alma Street, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road to permit excavation at the undercrossings. • Grade changes on Charleston Road will increase challenges for bicyclists, especially less confident bicyclists, and may create challenges for passing. • Design exception approval required from Caltrain for temporary roadway vertical clearance of 12 feet during construction for both Meadow and Charleston. AECOM 2 of 2 Attachment E Conceptual Project Plans & 3D Animations for Meadow Drive & Charleston Road Alternatives Conceptual 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://pagradesep.com/community-engagement/ 2. Scroll to the bottom of the page and locate the section entitled: "Community Meeting, November 28, 2018" 3. Click on the desired document Direct Link to Plans & 3D Animations: MCL MEADOW DR. & CHARLESTON RD. 1 Hybrid Meadow Drive and Charleston Road railroad over roadway hybrid and build Loma Verde Avenue bike/pedestrian crossing to connect to Margarita Avenue bicycle boulevard 3D Animation 1 Conceptual Plans MCT MEADOW DR. & CHARLESTON RD. 1 Rail Trench or Tunnel Meadow Drive and Charleston Road roadway over railroad trench or tunnel Alma street would not be within trench or tunnel (maintains Alma Street connections to Meadow Drive and Charleston Road) with Alma Street in its existing alignment or a new alignment; 3D Animation 1 Conceptual Plans MCV MEADOW DR. & CHARLESTON RD. 1 Viaduct Meadow Drive and Charleston Road railroad over roadway viaduct. 3D Animation 1 Conceptual Plans Attachment F: Palo Alto Avenue Problem Statement Palo Alto Avenue/University Avenue/Palo Alto Caltrain Station Transportation/Land Use Planning Problem Statement As part of its citywide Connecting Palo Alto effort to ensure safety and community compatibility of the Caltrain corridor, the City of Palo Alto is evaluating a range of options for improving the existing rail/street crossing at Palo Alto Avenue. Based on the analysis completed to date, it has become increasingly clear that factors, such as engineering constraints, land use plans and urban design, and access needs, affecting design options as part of the Downtown University Avenue vicinity require a more comprehensive planning effort. Such an effort for this location needs to be separated from the current citywide grade separation planning project. Location The existing crossing of the Caltrain tracks at Palo Alto Avenue is one of the four at -grade crossings being evaluated for possible grade separation. This crossing is also referred to by various landmarks, including the Palo Alto/Menlo Park city limit, Palo Alto Avenue, El Camino Real, San Francisquito Creek, and historic landmarks of the El Palo Alto namesake tree and trestle bridge. The evaluation of grade separation alternatives and potential property impacts highlighted the interdependency of options at this location and University Avenue (located less than 2,000 feet from Palo Alto Avenue). University Avenue is grade separated from Caltrain and is the location of Caltrain's "Palo Alto" Station (which is the second -busiest Caltrain station after San Francisco's Fourth and King Station). Transportation Context Major arterial streets in the area reflect the high activity level of the Downtown Palo Alto/Stanford University interface, with Alma Street (south of the Caltrain Station) carrying 29,000 vehicles per day, University Avenue carrying 12,000 vehicles per day, Lytton Avenue carrying 11,000 vehicles per day, Hamilton Avenue carrying 8,000 vehicles per day, Palo Alto Avenue (west of Alma Street) carrying 13,000 vehicles per day, and El Camino Real carrying 36,000 vehicles per day. Palo Alto Avenue is a key connection between El Camino Real and Downtown Palo Alto given the concentration of multimodal activity at University Avenue. The Palo Alto Caltrain Station services the second highest volume of riders on system, following the San Francisco Station and roughly 50% higher than the San Jose Diridon Station. The University Avenue transit station also serves VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit, and Stanford Marguerite buses. Pedestrian and bicycle access to the Caltrain station as well as between Downtown and Stanford is highly constrained. Land use Context The Palo Alto Avenue and University Avenue vicinity (downtown area) is distinct from the other existing Palo Alto at -grade crossings given the activity level as a bustling downtown area and the interface between Downtown Palo Alto and Stanford University. The County of Santa Clara is currently considering an application for proposed development (General Use Permit, or "GUP") from Stanford University for up to 2.275 million square feet of academic and support facilities and 3,150 net new housing units/beds. This GUP application is currently undergoing environmental review. Narrow parcels located between Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks are currently developed with surface parking. Larger parcels located between Caltrain and El Camino Real are currently developed with the transit center north of University Avenue and a Sheraton Hotel south of University Avenue. Recommended Planning Approach The complexity of transportation and land use interfaces suggest that planning for this vicinity requires evaluation of issues beyond the scope of "simple" grade separation alternatives analysis. In order to continue progress on the evaluation of grade crossing options at Churchill, Meadow, and Charleston, the City would remove Palo Alto Avenue from the ongoing "Connecting Palo Alto" work effort and begin scoping an independent planning effort to address Downtown issues. The City of Palo Alto uses a planning process known as a Coordinated Area Plan to guide land use and transportation alternatives evaluation, as well as community and stakeholder engagement. Planning for this vicinity would presumably also need to address forecasted ridership increases at the Caltrain Palo Alto Station. This is especially important given growth at Stanford University, as well as potential development of properties located between Alma Street and El Camino Real. This recommendation is in alignment with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan regarding University Avenue and Downtown. The specific policy areas include: Policy L-4.7 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-4.8 Ensure that University Avenue/Downtown is pedestrian -friendly and supports bicycle use. Use public art, trees, bicycle racks and other amenities to create an environment that is inviting to pedestrians and bicyclists. Program L4.8.1 Prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for Downtown. 2 Program L4.8.2 Study the feasibility of converting parts of University Avenue to a pedestrian zone. Financial Considerations There are two current issues related to funding. The first is the availability and application Santa Clara County Measure B funds. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) recently began discussion of their approach to implementation of voter -approved funding for Caltrain grade separations in Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale. While this program approach is not yet active given pending Measure B litigation, VTA staff has suggested an approach that emphasizes the need to set priorities among prospective grade separation projects, potentially setting up a competition among the cities for funding. This reinforces the importance of Palo Alto positioning projects as "ready to go" as quickly as possible. The greatest opportunities to finalize locally preferred alternatives are at the Churchill, Meadow, and Charleston crossings. The costs for these crossings alone will likely exceed funding available through Measure B and ensure Palo Alto remains in position for use of Measure B funds. The second issue is funding of the anticipated planning effort and ultimately construction of any recommendations developed for improving Downtown circulation. Upon approval of the recommended approach, staff will pursue external funding for a coordinated area planning effort. As the interface between transportation and land use is a regional and statewide priority with implications for national economic and urban planning significance, we anticipate that several federal, state, and private funding sources can be sought for the work required. Similarly, the outcomes of this planning effort may involve land use and multimodal improvements such that staff anticipates separate (non -Measure B) funding will be sought. Next Steps Based on the expanded scope involved with a Coordinated Area Plan or similar planning effort, staff will seek city council approval to remove the Palo Alto Avenue crossing from the ongoing evaluation of citywide grade separation alternatives. The Connecting Palo Alto evaluation will then focus on the other existing at -grade crossings at Churchill Avenue, Charleston Road, and Meadow Drive crossings. Initiation of a Coordinated Area Plan for Downtown circulation will depend on scoping, identification of funding, and staff capacity to support plan development. At this time, we anticipate that planning work could begin in late 2019. 3 Attachment G — Letters to Council About Rail Grade Separation This document contains the following: 1. Letters to Council about Rail Grade Separation Received in the Month of December to Date 2. Presentations Shared by CAP Members at the December 12th CAP Meeting 3. The Townsend Legislative Letter Presented to the Rail Committee on November 27, 2018 4. Letters to Council about Rail Grade Separation Received in the Month of November 2018 5. Letters to Council about Rail Grade Separation Received in the Month of October 2018 6. Letters to Council about Rail Grade Separation Received in the Month of September 2018 Carnahan, David From: martin@sommer.net Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 4:58 PM To: Council, City Cc: arobeso@menlopark.org Subject: Attn: Rail Committee, Palo Alto Email sent to Angela Obeso, City of Menlo Park: Please address the issue of: a) closing the Palo Alto Ave rail crossing, in conjunction with b) taking Alma directly across the creek between Menlo Park and Palo Alto. Thank you! Martin Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer "Turn technical vision into reality." Original Message Subject:Great meeting you last night Date:2018-12-06 10:24 From:martin@sommer.net To:arobeso@menlopark.org Good morning Angela, It was great meeting you last night at the Menlo Park Caltrain meeting. I had proposed the idea of closing the Palo Alto Ave rail crossing in Palo Alto, and taking Alma directly across the creek between Menlo Park and Palo Alto. I had also suggested moving the small El Palo Alto Park to the other side of the tracks, and extend the El Camino Park. This idea would: a) eliminate the cost of another grade separation, b) eliminate train noise wrt to current crossing, and c) lower the number of track crossings, between Menlo Park and Palo Alto. Please let me know, if I can help you explain this idea to Menlo Park and/or Palo Alto stake holders. Thanks again, Martin 1 Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer "Turn technical vision into reality." 2 Carnahan, David From: Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 6:45 PM To: Council, City; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed Cc: Neilson Buchanan; John Guislin; Paul & Karen Machado; Carol Scott; Christian Pease; evergreen-park- discuss@yahoogroups. com Use THis One Subject: Fwd: No teamwork for train Dear City Council and city managers, it seems Palo Alto has not gotten in touch with its neighbors reg/ a common approach to build a tunnel underneath the majority of our cities along the Peninsula. Would you think now is maybe the right time to start this work? thank you Wolfgang Forwarded message From: Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu> Date: Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 6:23 PM Subject: No teamwork for train To: Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu> 1 r No teamwork on undergrounding tr a► 1%4111 RIM \t•N ,>"+ _ tw stititMd tr.ttttv.t. ate►ttt P M(.. .. ',eta•o I"ark's t.,1r 1.04,lq 14 ^1y►MI roe M Alto tout% tta al11eui the Itst•:1rith tst fve,ntnyl of ttr.to .t►•./tilt .rw . Ott sttl hock Rt tltPelt he Not 111enht Net Moot I\"tel s MgAt •em *Mot to the outwork of aiilkviett, llRtrnaain Rstts.,ss,i 1rt *Ai \link%t*Ft, hit %V If d1t . * mein lsee.1 on tfrifine * ports.4 !mate It the t,raiM aw k*. tts.,tr kotot‘at 01%. nfs,1 Alhettttst N...* I1n Pt1Yths 14x11, vet' •,1 s`. s wools, hr ino+lruxt to talkie* show Yt.• oss>aaiats *canoed C11 is es( hosts ogre INA .t ,watetethxt tit e1►itth ammo ,Nrd rs1Ms.,, as»,>wef..IM he Ne"t1M"t beerseoetastom t,altetne+. 44110 /how% lt,nt.'to, Mho, attr Rt\Iwss\) t'ttt i F1en nsk.11tl cities ttilting d !milt routes disorogesl Nhal to slw ,eµwtf 11'Inlel►he Asetwi mut%C'to Ill 01-ot „a.mat ahNill 'Airport h►lnemIr its funnel thee- train sht e h Ilse AIM tlln &rin t the t 1e1. 1 Rexlntxxl t'ity it. Atmn ii nicotine. Ifte 1\tathll was Intel, 1`.1.x1 in s'oinsinunine enitflt between flow. 1n mice to make sum +f th10 Me 11 01 Ilkr nIilet ettiviter rules a 1 train n11r'1 IeeMtl OA above a %t1Ct'1 a, I Vet Mayo' I %tam 111nvnnl l,tlli it UtnMrttxt, the Menlo Nit Ctiy t �w1r :d wilt heal a Irplxt froto I 11.4443NA the Irian+ hit a tinift kW" ,u liurt`trstl,s.1 itrstlfe an.l Ilse ineittltl tt` 1, 054. 11101 4401 et snttwtVl 1(Inlet ttr taro, h %Ali M gooney \IharRtn k1111145 0145 15041 N45'11141 I`,111.• 1'hn1 tt tole` Ihu a n• 4111,aHttrtl ,n 11t1051111g III itiIWr.s„1 HI, vt+ill, IlnlI !1 1115 1 'It'). betrutie the tow, hat other ln,lnitter, ttix'tsntltte ht ,1 1%1%41 friar Suutipvlttr anti It wool 1'mw nsir POI intr,mit ti In lnnrnlit* the tnnw.h ell anrrtisl ttlnittn as. both vitien Isar Iln aih 4N -idea rvhslt to tio with then untl ,'I,s„user Il,swru+t, ftsh+t tts►1n i gh'f ‘d tr: 144% i ttelowit MUM t ,,'es aIhi i tI11 salt 04"," 111 ttlstto6sing the 111ti(n'1 II coo Idol% Palo Alto rtfkiilti dn1 ,s+ 111 t ihlaki'f (tM1Cl: belie Ik Iw.lttltptret%xtt> I _11 ,''`. 1111' Unin ttnri;a at Mointow t)flve, C'hlNC tiara Alts%Aventws. SmiletAl*tinttaar 111,`dy1xfteil1Q 2 Ideas from December 12 CAP Meeting Embarcadero and Palo Alto Ave Concepts David Shen, Tony Carrasco, Jason Matlof V5 12-10-18 Embarcadero Ave Why talk about Embarcadero? 1930s structure overdue for upgrade. Alma on bridge necks down from 4 to 3 lanes. Embarcadero underneath necks down from 4 to 3 lanes. Traffic flow between two arterials, Alma and Embarcadero, is not optimal Not enough protected access ramps to/from each road and in all directions. Traffic flows through neighborhood streets to make transition Traffic lights at Town and Country and El Camino do not encourage good flow Goals Upgrade/update old 1930s structure. Reduce traffic flow in neighborhood streets. Increase safety and access for pedestrians and cyclists. Preserve/enhance pedestrian and cyclist access under Alma with rebuild. Improve Paly student pedestrian light with another option, ie. Ped/bike underpass. Fix traffic lights between Alma and El Camino. Remove a light or two if possible. Coordinate lights to improve traffic flow. Do all this without property takings "Minimize eminent domain" Concept Goals STIMULATE THINKING AND POSSIBILITIES NOT ACTUAL SOLUTIONS TO BE DEBATED NEED FURTHER DESIGN AND STUDY TREAT TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS IN PALO ALTO AS A SYSTEM NOT AS INDIVIDUAL INTERSECTIONS Concept 1: Josh Mello — Curve Embarcadero to the south, add exit loop onto Embarcadero West. Orange= original path of Embarcadero ;sue'__? -' '*'E} Concept 2: Josh Mello — Curve Embarcadero to the south, add left exit lane from Alma North onto Embarcadero West. Left exit lane \Traffic light Orange= original path of Embarcadero Concept 3: Exit ramp from Alma North onto Embarcadero West. Curve Embarcadero to south Exit ramp from Kingsley Embarcadero West Orange= origi of path of Embarcadero ti 4 4 I; Concept 4: Tony Carrasco — Create traffic circle bet Alma and Embarcadero _s y 7 7 -_- ..-,-- T - - aciv re F IkkO talt 1 svr DL 1,44 1 f +�ifitu,4160T • + ,rt,rm coaqtrli, Palo Alto Ave Goals Maintain access from Alma to El Camino into Menlo Park. Improve traffic flow Maintain pedestrian/cyclist access Create separated ped/bike access path alongside roadway Protect historic bridge and El Palo Alto tree. Do all this without property takings "Minimize eminent domain" Concept Goals STIMULATE THINKING AND POSSIBILITIES NOT ACTUAL SOLUTIONS TO BE DEBATED NEED FURTHER DESIGN AND STUDY TREAT TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS IN PALO ALTO AS A SYSTEM NOT AS INDIVIDUAL INTERSECTIONS Concept 1: Shift new road to El Camino to the south, take over park area of El Camino Park. Add sloping down road alongside Alma to drop down to underpass. If 2% grade, slope down begipis'it Everett. / 2 lanes slope up to meet El Cimino, approx. 2-4% grade a 1 rr, _� r)7 r ` V Train tracks remain . at same level y_ Traffic Tight Concept la: Shift new road to El Camino to the south, take over park area of El Camino Park. Add sloping down road alongside Alma to drop down to underpass. If 5% grade, slope can start in/around Hawthorne. Train tracks remain at same level Adjacent drop down y S 2 lanes, approx. 5% grade • Concept 2: Tony Carrasco — Create rail viaduct from Menlo Park through Palo Alto downtown, change path of train tracks around historic bridge „Ilik,4 12.14440 ALMA, ' T. .5tt On l t . WA _ 1 r el'e; _I...— ,, 'Fr 91 . WelPin ► [. N T. AO :*,:kregsgallt, ''F r. 2015 FINAL WORD AGAIN: CONCEPTS TO STIMULATE THINKING AND CREATIVITY ADVOCATE FOR EMBARCADERO TO BE INSERTED INTO THE WORK PLAN NOW FURTHER WORK AND STUDY IS NEEDED ADVOCATE FOR MORE STUDY ON PALO ALTO AVE GOALS: MAKE PALO ALTO OVERALL A BETTER ENVIRONMENT FOR CARS, BIKES, AND PEDESTRIANS PRESERVE *ALL* NEIGHBORHOODS' INTEGRITY DO IT ALL WITHOUT PROPERTY TAKINGS APPENDIX About Grade and Grade Standards 4. Grades (slope) and Why They Matter RISE x 100 = GRADE % • The steepness (slope) of the road/track is known as the grade. • Percent grade is how much the road or track rises (in feet) for every 100 feet of distance (the run). 1°/0 grade means for every 100 ft along track, the train climbs 1 ft in height. 2% grade means the train rises 2 feet in the same 100 feet of run (so it's steeper). To go up 10 ft, you need 1000 feet of runway (1%), but at 2% you only need 500 feet of runway. Steeper grades make for cheaper projects! Hatch Mott study for Palo Alto: 1% trench cost $1.15 Billion 2% trench cost $480 million! 15 10/18/17 CA RRD Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design Graphic below presented by City of Palo Alto 9/16/17 Community Workshop #1 Grade Standards Impact Projects GENTLE GRADE 1611 PALO ALTO 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 FAIRLY STEEP S160 41 1 t6 10 1: 2 4 3 d 7 9 9 10 VERY STEEP Slcpc of I :0 T 10' minimum 15' minimum CONSTRAINT GRADES (Design Criteria) T 24.5' minimum FACTORS L Design speed RR max standard efines profiles— grade= 1% fe sight distance ADA max grade=5% inimum vertical Roadways up to 8% earances must be could discourage achieved active transportation 1 0/ 18 • Design standards govern steepness of roads and tracks • For bikes/peds, ADA requires max 5% grade (10 ft min clearance) • Roadways can go up to 8% grade (15 ft clearance) • Trains need a more gradual grade than cars, bikes/peds • Caltrain has a design standard of 1% grade with a possibility of going up to 2% grade with permission (not on chart!). • Based on what we know, 2% grade is possible (Caltrain standards, UP Contract) • Freight trains can go 2% and High Speed Rail can go 4-6% (all prefer flatter) 17 Califol-nians Advocating CA RR I� Responsible Rail Design Ao •] C.:o:/:c•J.:.: :.:.:(.] [.1 11I 1!1 1 [lh1 1 11111111 IM7M"11.17.7 it IflhII� II;;;-.. BIKE . iiiliiiiiiili■i��\�>�1u� _.l.. des :. .�.��� .� , _ Megan Kanne Downtown \ eighborhoods & Palo Alto Rail Crossings Professorville Downtown North University South Embarcadero Underpass Thank you to David, Jason, and Tony Interesting ideas worthy of study 4 • • N 4 71 Embarcadero Underpass Removed from the scope of work in June1 Measure B funds can't be used Limited resources are available, both with respect to funding and in manpower, to study additional alternatives at this time 1 See City Council Action Minutes June 19, 2018 https: / / www.cityofpaloalto.org/ civicax / filebank / blobdload.aspx?t=83343.25&B1obID=65728 Traffic Study Comprehensive and multimodal Account for GUP /Stanford's growth (3k new units) Make the raw traffic study data public Implement test closures of the Churchill Ave. and Palo Alto Ave. crossings, both separately and potentially together •......•• •. • '. 01 7 arair /***4? . . • • • • .• • • • • • • . . • . • t .• . • . 0 so It • • . . • • • . • • GG o Build" Options Include the "No Build" options in the options matrix Including a ped /bike tunnel or Homer -style underpass Determine the economic impact of "No Build" options Rail Committee Recommended Ide Type of Separation (Alphabetical Order) Closure Citywide Palo Alto Churchill 2017 ADT 2017 ADT (vehicles/day) = 16,200 (vehicles/day) = 9,200 (+ 550 bikes) (+ 1,020 bikes) Palo Alto Ave Closed, 0Add Improvements (�x) Churchill Ave Closed, Add improvements (CAX) Hybrid (Road over Rail) � rse Hybrid (Road under Rail) oak Palo Alto Ave Hybrid tyand/nrV.$.:rt IPAk) 0t brid ( Plit No Build/Do Nothing Default 4 Options Rail under Road (Trench) Rail under Road (Tunnel) Citywide Tunnel _ within Palo Alto (WBP) Rail over Road (Berm/Viaduct) Road Over Rail Road under Rail CITY OF PALO ALTO Process Improved outreach using City resources (email, Twitter, etc) Signage at the crossings themselves announcing the project to the public Take the time to gather data and feedback before decisions are made to close these vital east /west traffic arteries Thanks! Presenter version 2018.09.01 Design Alternative for ONLY Meadow and Charleston Nadia Naik December 17th, 2018 Palo Alto City Council info@calhsr.com www.calhsr.com CA RR Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design Problem • PA residents prefer an underground solution. • Tunnels at stations are costly (high cost of burying station) • Trench under Meadow and Charleston may be fatally flawed because of the creeks • Hybrid and Viaduct options are not well liked Goal of this concept: • Creative solution • Addresses community preference for underground solution • Increases design alternatives • Minimize costs and impacts CA/� RR Californians Advocating RR Responsible Rail Design Design Challenges: • Caltrain and Freight must maintain operations during construction • Temporary "Passing Tracks" during construction are highly disruptive and expensive • Underground utility relocation is complicated and costly • Matadero, Barron and Adobe Creeks create obstacles to underground alternatives • Freight trains can't handle steeper grades and constrain design alternatives • Diesel freight tunnels require extra ventilation that electric RR Californians Advocating trains don't need (>$). Responsible Rail Design Existing Opportunities? • Only 3 freight trains per day in PA —all at night and don't impact circulation • Freight makes up less than 5% of operations on the corridor • Without freight, we have more design flexibility • Future Dumbarton Rail Corridor improvements could reduce or eliminate freight trains • Future freight could be electrified CA/� RR Californians Advocating RR Responsible Rail Design New Design Alternative: A short, electric train only tunnel under Meadow and Charleston ONLY with a single track of freight on the surface. Requires two twin bore tunnels (TBM) We are NOT advocating this as a SOLUTION Only that it be included as an ALTERNATIVE for further study This is a NEW idea that developed based on the early issues identified by preliminary AECOM engineering — it was NOT part of the original Master List of Alternatives CARRD Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design Electric train tunnel with 1 track of freight on surface .. ti . •• - .. 7 v .. e.` • 'r 7 •.• a ,4 4. p-• ' ,f •• )..0 .0 41 es 1 6 L, s4i. • y IIti •r ✓♦*e *1iv - o r0,... M4110. orn .1.f1.41.t WO •r ac Mladero CYak ti fir•.- ...•. .w + . `4'." '41 - 1/ J . ,, i7.., rlirl• IQD 1 S • t . • v •.k •t 4C1 ' •ate :A f •t . .� , • _• +4- 1 t -L. tip v•1 _44 `11'1.~91 i • _'.f 7pe�•`_ ��•14' -.- .....: ••wow/ w'v// .r , +' ea. 115 M5 16D IID r: A.. ) alum* .11.f rift Ir f; • j Y . ►t? ..E 1± rdoLr Otee4-- ltt -de ♦ Ali.+s•oraa► CA RR T /I ,„, lI irz R,d LoPm s1IJ GLE iW1cK ON 6R4,9E. ISO 185 1 I Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design 60 40 Conceptual example Alameda Trench Corridor (E. Compton Blvd and Alameda Street, Compton ) • NOTE: This shows a TRENCH — we are proposing TUNNEL • Right of Way (ROW) is 100 feet (same as South Palo Alto) • This ROW fits 4 tracks — PA would have 2 Caltrain (in tunnel) and one freight track (at grade) • A simple curve is needed to separate the single freight track • 3 tracks enter a trench in Alameda instead of a tunnel — but similar concept Trench portal similar to Tunnel portal Ir PIPY0H.` ' r 1 X1 X LJ onsible Kail Lin -41 Considerations: • Electric only tunnel can be >2% grade (design flexibility) • Goes under creeks (avoiding potential fatal flaw) • Tunnel goes under the utilities, reducing the cost. • Can maintain Caltrain/Freight operations during construction • Tunnels without a station are much cheaper • Tunnels are faster to build. • Construction time is much shorter - less work window issues and little to no road disruption. RR ResponibleRail Design Additional Considerations: • Temporary passing tracks (shoo -fly tracks) only at tunnel portal entrance & exit vs entire right-of-way (saves money) • With careful planning, TBM's can be reused by other cities • Some or all future freight may be re-routed over Dumbarton Rail route (currently being studied) leaving space for other land use options. • Needs further study: Temporary space for the tunnel portal may be necessary and could require minimal commercial or residential eminent domain that could be returned to the commercial/housing stock on completion of the project Source on TBM Reuse: https://www.herrenknecht.com/en/services/global-services/tbm- refurbishment.html p p Californians Advocating CA A RR D Responsible Rail Design Comparative Project: Central Subway Tunnel in SF • Built in 2014 in downtown San Francisco • Two twin bore machines (TBM) with 20.7 ft diameter for 1.7 miles • $234 million dollars (2014 dollars) • Built under an active BART line • Went through various soils: soft to thinly bedded siltstone, shale and sandstone bedrock • Some soil even deemed "Potentially Gassy with Special Conditions" by Cal/OSHA. • Navigated steep, turning alignment • Worked with low cover, urban utilities, and sensitive structures requiring precautions to limit settlement impact and ensure the structures in downtown SF were safe. ource: http://www.therobbinscompany.com/project-category/epb-tbm/ CA RR D Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design View of Central Subway Twin Bore Tunnels View of TBM Extraction Point mow (above) View of Low Clearance under which Central Subway was built (and under ACTIVE BART line!) CAI RR Californians Advocating Li Responsible Rail Design Cost Comparisons In 2014, Hatch Mott MacDonald estimated a trench under Meadow and Charleston (2% grade) would be $480 M. (Source: HMM Study 2014) In 2018, AECOM estimated same trench would be $800 - $950 M — so costs have almost doubled since 2014. (Source: PA Community Meeting 11/14/18 slide 41) Hybrid Viaduct Trench Short Tunnel (no freight) Estimated Cost 2018 $ $200M - $250M $400M - $500M $800M — 950M $400M - $550M* *CARRD estimated the Short Tunnel (No freight) alternative based on 2x 151 price of similar 2014 SF Central Subway tunnel project in downtown SF Note: Costs could potentially be reduced further (next slide) CAI RR Note: Costs could potentially be reduced further (next slide) CA RR Californians Ads Responsible Rail Advocating Responsible Rail Design Reducing Tunnel Cost further • Reducing the tunnel diameter helps lower costs • 2014 — HSR White paper on Tunneling - significant cost reductions by reducing max operating speeds assumptions from 220 to 200 mph thus reducing tunnel diameters from 29.5' to 28' ID (Inside Diameter).* • AECOM studying City Wide tunnel with freight used 28' Inside Diameter (assumes 200 mph) • Tunnel diameter can be reduced since Caltrain/HSR will only operate max 125 mph on Peninsula • Caltrain Electrification EIR shows that San Francisquito Creek bridge will have a maximum clearance of just 19ft. (See CARRD's previous public comments re: Vertical Clearance assumptions) Californians Advocating CA RR Responsible Rail Design *So rce: California High -Speed Rail Program Whitepaper On Cost Reduction Strategies, 7/25/14 Direct Comparison of Tunnels Length: Tunnel Diameter: Constraint: Soil types: Setting: Conditions: Central Subway No freight 1.7 miles 20.7 ft Built under active BART 5 various soil types including hazardous soils Dense urban setting Steep, turning alignment with vertical clearance issues Special Required special planning to Circumstances: support adjacent tall buildings PA Short Tunnel No freight 1.6 miles 28ft* (could be reduced) Under active Caltrain Unknown but PA Tunnel White Paper says suitable for tunneling Empty suburban ROW Relatively flat, straight alignment with no vertical clearance issues No buildings in ROW and no adjacent skyscrapers Californians Advocating CARR D Responsible Rail Design Final Thoughts • CARRD is NOT advocating that this is THE alternative — only that it be given further analysis • Further preliminary analysis and study is needed and warranted for this alternative given strong community preference for underground solution. • Too early to evaluate is this is the right solution vs. other design alternatives — need more info CA/� RR Californians Advocating RR Responsible Rail Design Appendix CA RR Californians Advocating D Responsible Rail Design Palo Alto Right Of Way Widths 200 150 50 Nfri * (Z, e e ZP 4Ce T 0 0 .4•''' J.(` leb. � ��� G ��'rat ,� Q 0? Approximate - W ut perfectly to scale. Not official diagrar CAI RR 96 ft 85 ft Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS ES1 T PA 9N MEMO To: James Keene, City Manager Ed Shikada Assistant City Manager Rob de Geus, Deputy City Manager Heather Dauler, Intergovernmental Affairs Officer From: Christopher Townsend, President, Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. Niccolo De Luca, Senior Director Alex Gibbs, Senior Associate Date: November 26, 2018 Subject: Suggested strategy regarding grade separation funding and opportunities SUMMARY Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. (TPA) has prepared this memo for the City of Palo Alto outlining potential opportunities to secure grade separation funding, the various aspects to consider, proposed next steps, and other items. This memo is intended to provide background, identify some of the challenges we would face, and make recommendations for the City to consider. TPA has secured grade separation funds over the years and we have first hand knowledge on what it takes to be successful. 1. Overview Successfully securing grade separation funding takes time, patience, and persistence. The top priorities for these competitive funds are to support goods movement and address safety and mobility issues. TPA will tell our Palo Alto -specific story, help build up a regional coalition, work with our legislative delegation and others to first educate and then work on funding opportunities. 2. Recommended strategy Phase 1 Due to the competitive nature of these funds, and the large price tag involved, we recommend education as the first phase of advocacy. We need to create briefing materials that explain the problem, what we are doing to address it locally, and why additional outside funding is needed for project completion. We need to be able to clearly articulate what problem we are trying to solve and provide data to back it up such as estimated design and construction costs, future traffic counts, future bicycle and pedestrian counts, negative air quality from cars idling, the benefits of commuting, as well as any potential negative impact of electrification on neighborhoods. 3. Recommended strategy Phase 2 Once our materials are complete, we recommend multiple advocacy trips to Sacramento to meet with decision makers, legislators, and members of the new Administration. It would be very helpful if this delegation would include the Mayor or others on the Council. State Capitol Office • 925 L Street • Suite 1404 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • Phone (916) 447-4086 • Fax (916) 444-0383 Federal Office • 600 Pennsylvania SE • Suite 207 • Washington, DC 20003 • Phone (202) 546-8696 • Fax (202) 546-4555 Southern California Office • 1401 Dove Street • Suite 330 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • Phone (949) 399-9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215 Central California Office • 744 P Street • Suite 308 • Fresno, CA 93721 • Phone (949) 399-9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215 Northern California Office • 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza • Suite 204 • Oakland, CA 94612 • Phone (510) 835-9050 • Fax (510) 835-9030 Meetings targets would include, but not be limited to: • The State Transportation Secretary a. More than likely Governor -Elect Newsom will appoint his own Secretary • The Executive Director of the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and her top staff • Caltrans executives who oversee rail • Palo Alto's legislative delegation Senator Jerry Hill and Assembly Member Marc Berman • Neighboring members such as Senator Wiener, Assembly Members Mullin and Ting • Senate Transportation and Housing Chair Jim Beall and his committee staff • Assembly Transportation Chair Jim Frazier and his committee staff • Vice Chair of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee • Vice Chair of the Assembly Transportation Committee After our advocacy trips, we will have briefed many stakeholders and decision makers. From our experience, its prudent to keep them continuously updated and in the loop so they become vested in our efforts. The form of these updates can be in person briefings, email updates, or written updates. 4. Multiple funding sources We recommend identifying multiple funding sources as the final price tag of the overall grade separation needs in the City could be high. This includes federal, state, regional and local funding sources. Funding opportunities including the following existing programs, and, fortunately, with the SB1 funds withstanding a recall, there are other options available, such as: California Public Utilities Commission: • The Section 130 Grade Crossing Hazard Elimination Program provides federal funds to local agencies (cities and counties) and railroads to eliminate hazards at existing at -grade public highway -rail crossings. • The Section 190 Grade Separation Program provides state funds to local agencies to grade -separate at -grade crossings (crossings), or to improve grade -separated crossings. California Transportation Commission: • Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP). The purpose of the Solutions for Congested Corridors Program is to provide funding to achieve a balanced set of transportation, environmental, and community access improvements to reduce congestion throughout the state. • Local Partnership Program (LPP). The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill 1) created the Local Partnership Program, which is modeled closely after the Proposition 1B State Local Partnership Program. The purpose of this program is to provide local and regional transportation agencies that have passed sales tax measures, developer fees, or other imposed transportation fees with a continuous appropriation of $200 million annually from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to fund road maintenance and rehabilitation, sound walls, and other transportation improvement projects. 0 2 5. Opportunities for partnerships The electrification of Caltrain will have an impact on Palo Alto and other cities throughout the Peninsula. This works to our advantage for two reasons. The first is it helps us build a coalition of municipalities and other organizations to frame this as a regional matter. The second is by growing our coalition we can increase the likelihood of securing funding or better yet creating a specific funding source for cities to access for grade separation projects. 6. Potential barriers As highlighted in the overview section, it could take multiple years to secure all the funds needed to fully address grade separation locations throughout the City. Other potential barriers could include requests for design exemptions, state wide demand for these funds, and regional needs. 7. Next steps Depending on the feedback and discussion to the points above impacts our next steps. However, we recommend the creation of briefing documents as soon as possible so we can then shift to briefing and educating decisions makers in Sacramento. 0 3 NOVEMBER 2018 EMAILS TO CITY.COUNCIL ABOUT CONNECTING PALO ALTO GRADE SEPARATION From: Sumita Debata To: Council, city Subject: [Request] Underground the Train option Date: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 8:25:44 AM Attachments: IMG 20161228 102715.ioq IMG 20161228 103701.joq Subject: Intent to voice vote for underground the train option. Hi Team, In 2016 December there was a CALTRAIN accident near Charleston. The train and car crash rolled into my backyard in Park Blvd. Almost 10-15ft inside my backyard breaking the fence. I live with my family and kids and it's was very scary seeing the train car crash inside my backyard. Train above the ground is very dangerous option having been through personally. My vote is to underground the train. Train accident after crash picture attached for reference. Thanks, Sumita From: Larry and April Alton To: Council, Qty Subject: Alma street train crossing Date: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 6:13:09 PM Dear Council Members, I believe the best train crossing for Alma would be tracks under the road and creek. Alma is one of the main entrances to Palo Alto and we want it to be beautiful and representative of our high class city! This is certainly possible from an engineering standpoint and the additional cost would not be that great considering the overall cost of the train route thru Palo Alto. Thanks, Larry Alton From: Florence LaFaviere To: Council, Oty Subject: Caltrain Dectrification Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 4:46:01 PM Dear Rail Committee and City Council members, I ask you to please add Charleston/Meadow tunnel (passenger train tunneled, freight at grade) to the AECOM work plan for further detailed review. Some have suggested that moving the tunnel eastward towards Alma would be a less impactful location. Please spend the time and resources to seriously study the underground options in this part of town. It seems like it is time to eliminate or merge the raised options. Rail Committee members, we respectfully request that at your meeting tomorrow the above issues be added to the City Council agenda so that AECOM can proceed. Thank you for the work done so far in this complex and far reaching project. Yours sincerely, Florence and Virginia LaRiviere From: Florence Keller To: Council, City. cory.wolbach@gmail.com• adrianfine@gmail.com- Filseth, Eric (external) kou.pacc@gmail.com• tomforcouncil@gmail.com• areaf&ireatanaka.orq• Scharff, Greg. electcormack@gmail.com Cc: Palo Alto Otizens Subject: Charleston/Meadow Rail Crossings Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 3:58:40 PM Dear Board Members. First, thank you for all you do. Thank you also for responding to the sensitivities of Palo Alto Residents by assiduously avoiding invoking eminent domain in your consideration of how best to address the issues posed by the enhanced numbers of trains projected to travel though our intersections. The truth is, however, that for the neighbors most immediately affected by Caltrain (I do not count myself among these), the notion of having a 14 foot (or 40 foot when there is a train passing),berm or a Viaduct in their backyard --eliminating even the pretense of pleasure or privacy in one's backyard, may be worse than eminent domain. (I choose not to dwell on the horrors of living in these houses during the construction period of whatever choice you make,) And economically speaking, those folks whose properties immediately abut the railroad, are about to be slammed. I noticed this weekend that the sales prices of two houses that are for sale and situated immediately adjacent to the rails between Charleston and Meadow have been reduced . I do not believe either of them have yet been sold. You worry about what citizens of Palo Alto will have to pay for a trench or a tunnel, but those living in the neighboring residences will, I expect, end up paying substantially more, financially, acoustically, and visually, if a berm or viaduct is the solution selected by you. Palo Alto is too important, and frankly too rich, to make major decisions based primarily on economics. And, in considering the various solutions to problems posed by the increased numbers of trains, I hope you will not, as Boards in the past have so frequently done, put the greatest burden on South Palo Alto residents. A tunnel, or at least a trench, is the only humane approach to this problem. Sincerely, Florence Keller 4124 Wilkie Way From: Phil Burton To: De Geus. Robert Cc: Council Caw "Chris Looan Carrasco Tonv "Dave Shen" "Gres Blair "Invouna 010". "Megan Kanne" "Kari Hodason" "Mandar Borka 'Parag Patkar" "Patricia Lau" "Nadia Naik" Subject: Concern and frustration about lack of effective communications Date: Thursday, November 15, 2018 5:41:37 PM Attachments: image002.ioq Rob, At the most recent City Council Rail Committee meeting, the third of three handouts was a June 28, 2017 letter from then mayor Scharff to Francisco Castillo, Director of Public Affairs, Union Pacific Railroad. I was surprised to read the following: "The electrification of Caltrain will allow for higher grades, as electric service can easily deal with up to a two percent grade." [my italics] The maximum grade has been a central point of both Rail Committee and CAP meeting discussions, because of the impact on construction costs as well as feasibility of certain alternatives. To the best of my knowledge, no one on staff ever stated that the elected officials or staff already understood this point. When several speakers, including me, made this point at various meetings, there was no staff response in the spirit of, "We already understand this point, and are prepared to raise it with Caltrain and/or UPRR." I find it surprising and a bit frustrating that CAP members and members of the general public (speaking at Rail Committee meetings) aren't aware of the full history of this key issue. With full awareness of the history, CAP members can be more effective as intermediaries between project staff and residents of our respective neighborhoods. The online search "Union Pacific RR shortline RFP process" yields a link htta://www.caltrain.com/Assets/ Public+Affairs/odf/UP+Agreement+FAQs.odf, a March 1, 2017 Caltrain/UP Agreement. The FAQ contains this question and answer: However, the link in the answer is no longer valid. Thus we have no way to know if and how the UP responded to Mayor Scharff's letter, yet an understanding of their response, if any, might have a vital bearing on current discussions of this issue. Is there any way for staff to provide CAP members, or the general public, with copies of the relevant documents? The other key issue involving UP is vertical clearance above top of rail. Has there been any correspondence with UP on this issue? I would like to point out that electric multiple -unit trains can easily climb a grade of well over 2%. I am personally familiar with grades on the New York City Transit System, which also uses electric MU trains. You can read here that there are several locations on this system with grades over 4%. https://www. nyctra nsitforums.com/topic/39935-what-is-the-steepest-grade-that-subway-ca rs-can-hand le/ Respectfully, Phil Burton From: Rachel Kellerman To: Council, City. Shikada, Ed. De Geus, Robert. Gaines, Chantal Cc: Tom Kellerman Megan Kanne. Barbara Ann Hazlett. YORIKO KISHIMOTO Subject: Connecting Palo Alto Mailer - Neighborhood Traffic Impacts Decision Criteria Not Included Date: Thursday, November 8, 2018 12:26:14 PM Attachments: IMG 8200.JPG Dear Honorable City Council Members, Mr Shikada, Mr de Geus, Ms Gains, I attended the CAP meeting yesterday and was dismayed that the decision making criteria concerning the local traffic impacts of all rail grade crossing options was omitted from the Connecting Palo Alto mailer that is being sent to all Palo Alto addresses. Criteria bullet point 8 on the mailer reads: Maintain or improve local access while on the Connecting Palo Alto Fact Sheet posted on the Connecting Palo Alto webpage it reads: Maintain or improve local access while reducing regional traffic on neighborhood streets. (References: https://pagradesep.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/City_of Palo_Alto_FactsheetV2.pdf I have also attached my copy of the mailer -apologies for the scribbles.) Why is this important? Council has instructed staff to consider neighborhood traffic impacts when weighing all rail grade crossing options. Neighborhood traffic impacts should not be an afterthought, but an integral part of the consideration process. I don't have enough neighborhood input to speak authoritatively on a number of issues related to rail grade crossings, but I know without a doubt that neighborhood traffic is a huge concern for Professorville neighbors if Churchill and Palo Alto Avenue are closed to East/West traffic. Neighborhood traffic reduction criteria also did not appear on the "decision matrix" slides that were presented yesterday. We are not asking for the mailer to be reprinted but we are asking that all future communication, especially the decision making matrices that are presented at community meetings, include the entire criteria as agreed upon by the Council and posted on the CAP webpage: Maintain or improve local access while reducing regional traffic on neighborhood streets. As always, we greatly appreciate all your hard work on this difficult and complicated matter. Regards, Tom and Rachel Kellerman From: Marilyn Bauriedel To: Council, City Subject: Further concerns about Rail Qossings in Palo Alto Date: Monday, November 12, 2018 9:27:24 PM Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council Members: As you continue to work on the options and plans for the Palo Alto rail crossings I would urge you to do the following: Add Charleston/Meadow tunnel to the AECOM work plan for next level detail; Have AECOM explore moving the trench towards Alma (Eastward) to further reduce the impact on residential properties, and Eliminate or merge the raised options; eliminate Viaduct and/or merge with Hybrid; spend more time and resources on studying underground options. I live in the Fairmeadow Eichler neighborhood and will be very much affected by how these new crossings are handled. Thank you. Marilyn Bauriedel 3673 South Ct Palo Alto Marilyn U. Bauriedel mbauriedel@ursu.com From: Tracy Mallory To: Council, Qty Subject: grade separation of rail crossings Date: Monday, November 19, 2018 10:03:34 AM As one of many residents commenting on the project, I'd like to ask if the project evaluation criteria ever included loss of property value with the various options, and also ask again why the reversed hybrid option has been dismissed? If an above gade-level option for the train of any kind is selected the increase in noise, especially at night and the visual blight (especially during the day;-) will obviously have a dramatic effect on the value of properties on either side of the tracks, with greater reductions closer to the rail line. It should not be hard to get some "real" estimates, but the following is more likely to be low than high. Conservatively: 1 mile of significanity impacted housing, call it 50 lot lengths along the route, but could be twice this 5 lots deep on each side seriously affected - lose 10% property value 10 lots further on each sidely moderately affected - lose 5% property value 10 lots further mildly affected - lose 2.5% property value On east side average property value is ?? 2.5M On west side average property value is ?? 2M ((250 * 2M) + (250 * 2.5M)) * 0.1 + ((500 * 2M) + (500 * 2.5M)) * 0.05 + ((500 * 2M) + (500 * 2.5M)) * 0.025 = $281,250 It's pretty clear why a lot of residents are very upset about the direct cost to them of a cheap solution. It is not acceptable to compare this to existing raised track solutions farther north. Once you get to Redwood city there are relatively few houses along the route, but south Palo Alto is all single-family housing. I'm surprised that the "other" hybrid option of raising the roads an lowering the rail line has been dismissed. I would be very distressed by having my house taken as a result of eminent domain needs, but losing ten houses, perhaps paying the owners twice what they are worth, would be much, much cheaper than impacting thousands of homeowners for the rest of their lives and dividing the south end of the city permanently with visual as well as a physical wall. We don't need massive structures of the magnitude of San Antonio Road. Although fairly wide, the roadway could have quite a low load limit, requiring trucks to use San Antonio or Oregon as today. Sink the train 15 feet(not 30) which would put it 17 feet below where it is today(it's above grade now) and raise the road 10 feet and everyone except for a few well - compensated home -owners will be much happier than with any of the current plans. Sincerely, Tracy Mallory 650-279-0037 PS: Here's the math: »> expr \( \( \( 500 \* 2000000 \) + \( 500 \* 2500000 \) \) \* 5 V 100 \) \+ \( \( \( 500 \* 2000000 \) + \( 500 \* 2500000 \) \) \* 25 V 1000 \) v+ v(\( \( 250 \* 2000000 \) + \( 250 \* 2500000 \) v) \* 10 V 100 v) 281250000 From: Nadia Naik To: Council, aty Cc: De Geus, Robert Shikada. Ed- Elizabeth Alexis- Megan Kanne. Parag Patkar Mandar Borkar Goodwin Eileen Keene, James• Chris Logan• Dave Shen• Philip Burton• Carrasco. Tony Inyoung Cho• Greg Brail• Levin, Adina• ettv.mercurioeaecom.com• millette.litzingereaecom.com• Kari Hodgson• Patricia Lau• Penny Bison Subject: Grade Separation Suggestion: Alternate Viaduct Design Date: Thursday, November 29, 2018 4:04:41 PM Dear Qty Council, As we consider viaduct alternatives, I wanted to send along another idea for a viaduct that has a lower profile - a "U-shaped grade separation." The full details are available here: https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/ 2015/ 11 /the -u -shaped -grade -separation. html Nadia Naik From: Roland Lebrun To: Council, aty Cc: Nadia Naik- Keene, James. Shikada, Ed• De Geus, Robert apexstrapacbell.net etty.mercurio@aecom.com• millette.litzinger@aecom.com Subject: London"s high speed tunnel diameters and costs Date: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 1:25:12 AM Attachments: HS1 Tunnel diameters.bmp Slidel.GIF Slidel .GI F Dear Council members, Further to Nadia Naik's comments about reduced tunnel costs achieved through context - sensitive tunnel design, London's high-speed tunnels were designed with a 23.5 -foot internal diameter and were tested at 160 MPH: https://youtu.be/Uv14yLJjgvM Please refer to the attached file for the cost of the tunnels, portals (including a freight connection), vent shafts and the 1/4 mile open trench station 25 seconds into the video Eurostar test train running at 255 kmh in London Tunnels This is the only footage available of a Eurostar test train running at Maximum Test Speed + 10% (255 km) on the Section 2 of the London Tunnels on the Channe... youtu.be Sincerely, Roland Lebrun From: The Cowies To: Keene. James. Shikada. Ed• De Geus. Robert. Council. City cory.wolbach@gmail.com• adrianfine@gmail.com• Filseth. Eric (external) kou.oacc5gmail.com• tomforcouncil@gmail.com• area5aregtanaka.orq• Scharff. Greg. electcormack@gmail.com Subject: Rease tunnel the train at Meadow and Charleston Date: Monday, November 12, 2018 10:48:50 PM Hi Folks, Please keep working on getting the train tunneled at Meadow and Charleston. It's super important in so many ways. Thanks for all you are doing!! Liz Cowie El Dorado Ave Palo Alto From: Nadia Naik To: Council, aty Cc: Keene, James. Shikada, Ed• De Geus, Robert Goodwin Eileen• ettv.mercurio(cilaecom.com- millette. litzinger@aecom.com• Fizabeth Alexis Subject: Public Comment: Request to add an alternative for study for the Meadow/Charleston Grade separations Date: Monday, November 12, 2018 9:11:22 PM Attachments: CARRD Comment - Short Electrictunnel only recommendation.odf Dear City Council Members, We support the Staff Report recommendation to not eliminate any grade separation alternatives at this time. While the Viaduct is the least favored alternative, it remains worthy of further analysis because it is the lowest cost and allows more connectivity than a Hybrid (which functions effectively as a wall). In addition, we would like to propose an alternative that was mentioned previously: a short tunnel for electrified trains, with freight remaining at the surface. Please see the attached letter for further details. If you have any questions, please let me know. Nadia Naik Co-founder, CARRD CA RR D Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design November 12, 2018 Subject: Recommendation of adding alternative of short tunnel for electrified trains only with freight at the surface for Meadow and Charleston alternatives. Dear City Council Members, We support the Staff Report recommendation to not eliminate any grade separation alternatives at this time. While the Viaduct is the least favored alternative, it remains worthy of further analysis because it is the lowest cost and allows more connectivity than a Hybrid (which functions effectively as a wall). In addition, we would like to propose an alternative that was mentioned previously: a short tunnel for electrified trains, with freight remaining at the surface. The slope, clearance, ventilation and Fire Life Safety requirements driven by freight and other diesel trains in the tunnels add significant costs to the tunnel proposal currently under consideration. Freight tentatively remaining at the surface for the present would not liberate all of the ROW land for other uses, but the vehicular crossing capacity issue would be addressed. A key condition has recently changed along the corridor making this a feasible alternative; Caltrain is no longer considering running both diesel and electric trains and will now have a fully electric fleet. In addition, the Dumbarton Rail project recently received approval to begin its investigation of whether to rebuild the old rail bridge that formerly carried freight across the Bay. If this came to fruition, freight might be partially or fully diverted to a Dumbarton route and no longer pass through Palo Alto, leaving the right-of-way above the tunnel free for other uses. We have identified a similar tunneling project, the San Francisco Central Subway Tunnel, which seems to indicate that tunneling may even be much cheaper than a trench. HMM Trench Study: As you may recall, in 2014, HMM gave a rough estimated cost for a trench below Meadow and Charleston at $488 Million (in 2014 dollars). Here was the breakdown: 2 lkscnption Uak Cak Cost Roll Tread 1% Mu Grade (Caltrain Preferred) Qaty Total Com Estimate Summary Construction 1tiltt) Relocation and Protection Subtotal A Professional Services (% of Subtotal A) Right of W'ar (incl. ROW Services) 35% Subtotal B Contingency (% of Subtotal B) 2'' 'Total Project Cost (2014 dollars) 627 a4n,744 213.300 672,65 4,044 21" ,97K,915 H40,582,960 210.145.740 1,050.728,700 RaU Trench 2% Ma:. Grade (w,DmiKn Esceplion) Tatar Celt 289,191 768 I n4 sm 289.296.168 101.253.659 390549.826 97.637,457 note 1► Professional Services includes Design Engineering, Project Mgnrnt, and Construction Mgmt. Central Subway Tunnel Without Freight 488.187,283 Also in 2014, the Central Subway project in San Francisco completed a 1.7 mile dual subway tunnel using two 20.7 ft diameter tunnel boring machines (TBM). While the overall cost of the project is very high, the vast majority of the cost is related to several very deep and complex stations. The cost to complete the tunnel portion of the project: $234 million dollars (2014 dollars). For reference, the distance from Loma Verde Ave to San Antonio Road in Palo Alto is 1.6 miles. Palo Alto would likely have a additional costs beyond what was needed on the subway project (signaling, larger diameter bore, etc.) but the price difference is worth investigating and maybe minimal with the use of a single bore tunnel. Unlike Palo Alto's right of way, these tunnels were built in densely urban San Francisco and under an active BART liner. The TBMs went through various soils ranging from soft soils to thinly bedded siltstone, shale and sandstone bedrock - with some area designated as "Potentially Gassy with Special Conditions" by Cal/OSHA2. The TBMs also had to navigate the 1 http://www.therobbinscompany.com/project-category/epb-tbm/ 2 http://www.therobbinscompany.com/project-category/epb-tbm/ 3 steep and turning alignment in an area where they dealt with low cover, nearby utilities, and sensitive structures requiring analyses and precautions to limit settlement impact and ensure the structures in downtown SF were safe. Given Palo Alto is in a suburban area with less constraints, it seems reasonable to consider this alternative closely. Palo Alto Short Tunnel Another way to reduce the cost of a tunnel is to reduce the diameter. In 2014, the High Speed Rail Authority's White Paper on Tunneling describes how they achieved significant cost reductions by reducing maximum operating speeds assumptions in the tunnels from 220 mph to 200 mph, thereby allowing them to reduce tunnel diameters from 29.5' to 28' ID (Inside Diameter). 3 CARRD requested from AECOM information on the tunnel assumptions being used for the City wide tunnel (which include freight) and they responded that they are using a "28 ft Inside Diameter Tunnel" which would large enough to allow 200 mph speeds. A significantly smaller diameter would be required to accommodate planned speeds of 110 mph. And, as noted in our previous public comment on height clearances, the Caltrain Electrification EIR specifically notes that the clearance levels at the San Francisquito creek bridge (where freight passes today) is actually 19ft. It is therefore worth investigating whether the tunnel dimensions for a short, electrified train only tunnel in Palo Alto where maximum speed for both Caltrain and HSR is 110 miles per hour would allow us to have a tunnel diameter that is less than 28'. Other key things to consider for the short tunnel with freight on the surface (EDT) option: • Without freight, the 1% grade requirement could more readily change to 2% or even 3% grade, which would allow for more design flexibility. • Caltrain and freight could continue operations during construction with minimal disruption except at the site of tunnel boring machine entrance and exit. • Traffic during construction would be minimally disrupted • Tunnels in stations are expensive, but this option would not impact stations • Tunnels are faster to build. Construction time is dramatically reduced because the work window issues and the phasing required on the road side are much less. • It would go under the utilities, reducing the cost. • It could go under the creeks. • It does not impact the streets. • The equivalent of shoofly tracks are needed near the portal, but not along the entire right-of-way. 3 California High -Speed Rail Program Whitepaper On Cost Reduction Strategies, July 25, 2014 4 • With careful planning and analysis, TBM's can be reused - perhaps by other cities along the corridor. 4 • In the future, some or all freight could be re-routed over the Dumbarton Rail route (currently being studied) thus freeing up space along the right-of-way for other potential land use options. • Temporary space for the tunnel portal may be necessary and could require minimal eminent domain that could be returned to the housing stock on completion of the project. • The ROW closer to San Antonio road is much wider than other parts of the City (150 ft wide). If the TBM was launched from that end, then the removal requires less space. To see the space required for extracting a TBM, see this video showing the removal of the TBMs used on the Central Subway project in SF. https://bit.ly/2PpntNC Note the size of the extraction point is quite small. Summary: Preliminary design of grade separations are vague and costs climb when one considers the issues of staging, prolonged construction, utility relocation, ground water issues, and maintaining operations on a heavily trafficked railway during construction. What initially seems like a cheaper solution, can become expensive quickly when these costs are all tallied up. For this reason, we support the inclusion of a short electric train only tunnel with freight on the surface. If you would like any additional information or have any additional questions, please let us know. Sincerely, Nadia Naik and Elizabeth Alexis Co-founders CARRD 4 https://www.herrenknecht.com/en/services/global-services/tbm-refurbishment.html From: Gregory Brail To: Council, City Subject: Public comment: Request to stop removing grade separation options Date: Monday, November 12, 2018 10:31:29 PM Dear City Council Members: In advance of Wednesday's Rail Committee meeting, I am writing to request that the Council hold off on eliminating any more grade separation options for South Palo Alto until the Council and staff are able to gather more information and hear more public input. At the previous Rail Committee meeting, a proposal was made to eliminate the viaduct option from consideration. I urge the Council and Committee to wait until we all have more information before making this decision. As a member of the Community Advisory Panel on Grade Separation, I am concerned that the Council is moving quickly to limit our choices without giving the staff and the CAP enough time to understand the options and share them with the entire city. When all is said and done, I believe that the viaduct may not be as obvious a non-starter as many believe. For example: • Without detailed engineering drawings and 3D graphics, it is premature to make assumptions about the visual impact of a 20' viaduct versus a 15' embankment. • Similarly, without a thorough understanding of the impact of a 30' deep trench on our creeks and on the surrounding community, it is premature to move this solution closer to reality by eliminating an alternative. I hope that the Council can instead continue to carefully study the matter, reach out to the community, staff, and the CAP. We will all be able to make a considered decision together in a few months. Gregory Brail 2046 Edgewood Drive greg@brail.org From: Laurie Winslow To: Council, Oty Subject: Put the train Underground Date: Friday, November 9, 2018 11:03:41 AM Dear City Council, On the subject of what to do with Caltrain through the City of Palo Alto, my vote is to put the train Underground or at the very least in a trench. Underground would have the added advantage that we could have bike paths and walking paths and a linear park on the top. It also doesn't divide the city the way the current proposal to close roads would. Laurie Winslow From: Lindsay Joye To: Council, aty Cc: Keene, James. Shikada, Ed• De Geus, Robert; "Mandar Borkar" Subject: Rail Committee Motion Request Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 2:03:50 PM As a 25 year resident of Palo Alto with a home on Park Blvd. adjacent to the Caltrain Right of Way, I am requesting that the Rail Committee motion to place the following items on the next City Council meeting agenda for approval: 1. Add the Charleston/Meadow tunnel (passenger train in tunnel and freight at grade) to AECOM's work plan for further detailed analysis. 2. Direct AECOM to explore moving the Trench towards Alma (Eastward) so that it further reduces impact to residential properties. This will mitigate visual, noise, and vibration impacts as well as the requirement to ban trees and possibly ADU construction in adjacent Park Blvd. backyards to install trench wall anchors. 3. Eliminate or merge raised options; Eliminate Viaduct and/or merge with Hybrid; Spend more time and resource on studying underground options; Thank you! - Lindsay Joye From: Ben Tarbell To: Council, City. cory.wolbach@gmail.com• adrianfine@gmail.com. Filseth, Eric (external) kou.pacc@gmail.com• tomforcouncik gmail.com• greg(agregtanaka.orq• Scharff, Greg. electcormack(aamail.com• Keene, James Shikada, Ed. De Geus, Robert Subject: Rail Committee Request Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 10:20:07 AM Dear City Council members and city staff, Thank you for your service to our city. I am a 12 year resident of South Palo Alto (off E. Meadow) and writing to request further consideration of tunnel or trench train track options at Charleston/Meadow. Please add these options to the AECOM work plan so we can investigate them further. If required to do so, please eliminate the viaduct option or merge it with the hybrid option to allow for more time and resources to continue investigation of the underground options. Rail committee, please make a motion to add this to the next city council meeting agenda for their approval. Thank you for your consideration, Ben Tarbell From: Lindsay Joye To: Council, aty Cc: Keene, James. Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Mandar Borkar Subject: Rail Grade Separation Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 2:03:04 PM I am a 25 year resident of Palo Alto with a home on Park Blvd. adjacent to the Caltrain Right of Way. I am requesting that the Rail Committee motion to place the following items on the next City Council meeting agenda for approval: 1. Add Charleston/Meadow tunnel(passenger train in tunnel and freight at grade) to AECOM work plan for next level detail. 2. Suggest AECOM to explore moving the Trench towards Alma (Eastward) so that it further reduces impact to residential properties; (This will mitigate visual, noise, and vibration impacts as well as the requirement to ban trees and possibly ADU construction in adjacent Park Blvd. backyards to install trench wall anchors.) 3. Eliminate or merge raised options; Eliminate Viaduct and/or merge with Hybrid; Spend more time and resource on studying underground options; Thank you! - Lindsay Joye From: James Taylor To: Council, City Subject: Rail options in Palo Alto Date: Sunday, November 18, 2018 2:35:31 PM Hi A quick bit of feedback from someone currently living in Greenmeadow who grew up in England living near electrified trains (at grade in one case, elevated on an embankment in the other case - both within 2 house widths, one MUCH more frequent than caltrain dreams of). It seems to me that the only realistic option is to run the trains at grade level and close Charleston, Churchill and Meadow. The track could be raised a little to allow a pedestrian / cycle path such as the one at N. California to pass under (allowing the majority of Gunn, Paly and Fletcher students to make the crossing). San Antonio/Oregon/University/Embarcadero are surely enough crossings for what is, at the end of the day, a small city. Once they were closed traffic would sort itself out and the city could then invest in improving the new hotspots created. All the other options are either prohibitively expensive (tunnels), thoroughly unpleasant for those living nearby (viaduct) or just utterly impractical given the water table (trench and probably tunnel too). As a city we need and should want a regular electric rail service. This means the at -grade crossings have to go. Closing them is the only option as no matter what people say, they won't be will be willing to pay the taxes necessary for anything else. I appreciate you listening to the local population but you should be realistic about what can be done. And a tunnel is too expense, the trench seems unlikely and the viaduct will never make it past the voters. Thanks for listening James From: Laurie Winslow To: Council, Oty Subject: Rail UNDERGROUND Date: Monday, November 12, 2018 3:47:16 PM The rail UNDERGROUND isn't a rock band! It's me voting as a citizen to ask that you consider more strongly the idea of putting the train in a tunnel preferably or a trench. That introduces some problems but it solves more long-standing problems and some of the new ones that extra trains will create. Laurie Winslow From: Michal Sadoff To: Council, City. Keene, James. Shikada, Ed• robert.deGeus@cityofpalotalto.orq Subject: Request for Rail Committee and Qty Council regarding items for AECOM work plan Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 9:52:01 AM Hello to the Rail Committee, City Council members, and City staff. I am a resident in Greenmeadow. The matter of our future rail design matters greatly to me. For reasons of aesthetics, preservation of the character of our city, and noise, I am NOT in favor of a viaduct or hybrid. I DO want the city to put more resources into exploring a tunnel, as I do not think that has gotten sufficient exploration. I understand that now is the time to ask that the Rail Committee members place onto the City Council agenda a recommendation that the council approve that AECOM work on the below items, and that the Council approve these: 1. MOST IMPORTANT: Add Charleston/Meadow tunnel (passenger train in tunnel and freight at grade) to AECOM work plan for next level detail. 2. Suggest that AECOM explore moving the Trench towards Alma (Eastward) so that it further reduces impact to residential properties; 3. Eliminate or merge raised options; Eliminate Viaduct and/or merge with Hybrid; Spend more time and resource on studying underground options; Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my request. Sincerely, Michal Ruth Sadoff 431 Adobe Place From: Miriam Madigan Brown To: Shikada, Ed Robert. DeGeus@cityofpaloalto.o. adrianfine@gmail.com. Filseth, Eric (external). kou.oacc(@gmail.corry tomforcouncik gmail.com• area�a)aregtanaka.orq. Scharff. Greg. electcormack@gmail.com• Keene. James. Council, Qty Cc: Mandar Borkar Subject: REQUEST: Add further rail options to AECOM Work Plan Date: Monday, November 12, 2018 8:59:04 PM Greetings City Council and City Staff: My family and I are residents of the Ventura neighborhood in Palo Alto, we bought a home here 15 years ago. We have two children in the neighborhood public schools, and my husband and I are active members of the community - volunteering in youth sports leagues, in the schools, and with local organizations such as PACCC. We care a great deal about the community and are deeply invested in ensuring that Palo Alto remains a community that prioritizes quality of life for residents. With this in mind, I ask that you please help us guide toward wise long-term decisions in the railway planning that is currently taking place. What is under consideration right now will be with our community for a long, long time - decades (centuries?) into the future. It is critical that we not take short-sighted approaches, but rather look at this work through a truly big - picture lens - asking "how might we" work toward a plan that meets both the needs for more transportation, AND increases livability rather than eroding it further. More specifically, I ask that the rail committee make a motion on Wednesday to add to the next City Council agenda approval to have AECOM work on the following: 1. TOP PRIORITY: Add Charleston/Meadow tunnel (passenger train in tunnel and freight at grade) to AECOM work plan for next level detail. 2. Direct AECOM to explore moving the Trench towards Alma (Eastward) so that it further reduces impact to residential properties; 3. Eliminate or merge raised options; Eliminate Viaduct and/or merge with Hybrid; Spend more time and resource on studying underground options Adding these options to the work plan will ensure that we are able to fully consider and weigh the tradeoffs of a range of options as we make this critical decision for our community. Please support this full consideration by adding these items to the AECOM workplan. Thank You, Miriam Brown Fernando Ave. From: Deborah Waxman To: Council, Qty. cory.wolbach@gmail.com• adrianfine@gmail.com• Filseth, Eric (external) kou.pacccmail.com• tomforcouncil@gmaiI com• arecOareotanaka.orq Scharff, Greg Subject: Support for under grounding the train Date: Friday, November 9, 2018 3:16:50 FM Dear City Council Members, I live in Palo Alto near the Charleston/Alma intersection. I've lived here for more than a decade, through the many suicides at the Charleston and the West Meadow intersections and through the increasingly dense noise and traffic. The current trains already pose a significant hazard and a cost to our quality of life. Adding above grade options will greatly exacerbate these issues. I strongly oppose an above -grade rail design as unsafe, unsightly, and a huge contributor to the already severe traffic congestion at this intersection. I understand your concern about costs, but I also know the cost to safety, property values, and quality of life that will endure for decades. We have already lost two families, who have moved away because they can't endure the options that have been proposed. I urge you to consider the long-term impacts of this project rather than succumbing to short-term cost concerns. Underground tracks will minimize train noise and safety issues, and free up land for better, more neighborhood friendly uses. It would also save many families from the loss of their homes through eminent domain. I can only hope that you will consider a tunnel option and allow the communities to find ways to fund a tunnel rather than peremptorily deciding against an option that will do so much good for the community. Thank you for your consideration, Deborah Waxman 4166 Park Blvd Palo Alto, CA 94306 From: Arnie Neff To: Keene. James. Shikada, Ed• De Geus. Robert. Council, City. cory.wolbach@gmail.com• Adrian Fine. Flseth, Eric (externall• kou.oacc@gmail.com• tomforcouncil@gmail.com• areaCa�aregtanaka.orq• Scharff. Greq• electcormack@gmail.com Subject: Train Committee Meeting Feedback Nov 14 Date: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 1:16:40 PM Attachments: image.onq image.onq Hi All, I'm sorry we were forced to an early conclusion, I was looking forward to hearing more about the passenger tunnel, freight above option. I have 2 thoughts to share: 1) Given the constraints currently making the City Wide Tunnel and even shallow trench options difficult (drainage, subsurface right-of-way claims, maintenance, costs, venting, train recovery, etc.), we may be at a better advantage if we can eliminate the freight and put Cal - Train below grade. I am in favor of investigating this option. While it doesn't eliminate the tracks running through the city, it does give us an opportunity to decouple the issue of freight from our city-wide response to increased Cal -Train frequency and ridership, and this is smart. I would like to Echo Nadia Niak's request that AECom remain impartial in presenting each option with an equal amount of enthusiasm and skepticism. It is not in our best interest to follow the desires of our consultant. That I am now painfully aware of the 1st choice of our consultants makes this process feel like lip -service. 2) Eddie briefly mentioned her team was looking at relocating the viaduct to the shoefly location, but declined to go into further detail. It seemed as if Lydia Kou, another speaking member of the community (whose name I forget) and myself all had the impression that pushing the viaduct into the shoefly, might mean that Alma street, (when the viaduct was completed) would be bifurcated by the viaduct overhead. This isn't a bad idea. If we could push the viaduct over far enough into our current existing traffic lane, then we would stack transportation vertically, instead of taking up valuable land required to put the train adjacent to Alma. The viaduct doesn't demand the same width as an at -grade train, and the space below is freed up for alternate uses. Putting a park beneath isn't realistic, but putting cars beneath? Why not? Shifting the viaduct away from people's back yards is a nice idea. Plus, you'll be able to leave the train in place during the bulk of construction. Of course, the train will have to shift back to the original track, and Alma will have to be adjusted to accommodate that shift, but if you did it away from the existing crossings, near, for example, Bruce Bauer lumber on the South end, and near El Dorado on the North end, you could avoid impacting any roadway crossings. The bike lane could then roughly link San Antonio Station with the new development at Fry's. Here are a couple of imperfect images to sample: image.png image.png I'd love to see details on AECom's suggestion, and investigate how far over we could push the train viaduct into Alma. Thanks All. Amie Neff M.Arch, LEEDS AP cell: 650/ 396/ 9146 amie.neff@gmail.com www.capabledesign.com From: Wolfgang Dueregger To: Council, Qty Cc: Neilson Buchanan Paul & Karen Machado. Carol Scott Christian Pease. David Schrom• John Guislin Subject: tunnel Date: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 9:06:57 PM Dear City Council, here is an update about what the Boring Company is doing in LA. Did you receive a bid in the meantime for our tunnel? https://la.curbed.com/2017/12/4/16734696/elon-musk-tunnels-boring-company-map Wolfgang Dueregger From: gmahany@aol.com To: Shikada. Ed. De Geus. Robert Council. aty. cory.wolbach@gmail.com• adrianfine@gmail.com• Flseth, Eric (externall• kou.oacc@gmail.com• tomforcouncil@gmail.com• areaCa�aregtanaka.orq• Scharff. Greg. electcormack@gmail.com Subject: Viaduct noise cansulation at grade railcrossings Date: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 12:08:38 PM hello all I know that there is a reflex to say that a viaduct is just an eye sore but for affordability we may have to accept an eye sore. However, when I am not looking at the viaduct, I do not want to hear it. Noise cancellation features to the viaduct design are a must have. AECOM consultants show sound walls for noise cancellation, this is a good design feature. Other noise cancellation features like resilient material to isolate the rails from rail platform should also be used especially on the bridges over Charleston Rd and Meadow Ave. Gary Mahany Carnahan, David From: Phil Burton <philip-b@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 5:41 PM To: De Geus, Robert Cc: Council, City; 'Chris Logan'; Carrasco, Tony; 'Dave Shen'; 'Greg Brail'; 'Inyoung Cho'; 'Megan Kanne'; 'Kari Hodgson'; 'Mandar Borkar'; 'Parag Patkar'; 'Patricia Lau'; 'Nadia Naik' Subject: Concern and frustration about lack of effective communications Rob, At the most recent City Council Rail Committee meeting, the third of three handouts was a June 28, 2017 letter from then mayor Scharff to Francisco Castillo, Director of Public Affairs, Union Pacific Railroad. I was surprised to read the following: "The electrification of Caltrain will allow for higher grades, as electric service can easily deal with up to a two percent grade." [my italics] The maximum grade has been a central point of both Rail Committee and CAP meeting discussions, because of the impact on construction costs as well as feasibility of certain alternatives. To the best of my knowledge, no one on staff ever stated that the elected officials or staff already understood this point. When several speakers, including me, made this point at various meetings, there was no staff response in the spirit of, "We already understand this point, and are prepared to raise it with Caltrain and/or UPRR." I find it surprising and a bit frustrating that CAP members and members of the general public (speaking at Rail Committee meetings) aren't aware of the full history of this key issue. With full awareness of the history, CAP members can be more effective as intermediaries between project staff and residents of our respective neighborhoods. The online search "Union Pacific RR shortline RFP process" yields a link http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/_Public+Affairs/pdf/UP+Agreement+FAQs.pdf, a March 1, 2017 Caltrain / UP Agreement. The FAQ contains this question and answer: However, the link in the answer is no longer valid. 2. QUESTION: Where can I fend a copy of the documents ANSWER: Documents are available at www.calirain.com/about/JPB Agreements Thus we have no way to know if and how the UP responded to Mayor Scharff's letter, yet an understanding of their response, if any, might have a vital bearing on current discussions of this issue. Is there any way for staff to provide CAP members, or the general public, with copies of the relevant documents? The other key issue involving UP is vertical clearance above top of rail. Has there been any correspondence with UP on this issue? I would like to point out that electric multiple -unit trains can easily climb a grade of well over 2%. I am personally familiar with grades on the New York City Transit System, which also uses electric MU trains. You can read here that there are several locations on this system with grades over 4%. https://www.nyctransitforums.com/topic/39935-what- is-the-steepest-grade-that-subway-cars-can-handle/ Respectfully, Phil Burton 1 Carnahan, David From: Tracy Mallory <tracylistsl @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 10:03 AM To: Council, City Subject: grade separation of rail crossings As one of many residents commenting on the project, I'd like to ask if the project evaluation criteria ever included loss of property value with the various options, and also ask again why the reversed hybrid option has been dismissed? If an above gade-level option for the train of any kind is selected the increase in noise, especially at night and the visual blight (especially during the day;-) will obviously have a dramatic effect on the value of properties on either side of the tracks, with greater reductions closer to the rail line. It should not be hard to get some "real" estimates, but the following is more likely to be low than high. Conservatively: 1 mile of significanity impacted housing, call it 50 lot lengths along the route, but could be twice this 5 lots deep on each side seriously affected - lose 10% property value 10 lots further on each sidely moderately affected - lose 5% property value 10 lots further mildly affected - lose 2.5% property value On east side average property value is ?? 2.5M On west side average property value is ?? 2M ((250 * 2M) + (250 * 2.5M)) * 0.1 + ((500 * 2M) + (500 * 2.5M)) * 0.05 + ((500 * 2M) + (500 * 2.5M)) * 0.025 = $281,250 It's pretty clear why a lot of residents are very upset about the direct cost to them of a cheap solution. It is not acceptable to compare this to existing raised track solutions farther north. Once you get to Redwood city there are relatively few houses along the route, but south Palo Alto is all single-family housing. I'm surprised that the "other" hybrid option of raising the roads an lowering the rail line has been dismissed. I would be very distressed by having my house taken as a result of eminent domain needs, but losing ten houses, perhaps paying the owners twice what they are worth, would be much, much cheaper than impacting thousands of homeowners for the rest of their lives and dividing the south end of the city permanently with visual as well as a physical wall. We don't need massive structures of the magnitude of San Antonio Road. Although fairly wide, the roadway could have quite a low load limit, requiring trucks to use San Antonio or Oregon as today. Sink the train 15 feet(not 30) which would put it 17 feet below where it is today(it's above grade now) and raise the road 10 feet and everyone except for a few well - compensated home -owners will be much happier than with any of the current plans. Sincerely, Tracy Mallory 650-279-0037 PS: Here's the math: »> expr \(\( \( 500 \* 2000000 \) + \( 500 \* 2500000 \) \) \* 5 \/ 100 \) \+ \( \( \( 500 \* 2000000 \) + \( 500 \* 2500000 \) \) \* 25 \/ 1000 \) \+ \( \( \( 250 \* 2000000 \) + \( 250 \* 2500000 \) \) \* 10 \/ 100 \) 281250000 Carnahan, David From: James Taylor <jamet1234@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2018 2:35 PM To: Council, City Subject: Rail options in Palo Alto Hi A quick bit of feedback from someone currently living in Greenmeadow who grew up in England living near electrified trains (at grade in one case, elevated on an embankment in the other case - both within 2 house widths, one MUCH more frequent than caltrain dreams of). It seems to me that the only realistic option is to run the trains at grade level and close Charleston, Churchill and Meadow. The track could be raised a little to allow a pedestrian / cycle path such as the one at N. California to pass under (allowing the majority of Gunn, Paly and Fletcher students to make the crossing). San Antonio/Oregon/University/Embarcadero are surely enough crossings for what is, at the end of the day, a small city. Once they were closed traffic would sort itself out and the city could then invest in improving the new hotspots created. All the other options are either prohibitively expensive (tunnels), thoroughly unpleasant for those living nearby (viaduct) or just utterly impractical given the water table (trench and probably tunnel too). As a city we need and should want a regular electric rail service. This means the at -grade crossings have to go. Closing them is the only option as no matter what people say, they won't be will be willing to pay the taxes necessary for anything else. I appreciate you listening to the local population but you should be realistic about what can be done. And a tunnel is too expense, the trench seems unlikely and the viaduct will never make it past the voters. Thanks for listening James 1 11/27/2018 Caltrain launches public process in San Jose on ambitious 20 -year business plan - Silicon Valley Business Joumal FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF CNSBUCHANAN@YAHOO.COM From the Silicon Valley Business Journal: https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/ i 1/27/caltrain-business-plan-electrification- ridership.html Caltrain launches public process on ambitious 20 -year business plan Nov 27, 2018, 5:57am PST Subscriber -Only Article Preview 1 For full site access: Subscribe Now Electric trains from Gilroy to San Francisco. Speeds topping 100 miles per hour. BART -like frequencies. No grade crossings. Caltrain has begun working on its first business plan in years, one that looks ahead two decades to a time when the railroad could be carrying nearly a quarter -million passengers a day, four times as many as now, taking a bigger bite out of the Peninsula travel market. "This corridor is the envy of nearly every city that has a commuter railroad," Sebastian Petty, Caltrain's senior policy advisor, said Monday night at a community meeting in San Jose. The meeting was the last of three in each of the Caltrain-served counties that's being used to kick off the public part of the two-year work schedule to develop the plan. CALTRAIN An artist's rendering of one of the new electric trains that Caltrain has ordered from Stadler Rail AG in Switzerland. The trains are now being built in Stadler's Salt Lake City plant. "There's no way we could build this railroad today where it is because it goes right through the center of every city we serve." Not only did Peninsula cities sprout around stations on the 155 -year -old line — exactly the kind of transportation hubs modern city planners dream of — but Silicon Valley's growth has created two-way commutes filling seats on trains in both directions, efficiencies that simply don't exist on the vast majority of similar railroads elsewhere in the world. Petty said plans being explored for the future rely heavily on two assumptions: That the full railroad will be converted to electric operation and that high-speed rail, which has planned since 2013 for its trains to share its tracks, will actually be built so that that project can continue to share in the costs of upgrading and maintaining the line. "This is really not a 'greenfield exercise,— Petty said. "The Caltrain corridor is about as far from a green field as you can get. We're talking about visions, not blue-sky planning, that really exist within this framework of existing policy decisions. There a number of those but probably biggest one is the commitment to high- speed rail." In its most recent two-year business plan, the California High -Speed Rail Authority extended its plan for "blended service" — conventional and high-speed trains sharing track between San Francisco and San Jose https://www.bizjoumals.com/sanjose/news/2018/11 /27/caltrain-business-plan-electrification-ridership.html?s=print 1/2 11/27/2018 Caltrain launches public process in San Jose on ambitious 20 -year business plan - Silicon Valley Business Journal — all the way south to Gilroy, Caltrain's current terminus. That would save money for high-speed rail construction and allow Caltrain to switch exclusively to faster electric trains. It's also the kind of improvement that was endangered in early 2017 when California's Republican congressional delegation temporarily blocked the federal share of funding to begin Caltrain's $1.9 billion electrification project on the Peninsula because it would help high-speed rail. Electrification work is now under way with about a third of funding coming from high-speed rail. The first electric Caltrain service is scheduled for 2020. Petty said one of the most immediate challenges for the plan to address is how to reduce or eliminate the 42 street grade crossings that still exist on the line, which means traffic backs up when trains pass through and railroad speeds are limited. It costs about $100 million to convert each crossing to a bridge or underpass, he said. Jody Meacham Reporter Silicon Valley Business Journal https://www.bizjoumals.com/sanjose/news/2018/11/27/caltrain-business-plan-electrification-ridership.html?s=print 2/2 CARRD Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design November 12, 2018 Subject: Recommendation of adding alternative of short tunnel for electrified trains only with freight at the surface for Meadow and Charleston alternatives. Dear City Council Members, We support the Staff Report recommendation to not eliminate any grade separation alternatives at this time. While the Viaduct is the least favored alternative, it remains worthy of further analysis because it is the lowest cost and allows more connectivity than a Hybrid (which functions effectively as a wall). In addition, we would like to propose an alternative that was mentioned previously: a short tunnel for electrified trains, with freight remaining at the surface. The slope, clearance, ventilation and Fire Life Safety requirements driven by freight and other diesel trains in the tunnels add significant costs to the tunnel proposal currently under consideration. Freight tentatively remaining at the surface for the present would not liberate all of the ROW land for other uses, but the vehicular crossing capacity issue would be addressed. A key condition has recently changed along the corridor making this a feasible alternative; Caltrain is no longer considering running both diesel and electric trains and will now have a fully electric fleet. In addition, the Dumbarton Rail project recently received approval to begin its investigation of whether to rebuild the old rail bridge that formerly carried freight across the Bay. If this came to fruition, freight might be partially or fully diverted to a Dumbarton route and no longer pass through Palo Alto, leaving the right-of-way above the tunnel free for other uses. We have identified a similar tunneling project, the San Francisco Central Subway Tunnel, which seems to indicate that tunneling may even be much cheaper than a trench. HMM Trench Study: As you may recall, in 2014, HMM gave a rough estimated cost for a trench below Meadow and Charleston at $488 Million (in 2014 dollars). Here was the breakdown: 2 tkscrtption t alt Estimate Summary Construction l'tlltt) Relocation and Protection fl tnU C.sl Rap hen& I% Max Grade (Caltrain Prtrerred) rand Q Cool Subtotal A Professional Services (°/. of Subtotal A) Right of W'a► (incl. ROW Services) Ran Treads 2% Nat. Crede (w'Deiikn Esceplio.) tllt•l COI ono - 622.440.744 2/40.191,768 't3?lM1 Tn4.4.01 622.65044 289.296.168 141:. 217.42 8.915 11)1.253.659 Subtotal B 84U 182,4611 Contingency (% of Subtotal B) 254'. 21U.145'40 'Total Project Cost (2014 dollars) 1.030.'►i8.7041 300 549.87A note 1► Professional Services includes Design Engineering, Project Mgmt, and Construction MgmL Central Subway Tunnel Without Freight 97.647 457 • 4ss.I57.283 Also in 2014, the Central Subway project in San Francisco completed a 1.7 mile dual subway tunnel using two 20.7 ft diameter tunnel boring machines (TBM). While the overall cost of the project is very high, the vast majority of the cost is related to several very deep and complex stations. The cost to complete the tunnel portion of the project: $234 million dollars (2014 dollars). For reference, the distance from Loma Verde Ave to San Antonio Road in Palo Alto is 1.6 miles. Palo Alto would likely have a additional costs beyond what was needed on the subway project (signaling, larger diameter bore, etc.) but the price difference is worth investigating and maybe minimal with the use of a single bore tunnel. Unlike Palo Alto's right of way, these tunnels were built in densely urban San Francisco and under an active BART line1. The TBMs went through various soils ranging from soft soils to thinly bedded siltstone, shale and sandstone bedrock - with some area designated as "Potentially Gassy with Special Conditions" by Cal/OSHA2. The TBMs also had to navigate the 1 http://www.therobbinscompany.com/project-category/epb-tbm/ 2 http://www.therobbinscompany.com/project-category/epb-tbm/ 3 steep and turning alignment in an area where they dealt with low cover, nearby utilities, and sensitive structures requiring analyses and precautions to limit settlement impact and ensure the structures in downtown SF were safe. Given Palo Alto is in a suburban area with less constraints, it seems reasonable to consider this alternative closely. Palo Alto Short Tunnel Another way to reduce the cost of a tunnel is to reduce the diameter. In 2014, the High Speed Rail Authority's White Paper on Tunneling describes how they achieved significant cost reductions by reducing maximum operating speeds assumptions in the tunnels from 220 mph to 200 mph, thereby allowing them to reduce tunnel diameters from 29.5' to 28' ID (Inside Diameter). 3 CARRD requested from AECOM information on the tunnel assumptions being used for the City wide tunnel (which include freight) and they responded that they are using a "28 ft Inside Diameter Tunnel" which would large enough to allow 200 mph speeds. A significantly smaller diameter would be required to accommodate planned speeds of 110 mph. And, as noted in our previous public comment on height clearances, the Caltrain Electrification EIR specifically notes that the clearance levels at the San Francisquito creek bridge (where freight passes today) is actually 19ft. It is therefore worth investigating whether the tunnel dimensions for a short, electrified train only tunnel in Palo Alto where maximum speed for both Caltrain and HSR is 110 miles per hour would allow us to have a tunnel diameter that is less than 28'. Other key things to consider for the short tunnel with freight on the surface (EDT) option: Without freight, the 1% grade requirement could more readily change to 2% or even 3% grade, which would allow for more design flexibility. Caltrain and freight could continue operations during construction with minimal disruption except at the site of tunnel boring machine entrance and exit. Traffic during construction would be minimally disrupted Tunnels in stations are expensive, but this option would not impact stations Tunnels are faster to build. Construction time is dramatically reduced because the work window issues and the phasing required on the road side are much less. It would go under the utilities, reducing the cost. It could go under the creeks. It does not impact the streets. The equivalent of shoofly tracks are needed near the portal, but not along the entire right-of-way. 3 California High -Speed Rail Program Whitepaper On Cost Reduction Strategies, July 25, 2014 4 With careful planning and analysis, TBM's can be reused - perhaps by other cities along the corridor. 4 In the future, some or all freight could be re-routed over the Dumbarton Rail route (currently being studied) thus freeing up space along the right-of-way for other potential land use options. Temporary space for the tunnel portal may be necessary and could require minimal eminent domain that could be returned to the housing stock on completion of the project. The ROW closer to San Antonio road is much wider than other parts of the City (150 ft wide). If the TBM was launched from that end, then the removal requires less space. To see the space required for extracting a TBM, see this video showing the removal of the TBMs used on the Central Subway project in SF. https://bit.Iy/2PpntNC Note the size of the extraction point is quite small. Summary: Preliminary design of grade separations are vague and costs climb when one considers the issues of staging, prolonged construction, utility relocation, ground water issues, and maintaining operations on a heavily trafficked railway during construction. What initially seems like a cheaper solution, can become expensive quickly when these costs are all tallied up. For this reason, we support the inclusion of a short electric train only tunnel with freight on the surface. If you would like any additional information or have any additional questions, please let us know. Sincerely, Nadia Naik and Elizabeth Alexis Co-founders CARRD 4 https://www.herrenknecht.com/en/services/global-services/tbm-refurbishment.html Carnahan, David From: gmahany@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 12:08 PM To: Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Council, City; cory.wolbach@gmail.com; adrianfine@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (external); kou.pacc@gmail.com; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; greg@gregtanaka.org; Scharff, Greg; electcormack@gmail.com Subject: Viaduct noise cansulation at grade railcrossings hello all I know that there is a reflex to say that a viaduct is just an eye sore but for affordability we may have to accept an eye sore. However, when I am not looking at the viaduct, I do not want to hear it. Noise cancellation features to the viaduct design are a must have. AECOM consultants show sound walls for noise cancellation, this is a good design feature. Other noise cancellation features like resilient material to isolate the rails from rail platform should also be used especially on the bridges over Charleston Rd and Meadow Ave. Gary Mahany 1 Carnahan, David From: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 9:36 AM To: Council, City Cc: Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner Subject: SOS for the Rail Committee meeting Nov 27 Attachments: 181127 Caltrain 20 year business plan SV Biz Journal Nov 27 2018.pdf SOS = seriously out of sync When I read the attached SV Business Journal coverage [Nov 27] of Caltrain and HSR, I had an out of body experience. Should I even be concerned at age 74; I have actuarial probability of 11.7 more years of life. Based on Caltrain record of success, I don't seriously consider Caltrain's 20 -year planning. 20 -year planning does not have to be totally fact -based but some of Caltrain's HSR options may not exist for me or anyone else. It is very hard to reconcile the gap between our Caltrain grade crossings' pressures and the happy - face projected by Caltrain's senior policy adviser. I urge Palo Alto and other SC County cities create more order out of this chaos. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 1 Carnahan, David From: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 9:36 AM To: Council, City Cc: Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner Subject: SOS for the Rail Committee meeting Nov 27 Attachments: 181127 Caltrain 20 year business plan SV Biz Journal Nov 27 2018.pdf SOS = seriously out of sync When I read the attached SV Business Journal coverage [Nov 27] of Caltrain and HSR, I had an out of body experience. Should I even be concerned at age 74; I have actuarial probability of 11.7 more years of life. Based on Caltrain record of success, I don't seriously consider Caltrain's 20 -year planning. 20 -year planning does not have to be totally fact -based but some of Caltrain's HSR options may not exist for me or anyone else. It is very hard to reconcile the gap between our Caltrain grade crossings' pressures and the happy - face projected by Caltrain's senior policy adviser. I urge Palo Alto and other SC County cities create more order out of this chaos. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 1 Monday, December 3, 2018 Dan Richard Chairman of the Board of Directors California High Speed Rail Authority Dan- Here is a Fresno Bee article re the fireworks in Sacramento over the auditor's report: https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/high-speed- rail/article222399890.html?utm source=Morning+Roundup&utm campaign=3764128db3- EMAIL CAMPAIGN 2018 12 03 04 29&utm medium=email&utm term=0 165ffe36b2-3764128db3- 78450701&mc cid=3764128db3&mc eid=7afa3a94f3 No doubt some of the criticism is valid, but the bulk of the opposition comes from Republicans who want to deny the American people the lavish lifestyle that we provide to the Japanese, Germans and other Europeans and to the Koreans. I think the Republicans are bribed and bribed lavishly to do that. Seen in that light, the rich Republicans who bankroll the opposition to high speed rail in California are revealed as the borderline traitors that they are. The United States supplies a free military defense for all of Europe, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, and a lot of other places, and we have done so since 1945. Those countries then spend their military money on high speed rail, affordable universities, magnificent national health care systems, and a lot more. All over the world, the American people are held in contempt for letting their government kick them around like that. The American political system is now hard -wired to ruin the lives of the American people and to enrich the lives of the people of Europe, Japan and Korea. This total Republican opposition to California high speed rail is emblematic of that perversion. The Republican scum who are trying to stop California high speed rail rely on the ignorance of the American voters. The schools in the United States are some of the worst in the world, by design. Trump's defense budget is $716 billion. That of Britain is 50 billion pounds. A U.S. defense budget of $400 billion would probably be an obscene waste of money. The American people are bled white to pay to defend much of the free -loading world. They get high speed rail, and we get little border -line traitors like Jim Patterson yelling his head off in Sacramento trying to deny HSR to the American people. The American people should wake up to this fraud and remove people like Patterson from our political life. He's a paid hatchet man for the Republicans. The American people need to take action against the Republican scum who work tirelessly to ruin their lives. We need a political revolution in the United States, if not a real one. Then we need to see our money spent to improve the lives of the American people. I think we have done enough to atone for defeating Germany and Japan in WWII, if that is what this is about. It is mainly about keeping the population of the Central Valley ignorant and exploitable by the rich Republicans who rule the roost here. To have educated, high income Silicon Valley people buy homes here would be to open the eyes of the poor people who exist here now. To enable people here to get high -paying jobs in Silicon Valley would be to empower them, and the Republicans who own the Central Valley want to keep them powerless. Again, just consider that we spend $716 to provide a free military defense for much of the world, many of whom have high speed rail, and the Republicans fight desperately to deny it to the American people. That starts to meet the definition of treason. I have very strong feelings about the Republicans, and I restrain myself from expressing them fully. Please hang in there, Chairman Richard. You have done an impossible job very well. L. William Harding Fresno 2 OCTOBER 2018 EMAILS TO CITY.COUNCIL ABOUT CONNECTING PALO ALTO GRADE SEPARATION From: Amie Neff To: Council, Qty Subject: Dimination of the viaduct Date: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 10:49:29 AM I vehemently oppose elimination of the viadct option without also eliminating the hybrid option. Between the two above ground options I feel the viaduct offers a much better option for the community for the following reasons: It opens up space below the raised rail for landscaping, possible bike or walking lanes, and should train ever become obsolete, offers the community a walking path option to reclaim. The hybrid will visually divide our city, it will severely degrade housing values, block light in people's yards, and be a general eyesore. If you plan on keeping any elevated options on the table at all, which I believe is a different question entirely, do not eliminate the viaduct. Thank you Amie Neff From: Jagdish Pamnani To: Council, Oty Subject: Grade separation at Meadow and Charleston rail crossings Date: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 8:33:50 PM Dear City Council Rail Committee, I live a few blocks from the Meadow rail crossing. My strongly preferred choice for both the Meadow and Charleston crossing is the shallow trench option as it significantly reduces the noise of passing trains, hides the train below grade level and allows a slightly elevated road over rail. However, to make this choice as cost-effective as possible, we need to do the following: 1. Get Caltrain to approve a 2% grade, publish the progress of this issue as a standing agenda item for the CAP and city council meetings. 2. Get Caltrain to approve 18.5ft top of rail to bridge clearance instead of 24.5ft, publish the progress of this issue as a standing agenda item for the CAP and city council meetings. The residents (550 of them who signed the petition) also need an update on the "Tunnel Option". AECOM / Rail Committee cannot make the unilateral decision to suddenly stop the tunnel option and merge this option with the Shallow Trench. There are two distinct options: Shallow trench and the Tunnel for Charleston/Meadow should be analyzed with Caltrain electric for tunnel and freight single rail at grade. The CAP/Residents need to be provided with detailed analysis on both these options. Also to keep the options to three, merge the least popular options of raised rail ( Hybrid and Viaduct) into one. Items 1, 2 will significantly reduce costs of whatever final option is chosen so it is extremely important for the council to get answers to these questions before making any final decision. Regards, Jagdish From: Wolfgang Duereoger To: Council, Qty Cc: Paul Machado. Neilson Buchanan* Carol Scott Subject: Grade separation Date: Monday, October 22, 2018 4:58:51 PM Dear City Council, there has been a lot of discussion, lots of money spent on studies (in the hundreds of thousands) but so far no actionable solution has been found how/if to separate the rail tracks from the car crossings along the train tracks running through Palo Alto. We always hear tunneling is too expensive. Is it? Can you show us the numbers from an actual bid received from the Boring Company? Please read on: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/elon-musk-says-his-first-tunnel-will-open- december-n922726 This happens 400 miles south of us. And we, Palo Altans, always wanting to be ahead of everybody else, cannot ? Why have you, Dear Council, not done this so far? Once the numbers are on the table one can tackle the difficult question of how to raise the money, but first we need to know what the numbers actually are. Please do not loose even more time by trying to solve problems (like over/underpass) for which you will not get a majority from the residents but start working on something that can be a solution, i.e. tunneling through the whole length of Palo Alto. And once Palo Alto puts the stakes into the ground, it would be very surprising if neighboring cities would not follow suit and join Palo Alto in a deep tunnel bored by the Boring Company. thanks Wolfgang Dueregger P.S.:I have no affiliation whatsoever with Tesla, Elon Musk or the Boring Company. From: Amie Neff To: Council, City. Keene, James. Shikada, Ed' De Geus, Robert Cc: Mandar Borkar Subject: Public Comment , Wednesday October 17th. Caltrain Grade Separation Date: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 9:16:43 AM Good Morning Council and Rail Committee Members, I'd like to address the committee and and our city transportation specialists about a few clarifications and requests I believe are crucial before moving forward with the very costly and important decision about how to address Caltrain's pending electrification and increased ridership goals. I would like to thank the committee for their time, and the city for providing access to the big Design Boards that were presented at the August 23rd meeting. I was not able to attend that meeting and am glad to be able to see what is being discussed with more time and attention. You provided enough information that I see where each option begins and ends, the depth or height of the tracks, and the slope profile. There are notable omissions on the "Typical Section" images which makes it difficult to understand how each alternative might look. PLEASE SEE: https://pagradesep.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Meadow-Dr-Charleston-Rd-V iaduct- Full-Trench-MC V-MCT.pdf The 100' graphical scale in the right hand bottom corner is only applicable to the already graphed section and mapped segment. That scale doesn't apply to the "Typical Sections" of the train in the trench, or elevated options on either board. In fact, the Typical Sections, (images which are most relatable to us,) have no scale, no context and no dimensions. Other than information about track height or depth, I have no way of understanding, if I live along Park, how close that wall or viaduct will to be to my back deck or roofline or how high it is in relation to my house. I know the average home heights along the track are 12'-0", if the tracks might be 3'-0 or even 8'-0" above the top of my house, how high will the train be? How tall is a train? I hope that we can ask the team who put together these boards to go a small step further in giving us a sense of the proposals that corresponds to our understanding of the real world. It doesn't take much to draw in a tree, a house, a car, or a person for context, but it informs our understanding enormously. More importantly, I want to make it clear that without an approval from CalTrain that we can design with a 2% grade, the option to trench in South Palo Alto is not on the table. Why continue to entertain a trenching option without that approval? I would ask that the City Council do their due diligence. Request the following design assurances and clarifications from Caltrain: 1) Grant us permission to design for 2% grade due to the streams we are working around. 2) Elsewhere clearance height for trains is 18-1/2', why are we being held to different design standard of 24-1/2'? Can we shoot for the lower clearance? 3) We would like clarification about what options we have to reclaim the space returned to us in the right of way now occupied by the rails should we chose to construct a tunnel or a viaduct. Will that space be available to Palo Alto's community? Finally, I would like the committee to leave among our options the construction of a short, shallow tunnel between San Antonio and Cal Ave stations that allowed the freight to remain in place above and CalTrain to go in a tunnel below. It can be lumped into the city wide tunnel option. Many Regards, Amie Neff M.Arch, LEED® AP From: poll@rosenblums.us To: Council, Qty Subject: Rail Committee Agenda Item 1 October 17th 2018 Date: Saturday, October 13, 2018 2:45:33 PM Members of the Rail Committee: I have long been an advocate for the city wide tunnel option because I believe it offers the best outcome for the long term future of Palo Alto. There would be complete east west connectivity with the railroad right of way no longer blocking views or minimizing the number of cross connections. I do not accept the position that any option for grade separation that does not make the situation worse is acceptable, For a community with our values and wealth it should be possible to come up with a more fitting solution such as Berkeley was able to do with their BART tunnel. Financing is the main issue and needs to be looked at seriously with all options on the table. This has not been done. I outright reject any option that allows the rail bed to rise above ground level as this requires the construction of a long dirt wall which would further separate the east and west sides of our city with an even more visually imposing physical barrier with NO likelihood of improved east -west connectivity. For this reason, I urge you all to put the alternative of rail on raised pylons (viaduct) as one of the alternatives on our list. To me it is the second best alternative to a bored tunnel as it allows full east - west connectivity, allowing passage under the tracks as deemed suitable by future traffic studies and our Comprehensive Plan. The area under the tracks could become a green space or developed commercially. As has been pointed out many times by Nadia Naik in the past and Council Member Wolbach recently, we need to do some serious investigation into the issue of freight traffic on the right of way. This has extremely serious cost and noise issues associated with any chosen solutions. If it were possible to buy out the freight option, this might offer a very cost effective solution. Stephen Rosenblum Santa Rita Ave, Palo Alto From: Kellerman. Thomas W. To: De Geus. Robert Cc: Shikada, Ed Council, City. Megan Kanne. Rachel Kellerman Subject: Rail Crossing Planning Process Date: Sunday, October 21, 2018 7:01:43 PM Attachments: Rail Committee Ltr.docx Dear Mr. de Geus: Please see the attached letter regarding the Palo Alto rail crossing planning process. Residents of the Professorville and University South neighborhoods would like to arrange a meeting with the appropriate City staff to discuss the inclusion of mitigation measures in the scope of the alternatives under consideration. We are writing to you given that the position formerly held by Josh Mello is currently vacant. Please feel free to contact us to arrange a time that fits within your schedule or to identify the appropriate staff member with whom we should meet. Thank you. Regards, Tom and Rachel Kellerman DISCLAIMER This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney -client communication and as such privileged and confidential and/or it may include attorney work product. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. From: gmahany@aol.com To: Council, Qty Subject: rail noise mitigation Date: Monday, October 15, 2018 9:27:21 AM Attachments: RAI L SYSTEM NOI SE AND VIBRATION CONTROL. pdf IPOL-TRAN ET(2012)474533 EN-one.odf Hello Rail Committee Please find attached the some information on how noise from railroad trains and tracks are generated and how to muffle that noise. Proceedings of ACOUSTICS 2004 3-5 November 2004, Gold Coast, Australia RAIL SYSTEM NOISE AND VIBRATION CONTROL George Paul Wilson Wilson, lhrig & Associates, Inc., 5776 Broadway, Oakland, California 94618, USA Abstract Control of noise and vibration emitted by steel wheel and rail transportation systems has a long history of designs and techniques, some of which were dismal failures and some which worked very well. Many of the early efforts had a valid technical base for the design, however, there were also many based on intuition or ideas with great expectations, but which had no real technical basis. In the last four decades the technology and materials used for rail noise and vibration control, particularly for the control of groundbome vibration from rail systems, has developed and benefited from thoughtful technical analyses and application of simple engineering principles. These also were not always successful in all respects but provided for a continuing development of the technology with ever -improving success and performance. Included in this presentation are a review of the development of rail noise and vibration control systems, including the lightweight, undamped concrete floating slab track for reduction of groundbome noise and vibration, and of the development of structurally integrated sound barriers with absorption materials for control of airborne sound. The presentation includes anecdotes and discussion of some of the unexpected results from new design installations, an outline of design progress and application extensions, and review of the concepts and designs which are successful and currently in use by rail systems located in many different parts of the world. Introduction There has been impressive progress over the last 40 years in the development of rail system noise and vibration control technology and designs. Design criteria for rail system noise and vibration were once either not considered or treated as a secondary item but the importance as a major design parameter is now recognized by new system designers. Sometimes there is still resistance to incorporation of non -revenue producing features in the rail system design, but as each new generation of project managers and designers become educated, there is acceptance of the need for incorporation of noise and vibration control in the overall system design. In the mid -60's when I began work with assessment and control of noise and vibration from rail systems there were three new rail transit systems in design development: the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, BART; the National Capital Transportation Agency, now the Washington, D.C. Metro; WMATA, and the Baltimore Region Rapid Transit District, BRRT. These were the first major new rail transit facilities that had been considered in the United States since the 1930's. In Toronto, Canada the TTC Yonge Subway was opened in 1954 and was the first subway to be built in North America since the beginning of WWII. This was the first North American system to use resilient rail fixation on concrete. Extensions were opened in the period from 1963-1968 and with 34 kilometers total it became the catalyst for resurgence of rail or fixed -guideway transit on the North American continent. Because of the negative image created in the U.S. by the very noisy steel elevated structures in Chicago and New York, new transit system planners did have concerns about noise and vibration. As a result, studies and surveys were commissioned to develop information which could be used to set new facility design criteria. One of these surveys completed for the Washington, D.C. Metro, by the Office of Research and Experiment, ORE, of the International Railway Union, UIC, asked ORE members to rank order operational problems. The result was almost universal ranking of (1) vandalism and (2) noise and vibration as the two top priority problems. Partly as a result of the survey, but also because of the general concern regarding patron exposure to noise and vibration and the effects on adjacent communities, a large number of measurement programs and research studies were completed in the 1960's and '70's. One survey by ORE published in 1981 listed 192 separate reports produced or published during the period from about 1965 to 1979 on various aspects of rail system noise and vibration, including standards or regulations and exposure or annoyance assessment. The studies and experiments with rail system noise and vibration included a number of trial installations of resilient rail fixation designs and floating slab track for reduction of the ground and structure -borne noise. Examples include the Paris Metro in coordination with the Regional Express Line, RER, and the French National Railway, SNCF, installing a number of test tracks with of various rail fastener designs and floating track slab. German railways also were experimenting with resilient rail fixation on concrete. In Vienna, floating track slabs supported on continuous glass fiber panels were installed in an effort to reduce groundbome noise from streetcar lines. In Toronto several trial installations of floating slab track using polystyrene foam boards as the isolation media were installed. The Paris Metro installations provided valuable information on 1 Proceedings of ACOUSTICS 2004 3-5 November 2004. Gold Coast, Australia performance of various resilient track fixation systems. The continuously supported track slabs in Vienna and Toronto were not successful. Much of the concern relative to noise and vibration in new rail systems was with respect to the in -vehicle noise and ride quality. These were perceived as affecting the attractiveness of public transit to the patrons and, therefore, directly related to revenue. This made in - vehicle noise and ride quality very important design parameters, Thus, many of the early studies were confined to in -vehicle noise and vibration assessments, development of appropriate criteria and development of procedures for improving the design of vehicles, waystructures and track to control the vehicle interior noise and ride quality. Similar importance was placed on control of noise in new station facilities, resulting in application of acoustical absorption materials both to control noise in the stations and to improve intelligibility of public address systems. The technology and design procedures for control of in -vehicle noise and ride quality had a long history of development prior to the startup of the new system designs in the 1960's and 70's. This background coupled with the results of the various interior noise and ride quality studies commissioned by the new systems for identifying the best practices resulted in a relatively well defined set of criteria, design procedures, technology and materials for control of car interior noise and ride quality. Control of noise and reverberation in stations was also studied and then included on architectural design. However, rail fixation technology was relatively poorly developed and, in many cases, traditional ballast and sleeper track or wood sleepers cast -in -concrete were still considered the primary design choice because of the long experience and known characteristics. There was limited experience with ballastless resilient rail fixation and floating slab track so these were considered unproved technology, viewed with caution and required both persuasion and demonstration of their potential to induce adoption. The many studies which showed potential benefit to noise and vibration control, and which demonstrated operational safety and potential for reduced maintenance costs did result in adoption of resilient rail fixation. Further development followed including the light weight undamped floating slab concept. This presentation is a review of the designs developed and implemented for reduction of ground and structure -borne noise from the rail systems and the control of wayside airborne noise from surface and viaduct guideways. Following the initial successes with the then new rail fixation technology, the work on development of improved and more effective noise and vibration control technology for the rail systems continued throughout the 1980's and 90's. In some cases this was a continuing effort to reduce costs and/or improve performance. However, it was also due to the imposition of more and more restrictive wayside noise and vibration requirements. Generally the same car interior noise and station platform noise criteria as were developed early on continue to be used. But as more and more cities or jurisdictions adopted restrictive environmental controls it has become an increasing requirement that new rail transit systems provide extensive vibration and noise control. One of the most graphic examples is the requirement for very low wayside noise and vibration by the Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department, EPD, as part of its overall program to reduce future outdoor noise levels in one of the noisiest cities in the world. Track Fixation Developments In evaluating and developing new or existing technology regarding the noise and vibration generated, it is extremely important that all aspects contributing to the noise and vibration be considered. There are numerous instances in the literature presenting glowing results which were in fact due to change of two or multiple parameters rather than the item being studied or evaluated. For example, considering the wayside noise from trains operating on at -grade or viaduct guideway, the principle noise sources are the propulsion system, including the motors and gearing. the wheel/rail system and auxiliary equipment such as air conditioners. At higher speeds, the propulsion system noise usually predominates, unless the wheels and rail are in poor condition. At medium speeds the wheel/rail noise usually predominates, but may be affected by auxiliary equipment noise. At low speeds or stopped, the auxiliary equipment noise dominates. Application of mechanical service brakes can also result in dominant noise. Thus, all of these factors must be considered when assessing the wayside noise. Factors which affect the structure -radiated noise from a viaduct or the groundborne noise and vibration from at - grade and subway installations are primarily the guideway deck and girder construction, the rail fixation system and the dynamics of the vehicle bogie, principally the unsprung weight and the primary suspension resonance frequency. In several instances a change in the bogie dynamics resulted in erroneous evaluation of the effect of rail fastener changes which were being evaluated because the bogie dynamics change created a larger more dominant effect. Evaluation of the rail fastener performance without knowledge or recognition of the bogie change resulted in erroneous conclusions. The high ranking of noise and vibration as an operational problem did result in the three new U.S. systems and the Toronto system commissioning studies intended to extend the existing knowledge and develop new technology for reduction of ground and structure - borne noise and vibration. The objectives of the studies included developing appropriate acceptability criteria. Feasibility and installation costs were also items of substantial concern. One of the significant factors at the time was the success of the TTC system introducing resilient direct 2 Proceedings of ACOUSTICS 2004 3-5 November 2004, Gold Coast, Australia fixation in place of the conventional ballast and sleeper track or wood sleepers cast in concrete as used in subways built in the 1920's and 30's. The original motivation for the TTC introduction of resilient direct fixation rail fastener on concrete trackbed was to increase durability and life of the rail installation. The improvement in noise and vibration performance was an unexpected benefit. In addition to the studies and research projects commissioned by the three U.S. projects, the Paris Metro extensive research program on direct fixation rail fasteners, resiliently supported ties (STEDEF system) and floating track slab as a means for reduction of wayside noise and vibration from subways provided valuable data and insights. Paris Metro also had a parallel program of refurbishing old subway lines via changing from steel wheels to pneumatic rubber tires as a means to improve the overall noise and vibration performance and other operational aspects. Although marketed in other countries as a quiet system, the pneumatic rubber tire system was never adopted by Paris Metro as a feature for new installations, and was used only for renovation of older subways. One of the studies initiated by the BRRT was an evaluation of pneumatic rubber tire systems compared to steel wheel and rail to determine whether or not there was sufficient noise and vibration benefit to justify adoption of pneumatic rubber tire rather than steel wheel technology. The evaluation included the Transit Expressway vehicles on a test track in Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania and the Paris Metro rubber tired lines. The result of the study was the finding that, when compared on an equal train speed and equal passenger carrying capacity, the rubber tire system created the same or greater noise levels in the vehicle and at the wayside for surface guideways. The only benefit was reduced groundborne vibration and noise. It was concluded that in fact well maintained steel wheel and rail systems were potentially quieter with regard to airborne noise than can be expected for a pneumatic rubber tire system for equal operating conditions. Much of the early work on development of rail fixation methods which would reduce the noise and vibration compared to either standard ballast and tie track or wood sleepers embedded in concrete, as used for most systems installed prior to the 1960's, was concentrated on the development of resilient rail fixation fasteners (baseplates). As part of its technology development program, the San Francisco BART system during the design development period constructed a test track and obtained three "laboratory" cars for assessment of various aspects of the transit technology, including noise and vibration. The test track included ballast and tie and viaduct with concrete girders and decks. Figure 1 presents drawings of the three basic types of resilient rail fasteners used for fixing the rail directly to concrete roadbed with a low profile device: (I) the unbonded elastomer pad under a flat rail baseplate, (2) the bonded assembly with flat top and bottom plates and (3) the elliptical shaped bonded fastener with elastomer in shear rather than compression. The first type with unbonded flat elastomer was the type used in Toronto, and was the type investigated during the Paris Metro testing. Early experience showed the need for steel springs at the anchor bolts to prevent fatigue failure of the bolts. To eliminate the need for anchor bolt springs, the bonded fastener configuration evolved and a number of this type were included in the BART test track evaluations. There were many versions of the unbonded and bonded types of rail fasteners that were developed and which were evaluated for noise and vibration characteristics, both wayside noise and structure -borne noise. Figure 2 is a photograph showing the experimental setup for measuring wayside noise and ground vibration at the BART test track in 1966. GHBONGEG EWE RCSIUEI T HAIL FNSTERER (RC) re„e. .,.•• ...•„u...i. U BGNOEOTVPEMSWENTRNRSHSTEHflT (BART) Figure 1 • LOSING. COLOGNE ECG RESRE/ORAt EASIENEP Three basic types of resilient direct fixation rail fasteners, unbonded, bonded and Cologne Egg Photo of BART Test Track concrete viaduct and trial sound barrier wall 3 Proceedings of ACOUSTICS 2004 3-5 November 2004, Gold Coast, Australia The requirements for rail support safety and durability resulted in rejection of many configurations developed by various manufacturers. Many candidates that had promising noise and vibration performance failed the 3 or 5 million cycle alternating vertical and lateral load test imposed. Also, providing for limited lateral rail deflection reduced the vibration and noise control effectiveness, eliminating further submissions. In addition to resilient rail fastenings, resilient wheels of various types have been one of the features considered for transit vehicles for reduction of noise and vibration. Figure 3 shows the main types of resilient wheels which have been considered and which were included in the testing at the BART test track. Note that the PCC type wheel is a super -resilient design which has been used since the 1930's on streetcars for general noise reduction, particularly reduction of wheel squeal noise. This was particularly important with streetcars because of the short radius curves. With modern rail transit systems, limiting the minimum radius to about 200-250 m avoids wheel squeal. Thus, there is little benefit from use of resilient wheels on heavy rail transit. In general, while there have been experimental installations, all of the modem rail transit systems use solid steel wheels or non -resilient aluminum centered wheels with steel tires. For heavy rail transit systems with shorter radius curves the wheel squeal is generally controlled using ring -dampers on the wheels rather than resilient wheels. In contrast, most modern light rail systems do have resilient wheels, not the PCC super -resilient type, but a resilient insert type such as the Bochum wheel. ACOUSTA FLEX SAB (PCC TYPE) BOCHUM Figure 3 Three types of resilient wheels tested for application to rail transit Because resilient wheels were one of the parameters being tested via the "laboratory" cars at the BART test track, many of the initial tests on the effectiveness of different types of resilient rail fasteners were inconclusive and in fact incorrect. This occurred because the particular laboratory vehicle used for all of the initial rail fastener tests at the concrete aerial structure was equipped at the time with the SAB (PCC) type resilient wheels. This wheel had resilience that was far greater than that of any of the rail fasteners. resulting in the measurements showing essentially no difference regardless of the stiffness or other characteristics of the rail fastener. The result of this evaluation was selection of a relatively stiff resilient fastener, about 75 kN'mm for the BART viaduct and subway installations. When later tests with standard steel wheels revealed the error in the early conclusions, the result was identification that a rail fastener stiffness in the range of 17 to 22 kNlmm was about the optimum compromise between maintenance of rail stability and minimizing structure -borne noise radiated from viaduct or transmitted from subways. At the BART system concrete viaducts, the stiff fastener did result in some low frequency noise radiated from the structure but it was barely audible and did not increase the total A -weighted wayside noise level from the trains. Systems constructed later have used the softer fasteners with the result that there is lower radiation of noise from the viaduct structures and use of sound barrier walls is more effective in controlling wayside noise. Figure 4 BART concrete viaduct with sound barrier wall Most of the noise control provisions of the initial 112 kilometer BART system were concentrated on control of noise at the vehicle via specified maximum noise levels for the propulsion system and auxiliary equipment and because wayside noise was not considered an important parameter beyond the provisions of continuous welded 4 Proceedings of ACOUSTICS 2004 3-5 November 2004, Gold Coast, Australia rail and concrete aerial structure. There was only one small section of sound barrier wall. Figure 4 is a photo showing the sound barrier wall applied to the BART viaduct, a modification which resulted in about 6 dBA reduction of wayside noise. The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit, MARTA, system followed the design of the three earlier U.S. systems and as a result incorporated more of the provisions for control of noise and vibration. Figure 5 is a photo of a MARTA steel girder and concrete deck aerial structure on which the softer variety of rail fasteners and the sound barrier wall were used extensively to reduce wayside noise from the viaducts. In this case, because the design requirements for safety walks on the outside edges of the viaduct deck made the deck much wider with resulting increased noise radiation, it was essential that the softer direct fixation fasteners be used in order to allow sound barrier walls to produce the expected noise reduction. Without the softer version of the rail fastener, the structural radiation from the MARTA aerial structure would have been a dominant source of noise. Constrained layer damping was used on the steel girders to give approximately the same noise radiation as for concrete girders along noise sensitive sections of trackway, including all sections with sound barrier wall. At locations where the viaduct girders do not have the constrained layer damping, there is significant noise radiation from the steel girders. The MARTA sound barriers provided 8-9 dBA reduction of wayside noise. MARTA double track concrete deck with damped steel girder and sound barrier wall There has been continuing development of new configurations and versions of the resilient rail fasteners. The major variation from the flat plate rail fasteners, as shown on Figure 1, was the introduction in about 1979 of the elliptical -shaped "Cologne Egg" fastener which places the elastomer in shear for vertical load and compression for lateral loads. This allows for a much softer rail support while maintaining the rail stability required for safe operation of the rail vehicles. The Cologne Egg type fasteners can have a vertical stiffness in the range of 9 to 13 kN/mm, which is of significant benefit in reducing structure -borne radiation from viaduct structures with steel girder and in reduction of groundborne vibration and noise from subway or at - grade rail installations. The basic limitations on rail support lateral stiffness and/or rail lateral deflections limit the lower range of stiffness which can be achieved with the flat plate type of rail fastener, either the bonded or non -bonded configuration. Thus, there is a practical limit to the reduction of groundborne noise and vibration from at - grade and subway installations of flat plate type of rail fasteners. As it turns out, the minimum practical stiffness results in groundborne vibration and noise similar to that resulting from ballast and tie track. Because of the characteristics of the Cologne Egg type fastener, the result is a reduction by 6 to 8 dB of the groundborne vibration and noise for frequencies above about 40 Hz. In many cases, this is sufficient to achieve satisfactory results, particularly for new rail facilities placed adjacent to non -noise -sensitive land uses. An alternative design which also provides about 6-8 dB greater reduction of groundborne noise for frequencies above about 40-50 Hz is the resiliently supported or booted double tie. This is the STEDEF design which was included in the early Paris Metro studies and has been used at some locations where the additional reduction was considered adequate, particularly before the Cologne Egg gained acceptance. The resilient double tie system, now called Low Vibration Track, is not low profile, requiring a second pour of concrete to embed the ties, but does have the advantage of reduced radiation of airborne noise from the rail because of the stiff fixation to the concrete tie mass. Floating Slab Track There are may instances where the control of ground and structure-bome noise levels achieved by resilient rail fasteners, or the alternative Cologne Egg or Low Vibration Track, are not low enough for satisfactory or acceptable results. Adjacent land uses which are noise sensitive, such as residential, school or performing arts facilities, and in some cases even commercial facilities such as office or court buildings may require a higher degree of noise reduction. In these instances the practical alternative is a fully vibration isolated or floating track slab design. As a part of the noise and vibration assessments performed for the new U.S. transit systems, measurements were made of the groundborne noise and vibration at various locations in buildings near the existing subways in Toronto and at other existing transit systems such as those in Philadelphia and Chicago. Further, information from the Paris Metro and other studies in the literature were used along with the measurement results to develop a basis for projecting the AT - 5 Proceedings of ACOUSTICS 2004 3-5 November 2004, Gold Coast, Australia expected groundbome noise at locations along the Washington, D.C. Metro routes to determine whether or not mitigation was needed. This same procedure was used for subsequent evaluations and projections with a continuing growth of the database as new systems went into operation providing opportunities for additional measurements. The initial assessments indicated several locations along the WMATA route where mitigation beyond that which could be provided with resilient rail fasteners was necessary. Initially, the planners and consultants for the system thought that a floating slab track type of mitigation would be needed at stations, but not in other locations. An objective analysis showed that there were many locations requiring added mitigation but only a few instances where track through stations needed the mitigation. Identifying the need for mitigation at the WMATA system subways motivated the development of the initial light weight loading slab configuration. There had previously been a successful floating slab type of installation at the Barbican Scheme site in the City of London where residential development, an Arts Center and several buildings sensitive to noise were located close to an underground railway. When the railway was realigned, a slab bridge deck type of design was developed, a design which required substantial increase in depth of the subway tunnel, along with the installation of a complex system of crossbeams on rubber bearings under the ends of 10 m length concrete bridge decks with a damping layer and ballasted track on top. The design incorporated lateral bearings for lateral restraint without reduction of the isolation affect. The stiffness of the natural rubber bearings was tuned to about 6 Hz, considering the mass of the bridge deck and the ballasted track. A similar system was installed some years lateral on the London Heathrow transit line. This type of design was very complex and expensive so that there was strong motivation to develop an alternative design which would be effective and of much lower cost, including minimum depth to minimize additional cost in excavating the subway tunnel. One of the factors which had discouraged prior development of a light weight floating track slab system was the perception that damping was needed to prevent amplification of the wheel rail interface vibration forces at the natural frequency of the floating slab on the resilient bearings. The Barbican and Heathrow slabs had heavy damping layers in addition to the ballast to accomplish damping of the floating track assembly. After an analysis of the type of forces applied by a moving rail vehicle to the trackbed and the supporting structure, it was identified that the forces are random impact -like forces and moving or non -stationary relative to the support system. Therefore, it was concluded that the response would be more similar to the response of a spring mass system to an impulse or impact force than that due to steady-state excitation, which is the more familiar type of analysis. This conclusion led to the ISOLATION estimate of 2 to 3 dB amplification factor for a lightly damped floating slab track system rather than the 15 to 20 dB amplification that would be expected for steady- state excitation of the same system. FfESIEIENT RAIL FASTENER FLOATING SLAB a RESILIENT PERIMETER RESILIENT SUPPORT PADS Figure 6 Cross-section of continuous floating slab design developed for WMATA Figure 6 presents a cross-section of the light weight floating slab design developed from the analysis which indicated that the moving random excitation would create the effect of a damped single -degree -of -freedom system. For the WMATA system continuous cast -in -place floating slabs using a sheet metal form or shutter left in place were constructed. Stationary steady-state tests of an initial installation did indicate an amplification factor of 15 to 17 dB at the design resonance frequency, but that for frequencies of concern in the groundbome noise there was substantial reduction. This design did achieve the goal of low profile while retaining enough mass to achieve the 15 to 20 dB of groundbome noise reduction needed at some locations. The added depth for box -section tunnels was small, 300 mm, and the design was adaptable to round tunnels without increasing the tunnel diameter. A significant part of the development of the design was the determination of the appropriate elastomer for the floating slab. To this end there were several requirements that limited the design. One was an imposed limit of 3 mm for rail deflection. Another was a limit of 300 mm for the total depth of the slab and resilient pads, at least for the initial installations. A third limit was the need to have natural frequency low enough to provide the groundbome noise reduction required and low enough to avoid interaction with the vehicle bogie primarily resonance frequency. These requirements taken together indicated that natural rubber was the best selection for the elastomer. With natural rubber the ratio of dynamic -to -static stiffness is the minimum, allowing for a ratio less than 1.4. Most synthetic elastomers, including Neoprene, have a ratio of 2.0 to 2.5, resulting in substantially greater rail deflection for a given resonance frequency. Natural rubber was also known and demonstrated to have a long service life and can be 6 Proceedings of ACOUSTICS 2004 3-5 November 2004, Gold Coast, Australia formulated to have very low creep under compressive load. Through correspondence in 1972 with the Malaysian Rubber Bureau in the U.K., a formulation specifically tailored for floating slab track was developed and has subsequently been used as the specified elastomer with great success. Some of the earliest installations have been in service for nearly 30 years and show no signs of deterioration or change in mechanical properties. There are many older installations of natural rubber bearings used for vibration isolation applications or other purposes which demonstrate the expectation of very long life. One of the oldest is the Victorian Railway's viaduct between the Flinders Street and Spencer Street Stations in Melbourne where the installation completed in 1891 is still in service. The rubber isolation pads between the viaduct structure and the supporting piers are still in excellent condition and functioning to minimize vibration transmitted from the trains to the stone and brick piers. With the selection of elastomer, the design of the WMATA floating slabs was determined, including the decision to cast -in -situ continuous slabs with pinned moment connections between individual sections as the concrete was poured. While these floating slabs were successful in reducing the groundbome noise and vibration, they also radiated airborne noise due to bending waves in the continuous slabs. For standard track the low frequency radiated noise was a barely noticeable addition to the noise generated by the train propulsion equipment. However, at special trackwork, the noise was thunderous, audible in the cars and at station platforms where a crossover was located near the station. The main problem encountered was that for some sections the contractors were allowed to substitute polyurethane elastomer pads for the natural rubber pads. The polyurethane pads turned out to be hydroscopic and lost their mechanical stiffness when exposed to water. The failed pads had to be replaced, a process which was difficult and expensive due to the continuous poured -in - place slab configuration. In 1974 the TTC opened a new Yonge Street Extension with only the resilient rail fasteners for mitigation. This line went further into residential areas than previous lines and resulted in a huge amount of complaints about groundborne noise and vibration. This led to extensive research and development programs both to improve the existing new line and to identify better mitigation for future new subway lines. One of the TTC track engineers proposed precast concrete sections as a lower cost alternative to the continuous floating slab. The configuration proposed also provided for access and easy replacement of the isolation pads. With revisions to optimize the acoustical performance, the design was developed into what is known as the double -tie or discontinuous floating slab track. Figure 7 is a plan view showing the typical 1.5 m length segments for the floating slab. The side pads and end pads provide for complete isolation with mechanical retention and to accommodate lateral loadings. Figure 8 is a photo of the double -tie floating slab system before installation of the rail fasteners and rail. This configuration essentially eliminates the airborne noise radiated from the slab as an addition to train noise heard by the patrons, provided that the resilient rail fastener has sufficient resilience to control transmission of higher frequency vibration from the rail to the slab. At the TTC system, the noise radiated from the slabs is at or below the train noise level at the same frequencies and is not noticeable either on station platforms or in the cars. At some other more recent installations where the rail fastening is too stiff, there is noticeable noise radiation from the slabs. In one instance, the rail was fastened directly to the slabs, resulting in very high noise level radiated into the cars and very poor groundborne noise control performance. Figure 7 TTC double -tie discontinuous floating slab design - 1500 mm length precast concrete blocks Figure 8 Photo of TTC double -tie system in subway - before installation of the rail fasteners and rail. Proceedings of ACOUSTICS 2004 3 - 5 November 2004, Gold Coast, Australia The earliest installations in Toronto, with the natural rubber bearing pads as specified, have now been in service for 28 years without any evidence of deterioration of the rubber pads. Further, there has been no added or special maintenance required or created by the floating slabs. The success of the design has led to the adoption by a number of rail transit facilities where mitigation of groundborne noise has been necessary. These include the MARTA system in Atlanta and the transit facilities in Los Angeles, Buffalo and recent extensions of the BART system. Other notable applications are at the Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway and at the Canary Wharf in London, U.K. Another early installation of the double tie concept floating slab was at the Melbourne Underground Loop. MURLA, subway. The four lines of the Loop are in close proximity to a number of noise sensitive facilities. Therefore, an extensive study was completed by Victorian Railways over the period from 1973 through 1978. This study included a trial installation at the Jolimont Cutting to provide in-service testing and evaluation of the proposed floating slab track system. While the intermediate mitigation of resilient booted tie system would have been adequate at some locations, it was not adequate at others. To avoid the complication of multiple transitions and multiple types of trackwork to be maintained, it was determined the entire Loop network would be the double -tie floating slab. The system was completed and opened in 1981. Recent Developments The new extensions of the Hong Kong MTRC and the new line constructed for the Kowloon Canton Railway Corporation, KCRC, have required creative combinations of structure -borne noise control and sound barrier technology. The environmental requirements for these new facilities are among the most restrictive in the world. At first it was thought that achieving the design goal of 64 dBA at 25 m for a train at 140 km/hr would require a covered viaduct with floating slab track. However, using the floating slab track design principles developed and refined from experience with each new system combined with a new approach to sound barrier wall design enabled creating an overall design achieving the low wayside noise level without a complete cover over the guideway. The overall design approach for the 21 km KCRC viaduct was the use of concrete guideway and girders, floating slab track to minimize structure -borne noise radiation from the guideway and integral sound barriers, soft rail fasteners to minimize noise radiation from the floating track slabs, sound barrier walls with sound absorption and an undercar/under-walkway sound absorptive plenum to supplement the sound barrier walls. The overall design also required low noise performance for the vehicle propulsion and auxiliary equipment. For example, a typical roof -mounted air conditioner could by itself exceed the overall wayside noise allowance, since the AC unit noise would not be mitigated by a sound barrier wall. Figure 9 is a representation of the KCRC viaduct final design showing the elements included for control of wayside noise, the all -concrete structure, the floating slab track. the sound barrier wall with absorption and the under -walkway plenum with absorption to minimize noise transmitted to the walkway -to -car gap to the sound barrier wall and thence to the wayside. Figure 10 is a photo of the completed viaduct and Figure 11 is a close- up photo showing the floating slab segments with the soft Cologne Egg type rail fastener. Trains began running on this facility in 2004 and the wayside noise measured was 64 dBA Lcgmax at 25 m for an 8 -car train at 140 km/hr. KCRC viaduct with floating slab track, absorptive sound barrier wall and under walkway absorptive plenum Figure 10 Photo of KCRC viaduct completed The fact that the new KCRC viaduct was designed and constructed to successfully control the wayside noise without need for complete cover over the trackway demonstrates that the principles, procedures and materials which have been developed do accomplish the acoustical design goals. The design represented in Figure 9 was based entirely on empirical and analytical 8 Proceedings of ACOUSTICS 2004 3-5 November 2004, Gold Coast, Australia design analysis without construction of a test track or test section to demonstrate the performance. Figure 11 Close-up view of KCRC viaduct floating slabs with low stiffness rail fasteners Summary Through the application of simple vibration isolation design principles with careful attention to the entire complex system affected by individual noise and vibration control features, it has been found possible to greatly reduce both the wayside airborne noise from viaduct structures and the groundbome noise and vibration from subway and at -grade rail installations. The principles applied to viaducts can also, of course, be applied to bridges. With attention to the design factors which affect structure -radiated noise, it has been possible to reduce the unmitigated wayside noise from the range of 84 to 87 LAcqmax at 15 m for 130 km/hr train on a concrete viaduct structure to 65-67 LA,,,,ax for the same conditions but with mitigation. Through development of light weight, undamped floating slab systems which take into account the vehicle bogie dynamics, the trackway or subway structure mass and the surrounding geology characteristics, it is now possible to install new rail systems in very close proximity to noise sensitive land uses without the impact of low frequency rumbling noise which has traditionally been associated with rail system subway trains. For example, initial operations of the TTC Spadina line, which opened in 1978, resulted in complaints from only two houses and it turned out these were due to problems with flat wheels during the initial operations. After the flat wheel problems were corrected, there were no further complaints and it was reported that trains in a tunnel only 3 m from houses were only occasionally audible. With the technology and materials now available for rail system noise and vibration control, it is possible to install new facilities in locations or along alignments which in the past would have been considered unfavorable because of the noise and vibration impacts. Even with the more restrictive standards now imposed by "Comparison of Noise and Vibration Levels in Rapid Transit Vehicle Systems", NCTA Technical Report, by Operations Research Incorporated, April 1964. [2] Allen, P. W., Lindley, P.B. and Payne, A. R., "Use of Rubber in Engineering", Proceedings of a Conference held at Imperial College of Science and Technology, London, 1966. "Aerial Structure Noise and Vibration Measurements", Technical Report prepared by Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Inc., October 1966. [4] "Diablo Test Track Noise and Vibration Measurements, Technical Report prepared by Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Inc., June 1967. "San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Demonstration Project Technical Report Number 8 - Acoustic Studies", prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel, June 1968. [6] Colombaud, J. L., "Noise and vibration levels suit ballastless track for underground railways", Rail Engineering International Conference, June 1973. "Noise and Vibration Design Criteria and Recommendations, Baltimore Region Rapid Transit System", prepared by Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Inc., February 1974. Transportation Systems Center General Brochure, prepared by Transportation System Center, 1977. Lawrence, S.T., Toronto's Double Tie Trackbed System, American Public Transit Association Rapid Transit Conference, Chicago, IL, 5-8 June 1978. [10]"Guidelines for Design of Rapid Transit Facilities", prepared by Rail Transit Committee, American Public Transit Association, January. 1979. [11]Lutz, R., "Survey of the work by ORE about Railway Noise", contributed paper to Third International Workshop on Railway and Tracked Transit System Noise, Monument/Pueblo, Colorado, 8-10 April 1981. [12]"Toronto Subway System Track Vibration Isolation System (Double Tie)" Technical Report, Toronto Transit Commission Engineering Department, June 1982. many jurisdictions, the transit system planners and designers have less limitations regarding selection of alignments for new transit facilities. Of course, there still remains the problem of convincing the neighbors of a potential new facility that the wayside noise and vibration will be satisfactory and acceptable in the community. References [1] [3] [5] [7] [8] [9] 9 Proceedings of ACOUSTICS 2004 3-5 November 2004, Gold Coast, Australia 10 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DIRECTORATE -GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES LP Agriculture and Rural Development Culture and Education Fisheries Regional Development Transport and Tourism "I t REDUCING RAILWAY NOISE POLLUTION STUDY EN DE FR 2012 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DI RECTORATE GENERAL FOR I NTERNAL POLI CI ES POLI CY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESI ON POLI CI ES TRANSPORT AND TOURI SM REDUCI NG RAI LWAY NOI SE POLLUTI ON STUDY This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Transport and Tourism. AUTHORS Uwe CLAUSEN Claus DOLL Francis James FRANKLIN Gordana Vasic FRANKLIN Hilmar HEINRICHMEYER Joachim KOCHSIEK Werner ROTHENGATTER Niklas SIEBER RESPONSI BLE ADMI NI STRATOR Piero SOAVE Policy Department Structural and Cohesion Policies European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: poldep-cohesion©europarl.europa.eu EDI TORI AL ASSI STANCE Nora REVESZ LI NGUI STI C VERSI ONS Original: EN. Translations: DE, FR. ABOUT THE EDI TOR To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to: poldep-cohesion©europarl.europa.eu Manuscript completed in March 2012. Brussels, © European Union, 2012. This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies DI SCLAI MER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DI RECTORATE GENERAL FOR I NTERNAL POLI CI ES POLI CY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESI ON POLI CI ES TRANSPORT AND TOURI SM REDUCI NG RAI LWAY NOI SE POLLUTI ON STUDY Abstract 12 million EU inhabitants are affected by railway noise during the day and 9 million during the night. This study lists measures, funding and regulations to reduce it. The introduction of modern rolling stock will lower noise most significantly. In the short run, the replacement of cast iron by composite brake blocks on rail freight cars is most important. Developing a regulation scheme for a staged process towards low -noise rolling stock is the heart of a rail noise abatement strategy. I P/ B/ TRAN/FWC/ 2010-006/ LOT4/ C1/ SC2 PE 474.533 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution CONTENTS LI ST OF ABBREVI ATI ONS 5 LI ST OF TABLES 7 LI ST OF Fl GURES 9 EXECUTI VE SUMMARY 1 1 1. DEFI NI TI ONS AND EFFECTS OF NOI SE 1 5 1.1. Noise and railway noise 15 1.2. Measurement of noise 15 1.3. Effects of noise 16 1.4. Results of noise mapping 17 1.5. Environmental groups and affected inhabitants 19 2. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 23 2.1. General recommendations, limits and thresholds for environmental noise 23 2.2. Environmental Noise Directive 2002/49/EC 29 2.3. Recast of the First Railway Package 41 2.4. TSI Noise 42 2.5. Measuring and computing of railway noise 43 3. RAI L NOI SE — SOURCES AND PREVENTI ON MEASURES 47 3.1. Sources of railway noise 47 3.2. Noise emissions in relation to rolling stock 50 3.3. Measures to avoid railway noise 53 3.4. Result for main reduction measures 63 3.5. Number of rail freight wagons to be retrofitted 68 4. CASE STUDIES 71 4.1. General descriptions of environmental railway noise in selected areas or countries 71 4.2. Detailed analysis of selected sections 83 5. EVALUATION 5.1. Economic incentives 5.2. Analysis of regulation possibilities 93 93 98 5.3. Analysis of stakeholder remarks on economic incentives and regulation 100 6. CONCLUSIONS 6.1. Recommendations of measures 103 103 6.2. Recommendations for parliamentarian activities 107 3 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies REFERENCES 109 Annex I Environmental noise emissions in Member States and agglomerations (reference [ETC 201 0] ) 117 Annex II Maximum noise levels of rolling stock according to TSI noise 119 Annex I I I Comparison of coverage of bogies from different modern rolling stock equipment 121 Annex IV Important and analysed regulations 123 4 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution LI ST OF ABBREVI ATI ONS AEA AEA Technology Rail BV, Netherlands BI MSchV Bundes-Immissions-Schutz-Verordnung (Traffic Noise Ordinance of Germany) BMVI T Bundesministerium fur Verkehr, Innovation and Technologie (Federal Minister for Transport, Innovation and Technology of Austria) BS British Standard BVU Beratergruppe Verkehr + Umwelt (Consultants for Transport + Environment) CER Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies DB German Rail (Deutsche Bahn) DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of UK DG Directorate -General of the European Commission DG ENTR Directorate -General Entreprise and Industry DG ENV Directorate -General Environment DG Research Directorate -General Research DG TREN Directorate -General Transport and Energy DI R Directive EC European Council ECM L East Coast Main Line EEA European Environment Agency EMU Electric multiple unit EP European Parliament ERFA European Rail Freight Association ETC LUSI European Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information EU European Union FM Friction modifier FS National railway of Italy - Trenitalia (former Ferrovia dello Stato) K -block Composite brake block 5 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies LDAy Average Noise Level Index day time LDEN Average Noise Level Index total day LL -block Low -low brake block LNIGHT Average Noise Level Index night time NDTAC Noise Depending Track Access Charge OBB Osterreichische Bundesbahn (Federal Railway of Austria) PPG Planning Policy Guidance REN FE Spanish Railways (Red Nacional de Ferrocarriles Espanoles) RFI Italian railway infrastructure management company - (Rete Ferroviaria Italiana) SBB Swiss Federal Railway (Schweizer Bundesbahn) STI B Municiple Public transportation company of Brussels (Societe des transport intercommunaux de Bruxelles TAC Track Access Charge TOC Train Operating Company TOR Top of Rail TSI Technical Specification for Interoperability UI C International Union of Railways (Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer) U I P International Union of Private Wagons (Union Internationale des Wagons Prive) UI RR International Union of combined Road -Rail transport companies (Union internationale des societes de transport combine Rail -Route) U I TP International Assosiation of Public Transport UNI FE Association of the European Rail Industry VDV Association of German Transport Companies (Verband Deutscher Verkehrsunternehmen) VPI German Association of private wagon owners (Vereinigung der Privatguterwagen-Interessenten) W CM L West Coast Main Line WHO World Health Organisation 6 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution LI ST OF TABLES Table 1 Affected people by environmental noise according to first round of noise mapping 17 Table 2 Thresholds for environmental noise at night time to avoid health risks according to WHO recommendation Table 3 German Federal Environment Agency recommendations of thresholds for action planning 24 25 Table 4 German maximum environmental noise levels for new built or modified transportation infrastructures 26 Table 5 Austrian values of thresholds for action planning reference 26 Table 6 UK values of thresholds for indoor noise caused by environmental noise 26 Table 7 Noise exposure categories for dwellings 27 Table 8 Noise levels corresponding to exposure categories for dwellings 28 Table 9 Spanish values of thresholds for action planning 28 Table 10 Road map for implementation of Directive 2002/49/EG 30 Table 11 Additional steps in noise mapping according to [Dir. 2002/49/EC] 31 Table 12 Schedule for noise mapping and noise reduction planning 31 Table 13 Status of implementation of Directive 2002/49/EG 32 Table 14 Actions by European Countries for noise abatement on railways where data are available 33 Table 15 Analysis of studies about the eligibility of rail noise incentives 45 7 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Table 16 Importance of noise sources Table 17 Maximum and realised noise emissions of existing high speed trains Table 18 Maximum and realised noise emissions of new freight wagons Table 19 Measures, effects and costs Table 20 Age structure of freight wagon fleet in the year 2000 Table 21 Prediction of numbers of trains on Rheintalbahn Table 22 Share of numbers of trains on Rheintalbahn between day and night time Table 23 Affected inhabitants of railway noise in Freiburg Table 24 Affected inhabitants of railway noise in Offenburg Table 25 Results of the Austrian rail noise abatement programme 48 51 51 63 69 72 73 73 74 77 Table 26 Example of railway traffic data in the Susa Valley; Number of trains for an average workday 78 Table 27 Range of noise reduction 84 Table 28 Impacts of noise reduction measures in the Middle Rhine Valley 85 8 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution LI ST OF Fl GURES Figure 1 Share of people affected by railway noise outside agglomeration according to EEA data 18 Figure 2 Protests in Rudesheim May 2011, noise map Loreley LDEN 20 Figure 3 Upper Rhine Valley: Plans for Weil am Rhein and protests in Offenburg 21 Figure 4 LDEN planning values for residential area 25 Figure 6 Sources of railway noise according to train speed 48 Figure 7 Development of noise sources while train passing 49 Figure 8 Noise emission development of Swiss rolling stock 50 Figure 9 Noise levels of Austrian self-propelled rail vehicles 52 Figure 10 Noise levels of Austrian rail engines 52 Figure 11 Comparison of tread and disc brakes 54 Figure 12 Ring damped and perforated wheel 56 Figure 13 Wheel -tuned absorbers 56 Figure 14 Wheel web shields 56 Figure 15 Tata Steel SilentTrack tuned rail dampers 58 Figure 16 Left: Saargummi rail pad Right: Pandrol Vanguard resilient web support 59 Figure 17 Slab track section SA42 from Quiet Rail Traffic project 59 Figure 18 Principle of way -side lubrication systems for friction modifying 61 Figure 19 Shield of pantograph of Japanese Shinkansen Series 700 62 9 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Figure 20 Porous coating of pantographs 62 Figure 21 Shift of noise levels on German railway lines due to introduction of composite iron soles for rail freight wagons 65 Figure 22 Cost benefit analysis of measures to reduce noise in STAIRRS project 66 Figure 23 Effect on total noise according to share of wagons equipped with K- or LL -blocks 67 Figure 24 Estimated number of freight cars 69 Figure 25 Direction of sound spreading (sound rays) during day 75 Figure 26: Direction of sound spreading (sound rays) during night 76 Figure 27 Impacts of noise protection barriers in Jenbach, Inn Valley, Austria 78 Figure 28 Noise pollution in the Frejus Corridor 79 Figure 29 Noise pollution index (NPI) due to simultaneous exposure to rail and road sources 80 Figure 30 Interpretation of the NPI values 80 Figure 31 Effects of rail noise barriers on the number of inhabitants of agglomerations in England 82 Figure 32 Important Areas, Noise Action Plan for Sheffield, England 83 Figure 33 Section Koblenz - Bingen, impacts of measures 84 Figure 34 Left: View of Blackfriars Railway Bridge from the south bank [Thameslink 2005]. Right: First Capital Connect Class 319 EMU. 86 Figure 35 Overview of viaducts/bridges near Blackfriars station [Thameslink 2005] 87 Figure 36 Measured noise levels in Blackfriars area 88 Figure 37 Predicted noise increase by 2026 at nearby facades as a result of daytime railway operation 89 10 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution EXECUTI VE SUMMARY According to Member State reports compiled by the European Environment Agency (EEA) in 2010, railway noise affects about 12 million EU inhabitants at day time, with a noise exposure above 55 dB(A), and about 9 million at night time, with a noise exposure above 50 dB(A). In fact, the real figures are undoubtedly higher since the EEA's European noise mapping initiative concentrates on agglomerations with over 250,000 inhabitants and on main railway lines with over 60,000 trains per year. The railway noise problem is concentrated in central Europe, where the majority of the affected citizens live and the volume of rail freight transport is highest (primarily Germany, Italy and Switzerland, but traffic density is high also in Poland, Austria, the Netherlands and France, and noise mapping indicates that significant population is affected in Belgium and Luxembourg). Noise is an annoying phenomenon, contaminating the environment and adversely affecting the health of people exposed to high ambient noise levels above 70 dB(A) - or even less. The discussion about railway noise has become very important in several European countries as railway transport increases and plays a more important role in greening transportation. For implementing the sustainability goals formulated in the EC 2011 Transport White Paper and the Greening of Transport package, the environmental impact (carbon, energy, noise, etc.) of railway operations needs to be minimised to maintain rail's position as a green transport mode - and thereby promote a modal shift to rail, to reduce the environmental impact of transport overall. In order to analyse the noise situation in Europe, following current EC legislation, the Member States have to provide noise maps and noise action plans. Noise action plans describe the measures taken to lower environmental noise for identified affected inhabitants. However, legal conditions differ widely across Europe as Member States have different limits or threshold limits for environmental noise emissions, and usually these limits are tested only when building new infrastructure or during major redevelopment. In general, three different sources of railway noise are identified: • Engine noise • Rolling noise • Aerodynamic noise. Railway noise is largely a problem of freight trains and trains containing older wagons or engines, and is a particularly severe problem during the night. Rolling noise is generally higher from poorly maintained rail vehicles, and from trains running on poorly maintained infrastructure. Aerodynamic noise is particularly relevant for high speed lines where, in most cases, noise limiting measures like noise barriers are implemented; noise barriers reduce the impact of rolling noise, but are usually too low to have any effect on noise originating at the pantograph. Engine noise is most relevant at lower speeds up to about 30 km/h, rolling noise above 30 km/h and aerodynamic noise dominates above 200 km/h. The most important noise source is rolling noise, which affects all kinds of train. To reduce railway noise pollution, passive measures at the place of disturbance can be distinguished from active measures at the noise source. The most important passive methods used to reduce the impact of railway noise on the environment are noise protection walls and insulating windows, and for the most part action plans and 11 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies investments of the Member States concentrate on these methods. However, they are only locally effective, requiring huge investments to protect wider parts of railway networks. In contrast, source -driven measures lower noise across the whole railway system if they are widely introduced. As an example, the problem of noisy rail freight cars can be reduced by the replacement of cast iron brake blocks by composite brake blocks. This is currently being investigated by the railway industry and would affect about 370,000 old freight wagons. Also, wheel absorbers, aerodynamic design of pantographs and noise insulation of traction equipment (e.g., locomotive engines) are measures to reduce noise at source. According to the current Technical Standard for Interoperability (TSI Noise), rolling stock which was introduced since the year 2000 (including engines and passenger coaches or passenger power cars) are required to lower noise emissions by about 10 dB(A) compared to the equipment of the 1960s and 1970s. In the authors' opinion, noise should ideally be reduced at the source because these measures have a network -wide effect. Where track infrastructure causes increased noise levels (e.g., structure -radiated noise from viaducts or curve squeal in narrow radius curves), or where the local environment is particularly sensitive to noise (e.g., areas of natural beauty or urban environments with residences very close to the railway line) then additional trackside noise mitigation measures may be necessary. Such measures include friction modifiers, rail dampers, floating (or isolated) slab tracks and of course noise bunds and barriers in various heights. Vehicles and track should all be maintained to eliminate unnecessary sources of noise, e.g., corrugation. Retrofitting of existing rail freight cars with composite K- or (if approved) LL -brake blocks is the most cost-effective measure on the vehicle side. Additional measures on the vehicle side are wheel absorbers, vehicle -mounted friction modifiers (most effective in urban or sub -urban networks) and (for high-speed trains) aerodynamically optimised pantographs (e.g., shielding or coating). These measures are effective network -wide. Additional research could be made for modified wheel constructions as they are very effective but experiences with accidents lead to reluctance to use new wheel constructions replacing mono block types. On the infrastructure side, friction modifiers, rail dampers and slab track are cost-effective measures for reducing noise. In densely populated environments and highly trafficked railway sections, the use of noise barriers or coverings cannot be avoided. However, if there is a wide introduction of vehicle -related measures, the number of noise barriers or covers can shrink significantly. Additionally, wheels and rails need frequent monitoring and maintenance to reduce noise. The surface quality of wheels and rails is a key factor determining rolling noise and deteriorates naturally over time; severely damaged surfaces (out of round wheels or corrugated tracks) are a major noise source. The European Parliament and European Commission try to encourage the Member States to take more action to reduce railway noise, e.g., by introducing noise -dependent track pricing schemes. Such economic incentives (rail track charging differentiated according to noise emissions) can help to: • stimulate the use of low -noise technology for the rolling stock; • foster the use of routes which avoid hot spots for noise; • foster noise -reducing operational routines and speeds in sensitive areas. 12 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution On the regulative side, the Japanese top -runner scheme' is an example to come to a long term reduction of noise. The TSI Noise is an appropriate basis for noise regulation in the medium and long term. Presently, the standards for noise emissions are valid for new or modified vehicles only. In the medium and long-term view the TSI can become compulsory for all vehicles. The noise levels in TSI Noise should also be lowered from time to time according to technical development similar to the Japanese example. In principle, there are three approaches to a noise -dependent track pricing, and each can be configured as a mix of bonus and penalty components: 1. The train -related noise emissions can be measured at critical points in densely populated areas and/or low distances to residential zones and then allocated to the trains causing the noise. The noise mark-up for the track charge then would vary with the local noise level and eventually with the noise exposure of the residential population. 2. The wagons can be classified into noise categories and charged with a noise mark- up or granted with a bonus according to the noise category. The train operator would pay the charge to, or get the bonus from, the infrastructure manager, and pass the bill or grant the bonus to the car owner or operator. 3. Trains can be classified on the basis of the rail car types from which they are composed. In the case of freight trains, the emission category of a train could vary with every change of the train composition in marshalling yards. The first approach would directly correspond to the polluter -pays principle, but causes high transaction costs for implementation and control. The second approach is the most simple and easy to implement, but neglects the nature of rail noise; a high percentage of noise - reduced cars is required in order to achieve a substantial reduction of train -related emissions. The third approach does not require a sophisticated payment system but needs a functioning (eventually international) information system for wagon control. The charging schemes can be embedded into appropriate legislative regulations to set a clear framework for long-term activities to reduce railway noise. The following instruments for regulation are possible: • Limits for stationary and pass -by noise for freight wagons and locomotives; • Operation and maintenance rules; • Noise -limiting technology for new rolling stock according to the Japanese top -runner scheme. This scheme aims at reducing energy consumption and climate impact by dynamic setting of emission targets on the basis of current best practice ("top runners' performance"); • Retrofitting programmes for vehicles currently in service (phased obligation schedule). 1 This scheme aims at reducing energy consumption and climate impact by dynamic setting of emission targets on the basis of current best practice ("top runners' performance"). 13 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Noise depending track access charges (NDTAC) should be introduced to encourage the vehicle owners to invest in noise reduction measures. At the first stage they should focus on rail freight wagons but the scheme can include other vehicles or measures later or focus on noise limits without regard to measure to reach the limit. Importantly, NDTAC should be realised so that no burdens for competitiveness for the rail sector appear. Investment and higher operational costs should be covered. NDTAC should be harmonised in the Member States and each vehicle operating in a national network should be included (also foreign vehicles). To meet the fact that significant noise reductions are only to be achieved if trains are completely equipped with low noise equipment, the NDTAC should favour trains which are nearly fully equiped with these vehicles. To avoid losses in competitiveness lower TAC for low noise vehicles a substantial part should be financed by the Member States. To motivate an early switch to low noise vehicles or retrofitting of existing freight cars also direct funding of investments should be considered for a few years. Summary of recommendations As rail freight wagons commonly travel across wider international distances, it is essential to harmonise noise legislation policies across Europe. As a result the authors recommend focusing on the following actions: • Retrofitting the existing freight wagon fleet with low noise braking systems especially by replacing the cast iron by composite brake blocks as the most important and effective first step of source related noise reduction measures. • Establishing funding schemes to cover the retrofitting and additional operating costs of the new noise reduction technologies to avoid a reduction of the rail sector's competitiveness; a substantial part of costs should be covered by the Member States, since quieter trains will reduce the need for, and therefore the cost of, infrastructure noise mitigation measures. • Introducing rail track charging systems which differentiate the train charges according to the noise category of a train. The noise classification of a train should be determined by the wagon with the highest noise emission level. • Making activities concerning NDTAC or noise limit regulation depending on the same actions in road transport to avoid losses of competitiveness for the rail sector. • Making noise limits by TSI Noise ([TSI Noise 2011] also compulsory for existing rolling stock 10 or 12 years after introduction of funding schemes and noise limits for new rolling stock. • Adjusting limits of TSI Noise in a phased process for a medium and long -run future to foster the development of new noise reduction technologies. • Monitoring and maintenance of noise development due to abrasion to assure low noise levels also during operation over long periods. 14 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution 1 DEFI NI TI ONS AND EFFECTS OF NOI SE KEY Fl NDI NGS • Noise is sound which is unwelcome but the annoyingness depends on the individual. • Noise can be harmful. • The noise pressure level is measured in dB(A) (deci Bel) with a logarithmic scale. • 10 dB(A) increase of noise represents a ten -fold increase of noise pressure. • A change of 3 dB(A) is detectable by the human ear, with it representing a doubling of noise pressure. • Local resistance against railway noise increases especially in Central Europe where most rail freight transport is realised. • The majority of rail transport is realised in France, Germany and Poland. 1 .1 . Noise and railway noise Noise is sound that is unwelcome, because of its volume or structure, and can be harmful. Since not everyone responds equally to sounds and the perception is dependent on constitution and mood, noise also contains a subjective component. Therefore, there is no fixed value at which a sound is perceived as noise. Rail noise is sound emissions arising from the operation of trains and trams. There are a wide variety of sources and causes of rail noise, such as locomotives accelerating, freight wagons braking, squeal noise in curves, vibration from rail corrugation and out -of -round wheels, vehicle coupling in shunting yards, and even the pantographs of high-speed trains. 1 .2. Measurement of noise Sound is vibrations in the air around us causing our eardrum to vibrate. The human ear is sensitive to frequencies in the range 20 Hz - 20 kHz. These vibrations in the air cause pressure changes, and the change in pressure is called sound pressure. Sound, and therefore noise, is measured by measuring the sound pressure. How loud we perceive the sound depends on sound pressure level and duration, but also on frequency and bandwidth. Psychology also affects our perception and tolerance of sound. Besides sound pressure level, the duration of the sound, the time of day, the composition and frequency of the sound must be considered in the assessment of noise. Also, the tonality ("squeak") and impulsiveness ("hammer") play a role. The measurement of sound pressure level, usually referred to as volume, has the physical unit Bel. Normally the term decibel (dB) (i.e., one tenth of a Bel) is used. The additive (A) 15 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies behind the unit dB expresses that the noise measurement is A -weighted (a filter defined by IEC 61672:2003 norm), i.e., tuned to the perception of the human ear. While the human ear can perceive an increase in sound volume as sound energy increases, the relationship is logarithmic. If two identical 10 dB noise sources are placed together, the perceived increase is not a doubling of the volume but rather a 3 dB increase. If ten such noise sources were placed together, the increase would be 10 dB - multiplying the sound energy (and thus the real exposure) by a factor of ten, multiplies the perceived sound volume by a factor of two. As such, a sound level increase from 45 dB to 55 dB may not look like much on paper, but it represents a ten -fold increase in sound energy and its impact on human health. Humans are usually able to sense a change of 3 dB in sound level, which corresponds to a factor -of - two change in sound energy, but that is about the limit of sensitivity. Measures to reduce noise levels by less than 3 dB would, by themselves, be of no real value. Sound can also be transmitted as vibration through the ground and directly into the body, and this is also a form of noise pollution. Three standard measures of average sound pressure level, defined by ISO 1996-2:1987, are Lday, Levening and Lnight, where day is typically 07.00 - 19.00, evening is 19.00 - 23.00, and night is 23.00 - 07.00; these are long-term average A -weighted measurements of all days, evenings and nights, respectively, over the course of a year. Lden is a weighted average of these three, adding 5 dB(A) to Levening and 10 dB(A) to Lnight; this is defined in Annex 1 of European Commission Directive 2002/49/EC. The UK uses also LAeq,16h which is an average of Lday and Levening• 1.3. Effects of noise The faintest audible sound is at 0 dB(A); the pain threshold is about 120 dB(A). If it is louder than 120 dB(A), there is a risk of injury. At a detonated blast of 150 dB(A) the eardrum can rupture. Noise exposure during sleep such as night flight noise is regarded as particularly critical. So night noise causes health hazards already at individual levels below 45 dB(A), if the difference between the individual level and the background noise is more than 3 dB. Noise above 55 dB(A) is considered as noise pollution. If noise above this level lasts for an extended period of time, the efficiency and well-being of a person will be reduced. Noise in the range 65 to 75 dB(A) causes stress to the body. This can lead to arterial hypertension (high blood pressure), cardiovascular disease and myocardial infarction (heart attack). Noise can also provide for a reduction of gastric secretion and be the cause of stomach ulcers [WHO JRC 2011]. In the workplace, above 85 dB(A), a contractor is responsible to ensure his employees have suitable hearing protection available. If the noise level is over 90 dB(A), employees must wear hearing protection. 16 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution 1 .4. Results of noise mapping According to Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, all Member States have to provide noise maps and noise action plans (for details see section 2.2 on page 29). The report on the implementation of Directive 2002/49/EC [EC 2011] summarises the number of affected people by environmental noise in the first round of strategic noise mapping (see Table 1). Table 1: Affected people by environmental noise according to first round of noise mapping SECTION NUMBER OF AFFECTED PEOPLE BY NOI SE LEVELS ABOVE 55 DB(A) LDEN [M1 LLI ON] NUMBER OF AFFECTED PEOPLE BY NOI SE LEVELS ABOVE 50 DB(A) LNIGHT [M1 LLI ON] Agglomerations > 250,000 inhabitants All roads All railways Industrial zones 55.8 6.3 3.3 40.1 4.5 1.8 Important infrastructures outside agglomerations Main roads Main railways Main airports 34 5.4 1 25.4 4.5 0.3 Source: EC 2011, Table 2. The European Environment Agency (EEA) and the European Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information (ETC LUSI) publishes noise maps on the Internet according to Directive 2002/49/EG. The maps are available at [NOISE 2011]. The maps present the population in each country affected by rail noise (distinguishing agglomerations from main lines outside agglomerations). Also, affected population by industry, main road traffic and aviation can be identified. A spreadsheet2 shows detailed and aggregated figures according to data sent until 30 June 2010. In Annex I of this study (pages 120 - 121) the results of noise mapping for the rail sector are shown for all countries inside and outside agglomerations. According to EEA data, the following states in Europe are mostly affected by railway noise according to the share of their population that is affected by railway noise with more than 55 dB(A) LDEN: Austria (9.3%), Slovakia (9.0%), Switzerland (7.5%), France (5.5%), Germany (4.3%), Czech Republic (3.8%), the Netherlands (3.8%) and Latvia (3.0%) (see Figure 1). The following Figure 1 shows the share of affected people in each European country according to the figures delivered by the states to fulfil the requirements of Directive 2002/49/EC. 2 Summary of noise exposure data — file name is "END_DF4_Results_101005_ETCLUSI_incIBG&SW.xls" 17 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Source: Figure elaborated by the authors with EEA data. Figure 1: Share of people affected by railway noise in each European country according to EEA data Share of population affected by railway noise Lden >55 dB(A) in Europe inside and outside agglomeration areas 2010 Data sources Affected population: EEA for 2010. Incomplete records replaced by 2008 data from CE Delft e# al. (2011) for AT. BE, BG, CZ, DK, EE, GR. HU, IE, LT, Wr LV, NIL, PT, SK. Pcip J tit n Data: Eu rostat stater 12,114{2011. 18 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution Analysing the figures in Annex I, it can be seen that about 85% of people affected by railway noise (over 55 dB(A) LDEN or 50 dB(A) LNIGHT) are located in the following six countries in Europe: Germany, France, UK, Austria, Poland and Switzerland. About 60% are located in Germany and France. If only areas outside agglomerations are considered the figures change significantly. In this case the six countries mentioned above represent 89% of affected people. The share of people affected in agglomerations and outside agglomerations differ very much between the countries. In Germany about 75% of affected people live outside agglomerations whereas in Poland this share is 0 (Switzerland: 15%, Austria: 59%, the UK: 17%, France: 44%). Although the number of people affected by rail noise is about eight times smaller than that affected by road transport noise, the total number remains high. In total 11.8 million inhabitants are affected by railway noise during the day (LDEN) and 9 million are affected at night time (LNIGHT)• The limit in noise mapping remains much higher than the recommendations from WHO (see Table 2 page 24). 1.5. Environmental groups and affected inhabitants On 7 May 2011, about 1,000 protesters came together in Rudesheim to protest against the rail noise in their hometowns along the middle Rhine Valley. They carried banners demanding a speed limit of 50 km/h in settlement areas and a ban on night trains, word - playing with the "Deutsche Bohn" as "TaliBahn" and blocking the railway line for 40 minutes. The protests were organised not only by a number of local initiatives, but also by communities and district administrations. The main discussion is currently about freight trains as they are identified as the main source of noise, and they mostly operate at night. A recent survey [Schreckenberg et al. 2011] showed that 45% of the inhabitants along the middle Rhine region are highly annoyed by rail noise, compared to only 13% by road noise. The reason is easy to understand: The topography forces the trains to pass through a narrow valley between Koblenz and Bingen. Four tracks, two on either side of the Rhine, cause unbearable noise disturbances in the ears of the inhabitants. Noise maps published recently show noise levels (LDEN) above 65 and 70 dB(A). These extremes are caused by 400 trains per day, oncoming trains, old infrastructure, and noise reflections on the steep valley and on the water. Additionally, the EU plans for a European freight corridor from Rotterdam to Basel will double the number of freight trains of presently 150 per day to 300 per day. Further protests are expected. Further details concerning the Rhine axis will be elaborated in Section 4.2.1, page 85. 19 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Figure 2: Protests in Rudesheim May 2011, noise map Loreley LDEN This is not the only protest at the Rhine against rail noise. The plans to increase capacities on the upper Rhine valley caused massive protests from Offenburg to Basel, where presently around 10 local action groups are active. In Offenburg, 45,840 objections were made against the infrastructure plans of Deutsche Bahn, and finally the planning was not approved by the regional administration. As a result, DB started negotiations about a rail tunnel under Offenburg and an alignment with the motorway. In other towns, groups protest against the visual impact of "ugly noise protection barriers" and demand a covered deep -level track near settlements. The local action groups are supported by a number of environmental NGOs that operate on a national or international level. The wide range of demands concerning rail noise may be summarised as follows: • Freight trains should bypass settlement areas or be guided through deep -level tracks, tunnels or fully enclosed tracks. • Equal priorities for noise reduction on existing tracks and new construction projects are required. • Regarding the legal framework, the equivalent continuous sound pressure level should be complemented by a maximum level measurement combined with frequencies (in other words, peak sound levels and noise frequencies should be considered, not just averaged sound levels). • Set noise emissions ceilings on railway tracks, in relation to land use and population density. Reduction of the permitted night time noise level to 45 dB(A). • Introduce protection against vibrations into relevant laws and regulations. • Set a speed limit of 50 km/h for trains in settlement areas. • Revise the noise standards for new railway rolling stock (TSI Noise). • Establish a binding framework for the use of market -based instruments to ensure the polluters pay for their noise costs, including road charges and a framework for rail track access charges which will create an incentive for fast and prioritised retrofitting of rail wagons with quiet brake blocks. 20 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution Figure 3: Upper Rhine Valley: Plans for Weil am Rhein and protests in Offenburg Analyses of transportation data from EUROSTAT show that in 2009 almost 27% of the total rail transportation volume in Europe affected Germany. This underlines the importance of central Europe as a transit region as well as an industrial region and presents the reason why the discussion, or even the battle, concerning noise is the strongest in Germany. Poland in the second place has a share of rail freight volume of 12% and France in the third place has 9%. Concerning passenger transport, Germany has a 20% share and France 21%. Analyses of the noise mapping results show that the problem is most severe in France, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland. These two aspects are the reason why data, comments, available studies and national policy activities concentrate mostly on central Europe and, there, especially on the German speaking countries and the Netherlands. Regarding the main rail transportation axes in Europe, Germany, Austria and Switzerland are affected by a large volume of transit transportation. This will even rise according to transportation volume forecasts. The future development of rail freight transport will potentially extend noise problems to other countries through which the TEN -T Corridors pass and which will see rising rail transportation volumes. However, the measures to reduce railway noise which are proposed in this study can help to prevent problems in corridors where transportation will rise in future. 21 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 22 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution 2 LEGAL FRAMEWORK KEY Fl NDI NGS • WHO recommends environmental noise limits between 32 and 42 dB(A) at night to avoid risks for health. • About 1 million years of healthy life are lost every year in the EU due to noise reasons. • National noise limits or thresholds differ very much between the Member States and exceed the WHO recommendations. • Noise limits are mostly only binding for new build infrastructure. • Directive 2002/ 49/ EC requests the Member States to provide noise maps and noise action plans. This has been fulfilled for the first round of noise mapping which covers main railways, roads, airports and agglomerations. The second round (realised until 30 June 2012) will include smaller railways, roads, airports and agglomerations. • 12 million inhabitants are affected by railway noise above 55 dB(A) at day time and 9 m illion inhabitants are affected by railway noise above 50 dB(A) at night time (major infrastructure and agglomerations). • The Recast of the first railway package will request the Member States to introduce noise depending track access charges to compensate investments for noise reduction measures for railway operating companies. • The TSI Noise sets noise limits for new rolling stock. The reader can find an overview about all identified and analysed regulation schemes in Annex IV. 2.1. General recommendations, lim its and thresholds for environmental noise In this section some recommendations and thresholds for environmental noise will be introduced. 2.1.1 . WHO recommendations on environmental noise WHO published in 2011 a study about the burdens of disease from environmental noise [WHO JRC 2011]. The study used a quantitative risk assessment approach for the estimation. One result of the study is that, about 1 million years of healthy life are lost in the EU every year due to noise reasons. 23 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Already in 2009 the WHO working group for preparing guidelines for exposure to noise during sleep published recommendations for thresholds of environmental noise levels [WHO 2009]. The recommendations are shown in Table 2. Table 2: Thresholds for environmental noise at night time to avoid health risks according to WHO recommendation EFFECT I NDI CATOR THRESHOLD [DB(A)] Biological effects Sleep quality Well-being Medical conditions Change in cardiovascular activity EEG awakening Motility, onset of motility Changes in duration of various, in sleep structure and fragmentation of sleep Waking up in the night and/or too early in the morning Prolongation of the sleep inception period, difficulty getting to sleep Sleep fragmentation, reduced sleeping time Increased average motility when sleeping Self -reported sleep disturbance Use of sleeping pills, etc. Environmental insomnia4 see footnote 33 LAmax,inside LAmax,inside LAmax,inside 35 LAmax,inside 42 see footnote 3 see footnote 3 see footnote 3 see footnote 3 see footnote 3 35 LAmax,inside LAmax,inside LAmax,inside LAmax,inside 32 42 42 40 42 Source: WHO 2009, page XII. According to the recent UIC study [CE Delft et al. 2011], the social costs of transportation noise are estimated at about 35 billion Euro across the EU plus Switzerland and Norway in 2008, of which about 90% are related to passenger cars and trucks. The costs of rail noise amounts to 953 million Euro or 6% of total noise costs and distributes rather evenly to passenger and freight traffic. 2.1.2. Limits or recommendations for maximum noise limits in the Member States The European Environment Agency published a comparison of LDEN limits of 14 Member States5 in November 2010 [EEA 11/2010]. 3 Although the effect has been shown to occur or a plausible biological pathway could be constructed, indicators or threshold levels could not be determined. 4 Note that "environmental insomnia" is the result of diagnosis by a medical professional whilst "self -reported sleep disturbance" is essentially the same, but reported in the context of a social survey. Number of questions and exact wording may differ. 5 The EEA report does not specify which 14 Member States provided the information. 24 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution Figure 4: LDEN planning values for residential area (as reported by 14 Member States) .5 60 Rail 58 1 57 r 52 i Ai port Indust y Source: EEA 11/2010, page 22. A standardisation might be useful in order to avoid health risks at the same level in every Member State and to balance competitiveness of all industrial sectors (including transport) as all Member States have to meet the same conditions. The figures required as well as recommended by Member States are often much higher than the recommendations of the WHO. Some national limits or recommendations for environmental noise are introduced as examples below. Table 3 shows recommendations for values of threshold for action plans for environmental noise reduction according to the German Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt) (2006). These figures are not obligations so that the residents cannot claim any specific mitigation measures from these recommendations, if they are affected by environmental noise above these limits. Introduction of measures is a voluntary measure by public bodies. Table 3: German Federal Environment Agency recommendations of thresholds for action planning TARGET OF ACTI ON PERI OD LDEN LNI GHT Avoiding health risks Lowering of large disturbances Avoiding of large disturbances Short-term Middle -term Long-term 65 dB(A) 60 dB(A) 55 dB(A) 50 dB(A) 55 dB(A) 45 dB(A) Source: 16. BIMSchV 2006. On the other hand, the levels introduced by German Federal Emission Regulation (Bundesimmissionsschutzverordnung) are required for new built or modified transportation infrastructures; environmental noise levels have to fall below the values mentioned in [16. BImSchV 2006]. 25 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Table 4: German maximum environmental noise levels for new built or modified transportation infrastructures LDEN LNI GHT Near hospitals, schools, sanatoriums Pure residential areas and small colonies In central areas, villages or mixed areas In industrial areas 57 dB(A) 59 dB(A) 64 dB(A) 69 dB(A) 47 dB(A) 49 dB(A) 54 dB(A) 59 dB(A) Source: 16. BIMSchV 2006. In comparison to the German legislation the following table presents the Austrian limits or thresholds for noise reduction action planning. Table 5: Austrian values of thresholds for action planning TARGET OF ACTI ON LDEN Road traffic Air traffic Rail traffic Industrial areas 60 dB 65 dB 70 dB 55 dB LNI GHT 50 dB 55 dB 60 dB 50 dB Source: Bundes-LrmV 2006. Finally, the British Standard 8233:1999 "Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings - Code of practice" [BS 8233:1999] states noise limits in the UK for indoor noise caused by environmental noise. Table 6: UK values of thresholds for indoor noise caused by environmental noise CRI TERI ON Reasonable industrial working conditions Reasonable speech or telephone communications Reasonable conditions for TYPI CAL SI TUATI ON Heavy engineering Light engineering Garages, warehouses DESIGN RANGE Good noise level 70 dB(A) 65 dB(A) 65 dB(A) Department store 50 dB(A) Cafeteria, canteen, 50 dB(A) kitchen Wash -room, toilet 45 dB(A) Reasonable noise level 80 dB(A) 75 dB(A) 75 dB(A) 55 dB(A) 55 dB(A) 55 dB(A) Corridor 45 dB(A) 55 dB(A) Library, cellular 40 dB(A) 50 dB(A) office, museum 26 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution study and work requiring concentration Reasonable listening conditions Reasonable resting/sleeping conditions Staff room 35 dB(A) Meeting room, executive office 35 dB(A) Classroom 35 dB(A) Church, lecture theatre, cinema Concert hall, theatre Recording studio Living rooms 30 dB(A) 25 dB(A) 20 dB(A) 30 dB(A) Bedrooms 30 dB(A) 45 dB(A) 40 dB(A) 40 dB(A) 35 dB(A) 30 dB(A) 25 dB(A) 40 dB(A) 35 dB(A) Source: BS 8233:1999, page 19. British standards give acceptable noise levels for properties, and requirements for noise insulation. However, there are no relevant formal limit values in force in England with regard to environmental noise from railways. The Noise Insulation Regulations, defined in British Standard; Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings [BS 8233:1999], define a threshold level as part of the eligibility criteria. Furthermore, there are guideline levels to be found in Planning Policy Guidance that provides guidance on land use with respect to noise from railways. Environmental impact is considered as part of the planning permission process for construction, etc., in the UK. Planning Policy Guidance 24 [PPG 24 2006]: "Planning and Noise" provides guidance to local authorities in England on how to minimise noise impact (The Scottish Office issues Planning Advice Note 56 "Planning and Noise" with similar categorisation of noise levels.). [PPG 24 2006] defines exposure categories for residential development. These categories define action depending on noise level categories. Table 7: Noise exposure categories for dwellings CATEGORY A DESCRI PTI ON Noise need not be considered as a determining factor in granting planning permission, although the noise level at the high end of the category should not be regarded as a desirable level. B C D Noise should be taken into account when determining planning applications and, where appropriate, conditions imposed to ensure an adequate level of protection against noise. Planning permission should not normally be granted. Where it is considered that permission should be given, for example because there are no alternative quieter sites available, conditions should be imposed to ensure a commensurate level of protection against noise. Planning permission should normally be refused. Source: PPG 24 2006, Annex 1. Noise levels corresponding to the categories are shown in Table 8. 27 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Table 8: Noise levels corresponding to exposure categories for dwellings NOI SE SOURCE NOI SE EXPOSURE CATEGORI ES A B C D Road traffic 07.00 - 23.00 23.00 - 7.00 Rail traffic <55 55 - 63 63 - 72 >72 <45 45 - 57 57 - 66 >66 07.00 - 23.00 <55 55 - 66 66 - 74 >74 23.00 - 7.00 <45 45 - 59 59 - 66 >66 Air traffic6 07.00 - 23.00 <55 55 - 66 66 - 72 >72 23.00 - 7.00 <48 48 - 57 57 - 66 >66 Mixed sources 07.00 - 23.00 <55 55 - 63 63 - 72 >72 23.00 - 7.00 <45 45 - 57 57 - 66 >66 Source: PPG 24 2006, Annex 1. Sweden has decided long-term goals for noise limits in 1997. Indoor levels should not exceed 30 dB(A) (LDEN) and 45 dB(A) LNIGHT. Outdoor levels should not exceed 55 dB(A) LDEN and 70 dB(A) as a maximum on a patio [Blidberg 2011]. According to Royal Decree 1367/2007 in Spain, noise action plans are to be made according to the following table [Sierra 2011]. Table 9: Spanish values of thresholds for action planning TI ME FOR ACTI ON Up to 2020 Now Situation LDAY Existing New 65 60 LEVENI NG LNIGHT LMAX 65 60 55 50 85 Source: Sierra 2011. Bedrooms in houses located in the 60/60/50 noise contour have to meet 40 dB(A) LDAY, 40 dB(A) LEVENING and 30dB(A) LNIGHT• Thresholds for noise action planning differ between countries. The differences are even in classifying noise protection areas. In Germany, action plans which lead to a maximum level of noise in defined areas are only required for new built and modified infrastructures. 6 Aircraft noise: daytime values accord with the contour values adopted by the Department for Transport which relate to levels measured 1.2m above open ground. For the same amount of noise energy, contour values can be up to 2 dB(A) higher than those of other sources because of ground reflection effects. 28 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution Austria requires noise action planning for certain environmental noise levels, depending on the source of noise. UK recommendations do not require any action, except in the workplace or for new built and modified infrastructures, and levels depend on use of the rooms; local authorities have a number of legislative powers to control noise emission. Mostly the obliged figures are based on the highest level of the German Federal Environment Agency recommendations. These examples of legislation rules or national recommendations differ from the WHO recommendation and are often only relevant for new or modified infrastructure. The result of this comparison shows that reducing environmental noise is a very important action for the environment/health of the population. Many people are affected by rail noise that exceeds the lowest level the WHO Recommendation according to [WHO 2009] demands. 2.2. Environmental Noise Directive 2002/ 49/ EC The Environmental Noise Directive [Dir. 2002/49/EC] has the following aim': • "Monitoring the environmental problem; by requiring competent authorities in Member States to draw up "strategic noise maps" for major roads, railways, airports and agglomerations, using harmonised noise indicators LDEN (day -evening -night equivalent level) and LNIGHT (night equivalent level). These maps will be used to assess the number of people annoyed and sleep -disturbed respectively throughout Europe" • "Informing and consulting the public about noise exposure, its effects, and the measures considered to address noise, in line with the principles of the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision -making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, known as the Aarhus Convention, and signed on June 25, 1998. • "Addressing local noise issues by requiring competent authorities to draw up action plans to reduce noise where necessary and maintain environmental noise quality where it is good. The Directive does not set any limit value, nor does it prescribe the measures to be used in the action plans, which remain at the discretion of the competent authorities." • "Developing a long-term EU strategy, which includes objectives to reduce the number of people affected by noise in the longer term, and provides a framework for developing existing Community policy on noise reduction from source. With this respect, the Commission has made a declaration concerning the provisions laid down in article 1.2 with regard to the preparation of legislation relating to sources of noise." According to the Directive 2002/49/EG, all Member States have to provide noise maps and action plans for noise reduction. The Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Directive on environmental noise in accordance with Article 11 of Expressions coming from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/directive.htm, last visited 14 September 2011. 29 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Directive 2002/49/EC from 1 June 2011 [EC 2011] shows the current status of implementation of the Directive in the Member States. 2.2.1. Status of implementation of Directive 2002/ 49/ EG The Directive is implemented in all Member States since October 2007 according to [EC 2011]. The 148 Member States which did not transpose by 18 July 2004 achieved that by October 2007. According to the EEA Study "Laying the foundations for greener transport" [EEA 7/2011] the data provided is 96% complete in mid 2011. In fact [EEA 7/2011] confirms many aspects concerning limits and the potential risks and limits to avoid risks as the WHO did in its two studies [WHO 2009] and [WHO JRC 2011]. The road map of the Directive is represented in [EC 2011] as follows. Table 10: Road map for implementation of Directive 2002/ 49/ EG I MPLEMENTATI ON DEADLI NE ISSUE REFERENCE DI RECTI VE 2002/ 49/ EC 30 June 2005 18 July 2005 18 July 2005 30 June 2007 18 July 2008 31 December 2008 30 June 2012 Information on major roads, major railways, major airports and agglomerations according to the upper thresholds, designated by MS and concerned by 1st round of mapping Establishment of competent bodies for strategic noise maps, action plans and data collection Noise limit values in force or planned and associated information Strategic noise maps for major roads, railways, airports and agglomerations according to the upper thresholds9 Action plans for major roads, railways, airports and agglomerations Information on major roads, major railways, major airports and agglomerations according to the lower thresholds, designated by MS and concerned by 2nd round of mapping Strategic noise maps for major roads, railways, airports and agglomerations according to the lower thresholds'° Art. 7-1 Art. 4-2 Art. 5-4 Art. 7-1 Art. 8-1 Art. 7-2 Art. 7-2 UPDATES Mandatory every 5 years Possible at any time Possible at any time Mandatory every 5 years Possible at any time Mandatory every 5 years Source: EC 2011, page 4. 8 AT, BE, CZ, DE, EL, FI, FR, IE, IT, LU, PT, SE, SL, UK. 9 Upper thresholds are agglomerations > 250.000 inhabitants, roads > 6 millions of vehicles per year and railways > 60.000 trains per year. 10 Lower thresholds are all agglomerations > 100.000 inhabitants, roads > 3 millions of vehicles per year and railways > 30.000 trains per year. 30 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution Additional to the information shown in Table 10 according to [EC 2011] the Directive 2002/49/EC [Dir. 2002/49/EC] defines one more step. In the first round of noise mapping and action plans only big agglomerations and intensive frequented transportation infrastructure is concerned. The second round also concerns smaller agglomerations and transportation infrastructures. Table 1 1 : Additional steps in noise mapping according to [Dir. 2002/49/ EC] I MPLEMENTATI ON DEADLI NE 18 July 2013 I SSUE REFERENCE UPDATES Action plans for all roads, railways, airports and agglomerations where limits are exceeded Art. 8-2 Mandatory every 5 years Source: Dir. 2002/49/EC. Concerning noise mapping the following table shows details for the first and second rounds of noise mapping. Table 12: Schedule for noise mapping and noise reduction planning ACTI ON AGGLOMERATI ONS > 250.000 INHABITANTS AND MAI N RAI L LI NES > 60.000 TRAINS / YEAR AGGLOMERATI ONS AND MAI N RAI L LI NES > 30.000 TRAINS / YEAR Announcement of railway lines and agglomerations which belong to categories mentioned Elaboration of noise maps Action plans for noise reduction June, 30th 2005 (must be updated every 5 years) June, 30th 2007 July, 18th 2008 December, 31st 2008 (must be updated every 5 years) June 30th 2012 (must be updated every 5 years) July, 18th 2013 (must be updated every 5 years) Source: Dir. 2002/49/EC. Table 13 shows the details of the current status of implementation. 31 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Table 13: Status of implementation of Directive 2002/49/ EG CASE Indication of noise indices and limits Strategic noise maps DESCRI PTI ON Member States shall indicate their national legal environmental noise limits or recommendations. A European wide noise level was not introduced. The Member States have to provide noise maps for main transport infrastructure and agglomerations. They must be updated frequently (5 years) and the update shall indicate the situation in the year before the update. FULL I MPLEMENTATI ON PART I MPLEMENTATI ON Limits by 19 Member States (AT, BG, BE, CZ, DK, EE, ES, FR, DE, EL, IT, LV, LT, LU, NL, PL, PT, SL, SI); currently reviewed in 3 Member States (LT, LV, RO); recommendations by 4 Member States (FI, IE, SE, UK) 12 Member States (BG, CZ, EE, HU, IE, LT, LV, LU, PL, PT, SI, UK) 11 Member States reported completely with a few omissions (AT, BE, CY, DK, FI, DE, NL, RO, ES, SE, SK) 3 Member States reported only for part of the sources of noise (FR, EL, IT) 1 Member State did not report (MT) Source: EC 2011 The range of limits and recommendations for environmental noise differ very much between the Member States. Only four of them considered health care (EE, LU, PT, SL and the administration of Brussels in BE). 2.2.2. Noise action plans orientated limits Several studies by UIC (see [UIC 2010]) and CER together with UIC (see [CER UIC 2007]) and additional surveys by the authors lead to an overview of the existing noise abatement actions in the Member States and also in other European countries. All data available are presented in Table 14. 32 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution Table 14: Actions by European Countries for noise abatement on railways where data are available COUNTRY ACTI ONS SOURCE Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus • Very important topic in particular in urban and mountainous areas • Noise maps since 1993; environmental noise plans implementing DIR 2002/49/EC (www.laerminfo.at) • 250,000 people exposed to excessive rail noise • Complex national and state legislation • 1.7 million sq. m [m2] noise barriers constructed along 803 track -km, 2/3 of the planned construction works are completed • Most of the highly affected inhabitants are protected against noise, annually some 10- 15,000 new protected citizens • Financial means amount to €16 — 25 million p.a.; 50% of the costs are covered by OBB and 50% by the federal states and the community; equipment of new tracks 100% funding by OBB • Equipment of 4,500 out of 31,000 wagons from Rail Cargo Austria and Rail Cargo Hungary with K -block brakes through new units. Retrofitting and noise related access charges are not foreseen • Participation at UIC-Project EuropeTrain for testing LL -block brakes • Until 2009 450 km of noise barriers for € 355 million • Critique to noise action plans: lag of new ways to deal with noise, no concrete specification • Regional noise legislation, no national legislation existent • Flanders, Brussels: noise limits • Wallonia: no limits • No programme by SNCB; however protection for new or upgraded lines • Only interest in composite brake blocks for noise reduction • Since 1951 there is no railway line in Cyprus in effect. So rail noise is no problem for Cyprus Interviews with country representatives in September 2011 [UIC 2010] [Justice and Environment 2009a] [CER UIC 2007] Interview with Bulgarian railway operator (BDZEAD) in September 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Cyprus_Government_Railway 33 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies COUNTRY ACTI ONS SOURCE Czech Republic Denmark Estonia • Noise abatement compulsory for new railway lines • Upgrading of existing lines with noise barriers • Action plans for END (Directive 2002/49/EC) will form framework of noise abatement programmes • Pilot project with LL brake blocks • Until 2010 about 115 km of noise barriers • Critique to noise action plans: merely containing only measures which have been planned anyway; no estimate of costs and deadlines • Few noise barriers in Denmark: 58 km • Passive noise abatement strategy, mostly done at houses • Research and Testing programmes for optimisation of track construction, acoustic rail grinding, noise partnership with the inhabitants and noise communication management • Until 2009 46 km noise barriers, windows in 8,300 houses, total costs 65 million € • Up to 2013 22,100 dwellings will be protected by noise screens and/or offered grant to improved sound insulation • Offer of grant to improved sound insulation of 17,700 dwellings, of which 4.650 dwellings (-26%) have got improved sound insulation. • Intensified grinding of rails on all main railway sections (2009 -2014) Target: Less fluctuation in rail smoothness and reduced noise • Tests of rail dampers on a short section - effect 2,7 dB(2007) • Project Optimized Railway Superstructure (2009 -2014): Survey on influence of different rail pads on noise and vibration at Holmstrup (2010-2011) • TSI Noise is transformed into national law. • Noise action plans for the City of Tallinn (May 2009) and for major road links (Dec. 2008) have been established. These are not legally binding and are not referring to rail transport. Road measures including noise barriers only. • Provisions by the Tallinn noise action plan to be taken until 2013: o Technical measures at noise sources o Selection of quieter sources o Reduction of sound transmission (e.g. tramway speed reduction) [CER UIC 2007] [UIC 2010] [Justice and Environment 2009a] [CER UIC 2007] [UIC 2010] [Blumensaadt 2011] [Justice and Environment 2009a] [Justice and Environment 2009b] 34 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution COUNTRY ACTI ONS SOURCE France Finland Germany • Estonian legislation has delayed the deadline for preparing noise maps beyond 30.6.2007 and action plans. This constitutes a conflict with EC legal provisions • Noise protection for new or upgraded lines • implement noise control at hot spots - mostly noise barriers and noise protection windows - track absorbers homologated • research projects • Combined optimisation of rail and wheel dampers. Homologation of wheel dampers (STARDAMP project) • Noise plan with € 193 million for noise barriers and rail dampers • Noise abatement package being considered by parliament, no retrofitting Problem of noisy Russian freight wagons • Some noise barriers • For the 7 agglomerations, Finnish Transport Agency (FTA) has contracted with the city authorities to include the main roads and railways in their assessments, paying a part of their costs • The total cost for FTA will be about € 800,000, about € 1.50 per probable noise zone inhabitant (cost with roads!) • Experiences with low height barrier come to a reduction of about 10 dB(A) • Strong political pressure from citizen's groups and associations • Long-term goal of German railway DB: cut rail noise emissions 2000 -2020 by half, i.e., a noise reduction of 10 dB(A). Costs: € 2.3 m, with € 100 m p.a. duration of programme expected at 25 years • Noise differentiated track access charges will be introduced in December 2012. Wagon holders will receive a bonus financed by 50% through government. The bonus will be paid through a fund that is financed equally by increased track charges and the Noise Protection Programme of the German government • 180,000 wagons are eligible to be retrofitted with new brakes. Costs amount to € 300 m. Number of wagons presently retrofitted: 6,350 • Programme "Quiet Rhine" started that will retrofit 1,150 wagons with new brakes • Voluntary noise remediation programme for existing tracks of the federal railways • Research project "silent train on real track" [CER UIC 2007] [UIC 2010] [CER UIC 2007] [UIC 2010] [Pokolainen 2011] Interviews with representatives from DB and national authorities in September 2011 35 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies COUNTRY ACTI ONS SOURCE Hungary Greece Ireland testing innovative vehicle -side technologies • Research programme "silent track" testing track dampers and low noise barriers with funding from the Economic Stimulus Package II • Acoustic rail grinding programme on -going • Testing innovative infrastructure measures: Rail dampers, friction modifiers, low height barriers, absorbers for steel bridges, under sleeper pads • Work on realistic rail/wheel contact: improvement of wheel/rail contact, wheel vibrations and acoustic optimisation of pavement • € 100 million per year, total costs of 2.3 billion until 2030 including noise barriers and windows • Most activities are related to infrastructure side measures • Retrofitting up to 5,000 freight wagons with K- and LL -blocks up from the year 2009 • Definition of a practical approach for the use of LL -blocks • Definition and pre -evaluation of noise differentiated track access charging models • In fact, Germany currently invests significant money in noise protection walls in the Konjunkturpaket 211 • The national law obligates noise protection on new or modernised railways • Action plans are not binding and have no implication for national budget rules • Good public involvement in action plan design by establishment of noise committees • The density of railway lines in Greece is very small. 60% of all railway kilometres belong to one single connection between Thessaloniki and Athens (1565 km). A very small percentage of all Greece inhabitants is affected by railway noise In the Dublin area traffic is the major noise source, but railways do not have a major impact on overall noise levels. Major measures: Promoting walking, cycling, public transport and quieter motor vehicles Outside agglomerations 23 km of track are above 60,000 passages p.a., but without affecting [UIC 2010] Additional information by the authors [CER UIC 2007] [Justice and Environment 2009a] http://www.griechenland- travel.com/eisenbahn.htm [Dublin City 2008] [King et al. 2009] 11 « Konjunkturpaket 2 » (Economic Stimulus Package II) is an extra investment programme of the German government following the recent economic crisis 2008/2009 to support the building industry. 36 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution COUNTRY Italy Latvia Lithuania ACTI ONS SOURCE population with LDEN>55 dB(A) • Strict noise legislation including existing lines • action plans • implementation until 2020 • measures to be considered on about 8000 km • costs about € 6.8 billion • legislation does not allow retrofitting Measurements of all assets (rolling stock) for noise emissions — example: modification of software of the ETR 500 High Speed trains to lower ventilation and cooling noise Most measures indeed concentrate on noise barriers and insolating windows Development of cast iron brake blocks for freight wagons For the next 15 years on about 3,675 km of existing lines noise barriers and building insulation is foreseen with a budget of about 8.31 billion € (9,025 single actions) • Strategic Noise Mapping was completed in 2008 including only major road sections. It can thus be concluded that rail noise does not play a significant role in Latvia Detailed information on noise action plans have not been available; Communications from the Ministry for Transport and Communications only mention noise reduction programmes for road and air transport But modal shifts to rail by a cooperation between Lithuanian Railways (JSC) and CargoBeamer (Germany) on combined transport is expected to reduce noise pollution from road haulage Luxembourg Luxemburg has submitted a draft Noise Action Plan to the EC, which is not accessible to the public Malta Netherlands [CER UIC 2007] Answer from Trenitalia (FS) on authors survey in September 2011 Answer from RFI on authors survey in September 2011 [EIONET 2011] [SUMIN 2011] [EIONET 2011] • Since 1931 there is no railway line in Malta in http://de.wikipedia.orq/wiki/ effect. So rail noise is no problem for Malta Schienenverkehr_auf_Malta • Noise abatement legislation since 1987 • Introduction of noise differentiated track access charges in 2008. The bonus is fixed at € 0.04/ wagon -km and is applied to both passenger and freight vehicles with a maximum of € 4,800 over two years. The bonus is granted on a system of self- [CER UIC 2007] declaration • Noise Innovation Programme: Launching of numerous studies and pilot projects to test composite brake blocks • Noisy trains will be prohibited starting in 2015 37 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies COUNTRY ACTI ONS SOURCE Norway Romania12 Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain • Target noise reduction: 10 - 12 dB(A) • Also measures for shunting yards are planned • € 430 million for noise barriers, windows and rail dampers • Lubrication, removing of rail joints, noise barriers and window insulation in shunting yards • Research projects for friction modifiers against curve squeal, influencing rail roughness • Monitoring noise ceilings and capacity management • Rail grinding planned but not yet implemented, noise from freight terminals, tonal noise from accelerating and decelerating trains • Passive noise abatement strategy, mostly done at houses • National noise action plans in preparation since 2008 • Environmental law includes noise abatement • track grinding • noise barriers (50 km), • noise protection windows on new and upgraded lines • Noise protection is obligated on all railway lines • Nearly all freight cars are equipped with LL - blocks (no need of admittance of these cars in other countries as Portugal has broad gauge track and so there is no exchange of wagons with the other European countries) • More than 50 km of noise protection walls and in future more are planned Action plans are considered very vague and general and not binding and have no implication for national budget rules To date only Action Plans for road transport have been submitted to the EC Action plans are considered very vague and general and not binding and have no implication for national budget rules Directive 2002/49/EC is completely implemented in national legislation and for major railway lines and agglomerations noise maps are existing, second phase of noise [UIC 2010] [UIC 2010] [CER UIC 2007] [CER UIC 2007] [CER UIC 2007] [CER UIC 2007] [Justice and Environment 2009a] [EIONET 2011] [Justice and Environment 2009a] Interview with the RENFE in December 2011 12 According to an Interview with the Romanian Railway Authority there are no problems with noise in this country. 38 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution COUNTRY ACTI ONS SOURCE Sweden Switzerland mapping will be fulfilled in 2013 • Currently 62% of rail freight transport is done with low noise wagons (equipped with composite brake blocks) • 32% of all freight wagons are already equipped with composite brake blocks (30,58% K- and 1,37% LL -blocks, as well as Portugal Spain has broad gauge) • Equipment of freight wagons with K- or LL - blocks goes on (600 expected for 2012) • 95% of passenger rolling stock is already equipped with disc brakes and new rolling stock will only have disc brakes • According to Sweden's noise mapping: problems also outside of mapping areas; noise mitigation measures such as rail grinding, rail dampers and low height barriers are being studied • Passive noise abatement strategy, mostly done at houses • Noise abatement programme including insulated windows and local barriers for good acoustic indoor environment and noise protected patio area • Sweden also favors retrofitting braking systems of existing rail cars but serious problems are still not solved concerning the braking performance in severe winter conditions • Noise legislation enacted 1987 • Noise differentiated track access charges introduced in 2010 using a bonus system for low -noise wagons • railway noise abatement largely financed through road traffic • specific legislation for railway noise: • - retrofitting of all Swiss rolling stock until 2014 (direct subsidies) - noise barriers with cost -benefit restriction - noise protection windows • The total national freight wagon fleet will be equipped with composite breaks which lower rolling noise (for details see Section 3.3). The programme is financed by the government which shifts earning from road pricing to the rail sector. Also a noise -dependent track price system has already been introduced and is currently in discussion for enhancements • A cost benefit analysis should show which additional measures will be taken: rail grinding, stand by noise, rail dampers and [CER UIC 2007] [UIC 2010] [Blidberg 2011] [CER UIC 2007] [UIC 2010] 39 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies COUNTRY ACTI ONS SOURCE United Kingdom steel bridges are among the issues studied • By 2009 111 km of noise barriers and windows, and by 2015 300 km of noise barriers are planned for € 1 billion • Switzerland publishes very detailed information about the status of rail noise abatement and the approach for private persons to gather funding for noise insulating windows for instance (see www.laerm-sbb.ch) • Strict planning policy requires new railway developments to consider noise impact during construction and operation • British Standards give acceptable noise levels for properties and requirements for noise insulation • Most (approximately 75%) of UK freight wagons have disc brakes or composite brake blocks • The UK uses a variety of noise mitigating technologies including noise barriers, rail lubricators and friction modifiers, rail absorbers, and, usually in tunnels, resilient baseplates and floating slab track • DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) is responsible for the UK's noise mapping and noise action plans • The UK has identified a number of Important Areas for the relevant transport authorities to focus on, as well as a subset of First Priority Locations and a timeline for implementation • Long-term strategy: Framework for noise abatement incorporating infrastructure provider (NetworkRail) and train operators • Concentration on night time noise and integration of transport and land use planning [CER UIC 2007] Interviews held by partners in September 2011 [AEA et al. 2004] Source: Different sources; see column SOURCE. 40 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution Reports have been suspended for Greece, Malta and Cyprus due to marginality or non- existence of rail networks. Switzerland and Norway are mentioned as non-member countries as they are also members of UIC as the concerned railway organisation. UIC (in [UIC 2010]) also mentions an initiative by the group of The Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and Italy ([UIC 2010], page 25). In the Rotterdam - Genoa project, the governments of the states mentioned analysed possibilities to promote retrofitting of freight cars with low noise equipment (particularly composite brakes). The study finally recommended harmonised solutions for bonus systems (not only along the corridors) and to avoid penalty systems. By the end of 2005, in Europe 1,000 km of noise barriers have been built and approximately 60,000 buildings have been endowed with noise protection windows. The measures resulted in noise protection for about 1,250,000 citizens. The measures comprised annual investments of 150-200 million Euros. The estimated total costs for infrastructure measures are estimated at up to € 10 billion. Most national activities and investments so far concentrate on infrastructure: noise barriers, rail damping and friction modifiers. Many countries and projects also concentrate or integrate source driven measures like wheel dampers or composite brake blocks. Interviews conducted with rail industry representatives from DB and OBB suggest that noise bonus regulations shall be unique across Europe to increase the incentives for wagon owners and operators to retrofit old rolling stock and to minimise market distortions among rail transportation companies. 2.3. Recast of the First Railway Package The First Railway Package consists of Directives 2001/12/EC (amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways), 2001/13/EC (amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings) and 2001/14/EC (on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification). This was designed to open the international freight market by setting out the conditions for licensing freight operators in Europe, to define the roles of the infrastructure managers and railway undertakings, and to set out a policy for capacity allocation and infrastructure charging. The Second Railway Package includes the Railway Safety Directive (Directives 2004/49/EC and 2008/110/EC) and EC Regulations 881/2004 and 1335/2008 which required the establishment of national safety authorities and investigatory bodies who report to the European Railway Agency, responsible for rail safety and interoperability as well as drafting legislation for a harmonised European rail system. The Second Package also includes the Interoperability Directive (2008/57/EC) which defines how the Technical Standards for Interoperability (TSIs) should be developed, e.g., TSI Noise relating to ""rolling stock - noise' of the trans -European conventional rail system", Commission Decision 2011/229/EU (see Section 2.4, page 42). The Third Railway Package focuses on opening up international passenger services to competition within Europe, and includes Directive 2007/58/EC (amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways and Directive 2001/14/EC on 41 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure). On September 17th 2010, the European Commission delivered a proposal for a Recast of the First Railway Package [COM(2010) 475]. Article 7 of Dir. 2001/14/EC covers "Principles of charging". Noise is not mentioned explicitly in Dir. 2001/14/EC, but the directive allows infrastructure charges to be modified based on environmental impact. This enables Member States to introduce noise -dependent track access charges if this is introduced also for competitive transportation modes or the total turnaround for infrastructure companies does not rise. Article 31 of the proposed Recast, based on Article 7 of Dir. 2001/14/EC, explicitly allows differentiation of track access charges based on the noise emission characteristics of the rolling stock if the same is introduced for road transport. 2.4. TSI Noise The basis for all subsystems (infrastructure, energy, control -command and signalling, operation and traffic management, telematics applications, rolling stock and maintenance) of the railway system are the "European Railway Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSIs)". The elaboration of TSIs is introduced in Directive 2008/57/EC. The European Railway Agency (ERA) is responsible for the coordination of development of the TSIs. For this, ERA organises working groups for the different subsystems which consist of experts and authorities. The ERA pays attention that all relevant stakeholders are represented in the working groups. All TSIs are directly valid for each Member State for new build or modified subsystems. If exceptions must be made, the Member States have to declare this precisely. General exceptions are only possible for underground, tram and regional rail systems; infrastructures / networks which are separate from the rail network and are only used for local and urban transport; private rail infrastructure and vehicles which are only used on the private infrastructure which is only used for freight transport for the owner; infrastructures and vehicles which are only for local use or historical and touristic uses. The new European Railway Technical Specification for Interoperability (TSI) for Noise (TSI Noise), document No. 2011/229/EU (published on April, 4th 2011) defines maximum noise levels for rolling stock [TSI Noise 2011]. This TSI is part of the subsystem rolling stock. It replaces the version of 2006 [TSI Noise 2006]. Maximum noise levels are defined for stationary and for pass -by noise on defined rail reference tracks and at defined speed. For engines, starting noise levels and interior noise within the driver's cab are also defined where applicable. Interior noise within the driver's cab is not relevant for this study. Details are presented in Annex II. According to Directive 2008/57/EG these limits are directly valid for new build vehicles. Pass -by noise is defined at a distance of 7.5 metres from track centre line and 1.2 metres above upper surface of the rail. Details about the reference track are to be found in the TSI Noise. The reference track is defined by its roughness and its dynamic behaviour (described by the vertical and lateral track decay rates). In Commission Decision of 30 May 2002 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the rolling stock subsystem of the trans -European high-speed rail system referred to in Article 6(1) of Directive 96/48/EC (2002/735/EC) noise limits were set to rolling stock of high speed trains [Com 2002/735/C]. 42 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution 2.5. Measuring and computing of railway noise 2.5.1. Legislation according to Environmental Noise Directive The EU Directive 2002/49/EC demands in its Annex 1 the following formula to calculate the relevant day -evening -night level (on the basis of measured noise levels): Lzn =101g 1 12*1010 +4*10 24 L1 in which: +5 Lniehi +10 10 +8*10 10 1 • Lday is the A -weighted long-term average sound level as defined in [ISO 1996-2: 1987], determined over all the day periods of a year, • Leveeing is the A -weighted long-term average sound level as defined in [ISO 1996-2: 1987], determined over all the evening periods of a year, • Lnight is the A -weighted long-term average sound level as defined in [ISO 1996-2: 1987], determined over all the night periods of a year, • Lden is the average noise level for a period of 24 hours (day, evening and night) and in which: • the day is 12 hours, the evening four hours and the night eight hours. The Member States may shorten the evening period by one or two hours and lengthen the day and/or the night period accordingly, provided that this choice is the same for all the sources and that they provide the Commission with information on any systematic difference from the default option, • the start of the day (and consequently the start of the evening and the start of the night) shall be chosen by the Member State (that choice shall be the same for noise from all sources); the default values are 07.00 to 19.00, 19.00 to 23.00 and 23.00 to 07.00 local time, • a year is a relevant year as regards the emission of sound and an average year as regards the meteorological circumstances; and in which: the incident sound is considered, which means that no account is taken of the sound that is reflected at the facade of the dwelling under consideration (as a general rule, this implies a 3 dB correction in case of measurement) (see [EC 2002], Annex I). Noise indicators can also be computed (necessary for predictions). Directive 2009/49/EG defines in its Annex II computing methods which have to be used if the Member States have no own legislative computing method which is adapted to Annex I of the directive. For railway noise the calculation method of the Netherlands is prescribed ("Reken- en Meetvoorschrift Railverkeerslawaai '96, Ministerie Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, 20th November 1996") [ReMR 1996]. The calculation scheme defines nine train categories where noise levels for pass by of one of these trains are indicated. Together with the total number of trains of one type, the averages LDEN and LNIGHT level can be calculated. Supplement factors are indicated for different types of bridges. 43 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Germany for example has its own calculation scheme. They use the "Preliminary calculation method for the environmental noise at railways" (Vorlaufige Berechnungsmethode fur den Umgebungslarm an Schienenwegen) - VBUSch 2006" [VBUSch 2006] for calculations for noise mapping. All calculations schemes are very complex and exceed the scope of this study, but all schemes classify trains into classes. For each class an emission factor must be calculated and the addition of all factors is done with a logarithmic function. There are currently two main discussions about the calculation schemes - the different results of different schemes and the rail bonus in calculation. Both aspects will be discussed in the following sections. 2.5.2. Different results of different computing schemes The Dutch scheme uses nine train type categories where the indicators mentioned in the German scheme are already integrated in general calculation factors for the train category. The calculation in Germany has a common factor for all train types, modified by individual bonus or penalty factors according to indicators, whereas the Dutch calculation scheme has already defined global calculation factors for train categories. So calculation results can differ according to the scheme used; Lercher elaborated an example of these differences in ALPNAP project [ALPNAP 2007-2]. Figure 5 which comes from the ALPNAP project [ALPNAP 2007-2] shows an example of the result of different calculation methods for people annoyed by railway noise. The figure compares BASS3 (INTEC)13, the MITHRA-SIG14 and the Standard set by the Environmental Noise Directive. Figure 5: Comparison of noise calculation methods in ALPNAP project Proportion highly annoyed BASS3 (INTEC) MITHRA-SIG (CSTB) — Standard (Environmental Noise Directive - END) 40 50 60 70 80 Railway sound level, Lden, dB(A) Source: ALPNAP 2007-2, page 124. Clearly there would be value in a European calculation (and measuring) standard to make noise effects on the population more comparable. 13 BASS3 is an implementation of ISO 9613 (acoustics - Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors) by INTEC-University of Gent. 14 MITHRA-SIG is an implementation of the French standard method NMPB (Methode de Prevision du Bruit des Routes). 44 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution 2.5.3. Rail noise bonus discussion In former, and in some current, calculation or measuring methods (see German Schall 03, for example) a general bonus for rail noise is included. These incentives transfer measured or calculated environmental noise emissions into a balanced value. Railway noise is often seen as less annoying than other noise sources. Amongst others this is accounted due to more times without noise emissions at all. The general discount is between 3 and 10 dB in different countries [ZEUS Mohler 2010]. Recently, several studies analysed whether this discount is suitable and eligible. The study "Larmbonus bei der Bahn?" (Noise bonus for rail?) [ZEUS Mohler 2010] by Mohler + Partner Munchen; ZEUS GmbH, Hagen, analysed several studies for the German Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt). The following table shows the suitability of railway noise incentives according to analysed studies: Table 15: Analysis of studies about the eligibility of rail noise incentives ELI GI BI LI TY OF RAI L NOISE DI SCOUNT TYPE OF STUDY Case studies Laboratory studies Total Yes for a general rail noise bonus Different kinds of bonus or penalty No for a general rail noise bonus Neutral concerning rail noise bonus Total 2 6 0 1 9 6 0 5 1 12 8 6 5 2 21 Source: Zeus Mohler 2010, page 49. About 8 out of 21 studies came to the result that a rail noise bonus is eligible. 11 of the 21 studies came to the result that either the incentives have to be variable (for example depending on time, area influenced, noise level; even a penalty should be included), or the rail noise bonus is not eligible. 2 of the studies remain neutral. If only case studies are considered, only 2 of 9 studies agreed that a general rail noise bonus was acceptable, whereas 6 studies suggested a variable noise bonus/penalty system was necessary. The authors of that study also identified mistakes in the studies considered. The rail noise bonus/penalty must be further elaborated, especially considering the current modal split in transportation and the effects of noise at night (interruption of quiet phases), or different noise levels, for instance. ZEUS GmbH and Mohler+Partner published an article about a census concerning the annoyance by rail and road noise at different times of day (Daytime -related harassment by road and rail traffic noise — Method and empirical results / Tageszeitsbezogene Belastigung durch Straf3en- and Schienenverkehrslarm - Methode and empirische Ergebnisse) [ZEUS Mohler 2005]. The authors questioned people about their feeling of harassment from railway and road noise. The most important result is that during the evening and night the noise coming from railways harassed more than at during the day. This would justify a rail noise penalty at evening and night time. 45 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies As a result of the ALPNAP15 project, Lercher et al. studied the use of sleeping pills by people affected by rail noise [Lercher et al. 2007]: • Use of sleeping pills is increasing already at low levels of railway noise from 50 dB(A) upwards. • The environment noise level of 60 dB(A) at night which leads to the necessity of action plans is considerably too high. This leads to the general result that a rail noise bonus is not justifiable both at evening and night time but only eligible during the day and not in the night. 15 ALPNAP = Monitoring and Minimisation of Traffic -Induced Noise and Air Pollution Along Major Alpine Transport Routes, see http://www.alpnap.org (last visit June, 30th 2011). 46 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution 3 RAIL NOI SE — SOURCES AND PREVENTION MEASURES KEY Fl NDI NGS • Main source of railway noise is rolling noise coming from rail freight wagons. • Of minor importance is engine noise (at lower speeds) and aerodynamic noise (high speed trains). • Locally also squeal noise can be important. • Rolling stock which is introduced from the year 2000 on is about 10 dB(A) less noisy then rolling stock from the 1960s and 1970s. • Against each source of noise an enormous number of measures has been developed in the last years. • Rolling noise and wheel noise can be reduced by composite brake blocks (freight wagons), resilient wheels or wheel dampers. • Rail noise can be reduced by rail dampers, resilient track pads and combinations with noise barriers of different heights. • Track side or vehicle side lubrication systems can avoid squeal noise and are well introduced in tram way systems. • The most efficient measure to achieve network wide noise reduction is the retrofitting of freight cars with composite brake blocks. This chapter will identify the main sources of railway noise and measures to prevent or to protect from it. 3.1. Sources of railway noise Many studies and publications exist concerning sources of rail noise. The Working Group Railway Noise of the European Commission published its Position Paper on the European strategies and priorities for railway noise abatement in 2003 [EC 2003]. The International Union of Railways (UIC) published its "Environmental Noise Directive Development of Action Plans for Railways" in April 2008 [UIC 2008]. Both studies (and others, see, e.g., the comprehensive review given by [Thompson and Gautier 2006]) identify the following sources for railway noise: • Rolling noise • Power equipment noise • Aerodynamic noise. The severity and relative proportions of these noise sources depend on train speed. At low speed, power equipment noise is the dominant source, whereas at medium speed the 47 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies dominant source is rolling noise. Only at very high speed does the aerodynamic noise become an important factor. This effect is illustrated in the following figure. Figure 6: Sources of railway noise according to train speed Sound Pressure Level dB(A) 13 Traction noise Rolling noise 12 Aerodynamic noise Total 11 10 10 20 50 100 200 300 400 Train speed [kmlh] Source: UIC 2008, page 7. This figure shows that between 30 and 200 km/h rolling noise is the dominant source. This is also the speed range which affects most people living near railway tracks. Low speed is only to be found in shunting yards, near stations or on factory railways. Speeds of more than 200 km per hour are only to be found on high speed lines. The range between 30 and 200 km/h applies to most other railway lines. Mostly these are older lines built in a time where noise protection was not obligatory. Currently these lines have the right of continuance. There is mostly no obligation to invest in noise protection measures but according to Directive 2002/49/EC, many states in Europe already introduce actions to lower environmental railway noise. The speed range between 30 and 200 km/h is also the speed where freight trains operate (about 100 km/h). Many sources identify freight trains as the noisiest trains and they mostly operate outside high-speed lines. The following table shows the importance of noise sources, depending on train type. Table 16: Importance of noise sources ACTI ON ROLLI NG NOISE Freight trains High speed trains Intercity or other long distance trains City railways (tram) POWER EQUI PMENT NOISE AERODYNAMI C NOISE Not relevant ++ Not relevant Not relevant Source: EC 2003, page 18. 48 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution The table confirms the importance of rolling noise. [EC 2003] considers that passenger trains are already quieter as they are equipped with disc brakes. This measure was not introduced for noise reduction but to enhance performance at speeds above 140 km/h. The following figure shows the effect of power equipment noise (here a diesel hydraulic engine, built 1968 to 1979, German type 218), when a train passes. The engine noise has a large influence at the beginning of the train passage, but after a few seconds the main influence is the rolling noise. Figure 7: Development of noise sources while train passing 95 90 85 .0 80 -13 CD 75 70 C 65 60 55 50 rolling noise /7oise T quipment n 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 time, s 18 Source: UIC 2008, page 13. 20 Concerning shunting yards: there were no reports identified which elaborate this aspect in detail. However, noise sources from shunting yards include: • Engine noise from shunting engines especially many acceleration and braking phases must be considered • Rolling noise from the wagons (especially in the train splitting siding zone behind the hump) • Brake noise o Incoming trains o Braking of shunting engines o Braking of wagons by hump retarders (one of the loudest noise sources) o Testing of brakes of ready trains • Noise from shunting impacts Most shunting yards are located outside housing areas and their number has dropped over the years. Single wagon transport has even been abandoned in some countries. On the other hand, single wagon transport is still important and may play an important role in modal shift. There was no literature found concerning noise from shunting yards. Other shunting areas are mostly industrial railways where industrial noise protection rules must be met. Here railway noise is treated together with other noise aspects and is part of the total noise measurement or calculation for industrial plants. 49 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Engine noise is relevant at lower speeds and so mostly near stations. This concerns especially acceleration noise when engines (especially diesel engines) work at high power drain (high motor speed, high inverter and converter noise). Summary: • The most important source of noise is rolling noise, as this is relevant for both freight and passenger trains. • Aerodynamic noise, especially from pantographs, is very important for high-speed trains. 3.2. Noise emissions in relation to rolling stock For existing wagons and engines no changes need to be made according to TSI Noise [TSI 2011]. Only in the case of renewal or upgrading of the wagon or engine is there the need for a new authorisation (to be defined by the national authority); the noise levels must be met with the new authorisation. The following examples show the development of noise emissions concerning engines and wagons in the past. Since the year 2000, many new vehicles have been introduced all over Europe in freight and in passenger transport. In its brochure "Ruhe bitte" (silent please) [SBB 2011], Schweizer Bundesbahn (SBB - Swiss Federal Railway) showed how pass -by noise differs between old and new rolling stock. The following figure shows the changes between old stock (designed in the 1970s, or earlier) and new rolling stock (designed at the end of the 1990s). For each of the vehicle types, the noise emission measured according to TSI Noise is shown. Figure 8: Noise emission development of Swiss rolling stock Guterwagen NMI 100 Old freight wagon Modern Engine RE 460 (Lok 2000) Lok Re 460 Dosto Modem passenger wagon (1C2000) 90 80 ILi t `. 17 .% 1Li EW1111 114.444.44 Old passenger wagon iimorpt _ Lok Re 4/4 Old engine type RE 4/4 // (RE 420) moderne Guterwagen Modern freight wagon Source: SBB 2011. The engine Re 460 (also known as Lok 2000) is still one of the quietest engines and was the quietest vehicle of all trains until the introduction of the IC2000 passenger double deck coaches. Detailed photographs of the modern Swiss rolling stock show that the bogies are well covered by the whole engine body (Annex III). 50 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution The TSI Noise demands a maximum pass -by level of 85 dB(A) for electric engines and of 80 dB(A) for passenger wagons at 80 km/h. The Swiss examples are already below the noise level of current European legislation. This is even more interesting as the Lok 2000 was introduced in 1991 and the IC 2000 passenger cars were introduced in 1997. [Mather 2006] presented an analysis of sources of noise in comparison with the TSI Noise. This shows the current performance of rail vehicles in comparison with the demands of the TSI. The results are shown in the following tables. Table 17: Maximum and realised noise emissions of existing high speed trains SPEED MAXI MUM NOI SE EMI SSI ON ACCORDI NG TSI NOI SE CURRENT EMI SSI ON OF GERMAN HIGH SPEED TRAI NS DI FFERENCE 250 km/h 300 km/h 320 km/h Table 18: 87 dB(A) 91 dB(A) 92 dB(A) 87 - 94 dB(A) 91 - 95 dB(A) 92 - 96 dB(A) 0 - 7 dB(A) 0 - 4 dB(A) 0 - 4 dB(A) Source: Mather 2006. Maximum and realised noise emissions of new freight wagons AXLES PER WAGON LENGTH MAXI MUM NOI SE EMI SSI ON ACCORDI NG TSI CURRENT EMI SSI ON OF WAGONS DI FFERENCE 0.15 axles per metre (new car / retrofit car) 0.15 - 0.275 (new car / retrofit car) > 0.275 axles per metre (new car / retrofit car) 82 dB(A) - 84 dB(A) 83 dB(A) - 85 dB(A) 85 - 87 dB(A) 92 / 94 dB(A) 91 - 95 dB(A) 92 - 96 dB(A) 8 - 12 dB(A) 6 - 12 dB(A) 5 - 11 dB(A) Source: Mather 2006. The result is that most actions are still to realise at rail freight wagons and less on passenger trains and modern engines. Bukovnik, in a presentation about development and measures in rail noise abatement, gives a comparison of old and new rolling stock [Bukovnik 2010]. The following figure shows the effect of new self-propelled vehicles for suburban railways. The vehicle type 4020, built between 1978 and 1987, is - at all speeds - about 8 - 10 dB(A) noisier than the type 4024 (Bombardier electric Talent) built since 2006. At 80 km/h, type 4024 meets or goes below TSI recommendations. 51 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Figure 9: Noise levels of Austrian self-propelled rail vehicles 100 98 96 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 —54020 Guter 54024 RZ-ci —80-33 RZ,mix 80-73 — RZ-dsk CD680 Fivai ICE-T(8R411) LA,pi, in dB: Passing level in 7.5m/1.2m regular train atTSl-Noise rails -0.2 Iog(V/80) -0.1 0 0 0.1 0.2 V [km/hi 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 Source: Bukovnik 2010. 03 Similar to self-propelled passenger trains, the following figures show pass -by noise emissions of diesel and electric engines. Red lines show electric and blue lines show diesel engines. Figure 10: Noise levels of Austrian rail engines 100 98 96 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 EV�1 L1042 L5047 L1044 — L2143 =L1116 L2016 80dB at 80km LA,pb in dB: Passing level in 7.5m/1.2m regular train atTSI-Noise rails -0.2 Iog(V/80) -0.1 00 0.1 0.2 0.3 V [km/hl 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 160 Source: Bukovnik 2010. 04 52 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution L1042 and L1044 are old electric engines, designed between 1963 and 1995. L1116 (Taurus) is a new electric engine built since 2000. L2123 is an old diesel engine built between 1964 and 1977; L2016 (Eurorunner) is a new diesel engine built since 2002. A reduction of about 8-10 dB(A) has been realised. With 80 dB(A) at a speed of 80 km/h the new engines are much below the TSI recommendation of 85 B(A). This shows that the introduction of new rolling stock can lower noise in a big range. Halving of noise was realised since the 1960s and 1970s. Nevertheless there are also negative examples of new rolling stock that may even be noisier than the old equipment. Many sources recognise the modern Class 66 engine as well as the Blue Tiger engine as being as noisy as engines from the 1960s. Both engines were constructed in the 1990s and built since 1998. The great breakthrough to lower noise of engines came according to this since the beginning of the 21st century. Nevertheless the noise emissions of about 80 dB(A) for new and modernised rolling stock do not lead to a reduction of noise below the WHO levels. Also the levels of the example countries cannot be met with the new rolling stock. But the reduction at the source can lower the additional needs for local noise protection as they can be less extensive or avoided in regions where people live far away from railway lines. There quieter rolling stock can lower the noise measured at far distance to an applicable level. Summary: • Rolling stock introduced since the year 2000 is about 10 dB(A) less noisy in comparison with equipment from the 1960s and 1970s. • So the replacement of old equipment with new ones helps to reduce rail noise. 3.3. Measures to avoid railway noise Sources of railway noise can be divided into the following aspects: • Roughness -Induced Rolling Noise • Wheel Noise • Rail Noise • Squeal Noise • High Speed Trains • Other Sources of Noise The mitigation methods studied or already realised in demonstrators or practice will be introduced with the source of noise. 3.3.1. Roughness -I nduced Rolling Noise A major, unavoidable source of noise is wheel and rail roughness. Rail corrugation (which causes intense ground vibration and can increase noise level by 20 dB [CER UIC 2007]) and wheel flats (regular thuds) are extreme versions of this, but poor rail or wheel surface condition should be avoided. Regular grinding of rails and turning of wheels helps to minimise noise. Special 'acoustic' grinding can reduce noise levels by about 3 dB [Thompson 2008-1]; grinding strategies to reduce noise levels were studied in the MONA project [Thompson and Gautier 2006]. 53 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Both Speno and Schweerbau offer general purpose grinding, which can reduce noise levels by 10-12 dB, and special acoustic grinding, which can achieve a further 3-4 dB reduction [Licitra 2006]. UIC's 2007 report on the state of the art [CER UIC 2007] states that poorly maintained track increases noise levels, so that track renewal can achieve about 10 dB noise reduction, and acoustic grinding can achieve a further 1-3 dB. Cast iron tread brakes, which are very common in European freight vehicles, tend to induce a corrugation in the wheels which increases noise levels significantly [Thompson and Gautier 2006]. By contrast, disc brakes, which are prevalent in passenger vehicles, are typically about 8 dB quieter [Hemsworth 2006]. The difference between tread brakes and disc brakes is shown in Figure 11. With tread brakes, the brake blocks press against the wheel directly on the running surface (the tread), i.e., the wheel surface which is in contact with the rail; whereas with disc brakes an extra disc is placed on the axle and brake blocks press against this to brake the vehicle. Because tread brakes, particularly with cast iron blocks, damage the wheel, the running surface becomes rough and can develop out -of - roundness, increasing the rolling noise. Figure 1 1: Comparison of tread and disc brakes Source: Hemsworth 2006. Disc brakes are very expensive and can only be introduced with new freight wagons or expensive retrofitting of existing wagons (the whole bogie needs to be changed). The EU Project EuroSabot (1996-1999) looked into possibilities for retrofitting vehicles with a low - noise replacement for cast iron brake blocks [EUROSABOT 2011], [Hemsworth 2006], [Thompson and Gautier 2006]. This started the quest for composite brake blocks with friction characteristics similar to cast iron brake blocks, and suitable for retrofit; these are called 'LL -blocks'. 'K -blocks' are composite brake blocks used in new vehicle designs. The advantage of LL -blocks is that the braking system of the wagon does not need to be modified, whereas for K -blocks there is additional effort necessary besides changing the blocks. This is because LL -blocks have similar friction characteristics to conventional cast- iron blocks, whereas K -blocks have a higher coefficient (2.5 times higher). Both types (K- and LL -blocks) reduce noise levels by 8-10 dB; life cycle costs for K -blocks are similar to life cycle costs for cast iron brake blocks; life cycle costs for LL -blocks are still to be determined [CER UIC 2007] concerning operation costs. Concerning K -blocks, some manufacturers or wagon owners recently detected higher costs due to higher wheel wear [Gilliam 2008] and [Saabel 2011]. 54 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution The EU Project Euro Rolling Silently (2002-2005) developed three prototype LL -blocks. By 2009, two LL -block types (IB 116* and Jurid 777) were reportedly safe for use in Europe [Dorsch 2009]. ICER Brakes S.A. sell organic LL -blocks which reduce noise by 8 dB compared to cast iron brake blocks [Licitra 2006]; organic LL -blocks are also produced by the Federal-Mogul Corporation. However, although the new composite LL -blocks are effective at reducing noise, there are still problems to be solved before they can be implemented across Europe. In tests with LL - blocks, the wheels' equivalent conicity increases over time, affecting the dynamic stability of the vehicles. To address this, a consortium of brake manufacturers and vehicle operators has established the EuropeTrain project ([EuropeTrain]) which is using a real train travelling around Europe to speed up testing of LL -blocks. If the LL -block could be introduced and certified the migration would be relatively easy, simply replacing the existing cast iron blocks by LL -blocks. Concerning the accreditation of LL blocks, Mr Lochman from CER expects certification by the end of the year 2011 and the beginning of introduction mid -2012, whereas Mr Pennekamp, Mr Fleckstein, Mr Mather and Mr Theis from DB expect certification sometime during 2012.16 As a result, the authors of this study expect certification by the end of 2012, which is more practical. In addition to EuropeTrain, the following two composite brake projects are being conducted in Europe: Leiser Rhein includes the retrofitting of vehicles, especially in the Rhine Valley, and LaGiV develops improved K -and LL -blocks. Summary: • Roughness of rails and wheels, especially corrugation in rails and out -of - round wheels, is a major cause of rail noise and needs to be monitored and controlled. Infrastructure managers and train operators already have maintenance programmes to control rail and wheel quality, and infrastructure managers use axle load checkpoints to monitor passing traffic and detect severely damaged wheels. Tolerances may need to be tightened to improve quality and reduce noise, requiring additional maintenance. • The use of composite brake blocks rather than cast iron brake blocks will significantly improve the wheel running contact surface and reduce noise levels. Retrofitting existing wagons with composite brake blocks is possible, and the use of LL -blocks in particular (requiring the least effort and cost to retrofit) is currently being investigated by UI C's EuropeTrain consortium. There are still questions about the long-term degradation and the life cycle costs of the new LL -blocks that are holding up widespread implementation. 3.3.2. Wheel Noise The EU Project Silent Freight (1996-1999) looked at possibilities of reducing noise emission from wheels [Dorsch 2009], [Hemsworth 2006], [Thompson and Gautier 2006]: • ring dampers reduce noise by 6 dB; 16 These statements are the results of interviews held by the project team in July 2011. 55 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies • perforation of the wheel is ineffective; • wheel -tuned absorbers reduce noise by up to 7 dB; • wheel web shields reduce noise by up to 9 dB. The following figures illustrate the systems. Figure 12: Ring damped and perforated wheel Source: Hemsworth 2006. Figure 13: Wheel -tuned absorbers Source: Hemsworth 2006. Figure 14: Wheel web shields Source: Hemsworth 2006. 56 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution Further noise reduction can be achieved through the use of a bogie shroud [Hemsworth 2006]. Fundamental redesign of the wheel to reduce noise is difficult due to the need to fit with existing tread braking systems and the need to dissipate the heat generated during braking. Reducing the wheel diameter makes the wheel more susceptible to wheel -rail roughness interaction and can increase noise levels. The RONA project (wheel optimisation for high-speed lines) developed a new wheel design, JR13, which reduced noise levels by about 3 dB. The RONA project also developed a wheel, Alu4, with a thick aluminium web and wheel dampers, with a predicted noise reduction of 12 dB. However, following the Eschede derailment in 199817, caused by a broken tyre, the industry has been wary of multi -material wheels. Other incidences with broken axles on freight wagons or ICE trains'$ will make innovations of wheels and axles more difficult. The EU Project HIPERWHEEL (2000-2004) tested a constrained layer damping treatment on the ETR500 high speed train in Italy and measured a noise reduction of 4-5 dB between 200 and 300 km/h (see [Thompson and Gautier 2006]). Lucchini19 offers a range of special low -noise damped wheels. Syope is a constrained layer damping treatment; Galene uses tuned absorbers to reduce squeal noise for trams; Hypno is a friction damping steel design for tread -braked freight wagon wheels. Valdunes2° also integrates damping systems into wheels, for example, using damping rings to reduce squeal noise by 10-15 dB (see [Licitra 2006]). Heathcote Industrial Plastics offers constrained layer dampers which eliminate squeal noise and reduce under -vehicle noise by up to 30 dB. GHH offers wheel absorbers (5-15 dB noise reduction) and damping rings. VSG Vibration Absorbers offers wheel vibration absorbers (10-30 dB noise level reduction at squeal noise peak frequencies). Schrey & Veit offers wheel absorbers which almost completely eliminate squeal noise, and reduce the noise level by 8 dB if squeal does occur (see UIC Curve Squeal Project WP3 [Muller et al. 2003]). Summary: • Resilient wheels can reduce noise and improve ride quality, and can be very effective at reducing squeal noise in tight curves. A variety of technologies are available and in use in high-speed and metro applications. • Following the Eschede disaster in 1998, there is still a reluctance to use non-monoblock wheels in high-speed rail vehicles. 3.3.3. Rail Noise Rail dampers — steel masses embedded in an elastomer, fixed to the rail web — were developed in the 1990s by ERRI in the OFWHAT (Optimized Freight Wheels and Track) 17 At Eschede the broken separate tyre caused the high-speed ICE train to derail at a switch. The rear bogie of one carriage followed the turnout on to a parallel track, and the carriage subsequently hit bridge supports. The bridge collapsed onto the train and the following cars crashed into the broken bridge and cars. 101 people died and a further 88 sustained injuries. The separate tyre technique was only used with ICE trains to solve a primary damping problem with this train type whereas other high speed trains only use full monoblock wheels. 18 Breaking of an axle of an ICE3-train in Cologne on 9 July 2008; freight train derailment in Viareggio (Italy) 30 June 2009. 19 Lucchini RS [http://www.lucchinirs.it/] is an Italian company which produces high-speed wheelsets; this is separate from the Russian -owned steel manufacturer Lucchini. 20 Valdunes [http://www.ghh-valdunes.com/] is a major European wheelset manufacturer based in Germany, France and Belgium. 57 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies project and SNCF in the VONA project (low -noise track designs for high-speed lines) [Thompson and Gautier 2006]. The EU Project Silent Track (1997-2000) developed these rail dampers further; the new design reduced noise by 6 dB [EUROSABOT 2011], [Hemsworth 2006], [Thompson and Gautier 2006]. The Dutch IPG project2l tested rail dampers and found the silent track dampers and also the Schrey and Veit (S&V) VICON- ASMA 5RQ absorber to be effective, reducing noise levels by 3 dB [Thompson 2008-2]. Further testing of rail dampers is presented by van den Dool [van den Dool 2007]. Figure 15: Tata Steel SilentTrack tuned rail dampers Source: Tata Steel; images from product brochure. Tata Steel offers the 'SilentTrack' tuned rail damper system (see Figure 15), with a noise reduction of 3-7 dB. The rubber at both sides of the metal rail causes the noise reduction. Over 200 km of SilentTrack are in operational use around the world, including the Netherlands, Germany and the UK. Trackside barriers can also be used to reduce noise levels [Hemsworth 2006], [Thompson and Gautier 2006], but rail dampers can make barriers and screens unnecessary [van den Dool 2007]. The VONA project also developed optimised rail pads which reduced noise levels by 3-4 dB [Thompson and Gautier 2006]. Rail pads were also developed in the Silent Track project, reducing noise levels by 2 dB. Saargummi and CDM offer a range of resilient rail pads designed to damp noise and vibration; CDM and Getzner Werkstoffe offer under -sleeper pads and ballast mats and a range of solutions for slab track and embedded track systems [Licitra 2006]. Pandrol's VANGUARD uses resilient padding to attenuate noise, but also supports the rail at the web to prevent rail roll. This system is used in the London Underground (Victoria Line) and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, for example, and recently in the new development of Belgrade Central where vibration reduction was a key consideration. When tested in Hong Kong's MTRCL test track on plain slab track, the VANGUARD system reduced average noise levels by 7.3dB in the 20Hz-500Hz range; and by 13dB in the 40Hz-80Hz range. These tests showed even greater noise reduction was possible by using the VANGUARD on an Isolated Slab Track (IST); IST has a rubber ballast mat and is easier to install than floating slab track, but is not as effective. 21 Innovatieprogramma geluid (IPG) voor weg- & spoorverkeer [http://www.innovatieprogrammageluid.nl/]. 58 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution Source: Licitra 2006 Source: Pandrol Vanguard; product brochure Figure 16: Left: Saargummi rail pad; Right: Pandrol Vanguard resilient web support Runner Wedge Sale Support Srackel Cast Iron Locking Wedge Hook In Shoulder The Silent Track project developed a new rail section with a narrower fit, along with a new fastening system and a new twin -block sleeper design; this reduced noise levels by 3 dB. The Dutch project Quiet Rail Traffic (STV) developed a new, smaller rail section, SA42, for slab track (see Figure 17); the rail is continuously supported by a stiff embedding material, and this acts as a damping mechanism. The noise reduction compared to slab track with UIC 54 rails is 5 dB. Barriers at the side of the track, with a height of 0.7 m, further reduced noise levels by 6 dB (see [Thompson and Gautier 2006]). Figure 17: Slab track section SA42 from Quiet Rail Traffic project Embedding material Absorptive panels Existing s! 5A42 rail Source: Thompson and Gautier 2006. Barrier The Edilon Corkelast embedded rail system, which provides a noise reduction of 5 dB, has been implemented in the rail steel bridge over the Arno in Pisa [Licitra 2006]. Balfour Beatty Embedded Rail System (BBERS) has been shown in a test in Medina, Spain, to reduce noise level by 2 dB or more, compared to ballasted track [InnoTrack D2.3.3]. Summary: • Noise and ground -borne vibration are a major concern in urban areas, and bridges and underground railways require special measures. Resilient rail pads are a common solution, but for locations where a greater level of damping is required then floating or isolated slab track is a possibility, or under -sleeper pads and ballast mats for ballasted track; an alternative to 59 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies rail pads is a more advanced resilient rail support system such as VANGUARD. • Resilient rail support solutions interact with each other and also with resilient wheel technologies, and the whole system needs to be considered and modelled in order to minimise noise and vibration in the required frequency range. • Noise barriers have a large on -going maintenance cost, have a high visual impact and create problems for track access. Rail dampers can be tuned to the local needs of the railway and left in place for the life of the track; these can be an effective alternative to noise barriers. 3.3.4. Squeal Noise and Friction Modifiers Squeal noise is the high pitch noise (2-4 kHz) sometimes emitted when vehicles are curving. This is caused by lateral stick -slip behaviour of the contact between the wheel and rail exciting high -frequency resonances in the rail and wheel. Many wheel and rail damper solutions target squeal noise. Friction modifiers are used to change the interaction of wheel and rail to prevent squeal noise and corrugation. As of 2005, UIC's position on friction modifiers was that there is no optimal solution. Friction modifiers can be lubricants, e.g., greases, designed to reduce friction to 0.2 or less, and usually applied to the gauge face of the high rail in curves where the wheel flange often makes contact, creating a grinding sound and high levels of wear. Lubrication is primarily used to reduce wear, and is not desirable on the top of the railhead where high levels of friction are required for traction (train acceleration and braking). Top - of -rail (TOR) friction modifiers (FM) control friction to be in the range 0.3-0.35. To prevent squeal noise, friction modifiers need to have 'positive friction' characteristics, so that friction increases when the wheel slips. TOR FM can also be effective at reducing short -pitch corrugation (a major noise source) on the low rail in curves, and has been used successfully in the Heathrow Express to combat corrugation22. Alternatively, special asymmetric rail sections can be used to prevent squeal (Anti -Squeal Profile'), and the track layout can be adjusted to avoid dynamic conditions of the vehicle which cause squeal noise. Special surface layers or coatings can be designed with special friction characteristics, such as Duroc AB's particle -impregnated rail surface. Based on laboratory tests, this layer has a low coefficient of friction when dry, and is also effective at reducing rail wear, and even the corresponding wheel wear is relatively smooth (see [Hiensch et al. 2007]). The EU Project Q -City (2005-2009) tested vehicle and track lubricators for squeal noise suppression. On -board lubrication was tested in the Antwerp network and found to be effective at reducing squeal noise, and for a relatively low cost. A wayside lubrication system was tested at the STIB depot; the wayside lubrication was very effective, decreasing squeal noise by at least 16 dB. In general, electric power is required on site for wayside lubricators, and access to hydraulics for maintenance may be difficult in urban 22 M. Chestney, N. Dadkah and D. Eadie (2009) The Effect of Top of Rail Friction Control on a European Passenger System: The Heathrow Express Experience, 8th International Conference on Contact Mechanics and Wear of Rail/Wheel Systems (CM2009), Firenze, Italy. [For a summary of this, and a general look at TOR FM, see also: http://www.therailengineer.com/railtex2011/Day-2-No-06-Kevin-Portec.pdf]. 60 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution environments (see [Q -City 2009]). These techniques, indeed, are only tested for municipal railways (light rail, underground systems). Figure 18: Principle of way -side lubrication systems for friction modifying Source: Q -City 2009. The particular through -hole lubricator prototype developed by Lion Oil was found to be unreliable (see Figure 18). The figure shows the injection device to lubricate the rail -wheel - contact area. Other similar systems are on the market, and the annexes of [Q -City 2009] give quotations for: (A) Clicomatic rail through -hole grease lubrication system; (B) FluiLub rail lubrication systems (vehicle -mounted and track -based). ELPA d.o.o. offer another through -hole wayside application for suppressing squeal noise, both in curves and during braking (particularly useful at marshalling yards) [ELPA], [Licitra 2006]. The ELPA system uses an environmentally friendly composite friction modifier. Other track -based rail lubrication / friction management systems are: Portec trackside Friction Management System (5-15 dB noise reduction); Schreck-Mieves Electronic Rail lubrication; and KLS Lubriquip. Other on -board friction management systems: REBS (rail lubrication, 20-28 dB reduction at 2500 Hz, and wheel -flange lubrication); TracGlide (rail lubrication); Vogel AG (wheel -flange lubrication); Kelsan/Lubriquip (wheel -side, 2-7 dB reduction); Barnt Green Birmingham (water spray); SBB (water spray) (see UIC Curve Squeal Project WP 3 [Muller et al. 2003]). Summary: • Gauge -face lubrication is the traditional means for controlling wear of the high rail in narrow -radius curves, which has a secondary effect of reducing noise levels, including squeal noise in some cases. The main technological developments in this area focus on the applicators. • Top -of -rail friction modifiers are a relatively new extension of this technology, and are used to prevent corrugation of low rails and squeal noise in curves, as well as brake squeal in shunting yards. 61 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 3.3.5. High -Speed Trains Aerodynamic noise becomes significant at high speed (over 200 km/h) reaching a noise level similar to rolling noise. For electric trains, pantograph noise is also significant at high speed. Pantographs and the leading bogie are the two main sources of aerodynamic noise. Pantographs can be shielded (see Figure 19) and/or carefully shaped, and thereby achieve noise reductions of 5-10 dB in each case (see [Talotte 2000], [Talotte et al. 2003]). [Sueki et al. 2009] have shown that porous covers can reduce aerodynamic noise of pantographs. Figure 19: Shield of pantograph of Japanese Shinkansen Series 700 Source: Talotte 2000. Figure 20: Porous coating of pantographs Alain shaft eraser am side of base Frame Ira e cca‘ cr Source: Sueki et al. 2009. Vibrations caused by vehicle -track interaction travel through the ground at a speed that depends on the ground type; propagation is slower in softer soil. If train speed exceeds the ground vibration propagation speed, then this creates a ground -borne vibration 'boom', analogous to a sonic boom when aircraft break through the sound barrier. In practice this means there is a threshold train speed above which ground vibration increases sharply. For peat and clay soils, this critical speed can be as low as 150 km/h, but bogie spacing and axle spacing also influence the critical speed [Madshus and Kaynia 2000]. Concerning high speed trains on high speed lines, often ballast -less tracks are used. As this superstructure is a hard soil the noise can increase due to the hard concrete plate, low absorption of noise and strong transference. The normal solution is to cover the ballast -less tracks with dampers. Summary: • Pantographs are generally higher than noise barriers, and for high-speed trains these are a major source of noise. Rather than making noise barriers 62 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution even higher or all -enclosing, an alternative approach is to focus on aerodynamic design and new materials. 3.3.6. Other Sources of Noise Other sources of noise include locomotive exhaust, traction motors, cooling fans, bridges and train horns [Talotte et al. 2003]. Resilient baseplates are effective at reducing bridge noise (the Pandrol VIPA system reduced noise by 6 dB in one study [Wang et al. 2000]). Schrey & Veit (S&V) also offer a tuned absorber system for railway steel bridges [Licitra 2006] with also approximately 6 dB noise level reduction. It should be noted, finally, that poor or infrequent maintenance can cause increased noise levels, particularly from components with moving parts, e.g., bearings, vehicle suspension. 3.3.7. Other options to reduce noise Other options, such as speed limits and land -use planning, are rejected in [UIC 2008]. Speed limits need to be substantial (50 km/h) to have a considerable noise impact and thus "are not compatible with the operation of a commercially competitive railway" (although the benefits of speed reduction should be considered on a case -by -case basis). Land -use planning measures are of little effect, since further than 50 metres from the source "noise level is insensitive to even medium changes in distance". The redirection of trains is not always suitable. In some cases there may be alternative lines, but here also people can be affected. So this solution may only be a shift of the problem. In some cases, for example the Rhine axis, there are no (realistic) alternatives. 3.4. Result for main reduction measures The following table shows a summary of measures, effects and costs, collected from the different sources. Table 19: Measures, effects and costs MEASURE K -blocks LL -blocks General grinding of bad track AVOI DED SOURCE OF NOI SE Rolling noise Rolling noise Rolling noise I MPACT (LOCAL, NETWORK WIDE) network wide network wide local EFFECT Up to 8 dB(A) - 10 dB(A) Up to 8 dB(A) - 10 dB(A) 10 - 12 dB(A) (up to 20 dB(A) at very bad tracks) COSTS / UN I T23 4,000 - 10,000 € per wagon24 500 - 2,000 € per wagon25 Shall be established in normal maintenance 23 Cost information comes from [UIC 2008] page 25. 24 Retrofit, for new wagons there are no additional costs; additional operating cost still to be analysed. 25 Retrofit, for new wagons there are no additional costs; additional operating cost still to be analysed. 63 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies MEASURE AVOI DED SOURCE OF NOI SE Special acoustic grinding Rolling noise Disc brakes Rolling noise Wheel -tuned absorbers Bogie Shrouds together with low height barriers Wheel noise Wheel noise I MPACT ( LOCAL, NETWORK WIDE) EFFECT COSTS / UNI T23 local 1 - 4 dB(A) (depending on local rail roughness conditions), mostly around 2 dB(A) attended network wide 10 dB(A) network wide 2 - 7 dB(A) local 8 - 10 dB(A) Meanwhile mostly established in passenger cars 3,000 - 8,000 € per wheel 4 (24,000 - 64,000 per 4 - axle wagon) 3 - 7 dB(A) 300 - 400 € per Rail dampers Rail Noise local (mostly around 3 metre (two dB(A) attended) rails) Slab tracks Rail noise local 5 dB(A) Rail pads Rail Noise local 3 - 4 dB(A) Different measures to lower squeal noise Shielding of pantographs Barriers 2 meter high Barriers 3 - 4 meter high Insulated windows Squeal noise local Up to 20 dB(A) depending on local conditions Global but only at High speed trains high speed up 5 - 10 dB(A) from 200 km/h All sources local 10 dB(A) All sources Local 15 dB(A) All sources In house only 10 - 30 dB(A) 1,000 €/m 1,350 €/m (3 metres high) 1,700 €/m (4 metres high) 3,000 - 8,000 € per house (4 windows) Source: Elaborated by the authors from different sources. 64 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution Deutsche Bahn has published two graphs in its Statement for Noise Reduction [DB 2010] Figure 21 shows, on the left, the current noise levels on German railway lines; and, on the right, the results of a simulation with the assumption that composite brake blocks for rail freight wagons have been introduced. The graphs show that the network affected by high noise emissions will shrink by introducing modified tread brake blocks. Fewer lines will be affected by noise levels between 70 - 75 dB(A) and 65 - 70 dB(A). Nevertheless, there are many lines which will remain affected by these noise levels. However, the introduction of low noise wagons with the help of composite blocks lowers the number and length of rail sections where local (expensive) measures must be taken. Figure 21: Shift of noise levels on German railway lines due to introduction of composite iron soles for rail freight wagons Noise -clearance -net without composite brake blocks Noise -clearance -net with composite brake blocks Source: DB 2010, page 3. The UIC published in its report"Railway Noise in Europe - A 2010 report on the state of the art" a diagram where the costs and benefits of different measures and combinations are presented [UIC 2010]. Figure 22 represents the main result of the STAIRRs Project (funded by the EU 5th Framework Programme). The graph shows that the most cost effective measure to lower railway noise is the retrofitting of freight wagons with composite blocks. It costs about 5-10 billion Euro and lowers noise for about 100 million people. The combination of composite blocks with rail -tuned absorbers will raise costs up to 20-40 million and affect 100-150 million people. In comparison, noise barriers (without any changes in vehicle technology) will cost about 80 billion Euro and affect about 180 million people. As a result, the introduction of composite brakes saves a considerable amount of money in comparison with noise abatement only realised by noise barriers. 65 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Figure 22: Cost benefit analysis of measures to reduce noise in STAI RRS project E Presents benefits (pers > 60 dB) in millions urope, 21 countries, PC no windowsslPB—UIC Steering Group Scenario 250,000 206,030 All measures With K -Blocks and opt. wheels 150,000 With K -Blocks 100,000 50,000 With K -Blocks Turned absorbers Freight rolling stock improvement Grinding 0 10 20 30 40 50 601 101 80 Presents costs, Euro (in billions) Source: UIC 2010, page 15. Concerning the equipping of freight wagons with composite blocks: The noise reduction effect of a complete train depends in a logarithmic form on the number of wagons equipped with composite blocks. This effect is illustrated by [Bukovnik 2010]. The red line in Figure 23 is the relevant one. It shows the effect of the total noise emission (y-axis) of a train in which a certain share of wagons is equipped with low noise brakes (x- axis). The assumption for Figure 23 is that wagons equipped with composite brakes cause noise emissions of 78 dB(A), whereas the others cause emissions of 92 dB(A). The figure shows that noise reduction for a whole train follows the share of noise -reduced wagons and is disproportionately low until about 75% of the wagons have composite brakes, and after that the total noise decreases faster. 66 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution Figure 23: Effect on total noise according to share of wagons equipped with K - or LL -blocks Noise emissions of total train 92 90 8S 86 84 82 80 096 25% 50% 75% 100% Share of low noise wagons in total train Source: Bukovnik 2010. If 50% of the wagons were equipped with composite blocks the total noise would only be reduced to a noise level of 89 dB(A) (21% of total possible lowering). Only if about 98% of wagons were equipped would a total level of 80 dB(A) (86% of possible lowering) be reached. This means that the lead time until significant noise reduction is achieved will be very long if the modified wagons are introduced by normal replacing of old wagons by new ones after the normal operation time of a wagon (about 40 years). To achieve a significant and noticeable effect, a large share of wagons has to be equipped with K- or LL -blocks as soon as possible. LL -blocks can be completely introduced according to the normal operational lives of blocks (which in some cases is less than one year as normally — operation time for cast iron blocks is about 60,000 km, whereas wagons for combined transport run about 100,000 km per year). K -blocks can be introduced in about 6-8 years providing the possibility for wagon owners to modify the braking system with the general inspection. 67 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Conclusion: Regarding the costs and the associated effects, and current experience of noise measures, the authors conclude that: • Noise should ideally be reduced at the source because these measures have a network -wide effect. • A relatively cheap way to reduce noise on freight routes is to retrofit braking systems of rail freight wagons with composite brake blocks as quickly as possible. o Freight trains are currently identified as the noisiest trains. o Most freight trains operate at night which is the most sensitive time of day. o Most passenger trains already have disc brakes due to higher speeds and enhanced comfort for passengers, so these trains are quieter than freight trains. o Wheel dampers are very expensive and cause additional efforts for maintenance but can significantly reduce noise emission. • In case of high-speed trains, advanced pantograph designs should be considered, especially for routes through noise -sensitive areas where noise bunds and barriers shield against rolling noise but may not shield pantograph noise. • Where track infrastructure causes increased noise levels (e.g., structure -radiated noise from viaducts or curve squeal in narrow radius curves), or where the local environment is particularly sensitive to noise (e.g., urban environments with residences very close to the railway line (especially agglomerations) or areas of natural beauty) then additional trackside noise mitigation measures may be necessary. o Rail -tuned absorbers can be effective against curve squeal and rolling noise, reducing noise levels typically by 3-7 dB(A). These can be a low-cost solution which avoids visually intrusive noise barriers. o Noise bunds and barriers can be effective against noise propagation, but can create problems for track access and have high on -going maintenance costs. o Curve squeal and corrugation of the low rail can be prevented using top -of - rail friction modifiers. • In the long term, new wheel concepts can be introduced, but these need more research and testing before they can be introduced especially into high speed vehicles. • In dense populated areas with high frequencies of trains, noise protection walls or insulating windows still need to be introduced. Their number could shrink in case of well introduced source related measures or modified tracks. 3.5. Number of rail freight wagons to be retrofitted To identify the value of retrofitting freight cars with composite brake blocks, an analysis of the age structure of the fleet must be done. One question is the number of wagons it is worth retrofitting. Another is the number of wagons that will be replaced by new ones in the near future, since these are not worth retrofitting. Unfortunately the only study available concerning the freight wagon fleet is from the year 2004 [AEA et al. 2004]. The figures from that report will be updated by some recent reports or news from European railways, wagon owners and wagon manufacturers. 68 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution The AEA study mentions on page 38, that Trenitalia has made a detailed survey of the European fleet in the year 2000. If a retrofitting programme had begun in 2005, the retrofitting would have affected 650,000 wagons out of 1.2 million. In general, the AEA study points out that determining the size of the fleet is very difficult due to the lack of data from some countries. Also, the authors did not get data from each of the railway companies or countries because the number and age of freight cars is often confidential for competition reasons. The estimated total number of freight cars in Europe is given in Figure 24. The age structure of the total fleet of the year 2000 is presented in Table 20. Figure 24: Estimated number of freight cars 3000000 2500000 c 2000000 m 1500000 1000000 500000 0 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C\J ti ti ti N- CO CO 0▪ 3 CO 03 a) a) 0▪ ) a) 0) C) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) Q r Year + EU15 •-- EU15+Norway+Switzerland £ Eu rail 25 EU Rail 27 Source: AEA et al. 2004, page 39. Table 20: Age structure of freight wagon fleet in the year 2000 Building year Share Before 1970 Between 1970 and 1980 Between 1980 and 1990 after 1990 10% 46% 22% 10% Source: AEA et al. 2004, page 42. To update the figures given in the AEA -study, the authors have made additional analyses using other sources. Recent documents from VDV, UIC and others indicate that in Europe 600,000 rail cars still exist or are relevant for noise reduction programmes. The UIC indicates a total number of 600,000 old wagons to be retrofitted [UIC 2009]. Also VDV together with VPI, DB Schenker 69 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies and DB Netz indicate 600,000 wagons where retrofitting must be checked [VDV et al. 2010]. For retrofitting activities the railway alliances UIC, CER, UIRR, ERFA, EIM and UIP together answered a Consultation document of the Commissions Services [UIC et al. 2007]. Their statements concerning the worth of retrofitting focus on the number of years a retrofitted wagon will be used. This is about 4-6 years (one revision cycle) but realistically 10 years. The normal durability of a freight wagon is about 40 years, so the oldest wagons to be retrofitted may be about 30 years old. According to the figures mentioned in Table 20, only 264,000 of the fleet of the year 2000 are valid for retrofitting (only the categories up from the year 1980). General figures about the total number of wagons currently operating in Europe are 600,000 or 650,000. The difference between the wagons up to 30 years and the highest number of wagons in operation makes 386,000 wagons which either have been built since the year 2000 or before 1980. Estimating that the normal life time of freight wagons is 40 years, almost 80% of wagons produced between 1970 and 1980 are still in use. That makes about 300,000 wagons. So about 86,000 wagons must have been produced since the year 2000. Together with the fleet worth retrofitting, from between the years 1980 and 2000, this makes a total of 350,000 wagons. An interview with Mr Kerth from VDV by the authors came to an estimate of 350,000 to 370,000 wagons to be retrofitted. Also KCW indicates a total number of 370,000 freight cars to be retrofitted [KCW 2009]. Summary: • Although the exact number is not known, a reasonable estimate is that there are currently 370,000 freight wagons suitable for retrofitting with composite brake blocks. 70 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution 4 CASE STUDIES KEY Fl NDI NGS • This section describes some general noise situations in regions and rail sections and effects of realised or proposed measures to lower / avoid noise. • On the Rhine Axis the situation on the currently realised/planned upgraded line between Karlsruhe and Basel and the existing line in the narrow Rhine Valley between Bingen and Koblenz is described. A simulation of the introduction of noise barriers on the one hand and of composite brake blocks on the other hand is made. • For alpine regions general findings from a research project on noise are represented. • For the I nn Valley in Austria the current situation, development of rail transport and the intensive activities of Austria concerning the installation of noise protection walls are described. • For the Frejus Corridor between France and Italy the noise situation is described. • For the UK activities and noise situations for the new built projects Thameslink and the two High Speed Lines are represented. This chapter is divided into two main sections. Section 4.1 on page 71 describes selected regions or countries and includes some general local aspects of noise emission and noise spreading in mountain areas. Section 4.2 on page 83 analyses selected railway lines in more detail. The effects of sample measures which are described in Section 3.3 on page 53 are calculated. 4.1. General descriptions of environmental railway noise in selected areas or countries 4.1 .1 . Rhine Axis The Rhine Axis beginning at the ARA ports and ending in Basel with the continuance via Gotthard and Lotschberg to north Italy represents one of the most important freight corridors. The main areas where the discussions about railway noise are currently the strongest are the section between Bingen and Koblenz and the new build "Rheintalbahn" between Karlsruhe and Basel. The section Bingen - Koblenz is the narrowest section of the Rhine Axis where railway lines are located on both sides of the Rhine. The rail track follows the river with many sharp turns. The section Bingen - Koblenz will be described in Section 4.2.1 on page 84. This section focuses on the Rheintalbahn. 71 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies In 1993 the first sections of two extra tracks between Karlsruhe and Basel were introduced for operation on the "Rheintalbahn". In the following years more and more sections got into operation. They are mostly located next to the existing railway line but also some of the new sections are constructed next to the motorway A5 (example: bypass Freiburg for freight trains) or use completely new corridors (like the Rastatt tunnel or the Katzenberg tunnel). The sections between Rastatt and Offenburg are in operation. The sections Karlsruhe - Rastatt and Offenburg - Basel are still in planning or partly under construction. There are many objections against the project especially due to noise pollution reasons. BMU and Intraplan Consult published a prediction about numbers of trains between Offenburg and Basel. The study firstly comes to the result that about 1,300,000 people are living in the affected area of the railway26 line ([BVU INTRAPLAN 2008], page 11). The following table gives the result of predicted numbers of trains for sample sections (rural and urban areas). Table 21: Prediction of numbers of trains on Rheintalbahn SECTION (SAMPLES) TRAI N TYPE 2007 2015 2025 Denzlingen - Freiburg (agglomeration) Mullheim - Auggen (rural area) Long distance trains Regional trains Freight trains Share of freight trains Long distance trains Regional trains Freight trains Share of freight trains 66 124 160 47% 66 50 160 58% 76 152 286 56% 76 76 280 65% 78 190 304 53% 78 76 304 66% Source: BVU INTRAPLAN 2008, page 38. The predictions for regional trains as well as for long distance trains come from existing planning for extensions of public transport services. The figures show that in the corridor the number of freight trains will rise about 100% in all sections. In the Freiburg agglomeration, the number of regional trains also will rise. The share of freight and passenger trains differs between agglomeration and rural areas. In agglomerations the share of freight trains is about 50% whereas in rural areas the share will rise up to 66%. So the influence on total noise is different. The share of trains during day and night time for 2015 is shown in the following table. 26 Cities of Freiburg, Ortenaukreis, Landkreise Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald, Emmendingen and Lorrach. 72 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution Table 22: Share of numbers of trains on Rheintalbahn between day and night time SECTION (SAMPLES) Denzlingen - Freiburg (agglomeration) Mullheim - Auggen (rural area) TRAI N TYPE DAY (6 - 22 H) NI GHT (22 - 6 H) Long Distance trains Regional trains Freight trains Share of freight trains Long Distance trains 60 132 129 40% 60 16 20 155 81% 16 Regional trains 64 12 Freight trains 125 155 Share of freight trains 50% 85% Source: BVU INTRAPLAN 2008, page 39. At night the share of freight trains rises from 40 / 50% up to 81 / 85%. Almost 55% of freight trains are operated at night. As night time is a period with a higher sensitivity to noise this is important. The figures show that a concentration on measures to reduce noise at the source - for freight wagons, as the first step - is an important measure to reduce or avoid extra railway noise. The current situation is represented by the noise action plans of the cities of Freiburg and Offenburg. In its noise action plan the city of Freiburg published the number of inhabitants affected by railway noise. Table 23: Affected inhabitants of railway noise in Freiburg LDEN Noise level [dB(A)] Affected inhabitants LNI GHT Noise level [dB(A)] Affected inhabitants > 55 - 60 > 60 - 65 > 65 - 70 > 70 - 75 > 75 Total 22,820 8,950 4,380 2,680 2,340 41,170 > 45 - 50 > 50 - 55 > 55-60 > 60 - 65 > 65 - 70 > 70 Total 32,820 19,020 7,530 3,820 2,410 1,880 67,480 Source: Freiburg 2009, page 5. 73 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies According to the noise action plan, Deutsche Bahn is currently installing about 9 - 10 km of noise protection walls and noise protection windows in about 1,500 apartments. The target of Deutsche Bahn is to meet the emission levels of 70/72/75 dB(A) at day time and 60/62/65 dB(A) at night time (residential zones / mixed zones / industrial zones). In the noise action plan of the city of Offenburg [Offenburg 2009] the number of inhabitants affected by railway noise is published as follows. Table 23: Affected inhabitants of railway noise in Offenburg LDEN LNI GHT Noise level [dB(A)] Affected inhabitants Noise level [dB(A)] Affected inhabitants > 55 - 60 > 60 - 65 > 65 - 70 > 70 - 75 > 75 Total Total above 70 7,150 > 50 - 55 2,910 > 55 - 60 920 > 60 - 65 450 > 65 - 70 450 > 70 11,880 Total 900 Total above 60 5,890 2,310 770 410 410 9,790 1,590 Source: Offenburg 2009, page 6. Actions for environmental railway noise mostly consider the building of a freight train tunnel for the next section of the new Rheintalbahn and noise action plans in special areas. Concerning the new built areas and sections of the third and fourth track, mostly noise protection walls are foreseen. Discussions with the neighbours are often made due to different opinions of calculation about the associated noise emissions and the resulting number, length and height of noise protection walls. Especially the difference between the calculation scheme for noise mapping according to Directive 2002/49/EB [VBUSch 2006] and for new build infrastructure [Schall 2003] (for details see Section 2.5 on page 43) is currently in discussion. The rail noise bonus which is still valid for German infrastructure caused many struggles. In Offenburg the planning foresees to build the new tracks along a new corridor through the city. Noise emissions will affect many people. Alternatives like a tunnel solution are presented by citizens' initiatives. As this solution is very expensive it is refused by the building owner. The current plans of the building owner were refused by the planning and authorisation body (Regierungsprasident Freiburg) as they were not finished and could not meet legal checks. In Rastatt a tunnel already was planned but it was adjourned indefinitely at the beginning of 2010. Local action groups are struggling against this as noise pollution in Rastatt is expected. The Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development argues that Rastatt is not a bottleneck and the building activities have to concentrate on the section Offenburg - Basel. 74 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution In fact, for high frequency railway lines and, especially for construction of new railways, the citizens become more and more aware of noise items. This must be kept in mind for all planning. 4.1.2. Alpine regions 4.1 .2.1 . General aspects This section provides general aspects concerning railway noise in Alpine and mountain regions and presents details about two railway corridors in the Alps. Important and interesting aspects about noise impacts in alpine regions come from the ALPNAP project. ALPNAP has been a European research project [ALPNAP 2007-2] funded by INTERREG IIIB in ERDF Funds. The main target was to develop exact but also practical calculation methods for air and noise pollution prediction. As there is a gap between difficult scientific calculation and practical approach (easy formulas and assumption methods), the project aimed at the development of methods that were acceptable and sufficiently precise. The project partners made many measurements for pollution and environmental noise emissions in defined areas like the Brenner corridor with Inn Valley and Edige/Etsch valley and the Frejus corridor with Maurienne valley and Susa valley. Concerning environmental noise (in general) one important result of the project is that the spread of noise depends on weather conditions and time of day. Examples are shown in the following figures. Figure 25: Direction of sound spreading (sound rays) during day Source: ALPNAP 2007-1, page 10. During the day, the temperature decreases with height and the sound is refracted upward. In the dotted blue areas ("acoustical shadow zones") on the valley bottom the noise is reduced significantly because the upward refracted sound rays cannot reach there. 75 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Figure 26: Direction of sound spreading (sound rays) during night Source: ALPNAP 2007-1, page 10. During the night, the temperature increases with height in an inversion layer (shown grey) and the sound is refracted downward. Acoustical shadow zones do not appear. Instead the sound is reflected at the ground. Wind speeds and wind directions have an impact on environmental noise. Also, in valleys reflections can spread environmental noise up to high altitudes. Mostly low frequencies are spread very wide as higher frequencies are well absorbed by air. The most severe problem for transportation and its emissions in mountain areas is that transportation infrastructure (both rail and road) as well as residential or industrial zones are concentrated in (partly narrow) valleys. So all sources of noise are located very close together. Noise in mountain regions is even more annoying or economically harmful as the area is used for tourism which is an important employment factor. The figures above also show one important incident for protection measures. As noise in valleys can spread up to very high altitudes where also inhabitants can be affected by noise, protection walls have a lower influence on noise reduction. 4.1 .2.2. Alpine regions - The Inn Valley The Inn Valley between Kufstein and Innsbruck is the major access line to the Brenner railway line where a tunnel has been planned for a long time. The Inn Valley was examined in the ALPNAP project and will become more important for freight trains when the Brenner tunnel is opened. An estimation of future rail traffic was made. In the year 2005, 40 regional passenger trains, 16 long distance passenger trains, ([Kummer et al. 2006], page 24) and about 100 freight and RoLa-trains are operating on the Brenner line. Taking into account the rise of freight trains - about 4.3% per year between 1999 and 2005 - a total rise of about 52% is expected for 2015. OBB (Austrian Federal Railway) expects 186 freight trains in 2016 ([Kummer et al. 2006], page 25). Passenger trains will remain at about 46 regional and 26 long distance trains. This shows that freight trains have a share of 64 to 68%. So they have the majority on the Brenner line which affects the Inn Valley. 76 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution Austria may be considered as good practice regarding rail noise abatement. More than 12 years ago noise emission inventories were compiled and on this basis plans for the implementation and financing of noise abatement measures along railway lines were developed. In recent years, the annual financial means amounted to some 30 million Euros. It is expected to spend the same amount in the years to come as well. The costs are carried 50% by the Austrian railways OBB and the remaining 50% by the federal states and the community [OBB - BMVIT 2008]. Through this programme, Austria has realised considerably more protection measures as foreseen in the first phase of the EU Noise Directive 2002/49/EC. In 2008, the programme had achieved the following results: Table 24: Results of the Austrian rail noise abatement programme ACTI ON Planning in communities Fl GURES 236 Implementation in communities Inhabitants covered in plans Inhabitants benefitting from implementation Noise barriers [m2] Length of noise barriers [m] 185 250,280 183,603 1,263,706 413,016 Source: OBB - BMVIT 2008. In 2008, 72% of the citizens covered in the plans benefited from noise protection measures. Since then, the size of the rail noise barriers has increased to some 1.7 million sq. m [m2]; in 2011 two thirds of the planned construction works are completed and most of the severely affected inhabitants are protected against noise. Through the continuation of the programme, 10-15,000 additional citizens annually will be protected against rail noise. The effects of noise barriers in the mountainous Inn Valley can be seen on the map below, where the inhabitants of the small town of Jenbach are protected against high noise levels that show up in the unprotected outskirts of the settlement. However, the map shows as well the effects of noise reflection from the adjacent mountains. 77 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Figure 27: I mpacts of noise protection barriers in Jenbach, Inn Valley, Austria Source: Austrian Noise mapping, http://gis.lebensministerium.at/geoinfo). 4.1 .2.3. Alpine regions — The Frejus line The Frejus line is the rail freight corridor between France and Italy. Additional to this it is part of the planned high speed and rail freight corridor between Lyon and Turin. The Fresjus-Coridor, especially the Susa (between City of Susa and Modane) and the Maurienne Valley (between Modane and Aiguebelle), was also examined in the ALPNAP project. For the Frejus line the numbers of daily trains on the Italian side (Susa Valley) of the total line are published in [ALPNAP 2007-2] on page 241. The table is represented below. Table 25: Example of railway traffic data in the Susa Valley; Number of trains for an average workday SECT! ON TYPE OF TRAI N Borgone Susa — Bussoleno Regional International Freight Goods Bussoleno — Susa Regional International Freight Goods DAY 35 3 21 49 18 0 0 0 EVENING 14 NI GHT 3 120 3 0 130 11 13 85 23 29 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 120 130 85 95 78 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution SECTI ON TYPE OF TRAI N DAY EVENI NG NIGHT 110 Bussoleno — Salbertrand Salbertrand Bardonecchia Bardonecchia — Modane Regional International Freight Goods Regional International Freight Goods Regional International Freight Goods 9 2 11 24 17 3 21 49 1 3 21 49 4 2 5 12 7 3 11 23 0 2 11 23 0 0 6 14 0 0 13 29 0 0 13 29 110 75 85 110 110 75 85 75 75 70 70 Source: ALPNAP 2007-2, page 241. Here freight and goods trains have the majority on the main line, especially at night (as in the Inn Valley) and in the sections between Bussoleno and Modane. The share of freight trains is higher than on the Brenner line / in the Inn Valley. The study has already shown that rolling noise is the most important environment noise source from trains at speeds between 30 and 200 km/h and that freight trains are the noisiest trains. Considering this, the most important starting point to lower noise, particularly in mountain areas, is to avoid rolling noise directly at the original source (contact zone of rail and wheel). For the Frejus Corridor the ALPNAP project produced a noise pollution index which shows the number of people which are affected by a certain noise pollution index (see Figure 28). The meaning of the indices is declared in Figure 29 and Figure 30. Figure 28: Noise pollution in the Frejus Corridor 120000 100000 m • 80000 0. 5 60000 40000 z 20000 1 Reference scenario - July 2004 2 3 4 5 Noise Pollution Index Source: ALPNAP 2007-2, page 288. 6 79 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies The noise pollution index defined by ALPNAP project is represented in the following figures: Figure 29: Noise pollution index (NPI) due to simultaneous exposure to rail and road sources Lden"'rrriioiwy (dB) Lden-road (dB) 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 45 1 1 1 2 3 4 50 1 1 2 2 3 4 55 2 2 2 2 3 4 60 3 3 3 3 3 4 65 70 75 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Source: ALPNAP 2007-2, page 154. Figure 30: I nterpretation of the NPI values NPI value Exposure to noise I Very low 2 Low 3 Moderate 4 Pronounced High Very high Source: ALPNAP 2007-2, page 154. The NPI shows the exposure to noise in dependence of the LDEN noise level caused by both road and rail traffic. Although train traffic is high in the Frejus -Corridor, about 30,000 out of 146,000 people (see [Alpnap 2007-2] page 286) are affected by NPI levels higher than 1. An interesting result of the ALPNAP Study is that a modal shift from road to rail will lead to an increase of people affected by NPI 5 to NPI 6. The reason is that the motorways in the Frejus -Corridor are already well equipped with noise protection walls in populated areas in comparison with the railway lines. There are many protests against the project of a high speed railway line between Turin and Lyon especially concerning the affected valleys. In detail the high-speed line will consist of about 200 km new build railway lines including the new Mont-Cenis-Base-Tunnel (56 km). This tunnel will completely pass by the Susa-Valley between Modane and Susa. On the Italian side the Bussoleno-Tunnel will directly follow the Mont-Cenis-Base-Tunnel (12 km) so only a short part of the railway line will remain outside in the area of Susa. On the French side also two long tunnels (Bolledonne Tunnel, (20 km) and Chartreuse Tunnel (20km - freight trains only) are foreseen passing by big parts of the Maurienne-Valley 80 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution [Transalpine]. With all these tunnels only short parts of the new line remain uncovered in the Valleys. Protests against this project concern air pollution (due to excavations of asbestos and uranium), general threats for the nature of the valleys and disturbances due to building works (15 - 20 years). During the building phase economic losses due to shrinking of tourism in the affected areas are expected. Noise is also mentioned in some of the publications but is not a main aspect of the protests. Most relevant are disturbances during the building phase. 4.1.3. United Kingdom The UK uses a variety of noise mitigating technologies including noise barriers, rail lubricators and friction modifiers, rail -tuned absorbers, and, usually in tunnels, resilient base plates and floating slab track. Approximately 75% of the UK freight wagon fleet has disc brakes or composite tread brakes instead of the noisier cast-iron tread -braked wheels. In England27, 23 Noise Action Plans were designed to address the management of noise issues and effects in agglomerations. According to these plans, 1.3 million inhabitants of agglomerations are affected by rail noise; of these, 68% live in Greater London. Outside agglomerations, only 4,000 inhabitants are included in Noise Action Plans. The theoretical study in this section estimates the potential impact of building noise barriers with 2m height along all railway lines in English agglomerations. It is assumed that noise barriers reduce the noise levels by 5-10 dB(A). Due to these rough assumptions, only the magnitude of the impact may be estimated. The number of affected inhabitants would decrease by 54-84%. This implies that in English agglomerations only 200,000 to 600,000 inhabitants would be affected by rail noise, compared to 1.3 million without noise protection measures. Figure 31 shows the range of impacts of noise barriers in English agglomerations. The environmental cost of rail noise in English agglomerations may be estimated at 144 million Euros per year. These costs would be reduced through the implementation of noise barriers by annually 86 to 126 million Euros. 27 UK not including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. 81 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Figure 31: Effects of rail noise barriers on the number of inhabitants of agglomerations in England Inhabitants affected 800.000 700,000 600.000 500,000 400.000 300,000 200,000 100.000 0 1 El No Measure ■ Minimum Impacts ID Maximum Impacts 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 >75 d13(A) Source: Noise Aclion Plans in England, own calculations Source: calculation by the authors according to Noise Action Plans in England. For rail noise protection in England it has been decided that the important areas with respect to noise from major railways will be where the 1% of the population that are affected by the highest noise levels from major railways are located according to the results of the strategic noise mapping ("Important Areas"; see Figure 32). In addition, those locations where the LAeq,18h is at least 73 dB(A) according to the results of the strategic noise mapping have been identified as "First Priority Locations". The following timeline for railways was developed: April 2010 - Oct 2011 April 2011 onwards April 2012 onwards Relevant rail authorities investigate Important Areas (giving priority to those that contain First Priority Locations) Relevant rail authorities implement any actions or secure budget for actions Relevant rail authorities investigate remaining Important Areas and implement any actions or secure budget for actions An example of Important Areas arising from the English Noise Action Planning is given in Figure 32. 82 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution Figure 32: Important Areas, Noise Action Plan for Sheffield, England Noise Action Planning Important Areas (Tile 96) Roads Containing First Priority Locations Other Important Areas Railways Containing First Priority Locations Other Important Areas First Round Agglomeration 46, N defra 1 2 31101 (0 Crown Copyright and database right 2011. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100022861 Source: DEFRA 2010. 4.2. Detailed analysis of selected sections This section describes effects of noise reduction measures for selected sections of the rail network. Assessments for effects of noise reductions are made with the use of defined measures from Section 3.3 on page 53). The authors made a general analysis of the sections as detailed examinations in real situations were not possible. Some generalisations have been made. For example, noise barriers were assumed to be built in each location where inhabitants are affected, not taking into account if this will be technically feasible or whether installations already exist. Therefore, a range of noise impacts of the different measures had to be defined as given in Table 26. These figures were again adapted to the local conditions, i.e., used rolling stock, number of trains and share of train types (long distance, regional, freight trains). For replacement of cast iron by composite block brakes or equipment of freight cars with wheel absorbers, a 100% endowment of all relevant wagons is assumed. Calculations were made with the actual state and the if -case (if -case = the measure is introduced completely in the section). 83 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Table 26: Range of noise reduction MEASURE MI N REDUCTI ON Composite brake blocks on freight wagons Noise barriers (2m high) Wheel absorbers Rail tuned absorbers 8 dB(A) 5 dB(A) 2 dB(A) 3 dB(A) MAX REDUCTI ON 10 dB(A) 10 dB(A) 7 dB(A) 7 dB(A) Source: own summary according to section 3.3. The following elaboration also includes an assumption of noise reduction effects by reduction of external rail noise costs. For cost calculation the same method was applied as the study "External Costs of Transport in Europe 2008" commissioned by the International Railway Union (UIC) in 2011 [CE Delft et al. 2011]. The study quantifies the monetary impacts of steady noise exposure of people at different levels by a review of European studies of housing prices and assesses additional medical costs by the increased risk of cardiac infarctions based on latest epidemiological research. The resulting non-linear noise exposure cost function is then applied to national statistics on noise affected inhabitants by 5 dB(A) LDEN noise classes. 4.2.1. The Rhine Axis section Koblenz — Bingen The selected section between Koblenz and Bingen represents an area in a narrow valley with high frequency railway lines on one of the main European transportation corridors (see also Section 4.1.1 on page 71). The location of the section is given in Figure 33. The valley has four tracks, two on each river bank. The essential data and results of the assessment are given in Table 27. Figure 33: Section Koblenz - Bingen, impacts of measures .W4 14" Posher') 8um.'Fai2 Y. Lielmrpagic . Sturrximerp t woo 14u- Sankt Go arm.,, .RM.n.nb«o'� IYMlnrelf 1[r w r y Welterbe . .Pr Oa[enrersi '^-'? KulturI indschaft 1 } f —E..S SS E 14 S6Nifha4tFfF�11�� s. Oberes MIttelrhelntal + u r{tn�hsw,ry FrisopasV HiMersbre9 R4xnenslwnN ou k .. Au rih. n ■.R. Reduction of noise costs 80% 60% 40% 20% Brake Noise Wheel Blocks Barriers Absorbers Min ■ Max Source: Own calculation by the authors. 84 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution In this section of the Rhine Valley, nearly 68,000 people are affected by rail noise above 55 dB(A). Rail noise causes damages in the order of 11 million Euros per year. However, these may be reduced significantly: The strongest impacts are achieved through the construction of noise barriers. If - theoretically - the whole valley were protected, only 17,000-36,000 inhabitants will still be affected afterwards and the environmental costs will be reduced by 47%-72% (Figure 33). However, this would imply considerable costs, as well as strong visual intrusions. If new brake blocks were implemented, the environmental costs could be reduced by 51-57%. The lower value is due to the fact that passenger trains are not affected by this measure. Wheel absorbers reduce environmental costs by 21-58%. Table 27: Impacts of noise reduction measures in the Middle Rhine Valley ITEM VALUE No of freight trains / day (both directions) No of passenger trains / day (both directions) No of remaining inhabitants affected by rail noise (>55dB(A)) Without measures With noise protection barriers With low -noise brake blocks (K and LL) With wheel noise absorbers Remaining annual external rail noise costs [million ] Without measures With noise protection barriers With low -noise brake blocks (K and LL) With wheel noise absorbers 265 157 67,550 16,850 - 36,200 28,985 - 32,907 28,460 - 55,010 10.7 4.4 - 8.4 4.6 - 5.2 4.4 - 8.4 Source: Own calculation by the authors. 4.2.2. United Kingdom section Thameslink near Blackfriars in London In order to have an example about a railway line in a dense populated agglomeration with a large frequency of trains per hour, Thameslink was chosen as a case study. Rail noise of railway lines in metropolises by nature affects a lot of people. So it is very important to find good solutions for inner-city lines. Thameslink is considered to be a good example because it represents an area with dense population and a planned extension of traffic. Thameslink runs through the heart of London, crossing the River Thames at Blackfriars Bridge, operating along a 225km route between Bedford in the north and Brighton on the south coast. The service stops at King's Cross / St Pancras International, Luton Airport and Gatwick Airport, and an offshoot (the Wimbledon Loop) passes through south-west London. An estimated 75000 people every day use Thameslink to get in and out of London. Thameslink 2000 is a £5.5bn programme28 to increase service capacity and frequency on the Thameslink route, with longer trains and eventually new rolling stock. The route from St Pancras to London Bridge is being upgraded, and Blackfriars station is being rebuilt to 28 Thameslink 2000 Programme website: http://www.thameslinkprogramme.co.uk/. 85 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies span the river, with a new entrance on the south bank; the station will be ready for 12 -car trains by December 2011, and completed in time for the 2012 Olympics. The Thameslink 2000 project was originally proposed in 1991, and, following a public inquiry in 2005, planning permission was finally granted in 2006. As a result of the public inquiry, many of the relevant documents are available to the public through the Inquiry's website29 or on request. As part of the Environmental Impact Assessment, Temple Environmental consultants Ltd produced the 'Noise & Vibration Specialist Report' in June 2004 [Thameslink 2004], and the 'Blackfriars Noise Assessment Report' in 2005 [Thameslink 2005]. These reports include calculations and predictions of rail noise, using ISVR's NORBERT3° model, and make recommendations regarding the use of noise mitigation technologies. One of the goals of the Thameslink programme is to run 24 trains per hour, each way, between Blackfriars and St Pancras Midland Road; and 18 trains per hour, each way, between Blackfriars and London Bridge. Blackfriars Railway Bridge is a steel decked bridge across the Thames (see Figure 34 and Figure 35) with ballasted track. In 2004, the traffic across the bridge during the day was 233 Thameslink trains and 133 other trains; during the night, the traffic was 39 Thameslink trains and 11 other trains. The target is to increase this to 672 Thameslink trains and 70 other trains during the day, and 74 Thameslink trains during the night. Figure 34: Left: View of Blackfriars Railway Bridge from the south bank. Right: First Capital Connect Class 319 EMU. Source: Thameslink 2005. In addition to increasing the number of trains, capacity will be further increased by replacing 8 -car trains with 12 -car trains during peak hours; during off-peak hours, 4 -car trains will be replaced by 8 -car trains. To some extent the increase in noise from the additional traffic will be offset by the introduction of quieter rolling stock. In 2004, Thameslink operated Class 319 EMUs primarily, and have since acquired all Class 319 vehicles still operationa131. These are disc -braked; the last of the Class 421 and 423 EMUs with cast iron tread brakes were phased out during 2004. The Class 319 fleet was manufactured during 1987-90. First Capital Connect (who took over the Thameslink franchise in 2006) have recently acquired 23 Class 377/5 EMU 4 -car trains (Electrostars), 29 Thameslink 2000 Public Inquiry website: http://www.t12000inquiry.org.uk/. 3° ISVR's NORBERT model calculates structural radiation of bridge noise using a detailed model of track and bridge structure, rail roughness and rolling stock type. (Thompson, D.J., Jones, C.J.C., Bewes, O.G., 2005, 'NORBERT — Software for Predicting the Noise of Railway Bridges and Elevated Structures, Version 2.0,' ISVR Contract Report, CR 05.12; also see David Herron, 2009, 'Vibration of railway bridges in the audible frequency range,' Thesis submitted for Engineering Doctorate, University of Southampton.) 31 The Class 319 is a dual -voltage EMU, and therefore able to operate both north of the River Thames, which uses a 25kV AC overhead supply, and south of the river, which uses a 750V DC third rail. 86 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution manufactured in 2008-09. The train noise correction for the Class 377/5 is 8.4 dB(A), compared to 11.3 dB(A) for the Class 319. Figure 35: Overview of viaducts/ bridges near Blackfriars station Il fi .*rr 1� 7I fi !;r Bea girder bridge wtlh mncrete deck - ballast track Concrete Viaduct Steal deck bridge - ballast track - Brick arch viaducts Source: Thameslink 2005. Regarding further rolling stock noise mitigation measures: • wheel dampers may provide a cost-effective means of reducing curve squeal and flange contact noise; • for vehicle mounted lubricators or wheel dampers Network Rail will work with TOCs and other stakeholders to install them to the existing rolling stock where it is found that such measures are reasonably practicable. However, the EMUs are disc -braked and there is little scope to reduce rolling noise; future design innovations in the suspension systems are not expected to reduce ground borne noise and vibration; and, in general, train speed is not an effective means of vibration reduction. 87 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Figure 36: Measured noise levels in Blackfriars area Day TPA b alain 1 Mel Aro hgpi,llgh1Ad 1101 !hose vat at 1IAE1 pro 1.Ade 110'1 ix seblmct 1n A noise incense atm.,' the stgndra1ee d.eshad. 1l should [w1 be assumed that ad Occupants 0, these h.Mags win he sukect to this Impact. • rr �i o �. . •,_ Network Rail Thameslink 2000 Figure A3 lackf roars Current Day Time Rail Noise Levels - s SO dB 55.0 dB - mods _ a 65.0 06 - 0 70..000 - 0 75..0 86 EMI 11 00-0 00 1=11r 65-0 00 ill 1!I ylr i��n ii "7 411.1" orrA +f, , . . K r "._ ire .*� ns i ,44113 • Night 1.0101 ilzra Source: Thameslink 2004. Noise level projections for 2026, with or without the Thameslink upgrade, were used to assess the impact of noise on local properties. The Thameslink programme was predicted to reduce the number of affected residential properties from 44 to 24, and the number of non- residential properties from 14 to 8. In either case, the majority of these impacts are either slight or moderate. The reason why so few properties are affected is that, even close to the railway, rail noise does not dominate over the ambient noise level. Predicted noise level increases near Blackfriars Railway Bridge are shown in Figure 37. 88 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution Figure 37: Predicted noise increase by 2026 at nearby facades as a result of daytime railway operation 4.4 3,0-5.9 dB 5A-100AB Highest specific noise Increase at any point on the facade of the property Source: Thameslink 2004. One distinctive source of noise at Blackfriars is the jointed track, which gives rise to the characteristic 'pounding' noise. Removal of joints will reduce the noise level by about 3.1 dB(A), and will significantly improve the subjective impression of the bridge noise. Regarding track renewals and remodelling between Blackfriars and London Bridge: • All jointed track will be removed as far as practical where track is renewed and replaced with Continuously Welded Rail or Long Welded Rail. Any unnecessary Switches and Crossings (S&Cs) will be removed and joints to remaining S&Cs will be welded. All new or replacement expansion joints will be scarfed. Another source of noise, about 6 dB(A), is flange contact on the curve south of the bridge (Falcon Point). As part of the renewal programme, this section will be replaced with modern track to a high specification, avoiding sudden changes in curvature at rail joints. Where necessary, flange lubricators will be installed or replaced. Network Rail has a regular inspection and maintenance programme, and is committed to removing any corrugation. In addition, vehicles are monitored for wheel flats. No significant benefit in noise level is expected from imposing more frequent grinding or an enhanced wheel set maintenance regime. 89 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Where effective and safe, Network Rail is willing to use rail dampers32. However, rail damping is not effective when used with stiff rail pads. In the Blackfriars area (in 2005), the rail was supported on stiff pads or no pads at all. Rail dampers would not have affected the bridge noise component, and only a 0.8 dB(A) reduction would have been achieved in the direct rolling noise. Noise barriers are a visual intrusion, particularly since they are a target for graffiti; they have a high cost, and cause problems for track access. Their effectiveness depends on their absorption properties, their height, and the proximity of the barrier to the noise source and/or to the receiver. At Blackfriars, noise barriers will not be particularly effective since the railway is multiple -track, and many of the affected properties overlook the track. However, the new station roof will incorporate sound absorbent material which will help to increase the noise attenuation provided by the barriers, and a new Vitreous enamel clad Bridge 412 enclosure will shield 1 Puddle Dock. A variety of noise mitigating trackforms were considered for reducing noise levels around the Blackfriars Railway Bridge, including ballast mats (which can be problematic for maintenance and tamping), resilient baseplates, booted sleepers, and Pandrol's VANGUARD (which clamps the rail around the web and under the head, as well as under the foot) on ballasted track; and slab track with soft rail pads or baseplates. While these track designs reduce noise levels significantly when compared with the reference design, they do not provide any meaningful reduction in overall train noise levels. At Falcon Point, railway noise is expected to reduce by 3-4 dB at the upper floors closest to the Bridge. This benefit would affect some 6 dwellings. The cost will be disproportionately high in relation to the scale of the potential benefit. There is no justification to install resilient baseplates on Blackfriars Railway Bridge. 4.2.3. Noise I m pact of High Speed Lines in the UK The East Coast Mainline (ECML) operates between Edinburgh and London King's Cross and the West Coast Mainline (WCML) operates between Glasgow and London Euston. The lines are rated for 200 km/h for the most part, and even for 225 km/h in places. However, UK legislation requires in -cab signalling for train speeds over 200 km/h, which has prevented operation at 225 km/h on these lines. Currently the only line in the UK operating at speeds over 200 km/h is High Speed 1 (HS1). High Speed 2 (HS2) is currently in the early planning stages and is expected to start operation in 2025. 4.2.3.1. High speed 1 (HS1) High Speed 1 is the route from London to the Channel Tunnel which started operation in 2007. After leaving St Pancras, the line crosses the ECML and immediately enters a tunnel which passes underneath London for 20 km (line speed for this stretch is 230 km/h, but other tunnels on the route have a speed limit of 270 km/h); the bridge across the ECML to the tunnel entrance is fully enclosed by a tube with acoustic grey cladding to shield the local environment from noise (although this is not completely effective). Pandrol's VANGUARD and a variety of other noise mitigation technologies are implemented along the route: noise bunds and barriers (including low barriers on viaducts), Sateba booted sleeper track system (Slab track SAT SB12), and GERB's floating slab track (also used in London's Docklands Light Railway). 32 Blackfriars Station will be the first site in the UK to install Tata Steel's SilentTrack noise damping system — this is scheduled for February 2012. 90 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution There is no noise map for HS1, but there are a few comments on noise in the written evidence in the Transport Committee HS2 report: • 'experience in Kent and elsewhere shows how the noise footprint of HSR trains can be mitigated' • 'the experience of HS1 is that fears expressed before its construction have mostly not been realised' • 'it would appear from the lack of complaints related to HS1 operation that the noise impact can be overrated by objectors at the planning stage' • 'HS1's impact has been masked to some extent by the route passing close to existing busy roads' Overall, HS1 has been a positive development with very few complaints about noise. 4.2.3.2. High Speed 2 (HS2) This section refers to the Tenth Report of Session 2010-12 of the House of Commons Transport Committee, regarding High Speed Rail (HSR), specifically High Speed 2 (HS2), and associated written evidence. HS2 is planned for 2025. Remit: 'HS2 Ltd was established as a Government company to examine the case and develop proposals for a new high-speed railway line between London and the West Midlands, and potentially beyond. Its remit was to identify a route between London and the West Midlands with the primary aims of increasing passenger capacity on the corridor and optimising journey times. It was a requirement of the remit that the route should include an interchange between HS2, the Great Western Main Line and Crossrail, with convenient access to Heathrow.' Proposal: 'HS2 Ltd has proposed a London — West Midlands route that avoids any significant demolition of property except for the Euston station area; about half the route would be in deep cutting or tunnel, to reduce noise and visual intrusion on adjacent areas.' The proposal focuses on 400 km/h high speed rail route. This is expected to free up capacity on the West Coast Mainline and allow greater rail freight utilisation. Noise I ssues: No Environmental Impact Assessment has been carried out for HS2, and none is planned until after the current consultation exercise. An Appraisal of Sustainability (AoS) has been published which includes a technical report on noise and vibration. Following England's Noise Action Plan and the Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations, the noise measure LAeq,18h (noise averaged over the period 06.00-24.00) has been used as the primary indicator of noise level, with an imposed limit of 73 dB — since noise levels higher than this would make the route a 'First Priority Location', i.e., an immediate target for noise mitigation. 91 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies While such a strategy might be acceptable for already noisy areas, part of the proposed route runs through an Area of Natural Beauty (AONB) where the environmental impact of the railway is a major concern. Consequently, there has been fierce opposition to HS2 along this section of the route, including complaints about noise levels: • 'Acceptable' noise levels do not follow WHO guidelines or English Planning Permission (PPG24) guidelines. The latter would limit noise levels to 66 dB, or even less considering the rural environment. The former recommends that peak noise levels be considered, not just the average, and for high speed trains the difference between these is large. • Concern over the visual impact of noise barriers, coupled with the concern that these will not block aerodynamic noise from pantographs. In addition, in the noise prediction modelling, pantograph noise has been modelled as a noise source at rail track height, which is not appropriate and underestimates the noise impact. (The AoS assumes a 3 dB reduction in noise emissions based on improved noise control measures in future rolling stock, and notes the importance of mitigating the source of aerodynamic noise. 100 km of 2-3 metre high noise barriers are included in the model.) • The noise impact from the ground -borne Raleigh shock wave of high-speed trains travelling at 400 km/h over flood plains, soft alluvial ground, etc., has not been considered, nor has the cost of mitigation measures against this. • The number of trains used in the noise modelling is 432 per day, but the potential train throughput could be up to 576 trains. The system needs to be modelled at full operational capacity, otherwise noise regulations will put a severe constraint on route utilisation. • Noise modelling has been carried out for a maximum speed of 360 km/h, even in places where the design speed is higher. In summary, the HS2 assessment of noise levels both uses an arguably too -high definition of acceptable noise level, and underestimates noise levels arising from pantographs, ground -borne shock waves and full system capacity. This highlights the need for a full Environmental Impact Assessment and a clearer remit on noise and vibration levels in the AONB. The strongest arguments against HS2 can be countered by lowering the line speed from 400 km/h to, e.g., 240 km/h in sensitive areas. Although this will increase journey time, and weakens the economic case for HS2, it will significantly reduce the environmental impact of construction and of operational noise and energy requirements. A lower design speed also allows the route to follow the existing M1 motorway, further reducing environmental impact. 92 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution 5 EVALUATION KEY Fl NDI NGS • There are different possibilities for financial support and regulative activities to foster the introduction of noise reduction measures. • Noise depending track access charges are one possibility next to direct support for low noise measures. • Noise depending track access charges shall bear in mind that relevant noise reduction effects are only coming from trains which are (nearly) completely equipped with low noise rolling stock and that noise reduction measures may cause extra operative costs (next to investment cost). • Regulation can focus on the TS! Noise where noise limits for new rolling stock are regulated. They shall be compulsory for existing rolling stock after about 10 - 12 years and lowered from time to time according to latest technical possibilities. • Currently Switzerland and the Netherlands have introduced noise depending track access charges, Germany is planning to introduce them at the end of the year 2012. • Com petitiveness of rail transport in comparison with other transportation means must be borne in mind in all activities, so all financial and regulative measures shall not burden the rail sector. This chapter describes and evaluates different methods for financial support of noise reduction measures with the focus on promoting the retrofitting of freight wagons with new braking systems. This is currently the most important discussion. Regulation possibilities are also discussed. 5.1. Economic incentives Economic incentives through rail track charging differentiated according to noise emissions can help to: • stimulate the use of low -noise technology for the rolling stock, • foster the use of routes which avoid hot spots for noise and • foster noise -reducing operational routines and speeds in sensitive areas. In general, there are two possibilities for the design of mark-ups for noise emissions: First, the mark-ups can be added to the rail infrastructure charges of high noise polluters while low noise polluters would be free of additional charges. In this case revenues are generated which can be used for subsidising noise abatement investments for railway cars.33 Second, the mark-ups can be designed in a way that they are neutral with respect to the total burdens from rail track charging, i.e., additional charges would be levied on high noise 33 We discount the option to allocate the revenues to the infrastructure manager, because they do not reflect infrastructure costs. 93 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies polluters while low noise polluters would receive a bonus. Penalty and bonus payments would balance after aggregation. This scheme would be comparable to the charging scheme for heavy goods vehicles on motorways according to Directive 2006/38/EC (variant of differentiating the charges on the base of EURO emissions standards). The recast of Railway Directive 2001/14/EC foresees the differentiation of rail track charges according to noise (see [Com(2010) 475] Article 31. There are several options to be analysed: • Differentiation of rail track charges according to measured noise emissions (see Section 5.1.1 ); • Differentiation of charges for wagons according to their noise classification (see Section 5.1.2 ); • Differentiation of charges for trains according to the composition of wagons (see Section 5.1.3 ); • Bonus payments for new and retrofitted cars (see Section 5.1.4 ); • Combined bonus systems (see Section 5.1.5 ). 5.1.1. Differentiation of rail track charges according to measured noise em issions The object of charging would be the train. The train -related noise emissions would have to be measured at critical points in densely populated areas and/or low distances to residential zones and then allocated to the train. The noise mark-up for the track charge then would vary with the noise level, eventually in a progressive way. Such a scheme would perfectly implement the polluter -pays principle. It works independently from the car or wheel technology and cannot be manipulated by wrong classification or changing electronic identification plates. However, it would require many measurement posts or gentries alongside the tracks and a complex information, payment and administration system. As a result, the implementation cost of such a system could be very high.34 As the charge will be paid initially by the train operator, the question is open how the train operator (the railway enterprise) will pass on the costs to the cars' owners/operators or to the shippers. 5.1.2. Differentiation of charges for wagons according to their noise classification The simplest way to differentiate track charges according to noise is to classify the wagons into noise categories and charge each wagon separately with a noise mark-up. The train operator would pay the charge to the infrastructure manager and send the bill to the car owner or operator. 34 Some form of infrastructure for dynamic measurement and reporting of vehicle noise may be necessary anyway to reflect changes in the vehicle's status, e.g., wheel out -of -roundness, which significantly affect noise levels; this could be coupled with existing trackside measuring stations. Higher -than -expected noise levels may indicate an urgent need for vehicle maintenance. 94 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution This scheme presupposes the introduction of noise standards for rail wagons (comparable to EURO categories for road vehicles) and a rail -car -based km charge. While the technology of charging, control and monitoring can be kept simple there is one serious caveat: The noise emission curve is shaped in a strictly concave way ("diminishing marginal noise emissions") with increasing share of low noise cars. This means that a 50% share of low noise cars in a train will lead to a noise reduction of only 1.5 dB(A) compared with a high noise train, so that the exposed population will hardly notice the progress. The share of low noise cars should be very high to achieve a significant noise reduction of a train. If, for instance, 100% of freight cars are equipped with silent brakes the noise reduction can be as much as 10 dB(A), which implies cutting noise by half.35 In conclusion, this scheme is simple to implement, but does not fully reflect the polluter - pays principle, i.e., a train composed of 50% low noise cars would pay reduced charges for 50% of the cars although the noise reduction is negligible. There is a risk, furthermore, that identification plates (e.g., RFIDs) are manipulated to get wagons classified in favourable categories. 5.1.3. Differentiation of charges for trains according to the composition of wagons To avoid the caveats mentioned in Section 5.1.2 on page 94, an alternative is to classify the trains instead of the wagons. In this case, the trains will be classified on the basis of the rail car types from which they are composed. This presupposes the introduction of noise standards for rail wagons (as in 5.1.2 on page 94) and, in addition, the classification of trains on the basis of the expected noise emissions. In the case of freight trains, the problem arises that the emission category of a train would vary with every change of the train composition in marshalling yards (single wagon traffic). Indeed, the problem is that only block trains which do not change wagon types from start to end can be easily classified. In single wagon transport, this classifying is much more difficult as train composition changes with every shunting activity. If charging followed the polluter -pays principle, then adding a few high -noise cars to a low -noise train would imply a very high mark-up for the train, while adding a low -noise car to a high -noise train would not lead to a change of the train charge. This will not be accepted by the market players (i.e.: investment in low noise cars will not pay if these cars are often integrated in high noise trains), so such a scheme should be modified in a more pragmatic way. Nevertheless, the problem remains that the railway undertaking would have to charge the car owners/operators/shippers, accordingly. 5.1.4. Bonus payments for new and retrofitted cars Against the background of the manifold problems of noise -related rail track charging and the possible second round effect of losing market share to road transport, if the noise charges are really high but lead to the desired noise reduction, the easiest way to come to low noise technologies is to pay public subsidies for new low -noise cars and for retrofitting used cars. Certainly this is the approach which will be most readily accepted by the market players. 35 Because of the logarithmic scale of the noise curve, details see Section 3.4 and Figure 23 95 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies While this burden should not fall on the tax payer, nevertheless this instrument can be an element of an overall strategy to introduce an incentive -based system and to achieve a high rate of penetration within a short period of time - much shorter than the lifetime of railway cars, which can be estimated at about 40 years. 5.1.5. Combined bonus systems Whenever charging schemes are considered, companies worry about higher costs and the possibility of losing market shares to the road transport mode. This is a relevant argument, in particular in a political environment which aims at increasing rail freight market shares for environmental reasons and to meet climate challenges. Public financial assistance should be given in the initial phase of a charging scheme with noise mark-ups. This could be implemented by a bonus payment for the purchase of new cars which are equipped with noise reducing technology, and/or for retrofitting used cars. 5.1.6. Current status of track charges As the European Commission has decided on 27 September 2011 to allow charging for emissions of road vehicles (see Directive 2011/76/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011, amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, as published OJEU L 269 on 14.10.11 [Dir. 2011/76/EU]) the way is also free for track charges according to noise emissions on railways without regard for total earning of the infrastructure company (see Recast of Railway Directive 2001/14/EC in [Com(2010) 475] Article 31). The European Commission established a working group in 2011 to harmonise and implement Trace Access Charge systems including noise depending instruments. The recommendations from this study shall be considered by this group. UIC has published (in [UIC 2010]) an overview about the current status of noise abatement legislation in different countries. The Netherlands and Switzerland already have track charges with a noise bonus and penalty. Since 2002, Switzerland has granted a bonus for all wagons which are equipped with low noise brakes of 0.01 CHF (0.0075 €, exchange rate November 2010) per axle -kilometre. The bonus is financed by the state, as well as the retrofitting programme of all Swiss wagons. The Netherlands grants a bonus of 0.04 € per wagon kilometre for all low noise wagons. The bonus is granted for two years up to a total maximum of 4,800 € per wagon. In Germany, a system will be introduced in 2012 in which a bonus will be granted only to single freight wagons which are newly retrofitted with low noise equipment like composite brake blocks after the introduction of the bonus scheme. Furthermore, a bonus is planned for whole freight trains which consist of only low noise wagons. In this second part of the bonus scheme, new and recently retrofitted wagons are also considered. Both parts of the bonus will be realised as a discount on the track charge according to wagon kilometres. This will be granted directly from the infrastructure company to the wagon owner. In Switzerland there is a discussion about modifying the existing system. Both the German and Swiss plans include a funding of owners of low -noise freight cars. The funding will be organised and calculated by the infrastructure companies. They rely on the owner notifying 96 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution which freight cars are low -noise. The funding depends on axle -kilometres in both countries. There are also discussions about the costs for the implementation and operation of the accounting system. For VDV (in [KCW 2011]), KCW calculated the operating costs for different kinds of funding systems for low -noise freight wagons. Funding for new wagons which are equipped with LL -blocks (if they are admitted) is currently being discussed. In detail, Germany plans to fund retrofitted freight cars with 0.0028 € per axle -kilometre on German tracks up to a total of 1,688 € per axle. The total comes from estimated investment costs of about 2,120 € per axle minus 432 € as opportunity saving for replacement of an old cast iron block by a new one. The costs for the bonus will be covered 50% by the German state and 50% by a general increase of track prices for all freight trains. In a study for the European Commission, KCW proposes a funding of 0.008 € per axle - kilometre for K -block equipped wagons and 0.0025 € per axle -kilometre for LL -block equipped wagons [KCW 2009]. The figures mentioned are for a funding period of 8 years. For a potential funding period of 12 years the figures are 0.0045 € per axle -kilometre for K - blocks and 0.002 € for LL -blocks. Irmhild Saabel from WASCOSA AG held a presentation at Forum Guterwagen (forum freight wagons) in May 2011 about costs coming from K -blocks [Saabel 2011]. The total costs for blocks and wheels increase by a factor of 1.5 to 2.6. Although K -blocks have a life cycle of about 110,000 to 130,000 km, the wheels need reprofiling each 120,000 to 310,000 km (instead of 450,000 to 500,000 km) and have a life cycle of about only 360,000 to 1,140,000 km (instead of 2,700,000 to 3,500,000 km). Also Mr Gilliam from the AAE reports higher operating costs, from first experiences, caused by abrasion of wheels with modified blocks36. Costs for railway undertakings or wagon owners, related to composite brake blocks, arise not only from investment but also from operating. To harmonise NDTAC on an EU-wide scale in 2011, the Commission established an expert group under the DERC Committee [Rapacz 2011]. • The main aim: to discuss and propose practical solutions on how to harmonise NDTAC schemes across Member States, focusing on financial aspects. • The result of the work of the group could be a set of guidelines for the Member States on NDTAC harmonisation / implementing measure adopted by the Commission on the basis of the recast. • The group is to be restarted in 2012, following the recast developments. 36 Early trials with composite tread brakes in the UK in the 1970s -80s found similar results. 97 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 5.2. Analysis of regulation possibilities The number of regulations on railway noise in the EU Member States is large. A brief overview of the national noise measures is listed in Annex IV. In 2003, the Working Group on Railway Noise of the European Commission [EC 2003] was of the opinion that "a solution to the major railway noise issues is possible within 10 years if the proposals are implemented as a cost-effective combination of the instruments described". The most relevant standardisation issues for railway rolling stock have been formulated in the TSI documents (Technical Specifications for Interoperability). In the latest TSI Noise [TSI Noise 2011], the following regulations for noise emissions of rail vehicles are defined: • Limits for stationary and pass -by noise for freight wagons and locomotives (for details see Annex II of this study), • Operation and maintenance rules, • Application to new rolling stock, and • Retrofitting programmes. While the rail noise problem is well understood and the technical possibilities are clearly described in the European Commission documents, a timetable for introducing new noise standards - comparable to the Euro standards for HGVs - is missing until now. However, because rail cars are clustered tightly (i.e., grouped as trains), the equipping of rail cars with low noise technology is only effective if a large proportion of the cars use this technology (see Section 1.2 on page 15). Retrofitting the current freight fleet with composite brake blocks will be a slow process since a charging scheme is required that creates an incentive to retrofit without increasing the overall cost of rail freight transport relative to other transport modes. The planned funding in Germany (see Section 5.1.6 on page 96) is not attractive enough for a part of wagon owners, since a negative impact on railway transport costs would be inevitable. Therefore, developing a regulation scheme for a staged process towards low -noise rolling stock must be the heart of a noise abatement strategy for railways. The economic instruments developed in Section 5.1 on page 93 then would serve as incentive engines, for instance as a motivation for top runners to start early with retrofitting or purchasing new noise -reduced cars and for the followers to reduce their costs. 5.2.1. Regulating technology for noise emissions? Currently the discussion focuses on the braking system of rail cars. Most noise in railway operations is caused by rough running surfaces of wheels and tracks. If both can be kept smooth, noise can be reduced significantly [CER UIC 2007]. The conventional cast-iron brake blocks cause a fast deterioration of wheels and rough wheel surfaces and high noise levels are a consequence. If this braking technology can be exchanged by modern composite brake blocks the noise emissions can be reduced by up to 10 dB(A). Retrofitting with composite brake blocks targets brake noise and elevated rolling noise, but there are other sources of noise, locations which require an even greater noise reduction 98 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution than can be gained by retrofitting alone, and there are many railway vehicles which do not have cast-iron tread brakes. Noise reduction can also be achieved by rail- and wheel -tuned absorbers and other technical measures. Furthermore, technological development may yield new technologies in the next years to come. This brings up the question whether the regulation towards a particular noise reduction technology makes sense. In any case, the regulation should allow for alternative technologies if they have proved to achieve at least the same reduction performance. The Japanese Top -runner scheme gives an example for an incentive compatible regulation scheme. The current best technology is set as a standard in the medium term (e.g.: 5-7 years). An alternative way of regulation consists of setting upper limits for local noise emissions. Directive 2002/49/EC gives the basic definitions of indicators, methods of measurement and mapping of exposed population. The Member States are obliged to identify hot spots where noise limits are exceeded and to prepare action plans not later than July 2013. The national legislation for noise control is well developed for new investments which lead to additional traffic and noise production. The big challenge remaining is the noise protection of population alongside existing railway tracks. In principle it would be possible to prepare a noise directive comparable to the Air Quality Directives 1999/30 and 2008/50, which limit the local concentration of exhaust emissions like NOx and PM. Analogously, a noise quality directive could limit the noise levels alongside the tracks at maximum thresholds, depending on the environment and the exposed population. The advantage of emission dependent regulation is that the industry is free to find the best technologies to meet the limit values set. A disadvantage is that it will take some time to achieve a consensus of the Member States on noise limit values. After the painful experiences gained with the introduction of Directive 1999/30 (Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air) one can expect that the Member States will check such values carefully to avoid massive investments in their transport infrastructure for noise abatement. Therefore, the most promising way for the medium term future is to start from the platform of TSIs and the Recast of the Railway Packages (see [TSI Noise 2011] and [Conn(2010) 475]). This can be formulated in a way that the expected noise reduction is clearly defined while the technology used is not specified in detail, leaving options open for technological progress. 5.2.2. Regulation authorities The European Railway Agency (ERA), established in 2006 in Valenciennes following the second railway package, is responsible for TSIs and can take responsibility for developing the appropriate noise regulation for railway cars as well. This regulation can be controlled by the national railway regulation authorities - following the first railway package the establishment of national railway regulators is obligatory for each Member State. From this follows that the existing national bodies can be involved in the control of rail noise emissions more intensively and with the necessary administrative power. A close coordination with the road and air transport regulators is necessary to avoid market distortions stemming from unbalanced regulation. 99 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 5.3. Analysis of stakeholder remarks on economic incentives and regulation Since it is not possible to reflect the position of each railway stakeholder in Europe within this framework, the position of the International Railway Union (UIC) is provided. UIC makes frequent statements of the issue which generally acknowledge the need for noise reduction measures. UIC favours the following strategies [UIC 2010]: • Reduce the noise of all new freight vehicles by introducing TSI limit values. • Promote the retrofitting of existing freight vehicles with composite brake blocks. • Build noise barriers and install noise insulated windows. • Pursue further solutions in special cases such as acoustic rail grinding, rail absorbers, wheel absorbers, friction modification against curve squeal, etc. The precondition is regular maintenance. UIC considers LL -brake blocks to be a "promising noise reduction measure; however they still require further improvement before they can be used on a large scale in Europe". Other options, such as speed limits and land -use planning are rejected [UIC 2008]. Speed limits need to be substantial (50 km/h) to have a considerable noise impact and thus "are not compatible with the operation of a commercially competitive railway". Land -use planning measures are of little effect, since at distances further than 50 metres from the source "noise level is insensitive to even medium changes in distance". UIC's main concern is that noise reduction measures might burden the railways in a manner that the competition with the road sector is distorted. The burden may be created either through high investment costs or excessive administrative tasks. "Due to fierce competition, wagon owners do not have sufficient resources to finance the retrofitting of their fleet. Any incentive system should neither weaken the overall market share of the freight sector nor disadvantage any freight market player" [UIC 2011]. Therefore, the cost efficiency of the measures (see Section 5.1 on page 93) is a major UIC decision criterion. For example, the retrofitting with composite brake blocks is considered as more efficient than the construction of noise barriers. UIC argues that an incentive scheme should be developed, where public funds for retrofitting are diverted from the railway network operators to the wagon owners. Additionally, UIC criticises the above - mentioned studies commissioned by the EU [PWC 2007] and [KCW et al. 2009] for its "too low cost assumptions related to the use of composite brake blocks. These assumptions combined with too high an estimate of the average annual mileage may lead to a differential track access charge which is insufficient for promoting retrofitting." Since direct funding does not take into account the wagon mileage, [UIC 2011] proposes a bonus system combined with access charges: "national authorities should fund the retrofitting of freight wagons by means of a noise reduction bonus ... [which] would be granted based on the mileage travelled on lines of the respective national networks. The bonus would compensate the investment costs as well as the additional operating, transaction and administrative costs." 100 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution In an interview with the authors in July 2011, Mr Kerth from VDV mentioned that the total costs for retrofitting are about 0.008 € per axle -km if the additional operating costs and financing costs are included in the calculation. Currently, the interest of the wagon owners in retrofitting existing wagons due to this funding scheme is very low. A problem for the rail sector can also rise because part of the financing of the bonus system will be financed by an increase of track prices for the total freight train sector. This increase also affects existing wagons which are already equipped with composite brake blocks. The press release of VDV and VPI concerning the financing of the bonus from July 5th 2011 announces the 50% share of the rail sector as unfair [VDV VPI 2011]. It is the first time a transportation mode would be burdened by costs for noise and it would only fund recently retrofitted wagons, while existing low -noise or new -build wagons have to carry the increased track prices. In general, the planned funding scheme in Germany is accepted by the rail sector as it is a direct funding of wagon owners and the system is not too complicated. The implementation costs seem to be acceptable (see the elaborations in [KCW 2011]). Nevertheless, many details still have to be clarified and agreed, such as the size of the bonus and its financing. Also the inclusion of additional operating costs is still in discussion. If they are included, this could lead to a lower share of the German state as this part of the funding is limited to 152 million Euros per year [VDV-2011-2]. VDV expects only 15% share of costs will be carried by the Germany state if the additional operating costs remain to the rail sector. UIC, CER, UIRR, ERFA, EIM and UIP comment in their position paper on a Consultation document of the Commission concerning rail noise abatement measures in 2007 [UIC et al. 2007]. In this respect they point out that the funding scheme should not burden the rail freight sector with additional costs and the funding and monitoring scheme should not be cost -intensive itself. 101 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 102 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution 6. CONCLUSIONS Reducing railway noise is an important activity for the environment and citizens' health in Europe and for the acceptance of the railways as a driving force for ecological and economic development of Europe. Therefore, the acceptance of railways by citizens living near railway lines, especially the main rail freight corridors, is vital. In freight corridors, the number of trains will increase, and so noise for the citizens will increase as well. Therefore, measures to reduce noise levels are essential to prevent health risks and to have the acceptance of the neighbours. Without this acceptance, the risk remains that the increase of capacity on main railway lines will be inhibited for a long period of time, which will cause losses for the rail sector and for the total economy. 6.1. Recommendations of measures The recommendations cover the following three main aspects, considering the revival of the rail sector as one of the most important measures for greening transportation and meeting climate change targets: • identifying effective technical measures; • providing effective regulation and economic incentive schemes which do not distort competition with other transportation modes; • funding the necessary investments. Technical Measures On the technical side, the noise reduction measures focus on two pillars: vehicle -related measures and infrastructure -related measures. There are several vehicle -related measures: LL -blocks: One of the main sources of railway noise is freight wagons, particularly those with cast-iron tread -brake blocks. The cast-iron blocks damage the running surface of the wheels, making the surface rough and increasing the noise level at the wheel -rail interface. High-speed trains and passenger trains use disc brakes rather than tread brakes; new vehicles can be fitted with composite tread brake blocks (K -blocks), but these are not suitable for retrofitting. There are still about 370,000 freight wagons with cast iron brakes which are worth being retrofitted in Europe, and finding a cost-effective composite brake block replacement (LL -blocks) for retrofitting is a priority for many railway operators. The current estimate for retrofitting the 370,000 freight wagons is between 2.2 and 4.2 billion Euros, but the impact of LL -blocks on wheelset maintenance costs is yet to be established. Noise can also be a problem on railways with no freight traffic, so other vehicle -related measures are important: • Wheel absorbers are used to reduce rolling noise and can be effective against curve squeal. A range of wheel noise absorption technologies and products have been developed. The interaction of wheel noise absorbers and any track noise absorbers needs to be considered for optimum system performance. 103 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies • A number of modified wheels have been developed in recent years but the accident with an ICE in Eschede in 1998 has left the industry wary of modified wheels for high-speed trains. However, these developments have had significant noise reduction potential and it is worth continuing research in this area. • Vehicle -mounted top -of -rail friction modifiers (TOR FM) or flange lubrication systems can be used to combat curve squeal (as well as to reduce wear). A range of technologies and products are available. These are appropriate for closed systems where the vehicles are regularly monitored and maintained, such as local commuter networks; urban systems also have tighter curves and consequently more problems with curve squeal. • Pantograph noise is a problem with high-speed electric trains, particularly since the pantograph is usually higher than noise barriers, if present. Aerodynamic designs like shielding or special materials like porous coating of pantographs can be used to reduce aerodynamic noise. Additionally, new rolling stock, introduced since the year 2000, already have lower noise emissions by 10 dB(A) in comparison with equipment produced in the 1960s and 1970s. This shows the importance of replacing old rolling stock as soon as possible. The effectiveness of vehicle -related measures has the best cost -benefit ratio. So the introduction of composite brakes on freight wagons should be approached with the highest priority. Other measures can be done complementarily. A wide variety of infrastructure -related technologies have been developed to combat noise and vibration. Mostly these fall into three categories: • Noise barriers and bunds are usually large earth mounds creating an artificial cutting for the railway; these require several metres of land to the side of the railway which is not normally an option for existing railways or urban environments. Noise barriers, on the other hand, are suitable for existing railways and urban environments, but to be effective they need to be at least two metres high. Noise barriers have a poor visual impact, especially since they are a target for graffiti; they create problems for track access and incur a high on -going maintenance cost. Special acoustic enclosures are sometimes used to surround the railway above as well as at the sides. • Track -side lubricators are a traditional method of reducing curve squeal (as well as reducing wear) and friction modifiers are used also to reduce brake squeal (in shunting yards, for example). Top -of -rail friction modifiers (TOR FM) are also effective at reducing corrugation (a major noise source) on the low rail in curves. • Resilient track forms and technologies include: floating slab track, ballast mats, resilient base plates, rail pads of various stiffnesses, rail clips that clamp the web under the railhead, tuned rail dam pers, and booted sleepers. Tunnels under urban environments, such as the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and Crossrail in London, are targets for such technologies. (As noted earlier, the interaction of wheel noise absorbers and track noise absorbers needs to be considered for optimum system performance.) 104 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution Additional considerations: • Wheels and rails need to be monitored so that (a) out -of -round wheels (and especially wheels with flats) can be turned, and (b) corrugated rails can be ground. Out -of -round wheels and corrugated rails are a source of increased rail noise, as well as a cause of increased wheel -rail forces and consequent damage. • Track geometry and substructure should be designed and maintained to avoid sudden changes in direction or stiffness, both of which increase noise emission, wheel -rail forces and consequent damage. • Rail joints should be avoided (insulated rail joints are an exception) and continuously welded rail used instead; expansion joints should be scarfed. Large infrastructure -related investments have already been made in several countries, including Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, France, Switzerland, Austria, Italy and Portugal. These measures are necessary, particularly in densely populated areas. Noise -reducing infrastructure -related measures are usually introduced with new construction or major redevelopment of railway links according to new standards where these measures are a requirement, whereas for the existing infrastructure there is no obligation to lower noise. Intelligent combinations of vehicle- and infrastructure -related measures help to bring rail noise down to long-term sustainability levels for a reasonable cost. The analyses of this study show that infrastructure -related measures can be reduced if effective vehicle -related measures are also taken. Therefore, a fast retrofit of the existing freight wagon fleet is the most urgent action to be taken. Regulation and economic incentive schemes International examples such as the Japanese top -runner scheme37 underline that a sound regulation scheme is the heart of any successful pollution reduction strategy. This holds in particular for noise, because an effective reduction of noise through vehicle -related measures presupposes that almost all internationally operating rail wagons are equipped with low -noise technology. The TSI Noise is an appropriate basis for noise regulation in the medium and long term. Presently, the standards for noise emissions are valid for new or modified vehicles only. In the medium and long-term view the TSI can become compulsory for all vehicles. The time schedule for validation of the noise levels for all vehicles should be long enough to allow for an adjustment of technology without major additional investment costs. We propose a time period of 10-12 years, which covers 1-2 revision cycles and is half of the normal life time of rolling stock (a quarter for freight wagons). The noise levels in TSI Noise should also be lowered from time to time according to technical development. Economic incentive schemes consist of charging and bonus/penalty systems. Rail track charging is an important element of an incentive -compatible penetration strategy for low - noise rail technology. The principles and request for introducing noise emissions into the track access charging system are formulated in the Recast of the First Railway Package (proposed in 2010) and can be implemented by the Member States as the revision of 37 This scheme aims at reducing energy consumption and climate impact by dynamic setting of emission targets on the basis of current best practice ("top runners' performance"). 105 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Directive 2006/38/EC (Eurovignette) has been adopted on 27 September 2011 (see [Dir. 2011/76/EU]) as the existing Directive 2001//14/EC already allows NDTAC if the same is allowed for other transportation means. The Directive 2011/76/EU allows for mark-ups reflecting environmental costs (including noise) for HGVs on motorways and highways. This means that in the future a balance can be found between road and rail pricing for noise emissions which does not disturb competition between the transport modes. It is important to take into consideration that a substantial noise reduction requires that a large proportion of rail cars are equipped with modern technology. This suggests that lower tariffs should be offered only to trains which consist entirely of noise -reduced cars. Such a system can be implemented without installing further electronic devices in the rail cars, if an effective reporting system is established. The example of the proposed German rail track charging and retrofit -funding scheme shows that this requirement can be fulfilled. This underlines that the transaction cost of a noise -differentiated charging system can be held low, which is an important argument, because many objections against the introduction of such systems are based on the presumed high transaction costs. Further alternative or complementary incentives can be introduced through bonus/penalty systems. In particular, in the transitory phase, bonus payments can motivate the rail car operators to switch to new technology as early as possible. The railway companies will call for wide use of this instrument if the state pays for the bonus. From the viewpoint of setting incentives right, at least a part of financial contributions should be covered by the rail car owners/operators. Funding schemes After assessing the best combinations of technical and economic measures, the financial implications have to be considered and the impacts on stakeholders have to be analysed. In our view, the adjustment of braking systems is the most urgent and promising strategy, complemented by infrastructure -related measures at noise hot -spots. There are different funding sources, which have to be developed for these measures. Infrastructure -related measures are financed by the state and/or the rail infrastructure managers. In the latter case, the additional costs for the infrastructure managers are passed on to the railway undertakings through the rail track charges. This implies that the state will have to cover a substantial part of the infrastructure -related costs if the competitive balance between road and rail is not to be affected.38 Vehicle -related measures have to be financed by the car owners/operators in the long term. In the short and medium term, subsidies by the state or the European Union, for instance bonus payments for retrofitting, can accelerate the change of technology. Member States will have to decide on the magnitudes of bonus payments and the method of refinancing. In this context it is crucially important that the territoriality principle will be fully applied with the rail track charging system, which means that retrofitted rail cars get a lower tariff regardless of which country they have been licensed in and where the owner/operator is located. The vehicle -related funding scheme should be a limited programme for some years (e.g., 10 years) and should focus on retrofitting existing vehicles. Existing low -noise vehicles can also be included if the cost of the noise -reduction measure can be verified (former 38 Note that the mark-ups for noise, as suggested by the Commission, are rather low for HGVs on motorways and freeways and the Member States are not obliged to implement them. 106 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution retrofitting without funding of the measure, price differences between normal and low noise vehicle of the same type). Funding and regulation schemes should be harmonised in the EU to minimise distortions of competition as many freight transport companies are operating internationally, carrying a high share of freight rail cars cross -border. "Noise leakages" should be avoided, which could occur if noisy freight cars, registered in a "low noise cost" country, are operating in "high noise cost" countries. Therefore a common regulation scheme is necessary, accompanied by a widely harmonised system of pricing and funding. Variations from this general rule could only be accepted to the positive side, i.e., to motivate top runners to start early with appropriate actions. In this context, the trade-off between low noise policy and competition policy could be more balanced in favour of low noise in the medium -term. The reason is that rail freight as a whole may lose market share in the medium term if the noise problems cannot be solved appropriately, and the resistance of the affected population might impede full capacity utilisation and the removal of capacity bottlenecks. 6.2. Recommendations for parliamentarian activities To support and accelerate the introduction of noise reduction measures, the European Parliament could - in the second reading of the Recast of First Railway Package - only accept the Recast if the following issues are fulfilled: • Including an obligation for a harmonisation of charging of railway noise in all Member States within a reasonable short time period. • Integrate the dependence of the introduction of Noise Depending Track Access Charges (NDTAC) from the same introduction in road transport. • Including an obligation to create "Noise Depending Track Access Charges (NDTAC)" for the introduction and use of noise reducing measures in each Member State according to the levels in TSI Noise (COMM. DEC. 2011/229/EU). o The NDTAC could include funding / covering of higher operational costs if the noise reduction measure causes extra costs. o The NDTAC could also include a significant special bonus for trains which are completely equipped with noise reduction measures (in addition to funding of individual equipment of single rolling stock units). • Including an obligation for the infrastructure managers to maintain the infrastructure in a way to avoid noise caused by poor infrastructure conditions (rail roughness). Additional to this, the European Parliament could request the European Commission: • Creates an European Funding Scheme for vehicle -related noise -reduction measures, and to motivate Member States to introduce noise -reduction funding for internationally operating rolling stock. • Modifies the latest TSI Noise, introduced with Commission Decision (2011/229/EC) of 4 April 2011, so that the maximum noise levels are also obligatory for existing rolling stock about 10-12 years after introduction of the modification of TSI Noise. 107 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies • Lowers the maximum noise levels introduced by TSI Noise in a staged process for the long-term future, with adjusted obligations for new and existing rolling stock (top runner scheme). To harmonise the competitiveness between rail and road sectors, the European Parliament could request the European Commission: • Prepares a Directive for a network -wide regulation and charging of lorry noise, at least for the TEN -T roads (comprehensive network) - eventually embedded in a concept of full internalisation of external costs under explicit consideration of noise - reduction targets, extending the optional noise -related motorway charging as in Directive 2011/76/EU. To lower noise at hot spots which cannot be solved by the introduction of vehicle -related measures, the European Parliament could: • Observe the introduction and fulfilment of noise action plans concerning hot spots in rail and road sectors. • Include noise -reduction measures at noise hot spots of the TEN -T (comprehensive network including existing links and nodes) into the EU funding facilities (in particular the Connecting Europe Facility). 108 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution REFEREN CES • 16. BImSchV 2006, Sixteenth regulation implementing the Federal Pollution Control Act (Traffic Noise Ordinance - 16 BImSchV);Germany (Original language: Sechzehnte Verordnung zur Durchfuhrung des Bundes-Immissionsschutzgesetzes (Verkehrslarmschutzverordnung - 16. BImSchV); Deutschland) (http://www.gesetze- im-internet.de/bimschv 16/BJNR010360990.html last visit January 3rd 2012). • AEA et al. 2004, AEA Technology team, UIC, UIP, UIRR CER and UNIFE; Status and options for the reduction of noise emission from the existing European rail freight wagon fleet; January 10th 2004. • ALPNAP 2007-1, Heimann D., de Franceschi M., Emeis S., Lercher P., Seibert P. (Eds.), 2007: Living near the transit route - air pollution, noise and health in the Alps. ALPNAP brochure. University degli Studi di Trento, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Ambientale, Trento, Italy, 20 pp. • ALPNAP 2007-2, Heimann D., de Franceschi M., Emeis S., Lercher P., Seibert P. (Eds.), 2007: Air Pollution, Traffic Noise and Related Health Effects in the Alpine Space - A Guide for Authorities and Consulters; ALPNAP comprehensive report; University degli Studi di Trento, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Ambientale, Trento, Italy, 335 pp. • Blidberg_2011,Karin Blidberg, Railway noise issues in Sweden, Presentation held on 7th Annual Workshop on Railway Noise, Paris November 8-9, 2011. • Blumensaadt_2011, lens Erik Blumensaadt Jensen, Current noise mitigation, Railway noise issues in Denmark, Presentation held on 7th Annual Workshop on Railway Noise, Paris November 8-9, 2011. • BS 8233:1999, British Standard: Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings; fl Code of practice; ISBN 0 580 33009; published under the authority of the Standards Committee and comes into effect on 15 August 1999. • Bukovnik 2010, Monika Bukovnik (psiA Consult GmbH): Ausgewahlte Kapitel zur Eisenbahnlarmbekampfung (selected aspects concerning rail noise abatement), Presentation at University of Natural Ressources and Life Sciences; Vienna 2010 (http://www.rali.boku.ac.at/fileadmin/ /H85/H856/ temp /Bahn2 WS10.pdf (last visit July 14th 2011)). • Bundes-LarmV 2006, Regulation of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, Environment and Water Management on the methods and technical specifications for the collection of ambient noise (the Federal Environmental Noise Regulations - Federal LarmV) Federal Law Gazette II No. 144/2006; April 5th 2006; Austria (Original language: Verordnung des Bundesministers fur Land- and Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt and Wasserwirtschaft Ober die Methoden and tech-nischen Spezifikationen fur die Erhebung des Umgebungslarms (Bundes-Umgebungslarmschutzverordnung - Bundes-LarmV) StF: BGBI. II Nr. 144/2006; 5. April 2006;Osterreich). • BVU INTRAPLAN 2008, BVU consultant for Transport + Umwelt GmbH Intraplan Consult GmbH Dr. Kristina Birn Dipl.-Ing. Hans -Ulrich Mann: Forecast of transport demand and the numbers of trains on the Upper Rhine route 2025, on behalf of the Government 109 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Council of Freiburg; January 2008 (Original language: BVU Beratergruppe Verkehr + Umwelt GmbH Intraplan Consult GmbH Dr. Kristina Birn Dipl.-Ing. Hans -Ulrich Mann: Prognose der Verkehrsnachfrage and der Zugzahlen auf der Oberrhein-strecke 2025; im Auftrag des Regierungsprasidiums Freiburg; Januar 2008). • CE Delft 2011, Arno Schroten; Huib van Essen: External Cost Calculator - Methodology report Delft; CE Delft, September 2011. • CE Delft et al. 2011, Huib van Essen, Arno Schroten, Matthijs Otten (CE Delft), Daniel Suter, Christoph Schreyer, R Arno Schroten; Remo Zandonella, Markus Mainach (INFRAS), Claus Doll (Fraunhofer-ISI): External Costs of Transport in Europe - Study to the International Union of Railways (UIC); Delft, October 2011. • CER UIC 2007, CER and UIC: A 2007 report on the state of the art - Noise Reduction in Rail Freight; Authors: Jakob Oertli, SBB (jakob.oertli@sbb.ch), Peter Hubner, UIC (peter.huebner@bluewin.ch); Version: March, 2008. • Com(2010) 475, Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a single European railway area (Recast), introduced by the European Commission on September 17th 2010) (COM(2010) 475). • Com 2002/735/C, COMMISSION DECISION of 30 May 2002 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the rolling stock subsystem of the trans - European high-speed rail system referred to in Article 6(1) of Directive 96/48/EC (notified under document number C(2002) 1952) (2002/735/EC). • DB 2010, German railway: Position Paper, - Efficient noise protection - retrofitting of freight wagons conveying; German Railways - Transport Policy; Berlin, September 2010 (Original language: Deutsche Bahn: Positionspapier - Effizienter Larmschutz - Umrustung von Guterwagen Fordern; Deutsche Bahn AG - Verkehrspolitik; Berlin, September 2010). • DEFRA 2010, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Noise action plans: web -site where all noise action plans of the UK status March 15th, 2010 are provided; see http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/noise/environmental-noise/action- plans/ (last visit January 3rd 2012). • Dir. 96/48/EC, Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans -European high-speed rail system. • Dir. 2001/14/EC, Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification. • Dir. 2002/49/EC, Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise. • Dir. 2008/57/EC, Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community. • Dir. 2011/76/EU, Directive 2011/76/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011, amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, as published OJEU L 269 on 14.10.11. 110 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution • DEFRA 2010, Noise Action Plan Major Railways (outside first round agglomerations). Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006, as amended. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Crown Copyright, 16th March 2010, London. • Dublin City 2008, Dublin Agglomeration Action Plan Relating to the Assessment & Management of Environmental Noise. Doublin City Baile Atha Cliath, Doublin. • Dorsch 2009, Dr. Stefan Dorsch: State of the Art - UIC-Project, Technology of Composite Brake Blocks; Paris, 10.11.2009; presentation in Paris November, 10th 2009. • EC 2003, Working Group Railway Noise of the European Commission: Position Paper on the European strategies and priorities for railway noise abatement Luxemburg, Publications Office, 2003. • EC 2011, REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the directive on environmental noise in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 2002/49/EC from June, 1st 2011. • EEA 2/2010, European Environment Agency: EEA report No. 2/2010: Towards a resource -efficient transport system; Copenhagen, 2010; Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Union, 2010. • EEA 11/2010, European Environment Agency: EEA Technical report No 11/2010: Good practice guide on noise exposure and potential health effects; Copenhagen, 2010; Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Union, 2010. • EEA 7/2011, European Environment Agency: EEA Report 7/2011: Laying the foundations for greener transport, TERM 2011: transport indicators tracking progress towards environmental targets in Europe. • EIONET 2011, EEA Reporting Obligations Database (ROD). European Environment Agency (EEA), Copenhagen (URL: rod.eionet.europa.eu). • ELPA, ELPA: Rail Noise and Wear - Out Reduction Technology; http://www.railway- technology.com/contractors/noise/elpa/; last visit: January, 3rd 2012. • EP 2011, European Parliament legislative resolution of 16 November 2011 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a single European railway area (recast) (COM(2010)0475 - C7-0268/2010 - 2010/0253(COD)) see http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011- 0503&language=EN (last visit: January 5th 2011). • ETC 2010, European Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information: Population exposure to noise from different sources in Europe; File "END DF4_Results_101005_ETCLUSI_inclBG&SW.xls" to download via "http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet- circle/etcte/library?1=/2009 subvention/113noise/data&vm=detailed&sb=Title"; last visit January, 3rd 2012. 111 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies • EUROSABOT 2011, Web -site of the EUROSABOT-Project: http://ec.europa.eu/research/growth/gcc/projects/in-action-rail.html; last visit January, 3rd 2012. • EuroTrain, Web -site of the EuroTrain-Project: http://europetrain.uic.org/; last visit: January, 3rd 2012 • Freiburg 2009, City of Freiburg: Noise action plan according to 47d of Federal Pollution Control Act; Freiburg, December 2009) (Original Language: Stadt Freiburg i. Br.: Larmaktionsplan gemaf3 § 47d Bundes-Immissionsschutzgesetz; Freiburg, Dezember 2009. • Gilliam 2008, Dietmar Gilliam, AAE Ahaus-Alstatter railway: Practice experiences with K -Blocks- presentation on VAP Autumn Meeting November 2008 (Original language: Dietmar Gilliam, AAE Ahaus-Alstatter Eisenbahn: „Praktische Erfahrungen mit K-Sohlen" - Presentation auf der VAP-Herbsttagung November 2008). • Hemsworth 2006, Brian Hemsworth: Noise Reduction at Source - EU Funded Projects; presentation held on conference RailNoise 2006; Pisa, 9-10 November 2006. • Hemsworth 2008, Hemsworth, Brian (2008): Environmental Noise Directive, Development of Action Plans for Railways, UIC April 2008. • • Hiensch et. al 2007, Martin Hiensch, Babette Dirks, Jaap Horst and Jakko van der Stelt; Rail head optimisation to reach a sustainable solution preventing Railway Squeal Noise - presentation at INTER -NOISE 2007; Istanbul, Turkey, 28-31 AUGUST 2007. ISO 1996-2:1987, International Norm: Acoustics - Description and measurement of environmental noise - Part 2: Acquisition of data pertinent to land use. • Justice and Environment 2009a, Make some Noise. Shadow Report on the Implementation of the Environmental Noise in Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia. Justice and Environment, European Network of Environmental Law Organisations. LIFE+ programme of the European Commission. Dvorakova, 2009. • Justice and Environment 2009b, Make some Noise. Shadow Report on the Implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive - Estonia. Justice and Environment, European Network of Environmental Law Organisations. LIFE+ programme of the European Commission. Dvorakova, 2009. • KCW et al. 2009, KWC, Steer Davies Gleave, TU Berlin (2009): Analyses of preconditions for the implementation and harmonisation of noise -differentiated track access charges - final report; submitted to European Commission, TREN/E2/287-2008. • KCW 2011, KCW GmbH: Study on measuring transaction costs of various incentive schemes for the retrofitting of the existing fleet of freight cars -composite brake blocks; Berlin, 2011 (Original language: KCW GmbH:, Studie zur Ermittlung von Transaktionskosten verschiedener Anreizmodelle fur die Umrustung der Guterwagen- Bestandsflotte auf Verbundstoff-Bremssohlen; Berlin, 2011). • King et al. 2009, Implementation of the EU Environmental Noise Directive: Lessons from the first phase of strategic noise mapping and action planning in Ireland. E. A. King, E. Murphy, H.J. Rice, Trinity College Dublin and University College Dublin. 112 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution • Kummer et al. 2006, Sebastian Kummer, Philipp Nagl, Jan -Philipp Schlaak: The efficiency of rail infrastructure construction projects on the example of the Brenner base tunnel; Vienna University of Economics and Business, Institute for Supply chain Management 2006 (Original language: Sebastian Kummer, Philipp Nagl, Jan -Philipp Schlaak, Zur Effizienz von Schieneninfrastrukturbau-Vorhaben am Beispiel des Brenner- Basistunnels - Forschungsbericht 1/2006; Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien. Institut fur Transportwirtschaft and Logistik 2006). • Lercher et al. 2007, Heimann D., de Franceschi M., Emeis S., Lercher P., Seibert P. (Eds.), 2007: Living near the transit route —air pollution, noise and health in the Alps. - ALPNAP brochure; University degli Studi di Trento, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Ambientale, Trento, Italy, 20 ppt. • Licitra 2006, Gaetano Licitra; Railway noise mitigation at source: an overview of possible solutions; presentation held on conference RailNoise 2006; Pisa, 9-10 November 2006. • Madshus and Kaynia 2000, C. Madshus, M. Kaynia: High-speed railway lines on soft ground: dynamic behaviour at critical train speed; Journal of Sound and Vibration (2000) 231(3), 689}701. • Mather 2006, Dr. Matthias Mather, Rail Environmental Center, Noise sources in transport and their significance: Rail transport, Cologne May, 16th 2006 (http://www.fv-leiserverkehr.de/pdf-dokumenten/Seminar Verkehrslaerm/5-Mather. pdf (last visit: January 3rd 2012) (Original language: Dr. Matthias Mather, Bahn Umwelt Zentrum, „Gerauschquellen im Verkehr and ihre Bedeutung: Schienenverkehr" KoIn 16. Mai 2006). • Muller et al. 2003, Bernhard Muller, Erwin Jansen, Fred de Beer (2003): UIC curve squeal project wp 3 - Tool Box of existing measures (http://www.uic.org/IMG/pdf/annex 1.3.r df; last visit: January 3rd 2012). • NOISE 2011, Noise Observation and Information Service for Europe - NOISE; Web -site where Noise maps according to Directive 2002/49/EC are provided; http://noise.eionet.europa.eu/index.html (last visit January, 3rd 2012). • OBB - BMVIT 2008, Environmental Noise Action Plan, Austria, 2008, Part B11 - railroad tracks in the jurisdiction of the Federal Minister for Transport, Innovation and Technology (Original language: Umgebungslarm-Aktionsplan Osterreich 2008, Teil B11 - Schienenstrecken, im Zustandigkeitsbereich der Bundesministerin fur Verkehr, Innovation and Technologie). • Offenburg 2009, City of Offenburg: Noise reduction planning - Noise action plan 2009; Offenburg 2009 (Original language: Stadt Offenburg: Larmminderungsplanung - Larmaktionsplan 2009, Offenburg 2009). • Pokolainen 2011, Erkki Poikolainen, Noise Mapping - Low height barrier - Finnish experiences; Presentation held on 7th Annual Workshop on Railway Noise, Paris November 8-9, 2011. • PPG 24 2006, Department for Communities and Local Government: Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise; Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU, 5th May 2006. 113 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies • PWC 2007, PWC: Impact assessment study on rail noise abatement measures addressing the existing fleets - Final Report prepared on behalf of the European Commission Directorate General Energy and Transport; Reference Tren/A1/46-2005; December 10, 2007. • Q -City 2009, Project Quiet City Transport (Q -City) DELIVERABLE D5.3; Brussels - Quiet tram vehicles on quiet tracks Performance report of applied squeal measures; Brussels, December 2009. • Rapacz 2011, Piotr Rapacz, EU Rail Noise Policy - perspective of DG MOVE, Presentation held on 7th Annual Workshop on Railway Noise, Paris November 8-9, 2011. • ReMR 1996, Ministry Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment: Calculation and Measurement Regulations Rail Traffic '96; November 27, 2001 (http://www.stillerverkeer.nl/rmv/RMVR/RMVR96.pdf; last visit January, 3rd 2012) (Original language: Ministerie Volkshuisvesting Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer: Reken-en Meetvoorschrift Railverkeerslawaai '96; 27 november 2001). • Saabel 2011, Irmhild Saabel, WASCOSA AG: Liberalisation, Noise and Safety- how much costs are caused by ECM, TSI Noise and Viareggio; Presentation on Forum Guterwagen May, 19th 2011 (Original language: Irmhild Saabel, WASCOSA AG: Liberalisierung, Larm and Sicherheit - was kosten ECM, TSI Noise and Viareggio; Presentation auf dem Forum Guterwagen; 19. Mai 2011). • SBB 2011, Swiss Federal railway: Brochure Silence please, (http://www.sbb.ch/content/sbb/de/desktop/sbb-konzern/die-sbb-bewegt-die- schweiz/der-umwelt verpflichtet/laerm/ jcr content/relatedPar/contextmenu 1/downloadList/download 1.s pooler.download.pdf; last visit:January, 3rd 2012) Original language: Schweizer Bundesbahn: - Broschare Ruhe bittel. • SBB Larmschutz, www.laerm-sbb.ch/ ; web -site from Swiss Federal Railway (SBB) containing public information about content and current status of noise protection program and about funding possibilities for noise reduction measures for private persons. • Schreckenberg et al. 2011, Dirk Schreckenberg, Wolfgang Eberle, Gunther Moller: Survey of sleep due to harassment and rail traffic noise in the Middle Rhine Valley and Rheingau / Rheinhessen; Noise abatement Bd. 6 /2011) No. 3; Mai 2011Original language: Dirk Schreckenberg, Wolfgang Eberle, Gunther Moller: Befragung zur Belastigung and zu Schlafstorungen durch Schienenverkehrslarm inn Mittelrheintal and Rheingau/Rheinhessen, Larmbekampfung Bd. 6 (2011) Nr. 3; Mai 2011. • Sierra 2011, Marta Ruiz Sierra, Noise Control Measures in Spanish Planning and Management, Presentation held on 7th Annual Workshop on Railway Noise, Paris November 8-9, 2011. • SUEKI et al. 2009, Takeshi Sueki, Mitsuru Ikeda, Takehisa Takaishi: Aerodynamik Noise Reduction using porous Material and their Application to High-speed Pantopraphs; QR of RTRI, Vol 50, No. 1, February 2009. • Talotte 2000, C. Talotte (SNCF): "Aerodynamic noise: A critical survey"; Journal of Sound and Vibration (2000) 231(3). 114 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution • Talotte et al. 2003, C. Talotte, P. -E. Gautier, D.J. Thompson, C. Hanson: Identification, modelling and reduction potential of railway noise sources: a critical survey; Journal of Sound and Vibration 267 (2003) 447-468. • Thameslink 2004 Temple Environmental Consultants Ltd: Noise and Vibration Specialist Report; prepared for Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd, June 2004. [Thameslink 2005 Inquiry: CD219]. • Thameslink 2005, Temple Environmental Consultants Ltd: Blackfriars Noise Assessment Report; prepared for Network Rail [Thameslink 2005 Inquiry: CD220]. • Thompson 2008-1, David Thompson: Noise control through rail grinding; Presentation at IPG-Rail Final Seminar; Doorn, The Netherlands, December 2008. • Thompson 2008-2, David Thompson: Rail dampers; Presentation at IPG-Rail Final Seminar; Doorn, The Netherlands, December 2008. • Thompson and Gautier 2006, D 3 Thompson (University of Southampton) and P -E Gautier (SNCF): Review of research into wheel/rail rolling noise reduction; JRRT79 IMechE 2006JRRT79 IMechE 2006. • Transalpine, www.transalpine.com; Web -side of the committee transalpine for planning the railway corridor between Turin and Lyon (last visit February 15th 2012). • TSI Noise 2006, COMMISSION DECISION of 23 December 2005 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the subsystem 'rolling stock — noise' of the trans -European conventional rail system (notified under document number C(2005) 5666). • TSI Noise 2011, COMM. DEC. (2011/229/EC) of 4 April 2011 concerning the technical specifications of interoperability relating to the subsystem 'rolling stock - noise' of the trans -European conventional rail system. • UIRR 2010, International Union of combined; Road -Rail transport companies: UIRR Annual Report 2010; Rue Montoyer 31/box 11, B-1000 Brussels, Brussels 2010. • UIC et al. 2007, UIC, CER, UIRR, ERFA, EIM and UIP: Position paper on CONSULTATION DOCUMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S SERVICES - Rail noise abatement measures addressing the existing fleet; July, 27th 2007. • [UIC 2008], Brian Hemsworth - Noise Consultant LLP: Environmental Noise Directive Development of Action Plans for Railways; prepared for International Union of Railways (UIC). • • UIC 2010, International Union of Railways (UIC): Railway Noise in Europe - A 2010 report on the state of the art; ISBN: 978 2 7461 1880 5; Paris, September 2010. UIC 2011, Oertli, Jakob (2011): Railway Freight Noise Reduction, 6th annual workshop: bringing things together, in UIC Focus, No 6 April 2011. • van den Dool 2007, ir. Ph.(Philip) H. van den Dool: Rail Dampers, rail infrastructure gets quiet; presentation at INTER -NOISE Istanbul, Turkey, AUGUST, 31st 2007. 115 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies • VBUSch 2006, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety and Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development Preliminary calculation method for the environmental noise at railways) - VBUSch; published May, 10th 2006 (Original language: Bundesministerium fur Umwelt, Naturschutz and Reaktorsicherheit and Bundesminsterium fur Verkehr, Bau and Stadtentwicklung; "Vorlaufige Berechnungsmethode fur den Umgebungslarm an Schienenwegen; Veroffentlich im Bundesanzeiger 22. Mai 2006). • VDV 2011, Association of German Transport Companies: Rail Noise: provide incentives for retrofitting of freight wagons; Press Release Berlin, May 20, 2011, (Original language: Verband Deutscher Verkehrsunternehmen: „Schienenlarm: Anreize zur Umrustung von Guterwagen setzen"; Presseinformation Berlin, 20.Mai 2011). • VDV VPI 2011, Verband Deutscher Verkehrsunternehmen and Vereinigung der Privatguterwageninteressierten: Larmabhangiges Trassenpreissystem des Bundes ist ungerecht; Pressemitteilung Nummer 15, Koln, 05.07.2011 Association of German Transport Companies and Association of private freight waggon owners: Noise - dependent pricing system is unfair press release No. 15, Cologne, 05.07.2011. • Wang et al. 2000, A. Wang, S. J. Cox, D. Gosling, J. E. W. Prudhoe: Railway bridge noise control with resilient baseplates; Journal of Sound and Vibration (2000) 231(3), 907}911. • WHO 2009, World Health Organization: Night noise guidelines for Europe; WHO Regional Office for Europe Scherfigsvej 8, DK-2100 Copenhagen 0, Denmark ; ISBN 978 92 890 4173 7; http://www.euro.who.int/ data/assets/pdf file/0017/43316/E92845.pdf, last visit January, 3rd 2012). • WHO JRC 2011, WHO European Centre for Environment and Health, Bonn Office, WHO Regional Office: Burden of disease from environmental noise Quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe; ISBN: 978 92 890 0229 5; http://www.euro.who.int/ data/assets/pdf file/0008/136466/e94888.pdf, last visit: January 3rd 2012. • ZEUS Mohler 2005, ZEUS GmbH and Mohler+Partner; Daytime -related harassment by road and rail traffic noise - method and empirical results; www.verkehrslaermwirkung.de/05UFS2206.pdf (last visit January, 3rd 2012 (Original language: ZEUS GmbH and Mohler+Partner: Tageszeitsbezogene Belastigung durch Stralen- and Schienenverkehrslarm - Methode and empirische Ergebnisse). • ZEUS Mohler 2010, ZEUS GmbH, Centre for Applied Psychology, Environmental and Social Research - Hagen ; Mohler + Partner, consulting engineers for sound insulation and building physics - Munich: Noise bonus for railways?; study on behalf of Federal Environment Agency; published as Texts 23/2010, ISSN 1862-4804, Postfach 14 06, 06813 Dessau Original language: ZEUS GmbH, Zentrum fur angewandte Psychologie, Umwelt- and Sozialforschung - Hagen; Mohler + Partner, Beratende Ingenieure fur Schallschutz and Bauphysik - Munchen: Larmbonus bei der Bahn?, Ist die Besserstellung der Bahn imVergleich zu anderen Verkehrstragern noch gerechtfertigt?, Studie im Auftrag des Umweltbundesamtes; erschienen als Texte 23/2010; ISSN 1862- 4804; Herausgeber: Umweltbundesamt, Postfach 14 06, 06813 Dessau-Roi3lau. 116 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ANNEX I: ENVI RONMENTAL NOI SE EMI SSI ONS I N MEMBER STATES AND AGGLOMERATI ONS Rail noise outside agglomerations Nr of people exposed to different bands (Lden) [dB(A)] 55-59 60-64 65-69 noise 70-74 >75 Nr of people exposed to different noise bands (Lnight) [dB(A)] 50-55 55-59 60-64 65-69 >70 Country km Austria 217,300 121,700 j 47,900 16,900 , 7,500 194,200 98,900 36,700 , 13,300 5,600 Belgium 33,300 19,700 16,100 13,400 300 3,900 25,700 17,200 15,000 7,500 1,800 Czech Republic 270 13,300 2,600 1,100 0 6,700 2,000 800 200 0 Denmark 1,776 20,200 _ 5,500 1,900 1,200 100 12,100 3,300 1,600 800 0 Finland 15,100 5,900 2,300 200 0 8,800 4,000 800 0 0 France Germany 1,435 624,200 420,000 250,300 139,500 105,200 519,600 348,400 207,100 112,900 70,000 17,282 1,588,700 693,400 218,200 87,900 58,000 1,392,500 547,600 175,700 73,100 44,800 Hungary 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ireland 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Italy 591 89,900 61,900 37,300 33,000 24,800 87,000 67,300 35,600 31,300 25,400 Luxembourg 20 100 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 Norway 4,500 2,600 2,000 700 900 3,600 2,100 1,300 500 600 Poland 16 900 200 100 0 0 700 r 100 100 0 0 Portugal 115 21,200 11,600 8,000 7,200 4,400 14,900 9,400 7,500 5,500 1,100 Romania 3,900 1,000 0 0 0 5,500 3,400 700 0 0 Slovenia 68 5,600 2,600 1,100 400 300 4,700 2,400 1,000 400 300 Spain 742 45,700 23,500 11,000 1,600 0 34,900 19,300 6,000 500 0 Sweden 58,100 33,800 12,300 4,800 1,700 43,900 21,200 7,700 2,500 1,200 Switzerland 39,500 23,600 12,500 8,800 3,800 2,100 30,400 56,400 16,700 10,700 6,100 2,400 100 United Kingdom 80,800 50,300 32,500 14,100 36,400 18,500 3,800 Total general 2,862,300 1,480,000 654,600 330,000 212,700 2,441,700 1,199,700 526,800 258,400 153,300 Total EU 27 2,818,300 1,453,800 640,100 320,500 208,000 2,407,700 1,180,900 514,800 251,800 150,300 117 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Rail noise in agglomerations Nr of people exposed bands 55-59 60-64 to different (Lden) 65-69 70-74 noise Nr of people exposed to different noise (Lnight) 50-55 55-59 60-64 65-69 bands Country I nhabi- tants >75 >70 Austria 1,610,578 107,000 81,100 5,800 57,900 500 35,500 9,500 101,900 76,700 6,100 41,900 28,800 0 4,100 Bulgaria 2,084,000 18,400 100 0 16,300 200 0 Czech Republic 1,852,955 74,800 59,500 65,900 14,500 0 63,300 69,800 32,000 400 0 Denmark 1,071,714 19,400 7,400 2,600 1,000 100 12,500 4,900 1,500 600 0 Estonia 401,140 10,600 6,900 3,500 900 0 9,000 5,700 2,500 300 0 Finland 560,905 27,500 25,400 16,700 200 0 27,600 21,500 2,000 0 0 France 13,664,912 1,488,600 208,800 117,700 63,500 43,000 1,426,900 148,200 63,700 34,300 12,800 Germany 17,265,322 478,300 246,700 122,400 31,400 5,700 393,800 194,400 75,800 16,700 3,300 Hungary 2,065,230 132,500 50,600 19,600 7,900 1,200 110,700 40,900 16,400 6,000 700 Ireland 1,150,000 10,600 6,800 2,800 500 0 7,700 3,500 1,400 100 0 Italy 4,190,684 34,000 30,900 24,800 6,400 1,400 34,500 37,800 19,500 4,600 2,100 Latvia 806,993 28,400 20,100 6,300 800 100 25,500 9,400 4,700 400 0 Lithuania 932,847 9,100 5,000 1,100 300 0 8,600 2,800 800 200 0 Netherlands 5,026,059 118,600 60,700 25,000 8,800 1,000 94,100 40,800 12,700 4,100 1,200 Norway 822,800 19,200 15,500 16,000 4,900 0 18,300 18,100 7,900 600 0 Poland 7,446,365 323,600 197,900 98,100 38,500 6,900 191,800 108,100 37,300 700 100 Romania 4,079,364 135,700 90,700 15,700 1,300 100 184,200 111,700 44,600 4,800 200 Slovakia 528,129 95,100. 67,600 38,500 16,600 3,700 92,300 54,200 32,900 8,700 2,600 Slovenia 266,251 6,700 3,500 900 1,300 13,400 0 0 5,800 2,300 500 200 0 Spain 8,116,104 16,300 7,200 500 0 9,700 2,900 1,000 200 0 Sweden 1,548,886 84,900 37,800 5,400 1,500 56,300 22,100 7,100 2,800 300 Switzerland 5,300,000 182,700 126,600 98,500 62,300 25,900 156,100 107,7001 85,000 41,600 16,900 United Kingdom 25,613,309 395,500 291,400 157,9001 46,800 6,000 321,000 193,700 69,600 14,000 2,200 Total general 106,404,547 3,817,500 1,653,900 1 907,100 348,100 106,100 3,367,900 1,283,300 561,000 170,100 46,500 Total EU 27 105,581,747 3,615,600 1,511,800 792,600 280,900 80,200 3,193,500 1,157,500 468,100 127,900 29,600 Source: ETC 2010. 118 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ANNEX I I : MAXI MUM NOI SE LEVELS OF ROLLI NG STOCK ACCORD! NG TO TSI NOI SE Table 1: Limiting values LpAeq,Tp for the pass -by noise of freight wagons Wagons New wagons with an average number of axles per unit length (apl) up to 0,15 m-1 at 80 km/h LpAeq, Tp in dB 82 Renewed or upgraded wagons according Article 20 of Directive 2008/57/EC with an average number of axles per unit length (apl) up to 0,15 m-1 at 80 km/h New wagons with an average number of axles per unit length (apl) higher than 0,15 m-1 up to 0,275 m-1 at 80 km/h Renewed or upgraded wagons according Article 20 of Directive 2008/57/EC with an average number of axles per unit length (apl) higher than 0,15 m-1 up to 0,275 m-1 at 80 km/h New wagons with an average number of axles per unit length (apl) higher than 0,275 m-1 at 80 km/h Renewed or upgraded wagons according Article 20 of Directive 2008/57/EC with an average number of axles per unit length (apl) higher than 0,275 m-1 at 80 km/h 84 83 85 85 87 Table 2: Limiting value LpAeq,T for the stationary noise of freight wagons Wagons LpAeq, Tp in dB All freight wagons 65 Table 3: Limiting values LpAeq,T for the stationary noise of electric locomotives, diesel locomotives, OTMs, EMUs, DMUs and coaches Wagons LpAeq, Tp in dB Electric locomotives and OTMs with electric traction Diesel locomotives and OTMs with diesel traction EMUs DMUs Coaches 75 75 68 73 65 119 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Table 4: Limiting values LpAFmax for the starting noise of electric locomotives, diesel locomotives, OTMs, EMUs and DMUs Vehicle Electric locomotives P < 4 500 kW at the rail wheel LpAFinax in dB 82 Electric locomotives P >1= 4 500 kW at the rail wheel and OTMs with electric traction Diesel locomotives P < 2 000 kW at the engine output shaft Diesel locomotives P >/= 2 000 kW at the engine output shaft and OTMs with diesel traction EMUs DMUs P < 500 kW/engine DMUs P >1= 500 kW/engine 85 86 89 82 83 85 Table 5: Limiting values LpAeq,Tp for the pass -by noise of electric and diesel locomotives, OTMs, EMUs, DMUs and coaches Vehicle Electric locomotives and OTMs with electric traction LpAeq, Tp in dB 85 Diesel locomotives and OTMs with diesel traction EMUs DMUs Coaches 85 81 82 80 120 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ANNEX I I I : COMPARI SON OF COVERAGE OF BOGI ES FROM DI FFERENT MODERN ROLLI NG STOCK EQUI PM EN T Well covered bogies by engine body of Swiss Engine type RE 460 (Lok 2000) Open bogie of modern Bombardier Engine Traxx (example German type 186) 121 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Well covered bogies of Swiss passenger wagon IC2000 Open bogie of modern German double deck wagons 122 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ANNEX IV: MPORTANT AND ANALYSED REGULATI ONS EU Political Papers and Directives Political Papers White Paper 2001 White Paper 2011 Directives Relevant Contents with Respect to Railway Regulation and Railway Noise EU transport policy for 2010. Shifting the balance between the modes of transport. Revitalising the railways. Towards multi - modal corridors giving priority to freight. A true internal market for railway services. Standards for controlling noise pollution. Among the ten goals for achieving a competitive and sustainable transport system: Shift 30 (50)% of road freight over 300 km to rail and IWW by 2030 (2050). Directives 1991/440 Directives 2001/12-14 Railway Packages 2001, 2002, 2004 Recast of the First Railway Package 2010 Status: Under discussion. Framework and legal requirements for a competitive railway system. Commercial organization of companies. Separation of infrastructure management and service undertakings. Open access to the railway network. Liberalized cross -border transport. Comprehensive railway regulation framework, e.g.: Clear separation of public and commercial issues. Freeing companies from old debt. Separate bookkeeping and balance sheets for infrastructure management and service provision. Capacity provision and pricing for infrastructure provision. Specification of open access, essential facilities. Specification of regulatory requirements. Establishment of national and EU regulatory bodies (European Railway Agency). Rail track charging principles (marginal cost plus mark-ups). Market opening for freight (2007) and passenger long-distance (2010) transport. Regulation of passenger rights and freight transport quality. EU train driver license. Comprehensive specifications for establishing a single European railway area. General objectives: Establish an internal railway market with high degree of competitiveness and harmonious, balanced and sustainable development of economic activities. Revitalization of railways, modal shift. Horizontal objectives: Legal simplification, clarification and modernization to facilitate implementation. Specific objectives: Ensuring sustainable funding of the infrastructure. Avoiding distortions of competition. Providing effective and independent regulation. Applied principles of rail track charging under consideration of external effects (e.g. noise). 12 appendices with detailed specifications for application 123 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Related COM Decision COM 2006/66 (TSI Noise) Related Directives Directive 2002/49 Report from the Commission to the EU Parliament and to the Council on the Implementation of Directive 2002/49 Directive 2006/38 revised Technical Specifications for Interoperability related to the subsystem 'rolling stock -noise'. Functional and technical specification of the sub -system. Limits for pass -by and stationary noise. Limits for locomotives, multiple units and coaches. Measurement, assessment, application to new and existing rolling stock. Assessment and management of environmental noise. Noise indicators, noise measurement and assessment. Obligation to publish noise maps. Obligation to develop noise action plans. Obligation for reviews and regular reporting. 6 Annexes with detailed specifications. First implementation report based on the implementation deadlines 2005 - 2012. Noise indicators and limit values widely transposed. Significant achievements with harmonized measurement and statistical reporting/noise mapping. Difficulties still existing with health -based noise assessment and heterogeneous situation with country -based action plans. Charging heavy goods vehicles on motor- and freeways for infrastructure use. Basis: Allocated infrastructure costs plus mark-ups for noise and air pollution. This was the pre- condition set in Dir. 2001/14 for including noise costs in the rail track charging scheme. 124 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT W n w N 111 T z DIRECTORATE -GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT 12 STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES 16. Role The Policy Departments are research units that provide specialised advice to committees, inter -parliamentary delegations and other parliamentary bodies. Policy Areas • Agriculture and Rural Development Culture and Education • Fisheries ■ Regional Development • Transport and Tourism Documents Visit the European Parliament website: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies PHOTO CREDIT: iStock International Inc., Photodisk, Phovoir ISBN 978-92-823-3693-9 doi:10.2861 /66417 Publications Office From: Florence LaRiviere To: Council, Oty Subject: Rail Separation Date: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 9:22:51 FM Dear Council members, We live in South Palo Alto a block from the train. We have lived here since 1950. We favor the trench/tunnel option for Meadow and Charleston railroad crossings. By the way, what is the status of the partial tunnel with single rail at grade for freight? Apparently a crucial step that needs to take place is to get Caltrain to approve the 2% grade (the consultants did their plans based on the 2% grade). We respectfully ask that you and city staff let us know progress on this issue. Also, please work with Caltrain to lower the top of the rail to bridge from 24.5 feet to 18.5 feet and keep us informed about those efforts. Thank you so much for the time and effort already put into this project. Again, our preference is trench/tunnel. The idea of the train on a wall/viaduct is out of the question and would badly degrade the surrounding neighborhoods. Please listen to those most affected by the Caltrain electrification. Let's put equal energy and consideration for the south part of Palo Alto. If all parties are truly heard and valued, we can come up with the least intrusive option that is also the least divisive politically and physically to our city. Respectfully yours, Florence LaRiviere Virginia LaRiviere 453 Tennessee Lane Palo Alto, Ca 94306 From: Jay E. Thorwaldson To: Sharleen Fiddaman Cc: Council, Oty Subject: Re: Cal -Train issue Date: Monday, October 22, 2018 8:21:50 AM Thanks, Sharleen. Sorry about the mental typo of the $150,000 cost of grade separations instead of the $150 million estimate. Have you heard of anyone pushing actively for a new election on high-speed rail based on the later cost projections? Seems that $33 billion is wildly off base, and perhaps only a third of the real cost of the system. -jay From: "Sharleen Fiddaman" <sf@sharleenfiddaman.com> To: "jaythor" <jaythor@well.com> Cc: "city council" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2018 7:23:23 PM Subject: Cal -Train issue Dear Jay Thorwaldson, I've been a Palo Alto resident for 50+ years and have read many of your articles. I think the Oct. 19th one in the Weekly is most important. I'm very concerned about the Cal -Train decision and our resulting quality of life in Palo Alto. When the issue of electrifying Cal -Train was first discussed many years ago, a visual presentation was made to the District Board of Realtors who met at the Senior Center on Friday mornings. This presentation had great impact! It showed drawings of options. One drawing showed the electrified train, elevated 15' over the roadway with the required 15' tower of wires overhead. This was horrifying to see! So ugly, and dividing our fine city. This alone in any scenario, elevated or trenched, would surprise residents who probably assume the electrified train operates like an electric car — just turn a switch, not so. As is said, a picture is worth a thousand words! One drawing showed the electrified train in an underground tunnel with a green park -like field over it. A beautiful solution. Ideal. We need more open useful space. This brings to mind the wonderful modern underground parking garage at Stanford University which has a huge park over it. I've observed students relaxing, reading, playing Frisbee, etc. on the expansive lawn. If they can do it, Palo Alto can do it! I definitely favor the tunnel solution for Cal -Train. Major cities of the world have underground transportation. I know the argument is that it is too expensive. Palo Alto is quite affluent and could make it happen. Where there's a will there's a way! Please see if you can find these drawings and print them in the newspaper, and share them with study groups, city council, all media and neighboring cities. I feel that people are making decision without full information of the implications! I have not seen any renderings. It's a permanent solution our future! We should do it right! Sharleen Fiddaman Old Palo Alto Virus -free. www.avast.com From: Ken Joye To: Council, aty Subject: study session on traffic 22 October Date: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 4:36:37 PM I will not be able to attend the study session on traffic scheduled for 22 October 2018, so write you here instead. I wish to propose that you and staff consider prioritizing cross -rail traffic at the Charleston and Meadow crossings. I believe that this can be done by re -programming the traffic light signals at those two intersections. I concede that I am not a traffic engineer and so my naive idea may have fatal flaws. Nonetheless, I believe it worthy of your consideration. Currently, when a train approaches those intersections, the crossing arms come down and these things happen: all directions are shown a red light except for traffic headed toward Middlefield Rd, following which traffic on Alma is given a green light (first "southbound, then "northbound" after southbound left -turning). From that, the normal cycle ensues. I propose a fundamental change: when the crossing arms descend, give a red light to all directions except for traffic headed toward Middlefield Rd, followed by a red light in all directions until the rail tracks are clear and the crossing arms are lifted. At that point, begin the normal cycle with "westbound" traffic toward El Camino Real, followed by "eastbound" traffic toward Middlefield Rd, then Alma "southbound" and "northbound". That is, don't have every crossing arm trigger a north/south flow on Alma St. The effect of this will be to reduce wait time for Palo Alto residents attempting to cross the rail tracks, favoring that movement over the out-of-town traffic between Mountain View and Palo Alto. Obviously this would be a considerable change and would need to be validated by a proper traffic study. I believe that the time currently between the green light to southbound and the lifting of the crossing arms is approximately 20 seconds. This would not be an overly long time to delay traffic movement and would considerably improve cross rail travel. thank you for your consideration, Ken Joye Ventura neighborhood From: Svetlana Yepanechnikova To: Council, Qty Subject: Trench/Tunnel Option Date: Monday, October 15, 2018 10:55:37 AM October 15, 2018 To: Rail Committee RE: Tunnel/Trench vs. Hybrid and Viaduct Dear City Council and City Staff, As a longtime resident of Palo Alto and the property owner on Park Boulevard, I would like to state that you have my full support on Tunnel/Trench option. As young mother with two kids I do care for safety and decreased/eliminated noise level this option provides. I would like to ask City Council and City Staff to get Caltrain to approve 2% grade. Please publish those efforts as a standing agenda for the CAP and for all the committee/council meetings. As I see it, this is the one most critical factor that will reduce the cost irrespective of the option chosen. Additionally, I would like to ask to get Caltrain to approve 18.5ft top of rail to bridge clearance instead of 24.5ft". Please publish those efforts as a standing agenda for the CAP and for all the committee/council meetings. An update on the Trench/Tunnel Option would be greatly appreciated. AECOM / Rail Committee cannot make unilateral decision to suddenly stop or merge this option with Shallow Trench. These are two different options. The Tunnel for Charleston/Meadow should be analyzed with Caltrain electric for tunnel and freight single rail at grade. CAP/Residents should be provided with detailed analysis on the Trench/Tunnel option. While the Shallow Trench should continue to be explored assuming 2% grade is approved by Caltrain. Since underground is a preferred choice, all options from this category should have detailed analysis. Furthermore, I would like to ask for Raised rail options to be merged to one - Hybrid and Viaduct option. In conclusion, I would like to restate that Tunnel/Trench is my preferred choice and our petition for the LOWERED RAIL has 555 signatures as of today. Respectfully, Svetlana Yepanechnikova From: Yuriy To: Council, Qty Subject: Tunnel/Trench vs. Hybrid and Viaduct Date: Monday, October 15, 2018 12:07:22 PM Dear City Council and City Staff, As a longtime resident of Palo Alto and the property owner on Park Boulevard, I would like to state that you have my full support on Tunnel/Trench option. As young father with two kids I do care for safety and decreased/eliminated noise level this option provides. I would like to ask City Council and City Staff to get Caltrain to approve 2% grade. Please publish those efforts as a standing agenda for the CAP and for all the committee/council meetings. As I see it, this is the one most critical factor that will reduce the cost irrespective of the option chosen. Additionally, I would like to ask to get Caltrain to approve 18.5ft top of rail to bridge clearance instead of 24.5ft". Please publish those efforts as a standing agenda for the CAP and for all the committee/council meetings. An update on the Trench/Tunnel Option would be greatly appreciated. AECOM / Rail Committee cannot make unilateral decision to suddenly stop or merge this option with Shallow Trench. These are two different options. The Tunnel for Charleston/Meadow should be analyzed with Caltrain electric for tunnel and freight single rail at grade. CAP/Residents should be provided with detailed analysis on the Trench/Tunnel option. While the Shallow Trench should continue to be explored assuming 2% grade is approved by Caltrain. Since underground is a preferred choice, all options from this category should have detailed analysis. Furthermore, I would like to ask for Raised rail options to be merged to one - Hybrid and Viaduct option. In conclusion, I would like to restate that Tunnel/Trench is my preferred choice and our petition for the LOWERED RAIL has 555 signatures as of today. Respectfully, Yuriy Yepanechnikov SEPTEMBER 2018 EMAILS TO CITY.COUNCIL ABOUT CONNECTING PALO ALTO GRADE SEPARATION From: Cedric de La Beaujardiere To: Council, aty. De Geus, Robert' Transportation. Gennady Sheyner. de La Beaujardiere, Cedric Subject: Room for a raised rail between Alma and retained Western Track, keep option on the table Date: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 2:14:03 AM Attachments: ViaductBetweenWestTrackAndAlma.Overview.MeadowCharleston.pnq ViaductBetween WestTrackAndA ma. NearVenturaAtGrade.onq VIaductBetweenWestTrackAndAl ma.AtMeadow. pnq ViaductBetweenWestTrackAndA ma.AtCharleston. onq Members of the City Council Rail Committee, I believe there is room to build a raised rail structure between the western track and alma, and I have done a graphical analysis to show this is possible. The benefit of this is that the Western track could be left in place and potentially continue to carry rail traffic while the raised tracks are constructed, thus avoiding the expense and impact of temporary tracks down Alma. In addition, the infrequent freight trains could stay at grade on that Western track, reducing noise propagation and potentially allowing a 2% grade for the raised portions. A further benefit of this alignment is that it pushes the passenger rail line as far away as possible from the houses along Park Blvd. There would be room to put trees between the western track and the houses to shield the structure from view. I would like to point out that it would likely be a financially disastrous mistake to prematurely remove the viaduct options from consideration before they have been fairly evaluated from a cost perspective. The cost of a viaduct structure has never been estimated by the city staff. The closest was a set of preliminary estimates (on page 23 of Types of Grade Seperations and Constraints, Sep 16, 2017) including a hybrid of partially raised rail and partially lowered road, at $180M. Of note in that same estimates chart that: leaving the rail at grade and lowering the road under the rail was 4 times the cost of raising the road over the rail, and similarly, lowering the rail under the road was over 6 times the cost of raising the rail slightly (and the lowering he road a bit). One sees then that trenching anything appears to be 4x to 6x the cost of raising it instead. Further, One can then reasonably assume that the cost of entirely raising the rail is in the same order of magnitude as partially raising the rail, and many times less expensive than trenching the rail. I recognize that the current political pressure is from those who live closest to the rail, and the politically expedient thing to do is to bend to their pressure. However, if you remove raised rail on wall or viaducts from consideration, we'll be left with the options of trenching at an astronomical cost, or closing intersections, with no middle ground. At that point, when it comes time to somehow scrape together $2B, you will be faced with much different political pressure as the rest of the city and taxpayers begin to realize the financial burden you then plan to place upon them and the city. A raised rail option appears to be a middle -ground solution which achieves grade separation and much lower construction and lifetime maintenance cost. Below are some images from my graphical analysis. Here I used the Right of Way (ROW) maps available from the CA HSR web, ite, and standards for horizontal clearance laid out in Peninsula Corridor JPB Standards for Design Structures.pdf which call for 10' clearance from track center lines to the face of a barrier, and 15' clearances between two adjacent tracks. In my calculation of the distance of the structure from the western track, I assumed a 1' thick outer edge on each side of the structure, where a soundwall could be installed. Thus, east of the Western track's Center Line (CL), I leave a 10' space, then a 1' thick structure western edge, then 10' clearance to the first track CL, 15' to the second track, 10' to the inner edge of the structure, and a 1' thick eastern edge. For illustration purposes I created segments of such a structure, each 0.1 mile long (528 feet), and laid these out on a map of the rail ROW. One can see from this illustration that there is room for such a structure without encroaching onto Alma. For my distance calculations of the rail ramping up and down I have a 10 km radius curve to go from horizontal to reach a 1% slope, followed by another l 0km radius curve to reach horizontal, then back down again. If the ground is level the whole time, the ramp length is just under 1900' feet long to go from 0' to a clearance height of 15.5' above the road. Here is an overview of the segment over West Meadow and Charleston: Below is the northern edge of the structure, reaching grade near El Verano Ave and Ventura Ave. The light green lines with tick marks indicate the 10' + 1' + 10' + 15' + 10' + 1' spacings. The light green lines are extending from a thicker black line which indicates the Western track's Center Line on the ROW maps. The pink double -dashed lines represent the ROW boundary. 0 Below is the segment crossing West Meadow. Here i have made the structure semi transparent to show the ROW boundary line below, which it would slightly overhang, but still be well outside of the Alma ROW Below is the segment over Charleston, totally within the JPB ROW and totally outside of the Alma ROW, even with Alma's right -turn pocket on the north side of Charleston: 1 Respectfully, Cedric de La Beaujardiere From: hero To: Gwnril at, Clerk City Subject: September 26, 2018, Rail Committee Meeting, Item 81: Agreement with Caitrain Date: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 7:19:50 PM Herb Borock P. 0. Box 632 Palo Alto, CA 94302 September 25, 2018 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 ATTN: RAIL COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 26, 2018, RAIL COMMITTEE MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #1: AGREEMENT WITH CALTRAIN Dear City Council: Why is this agreement appearing on your agenda a month after the Joint Powers Board started work in Palo Alto on the Caltrain Electrification Project. According to the August 27, 2018, press release from Caltrain (ht.t.p://www.caltrain.com/abort/MeliaRelations/news/Caltrain_to_Hold_Pnblic_Meeting_on_Rlectrification_in_Pato_Atto.html), construction activities were set to begin that week. Of the 19 cities and counties requiring Construction & Maintenance agreements with Caltrain, only Atherton and Palo Alto had not signed an agreement for a long time, while San Francisco had signed its agreement by November 30, 2017, but still needs to sign a Condemnation Authority agreement. Sincerely, Herb Borock From: Letha DiLauro To: Council, Qty Subject: train crossing Charleston and Meadow Date: Sunday, September 2, 2018 10:11:34 PM Dear City Council, I want the train or tunnel. I do not it on a wall. The wall will make the train louder, it is an ugly choose for Palo Alto and we do not deserve a better than an eyesore. We will live wit the decision for the next 100 years. Do what is right. We have enough noise with airplane traffic and the train. We do not need any additional noise pollution. I have lived here for 47 years and am losing my hearing. Do you think the train could have anything to do with it? Before my husband's passing in 2016 he was also losing his hearing. Why are we still studying the train on the wall? Put the money into a decision. Has anyone brought up the concern over suicide prevention? Thank you for reading y email. Letha DiLauro 4131 Park Blvd. Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-493-4278 CITY of City of Palo Alto (ID # 9936) PALO ALT© City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/17/2018 Summary Title: 429 University Avenue: Appeal of Director's Decision on Condition Compliance Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: 429 University Avenue [18PLN- 00240]: Appeal of the Planning and Community Environment Director's Denial of a Minor Architectural Review Application for Proposed Exterior Building Materials, Colors, and Craftsman Related to a Previously Approved Mixed -Use Project. Environmental Assessment: Use of Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for 14PLN-00222. Zoning District: CD-C(G)(P) (Downtown Commercial With Ground Floor and Pedestrian Shopping Overlay) (Continued From December 3, 2018) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council: 1. Deny the appeal by Kipling Post, LP of the Director's partial denial of Application No. 18PLN-00240 and approve the corresponding Record of Land Use Action. 2. Amend the City Council's prior approval, memorialized in Record of Land Use Action No. 2017-02, by extending the term of that approval to December 31, 2019. Executive Summary This report provides the background information concerning prior City Council review of the 429 University Avenue project, subsequent Architectural Review Board review for condition compliance, and the current appeal of the Planning and Community Environment Director's decision. Kipling Post, LP timely appealed the Director's Decision partially approving and partially denying an application for minor architectural review. Other elements of the project, including the square footage and overall massing of the project, were conditionally approved by the City Council in 2017 and are beyond the scope of the present appeal. The sole issue currently in dispute is the Director's denial regarding exterior building materials, colors, and City of Palo Alto Page 1 craftsmanship -related detailing. Background This project was first presented to the City Council on appeal from a Director's approval on April 6, 2015. After holding public hearings on May 4 and November 30, 2015, the Council directed that it be returned to the ARB for further refinement. The project returned to the Council on February 6, 2017, at which time the City Council denied the appeal, approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, and approved a modified project with conditions. Among these conditions was a requirement the project to return to the ARB to evaluate the following three specific items: a. A decorative wall design treatment, feature or element, shall be applied to the exterior walls immediately adjacent to the southern property line (project's south elevation) b. Landscape details and plans for all proposed planting, including individual planters, the greenwall, and landscaping near the rooftop elevator. c. The exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing associated with the project. The previous staff report from the February 6, 2017 hearing includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation against City Codes and Policies. The report, action minutes, transcript, and video of the meeting are available online: February 6, 2017 Document • Link Staff Report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55707 Action Minutes https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56154 Transcript https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56868 Video http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-115/ On March 20, 2017, staff returned to City Council with written findings contained in a Record of Land Use Action (Attachment D). These findings specifically relied on the existence of the conditions highlighted above. With respect to the City's former Architectural Review findings,' the conditions were incorporated into findings 2, 4, 5, and 6, relating to context and compatibility: 1 The City Council updated and streamlined its Architectural Review findings in December 2016, which the earlier appeal of the project was pending. The Council's adopted Record of Land Use Action analyzed the project under both the former and current Architectural Review findings. City of Palo Alto Page 2 I/. . . Conditions of approval for the project also ensure that the design of the building will be compatible with the immediate environment of the site. Conditions No. 3b and 3c require that the applicant return to the ARB for approval of the materials, colors, craftsmanship and landscaping, and Condition No. 3a requires a decorative wall treatment, feature or element along the southern elevation of the building. These requirements will ensure that design features are compatible with the immediate environment of the site... ." With respect to the City's current Architectural Review findings, the conditions were incorporated into finding 3, relating to high aesthetic quality and compatibility with the surrounding area: .. Lastly, the project, will have high quality materials, textures, colors and finishes because it is conditioned to return to the Architectural Review Board for review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment of exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing associated with the project...." March 20, 2017: Document Staff Report Action Minutes Transcript Video Link https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56356 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56839 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57427 http:/Jmidpenmedia.org/city-council-120/ The applicant submitted project plans on July 30, 2018 addressing the three items conditioned by the City Council. The ARB reviewed these proposals at the August 16, 2018, September 20, 2018, and October 4, 2018 public hearings. All of these reports and minutes are also available online: The project plans reviewed at the October 4, 2018 hearing are available as Attachment H of this staff report and available online: bit.ly/429University. August 16, 2018 ARB Document Link Staff Report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66300 Minutes https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66728 Video http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-2-3-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2/ September 20, 2018 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Document Link Staff Report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66720 Minutes https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67283 Video http://m idpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-09202018/ October 4, 2018 Document Link Staff Report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66964 Minutes https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67470 Video https://youtu.be/PKsAfsKOTbA?t=456 On October 4, 2018, the ARB recommended denial of the subject application. After considering the ARB's comments, the Interim Planning and Community Environment Director approved in - part for the design of the west wall (Condition 3A) and the landscaping (Condition 3B). The Interim Direction also denied in -part for the materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing associated with the project (Condition 3C) on October 16, 2018. The decision letter is included in Attachment C. On October 18, 2018, the applicant, Kipling Post LP, filed a timely appeal (Attachment B) pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.77.070. The appeal notes that the materials, colors, and craftsmanship are integral features of the project, modeled after buildings at 102- 116 University Avenue. These features were sought with the approval for and granted by Council. The appellant notes that Planning staff did not object to the concrete and had recommended approval to the ARB. The appellant further states that because the project has residential units, the project must be reviewed in the context of California's Housing Accountability Act (CHAA). The appellant states that the purpose of the statute is to limit the ability of local governments to "reject or make infeasible housing developments...without a thorough analysis of the economic, social and environmental effects of the action." Because the residential units are encompassed in the CHAA and comply with objective standards, the City must provide evidence supporting the denial with specific findings that they approval would result in a "specific, adverse impact" on "public health or safety." The appellant states that no such findings were made, nor can such findings be made as the City has no objective, identified written public health or safety standards or policies that would warrant disapproval. On November 13, 2018, the appellant's attorney, Timothy Kassouni, submitted a letter brief arguing that the appeal must be upheld for a variety of reasons, including that the October 16, 2018 Director's decision conflicted with the Council's findings in Record of Land Use Action 2017-02, that the City's architectural review findings are unconstitutionally vague, and that the City of Palo Alto Page 4 CHAA applies to this project. The City Attorney's Office will provide separate, confidential advice evaluating Mr. Kassouni's assertions. Correspondence from Mr. Kassouni is provided in Attachment G. On November 29, 2018, Kipling Post submitted a supplement to the appeal stating that the primary issue on appeal concerns compliance with Condition of Approval No. 3. Kipling Post argues that the denial is in error, lacks substantial evidence, is inconsistent with previous findings, exceeds the scope of the condition, and wrongly relies on elements of the Municipal Code that apply to new applications, and not condition compliance. This additional correspondence from Kipling Post is provided in Attachment H. The applicant/appellant's appeal was agenized for the City Council's December 3, 2018 consent calendar. At this meeting, the City Manager recommended removal from the consent calendar to schedule for a future hearing and allow staff time to respond to questions regarding changes to the fourth floor. Discussion The Council's purview in this appeal is limited to the items discussed in the Director's decision. Other elements of the project, including the square footage and overall massing of the building, were approved in 2017 and are beyond the scope of the present appeal. Of the items discussed in the Director's decision, only the Director's denial regarding exterior building materials, colors, and craftsmanship -related detailing is disputed by the applicant. Some questions have arisen regarding the project's compliance with the original Council approval with regard to massing on the fourth floor, which is discussed further in this report. Appeal Issue 1: Exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing Response: The ARB reviewed the applicant's proposal for exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing at the August 16, September 20, and October 4, 2018 meetings. Although the ARB was able to provide some feedback at its August 16 and September 20 meetings, which the applicant incorporated into the design — such as use of lighter colors and more clearly differentiating between the upper and lower floors — the applicant did not provide renderings of the craftsmanship -related detailing in context until the October 4, 2018 hearing. Upon reviewing these renderings, the ARB noted that the details were not adequate for approval. More specifically, the project does not comply with the contextual and compatibility criteria of the municipal code in that it does not share general characteristics or establish design linkages with the overall pattern of development. Surrounding buildings have design elements and material detailing that are human -scaled, regardless of the overall building envelope. The ARB found that the project's lack of such features rendered it incompatible with the surrounding area. City of Palo Alto Page 5 On October 15, 2018, the Interim Director provided Kipling Post LP an opportunity to incorporate detailing into the design in an effort to secure complete project approval. Kipling Post LP refused the opportunity. The Interim Director's communication to the applicant is provided in Attachment F and states that minor adjustments, such as incorporating sunshades or awnings along University Avenue and adding texture to the exterior concrete on the first and second floors would bring the project into alignment with the required findings. Appeal Issue 2: Review of the project as a residential project under the California Housing Accountability Act. Response: The project is a mixed -use project, consisting of residential, commercial and office uses. The CHAA applies to "housing development projects," including mixed -used projects with at least two thirds of the square footage designated for residential use. The project approved by the City Council on February 6, 2017 includes 20,407 square feet of non-residential uses and only 8,140 square feet of residential uses. This ratio of residential to commercial floor area disqualifies this project from being subject to the CHAA. Amendment of Record of Land Use Action 2017-02 to extend entitlement The Council's approval of a modified project on February 6, 2017 required that the applicant secure a building permit within one year. In order to allow the applicant to incorporate the Council -directed modifications and to seek ARB approval of the three remaining items, the Planning Director approved a one-year extension of the project entitlement to February 6, 2019, but any further extension would require Council action. The applicant asserts that any expiration of its entitlement would be invalid in light of its good faith attempt to commence construction. If the Council denies the applicant's current appeal or continues the hearing, staff recommends that the Council amend its prior approval to extend the life of the entitlement until December 31, 2019. This extension would avoid potentially unnecessary disputes regarding the validity of the original entitlement while the applicant resolves any remaining issues regarding exterior building materials, colors, and craftsmanship. Project Revisions to the Fourth Floor Some questions have been raised regarding changes made to the fourth floor since the City Council approved the project. These changes were necessitated to restore floor area removed from other portions of the building to accommodate project refinement. The conceptual project plans approved by the City Council did not benefit from the typical review process and were never fully developed by the applicant. It was anticipated that there would be some refinement to account for compliance with building code and other requirements. Moreover, the applicant received approval for a certain amount of project floor area. While the fourth floor received considered attention when this project was previously reviewed by Council to City of Palo Alto Page 6 ensure neighborhood compatibility — this floor level offered the only reasonably place to accommodate the lost floor area. Approximately 600 square feet of the building floor area was transferred to the fourth floor. This includes portions of the third floor at the corner of Kipling and University that the City Council directed be removed to reduce mass. While a portion of the building was removed from this location, the overall project floor area was not reduced and there was no guidance on where that floor area would be placed. When accounting for this and other floor area, staff directed the additional area way from Kipling and University Avenue. The floor area respects the previously approved setbacks and is located toward the interior property line, which is largely hidden from view. Staff's review of the building finds it generally consistent with the conceptual plans previously reviewed by the City Council. The diagram below highlights the approximate location of the change. New Area Approximately 24' addition along alley and 14' along interior side Evaluation of Landscaping The project proposes landscaping in planters bordering the open space area along the Lane 30 alley. The landscaping is placed in five planters, and the applicant includes the garden wall concept previously reviewed by Council. The appilcant proposes 18 rectangular planters bordering the edge of the fourth floor glass railing. These planters are two -and -a -half feet (2.5 ft) long, 18 inches wide and 20 inches high. The Option 1 City of Palo Alto Page 7 plan did not include planters on the fourth floor. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. On February 6, 2017, the City Council approved the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project, which is available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49897 Attachments: Attachment A: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOCX) Attachment B: October 18, 2018 Appeal of Director's Decision (PDF) Attachment C: October 16, 2018 Director's Decision Letter (PDF) Attachment D: February 6, 2017 Record of Land Use Action (PDF) Attachment E: Location Map (PDF) Attachment F: Email Correspondence to Kipling Post LP, dated October 15, 2018 (PDF) Attachment G: Kassouni Law Kipling Post Correspondence, Dated November 13 and October 31, 2018 (PDF) Attachment H: Kipling Appeal Supp Final 11 29 18 (PDF) Attachment I: Appellant Correspondence (PDF) Attachment J: Project Plans (DOCX) City of Palo Alto Page 8 APPROVAL NO. RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 425 AND 429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE: MINOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION [18PLN-00240] On December 3, 2018, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto considered an appeal of the Planning and Community Environment Director's decision to deny in part a Minor Architectural Review for the exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing subject to the following findings, determinations and declarations to support their decision: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A The project site is comprised of two lots, 425 and 429 University Avenue (APN Nos. 120-15-029 and 120-15-028, respectively) of approximately 11,000 square feet. The site contains two commercial structures bordered by University Avenue to the southeast, Lane 30 E to the northwest, and Kipling Street to the northeast. Single -story businesses border the site to the northeast along Kipling Street, and one -and -a -half story businesses border the project site along University Avenue. B On February 6, 2017, the City Council denied an appeal, thereby affirming the decision of the Planning and Community Environment Director, approving Kipling Post LP's request for a Major Architectural Review for the development of a mixed -use project on an 11,000 square foot parcel ("The Project"). C On March 20, 2017, the City Council approved written findings and conditions of approval contained in Record of Land Use Action No. 2017-02. Condition of Approval #3 required the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to conduct minor architectural review, evaluating the following: a decorative wall design treatment, feature or element, shall be applied to the exterior walls immediately adjacent to the southern property line (project's south elevation); landscape details and plans for all proposed planting, including individual planters, the green wall, and landscaping near the rooftop elevator; and the exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing associated with the project. D On July 13, 2018 the applicant submitted plans in response to Condition of Approval No. 3. E On August 16, 2018, the Architectural Review Board reviewed the applicant's proposed response to Condition of Approval No. 3 from Record of Land Use Action No. 2107-02, and directed the applicant to return with clarification about how the west wall design relates to the entire building. The motion referenced that the design include more detail and layering to better reflect the architectural design intent resembling a tree -like motif; include construction details that demonstrate the craftsmanship of the building; and, return with details showing how the landscaping would look over time. F. The applicant submitted revised plans on August 24, 2018, in response to the ARBs comments. G On September 9, 2018, the project was continued to a date certain on September 20, 2018 to allow the ARB to assemble a quorum. H On September 20, 2018 the ARB requested that the grey color be lightened and that samples of the grey color on the various materials be provided. The ARB was also open to beige colors and warmer colors generally to better integrate the building into the surrounding neighborhood. The ARB requested that the color scheme be divided between the first two floors and the top two floors, which would include making the concrete floors/ceiling between levels consistent with the floor levels; include construction details that demonstrate the craftsmanship of the building; that additional planters be added to the first and fourth level of the building and to have an actual green screen on the rear wall and fourth floor area where the vine is proposed; better integrate the west wall with the building, particularly the top two floors; and, provide a minimum of two high quality photo renderings: the first rendering from University Avenue, looking towards the west wall; the second rendering from Kipling Street, showing the Kipling Street and the Lane 30 elevation. I On September 26, 2018, the applicant provided revised plans in response the ARBs September 20, 2018 comments. J The ARB considered the project on October 4, 2018 and recommended denial to the Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment. In making this determination, the Board articulated concerns with the project meeting required architectural review findings, specifically findings number 2 and 3. K On October 15, 2108, the applicant refused the Interim Director's opportunity to incorporate detailing into the design in an effort to secure a complete project approval. L On October 16, 218, the Interim Planning and Community Environment Director issued an approval in part related to the west wall tree -motif design (ROLUA No. 2017-02 Condition of Approval 3a) and landscaping (ROLUA No. 2017-02 Condition of Approval 3b); and denial in part relating to the exterior building materials, colors, and craftsmanship -related detailing associated with the project (ROLUA No. 2017-02 Condition of Approval 3c). M On October 18, 2108, a timely appeal was filed by Kipling Post, LP ("the Appellant") stating that the building materials, colors, and craftsmanship are integral features of the project; that Planning recommended approval to the ARB at three hearings; and that the City did not adopt the correct findings as prescribed by the California Housing Accountability Act to deny the project. N The City Council reviewed the appeal on December 3, 2018, removed it from the Consent Calendar, and continued it to be heard at a public hearing on December 17, 2018. 0 The City Council reviewed the appeal on December 17, 2018, and duly rejected the appeal, hereby affirming the decision of the Interim Planning and Community Environment Director. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead agency for the Project has determined that the project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guideline section 15070, Decision to Prepare a Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration. An initial study was prepared for the project in 2014 and was updated in August of 2015 and it was determined that, with the implementation of conditions of approval, and mitigation measures no potentially adverse impacts would result from the development, therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment. SECTION 3. Architectural Review Findings. Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.020(d), neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review approval, unless it is found that the project is consistent with certain adopted findings. At the time that the project application was filed and appealed to Council, the findings presented in this section were in use, and the Council finds that the project is consistent with them as follows: 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 proposed decorative wall treatment and landscape plan are consistent with this finding in that it is in general conformance with the Downtown Design Guidelines and the following Comp Plan Goals and Policies. With respect to the exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing, however, the project is inconsistent with Comp Plan policies L-1.3 and L-4.7, as detailed below. 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 Regional/Community Commercial The project proposes landscaping, materials and color board, and decorative wall design treatment to a previously approved building that is consistent with the Regional/Community Commercial designation Land Use and Community Design Element Goal L-1: A compact and resilient city providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping districts, public facilities and open spaces. The project is a compact mixed -use development along University Avenue. It contributes to an attractive neighborhood through the use of long lasting materials, landscaping, and a decorative design to the interior property line wall. 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. The decorative wall treatment and landscape plan are compatible the project's surroundings and with the overall scale and character of the City in that they add visual interest to the project, retain or replace existing street trees, and otherwise represent sustainable principles of design. The building exterior is not compatible with its surroundings, however, because it fails to incorporate detail and craftsmanship in design that is similar to the surrounding buildings. Goal L-2: An enhanced sense of community with The project uses native indigenous landscaping development designed to foster public life, meet and drip irrigation systems that represent citywide needs and embrace the principles of sustainability. sustainable principles of design. Policy L-4.7: Maintain and enhance the The project consists of a quality designed building University Avenue/Downtown area as a major by treating the west wall elevation with a pattern commercial center of the City, with a mix of that breaks up the facade, employs long lasting commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and materials in the form of concrete, and residential uses. Promote quality design that strategically places landscaping in key open space recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian areas of the building. The project fails, however, to apply level of detail found in the surrounding character. area to other parts of the building exterior, which features several large, blank walls. 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 proposed decorative wall treatment and landscape plan are consistent with this finding. The decorative wall treatment provides an aesthetic element that enhances the design and provides an alternative to a blank wall at the upper floor elevations. The proposed landscaping plan provides color, softens and integrates well with the building architecture. With respect to the exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing, however, the project is inconsistent with Findings 2c and 2d. The project does comply with contextual and compatibility criteria set forth in the City's municipal code. Compatibility is achieved when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained. Existing buildings in the surrounding area are pedestrian- and human -scaled containing rich architectural details that promote visual interest and warm colors that create an inviting pedestrian experience. By contrast, the proposed project uses exterior building materials (concrete) and colors (gray) that results in a design with little to no architectural detailing and no design linkages that reflect the overall pattern of buildings in the area. Visual unity is disrupted by the proposed use of building materials, colors and limited detailing and is not contextually appropriate to the area. More specifically, the project does not comply the context- based criteria in PAMC sections 18.18.110(b)(1)(B)1; 18.18.110(b)(2)(B)2; 18.18.110(b)(2)(C)3, which seek to promote pedestrian -oriented design by incorporating covered waiting areas, weather protection, projecting overhangs, appropriately sized recessed building entrances and other architectural elements that promote a human scale. 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 proposed decorative wall treatment uses integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques. The proposed landscaping plan incorporates drought tolerant species and a variety of trees, shrubs and perennials suitable to the site. With respect to the exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing, however, the project is not consistent with this finding. The proposed textures, colors and craftsmanship are not compatible with and do not enhance the surrounding area. The surrounding area predominately consists of buildings that include a warm color palette and architectural detailing that promotes the pedestrian -oriented environmental along University Avenue. Comparably scaled buildings in the area, such as 432 and 488 University include warm colors, varied construction materials and detailing that adds relief and dimension at the first and second levels. Some of these details include Juliet balconies, faux balustrade screens in front of windows, recessed store fronts, awnings and recessed windows that enhance the pedestrian -scale and experience. Other nearby, lower -profile buildings similarly employ planters, decorative lighting, and architectural detailing that enhance the area. The proposed project, however, uses flat textures and glazing combined with a cool color palate and includes no architectural details that relate to or enhance the pedestrian environment and results in building that stands in stark contrast to other improvements in the area. To achieve compliance with this finding based on the existing, previously approved mass and scale, the applicant could explore using building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing that adds a depth of dimension and visual relief to enhance the surrounding area. The use of textured concrete in a warmer color palate combined with other pedestrian -scale features, such as awnings or sunscreens would be more compatible with the type of development found along pedestrian -oriented University Avenue. 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.). 1 PAMC 18.18.110(b)(1)(B): On primary pedestrian routes, climate and weather protection where possible, such as covered waiting areas, building projections and colonnades, and awnings (Figure 1-2). 2 PAMC 18.18.110(b)(2)(B): Facades that include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other architectural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass (Figure 2-2). 3 PAMC 18.18.110(b)(2)(C): Entries that are clearly defined features of front facades, and that have a scale that is in proportion to the size and type of the building and number of units being accessed; larger buildings should have a more prominent building entrance, while maintaining a pedestrian scale. The project is consistent with this finding in that the proposed elements that are being considered in this application are located in appropriate locations and do not impede the ease or safety of pedestrians or cyclists and generally support the buildings operations. 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 the finding because it preserves existing street trees along University Avenue and replaces trees along Kipling Street. The project's landscaping includes drought tolerant species and a variety of trees, shrubs and perennials suitable to the site. The plantings focus on the most logical locations in the building that consist of open circulation areas, and along areas accessible to the public, such as along the Lane 30 alley. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. In accordance with the City's Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. A summary of the project's compliance is on sheet GB -1 of the plans. The project includes a number of measures to preserve water including using drip irrigation and proposing landscaping that is drought tolerant and is less than 500 square feet in size. The small area of landscaping and compliance with CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2will achieve sustainable principles related to energy efficiency and water conservation. SECTION 4. Term of Approval. For the portions of this project that were approved, this entitlement shall expire at the same time as the previously granted entitlement (ROLUA No. 2017-02). SECTION 5. Amendment of Record of Land Use Action 2017-02. Section 7 (Conditions of Approval) of Record of Land Use Action 2017-02 is hereby amended to amend Condition 12, Expiration to read as follows: "12. EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid until December 31, 2019. In the event a building permit(s) is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the Architectural Review approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. The project approval is not eligible for further extension by the Director." PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney CITY OF PALO ALTO ' Office of the City Clerk CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF PLANNINt3Y CLERK'S OFFICE AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT* I8OCTI8 PH3:08 For appeals of final decisions on Architectural Review Board and Home Improvement Exception applications (rendered after public hearing), this appeal form shall be completed and submitted by appellant within fourteen days from date of the Director's decision. Appeals of final decisions on Individual Review applications (rendered after public hearing) must be submitted within ten days of the Director's decision. Complete form, the current fee and a letter stating reasons for the appeal shall be submitted to front desk staff of the Planning Division, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, except for 980 Fridays when City Hall is closed, when these items shall be submitted to Planning staff at the Development Center, 285 Hamilton Avenue (glass storefront across from City Hall on the comer of Bryant and Hamilton). Director of Planning includes his designees, which are Planning Managers or the Chief Planning Official Appeal Application No: 1 ' P1_1'J 00240 Name of Appellant �3� 1 L -Llr I ( P--(-0 @ �+� Address 7p. 0 , I o )a i) P-- (-o Q (#o, Street 7 Receipt No. Phone (kl) 81 - 3o S" 1 R y 3o'Z- City ZIP LOCATION OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO APPEAL: Street Address 4Z-1° 1/42gity / LE Name of Property Owner (if other than appellant) h ii24-4 J Po L✓P Property Owner's Address 0 , 2C) T P, A47b f V3 WI -- Street City ZIP The decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment dated 0072, t 7i_ 1(o , 20 1 g whereby the application 1 `(2,• PL bO2144Ry %J9LI/JC Po LT (file number) (original project applicant) was Derd 1 , is hereby appealed for the reasons d in the attached letter (in duplicate) (approved/denied) �' Date: (° 1 3 Signature of Appellant PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL (TO BE FILLED OUT BY STAFF): Date Approved Remarks and/or Conditions: Denied CITY COUNCIL DECISION (TO BE FILLED OUT BY STAFF): Date Approved Remarks and/or Conditions: Denied SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED: / 1. Letter stating reasons for appeal V/ Received by: 2. Fee (currently $280.00) '/ Received by: APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT October 18, 2018 This letter is in support of the appeal of the decision by the Director of Planning and Community Environment for the project proposed at 429 University Avenue in his letter dated October 16, 2018 [18-PLN00240]. The project, as presented to the Architectural Review Board Minor Level Review (ARB) at its three hearings on August 16, September 20, and October 4, 2018, was for minor architectural review of (a) west wall details, (b) landscape and (c) exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship to fulfill conditions of approval stated in the Land Use Approval letter by City Council dated February 6, 2017. Planning concurred that the plans presented to the ARB are in conformance with Option 1, which is the project version approved by Council, and subsequently presented the plans to ARB for review of the three items above. In his determination letter dated October 16, 2018, Items (a) and (b) above were approved by the Director of Planning and are not objected to in this appeal. Item (c) was denied although the exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship are integral features of this project, are modeled after buildings at 102 - 116 University Ave, and were what Applicant sought approval for and granted by Council. Furthermore, Planning, in its many iteration of review, never objected to the concrete, it being a large component of the Option 1 design approved by Council. In fact, Item (c) was recommended by Planning for approval to the ARB at all three hearings and such recommendation for approval is well documented in all three Staff Reports to ARB by Planning. This project was panned by the ARB Major Review in each of its past hearings which caused the project to appear and subsequently be approved by Council. The Minor Level ARB had similar negative biases against this project. To further complicate the review only three members were available to hear this project as two of its members were recused for various reasons. Of the 3 remaining members, Chair Alexander Lew voted to approve and members Robert Gooyer ("I never liked the project .... it will go before council anyway") and member Osma Thompson voted to disapprove. Ms. Thompson, as a new member of the ARB, had not had the benefit of the lengthy discussion and review process which ultimately resulted in Council's approval of this building. The approved building is modern by design. In her comments at the ARB, Ms. Thompson repeatedly said that the modern style of the building was massive and not compatible with downtown Palo Alto, even though there are many examples of modern buildings existing next to traditional styles in the vicinity of the project. Further, massiveness and compatibility of the project was already approved by Council and not relevant to item (c) above and not the subject of the ARB review. Because this project has residential units, the project must be reviewed in the context of California's Housing Accountability Act (CHAA). (Government Code § 65589.5.) The purpose of this statute is to limit the ability of local governments to "reject or make infeasible housing developments ... without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action...." (§ 65589.5, subd. (b).) Subdivision (j) of the statute provides that "[w]hen a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project's application is determined to be complete," a local agency which "proposes to disapprove the project ... shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that ... [¶] (1) [t]he housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved" and "(2) [t]here is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact ... other than the disapproval of the housing development project...." Residential housing projects, such as that proposed by theApplicant, are expressly included in the CHAA as a "housing development project." (See Government Code § 65589.5, subd. (h)(2) (A)(C).) Applicant's project is intended to include the construction of three residential housing units in a City with a severe housing shortage. The ARB has not articulated any public health or safety rationale for disapproval. Because the residential units are encompassed within the CHAA, and comply with all objective standards, the burden of proof shifts to the City and ARB to support denial with specific findings that approval would result in a "specific, adverse impact" on "public health or safety." The phrase "specific, adverse impact" means a "significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete." (Government Code § 65589.5, subd. (j)(1). (Emphasis added.) No such findings were made, nor can such findings be made as the City has no objective, identified written public health or safety standards or policies that would warrant disapproval. Respectfully submitted, Kipling Post LP PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CITY OF PALO ALTO 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 650.329.2441 October 16, 2018 Peter Ko Ko Architects 900 High Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: 429 University Avenue [18PLN-00240] Minor ARB Review Pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 3 from Record of Land Use Action No. 2017-2 Dear Mr. Ko: On October 4, 2018, the Architectural Review Board recommended denial of the subject application. After considering the Board's comments, I am approving in -part and denying in - part this application on October 16, 2018. The decision is effective 14 days from the date of this letter, unless an appeal is filed in accordance with Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The denial is based on the findings in Attachment A and is for the project described below. In accordance with the City Council approved Record of Land Use Decision (Approval No. 2017- 2), the subject development is required to obtain approval from the director of Planning and Community Environment, for the following prior to the issuance of building permits: a. A decorative wall design treatment, feature or element, shall be applied to the exterior walls immediately adjacent to the southern property line (project's south elevation) starting at an elevation equivalent to the building height of the adjacent structure and extending to the roofline of the proposed building. b. Landscape details and plans for all proposed planting, including individual planters, the greenwall, and landscaping near the rooftop elevator. c. The exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing associated with the project. The application is approved with respect to the decorative wall treatment for the project's west elevation and the landscape details; it is denied with respect to exterior building materials, colors, and craftsmanship -related details. Findings and conditions for this decision are provided in Attachment A. The denial in part is consistent with comments and concerns expressed by Architectural Review Board Members at its August 16, September 20, and October 4, 2018 meetings regarding the CityOfPaloAito.org exterior detailing and craftsmanship of the project. It also follows Kipling Post LP's refusal, on October 15, 2018, of my suggestion to incorporate detailing into the design in an effort to secure a complete project approval. Should you have any questions regarding this determination, please do not hesitate to contact the Project Planner, Adam Petersen, by email at apetersen@m-group.us or by phone at (408)340-5642. Sincerely, han Lait, ' ICP terim Director Planning and Community Environment c: Elizabeth Wong, Kipling Post LP, PO Box 204 Palo Alto CA 94302 Attachments: A: Project Findings and Conditions of Approval ATTACHMENT A FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 429 University Avenue / File No. 18PLN-00240 The subject project complies with all applicable findings set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.76, with the exception of Findings 1, 2, and 3 with respect to exterior building colors, materials and craftsmanship, as detailed below. 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 proposed decorative wall treatment and landscape plan are consistent with this finding in that it is in general conformance with the Downtown Design Guidelines and the following Comp Plan Goals and Policies. With respect to the exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing, however, the project is inconsistent with Comp Plan policies L- 1.3 and L-4.7, as detailed below. 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 Regional/Community Commercial The project proposes landscaping, materials and color board, and decorative wall design treatment to a previously approved building that is consistent with the Regional/Community Commercial designation Land Use and Community Design Element Goal 1-1: A compact and resilient city providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping districts, public facilities and open spaces. The project is a compact mixed -use development along University Avenue. It contributes to an attractive neighborhood through the use of long lasting materials, landscaping, and a decorative design to the interior property line wall. Policy L-1.3: InfiWI 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. The decorative wall treatment and landscape plan are compatible the project's surroundings and with the overall scale and character of the City in that they add visual interest to the project, retain or replace existing street trees, and otherwise represent sustainable principles of design. The building exterior is not compatible with its surroundings, however, because it fails to incorporate detail and craftsmanship in design that is similar to the surrounding buildings. Goal L-2: An enhanced sense of community The project uses native indigenous landscaping with development designed to foster public and drip irrigation systems that represent life, meet citywide needs and embrace the principles of sustainability. sustainable principles of design. Policy L-4.7: Maintain and enhance the The project consists of a quality designed University Avenue/Downtown area as a major building by treating the west wall elevation commercial center of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and with a pattern that breaks up the facade, employs long lasting materials in the form of residential uses. Promote quality design that concrete, and strategically places landscaping recognizes the regional and historical in key open space areas of the building. The importance of the area and reinforces its project fails, however, to apply level of detail pedestrian character. found in the surrounding area to other parts of the building exterior, which features several large, blank walls. 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 proposed decorative wall treatment and landscape plan are consistent with this finding. The decorative wall treatment provides an aesthetic element that enhances the design and provides an alternative to a blank wall at the upper floor elevations. The proposed landscaping plan provides color, softens and integrates well with the building architecture. With respect to the exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing, however, the project is inconsistent with Findings 2c and 2d. The project does comply with contextual and compatibility criteria set forth in the City's municipal code. Compatibility is achieved when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained. Existing buildings in the surrounding area are pedestrian- and human -scaled containing rich architectural details that promote visual interest and warm colors that create an inviting pedestrian experience. By contrast, the proposed project uses exterior building materials (concrete) and colors (gray) that results in a design with little to no architectural detailing and no design linkages that reflect the overall pattern of buildings in the area. Visual unity is disrupted by the proposed use of building materials, colors and limited detailing and is not contextually appropriate to the area. More specifically, the project does not comply the context -based criteria in PAMC sections 18.18.110(b)(1)(B)1; 18.18.110(b)(2)(B)2; 18.18.110(b)(2)(C)3, which seek to promote pedestrian -oriented design by incorporating covered waiting areas, weather protection, projecting overhangs, appropriately sized recessed building entrances and other architectural elements that promote a human scale. 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 proposed decorative wall treatment uses integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques. The proposed landscaping plan incorporates drought tolerant species and a variety of trees, shrubs and perennials suitable to the site. With respect to the exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing, however, the projectis not consistent with this finding. The proposed textures, colors and craftsmanship are not compatible with and do not enhance the surrounding area. The surrounding area predominately consists of buildings that include a warm color palette and architectural detailing that promotes the pedestrian -oriented environmental along University Avenue. Comparably scaled buildings in the area, such as 432 and 488 University include warm colors, varied construction materials and detailing that adds relief and dimension at the first and second levels. Some of these details include Juliet balconies, faux balustrade screens in front of windows, recessed store fronts, awnings and recessed windows that enhance the pedestrian -scale and experience. Other nearby, lower -profile buildings similarly employ planters, decorative lighting, and architectural detailing that enhance the area. The proposed project, however, uses flat textures and glazing combined with a cool color palate and includes no architectural details that relate to or enhance the pedestrian environment and results in building that stands in stark contrast to other improvements in the area. To achieve compliance with this finding based on the existing, previously approved mass and scale, the applicant could explore using building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing that adds a depth of dimension and visual relief to enhance the surrounding area. The use of textured concrete in a warmer color palate combined with other pedestrian -scale features, such as awnings or sunscreens would be more compatible with the type of development found along pedestrian - oriented University Avenue. 1 PAMC 18.18.110(b)(1)(B): On primary pedestrian routes, climate and weather protection where possible, such as covered waiting areas, building projections and colonnades, and awnings (Figure 1-2). 2 PAMC 18.18.110(b)(2)(B): Facades that include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other architectural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass (Figure 2-2). 3 PAMC 18.18.110(b)(2)(C): Entries that are clearly defined features of front facades, and that have a scale that is in proportion to the size and type of the building and number of units being accessed; larger buildings should have a more prominent building entrance, while maintaining a pedestrian scale. 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 this finding in that the proposed elements that are being considered in this application are located in appropriate locations and do not impede the ease or safety of pedestrians or cyclists and generally support the buildings operations. 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 the finding because it preserves existing street trees along University Avenue and replaces trees along Kipling Street. The project's landscaping includes drought tolerant species and a variety of trees, shrubs and perennials suitable to the site. The plantings focus on the most logical locations in the building that consist of open circulation areas, and along areas accessible to the public, such as along the Lane 30 alley. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. In accordance with the City's Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. A summary of the project's compliance is on sheet GB -1 of the plans. The project includes a number of measures to preserve water including using drip irrigation and proposing landscaping that is drought tolerant and is less than 500 square feet in size. The small area of landscaping and compliance with CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2will achieve sustainable principles related to energy efficiency and water conservation. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 429 University Avenue: 18PLN-00240 PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. This approval is granted only for the proposed construction of the tree motif decorative wall treatment at the west elevation and the landscape plans and shown on the project plans and supporting application material stamped as received by the City on July 30, 2018 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. No approval is granted for the exterior materials or colors. 2. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 3. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Any modifications to the approved decorative wall treatment or landscape plan 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. 4. PROJECT EXPIRATION. This project approval shall be incorporated with and subject to the same permit time limits that apply to Record of Land Use Action No. 2017-2, approved on March 20, 2017. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. 5. 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. 6. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Per PAMC 16.61.040, and RLUA No. 2017-2, all applicable Development Impact Fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 7. 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, Adam Petersen at apetersen@m-group.us to schedule this inspection. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F APPROVAL NO. 2017- 2 RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 425 AND 429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE: MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION [14PLN-0022] On February 6, 2017, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto considered an appeal of the Planning and Community Environment Director's decision to approve a Major Architectural Review for the development of a four-story, 50 -foot tall, 28,547 square -foot, mixed -use project at 429 University Avenue and directed staff to return to Council with the following findings, determinations and declarations to support their decision to adopt a modified project design: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A The project site is comprised of two lots, 425 and 429 University Avenue (APN Nos. 120-15- 029 and 120-15-028, respectively) of approximately 11,000 square feet. The site contains two commercial structures bordered by University Avenue to the southeast, Lane 30 E to the northwest, and Kipling Street to the northeast. Single -story businesses border the site to the northeast along Kipling Street, and one and two story buildings border the project site along University Avenue. B On June 19, 2014, Kipling Post LP applied for a Major Architectural Review for the development of a mixed -use project on an 11,000 square foot parcel ("The Project"). C On February 25, 2015, the Planning and Community Environment Director approved the Major Architectural Review. D On March 11, 2015, a timely appeal was filed by Dr. Michael Harbour ("the Appellant") stating concerns related to parking, traffic and circulation concerns and safety issues, impacts to historical resources, and the size and massing of the project E On May 4, 2015, the City Council remanded the project to the Historic Resource Board (HRB) and Architectural Review Board (ARB) for further review and requested project revisions to address issues of scale and compatibility. Specifically, the Council requested that the applicant redesign the project and return to the HRB and ARB to address a variety of concerns. The HRB was asked to review and comment on the historic resource evaluation report as it relates to the project's potential impact to other historic resources in the area; the applicable 'area of potential affect' pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); the potential impact of the project's mass, scale and compatibility to existing historic properties; and whether the proposed building would change the setting of the historic properties on Kipling Street or University Avenue and have an impact under CEQA. The Council directed the ARB to evaluate the project's compatibility with the immediate environment of the site; neighborhood character; other buildings in the area; consistency with the roof lines, entries, setbacks, mass and scale with context based design criteria; shadow patterns; vehicular access to the site, including possible impacts to Lane 30 (alley) circulation; and, to provide direction on the design linkages with the overall pattern of development in the area. On September 10 and 17, 2015, the HRB and ARB, respectively, considered project revisions presented by the applicant. Their respective comments are available in the administrative record and meeting minutes. The HRB members expressed concern with various aspects of the project, notably related to the mass and scale of the proposed building and expressed concerns regarding the project's compatibility to nearby designed Birge Clark buildings and the Victorian -style structures on Kipling Street. The ARB had a variety of comments regarding the project, including expressing concerns with project compatibility when viewed from Kipling Street and encouraged further architectural DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F refinement to address other concerns expressed by Council. On November 30, 2015, the City Council remanded the project to ARB for further review and consideration as it relates to the following specific Architectural Review Findings and Context -Based Design Criteria: PAMC chapter 18.76.020(d): • (1): Architectural Review Findings in relation to design's consistency and compatibility with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan • (2): Architectural Review Findings in relation to design's compatibility with the immediate environment of the site • (4): Architectural Review Findings in relation to design's compatibility with areas as having a unified design character or historic character • (12): Architectural Review Findings in relation to compatibility and appropriateness in materials, textures, colors, details of construction and plant materials to the project's function and to adjacent structures, landscape elements and functions And PAMC Section 18.18.110 • (a)(2)(B)(i): Contextual and Compatibility Criteria — Compatibility goal in relation to siting, scale, massing and materials • (a)(2)(B)(iii): Contextual and Compatibility Criteria — Compatibility goal in relation to pattern of roof lines and projections • (b)(2)(B): Context -based Design Considerations and Findings — Street building facades in relation to eaves, overhang, porches and other architectural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass F. On March 17, 2016 the applicant returned to the ARB with a revised project, consisting of two options prepared by Topos Architecture. The ARB preferred Option B with recommended changes to better reduce building scale and mass, and continued the project to May 19, 2016. G On August 4 the applicant returned to the ARB with a revised project prepared by Jo Bellomo and Associates, the fourth design professional known to the City to be engaged by the applicant to prepare plans and make presentations regarding the project. Based on the administrative record, including meeting minutes, the ARB expressed concern that this latest iteration was not responsive to earlier ARB or City Council comments and requested staff prepare recommended findings to deny the project. H On September 1, 2016, at the applicant's request, the ARB conducted a study session of a project that closely resembled Option 1. While ARB members continued to express concerns, the Board commented that this design concept showed progress toward addressing previously stated concerns regarding the project's compatibility to adjacent structures and neighborhood character. The ARB reviewed a project on October 20, 2016 (described as Option 2 in the February 6, 2017 City Council report). This design included changes that increased the mass of the building at the street corner on the third floor and additional mass on the fourth floor that was previously removed from the plans reviewed on September 1, 2016. The ARB forwarded a recommendation of denial of the project to the City Council. J The Applicant submitted revised plans on October 26, 2016 (described as Option 1 in the February 6, 2017 City Council report), which was a refined version of the plans presented at a study session of the ARB on September 1, 2016, which addressed many of the Board's comments. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F K The Applicant submitted revised plans on December 8, 2016 (described as Option 3 in on the February 6, 2017 City Council report), which represented another iteration of the Option 1 design, but included concepts previously reviewed by the ARB on August 4, 2016. L The City Council reviewed Option 1, Option 2, and Option 3 of the project on February 6, 2017 and approved Option 1 based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval included below. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead agency for the Project has determined that the project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guideline section 15070, Decision to Prepare a Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration. An initial study was prepared for the project in 2014 and was updated in August of 2015 and it was determined that, with the implementation of conditions of approval, and mitigation measures no potentially adverse impacts would result from the development, therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment. SECTION 3. Architectural Review Findings. Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.020(d), neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review approval, unless it is found that the project is consistent with certain adopted findings. At the time that the project application was filed and appealed to Council, the findings presented in this section were in use, and the Council finds that the project is consistent with them as follows: Comprehensive Plan and Purpose of ARB: Finding #1: The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Finding #16: The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review, which is to: • Promote orderly and harmonious development in the city; • Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city; • Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements; • Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas; and • Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other. The project is consistent with Findings #1 and #16 because: On balance, the project is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project is in conformance with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. The project is compatible with the surrounding development based on the building's size, scale and mass. The project reflects a similar massing and rhythm to other properties along University Avenue and includes building articulate and setbacks at the third and fourth floors that provide for an appropriate transition, particularly along Kipling Street, to the lower profile buildings nearby. Some of the goals and policies the project is in compliance with include the following: • Goal 1-1: A well -designed, compact city, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping district, public facilities and open spaces. • Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. • Goal L-4: Inviting, pedestrian -scale centers that offer a variety of retail and commercial services and DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F provide focal points and community gathering places for the City's residential neighborhoods and Employment Districts. • 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. • Policy L-23: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district 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-24: Ensure that University Avenue/Downtown is pedestrian -friendly and supports bicycle use. Use public art and other amenities to create an environment that is inviting to pedestrians. • 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. • Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human -scale details and massing. • Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. • Policy T-21: Support the use of Downtown alleyways for pedestrian- and bicycle -only use. • 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. Option 1, as presented to the City Council on February 6, 2017, provides a transition in scale and character along University Avenue. The building's modern design blends and transitions with the surrounding buildings through similar materials and horizontal rooflines. The building reinforces the pedestrian character of University Avenue as required by Policy L-23 and Policy L-24 because it provides a widened sidewalk for pedestrians with sheltered entrances. These same pedestrian features are extended to Kipling Street as well, and the seating area at the rear of the building activates a pedestrian space in the alley. Conditions of Approval Nos. 2b, 2c, 2d, and 2e all reduce the massing and visual prominence of the building along Kipling Street, creating the appearance of a three-story structure. This design provides a smoother transition from the single and two-story structures along Kipling Street. The proposed project incorporates similar pedestrian and human friendly features found in other buildings along University Avenue. The first floor plate height reflects the plate height of the buildings to the west along University Avenue. The surrounding buildings contain sidewalk dining areas, recessed entries, and are predominantly two-story structures, with a low first floor plate height to relate to a human and pedestrian scale. The project incorporates similar features with designated pedestrian areas at the entryways and natural building overhangs along University Avenue and Kipling Street. These design features create a project that is pedestrian friendly and designed at a human scale on elevations fronting rights -of -way. Condition of Approval No. 2e requires that the elevator tower height not exceed 54.5 feet and Condition of Approval No. 2b requires the fourth floor guardrails to be setback from the edge of the terrace along all streetscapes. These conditions reduce the visual prominence of the structure along Kipling Street, and they create the appearance of a three story building. The appearance of a three-story building helps the project achieve an orderly and harmonious design along Kipling Street, which has lower profile buildings. Compatibility and Character: DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F Finding #2: The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. Finding #4: This finding of compatibility with unified or historic character is not applicable to the project (there is no unified design or historic character). Finding #5: The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses. Finding #6: The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site. The project is consistent with Findings #2, #4, #5 and #6 because: The project is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. Buildings located to the southwest of the site along University Avenue consist of two-story buildings. The first two floors of the project are consistent with the height of these buildings, while the third floor is setback approximately eight -feet. The fourth floor is setback approximately 40 -feet. These features result in a gradual transition in scale thereby increasing the compatibility and character of the project with its immediate environment. Further, the design obscures the fourth floor from views along University Avenue. The setbacks along Kipling Street and Lane 30 also promote a design that is compatible with the immediate environment of the site and offer harmonious transitions. The setbacks on the fourth floor along Kipling Street obscure views of the building features above the third floor from many vantage points, thereby reducing the building scale and improving compatibility with smaller structures nearby. To accomplish this result, the conditions of approval require that the elevator tower height be reduced to a maximum of 54.5 feet and the elevator shaft is setback 11 feet from Kipling Street, while the stairs and office are setback approximately 20 feet and 37 feet, respectively. This condition and these design features will obscure views of the fourth floor and result in a building with a three-story appearance from vantage points that are close to the site on Kipling Street. This results in a harmonious transition from the two story structures along Kipling Street to the proposed project because it effectively only increases the height of the project by one story from the structure at the corner of Kipling and University and two stories from the business at Kipling Street and Lane 30. Conditions of approval for the project also ensure that the design of the building will be compatible with the immediate environment of the site. Conditions No. 3b and 3c require that the applicant return to the ARB for approval of the materials, colors, craftsmanship and landscaping, and Condition No. 3a requires a decorative wall treatment, feature or element along the southern elevation of the building. These requirements will ensure that design features are compatible with the immediate environment of the site. The design of the building offers a harmoniously compatible transition with the design character of the streetscape along University Avenue. The design of the project transitions from the mid-century designs found along University Avenue to a more modern looking building that defines the street corner. The project consists of rectilinear features in a glass and concrete style building. These features are consistent with the character of the surrounding buildings to the east of the site along University Avenue and the building located at the corner of Kipling Street and University Avenue. The Historic Resources Memorandum notes that the historic character of the area has been compromised by intrusions including incompatible materials, height, massing and architectural features. features. Because the area has not been recognized as having a unified design or historic character, this finding is not applicable. Functionality and Open Space: Finding #3: The design is appropriate to the function of the project. Finding #7: The planning and siting of the building on the site creates an internal sense of order and provides a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community. Finding #8: The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F structures. The project is consistent with Findings #3, #7, and #8 because: The design and arrangement of the open space is appropriate for the function of the project. The project proposes a seating area off the alley at the back of the project. The Comprehensive Plan encourages these spaces such as these to activate alley spaces for pedestrian use. Further, the project incorporates terraced areas around the third floor for the residential users and on the fourth floor for the office use. These areas serve as a functional open space for residents and tenants of the project and are easily accessible to the building users. Therefore, the design, amount, arrangement and planning of open space is appropriate and creates a sense of order for the project. The planning and siting of the building on the site creates a sense of order and provides a desirable environment for visitors, occupants and the general community. The siting of the building is located along the back of the sidewalk, consistent with other buildings along University Avenue streetscape and forms an edge along Kipling Street consistent with the existing buildings along both streets. Vehicle access to the building from the alley provides convenient and safe accessibility that minimizes vehicle interactions along Kipling Street and University Avenue. Internally, stairs and elevators provide access to each floor, and these are conveniently reached from the street or the subterranean parking. The floorplans create individualized floors that separates the residents and commercial and office tenants. Occupants, visitors and the community are provided with a desirable environment because of this ease of access to the individualized uses on each floor. Therefore, the siting and floor plan create a sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general public. Circulation and Traffic: Finding #9: Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with the project's design concept. Finding #10: Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. The project is consistent with Findings #9 and #10 because: The project contains sufficient ancillary functions to support the main functions. Access to the property and circulation thereon is convenient for cyclists because it provides long-term and short-term bicycle parking. The short term parking is easily accessible from the street and the long term parking is located in the garage where it is screened from public view. Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for all users. The alley provides a dedicated, separate access point to the project from the street. This will minimize vehicle interactions with other vehicles as well as pedestrians and cyclists. Further, the traffic study has determined that there is adequate site distance for exiting the alley onto Kipling Street. The project will incorporate mirrored installations at the parking garage ingress and egress to improve visibility and reduce conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians and cyclists. The onsite circulation was reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards. Generally, the proposed plan would provide one main drive aisle that would lead to an underground parking structure. Parking is shown at 90 degrees to the main drive aisle. This drive aisle makes several 90 degree turns to spiral down to the farthest parking spaces. The City parking facility design standards specify a minimum width of 16 feet for two-way underground ramps; 25 feet for two-way drive aisles lined with 8.5 foot wide, 90 degree spaces; and maximum slope of 2% adjacent to accessible parking spaces. The proposed project DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F meets these standards. Further, the project was also found to meet the applicable parking requirements of the PAMC. Therefore, these features ensure access and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for all users. The project is subject to the loading area requirements in the City's Zoning Code because it is a mixed -use project with commercial, office and residential uses. Consistent with past practice, the staff has recommended approval of an off -site loading area near the building rather than on the project site itself. There is a loading zone at Kipling Street and the alley provides sufficient loading space for the project and service alleys throughout downtown have historically been used for the purpose of shared loading and access. Using the alley is consistent with prior projects reviewed by the City and with previous iterations of the project design, and meets the intent of the City's Code requirement. Landscaping and Plant Materials: Finding #11: Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project. Finding #12: The materials, textures and colors and details of construction and plant material are an appropriate expression to the design and function and compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions. Finding #13: The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment on the site and the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unit with the various buildings on the site. Finding #14: Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety that would tend to be drought -resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. The project is consistent with Findings #11- #14 because: The project will preserve existing street trees along University Avenue and will replace two perimeter trees along Kipling Street with ginkgo biloba. Two other street trees along Kipling Street will be retained. The project proposes appropriate, drought tolerant, sustainable landscaping in key open space areas that will complement and enhance the design of these spaces. The landscaping will form a soft edge and perimeter around the ground floor and terrace area on the third floor. Further, as conditioned, the project is required to return to the Architectural Review Board for review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for landscape details and plans for all proposed planting, including individual planters, the greenwall, and landscaping near the rooftop elevator. Therefore, the landscape design is appropriate and compatible for the project. The proposed project is consistent with the above finding because it corporates materials, textures, colors and details that are compatible with adjacent structures and functions. Adjacent structures employ brick, stucco and glass windows with a rough texture and organic colors. The proposed structure consists of concrete, glass windows, and metal mesh screens. These features compliment the adjacent buildings and the third and fourth floor consist of a similarly colored concrete as nearby buildings. Further, as conditioned, the project is required to return to the Architectural Review Board for review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment of exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing associated with the project. Therefore, the project is compatible with the materials, colors and textures of adjacent buildings. Sustainability: Finding #15: The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy design elements including, but not limited to: DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F • Careful building orientation to optimize daylight to interiors • High performance, low -emissivity glazing • Cool roof and roof insulation beyond Code minimum • Solar ready roof • Use of energy efficient LED lighting • Low -flow plumbing and shower fixtures • Below grade parking to allow for increased landscape and stormwater treatment areas The project is consistent with Finding #15 because: In accordance with the City's Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. SECTION 4. Architectural Review Findings. Revised Architectural Review Findings were adopted by ordinance of the City Council on November 14, 2016 (second reading December 12, 2016) and became effective on January 12, 2017. The Council finds that the project as modified is consistent with these findings and the Context - Based Design Criteria in PAMC 18.18.110 as follows: 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 proposed project, as modified by the conditions of approval, is generally consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, including the following goals and policies: • Goal 1-1: A well -designed, compact city, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping district, public facilities and open spaces. • Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. • Goal L-4: Inviting, pedestrian -scale centers that offer a variety of retail and commercial services and provide focal points and community gathering places for the City's residential neighborhoods and Employment Districts. • 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. • Policy L-23: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district 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-24: Ensure that University Avenue/Downtown is pedestrian -friendly and supports bicycle use. Use public art and other amenities to create an environment that is inviting to pedestrians. • 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. • Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human -scale details and massing. • Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F • Policy T-21: Support the use of Downtown alleyways for pedestrian- and bicycle -only use. • 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. More specifically, the project is consistent with Policy L-5, which seeks to maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. As conditioned, the approved project reduces the scale and visual prominence of the building along University Avenue and Kipling Street, creating the appearance of a three-story structure. This design provides a smoother transition from the single and two-story structures along University Avenue and Kipling Street, thereby maintaining the scale of the blocks. The building's modern design blends and transitions with the surrounding buildings and other buildings in the City through use of similar materials, design features, massing, and character. The project is further consistent with Goals L-4 and Policies L-20, L-23 and L-24 and L-49, in that the project provides ground floor commercial space at a prominent intersection that serves as a focal point for a variety of retail uses that could occupy the space. The rhythmic position of the doors along University Avenue and Kipling Street also enhance retail vitality of the streets by locating retail uses immediately adjacent to the sidewalk and reflects the pattern of development along University Avenue. The project is consistent with Policy L-23 as it provides a mixture of commercial, office and residential uses comprised in a quality designed building. The project is consistent with Policies L-24, L-49, T-21 and T-23 because it provides a widened sidewalk for pedestrians with sheltered entrances. These same pedestrian features are extended to Kipling Street as well, and the seating area at the rear of the building activates a pedestrian space in the alley. The project is consistent with Goal L-6 and Policies L-48 and L-49 because the project is well designed, creates a coherent development pattern, is of high quality, and creative design that is compatible with surrounding development. Conditions of Approval Nos. 2b, 2c, 2d, 3b, 3c ensure that materials, landscaping and colors will be of high quality; reduce the massing and scale of the building to make it compatible with the surrounding buildings by limiting the elevator tower height, removing the library from the third floor, and reducing the projection of the eyebrow on the building; and setting back the guardrails and planters on the fourth floor to further reduce the massing and scale and enhance the buildings compatibility with the surrounding environment. The project has also been reviewed to the objective development standards in the zoning code and found to be in compliance with the intent and regulations contained therein. A comprehensive review of the project to applicable development standards is included in the administrative record. The project is consistent with the Downtown Urban Design plan. The project is located in the Commercial Core and more specifically the University Avenue District. The Urban Design plan notes that the alley from Kipling Street is designated for opportunities for pedestrian friendly use. The project satisfies this design requirement by providing a courtyard area with tables for pedestrians to use at the rear of the project site. The alley fagade also incorporates a green wall which provides a sense of life to the alleyway. Other relevant goals in the plan include reinforcing University Avenue as the retail core by maintaining ground floor retail space, develop and enhance the qualities of University Avenue which make it an exciting outdoor and pedestrian environment with eclectic architecture, outdoor food, and entertainment and public amenities. The project maintains commercial uses along University Avenue by designating the ground floor area of the building for commercial spaces. The design of the project generates interests on the side streets. The clear glass windows allow pedestrians to see through the corner of the building which strengthens the pedestrian experience. The project provides pedestrian spaces through the recessed entries and widened sidewalk. The building is designed with attention to all facades. Kipling Street and University Avenue have the same attention to detail as the alley and southern elevation. The attention to detail in the alley is exhibited through the use of a green wall planter. Further, as conditioned, the southern elevation is required to incorporate a decorative wall treatment, feature or element. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F Therefore, the project is conditioned and incorporates attention to detail on each facade. The ground floor of the project is primarily comprised of glass which is consistent with the plan's requirement for ground floor treatments that allow for easier pedestrian views of displays and merchandise. Further, the project is located in the Kipling Street secondary district. The plan calls for Kipling Street between Lytton and University Avenue to retain older single family structures and the architectural character they provide. The project is not subject to this requirement because it does not propose to convert a single-family structure, and therefore its architecture, on Kipling Street. The project would convert commercial structures. The plan also calls for the terminus of Kipling Street and University Avenue to be enhanced through tie-ins to the Varsity Theater. The project would tie-in to the Varsity Theater by providing a structure that is of similar height and massing, located at the street front. The project is not subject to any coordinated area plans. 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 has a unified and coherent design and creates an internal sense of order in that each use of the building is separated onto a specific floor. Each use also has access to own open space and the floor plans facilitate the proposed uses through appropriate layouts and configurations of the internal spaces. Internal spaces are provided with direct access and circulation routes and amenities like kitchen spaces for the commercial and office uses. The project is designed to preserve, respect and integrate natural features. Natural features for this project consist of street trees along University Avenue and Kipling Street. The project site will preserve the existing street trees along University Avenue and will replace the ginkgo biloba trees along Kipling Street with new gingko biloba trees. The building respect the street trees by maintain setbacks from the vegetation and Condition of Approval No. 3b ensures that vegetation from the project will integrate with the street trees. Because the area has not been recognized as having a unified design or historic character, the finding for historic character is not applicable Therefore, the project will preserve, respect and integrate natural features that contribute positively to the site. The project is consistent with the context -based design criteria for the applicable zone district: The design and architecture of the proposed project has been reviewed with respect to the Context -Based Design Criteria set forth in PAM 18.18.110. Section 18.18.110 notes that the project shall be: • Responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design (where "responsible to context" is not a desire to replicate surroundings, but provide appropriate transitions to surroundings), and DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F • Compatible with adjacent development, when apparent scale and mass is consistent with the pattern of achieving a pedestrian oriented design and when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so the visual unit of the street is maintained. Pursuant to PAMC 18.18.110(b), the following additional findings have been made in the affirmative: (1) Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment: 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 supports widen sidewalk with recessed entries on primary pedestrian routes, at -grade bicycle racks near the building entrances, secured bicycle facility at ground level and within the underground parking garage. (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 the proposed street facades are designed to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity. The building facade facing University Avenue preserves the existing storefront pattern with distinguish architectural elements to break up building mass. Entries are clearly defined and have a scale that is in proportion to the building functions. Elements that signal habitation such as entrances, stairs, and balconies are visible to people on the street. Proposed placement and orientation of doorways, windows and landscape elements are appropriate to create strong and direct relationships with the streets. Upper floors are setback, width of overhang is reduced and elevator shaft is oriented inward to reduce building mass and to fit in with the context of the neighborhood; (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 project incorporates design with a series of recessed terraces and interchange in materials to break down the scale of building and provide visual interest. Variation in massing and materials create a facade with two distinctive frontages, which respect the existing storefront patterns and rhythms on University Avenue. Proposed design incorporates columns framework and tall display windows to reinforce the street corner. With the intent to minimize massing and ensure greater setback, proposed design has reduced the height of stairway tower and setback roofline for upper floor terrace at the corner of Lane 30 and Kipling Street; (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. Although the parcels abutting the project site along Kipling Street have a commercial zoning designation, most of the built forms have a low density residential appearance. While the height is taller than most of the buildings in the neighborhood, the proposed building height of 50 feet is compliant with the height limit in the Downtown Commercial District. Proposed design includes at least a 10 feet setback with open terraces at the second and third floors to reduce the impact of the building height on to adjacent lower density neighborhood. Potential privacy concern is at a less than significant level as the buildings behind the project site are mostly one-story with commercial/office uses and mature trees along Kipling Street would provide some degree of screening. Proposed design includes storefront glass on both frontages to introduce a daylight source on the ground level. (5) Project Open Space. Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for residents, visitors, and/or employees of the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides open DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F space with wider sidewalks, balconies, and a roof -top terrace. The balconies are accessible by residents on the site and are located on four sides of the building that encourage 'eyes on the street'. Proposed roof -top terrace is for office tenants and would provide ample solar exposure; (6) 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 located within the below -grade garage and does not detract from pedestrian environment. The project includes a well -integrated garage entry, four feet setback, and mirrors that aid traffic and improve visibility on Lane 30. In addition, the project incorporates landscaping element to soften the exit of Lane 30. The intent is to enhance the character of pedestrian environment, while maintaining traffic visibility with low profile plant materials; (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. This finding does not apply; (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 would comply with the City's green building ordinance, and the design includes overhangs, recesses, and other shading devices and techniques to reduce the solar heat gain and energy consumption related to the cooling of the building. Design is easy for pedestrian, bicycle and transit access. The project incorporates high efficiency LED light fixtures, low -flow plumbing fixtures and high efficiency HVAC equipment for efficiency energy and water use. Green building features will be incorporated to achieve CalGreen Tier 2 standards for the commercial portion and Green Point rated standards for the residential portion. Condition of Approval No. 2e requires that the elevator tower height not exceed 54.5 feet and Condition of Approval No. 2b requires the fourth floor guard rails to be setback from the edge of the terrace along all streetscapes. These conditions reduce the visual prominence of the structure along Kipling Street, and they create the appearance of a three story building. Along Kipling Street and University Avenue, the project would constitute a one to two-story increase in height from the adjacent structures. Additionally, the second and third floors are setback 10 -feet from the alley way, and the third floor is setback approximately seven -feet off of Kipling Street and University Avenue. Condition Nos. 2c and 2d requires the library to be removed from the third floor at the intersection of Kipling Street and University Avenue and for the third floor roofline to follow the fourth floor plan, which further reduces the mass and scale of the building. These conditions and design feature help the project achieve a harmonious transition in scale and mass between adjacent land uses along Kipling Street and University Avenue. Further, the project is consistent with Finding #2 because it enhances the living conditions on the site by providing residential units in downtown. The project enhances the adjacent residential areas because it provides space for employment and commerce that residences can access easily from surrounding areas. 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The project has a high aesthetic quality, materials, construction techniques, textures, colors and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The buildings surrounding the site are comprised of concrete, stone, glass, brick, and metal and range in height from two to four stories along University Avenue. Along Kipling Street, buildings consist of cement, stucco, glass and brick structures. The proposed structure is comprised of high quality glass, concrete and steel design which is similar and representative of the materials found in the surrounding environment. Further, the materials, textures, and attention to detail in the structure is consistent throughout each elevation which represents a high quality aesthetic design. Lastly, the project, will have high quality materials, textures, colors and finishes because it is conditioned to return to the Architectural Review Board for review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment of exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing associated with the project. Therefore, the project is consistent with Finding #3 because it consists of a high quality aesthetic design with integrated materials, textures, colors and other details that are compatible with the surrounding environment. 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: Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for all users. The alley provides a dedicated, separate access point to the project from the street. This will minimize vehicle interactions with other vehicles as well as pedestrians and cyclists. Further, the traffic study has determined that there is adequate site distance for exiting the alley onto Kipling Street. The project will incorporate mirrored installations at the parking garage ingress and egress to improve visibility and reduce conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians and cyclists. The onsite circulation was reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards. Generally, the proposed plan would provide one main drive aisle that would lead to an underground parking structure. Parking is shown at 90 degrees to the main drive aisle. This drive aisle makes several 90 degree turns to spiral down to the farthest parking spaces. The City parking facility design standards specify a minimum width of 16 feet for two-way underground ramps; 25 feet for two-way drive aisles lined with 8.5 foot wide, 90 degree spaces; and maximum slope of 2% adjacent to accessible parking spaces. The proposed project meets these standards. Further, the project was also found to meet the applicable parking requirements of the PAMC. Therefore, these features ensure access and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for all users. 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: The project will preserve existing street trees along University Avenue and will replace two perimeter trees along Kipling Street with ginkgo biloba. Two other street trees along Kipling Street will be retained. The project proposes appropriate, drought tolerant, sustainable landscaping in key open space areas that will complement and enhance the design of these spaces. The landscaping will form a soft edge and perimeter around the ground floor and terrace area on the third floor. Further, as conditioned, the project is required to return to the Architectural Review Board for review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F Environment for landscape details and plans for all proposed planting, including individual planters, the greenwall, and landscaping near the rooftop elevator. Therefore, the landscape design is appropriate and compatible for the project. 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. SECTION 7. Conditions of Approval. The following conditions of approval shall be implemented as part of the modified project approved by this Record of Land Use Action. Condition numbers 2 and 3 are those specifically adopted by the City Council to ensure that the modified project is consistent with all applicable findings. Planning Division 1. SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE. The plans submitted for a Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans received on October 26, 2016, hereby labeled as Option 1, containing 24 pages, except as modified to incorporate the following conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval, including Exhibit A (MMRP), shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit. Project plans submitted for Building permits shall incorporate the following changes, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment: a. Applicant shall submit detailed plans that demonstrate compliance with floor area and other applicable development standards. b. The fourth floor guardrails and planters shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the edge of the third floor roofline (all elevations), as modified by these conditions. c. The 'library' shown on the third floor, floor plans, at the street corner, shall be removed. d. The third floor roofline above the removed 'library' area shall be removed, except to allow a three-foot overhang. e. The elevator adjacent to Kipling Street, inclusive of any associated mechanical equipment, shall not exceed fifty-four and one-half feet (54.5') in height. 3. BOARD LEVEL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall return to the ARB for approval of the following items, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment: a. A decorative wall design treatment, feature or element, shall be applied to the exterior walls immediately adjacent to the southern property line (project's south elevation) starting at an DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F elevation equivalent to the building height of the adjacent structure and extending to the roofline of the proposed building. b. Landscape details and plans for all proposed planting, including individual planters, the greenwall, and landscaping near the rooftop elevator. c. The exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing associated with the project. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall demonstrate how interior and exterior lighting sources will be reduced after operating hours or when the use of the facility is reduced. This may require the use of timing devices for exterior and interior lights in order to minimize light glare at night without jeopardizing security of employees/residents. 5. 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. 6. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Estimated Development Impact Fees in the amount of $312,634.85 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 7. REQUIRED PUBLIC ART. In conformance with Ordinance No. 5226, and to the satisfaction of the Public Art Commission, the property owner and/or applicant shall select an artist and received final approval of the art plan , or pay the in -lieu fee equivalent to 1% of the estimated construction valuation, prior to issuance of a Building permit. All required artwork shall be installed as approved by the Public Art Commission and verified by Public Art staff prior to release of the final Use and Occupancy permit. The Public Art requirements Application information and documents can be found at www.cityofpaloalto.org/publicart under the "policies and documents" tab. 8. 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 9. 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. 10. MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP). The MMRP associated with the project and attached here as Exhibit A is incorporated by reference and all mitigation measures shall be implemented as described in said document. 11. PLANNING 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, fenestration and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner at 650-329-2441 x0 to schedule this inspection. 12. EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s) is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the ARB 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. Building Division 13. The permit application shall be accompanied by all plans and related documents necessary to construct the complete project. 14. A demolition permit shall be required for the removal of the existing building(s) on site. 15. The entire project is to be included under a single building permit and shall not be phased under multiple permits. 16. Separate submittals and permits are required for the following systems: E.V., P.V. and Solar Hot Water. 17. Design of building components that are not included in the plans submitted for building permit and are to be "deferred" shall be limited to as few items as possible. The list of deferred items shall be reviewed and approved prior to permit application. 18. The plans submitted for the building permit shall include an allowable floor area calculation that relates the mixed occupancies to type of construction. 19. The plans submitted for the building permit shall include allowable floor area calculations that relate the proposed occupancies to type of construction. This includes possible future installation of assembly occupancies such as large conference rooms or cafeterias, for example. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 20. An acoustical analysis shall be submitted and the plans shall incorporate the report's recommendations needed to comply with the sound transmissions requirements in CBC Section 1207. Green Building 21. Green Building Ordinance: a. Commercial Portion - CALGreen Tier 2: The project must meet the California Green Building Code Tier 2 requirements. Due to the size of the project, the team must engage a commissioning agent and fulfil on the commissioning requirements. Additional information may be found at the following link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. The new Energy California Energy Code contains significant changes and Palo Alto is currently enforcing code minimum for the energy code. The details can be found at the following link. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/ b. Residential Portion- Green Point Rated: The project is required to achieve Green Point Rated Certification through Build It Green. The project team must engage a Green Point Rater. The required minimum points value is 70. The required prerequisite and points associated with exceeding the code shall be excused. Additional information may be found at the following 1 inkhttp://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_bui lding/default.asp 22. EV Parking Ordinance: The project is subject to meet the new Electric Vehicle Parking Ordinance that requires but is not limited to: a. Multi -family: One EVSE Ready or EVSE Installed per unit. For guest parking, either conduit only, EVSE Ready or EVSE Installed shall be provided for 25% of the parking. A minimum of 1 EVSE Installed for multi -family guest parking shall be provided. b. Commercial: For commercial parking, either conduit only, EVSE Ready or EVSE Installed shall be provided for 25% of the parking. A minimum of 1 EVSE Installed for commercial parking shall be provided. Urban Forestry 23. STREET TREES: City street trees approved to remain shall be maintained and protected during construction per City of Palo Alto standard requirements as further described in the City's Tree Technical Manual and below: a. UNIVERSITY AVENUE: Two regulated street trees (London Plane) on University Ave frontage are to be retained and protected. Protection shall consist of Modified Type I II for the entire trunk and will include primary branches on the building side. Prior to any clearance/pruning, the project applicant shall: i. Submit a written Tree Care Application to Dorothy.dale@cityofpaloalto.org, ii. Receive approval of said Tree Care Application, and iii. Shall coordinate with Urban Forestry for direct supervision by staff of private tree contractor. b. KIPLING STREET: Four trees in the right of way are approved for removal. Four replacement trees shall be installed, Ginkgo biloba 'Autumn Gold', Maidenhair, 36 -inch box size, in 5'x5' Kiva tree grates, two irrigation bubblers per tree (PW Standard Detail # 603a and 513). A certified arborist for the applicant shall evaluate/select matching trees DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F for quality. Contractor shall coordinate an Urban Forestry inspection of the new trees, before they are planted in the ground. i. SIDEWALK BASE MEDIUM: As a root growing medium between the curb and building face, Silva Cell technology or approved equal, shall be designed as a suspended sidewalk element and provide low compaction area for long term root growth. A certified arborist for the applicant shall calculate how many cubic feet of soil and Silva cell material will be needed for each tree, for approval by the Urban Forester. 24. All landscape material shall be well maintained for the life of the project and replaced if it fails. Public Works Engineering Department PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT AND GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT SUBMITTAL: 25. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE: The applicant has revised the project description to indicate that she is no longer pursuing the development of condominiums. Since the project site is located within two parcels 120-15-029 and 120-15-028 a certificate of compliance for a lot merger is required. Applicant shall apply for a certificate of compliance and provide the necessary documents. Certificate of Compliance shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building or grading and excavation permit. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT: 26. LOGISTICS PLAN: The applicant and contractor shall submit a construction logistics plan to the Public Works Department that addresses all impacts to the City's right-of-way, including, but not limited to: construction fence, construction entrance, stockpile areas, office trailer, temporary bathroom, measures for dewatering if needed, pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor's parking, on -site staging and storage areas, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor's contact. The plan shall be prepared and submitted along the Rough Grading and Excavation Permit. It shall include notes as indicated on the approved Truck Route Map for construction traffic to and from the site. Plan shall also indicate if the bus stop will need to be relocated. 27. Applicant shall schedule a meeting with Public Works Engineering and Transportation Division to discuss the existing building demolition, excavation and building construction logistics. Construction fence shall be located at the building property line, travel lane closures will not be permitted. Applicant shall propose a logistics plan that shows how pedestrian access is maintained and eliminating the least number of parking spaces during construction. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT: 28. GRADING PERMIT: An Excavation and Grading Permit is required for grading activities on private property that fill, excavate, store or dispose of 100 cubic yards or more based on PAMC Section 16.28.060. Applicant shall prepare and submit an excavation and grading permit to Public Works separately from the building permit set. The permit application and instructions are available at the Development Center and on our website: http://www. cityofpa loa lto.org/gov/de pts/pwd/forms_a nd_perm its.asp DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 29. ROUGH GRADING: 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. 30. BASEMENT SHORING: Provide shoring plans for the basement excavation, clearly including tiebacks (if any). Tieback shall not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City's right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. During the ARB process and via email dated 9/25/14 the applicant indicated that the tiebacks will extend into the adjacent private property. As such provide a letter from the neighboring property owner to allow the encroachment of permanent tiebacks into their property. In addition the shoring plans shall clearly show the property line and the dimension between the outside edge of the soldier piles and the property line for City records. Also provide notes on the Shoring Plans for the "Contractor to cut-off the shoring 6 -feet below the sidewalk elevation." AND "Contractor shall submit and obtain a permanent encroachment permit from Public Works for the tiebacks and shoring located within public right-of-way. 31. DEWATERING: Basement excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is not allowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend that a piezometer be installed in the soil boring. The contractor shall determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using a piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole if the deepest excavation will be within 3 feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level. If groundwater is found within 2 feet of the deepest excavation, a drawdown well dewatering system must be used, or alternatively, the contractor can excavate for the basement and hope not to hit groundwater, but if he does, he must immediately stop all work and install a drawdown well system before he continues to excavate. Based on the determined groundwater depth and season the contractor may be required to dewater the site or stop all grading and excavation work. In addition Public Works may require that all groundwater be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Street Work Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a street work permit prior to dewatering. The street work permit to dewater must be obtained in August to allow ample to time to dewater and complete the dewatering by October 31st. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has a sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website: DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F http://www. cityofpa loa lto.org/gov/de pts/pwd/forms_a nd_perm its.asp The following links are included to assist the applicant with dewatering requirements: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/30978 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51366 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47388. 32. WATER FILLING STATION: Applicant shall install a water station for the non -potable reuse of the dewatering water. This water station shall be constructed within private property, next to the right-of- way, (typically, behind the sidewalk). The station shall be accessible 24 hours a day for the filling of water carrying vehicles (i.e. street sweepers, etc.). The water station may also be used for onsite dust control. Before a discharge permit can be issued, the water supply station shall be installed, ready for operational and inspected by Public Works. The groundwater will also need to be tested for contaminants and chemical properties for the non -potable use. The discharge permit cannot be issued until the test results are received. Additional information regarding the station will be made available on the City's website under Public Works. 33. GROUNDWATER USE PLAN: A Groundwater Use Plan (GWUP) shall be submitted for review for any project which requires dewatering. The GWUP, a narrative that shall be included in or accompany the Dewatering Plan, must demonstrate the highest beneficial use practicable of the pumped groundwater. The GWUP shall also state that all onsite, non -potable water needs such as dust control shall be met by using the pumped groundwater. Delays in submitting the GWUP can result in delays in the issuance of your discharge permit as Public Works requires sufficient review time which shall be expected by the applicant. 34. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Shall clearly identify the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be feet below existing grade. Provide a note on the Rough Grading Plan that includes the comment above as a note. 35. GAS METERS: In -ground gas meters are not typically allowed by Public Works Utilities. If in -ground gas meters are not allowed, the above ground gas meter shall be located complete within private property. Plot and label the proposed location. If in -ground gas meters are permitted, applicant shall submit an email from Utilities that indicates in -ground gas meters are acceptable for this project. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 36. MAPPING: Applicant has revised the project description to indicate that she is no longer pursuing the development of condominiums. If at any point the applicant intends to sell portions of the building a Minor or Major Subdivision Application will 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. 37. OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS: Prior to submittal of Building and/or Grading permit applicant shall meet with Public Works to discuss off -site improvements. These may include but are not limited to new concrete or asphalt work, utility upgrades or relocations, and/or street resurfacing. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 38. The following items were not addressed through the final ARB submittal and shall be shown on the plans. a. Explain how all of the site runoff will drain directly into the media filter. The media filter shall be located complete with the private property as shown on the approve ARB plans. The details provided indicate that the media filter is to be installed below ground and discharge would need to be pumped to the surface. However that is not reflected on the Utility Plan. b. Plot and label the total the number of disconnected downspouts. The civil has indicated that the downspouts runoff will drain into the media filter, but it's not clear on the plans how this will be accomplished. c. The site plan shall demonstrate how the runoff from the MFS flows by gravity into the gutter, provide pipe inverts and flowline grades. If a new separate structure is required to allow runoff to flow by gravity into the gutter or reduce the velocity, then the structure shall be located completely within the private property. The 4th and 5th resubmittal ARB plans show a junction box within the public right of way, this box shall be located completely within the private property. d. The 5th submittal shows a planter box adjacent to the alley and the MFS has been relocated to be within this planter boxes. The plans submitted lack information, show how the roof runoff is directed into the mechanical treatment facility. Plot and label the pump, drain lines, downspouts. Show how all of the site runoff is treated by the proposed MFS. e. It's not clear if the planter box is intended to provide C3 treatment. If LID treatment is proposed provide the surface drainage areas and calculations. f. Resize the new planter box to allow the junction box to be within the private property and behind the Kipling Street sidewalk. The planter box and planting material shall be revised to meet the 4 -ft by 6 -ft clear site distance and height clearance. In addition the planter box shall be located 1 -foot minimum away from the adjacent alley. 39. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes, finished floor elevations at every at grade door entrance, area drain and bubbler locations, drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. See Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.28 Adjacent grades must slope away from the building foundation at minimum of 2% or 5% for 10 -feet per 2013 CBC Section 1804.3. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales. Grading will not be allowed that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from, neighboring properties. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter or connected directly to the City's infrastructure, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscape and other pervious areas of the site. Plan shall also include a drainage system as required for all uncovered exterior basement -level spaces such as lightwell, stairwells or driveway ramps. 40. 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 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. 41. 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. 42. 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 43. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, and restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities, and uncovered parking lots that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts of the project on storm water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape -based treatment controls such as bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a "water quality storm" specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system. Effective February 10, 2011, regulated projects, must contract with a qualified third -party reviewer during the building permit review process to certify that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. The certification form, 2 copies of approved storm water treatment plan, and a description of Maintenance Task and Schedule must be received by the City from the third - party reviewer prior to approval of the building permit by the Public Works department. Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, third -party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval. 44. UTILITY PLAN: shall be provided with the Building Permit that demonstrates how the site's drainage flows by gravity into the City's system and is not pumped. Public Works generally does not allow downspout rainwater to be collected, piped and discharged directly into the street gutter or connect directly to the City's infrastructure. The utility plan shall indicate that downspouts are disconnected, daylight at grade, and are directed to landscaped and other pervious areas onsite. Downspouts shall daylight away from the foundation. If pumps are required, plot and label where the pumps will be located on -site, storm water runoff from pumped system shall daylight onto onsite landscaped areas and be allow to infiltrate and flow by gravity DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F to the public storm drain line. Storm water runoff that is pumped shall not be directly piped into the public storm drain line. 45. TRANSFORMER AND UTILITIES: 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. The backflow preventer, and above grade meters 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. 46. 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 that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. This project may be required to replace the driveway approach the sidewalk associated with the existing driveway may be required to replaced with a thickened (6" thick instead of the standard 4" thick) section. 47. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the site plan that says, "The contractor using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. Pedestrian protection must be provided per the 2013 California Building Code Chapter 32 requirements. If the height of construction is 8 feet or less, the contractor must place construction railings sufficient to direct pedestrians around construction areas. If the height of construction is more than 8 feet, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works at the Development Center in order to provide a barrier and covered walkway. The contractor must apply to Public Works for an encroachment permit to close or occupy the sidewalk(s) or lane." 48. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace all of the existing sidewalks, ramps, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property. Applicant shall be responsible for replacing the two ramps immediately across the street from the project site. Applicant shall meet with Public Works and Transportation to discuss the potential for adding a bulb -out along the University Avenue side to widen the sidewalk. If construction of the new ramps and/or sidewalk results in a conflict with utilities or traffic signal than applicant will be responsible for adjusting to grade or relocating conflict and to bring the improvements to current designs standards. The site plan and grading and drainage plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. Provide references to the specific City's Standard Drawings and Specification. 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. 49. RESURFACING: The applicant is required to resurface (grind and overlay) the entire width of the street on University Avenue and Kipling Street frontages adjacent to the project. In addition this project is required to resurface the full width of the Lane along the project frontage. Note that the base material for these 3 streets varies. Thermoplastic striping of the street(s) will be required after resurfacing. Include an off -site plan that shows the existing signage and striping that is to be replaces as part of this project and for the contractor's use. 50. 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 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". 51. 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). 52. GARBAGE/TRASH RECEPTACLES: The plans provided for preliminary review do not include the existing garbage/trash receptacle along University Avenue. This shall be shown on the Building permit plans and remain in its location for as long as possible during construction. If construction activities require the temporary removal of the receptacle, the contractor may remove during that construction activity but must place it back as soon as those activities have been completed. Prior to doing so, the contractor must notify the public works department to determine if Public Works Operations should pick it up for storage during that time. 53. ADJACENT NEIGHBORS: For any improvements that extend beyond the property lines such as tie -backs for the basement or construction access 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 54. "NO DUMPING" LOGO: The applicant is required to paint the "No Dumping/Flows to San Franscisquito 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. 55. OIL/WATER SEPARATOR: Parking garage floor drains on interior 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. 56. GREASE INTERCEPTOR: If a commercial kitchen is proposed requiring the installation of a grease interceptor, the grease separator shall be installed and located within private property. In no case shall the City of Palo Alto allow the right-of-way (ROW) to be used to satisfy this requirement. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT FINAL: 57. STORM WATER TREATMENT: 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F certification for approval that the project's permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings. 58. 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 the first building occupancy sign -off. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. There is currently a $381 (FY 2015) C.3 plan check fee that will be collected upon submittal for a grading or building permit. 59. Contractor and/or Applicant shall prepare and submit an electronic (pdf) copy of the Off -Site Improvements As -Built set of plans to Public Works for the City's records. The as -built set shall include all the improvements within the public road right-of-way and include items such as: shoring piles, tiebacks, public storm drain improvements, traffic signs, street trees, location of any vaults or boxes, and any other item that was installed as part of this project. 60. Contractor shall submit and obtain an Encroachment permit for the permanent structures (shoring and tiebacks) that were installed within the public road right-of-way. Fire Department 61. Residential sprinklers to be designed per NFPA 13. Fire sprinklers and fire alarm systems and standpipes required in accordance with NFPA 13, NFPA14, NFPA 24, NFPA 72 and State and local standards. Sprinkler, fire alarm and underground fire supply installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 62. Sprinkler main drain must be coordinated with plumbing design so that 200 gpm can be flowed for annual main drain testing for 90 seconds without overflowing the collection sump, and the Utilities Department approved ejector pumps will be the maximum flow rate to sanitary sewer. 63. Applicant shall work with Utilities Department to provide acceptable backflow prevention configuration. 64. All floor levels in multi -story buildings must be served by an elevator capable of accommodating a 24 x 84 inch gurney without lifting or manipulating the gurney. 65. All welding or other hot work during construction shall be under a permit obtained from the Palo Alto Fire Department with proper notification and documentation of procedures followed and work conducted. 66. Low -E glass and underground parking areas can interfere with portable radios used by emergency responders. Please provide an RF Engineering analysis to determine if additional devices or equipment will be needed to maintain operability of emergency responder portable radios throughout 97% of the multi -family buildings in accordance with the Fire Code Appendix J as adopted by the City of Palo Alto. A written report to the Fire Marshal shall be provided prior to final inspection. Utilities Electrical Engineering DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F GENERAL: 67. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 68. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 69. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN SUBMITTALS FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE: 70. A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal. 71. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. 72. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 73. This project requires a padmount transformer. The location of the transformer shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16. 74. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. 75. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer's switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 76. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 77. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 78. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility's padmount transformer and the customer's main switchgear. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 79. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of a transition cabinet will not be required. 80. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 81. If the customer's total load exceeds 2500 kVA, service shall be provided at the primary voltage of 12,470 volts and the customer shall provide the high voltage switchgear and transformers. 82. For primary services, the standard service protection is a padmount fault interrupter owned an maintained by the City, installed at the customer's expense. The customer must provide and install the pad and associated substructure required for the fault interrupter. 83. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. 84. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer's expense and must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. DURING CONSTRUCTION: 85. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 86. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be check by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 87. The customer is responsible for installing all on -site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no 1/2 — inch size conduits are permitted. All off -site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer's expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off -site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. 88. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 89. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 90. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the National Electric Code and the City Standards. 91. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards for meter installations. 92. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to: Gopal Jagannath, P.E. Supervising Electric Project Engineer Utilities Engineering (Electrical) 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 93. Catalog cut sheets may not be substituted for factory drawing submittal. 94. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. AFTER CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO FINALIZATION: 95. The customer shall provide as -built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OCCUPANCY PERMIT: 96. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. 97. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 98. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 99. The following conditions apply to three-phase service and any service over 400 amperes: a. A padmount transformer is required. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F b. The Utilities Director, or his/her designee, may authorize the installation of submersible or vault installed facilities if in their opinion, padmounted equipment would not be feasible or practical. c. Submersible or vault installed facilities shall be considered Special Facilities as described in Rule and Regulation 20, and all costs associated with the installation, including continuing ownership and maintenance, will be borne by the applicant (see Rule and Regulation 3 for details). d. The customer must provide adequate space for installation, or reimburse the Utility for additional costs to locate the transformer outside the property boundaries. All service equipment must be located above grade level unless otherwise approved by Electric Engineering. Utilities Water Gas Wastewater Department PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT: 100. 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. 101. 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. FOR BUILDING PERMIT: 102. The applicant shall submit completed water -gas -wastewater service connection applications - load sheets for City of Palo Alto Utilities for each unit or place of business. 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). 103. 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. 104. 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). 105. 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. 106. The applicant's engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on - site and off -site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak floor demands. Field testing may be required to determine current flows and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant is required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. 107. 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 public water, gas and wastewater utilities improvement plans (the portion to be owned and maintained by the City) 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. 108. 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. 109. 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. 110. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 111. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant's expense. 112. Existing wastewater main is 5.4" PE on Kipling Street. (sewer lateral to be 4") 113. Existing water services (including fire services) that are not a currently standard material shall be replaced at the applicant's expense. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 114. 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. 115. 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. 116. A separate water meter and backflow preventer is required to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account and no other water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards. 117. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For service connection 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. 118. A new water service line installation for irrigation usage may require. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 119. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. 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. Please see a fire/domestic combination service connection for your provide- see City of Palo Alto standard WD -11. 120. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must conform with utilities standard details. Gas meter to be installed above ground. 121. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans. 122. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 123. 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. 124. 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 125. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 126. All WGW utilities work on University Avenue is 1.5 times the stated fee due to traffic; existing conditions require the work to be done outside of regular work hours. Zero Waste/Solid Waste PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 127. Provide a garbage and recycling chute for the residential unit with either an additional chute or a bin space for compostables on the residential floor. 128. SERVICE LEVELS: Without a restaurant: the enclosure should be sized for 3 -yard garbage bin, 4 -yard recycling bin, 1 -yard compostables bin; with a restaurant: With a restaurant: 3 -yard garbage bin, 4 -yard recycling bin, 2 -yard compostables bin. 129. TRASH DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING (PAMC 18.23.020): (A) 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. (B) Requirements: (i) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be accessible to all residents or users of the property. (ii) Recycling facilities shall be located, sized, and designed to encourage and facilitate convenient use. (iii) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be screened from public view by masonry or other opaque and durable material, and shall be enclosed and covered. Gates or other controlled access shall be provided where feasible. Chain link enclosures are strongly discouraged. (iv) Trash disposal and recycling structures shall be architecturally compatible with the design of the project. (v) The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 18.76.020. 130. RECYCLING STORAGE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS (PAMC 5.20.120): The design of any new, substantially remodeled, or expanded building or other facility shall provide for proper storage, handling, and accessibility which will accommodate the solid waste and recyclable materials loading anticipated and which will allow for the efficient and safe collection. The design shall comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 18.22.100, 18.24.100, 18.26.100, 18.32.080, 18.37.080, 18.41.080, 18.43.080, 18.45.080, 18.49.140, 18.55.080, 18.60.080, and 18.68.170 of Title 18 of this code. 131. SERVICE REQUIREMENTS: (a) Collection vehicle access (vertical clearance, street width and turnaround space) and street parking are common issues pertaining to new developments. Adequate space must be provided for vehicle access. (b) Weight limit for all drivable areas to be accessed by the solid waste vehicles (roads, driveways, pads) must be rated to 60,000 lbs. This includes areas where permeable pavement is used. (c) Containers must be within 25 feet of service area or charges will apply. (d) Carts and bins must be able to roll without obstacles or curbs to reach service areas "no jumping curbs". 132. GARBAGE, RECYCLING, AND YARD WASTE/COMPOSTABLES CART/ BIN LOCATION AND SIZING: DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F a. Office Building: The proposed commercial development must follow the requirements for recycling container space'. Project plans must show the placement of recycling containers, for example, within the details of the solid waste enclosures. Collection space should be provided for built-in recycling containers/storage on each floor/office or alcoves for the placement of recycling containers. i. Enclosure and access should be designed for equal access to all three waste streams — garbage, recycling, and compostables. ii. Collection cannot be performed in underground. Underground bins locations require a minimum of 77" of vertical clearance. Pull out charges will apply. In instances where push services are not available (e.g., hauler driver cannot push containers up or down ramps), the property owner will be responsible for placing solid waste containers in an accessible location for collection. iii. All service areas must have a clearance height of 20' for bin service. iv. New enclosures should consider rubber bumpers to reduce ware and tear on walls. For questions regarding garbage, recycling, and compostables collection issues, contact Green Waste of Palo Alto (650) 493-4894. b. Restaurants and Food Service Establishments: Please contact Green Waste of Palo Alto (650) 493-4894 to maximize the collection of compostables in food preparation areas and customer areas. For more information about compostable food service products, please contact City of Palo Alto Zero Waste at (650) 496-5910. c. Multi -family Residential: The proposed multi -family development must follow the requirements for recycling container space'. All residential developments, where central garbage, recycling, and compostables containers will serve five or more dwelling units, must have space for the storage and collection of recyclables and compostables. This includes the provision of recycling chutes where garbage chutes are provided. Project plans must show the placement of recycling and compostables containers, for example, within the details of the solid waste enclosures. i. Enclosure and access should be designed for equal access to all three waste streams — garbage, recycling, and compostables. ii. Collection cannot be performed in underground. Underground bins locations require a minimum of 77" of vertical clearance. Pull out charges will apply. In instances where push services are not available (e.g., hauler driver cannot push containers up or down ramps), the property owner will be responsible for placing solid waste containers in an accessible location for collection. iii. All service areas must have a clearance height of 20' for bin service. iv. New enclosures should consider rubber bumpers to reduce wear -and -tear on walls. For questions regarding garbage, recycling, and compostables collection issues, contact Green Waste of Palo Alto (650) 493-4894. 133. COVERED DUMPSTERS, RECYCLING AND TALLOW BIN AREAS (PAMC 16.09.075(q)(2)): 1 In accordance with the California Public Resources Code, Chapter 18, Articles 1 and 2 2 In accordance with the California Public Resources Code, Chapter 18, Articles 1 and 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F a. Newly constructed and remodeled Food Service Establishments (FSEs) shall include a covered area for all dumpsters, bins, carts or container used for the collection of trash, recycling, food scraps and waste cooking fats, oils and grease (FOG) or tallow. b. The area shall be designed and shown on plans to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. c. Drains that are installed within the enclosure for recycle and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins serving FSEs are optional. Any such drain installed shall be connected to a Grease Control Device (GCD). d. If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in the covered area. e. These requirements shall apply to remodeled or converted facilities to the extent that the portion of the facility being remodeled is related to the subject of the requirement. It is frequently to the FSE's advantage to install the next size larger GCD to allow for more efficient grease discharge prevention and may allow for longer times between cleaning. There are many manufacturers of GCDs which are available in different shapes, sizes and materials (plastic, reinforced fiberglass, reinforced concrete and metal). The requirements will assist FSEs with FOG discharge prevention to the sanitary sewer and storm drain pollution prevention. The FSE at all times shall comply with the Sewer Use Ordinance of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The ordinances include requirements for GCDs, GCD maintenance, drainage fixtures, record keeping and construction projects. 134. CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS (CDD) (PAMC 5.24.030): a. Covered projects shall comply with construction and demolition debris diversion rates and other requirements established in Chapter 16.14 (California Green Building Code). In addition, all debris generated by a covered project must haul 100 percent of the debris not salvaged for reuse to an approved facility as set forth in this chapter. b. Contact the City of Palo Alto's Green Building Coordinator for assistance on how to recycle construction and demolition debris from the project, including information on where to conveniently recycle the material. Public Works Water Quality Control 135. DISCHARGE OF GROUNDWATER (PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040): Prior approval shall be obtained from the city engineer or designee to discharge water pumped from construction sites to the storm drain. The city engineer or designee may require gravity settling and filtration upon a determination that either or both would improve the water quality of the discharge. Contaminated ground water or water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain. Such water may be discharged to the sewer, provided that the discharge limits contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) are not exceeded and the approval of the superintendent is obtained prior to discharge. The City shall be compensated for any costs it incurs in authorizing such discharge, at the rate set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule. 136. UNPOLLUTED WATER (PAMC 16.09.055): Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system (e.g. uncovered ramp to garage area). DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 137. COVERED PARKING (PAMC 16.09.180(b)(9)): If installed, 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. 138. DUMPSTERS FOR NEW AND REMODELED FACILITATIES (PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10)): New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection, except for single-family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water runon and runoff from the area. 139. ARCHITECTURAL COPPER 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. 140. LOADING DOCKS (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. 141. CONDENSATE FROM HVAC (PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5)): Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 142. SILVER PROCESSING (e.g. photoprocessing retail) (PAMC 16.09.215): Facilities conducting silver processing (photographic or X-ray films) shall either submit a treatment application or waste hauler certification for all spent silver bearing solutions. 650-329-2421. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 143. COPPER PIPING (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. 144. MERCURY SWITCHES (PAMC 16.09.180(12)): Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps. 145. COOLING SYSTEMS, POOLS, SPAS, FOUNTAINS, BOILERS AND HEAT EXCHANGERS (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. 146. UNDESIGNATED RETAIL SPACE (PAMC 16.09): Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of the space with undesignated tenants or future use will need to meet all requirements that would have been applicable during design and construction. If such undesignated retail space becomes a food service facility the following requirements must be met, in addition to other applicable codes: Grease Control Device (GCD) Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075; Drainage Fixture Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075; Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas PAMC, 16.09.075(q)(2); Large Item Cleaning Sink, PAMC 16.09.075(m)(2)(B). PASSED: 5-3-1 AYES: Filseth, Fine, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach NOES: DuBois, Holman, Kou, ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Kniss ATTEST: c6DocuSigned by: e MIAOr 45FA550911R71492 DocuSigned by: 6FB3765F09D34EA... City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: DocuSigned by: LJO4L L.,1.F 293CF322E1294F6 Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ,-DocuSigned by: atkviL q 15B6C45220134DC... Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those plans prepared by Jo Bellomo Associates titled "429 University Avenue", consisting of 24 pages, dated October 26, 2016. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F Exhibit A INTRODUCTION 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program Section 15097 of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that, whenever a public agency approves a project based on a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the public agency shall establish a mitigation monitoring or reporting program to ensure that all adopted mitigation measures are implemented. This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is intended to satisfy this requirement of the CEQA Guidelines as it relates to the 429 University Avenue project. This MMP would be used by City staff and mitigation monitoring personnel to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. Mitigation measures identified in this MMP were developed in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project. As noted above, the intent of the MMP is to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of all adopted mitigation measures. The MMP will provide for monitoring of construction activities, as necessary, and in the field identification and resolution of environmental concerns. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The City of Palo Alto will coordinate monitoring activities and ensure appropriate documentation of mitigation measure implementation. The table below identifies each mitigation measure for the 429 University Avenue Project and the associated implementation, monitoring, timing and performance requirements. The MMP table presented on the following pages identifies: 1. the full text of each applicable mitigation measure; 2. the party or parties responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure; 3. the timing of implementation of each mitigation measure including any ongoing monitoring requirements; and 4. performance criteria by which to ensure mitigation requirements have been met. Following completion of the monitoring and documentation process, the final monitoring results will recorded and incorporated into the project file maintained by the City's Department of Planning and Community Environment. It is noted that the mitigation measure numbering reflects the numbering used in the Initial Study prepared for the 429 University Avenue Project (Dudek 2014). 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program Page 1 January 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program No mitigation measures are required for the following resources: • Aesthetics • Agricultural Resources • Air Quality • Geology, Soils, and Seismicity • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Mineral Resources ■ Population and Housing • Public Services ■ Recreation • Utilities and Service Systems Implementation Monitoring Performance Mitigation Measure Responsibility Responsibility Timing Evaluation Criteria BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The following measures shall be Applicant City of Palo Alto • Prior to issuance of • Approved site implemented to reduce impacts to protected trees: • City of Palo Alto (City) -approved Modified Type III fencing Urban Forestry Group/Planning demolition, grading, and building plans reflect applicable shall be installed for the two street trees to be retained along Division Arborist permits conditions University Avenue. City -approved tree protection signs shall be posted on all fencing. • During demolition, excavation, and • Field inspections conducted to • Soil conditions for the four new trees to be planted along Kipling Street shall be improved by preparing a planting area at least 6 feet square for each tree and installing Silva Cells to reduce compaction. The Silva Cells shall be filled with proper soil amendments and growing medium as determined by the construction verify adherence to conditions City Arborist. • Unless otherwise approved, each new tree shall be provided with 1,200 cubic feet of rootable soil area, utilizing Standard Drawing #604/513. Rootable soil is defined as compaction less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas. • Two bubbler drip irrigation units shall be installed for each new tree to adequately water the new planting area. • New sidewalk shall be installed such that the final planting space opening is at least 5 feet by 5 feet for each new tree. 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Page 2 January 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria • Kiva tree grates shall be used around each new tree. • Replacement tree size shall be a 36 -inch box, properly structured nursery stock. • Based on growth habit and proven performance, Ginkgo biloba "Autumn Gold" is highly recommended for the replacement trees. Other tree species may be approved by the City Arborist. • All work within the Tree Protection Zone, including canopy pruning of protected trees, shall be supervised by a Certified Arborist approved by the City. CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Prior to commencement of site clearing and project grading, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to train construction personnel regarding how to recognize cultural resources (such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains) that could be encountered during construction activities. If artifacts or unusual amounts of shell or bone or other items indicative of buried archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during earth disturbance associated with the proposed project, the on -site contractor shall immediately notify the City of Palo Alto (City) and the Native American Heritage Commission as appropriate. All soil -disturbing work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and the City, completes a significance evaluation of the finds pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Any human remains unearthed shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, and California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99, which include requirements to Applicant City of Palo Alto Prior to and during earth disturbance • Training materials provided to construction contractors •Field inspections conducted to verify compliance 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Page 3 January 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria notify the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner's office and consult with Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants, as appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on State Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523 (archaeological sites). Mitigation measures prescribed by the Native American Heritage Commission, the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner's office, and any Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants and required by the City shall be undertaken before construction activities are resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in the City's Cultural Resources Management Program and in compliance with Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to building demolition, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto that a survey of the existing buildings has been conducted by a qualified environmental specialist who meets the requirements of the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations for suspected lead -containing materials (LCMs), including lead -based paint/coatings; asbestos containing materials (ACMs); and the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Any demolition activities likely to disturb LCMs or ACMs shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead- or asbestos- related construction work. If found, LCMs and ACMs shall be disposed of in accordance with state and federal regulations, including the EPA's Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the Cal -OSHA Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1), and California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of demolition permit and during demolition Building survey report submitted LCMs and ACMs handled by qualified contractor and disposed of in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the California Occupational Health and Safety's 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Page 4 January 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria requirements for disposal of hazardous waste. If PCBs are found, these materials shall be managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act of 1991 (California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160-42185) and other state and federal guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards Act, particularly Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling, for the removal of mercury switches, PCB -containing ballasts, and refrigerants. Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1), and California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA requirements for disposal of hazardous waste. PCBs, mercury and other hazardous building materials handled by qualified contractor and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations as identified. NOISE Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Residential Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies with Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating up to 45 and upgraded exterior walls shall be used in the residential portion of the proposed building to achieve the City's maximum instantaneous noise guideline for residential uses. The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met through review of building plans as a condition of project approval. Commercial Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies for the commercial portions of the building shall have a minimum STC rating of 32 at the corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street, and a minimum STC of 28 at all other commercial Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include window sound transmission ratings and interior noise levels verification from a qualified acoustical consultant. 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Page 5 January 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2699-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria locations within the proposed building to comply with the State of California CalGreen noise standards (maximum interior noise level of 50 dB during the peak hour of traffic). The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met through review of building plans as a condition of project approval. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The residential portion of the proposed building shall have a ventilation or air-conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment when windows are closed. Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include details of the residential ventilation system. Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Noise levels from rooftop equipment shall be reduced to meet the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance requirements. An enclosure or other sound- attenuation measures at the exhaust fans shall be provided to reduce rooftop equipment noise is no greater than 8 dB above the existing ambient level at potential future neighboring buildings to meet the property plane noise limit. Use of quieter equipment than assumed in this analysis may support reduced mitigation, which shall be evaluated by a qualified acoustical consultant. Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include garage exhaust fan manufacturer's information regarding equipment noise levels and noise attenuation details TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Mitigation Measure TRANS -1: Mirrors shall be installed at the parking garage driveway to allow drivers to see when a pedestrian or vehicle is approaching in Lane 30. Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include parking garage mirrors Mitigation Measure -TRANS -2: Mirrors shall be installed at each turn within the parking garage to provide adequate sight distance. Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include parking garage mirrors 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Page 6 January 2015 Docu • SECURED Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: 930BD3572B99456991C11551728AD75F Subject: Please DocuSign: 429 University ROLUA FINAL.docx Source Envelope: Document Pages: 42 Supplemental Document Pages: 0 Certificate Pages: 2 AutoNav: Enabled Envelopeld Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) Signatures: 4 Initials: 0 Payments: 0 Status: Completed Envelope Originator: Yolanda Cervantes 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 Yolanda.Cervantes@CityofPaloAlto.org IP Address: 12.220.157.20 Record Tracking Status: Original 4/21/2017 3:24:37 PM Holder: Yolanda Cervantes Yolanda.Cervantes@CityofPaloAlto.org Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Jonathan Lait Jonathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org Asst. Director Planning and Comm Environment City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: Albert Yang Albert.yang@cityofpaloalto.org Senior Deputy City Attorney City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: Greg Scharff greg.scharff@cityofpaloalto.org Mayor City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: Beth Minor beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org City Clerk City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: CDocu Signed by: aA.A.,n C.,i4 293CF322E1294F6... Using IP Address: 12.220.157.20 CDocbSigned by arty- 61. 15B6C45220134DC... Using IP Address: 73.254.101.222 C1Docu Signed by: 6FB�� 3765F09D34EA... Using IP Address: 71.198.25.55 Signed using mobile CDocu Signed by. e4t, Minor 45F955o2DB71492 Using IP Address: 97.84.91.30 Signed using mobile Sent: 4/21/2017 3:27:20 PM Resent: 4/21/2017 3:33:33 PM Viewed: 4/21/2017 3:33:56 PM Signed: 4/21/2017 3:34:13 PM Sent: 4/21/2017 3:34:17 PM Viewed: 4/24/2017 8:55:46 AM Signed: 4/24/2017 8:56:17 AM Sent: 4/24/2017 8:56:20 AM Resent: 4/25/2017 10:47:36 AM Viewed: 4/24/2017 3:32:28 PM Signed: 4/25/2017 8:27:28 PM Sent: 4/25/2017 8:27:32 PM Viewed: 4/25/2017 9:37:47 PM Signed: 4/25/2017 9:39:10 PM In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Notary Events Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 4/25/2017 8:27:32 PM Certified Delivered Security Checked 4/25/2017 9:37:47 PM Signing Complete Security Checked 4/25/2017 9:39:10 PM Completed Security Checked 4/25/2017 9:39:10 PM Payment Events Status Timestamps Legend Special Setback Frontages Park School abc Building Roof Outline Underlying Lot Line • lc Easement abc Lot Dimensions Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels City Jurisdictional Limits: !_ Palo Alto City Boundary • • Tree Project Site 429 University Avenue [18PLN-00240] This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS 148' a peters. 2018-07-241225:00 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal \Planning mdb) This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors 01989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto From: Lait, Jonathan To: Elizabeth Wong (elizabethwong2009@gmail.com) Subject: 429 University Avenue Date: Friday, October 12, 2018 5:01:26 PM Dear Elizabeth, I write in advance of issuing a Director's decision for the subject Architectural Review application. Following the Architectural Review Board's October 4, 2018 recommendation, I am prepared to partially approve the application with respect to the decorative element on the southern elevation and landscaping plan, and partially deny the application with respect to the exterior building materials, colors, and craftsmanship. As currently presented, the exterior materials, colors, and craftsmanship are not consistent with Architectural Review findings 2 and 3 (see below). However, I believe a few simple changes may be effective to address ARB's concerns and allow me to make the required findings. For example, the following changes would add textures, colors, and details more compatible with the highly ornamented character of the surrounding area: • Addition of sun shades or awnings along the University Ave frontage • Recessing the ground floor glass fagade by 18-24" on the University Avenue (with removed floor area added to second floor) • Adding texture to the exterior concrete on the first and second floors that recognizes the high level of detail on surrounding buildings. If you are amenable to incorporating some or all of these changes, I would seek recommendation of approval from the ARB on the updated design prior to issuing my decision. I believe the ARB's support is important for the ultimate success of your project. Please contact me by 650 329-2679 if you are interested in pursuing this path for your application. Jonathan Relevant ARB Findings 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. 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. Attachment G KASSOU N I LAW Via E -Mail and U.S. Mail November 13, 2018 Molly Stump Office of the City Attorney City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: 429 University Ave., 14PLN-00222 Dear Ms. Stump: This firm represents Kipling Post, LP, the owner of 429 University Avenue (referred to as the Project). This letter is a follow-up to my prior letter of October 31, 2018 (which explained why Palo Alto has no discretion to shut down the Project based upon the Municipal Code section 18.77.090), and is submitted in support of the October 18, 2018 Administrative Appeal of Interim Director Jonathan Lait's decision to deny approval of the "exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing associated with the project." This letter sets forth the legal grounds compelling the City of Palo Alto's (City) grant of the appeal and approval of the Project. All prior correspondence, documents, photographs, Public Records Act responsive documents to this firm's prior requests, and comments from Kipling Post and its representatives are incorporated herein and deemed part of the record. As will be explained, the record over the last 18 months evidences an obvious disconnect between planning staff and the Architectural Review Board (ARB); inexplicable delays in having this minor project approval heard by the ARB; the failure of Interim Director Lait to even pay lip service to independent review of the ARB's routine denials (16 in a row); the failure of all involved to recognize that the City Council has already approved this Project with specific findings approving mass, scale, colors, and detailing; and the astonishing concessions of bias by members of the ARB, in particular Board Members Gooyer and Thompson. It is telling that Interim Director of Planning Lait recommended approval in his Staff Reports for all three Minor Level ARB reviews. Kipling Post had made changes for each ARB hearing and these were reviewed and accepted by the Planning Department. Attached as Exhibit A are the first two pages of the Staff Reports for the August 16, 2018, September 20, 2018, and October 4, 2018, Minor Level ARB hearings. The Staff Reports strongly show Kipling Post's full cooperation with the Planning Department, which earned Staff's recommendation for approval at each ARB. Kipling Post is not required to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on yet another round of submissions before a biased ARB, after having already proposed three separate iterations for the ARB over three separate hearings, all of which were rejected without any commitment from Mr. 621 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 2025 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 TELEPHONE 916.930.0030 FACSIMILE 916.930.0033 1 Lait that an alternative would actually be approved. On this point, Interim Director Lait's Notice of Proposed Decision is grossly inaccurate when it accuses Kipling Post of a "refusal" to consider the "suggestion of incorporating detail into the design in an effort to secure complete project approval." Neither the ARB nor Interim Director Lait proposed specific changes that would result in approval. (Planning Department staff already requested ARB to recommend approval, to no avail.) In any event, Kipling Post is not required to go through a fourth post -City Council ARB hearing in front of members who have already evidenced their desire to fundamentally alter an approved modern design, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars with no assurance of recommendation of approval. Kipling Post has been left with no option at this point but to pursue legal remedies in Court. Should the appeal be denied, Kipling Post will immediately file a Complaint against the City of Palo Alto. This legal action will compel issuance of the building permit, and will award Kipling Post all damages and attorney's fees attributable to the City of Palo Alto pursuant to C.C.P section 1094.5 and the Federal and State Constitutional Takings Clauses. This office is also investigating the liability of individual City of Palo Alto employees pursuant to 42 U.S.0 1983. Specific grounds are as follows: I. THE CITY HAS ALREADY APPROVED THE PROJECT'S GLASS, CONCRETE, AND STEEL DESIGN, AND MADE SPECIFIC FINDINGS REGARDING SIZE, SCALE, MASS, AND COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING AREAS The City Council approved this Project on February 6, 2017 (Approval No. 2017-2). Among other things, the City Council found the following: • "The project is compatible with the surrounding development based upon the building's size, scale and mass." • "The building's modern design blends and transitions with the surrounding buildings through similar materials and horizontal rooflines." • "The project is compatible with the immediate environment of the site." • "The design of the building offers a harmoniously compatible transition with the design character of the streetscape along University Avenue.... The project consists of rectilinear features in a glass and concrete style building. These features are consistent with the character of the surrounding buildings to the east of the site along university Avenue and the building is located at the corner of Kipling Street and University Avenue." • "The proposed project is consistent with the above finding because it corporates materials, textures, colors and details that are compatible with adjacent 2 structures and functions. Adjacent structures employ brick, stucco and glass windows with a rough texture and organic colors. The proposed structure consists of concrete, glass windows, and metal mesh screens. These features compliment the adjacent buildings and the third and fourth floor consist of a similarly colored concrete as nearby buildings." • "The project has a high aesthetic quality, materials, construction techniques, textures, colors and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area." • "The proposed structure is comprised of high quality glass, concrete and steel design which is similar and representative of the materials found in the surrounding environment. Further, the materials, textures, and attention to detail in the structure is consistent throughout each elevation which represents a high quality aesthetic design." These findings are consistent with the City Council's approval of the Option 1 design in 2017, in particular Sheet A.3.7, in which the materials are clearly specified. In short, the Project was already approved as a glass, concrete, and steel design. The only missing element from the City Council's approval of Option 1 was the decorative wall treatment for the Project's west elevation and the landscaping, both of which have been approved by Interim Director Lait and are not the subject of this appeal. II. THE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT'S FINDINGS ARE IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE CITY COUNCIL'S FINDINGS Not only has the City Council already made the above (and other) core findings, Planning Department staff has recommended approval of Kipling Post's submissions at every ARB hearing since the 2017 approval of this Project. Unfortunately, it is apparent that the staff reports were highly confusing to the ARB, as they set up mandated findings above and beyond the limited issue of "exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing associated with the project." This gave the ARB an erroneous belief that it could force the redesign of an approved project. For example, the staff report for the October 4, 2018, ARB hearing treated the matter as if the ARB were evaluating the Project for the first time, and thus erroneously mandated support for all the findings contained in Municipal Code section 18.76. Yet, as noted above, the ARB's role is limited to the issue of "exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing associated with the project." Interim Director Lait's October 16, 2018, correspondence to Project architect Peter Ko attached findings supporting denial of the Project. These findings illustrate the attempt by the Planning Department to force fundamental architectural design changes to an approved project. The 3 following are examples of the Planning Department's errant findings when contrasted with the City's previously approved findings: • "The building exterior is not compatible with its surroundings, however, because it fails to incorporate detail and craftsmanship in design that is similar to the surrounding buildings." [Compare with the City's approved finding that the Project incorporates "materials, textures, colors and details that are compatible with adjacent structures and functions."] • The proposed Project "uses exterior building materials (concrete) and colors (gray) that result in a design with little to no architectural detailing and no design linkages that reflect the overall pattern of buildings in the area." [Compare with the City's approved finding that the Project "has a high aesthetic quality, materials, construction techniques, textures, colors and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area." Lest there be any doubt that the Planning Department is seeking a redesign of the previously approved Project, its findings also contend that "comparably scaled buildings in the area" include details such as "Juliet balconies, faux balustrade screens in front of windows, recessed store fronts, awnings and recessed windows that enhance the pedestrian scale and experience." Yet the City Council has approved this Project as a "modern design" which "blends and transitions with the surrounding buildings through similar materials and horizontal rooflines." The detail proposed by architect Peter Ko is fully consistent with the design of a "modern building" as already approved by the City Council when it found that the "materials, textures, and attention to detail in the structure is consistent throughout each elevation which represents a high quality aesthetic design." "Detail" in architectural circles is commonly understood to be coterminous with "detail and craftsmanship in design." Thus, the City Council's previous finding of "high quality aesthetic design" does not grant the ARB or the Planning Department carte blanche for wholesale architectural revisions at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to Kipling Post. III. TWO OF THE THREE VOTING MEMBERS OF THE ARB DISPLAYED OVERT BIAS AGAINST THE PROJECT AND COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR THE CITY COUNCIL'S FINDINGS A. ARB Member Gooyer The Planning Department's erroneous requirement that every finding in Municipal Code section 18.76 be addressed is inconsistent with the limited role of the ARB post -City Council approval of the Project on February 6, 2017. Thus several members of the ARB, in particular Mr. Gooyer, believed that the ARB was reviewing the Project from the ground up: "I voted against this project go -around. I have a hard time now saying, yes, you know, some very minor changes were made, but not enough for me to go from a negative vote to a positive vote. It's tough for me to now approve this project because of this." 4 This is a startling admission of bias by Mr. Gooyer, and discloses the necessity of Interim Director Lait's intervention and independent assessment (which he failed to do). Mr. Gooyer is admitting that because he was against this Project in general prior to the City Council approval in 2017, "it's tough for me to now approve this project." Mr. Gooyer further revealed his inherent bias when he remarked that he was only able to make a decision between two binary options (A or B): "If the proposal...is worded so that we're not discussing anything other than Option A or B, I can make a vote. Other than that, I would just vote no." He admitted he was unable (based upon his historical voting record) to assess the submission presented by Kipling Post, and recommended by staff. Again, Interim Director Lait should have -intervened when issuing his decision, but did nothing but parrot the ARB. B. ARB Member Thompson ARB member Thompson similarly failed to acknowledge the City Council's prior finding that the Project is "compatible with the surrounding development based upon the building's size, scale and mass." On the contrary, she expressly cited "massing" concerns as the first of her issues: "In terms of considering the context and the lines that are coming out of the context, I don't think that this massing actually works, even if, on its own, when you're not looking at the context it looks fine." Ms. Thomson contradicted the City Council's prior findings yet again by asserting a second "issue" with the Project, this time criticizing the "clean line building" when compared to the "detail in adjacent structures." Yet as noted in Section I, the City Council made several findings establishing the Project's compatibility with "surrounding buildings," "adjacent structures and functions," and the "surrounding environment." Significantly, Ms. Thomson expressed no clear preference for lighter or darker colors, noting that she could be "swayed either way for that." Ms. Thompson then proceeded to raise a third issue with the "scale" of the Project, despite the City Council's prior finding that the "[t]he project is compatible with the surrounding development based upon the building's size, scale and mass." Ms. Thompson erroneously asserted that "we can talk about scale, because I think that is related to the details....It is not compatible when it comes to scale." Ms. Thompson's confusion was the direct result of staff having imposed finding requirements unrelated to the limited issues on the table. C. ARB Chair Alexander Lew The third and only other voting member, Alexander Lew, has been on the ARB since the beginning and recommended approval. The ARB normally consists of five members. Recommendation of approval at a Minor level hearing takes two affirmative votes, 2 of 5 or 40%. Two members were recused for various reasons resulting in an approval threshold of 2 of 3 members or 67%. Nowhere in the ARB charter does it envision requiring such a high threshold. This 67% threshold is even higher than for a regular Major level ARB hearing which requires a threshold of 3 of 5 members or 60%. 5 There was no consideration given to this important imbalance by the Interim Planning Director in his decision. IV. PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S STONEWALLING APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR ARB MINOR LEVEL HEARING The Applicant has diligently pursued obtaining a Building Permit since approval by City Council on February 6, 2017. Building plans were submitted to the Building Department for plan check on March 2, 2018. The ARB Minor level review is one of the Conditions of Approval. Applicant requested multiple times, by telephone and then continuously in writing as early as February 1, 2018, that the Planning Staff schedule such a hearing. An ARB Minor level hearing finally took place six months later, on August 16, 2018. These interminable delays by the Planning Staff ignoring Applicant's requests have caused costly delays to the Project, especially considering that the City's rules only allow construction excavation during the dry summer months. The scheduling delays have caused the Project to lose one year's window for in -ground work. The Applicant has otherwise obtained approval of the building plans from all other departments in the City except for Planning and contractor -related logistics issues from Public Works Engineering (The Public Works Engineering issues are normally resolved by a General Contracting firm, which will not commit to the Project without a final approval from Planning.) The list of Departmental approvals is shown in Exhibit B. V. MICHAEL HARBOUR'S COMMENTS AT THE ARB HEARINGS WERE WILDLY INACCURATE AND FURTHER REVEAL THE ATTEMPT TO REDESIGN THE PROJECT The comments of Michael Harbour at the hearings (a Project opponent from day one) did little to alleviate the confusion. Among other things, Mr. Harbour commented that the "mass and size is incompatible with the neighboring buildings, and it's not pedestrian friendly." As noted above, this had already been resolved in February, 2017, thus adding to the confusion initiated by the staff report. Indeed, Mr. Harbour is the only neighborhood resident whose comments were expressly referenced in the ARB staff report. Those written comments included the gross fabrication that Bellomo Architects had been "fired," and that it has disavowed the Project. It is apparent that Mr. Harbour's personal animus toward the Project has reached the level of the absurd. It is also apparent that Mr. Harbour has been utilizing Jodie Gerhardt as his personal pipeline for information regarding the Project. (See e-mail exchange between August 16, 2018 and August 23, 2018, Exhibit C.) It is telling that after this e-mail exchange, Ms. Gerhardt took the position on October 26, 2018, that any further approval extensions would have to be considered by City Attorney staff, in contradiction to her year -prior written communication on September 20, 2017, to Ko Architects that "[t]he Planning approval period is `stayed' during building permit review." (Exhibit D) A city cannot "deprive an individual of property rights by a plebiscite of neighbors. . Such action is arbitrary and unlawful." Ross v. City of Yorba Linda (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 954, 968. 6 Notably, the Court reached its decision after it exhaustively canvassed the applicable case law. Id. at 967-968. While the Court recognized that a city council might consider the objections of neighbors, such objections are no substitute for the constitutional obligation to consider "what those objections are worth —not the mere fact that they are made." Id. at 966 (emphasis in original). In short, an exercise of approval power cannot be made to depend upon a "count of noses." Id., quoting Mettee v. County Commissioner of Howard County (1957) 212 Md. 357 [129 A.2d 136, 140.) (See also Hardin County v. Jost (1957) 897 S.W.2d 592, 595 ["[b]asing zoning decisions solely on the complaints of neighbors ignores the basic premise of planning and zoning..."].) VI. INTERIM DIRECTOR LAIT HAS DENIED PROJECT APPROVAL BASED UPON UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE STANDARDS IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTORY LAW It is a "fundamental rule in zoning...that an ordinance must establish a standard to operate uniformly and govern its administration and enforcement in all cases." Redwood City Co. of Jehovah's Witnesses v. City of Menlo Park (1959) 167 Ca1.App.2d 686, 697-98. An ordinance is invalid where it "leaves its interpretation, administration or enforcement to the ungoverned discretion" of the decision -making body. Id. Indeed, as the United States Supreme Court held in Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville (1972) 405 U.S. 156, 170, laws that permit and encourage "arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement" violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Id.; see also Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) 118 U.S. 356, 373 (An ordinance which clothes a government actor with unbridled discretion "hardly falls within the domain of law, and we are constrained to pronounce' it inoperative and void."). In Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Pub. Co. (1992) 486 U.S. 750, 769, the Supreme Court further held that even in limited circumstances where a law might constitutionally allow an administrator or agency to exercise discretion to protect "the health, safety or welfare of the public," such a law is unconstitutional if it does not place "explicit" textual limitations on the exercise of such discretion. Id. at 770. In Lakewood more specifically, the Court struck down a law that permitted the mayor to deny approval of newspaper stand permits if the mayor found the approval was "not in the public interest," because the law did not expressly limit or define what the mayor could determine to be in such "public interest." Id at 769. Like the laws at issue in the cases mentioned above, the ARB has been granted unfettered and limitless discretion to deny recommendation of Project approval with no accountability or adherence to objectively quantifiable standards, thus leaving the door open to arbitrary and discriminatory decisions. As even the City's former Planning Director Hillary Gitelman conceded at the May 4, 2015 City Council hearing, "compatibility is in the eyes of the beholder." Furthermore, this Project is subject to California's Housing Accountability Act (CHHA), in particular Government Code section 65589.5, subd. (h)(2), as there are three residential units in a City with a severe housing crisis. Neither the ARB nor Interim Director Lait articulated any specific adverse impact on public health or safety in support of the purely subjective, biased denial of the Project. The purpose of this statute is to limit the ability of local governments to 7 "reject or make infeasible housing developments ... without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action...." (§ 65589.5, subd. (b).) Subdivision (j) of the statute provides that "[w]hen a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project's application is determined to be complete," a local agency which "proposes to disapprove the project ... shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that ... [¶] (1) [t]he housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved" and "(2) [t]here is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact ... other than the disapproval of the housing development project...." Residential housing projects, such as that being proposed by Kipling Post, are expressly included in the CHAA as a "housing development project." (See Government Code § 65589.5, subd. (h)(2)(A)(C).) (See also Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1073.) As such, the burden of proof shifts to the City to support denial with specific findings that approval would result in a "specific, adverse impact" on "public health or safety" Not only that, the phrase "specific, adverse impact" means a "significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete." (Government Code § 65589.5, subd. (j)(1). (Emphasis added.) No such findings were made, nor can such findings be made as the City has no objective, identified written public health or safety standards or policies that would warrant project denial. VII. THE CITY IS EXPOSING ITSELF TO LIABILITY FOR A TAKING AND CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS When governmental restrictions interfere with a property owner's "distinct investment -backed expectations" for developing property, the government generally must compensate for the loss. Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (1997) 16 Ca1.4th 761, 775; see also Penn Central Transportation Company v. New York City (1978) 438 U.S. 10. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed this Constitutional mandate in Lockaway Storage v. County of Alameda (2013) 216 Ca1.App.4th 161. There, the plaintiff had purchased a parcel of land for which the County had granted a Conditional Use Permit allowing the property to be used for storage of recreational vehicles and boats. Id. at 168. After the plaintiff purchased the property, however, the County refused to issue the permits that were necessary for the plaintiff to construct such a storage facility. The County justified its denials by claiming that the proposed construction would be "inconsistent with the County's [newly adopted] general plan." Id. at 171. Nonetheless, the Court still found a taking, in part, because the County's actions had denied the plaintiff its "reasonable investment backed expectation" that it could use the property as a storage facility. Id. at. 186. Please be further advised that Kipling Post will be entitled to damages for a temporary taking even if a building permit is ultimately issued.. In the Lockaway Storage case referenced above, of which the undersigned was counsel of record, several million dollars of damages and over $700,000 in attorney's fees were awarded the property owner for the wrongful delay in issuing 8 building permits. Individual Alameda County employees were also named as defendants in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. That matter settled for $500,000. Similarly here, the ARB and Planning Department's perpetual delay in approving the Project has interfered with Kipling Post's "reasonable investment backed expectations." The denial of an investment backed expectation is ad hoc —a fact -specific inquiry that necessarily considers all circumstances surrounding the denial. Obeisance to the design whims of Michael Harbour, coupled with the astonishing lack of consideration of the City Council's prior findings, will only result in further depriving Kipling Post's investment backed expectations. CONCLUSION Especially tragic, after so many years of work and expense on this Project, is Interim Director Lait's refusal to intervene and restore some semblance of objectivity and discretion to the process. In particular, Board Member Gooyer's express concession of bias should have been enough for Mr. Lait to approve the "exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing associated with the project." It is clear that Mr. Lait will do nothing contrary to the ARB on this issue, regardless of the circumstances, and regardless of the express concessions of bias of ARB members. One wonders why the Municipal Code provision mandating the Director to approve or deny ARB recommendations even exists. We expect the City Council to grant the appeal and put the matter to rest. As you know from my prior correspondence, Kipling Post began construction activity and has spent inordinate time and expense in obtaining Project approval. This is evidenced by: • Retention of the Ko Architects firm to provide three separate sets of drawings to address three separate ARB hearings at great expense; • Completion of the removal of street trees pursuant to validly issued permits; • Payment of fees for new water service connections, fire service capacity, and water meters; • Removal of hazardous materials; • Archaeological services; • Disconnection of utilities to the site; • Eviction of tenants; • Preparation of construction documents; • CALGreen compliance; • Building permit fees ($186,871.77); 9 • Issuance of Encroachment Permit for installation of ground water level monitoring piezometer; • Hundreds of hours of work and hundred of thousands of dollars in expenses in obtaining Building Permit approval status from multiple departments as set forth in Exhibit B; and • Three ARB Minor level hearings Evidence of the above examples is attached as Exhibit E. To have this entire Project ground to halt because an ARB member just doesn't like it is arbitrary and capricious. I sincerely hope that you recognize the liability facing the City if, under these circumstances, the Project is denied. Accordingly, the City Council is urged to grant the appeal and approve Kipling Post's proposal for exterior building material, colors and craftsmanship - related detailing, which was recommended for approval by Planning Department staff in their ARB Staff Reports (Exhibit A). Thank you for your prompt attention. Sincerely, mo assouni cc [via e-mail]: Ed Shikada Jonathan Lait George Hoyt Brad Eggleston Rosemary Morse Peter Ko 10 Exhibit A Staff Reports to Minor Level Review ARB Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9470) CITY OF PA LO A LTO Report Type: Summary Title: Title: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/16/2018 429 University: Condition Compliance - West Wall, Landscaping, Materials (1st Formal) PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 429 University Avenue [18PLN-00240]: Recommendation on the Applicant's Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural Review Consistent With Condition of Approval #3, for a Previously Approved Mixed -Use Building (14PLN-00222), Requiring Architectural Review Board Approval for the Proposed West Elevation Wall Design, Landscape Details, and Exterior Building Materials, Colors, and Craftsmanship. Environmental Assessment: Use of Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for 14PLN-00222. Zoning District: CD-C(G)(P) (Downtown Commercial with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Shopping Overlay). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at apetersen@m- group.us From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Background The subject project was reviewed and approved by the City. Council on February 6, 2017. Condition of Approval #3 in the attached Record of Land Use Action (Attachment G) requires the project to return to the ARB to evaluate three specific items. These items are: a. A decorative wall design treatment, feature or element, shall be applied to the exterior walls immediately adjacent to the southern property line (project's south elevation) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 2S0 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 b. Landscape details and plans for all proposed planting, including individual planters, the greenwall, and landscaping near the rooftop elevator. c. The exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing associated with the project. The previous staff report from the February 6, 2017 hearing includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation against City Codes and Policies. The report, action minutes, transcript, and video of the meeting are available online: 1 Document Staff Report Action Minutes Transcript Video Lin https://www.citvofpa loalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55707 https://www.cit of aloalto.ore/civicax/filebank/documents/56154 https://www.citvofpaloalto.ore/civicax/filebank/documents/56868 http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-115/ Additionally, theproject returned to City Council on March 20, 2017 as an item on the consent calendar for adoption of the findings and the Record of Land Use Action (ROLUA). The report, action minutes, transcript and video of the meeting are available online: Document Staff Report Action Minutes Link https://www.citvofpaloalto.ore/civicaxlfiiebank/documents/56356 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56839 Transcript https://www.cityofpaioaito.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57427 Video http://midpenmedia.ore/city-council-120/ Additional history is available on the City's project webpage at bit.ly/429University. A copy of the City Council staff report without prior attachments is available in Attachment D. The purpose of this report is to detail the applicant's response to the condition of approval, as part of a Minor Architectural Review application. Other minor changes to the project are being reviewed through the building permit process, as is the City's standard process. The analysis section below builds upon information contained in earlier reports and is modified to reflect recent project changes. Analysis1 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. Packet Pg, CITY OF PAL O ALTO Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9555) Report Type; Action Items Meeting Date: 9/6/2018 Summary Title: 429 University: Condition Compliance - West Wall Landscaping, Materials (2nd Formal) ' PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 429 University Avenue [18PLN-00240]: Recommendation on the Applicant's Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural Review Consistent With Condition of Approval #3, for a Previously Approved Mixed;Use Building (14PLN-00222), Requiring Architectural Review Board Approval for the Proposed West Elevation Wall Design, Landscape Details, and Exterior Building Materials, Colors, and Craftsmanship. Environmental Assessment: Use of Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for 14PLN-00222. Zoning District: CD-C(G)(P) (Downtown Commercial with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Shopping Overlay). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at apetersen@m- group.us From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB at the August 16, 2018 public hearing. The Municipal Code encourages the Director of Planning and Community Environment to make a decision on projects after two public hearings for Minor AR projects. Earlier staff reports include background information, project analysis and evaluation codes and policies; these reports uation of City Title: ports are available online; a copy of the August 16th. report without City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 prior attachments is available in Attachment H. Links to the full staff report and video of the meeting are provided below: Dpcument . .. Link Staff Report https://www.cityofpaloalto.ore/civicax/filebank/documents/66300 Video http://midpen media.org/architectural-review-board-74-2-3-2-2-2-2-2-2-2- 2-2/ The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the applicant's response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in earlier reports and modified to reflect recent project changes. The ARB is encouraged to make a final recommendation to approve, conditionally approve or deny the project. Discussion) The ARB last considered this project on August 16, 2018. The Board expressed the following comments: �3. 7 ¢� 1 44 West Wall Plans: The ARB requested clarification about how the west wall design relates to the entire building. The motion referenced that the design include more detail and layering, and better relay the architect design intent of resembling a tree like structure. Y-i The proposed reveals have been revised to take the shape of an up -lifting tree -like pattern Craftsmanship: The ARB noted in their motion that the applicant should include construction details that demonstrate the craftsmanship of the building. Landscaping: The ARB expressed concerns about how the landscaping would look over time and that the garden wall planter along the rear alley Lane 30 may be overbearing. The applicant has provided photos and construction level details of the building showing the elevations, with building sections, and details for the roof, windows and doors. The applicant is proposing indigenous plant material in conformance with the ARB Findings. A detail of the proposed vine trellis is shown on Sheet L4. Staff has prepared Architectural Review Findings and Conditions of Approval contained in Attachments B and C. The project plans are available as Attachment .1 of this staff report and they are also available online at the following link: bit.ly/429University. ' The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. Packet Pg. 1D5:: Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9674) CITY OF PALO A LTO Report Type: Summary Title: Title: From: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/4/2018 429 University: Condition Compliance - West Wall, Landscaping, Materials (3rd Formal) PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 429 University Avenue [18PLN-00240]: Recommendation on the Applicant's Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural Review Consistent With Condition of Approval #3, for a Previously Approved Mixed -Use Building (14PLN-00222), Requiring Architectural Review Board Approval for the Proposed West Elevation Wall Design, Landscape Details, and Exterior Building Materials, Colors, and Craftsmanship. Environmental Assessment: Use of Mitigated Negative Dedaration Prepared for 14PLN-00222. Zoning District: CD-C(G)(P) (Downtown Commercial with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Shopping Overlay). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at apetersen@m- group.us Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board {ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB at the August 16, 2018 public hearing. The project was then scheduled for the September 6, 2018 ARB hearing, but a quorum was not achieved for that meeting. Accordingly, the project was continued to the September 20, 2018 hearing. At the September 20th hearing, the ARB recommended the project return for a third hearing with the following changes. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Packet Pg. 55 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department ARB Comments/Direction Building Colors. Lighten the two proposed grey colors. Ensure the color of overhangs relate tothe color of the wall it is shading. Landscaping. Provide additional landscaping on all floors, especially the 4th floor, to buffer uses and provide visual interest. Enhance the proposed green screen at rear of the building to provide additional support for vines. West Wall Design. The proposed design on the west wall needs to be better integrated with the rest of the building. Renderings Provide accurate renderings that include views from University Avenue, the corner of University and Kipling, and the rear of the building at a minimum. Page 2 Applicant Response, The applicant is proposing lighter colors and will provide an updated material board at the hearing. However, the applicant has some concerns that the colors will fade over time and become even lighter than the ARB desires. Grey overhangs will be provided on the third and fourth floors to match the wall color of these floors, as shown in the renderings. Additional planters have been added to the project, especially on the 4th floor where 16 rectangular pots will be secured to the roof just outside the railing on the upper floor. The green screen will be enhanced with trellis to further encourage vine growth at the rear of the buildings The applicant is proposing two options for the west wall as shown in the plan set. The first option is the same as was presented to the ARB on September 20th. The second option uses the proposed tan color on the top half of the 3rd and 4th floor west wall with the grey color on the bottom half of the wall to better integrate all four floors while providing interest on the west wall. The applicant has provided high quality renderings of the west wall from the vantage point of University Avenue to demonstrative how the west wall and 4th floor landscaping will be perceived from street level. Additional renderings may be available at the hearing. Earlier staff reports include background information, project analysis and evaluation of City codes and policies; these reports are available online. The staff report for the September 6, 2018 hearing, which was continued to September 20th, is available in Attachment J. Additional staff reports, project plans and other information may be found on the City's project webpage at bit.lv/429University Public Comment Packet Pg. 56 1 Exhibit B City of Palo Alto Approvals Itlq Task building Review Elect Utilities Review Fire Review • Planning Review • Publc. Works Eng. Review Water Quality Review WGW Utilities Review Landscape Revjv Urban Forestry Review Ready To Issue Pennit Issuance Structural Structural Architectural Mechanical/Plumbing Electdcai Structural Architectural Mechanical/Plumbing Electrical isoop-oom - KIPUNG POST LP Devs Building Review Elect Vilifies Review Fire Review a Planning Review • Pubic Works Eng. Review Water Quality Review WGW Utilities Review Landscape Review Urban Forestry Review Ready To Issue Permit issuance 18000-0053T - KIPLING POST LP Approved Approved With Conditions Approved Inspection Re.. Not Approved Not Approved Approved Inspection Re.. Approved With Conditions Not Required • App Approved Approved Approved APPrOVed Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Status Approved Not Approved Not Approved Approved Approved 10/05/2018 DAVID CHU... 04/05/2018 DANIEL_ ER.. 06/29/2018 HENRY RAF... 09/17/2018 ADAM PETE... 09/26/2018 PAIGE SAF... 03/16/2018 BRIAN JON... 0 2018 JOHN NGLJY... 06/07/2018 KELSEY AN... 06/25/2018 WALTER PA.. 08/02/2018 MEDHAT HE... 07/13/2018 MEDHAT HE... 08/02/2018 DAVID CHU... 08/02/2018 DAVID CH14... 08/02/2018 DAVID CHU... 08/01/2018 DAVID CHU... 08/01/2018 DAVID CHU... 08/01/2918 DAVID CHU... 08/01/2018 DAVID CHU... Statz lam* 0 16/2018 09/17/2018 09/11/2018 GOPAL JAG... • ADAM PE... PAIGE SAF... 08/17/2018 JOHN NGUY... 07/25/2018 WALTER PA.. Exhibit C Gerhardt & Harbour Pipeline PALO ALTO Cervantes, Yolanda From: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 11:11 AM To: Michael Harbour Cc: Lait, Jonathan; Adam Petersen; Yang, Albert Subject: 429 University - Building Permits Michael, The Planning Department, along with Building, discussed this issue and confirmed we will not be issuing Building permits until after Minor Architectural Review approval of the three (3) items/conditions (File No. 18PLN-00240). However, we are allowing the applicant to move forward with the demolition permit after the appropriate mitigation measures and logistics plan are in place/prepared. Sincerely, Jodie Gerhardt, AICP ( Manager of Current Planning I P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue I Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2575 j E: iodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org From: Michael Harbour [mailto:dr.mharbour@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 8:53 PM To: Gerhardt, Jodie Subject: Re: Request to speak Hi Jodie, What was the status of your meeting with Jonathan Lait with regard to issuing a building permit before all council mandated items are approved? Could you please let me know? Thanks, Michael Harbour On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Michael Harbour <dr.mharbour@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Jodie, Thank you for speaking with me yesterday about the status of 429 University Ave project. You mentioned that you would be meeting with Jonathan Lait to discuss the next steps. Can you please email me and let me know the outcome of the meeting? The appellant's concerns remain with the design features of the building including wall design, landscaping, exterior building materials, colors, and craftsmanship. These were some of the issues on which we won our appeal under violation of municipal code 18.18.100. The city council's resolution on February 6, 2017 was clear that all of these items would need to be addressed and approved by the ARB before a building permit was issued. If the applicant was to begin the building before all items were resolved including demolishing existing buildings, it would give her a "vesting claim" to continue building the project without adhering to the council i mandate. The responsibility of submitting the design plans to the ARB lies solely with the applicant. It is not our fault that she exceeded her one year limit, applied for an extension, and then submitted her first proposal to the ARB more than 18 months after the city's resolution. The very fact that the ARB unanimously voted 3-0 against the current design plans is very significant at this stage of the process. We appreciate the planning department's respectful adherence to our issues which the council mandated. I look forward to hearing the outcome of your meeting. Thanks, Michael Harbour Lead appellant for 429 University Ave On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Michael Harbour <dr.mharbour@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks, Jodie, for your quick repsonse. I'll call you in the morning. Michael On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 7:56 PM, Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Yes, I will be in tomorrow morning. Jodie Sent from my iPhone On Aug 16, 2018, at 7:50 PM, Michael Harbour <dr.mharbourga,gmail.com> wrote: Hi Jodie, I left you a voice message earlier today. Can you please call me tomorrow at (650) 224-4171. Thanks, Michael Harbour 2 Exhibit D Timeline Extension ABOUT THIS E-MAIL: The infomation transmitted may contain confidential andfor legally privileged material that is only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. Any review, retransmission. dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the Intended recipient is prohibited. It you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material immediately. From: Gerhardt, Jodie [mai(to:Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPa(oAlto.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 3:45 PM To: Laura Roberts <laura@koarch.com>; Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan. Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Peter Ko <design@koarch.com>; 'Elizabeth Wong' <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com>; Reiqh, Russ <Russ.Reich@CityofPaloAlto.org > Subject: RE: 425-429 University Ave. Mixed use project timeline Laura, The Planning approval period is "stayed" during building permit review. Therefore, if you submit a building permit prior to the expiration and keep that building permit active, the Planning approval would not expire. However, if the building permit goes inactive, then the Planning approval would expire. <ImageUU1.jpg> Jodie Gerhardt, AICP I Manager of Current Planning I P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue I Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650,329.2575 Is: Jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org From: Laura Roberts [maiito:Iaura@koarch.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 2:1S PM To: Lait, Jonathan Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie; Peter Ko; 'Elizabeth Wong'; Reich, Russ Subject: RE: 425-429 University Ave. Mixed use protect timeline From: Gerhardt, Jodie <;iodie.Gerhardtc cityofDaloalto.orq> Date: Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 4:48 PM Subject: RE: Request for Permit Time Extension To: Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail:com>, Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan, Lait@cityofoaloalto.orq> Cc: Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@cityofoaloalto.orq>, Peter Ko < n(a k desig oarch.cnn, <iaurai8 koarsh,com>, Andrew Wong <a jaitne.wongagmail.com>, Jaime Wong >' Laura Roberts <iandewong@gmail.com> Elizabeth, The City has already issued one extension for this project (see attached) which is allowed by the Zoning Code. ! will need to speak with our attorneys to better understand if a second extension is allowed. Sincerely, Jodie Gerhardt, AICP j Manager of Current Planning 1 P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue 1 Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2575 1E: iodieszerhardtPcitvofoaloalto.org From: Elizabeth Wong [mailto:eliza_�. bethwona nn4n�►r+�;; , Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 10:15 AM ,. To: Gerhardt, Jodie; Laic, Jonathan Cc: Hoyt, George; Peter Ko; Laura Roberts; Andrew Wong; Jaime Wong Subject: Re: Request for Permit Time Extension Jodie, Jonathan, Please email me form and instructions for extending the Building Permit deadline. Thank you. Elizabeth Wong 1 Exhibit E Construction Activity EXAMPLES OF COMMENCEMENT OF PROPOSED USE OF SITE 425-429-435-44.1-447 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, PALO ALTO DATE 6/7/2018 3/2/2018 5/7/2018 8/27/2018 8/29/2018 10/30/2018 7/25/2018 6/13/2018 9/1/2017 5/7/2018 9/5/2018 DESCRIPTION Completed Removal of Street Trees Building Permit Fees Paid fees for new water service connection, fire service capacity, and water meter Removal of Hazardous Materials Archaeological Services as required in Conditions of Approval Move Sewer Line in Lane 30 Disconnection of Utilities to Site Eviction of Tenants Preparation of Construction Documents CALGreen Compliance Installation of Piezometer and Ground Water Level Monitoring Completion Notice from JWH Asbestos Removal Services b EXHIBITS Tree Removal Permit and Fees Paid Submitted Construction Plans for Building Permit; Amount Paid $186,871.77 Receipts from City of Palo Alto Utilities Department Executed Contract with Holman & Associates Contract with Able Septic Tank Service Termination of Service and Declaration Concerning Tenancy Court Stipulation and Order for removal of the last tenant by July 15, 2018 Contract acknowledgement letter and Timeline from Ko Architects Contract for Cal Green Tier 2 and Cal Green Consulting Services Enncroachment Permit and Temporary Lease by Exploration Geoservices Inc. City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineerits Ph one:6ZOF329-21si FAX:450/329- 4o Inspection; 65Uh396-6929 PERMIT TYP If ' f ? SAC. NT PERMIT (Right-of-way or pidgin utilities easement �w LEASE (Iraor uteazcraa°hmeaisj oachments on City -owned property) PERMIT NAME AND ADDRESS: LOCA.T1ON OF NCROAcL"MIE:V1lLEeSSE: AUG 2018 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT • ? ' TEMPORARY. LEA F ' ' IEN C RoACl p 'T TYPE: . n Residehti fi ftRFh putit ..» standard: Arnbitectu al, strua (PUE) or City ng.ht-of 1vay (RO etc. in a Public Utilities Easement _.__ ester or container (no insurance certificate is required). _____ Pence: Placement of a fence in a ME or ROW (no his:ge me+ certificate is rcqutr•ro) ° ____ Standard: Awnings, Iai10 or�sidewalk cI 6 structural or arcruteetvrai features, �te sttructures ian otther ioonn term erteroaohutenta in a YOE ar ROW, tasting more than S days. g corm I Short -Term: Sidowaludatreettelicy o=ncroa unloading ofmaterials. etc, tasting da s o ir lle sox dca'alk closures, ___„ I Days: Sidewalk ar lane closure lash 1 day or less. ___ 2vIraor: Me ese:lent of� er with;, downtown districts (;additional fee for pad`g Rade. if apt able), and restaurant tables Pursuant hereby requested provisions of Sec l riles r, Co chairs on s ested to construct and maintah an eat Palo Alto Municipal o zo u Coda, tramepermission is 1 at the above location and in themaunet' described bellooimont, or ro v. Caty�_aunted `P ': NATURE OF FIVCROA,C NT OR USE: '±ekt-- �' `�+.rt,..iA2.604 f REASON FOR ENCROACE ENTLLRASE: Ma fl , -ors r -- r- . n 4y77' i4la li TOTAL $ Date Paid: 1 Ternpoa tid i ry DaDays) S TED ESTIMA 1-107V1,97.4117 LIS. ONLY FEES: r� ps i Fee Paid 1' A, J.) {k 011 Parking RTIS CERT #: I- REVIJ WF.DAND RECOAfiiri tn.FOR APPROVAL BY: r Transportation -f $ldg Inspection Phoning .j Real Estate Light dt Poorer WOW 1'erttuttee�,ttlt atPcaati tee expense, . ::' . 139ttni thirty co days at e n ,reapnovcs:'. �p --. -. •.- u to hin thi ty e d yaci rnoncefam " ° Cyt.Bmi o , eat er me C+ pH 'rliasnKR tut�:d, h rFttFcnrlin�pr�t=eraent� tiiqFbiu tree. e�Rr.�Pra �tv ��g trnh� due ..., raFe q ▪ Palo Alto City; and cost thereof made a Tien �et t p� a e removed, �tm tha et o :a' Fu e �+ty; and the spect* e 1'ed, she prawn= � or�eut . pursuant to the pro��astons aySeQ 1? �e�cncx a' considcratroa.u.ficit isyttat,ce Oasis •l�oflite3 er .nhue w that i� ° earnes to �r evid of lia . pp Cttttseti an oie q° m pa the Cite' ofPalo AIm to its o cars, agents, anti lo, �, the ouoma audaoaazed or lU� of or xn Frt th for Faze1 ie of tr this P tliease e,ermine a ucr dna ectett vatth n( . Zs from any tiabzlit5' of Peaatittee snail be resDo Ste' stnct ttrtderstaF+ds + o ratioa>5, struaitves or prof rtv atullt�r use. ! far obtain. ]Fa£ Eizis Iaeraxut e� above, nothing contatnealtamin snail obligate City tot -issue artypegnits Orip-pyroervii: regiu k a for construction.p° Noitstibtain. n and ail permits a�bioll mix r.. ,.e...__-- , • arts tta estate. y an Ageo Iyhavinplur— uz-ulkon -AN II, Permjttee hereby ac IE andagr thetali o t ni interest e oc ca For imp/Wien ti, subjeot to all con 'bops sett f�1 end t a visions shah bts bra shall ox a ::. ,a o on etrrFttteathe pc&, hment, trot, or by the antics : start daatte ldiment pie APPROM by "--- Pe Be Wortcs Inspector at tees)s6-92s _Provirye _:_ issuance s:Ipwatta.noroitusencroaormaratifaaroachnieraparnatFonn.ctee As eppitcakte Red Special Prvvisiortsaadconditions, assigns, n�n �ccess era Ian \: \___ Reif tacatto ate APPROVED URBAN FORESTRY SECTION TREE PERMIT FOR RCG UL..1 ; " PU$UC WORKS �"� C e T e' OF Public Servkaes Division • Urban Forestry ALTO PALO ALTO PROJECT ADO ISS 429 Unjivierlity APPLICANT INPORNAION. Nano: itCCt8.Inc. Address: • IRE-__.__. _ t&3OO.OIft $0 Phone: (650) 853-1908 cat Fax t:° it. deaitglgP com SCOPE Ora WORK F f /W' CescrtpEbn Species value I. R2 Remove meet tree inventoried at 1 Climb $173044"e'tJ,�'SnWty. site RZ R1 .RCtu'tii anutreet treniatentadetat cep 447 University. site Ri R1 __.. $1750 35 40 Dist. From Left Prop. tine 100 Ast4 saw Soctoectsconling Cain to building permit sheet Ll �° Ar**.atton Date: t0 [i t $ Start Date: 613 J ttRIGUIRRD ATIIACNININTS 1. sae Plan 2. Olher: PERMIT COMMONS I. The perrMtted work ths$ co doe* to Chy of P.lo Alto standard apedfkadons and the Nee AeeAneeei Manus, including those chudad above. See attached specifications 2. Permit shoe be mailable on site during work. 3. Pennine, removing bras and slumps, and/or planting new trees shill use PW Detail 8604. 4. Permitter Is responsible to note* Underground Service Alert (USA) frier t0 stump ranwnsl and replacement tree pl ntIng. /48 work shell be completed by a licensed trim se p lannicePingboribeiceor 8. New tree shah be MsPseted by uibar! �Y inspector prior to installation (8S0.4S18..5853) 7. When required. tnlgetion bubbler hails shall be suppMsd 1D each new tree per PW NUS *Sp. 8. Applications dit bok.de pruning or femoral of regulated trees must attach a report from a certified aphorist 9. 8, consideration of the granbnq of this pennkk for pruning an h*Irnalional Socettyr of Arboriculture Certified Aphorist crest be en is AM work shall be dab in socordsnoe with: • Palo Alto Municipal Cods Tide 8. Tows and Vegetation • Tree TechMgl Manual, lM1NC 8301130 • American National Stands dr institute (ANSO Standards for Ti.. Care Operations A300 4 Z133 • ANSI Standard for Nursery Stoke M t • Underground Service Alert (UM) nothicMron requirements • Proof of insurance as seedbed by the City of Polo Alto • Scope of work must completed 10 Addltionel Conditions s de TBD Completion Date: ZO Pennines Ohms that di workdescribed hawin facts stated herein with a► ant trueinaand Mem that who. fib or her agents, employees, and conbatt rs shall perms abide with the Permit Conditions outlined above and hold the efinatiOna of the iciity of Pero es.ta. The pandas* to from at costs and okt► Paso Altos its officers officials. atones. !employees harmless at any time de" 11e�s which might arras frown the PW.wtn..ti use or occupancy of pubic right stirs (A),- TE PERMIT ISSUER DATE Permit may be revoked 6 !i Ii y) .^1`"CC'+w<nNWW40RAMh.:t tmo...KYVAV..MI•.C4 * W.S '#.'Q :•�_rlR:v..: :,...yyM �.Ya".a:!'� _.e ... -...•,•-&.,s.:t",,r...cv+.+...mWr;.+.:..sM1�irw-w rTt 1. i.w/y...MAM.iralni } f 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO DEVELOPMENT CENTER 285 HAMILTON AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 (650) 329-2496 OWNER: IUPLING POST LP CONTRACTOR: PROPERTY ADDRESS: 429 UNIVERSITY AV RECEIPT NUMBER: 334699 RECEIPT DATE: 3/2/2018 9:53:31AM PERMIT NUMBER: 18000-00536 FEE DESCRIPTION] Landscape Plan Check - Commercial & Multi -Family Buildina Plan Check Fee Utilit:es Plan Check Public Works Plan Check Fee Fire Plan Check - Commercial & Multi -Family Zoning Pien Check Fee Cheek Print Date: 03/02/2018 Type: Project Seb-Type: Building Permit Category: Building Permit SUBFUND-ACTIVITY 65060001 1337 65030001 1337 65030001 1337 65040001 1337 65050001 1337 65020001 1323 ~� Fees paid include a Technology Surcharge of 1.8%per transaction approved in FY 18 Municipal Fee Schedule Comment: UNITS 1 1 1 1 1 FEE AMOUNT 51973.00 $66627.98 $118.00 $39,088.12 $47,9711.773 Amount Duet Agiount Paid: 531,092.94 $186,871.77 8186,871.77 duck.* btg 20170818 an* of Paxa Ell UTtLITMESl Billing Address: KIPLPI(G POST LP P. O: Sox 204 Palo Alto CA 94301 Servlc. Address: 429 Unimak Av Palo Alto CA 94301 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, California 04301 so 13slss 4tdsr/ Dasta*Von /Ref. Service Order .. • Invoke Number : 95019717 Wok* Dar) : 05/07/2018 Customer No : 2 551 OF DC1NEPARTMENT W.G-WZN • BILLI Tt AMOVNT HOOD FOR 90 DAYS DIMINPULL sotr Amount 000010 000020 000030 70041156 40023443 70041155 40023443 70041155 40029443 NEW f WATER SERVICE CONNECTION r FIRE SERVICE CAPACITY FEES 518° WATER METER INSTL CHARGE $137.00 22.530.00 898.00 Total Dus $ won Remit Payment to: t4ail: Revenue Collections -City of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10230 Palo Alto, CA 94303 In person: Revenue Collections, 250 80ai3ton Ave., 1st Floor, Palo, Alto, Ch 94301 for Billing Contact: snail: kelly.harntadaityofpsloalto.org huts invoice amount is (6501 617-3106 This in- god until 90 days after the effective date of the next +approved -rate increase. If you have not paid the aaount due within that tine, a new fnvaias will be prepared and nailed to you. The new invoice will be pied using tbe rates in effect at the time of mailing. ity of P4,14-*Mte ;ity of Palo Alto tevenue Collection Reference Neer: 2018128002-68 Bate/Time: 05/08/2018 1:54:55 PM S D Pro -Forma Payment 2018128002- -1 S D Pro -Forma Payment Contract Account: 000010006981 Last Name: P First Name `KIPLING POST Amount: Total: 1 ITEM TOTAL: TOTAL: Check Check Nbr: 04672 $31,365.00 Total City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. elo Alto, California 04301 $31,365.00 $31,365.00 $31,365.00 $31,365.00 $31,365.00 19)1111011001111,11,1 Customer COPY 7Oel3?-7(Y Invoice Number : 95019717 Invoice Dab : 05107/2018 Customer No : 20002551 c to'Alo°ALT�; ....... UTILITIES DEPARTMENT W-G-WENGINERING BILLING AMOUNT GOOD FOR 90 DAYS IPANTIALIPATMZWISNOTACCOMOb t1on SERVICE CONNECTION CAPACITY FEES ER INSTL CHARGE Amount • 8.137.00 22530.00 698.00 Total Due $ =Ma Resit Payaent to: Moil: Revenue Collections -City of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 In person: Revenue Collections, 250 Hamilton Ave., 1st Floor, Palo, Alto, CA 94301 Par Milling Contact: email: kelly.haruta6oityofpaloalto.orq phone: (650) 617-3106 This invoice amount is good until 90 days after the effective date of the next Council -approved rate increase. If you have not paid the amount due within that time, * new invoice will be prepared and availed to you. The new invoice will be pied using the rates in effect at the time of mailing. %" 1 13) I Nh Oi PAti M30 UTIUTIBS, Sabtp Ad in= KIPLNG POST LP P. O. Sox 204 Palo Alp CA 94301 Service Add 420 University Ave PabAlb CA 84301 Neon No A1aE. 000010 Sibs *Wert Sunibe Order 70041276 40023470 Ckof Pro Alto 260 tftly t Ave. Palo Ate, California 94301 awake Number : 05019723 invoice Date :Customer : 00/0 1112018 18 No Contract Account : 1000000/ Daserlption NEW 8 WATER SERVICE CONNECTION gcto3y13o 1.332.00 Total Due $ Inaag Itemit Payment to: Lail: Cellaatioaa+City of Palo Alto P.O. box 10250 Palo Alto, G 94303 In versos: bevemme Co11aatie:ga. 250 Naailtoa Asa. , lit floor, Palo For Billing Contact: email: kally. hazolal Ltyofpaloslts. osy • Alto, Ch S Ol pia: (150) 117-3i0d This in voice amount is good until 90 days after the effaota,,e date of the seat s; new + Z�b isam4W. if you have sot paid the must ,der within that time. UL3 np the stare in efface t Hof # °xO�`�' will be propexed %t J e !► M s H a Asbes Lion REMOVAL SERVICES CSLB No. 777430 OSHA No. 270 COMPLETION NOTICE This is to certify that J.W.H. Asbestos Removal Services has completed the removal of the asbestos contracted per HMA Asbestos Survey #18.240 dated July 27, 2018 Removal and disposal of 1,600 sq ft of sheetrock/joint compound less than 1% non -friable asbestos from tower walls on sides and back wall and 2 upper walls in Unit#425. Removal and disposal of 120 sq. ft. VAT tile and masdc and tape on flue pipe in Unit#441. Removal and disposal of asbestos tape on plenum box in Unit#447. Removal and disposal of carpet, floor tile and mastic on wood, transite flue pipe and asbestos tape on metal pipe in Unft#450. at the following job location: 425,441,447 University Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 450 Kipling Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 In accordance with J.W.H. Asbestos Removal Services proposal signed/dated August 6, 2018. This notice conforms to and is in strict compliance with all applicable standards and regulations. This provision of completion is our acknowledgment by authorized signature that all services that have been contracted for are completed as specified at the above referenced property location. W. Howell .H. Asbestos Removal Services August 27, 2018 Date 710 E. McGlincy Lane 1111, Campbell, CA 95008 Tel: 408-374-1123 Fax: 408-374-1091 boLmyjssocus ARchaeoltc ical Consultants "SINGE THE UOINNIN0" 3.515 FOLSOM ST. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94110 41S/SSo-? Elizabeth Wong Steleco LLC POBox 2014 Palo Alto, CA 94302 29 August 2018 re: for a Avernra. 10 jag 425.429 U. Thank you for contacting us regarding an archaeological and historical resources .Mitigation Measrequiring training for construdjon pew for your Project at 425429 University Avenue o .Ato. A adverselyredevelopment project proposed for the property will require excavations about 30 feet deep, which would historical or archaeological resources, if any, therefore the City has required this The Scope of Services for this work will be to provide a training. cultural resources ... that could be encountered ��g session ..,regarding how to recognize CUL- 1 (attached). Such a training session would during construction activities" as per Mitigation � at the jobsite. Potential attendees would betypically talcs 45 minutes to one hour and would be conducted Our fee for these services will be determined � you and your ��, s) which of our staff is used, and could be less if we can coordinate the training ► depending °n vicinity that same day. Any additional work or site visits would be charged with other work hourly rates f $ in the for Senior �(� ss)), S85/hr for Staff Archaeologist(s), eologist(s), or $80/b r f Archaeological Technician(s),� barge up to 100 mules. What we need from you i. Notice at least one week before the training, specifying time and plane. 2. Authorization to Proceed. Please sign and return an original of this Proposal to serve as A to pay Invoices within 30 uthorixation to Proceed and as dement to pay Invoices or n 30nd youras of receipt. A signed digital copy will suffice, or you may fax a signed copy standard contract/authorization with this Proposal as an exhibit. Please call Miley or email Holman. Assocecomcast,net or meat 650-726-6269 or nuccmseconrcastnet if you have any questions. Cordially yours, Matthew R. Clark, RPA Senior Associate E.Wonn re 425 Usive city Ado Alto Archaeological Training. 28 August 2018, tie 2 of 2 AuthriFingName , tor Mir• Title Cor eny/Agency sivierco Total Contract price: kagM+ 5O Project: H&A 08-06/18 IiMgiMion Measure CUb,.1: Prkw to commencement of site abating and project grading, the project applaud shed roue a quadhled archasologlstto train aansinsolion personnel regrading h #eel s ecognize ova rwomes or as anrourks etbone a abet, artifacts, remains,uman or ardidedural remains) 'het could be encountered during oontb'uclon aciYlies. If and** or unusual amounts Oohed or bone or ober dorm Indicative of buried aardhredo6lad beams' or human remains are enco untered daring eadh delftware modeled wilt the proposed project, Ihe oontracior shall knreedkdely notify ete City of Palo Alb (City) smiths Naive American ilediage baCoted lu&un n a s10appropriate. AN work .lad be quelled archaeologist, as defined byernia aEn Quality A it (CEQA) addslnes (14 CCR HOOPatseq) and e. a*,eas,1055a IlignIficened evaluation, et the Inds pursuant to $salon 106 ofthe Nalionsi Historic Preservation M. Any human remains unsardnd shall be tested In acoon Mno. wilt California Hub and Oats* Code, Salton 7050.5, and CaliforniaPublic Resources Code, Sections 6097. 44, 5097J$, and 5007.9l, which include erne b • consult wilt Nam American reprpeptMl es determined to be the Most Likely Desoendents, ea appointed by the M ore Me dian Heritage Commission. 'dandled shag be recorded en eb b wawa" resource s I Recreation Don n 523 0f and measures prescribed by** Reeve American Hedges, Commission, fee Sark' Clara oak' eon orey N otes_ American tlw be the Most Uirely yeerrendenie and require d by be Cily shall erh s determine d to be un dertaken Wore oonsivollon addles are resumed. if dielurbanos o f. pruject an* bawd resource cor net be ihr• City's Cultural Resourc e, M anagement Program ensign aomplan wtih Sections 16064. 6 and 16126.4 Mlle CEQA Guidelines, shd be implemented. City dPalo Alto- Prior end ,Training provided� won contactors • Reklinepeagone conducted to verify compliance licit 671444 PROJECT: Customer: Oeve*oer iteleco Attn: eft;Wong_ Ave_ _ __....._...._ACA _ _ ._._.._. _..._.. 650.143011 OknNt: r,m.iHf't!iuc:ri;42 '•45'>�rr -sn;i ii, • • • • • • • • • • Excludes .. • 1 1020 Ruff* Sat Jaya C* Nno Owc.ROW 3774W0 Fat (40Ii 4Pl.11Qe i�V�7IAR... Misc. plate $W30,201$ � AM�1s4>�n Hardesty Review SCOPE OF WORK: Install a ew manhole in the street and a sewer lateral with on -sits Install, per City permits. Able to mark out the construction area 46 hours prior to any Able topuN the permH* needed to comptets this project (permit cost excluded). Able to set up traffic control, lay out trench line and saw cut asphalt before digging. Able to dt are chwith install or sewer lateral approx. to 2 ' in ienges and approx. 8' deep. Able ID backlit, haul ell proper materials and compaction to be mechanical. is related to this job. Able to use proper shoring on all benches 5' or deeper. Able to pave around newly kistalled manhole and new sewer lateral. Able to replace small section of driveway approach. Able to reconnect 4 exhtkng sourer lines that are be be reconnected to our new sewer line. 4611/ Able to install one new sewer manhole to City of PA specs. Able to use native beckfHN on the on•site sewer and replace the concrete, to 8" thick then the trench line only. Compaction to be mechanical. Able to dig, trench and instill a 6" sewer line approx. 115' in length and approx. 8' Ws are estimating project to take 5 to 6 working days to complete. P• Able to provide traffic control p'an. to Bust men t ofo. a submission t^ the -:. ,,r. Ah:e .t, pros cle certificate of ins. With customer pravicte0 additional insureris ,upon signing C.>f he proposal. Perinite. OM Ord If needed. Soon "d di jai-• Any concrete thicker that 6". Is ; nrludEi:. Any utilities that will cause use to hand dig through our trench line. This bid is for tractor work. Hitting any unmarked utbtges lines in our bench area. Reese note. we have excluded the cost to abandon the existing line until we get fin. Rack arid Oroymd Water Clem may be rock/gr unedd �l found, alternate methods may be applicable. if found, additional charges g+.altlgunkee Any alterations or deviations from tits proposal. involving additional matsdats sndlor labor MN be =oersted only in a written charge order and w10 became an additional charge out rte the original proper cast. Any additional down time created by a change ceder win be payable by the customer per our standard time and materials rip. Thank you forgiving us the oPoortunite to bid on yourlandergrOUnd rfiroloct i THANK YOU P01? CHOOSING ABLE UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION Punted • Bennie - Stow . SPA= . ,yaw • Ecomo & IAlslitd Sop& Spataariv Cas+paec • xn0aaor . allaiml -1•Wecal Iftiabliv SOW & gnaw troth CeetCirtj; • %UN., . tip: . aAp p aftwavaia d tomtit SvpreSow Strom- 5note � Colmircirt Mod) Li t ,f. s lAosfra O aietp sow. Stunt+. • Pubst• *two . Doom & Spitmapvied palter: hrkw�: freoicaorr • .1 ::x:4r tC . AMMO'Ahem Ca lat, Z•Ult Apowppe.Soft* :ter/tr. -rt o:st1 t; 4-.. rc> t.; wvv re.:.bladackstatf: 4r. coer. • Wirer, ya:i.Pcoll or.40. goo CITY OF PALO ALTO 1111\f. �..�T!Lr rIESS Inspired by a brighter tomorrow. DEMO DECLARATION CONCERNING TENANCY OF BUILDING PRIOR TO ISSURANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT Service Address for Demolition/Remodeling Street # (f3 Street Name VNiVEEL.A 1 g P Palo Alto Municipal code 16.04.060 section 105.1.3 provides no work or demolition shall begin upon any portion of such a unit until each and every portion has been vacated by all tenants lawfully in possession thereof. 1 ) t?.40.1DeJ h K!a hereby declare that 1 am the owner, or owner's agent. g nt, of the premises located at the servic address listed above. 1 also declare the building located at the service address listed above, for which a demolition permit is requested, is not currently occupied or presently being used for residential purposes. Said Premise Consists of 1 number of buildings 1 will not use not use any demolition permit issued to aid in securing vacation of said promise. 1 certify under penalty or perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 511241i1)6 Gvonj, fl4na5tr- Print Nayx� J Signature (off—eflt, -3a1-/ Phone Number City of Palo Alto Utilities. Customer Service Center 250 HamOton Ave., Ground Floor, Palo Alto. CA 94301 Tel. 650 329-2181 Fax. 850-321-2786 Hours Mon - Thur 7:30 am to 5:30 pm Friday 8:00 to 5:00 pm Email: UtnitiesCustornerSetvipei citvobpe oaito.orp Web: din./lwww.c Rev 12/2/2016 DEMO UTILITIES Utilities Disconnection Prior Inspired by a brighter tomorrow. To Building Demolition/Remodeling Affi Service Address 4°2( tilVt gar API t P7 (.1,iai ver, , Ave.& 14,14 All addresses on the property being demolished need to be listed. A is reiluined for each address. separate Demo application 0 Single Family Dwelling 0 Multi Family Dwelling XCommercial Building Applicant Naito' tx' I Z eA ruD Owner Name Rot uG-- P� - Lr M is — Phone ' - &1'i -, Qr I r� -� Phone —47 V-3 1 ll Billing Address n. fifyG ZO40 Ps..(0 44413 Cao�. R �3aa. Email Address eh ?.itkb,e, SAG .24::0 @, 1 M ai 1. GO S.ervices R nested for Removal Check all a 1 licable boxes ove Electric Service Line Remove Gas Service Line Utilities will be disconnected and/or removed within 1 and 10 working days after receipt of a completed application. Exact times and/or dates cannot be scheduled. If uti be reinstalled, a connection fee will be charged per current utility rate schedule. Signature (Applica Date General Information Will there be multiple or new address(s) when construction is complete? Will you need temporary power during construction? Have you applied for a building permit? Will the foundation be removed? No No No ..._ No What is the purposed property use after demolition? (Example: single family home, restaurant) City of Palo Alto Utilities, Customer Service Center 250 Hamilton Ave., Ground Floor. Palo Alto, CA 84301 Tel, 650 3294181 Fax. 650417-3142 Hours Mon — Thor 7:30 am to 5:30 prn FrErnst liltlitemensignighasayabaneura iday Y800to eatisuist 4:30pm Rev 8/16/2017 ��iIII crry OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Inspired by a brighter tomorrow. Uluio, Service Address 9ZS) t?V?, cP 3 API tete/ Un i vet's r j� {je f% a Ake All addresses on the property being demolished need to be listed. A separate Demo application is requited for each address. DEMO Utilities Disconnection Prior To Building Demolition/Remodeling ❑ Single Family Dwelling 0 Multi Family Dwelling XConumercial Building Applicant Name Cifititl244 OD, t �"t 41lt44 Phone 4,37,_ »/' _30r J Owner Name Billing Address Email Address 1 P'- tae— Pa Jo- ix f ,,,„ phone t� a ...g/ �'• d ► 8q)c 2ott° Presto A- I*, CA- q %f'3 oZ- ejiz.-C 4 'jam [ 6t'1l a i• Ca-( Services Requested for Removal (Check all applicable boxes) 'Remove Electric Meter # L'Remove Gas Meter # 0 Remove Water Meter # ve Electric Service Line Remove Gas Service Line Utilities will be disconnected and/or removed within 1 and 10 working days after receipt of a completed application. Exact times and/or dates cannot be scheduled. i If ' u . es ar to be reinstalled, a connection fee will be charged per current utility rate schedule. Signature (Appli General Information Will there be multiple or new address(s) when construction is complete? Will you need temporary power during construction? Have you applied for a building permit? Will the foundation be removed? Date No No No No What is the purposed property use after demolition? (Example: single family home, restaurant) City of Palo Alto Utilities, Customer Service Center 250 Hamilton Ave., Ground Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Tel. 850 329 -21St Fax 850.817-3142 Hours Mon — Thur 7:30 am to 5:30 pm Friday 8:00 to 4:30 pm Email: Web: MITAmdtaitsdaggileaudtokaaftwiam Rev 8/16/2017 CITY OFLITIES PALO ALTO UTI inspired by a brighter tomorrow. DEMO DECLARATION CONCERNING TENANCY OF BUILDING PRIOR TO ISSURANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT Service Address for Demolition/Remodeling Street # Street Name (JN` EAS t'T`( kW. PAO MO, a1/4" Palo Alto Municipal code 16.04,060 section 105.1.3 provides no work or demolition shall begin upon any portion of such a unit until each and every portion has been vacated by all tenants lawfully in possession thereof. 1 ) tZ4)04 L)A hereby declare that I am the owner. or owner's agent. of the premises located at the servic address listed above. I also declare the building located at the service address listed above, for which a demolition permit is requested, is not currently occupied or presently being used for residential purposes. Said Premise. Consists of t number of buildings 1 wilt not use not use any demolition permit issued to aid in securing vacation of said premise - I certify under penalty or perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 5[1247/ 1 t /15itO0/15i fla, .— Print Name (osb- !IL? -3os-f Phone Number / Date City of Palo Alto Utilities, Customer Service Center 250 Hamilton Ave.. Ground Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Tel. 650 329-2161 Fax. 650-321.2786 Hours Mon — Thur 7:30 am to 5:30 pm Friday 8:00 to 5:00 pm Email: UtilitiesCurtiomerSeryicelacityofaaloaRa,orp Web: ► ttu:/lWnw.eyvolbalaalto ornldeobsAndetatlat ass Rev 12/2/2016 DEMO •%t//e .;; CiTY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Utilities Disconnection Prior inspired by a brighter tomorrow. To Building Demolition/Remodeling viirlriverseri Ave.; Rae M % Service Address ¥.7°C) g7.gj Sr; J tetri U, i vers i j+� A 'e Pnt, /44-0 All addresses on the property being demolished need to be listed. A separate Demo application is required for each address. 0 Single Family Dwelling 0 Multi Family Dwelling XConunercial Building Applicant Name Ct 1 t CM ODA f ti atta �EC '" J Phone Owner Name 0C-- Pt) kr LP Phone y-34rI r -8I s'-3o,rJ Billing Address 1 a, aQX 7.0' GAO /4. 1--b, C.06.- gig 02. - Email Address t�l zate-ki cop �Ct7 ot� lmezi L CFI. f Services Requested for Removal (Check all applicable boxes) 'Remove Electric Meter # eRemove Gas Meter # 0 Remove Water Meter # ff:Remove Electric Service Line 0 Remove Gas Service Line Utilities will be disconnected and/or removed within 1 and 10 working days after receipt of a completed application. Exact times and/or dates cannot be scheduled. If utilitl re t t reinstalled, a connection fee will be charged per current utility rate schedule. Signature (Applicant) neral Information Will there be multiple or new address(s) when construction is complete? Will you need temporary power during construction? Have you applied for a building permit? Will the foundation be removed? Date 18 No No No No What is the purposed property use after demolition? (Example: single family home, restaurant) City of Palo Alto Udlities, Customer Service Center 250 Hampton Ave., Ground Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Tel. 650 329-2161 fax. 650417-3142 Hours Mon — Thur 7:30 am to 5:30 pm Friday 8:00 to 4:30 pm Ematl:UtiNesPustomerServicefelcitvofnaloalto.ona Web: htlpJ/www.c itvofoa ipalto.000ldenrsiutUdefavlt.asn Rev 8/16/2017 \1l f/i CITY OFLITIPALO ALTO) `e UTI ES Inspired by a brighter tomorrow. DEMO DECLARATION CONCERNING TENANCY OF BUILDING PRIOR TO ISSURANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT Service Address for Demolition/Remodeling Street :iita Street Name Ni ets 1 rj fVLG { PAt Ate''0, C- ' Palo Alto Municipal code 16.04,060 section 10513 provides no work or demolition shall begin upon anv portion of such a unit until each and every portion has been vacated by all tenants law-fulh- in possession thereof. 1 ) GJh ? hereby declare that 1 am the owner, or owner's agent, of the premises located at the servic address listed above. I also declare the building located at the service address listed above, for which a demolition permit is requested, is not currently occupied or presently being used for residential purposes. Said Premise Consists of 1 number of buildings I will not use not use anv demolition permit issued to aid in securing vacation of said premise. I certify under penalty or perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 5l124/Le-VI Ma 0' Print Name J 6b- �'I �P -3arf Phone Numbcr Signature 7i/ Dote City of Palo Alto Utilities, Customer Service Center 250 Hamilton Ave., Ground Floor. Palo Alto. CA 94301 Tel. 650 329-2161 Fax. 650-321-2786 Hours Mon -- Thur 7:30 am to 5:30 pm Friday 8:00 to 5:00 pm Email: titilitiesCustqmerServicetilicitvotualoalto.org Web: htta:/Iw4m.oitvofaaloalic,orst/deateh ttldera sa Rev 12/2/2016 1° UTILITIES Inspired by a brighter tomorrow DEMO DECLARATION CONCERNING TENANCY OF BUILDING PRIOR TO ISSURANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT Service Address for Demolidon/Remodeiing Street # Street Name ( t ✓E .s I � Atvg , Ptio A-c.yro, i Palo Alto Municipal code 16.04.060 section 105.1.3 upon any portion of such a unit until each and every provides no work or demolition shall begin lawfully in portion has been vacated by all tenants ' possession thereof. 1 g)14,124 4)0 hereby declare that 1 am the owner, or owner's premises located at the servie address listed above. I also declare the building located ate service address listed above, for which a demolition permit is the occupied or presently being used for residential purposes. reqnested, is not currently Said Premise Consists of r number of buildings T will not use not use any demolition permit issued to aid in securing vacation of said premise. I certify under penalty or perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 5l1 GU04j, /1a V — Print Name J Signature �v1'15- ! -3c�- Phone Number -7/9(//e City of Palo Alto Utilities, Customer Service Center 250 Hamilton Ave., Ground Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Tel. 050 329-2161 Fax. 650.321-27b6 Hours Mon — Thur 7:30 am to 5:30 pm Friday 800 to 5:00 pm t:malr: Ott Web: Rev 12/2/2016 1 TODD ROTHBARD #67351 2 100 ATTORNEY Saratoga Avenue #200 Santa Clara, California 95051 3 Tel.: (408) 244-4200 4 Attorney for the Plaintiff 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA KIPLING POST, LP, Plaintiff, Vs. DESIGN WITHIN REACH, INC., DOES I through V, inclusive, Defendants. No. 18CV329356 STIPULATION AND ORDER IT /S HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between plaintiff KIPLING POST LP and defendant DESIGN WITHIN REACH, Inc. that: 1. Defendant and all occupants will vacate the premises located at 447 University Avenue, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California 94301 on or before July 15, 2018 (hereinafter "the vacate date"). Notwithstanding that the vacate date falls on a Sunday, there shall be no extension of this limit to the following working day. Defendant shall turn in all keys to said premises to plaintiff or plaintiff's agent at such time as it leaves, and shall leave said premises in broom clean and 24 undamaged condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted, and shall 25 comply in all respects with any requirements set forth in the 26 lease. respecting the manner in which possession of the premises Toddxoturd 27 m uw � . swaxo 0.28 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Todd Rothburd 27 AWm sy atLsw 100 Seipp Avows 28 &MOODits asra.Celitaiii is to be restored to plaintiff. Defendant shall remove all items of personal property from said premises at such time as it leaves; any items of personal property remaining behind after the vacate date may be disposed of by plaintiff without liability and without need for resort to the procedures set forth in Civil Code sections 1993, et. seq. 2. Defendant shall pay to plaintiff, on or before June 15, 2018, the sum of $63,875.52. This sum is comprised of holdover rent from June 1 through July 15 ($59,445.72), reimbursement for plaintiff's attorney's fees ($3,500.00), reimbursement for plaintiff's Court filing fee ($435.00), reimbursement for defendant's Court filing fee ($435,00) and reimbursement of ex parte fee ($60.00) . 3. If defendant pays and leaves as set forth above, upon the completion of performance by defendant and upon written demand to plaintiff's attorney by defendant or its attorney, plaintiff shall file a dismissal of this action, with prejudice, with no further award of fees or costs in favor of either party. 4. If defendant fails to pay or leave as set forth above, ,or if any check given by defendant in payment of all or any part of any amount due as set forth above is returned unpaid by the bank upon which drawn, in any such event plaintiff shall be entitled to immediate judgment for the full relief set forth in the complaint, including restitution of possession of the premises, unlawful detainer damages, attorney's fees, and costs, less applicable credit(s) for any payments) made by defendant prior to the date upon which such payment is obtained. Plaintiff may obtain said judgment by ex parte application to 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19! 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ToddRothbad 27 Mosey at Law '°° 28 an Clam Caul& 9$(61 the Court, coupled with a declaration under penalty of perjury setting forth the facto constituting defendant's failure to perform in accordance with the foregoing requirements.. Before seeking to obtain said judgment, plaintiff's attorney shall give notice by telephone and email to defendant's attorney (Ms. Jill Rowe, Cooper, White & Cooper; tel.: 415-765-6239; email: jroweecwclaw.com) of plaintiff's intention to so proceed. If defendant fails to perform in accordance with the foregoing requirements, defendant waives any right it might otherwise have to contest, appeal, or seek to set aside said judgment, waives any right it might otherwise have to seek any form of stay of execution, either pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 918, 1176, or otherwise, waives any right it might otherwise have to seek any form of relief from forfeiture, either pursuant to Civil Code section 3275, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1174, 1179, or otherwise, and waives any right it might otherwise have to seek any form of relief from default, either pursuant to code of Civil Procedure sections 473, 473.5, or otherwise. 5. Time is of the essence with respect to the provisions of this STIPULATION. This provision shall be interpreted in its strictest sense, with any failure to perform any requirement set forth herein on or before the date upon which performance is due, even if performance is late by only a single day, y, resulting in the relief upon default set forth above without regard to the relative hardship to the parties. 6. Other than with respect to a violation of the foregoing requirements, both parties waive any and all claims, of any 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' bdd xothb. d 27 Ananey M Law 'COS * 28 Clan. CaTikeniaNOSI nature whatsoever, which each might have against the other, or against any principals, agents, shareholders, partners, managers, members, employees, affiliates, or assigns of the other. The parties understand that California Civil Code section 1542 provides: "A general release does not extend to the claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor." Notwithstanding this language, the parties sp ecifically pacifically waive its protection. The parties understand that they may have sustained serious damage or consequential injuries which have not manifested themselves and/or which are presently unknown, but nonetheless deliberately intend to and do hereby release these possible future claims. 7. Each of the terms and conditions set forth above is a material part of the consideration for the execution of this STIPULATION. Strict performance of each and every term and condition set forth above is required. The failure to perform in strict compliance with each and every condition set forth above shall be deemed a material breach of this STIPULATION entitling plaintiff to the relief upon default set forth above. 8. This STIPULATION sets forth the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the matters addressed herein. it shall not be altered nor modified unless such alteration or modification is in writing and signed by all signatories hereto. 9. A fax or email copy of this STIPULATION, bearing the faxed or emailed signatures of all signatories hereto, may be 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 28 24 25 26 roaditabbant 27 iwM C fap7�Q used for all purposes in lieu of an original. This STIPULATION may be executed in counterparts, with the sum of the counterparts, whether executed by fax, email, or otherwise, being the equivalent in legal contemplation of one fully executed original. DATED: DATED: DATED: DATED: Plaintiff Attorney for Plaintiff Defendant . COOPER, WHITE & COOPER Attorneys for Defendant lG�GL I L j ixthrtte RDBRf3kvLjCf �cam_ The Court having read maid reviewed the foregoing STIPULATION of the parties, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: %JUN 13 2018 5 i 11'0E4 f.Qr all purposes- in lieu -of an original. This STIPOLATxoN 2 may exec tec in counterparts, with the sum af. the 4 counterparts, whether -exegu :ed by fav, email., or atherWise, 4. being- the equivalent. in legal :contemplation of one fully exequte4 .orisint .. 6 7 9 DATED: 1011 .b b. t.4 � P.4 TBDs 7144/1. g z v 1 e 16 18 17 000 18 20 'Thy dnurt 'having. read. and previewed the- foregoing. 22 $TIPUI;ieY roN t'4e, parties;: aridgO94 cause appearing. therefor, 28 XrIsSO4ri -. 4 .20 DAT$D - taa a "40; twy;±:.panr.eansl r " fir., Plaintiff 4115D11 RDTREIAttn Attosay` gor ,Pl,aintift =now ITRIN •i ► ; `. tqC. 1:41AP4allt LCMithe. i -en), Cry fripiem.i) as -A RWA 00414.4, •rynJ.4L, 00 Attorneys for- befendint: wk 11 Ko Architects, Inc. September 1, 2017 Mrs. Elizabeth Wong ' • Kipling Post LP, Successors and Assigns RE: 425-429 University Mixed Use Project in Palo Alto Dear Elizabeth, Thank you very much for considering us to provide architectural services for construction documents of a mixed use project located at 425-429 University Avenue in Palo Alto, California. Please find the enclosed service proposal for your review and approval. We will proceed with the design services upon receiving yow signature on our agreement We are looking forward to working with you on this exciting project Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Peter Ko, AIA, LEED AP Principal Ko Architects, Inc. 4100 Nigh $b.ot, Suke Om Pea Mo. CA 94301 Tot 8601969-1608 Emit aesigekoa,ph coma 1 Litt NC{ uu AON 1101 100 'en v tut UL Aine us AWL tu► U1 eta 'fl'ti wok not lei von sess 'moan tin tot Moves Ma *et d tttL Vet I PA tioi let *MN ut iUYt 12t Dint fro J o woo 4.00.04 ,00 wevi •es - stlisimesti anfume *Ion :aime d ammo 10AeNId*p ew Att:tisvi X411MB Pleanawd:t Nevi mom ilwod :t Mslil mold Q3ateidwoorg Mfiyl amid aangdwors:►M AL liNitraNSIMMORMIIIMPS VIA 'tL 3 *IO 'ClAtdamson* LON. tau wawa D uman us/.►ouprM1YN0011N1!ifrv1 •tYO17VL1NO0 MMVNOILV,100iNtOTNON pOM t AMU .11MOi drllLWOW MIMSx)Itvl *maw N am • Ware= sou antamo vein 111NV1V*OOmoat/m ap -RW3QONolione mpeo Tur d 11140111013)010111310 -.11011d0180610 WOO 3 )111W. .flidill yaiyi1HY .0 '1.-1 arbas taONOM30:$ M1Yl ubewrinemyawloam-. arsoc omkmeinma 3MW1MYi, 414 241 V O :A@ CERW Nd e neis.v a 8'd1 pod * ado} :wa n* no LML'W f w4 wNdi=3Lve 810Z-LLQZ :31f105H3$ MOId J.N3$30VNYN 133f'OZid C2Ei Contract for CALGreen Tier 2 and CALGreen Consulting Services This Agreement is made on April 26, 2818 by and between Elizabeth Wong the ("Client") and Kate Latham ("Consultant'), for the property at 42911niversity Avenue, Palo: Alto, CA 94301, which is under the building jurisdiction of City of Palo Alto ("CPA"), with m ace to the following: L Prat jest Set; Client's intention is to have a CALGreen Tier 2 c atification fora three -unit, 8,100 fl , new construction residential pmj ct as required by the 2015 CPA Green Building Ordinance effective June 22, 2015. 2. Scope of CAtsLGre en Tier 2 Consulting Services: Consultant agrees to provide the following consulting services required to obtain a CALGeen Tier 2 certification: • Work arith Client's project team.to develop a cost effective CALGreen Tier 2 checklist that meets the requirements of the Ordinancefor the specific buildingproject noted above and the Client's needs. • Review Client's plans prior to submission for a building permit and suggest CALGreen Tier 2 notes for architectural plans. • Review Title 24 Q24) CF-IR for submission with GB -1 Application if necessary. • Assist with preparing the Client's CALGreen Tier 2 checklist sheet for submittal for building permit and provide preparation assistance and signatures. • Prepare and provide detailed CALGreen Tier 2 checklist requirements for project specific CALGreen Tier 2 measures and conduct preoonstruction meeting with contractor and Client. • Coosrdgnate and lead the three mandatory inspections required by the City of Palo Alto (CPA), which include CPA Green Building Inspector. • Prepare and provide detailed list of requirements for project specific CALGreen Tier 2 measures for precorwtruction meeting. • Provides timely CALGreen Tier 2 rater documentation and signatures for all the steps required in the Green Building Centifieation Summary on CPA submittal sheet GB -1 CALGreen Tier 2. • Conduct site field inspections as pan of basic CALGreen Ter 2 certification fee including pre -construction meeting with oortsratitor. • Conduct required CALGreen Tier 2 inspections in a timely manner. • Assess;whether each CALGreen Tier 2 measure applied for meets the detailed CPA requirements based on the CALGreen Tier 2 Manual and if not, provide suggestions of what CALGreen Tier 2 measures could be chosen by Client to meet the CALGreen Tier 2 requirements. • If neceSssry, arrange for HERS inspections as required by the 124 report. • Prepare comprehensive project dOotmsentation for each CALGreen Tier 2 measure certified with assistance from Client's project team for review by CPA. The role of the CALGreen Rater is primarily as a verifier. It is the responsibility of the Client and their contractor to provide written documentation of compliance with checklist requirements in the tom of invoices, product labels and specifications, dump tags, etc. unless they can be confirmed onsite by the Rater through inspections and photos. • Prepare and submit final project certified CALGreen Tier 2 checklist and all documentation to CPA for review demonstrating that project has met the minimum CPA green building ordinance. • Maintain project documentation for 5 years in anticipation of CALGreen Tier 2 CPA project audit. 3. Fee for CALGreen Tier 2 Consulting Services: The basic CALGreen Tier 2 certification fee will be $3,200.00 for Client's project as defined above and that meets the CALGreen Tier 2 certification requirements in effect at the time of this agreement 4. Payment Schedule: Client is to pay Consultant on the following schedule: • $960.80 (30%) upon accquance of this proposal • $1,600.00 (50%) at time of rough inspection with City Inspector • 5640.00 (20%) due before final Cal Green building inspection Clint: Elizabeth Wong Consultant: Kate Lathan) 429 University Avenue, Palo Alto hatea®iathamhomerath eom 1650-450.1827 Signature: Date: Peiltilt-14/4wy.4.1).14.4.0, Date: 4/26/22018 If proposal is acceptable, checks may be made to `Latham Home Rating' and sent to: Kate Latham at 763 N. Rengstorff Ave. #22, Mountain View, CA 94043 KASSOUNI LAW Via E -Mail and U.S. Mail October 31, 2018 Molly Stump Office of the City Attorney City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: 429 University Ave., 14PLN-00222 Dear Ms. Stump: This firm represents Kipling Post, LP, the owner of 429 University Avenue. As you know, Elizabeth Wong, on behalf of Kipling Post, has spent the last 18 months seeking ARB approval for three minor aspects of the design of the above -referenced project, which was approved by the City Council in February of 2017. Recently, after the third ARB hearing, Jonathan Lait issued a Notice of Proposed Decision stating that the Planning Director (Acting) approved two of the three minor aspects of the design, but denied the third (building materials, colors, and craftsmanship -related details). (EX. A). The denial contradicts the Planning Department's recommendation to ARB of approval of all three aspects of the design. I will be addressing the denial in more detail in a forthcoming letter, which will support Kipling Post's appeal. The purpose of this letter is to address the issue of Palo Alto Code section 18.77.090, which sets forth a one year "expiration" of approvals. Last year Kipling Post sought and obtained a one year extension, up to and including February 6, 2019. Several days ago, in an abundance of caution, Ms. Wong requested of Jodie Gerhardt a second extension to February 6, 2020. As you will see in the attached e-mail (Ex. B), Ms. Gerhardt responded that she "will need to speak with our attorneys to better understand if a second extension is allowed." I wish to state in the strongest terms that the City has absolutely no discretion shut down this project based upon section 18.77.090, nor is Kipling Post required to obtain such an extension in the first instance. I am aware that Michael Harbour has long opposed this project, and has been in close contact with key members of the Planning Department on this very issue. For the following reasons, it is hoped that as City Attorney you will proactively discourage staff from being led down the wrong path on this issue. First, section 18.077.090 provides in part that the expiration date is only triggered if "the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced." Yet the history of the activity of Kipling Post unequivocally establishes commencement of proposed use as well as commencement of the construction of buildings. Examples include the following, all of which are set forth in more detail in Ex. C: 621 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 2025 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 TELEPHONE 916.930.0030 FACSIMILE 916.930.0033 Molly Stump Office of the City Attorney October 31, 2018 Page 2 of 4 • Retention of the Ko Architects firm to provide three separate sets of drawings to address three separate ARB hearings at great expense; • Completion of the removal of street trees pursuant to validly issued permits; • Payment of fees for new water service connections, fire service capacity, and water meters; • Removal of hazardous materials; • Archaeological services; • Disconnection of utilities to the site; • Eviction of tenants; • Preparation of construction documents; • CALGreen compliance; • Building permit fees ($186,871.77); • Issuance of Encroachment Permit for installation of ground level monitoring piezometer; • Hundreds of hours of work and hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses in obtaining building permit approval status from multiple departments, as set forth in Ex. D; and • Three ARB hearings. These and other activities and substantial expenses more than establish the good faith intent of Kipling Post to proceed with all approvals necessary for issuance of the building permit. As such, Kipling Post has a right to continue with the process without the threat of application of section 18.077.090. It is settled authority in California that the purpose of statutes or ordinances providing for automatic expiration or revocation of land use approvals if a use has not yet been established is to prevent the reservation of land for future purposes when the permittee has no good faith intent to commence upon the proposed use. Molly Stump Office of the City Attorney October 31, 2018 Page 3 of 4 This conclusion is supported by the seminal First District Court of Appeal case on the subject, Community Development Com. v. City of Fort Bragg (1988) 204 Cal. App. 3d 1124, 1129. In this case, the trial court arbitrarily refused to consider factors other than completion of construction in determining whether there had been a good -faith effort to commence construction. In that case, the Community Development Commission of Mendocino County (CDC) obtained a use permit on April 26, 1983 for the construction of affordable housing. The Fort Bragg Municipal Code at the time contained a section providing for the expiration of conditional use permits in one year of the date of issuance unless substantial evidence of use was in progress. (Id. at p. 1126.) The trial court concluded that the use permit had expired on April 26, 1984 because no substantial work had been done on the property. (Id.. at p. 1128.) The trial court further concluded that residential use had not commenced on the property, and on -site construction expenses had not been incurred. The trial court stated that the "only activities undertaken by CDC with respect to this site related to steps preparatory to its application for a building permit." (Id.) On appeal, the CDC argued that the trial court erroneously construed the Municipal code section as intending "to cause the automatic expiration of use permits where the permittee has neither actually used the land for the purpose stated in the permit nor substantially begun construction work necessary for the use." (Community Development, supra, 204 Ca1.App.3d at p. 1129.) The CDC further contended on appeal that the trial court incorrectly found that the CDC's failure to actually construct buildings constituted a lack of substantial evidence of the use in progress. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal agreed with the CDC and reversed the trial court's judgment and finding that the use permit had expired: The record in this case clearly demonstrates CDC was proceeding with a good faith intent to commence upon the proposed use. It is undisputed that CDC pursued and obtained a funding commitment from HUD; that it purchased the Sanderson property at a cost of $95,000; hired architects and engineers for the performance of preconstruction work at a cost of $85,000; had soil borings performed; arranged for the removal of two small structures; and submitted plans to Fort Bragg's building inspection for "plan check review." The trial court's determination that substantial evidence of use was not shown because of the absence of actual on -site construction bears no definitive relationship to the purpose of the Fort Bragg ordinance. In a complex, government - financed development, a good faith intent to proceed may be established in several ways, exclusive of actual on -site construction .... it was unreasonable for the trial court to apply a standard concerned with the extent of construction alone. (Community Development, supra, 204 Ca1.App.3d at pp. 1130-1131, emphases added.) Molly Stump Office of the City Attorney October 31, 2018 Page 4 of 4 It would be gross abuse of process for the City to apply section 18.077.090 to shut down this project, and any such attempt will be opposed in Court in an action for writ relief and damages under the Fifth Amendment and under 42 U.S.C. 1983. We anticipate that the City will promptly acknowledge and confirm that Kipling Post has already commenced proposed use of the site consistent with the foregoing Court of Appeal authority and the documentation included in this correspondence. Thank you for your prompt attention. Sincerely, othy V. Kassouni cc: Ed Shikada [via e-mail Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org] Jonathan Lait [via e-mail Jonathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org] George Hoyt [via e-mail George.Hoyt@cityofpaloalto.org] Brad Eggleston [via e-mail Brad.Eggleston@cityofpaloalto.org] Rosemary Morse [via e-mail Rosemary.Morse@cityofpaloalto.org] Exhibits A -D Ex. A C13` .7.= PALO ALTO NOTICE OF PROPOSED DIRECTOR'S DECISION Dear property owner or resident, This is to notify you that the City has made a decision on a proposed project within 600 feet.of your property. The project proposed for 429 UNIVERSITY AV was given a partial approval and partial denial by the City's Director of Planning and Community Environment. 4 ADDRESS: 429 UNIVERSITY AV FILE NUMBER: 18PLN-00240 PROJECT DECISION: Approving in -part and denying in -part: Approved with respect to the decorative wall treatment for the project's west elevation and landscape details; it is denied with respect to exterior building materials, colors, and craftsmanship -related details. Denial in part is consistent with comments and concerns expressed by Architectural Review Board Members at its August 16, September 20, and October 4, 2018 Meetings regarding the exterior detailing and craftsmanship of the project. It also follows Kipling Post LP' refusa on October 15, 2018, of suggestion to incorporate detailing into the design in an effort to secure a complete project approval. The plans may have changed since the initial plan submittal. More information about the project and the City's decision letter may be viewed online at: https://www. cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/oln/current/proi ects/default. asp In accordance with the provision of PANIC Chapter 18.77.070 (d), any person may file an appeal of the proposed decision. The director's decision shall become final 14 calendar days after the postmarked date that this notice is mailed or published, whichever is later, unless a formal written appeal and applicable fees are submitted to the Planning Department. Should you have any questions regarding the Director's decision, please do not hesitate.to contact the Project Planner. NAME: ADAM PETERSEN PHONE: 408 340-5642 EMAIL: apetersen@m-group.us v20180826 Ex. B From: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.orq> Date: Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 4:48 PM Subject: RE: Request for Permit Time Extension To: Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwona2009@gmail.com>, Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan. Lait@cityofpaloalto.orq> Cc: Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@citvofpaloalto.org>, Peter Ko <design©koarch.com>, Laura Roberts <laura@koarch.com>, Andrew Wong <a.jaime.wong@gmail.com>, Jaime Wong <jandewonq@gmail.com> Elizabeth, The City has already issued one extension for this project (see attached) which is allowed by the Zoning Code. I will need to speak with our attorneys to better understand if a second extension is allowed. Sincerely, Jodie Gerhardt, AICP I Manager of Current Planning 1 P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue I Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2575 I E: Iodie.gerhardt@citvofpaloalto.org From: Elizabeth Wong[mailto:elizabethwong2009Cahgmail.coml Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 10:15 AM To: Gerhardt, Jodie; Lait, Jonathan Cc: Hoyt, George; Peter Ko; Laura Roberts; Andrew Wong; Jaime Wong Subject: Re: Request for Permit Time Extension Jodie, Jonathan, Please email me form and instructions for extending the Building Permit deadline. Thank you. Elizabeth Wong 1 On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 9:07 AM Spotwood, Alicia <Alicia.Spotwood@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Elizabeth, Please discuss with Jodie, 1 don't have a form for you. Thanks, Jodie Original Message From: Elizabeth Wong [mailto:elizahethwong2009 a;gmail.comj Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 9:06 AM To: Spotwood, Alicia Cc: Hoyt, George; design.i oarch.com; (aura cc koarch.com; Andrew Wong; jandewong n,gmail.com Subject: Request for Permit Time Extension Hi Alicia I don't have the permit yet so it is not in George Hoyt 's perview It is in Planning 's perview. Could you email me the forms for the time extension? Thanks Elizabeth Sent from my iPhone Ex. C EXAMPLES OF COMMENCEMENT OF PROPOSED USE OF SITE 425-429-435-441-447 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, PALO ALTO DATE DESCRIPTION EXHIBITS 6/7/2018 Completed Removal of Street Trees Tree Removal Permit and Fees Paid 3/2/2018 Building Permit Fees Submitted Construction Plans for Building Permit; Amount Paid $186,871.77 5/7/2018 Paid fees for new water service connection, fire service capacity, and water meter Receipts from City of Palo Alto Utilities Department 8/27/2018 Removal of Hazardous Materials Completion Notice from JWH Asbestos Removal Services 8/29/2018 Archaeological Services as required in Conditions of Approval Executed Contract with Holman & Associates 10/30/2018 Move Sewer Line in Lane 30 Contract with Able Septic Tank Service 7/25/2018 Disconnection of Utilities to Site Termination of Service and Declaration Concerning Tenancy 6/13/2018 Eviction of Tenants Court Stipulation and Order for removal of the last tenant by July 15, 2018 9/1/2017 Preparation of Construction Documents Contract acknowledgement letter and Timeline from Ko Architects 5/7/2018 CALGreen Compliance Contract for Cal Green Tier 2 and Cal Green Consulting Services 9/5/2018 Installation of Piezometer and Ground Water Level Monitoring Enncroachment Permit and Temporary Lease by Exploration Geoservices Inc. 0) days afterwctP ° remove said e� ahtitent 3 t° remove such any anon , �� °B from the rii'0• g et or a a7 inearo enta construct od, and thin/melt/lease 2 restored, by tie City, and the co thereof madwithin a We.Lime °$Edd, lie saute ma°ay be - Fenn/nee ec: pe shall easement Palo Alto v the City, Code. upon/against Perminee/ sions ilia exam or failure reamed, and the .oreasetr2 ��ne°° � OO�d�lion oFth isyu ° Punt to the Pro��stons o Sec I3.12 ai tbi: �any nature w�e°t' drat utde�� �dholds�Penmtt/lease, agrees to maintain • onctna issuance -of •. hatsaerrcr caused m whole in }i runless the City ofPalo Alto, its o C evidence of iiab' Q, conditions authorized or Q P by reason or in genes, and a Toro life of ' manner connected -with , Io ees from liability Per conditions shall be permitted ft. by this perimit/iease. The Pcrmittee agrees and un $- operations, esstr or prop me-nons1.1 for ob ends that3this permit tests no estate. 1�Po d use: Notwitlu: and all permits which b re urdred flueabo noticingcontatnedl msh bi ay te Cittyt oisstiea yp'stmitsor over the Petntittce hereby , gild agrees theta]] t "• easel sib' approvals evel DURATION: Temporary JAL_ Days) ._indefinite ESTIMATED START DATE: Fee Paid Parking TOTAL Date Paid: INS CERT it: I- fEI N f OOo REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED ED FOR APPROVAL BY: Transportation Bldg Inspection Planning Real Estate Li�' WOW Power PF STAFF USE ONIF- FEES: 11 :. A,--31CQ I City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Phan :650529 215] FAX: d50/3,ig.2240 Inspection: 65(1!496-6929 PERMIT TYPE: DEVELOP MEN i SE V CE �I:NclzoA ��®� J,, Copy IMENT PERMIT (Ri o f Way or pnbiic utilitiea es — TEMPORARY LEASE easement encroachments) (El! on City -owned gcnPon,3') z PERMUTES nano � ADDRESS: Name: r LOCATION {!F CROAC)i 1ITlLEA,E: ill phone: y 1: bg7-? I°CROAC - NTF�T=IPi; . . Ressslen_ trsi ffi c Far+. - _ Standard: Architectural, structural, decks, (PUE) or City right of -way [ROVE ems_ in a Public, Utilities Easement - Aster or container (no insurance csrtiFicata is rewired). F- ence: Placement ofa fence in a PUS or ROW no ?Il11t idenSal f mmAr, { insulin/0e cecitioate is required) z — S�dzark Awnings, Toile orsidewatic closures, pedeshisn protectio• n structures, 0 structural or architectural features private eneroacllments in a PUE or ROW, Jesting striatum. other long term Short -Term: Sidowalk/siteeVaI1 encroachments, $ more than 5 days_ �' ' hdays lane ar sidewalk closures, � of materials, lasting 3 days or less. I Day: Sidewalk ar lane closure lases 1 day or less. _Minor: Places spaceent er within dovt tov�n.distticts (additional paw apace �if applicable), and fee for Pursuant to the restauranttables & chairs on sidewalk., P Provisions of Sec 12.12 s of the Pala Alto Municipal Code, hereby requestedeatron wad indmaintain an encroachment, or to use C� _-o dsi ro e , at the above JO IIner dese ibed blow: rt3 olvned prop, N.TUR.E OF •ENCROAC�N}•' OR USE: ed:cox C- REASON FOR` Ei CROACA'IENT,LEASE: 04!ef'D sJ r - f _ r A COn "te i17a!3 en Penninee ; hall, atPernritte.e e - within thirty require for construction. ae . ur a alI of td . , tndr oas ,je°t to all conditions set forth h interest of a �� , , pravistans strap be bin � and the atmc n' res ase shall t:. dmgottPerrstinee, coot SpecialProYisionsand andconcessor, PPmta or a co -owners, he' � ¢ty& seers ca ro 1• tee AUG 17 2018 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT -8s TEMPORARY LEASE Cr) a »' For ins .,, Phan work on the erect - 1. by the mica start dal as m�/ t describe ti`nn c�oees of cor ncL within Po ate APPR O p BY lie Works Inspector C (650) 496-5929 -Provide ~� minimum one working dayridvautm notice. issuance ate anPWCIlaNG,pRMSelixnachreentencpachm=ntFefiut FonT.t'ac Aa appticabte Rev iomalto APPROVED CITY Of PALO ALTO Tree Site No. R2 RI R1 URBAN FORESTAY SECTION TREE PERMIT Fop RE�aTGU 7-, c��,.k1 P TRE- PUBLIC WORKS try �F PALO ALTO Public Services Division - Urban Forestr9CSec&on pwps@cityofpaloaltoorg PROJECT ADDRESS: 429 University APPLICANT INFORMATION Nam Ko Architects. Inc. Address: • • • s - 18000-00:536 so Phone: (650) 853-1908 E-ripil. dcsitm@koarch.com SCOPE OF WORK Description Cell: Fax Remove street tree inventoried at 447 University, site R2 Species Value Size Carob $1750 itsmoyestreot treeJnYeats»d 8t 447 University, site R1 Carob Plant 4 sew Otect trl es__Lcaortilig. Gingko to building permit sheet Ll $1750 35 40 Application Date: Start Date: 6/11(g Completion Date: REQUIRED AITACHMENTS t Site Plan 2. Other: PERMIT CONDITIONS 1. The permitted work shall conform to City of Palo Alto standard specifications and the Tree Technical Manual including those checked above. See attached specifications 2. Permit shall be available on site during work. 3. Perr hues removing trees and stumps, and/or planting new trees shall use PW Detail #604. 4. PPanwtteeisresponsible to notify Underground Service Alert (USA) prior to stump ►ernowi and replacement tree 5. All work shall be completed by a licensed tree service or landscaping,contrachor. a 6. New tree shall be Inspected by urban forestry inspector prior to antaltation (650.4$6.5953) 7. When required, Irrigation bubbler heads shall be suppled to each new tree per PW Detail #513. 8. Applications that Include pruning or removal of regulated trees must attach a report from a certified arboreal 9. In consideration of the granbng of this omit. for priming an International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist must be en site. All work shall be done in accordance with: • Palo Alto Municipal Code Title a Trees and Vegetation • Tree Technical Manual. PAMC. 8.10.130 • American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standards for Tree Care Operations A300 & 2133 • ANSI Standard for Nursery Stock Z603 • Underground Service Alert (USA) notification requirements • Proof of insurance as specified by the City of Palo Alto • 10 Add{ t+onaIlCConditions: Of WOrk t be completed Dist From Left Prop. Line 58 100 TBD _reragitiangsffikgaggettian.conditions soli voluble. and ini ae specilledin the building Pew Permutes affirms that the facts stated herein are true and agrees that (s)he. his or her agents. employees, and contractors shall perform ell work described heroin in conformance with ordinances and standard specification of the City of Palo Alto. The parriittge agrees abide with the Permit Conditions outlined above and hold the City of Palo Alto. Its officers. officials. agents. to from ell costs and damages which might arise from the Pemiittee'k use or occupancy of public right -of- permit may be revokedevs at any time - f the above lilies. Pernik be 6 a (A) APPLI NATU j DATE PERMIT ISSUER x(1(16 DATE r .. •.n, r .encr.s.vwaa.w...v`wavneoc...t v... m o-r..uwr�... a c.• +sm:a,Hr xrM+...me�r_..vaei.+r.v �sw.sv assw.:aw.t.emea CITY OF PALO ALTO DEVELOPMENT CENTER 285 HAMILTON AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 (650) 329-2496 OWNER: KIPLING POST LP CONTRACTOR: PROPERTY ADDRESS: 429 UNIVERSITY AV RECEIPT NUMBER: 334699 RECEIPT DATE: 3/2/2018 9:53:31AM PERMIT NUMBER: 18000-00536 Print Date: 03/02/2018 Type: Project Sub -Type: Building Permit Category: Building Permit FEE DESCRIPTION ` SUBFUND-ACTIVITY Landscape Plan Check - Commercial & Multi -Family 65060001 1337 Buildine Plan Check Fee Utilities Plan Check Public Works Plan Check Fee Fire Plan Check - Commercial & Multi-Familv Zonine Plan Check Fee UNITS FEE AMOUNT 1 $1,973.00 65030001 1337 1 $66,627.98 65030001 1337 1 $118.00 65040001 1337 1 $39,088.12 65050001 1337 1 , $47,971.73 65020001 1323 1 $31,092.94 Amount Due: $186,871.77 Check Amount Paid: $186,87L77 Fees paid include a Technology Surcharge of 1.8% per transaction approved in FY 18 Municipal Fee Schedule Comment: t-I,ecl* r- i 041g 3�v1�8 20170818 �•♦ GRr OF PAla ALTO UTILITIES Billing Address: KIPLING POST LP P. O. Box 204 Palo Afto CA 94301 Service Address: 429 University Ave Palo Alto CA 94301 Item N . Sales Order/ /Ref. Service Order City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, California 94301 Invoice Number : 95019717 Invoice Date : 05/07/2018 Customer No : 20002551 CrV-gact Accius+t • 1An.^a9R1 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES DEPARTMENT W-G-WENGDIEERING BILLING AMOUNT GOOD FOR 90 DAYS DUE IN PULL PARTIAL ItINENT8 NOT ACC PI D 000010 000020 000030 70041155 40023443 70041155 40023443 70041155 40023443 Service Description NEW 6" WATER SERVICE CONNECTION 6" FIRE SERVICE CAPACITY FEES 5/8" WATER METER INSTL CHARGE Amount 8,137.00 22,530.00 698.00 Total Due $ 31.365.00 Remit Payment to: Nail: Revenue Collections -City of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 In person: Revenue Collections, 250 BosiltonAme., lst Floor, Palo, Alto, CA 94301 For Billing Contact: email: kelly.haruta6cityofpaloalto.org phone: (650) 617-3106 This invoice amount is good until 90 days after the effective date of that next Council -approved rata increase. If you have not paid the amount due within that time, a new invoice will be prepared and mailed to you. The new invoice will be prepared using the sates in effect at the time of mailing. ity of itY of part° tevenue Collection Reference ."05 ber: 2016128002-68 DatelTime 08/2018 54:55 PM S 0 Pro -Forma Payment 2018128002-68-1 S 0 Pro -Forma Payment Contract Account:L 000010006981 Last Name First Name KIPLING POST Amount: Total: 1 ITEM TOTAL: TOTAL: Check 04672 Check Nbr: $31,365.00 Total Received`d:```` `` `` iI'U�I�����II�I� III'll�l�l'�I'III�I'�I� - 6 8 I�I�IIIE2 128002 CE 018 $31,365.00 $31,365,00 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. 9lo Alto, California 94301 Customer Copy $31,365.00 • $31,365.00 $31,365.00 Invoice Number : 95019717 Invoice Dote : 05/07/2018 Customer No : 20002551 Contra Peg-AND/4 • lnnan981 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES DEPARTMENT W -G -W ENGINEERING BILLING AMOUNT GOOD • FOR 90 DAYS DUE IN PULL PAAflALP.Ut1ENrSNOT ACCEPTED )tion SERVICE CONNECTION E CAPACITY FEES ER INSTL CHARGE Amount 8,137.00 22,530.00 698.00 Total Due $ 31.365.00 Remit Payment to: Mail: Revenue Collections -City of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 In person: Revenue Collections, 250 Hamilton Ave., 1st Floor, Palo, Alto, CA 94301 For Billing Contact: email: kslly.haruta€cityofpaloalto.org phone: (650) 617-3106 This invoice amount is good until 90 days after the effective date of the next Council -approved rate increase. If you have not paid the amount due within that time, a new invoice will be prepared and mailed to you. The new invoice will be prepared using the rates in effect at the time of mailing. Psio Alto 250 Icon Ave. Palo Alto, California 94301 antocPAW WO UTILITIES, Billing Address: KIPLING POST LP P. O. Box 204 Palo Alto CA 94301 Service address: 429 University Ave Palo Alto CA 94301 Item No /Ref. Sales V eke Service Order Service beecription Invoice Number : 95019723 invoice Date : 0509/2018 Customer No : 20002551 Contract Account :10008981 96391 30 Amount 000010 70041278 40023479 NEW 8" WATER SERVICE CONNECTION 1.332.00 Total Due $ 1. bait Payment to: Mail: Revenue Collections -City of Palo Alto B.O. Hoe 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Xis person: Revenue Collections, 280 Hamilton Ave., 1st floor, Palo, Alto, CA 94301 For Billing Contact: email: kelly.haruta$cityofpaloalto.org phone: (650) 617-3106 This invoice amount is good until 90 days after the effective date of the next Council -approved sate increase. Xf you have not paid the amount due within that time, a new invoice will be prepared and mailed to yea. The new invoice will be pampered using the rates in effect at the time of sailing. J . W. H . Asbestos REMOVAL SERVICES CSLB No, 777430 OSHA No. 270 COMPLETION NOTICE This is to certify that J.W.H. Asbestos Removal Services has completed the removal of the asbestos contracted per HMA Asbestos Survey #18.240 dated July 27, 2018 Removal and disposal of 1,600 sq ft of sheetrock/joint compound less than 1% non -friable asbestos from lower walls on sides and back wall and 2 upper walls in Unit#425. Removal and disposal of 120 sq. ft. VAT tile and mastic and tape on flue pipe in Unit#441. Removal and disposal of asbestos tape on plenum box in Unit#447. Removal and disposal of carpet, floor tile and mastic on wood, transite flue pipe and asbestos tape on metal pipe in Unit#450. at the following job location: 425,441,447 University Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 450 Kipling Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 In accordance with J.W.H. Asbestos Removal Services proposal signed/dated August 6, 2018. This notice conforms to and is in strict compliance with all applicable standards and regulations. This provision of completion is our acknowledgment by authorized signature that all services that have been contracted for are completed as specified at the above referenced property location. il4 - W. Howell Date .H. Asbestos Removal Services August 27, 2018 710 E. McGlincy Lane #111, Campbell, CA 95008 Tel: 408.374-1123 Fax: 408-374-1091 tOLfl'OFASSOCIATES Auchaeologicat Consultants "SINCE THE BEGINNING" 3615 FOLSOM ST. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94110 41S/SSQ 7286 Elizabeth Wong Steleco LLC POBox2014 Palo Alto, CA 94302 29 August 2018 re: Proposal/Authorization for Historical Resources/Archaeological Training, 425-429 University Avenue, Palo Alto Thank you for contacting us regarding an archaeological and historical resources Mitigation Measure requiring training for construction personnel for your Project at 425-429 University Avenue in Palo Alto. A redevelopment project proposed for the property will require excavations about 30 feet deep, which would adversely impact historical or archaeological resources, if any, therefore the City has required this training. The Scope of Services for this work will be to provide a training session "... regarding how to recognize cultural resources ... that could be encountered during construction activities" as per Mitigation Measure CUL- 1 (attached). Such a training session would typically take 45 minutes to one hour and would be conducted at the jobsite. Potential attendees would be determined by you and your construction contractor(s). Our fee for these services will be Not to Exceed $400 (plus mileage at 58.501mile), depending on which of our staff is used, and could be less if we can coordinate the training session with other work in the vicinity that same day. Any additional work or site visits would be charged at standard hourly rates of $100/hr for Senior Associate(s), $85/hr for Staff Archaeologist(s), or $80/hr for Archaeological Technician(s), plus a maximum daily mileage charge up to 100 miles. What we need from you: 1. Notice at least one week before the training, specifying time and place. 2. Authorization to Proceed. Please sign and return an original of this Proposal to serve as Authorization to Proceed and as agreement to pay Invoices within 30 days of receipt. A signed digital copy will suffice, or you may fax a signed copy to 415-282-6239, or send your standard contract/authorization with this Proposal as an exhibit. Please call Miley or email Holman.Assoc@comcastnet or me at 650-726-6269 or mrccrm@comcastnet if you have any questions. Cordially yours, Matthew R Clark, RPA Senior Associate E.Wone re 425 University Palo Alto Archaeological Training, 28 August 2018. page 2 of 2 Autl-E. I1 � Name Title Vv 8 br 44,ker.y0{- M'r Company/Agency stew& _, ?is/ Dated: Total Contract Price: NTE $458.50 Project: H&A 08-06/18 CULTURAL RESOURCES Mltlgellion Measure CU41: Prior to oommencement of sit e clearing and project grading, the project applicant shall retain a qualified prchaeologtst to train construction personnel regarding howto rec ognize cultural resources (such its structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shag, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains) that could be encountered during construction activities. If ar8taota or unusual amounts of shell or bone or o8her it ems IndlostIve of burled araheeolog cal resarrces or human remains are encountered during earth disturbance associated with the proposed project, the on-ete contractor shag immediately notify the City of Palo Alto ({ and the Native American Heritage Commiselon as appropriate. AU soli -disturbing work shad be halted within 100 fact of the discovery unlit a qualified archaeologist, as defined by the California Envlrenmentat Quality Act (CEQA) Gusda�hee (14 CCR 1. s etseq .) and the City, completes a significence evaluation . the finds pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation A. Any human remains unearthed shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, and California Public Resources Code, Sermons 5097. 94, 5097.98, and 5097.99, which include requirements to notify the Santa are County ,'':'i;:9"office and consult with Native American represenistives determined to be the Most Likely De scenda nts, as appointed byte Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on State Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523 (archaeological sites). Mitigation measu res wed by the Native American Heritage Commissio n, the Santa Clare County Medical Examiner's • office, and any Native Ame rican represe ntatives determined to belie Most Likely Descendants and required by the City shal be undertaken before construction activities are resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, Including measurer set forth In the We Cultural Resources Mana gement Program and in compliance with Sections 15064. 5 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shaft be implemented. APPikent City of Palo Alto . Prior to and during earth disturbance • Training materials provided to construction contractors • Field inspections conducted to verify compliance Ltd 67747 PROJECT: Customer Oweloer&shao Attn: Elisabeth Wong _ Address: 429 University Ave _ _ _ City: _ Palo Alto_ _ State CA ZIP -__- Phone: 650.814.3051 Email: alitat^rinsona^i'1S^cernaii.-rnn Qty 1020 Ruff Dr San Jose. CA 06110 Office (408) 377-9990 Fax (108) 4924008 ;PROPOSAL Misc. Date 10/30/2018 Order No. AC -16.378r1 Rep Sob Hardesty Review • • • • • • f • • • Excludes •w M f SCOPE OF WORK: Install a new manhole in the street and a sewer lateral with on -site install, per City permits. Able to mark out the construction area 48 hours prior to any digging. Able to -pull the permits needed to complete this project (permit cost excluded. Able to set up traffic control, lay out trench line and saw cut asphalt before digging. Able to dig, trench and install a•4" sewer lateral approx. to 26' in length and approx. 6' deep. Able to backfitl with proper materials and compaction to be mechanical. Able will off haul all spoils related to this job. Able to use proper shoring on ail trenches 8' or deeper. Able to pave around newly installed manhole and new sewer lateral. Able to replace small section of driveway approach. Able to reconnect 4 existing sewer fines that are to be reconnected to our new sewer line. , f _ , Able to install one new sewer manhole to City of PA specs. �1'W Able to use native backfill on the on -site sewer and replace the concrete" thick thru the trench line only. Compaction to be mechanical. Able to dig, trench and install a 8" sewer line approx. 115' in length and approx. 6' deep. We are estimating this project to take 5 to 6 working days to complete. Able to provide traffic centre! plan to customer before submission to the City. Able to pro v'de certificate of Ins. With customer provided additional insureds upon sinning cif the pi.optisa. Permits, fees or engineering if needed. Some ?land digging, is included Any concrete thicker that 6". Any utilities that will cause use to hand dig through our trench line. This bid is for tractor work. Hitting any unmarked utilities lines in our trench ansa. Please note, we have excluded the cost to abandon the existing line until we get clarification. lirmis and Ground Wear Clause If roeklground water is found, alternate methods may be applicable. If found, additional charges may be needed. Chance orders Any aItsM3ons or deviations from this proposal, involving additional materials andior labor will be executed only in a written charge order and will become an additional charge outside the original proposal cost. Any additional down time created by a change order will be payable by the customer per our standard time and materials rates. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to bid on your underground sewer project. 1 Thank You fot THANK YOU FOR CHOOSING ABLE UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION tAnimproutuf f`.Q S s• tearer - Stem • idler • E.4 -dater & ktskale Sttptft Spate= reared • ke wif • &wad Ai • fraccatla Pravutting Sumo & D:iix unit C ea.-.iy • R.7Wog - ReNlidS1 • &Paw • Rifkaana, 4 Cornice; sett usi r Sot. s r&orn ..rsfiszsebesiterreirems *rev R kL Sew- Ma a v • P,sbSG' *Wks • Orerxx'* & Sp efe f.A11.A.r Stoppage: Piped Viik fuspectina: ftelone Inspection • ;.triv .11ratr!i • Aguirre SS Cowles, 3 f6: EmaugensyS+art*. Wt7W..:?i0:Si1 (1..±•L?tv /ltd ckaA4:v114c. at • Yrisula.'{Ai18pcoR+i3O*4.noto CITY OF PALO ALTO 11F UTILITIES Inspired by a b•ighter tomorrow. DEMO DECLARATION CONCERNING TENANCY OF BUILDING PRIOR TO ISSURANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT Service Address for Demolition/Remodeling Street # Street Name NI v5As I flite1/ P A4,110, C " Palo Alto Municipal code 16.04.060 section 105.1.3 provides no work or demolition shall begin upon any portion of such a unit until each and every portion has been vacated by all tenants laaxfully in possession thereof. 1azttioe4) L)0 hereby declare that I am the oVNner, or owner's agent. of the premises located at the servic address listed abo‘c. I also declare the building located at the service address listed above, for which a demolition permit is requested, is not currently occupied or presently being used for residential purposes. Said Premise Consists of 1 number of buildings I will not use not use any demolition permit issued to aid in securing vacation of said premise. I certify under penalty or perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 5I1249/LA GvflnL, /114Aailr Print Name, Signature fflLe -30r/ Phone Number City of Palo Alto Utilities, Customer Service Center 250 Hamilton Ave., Ground Floor, Palo Alto. CA 94301 Tel. 650 329-2161 Fax. 650-321-2786 Hours Mon — Thur 7:30 am to 5:30 pm Friday 8:00 to 5:00 pm Email: UtliitiesCustomerServicencitvofpaloalto.orq Web: http://www.citvofpaloalto.orsi/depts/ut&default.asp Rev 12/2/2016 DEMO �'��►�` UTILITIES Utilities Disconnection Prior Inspired by a brighter tomorrow. To Building Demolition/Remodeling L/ M ,:rj Aeyej A-t4u Service Address (P?A Lt 3S j 4'i j tf' # U/1 N/1rl r7y Awe., at) 1140 All addresses on the property being demolished need to be listed. A separate Demo application is required for each address. ❑ Single Family Dwelling 0 Multi Family Dwelling 35(Conunercial Building Applicant Name 0(2010c -"A ODA) t H 42110.50 -- et,‘ Owner Name Phone Phone ~ V I y -3cr' eV) F 9oi / Billing Address 0. e•ox 70(e, Pc - W A- IA, C46- Q `P3 c7 y Email Address ell ?.fit-t>e-(1 alp ..2-coct I. q m Q i L . C J- f Services Requested for Removal (Check all applicable boxes) W.Remove Electric Meter # Er/Remove Gas Meter # 0 Remove Water Meter # move Electric Service Line Remove Gas Service Line Utilities will be disconnected and/or removed within 1 and 10 working days after receipt of a completed application. Exact times and/or dates cannot be scheduled. If uti Signature (Applies General Information Will there be multiple or new address(s) when construction is complete? Will you need temporary power during construction? Have you applied for a building permit? Will the foundation be removed? be reinstalled, a connection fee will be charged per current utility rate schedule. // 113 Date No No No No What is the purposed property use after demolition? (Example: single family home, restaurant) City of Palo Alto Utilities, Customer Service Center 250 Hamilton Ave., Ground Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Tel. 650 329-2161 Fax 650-617-3142 Hours Mon — Thur 7:30 am to 5:30 pm Friday 8:00 to 4:30 pm Email: UtilitieeCustomerService(a/citvokaloalto.orq Web: htto://www.cltvofualoalto.orb/deots/utl/default.aso Rev 8/16/2017 1111 CITY OF PALO ALTO V' UTILITIES Utilities Disconnection Prior DEMO Inspired by a brighter tomorrow. To Building Demolition/Remodeling upNersrry ,w, adz A -U Service Address ) tf , V? j (4,3 c j 41-11 e-7 Un i vers , jy Ave, j etc) l 'tfo All addresses on the property being demolished need to be listed. A separate Demo application is required for each address. 0 Single Family Dwelling 0 Multi Family Dwelling XCommercial Building Applicant Name i e4 1001, r M Qnaj8 P.r uc— e0 b1- Gr Owner Name Phone " �i y -3car / Phone 6.0 ' c 1 - 3 Q1-/ Billing Address O. Oox 7.1)(e, (78.-L A' ("lb) e p- q Y3 a 2,za.1 4-11 cap( - Email Address Services Requested for Removal (Check all applicable boxes) 'Remove Electric Meter # Remove Gas Meter # 0 Remove Water Meter # ove Electric Service Line Remove Gas Service Line Utilities will be disconnected and/or removed within 1 and 10 working days after receipt of a completed application. Exact times and/or dates cannot be scheduled. If 'li es ar to be reinstalled, a connection fee will be charged per current utility rate schedule. -z/2c/: Date Signature (Applic General Information Will there be multiple or new address(s) when construction is complete? Will you need temporary power during construction? Have you applied for a building permit? Will the' foundation be removed? No No No No What is the purposed property use after demolition? (Example: single family home, restaurant) City of Palo Alto Utilities, Customer Service Center 250 Hamilton Ave., Ground Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Tel. 650 329-2161 Fax 650-617-3142 Hours Mon — Thur 7:30 am to 5:30 pm Friday 8:00 to 4:30 pm Email: UtititiesCustomerService(Wdtvoraaloalto.orq Web: htta://www.citvooaloalto.oro/deots/uU/default.aso Rev 8/16/2017 • \1//i CITY OF PALO ALTO '/!1>` UTILITIES Inspired by a brighter tomorrow. %tLf/ Street # '�F Street Name OIUt✓ER*S I' I farvg eadz �i ck DEMO DECLARATION CONCERNING TENANCY OF BUILDING PRIOR TO ISSURANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT Service Address for Demolition/Remodeling Palo Alto Municipal codc 16.04.060 section 105.1.3 prov ides no work or demolition shall begin upon any portion of such a unit until each and every portion has been vacated by all tenants lawfulb in possession thereof. I ) tz4ioeJh 4), hereby declare that I am the owner. or owner's agent. of the premises located at the scrvic address listed above. I also declare the building located at the service address listed above, for which a demolition permit is requested, is not currently occupied or presently being used for residential purposes. Said Premise Consists of 1 number of buildings I will not use not use an demolition permit issued to aid in securing vacation of said premise. I certify under penalty or perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 5II2 LA tvo ij, fl 4 55 Print Namc 6ro- fit--3a"f Phonc Number City of Palo Alto Utilities, Customer Service Center 250 Hamilton Ave., Ground Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Tel. 650 329-2161 Fax. 650-321-2786 Hours Mon — Thur 7.30 am to 5:30 pm Friday 8:00 to 5:00 pm Email: UtilitiesCustomerService@citvofoaloalto.org Web: htto://www.citvotaloalto.oraidePts/uti/default.aso Rev 12/2/2016 DEMO CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Utilities Disconnection Prior Inspired by a brighter tomorrow. To Building Demolition/Remodeling 4-r;'11vNers):11 kite.; adz 0011/1110 Service Address 44211) q 9.,c) ) Let -f7 U/1 i very i Awe. , et() kifo All addresses on the property being demolished need to be listed. A separate Demo application is required for each address. 0 Single Family Dwelling 0 Multi Family Dwelling XCommercial Building Applicant Name CJt2'e "' LUD1 t tl angl Phone Owner Name ! -� '( t �� Pn LP Phone ' 3 o (ate- / y -3ar Billing Address Email Address o. eCkx 7Dte, GAO A- c- 1 ca- a 0z e!t2aLe7 i conk ?co't Q jmQi 1. �M l Services Requested for Removal (Check all applicable boxes) Remove Electric Meter # I''Remove Gas Meter # 0 Remove Water Meter # move Electric Service Line 0 Remove Gas Service Line Utilities will be disconnected and/or removed within 1 and 10 working days after receipt of a completed application. Exact times and/or dates cannot be scheduled. If utilitie : re toe reinstalled, a connection fee will be charged per current utility rate schedule. 1124 Signature (Applicant) neral Information Will there be multiple or new address(s) when construction is complete? Will you need temporary power during construction? Have you applied for a building permit? Will the foundation be removed? Date No No No No What is the purposed property use after demolition? (Example: single family home, restaurant) City of Palo Alto Utilities, Customer Service Center 250 Hamilton Ave., Ground Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Tel. 650 329-2161 Fax. 650-617-3142 Hours Mon — Thur 7:30 am to 5:30 pm Friday 8:00 to 4:30 pm Email: UtilitiesCustomerServiceecitvofoaloalto.orq Web: htta://www.citvofoaloalto,oraldeots/utlldefaultaso Rev 8/16/2017 DEMO CITYOFPALO ALTO O UTILITIES Inspired by a brighter tomorrow. DECLARATION CONCERNING TENANCY OF BUILDING PRIOR TO ISSURANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT Service Address for Demolition/Remodeling Street #:00111 Street Name unit vegs 1 'r`'( tbNe t P� A -C/11), ciet- Palo Alto Municipal code 16.04.060 section 105.1.3 provides no work or demolition shall begin upon any portion of such a unit until each and even portion has been vacated by all tenants lawfulh in possession thereof. I g) eel:4 00 her* declare that I am the owner, or owner's agent, of the premises located at the sen-ic address listed above. I also declare the building located at the service address listed above, for which a demolition permit is requested, is not currently occupied or presently being used for residential purposes. Said Premise Consists of 1 number of buildings I will not use not use ant demolition permit issued to aid in securing s aeation of said premise. I certify under penalty or perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 5It2s�e- tOonj, f(4ra5e Print Name Signature 60- !N -3a-j Phone Number City of Palo Alto Utilities, Customer Service Center 250 Hamilton Ave., Ground Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94301 TeI. 650 329-2161 Fax 650-321-2786 Hours Mon — Thur 7:30 am to 5:30 pm Friday 8.00 to 5:00 pm Email: UtilitiesCustomerServicel6tcfirofpaloalto.orq Web: http://www,citvofpaloalto.ora/depts/utl/default.aso Rev 12/2/2016 DEMO CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Inspired by a brighter tomorrow. DECLARATION CONCERNING TENANCY OF BUILDING PRIOR TO ISSURANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT Service Address for Demolition/Remodeling Street # Street Name (WI t ✓Ei S 1 Dj g 19,40 IQ's , Palo Alto Municipal code 16.04.060 section 105.1.3 provides no work or demolition shall begin upon any portion of such a unit until each and every portion has been vacated by all tenants lawfully in possession thereof. I g) 124164) &)o il' hereby declare that I am the owner, or owner's agent, of the premises located at the servic, f address listed above. I also declare the building located at the service address listed above, for which a demolition permit is requested, is not currently occupied or presently being used for residential purposes. Said Premise Consists of 1 number of buildings I will not use not use any demolition permit issued to aid in securing vacation of said premise. I certify under penalty or perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Elie , GUoj, Print Name Signature loo- g/ -3tar/ Phone Number -7/7-4-1/? City of Palo Alto Utilities, Customer Service Center 250 Hamltton Ave., Ground Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Tel. 650 329-2161 Fax. 650-321-2786 Hours Mon — Thur 7:30 am to 5:30 pm Friday 8:00 to 5:00 pm Email: UtilitlasCustomerServicettcitvofnaloalto.org Web: httpJ/www.citvafpaloalto.ora/deot$A4Udefault.aea Rev 12/2/2016 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Todd Rothbard 27 Attorney et Law 100 SagaAvoaue 28 Subs 200 O 2 a dart California p5051 TODD ROTHBARD *67351 ATTORNEY AT LAW 100 Saratoga Avenue #200 Santa Clara, California 95051 Tel.: (408) 244-4200 Attorney for the Plaintiff t .. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA KIPLING POST, LP, ) Plaintiff, ) No. 18CV329356 vs. ) STIPULATION AND ORDER DESIGN WITHIN REACH, INC., DOES I ) through V, inclusive, ) Defendants. ) IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED. AND AGREED, by and between plaintiff KIPLING POST LP and defendant DESIGN WITHIN REACH, Inc. that: 1. Defendant and all occupants will vacate the premises located at 447 University Avenue, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California 94301 on or before July 15, 2018 (hereinafter "the vacate date"). Notwithstanding that the vacate date falls on a Sunday, there shall be no extension of this limit to the following working day. Defendant shall turn in all keys to said premises to plaintiff or plaintiff's agent at such time as it leaves, and shall leave said premises in broom clean and undamaged condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted, and shall comply in all respects with any requirements set forth in the lease. respecting the manner in which possession of the premises 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Todd Rothbard 27 Attorney at Law 1005 Saratoga 28 Solo'Ma Cdr. California 93051 is to be restored to plaintiff. Defendant shall remove all items of personal property from said premises at such time as it leaves; any items of personal property remaining behind after the vacate date may be disposed of by plaintiff without liability and without need for resort to the procedures set forth in Civil Code sections 1993, et. seq. 2. Defendant shall pay to plaintiff, on or before June 15, 2018, the sum of $63,875.52. This sum is comprised of holdover rent from June 1 through July 15 ($59,445.72), reimbursement for plaintiff's attorney's fees ($3,500.00), reimbursement for plaintiff's Court filing fee ($435.00), reimbursement for defendant's Court filing fee ($435.0Q) and reimbursement of ex parte fee ($60.00) . 3. If defendant pays and leaves as set forth above, upon the completion of performance by defendant and upon written demand to plaintiff's attorney by defendant or its attorney, plaintiff shall file a dismissal of this action, with prejudice, with no further award of fees or costs in favor of either party. 4. If defendant fails to pay or leave as set forth above, .or if any check given by defendant in payment of all or any part of any amount due as set forth above is returned unpaid by the bank upon which drawn, in any such event plaintiff shall be entitled to immediate judgment for the full relief set forth in the complaint, including restitution of possession of the premises, unlawful detainer damages, attorney's fees, and costs, less applicable credit(s) for any payment(s) made by defendant prior to the date upon which such payment is obtained. Plaintiff may obtain said judgment by ex parte application to 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Todd xothbard 27 Attorney at Law 100 SamWp Avenue 28 Seim 200 nits CIxa, Ca1itaa1a 95051 the Court, coupled with a declaration under penalty of perjury setting forth the facts constituting defendant's failure to perform in accordance with the foregoing requirements. Before seeking to obtain said judgment, plaintiff's attorney shall give notice by telephone and email to defendant's attorney (Ms. Jill Rowe, Cooper, White 4 Cooper; tel.: 415-765-6239; email: jrowe@cwclaw.com) of plaintiff's intention to so proceed. If defendant fails to perform in accordance with the foregoing requirements, defendant waives any right it might otherwise have to contest, appeal, or seek to set aside said judgment, waives any right it might otherwise have to seek any form of stay of execution, either pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 918, 1176, or otherwise, waives any right it might otherwise have to seek any form of relief from forfeiture, either pursuant to Civil Code section 3275, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1174, 1179, or otherwise, and waives any right it might otherwise have to seek any form of relief from default, either pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 473, 473.5, or otherwise. 5. Time is of the essence with respect to the provisions of this STIPULATION. This provision shall be interpreted in its strictest sense, with any failure to perform any requirement set forth herein on or before the date upon which performance is due, even if performance is late by only a single day, resulting in the relief upon default set forth above without regard to the relative hardship to the parties. 6. Other than with respect to a violation of the foregoing requirements, both parties waive any and all claims, of any 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Todd Rothberd 27 Aaomey atLnw Sang°` Avnne 28 Suite 200 mn O,n. CaHfoxr i 95RSI nature whatsoever, which each might have against the other, or against any principals, agents, shareholders, partners, managers, members, employees, affiliates, or assigns of the other. The parties understand that California Civil Code section 1542 provides: "A general release does not extend to the claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor." Notwithstanding this language, the parties specifically waive its protection. The parties understand that they may have sustained serious damage or consequential injuries which have not manifested themselves and/or which are presently unknown, but nonetheless deliberately intend to and do hereby release these possible future claims. 7. Each of the terms and conditions set forth above is a material part of the consideration for the execution of this STIPULATION. Strict performance of each and every term and condition set forth above is required. The failure to perform in strict compliance with each and every condition set forth above shall be deemed a material breach of this STIPULATION entitling plaintiff to the relief upon default set forth above. 8. This STIPULATION sets forth the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the matters addressed herein. It shall not be altered nor modified unless such alteration or modification is in writing and signed by all signatories hereto. 9. A fax or email copy of this STIPULATION, bearing the faxed or emailed signatures of all signatories hereto, may be 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ToddRofbbnd 27 at Lew �� 28 Sam Clam. Otlizasa9303L used for all purposes in lieu of an original. This STIPULATION may be executed in counterparts, with the sum of the counterparts, whether executed by fax, email, or otherwise, being the equivalent in legal contemplation of one fully executed original. DATED: DATED: DATED: DATED: ti i$ -L61 KIPLINd P Plaintiff Attorney for Plaintiff DESIGN WITHIN REACH, INC. Defendant JILL ROWE COOPER, WHITE & COOPER Attorneys for Defendant /"iGP Lhpk. �tl j GCS Gird ORDER POALS np'2t._ r The Court having and and reviewed the foregoing STIPULATION of the parties, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 'JUN 13 2018 5 JUDGE OP THE SUP used f9r all ,purposes• in lieu of an original. This STIPULATI©N 2 inay 1Se eXecuted in counterparts, with the sum of the 3 counterparts,, whartbex execut 4 :by a , ?mail., or oth rwise, 4 being the equivalent in legal .contemplation. of one fully axeclited b�iinat 6 DATED: 7 8 9 10 •bA1LED: 11- 12 '1.3 14 : TATEb.: 7v.n/t Z n i e 15 16 17 DAB :j4k4 6, .01 18 19. 20`. ORDER CPY,i�G .PAST, DP Plaintiff '£6D "R D A4 -or ey.: for Plaintiff DESIGN' WITHIN' p INC. Defe7ndanit LO1.1 frte. 4124%17, .CF SAI- WRITE. Jr 000MAttorneys for Defendant Al The. .& urt having read. and reviewed the foregoing 22 STIPULATION a the and goQa caue& :appearing. therefor, 23. IT Is 30 ognmiEA . 24 26 . DATED : 26 zvdd.Itab011 2'l dgomq� W i�w tsx Odliaee.sgixt Gt)k c-bil Ko Architects, Inc. September 1, 2017 Mrs. Elizabeth Wong ' Kipling Post LP, Successors and Assigns RE: 425-429 University Mixed Use Project in Palo Alto Dear Elizabeth, s Thank you very much for considering us to provide architectural services for construction documents of a mixed use project located at 425-429 University Avenue In Palo Alto, Califomia. Please find the enclosed service proposal for your review and approval. We will proceed with the design services upon receiving your signature on our agreement We are looking forward to working with you on this exciting project. Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Peter Ko, AIA, LEED AP Principal Ko Architects, Inc. 1 900 High Street, Suite One, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Tet 650/853-1908 Emelt designgicoarch.coml PROJECT MANAGEM ENT FLOW SCHEDULE: 2017-2018 DATE: 8eptsmbsr 8 th, 2017 CLIENT: KipOng Post LP, Successes & Assigns PRO JECT: 429 Unh emity Mixed Use Porleet (KAI 17-721) PREPARED BY: Ko Architects, Inc. 2017 2018 TA61vraIE 1:1•9 OCT . NOV . DE C. JAN. FEB . MARC H APRL AMY JUNE JULY AUG . SEPT. OCT. N OV . DEC. 0/1 9110 10/1 10/10 11 11 11/10 12/1 12/16 1/1 1116 2/1 2/10 3/1 3/16 411 4110 511 5110 6/1 0116 7 11 7/16 6/1 N10 0/1 010 1011 10116 11/1 11/10 12/1 12/10 TASK 1: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT -DESIGN 3MTH CONSULTANTS) TASK 1: DESIGN DEVELO PMENT- CLIENT REVE IMC DM.EN TB TASK 1: DEMON DEVELOPM ENT - DESIGN REVISION¢ TASK 1: DESIGN DEVELOPM EN T- CU ENT/COMTR ACTOR APPROVAL• TASK 2: CONSTRUCTION DOIIAENTs- DESIGN MTTH CONSULTANTS) TASK 2 CONSTRUCTION D OCUMEN TS -• . R EVIEW/COMMEN TS • TASK 2 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - DESIGN REVISIONS TASK2: CONSTRUCTION DOCUM ENTS- CU ENT ONTRACTORPPPROVAL• TASK 3: DIADEM PERMIT SU BMITTAL IL CO MMENTS • TASK 3: PLAN CHECK RESPONSE & REVISIONS ION r TASK 3: BUILDIN G PERMT APPROVN. • TASK 4: BIDDING AND NEGOTIATION -SUBCONTRACTORS TASK 5: START CON STRUCTION • NEST. 22 MONTHS CONSTR. TIME) • NOT CONTROLLED BY KOARC HITEC TS, WC. , Anticipated Protect Milestone Dates; TASK 1: Complete DD phase TASK 2: Co mplete CD phase TASK 3: Bulidin g Permit Submittal: TASK 3: Provide Bid Seta (For C ontracto r): TASK 3: City FIRS) Appro val (Budding Permit): TASK 4: Bidding and Negotiation - Subcontractors TASK 5: Demolition start: Nov. 1st, 2017 Feb. 15th, 2018 Fe b. 15th, 2015 Marcb 1st, 2018 May 10, 2018 March 1st, 2018 April 15th, 2018 Contract for CALGreen Tier 2 and CALGreen Consulting Services This Agreement is made on April 26, 2018 by and between Elizabeth Wong the ("Client") and Kate Latham ("Consultant"), for the property at 429 XJniversity Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, which is under the building jurisdiction of City of Palo Alto ("CPA"), with reference to the following: 1. Project Sco Client's intention is to have a CALGreen Tier 2 certification for a three -unit, 8,100 112, new construction residential proj , t as required by the 2015 CPA Green Building Ordinance effective June 22, 2015. 2. Scope of CALGreen Tier 2 Consulting Services: Consultant agrees to provide the following consulting services required to obtain a CALGreen Tier 2 certification: • Work with Client's project team to develop a cost effective CALGreen Tier 2 checklist that meets the requirements of the Ordinance for the specific buildinwproject noted above and the Client's needs. • Revies, Client's plans prior to submission for a building permit and suggest CALGreen Tier 2 notes for architectural plans. • Review Title 24 (T2.4) CF -1R for submission with GB -1 Application if necessary. • Assist }vith preparing the Client's CA,LGreen Tier 2 checklist sheet for submittal for building permit and provide preparation assistance and signatures. • Prepare and provide detailed CALGreen Tier 2 checklist requirements for project specific CALGreen Tier 2 measures and conduct preconstruction meeting with contractor and Client. • Coordinate and lead the three mandatory inspections required by the City of Palo Alto (CPA), which include CPA Green Build i g Inspector. • Prepare and provide detailed list of requirements for project specific CALGreen Tier 2 measures for preconstruction meeting. • Provide timely CALGreen Tier 2 rater documentation and signatures for all the steps required in the Green Building Certification Summary on CPA submittal sheet GB -1 CALGreen Tier 2. • Conduct site field inspections as part of basic CALGreen Tier 2 certification fee including pre -construction meeting with contractor. • Conduct required CALGreen Tier 2 inspections in a timely manner. • Assess whether each CALGreen Tier 2 measure applied for meets the detailed CPA requirements based on the CALGreen Tier 2 Manual and if not, provide suggestions of what CALGreen Tier 2 measures could be chosen by Client to meet the CALGreen Tier 2 requirements. • If necessary, arrange for HERS inspections as required by the T24 report. • Prepare comprehensive project documentation for each CALGreen Tier 2 measure certified with assistance from Client's project team for review by CPA. The role of the CALGreen Rater is primarily as a verifier. It is the responsibility of the Client and their contractor to provide written documentation of compliance with checklist requirements in the form of invoices, product labels and specifications, dump tags, etc. unless they can be confirmed onsite by the Rater through inspections and photos. • Prepare and submit final project certified CALGreen Tier 2 checklist and all documentation to CPA for review demonstrating that project has met the minimum CPA green building ordinance. • Maintain project documentation for 5 years in anticipation of CALGreen Tier 2 CPA project audit. 3. Fee for CALGreen Tier 2 Consulting Services: The basic CALGreen Tier 2 certification fee will be $3,200.00 for Client's project as defined above and that meets the CALGreen Tier 2 certification requirements in effect at the time of this agreement. 4. Payment Schedule: Client is to pay Consultant on the following schedule: • $960.(0 (30%) upon acceptance of this proposal • $1,60 .00 (50%) at time of rough inspection with City Inspector • $640.00 (20%) due before final Cal Green building inspection 1.Co ikc h1 T.41c� Client: Elizabetth Wong Consultant: Kate Latham 429 UniversitytAvenne, Palo Alto kate(Jlathamhomerating.com 1650-450-1827 P 1 /{ 146. t I . dl.tdiu m, Signature: Date: Date: 4/26/2018 If proposal is acceptable, checks may be made to `Latham Home Rating' and sent to: Kate Latham at 765 N. RengstoriAve. #22, Mountain View, CA 94043 Ex. D Task Building Review Elect Utilities Review Fire Review • Planning Review • Public. Works Eng. Review Water Quality Review WGW Utilities Review Landscape Review Urban Forestry Review Ready To Issue Permit Issuance Structural Structural Architectural Mechanical/Plumbing Electrical Structural Archrlectural Mechanical/Plumbing Electrical 18000-00536 - KIPLING POST LP Task Building Review Elect Utilities Review Fire Review 1 Planning Review • • Public Works Eng. Review Water Quality Review WGW Utilities Review Landscape Review Urban Forestry Review Ready To Issue Permit Issuance 18000-00537 - KIPLING POST LP Status Approved Approved With Conditions Approved Inspection Re... Not Approved Not Approved Approved Inspection Re... Approved With Conditions Not Required Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Status Approved Not Approved Not Approved Approved Approved Status Date Action By 10/05/2018 04/05/2018 06/29/2018 09/17/2018 09/26/2018 03/16/2018 08/03/2018 06/07/2018 06/25/2018 08/02/2018 07/13/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/01/2018 08/01/2018 08/01/2018 08/0112018 DAVID CHU... DANIEL ER.. HENRY RAF... ADAM PETE... PAIGE SAF... BRIAN JON... JOHN NGUY... KELSEY AN... WALTER PA_. MEDHAT HE.., MEDHAT HE... DAVID CHU... DAVID CHIC... DAVID CHU... DAVID CHU... DAVID CHU... DAVID CHU... DAVID CHU... Status Date Action By 08/06/2018 GOPAL JAG... 09/17/2018 ADAM PETE... 09/11/2018 PAIGE SAF... 08/17/2018 JOHN NGUY... 07/25/2018 WALTER PA .. SUPPLEMENT TO APPEAL FROM KIPLING POST LP FOR 429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, PALO ALTO November 29, 2018 This submission supplements the form appeal timely submitted by Kipling Post. The primary issue on appeal concerns compliance with Condition of Approval No. 3, as established by the City Council's February 2017 approval of the project. The Planning Director asserts that one element of that condition, i.e., sign off on "exterior building materials, colors and craftmanship-related detailing" has not been satisfied. Kipling Post appeals that determination by the Planning Director because it is in error, lacks substantial evidence, is inconsistent with the previous findings of the City Council, exceeds the scope of the condition established by the City Council and wrongly relies on elements of the Municipal Code that apply to new applications, not condition compliance. Further detail is provided below. Approval No. 2017-2, Condition of Approval No. 3 states, in relevant part: ". . . the applicant shall return to the ARB for approval of the following items, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment: c. The exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing associated with the project. The Approval No. 2017-2 — Record of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Land Use Action for 425 and 429 University Avenue: Major Architectural Review Application [14PLN-00222] ("Land Use Approval") on p. 12 states that: 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 project has a high aesthetic quality, materials, construction techniques, textures, colors and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The buildings surrounding the site are comprised of concrete, stone, glass, brick, and metal and range in height from two to four stories along University Avenue. Along Kipling Street, buildings consist of cement, stucco, glass and brick structures. The Page 1 proposed structure is comprised of high quality glass, concrete and steel design which is similar and representative of the materials found in the surrounding environment. Further, the materials, textures, and attention to detail in the structure is consistent throughout each elevation which represents a high quality aesthetic design. Lastly, the project, will have high quality materials, textures, colors and finishes because it is conditioned to return to the Architectural Review Board for review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment of the exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing associated with the project. Therefore, the project is consistent with Finding #3 because it consists of a high quality aesthetic design with integrated materials, textures, colors and other details that are compatible with the surrounding environment. Kipling Post engaged the Palo Alto architectural firm of Ko Architects to prepare construction plans for the approved project that would reflect Option 1 as approved, and to meet the additional requirements set forth in Condition No. 3. Kipling Post has done that. The Planning Director agreed that Kipling Post has complied with the first two elements of Condition of Approval No. 3. The only disagreement before the City Council is the additional requirements added with respect to "exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing associated with the project." The Planning Director asserts in his staff report that "the project does not comply with the contextual and compatibility criteria of the municipal code in that it does not share general characteristics or establish design linkages with the overall pattern of development. Surrounding buildings have design elements and material detailing that are human -scaled, regardless of the overall building envelope." The Planning Director has erred in this determination. In its 2017 approval, the City Council already has determined that the project is compatible with the surrounding area and development. Therefore, demanding that the project be redesigned or add design or material elements to achieve compatibility misunderstands the scope of Condition of Approval No. 3. The Planning Director has no authority to demand these items if they undermine the design and architecture already approved or require material changes to that design. THE PROJECT IS FULLY COMPLIANT WITH CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 3, SUBSECTION C. The third element of Condition of Approval No. 3 merely requires that any exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing be consistent with the Findings of the City Council in its February 2017 approval. Other than the elements added as required in subsections a and b of Condition of Approval No. 3, Kipling Post has not added exterior building materials or other craftsmanship detail to the project. Subsection c does not require the addition of exterior building materials other than Page 2 specified in subsections a and b, and the Planning Director has ruled that the project has met those requirements. The Planning Director, apparently at the urging of the ARB, now misinterprets this Condition of Approval as requiring the application of exterior building materials, even when the application of such materials is not required by the design approved by the City Council in 2017, and even when adding such materials requested by the Planning Director would require a re -design of the approved project, and would undermine the architectural and design aesthetic approved by the City Council and deemed compatible with the surrounding area by the Council. In preparing for the additional, limited ARB review, Ko Architects responded to ARB concerns at every step with the concurrence of the Planning Director regarding building materials, color and how the craftsmanship of the building was reflected in the many details of the construction. Ko Architects also presented materials boards with different color palettes and how the various materials come together. The Planning Director initially agreed that Kipling Post had met this Condition as reflected in the staff reports' recommendations to ARB for approval prepared by the Planning Director for each of the three ARB Minor Level hearings related to this issue. In compliance with Condition of Approval No. 3, Ko Architects created a new materials board, photo attached. The board included samples of the metal and glass, and sample materials and colors for cement, stucco, and paint. The two colors, "sandstone" and "silversmoke" were similar to those from the immediately adjacent building at 423 University. The materials board and its contents is documented in the staff report prepared by Planning for this ARB hearing. This materials board was submitted to Planning on March 2, 2018, and it was recommended by Planning for its approval to the ARB at its first Minor Level hearing on August 16, 2018. At that hearing the ARB wanted to see lighter colors in the concrete, stucco and paint colors. The materials board was revised by Ko Architects for the second ARB Minor Level hearing on September 20, 2018, to include an option for a lighter palette at the request of the ARB, using "San Diego buff" and "pewter" as the two colors. At the hearing, Ko Architects recommended the darker hues with the explanation that the concrete colors would look different depending on the lighting, and that integral color concrete would naturally lighten over time. The ARB was given the choice of either and we would abide by their choice. [SLIDE 1] Interestingly, at this second ARB hearing, two of the three voting members, Chair Lew and Member Gooyer were not opposed to the building exterior materials, color and craftsmanship - related detailing. This fact was ignored by Interim Director Lait in his decision to deny the project. Member Gooyer's quote on pager 36 of the Draft Minutes published by the City is: "As far as the exterior building materials, it's a little hard to tell. 1 mean I'm guessing it's probably okay. The detailing, I'm sure I probably there. 1 could go either way on that. I don't really think that the upper story, at least from what I see relates to the rest of the building, but again, so even if 1 say I could accept the exterior building materials, color and craftsmanship, one out of three(3a, 3b and 3d just really doesn't do it for me." Page 3 At the third ARB Minor Level hearing on October 4, 2018, concrete contractor Bill Brown, of Bill Brown Construction [specialist in architectural concrete construction] who did the concrete work at 102 University, was brought in to address the ARB and to answer any questions. He explained that the concrete is a natural material, that the concrete color changes over time and looks different depending on the light and the time of day, and that this can be seen at 102 University, which is 10 years old. Both he and Ko Architects recommended to use the original hues of the first materials board as integral color concrete does lighten over time. Member Thompson could accept the materials and colors of both materials boards; she could not agree to them based on compatibility with adjacent construction. The use of architectural, finished concrete did not surface as an issue generally in the process until the past few weeks. Interim Planning Director Lait's request for changes to the surface of the concrete did not surface until October 12, 2018, only four days before his Determination Letter was due and issued, and nearly two years after the architectural concrete building in Option 1 was approved by the City Council. When the City Council approved Option 1, it did not have the benefit of a materials board that reflected the exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing. Returning to the ARB was intended to simply ensure that the project check -in to tweak minor details. Indeed, that is in part why Interim Director Lait submitted the project for ARB review as a "minor" review. Despite this, ARB viewed this re -review as an opportunity to revisit fundamental design issues that have already been approved. The project has met all aspects of Condition of Approval No. 3, and Kipling Post asks the City Council to sign off on that Condition. THE PROJECT DESIGN FOLLOWS THE ACCLAIMED 102 UNIVERSITY AVENUE BUILDING AND THE CITY COUNCIL DETERMINED IN 2017 THAT THE PROJECT "HAS A HIGH AESTHETIC QUALITY, MATERIALS, CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES, TEXTURES, COLORS AND OTHER DETAILS THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH AND ENHANCE THE SURROUNDING AREA" On February 6, 2017, the City Council approved the project at 429 University Avenue (presented as Option 1 by Palo Alto architect Joseph Bellomo). As set forth below, the City Council made findings that the project has a high aesthetic quality (and use of materials) and that the project is compatible with and will enhance the surrounding area. The City Council added Condition of Approval 3 simply to ensure that additional exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing did not detract from this. The scope of the additional ARB review (and Planning Director approval) as set by Condition of Approval 3 is very narrow. It did not invite the ARB or the Planning Director to reconsider fundamental design or architectural elements. Rather, the condition focused on detail added to the exterior of the building and color. Page 4 Because of the nature of the building, other than color, there was little for the ARB or Planning Director to review. As the City Council is aware, the building design follows the architecturally acclaimed design at 102 University Avenue. Like that structure, 429 University is designed as a contemporary building of "architectural concrete," glass and steel. The concrete is both structural in function and decorative in appearance. "Architectural" or "finished" concrete has become a signature element of many contemporary structures. Within the architectural community, the design approach is viewed as more authentic. Thus, unlike many structures, there are few exterior building material issues to consider — those materials are fixed by the type of modern design that already has been approved by the City Council. There is no cladding, stone, stucco, sheetrock or paint to hide the concrete surface itself. Utilities such as electrical conduits and water lines are carefully planned to minimize perforations and surface installations later. In addition, the engineering itself must be integrated with the concrete, which provides strength, seismic resistance, and support for the steel and glass storefronts, doors and windows. Consequently, the integrated architecture, design and concrete installation are vital to the building's soundness. Likewise, exterior materials cannot be added that will undermine the structure's integrity, soundness, strength or aesthetic. The concrete chemistry renders it waterproof. The concrete surface is smooth with a pattern of dots created by the snap -ties used in preparing the forms. As stated by concrete contractor Bill Brown at an ARB meeting, they build fine furniture and then carefully fill it with concrete to attain that specific aesthetic. Integral color organic pigments will be added to the concrete mix. As can be seen at 102 University Avenue (now 10 years old), the color naturally evolves over time. In sum, the nature of this building means that there will be very limited additional exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing to consider when compared to a more traditional building. The City Council has already made findings that the building is compatible and the ARB (and ultimately, the Planning Director), may not, under the pretext of Condition of Approval No. 3, compel fundamental changes to the architecture, design or construction of the building. It must also be noted that the Planning Director's assertion that he provided Kipling Post with an opportunity to incorporate additional design elements to satisfy this condition is disingenuous. On October 12, 2018, the Planning Director suggested changes that could be made, but he made clear that adding these changes would not guarantee his approval or a recommended approval by the ARB. Rather, he simply stated that he would seek ARB recommended approval. Since the ARB is advisory, the Planning Director has the authority to make this determination on his own. His refusal to do so is a telling sign that he had no intention of signing off the condition of approval even with the suggested changes. In any event, the suggested changes are inconsistent with this City Council's previous 2017 findings. Page 5 [SLIDE 2] — Option 1 approved by Council February 7, 2017 THE SUGGESTIONS BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR ON THIS ISSUE WOULD REQUIRE REVAMPING THE ENTIRE BUILDING The third ARB hearing took place on October 4, 2018. Planning's decision is due 2 weeks later. On October 16, 2018, the Planning Director issued his Determination Letter with a denial based on Condition of Approval 3c: exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing. He provided little or no detail supporting his rejection. Planning Staff was fully familiar with the design proposal in Option 1 (that was approved by the City Council in February 2017) which included the look and feel of the architectural concrete and the same exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing. Planning recommended approval to the City Council based on that knowledge. Option 1 has not changed. Initially, the Planning Director included draft findings in his staff report to the ARB concluding that Kipling Post had met all aspects of Condition of Approval No. 3. Only late in the process did he changed his mind with respect to the last element of No. 3. [SLIDE 3] — On October 12, 2018, only four days before his Determination Letter was due and issued, Interim Planning Director Lait sent us an email suggesting three "simple changes". He did not state that the changes would result in approval, but only that he would recommend approval to the ARB. Given the more than a dozen hearings that Kipling Post has be subjected to before the ARB, his representation provided no assurance to the Applicant. His three suggestions were as follows: The first, the "addition of sun shades or awnings along the University Ave frontage" is not an issue with us; we informed him we stand ready to incorporate, although we wonder why this never surfaced in all our earlier discussions with Planning. Indeed, in earlier iterations of the project, shades were included but were removed at the request of the Planning Department The other two suggestions are by no means "simple changes", but rather would require extensive redesign of the project: "Recessing the ground floor glass facade by 18-24" on the University Avenue (with removed floor area added to second floor)" "Adding texture to the exterior concrete on the first and second floors that recognizes the high level of detail on surrounding buildings." Page 6 Implementing the above would require a complete redesign of the project, be subject to complete cycle of ARB reviews, and complete resubmittal for building permit, a cycle that has taken us over two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars. For example, implementing the above would result in the following unacceptable outcomes: (a) a design not in keeping with the approved Option 1, (b) not being able to move removed ground floor square footage to the second floor which Planning knows is maxed out; it would require a major redesign of the building to move removed ground floor square footage to any other floor including even the fourth floor, due to mandated setbacks; (c) cause enormous delays and costs because of redoing all the construction drawings architecture, recalculating all the structural engineering; (d) having to seek approvals from the various city agencies again; (e) canceling Contractors and subs contracts; and (f) since a new design would be proposed, requiring ARB Major review when the appellant to the original project approval is eager to have another go at it and there is appetite for a moratorium in downtown construction. Also, construction drawings would need to be re -done because each element of construction is integrally and intricately connected to each other and prepared in accordance with applicable Building Codes and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. They dictate distances to egress, width of path of travel, and ADA compliance, for example, which all will need to be redesigned and calculated. The following are some of the additional specific ways that changes 2 and 3 would affect the entire building. 1. Square footage would be affected in each floor. 2. Emergency egress distances will be violated. 3. There may be an encroachment on the public right of way. 4. The entire building would need to be recalculated for weight and structural design. Further, since the support columns are stacked through each floor from the lowest garage level up to the third floor, each and every floor will require a complete redesign. (See Ko Architects' letter of November 29, 2018. [SLIDE 4]) Putting aside these enormous consequences, the Planning Director ignored the fact that this project has been approved by the City Council since February 2017. The Planning Director appears to have followed the lead of ARB Member Thompson who improperly and illegally evaluated many other Findings in the City's Land Use Approval regarding size, scale, mass and compatibility, rather than focusing on the limited task of reviewing the application of exterior building materials, details and colors. By ARB Member Thompson and the Planning Director's reasoning, the project essentially must be reviewed as a brand new project, completely disregarding City Council's 2017 approval, not to mention Kipling Post's five years of work and enormous expenses. On October 15, 2018, the day before the Determination Letter, Applicant and Ko Architects met with the Planning Director at 102 University to reiterate the similarity between the finish on that building and 429 University. At the meeting, Applicant and the Architect emphasized how the structural design was maxed out in weight so adding stucco or some sort of cladding to the concrete would entail a complete redesign of the building. Also, Ko Architects stated to him that one of the reasons they agreed to do this project was due to its signature feature concrete, that it had used that approach successfully in other recent, elegant, contemporary buildings. Page 7 On October 16, 2018, the Planning Director then issued his Determination Letter denying approval to the project on the basis of unacceptable "exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing". In his denial, he stated Applicant's had refused to cooperate with changes recommended in his October 12, 2018 email. This is false. As noted above, Applicant made its case in person at the 102 University meeting. In addition, the Planning Director never committed to approval based on Applicant's acceptance of the three suggestions, instead leaving himself an out if the ARB didn't agree with his suggestions. In any event, Applicant detailed to the Planning Director why the proposals were not feasible for an engineering and cost perspective, since they would require redesigning the project. For two years, the project has been unchanged as far as materials of construction and execution of the architectural concrete concept; it was approved by the City Council as Option 1; and recommended for approval by the Planning Director himself in his staff report and draft findings submitted to the ARB (three times, including as recently as October 4, 2018). Interim Planning Director Lait stated that if these certain changes were made, he would return to the ARB and seek recommendation of approval from the ARB. There was no assurance that the project would receive an approval recommendation by a hostile ARB that has never, in more than a dozen encounters, recommended approval of the project. He was equally non- committal about his own approval if the ARB returned with yet another refusal to recommend approval. In the Staff Report for this City Council hearing of December 3, 2018, on page 5, Interim Director Lait states that "... applicant did not provide renderings of the craftsmanship -related detailing in context until the October 4, 2018, hearing." In this case, renderings were prepared in response to a specific request by ARB Member Thompson at the previous ARB hearing on September 20, 2018, two weeks prior to the October 4th hearing. Ko Architects was surprised that renderings were required given that they are not usually part of an ARB Minor Level hearing; they are expensive and time-consuming. Nonetheless, Ko Architects delivered four color renderings in less than two weeks. In sum, the suggested changes would require a revamping of the approved design, and exceed the scope of the Condition of Approval. THE CITY HAS NOT REQUIRED DECORATIVE CONCRETE FOR OTHER BUILDINGS ON UNIVERSITY AVENUE OR IN THE AREA , AND IS ARBITRAILY IMPOSING THAT REQUIREMENT ON 429 UNIVERSITY Evidence shows that the City has approved numerous other concrete buildings on University Avenue without any requirement for textured or decorative concrete. Thus, the Planning Director is applying a different standard to the 429 University project than other concrete buildings on University, even though each of those other buildings was constructed in the last decade or so. Page 8 [SLIDE 5] — Here is a look at 102 University Avenue, designed by Bellomo Architects, who also designed the adjacent 116 University building. The buildings were completed within the last 10 years, and exhibit architectural finished concrete. In the background is the Alma -High Street parking garage, also designed by Bellomo. [SLIDE 6] — A close-up of 102 University shows how these three basic materials, concrete, glass and steel, comprise the entire facade of the building. [SLIDE 7] — The detail of the snap ties on the surface of the smooth, integral -color concrete is seen here. [SLIDE 8] — Here is Option 1 that was approved by Council. Observe that the upper two floors show a different color and a greater setback than the lower floors to give the appearance of separation between the two. [SLIDE 9] — This rendering shows how this building fits in the context of University Avenue, with its eclectic mix of contemporary design, older even historical buildings, the Lululemon store at 428 University directly across from the 429 University site, and the 525 University tower in the background. [SLIDE 10] — On the issue of materials of construction, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing, 240 Hamilton, across Ramona Street from City Hall, was recently completed. Reposado restaurant sits next to it along Hamilton. They are a study in contrast. It is puzzling why this building met with ARB and Planning Director approval and yet the 429 University project has been denied because it "... does not share general characteristics or establish design linkages with the overall pattern of development and does not share elements and material detailing that are human -scaled, regardless of the overall building envelope. The ARB found that the project's lack of such features rendered it incompatible with the surrounding area". This indicates that it is applying its design requirements in an entirely arbitrary manner. This a direct quote from page 5 of the City Manager's staff report for tonight's December 3, 2018, Council hearing. [SLIDE 11] — Similarly, the Survey Monkey building on Lytton and Alma sits next to the Dahl heating business and a Victorian house. There is no sharing of design linkages which would signal compatibility. [Slide 12] — The building at 500 University is half a block from the project site. It sits across Cowper from the site of the President Hotel. [Slide 13] — 611 Cowper dwarfs a tiny building separating it from another small building at the corner of Hamilton, and shares no design linkages with either or with The Marc tower on the other side on Forest. [SLIDE 14] — Again the Apple store is sandwiched between much older construction and the facade is pure glass in stark contrast with its surroundings. Page 9 [SLIDE 15] —Another example is 428 University housing Lululemon, which is 4 -stories, directly across 429 University, and immediately adjacent to a series of Birge Clark one-story storefronts and the Varsity Theater. By asking 429 University to add "...texture to the exterior concrete on the first and second floors that recognizes the high level of detail on surrounding buildings" as suggested in the October 12, 2018 email from Interim Planning Director Lait, the Planning Director is insisting on a requirement that has not been applied to other buildings, including concrete buildings. Such a requirement in this case also is inconsistent and conflicts with the Findings of the City Council in the February 2017 approval because it would require re -designing the project to accommodate the extra weight of the external materials being added to the concrete walls. Such a requirement exceeds the scope of Condition of Approval No. 3 because the request is purportedly to make the building compatible with the area, when the City already made a finding that there is compatibility. The history of repeated denials of the project despite heroic efforts to meet all requirements suggests hostility to this project. It is troubling that many projects located in the same downtown core were approved and built without the requirement to share design linkages in the matter of exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing and yet this one project at 429 University has been repeatedly denied because of the same requirement. THE BUILDING PERMIT IS READY TO GO EXCEPT FOR THIS ISSUE Following approval, Ko Architects prepared the construction drawings in accordance with Option 1 including the exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing. The construction plans are based on using architectural concrete with changes as mandated by the City Council and following discussions with the Planning Department. After months of intensive work, these were submitted for building permit on March 2, 2018. Staff normally turns submissions around in 30 days. Many departments complied. For example, Water Quality Review approval was issued on March 16, 2018; Electric Utilities review was approved on April 5, 2018. There were a few changes requiring a re -submittal. However, many changes were due to revisions requested by the Planning Department which in turn caused resubmittals to the various departments for their review of Planning changes. The approval dates in Slide 16 reflect the last review date. For example, Building Review approval date of October 6, 2018, was the last review by Building Department following changes made at Planning's request. The numerous iterations by Planning resulted in a tremendous cost to the City and tremendous costs and delays to Kipling Post. [SLIDE 16] — The current status of the building permit is that the construction drawings have been approved by all the departments in the City except for Planning and for site logistics that will be provided by Contractor DPR to Public Works pending the outcome of this City Council Page 10 hearing. We have met with and made changes as required by water, gas, waste water, electric, structural, fire safety, and others, and are now stalled by Planning. It should be noted that the issues with Planning have been distilled to the one sticking point regarding exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing. All other matters have been resolved. On September 13, 2018, Adam Petersen, Senior Planner wrote that we "... satisfy the remaining mitigation measures. Further, as noted in our meeting today, the remaining comments related to the building permit and demo permit, excluding compliance with Condition of Approval No. 3a, b, and c, have been satisfied. Rosemary [Morse], please route the project to me in Accela so that I can make the above note on the building permit and demo permit." Conditions of Approval 3a and b have since been approved in Interim Planning Director Lait's Determination Letter and 3c is exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship -related detailing, the one remaining issue that is the substance of this appeal to Council. NO OTHER RECOURSE Kipling Post requests City Council to put an end to this interminable and unfair ordeal and overturn the denial without further delay. We first approached the ARB in November 2013, more than 5 years ago. From the beginning, Kipling Post has proposed to build a structure and facility that is good for Palo Alto, making huge efforts to meet all the requirements mandated by the City, and overcoming obstacles not imposed on other similar projects. Kipling Post is committed to proceed with legal action to ensure its rights are not trampled. Please see the letter from Kassouni Law to City Attorney Molly Stump dated November 13, 2018. Respectfully submitted, Kipling Post LP Members: Elizabeth Wong, MBA — Wharton Graduate School of Business MS, Computer Science — Moore School of Electrical Engineering Jaime Wong, PhD, Engineering — University of Pennsylvania Andrew Wong, JD — New York University School of Law BS, Chemistry and Materials Sciences — MIT Page n Current 429 University Ave Proposal Violates Past City Council Motion and is Illegal 61 H Michael Harbour Sun 12/2, 1.02 PM Appellant Communications Dear Palo Alto City Council, Tomorrow December 3 you will be asked to evaluate the current set of 429 University Avenue design plans. The ARB and Director of Planning, Jonathan Lail, have recommend that the plans be denied. The plans should be denied because they violate the City Council Motion from February 6, 2017. The Motion states the'pprovai Is subject to the actual Project matching_Qption 1 as described by Staff." • The submitted plans do no match those previously approved by the council. • The contentious Fourth Floor is actually 16% larger and more visible from the street • Landscaping on First Floor has been completely removed and reduced by 35% on Fourth Floor I urge you to uphold the denial and reject any further extension of timeline. The Applicant was already allowed a one year extension and has had three years to develop these plans which have now been denied. An extension sets a bad precedent for future developers to violate city ordinances. Sincerely, Michael Harbour, MD, MPH on Behalf of the Neighbors and Community to Protect Kipling St Attachment J Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Council members. These plans are available to the public online and/or 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: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find "429 University Avenue" and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/d isplaynews.asp?NewsID=4338&targetlD=319 CITY OF PALO ALTO City of Palo Alto (ID # 9926) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/17/2018 Summary Title: Approval of Amended CAO Employment Agreements Title: Approval of Annual Amendments to the Employment Agreements Between the City of Palo Alto and Council Appointed Officers From: City Manager Lead Department: Human Resources Recommended Motion Staff recommends that Council consider the following motion: Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the following contract amendments for Council Approved Officers: 1) Amendment No. Six to Employment Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Molly S. Stump; 2) Amendment No. Four to Employment Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Harriet M. Richardson; and, 3) Amendment No. Four to Employment Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Beth D. Minor. Recommendation The City Council has completed annual merit reviews for Council Appointed Officers (CAOs) for the prior fiscal year's performance (FY2017/18). Staff has been directed by City Council to forward amendments to employment agreements to implement merit -based increases to the CAO's annual salaries, effective July 1, 2018, as follows: City Attorney Molly S. Stump, merit increase of 5% from $284,253 to $298,480 (Attachment A); City Auditor Harriet Richardson, merit increase of 4% from $187,533 to $195,042 (Attachment B); and City Clerk Beth Minor, merit increase of 4% from $146,806 to $152,693 (Attachment C) Discussion In accordance with the CAO employment agreements, the City Council evaluates performance and determines any merit -based salary increases at the conclusion of each fiscal year, with an effective date of July 1. The evaluation process begins in approximately May of each year but often takes several months to complete, as it is an extensive process with multiple steps. Since 2014, City Council has obtained facilitation services from the Municipal Resources Group (MRG) City of Palo Alto Page 1 to assist with the annual process. MRG's role includes conducting Council interviews and surveys, collecting data and facilitating closed session discussions. The CAO employment agreements do not include provisions for general wage or other adjustments provided to other management employees. Thus, the merit -based pay increase for each CAO described in this memo is the only annual increase to be provided. All other terms and conditions of the employment agreements remain the same. As is customary, City Council met in closed session to discuss an evaluation and potential salary adjustment for the City Manager, as it does for all Council Appointed Officers. Before the Council had deliberated on the City Manager's evaluation, City Manager Jim Keene let the Council know that he would voluntarily refuse to accept any salary increase were it to be offered. The Council is appreciative of Jim Keene's leadership and dedication to the community and wishes him well on his pending retirement. Resource Impact Sufficient funding is available for the additional salary of approximately $27,600 total for the three CAO positions in the respective departmental FY2018 Adopted Budgets. The fully -loaded cost, including the additional salary, pension contribution and benefits is approximately $38,600. Environmental Review Approval of these amended employment agreements will not result in any environmental impacts. Attachments: • Attachment A: Amendment No Six to Molly Stump Employment and Exhibits • Attachment B: Amendment No Four to Harriet Richardson Employment and Exhibits • Attachment C: Amendment No Four to Beth Minor Employment and Exhibits City of Palo Alto Page 2 AMENDMENT NO. SIX FIVE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MOLLY S. STUMP This AMENDMENT NO. SIX FIVE _to the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into on November 6December 17, 2016 2018 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and MOLLY S. STUMP ("Stump"), an individual, located at 250 Hamilton Avenue 8th Floor, Palo Alto, CA. RECITALS: WHEREAS, the original EMPLOYiVIENT AGREEMENT between the City of Palo Alto and Molly S. Stump., attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" was entered into between the parties for the services of City Attorney on or about April 18, 2011; and WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. ONE to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B" was entered into between the parties on or about March 24, 2014; and WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. TWO to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "C" was entered into between the parties on or about December 8, 2014. WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. THREE to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "D" was entered into between the parties on or about February 1, 2016. WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. FOUR to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "E" was entered into between the parties on or about December 12, 2016. WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. FIVE to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "F" was entered into between the parties on or about November 6, 2017. WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1: Section 3.1 of the Agreement, Compensation, is hereby amended to read as follows: Commencing on and continuing from the pay period including July 1, 2-04-72018, Stump's annual base salary shall be increased to Two Hundred Ninety Eight Eighty Four Thousand Two Four Hundred Eighty Fifty Three and No/100 Dollars ($298,480.00284,253.00), prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. Stump 1 shall be an exempt employee under applicable wage and hour law and her base salary shall be compensation for all hours worked. City agrees that the amount of Stump's base annual salary shall not decrease, except as part of a permanent decrease that is consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act and that is applicable to either all Council Appointed Officers or all City Executive Staff (which includes all Council Appointed Officers). SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF PALO ALTO City Clerk Mayor Dated: APPROVED AS TO FORM: MOLLY S. STUMP 1 Deputy Chief Assistant City Attorney Dated: Attachments: EXHIBIT A: EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MOLLY S. STUMP EXHIBIT B: AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MOLLY S. STUMP EXHIBIT C: AMENDMENT NO. TWO TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MOLLY S. STUMP EXHIBIT D: AMENDMENT NO. THREE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MOLLY S. STUMP EXHIBIT E: AMENDMENT NO. FOUR TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MOLLY S. STUMP EXHIBIT F: AMENDMENT NO. FIVE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MOLLY S. STUMP 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 78B45CO2-78E8-4EB3-B520-14DF578DEB5D AMENDMENT NO. FIVE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MOLLY S. STUMP This AMENDMENT NO. FIVE to the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into on November 6, 2016 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and MOLLY S. STUMP ("Stump"), an individual, located at 250 Hamilton Avenue 8th Floor, Palo Alto, CA. RECITALS: 1 WHEREAS, the original EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between the City of Palo Alto and Molly S. Stump., attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" was entered into between the parties for the services of City Attorney on or about April 18, 2011; and WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. ONE to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B" was entered into between the parties on or about March 24, 2014; and WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. TWO to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "C" was entered into between the parties on or about December 8, 2014. WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. THREE to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "D" was entered into between the parties on or about February 1, 2016. WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. FOUR to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "E" was entered into between the parties on or about December 12, 2016. WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1: Section 3.1 of the Agreement, Compensation, is hereby amended to read as follows: Commencing on and continuing from the pay period including July 1, 2017, Stump's annual base salary shall be increased to Two Hundred Eighty Four Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Three and No/100 Dollars ($284,253.00), prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. Stump shall be an exempt employee under applicable wage and hour law and her base salary shall be compensation for all hours worked. City agrees that the amount of Stump's base annual salary shall not decrease, except as part of a permanent decrease that is consistent with the Fair DocuSign Envelope ID: 78B45CO2-78E8-4EB3-8520-14DF578DEB5D Labor Standards Act and that is applicable to either all Council Appointed Officers or all City Executive Staff (which includes all Council Appointed Officers). SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. ATTEST: DocuSigned by: ag 14.4,OI,. 11/29/2017 t3sZ3}l$ikD4D7... APPROVED AS TO FORM: DocuSigned by: LD:eARn.P,2, gw /21/2017 e PutYEGitya.Attorney Attachments: CITY OF PALO ALTO -DocuSigned by: ll 6- May 3765F09D34EA... Dated: 11/28/2017 MOLLY S. STUMP ,-DocuSigned by: (o(lti YwAy '-39A473B653574A9... Dated: 11/21/2017 EXHIBIT A: EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MOLLY S. STUMP EXHIBIT B: AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MOLLY S. STUMP EXHIBIT C: AMENDMENT NO. TWO TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MOLLY S. STUMP EXHIBIT D: AMENDMENT NO. THREE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MOLLY S. STUMP EXHIBIT E: AMENDMENT NO. FOUR TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MOLLY S. STUMP 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 555B7A99-5BA6-4F5E-8CFD-6EA180EAF461 AMENDMENT NO. FOUR TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MOLLY S. STUMP This AMENDMENT NO. FOUR to the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into on December 12, 2016 , by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and MOLLY S. STUMP ("Stump"), an individual, located at 250 Hamilton Avenue 8th Floor, Palo Alto, CA. RECITALS: WHEREAS, the original EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between the City of Palo Alto and Molly S. Stump., attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" was entered into between the parties for the services of City Attorney on or about April 18, 2011; and WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. ONE to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B" was entered into between the parties on or about March 24, 2014; and WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. TWO to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "C" was entered into between the parties on or about December 8, 2014. WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. THREE to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "D" was entered into between the parties on or about February 1, 2016 WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1: Section 3.1 of the Agreement, Compensation, is hereby amended to read as follows: Commencing on and continuing from the pay period including July 1, 2016, Stump's annual base salary shall be increased to Two Hundred Seventy Thousand Seven Hundred Twelve and No/100 Dollars ($270,712.00), prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. Stump shall be an exempt employee under applicable wage and hour law and her base salary shall be compensation for all hours worked. City agrees that the amount of Stump's base annual salary shall not decrease, except as part of a permanent decrease that is consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act and that is applicable to either all Council Appointed Officers or all City Executive Staff (which includes all Council Appointed Officers). 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 555B7A99-5BA6-4F5E-8CFD-6EA180EAF461 SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF PALO ALTO f--DocuSigned by: $a4 F14.04 City Cler--45F95502DB71492... APPROVED AS TO FORM: ,-DocuSigned by: Jen ern c e sA.1e.Q,Q. Principal t mt 9ffft Attachments: Mayor 5/24/2017 Dated: DocuSigned by: LcErFF6A1 MOLLY S. STUMP DocuSigned by: MoU Slimy 39A473B653574A9... Dated: 5/24/2017 EXHIBIT A: EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MOLLY S. STUMP EXHIBIT B: AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MOLLY S. STUMP EXHIBIT C: AMENDMENT NO. TWO TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MOLLY S. STUMP EXHIBIT D: AMENDMENT NO. THREE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MOLLY S. STUMP 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: DA00D396-A5CD-4527-AF85-3D6BB97C74CB AMENDMENT NO. THREE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MOLLY S. STUMP This AMENDMENT NO. THREE to the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into on February 1, 2016, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and MOLLY S. STUMP ("Stump"), an individual, located at 250 Hamilton Avenue 8th Floor, Palo Alto, CA. RECITALS: WHEREAS, th original EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between the ity of Palo Alto and Molly S. Stump., attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" was entered into between the parties for the services of City Attorney on or about April 18, 2011; and WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. ONE to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B" was entered into between the parties on or about March 24, 2014; and WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. TWO to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "C" was entered into between the parties on or about December 8, 2014. WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1: Section 3.1 of the Agreement, Compensation, is hereby amended to read as follows: Commencing on and continuing from the pay period including July 1, 2015, Stump's annual base salary shall be increased to Two Hundred Fifty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Nineteen and No/100 Dollars 258,419.00), prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. Stump shall be an exempt employee under applicable wage and hour law and her base salary shall be compensation for all hours worked. City agrees that the amount of Stump's base annual salary shall not decrease, except as part of a permanent decrease that is consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act and that is applicable to either all Council Appointed Officers or all City Executive Staff (which includes all Council Appointed Officers). // 11 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: DAOOD396-A5CD-4527-AF85-3D6BB97C74CB SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. ATTEST: r--DocuSigned by: 154 kitaP �_... e5Fo55n2fB7 1 ao2 CITY OF PALO ALTO DocuSigned by: on8A2rr005FA173... City Clerk Patrick Burt 3/2/2016 Dated: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ,—DocuSigned by: Qtkw1- '—/5B6C45220§34DC... Deputy City Attorney MOLLY S. STUMP DocuSigned by: holi Slump 3GA173DG.,°571A9 . Dated: 3/2/2016 AMENDMENT NO. TWO TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MOLLY S. STUMP This AMENDMENT NO. TWO to the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into on December 8, 2014, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and MOLLY S. STUMP ("Stump"), an individual, located at 250 Hamilton Avenue 8th Floor, Palo Alto, CA. RECITALS: WHEREAS, the original EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between the City of Palo Alto and Molly S. Stump., attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" was entered into between the parties for the services of City Attorney on or about April 18, 2011; and WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. ONE to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B" was entered into between the parties on or about March 24, 2014; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1: Section 3.1 of the Agreement, Compensation, is hereby amended to read as follows: Three 14undre Seventy Fi a„a No lnn Dollars ($208 3 7c nm tfie-Er ployment Sttart t , ize o »oa .7oduction period including July 1, 2013, Stump's annual base salary shall be increased to Two Hundred Thirty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Six and No/100 ronars ($2311 936 00) tea and paid o., City's gula,. raydaya. Commencing on and continuing from the pay period including July 1, 2014, Stump's annual base salary shall be increased to Two Hundred Forty Six Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Two and No/100 Dollars ($246,688.00), prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. Stump shall be an exempt employee under applicable wage and hour law and her base salary shall be compensation for all hours worked. City agrees that the amount of Stump's base annual salary shall not decrease, except as part of a permanent decrease that is consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act and that is applicable, to either all Council Appointed Officers or all City Executive Staff (which includes all Council Appointed Officers). SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: uty City A'orney Attachments: CITY OF PALO ALTO Nancy Shepherd Mayor Dated: MOLLY S. STUMP //-c1) Dated: Exhibit A: EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between the City of Palo Alto and Molly S. Stump Exhibit B: AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MOLLY S. STUMP 2 AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MOLLY S. STUMP This AMENDMENT NO. ONE to the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into on March 9. 2014, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and MOLLY S. STUMP ("Stump"), an individual, located at 250 Hamilton Avenue 8th Floor, Palo Alto, CA. RECITALS: WHEREAS, the original EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between the City of Palo Alto and Molly S. Stump., attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" was entered into between the parties for the services of City Attorney on or about April 18, 2011; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1: Section 3.1 of the Agreement, Compensation, is hereby amended to read as follows: Stump shall receive an initial base annual salary of Two Hundred Eight Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Five and No/100th Dollars ($208,375.00) commencing on the Employment Start Date, subject to authorized or required deductions, prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. Commencing on and continuing from the pay period including July 1, 2013, Stump's annual base salary shall be increased to Two Hundred Thirty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Six and No/100 Dollars ($234.936.00), prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. Stump shall be an exempt employee under applicable wage and hour law and her base salary shall be compensation for all hours worked. City agrees that the amount of Stump's base annual salary shall not decrease, except as part of a permanent decrease that is consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act and that is applicable to either all Council Appointed Officers or all City Executive Staff (which includes all Council Appointed Officers). SECTION 2: Section 3.2.3 of the Agreement, Salary Adjustments, is hereby amended to read as follows: Stump shall receive the same general cost of living adjustment ("COLA"), if any, previdea t.. Management and1-Professional Pe,.sonnel without the need t., a nd this Agreement. In its sole discretion and where warranted, the City Council may award labor market or internal adjustments to base salary. In connection with the standard annual review, as provided above, the City Council shall annually consider incentive pay based on performance, but the ultimate decision in this 1 Q \\+' D' \ regard is within the sole discretion of the City Council. SECTION 3. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF PALO ALTO City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deputy City Attorney Attachments: Nan y hep rd Mayor Dated: MOLLY S. STUMP Dated: J .,vc/(c-( Exhibit A: EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between the City of Palo Alto and Molly S. Stump 2 EXHIBIT A )) ) EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is between the City of Palo Alto, a municipal corporation and chartered city ("City") and Molly S. Stump ("Stump"). It is effective on the latest date next to the signatures on the last page. This Agreement is entered into on the basis of the following facts, among others: A. City, acting by and through its duly elected City Council, desires to employ Stump as its City Attomey subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Palo Alto Municipal Code and in the Charter of the City of Palo Alto. (the "Charter"). B. The Charter provides, among other things, that the City Attorney shall be appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of the City Council. C. Stump desires to be employed by the City as its City Attorney, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Charter, the Palo Alto Merit System Rules and Regulations as they are applicable to Council -appointed officers, and all other applicable laws, resolutions and policies. D. City and Stump desire to establish specific terms and conditions relating to compensation and benefits, performance evaluations, and related matters. E; The City Attorney serves on an at -will basis, with no expectation of continued employment. F. Stump desires a predictable amount of severance pay should her employment be terminated with or without cause. BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, CITY AND STUMP AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Employment. City will appoint and employ Stump as City Attorney with the City of Palo Alto and Stump will accept the appointment and employment for the City for an indefinite term to begin on April 18, 2011 ("Employment Start Date"). In the event Stump does not actually report for or commence work on April 18, 2011, the Employment Start Date will be the date, if any, as otherwise mutually agreed by the parties. 2. Duties of the City Attorney. Stump shall perform the duties established for the City Attorney by the Charter, .P .p Alto Municipal Code and direction of the City Council and as otherwise provided by law, or4lipance or regulation. Stump agrees to comply with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations applicable to or associated with these duties. 2.1. Full Enertry and Skill. Stump shall devote her full energy; skill, ability, and productive time to the performance of her duties under this Agreement. -1- 8261042 ei1A-on 2.2. No Conflict. Stump shall not engage in any employment, activity, consulting service, or other enterprise, for compensation or otherwise, which is actually or potentially in conflict with, inimical to, or which interferes with the performance of her duties under this Agreement. Stump acknowledges that she is subject to the various conflict of interest requirements found in the California Government Code and state and local policies and regulations. 2.3. Permission Required For Outside Activities. Stump shall not engage in any employment, activity, consulting service, or other enterprise, for compensation or otherwise, without the express, written permission of the City Council. 3. Compensation. While performing the duties of City Attorney, Stump shall be compensated as provided in this Section 3. 3.1. Compensation. Stump shall receive an initial base annual salary of Two Hundred Eight Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Five and No/100th Dollars ($208,375.00) commencing on the Employment Start Date, subject to authorized or required deductions, prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. Stump shall be an exempt employee under applicable wage and hour law and her base salary shall be compensation for all hours worked. City agrees that the amount of Stump's base annual salary shall not decrease, except as part of a permanent decrease that is consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act and that is applicable to either all Council Appointed Officers or all City Executive Staff (which includes all Council Appointed Officers). 3.2 Performance Reviews and Salary Adjustments. 3.2.1. Initial Performance Reviews. The City Council will meet with Stump within approximately 90 days of reporting to work to provide an initial performance review. The 90 -day review will be followed by a mid -year review. 3.2.2. Standard Annual Reviews. Not less than once each year commencing on or after the first anniversary of reporting to work, the City Council shall meet with Sturnpfor the express purpose of evaluating her performance as City Attorney. 3.2.3. Salary Adjustments. Stump shall receive the same general cost of living adjustment ("COLA"), if any, provided to Management and Professional Personnel without the need to amend this Agreement. In its sole discretion and where warranted, the City Council may award labor market or internal adjustments to base salary. In connection with the standard annual review, as provided above, the City Council shall annually consider incentive pay based on performance, but the ultimate decision in this regard is within the sole discretion of the City Council. 4. Regular Benefits and Allowances. . Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, Stump will be eligible for, and shall receive, all regular benefits (i.e., health insurance, PERS contribution paid by City, etc.) and vacation, sick leave, and management leave as are generally provided to management employees pursuant to the City Council -approved -2- Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees, as it currently exists and may be changed from time to time. 5. Additional Benefit Terms and Allowances. In addition to the benefit terms specified in section 4, the following additional benefit terms and allowances shall apply to Stump: 5.1. Standard New -Tier Pension. Stump shall be enrolled inand shall be a member of the California Public Employees' Retirement System ("PERS"), with benefits as provided under the City's contract with PERS, including the 2% @ 60 miscellaneous formula applicable to new employees. Employee contributions shall be paid as provided in the Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees, as it currently exists and may be changed from time to time. 5.2. 401(a) Defined Contribution Retirement Plan. The City shall pay $1,250 per month to a 401(a) retirement plan account established for Stump. Stump may make additional contributions to the legal maximum. 5.3. 457 Retirement Plan. Stump shall be eligible, at her discretion, to make voluntary contributions to the City's 457 plan, to the maximum extent allowed under the plan documents or by law. 5.4. Standard Auto Allowance and Parking. Stump shall receive the standard automobile allowance provided in the Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees, as it currently exists and maybe changed from time to time. Such allowance is currently $325.00 per month. The City will provide parking at the Civic Center without charge to Stump. 5.5. Vacation Leave upon Start of Employment. In recognition of her prior public service, Stump will be credited with vacation leave at a rate of 180 hours annually, prorated and credited according to City's normal procedures. Effective at the start of Stump's second year of service and thereafter, Stump will be credited with vacation leave at the rate _applicable to an employee with nineteen or more years of continuous service, currently a rate of 200 hours per year, prorated and credited according to City's normal procedures. On the Employment Start Date, Stump will be credited with 80 hours of vacation leave, in addition to the accruals noted in this paragraph. 5.6. Sick Leave upon Start of Employment. On the Employment Start Date, Stump will be credited with 96 hours of sick _ leave, in addition to the standard accruals provided in the Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees, as it currently exists and may be changed from time to time. 6. Additional Expenses of Employment. City shall pay or reimburse (at City's option) for the following usual and customary employment expenses: 6.1. The cost of any fidelity or other bonds required by law for Stump. -3- • • 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 95901 Phone: (650) 329-2571 FAX: (650) 328-3631 STUMP: Molly S. Stump 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: (650) 329-2171 ,FAX: (650) 329-2646 9.2. Entire Agreement/Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties as to those matters contained in it, and supersedes anyand all prior or contemporaneous agreements, representations and understandings of the parties. This Agreement may be amended at any time by mutual agreement of the parties; but any such amendment must be in writing, dated and signed by the parties, and attached hereto. 9.3. Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be interpreted according to the laws of the State of California. Venue of any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the proper court in Santa Clara County. 9.4. Severability. In the event any portion of this Agreement is declared void, such portion shall be severed from this Agreement and the remaining provisions shall remain in effect, unless the result of such severance would be to substantially alter this Agreement or the obligations of the parties, in which case this Agreement shall be immediately terminated. 9.5. Waiver. Any failure of a party to insist upon strict compliance with any term, undertaking, or condition of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, undertaking, or condition. To be effective, a waiver must be in writing, signed and dated by the parties. 9.6. Representation by Counsel. Stump and City acknowledge that they each did, or had the opportunity to, consult with legal counsel of their respective choices with respect to the matters that are the subject of this Agreement prior to executing it. 9.7. Section Headings. The headings on each of the sections and subsections of this Agreement are for the convenience of the parties only and do not limit or expand the contents of any such section or subsection. Dated: ' -a --aroll CITY OF PALO ALTO By -5- Dated: /74( Approved as to Form: 1)ofw.l d. A, t-,ai k.,". -7- AMENDMENT NO. FOUR THREE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND HARRIET RICHARDSON This AMENDMENT NO. FOUR THREE to the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into on December 17 November 6, 20442018, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and HARRIET RICHARDSON ("Richardson"), an individual, located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 8th Floor, Palo Alto, CA. RECITALS: WHEREAS, the original EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between the City of Palo Alto and Harriet Richardson, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" was entered into between the parties for the services of City Auditor on or about April 4, 2014; and WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. ONE to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B" was entered into between the parties on or about February 1, 2016; and WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. TWO to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "C" was entered into between the parties on or about December 12, 2016; and WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. THREE to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "D" was entered into between the parties on or about November 6, 2017; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1: Section 3.1 of the Agreement, Compensation, is hereby amended to read as follows: Commencing on and continuing from the pay period including July 1, 204-72018, Richardson's annual base salary shall be increased to One Hundred Ninety Five Eighty Seven Thousand Forty Two Five Hundred Thirty Three and No/100 Dollars ($195,042187,533.00), prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. This amount is subject to authorized or required deductions and withholding, prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. Richardson is an exempt employee under applicable wage and hour law and her base salary shall be compensation for all hours worked. The City agrees that the amount of Richardson's base annual salary will not decrease, except as part of a permanent decrease that is consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act and that is applicable to either all Council Appointed Officers or all City Executive Staff (including 1 Council Appointed Officers). // SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF PALO ALTO City Clerk Mayor Dated: APPROVED AS TO FORM: HARRTFT RICHARDSON City Attorney Dated: Attachments: EXHIBIT A: EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND HARRIET RICHARDSON EXHIBIT B: AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND HARRIET RICHARDSON EXHIBIT C: AMENDMENT NO. TWO TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND HARRIET RICHARDSON EXHIBIT D: AMENDMENT NO. THREE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND HARRIET RICHARDSON 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 9F91E51A-8A96-4823-B5AE-D4DCB5AA43DD AMENDMENT NO. THREE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND HARRIET RICHARDSON This AMENDMENT NO. THREE to the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into on November 6, 2017, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and HARRIET RICHARDSON ("Richardson"), an individual, located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 8th Floor, Palo Alto, CA. RECITALS: WHEREAS, the original EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between the City of Palo Alto and Harriet Richardson, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" was entered into between the parties for the services of City Auditor on or about April 4, 2014; and WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. ONE to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B" was entered into between the parties on or about February 1, 2016; and WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. TWO to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "C" was entered into between the parties on or about December 12, 2016; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1: Section 3.1 of the Agreement, Compensation, is hereby amended to read as follows: Commencing on and continuing from the pay period including July 1, 2017, Richardson's annual base salary shall be increased to One Hundred Eighty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Three and No/100 Dollars ($187,533.00), prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. This amount is subject to authorized or required deductions and withholding, prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. Richardson is an exempt employee under applicable wage and hour law and her base salary shall be compensation for all hours worked. The City agrees that the amount of Richardson's base annual salary will not decrease, except as part of a permanent decrease that is consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act and that is applicable to either all Council Appointed Officers or all City Executive Staff (including Council Appointed Officers). // 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 9F91E51A-8A96-4823-B5AE-D4DCB5AA43DD SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. ATTEST: ,—DocuSigned by: Eat M;4,on. Gi 2RSirkA804D7... APPROVED AS ,—DocuSigned by: A Nip Sity9 m... Attachments: EXHIBIT A: EXHIBIT B: EXHIBIT C: 11/30/2017 TO FORM: 11/28/2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO DocuSigned by: Ma71B3765F09D34EA... 6-- Dated: 11/30/2017 HARRIET RICHARDSON //,�DocuSigned by: //// CEF23E22559442C... Dated: 11/30/2017 authorized EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND HARRIET RICHARDSON AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND HARRIET RICHARDSON AMENDMENT NO. TWO TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND HARRIET RICHARDSON 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: A4C9C37E-50D4-4DE3-AF75-C801C0E6DF63 AMENDMENT NO. TWO TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND HARRIET RICHARDSON This AMENDMENT NO. TWO to the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into on 12/12/2016 , by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and HARRIET RICHARDSON ("Richardson"), an individual, located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 8th Floor, Palo Alto, CA. RECITALS: WHEREAS, the oriinal EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between the City] of Palo Alto and Harriet Richardson, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" was entered into between the parties for the services of City Auditor on or about April 4, 2014; and WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. ONE to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B" was entered into between the parties on or about 02/01/2016; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1: Section 3.1 of the Agreement, Compensation, is hereby amended to read as follows: Commencing on and continuing from the pay period including July 1, 2016, Richardson's annual base salary shall be increased to One Hundred Eighty Thousand Three Hundred Fifteen and 20/100 Dollars ($180,315.20), prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. This amount is subject to authorized or required deductions and withholding, prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. Richardson is an exempt employee under applicable wage and hour law and her base salary shall be compensation for all hours worked. The City agrees that the amount of Richardson's base annual salary will not decrease, except as part of a permanent decrease that is consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act and that is applicable to either all Council Appointed Officers or all City Executive Staff (including Council Appointed Officers). // // // 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: A4C9C37E-50D4-4DE3-AF75-C801 C0E6DF63 SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF PALO ALTO DocuSigned by: p^—DocuSigned by: 45F95502DB71492.. APPROVED AS TO FORM: DocuSigned by: 114461 glair City Atto' e A473B653574A9... "--DocuSigned by: Mayor Dated: '—EDFFFE3FE1024BA... 6/7/2017 HARRIET RICHARDSON '—CEF23E22559442C... Dated: 5/31/2017 Attachments: EXHIBIT A: EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND HARRIET RICHARDSON EXHIBIT B: AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND HARRIET RICHARDSON 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 527ACF19-9F84-48D3-8192-46FFBF1907DF AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND HARRIET RICHARDSON This AMENDMENT NO. ONE to the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into on February 1, 2016, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and HARRIET RICHARDSON ("Richardson"), an individual, located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 8th Floor, Palo Alto, CA. RECITALS: I I WHEREAS, the original EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between the City of Palo Alto and Harriet Richardson, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" was entered into between the parties for the services of City Auditor on or about April 4, 2014; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1: Section 3.1 of the Agreement, Compensation, is hereby amended to read as follows: // // // // 11 Commencing on and continuing from the pay period including July 1, 2015, Richardson's annual base salary shall be increased to One Hundred Seventy Three Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Eight and No/100 Dollars ($173,368.00), prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. This amount is subject to authorized or required deductions and withholding, prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. Richardson is an exempt employee under applicable wage and hour law and her base salary shall be compensation for all hours worked. The City agrees that the amount of Richardson's base annual salary will not decrease, except as part of a permanent decrease that is consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act and that is applicable to either all Council Appointed Officers or all City Executive Staff (including Council Appointed Officers). 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 527ACF19-9F84-48D3-8192-46FFBF1907DF SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF PALO ALTO r---DocuSigned by: asc96Fp7Dg71a97 City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: �—DocuSigned by: '-39A479F1654574A9 City Attorney 2 DocuSigned by: o68A2rrCC5rA173... Patrick Burt 3/2/2016 Dated: HARRIET RICHARDSON ,—DocuSigned by: CCr23E22589112C_. Dated: 3/2/2016 DocuSign Envelope ID: 527ACF19-9F84-48D3-8192-46FFBF1907DF Exhibit A EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO AND HARRIET RICHARDSON THIS AGREEMENT is between the City of Palo Alto, a municipal corporation and chartered city ("City") and Harriet Richardson ("Richardson"). It is effective on the latest date next to the signatures on the last page. This Agreement is entered into on the basis of the followin facts: A. City, acting by and through its City Council, wishes to employ Richardson as its City Auditor, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Charter of the City of Palo Alto (the "Charter"). B. Under the Charter, the City Auditor is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the City Council. Notwithstanding any provision of the City of Palo Alto Merit System Rules and Regulations, the City Auditor serves on an at -will basis, with no expectation of continued employment, and with no right to pre -or post -separation due process or appeal. C. Richardson desires to be employed by the City as its City Auditor, subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement, the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Charter, the Palo Alto Merit System Rules and Regulations as they are applicable to Council -appointed officers, and all other applicable laws, resolutions, and policies. D. The City and Richardson wish to establish specific terms and conditions relating to compensation and benefits, performance evaluations, and related matters. BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, THE CITY AND RICHARDSON AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Employment. The City appoints Richardson as its City Auditor for an indefinite term to begin on ri 5 , 2014. If Richardson does not actually report for or start work on �} pr i I 15 , 2014, t e employment start date will be the date, if any, that is mutually agreed by the parties. 2. Duties of the City Auditor. Richardson will perform the duties established for the City Auditor by the Charter, the Palo Alto Municipal Code, direction given by the City Council, and as otherwise provided by law, ordinance, or regulation. Richardson agrees to comply with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations applicable to or associated with these duties. 2.1. Full Energy and Skill. Richardson will devote her full energy, skill, ability, and productive time to the performance of her duties. 1 111108 sh 8261759 CS.Vk okkiv, DocuSign Envelope ID: 527ACF19-9F84-48D3-8192-46FFBF1907DF 2.2. No Conflict. Richardson will not engage in any employment, activity, consulting service, or other enterprise, for compensation or otherwise, which is actually or potentially in conflict with or which interferes with the performance of her duties. Richardson acknowledges that she is subject to the various conflict of interest requirements found in the California Government Code and state and local policies and regulations. 2.3 Permission Required For Outside Activities. Richardson will not engage in any employment, activity, consulting service, or other enterprise, for compensation or not, without written permission of the City Council. 3. Compensation. While performing the duties of City Auditor, Richardson will be compensated as provided in this Section 3. 3.1. Compensation. Richardson will receive an initial gross base annual salary of One Hundred Sixty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($167,500.00), beginning on the Employment Start Date. This amount is subject to authorized or required deductions and withholding, prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. Richardson is an exempt employee under applicable wage and hour law and her base salary shall be compensation for all hours worked. The City agrees that the amount of Richardson's base annual salary will not decrease, except as part of a permanent decrease that is consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act and that is applicable to either all Council Appointed Officers or all City Executive Staff (including Council Appointed Officers). 3.2. Salary Adjustments. Not less than once each year, the City Council will meet with Richardson for the purpose of evaluating her performance. The City Council will act in good faith in determining whether to increase the salary of Richardson, but the ultimate decision in this regard is within the sole discretion of the City Council. 4. Benefits and Allowances. Richardson will be eligible for, and shall receive, all regular benefits (i.e., health insurance, PERS contributions to the extent paid by the City, etc.) and vacation, sick leave, and management leave, as are generally provided to management employees under the City Council -approved Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees, as it currently exists and may be changed from time to time. 5. Additional Benefits and Allowances. In addition to the benefits specified in section 4, Richardson will receive the following additional benefits and allowances: 5.1. Parking. The City will provide parking at the Civic Center at no cost to Richardson. 5.2. Deferred Compensation. The City will pay a total of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) per month into an Internal Revenue Code section 457 deferred compensation plan or an Internal Revenue Code section 401(a) defined contribution plan established for Richardson. Richardson will specify how the payment is to be divided between the two plans. The City shall take all actions necessary to establish the section 401(a) plan with ICMA- 2 111116 sh 8261759 DocuSign Envelope ID: 527ACF19-9F84-48D3-8192-46FFBF1907DF Retirement Corporation, or other mutually acceptable trustee, for the benefit of Richardson, including any administrative or setup fees. 5.3. Vacation Accrual. Notwithstanding the Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees Compensation Plan and based on service with prior public agency employers, Richardson's vacation accrual rate will be calculated at the rate of one hundred and sixty (160) hours annually, prorated and credited each pay period. The maximum vacation leave balance allowed for Richardson is four hundred and eighty (480) hours. 5.5. Sick Leave Accrual. Richardson will accrue sick leave at a rate of 3.7 hours per bi-weekly pay period based on a forty -hour per designated workweek schedule. Richardson may, if necessary, use up to forty-eight hours of sick leave at any time during the first six months of employment. Use of sick leave shall be subject to the policies and procedures set forth in the Merit System Rules and Regulations. 5.6. Relocation and Temporary Housing Expenses. The City will provide Richardson with a total amount not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) for relocation and temporary housing expenses, paid on a reimbursement basis for actual costs incurred. The City shall reimburse Richardson for relocation expenses actually incurred as described in Section B ("Basic Package") and C ("Optional Package") of the City's Relocation Expense Policy (Policy & Procedure 2-08). 6. Additional Expenses of Employment. The City shall pay the cost of any fidelity or other bonds required by law for the City Auditor. 7. Duration of Employment. Richardson understands and agrees that she has no constitutionally protected property or other interest in her employment as City Auditor. Richardson waives any and all rights, if any, under the Merit System Rules and Regulations, including without limitation, the right to pre -or post -disciplinary due process. Richardson understands and agrees that she works at the will and pleasure of the City Council and that she may be terminated or asked to resign at any time, with or without cause. Richardson may terminate this agreement (terminating all employment) upon 30 days written notice to the City Council. 7.1. Severance Pay. If Richardson is asked to resign or is terminated as City Auditor she shall receive a cash severance payment or payments (without interest) at intervals specified by Richardson, equaling three (3) months salary and benefits at the date of termination. The monthly non -salary benefits shall be those specified in sections 4 and 5. All normal withholdings as required by law shall be made with respect to any amounts paid under this section. 7.2 Non -Payment of Severance Under Certain Conditions. If the City terminates Richardson for conduct that would otherwise constitute a felony, regardless of whether Richardson is actually convicted on a felony charge, the City shall not owe and Richardson shall not receive any severance pay. 3 111116 sh 8261759 DocuSign Envelope ID: 527ACF19-9F84-48D3-8192-46FFBF1907DF 8. Miscellaneous. 8.1. Notices. Notices given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be either: a) served personally; or b) sent by facsimile (provided a hard copy is mailed within one (1) business day); or c) delivered by first-class United States mail, certified, with postage prepaid and a return receipt requested; or d) sent by Federal Express, or some equivalent private mail delivery service. Notices shall be deemed received at the earlier of actual receipt or three (3) days following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid. Notices shall be directed to the addresses shown below, provided that a party may change such party's address for notice by giving written notice to the other party in accordance with this subsection. CITY: Attn: Mayor City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: (650) 329-2226 Fax: (650) 328-3631 RICHARDSON: Harriet Richardson 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 8.2. Entire Agreement/Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties as to those matters contained in it, and supersedes any and all prior or contemporaneous agreements, representations and understandings of the parties. This Agreement may be amended at any time by mutual agreement of the parties, but any such amendment must be in writing, dated, and signed by the parties and attached hereto. 8.3. Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be interpreted according to the laws of the State of California. Venue of any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the proper court in Santa Clara County. 8.4. Severability. In the event any portion of this Agreement is declared void, such portion shall be severed from this Agreement and the remaining provisions shall remain in effect, unless the result of such severance would be to substantially alter this Agreement or the obligations of the parties, in which case this Agreement shall be immediately terminated. 8.5. Waiver. Any failure of a party to insist upon strict compliance with any term, undertaking, or condition of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, undertaking, or condition. To be effective, a waiver must be in writing, signed and dated by the parties. 8.6. Representation by Counsel. Richardson and the City acknowledge that they each did, or had the opportunity to, consult with legal counsel of their respective choices with respect to the matters that are the subject of this Agreement prior to executing it. 4 111116 sh 8261759 DocuSign Envelope ID: 527ACF19-9F84-48D3-8192-46FFBF1907DF 8.7. Section Headings. The headings on each of the sections and subsections of this Agreement are for the convenience of the parties only and do not limit or expand the contents of any such section or subsection. Dated: %/ / // Sc CITY OF PALO ALTO /1/— Nancy Shepherd, Mayor Dated: ii/T fi APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: 111116 sh 8261759 RICHARDSON ,r, i(6,452 Harriet Richardson 5 cu ■SECURED Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: 527ACF199F8448D3819246FFBF1907DF Subject: Please DocuSign: Harriet Richardson Contract Amendment 2-2016.pdf Source Envelope: Document Pages: 7 Signatures: 4 Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 AutoNav: Enabled Envelopeld Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) Status: Completed Envelope Originator: Elizabeth Egli 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 elizabeth.egli@cityofpaloalto.org IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Record Tracking Status: Original 2/10/2016 11:11:03 AM Holder: Elizabeth Egli elizabeth.egli@cityofpaloalto.org Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Molly Stump Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org City Attorney City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered ID: Harriet Richardson Harriet.Richardson@cityofpaloalto.org City Auditor City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered ID: Patrick Burt patrick.burt@cityofpaloalto.org Mayor City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered ID: Beth Minor beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org City Clerk City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered ID: —DocuSigned by: Mo(� Sful '-39A473B853574A9... Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254 ,—DocuSigned by: '-0EF23E22559442C Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254 r—DocuSigned by: '—OB8A2FFEE5FA473... Using IP Address: 207.10.104.66 r—DocuSigned by: 154 War `-45F955020B71492... Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Sent: 2/10/2016 11:14:57 AM Viewed: 3/2/2016 3:28:26 PM Signed: 3/2/2016 3:41:03 PM Sent: 3/2/2016 3:41:04 PM Viewed: 3/2/2016 3:47:27 PM Signed: 3/2/2016 3:48:28 PM Sent: 3/2/2016 3:48:30 PM Viewed: 3/2/2016 7:50:06 PM Signed: 3/2/2016 7:51:26 PM Sent: 3/2/2016 7:51:27 PM Viewed: 3/2/2016 8:23:31 PM Signed: 3/2/2016 8:23:53 PM In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp AMENDMENT NO. FOURTHREE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND BETH MINOR This AMENDMENT NO. FOUR THREE to the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into on December 17 November 6, 2072018, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and BETH MINOR ("Minor"), an individual, located at 250 Hamilton Avenue 8th Floor, Palo Alto, CA. RECITALS: WHEREAS, the original EiVIPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between the City of Palo Alto and Beth Minor, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" was entered into between the parties for the services of City Clerk on or about June 9, 2015; and WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. ONE to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B" was entered into between the parties on or about February 1, 2016; and WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. TWO to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "C" was entered into between the parties on or about December 12, 2016; and WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. THREE to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "D" was entered into between the parties on or about November 6, 2017; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1: Section 3 of the Agreement, Salary, is hereby amended to read as follows: Commencing on and continuing from the pay period including July 1, 20-1-72018, Minor's annual base salary shall be increased to One Hundred Fifty Two y Six Thousand Eight Six Hundred Ninety Three Six and No/100 Dollars ($152,693H6,806.00), prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. This amount is subject to authorized or required deductions and withholding, prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. Minor is an exempt employee under applicable wage and hour law and her base salary shall be compensation for all hours worked. The City agrees that the amount of Minor's base annual salary will not decrease, except as part of the permanent decrease that is consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act. // 1 /1 SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF PALO ALTO Assistant City Clerk Mayor Dated: APPROVED AS TO FORM: BETH MINOR City Attorney Dated: Attachments: EXHIBIT A: EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND BETH MINOR EXHIBIT B: AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND BETH MINOR EXHIBIT C: AMENDMENT NO. TWO TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND BETH MINOR EXHIBIT D: AMENDMENT NO. THREE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND BETH MINOR 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 2E3B7FDF-DAE9-4B4C-90D2-EC75FC012087 AMENDMENT NO. THREE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND BETH MINOR This AMENDMENT NO. THREE to the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into on November 6, 2017, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and BETH MINOR ("Minor"), an individual, located at 250 Hamilton Avenue 8th Floor, Palo Alto, CA. RECITALS: WHEREAS, the original EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between the City of Palo Alto and Beth Minor, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" was entered into between the parties for the services of City Clerk on or about June 9, 2015; and WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. ONE to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B" was entered into between the parties on or about February 1, 2016; and WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. TWO to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "C" was entered into between the parties on or about December 12, 2016; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1: Section 3 of the Agreement, Salary, is hereby amended to read as follows: Commencing on and continuing from the pay period including July 1, 2017, Minor's annual base salary shall be increased to One Hundred Forty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Six and No/100 Dollars ($146,806.00), prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. This amount is subject to authorized or required deductions and withholding, prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. Minor is an exempt employee under applicable wage and hour law and her base salary shall be compensation for all hours worked. The City agrees that the amount of Minor's base annual salary will not decrease, except as part of the permanent decrease that is consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act. // 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 2E3B7FDF-DAE9-4B4C-90D2-EC75FC012087 SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF PALO ALTO DocuSigned by: —DocuSigned by: e A4.i c a. ,,VeWa, 12/7/2017 /1 Assist Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ,—DocuSigned by: gUOGYf 12/5/2017 Sys 4 rmi9c... Attachments: Dated: `—EDFFFE3FE1024BA... 12/6/2017 BETH MINOR e--DocuSigned by: $a4 Mme. '-27523117DA804D7... Dated: 12/5/2017 EXHIBIT A: EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND BETH MINOR EXHIBIT B: AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND BETH MINOR EXHIBIT C: AMENDMENT NO. TWO TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND BETH MINOR 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: E7B127EF-F0B6-4947-8AF9-4BA113347BB4 AMENDMENT NO. TWO TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND BETH MINOR This AMENDMENT NO. TWO to the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into on December 12, 2016 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and BETH MINOR ("Minor"), an individual, located at 250 Hamilton Avenue 8th Floor, Palo Alto, CA. RECITALS: WHEREAS, the original EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between the City of Palo Alto and Beth Minor, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" was entered into between the parties for the services of City Clerk on or about June 9, 2015; and WHEREAS, AMENDMENT NO. ONE to the Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B" was entered into between the parties on or about February 1, 2016; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1: Section 3 of the Agreement, Salary, is hereby amended to read as follows: Commencing on and continuing from the pay period including July 1, 2016, Minor's annual base salary shall be increased to One Hundred Forty One Thousand One Hundred Forty Eight and 80/100 Dollars ($141,148.80), prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. This amount is subject to authorized or required deductions and withholding, prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. Minor is an exempt employee under applicable wage and hour law and her base salary shall be compensation for all hours worked. The City agrees that the amount of Minor's base annual salary will not decrease, except as part of the permanent decrease that is consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act. 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: E7B127EF-F0B6-4947-8AF9-4BA113347BB4 SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF PALO ALTO r—DocuSigned by: r--DocuSigned by: 944. Assistant city €4 k6F6465... APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Atto Attachments: DocuSigned by: khakiSfuw,p 9A473B653574A9... Mayor Dated: 5/24/2017 EDFFFE3FE1024BA... BETH MINOR DocuSigned by: l ..ti,.... 45F95502DB71492... Dated: 5/17/2017 EXHIBIT A: EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND BETH MINOR EXHIBIT B: AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND BETH MINOR 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: AE88153D-54C7-4842-BD07-AC68605161AE AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND BETH MINOR This AMENDMENT NO. ONE to the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into on February 1, 2016, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and BETH MINOR ("Minor"), an individual, located at 250 Hamilton Avenue 8th Floor, Palo Alto, CA. RECITALS: WHEREAS, the original EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between the City of Palo Alto and Beth Minor, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" was entered into between the parties for the services of City Clerk on or about June 9, 2015; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1: Section 3 of the Agreement, Salary, is hereby amended to read as follows: Commencing on and continuing from the pay period including July 1, 2015, Minor's annual base salary shall be increased to One Hundred Thirty Six Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Four and No/100 Dollars ($136,364.00), prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. This amount is subject to authorized or required deductions and withholding, prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. Minor is an exempt employee under applicable wage and hour law and her base salary shall be compensation for all hours worked. The City agrees that the amount of Minor's base annual salary will not decrease, except as part of the permanent decrease that is consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act. 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: AE88153D-54C7-4842-BD07-AC68605161AE SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. ATTEST: —DocuS igned by: ✓ p p Y1WV N vvkie. '-1 G E2FG2276F8465.. Assistant City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: c---DocuSigned by: I&t goy '-39A473R653574A9 City Attorney 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO ROA;/, DocuSi(ggn�ed -byy: B8A2FFEE5FA473 Patrick Burt 3/16/2016 Dated: BETH MINOR pDocuSigned by: tW k v ivWr '-45F95502DB71492... Dated: 3/7/2016 DocuSign Envelope ID: AE88153D-54C7-4842-BD07-AC68605161AE DocuSign Envelope ID: AD4D7EEF-E23B-4DA5-A48F-1344D777581A Exhibit A EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO AND BETH MINOR THIS AGREEMENT is between the City of Palo Alto, a municipal corporation and chartered city ("City") and Beth Minor ("Minor"). It is effective on the latest date next to the signatures on the last page. This Agreement is entered into on the bais of the following facts: A. City, acting by and through its City Council, wishes to employ Minor as its City Clerk, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Charter of the City of Palo Alto (the "Charter"). B. Under the Charter, the City Clerk is appointed by the City Council. Notwithstanding any provision of the City of Palo Alto Merit System Rules and Regulations, the City Clerk serves on an at -will basis, with no expectation of continued employment, and with no right to pre -or post -separation due process or appeal. C. Minor desires to be employed by the City as its City Clerk, subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement, the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Charter, the Palo Alto Merit System Rules and Regulations, and all other applicable laws, resolutions, and policies. D. The City and Minor wish to establish specific terms and conditions relating to compensation and benefits and related matters. BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, THE CITY AND MINOR AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Employment. The City appoints Minor as its City Clerk for an indefinite term to begin on May 5, 2015. If Minor does not actually report for or start work on May 5, 2015, the employment start date will be the date, if any, that is mutually agreed bythe parties. Except as otherwise provided herein, Minor's employment with the City shall be governed by the City Council -adopted Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees, as it currently exists and may be changed from time to time. 2. Duties of the City Clerk. Minor will perform the duties established for the City Clerk by the Palo Alto City Charter, by the Palo Alto Municipal Code, by direction given by the City Council, and as otherwise provided by law, ordinance, or regulation. Minor agrees to comply with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations applicable to or associated with these duties. 2.1. Full Energy and Skill. Minor will devote her full energy, skill, ability, and productive time to the performance of her duties. 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: AE88153D-54C7-4842-BD07-AC68605161AE DocuSign Envelope ID: AD4D7EEF-E23B-4DA5-A48F-1344D777581A 2.2. No Conflict. Minor will not engage in any employment, activity, consulting service, or other enterprise, for compensation or otherwise, which is actually or potentially in conflict with or which interferes with the performance of her duties. Minor acknowledges that she is subject to the various conflict of interest requirements found in the California Government Code and state and local policies and regulations. 2.3 Permission Required For Outside Activities. Minor will not engage in any employment, activity, consulting service, or other enterprise, for compensation or not, without written permission of the City Council. 3. Salary. While performing the duties of City Clerk, Minor will receive a base salary within the range provided in the City Council -approved Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees, as it currently exists and may be changed from time to time. Minor will receive an initial gross base annual salary of one hundred thirty five thousand dollars and eighty cents ($135,000.00), beginning on the Employment Start Date. This amount is subject to authorized or required deductions and withholding, prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. Minor is an exempt employee under applicable wage and hour law and her base salary shall be compensation for all hours worked. The City agrees that the amount of Minor's base annual salary will not decrease, except as part of a permanent decrease that is consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act. 4. Benefits and Allowances. Minor will be eligible for, and shall receive, all regular benefits (i.e., health insurance, PERS contributions to the extent paid by the City, etc.) and vacation, sick leave, and management leave, as are generally provided to management employees under the City Council - approved Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees, as it currently exists and may be changed from time to time. 5. Additional Benefits and Allowances. In addition to the benefits specified in section 4, Minor will receive the following additional benefits and allowances: 5.1. Vacation Accrual. Notwithstanding the Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees Compensation Plan, Minor's vacation accrual rate will be calculated at the rate of one hundred eighty (180) hours annually, prorated and credited each pay period. 5.3. Severance. If Minor is terminated or asked to resign she shall, upon execution of a release of all claims against the City, be eligible for a severance payment according to the City Council -adopted Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees, as it currently exists and may be changed from time to time, currently equivalent to a maximum of twelve (12),weeks of salary and benefits. No severance shall be paid if Minor is terminated for serious misconduct involving abuse of her office or position, including but not limited to waste, fraud, violation of the law under color of authority, misappropriation of public resources, violence, harassment or discrimination. If Minor is later DocuSign Envelope ID: AE88153D-54C7-4842-BD07-AC68605161AE DocuSign Envelope ID: AD4D7EEF-E23B-4DA5-A48F-1344D777581A convicted of a crime involving such abuse of her position she shall fully reimburse the City as set forth in Government Code section 53243.3. 6. Additional Expenses of Employment. The City shall pay the cost of any fidelity or other bonds required by law for the City Clerk. 7. Duration of Employment. Minor understands and agrees that she has no constitutionally protected property or other interest in her employment as City Clerk. Minor waives any and all rights, if any, under the Merit System Rules and Regulations, including without limitation, the right to pre -or post- disciplinlary due process. Minor understands and agrees that she works at the will and pleasure of the City Council and that she may be terminated or asked to resign at any time, with or without cause. Minor may terminate this agreement (terminating all employment) upon 30 days written notice to the City Manager. 8. Miscellaneous. 8.1. Notices. Notices given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be either: a) served personally; or b) sent by facsimile (provided a hard copy is mailed within one (1) business day); or c) delivered by first-class United States mail, certified, with postage prepaid and a return receipt requested; or d) sent by Federal Express, or some equivalent private mail delivery service. Notices shall be deemed received at the earlier of actual receipt or three (3) days following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid. Notices shall be directed to the addresses shown below, provided that a party may change such party's address for notice by giving written notice to the other party in accordance with this subsection. CITY: Attn: Mayor, City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: (650) 329-2226 Fax: (650) 328-3631 MINOR: Beth Minor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Fax: (650) 328-3631 8.2. Entire Agreement/ Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties as to those matters contained in it, and supersedes any and all prior or contemporaneous agreements, representations and understandings of the parties. This Agreement may be amended at any time by mutual agreement of the parties, but any such amendment must be in writing, dated, and signed by the parties and attached hereto. 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: AE88153D-54C7-4842-BD07-AC68605161AE DocuSign Envelope ID: AD4D7EEF-E23B-4DA5-A48F-13440777581A 8.3. Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be interpreted according to the laws of the State of California. Venue of any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the proper court in Santa Clara County. 8.4. Severabilitv. In the event any portion of this Agreement is declared void, such portion shall be severed from this Agreement and the remaining provisions shall remain in effect, unless the result of such severance would be to substantially alter this Agreement or the obligations of the parties, in which case this Agreement shall be immediately terminated. 8.5. Waiver. Any failure of a party to insist upon strict compliance with any term, undertaking, or condition of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, undertaking, or condition. To be effective, a waiver must be in writing, signed and dated by the parties. 8.6. Representation by Counsel. Minor and the City acknowledge that they each did, or had the opportunity to, consult with legal counsel of their respective choices with respect to the matters that are the subject of this Agreement prior to executing it. 8.7. Section Headings. The headings on each of the sections and subsections of this Agreement are for the convenience of the parties only and do not limit or expand the contents of any such section or subsection. MINOR —DocuSlgned by: 644, D. ht.itn,er .._naaannn1Frr.aana CITY OF PALO ALTO Beth Minor 'it Manager 6/9/2015 Date: Date: G • iL • r ATTEST: Do, n.n.dby. (/ E9d-il> DBFE 3419._ By: David Carnahan Deputy City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: /Z(47 - Deputy City Attorney