Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2020-05-07 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet
_______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting Agenda: May 7, 2020 8:30 AM ****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY*** Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, issued on March 17, 2020, to prevent the spread of Covid-19, this meeting will be held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. The meeting will be broadcast live on Cable TV Channel 26 and Midpen Media Center at https://midpenmedia.org/local-tv/watch-now/. Members of the public may comment by sending an email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org or by attending the Zoom virtual meeting to give live comments. Instructions for the Zoom meeting can be found on the last page of this agenda. Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project [19PLN- 00130]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Architectural Review to Allow for Demolition of an Existing Two-Way Bridge On Newell Road Between Woodland Avenue in East Palo Alto and Edgewood Drive in Palo Alto and Construction of a New Bridge Along the Same Alignment That Meets Caltrans Standards for Multi-Modal Access. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Environmental Assessment (EA) was Circulated on May 31, 2019 for a 60 Day Comment Period That Ended on July 30, 2019 in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The City of Palo Alto and Caltrans Published the Final EIR/EA on April 24, 2020. Zoning District: Not Applicable (Public Right-of-Way) Adjacent Single-Family Residential (R-1[10,000]). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3215 Porter Drive [19PLN-00237]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow Construction of a new 22,029 Square Foot Office/ R&D Building. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Comment From April 10, 2020 to May 11, 2020. Zoning District: RP (Research Park). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Garrett Sauls at garrett.sauls@cityofpaloalto.org. 4. Appoint Subcommittee for Objective Standards. Study Session/Preliminary Review Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 5. 411 Lytton Avenue [19PLN-00348]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of an Addition to an Existing Category 2 Historic Single-Family Residence. The Project Also Proposes the Expansion of an Existing Partial Basement to Construct two new Units and the Renovation and Rehabilitation of the Historic Structure. Zoning District: Downtown Commercial With Pedestrian Combining District (CD-C(P)). Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. For More Information Please Contact the Project Planner: Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. 6. Discuss Procedures for Virtual Hearings. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements 7. North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Working Group Updates - Boardmember Lew _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Adjournment Subcommittee Items _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB Boardmembers are: Chair Peter Baltay Vice Chair Osma Thompson Boardmember David Hirsch Boardmember Grace Lee Boardmember Alex Lew Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel 26. Public comment is encouraged. Email the ARB at: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the ARB after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Public Comment Instructions Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below for the appropriate meeting to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. A. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in-browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. B. You will be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. C. When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click on “raise hand”. The moderator will activate and unmute attendees in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. The Zoom application will prompt you to unmute your microphone when it is your turn to speak. D. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. E. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow instructions B-E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 970 0651 0481 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833 (you may need to exclude the initial “1” depending on your phone service) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11316) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 5/7/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. Background The attached documents are provided for informational purposes. The Board may review and comment as it deems appropriate. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year. Also included are the subcommittee assignments, which are assigned by the ARB Chair. The second attachment is a Tentative Future Agenda that provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. The hearing dates for these items are subject to change. Board level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at http://bit.ly/PAapprovedprojects. Administrative staff-level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at http://bit.ly/PAstaffapprovals. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director's decision(s) by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 1 Packet Pg. 6 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. Attachments: • Attachment A: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX) • Attachment B: Tentative Future Agendas (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2020 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/2/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 1/16/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 1/30/2020 9:00 AM Palo Alto Art Center Retreat 2/6/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/20/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 3/5/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/19/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 4/2/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 4/16/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular Lee excused 5/7/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 5/21/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 6/4/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/18/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/2/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/16/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/6/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/20/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/3/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/17/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/1/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/15/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/5/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/19/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/3/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/17/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2020 Subcommittee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing January February March April May June 1/16 – Hirsch/Lew 2/6 – Baltay/Lew 3/5 – Baltay/Lew 4/16 – Hirsch/Lew July August September October November December 1.a Packet Pg. 8 Architectural Review Board 2020 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics May 21, 2020 • 3585 El Camino Real: Mixed Use (2nd Formal) • Bus Shelters in the Stanford Research Park (2nd Formal) • 486 Hamilton Avenue: Mixed Use (1st Formal) • 4256 El Camino Real: Hotel (Subcommittee) - Thompson/ Lew 1.b Packet Pg. 9 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11159) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/7/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Newell Road Bridge Replacement (2nd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project [19PLN-00130]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow for Demolition of an Existing Two-Way Bridge On Newell Road Between Woodland Avenue in East Palo Alto and Edgewood Drive in Palo Alto and Construction of a New Bridge Along the Same Alignment That Meets Caltrans Standards for Multi-Modal Access. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Environmental Assessment (EA) was Circulated on May 31, 2019 for a 60 Day Comment Period That Ended on July 30, 2019 in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The City of Palo Alto and Caltrans Published the Final EIR/EA on April 24, 2020. Zoning District: Not Applicable (Public Right-of-Way) Adjacent Single-Family Residential (R-1[10,000]). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following actions: 1. Consider the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) included in Attachment D; and 2. Recommend approval of the proposed project, Alternative 2A, to the Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval, as outlined in the Draft Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) in Attachment B. 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Report Summary The ARB previously reviewed the subject project. The previous ARB staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis, and evaluation to city codes and policies. The report is available online: https://tinyurl.com/Newell-Study-Session-Report. The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the ARB and summarize the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and is modified to reflect recent project changes. Background On July 18, 2019, the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the meeting is available online: https://tinyurl.com/Newell-Road-ARB-Study-Session. The ARB members’ comments and the applicant’s responses are summarized in the table below. Several ARB members also provided comments on the environmental analysis during the ARB study session. Attachment D includes a link to responses to comments on the EIR/EA. The response to comments addresses specific comments raised by members of the public and board members during the ARB study session. There are two proposed options for striping the multi-modal access on the bridge: • Option A, originally presented to the ARB, would revise the curb-to-curb width from 18 feet to 28 feet. This would include one 10-foot vehicle lane and four foot shoulder/bicycle lane in each direction. The width would accommodate Caltrans requirements for vehicle lanes as well as bicycle access. Sharrows would be painted within the 10-foot vehicle lanes to allow for shared vehicle/bicycle use. In addition, five- foot wide raised sidewalks would be added on each side of the bridge for pedestrians. This is shown as Alternative 2A in the project plans. • Option B would revise the curb-to-curb width from 18 feet to 20 feet. This would accommodate two 10-foot wide vehicle lanes and would include a nine-foot-wide, raised bicycle and pedestrian shared-use path on each side of the bridge. This is shown as Option 2B in the project plans. The City of Palo Alto Office of Transportation and City of East Palo Alto’s Public Works Department recommend approval of Alternative 2A. This is a more common design and would integrate better with the existing bicycle lane along Newell Road in Palo Alto. It would also provide continuity to the sharrows on Newell Road in East Palo Alto, and a better connection to planned future bicycle lanes along Woodland Avenue in East Palo Alto. As of October 2019, all new bridges must also comply with Caltrans’ Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH). Staff anticipated this Caltrans requirement and the proposed bridge barriers were designed to comply with this requirement, incorporating approved roadside safety hardware. This requirement limits alternatives to the bridge in terms of material or barrier design because alternatives would require the city to conduct crash testing of alternate designs/materials to prove their safety equivalency prior to use. 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response At least one board member asked Public Works Engineering staff to consider pedestrian and bicycle safety in determining when/where guardrails are being used. The board member noted that, in some cases, guardrails may be appropriate even if they are not required by code. The project requires portions of Newell Road and Woodland Avenue to be raised to reduce the grade separation between the bridge and bridge approaches. To retain the raised road and for pedestrian safety, retaining walls and guardrails are necessary. The roads will be designed to gradually slope and meet the existing road elevation. Similarly, the retaining walls and guardrails are designed to gradually taper as the grade of the sidewalk aligns with that of adjacent properties. Guardrails will be used in all areas where required by code and as deemed appropriate to ensure pedestrian and bicyclist safety. The City’s Office of Transportation and Building Division (among other departments) will review the final design as part of the building permit process to ensure that the City’s standards for pedestrian and bicycle safety have been met. Consider adding a small cast in place plaque indicating the county line, date that the bridge was built, or similar. Public Works supports this request and will work with partner agencies to provide a plaque. Public Works anticipates that the plaque would identify the bridge and acknowledge the effort involved by various agencies for this project. The plaque may also reference associated projects along San Francisquito Creek. Because the plaque is not yet designed or shown on the plans, Condition of Approval #7 has been added to the Draft RLUA to require a plaque. This plaque shall be shown on the plans prior to building permit approval. Several board members requested landscaping plans for the project site. Sheet 22, Alternative 2—Landscape Plan, provides a landscaping plan for the project area. Street trees are planned along Newell Road in both Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. New plantings within the creek and within private property are not shown as these require further coordination with the RWQCB, SCVWD, wildlife agencies, and private property owners. Staff notes that the plans show that there would be four Chinese pistache trees planted within the public right-of-way in East Palo Alto. However, the 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 mitigation measures identified in the EIR/EA require that native species be planted as mitigation for the project. Therefore, the landscaping plans will be revised prior to Council review to show Catalina ironwood trees instead of Chinese pistache. One board member asked whether staff had information on the past safety records of the bridge. Based on information provided by the City of East Palo Alto’s Police Department, there were four accidents reported over an approximately eight- year period at the intersection of Woodland and Newell. This information is limited in that it only covers accidents that were either reported to or discovered by the police. Although this is a low accident rate, staff notes that the bridge is not being replaced because of concern that the existing condition is unsafe. The bridge is being replaced to accommodate a greater flow capacity beneath the bridge. Available funding from Caltrans and SCVWD supports the bridge improvements to allow for safer access for all modes of transportation (including bicyclists and pedestrians) and for flood control purposes. Once removed, the City cannot rebuild a bridge that does not meet current safety standards (e.g. with respect to lane width, lack of multi-modal access, line-of-sight concerns, ADA compliance, etc.). Therefore, the four Build Alternatives in the EIR/EA present designs that could feasibly be constructed. Exact replacement in-kind is not feasible and is therefore not presented as an alternative. Analysis1 The project includes modifications to a bridge and City streets within the public right-of-way; therefore, it is not subject to zoning and land use restrictions for any specific zone district or land use designation. However, the project has been evaluated to ensure the design meets the Code’s intent and objectives and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, and other City policies. 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 make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 Neighborhood Setting and Character The proposed project is in an area characterized by low density residential on the southwest side of San Francisquito Creek within the City of Palo Alto and high density residential on the northeast side of San Francisquito Creek within the City of East Palo Alto. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for properties adjacent to the project site is single family residential for portions of the project within Palo Alto. The single-family residential land use designation applies to residential neighborhoods primarily characterized by detached single family homes, typically with one dwelling unit on each lot where population densities range from 1 to 30 person per acre. The Draft Record of Land Use Action provides a detailed review of the project’s consistency with goals and policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan (see Attachment B). The project is consistent with the relevant policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan. Zoning Compliance3 As noted above, infrastructure work located within the public right-of-way would not be subject to the restrictions of a specific zoning designation. Adjacent residences within the City of Palo Alto are zoned single family residential (R-1[10,000]). Adjacent residences within the City of East Palo Alto are zoned Multiple family High Density Residential (R-HD-5). Work on these private properties would include minor changes to accommodate the raised roadway and associated retaining walls. The proposed modifications on these properties would not affect compliance with zoning requirements on any of these properties and the project overall would not conflict with any requirements of the Zoning Ordinances in either Palo Alto or East Palo Alto. Multi-Modal Access & Parking As discussed in Attachment B, the proposed project is consistent with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP). Specifically, the project is designed to improve multimodal transportation by: • Providing safer access over the creek for pedestrians and bicyclists, and • Resolving the steep grade separation between the bridge and adjacent roadways, which currently reduces line of sight when entering and leaving the bridge. The BPTP includes policies such as Policy T-5, which indicates that when modifying roadways, the City should plan for usage of the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The project is also consistent with: • General goals to encourage alternate modes of transportation; and 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 • Objective 4 of the BPTP to “plan, construct, and maintain complete streets that are safe and accessible to all modes and people of all ages and disabilities.” The project is not located on a Safe Routes to School path. The staff report prepared for the June 12, 2019 Planning and Transportation Commission hearing provides a summary of the anticipated traffic impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project. These are also discussed in further detail in the environmental analysis. The analysis concludes that during construction, trips would primarily re-route to the closest alternative creek crossing at University Avenue. These additional trips would temporarily cause a significant and unavoidable impact at the East Crescent Drive/University Avenue intersection, as discussed below. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, a Draft EIR/EA was prepared in accordance with CEQA and NEPA for the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project. The EIR/EA was circulated for public comments on May 31, 2019 beginning a 60-day circulation period ending July 30, 2019. A Final EIR/EA was published on April 24, 2020. The City of Palo Alto and Caltrans are serving as the lead agencies in accordance with CEQA and NEPA, respectively. The CEQA conclusions for each resource area are provided in Chapter 3 of the EIR/EA. The EIR/EA concluded that most impacts would either be less than significant or less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures. However, the City and Caltrans, in coordination with TJKM Traffic Engineers, analyzed traffic impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed bridge. This analysis can be found on the project website (see link in Attachment D). As summarized in the technical report prepared by TJKM and in Chapter 2.1.4, Transportation, as well as Chapter 3 of the EIR/EA, impacts associated with construction of the proposed project (when Newell Road Bridge would be closed) would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on traffic at the University Avenue/East Crescent Drive intersection within the City of East Palo Alto. Therefore, to approve the proposed project despite the existence of this significant and unavoidable environmental impact, City Council would be required to make findings of overriding considerations for the proposed project. Once the bridge is constructed and Newell Road Bridge is re-opened, operation of any of the proposed build alternatives would be less than significant. The proposed project would have minimal or no effect on level of service (no change or less than 0.1 seconds change in delay) in comparison to the No Build Alternative (leaving the bridge as is). In some cases, the project would improve operations at nearby intersections; however, the marginal improvement is not anticipated to cause an increase in traffic through this area. A Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) analysis was conducted. The TIRE analysis studied whether the proposed project would result in noticeable additional traffic being diverted through these residential 2 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 streets as a result of the project. The analysis concluded that under the 2020 and 2040 scenario, the project would not result in any change to the TIRE index of any of the adjacent streets. The streets include nearby segments of Edgewood Drive, Newell Road, and Woodland Avenue. That is, the number of trips being re-routed through this area would not noticeably decrease or increase in comparison to the no-build alternative. Historic Evaluation In 2003, Caltrans evaluated Newell Road Bridge and determined that it was not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). It was re-evaluated in 2015 and the previous determination was confirmed. Five other properties (three single family residences and two apartment complexes) within the vicinity were also evaluated due to their age. The five properties were found ineligible for listing in the NRHP or the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Therefore, the project does not have potential to affect any known historic resources within the project area. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires publication of a notice of this public hearing in a local newspaper and mailing of notices to the owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on April 24, 2019 which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on April 23, 2020, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. In addition to the required noticing for this project, the City updated the project webpage, posted notice of the hearing on Nextdoor, and provided an e-mail blast to all individuals whose e-mails are in the City’s file for the project. Public Comments The Cities of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto held a scoping meeting on September 3, 2015, at which they received public comments in writing and orally from members of the public on the project. A total of 47 public comments were received during this Notice of Preparation comment period, which lasted from August 12, 2015, through September 14, 2015. The City of Palo Alto recorded the meeting, which can be viewed online at the following link: http://midpenmedia.org/newell-roadsan-francisquito-creek-bridge-replacement-project/. A summary of public comments received during the scoping period are included in Attachment C. The main concern raised by commenters was regarding realigning the bridge (as proposed under Build Alternatives 3 and 4, which assess a partial and full realignment of the bridge, respectively). The concern was that realignment would result in an increase in traffic flow, speed, and bad driving behaviors; however, many commenters also said that the realignment would increase vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian safety. Following the release of the Draft EIR/EA for this project, public hearings and community informational meetings were held on June 12, 2019 (PTC); June 18, 2019 (community meeting); June 19, 2019 (East Palo Alto Public Works and Transportation Commission); and July 18, 2019 (ARB) to solicit input on the Draft EIR/EA from members of the public and various boards and 2 Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 commissions. Following these hearings and meetings and the end of the 60-day comment period, the City and Caltrans prepared a Final EIR/EA (Attachment D). The Final EIR/EA, published on April 24, 2020, includes a formal response to public comments on the DEIR/EA received at the hearings/meetings as well as any other comments received during the circulation period. Comments at these hearings/meetings primarily focused on: • Bicycle safety and options for striping or revising the width of the bridge to maximize safety; note that some comments recommended a narrower bridge to improve safety while others have recommended a wider bridge with dedicated bicycle lanes to improve safety; • Concerns that widening the lanes would generally increase the amount of traffic crossing the bridge; and • The importance of moving the project forward as quickly as feasible for flood control. Next Steps Following the ARB’s recommendation, the project will be scheduled for a Council hearing at which time the Council would determine whether to issue a decision on the proposed project and certify the environmental analysis. If approved by Council, the City would seek NEPA approval from Caltrans, the lead federal agency for the project. The City and its engineering contractor, NV5, would further the engineering design, working with wildlife and water resoure agencies for all in-creek work to obtain all required permits and approvals. The construction will need to be timed so that the work within the creek can occur during the dry seasons and in conformance with requirements from the regulatory permitting agencies. The City anticipates the project would start in 2021 and would take about a year and a half to complete. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the ARB may: 1. Recommend approval of the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2575 Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 17 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 9 • Attachment C: Public Comments Scoping (DOCX) • Attachment D: Project Plans and Environmental Analysis (DOCX) 2 Packet Pg. 18 R-1 R-1 (10000) POOL gate NEWELL CT AVE WOODLAND WEST BAYSHORE RD D ALTO CLARKE AE PALO MISSION MISSION DR RD AVE WOODLAND SCOFIELD AVE C L E DR CIR CAPITOL AVE COOLEY NEWELL CLARKE AVE OAKES ST BAINES ST W O O D L A N D A V E DANA AVENUE ASHBY DRIVE VENUE UNIVERSITY A VEN UE VE AVENUE ARCADIA PLACE ROAD LOUISA COURT DANA AVENUE VE DE SOTO DRIVE SO U T H W O O D D RIV E ISLAND DRIVE KINGS LANE HAMILTON AVENUE DANA AVENUE NEWELL ROAD NEWELL ROAD NEWELL ROAD PITMAN AVENUE NEWELL ROAD DANA AVENUE MADISON WAY ALESTER AVENUE RHODES DRIVE W EST B AYSHORE ROA D RHODES DRIVE ALANNAH COURT EAS T BAY S HO R E ROA D BAYSHORE FREE W AY BAYSHORE FREEW AY S C E N T D R I V E E D G E WO O D D R I V E EDGEWOOD DRIVE EDGEWOOD DRIVE E D G E WO O D DR IVE EDGEWOOD DRIMADISON WAY H A M I L T O N AVENUE H A M JEFFERSON DRIVE PATRICIA LANE J A C K S O N DRIVE JACKS ON DRIVE PH I L L I PS ROAD This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Newell Bridge Project Site abc Zone District Labels City Jurisdictional Limits Zone Districts 0' 400' Ne w e l l B r i d g e P r o j e c t Ar e a M a p wi t h Zo n i n g D i s t r i c t s CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2019-05-17 10:57:06NewellBridge Noticing 600ft (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) 2.a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment B APPROVAL NO. 2018- RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSEMENT, AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN [FILE NO 19PLN-00130] On _________, 2020, the City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report and Approved the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as well as the Architectural Review application to allow for demolition of an existing two-lane bi-directional bridge on Newell Road between Woodland Avenue in East Palo Alto and Edgewood Drive in Palo Alto and construction of a new bridge along the same alignment making the following findings, determination, and declarations: SECTION 1. BACKGROUND. A. On April 17, 2019 the City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Division applied for Architectural Review [19PLN-00130] for the replacement of the existing Newell Road Bridge across San Francisquito Creek between Edgewood Drive in Palo Alto and Woodland Avenue in East Palo Alto. B. The project site includes work within public right-of-way along Newell Road and Woodland Avenue within the Cities of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto, as well as five private parcels, including: APN Nos. 063-515-370; 063-515-380; and 063-513-350 in East Palo Alto; APN No. 063-514-130 which spans Palo Alto and East Palo Alto within San Francisquito Creek; and APN 003-12--013, in Palo Alto. Work on property owned by the private entities require access/encroachment permits, which will be obtained by the City following adoption of the environmental analysis and approval of the Architectural Review application. Such permits are required as a condition of approval of the project, as outlined in Section 4 of this Record of Land Use Action. C. Following staff review, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the project and considered the EIR/EA for the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project as well as the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) and recommended adoption of the EIR/EA, approval of the MMRP, and approval of the Architectural Review application on April 16, 2020 subject to conditions of approval. D. On _________, 2019, the City Council reviewed the project design, the EIR/EA and the MMRP. After hearing public testimony, the Council voted to approve the Architectural Review Application subject to the conditions set forth in Section 4 of this Record of Land Use Action. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the City and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) prepared an Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (“EIR/EA”) to provide an assessment of the potential environmental consequences of approving and constructing the Project. A Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (“Draft EIR/EA”) was circulated for public review for a 60 day period from May 30, 2019 through July 30, 2019 (State Clearinghouse No. 2015082026). A Final EIR/EA was prepared to respond to comments and published on April 24, 2020; the City Council certified and made related findings by resolution No ___ on _______, 2020, prior to approval of the decision that is the subject of this RLUA. All mitigation measures as stated in the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. The MMRP is included in Exhibit A of this Record of Land Use Action. 2.b Packet Pg. 20 SECTION 3. ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD FINDINGS. The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation (BPTP) Plan. Table 1 includes an analysis of the projects consistency with applicable goals and policies outlined in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Table 2 includes an analysis of the project’s consistency with applicable goals and policies outlined in the City of Palo Alto BPTP. The project includes modifications to a bridge and City streets within the public right-of-way and therefore is not subject to zoning and land use restrictions for any specific zone district or land use designation. Some minor work on private properties would be necessary, primarily for temporary access to build retaining walls and guard rails along the shared property line between the public right-of-way and private properties. Although this roadway project is not subject to zoning regulations for a specific zone district, the project is designed to fit in with the adjacent area and would not create any conflicts with zoning requirements for adjacent parcels, which include single family residential (R-1[10,000]) zoned parcels in Palo Alto and Multiple family High Density Residential (R-HD-5) zoned parcels in East Palo Alto. There are no other coordinated area plans or relevant design guides adopted by the City of Palo Alto or East Palo Alto that are applicable to the project/project site. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning code, and applicable design guides. Table 1: Analysis of Project’s Consistency with the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 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 Single-family Residential. The project consists of the replacement of an existing bridge within the public right-of-way with a new bridge in the same location that conforms to Caltrans standards for multi-modal transportation (vehicles, bicyclist, and pedestrians) and site distances. Land Use and Community Design Goal L-1: A compact and resilient city providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping districts, public facilities and open spaces. Build Alternatives 1–4 would provide the city with a more attractive bridge area with a bridge designed for all modes of transportation and design in coordination with the ARB to meet the City’s Architectural Review Findings. 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. Build Alternatives 1–4 would be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city. It includes the replacement of an existing bridge in the same location but designed to accommodate multi- modal access. Policy L-2.2 Enhance connections between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods by promoting walkable and bikeable connections and a diverse range of retail and services that caters to the daily needs of residents. The project includes better pedestrian and bicycle connections between neighborhoods. 2.b Packet Pg. 21 Policy L-5.3. Design paths and sidewalks to be attractive and comfortable and consistent with the character of the area where they are located. This project would improve pedestrian facilities within this area by providing pedestrian access across San Francisquito Creek. Policy L-6.1: Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Build Alternatives 1–4 would be compatible with surrounding development and public spaces because there would be no change in land use and it would provide better connections between neighborhoods. Final design of the bridge would be subject to the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. Goal L-9: Attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that enhance the image and character of the city. Build Alternatives 1–4 would include replacement of an existing bridge with a new bridge that allows for better connections between neighborhoods. The project would include landscaping and better pedestrian facilities, consistent with Goal L-9. Policy L-9.3. Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide and maintain continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches and other amenities that promote walking and “active” transportation. Build Alternatives 1-4 allow for a continuous sidewalk crossing San Francisquito Creek, making the area safer for residents. Transportation Element Goal T-1: Create a sustainable transportation system, complemented by a mix of land uses, that emphasizes walking, bicycling, use of public transportation and other methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the use of single- occupancy motor vehicles. Build Alternative 1–4 would improve vehicle circulation along a portion of Newell Road and would improve existing pedestrian and bike safety. Policy T-1.19: Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling and walking Build Alternatives 1–4 would improve existing pedestrian and bike safety and allow for better, safer multi-modal access between neighborhoods across San Francisquito Creek Goal T-3: Maintain an efficient roadway network for all users. Build Alternatives 1–4 would improve vehicle circulation along a portion of Newell Road and provide safe access for pedestrians and bicyclists, encouraging multi-model transportation. Policy T-3.2: Enhance connections to, from and between parks, community centers, recreation facilities, libraries and schools for all users. Build Alternatives 1–4 would improve existing pedestrian and bike safety. Policy T-3.5: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for use of the roadway by all users. Build Alternatives 1–4 would improve bike, pedestrian, and automotive safety along a portion of Newell Road. Goal T-6: Provide a safe environment for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists on Palo Alto Streets. Policy T-6.1: Continue to make safety the first priority of citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety over motor vehicle level of service at 2.b Packet Pg. 22 intersections and motor vehicle parking. Goal T-7: Provide mobility options that allow people who are transit dependent to reach their destinations. Build Alternatives 1–4 would be compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and would improve infrastructure to allow for all modes of transit to more safely utilize this bridge. Policy T-7.1: Support mobility options for all groups in Palo Alto who require transit for their transportation. Policy T-7.2: Utilize the principles of Universal Design, and local and State design standards, to guide the planning and implementation of transportation and parking improvement projects to ensure the needs of community members with limited mobility, including some seniors and people with disabilities, are addressed. Natural Environment Element Policy N-2.1: Recognize the importance of the urban forest as a vital part of the city’s natural and green infrastructure network that contributes to public health, resiliency, habitat values, appreciation of natural systems and an attractive visual character which must be protected and enhanced The EIR/EA requires replacement of the tree canopy at the ratios described in the East Palo Alto and Palo Alto Municipal codes for trees removed within their respective jurisdictions. Landscaping will be replaced, to the extent feasible, within the project area. Any trees that cannot be replaced within the project area will be replaced within the vicinity as required by the mitigation measures in the EIR/EA. Table 2: Analysis of the Project’s Consistency with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan BPTP Plan Objectives and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to BPTP Objective 1: Double the rate of bicycling for both local and total work commutes by 2020 (to 15% and 5%, respectively). Build Alternatives 1-4 encourage bicycling and walking by providing better, safer access for multi-modal transportation across San Francisquito Creek. Objective 2: Convert discretionary vehicle trips into walking and bicycling trips in order to reduce City transportation-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15% by 2020. Objective 3: Develop a core network of shared paths, bikeways, and traffic-calmed streets that connects business and residential districts, schools, parks, and open spaces to promote healthy, active living. Objective 4: Plan, construct, and maintain ‘Complete Streets’ that are safe and accessible to all modes and people of all ages and abilities. Build Alternatives 1-4 would further the objectives of providing complete streets by providing continuous sidewalks and sharrows. Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, biking, public transit use. Build Alternatives 1-4 would encourage bicycling and walking by improving access for these modes of transportation. Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway space Build Alternatives 1-4 plan for the use of roadway space by all modes of transportation. 2.b Packet Pg. 23 by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians Policy T-42: Address the needs of people with disabilities and comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA ) during the planning and implementation of transportation and parking improvement projects. Build Alternatives 1-4 would be ADA compliant. 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: It enhances the existing conditions at the site by mitigating flood risk and impacts for nearby parcels; allowing for additional flood control projects to be constructed upstream of the project site; and by improving safety for bicyclists, pedestrians, and vehicles along Newell Road. There are no historical features at/immediately adjacent the site and there are no other context-based design criteria applicable to this area. Although the project would remove existing vegetation at the site, including mature trees and valley foothill woodland riparian habitat; Mitigation measures (MM) BIO-1 and MM BIO-2, which have been incorporated as conditions of approval of the project, require the replacement of the riparian habitat and tree canopy, respectively, consistent with California Department of Fish and Wildlife recommendations and the Cities of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto’s municipal codes. The bridge is designed to be as narrow as feasible while still meeting the Caltrans bridge design standards and the basic project objectives. The bridge is also designed to be as low as possible, while still meeting all applicable Caltrans bridge design standards and Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements. The proposed project assessed in the environmental analysis assumes a worst-case-scenario; however, City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering is working in conjunction with wildlife and water resource agencies to identify creek bank stabilization measures that utilize bio-engineering techniques rather than hardscape. It is anticipated that these will be feasible and would be utilized to the extent feasible in order to improve the overall native riparian habitat within this area of San Franciquito Creek. Therefore, with implementation of the conditions of approval, the proposed project would be consistent with Finding 2. 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 will utilize black or galvanized steel guardrails and cement, as is appropriate for a roadway project. The project minimizes the height and width of the bridge to the extent feasible, as discussed in 2.b Packet Pg. 24 Finding 2, while still meeting Caltrans bridge design standards and meeting all other applicable safety requirements. City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering is working with wildlife agencies to reduce stream bank impacts by utilizing bio engineering techniques rather than hardscape for a more natural setting and channel. It has been verified that soil nail walls will not be required for the project. A landscaping plan has been developed for the replacement of trees within the public right-of-way and the City will work with private property owners to replace any landscaping removed within their property. Therefore, the project is consistent with Finding 3. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The project has been identified as a capital improvement PE-12011 in past capital improvement plans and the currently adopted 2020 Capital Improvement Plan. It is specifically designed to improve safety and connections for all modes of transportation and to mitigate flood risk within the City of Palo Alto and neighboring jurisdictions. Special consideration has been given to ensuring safety of all users by ensuring visibility around corners, providing signage, ensuring ADA accessibility, and ensuring that all aspects of the design are functional for a variety of 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: Consistent with MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2, and in accordance with City of Palo Alto and SCVWD requirements for work adjacent stream banks, the landscape design utilizes native plants that are appropriate to the site. All plants that are proposed are drought tolerant. The landscaping is designed to avoid line-of-sight conflicts at the bridge approaches. Landscaping along the adjacent roads will ensure preservation of the pedestrian experience. 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: The project will use native, low water-use, drought resistant plants. In accordance with MM BIO-1 and BIO-2, all existing vegetation will be replaced in accordance with City of Palo Alto, City of East Palo Alto and wildlife agency (California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) requirements. The City of Palo Alto Public Works Department will continue to work with wildlife agencies throughout the permitting process to improve the habitat within the creek bank as part of the proposed project. The project also provides a dedicated pedestrian and bicycle connection, which help to reduce the use of single- occupancy vehicles, which, in turn, helps to reduce emissions. Therefore, the project is consistent with Finding #6. SECTION 4. Conditions of Approval. 2.b Packet Pg. 25 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Newell Road Bridge Over San Francisquito Creek Replacement Project,” stamped as received by the City on January 27, 2020 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS. All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If, during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program associated with the project and attached here as Exhibit A is incorporated by reference and all mitigation measures shall be implemented as described in such document. 6. TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EASEMENTS. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Division shall work with applicable private property owners to obtain the necessary temporary easements for access to those properties, as identified in Table 1-3, Permanent ROW Acquisitions and Temporary Easements, of the Final EIR. Prior to final inspection, the City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Division shall work with all applicable private property owners and the City of East Palo Alto to record any permanent right-of-way acquisitions/access easements for future maintenance of the bridge and will record a maintenance agreement for the future repair of the bridge and associated improvements. 7. PLAQUE. Prior to building permit approval, the building permit plans shall show the location and details of a plaque that identifies the bridge and acknowledges the effort involved by various agencies in replacing the bridge. The plaque may also reference associated projects along San Francisquito Creek. 8. FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Claire Raybould at claire.raybould@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. 9. OTHER PERMITS AND APPROVALS. Applicant shall provide evidence of Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), San Franciscquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA) and all other affected agencies and/or neighboring cities review/approval prior to issuance of any City permits. 2.b Packet Pg. 26 10. STAGING. The access route to the staging area shall be prepared with material to minimize damage to the existing surface and shall be restored to original condition or as otherwise shown on the approved plans at the end of the project. 11. DEMOLITION PLAN. Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and Demolition Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division contact 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”. 12. GRADING PERMIT. A separate Excavation and Grading Permit will be required for grading activities on private properties that fill, excavate, store or dispose of 100 cubic yards or more based on PAMC Section 16.28.060. The 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.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 13. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN. The building 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, area drain and bubbler locations, drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a 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, area drains, bubblers, etc. Grading that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from neighboring properties, will not be allowed. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. 14. PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS CONDITIONS. The City's full-sized "Standard Conditions" sheet must be included in the building permit plan set. Copies are available from Public Works on our website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=67175.06&BlobID=66261 15. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION. The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the building and grading permit plan sets. Copies are available from Public Works on our website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 16. LOGISTICS PLAN. The contractor shall submit a logistics plan with the building plan that addresses all impacts to the City of Palo Alto and City of East Palo Alto’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected surrounding properties, and schedule of work. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=2719 PUBLIC WORKS UTILITIES DIVISION 17. UTILITY INSPECTOR. The applicant shall notify the Electric Utility Inspector prior to construction near any electric utility substructure. The inspector can be reached at 650-496-6977. 18. UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT. The contractor shall contact underground service alert (800) 227-2600 a minimum of 48 hours in advance of starting excavation to provide marking of underground utilities. 19. POTHOLING. Electric utilities found to be in proximity of the proposed work area shall be potholed. 2.b Packet Pg. 27 Verification by the Electric Utility Inspector is required. 20. CLEARANCE. The contractor shall maintain 12” clear, above and below from the existing utilities to new underground facilities. 21. UTILITY PROTECTION. The Applicant shall provide protection for utility lines that may be subject to damage. Exposed electric conduit or duct shall be inspected by the Electrical Utility Inspector prior to backfilling. 22. DISTRIBUTION LINES. Any extension or relocation of the existing distribution lines or equipment shall be done at customer/developer’s expense. 23. ELECTRICAL SYSTEM DAMAGE. The applicant’s contractor shall immediately notify the Utilities Department (650) 496-6914 if the existing electric system is damaged or disturbed. 24. UTILITIES OUTSIDE OF CPA. Overhead facilities on East Palo Alto side of the project are not part of the CPAU electric system. The applicant shall obtain all necessary approvals from Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and follow applicable PG&E specifications for work on the electrical system outside of CPAU’s jurisdiction. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION 25. HAND EXCAVATION. Regarding tree #3, 4, 22, 42, 54 and 57: As noted on sheet 19 of 22 in the 1/27/2020 submittal, roots of these tree will be excavated and assessed during demolition to determine the potential to retain these trees. Given the undetermined status of these trees as to be retained or removed, the following change should be made to the drawing set at building permit phase: all trees to be excavated by pneumatic and hand tool methods for the assessment of potential tree preservation, must be labeled as such on the plan drawing and in the legend, to clearly differentiate the trees to protect, remove and potentially preserve. 26. TREE PROTECTION. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 27. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 28. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 29. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 2.b Packet Pg. 28 30. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. FIRE DEPARTMENT 31. BRIDGE LOADING. The bridge shall support a 75,000 lbs fire apparatus. BUILDING DEPARTMENT 32. SOIL REPORT. A soil report shall be required for the foundation design. WATERSHED PROTECTION DIVISION 33. MUNICIPAL STORMWATER PERMITS. All Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements shall be followed. 34. USE OF PESTICIDE. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans: “Do not use chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment. Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost.” Refer to the BayFriendly Landscape Guidelines: http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bayfriendly-landscape-guidelines-sustainable-practices- landscape-professional for guidance. 35. SOIL COMPACTION. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans: “Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved” 36. COVERAGE OF WASTE. Temporary and permanent waste, compost and recycling containers shall be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers. 37. SOIL CELLS AND BIOTREATMENT. Meet with PW Storm Drain Engineering, Urban Forestry and WPG to discuss potential soil cell and biotreatment soil mix implementation relative to any new trees being planted according to the landscape plan. UTILITILES- WATER, GAS, WASTEWATER 38. SERVICE CONNECTION APPLICATION. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - loadsheet per unit for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility relocations. 39. UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PLANS. 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. 40. RELOCATION OF UTILITY SERVICES. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 2.b Packet Pg. 29 41. UTILITY ABANDONMENT. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 42. PLACEMENT OF UTILITIES. 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 unless otherwise approved by WGW Utilities. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters unless otherwise approved by WGW Utilities. 43. CPAU STANDARDS. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. SECTION 5. Term of Approval. Architectural Review Approval. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, 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. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Development Services APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Deputy City Attorney 2.b Packet Pg. 30 EXHIBIT A: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 2.b Packet Pg. 31 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed Community Impacts AMM-COM-1: The contractor will provide bilingual notification of construction activities including any utility disruptions to the local residents and businesses. Contractor. Prior to and during construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete. AMM-COM-2: The contractor will maintain ongoing coordination with the Orthodox Jewish Community during pre-construction and construction of the Project. In the event that the poles supporting the eruv over Newell Road require moving during any period of construction when the bridge structure is in place and accessible to pedestrians, the contractor will take the following steps to ensure a temporary eruv is in place prior to any Friday evening. • The existing poles must be dug out completely so that they may be reused. • Temporary replacement shall be installed consisting of 20-foot conduits to be fastened to nearby structures. • Fishing line, or other unobtrusive wire, shall be fastened to the conduits to maintain the eruv alignment. Contractor. Prior to and during construction; prior to every Friday evening. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete. AMM-COM-3: Access to all properties for property owners and users will be maintained by the contractor during construction. Contractor. During construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete. Utilities/Emergency Services SM-UT-1: The contractor will provide bilingual notification of construction activities including any utility disruptions to the local residents and businesses. Contractor. Prior to and during construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete. 2.b Packet Pg. 32 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities SM-TR-1: A TMP will be prepared by the Project proponent or its contractor, approved by the City of Palo Alto, and will be implemented by the contractor during construction activities. The TMP will contain requirements for public noticing, traffic control implementation, signage, property and business access, parking, and safety during construction. It also will contain information about the construction schedule and detours. • Advance notice and coordination with businesses and property owners will be included in the TMP to minimize any potential temporary impacts on commute times. • Advance notice and coordination with emergency service providers will be included in the TMP to minimize any potential temporary impacts on response times. Contractor. Prior to and during construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. Following approval of the TMP by the City of Palo Alto; when construction is complete. AMM-TR-1: Access along Edgewood Drive for the southeast resident’s driveway will be maintained by the contractor at all times during construction. Contractor. During construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete. AMM-TR-2: On Woodland Avenue, the contractor will maintain one- lane of traffic to assure passage along Woodland Avenue during the majority of construction. When one-lane of traffic is not available a detour route will be identified. The construction zone will be established such that the maximum amount of existing parking is available in the area during non-construction hours.1 Access for all residents on Woodland Avenue in the study area will be maintained throughout the construction period. Contractor. During construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete. 1 The allowed hours of construction are M-F 8-6PM, Sat 9AM-6PM in Palo Alto (Municipal Code 09.10.060) and M-F 7AM-6PM, Sat 9AM-5PM in East Palo Alto (Municipal Code 15.04.125), and both jurisdictions prohibit construction activities on Sunday/Holidays, 2.b Packet Pg. 33 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed AMM-TR-3: The City of Palo Alto shall coordinate with the City of East Palo Alto to identify nearby locations including private parcels where additional parking accommodations can be provided during construction. City of Palo Alto. During construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete. AMM-TR-4: During stages 2, 3, and 4 of construction, the contractor will make accommodations for nighttime parking during non- construction hours. This would include opening the work zone up for residents to park at night and utilizing head-in (perpendicular) parking rather than parallel parking in these areas. Contractor. During stages 2, 3, and 4 of construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete. Visual/Aesthetics MM-AES-1: Install Visual Barriers between Construction Work Areas and Sensitive Receptors. The contractor shall install visual barriers to obstruct undesirable views of construction activities and staging areas from sensitive receptors, namely residents and viewers on neighborhood sidewalks and streets, which are located adjacent to the construction site. The visual barrier may be chain link fencing with privacy slats, fencing with windscreen material, wood, or other similar barrier. The visual barrier shall be a minimum of six (6) feet high to help to maintain the privacy of residents and block long-term ground- level views toward construction activities. While this visual barrier would introduce a visual intrusion, it would greatly reduce the visual effects associated with visible construction activities and screening construction activities and protecting privacy is deemed desirable by residents. The contractor shall also provide daily visual inspections to ensure the immediate surroundings of construction staging areas are free from construction-related clutter and to maintain the areas in a clean and orderly manner throughout the construction period. Contractor. Daily during construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans; contractor to monitor on a daily basis. When construction is complete. MM-AES-2: Replace or Relocate Site Features and Landscaping Affected by the Project. Where appropriate and to the degree Contractor. Following completion of City of Palo Alto. When construction is 2.b Packet Pg. 34 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed possible, the contractor will relocate, replace, or restore in kind landscaping and related appurtenances, such as fencing, driveway gates, and similar features that would be removed from private properties as a result of construction to reduce visual impacts and to maintain the quality of views from neighborhood roadways and sidewalks. If the site cannot accommodate this relocation or replacement, then the Project proponent will compensate parcel owners for site features (e.g., fencing, mailboxes, driveway gates) and landscaping that would be removed or damaged as a result of the Project. Replacement of site features and landscaping would be of value at least equal to that of existing features. construction. complete. MM-AES-3: Implement Project Design Aesthetics. The City of Palo Alto will implement an aesthetic design treatment with a consistent motif for new structures such as retaining walls, bridge sides, fencing, and wing walls. Choosing earth-toned colors for the surfaces would be less distracting to viewers than light or brightly colored surfaces. The shade of the wall will also be carefully considered to complement the project setting. However, studies have shown that structures two (2) to three (3) degrees darker than the color of the general surrounding area have the ability to complement the surrounding vegetation and create less of a visual impact than matching or lighter hues (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 2008). Safety barriers and fencing will be chosen, and could be plastic, powder, or vinyl coated with colors selected using the U.S. Bureau of Land Management selection techniques to make fences to appear more see-through than non- treated, light grey fencing that acts as a visual barrier to a degree. The design of the bridge will be reviewed and approved by the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. The Architectural Review Board is a recommending body that reviews projects and provides recommendations to the Director of Planning or Council. The Project would require Architectural Review in accordance with Palo Alto City of Palo Alto. During final design. City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. Following approval of the aesthetic design treatments and bridge design. 2.b Packet Pg. 35 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed Municipal Code Section 18.76.020. The Architectural Review Board reviews the project for consistency with a series of findings outlined in the municipal code relating to aspects such as compatibility with the immediate environment of the site; compatibility with the design character of the surrounding area; harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses; internal sense of order; amount and arrangement of open space; integration of natural features; and appropriate materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material. Although some architectural refinements may be expected as the Architectural Review Board process proceeds, such refinements are not expected to change the impact conclusions in this environmental analysis. MM-AES-4: Implement Project Streetscaping and Plantings along Top of Creek Bank. Streetscaping and planting native vegetation at the tops of the creek’s banks will improve the visual quality of the roadway corridor by improving corridor aesthetics. The City of Palo Alto will select street tree species from the Cities’ approved list of street trees or will be selected to match existing street trees in close proximity to the Project corridor and in compliance with the Urban Forest Master Plan2, Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual3 and East Palo Alto’s Development Code. Replacement street trees shall have attributes that are at least equivalent to the trees that are removed or that provide a higher degree of aesthetic benefit such as better fall color, interesting bark, or less tree litter. Tree and shrub plantings along the tops of the creek’s banks will be installed where space allows and will utilize native plant species that are indigenous to the riparian corridor. Low-lying evergreen and deciduous shrubs and groundcovers, such as Ceanothus spp., and an herbaceous understory City of Palo Alto. Select tree species during final design; plant landscaping within the first six (6) months following Project completion, and maintenance during project operation. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. Following selection of tree species, planting of landscaping, and ongoing during project operation to ensure survival. 2 Available: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/36187 3 Available: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6436 2.b Packet Pg. 36 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed will also be planted. Plant variety will increase the effectiveness of the streetscape by providing multiple layers, seasonality, and reduced susceptibility to disease. Special attention should be paid to plant choices to prevent driving hazards by obscuring site distances. Vegetation shall be planted within the first six (6) months following Project completion. An irrigation and maintenance program will be implemented during the plant establishment period and carried on, as needed, to ensure plant survival. However, design of the landscaping plan will try to maximize the use of planting zones that are water efficient. The design may also incorporate aesthetic features, such as a cobbling swales or shallow detention areas, which can reduce or eliminate the need for irrigation in certain areas. MM-AES-5: Apply minimum lighting standards. The contractor and the City of Palo Alto will limit all artificial outdoor lighting to safety and security requirements, designed using Illuminating Engineering Society’s design guidelines, and in compliance with International Dark-Sky Association approved fixtures. All lighting is designed to have minimum impact on the surrounding environment and will use downcast, cut-off type fixtures that are shielded and direct the light only towards objects requiring illumination. Therefore, lights will be installed at the lowest allowable height and cast low-angle illumination while minimizing incidental light spill onto adjacent properties, the creek corridor, or backscatter into the nighttime sky. Shielding will also be employed for traffic signals. Light fixtures will have non-glare finishes that will not cause reflective daytime glare. Lighting will be designed for energy efficiency and have daylight sensors or be timed with an on/off program. LED lighting will avoid the use of blue-rich white light lamps and use a correlated color temperature that is no higher than 3,000 Kelvin, consistent with the International Dark-Sky Associations Fixture Seal of Approval program (International Dark-Sky Association 2010a, 2010b, Contractor. During construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete. 2.b Packet Pg. 37 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed 2015). In addition, LED lights will use shielding to ensure nuisance glare and that light spill does not affect sensitive residential viewers. Technologies to reduce light pollution evolve over time and design measures that are currently available may help but may not be the most effective means of controlling light pollution once the project is designed. Therefore, all design measures used to reduce light pollution will employ the technologies available at the time of project design to allow for the highest potential reduction in light pollution. Lastly, due to the short bridge length, jurisdiction limitations, and in an effort to provide a sidewalk free of obstructions, lighting is not currently proposed on the bridge. On the East Palo Alto side, electrical services are provided by Pacific Gas and Electric and would need to be slightly relocated to accommodate a wider bridge. On the Palo Alto side, an existing light will be replaced along Newell Road, due to the change in grade, in approximately the same location. The relocated light would be less than 80-feet away from the bridge. It is not anticipated that additional lighting would be needed on the bridge. If an additional light is needed in the vicinity, a City standard light could be added on the roadway on the Palo Alto side. This light, if needed, as well as the other lights being replaced would be required to conform to City standards. Cultural Resources SM-CUL-1: If cultural materials are discovered during construction, the contractor will cease all earth-moving activity within and around the immediate discovery area until a qualified archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find and recommend/implement appropriate data collection/recovery activities. Contractor; qualified archaeologist. During construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When appropriate data collection/ recovery activities have been recommended and implemented. 2.b Packet Pg. 38 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed SM-CUL-2: If human remains are discovered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that the contractor will stop further disturbances and activities in any area or nearby area suspected to overlie remains, and the contractor will contact the County Coroner. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98, if the remains are thought to be Native American, the coroner will notify the NAHC, which will then notify the MLD. At this time, the person who discovered the remains will contact the District 4 Cultural Resources Studies Office so that they may work with the MLD on the respectful treatment and disposition of the remains. Further provisions of PRC Section 5097.98 are to be followed as applicable. Contractor. During construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans; County Coroner; Most Likely Descendent (if applicable). When the County Coroner and Most Likely Descendent (if applicable) have been contacted. Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff SM-WQ-1: Implement NPDES Permit and Construction General Permit Water Quality Measures. The Project will comply with the provisions of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Storm water NPDES Permit (Order No. R2-2015-0049-DWQNPDES No. CAS612008) and the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit) Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002 as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ and any subsequent permits in effect at the time of construction. In addition, the Project proponent and/or their construction contractor shall ensure the construction specifications include water quality protection and erosion and sediment control BMPs to minimize construction-related contaminants and mobilization of sediment to San Francisquito Creek. The Project proponent will perform routine inspections of the construction area to verify the BMPs are properly implemented and maintained. Contractor. During construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete. 2.b Packet Pg. 39 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed SM-WQ-2: Prepare and Implement SWPPP. The project will comply with the Construction General Plan by preparing and implementing a SWPPP to address all construction-related activities, equipment, and materials that have the potential to impact water quality for the appropriate risk level. The SWPPP will identify the sources of pollutants that may affect the quality of storm water and include BMPs to control the pollutants, such as sediment control, catch basin inlet protection, construction materials management, and non-storm water BMPs. All work must conform to the construction site BMP requirements specified in the latest edition of the Caltrans Construction Site Best Management Practices Reference Manual (California Department of Transportation 2011) to control and minimize the impacts of construction and construction-related activities, materials, and pollutants on the watershed. These include, but are not limited to, temporary sediment control, temporary soil stabilization, scheduling waste management, materials handling, and other non-storm water BMPs. In addition, a temporary creek flow diversion will be installed prior to any construction to prevent sediments from washing downstream. Temporary BMPs will be selected and identified in the SWPPP to protect water bodies, within or near the project limits, from potential storm water runoff resulting from construction activities. Temporary sediment and erosion control measures may include the following. • Fiber rolls and/or silt fences. • Gravel bag berm. • Rolled erosion-control product (e.g., netting). • Designated construction entrance/exit. • Re-establishment of vegetation or other stabilization measures (hydroseeding, mulch) on DSAs and newly constructed slopes. • Wind erosion control. Contractor. During construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete. 2.b Packet Pg. 40 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed AMM-WQ-1: Flood Capacity. The City of Palo Alto will not reduce the flood capacity of existing drainage or water conveyance features within the Project study area during construction or operation in a way that causes ponding or flooding during storm events. City of Palo Alto. During construction and operation. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete and ongoing during Project operations. AMM-WQ-2: Limit Stream Bank Construction to Dry Season. The contractor will limit stream bank construction from June 1 to October 15 in order to avoid the migratory season for adult steelhead and to limit any excess sedimentation and runoff from entering San Francisquito Creek. The Project proponent will compensate for temporary construction- related loss of valley foothill riparian habitat by replanting trees in the temporarily disturbed area after completion of the construction activities and before October 15 to minimize erosion and sedimentation into San Francisquito Creek. The Project proponent will compensate for the permanent loss of riparian vegetation by planting riparian trees at a minimum ratio of 3:1 (three trees planted for every one tree removed) in the project vicinity as determined appropriate by a qualified biologist and Project proponent. This ratio and the location will be confirmed through coordination with the Project proponent and other agencies as part of the permitting process for the Project. Contractor; City of Palo Alto; qualified biologist. During construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete. Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography SM-GEO-1: The City of Palo Alto will adhere to current Caltrans SDC for bridge design and construction. City of Palo Alto. During final design. Caltrans. When the bridge is fully designed. Paleontology MM-PA-1: Educate workers, stop work in case of discovery of Contractor; During City of Palo Alto; Following 2.b Packet Pg. 41 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed paleontological resources, and Prepare and Implement a Recovery Plan. Given the potential for paleontological resources to be present in construction areas at ground surface and at excavation depths below 5 feet in sensitive geologic units in the Project area, the following measures will be undertaken to avoid any potentially significant effect from the improvements on paleontological resources. Before the start of any excavation, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of Palo Alto will retain a qualified paleontologist, as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the construction crew will immediately cease work near the find and notify Caltrans and the City of Palo Alto. Construction work in the affected areas will remain stopped or be diverted to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Caltrans and the City of Palo Alto will retain a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the resource and prepare a recovery plan in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 2010). The recovery plan may include a field survey, construction monitoring, sampling and data recovery procedures, museum storage coordination for any specimen recovered, and a report of findings. Recommendations in the recovery plan that are determined by Caltrans and the City of Palo Alto to be necessary and feasible will be implemented before construction activities can resume at the site where the paleontological resources were discovered. Caltrans and the City of Palo Alto will be responsible for ensuring that the paleontologist’s recommendations regarding treatment and reporting are implemented. qualified paleontologist. excavation depths below 5 feet. Caltrans. approval of a recovery plan and implementation of treatment and reporting (if required). Hazardous Waste/Materials MM-HAZ-1: All paint will be treated as lead-containing for the purposes of complying with Division of Occupational Safety and Health Licensed lead- based paint During all removal of paint City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. Following removal of all 2.b Packet Pg. 42 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed worker safety requirements, which apply to all worksites where construction workers may be exposed to lead. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of Palo Alto will have all lead-based paint abated and removed by a licensed lead-based paint contractor. The licensed lead-based paint contractor shall dispose of all lead-based paint or coatings at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. contractor. during construction. paint during construction. MM-HAZ-2: Caltrans and the contractor shall stockpile soil generated by construction activities on site in a secure and safe manner. All contaminated soils determined to be hazardous or nonhazardous waste shall be adequately profiled (i.e., sampled and analyzed) prior to acceptable reuse or disposal at an appropriate offsite facility. Specific sampling, handling, and transport procedures for reuse or disposal shall be in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal agencies’ laws, in particular the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the City of Palo Alto, the City of East Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, and San Mateo County. Material from existing roadway or bridge elements that is removed or modified by the Contractor will be handled and disposed of in accordance with all local, state, and federal requirements. Contractor. During construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete. Air Quality SM-AQ-1: Implement California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications • The Project applicant will comply with California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications in Section 14-9 Air Quality (2010). • Section 14-9.02 specifically requires compliance by the contractor with all applicable laws and regulations related to air quality, including air pollution control district and air quality management Contractor. During construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete. 2.b Packet Pg. 43 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed district regulations and local ordinances. • Section 14-9.03 is directed at controlling dust. If dust palliative materials other than water are to be used, material specifications are contained in Section 18. SM-AQ-2: Implement BAAQMD Basic Control Measures to Control Construction-Related Dust • In accordance with the BAAQMD’s current Air Quality Guidelines (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2011), the Project applicant will implement the following BAAQMD-recommended control measures to reduce particulate matter emissions from construction activities. • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) will be watered two times per day by the contractor. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site will be covered by the contractor. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads will be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day by the contractor. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • The contractor will limit all vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. • The contractor will complete all roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved as soon as possible. • The contractor will post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person will respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number will also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Contractor. During construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete. 2.b Packet Pg. 44 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed MM-AQ-1: Utilize clean diesel-powered equipment during construction to control construction-related NOx emissions. The construction contractor will ensure that all off-road diesel-powered equipment used during construction is equipped with EPA Tier 4 Final engines. Contractor. During construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete. Noise SM-NOI-1: The construction contractor must comply with Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 14-8.02, Noise Control, which states the following: • Control and monitor noise resulting from work activities. • Do not exceed 86 dBA at 50 feet from the job site activities from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Contractor. During construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete. SM-NOI-2: All equipment used by the contractor will have sound- control devices that are no less effective than those provided on the original equipment. No equipment will have an unmuffled exhaust. Contractor. During construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete. SM-NOI-3: The Project proponent and/or their construction contractor will do the following. • Review and ensure that construction activities are conducted in accordance with local noise standards from the cities of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. • Implement additional noise mitigation measures, including changing the location of stationary construction equipment, turning off idling equipment, rescheduling construction activity to allowed timeframes, notifying adjacent residents in advance of construction work, and installing acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources, as appropriate. Contractor. During construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete. MM-NOI-1: Provide advance notification of construction schedule and 24-hour hotline to residents Contractor. Prior to construction City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is 2.b Packet Pg. 45 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed The construction contractor will provide advance written notification of the proposed construction activities to all residences and other noise-sensitive uses within 750 feet of the construction site. Notification will include a brief overview of the proposed project and its purpose, as well as the proposed construction activities and schedule. It will also include the name and contact information of the project manager at the City of Palo Alto or another City of Palo Alto representative or designee responsible for ensuring that reasonable measures are implemented to address the problem. activities and during construction. complete. MM-NOI-2: Designate a noise disturbance coordinator to address resident concerns The construction contractor will designate a representative to act as construction noise disturbance coordinator, responsible for resolving construction noise concerns. The disturbance coordinator’s name and contact information will be included in the preconstruction notices sent to area residents, per MM-NOI-1. The coordinator will be available during regular business hours to monitor and respond to concerns; if construction hours are extended, the disturbance coordinator will also be available during the extended hours. In the event a noise complaint is received, she or he will be responsible for determining the cause of the complaint and ensuring that all reasonable measures are implemented to address the problem. Contractor; construction noise disturbance coordinator. During construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete. MM-NOI-3: Install temporary noise barriers. As described in MM- NOI-1 and MM-NOI-2, the construction contractor will notify noise- sensitive land uses near the site of upcoming activity before construction begins, will require construction-site noise reduction measures, and will provide a 24-hour complaint hotline. If a resident or other noise-sensitive person submits a complaint about construction noise and the contractor is unable to reduce noise to a level that does not cause annoyance or disruption to adjacent land Contractor. During construction following noise complaint that cannot be resolved. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete. 2.b Packet Pg. 46 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed uses through other means, the contractor will install temporary noise barriers to reduce noise levels below the applicable construction noise standard. Barriers will be installed as promptly as possible, and work responsible for the disturbance will be suspended or modified until barriers have been installed. The following minimum criteria will be required of the contractor. • The barrier will be 10 feet tall. It will surround the work area to block the line of sight for all diesel-powered equipment on the ground, as viewed from any private residence or any building. • The barrier will be constructed of heavyweight plywood (5/8 inch thick) or other material providing a Sound Transmission Classification of at least 25 dBA. Note that 5/8 inch is sufficiently thick to provide optimal noise buffering; increasing the thickness of the barrier above 5/8 inch would not provide a noticeable improvement in noise reduction. • The barrier will be constructed with no gaps or holes that would allow noise to transmit through the barrier. To minimize reflection of noise toward workers at the construction site, the surface of the barrier facing the workers will be covered with a sound-absorbing material meeting a Noise Reduction Coefficient of at least 0.70. MM-NOI-4: Conduct construction vibration monitoring and implement control approach(es). During periods of construction, the construction contractor will retain a qualified acoustical consultant or engineering firm to conduct vibration monitoring at homes or occupied vibration-sensitive buildings located within 315 feet4 of pile driving locations and 25 feet of construction sites using other non-impact equipment. If at any point the measured PPV is in Contractor; qualified acoustical consultant or engineering firm; complaint coordinator. Prior to and during construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete. 4 Beyond 315 feet, vibration from pile driving would attenuate to less than 0.4 inches per second and thus less than the distinctly perceptible threshold. 2.b Packet Pg. 47 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed excess of 0.3 in/sec, construction activity will cease and alternative methods of construction and excavation will be considered to prevent possible exposure of vibration-sensitive buildings and structures to levels of 0.3 in/sec PPV or higher. Prior to construction activity, and assuming the property owner gives permission, a preconstruction survey will be conducted that documents any existing cracks or structural damage at vibration-sensitive receptors located within the distances identified above by means of color photography or video. Additionally, a designated complaint coordinator will be responsible for handling and responding to any complaints received during such periods of construction. The construction contractor will also implement a reporting program that will be required to document complaints received, actions taken, and the effectiveness of these actions in resolving disputes. Natural Communities AMM-BIO-1: Install Construction Barrier Fencing around Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The Project proponent or its contractor will install orange construction barrier fencing to identify environmentally sensitive areas in and adjacent to the construction area. A qualified biologist will identify sensitive biological resources adjacent to the construction area before the final design plans are prepared so that the areas to be fenced can be included in the plans. The area that would generally be required for construction, including staging and access, is shown in Figure 2.3-1. Portions of this area that are to be avoided during construction will be fenced off to avoid disturbance. Sensitive biological resources that occur adjacent to the construction area include sensitive natural communities and protected trees to be retained. Temporary fences around the environmentally sensitive areas will be installed as one of the first orders of work following California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Contractor; qualified biologist. Identify the sensitive biological resources on plans during final design; prior to and during construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete. 2.b Packet Pg. 48 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed specifications. Before construction, the construction contractor will work with the Project engineer and a resource specialist to identify the locations for the barrier fencing and will place stakes around the sensitive resource sites to indicate these locations. The protected areas will be designated as environmentally sensitive areas and clearly identified on the construction plans. The fencing will be installed before construction activities are initiated, maintained throughout the construction period, and removed after completion of construction. AMM-BIO-2: Prepare Environmental Awareness Program and Conduct Environmental Awareness Training for Construction Employees. The Project proponent will retain a qualified biologist to develop an environmental awareness program and conduct environmental awareness training for construction employees. The program will explain the importance of on-site biological resources, including sensitive natural communities, protected trees to be retained, and special-status wildlife habitats, and how to avoid take of listed species. The program will include invasive plant identification and the importance of controlling and preventing the spread of invasive plant infestations. The environmental awareness program will be provided to all construction personnel to inform them on the life history of special- status species in or adjacent to the Project, the need to avoid impacts on sensitive biological resources, any terms and conditions required by state and federal agencies, and the penalties for not complying with biological mitigation requirements. If new construction personnel are added to the Project, the contractor’s superintendent will ensure that the personnel receive the mandatory training before starting work. An environmental awareness handout that describes and illustrates sensitive resources to be avoided during Project construction and identifies all relevant permit conditions will be provided to each Contractor; qualified biologist. Prior to and during construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete. 2.b Packet Pg. 49 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed person. AMM-BIO-3: Retain a Biological Monitor to Conduct Visits during Construction. The Project proponent will retain a qualified biologist to conduct construction monitoring in and adjacent to all identified environmentally sensitive areas. The frequency of monitoring will range from daily to weekly depending on the biological resource. The monitor, as part of the overall monitoring duties, will inspect the fencing once a week at a minimum in the construction area along the river and drainages that support woody vegetation; surrounding native trees and woodlands; and special-status plants. The biological monitor will assist the construction crew as needed to comply with all Project implementation restrictions and guidelines. The biological monitor also will be responsible for ensuring that the contractor maintains the staked and flagged perimeters of the construction area and staging areas adjacent to sensitive biological resources. Contractor; qualified biologist. Daily or weekly during construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete. AMM-BIO-4: Avoid and Minimize Potential Disturbance of Valley Foothill Riparian Community. The Project proponent and its construction contractor will avoid and minimize potential disturbance of the valley foothill riparian community by implementing the following measures. • The potential for long-term loss of woody vegetation will be minimized by trimming vegetation rather than removing entire shrubs. Shrubs that need to be trimmed will be cut at least 1 foot above ground level to leave the root systems intact and allow for more rapid regeneration. Cutting will be limited to the minimum area necessary within the construction zone. • A certified arborist will be retained to perform any necessary pruning or root cutting of retained trees. • The areas that undergo vegetative pruning will be inspected immediately before construction, immediately after construction, Contractor; certified arborist. During construction; for vegetation pruning, before construction, immediately after construction, and 1 year after construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete; for vegetation pruning, 1 year after construction. 2.b Packet Pg. 50 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed and 1 year after construction to determine the amount of pre- Project vegetative cover, cover that has been removed, and cover that regrows. After 1 year, if vegetation in these areas has not regrown sufficiently to return the cover to the pre-Project level, the Project proponent will replant the areas with native species to reestablish the cover to the pre-Project condition. MM-BIO-1: Compensate for Permanent Loss of Valley Foothill Riparian. The Project proponent will compensate for permanent construction-related loss of valley foothill riparian habitat by replanting trees in the disturbed area after completion of the construction activities. Loss of native riparian trees will be compensated by replanting at a ratio of 3:1 (three native trees planted for every one native tree removed that was at least 4 inches diameter at breast height [approximately 4.5 feet above existing grade]). Loss of non-native riparian trees will be compensated at a ratio of 1:1 (one native tree planted for every one non-native tree removed that was at least 4 inches diameter at breast height). The compensatory ratios and planting locations will be confirmed through coordination with the Project proponent and other agencies as part of the environmental permitting process for the proposed Project. The Project proponent will prepare a riparian mitigation planting plan, including a species list and number of each species, planting locations, and maintenance and monitoring requirements. Plantings will consist of cuttings taken from native plants, or plants grown at a plant nursery from local native material obtained within the San Francisquito Creek watershed. Planted species will be similar in structure and stature (at maturity) to those removed from the Project area. Plantings will be monitored annually for 5 years or as required in the Project permits. If 75% of the plants survive and the riparian canopy covers 75% at the end of the monitoring period, the revegetation will be considered successful. If this survival and canopy cover criteria are not met at the City of Palo Alto; contractor. During construction; monitored annually for 5 years or as required in the Project permits. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete; 5 years after Project completion. 2.b Packet Pg. 51 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed end of the monitoring period, planting and monitoring will be repeated after mortality causes have been identified and corrected. AMM-BIO-5. Protect Water Quality and Prevent Erosion and Sedimentation in San Francisquito Creek. The Project proponent and/or their construction contractor shall ensure the construction specifications include water quality protection and erosion and sediment control BMPs), based on standard Caltrans requirements, to minimize construction-related contaminants and mobilization of sediment to the San Francisquito Creek. The BMPs will be selected to achieve maximum sediment removal and represent the best available technology that is economically achievable. BMPS are subject to review and approval by the Project proponent. The Project proponent will perform routine inspections of the construction area to verify the BMPs are properly implemented and maintained. The Project proponent will notify contractors immediately if there is a noncompliance issue and will require compliance. The BMPs will include, but are not limited to, the following. • All earthwork or foundation activities involving San Francisquito Creek and the bridge will occur in the dry season (between June 1 and October 15). • A netting and tarp system will be implemented at the bridge site to prevent and minimize debris from entering the river during demolition and construction activities. • Equipment used around San Francisquito Creek will be in good working order and free of dripping or leaking engine fluids. All vehicle maintenance will be performed at least 300 feet from all drainages and wetlands. Any necessary equipment washing will be carried out where the water cannot flow into drainages or wetlands. Contractor. During final design; construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. When construction is complete. 2.b Packet Pg. 52 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed • A hazardous material spill prevention control and countermeasure plan will be developed before construction begins that will minimize the potential for and the effects of hazardous or toxic substances spills during construction. The plan will include storage and containment procedures to prevent and respond to spills and will identify the parties responsible for monitoring the spill response. During construction, any spills will be cleaned up immediately according to the spill prevention and countermeasure plan. The Project proponent will review and approve the contractors’ toxic materials spill prevention control and countermeasure plan before allowing construction to begin. The following types of materials will be prohibited from being rinsed or washed into the streets, shoulder areas, or gutters: concrete, solvents and adhesives, thinners, paints, fuels, sawdust, dirt, gasoline, asphalt and concrete saw slurry, heavily chlorinated water. • Baseline turbidity, pH, specific conductance, and temperatures in the San Francisquito Creek channel will be measured when flow is present. As required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), water quality standards specified in the Basin Plan standards will not be exceeded over the natural in-situ conditions. If dewatering activities are required, water samples would be taken periodically during construction. • Any surplus concrete rubble, asphalt, or other rubble from construction will be taken to a local landfill. • An erosion and sediment control plan will be prepared and implemented for the proposed Project. It will include the following provisions and protocols. The stormwater pollution prevention plan for the Project will detail the applications and type of measures and the allowable exposure of unprotected soils. o Discharge from dewatering operations, if needed, and runoff 2.b Packet Pg. 53 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed from disturbed areas will be made to conform to the water quality requirements of the waste discharge permit issued by the RWQCB. o Temporary erosion control measures, such as sandbagged silt fences, will be applied throughout construction of the proposed Project and will be removed after the working area is stabilized or as directed by the engineer. Soil exposure will be minimized through use of temporary BMPs, groundcover, and stabilization measures. Exposed dust-producing surfaces will be sprinkled daily, if necessary, until wet; this measure will be controlled to avoid producing runoff. Paved streets will be swept daily following construction activities. o The contractor will conduct periodic maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures. o An appropriate seed mix of native species will be planted on disturbed areas upon completion of construction. o The contractor will cover or apply nontoxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more) that could contribute sediment to waterways. o The contractor will enclose and cover exposed stockpiles of dirt or other loose, granular construction materials that could contribute sediment to waterways. Material stockpiles will be located in non-traffic areas only. Side slopes will not be steeper than 2:1. All stockpile areas will be surrounded by a filter fabric fence and interceptor dike. o Runoff from disturbed areas will be contained and filtered by berms, vegetated filters, silt fencing, straw wattle, plastic sheeting, catch basins, or other means necessary to prevent the escape of sediment from the disturbed area. o Other temporary erosion control measures (such as silt 2.b Packet Pg. 54 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary re-vegetation or other ground cover) will be used to control erosion from disturbed areas as necessary. o The contractor will avoid depositing or placing earth or organic material where it may be directly carried into the channel. MM-BIO-2: Tree Replacement Plan. The applicant shall be required, in accordance with the Tree Protection and Management Regulations (Palo Alto Municipal Code 8.10) and Tree Technical Manual (Palo Alto Municipal Code 8.10.120), to replace the tree canopy for the six protected trees, in accordance with the tree canopy formula identified in the Tree Technical Manual (Tree Technical Manual, 3.20). If the tree canopy cannot be replaced on-site, the canopy shall be replaced off- site as close to the Project site as feasible. If trees are being replaced off-site, the applicant must submit a Tree Planting Plan to the Urban Forestry Division and obtain the Urban Forestry Division’s approval of the plan prior to issuance of a building permit. The Tree Planting Plan must include the following: • The canopy calculation for trees removed and the number of trees planned to replace them, consistent with the formula identified in the Tree Technical Manual • The specific location where the new trees would be planted with specific baseline information about that proposed site (e.g., surrounding vegetation or development) • The species of trees to be planted • Specific planting details (e.g., size of sapling, size of containers, irrigation plan) • Success criteria • Monitoring and maintenance schedule City of Palo Alto; qualified arborist. During final design; construction; 2 years after initial planting. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans; if trees are planted offsite, City of Palo Alto Urban Forestry Division. If trees are planted offsite, following approval of the Tree Planting Plan by the City of Palo Alto Urban Forestry Division; 2 years after initial planting if trees can survive without further maintenance. 2.b Packet Pg. 55 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed Replacement tree planting will be monitored by a qualified arborist. To verify the success of replacement trees, monitoring shall occur for two years after initial planting. After the two-year period, the arborist will determine if the trees are capable of surviving without further maintenance. Animal Species AMM-BIO-6: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Western Pond Turtles; Relocate if Needed. A qualified biologist will examine the BSA for western pond turtles and their nests no more than 24 hours before Project activities begin and during any initial removal of vegetation, woody debris, or trees, or other initial ground-disturbing activities. If a western pond turtle is observed at any time before or during Project activities, all activities will cease. If western pond turtles are determined to be absent from the Project footprint, no further action will be required with regard to these species. If any western pond turtles are found within the Project footprint, whenever possible construction work in their vicinity will be avoided until they have moved outside of the Project area of their own volition. If the relocation of western pond turtle is necessary, a relocation plan will be developed and submitted to CDFW for approval. The plan will include subsequent details of monitoring by a CDFW-approved biologist, agency-approved disinfection and handling protocols, animal care while being relocated, suitable deposition locations, and reporting requirements. The CDFW-approved biologist will follow all applicable CDFW disinfection and handling protocols per the relocation plan. Contractor; qualified biologist; CDFW- approved biologist (if required). No more than 24 hours before Project activities begin and during any initial removal of vegetation, woody debris, or trees, or other initial ground- disturbing activities. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans; CDFW. Following approval of a relocation plan (if required); following completion of vegetation, woody debris, or tree removal, or other initial ground- disturbing activities. AMM-BIO-7: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Pallid and Hoary Bats. A qualified biologist will examine trees within the BSA for roosting hoary bats no more than 24 hours before any initial removal of vegetation, woody debris, or trees, or other initial ground- disturbing activities. If a bat is observed roosting at any time before or Contractor; qualified biologist. No more than 24 hours before Project activities begin and during any initial City of Palo Alto; Caltrans; CDFW. Following approval of avoidance measures (if required); 2.b Packet Pg. 56 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed during Project activities, all activities will cease. The Project proponent will coordinate with CDFW to develop and implement avoidance measures before commencing Project activities. removal of vegetation, woody debris, or trees, or other initial ground- disturbing activities. following completion of vegetation, woody debris, or tree removal, or other initial ground- disturbing activities. AMM-BIO-8: Implement Nesting Bird Impact Avoidance Measures. The Project proponent and/or their construction contractor will be responsible for avoiding effects on migratory and non-migratory birds including special-status species (e.g., snowy egret, saltmarsh common yellowthroat). Accordingly, the following measures will be implemented. • Vegetation (including trees) trimming or removal will be conducted during the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), to the extent feasible. • Construction activities will be conducted during the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), to the extent feasible. • Construction activities will begin during the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31) and prior to the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), if feasible. Beginning construction prior to the breeding season will establish a level of noise disturbance that will dissuade noise-sensitive raptors and other birds from attempting to nest within or near the study area. • Bridge work (including existing bridge expansion and new bridge installation) will be conducted during the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), to the extent feasible. It is recommended that inactive nests be removed from any bridge Contractor; qualified wildlife biologist. During construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans; CDFW, USFWS. After a biologist determines that the young have fledged and moved out of the Project area; completion of construction. 2.b Packet Pg. 57 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed work location and from any vegetation or structure within the Project area or within 50 feet of where bridge work will take place. In addition, nest exclusion measures (e.g., fine mesh netting, panels, or metal projectors) are recommended to be installed outside of the nesting season, to the extent feasible. If installed, exclusionary devices will be monitored and maintained throughout the breeding season to ensure that they are fully functional (i.e., successful in preventing the birds from accessing cavities or potential nesting sites). • If construction activities (including vegetation trimming or removal and bridge work) occur within the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), a qualified wildlife biologist with demonstrated nesting bird survey experience will conduct preconstruction surveys for nesting birds. A minimum of three separate surveys will be conducted for migratory birds, including raptors. Surveys will include a search of all suitable nesting habitat (e.g., grassland, bushes, trees, bridges, culverts, overpasses, and structures) in the Project area. In addition, a 300- foot area around the Project area will be surveyed for nesting raptors. When feasible, surveys should occur during the height of the breeding season (March 1 to June 1) with one survey being conducted in each of 2 consecutive months within this peak period and the final survey being conducted within 1 week of the start of construction. If no active nests are detected during these surveys, no additional measures are required. • If a lapse in construction activities of 3 days or longer at a previously surveyed study area occurs, another preconstruction survey will be conducted. • If an active nest is found in the Project area, a no-disturbance buffer (marked with high-visibility fencing, flagging, or pin flags) will be established by a qualified wildlife biologist around the site 2.b Packet Pg. 58 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed to avoid disturbance or destruction of the nest until the end of the breeding season (August 31) or until after the biologist determines that the young have fledged and moved out of the Project area (this date varies by species). The extent of these buffers will be determined by the biologist in coordination with USFWS and/or CDFW as appropriate. Buffer size will depend on the level of noise or construction disturbance, line-of-sight between the nest and the disturbance, ambient levels of noise and other disturbances, and other topographical or artificial barriers. Buffer size is based on a species' sensitivity to disturbance and planned work activities in the vicinity and has the potential to vary with different species. Typical buffer sizes are 300 feet for raptors and 50 feet for other birds. Threatened and Endangered Species AMM-BIO-9: Avoid Work during Active Breeding and Dispersal Period for Special-Status Frogs. The contractor will conduct site preparation and construction activities that involve earthwork, other ground disturbance, and/or vehicle traffic through frog-sensitive areas (intermittent stream and riparian habitat) outside the period when special-status frogs are actively breeding and dispersing (October 15 through June 1). Contractor. During construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. Completion of construction. AMM-BIO-10: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys at Work Sites in and near Frog-Sensitive Areas. No more than 3 days prior to the onset of site preparation and construction activity at each site, a qualified wildlife biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey for special-status frogs within the Project footprint. The survey will cover all areas where special-status frogs may be present or concealed, including cracks, burrows, vegetation adjacent to wet areas, and other temporary refugia, as well as any riparian or intermittent stream habitat affected. If special-status frogs are determined to be absent Contractor; qualified wildlife biologist. No more than 3 days prior to the onset of site preparation and construction activity. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. Completion of construction. 2.b Packet Pg. 59 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed from the Project footprint, no further action will be required with regard to these species. If any special-status amphibians are found within the Project footprint, whenever possible, construction work in their vicinity will be avoided until they have moved outside of the Project area of their own volition. AMM-BIO-11: Provide Construction Worker Awareness Training for Special-Status Frogs. The City of Palo Alto will provide, or require contractors to provide, worker awareness training for construction personnel to enable them to recognize special-status frogs and other aquatic and riparian wildlife. Trained construction personnel will also understand where sensitive resource areas are within the construction zone so they can minimize their impact on upland (dispersal and aestivation) habitat. Training will be presented by a qualified wildlife biologist experienced in training non-specialists. The training program will include at least the following: a description of the special-status species likely to use the site, and their habitat needs; photographs of these species; an explanation of the legal status of these species and their protection under the ESA and other regulations; a list of measures being taken to reduce effects to these species during Project construction; and distribution of a fact sheet summarizing training content. The City of Palo Alto will also distribute, or require contractors to distribute, the training summary fact sheet to anyone else who may enter the Project. Upon completion of training, employees will sign a form stating that they attended the training and understand all the conservation and protection measures. Contractor; qualified wildlife biologist. Prior to the start of construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. After all employees sign a form stating that they attended the training and understand all the conservation and protection measures. AMM-BIO-12: Install Exclusion Fencing and Conduct Construction Monitoring for Special-Status Frogs. Once it has been determined that no special-status frogs are present on the Project site, the contractor will install barrier fencing along the perimeter of the work area where necessary to ensure that frogs do not enter the site during Contractor; qualified biologist. Within 3 days after clearance surveys are performed; daily during City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. Completion of construction. 2.b Packet Pg. 60 TABLE A: MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule Monitoring/ Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed construction. Fencing will be installed promptly (within 3 days) after clearance surveys are performed, to prevent frogs from entering the work area. A qualified biologist will be present during the installation of exclusion fencing, will determine which areas need to be monitored on a daily basis during construction activities to avoid harm to California red-legged frog, and will be responsible for follow-up monitoring as needed. The monitor will inspect and maintain the integrity of the exclusion fencing. construction as needed. AMM-BIO-13: Limit Stream Bank Construction to Dry Season. The contractor will limit stream bank construction from June 1 to October 15 in order to avoid the migratory season for adult steelhead. This timing will also limit any excess sedimentation and runoff from entering the San Francisquito Creek. Contractor. During construction City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. Completion of construction. Invasive Species AMM-BIO-14: Avoid the Introduction of Invasive Plants. The Project proponent, or their contractor, will be responsible for avoiding the introduction of new invasive plants and the spread of invasive plants previously documented in the BSA. Accordingly, the following measures will be implemented during construction. • Surface disturbance within the construction work area will be minimized to the greatest extent possible. • All disturbed areas will be seeded with certified weed-free native mixes and mulched with certified weed-free mulch (rice straw may be used in upland areas). • Native, noninvasive species will be used in erosion control plantings to stabilize site conditions and prevent invasive species from colonizing. Contractor. During construction. City of Palo Alto; Caltrans. Completion of construction. 2.b Packet Pg. 61 ATTACHMENT C SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION Newell Road Bridge 19PLN-00130 # Commenter Last Name Comment EIR/EA Environmental Topic Subtopic 1 Martinez (EPA) Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project (Project). The City of East Palo Alto (City) appreciates its working relationship with the City of Palo Alto regarding this and other projects that impact both cities. The City is supportive of the City of Palo Alto's efforts to reduce potential flooding, and improve the safety for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists in both East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 2 Martinez (EPA) As a Responsible Agency under CEQA Guidelines Section 15381, the City requests and is available for early consultation with the City of Palo Alto to provide input and comments on draft Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) /Environmental Assessments (EA) in order to afford the City sufficient time to meaningfully provide comments. Public Outreach Responsible Agency consultation 3 Martinez (EPA) The City concurs with the City of Palo Alto's conclusion that an EIR/EA is required, given the nature and scope of work the Project will likely entail. In particular, an EIR/EA is appropriate where, as here, the Project's bridge realignment and channel improvements are likely to impact traffic, pedestrian safety, and potential flooding in both cities. As set forth more fully below, the City seeks to provide comments specifying the scope and content of the environmental information germane to the City's statutory responsibilities in connection with the Project. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 2.c Packet Pg. 62 4 Martinez (EPA) The Newell Street Bridge is of critical importance for the City of East Palo Alto. The San Francisquito Creek forms the western boundary of the City. University Avenue, Newell Bridge, and West Bayshore Road are the only bridges that cross San Francisquito Creek (Creek) on the Westside of Highway 101. The City of East Palo Alto has been collaborating with the City of Palo Alto on this project for some time. See Attachment 1 for a March 11, 2014 letter regarding the inclusion of the realignment alternative in the analysis. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 5 Martinez (EPA) Traffic. Compared to San Mateo County, the City of East Palo Alto is characterized by higher rates of residents who walk or ride a bicycle to work, and who are likely to not own a car. The City therefore requests that the following analyses be performed on all Build and No-Build Alternatives. 1. Pedestrian and bicycle safety, access, and design. 2. Vehicular line of sight and corner sight distance standards. 3. The potential safety improvements from adding a signal control to an improved intersection in East Palo Alto (Traffic signal warrant study). Traffic and Transportation Pedestrian and bicycle safety 6 Martinez (EPA) 4. Vehicle queuing at controls on all roadway segments of the Newell Rd. and Woodland Ave. intersection. 5. Traffic calming elements. 6. Emergency response impact. 7. LOS, Critical Movement Delay, and V/C Ratio calculations for each alternative at the following intersections: a) Newell Rd. and Woodland Ave. b) Newell Rd. and West Bay shore Rd. c) Woodland Rd. and Cooley Ave. d) Woodland Rd. and Clarke Ave. Please coordinate with City of East Palo Alto staff so that we may provide information on the Pedestrian Overcrossing Project that will cross U.S. Highway 101 at Newell Rd. Traffic and Transportation Existing and projected traffic, speed, and driving behaviors 7 Martinez (EPA) Land Use and Planning. The EIR/EA should analyze all Build and No- Build Alternatives to determine the impact they would have on physically dividing an established community and conflict with applicable land use plans. Land Use and Planning Physical division of established community and conflicts with land use plans 2.c Packet Pg. 63 8 Martinez (EPA) The EIR/EA should include a Community Impact Assessment and an analysis of the potential environmental justice impacts of the alternatives because the Project is partially located in a low-income and minority community. See Volume 4 of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Environmental Handbook. Community Impacts Environmental justice impacts 9 Martinez (EPA) Hydrology and Water Quality. The City of East Palo Alto endorses the purpose of the proposed Project which, as identified in the Notice of Preparation, is to accommodate the 1% flow rate of the San Francisquito Creek and to increase multimodal mobility. The 1% flow rate should only be accommodated when downstream measures are sufficient to safely accommodate it. Detention or retention measures on Stanford University lands or elsewhere west of Highway 280 must be incorporated when high tides and/or wave run up prevent the downstream improvements from accommodating the 1% flow rate. Hydrology and Water Quality Downstream measures to accommodate 1% flow rate 10 Martinez (EPA) The Project proposes to widen the channel downstream of the Newell Street Bridge. Improvements in the Creek channel must be done starting from downstream improvements working upstream consistent with the approved SFCJPA's EIR. Widening the Creek channel cannot occur until after the completion of the SFCJPA Reach 1 project and between Highway 101 and the San Francisco Bay, and the Caltrans project at Highway 101. Cumulative Impacts SFCJPA projects 11 Martinez (EPA) The cumulative impact of the proposed changes to the Creek channel must be comprehensively analyzed along the length of the Creek to ensure that changes made in the vicinity of the Newell Street Bridge do not have negative impacts on downstream or upstream communities. The City of East Palo Alto is particularly concerned about the vulnerable neighborhoods downstream of the U.S. Highway 101 Bridge. Certainly, if the proposed changes to the Creek channel deviate from the alternatives that were included in the SFCJP A's hydrology analyses, a new comprehensive hydrology analysis must be performed to ensure that there the potential improvements made at Newell Street will not increase the risk of flooding in other locations. Cumulative Impacts SFCJPA projects 2.c Packet Pg. 64 12 Martinez (EPA) Biological Resources. This Project is within the Steelhead trout habitat, which is protected at the state and/or federal level. The bridge will involve construction activities, including changes to the stream volume, and potentially pile driving. Consultation with regulatory agencies will be necessary to determine the impact on the Steelhead habitat. Biological Resources Impacts to steelhead trout habitat 13 Martinez (EPA) Noise. Construction will temporarily increase noise levels in the adjacent neighborhood around the work zone. Please analyze noise control measures alternatives to minimize noise. Noise and Vibration Construction-period impacts 14 Martinez (EPA) Emergency Service Access. Emergency service, Fire and Police in particular, will be modified and affected during the construction of the Project and after it, depending on design alternatives. Please coordinate with Emergency Service providers and analyze potential impacts to emergency response times during, and after construction. Public Services and Utilities Emergency service access 15 Martinez (EPA) Community Outreach. Please coordinate with City of East Palo Alto staff listed below to ensure adequate time for the review of draft documents and to ensure that the appropriate East Palo Alto advisory and legislative bodies have an opportunity to respond. Public Outreach Responsible Agency consultation 2.c Packet Pg. 65 16 Martinez (EPA) Designation of City Staff. The City of East Palo designates the following employees to attend meetings to discuss the scope and content of the EIR/EA; you may send all notices related to this project to the addresses noted below: 1. Carlos Martinez, City Manager, City of East Palo Alto, 2. Sean Charpentier, Assistant City Manager, City of East Palo Alto, 3. Brent Butler, Planning Manager, East Palo Alto Planning Division, 4. Kamal Fallaha, Public Works Director, City of East Palo Alto, 5. John Le, Deputy City Attorney, City of East Palo Alto. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation for the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project. The City of East Palo Alto looks forward to continuing our collaborative relationship with the City of Palo Alto on this Project and other projects that impact the residents of both our cities. If you desire additional information or have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Sean Charpentier, Assistant City Manager, at (650) 853-3150. Public Outreach Responsible Agency consultation 2.c Packet Pg. 66 17 Hurley (SF RWQCB) The San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) staff appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the City of Palo Alto's Notice of Preparation (Notice) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the San Francisquito Creek Flood Control and Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project (Project), received on August 18, 2015. The proposed Project is located in the City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, and City of East Palo Alto, San Mateo County. The City of Palo Alto (City) is the Project Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans, District 4 Office) is acting under assignment from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and is the Lead Agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) as a joint document with the EIR (EIR/EA). The FHWA is providing 88.5 percent of the project cost, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) is funding the remaining 11.5 percent of project costs. The proposed Project would replace the existing Newell Road Bridge (Bridge) that crosses over San Francisquito Creek and connects the cities of East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. The proposed Project has two purposes: (1) to protect adjacent communities from flood hazards by accommodating the 1 percent flood flow of San Francisquito Creek at Newell Road; and (2) to improve safety for vehicular, cycling, and pedestrian traffic across San Francisquito Creek at Newell Road. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 2.c Packet Pg. 67 18 Hurley (SF RWQCB) The proposed Project would result in dredging or filling of San Francisquito Creek due to the following elements: • Bridge Replacement. The proposed Project would replace the existing Bridge to provide sufficient flow capacity to accommodate the 1 percent flood flow. Although the proposed bridge design is still in conceptual phase, it will likely require abutments and retaining walls at each end of the Bridge constituting fill in the creek, and retaining walls on the Bridge. • Creek Widening. The proposed Project includes widening San Francisquito Creek along 900 linear feet immediately downstream of the Bridge. The Notice does not state the amount of widening. The Notice states this Project element will alleviate a flow “bottleneck” in the creek, and will also minimize increase in the Bridge profile. This element also includes building floodwalls to contain high flows. • Creek Bank Regrade. The proposed Project would regrade the north bank (i.e., East Palo Alto bank) to increase the creek’s capacity downstream of the Bridge, and thereby lower the water surface elevation of the creek during high flow events. The Notice does not state the proposed regarded channel dimensions. Project Description Construction activities/timing 2.c Packet Pg. 68 19 Hurley (SF RWQCB) Water Board staff is generally supportive of the proposed Project for its improvements in traffic flow, transportation safety, and flood protection. We provide the following comments to assist District staff in preparing the Draft EIR and to highlight the Water Board’s policies. 1. Please note that the Water Board adopted U.S. EPA’s Section 404(b)(1), “Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredge or Fill Material,” dated December 24, 1980, in its Basin Plan for determining the circumstance under which filling of wetlands, streams or other waters of the State may be permitted. Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines prohibit all discharges of fill material into regulated waters of the United States, unless a discharge, as proposed, constitutes the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) that will achieve the basic project purpose. Water Board staff recommends the City prepare alternatives in the EIR that would meet the EPA’s Section 404(b)(1) LEDPA standard to expedite the future Clean Water Act permitting requirements. The sequence in which design proposals should be approached: 1) Avoid - avoid impacts to waters; 2) Minimize - modify project to minimize impacts to waters; and, 3) Mitigate – once impacts have been fully minimized, compensate for unavoidable impacts to waters. When it is not possible to avoid impacts to water bodies, disturbance should be minimized. Mitigation for lost water body acreage and functions through restoration or creation should only be considered after disturbance has been minimized. Where impacts cannot be avoided, the creation of adequate mitigation habitat to compensate for the loss of water body acreage, functions, and values must be provided. Cumulative and indirect impacts to wetlands must also be prevented. Indirect impacts include, but are not limited to: deposition of sediments; erosion of substratum; and maintenance due to excessive sediment deposition. Hydrology and Water Quality Applicable regulations for project impacts to wetlands, streams, or other waters 2.c Packet Pg. 69 20 Hurley (SF RWQCB) 2. The EIR should include an analysis of the effects of the proposed Project on the creek’s hydraulics and geomorphology, stability, and compatibility with related projects in the channel (i.e., a cumulative impacts analysis). As the Notice states that the Project is within the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority’s (JPA) study area for the San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Upstream of Highway 101 Project (Upstream 101 Project), the cumulative impacts analysis should include all reasonably foreseeable projects including both of the JPA’s flood control projects (i.e., the Upstream 101 Project and the project extending from US 101 to San Francisco Bay); and the Caltrans US 101 bridge replacement project. The analysis should also account for potential effects of projects upgradient of the Bridge, such as the future Searsville Dam sediment load implementation plan. The cumulative impacts analysis is necessary to demonstrate how the proposed Project would preserve or enhance the creek’s functions and values in accordance with the Basin Plan and U.S. EPA’s Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Cumulative Impacts SFCJPA projects 21 Hurley (SF RWQCB) 3. For the proposed channel widening and bank grading elements, the EIR should evaluate channel design alternatives with a bankfull channel and vegetated floodplains using woody vegetation and grasses. Also evaluate and incorporate into the alternative creek designs, to the extent feasible, bioengineering methods consistent with the District’s Stream Maintenance Program Manual, Appendix A. Project Design Considerations Channel design alternatives 22 Hurley (SF RWQCB) 4. The City should evaluate design alternatives that include off- channel flood management measures, such as detention basins and/or decentralized best management practices (BMPs) (e.g., low impact development retrofit measures) to accomplish Project goals. Alternatives to the Project Off-channel flood management design alternatives 2.c Packet Pg. 70 23 Hurley (SF RWQCB) 5. Evaluate and appropriately address potential impacts from discharges from new or reconstructed impervious surface, including the Bridge structure. The EIR should include mitigation measures for post-construction stormwater BMPs consistent with the requirements of Provisions C.3, C.10, and other applicable Provisions of the NPDES Storm Water Municipal Regional Permit (NPDES Permit No. CAS612008; Order No. R2-2009-0074, as amended, or the most- current reissuance). Hydrology and Water Quality Post-construction discharge impacts from new or reconstructed impervious surfaces 24 Hurley (SF RWQCB) 6. Include with each alternative an appropriately-detailed mitigation and monitoring plan that addresses the Project’s impacts to wetlands and other waters of the State. This should include an evaluation of potential locations to restore, enhance, and/or create wetland and/or riparian habitat to compensate for the Project’s reasonably foreseeable temporary and permanent impacts to the waters’ beneficial uses and areal extent. We welcome the opportunity to provide additional comments on a draft Project EIR when it is available for review. If you have any questions about our comments please contact me at susan.glendening@waterboard.ca.gov or (510) 622-2462. Biological Resources Impacts to vegetation wetlands and other waters 25 Molseed (VTA) VTA has no comments on the NOP of the Newell Road Bridge Replacement. Thanks. Non-CEQA/NEPA No comments at this time 26 Altman I live at 105 Mission Drive in East Palo Alto, 1/3 of a mile from the Newell Bridge. My dog and I walk over the bridge every morning for a stroll and I drive over the bridge a couple of times a week when heading to certain locations in Palo Alto. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 27 Altman My hope is that the bridge becomes either fully or better aligned with Newell Road on the EPA side and that there is better pedestrian safety over the bridge. A two-lane roadway makes the most sense to me. Preference for Alternative Alternative 3 and 4 28 Altman I will be interested to see what the EIR says about vegetation in and around the creek and whether planting more native species would have favorable effects on creek flow. Biological Resources Impacts to vegetation along creek 2.c Packet Pg. 71 29 Ballard I am writing as the Executive Director of Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC), a membership-based non-profit with the mission to create a healthy community, environment, and economy through bicycling in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. We would like to provide comments on the Newell Road Bridge replacement project. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 30 Ballard We commend Palo Alto for undertaking this project to replace a century-old bridge to accommodate a 1% flood event. Given this opportunity, the bridge should be brought up to modern transportation standards as well, specifically as they relate to Complete Streets and bicycling and walking access. Pursuant to the September 3, 2015 EIR/EA Scoping meeting, none of the five proposed alternatives for the Newell Rd. Bridge replacement include bicycle lanes. The bidirectional one-lane alternative is proposed as a single 16' -wide shared-use lane plus one or two pedestrian sidewalks. The two-lane alternatives is proposed as two 14' -wide shared-use lanes plus one or two pedestrian sidewalks. Project Design Considerations Separate bike lanes 31 Ballard As a Gold Bicycle Friendly Community, Palo Alto should take every opportunity to improve the existing bike networks, especially those that connect to adjacent communities. The project purpose and need include three relevant considerations: • Maintain connections for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation • Improve pedestrian and bicycle access across the creek • Improve safety for all modes of transportation In addition, East Palo Alto is in the process of constructing a bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing of Highway 101 at University Ave. The western landing of the overcrossing will touch down right at Newell Road and West Bayshore. Providing a high quality bike crossing of the creek will aid access to and from the 101 overcrossing and East Palo Alto. Purpose and Need Improve safety and connections for all modes of transportation 2.c Packet Pg. 72 32 Ballard To meet the project purpose and need, and provide high quality healthy transportation options for all users, we recommend a separate 4-5' Class II bike lanes on each side of the bridge adjacent to two 9-1 0' vehicle lanes instead of two 14' shared use lanes. We do not recommend adopting the bidirectional one-lane configuration, as it does not leave the possibility for a safe and comfortable option for people biking. These improvements will also help City of Palo Alto comply with its upcoming Complete Streets resolution, 1 which will require that all projects provide for safe travel along and across public right of ways. We urge you to reconsider the addition of bike lanes on the Newell Rd. Bridge. Thank you for your consideration. Project Design Considerations Separate bike lanes 33 Boas My name is Patty Boas and I am a resident at 1533 Dana Avenue Palo Alto, California 94303. I attended the scoping meeting regarding the Newell Road / San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project on September 3, 2015. Following is my input for the Environmental Impact Review Report. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 34 Boas 1) Public Safety of Current Bridge at its Existing Alignment - The EIR should provide a historical accounting and analysis of any actual safety issues that have occurred on the current bridge. We need this benchmark to understand the safety of the bridge in its current state. Many residents (myself included) believe that the bridge in it current condition provides excellent traffic calming and forces drivers to proceed slowly and safely. Purpose and Need Traffic accident/issue data for existing bridge 35 Boas 2) Current and Projected Automobile Traffic on Newell due to different bridge / alignment scenarios and the impact of each of those scenarios on 1) the safety of children bicycling on and / or crossing Newell, 2) the safety and disturbance of residents walking on sidewalks and crossing Newell, and Traffic and Transportation Pedestrian and bicycle safety 36 Boas 3) the potential increase in noise, neighborhood disruption and ambience detraction. Noise and Vibration Noise impacts from increased traffic 2.c Packet Pg. 73 37 Boas Specific issues the EIR should examine yet not limit itself to include 1) overall traffic count on Newell (number of, composition of (i.e. cars or trucks) and time of day cars/trucks travel on Newell, 2) speed travelled, 3) obeying stop signs and speed limits, 4) yielding to pedestrians, and 5) driving behavior when passing bicyclists in bike lanes. Traffic and Transportation Existing and projected traffic, speed, and driving behaviors 38 Boas 3) Multi Use Zoning & High Density Housing in East Palo Alto (EPA). EPA is studying the possibility of changing zoning to accommodate the development of multi-use buildings and high density housing. The EIR must study the impact and consequences that may result to the Newell bridge and the Crescent Park, Duveneck – St. Francis, and East Palo Alto neighborhoods if such zoning and respective projects are approved. The EIR must request EPA city government transparency in disclosing it goals, its plans and its timing related to such zoning changes and development. Cumulative Impacts East Palo Alto General Plan 39 Boas 4) Source & Destination of Traffic - The EIR must ascertain the home and destination of current and projected users of the bridge and analyze the costs / benefits on the character and ambience of the neighborhoods relative to the usage of the bridge by the local home owners. If Palo Altans aren’t primary users of the bridge, they shouldn’t carry the burden of the destruction of a neighborhood that was never designed to be a major traffic thoroughfare. Traffic and Transportation Source of trips and trip generation 40 Boas 5) Escape Route for Crime. Crime is an issue in the Crescent Park, Duveneck – St. Francis, and East Palo Alto neighborhoods. It has been speculated that the Newell Bridge facilitates crime as it allegedly serves as a quick and easy escape route. The EIR should include Palo Alto Police Department current and historical data to validate or refute this conjecture. The EIR should also seek Palo Alto Police Department expertise and preference regarding which bridge / alignment alternative best serves the neighborhood to mitigate crime. Community Impacts Crime 41 Cheng I recently read the letter sent to you from Gary Paladin. I'm writing this email in supporting Gary Paladin's letter for all his concerning issues and its impact to our neighborhood. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 2.c Packet Pg. 74 42 Cheng Specially I concern the Traffic and Pedestrian Use Safety. Newell is the main road for my daughters and their friends in Crescent park and Duveneck-St. Francis neighborhood. They bike to and from Jordan Middle school and Palo Alto High school every week days. And I like to see the kids walking, biking boarding and scooting to and from Duveneck Elementary school safely right on our Dana Ave, which cross the Newell Road. Traffic and Transportation Pedestrian and bicycle safety 43 Cheng Beside the traffic safety issues considered with the Cross Creek Bridge Project. I also concern the quiet neighborhood issue. I almost walk across Newell road everyday. To library, art center and Tennis court with family. Walking around with my dog. Hopefully this Life Quality issue will be considered in the Project too. Noise and Vibration Noise impacts from increased traffic 44 Dolton I have just read the letter sent to you September 5, 2015 from Gary Paladin, my neighbor on Dana Ave. He has carefully studied the matter in depth and brings up numerous important concerns that should be addressed before any decision about the design of the bridge and configuration of Newell Rd. after it crosses the creek. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 45 Dolton Both the neighborhoods of Crescent Park and EPA will be directly effected by the design of the bridge and any good or adverse consequences. Lately, there has been a welcome emphasis on considering the Quality of Life for neighborhood residents. Maintaining Quality of Life for residents who live in the neighborhoods is worth pursuing each time that it is challenged. Community Impacts Project impacts on "quality of life" 46 Dolton To me the one of the most important issues to be addressed is the building of large multi-unit complexes by developers in EPA. The needs of a higher density population and the cars that will be added to the streets, if Newell Rd. is expected to accommodate them, will have a negative impact for people who now currently live on both sides of San Francisquito Creek in contiguous neighborhoods. Cumulative Impacts East Palo Alto General Plan 2.c Packet Pg. 75 47 Dolton Newell Rd. is a thoroughfare for residents from both communities, who enjoy family walks to Rinconada Park for picnics, swimming, the Art Center, Neighborhood Gardens, the Rinconada Library and the Children's Library. Children from both neighborhoods ride bikes and walk to those places and the nearby schools. I have already observed commuters on Newell Rd., easily spotted, exceeding the speed limit and trying to rush to get to University Ave. for quick access to enter Hwy. 101. Sometimes cars have lined up at the Channing signal and/or the 4-way stop at Dana and Newell. Traffic and Transportation Pedestrian and bicycle safety 48 Dolton I send my letter in support of Gary Paladin's letter with a special emphasis on my hope that the Newell Rd. design will support Quality of Life in both Crescent Park and EPA neighborhoods. This is a chance for foresight to effect the plan rather than hindsight, which has been a problem with downtown projects. Community Impacts Project impacts on "quality of life" 49 Elliott Thank you for the invitation to the meeting this evening. Unfortunately, I have other commitments and won't be able to make it. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 50 Elliott I have made verbal comments at previous meetings, but I want to provide written comments that it is important that there a project alternative is selected that causes minimal damage to the stream ecology including: 1) Ensuring the new bridge does not include abutments that would increase erosion of the creek bank, 2) Planned "improvements" to the creek bank are ecologically friendly and not bank hardening (e.g., methods in the following document: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/regions/regionx/Engineering_With_ Nature_Web.pdf), 3) Tree removal be limited to the extent possible to non-natives such as the row of Eucalyptus that are on the west side of Newell on the Palo Alto side of the creek, and 4) The venerable and beautiful old Buckeye across from the Eucalyptus trees remains undamaged. Please keep me on the email list for this project. Biological Resources Impacts to stream ecology and tree removal 51 Farn Due to Palo Alto High School's back to school night, my family missed the Newell Bridge meeting last Thursday. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction 2.c Packet Pg. 76 text 52 Farn Our vote is Alternative 1: a new bridge that solves the water flow/flood problem while providing the same access and still preserving the safety and character of the neighborhood. A new bridge with full realignment of Newell Rd is an absolute NO. I don't know who came up with this idea. I can't see any reason for this proposal. Is it supposed to be for safety reasons? I have lived here for the last eight years and not once have I heard an accident at the bridge. What's the accident record on the bridge? Perhaps you can share with us. In fact, a larger aligned bridge will make the traffic more dangerous. The traffic noise on Newell continues at night with cars speeding down Newell. The City has installed stop signs, but this has had little or no effect. Both my kids' bedrooms are along Newell Rd, and they don't open their windows due to the car noise, even on hot summer nights. Very sad! It will just get worse if cars can just speed across the bridge too. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1 53 Farn Can the construction start by taking down the bridge before this El Nino winter that's coming??? 2018 is a long time away. Project Description Construction activities/timing 54 Farn Thank you for all your work on managing this project. I know it's not an easy task. The City of Palo Alto should put its own residents' well being and opinions first. After all, we're the ones that are paying the hefty tax to maintain the streets and the neighborhood, which we won't be able to enjoy if there is a super bridge. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 55 Hammer G Fix the Newell Bridge ASAP to prevent flooding. All other issues are secondary. Purpose and Need Flooding 56 Hammer X Important to get this project done as soon as possible for flood control! Preference for Alternative Alternative 1, 2, 3, and 4 57 Hammer X Include traffic calming measures to prevent speeding. Project Description Traffic calming measures 2.c Packet Pg. 77 58 Hitchings This letter concerns the public community meeting on September 3rd about the Newell Bridge Replacement in City Council Chambers. Because it conflicts with back to school night I cannot attend so I am giving you my public written comments here: Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 59 Hitchings The Newell Bridge is over 100 years old. It is traffic hazard, only allows traffic to cross one way at a time, without signaling and no pedestrian or bike walkway, thus endangering the many folks who cross it every day. It is not seismically safe. It provides a key access point for East Palo Alto vehicular traffic, including emergency vehicles. Also, its poor design significantly restricts channel flow during floods in San Francisquito Creek. One of these recent floods caused 10s of millions of dollars in damage to over 400 homes in Palo Alto in 1998 during an El Nino winter flood. Purpose and Need Traffic safety, flooding 60 Hitchings The City of Palo Alto realizes that in order to address all these issues of public safety they must replace this bridge. They have secured the majority of money from Caltrans, which is very commendable. It is a matter of public safety that the City proceed with an option other than the “no option”. Without the Newell Bridge being fixed, the Chaucer bridge cannot be improved, resulting in significant ongoing flooding risk for many Palo Alto residents. While this project is challenging, the City of Palo Alto and the JPA have done a good job on all fronts and I strongly urge you to continue forward with replacing the bridge. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1, 2, 3, and 4 61 Holzer I strongly prefer a one-lane bridge with a light if possible. Otherwise you are creating another traffic thoroughfare on a RESIDENTIAL street. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1 62 Huerta Here are items I find concerning to include in the Newell Rd. Bridge replacement CEQA scoping. I am in favor of the three options of two way travel on the bridge. Preference for Alternative Alternative 2, 3, and 4 63 Huerta A new bridge will bring more traffic to Newell Road. Please measure the traffic impacts at State levels. Residents in the neighborhood must be conscience they are situated between two City arterial roadways, University and Embarcadero, and are subject to crossing Traffic and Transportation Existing and projected traffic, speed, and driving behaviors 2.c Packet Pg. 78 traffic. 64 Huerta In the seeping meeting email of this project there is mention of widening the San Francisquito Creek 900 feet downstream of this new bridge. I am not for this option. Please consider the materials of fences backing to the creek, permeable or non permeable. Project Description Creek widening 65 Huerta In the current iteration of the three bridge options the bridge would be raise two feet. Unless all bridges crossing San Francisquito Creek are going to be raised two feet I do not see the need to raise this bridge given SFCJPA is working on capacity in the creek. What would be the impact to the new bridge if impacted by a 100 year flood? Remain in service I hope. Thank You Project Description Bridge height 2.c Packet Pg. 79 66 Lowell I am not familiar with the type of comments to be made in Scoping for EIR. I have read the September 3 Scoping presentation. I read the purposes that included making the bridge crossing safer for all forms of transportation, which would include motor vehicles, and that an effort would be made to avoid diversion of traffic "onto adjacent streets" and to avoid increasing number of cars on Newell Road, I also want to make sure that the EIR will address the ramifications, indeed, the likelihood, of redesign for safer motor vehicle transport resulting in increasing the use of the bridge and adjacent streets to avoid traffic on University or to find alternative routes to 101. This is not traffic diverted from Newell onto adjacent streets, but rather traffic that would be added to adjacent streets and to Newell from the many motor vehicles that seek to avoid the backups on University Ave heading toward 101 and toward the Dumbarton Bridge. Similarly, in the other direction, will more cars and trucks tum at the light at Woodland A venue, travel along the east side of the creek through that residential area in East Palo Alto to reach Newell and then downtown Palo Alto or Stanford. To avoid backups, many cars are now starting to travel on parallel two-lane residential roads then cut over to also two-lane largely residential University Ave. or to Embarcadero. Traffic and Transportation Existing and projected traffic, speed, and driving behaviors 67 Lowell Many cyclists and pedestrians now use these adjacent streets, rather than using University, and their safe biking and walking route would be impaired by additional cars. Traffic and Transportation Pedestrian and bicycle safety 68 Lowell I just want to make sure that the EIR will look not only at whether cars will be diverted from Newell onto adjacent streets, but whether cars will be diverted from University and Embarcadero, onto adjacent streets, and then onto the Newell bridge. It may be that the EIR will already consider these consequences, but I wanted to make sure. Traffic and Transportation Existing and projected traffic, speed, and driving behaviors 69 Mates I attended the recent meeting at City Hall. Given the current status quo, I think the choices presented for review were adequate. I strongly support replacing the bridge with the one-fane full off-set option. I believe it is the ONLY possible option for protecting quality Preference for Alternative Alternative 1 2.c Packet Pg. 80 of fife and safety for the future. 70 Mates I was astounded to learn of the possibility of 8 story development on the east side of the bridge. It is mandatory that that potential change in zoning be factored into any EIR. Cumulative Impacts East Palo Alto General Plan 71 Mates My strong feeling, should EPA proceed with such high-density plans, is that the EIR consider the effect of a fifth plan: close the bridge and do not replace it. It is outrageous that EPA should even consider allowing a change that would so negatively impact the city of Palo Alto and our neighborhood for ever. Alternatives to the Project Remove bridge and not replace it 72 Mulvey These notes are to supplement my comments at the September 3rd EIR/EA scoping meeting. First and foremost, please know that I support all the Project Purposes (slide 9); and it would be very helpful if there were something like a “consumer reports” circle-chart illustrating the alternatives and the necessary tradeoffs when it is not possible to optimize all the purposes in a single proposed design. These thoughts are numbered for reference, not priority. Purpose and Need Assess how each Alternative meets the P&N 73 Mulvey BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 1. I would like to see any bridge replacement include two pedestrian sidewalks and two separate bicycle lanes (NOT sharrows). The addition of the East Palo Alto pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing for Highway 101 (Newell to Clarke) is expected to significantly increase walking and biking in the area, and those needs should be fully incorporated in planning the bridge design. Project Design Considerations Separate bike lanes 74 Mulvey 2. Additionally, the East Palo Alto “Bay Access Master Plan” anticipates a creekside trail and pocket parks along Woodland. Please incorporate design features at the Woodland ends of the bridge and for the pedestrian sidewalks that improve visibility of the creek and riparian corridor for walkers to enjoy. Project Design Considerations Pedestrian and bicycle design features at Woodland Ave 2.c Packet Pg. 81 75 Mulvey 3. Re my request for separate bicycle lanes, I am concerned that wide vehicle lanes with sharrows will be a magnet for increased vehicle use (not to mention higher speed vehicle use) compared to the current 1911 bridge that is celebrated as “the best traffic calming device in the city.” Project Design Considerations Separate bike lanes 76 Mulvey 4. For those traffic related concerns, please talk with East Palo Alto about seriously considering the idea of making Newell a dead-end before the West Bayshore frontage road intersection (like Seale at Embarcadero and Kingsley at Embarcadero in Palo Alto). This has been mentioned as a safety feature for the Newell/Clarke overcrossing and seems to have real merit. (I assume such a dead-end will also need to block cut-through traffic from accessing Newell via the adjacent commercial-area parking lots.) Project Design Considerations Dead-end Newell Road before West Bayshore Road in East Palo Alto 77 Mulvey 5. Please give special attention to showing the visibility changes/improvements for walkers, bikers, and vehicles for all suggested bridge alignments. I am especially concerned about turns from Woodland to cross the bridge, and I’m not easily visualizing the benefits of having the elevated roadway “padding” needed on both sides of the bridge for the higher bridge profile. Traffic and Transportation Pedestrian and bicycle safety 78 Mulvey 6. Please give consideration to alternative pedestrian crosswalks on Woodland that minimize distance traveled. I like the cater-corner crosswalk at Newell and Hamilton as an example. Project Design Considerations Pedestrian cross-walks at Newell and Woodland 79 Mulvey DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL WIDENING 1. Given the current uncertainty about flood damage reduction planning upstream of Newell, I support eliminating the 900’ in-channel bottleneck downstream of Newell. But it will be important that the EIR/EA process fully address concerns about piecemealing the environmental review. Project Description Creek widening 80 Mulvey 2. Additionally, since we are told to expect more frequent extreme weather events associated with climate change, please be proactive in considering the need for additional flow capacity. Project Design Considerations Additional flow capacity 2.c Packet Pg. 82 81 Neff I attended the recent community meeting. This expands on comments I made there. In the options with 2way traffic, the roadway across the bridge was only presented using 14 foot lanes, with a class 3 bike route. This kind of bicycle facility is just a shared lane. It may be marked with sharrows to alert drivers to the possible presence of cyclists, but if there are no cyclists present, it may be driven as a full width lane. A 14 foot lane is wider than necessary just for autos, and will invite speeds higher than desired for a shared lane, and possibly higher than desired by the neighborhood. Of course, the stop signs at both ends of that block of Newell will moderate traffic. Project Design Considerations Shared bicycle lane design 82 Neff For a comfortable shared lane, the auto speed should be 20 mph or lower, and the auto traffic light. Is the projected traffic volume really compatible with a shared lane, or will the traffic drive most bicyclists away? What is the target speed and volume in this design? Project Description Target speed for bridge design 83 Neff Traffic speeds on Newell are an important consideration for bicyclists and neighbors, so alternatives to a simple, smooth, gently graded 14foot shared lane should be considered. Any treatment that narrows the apparent driving space will tend to make traffic slower, and more cautious. Project Design Considerations Shared bicycle lane design 84 Neff One possibility would be to implement 4 foot class 2 bike lanes (with a consistent travel surface, and no gutter pan, this can fit) with 10 foot travel lanes, matching the bike lanes further up the block. The center line may be removed, as is being done now on Matadero, with a goal of slowing traffic, and creating a safer shared lane. A currently experimental option would be to remove the center line and paint dashed lines 5 feet from the curbs, with an 18 foot 2way center area. The narrower center space slows traffic more. In this configuration traffic would have to adjust to oncoming vehicles, leading to lower speeds, much as auto traffic must slow on our narrow streets like Castilella today. City transportation staff are looking into this kind of dashed line treatment for some of the streets in Palo Alto’s bike network that are too narrow for regulation bike lanes. Project Design Considerations Shared bicycle lane design 2.c Packet Pg. 83 85 Neff I hope the DEIR will lead to a low stress bicycle connection across the bridge, connecting our two cities via this bridge and the new bicycle/pedestrian bridge over 101 planned at the end of Newell in East Palo Alto. Traffic and Transportation Pedestrian and bicycle safety 86 Ngo We are strongly in favor of one lane bridge option. This option will preserve the current quality of life along the Newell Road. We are opposed to all other options as they will result in increased level of traffic, noise and danger to children along this highly used "bike/walk to school" corridor. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1 87 Paladin I attended the scoping meeting regarding the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project on September 3, 2015. This letter submits my thinking regarding what the upcoming Environmental Impact Review (EIR) on the bridge/alignment project should address. Please ensure the following items are included: Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 88 Paladin Public Safety of Current Bridge and Its Existing Alignment. Conjecture surrounds the alleged lack of safety of the existing bridge/alignment. The EIR should provide a historical accounting and analysis of any actual safety issues (i.e., number of accidents involving automobiles, pedestrians and bicyclists over past 50~ years). This analysis will validate or refute the conjecture and provide fact based rationale for selecting the most appropriate bridge/alignment design. Purpose and Need Traffic accident/issue data for existing bridge 89 Paladin Traffic & Pedestrian Use. Newell is a major bicycle route for children going to/from Jordan Middle School, and a street crossed primarily yet not exclusively at Dana Avenue, by many children each day making their way to/from Duveneck Elementary School. Sidewalks along Newell are a major pedestrian walkway used by Crescent Park, Duveneck - St. Francisco, and East Palo Alto residents to stroll, jog or walk pets daily. The EIR must study current and projected automobile traffic on Newell due to different bridge/alignment scenarios and the impacts of each of those scenarios on 1) the safety of children bicycling on and/or crossing Newell, 2) the safety of and disturbance of residents walking on sidewalks and crossing Newell, and Traffic and Transportation Pedestrian and bicycle safety 2.c Packet Pg. 84 90 Paladin 3) the potential increases in noise, neighborhood disruption and ambience detraction. Noise and Vibration Noise impacts from increased traffic 91 Paladin Specific issues the EIR should examine yet not limited itself to include 1) overall traffic count on Newell (number of, composition of (i.e., cars or trucks) and time of day cars/trucks travel on Newell, 2) speed travelled, 3) obeying stop signs and speed limits, 4) yielding to pedestrians, and 5) driving behavior when passing bicyclists in bike lanes. Traffic and Transportation Existing and projected traffic, speed, and driving behaviors 92 Paladin Source & Destination of Traffic. The bridge/alignment project permanently impacts to character and ambience of the neighborhoods on either side of the bridge, yet the heaviest daily users of the bridge (today and more importantly in the future) may not live in the community. Crescent Park and Duveneck - St. Francis homeowners are being asked to shoulder consequences this project may bring to our neighborhoods in order to accommodate heavy users of the bridge who may not live in the community, possibly commuting from distant areas in the East Bay, or from San Jose, Redwood City, etc. The EIR must ascertain the homes an destination of current and projected users of the bridge and analyze the costs/benefits on the character and ambience of the neighborhoods relative to the usage of the bridge by the local homeowners. Traffic and Transportation Source of trips and trip generation 93 Paladin Escape Routes for Crime. Crime is an issue sin the Crescent Park, Duveneck - St. Francis, and East Palo Alto neighborhoods. It has been speculated that the Newell Bridge facilitates crime as it allegedly serves as a quick and easy escape route. The EIR should include Palo Alto Police Department current and historical data to validate or refute this conjecture. The EIR should also seek Palo Alto Police Department expertise and preference regarding which bridge/alignment alternative best serves the neighborhood to mitigate crime. Community Impacts Crime 2.c Packet Pg. 85 94 Paladin Multi Use Zoning & High Density Housing in East Palo Alto (EPA). EPA is studying the possibility of changing zoning to accommodate the development of multi-use buildings and high density housing. The EIR must study the impact and consequences that may result to the Newell Bridge and the Crescent Park, Duveneck - St. Francis, and East Palo Alto neighborhoods if such zoning and respective projects are approved. The EIR must request EPA city government transparency in disclosing its goals, its plans and its timing related to such zoning changes and development. Cumulative Impacts East Palo Alto General Plan 95 Paladin Flood Walls. There appears to be much confusion regarding the benefits, consequences and impacts of flood walls on addressing the prevention of flooding. The EIR must provide clarity regarding the purpose and benefits of flood walls and educate the community regarding the options being considered. Project Description Flood walls 96 Paladin Interim Actions in Anticipation for Forecasted El Nino Weather. The current timeline indicates construction will not commences on flood control activity until 2018. With a predicted El Nino and the possibility of heavy rains this winter, the status quo presents a huge and undesired risk. The EIR must address (or must get the City of Palo Alto to address) this risk now and must provide general recommendations and specific and feasible actions that can be implemented immediately to mitigate the risk of flooding during the next 6-8 months. Thank you for your assistance on this matter. Non-CEQA/NEPA Interim actions for flood control prior to Project implementation 97 Price This email is in regards to the Newell/San Fransquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project. I think this project is a great idea and should be completed without delay. I use this bridge every day to get to work and it is currently very dangerous to vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians. Import changes to the bridge include TWO LANES and a SIDEWALK. Realignment and whatever is needed to prevent flooding are also important considerations. Preference for Alternative Alternative 3 and 4 2.c Packet Pg. 86 98 Price Once the current bridge is taken down what is the estimated time for completion of the new bridge? My concern is that the bridge will be removed and then during construction something will come up, like lack of funding, and the project will be sidelined for several months. Project Description Construction activities/timing 99 Proctor Please give weighted consideration to Alternative 8, as the ONLY one under consideration that would eliminate the very dangerous blind zone affecting the confluence of the 2 principal arteries/directions involved--the southwest direction of Woodland & northeast end of the bridge on Newell. That is the principal flow of both cars and pedestrians whether going or coming from the Palo Alto side. Also, though EPA officials would not commit to rezoning plans for near future in the Woodland Triangle, the fact is that even now it takes upward of 15 to 20 minutes to get out of the locked in area via the University Avenue exit during rush hour in the AM, and makes Newell and Edgewood the only ways out in an emergency. Frankly speaking, the idea of converting the Newell bridge in to a one lane via, a la backwoods single lane lumber/fire break trail is crazy. There may have been a time when such a solution may have been practical but that time passed as soon as the EPA side of the creek built upwards, leaving behind the single family cottages that still dot the landscape. It is a solution more born of a barely repressed desire to be able to "raise the bridge over the moat" and keep undesirables out of the "keep" that is the Palo Alto side, than any real attempt at a solution for transiting safety and reducing flood danger. Perhaps those proponents are not aware of just how much gentrification has taken place here as a result of the Page Mill Properties fiasco that ousted many historical residents and replaced them increasingly with Stanford post-grads and techies. Preference for Alternative Alternative 4 100 Rappaport Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the Sept. 3, 2015 meeting regarding the Newell Rd. bridge, but I wanted to get you my comments on the Notice about the meeting dated Aug. 12, 2015. Attached are my comments on the Notice. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 2.c Packet Pg. 87 101 Rappaport At the last community meeting a couple of months ago, the City staff admitted that to make the bridge more capable of withstanding possible concerns about flooding would not require the bridge to necessarily be made wider. This community DOES NOT WANT A WIDER BRIDGE. THAT SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR FROM EVERY COMMUNITY MEETING HELD OVER THE LAST 2 YRS. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1 102 Rappaport Crescent Park clearly does not want more traffic through its streets, an increase in traffic using Newell Rd. or increase in vehicle speed on Newell Rd. These problems of an expanded bridge create more safety, congestion, and speed problems than is warranted when the main reason for considering a new bridge is possible flooding concerns. Pedestrians and bikers, as well as car drivers realize that caution must be used when crossing the bridge. This is why the current safety record for all traffic on the bridge has been so good. You must understand that the Crescent Park neighborhood does not want the character and peacefulness of this community negatively impacted by a much wider bridge. The flooding concerns can be dealt with without building a considerably wider bridge, which the City admitted at the last meeting. Traffic and Transportation Existing and projected traffic, speed, and driving behaviors 103 Rappaport These statements are mischaracterizations as the existing bridge does safely accommodate two way traffic which will not be true if a much wider bridge is built. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic will ignore the caution that has been exercised for so many years and the general neighborhood traffic and pedestrian safety will be lost. Purpose and Need Traffic accident/issue data for existing bridge 104 Smith J I highly recommend option one or two as I think it would tend to slow the traffic. A light at the bridge is probably the safest alternative. Cars travelling down Hamilton and Newell already speed through the neighborhoods. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1 and 2 2.c Packet Pg. 88 105 Smith W I live at 25 Newell Rd in EPA. I wish to reiterate that Alternative 4 is the design that makes the most sense, is the safest and will actually make it easier to mitigate the assumed racing traffic down Newell. As it is now there are blind corners and since people can't see if there is someone coming from PA and is on the bridge, traffic coming from University down Woodland don't really stop but come on through and may or may not stop and allow someone on the bridge to complete their crossing before they begin their crossing on the bridge. Although it may be true that there have been few accidents it is only out of sheer fear of hitting someone or being hit that people may come to a stop and allow the pushy one to come on through. Sight lines are important and being able to see all 4 stops, all four drivers and make eye contact, allows for deciding if that other person who may have gotten to their stop sign after you got to yours is really going to stop. This Newell Rd issue has not been created in any other area of PA that I know of so it should be made standard for a 4 way stop ‐ clear sight lines makes for a safer bridge and crossing. That in itself will provide traffic calming. The bridge needs to be fully functional. Two lanes of traffic with standard widths for school buses (who use this bridge every day) to fire trucks to ambulances to garbage trucks and other wide loads such as UPS. Two bike lanes, one for each direction and two sidewalks for the same. And I liked the very early on drawing that included lamp posts and bump outs with benches for viewing the creek. Preference for Alternative Alternative 4 2.c Packet Pg. 89 106 Smith W I would also like to have my question answered regarding the traffic calming effects, if any, of the 3 sets of stop signs between the bridge with Edgewood, Hamilton and Dana having 4 way stops. I would like to know if there has been a study done. I am sure there was a study done before the signs went in and perhaps there can be a comparison. If there are reports of continued speeding and running of the stop signs then perhaps more police presence is required. I do see them sitting off to the sides on Hamilton and Dana and I do see them stopping people. But I have also observed cars rolling through the signs and then turning onto Dana, Hamilton or Edgewood so the complaint could go both ways. It is not just EPA people that some are claiming speed down Newell and put their children in danger of death. Residents need to contact the police with any infractions they observe including a license plate number and car description if possible. Traffic and Transportation Existing and projected traffic, speed, and driving behaviors 2.c Packet Pg. 90 107 Smith W When I lived on Yale street in College Terrace and we wanted traffic calming and circles and other ways to keep people from cutting through to avoid the lights at Cambridge, California and Page Mill and entering CT at College and then turning left onto Yale, we had to do volunteer, on‐the‐sidewalk observations with clip boards and writing down license plate numbers to see who was coming down the street (sometimes at 45 miles an hour) and turning at the above streets. We presented these plate numbers to the PA police (all this was at their suggestion) so they could trace the resident addresses of the car owners to see how much outside traffic was using Yale St. It was a real eye opener. And College Terrace got their traffic calming and parking permits to keep mostly Stanford students and employees from parking all day on the streets. I wonder if the people in Crescent Park could do the same? Get together in teams, get out a lawn chair, a clip board, a hat and some sunscreen and chose an intersection with stop signs ‐ Dana, Hamilton, Edgewood, Newell Bridge ‐ and begin recording all the people who speed through the stop sign intersections, who do rolling stops or not yield the right away to their fellow intersection stoppers as they bolt ahead of someone who may have been there first. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 108 Smith W I feel that the Crescent Park folks are wanting to block a safe Newell Rd bridge claiming that the speeding and stop‐sign running is terrible now and will only get worse with a fully aligned bridge. I would like them to help in proving that it is bad now. They got their stop signs when they asked, now I would like them to help prove that they have not worked or take it as the truth that the stop signs have in fact helped to calm traffic. This bridge is used every day by many people on both sides of it. Let's make it safe for everyone. And we provide full drainage in this area of the fully running creek. Thanks for taking my comments. Purpose and Need Traffic accident/issue data for existing bridge 2.c Packet Pg. 91 109 Stauffer It is nice to see some small progress in moving forward to solve the flooding problem on the San Francisquito Creek. However, it is most disappointing to see the date for protecting the Crescent Park area moving out toward 2020. As we all know, the "choke" point in the creek is the Chaucer-Street Bridge. With such a huge potential monetary damage at risk, it would seem that something could be done to move faster in solving this problem which ultimately requires replacement of the Chaucer Street Bridge. Project Description Relation to Chaucer Street Bridge 110 Thompson G I live on Newell Road (since 1976). The traffic the past 5 years has increased exponentially. In addition, the speeds have increased and several cars each day slow very little for stop signs. This route is extensively used by school children on bicycles. Putting in a bridge option that would further encourage more traffic and speed would be to the strong detriment of local residents on both sides of the bridge. Traffic and Transportation Pedestrian and bicycle safety 111 Thompson G I have followed the traffic several times and most of it is merely a shortcut for out-of-area commuters. Instead, they could continue on Embarcadero/101 and maybe take a few seconds longer. Please DO NOT make the problem worse. I cannot believe the EPA residents between Woodland and 101 are not experiencing similar traffic issues, especially the homeowners there. Traffic and Transportation Source of trips and trip generation 112 Thompson G One-lane is adequate for EPA and PA homeowners. We owe the out- of-area commuters nothing! Preference for Alternative Alternative 1 113 Thompson M I am strongly in favor of keeping the existing alignment of Newell Road. It is a speed deterrent. I live on Newell, and the traffic has increased during commute time! We have lived on Newell for 40 yrs. There has never been an accident. Cars have to slow down which helps reduce commuters who race through residential streets to get to Newell. What make me angry is that nothing has happened in 18 yrs. to avoid flooding!! All that's happened are meetings and paid consultants. Alternative 1 would help to mitigate traffic at commute time. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1 114 Wee As a resident in the area, I wish to convey my choice on the Newell bridge to consist of only one lane please. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1 2.c Packet Pg. 92 115 Wegbreit I have lived at the corner of Dana Avenue and Newell for nearly forty three years and have seen enormous changes in traffic. I am very concerned about the chance that a new wider bridge will bring even more traffic to an already overly busy street. When we first moved to Palo Alto we had three young children. They all had friends on the other side of Dana and rode their bikes or walked across Newell to friends on the other side of Dana. If I had young children today, I would never permit them to do so. The cross-Dana traffic is hazardous. I frequently walk downtown or to the Main Library and am greatly disturbed by the sight of cars driving from Channing toward the bridge at excessive rates of speed. The Newell corridor is important to our city because it is the gateway to Duveneck School, the Main Library, the Arts Center, the Children's Library and Children's Theater. These are the institutions that drew our family to Palo Alto. Access to them must be protected by insuring the safety of the Newell Corridor. Its is barely safe now and I am deeply concerned about the new wider bridge options. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1 116 Wiley Since the proposed Newell Bridge (and the proposed 900' of channel widening) is an integral part of the SFCJPA's long-term plans to achieve 1% flood protection, and since the new program EIR for the reach between the University Avenue Bridge and Highway 101 that includes the Newell Street Bridge has not started yet, please include an analyses of the bridge size, height and design environmental impacts of all recently (2010- 2015) SCVWD and SFCJPA proposed 1% flood flow solutions in the Newell Bridge area. Specifically include the SCVWD and SFCJPA proposed plans to A. Achieve 1% protection by floodwalls between University Avenue Bridge and Highway 101. B. Achieve 1% protection by box culverts under Woodland Avenue between University Avenue Bridge and Highway 101. C. Achieve 1% protection by upstream diversion (multiple proposals) D. Achieve 1% protection by upstream detention (multiple proposals, including the hole in Searsville Dam) E. Achieve 1% protection by C. and D. Cumulative Impacts SFCJPA projects 2.c Packet Pg. 93 117 Wiley Since this EIR will most likely be running concurrent with the new program EIR for the reach between the University Avenue Bridge and Highway 101 that includes the Newell Street Bridge, please include full analysis of all the solutions to achieve 1% protection proposed in the new EIR as it is finalized. In addition, please include the impact of the approximate 10% reduction in the 1% flow that the SCVWD staff, the SFCJPA staff and the ACE staff are currently anticipating. Cumulative Impacts SFCJPA projects 118 Wiley Finally, it is highly unlikely that residents of Palo Alto and Menlo Park will accept floodwalls between University Avenue and Middlefield Road. Please analyze in detail the impacts on bridge size, height and design if 1% protection is to be achieved without any floodwalls between University Avenue and Middlefield Road. Project Description Flood walls 119 Hallberg Thanks so much. I don't have any particular on the—I don't know about the environmental report and what needs to be done here. Just a general comment, and I haven't attended the other meetings that have happened on this topic. My house was flooded in '98. It's been a lot of years since then. It just worries me that I—it just seems that it takes a longer, it's incredible. I mean in that period that we've all lived in Palo Alto, the Bay Bridge got changed, right? We all saw that happen, right? This is a little Podunk bridge in a town of 50,000 people, and it's taken that long to do this. Just my view is compared to the danger we all face from this creek flooding, I frankly don't care what kind of a bridge we put in there. I live in the neighborhood, and I know we deal with parking issues and we've got another solution for that now. My only comment is let's do it. I don't even know how we're going to decide on this thing and when it's going to happen. Every meeting I've gone to, it has gone from 2014 to 2015, and now I'm seeing 2017. Of course, we're all panicking because we know about El Nino. So that's just my worry. Just do it, that would be my comment. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1, 2, 3, and 4 2.c Packet Pg. 94 120 Wiley Hi, I'm Jim Wiley. I'm a creek-side resident. I live in Menlo Park, just downstream from the Pope-Chaucer Bridge. I wanted to talk a little bit about the flood-related issues related to this creek. This bridge project is being designed with the assumption that a flood wall system is going to be installed eventually to protect against the 1 percent flood upstream from University Avenue up in the direction of Middlefield. The flood wall, for example, that was proposed to be put in at the Pope-Chaucer Bridge would have been 6, 7 or 8 feet tall. You can imagine that that doesn't do much good for the environment of the creek. In fact, it would require removing all of the creek side trees, because you can't have trees near a flood wall because it undermines the flood wall. This has created quite an uproar in the community. Basically flood walls have been named as a non-starter, yet this bridge is still being designed as if the flood walls are going to happen. If the flood walls aren't going to happen, and I don't think they ever will, this bridge can be substantially smaller. You may not have to strip 900 feet of creek bank out and remove all those trees and put in vertical walls on the edge of the creek. In fact, the existing bridge alternative of do nothing may be fine if the alternative to the flood walls to solve the 1 percent flooding is upstream diversion or upstream detention. Those options are entirely viable and are being studied by a separate EIR by the JPA. In that case, you don't have to replace the bridge for flooding reasons. Now, there's other reasons you might want to replace a 103-year-old bridge, but flooding is not the reason, if flood walls aren't going to happen. Thank you. Purpose and Need Flooding 2.c Packet Pg. 95 121 Pan Hi, everybody. My name is Mike Pan. I'm the close family friend for Mr. Yang Shen. We just recently acquired the property literally right next to the bridge, 1499 Edgewood. Our main concern, obviously it's good to prevent flood for everybody. At same time, if you're going to align the road to East Palo Alto, our main concern is really safety. Right now, one reason we bought the property is that it's really a deter for people running stop signs or whatnot. If we can use the existing, just put up some street lights, even better, right? Cheaper. If we're not going to do the flood walls, then why spend money on something that we don't really need? There's people that mentioned about safety that right now even though you have a stop sign, people are still going to run the stop sign. Because there's not a straight shot, right, it's already deterring that. Worst case scenario, if we're willing to build something, maybe we can consider the first one. We agree. Some of our neighbors will talk about it is safety is our Number 1 concern. We have children, little children, live at the property. There's a lot of children around Crescent Park area. Not increasing the speed, maintaining a controlled environment, I think is our key and also save money on the long-terms. That's it. Thank you. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1 122 Kelly Hi. My name's Doug Kelly. I live at 1535 Edgewood, which is about a block away from the bridge. I've got a couple of concerns. I too have a family with little kids, 10, 7 and 4. People, they already run stop signs in my neighborhood. I've never seen anybody stop for any of the stop signs in my neighborhood. I'm worried that a straight shot through the neighborhood just is going to make traffic unbearable. I'm really worried that anything other than a one-lane bridge is really going to change the character of our neighborhood. I moved in the neighborhood three years ago from Old Palo Alto, because you get a nicer piece of property and it's a quieter neighborhood. I really like it, and I love my neighbors, and I want to see them stay. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1 2.c Packet Pg. 96 123 Kelly Here are my concerns that I think the EIR, environmental impact statement should address. I like the blind nature of the existing bridge, because it really is a natural break to traffic. You're suicidal if you do anything but a crawl over that bridge, and that's a good thing in my mind. I use that bridge twice a day every day. I know what I speak about. I've never seen an accident on the bridge; I've never seen a pedestrian hit on the bridge, because everybody is cautious. That's not a bad thing. I really think the traffic speed is a giant issue for us in the neighborhood. I think anything other than a crawl through that corridor is going to completely change the traffic, and we'll see people offloading from Hamilton trying to bypass University Avenue and drastically increase traffic through our neighborhood. The issue we have with people not stopping now is going to get worse. I'm just worried one of my kids is going to get hit. Traffic and Transportation Existing and projected traffic, speed, and driving behaviors 124 Kelly I also worry about crime in the neighborhood. There's been crime in my neighborhood before. My house has been broken into. I know from talking to police officers from the Palo Alto Police Department that in Old Palo Alto the crime was really directly proportional to how close you were to Oregon Expressway, because it's a great escape route. I do not want a fast-access escape route from my neighborhood. I'd like it slow and crawl, and that's why the crime rate we have is what it is. Community Impacts Crime 125 Kelly Noise is already an issue on Edgewood, and it's an issue over on Woodland as well. I worry that people kind of racing to make a light, and I see that after they get over the bridge, once they get on Newell, it's like a drag strip. Noise and Vibration Noise impacts from increased traffic 126 Kelly They have their own issues in East Palo Alto, because there's lots of little kids over there too. Again, I just think anything other than something that maintains the existing angle and keeps it at a crawl is really, really bad for the neighborhood. That's the extent of my comments. Those are things I'd like to see focused on in the environmental impact statement. Thank you. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1 2.c Packet Pg. 97 127 Smith W Hi. I live in East Palo Alto. As a result of some of the traffic calming requests before, two more stop signs have been put in on Newell in Palo Alto. Months ago I sent a note to someone here at City Hall and asked if somebody had done a traffic study as to whether or not those stop signs were working, if there was traffic calming. I'd like to know if that can be done regarding this environmental impact statement. I think that's a key component, because I hear everybody saying everybody's running stop signs. If you observe that and that is the case, then you need to complain to the police department so that they can provide more. I see them ticketing; I seem them hiding at intersections and waiting for people to do those slow roll through the stop sign. What kind of effect has this had? I think this would have an effect on the EIS as well. Traffic and Transportation Existing and projected traffic, speed, and driving behaviors 128 Smith W Also, I am in favor of full alignment, because I think visual sight lines for stopping at an intersection is primary. Not continuing to have sight lines that are around corners, that don't give you a clear view of who's coming, who is going to run that stop sign that you can't see as you stop and then pull out into the intersection assuming that someone else has stopped and they're not going to because you can't see them to judge your own procedure through the intersection. That's my comment about what I think would be the safest thing, then you do traffic control for an aligned intersection and maintain that traffic control. Preference for Alternative Alternative 4 2.c Packet Pg. 98 129 Fisher Hi, Kevin Fisher. I live on Alester Avenue in Palo Alto. My house was flooded in '98. It was a traumatic event for my family and for all the others who experienced that. It's frustrating that almost 20 years on we really haven't done anything yet, and it's going to be at least 20 years from the flood until the first shovel full of dirt is turned over for this bridge. I do appreciate that we're focusing on solving the problem one step at a time. I think for the first ten years there was the idea about this grand plan and let's get $100 million and do a big project. This feels like the right approach; solve it one step at a time. This is a complicated problem, but at least right now we're talking about one bridge. I'm discouraged to hear the gentleman on the Menlo Park side trying to drag this one project into the overall morass of flood walls, upstream detention. Let's focus one step at a time. Little by little, we're going to solve this problem, but not if we turn it into a big circus involving 50 extraneous factors. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1, 2, 3, and 4 130 Huerta Bernardo Huerta from East Palo Alto, California. What I would like to see, I mean, East Palo Alto would be impacted if you were to widen the creek. Most East Palo Alto residents would not be for impacting the parking in East Palo Alto. Just that retaining walls or flood walls be the same height on both sides of the creek. I noticed that on the Palo Alto side there's a lot of cement block fences that would retain more water. If it were ever to flood, even though we fix it, it would flood in East Palo Alto. I'd like this environmental impact to look at that. If it floods, it floods on both sides, not just in East Palo Alto. I'd like to see, yes, that these meetings be also held in East Palo Alto. There's only very few East Palo Alto residents here. We want equal access, so please have your meetings also in East Palo Alto and sit down with us. Thank you. Project Description Creek widening 2.c Packet Pg. 99 131 Fisk Yes, my name is Bob Allen, and I've lived within 300 feet of the creek for the last 30 years. I even lived within that same period of time north of University in Menlo Park next to the creek. First of all, I'd like to thank the City of East Palo Alto for being so generous to the children of East Palo Alto. East Palo Alto children who live within 300 feet or even more of the creek are allowed to use the parks that are on Channing, the children's parks. They're allowed to use the library. That being said, the safety of the East Palo Alto children going across that bridge is paramount. The wider bridge with the sidewalks are really good for the children of East Palo Alto and for their safety. I heard in the presentation a comment that—I think it was from you, Joel—that the Santa Clara Valley Water District has suggested the bridge can be lowered in its height. I'd like to hear a little bit more about that if you can later. I would like to see the bridge fully aligned with the East Palo Alto side of Newell Road. It gives the best chance to see traffic coming along Woodland Avenue. Right now, when I'm coming from the library in Palo Alto and cross the bridge, I stop right at the bridge and then I ease about a few feet ahead and then look over to the north to see if there's a car at the stop sign. That's a problem that the fully aligned bridge would eliminate that. Preference for Alternative Alternative 4 132 Fisk The other thing—and I think this is the responsibility of Palo Alto to pursue—is that a few owners ago, like three or four, of the property that we heard about from the gentleman that commented first moved the alignment of that fence to align it with Newell Road and not with the actual property line, which I think the City of East Palo Alto regardless of the alignment of the bridge should take back that land grab from 20 years ago, because that's really the case there and have the current owners move the fence and re-landscape the portion of the corner so that that isn't going to cause a time delay when the ground is struck to build this bridge in two or three years. Thank you very much. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 2.c Packet Pg. 100 133 Dinwiddie Thank you. My husband and I have lived in the neighborhood for 52 years now, so we've been there for a long time. It's a wonderful neighborhood, and we love it. We have two concerns. Can you hear me? Okay. Of course, we're concerned about flood, but I do want to point out the irony in the '98 flood was for our side of the creek, the Palo Alto side. The water that came down, came down a river on Hamilton, and it actually came from where the creek hits the Chaucer-Pope Street Bridge. Now, what came over on the other side, I realize, but I understand the reason it didn't come from where our bridge is, onto those properties on Edgewood, is because actually it's higher, the land is just higher there. Purpose and Need Flooding 134 Dinwiddie My biggest concern is traffic. We walk our dog all the time; we're always in that area. It's an area where people walk a lot; it's an area that has a lot of children, and it's an area that has a lot of elderly people like me, because we love it and we've lived there for a long time. I am concerned about the traffic. I think that the aligning the bridge is going to make a much bigger problem than we have now. What happens is people don't go very fast. That's the one stop sign we can be sure cars are going to stop at, because they have to kind of slow down before they come over that bridge and then they really do stop. I do think it's important to have a pedestrian pathway or two, because of children and of bicycles. I really urge you to take into the account the traffic. We're getting more traffic all the time, and it does become a safety issue. Thank you. Traffic and Transportation Pedestrian and bicycle safety 2.c Packet Pg. 101 135 Mulvey Thank you. My name is Trish Mulvey. I've lived close to the creek since about 1951, when I was 8. I went away to college, so I was gone for a while. Anyway, a couple of thoughts. First, I would really like consideration of the opportunity for a separated bike lane. East Palo Alto is in the process of getting ready to construct a bike and pedestrian overcrossing over 101 from their end of Newell, that ends at 101 by the 7/11, from there over to the other side. The opportunity to do the kinds of things about building cross-community neighborhoods with more bike and pedestrian access, I think, is truly exciting, but I want to make sure when they get to the Newell Road Bridge, that the bikes and pedestrians have a safe environment. Project Design Considerations Separate bike lanes 136 Mulvey I really like what Kamal said about calling it Friendship Bridge 2. I've been thinking about it as Good Neighbor Bridge 1. Whatever we call it, I would really like to see design elements that allow in particularly the bike and pedestrian area for people to have a way to pause and enjoy just being by the creek. On the Palo Alto side, as you know, you can't really—the houses back up to the creek, so people don't have visual access. On the East Palo Alto side, the existing flood walls are high enough that you can't see the creek. The only opportunity to really know that there's a real natural creek there is when you're crossing the bridge. I'd like to see that recognized and celebrated. Aesthetics Visual impact of Project on natural creek 137 Mulvey My last question, with the addition of the Water District request to make those channel modifications, this has fundamentally, I think, changed the relationship of this environmental review process beyond just the bridge to in some fashion either duplicating or potentially threats of piecemealing the EIR process that the Joint Powers Authority has underway. I'd like the documentation and descriptions in future meetings to be able to be clear and explain why this is an okay approach since, as a couple of speakers have said starting with Mr. Wiley, the decisions that are being made about that downstream alignment and widening are fundamental to the overall JPA project. Thank you. Project Description Independent utility 2.c Packet Pg. 102 138 Barlevy My name is Al Barlevy. I live in East Palo Alto, actually closer to the Dumbarton Bridge than this bridge in question. Nonetheless, I do use this bridge, so I am a stakeholder. I definitely understand the concern of the residents of Palo Alto that you want to make sure that you don't get additional traffic, because you want to keep a quiet neighborhood. I don't believe that keeping a bottleneck bridge is the right approach. There's definitely other measures like a lot of stop signs, stop lights, speed bumps. The bridge is just dangerous in my opinion. Let's remember that when it was built 103 years ago, cars were called horseless buggies because most of the vehicles were horse carriages that were crossing the bridge. It's just not appropriate for today. We definitely need to replace that bridge, even if there was no issue with flooding. The bridge would have to be replaced just because you would never design such a bridge today. We don't have horseless buggies anymore. Finally, what I want to say is that it's important to keep in mind that the bridge is for not just cars but also for bicycles and pedestrians, as was said. We really have to make sure that it's the right bridge. The way the current alignment is, I don't know the history of the neighborhood, whether one side of Newell was built after the others, but it just looks like it's a (inaudible) the way that the alignment is. I think anything less than a full realignment doesn't make sense. Since we have to tear down the bridge anyway, we're not going to modify the bridge, we're tear it down, might as well make it right this time. Preference for Alternative Alternative 4 2.c Packet Pg. 103 139 Neff I'm Robert Neff. I've been across the bridge a few times. I live across town; I'm on the Bike Advisory Committee. I wanted to say I hope the EIR will consider traffic calming techniques to reduce the average speeds on Newell. Actually the bridge as it is, 18-foot wide, creates calm traffic because it's so narrow. That actually makes it quite safe. Not so good for pedestrians, but it's safe. The traffic has to go slow, so you end up with slow speeds and it's safer. If we replace that with 14-foot wide shared lanes for bikes and cars, for the cars it will look like a 14-foot wide lane which looks like a lane on El Camino Real. People, when they see wide lanes, they think that they might as well just drive fast. Even with the stop signs, the 14-foot wide lane and the improved grading will tend to make people drive much more quickly. I hope the EIR will consider ways you could redesign the roadway that would reduce speeds and that would be part of the process. For example, if you put in bike lanes that are 5-foot wide and then give yourself only 9-foot wide lanes to go across the bridge, that will tend to slow people down. If you take out the center line, then people think they should be driving near the middle, and then the oncoming cars becomes something that will slow people down as well. There are techniques you can use and, of course, we can always put in speed bumps. There are techniques you can use that would make the bridge look narrower and look slower and make people think, "Well, I shouldn't be driving so fast on this road. It looks a little bit tight." Project Description Traffic calming measures 140 Hammer Hi, I'm Xenia Hammer and live in Palo Alto. Several people mentioned the need for careful consideration of traffic. I certainly agree with that, to include traffic calming measures in consideration for this project. Project Description Traffic calming measures 2.c Packet Pg. 104 141 Hammer An earlier speaker also mentioned an issue of flood walls. I was really confused by that, because flood walls are not part of this project. There's no flood walls involved here. Moreover, as I understand from the work that the JPA is doing on other parts of the creek, you can get a tremendous amount of flood protection with no flood walls, and you can get hundred-year flood protection with other measures, such as upstream detention. I don't think flood walls is at all any kind of a relevant part of this project. I don't know—Len, do you want to add anything to that? I don't know if it's an appropriate time. Project Description Flood walls 142 Ball Ben Ball, lived on Edgewood Drive for the last 20 years, have raised half my family and still have two kids at home that we are raising. A couple of things specifically on the scoping of the project. Myself and several other of my neighbors have attended the East Palo Alto, in East Palo Alto. I'm sympathetic to your comments about sharing location for meetings, but spent a lot of time in East Palo Alto at their 30-year planning process, which has developed over the long course of our little bridge. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 143 Ball Sadly and against the wishes of myself and many of the other Palo Alto residents, East Palo Alto has approved zoning in that area immediately adjacent on the other side of the bridge for eight-story multiuse development which will have a massive increase in traffic. The scoping of the EIR absolutely needs to address East Palo Alto's long-term plan specifically for that area. When this process started, we were told that we were crazy to assume that anything like that would ever happen, and lo and behold it's already been approved from a zoning perspective. The report absolutely needs to take into account that. Cumulative Impacts East Palo Alto General Plan 2.c Packet Pg. 105 144 Ball A primary concern for me with small children is Newell Road on both sides of the creek is a Safe Route to School, and so we need to address the traffic impacts of that. I could not disagree more with those who think that realigning the bridge is a good idea. It's an absolute disaster waiting to happen, because children will be killed. I run on that street, on Edgewood and Newell, every day. Every day there's cars going through that, and that's with no ability to start and ramp quickly with speed. Traffic and Transportation Pedestrian and bicycle safety 145 Ball While perhaps ugly to some, it is a natural governor, both the width of the current bridge as well as the alignment of the current bridge. That needs to remain, because that is the best traffic calming measure that we possibly have. In terms of those, I just want to make sure, yourself and others have intimated that this bridge isn't safe. By the City's own traffic statistics, there have been no vehicular accidents, no pedestrian accidents, and no bicycle accidents on the current bridge. It would be helpful when you refer to safety and those types of issues, that you cite the actual statistics, so people can draw their own conclusions from the data. Purpose and Need Traffic accident/issue data for existing bridge 146 Ball Finally, in the EIR please address the full width. I find your depiction of the bridge misleading unless you get out a ruler and try to do it. The current bridge is about 20 feet wide outer edge to outer edge. When you're talking about the proposed super bridges that you've got in there, 14 feet width is just for the car traffic. You also have said in the past that you have to have room for both bike lanes which would be additive to that as well as the pedestrian walkways which would be additive to that. You're talking about more than a doubling of the width of the current bridge. All of that data needs to be accurately forecast. Project Description Bridge width 2.c Packet Pg. 106 147 Ball Sorry, I said final, one other thing. I was assuming that the flooding issue was created by the buttresses in the bridge. Can the impact report address no increase in height, but simply removing the buttresses so that we're not necessarily trying to solve for a one-year flood, which is an artificial thing. Len, I'd be interested to hear because solving for one-year floods, I'm completely on the same page as Jim Wiley. It will mandate flood walls being upstream and downstream, because the natural creek is not big enough to support a one-year event. If you raise the bridges and that is no longer a choke point, there are going to be other choke points unless you build flood walls. This EIR should address don't increase the height of the bridge to assess the impact of flooding in that situation. Thank you. Project Description Bridge height 148 Wong Thank you. I live on Palo Alto Avenue near the Pope Street Bridge or Chaucer Bridge. I hear your concerns, everybody's concerns about not flooding and not having a lot of fast-moving traffic. I think that the gentleman who talked about traffic calming, maybe we could make the lanes narrow for the cars and have a separated area for the bikes. We're in the 21st century, and we have too many cars. We actually should be encouraging people to ride their bikes. Now, I would ride my bike a lot more than I do, except I am petrified on most of the streets where you cannot ride a bike. You should be able to ride a bike safely. Yes, we should not give so much room to the cars. Make them slow down, but that doesn't mean we should suffer and not have bike lanes and not have a nice bridge. Project Description Traffic calming measures 149 Wong In terms of worrying about flood walls, the lady, Ms. Hammer, talked about don't worry about the flood walls; there aren't going to be any. There might be, and I am very concerned there might be because it's across the street from my house. I actually sent in a letter to the Joint Powers to make my suggestions on how to avoid flood walls and how to make this. Basically I think it's important that this be considered in its entirety; the bridge over there and the bridge over here. What happens at the bridge at Chaucer does impact, because a lot of people are not going to want flood walls. If you don't have flood walls, how are you going to deal with it? Project Description Flood walls 2.c Packet Pg. 107 150 Wong I hear you say, "Oh, we can lower the bridge here." I wouldn't do that; I would make it as high as possible because that is the reason we are in trouble. Somebody way back decided to make a perfectly level, a lovely bridge, into a arched bridge, so they narrowed the bridge because it was artistic. That is why we got into this problem. Because they didn't have the foresight to say, "Well, if we make it artistic like a lovely European bridge and nice tunnel under the bridge that there would be flooding problems later on." I would not be narrow and short-sighted and say, "Let's make the bridge low," because you never know. I would make it as nice as you can, but don't lower it. Project Description Bridge height 2.c Packet Pg. 108 ATTACHMENT D Project Plans and Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Due to the current Shelter in Place, these plans and environmental documents are only available to the public online. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll to find “Newell Road Bridge” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the Project Plans; EIR/EA, including responses to comments on the Draft EIR/EA; Technical Reports and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: Cityofpaloalto.org/Newell 2.d Packet Pg. 109 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11115) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/7/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3215 Porter Drive: New Office/R&D Building (2nd Hearing) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3215 Porter Drive [19PLN- 00237]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow Construction of a new 22,029 Square Foot Office/ R&D Building. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Comment From April 10, 2020 to May 11, 2020. Zoning District: RP (Research Park). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Garrett Sauls at garrett.sauls@cityofpaloalto.org. 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 Development Services (PDS) based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The ARB previously reviewed the subject project on January 16, 2020. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online: https://bit.ly/35hsUDa. The purpose of this report is to restate the ARB’s comments and describe the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and notes the recent project changes. Background On January 16, 2020 the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the ARB’s meeting is available online: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-1162020/. There 3 Packet Pg. 110 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 were no speakers addressing the ARB for the item. The ARB’s comments and the applicant’s responses are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Landscape – Include the proposed potted trees, as shown on the rendering, throughout the plan set. The Oak tree located along the front, left-hand side may be better located along the righthand side of the new driveway to provide visual scale between sites and continuity of tree streetscape along Porter Drive. Clematis lasiantha species can look dead during certain periods of the year and doesn’t work well on green screens/mesh panel – recommend a different species. Valley Oak and trees along rear garage ramp does not appear to have enough soil volume to thrive. Ground level planter pots along rear side of building could get trampled and should be changed/removed. • Potted plants are now shown on landscape and site plans as well as on renderings. • The applicant studied tree relocation, but wants to keep the northern frontage open, to provide a welcoming and prominent relationship with the intersection. Additional trees are proposed along the driveway at front to provide an additional buffer to the substation side of site. • Clematis lasiantha has been removed. • Sheet L1.15 includes a detail and documentation of soil volumes for trees planted above/near garage and curb alignment adjustment provides more room for trees. • Ground level planter pots have been replaced with a raised planter to prevent trampling. Architectural Details/Elements – Need additional details for the entry canopy, louver attachments, bike channel, and standing seam metal to show that corners properly hide interior workings of siding. Consider using different siding on the ground floor to highlight/accentuate top floor. Rear stair is not of high quality and does not connect to building materials as well as other elements of building. Ground floor stair near front of building should be relocated/integrated better with design. Transformer should be screened with enclosure. • Additional details on sheets A2.13 & A2.14 show the requested information. • Incorporated use of a gray accent metal at the lower level to create banding, break up silver corrugated panels, and emphasize the 12-foot datum running around the building to delineate upper and lower levels. • Rear balcony has glass guardrail to match front balcony and create more cohesion in design. • The applicant would prefer to leave the front staircase in its current location. If moved, the other corner would become too congested and create unnecessary pinch points 3 Packet Pg. 111 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 with the bike racks and building. The original location provides more space around the staircase, building, and landscaping that better facilitates movement. Opening/Windows – Windows/doorframes should go all the way up to the soffits on ground floor. • All elevation drawings and renderings have been updated to show metal and glass door frames extending to the soffits above. Lighting – Too much lighting on site and should reduce the number of pedestrian pole lights (14-foot height). There should not be lighting around the planter bed wall along the garage. Consider use of step lighting. • Overall, the use of taller light fixtures has been reduced throughout the site. The applicant does not wish to include up-lighting or step lighting due to long term maintenance costs. First Floor structure – Ensure no significant changes will be needed on the first-floor front facade to meet structural requirements. • Applicant has worked closely with structural engineers on the design to ensure last minute changes are not necessary to support the proposal. The lateral resistive elements are moment frames (no shear walls or diagonal brace frames are proposed). Organization of Uses – The café and bike repair store should be in closer proximity to each other. • The location of the café has shifted from the southwest corner to the southeast corner to be closer to the more active uses on the property including the bike shop and outdoor gathering space. Analysis1 Staff finds the proposed project plans adequately address ARB and staff comments stated during the January 16th hearing. An analysis of the project with respect to the findings for approval is included in Attachment C. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 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. 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 Packet Pg. 112 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations. City staff uses its policies to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires development design to be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Research/Office Park, with a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) range of 0.3 to 0.5, depending on site conditions. The project gross floor area (GFA) is 22,029 square feet, where a maximum 29,098 square feet of GFA is allowed. The proposed GFA on this 1.7 acre site complies with the intended research park FAR of 0.3:1 for the project site. On balance, the project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan as well. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment C. Zoning Compliance3 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards is provided in the Attachment E table. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Environmental Review The subject project was assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s environmental regulations. A Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND, Attachment F) were prepared pursuant to CEQA. The Draft IS/MND was published and circulated for public comments beginning April 10, 2020. The comment period ends May 11, 2020. Mitigation measures identified in the document have also been included in the Draft Conditions of Approval for the project. The CEQA analysis was prepared by the City’s consultant, David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. Overall, the City’s consultant found the project would not cause significant impacts outside of standard expectations for biological, cultural and paleontological resources. The impacts identified in the document relate to the potential for nesting birds and potential for the discovery of human or paleontological resources during construction. Transportation / Traffic The transportation analysis, prepared by Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants, describes the existing and generated traffic volumes and reviews the existing and proposed site ingress/egress and multi-modal access. The project does not trigger the need for street 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 Packet Pg. 113 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 improvements. As described in the project description (Attachment B), the applicant proposes to participate in the Stanford Research Park TMA program. Hazards / Contaminated Groundwater Additionally, the IS/MND discusses the potential for impacts from hazardous material handling and disposal of impacted soil, soil vapor, and groundwater. The site is on the Cortese list due to the site’s contaminated groundwater from trichloroethylene or TCE, primarily. The soil and the water aquifer at the site had been contaminated from HP’s past use of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at the site (@HP Building 15). Involvement by California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the state agency responsible for oversight, is cited in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.1. The measure requires the applicant to prepare and submit to the PDS Director and DTSC a site management plan and health safety plan before grading activity, to address the VOCs. The DTSC oversight of ongoing operation and maintenance includes activities such as continued groundwater extraction and treatment, groundwater monitoring and reporting. The measure also addresses protection or proper removal of the monitoring wells, referencing the Santa Clara County Water District’s permitting authority. Attachment D (draft approval conditions) addresses the Implementation of five mitigation measures and identify which party is responsible for oversight (see Exhibit A). Condition of Approval #12 is a standard condition addressing vapor intrusion requiring engineering solutions and coordination with various agencies. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on April 24, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on April 23, which is 14 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Garrett Sauls, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 114 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 (650) 329-2471 (650) 329-2575 Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B: Applicant's Project Description (PDF) • Attachment C: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX) • Attachment D: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX) • Attachment E: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) • Attachment F: Project Plans and Environmental Documents (DOCX) 3 Packet Pg. 115 319.7' 796.9' 396.3' 241.7' 379.9' 144.9' 46.6' 129.0' 382.7' 191.4' 383.3' 62.8' 329.5' 158.0' 360.3' 191.5' 77.5' 52.9' 62.8' 273.6' 360.3' 300.0'300.0' 15 21 8.4' 168.2' 158.0' 160.0' 198.0' 160.0' 198.0' 160.0' 198.0' 605.5' 382.7' 43.5' 3181 3221 3200 3 3350 3215 3183 3 2 0 1 HANOVER STREET HILLVIE W AVENUE PO RTE R D RIV E PORTER DRIVE PFHanover Substation This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Special Setback Frontages abc Building Roof Outline abc Lot Dimensions Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels Tree Current Features 0'91' 3215 Porter Drive CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto gsauls, 2020-01-08 08:50:58 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) RP 3.a Packet Pg. 116 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3215 Porter Drive, Stanford Research Park Major Architectural Review Submittal July 15, 2019 The proposed development at 3215 Porter Drive (“Site”) will entail the construction of a 21,933 gsf office building (“Project”) on a vacant parcel at the intersection of Porter Drive, Hillview Avenue and Hanover Street in Stanford Research Park (“SRP”). The Project at 3215 Porter serves Stanford Research Park’s mission by converting an underutilized site into the headquarters for the Stanford Research Park Transportation Management Association (“SRP TMA”) and office space for small start-ups and office users. STANFORD RESEARCH PARK MISSION Stanford Research Park is committed to supporting innovative companies in their research and development pursuits by providing modern facilities in a naturally landscaped setting, offering customized transportation and amenity programs, and fostering a sense of community for people who invent solutions to real-world challenges. OFFERING CUSTOMIZED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS To effectively fulfill its mission, Stanford University formed the Stanford Research Park Transportation Management Association, a consortium of SRP employers working together to privately fund and offer transportation programs tailored to the needs of 140 companies, employing approx. 29,000 employees working within the SRP. Together, we are addressing the challenges of reducing commute times and traffic congestion through a myriad of commuter-focused transportation programs, which we call “SRPGO.” For information about how SRP employees take advantage of SRPGO transportation programs, please refer to https://stanfordresearchpark.com/transportation. We believe it is important to share some background information on how transportation demand management (“TDM”) programming has evolved within the Stanford Research Park over the past few years. For more information about the SRP TMA and its achievements and progress to date, please refer to Exhibit 1. Alleviating congestion through TDM is a challenge that necessitates reducing employees’ reliance on single- occupancy vehicles (“SOV”). Behavioral change is especially difficult given the suburban location and 1950s auto- dominated land use pattern of Stanford Research Park. We are motivated to experiment with new programs and infrastructure investments in order to see our efforts produce results in reducing the SOV rate in SRP. Offering employees a convenient, cost-effective means to get to and from work in SRP requires a creative, nimble and adaptable strategy. Stanford has a unique opportunity to enhance its many TDM efforts with a creative programmatic approach at the 3215 Porter Drive Project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SRP TMA HEADQUARTERS & SMALL OFFICE SPACES FOR START-UPS The 3215 Porter Drive Project entails the construction of a 21,933 gsf office building on an unimproved lot that is located at the intersection of Hillview Avenue, Hanover Street and Porter Drive in Stanford Research Park. The intended program for the building is two-fold: a portion of the office building will serve as the headquarters for the Stanford Research Park Transportation Management Association, and a portion will offer office space for the small start-ups we desire – those focused on inventing solutions to real-world challenges – which otherwise struggle to find suitable space in SRP. The SRP TMA headquarters would be located in the heart of the Research Park along key transit, shuttle and bike routes and within walking distance of 8,000 employees. The Project is a logical location for the TMA office, as the Site is currently served by 5 public transit routes that serve Union City, Fremont, San Jose, Cupertino and Milpitas, plus 2 SRPGO-operated routes that serve San Francisco, Colma, San Jose and Santa Clara. The Site is also well served by 3 last-mile shuttle routes that provide connections between Caltrain (or nearby Caltrain stations) and worksites throughout SRP. 3.b Packet Pg. 117 2 With this unique Project, Stanford has the opportunity to design the building to serve as a physical focal point for services and programs that increase the convenience and appeal of transportation options in SRP. The building will house free bike maintenance and repair services, as well as do-it-yourself repair facilities, real-time transit information displays, and concierge service desk for personalized commute assistance. While a small portion of the office building will be utilized for the day-to-day operations of the SRP TMA, of equal importance is the goal to improve the Site in a way that attracts desirable start-up tenants and realizes the full potential of the property. Maximum flexibility is highly desired for small-scale start-ups and incubator businesses. Both the TMA and the small-scale office tenants at the Project align well with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (refer to Exhibit 2). If the TMA were ever to relocate from the building, its space would be occupied by small-scale office tenants. PROJECT METRICS The Project will entail the new construction of a stand-alone 21,933 gsf building on the Site, which comprises 1.671 acre (72,790 sf). The building will include 20,833 gsf (gross floor area) and 1,100 sf of traffic-mitigating amenity space that does not represent gross floor area. This new building reflects a floor area ratio of 0.29:1.0, which is 8,283 gsf less than the 29,116 gsf allowable (0.4:1.0) on the Site under the “RP” zoning. The new building will be configured as two stories above grade with a one-level parking garage below-grade, a necessity due to the small size of the parcel. EXISTING CONDITIONS The Site is located within the “RP” zone and is a relatively flat site at the intersection of Porter Drive, Hanover, and Hillview. The Site slopes very gradually up from Porter Drive toward the back of the site and adjacent property of 3181 Porter Drive. To the northeast side (Project north) of the Site is the City of Palo Alto Utilities Hanover Substation. At the west end of the Site, a ground water extraction treatment (“GWET”) facility is on the property and will remain. SITE PLAN Careful placement of the new building on the Site provides for a rational transition in scale, massing and visual experience in the context of the adjacent buildings and structures along Porter Drive. This infill development is compatible with its office/R&D surroundings by virtue of its site plan, setbacks and scale. The building is set at the 50’ setback of the Porter Drive side of the Site to engage pedestrians in a welcoming way on Porter Drive and at the intersection. A small landscape plaza with stormwater treatment areas is proposed as a buffer to the street and a gateway to pedestrian access. By situating the new building close to the entrance drive on the north side, the plan creates generous plaza and landscaping areas along the south and west sides of the building. On all sides other than the Porter Drive frontage, the above-grade portion of the building is set back well beyond the minimum setbacks for the RP district. The building’s small footprint achieves maximum functionality from the small-scale site while buffering the building from the adjacent Hanover substation and the GWET, both features that challenge and compromise the Site. SITE ACCESS, CIRCULATION AND PARKING The key goals of Site access and circulation include maximizing safety and convenience for pedestrians and bicyclists, providing rational and safe access for vehicles, and creating clear wayfinding to the main lobby and secondary entrances. The Site’s vehicular entrance aligns with Hillview Avenue across the intersection. The Site access was designed in order to provide safe and efficient vehicle circulation that minimizes potential conflicts between buses, shuttles, personal vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians. With this same goal in mind, the Project will include intersection improvements to maintain smooth operation of the Hanover and Hillview intersection. The intersection will be improved to provide crosswalks on all legs, and an on-site pedestrian path will be provided on the north side of the site connecting to the intersection. A pedestrian path is also provided along the north edge of the site. This path runs west from the Porter/Hillview/Hanover intersection, then turns south adjacent to the GWET facility to connect with the walkway on the 3181 Porter site. 3.b Packet Pg. 118 3 Visitor parking and garage access is situated toward the rear of the site and allows for periodic operational access required for the GWET. Vehicle parking is provided on the Site at the code-required ratio of 1:300, totaling 70 spaces for the new building, plus 4 spaces in landscape reserve. Of the 70 spaces, 38 will be located in the below- grade garage. The remaining 32 spaces will be provided in surface parking. A total of 8 electric vehicle charging spaces are provided, including 4 EV charging spaces in the underground parking garage and 4 in the visitor parking area at grade. Generously scaled plaza areas, extensive pedestrian walking paths, and natural and planned landscape areas are made possible by placing a significant portion of the parking in a below-grade garage. A total of 50 bicycle parking spaces are provided, including short-term surface parking for 40 bicycles and 10 long- term bike parking spaces in garage lockers. TDM & INTERSECTION OPERATIONS All tenants of the Project will be required to participate in Stanford’s TMA, which provides TDM programs for the entire SRP. In addition, as noted above, the Site is particularly well served by transit. Therefore, even if the TMA headquarters and services were not to be located on the Site, the Project would be able to meet the Comprehensive Plan goal of a 30% reduction in peak hour vehicle trips compared to ITE rates. Accordingly, although the Project is not required to submit a TDM plan to the City under PAMC § 18.52.030(i), Stanford is willing to commit to this 30% reduction and to monitor and report to the City regarding its results. Because ITE rates would indicate 48 AM peak hour and 27 PM peak hour trips, the Project would commit to achieving no more than 70% of that – 34 AM peak and 19 PM peak vehicle trips. Stanford is committed to reducing SOV trips in SRP and to making it easier and more convenient not to drive. An Intersection Operations Evaluation is being submitted with the Project application to address the Porter Drive/Hanover Street - Hillview Avenue intersection. Because this evaluation is intended to ensure that the intersection will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service with the Project, it uses highly conservative assumptions: ITE vehicle trip generation rates along with generous assumed bicycle and pedestrian activity at the intersection, which tends to slow vehicle traffic. The evaluation shows that the intersection would continue to operate at an acceptable level even without the TDM-based vehicle trip reduction effects described above. BUILDING DESIGN The key goals of the Project are to utilize scale and design elements that offer the Stanford Research Park community a welcoming building that is sophisticated and modern in its materials and details, as well as appropriate to the mission of Stanford Research Park. A contemporary gabled standing seam roof form gives the building a distinctive, open identity, which is the primary goal given this building will function as the TMA headquarters and office space for small start-ups. The profile also provides an appropriate scale, responding to the heights and position of nearby buildings along Porter Drive. The building further provides floor plates that allow for flexible office uses and configurations over time. The building reflects a high quality design due to its array of textures, colors and diverse material palette, including metal panels and wood soffits. Ample glazing invites participation and connection of the building’s users to the outdoors. The building optimizes daylight to the interior while minimizing the direct sunlight into the space. Southern, eastern and western window openings are protected with deep roof overhangs and horizontal sunshading elements. The design integrates high quality materials and rich textures that are compatible with the surrounding area. The building is primarily clad in metal panel rain screen cladding, high performance glazing systems, and horizontal sunshades and canopies. The glazing system serves to optimize natural lighting while maintaining an average 40% glazing ratio overall. The mechanical equipment and screens have been positioned to reduce their visual impact and preserve the south-facing portion of the roof for photovoltaic panels. SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY The Project design incorporates sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The Project further reflects a design for a 50+ year lifespan with a timeless architectural expression and flexible floor plan that allows for multiple tenants and use configurations. 3.b Packet Pg. 119 4 The Project meets or exceeds Palo Alto Tier 2 and CalGreen standards. The building skin has been designed to exceed current energy codes by allowing for smart daylighting and passive solar shading to reduce solar heat gain. EV charging stations are provided. The Project extends sustainability beyond the building, incorporating several strategies to reduce motor vehicle traffic, including secure bicycle parking, showers and changing facilities, EV and carpool spaces, and convenient adjacency to public transportation and long-distance shuttle drop off. Additional sustainable features include: • Fenestration is protected against direct sun with deep roof overhangs, exterior shade canopies, and horizontal sunshades on the aluminum curtain wall system at the south and east faces of building. • High performance, low-emissivity glazing is specified throughout. Thermally broken curtainwall and window systems are specified to reduce thermal bridging. • High performance envelope design includes rigid “outsulation,” cool roof, and roof insulation beyond code minimum (R-36, typ). • High efficiency LED lighting is used throughout architectural and site lighting. • Low-flow plumbing and shower fixtures are used throughout. • Over half of the required parking is located in below-grade garage allowing for increased landscape areas and stormwater treatment areas. • Around the building are several attractive bio-retention basins. These basins create a highly visible presence while performing the vital function of capturing, retaining and treating stormwater that falls onto impervious surfaces on the property. • Drought tolerant and native species planting is specified to reduce irrigation water usage on site while providing shading and usable outdoor spaces. • Fenestration is designed to optimize views and daylight for the comfort of the building occupants. • Rooftop PV is provided for the southfacing slope of the roof providing for a large percentage of the building’s anticipated energy use. • Tenant(s) will participate in the Stanford Research Park Transportation Management Association and participate in its plethora of TDM programs. LANDSCAPE DESIGN The key goals of the landscape design are to create a welcoming pedestrian experience and integrate the modern building into its context through a native, drought resistant plant palette. The pedestrian-oriented outdoor spaces enhance walking links within Stanford Research Park and encourage wellness and enjoyment for the occupants. Planting design for the Site provides a natural transition from the welcoming Porter Drive frontage into the Site, where larger scale planting is used to frame plaza spaces and create shade. The pedestrian entrance to the Site from Porter Drive is highlighted by a wide stairway that leads to an entry plaza area with built-in seatwalls and convenient bike parking. This stairway includes a bike channel so bicyclists can roll (not ride) their bikes up and down the stairs instead of taking the much longer ramp. The plaza wraps around the south and west sides of the building and provides opportunities for indoor-outdoor extension of the building programming and activities. Seating and gathering spaces at a variety of scales allow for flexible use of this outdoor space, with the ability to accommodate individuals or small groups on typical days, or occasional larger programmed activities. Shaded outdoor areas offer semi-private group collaboration spaces, and built-in terraced seatwalls integrate the plaza into the topography. Flow-through stormwater treatment planters frame the entrance plaza, showcasing the Site’s commitment to sustainability. The landscape palette offers a combination of drought tolerant native and adapted shrubs, trees, and groundcovers, which will provide seasonal color and textural composition. New plantings will be properly maintained and are drought-resistant to reduce water consumption. Sustainable features are incorporated throughout the Site plan, giving the Project ample opportunity to prioritize water conservation in the landscape material and irrigation systems specifications. 3.b Packet Pg. 120 5 EXHIBIT 1 STANFORD RESEARCH PARK TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Stanford University and Stanford Research Park employers are working together to offer valuable services that make employee trips to Stanford Research Park easier, more convenient, more cost effective and better for the environment. The transportation programs offered through the SRP TMA complement the in-house programs offered by larger employers, while engaging and providing the smaller employers with transportation programs and resources they would otherwise not be able to offer. Thus, both large and small employers benefit from the scale and partnerships afforded to them by working with the SRP TMA on transportation programs for their employees. Together, we implement programs, monitor the results and improve and adapt as needed in order to make continued progress. We value and need the flexibility to innovate and adapt. The SRP TMA offers customized solutions focused on our unique population and geography. The core principles that steer the SRP TMA’s efforts are encouraging ridership of local and regional public transit options, while supplementing with private solutions where public transit routes do not exist. We offer subsidized private vanpool and carpool programs and long-distance commute shuttles. We desire to improving bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the SRP and embrace other land use strategies to support the use of commute alternatives. Through maintaining the flexibility to experiment and evolve programs as needed, and the ability to customize programs for our unique population and circumstances, the SRP TMA has reduced the SOV rate 10 percentage points since 2016. The SRP TMA has hired the necessary resources and expanded our staff to achieve consistent progress (see the SRP TMA organizational chart below). As a result, Stanford University has grown the SRP TMA management team from a single part-time employee to 3 full time staff (in red) comprised of team members who oversee: • Shuttle bus operations • Customer service • Customer acquisition, marketing and outreach • Bicycle programs and other events • Procurement, finance and program administration 3.b Packet Pg. 121 6 SRP TDM PROGRAM EVOLUTION AND PROGRESS PROGRAMS AND PARTNERSHIPS (2016) In 2016, the SRP TMA Director, Jamie Jarvis, organized the SRP TMA, then consisting of the 12 largest employers, and together, the TMA piloted the following programs: • Purchased discounted VTA Smart Passes that provide free fare on all VTA and Dumbarton Express buses • Free Caltrain shuttle service • Enhanced Guaranteed Ride Programs • Creation of the Bicycle Champions Advisory Group to advise on where and how to enhance bicycle routes and safety OUTREACH AND MARKETING (2017) Our 2017 efforts focused on increasing participation in existing SRPGO programs, as well as expanding the membership of the TMA, which increased to 18 of the largest employers, plus 43 of the smallest employers in SRP. That year, new programs focused on direct customer service, marketing and outreach to commuters, necessitating a direct outreach coordinator to provide concierge services. The TMA enhanced its program offerings with: • San Francisco commuter bus • Scoop carpool planning service and subsidies • Free virtual concierge and custom transportation planning service for all SRP employees • A series of bicycle advocacy events and services • Free Smart Passes to employers with fewer than 100 employees • Zipcar carshare vehicles, free registration and $25 use credit • Vanpool formation assistance and a $300 rider subsidy • New Caltrain last mile connections • Enhanced frequency of bicycling programs, including on-site bicycling clinics and free tune-ups. Monthly commuter prize drawings and Spare the Air Day rewards. ADDING OPTIONS AND CUSTOMER ACQUISITION (2018) The SRP TMA continued to add staff, and another 7 new SRP companies and tenants voluntarily joined the SRP TMA, increasing membership to over 65 employers, representing 80% of the SRP by square footage occupied. Stanford Research Park was awarded one of the “Best Workplaces for Commuters 2018” by the National Center for Transit Research and a platinum level “Bicycle Friendly Business” by the League of American Cyclists. New transportation services launched in 2018 included: • Adding a South Bay commuter bus, providing two daily trips between San Jose and the SRP. The route, stops and schedule were carefully planned to provide service to a densely populated area of the South Bay (Santana Row) not served by VTA bus service. • Adding three new vanpools that serve Dublin, San Ramon and West San Jose, plus two vanpools that provide connecting service to the ACE train station at Great America. • Adding last-mile shuttles between the California Avenue Caltrain station and various stops throughout SRP during commute hours. Now, over half (52%) of Caltrain riders travelling to or from SRP during commute hours utilize the California Avenue station despite the fact that this station offers significantly less train service than the University Avenue Caltrain station. • Adding midday shuttle service between SRP and California Avenue, which provides additional lunch options for employees in SRP and reduces peak period parking demand near California Avenue businesses. INVESTING IN INFRASTRUCTURE (2019) Establishing effective transportation programs requires flexibility, experimentation, and a constant focus on improving SRP commuter offerings. Mayor Filseth, who attended an SRP TMA meeting in February 2019, referred to the SRP as “Palo Alto’s incubator” for experimenting with new, innovative transportation solutions across a variety of commute modes. This year, we are focused on continuing our progress with reducing SOV, improving our marketing and customer acquisition efforts, and investing in infrastructure improvements as opportunities arise. We are have proposed to the City a new modern, sustainable bus shelter in SRP, completing pedestrian sidewalks gaps, improving bicyclist access, and of course, this Project. 3.b Packet Pg. 122 7 SRP TMA PROGRESS TO DATE • Reduced solo driving by 10 percentage points in 3 years • Increased transit ridership from 6% to 12% in 3 years EXHIBIT 2 PROJECT ALIGNMENT WITH PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN By providing a headquarters location for the SRP TMA, and small-scale office space, the building will align well with several goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan (Transportation Element and Business & Economics Element): Policy T-1.1: Take a comprehensive approach to reducing single-occupant vehicle trips by involving those who live, work and shop in Palo Alto in developing strategies that make it easier and more convenient not to drive. Program T1.2.1: Create a long-term education program to change the travel habits of residents, visitors, shoppers and workers by informing them about transportation alternatives, incentives and impacts. Program T1.11.2: In collaboration with Caltrain and Stanford Research Park, pursue expansion of service to the California Avenue Caltrain Station and creation of an enhanced transit center at the Station, including connections to VTA bus service, the Palo Alto Free Shuttle, the Marguerite and other private shuttles serving the Research Park. Program T1.12.2: Work with VTA to expand VTA express bus service routes to service the Stanford Research Park, California Avenue, Stanford University and Downtown. 3.b Packet Pg. 123 8 Policy T-1.13: Encourage services that complement and enhance the transportation options available to help Palo Alto residents and employees make first/last mile connections and travel within the city for daily needs without using a single-occupancy vehicle, including shuttle, taxi and ridesharing services. Policy T-1.15: Encourage employers to develop shared shuttle services to connect employment areas with the multi-modal transit stations and City amenities, and to offer employees education and information on shuttles. Policy T-2.2: As part of the effort to reduce traffic congestion, engage employers to operate and expand TMAs to address transportation and parking issues as appropriate in the employment districts. Policy B-4.3: Promote the growth of small businesses and start-ups. Policy B-4.4: Recognize that Stanford Research Park contains a concentration of some of the City’s largest employers, and seek to maintain a mix of office and research and development uses. Policy B-7.5: Encourage incubator businesses in Stanford Research Park. 3.b Packet Pg. 124 Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Item 42 Letter from Dr. Alan Launer, Assoc. Director of Conservation Planning 3.b Packet Pg. 125 20 February 2019 Ms. Lisa Lu Stanford University 3160 Porter Drive, Suite 200 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Subject: Biological Assessment of 3215 Porter Drive, Palo Alto, California. Dear Ms. Lu; The parcel 3215 Porter Drive (Palo Alto) was surveyed by a Stanford biologist on 15 February 2019. This site was previously surveyed as part of an earlier biological evaluation on 31 May 2016. The 2016 survey concluded that the site was a highly disturbed and managed landscape, and that it did not support a meaningful level of native biodiversity. The same conclusion, that the site does not support a meaningful level of native biodiversity, was also reached after the recent 2019 survey. Since 2016, the site has been further modified and is dominated by a large planting of ornamental lavender (Lavandula species or hybrid cultivar). There is a row of ornamental shrubs and trees along the northeast side of the parcel, and a few landscape trees in the interior. None of these ornamental shrubs or trees are native to the area. As was similarly concluded during the previous biological evaluation of the site, the site supports little native biodiversity. No federal or state-protected species were observed on site and considering the condition of the parcel, none are expected to be even temporarily present on site. A number of native birds were observed foraging in the ornamental vegetation or simply flying over the site, but no nesting bird activity was observed at the site during the visit (which was likely too early in the season for birds to have started nesting). Note, however, if construction is scheduled during the late winter to early summer local bird nesting season, then preconstruction surveys for nesting birds will need to be conducted in order to be in compliance 3.b Packet Pg. 126 with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Department of Fish and Wildlife Code. No evidence of bat roosts was observed during the site visit. Given the recent plantings of many lavenders, it is expected that insects will visit the site during periods of appropriately good weather. Likewise, hummingbirds will likely be attracted to the lavender flowers. It is expected that the site is at least occasionally and temporarily occupied by some of the more common native species, those which that are tolerant of human activities, including Sierran treefrog, western toad, arboreal salamander, slender salamander, western fence lizard southern alligator lizard, pocket gopher, striped skunk, raccoon, and opossum. Coyotes, ground squirrels, and moles could conceivably visit the site on occasion, but given the level of active management, including pest control, these species are not resident at the site. Common non- native species, including eastern grey squirrel, house mouse, Norway rat, and black rat, are expected to be at the site. Native vegetation is almost entirely lacking from the site and the majority of trees and shrubs at the site are non-native ornamental species, planted as part of landscaping efforts. Additionally, this site is included in the Stanford Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). This plan is associated with Stanford’s federal Endangered Species Act incidental take permit (ITP). In 2016, the HCP and ITP were accepted by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to satisfy the requirements of the California Endangered Species Act. In the federal and state- approved HCP, 3215 Porter Drive is designated as Zone 4 land – land that is considered to be of little or no value to the protected species which are the focus of the HCP. In summary, the site— 3215 Porter Drive —does not currently support a meaningful level of native biodiversity. If construction or modification of infrastructure is started in late winter to early summer, surveys for nesting birds and roosting bats will need to be conducted. Alan Launer, Ph.D. Associate Director, Conservation Planning LBRE Stanford University 3.b Packet Pg. 127 ATTACHMENT C ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3215 Porter Drive 19PLN-00237 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The project is in conformance with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: • Policy L-44: Develop the Stanford Research Park as a compact employment center served by a variety of transportation modes. The site is well served by public bus transportation on Porter Drive, Hanover Street, and Hillview Avenue (PHH intersection). The three nearest bus stops in the project vicinity are within half a mile walking distance to the site. Bicyclists and pedestrians would be able to access the site via a connection to the Class II bicycle path along the Hanover/Porter roadway, as well as new walkways connecting the site to the new PHH intersection. The proposed bike cannel along the premier staircase on Porter Drive has been widened and flattened slightly to encourage bike usage. The project has included a bike path and repair store on the site as well as a strong pedestrian scale/presence to the design of the building. Within the parking garage, this bicycle/pedestrian connection continues to additional long-term bike parking facilities which link directly to the stair/elevator pavilion. • Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The building’s architectural design is well composed and creative. While the site planning establishes a parallel orientation to the street which could exaggerate the scale of the building to the street, this is not felt by the design as the deep recesses and variation to the building’s material frontage break this massing up. The residential feeling that the building perpetuates celebrates a unique and creative design approach to office development within the Research Park that is not commonly displayed elsewhere in the City. It fosters a fluid public/private space to interact with others. The site planning also provides connection to the adjacent bicycle path and would be compatible with surrounding development in the Research Park. Movable planter pots are proposed along the northern boundary of the site, which abuts the City of Palo Alto’s electric substation. This landscaping would help to screen views of the substation 3.c Packet Pg. 128 for occupants and visitors alike that would otherwise detract visually from the new building and landscaping. Provided these design mitigations, staff believes the site is appropriately screened from the abutting substation and will be compatible with the adjacent buildings. • Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use The design of the building has a strong connection to the pedestrian environment. Its location in close proximity to an active bike path and multiple bus stops provides great opportunity for use of multi-modal forms of transportation to get to the site. While the project does not necessarily trigger a TDM plan for the site, the facility will participate in the Stanford Research Park TMA program to reduce trips to the site. The design of the building heavily emphasizes the pedestrian scale and pedestrian activity through the combination of uses for the building and streetscape elements. • Goal B-1: A thriving business environment that is compatible with Palo Alto’s residential character and natural environment. The project proposes to redevelop a vacant site with a new building and would be compatible with the surrounding natural environment. The design of the building is similar to that of an Eichler style building, made larger. The inclusion of the bike repair shop and café help to register a more pedestrian scale to the building than an isolated commercial building that may not encourage community use. The design of the landscaping and front entrance to the building establishes a stronger ‘welcoming feeling’ at first glance. This design aesthetic celebrates that choice and ingrains a sense of inviting pedestrians to walk up and explore the site. The project has been evaluated for consistency with the Zoning Code, and the project meets all applicable development standards. The Stanford Research Park does not have a coordinated area plan or specific design guidelines. 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 design of the project is well ordered and provides a coherent plan that is readily understood in the Stanford Research Park context. The site planning has been arranged to provide for a large street setback along the Porter Drive frontage, with existing landscaping 3.c Packet Pg. 129 providing a unifying design element. The design creates an internal sense of order by providing a well-landscaped public realm along the Porter Drive frontage with the introduction of the sidewalk, while integrating the more actively used outdoor areas throughout the site. This integration provides a desirable environment for cyclists and pedestrians that would be crossing the site, as well as building occupants and visitors. Natural features are appropriately integrated with the project and the proposed landscaping along the Porter Drive frontage serving as important elements that define the streetscape. The scale, mass and character of the building is appropriate for the Research Park context, which is surrounded by other two-story office / R&D buildings and associated site improvements. Finding #2.c. is not applicable to the site, as the Municipal Code does not provide context-based design criteria for the Research Park (RP) zoning district. 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 contemporary design of the building utilizes a variety of complimentary building materials, textures and colors that are appropriate to the setting and context of the Stanford Research Park. The use of arched forms and wood soffit material highlights the building entrances and introduces a sense of depth that enhances the appearance of the building. These entrance features also provide a fitting contrast in texture and color with the primary exterior cladding materials of ribbed-corrugated metal panel. Overall, the selection and use of materials yields a building of high aesthetic quality, which would be further enhanced through the proposed landscaping. In addition to introducing a high-quality structure, the project would enhance the appearance of the surrounding area by relegating much of the parking to a subterranean garage and locating the small surface lot at the rear of the site. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that the placement of the two-story building emphasizes existing open space along the Porter Drive frontage while relegating parking improvements to the rear of the site. The project presents a functional and accessible design for multiple modes of travel. Circulation from the street to the site would be improved by reducing the number of drive aisle cuts along Porter Drive, and providing a single, logical location for the main vehicle entrance. Pedestrian access to the building entrances is 3.c Packet Pg. 130 significantly enhanced by the sidewalk improvements that are included with the project. Pedestrian seating is proposed in the form of benches integrated with raised planters in the courtyard, as well as benches and seat walls in the landscape area along the Porter Drive frontage. Bicycle parking is convenient and located near building entrances and within the subterranean parking garage. Adequate vehicle and accessible parking are located conveniently in the surface lot and in the subterranean parking garage. The amount and arrangement of open space is appropriate to the design and the function of the structures due to the 50’ special setback along Porter Drive, which will contain a new Coast Live Oak and a few Hungarian Oak trees and landscaping. 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: Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained, and is of a variety that would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. The landscape plan highlights the surrounding area’s use oaks along the Porter Drive street frontage, which provide a visual buffer between the street and the proposed building. The landscaping plan for the Porter Drive street frontage removes the existing vegetation and supplement the tree canopy with additional plantings, including drought-tolerant native groundcovers such as coffeeberry and manzanita. As the site is in a developed portion of the Stanford Research Park, it is not considered prime habitat. However, the project would maintain and enhance the main open space areas on the site in the 50’ setback along Porter Drive, which would be the most likely location to support desirable habitat. 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: The project has incorporated many elements that indicate a sustainability focus. The building’s use of glass along it’s westward facing side provides natural light during the early morning hours during much of the year. The applicant has supplied a preliminary Cal Green Checklist to ensure conformance with applicable requirements regarding green building techniques. The site planning relegates vehicle parking to the rear of the site and proposes to locate most of the the required parking spaces in a subterranean parking structure. This design element, in addition to the proposed parking lot tree shading, reduces the “heat island effect” associated with surface parking. New groundcover plantings would consist of a variety of low water use and drought tolerant species. 3.c Packet Pg. 131 ATTACHMENT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3215 Porter Drive 19PLN-00237 ___________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, “3215 Porter Drive” dated March 4, 2020 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY. In order to facilitate access between 3181 and 3215 Porter Drive, the pedestrian pathway shown on the site plan on sheet A1.7 shall be maintained by either Stanford or the Lessees of both properties for the life of the buildings at both properties. 6. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE. All landscape material shall be well maintained and replaced if the plant material dies or if the irrigation equipment fails. Planters shall not drain onto sidewalk, ground, or public right of ways. 7. MOVABLE PLANTERS. The potted planters located along the shared boundary of 3215 Porter Drive and 3350 Hanover Street are allowed to be located adjacent/along the utility lines provided that the planters are moved in the event the City needs to access those lines for maintenance or emergencies. Stanford will be responsible to work with the tenant of the building to ensure that the planters are moved out of the way prior to the City needing to access the utility lines. When moved, the planters should not be placed in a manner that would obstruct vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian movement through the site and shall be returned once utility work is complete. 8. TRAFFIC MITIGATING AMENITY SPACE. The approved 22,029 sf building shall include a minimum of 1,100 sf of amenity space to ensure conformance with the allowed FAR for the property. The plans submitted for tenant improvement building permit shall include a floor plan describing the use of the 1,100 square feet of traffic mitigating amenity space. The space may include, but is not limited to, recreational facilities, credit unions, cafeterias, day care centers, automated teller machines, convenience stores, and onsite laundry facilities, subject to review and approval by 3.d Packet Pg. 132 the Director of Planning and Development Services. 9. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program associated with the project and attached here as Exhibit A is incorporated by reference and all mitigation measures shall be implemented as described in such document. 10. BIRD FRIENDLY BUILDING DESIGN. The project shall incorporate bird-safe glazing treatment that may include fritting, netting, permanent stencils, frosted glass, exterior screens, and physical grids placed on the exterior of glazing or UV patterns visible to birds. In some cases, bird-friendly treatment is invisible to humans. Vertical elements of the window patterns should be at least 1/4-inch-wide at a minimum spacing of 4 inches or have horizontal elements at least 1/8 inch wide at a maximum spacing of 2 inches. The applicant should reference the San Francisco Guidelines for Bird-Safe Buildings: http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=2506. 11. TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION. Employers at the subject site shall participate in the Stanford Research Park Transportation Management Association or any successor Transportation Management Association that is designed to reduce employee commute trips to and from the Stanford Research Park. The property owner shall ensure this condition is included in all lease agreements in order to streamline implementation. 12. VAPOR INTRUSION PREVENTION. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit for City of Palo Alto review the design of engineering controls, and sufficient information about construction and operation parameters as are determined by City and/or County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health, Regional Water Quality Control Board, or the State of California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control to be needed to assure that the future occupants would not be impacted by current or future soil vapor intrusion. Common engineering controls that could be installed beneath the proposed structures and within the underground parking garage to prevent soil vapor intrusion into the structures include soil vapor barriers placed beneath the proposed structure and installation of an exhaust ventilation system in the parking garage, engineered to ventilate VOCs in addition to vehicle exhaust. The engineering controls shall be routinely inspected per equipment specifications to ensure proper functioning and that the system components have not degraded. The system shall include a monitoring device or alarm to alert the facility manager if the system fails. 13. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE: Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $1,186,934.23, per PAMC 16.58, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 14. 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 3.d Packet Pg. 133 OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 15. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall automatically expire after two years from the original date of approval if, within such two year period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the permit or approval. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the expiration. (PAMC 18.77.090(a)) 16. LIGHTING. Between the hours of 10:00pm-6:00am (normal cessation of business hours), lighting within the building or on the property should be reduced to its minimum necessary to facilitate employee security in order to minimize light glare at night. 17. NUISANCES AND NOISE. The outdoor space shall not be operated in a manner to produce excessive noise, odors, lighting or other nuisances from any sources. Noise levels emanating from the outdoor space shall not exceed the maximum level established in the PAMC Chapter 9.10. Amplified sound equipment is not included in this approval, and any such equipment proposed for this site shall be submitted for review by the Planning Department. 18. 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. 19. 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, Garrett Sauls at Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 20. 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 3.d Packet Pg. 134 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 planning phase to certify that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. The following documents must be provided prior to PWE approval of the building permit application: a. Final stamped and signed C.3 data form https://scvurppp.org/2019/09/24/provision-c-3- data-form/ b. Final stamped and signed letter from the third-party reviewer confirming which documents they reviewed and that the project complies with Provision C.3 and PAMC 16.11. 21. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650- 496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a note that Public Works’ inspector has determined no work is required. 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. 22. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 23. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 24. DEWATERING: Proposed underground garage excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April 1 through October 31 due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must 3.d Packet Pg. 135 list the highest anticipated groundwater level; if the proposed project will encounter groundwater, the applicant must provide all required dewatering submittals for Public Works review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. Public Works has dewatering submittal requirements and guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 25. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: An application for a grading & excavation permit must be submitted to Public Works when applying for a building permit. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 26. 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 27. SWPPP: The proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant will be required to comply with the State of California’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and preparing and implementing a site specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses both construction-stage and post-construction BMP’s for storm water quality protection. 28. 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. 29. 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 grading or building permit issuance. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. 30. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. 31. STORM WATER HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY: Plans provided do not show if the existing site drainage has a direct discharge into the existing system. Provide an analysis that compares the existing and proposed site runoff from the project site. Runoff shall be based on City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards for 10 year storm event with HGL’s 0.5 foot below inlet grates elevations and 100-year storm with HGL not exceeding the street right-of-way. As described on the City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards. Please provide the tabulated calculations directly on the conceptual grading and drainage plan. This project may be required to replace and upsize the existing storm drain system to handle the added flows and/or depending on the current pipe 3.d Packet Pg. 136 condition. The IDF tables and Precipitation Map for Palo Alto is available County of Santa Clara County Drainage Manual dated October 2007. The proposed project shall not increase runoff to the public storm drain system. 32. Plans for proposed development show the entire site’s storm water runoff directed into the City’s storm system. Applicant will be required to provide Public Works Storm Drain Division a video of the storm drain line from the single point of connection to the next downstream manhole. If any of that storm drain main line needs to be repaired or replaced, this project must complete that work as part of its offsite improvements. 33. Based on the City’s GIS there may be plume monitoring wells within the project site. Typically these wells are maintained by Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The proposed work shall not destroy any of the monitoring well or affect the function and use of these. Contact SCVWD to verify the well location. Plot and label them on the plans and provide notes to protect wells as required by the district. 34. If the existing groundwater treatment system is to remain, all C.3 devices need to remain clear of that system. 35. 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. 36. STORM DRAIN LOGO: The applicant is required to paint the “No Dumping/Flows to Matadero Creek” logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the directions to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. Include maintenance of these logos in the Hazardous Materials Management Plan, if such a plan is part of this project. For any new public catch basins in the public road right-of-way, applicant shall place medallions next to the inlets. Medallions are also available from Environmental Compliance Division. 37. Civil plans submitted in the Building permit stage shall include detail sections at all locations where C.3 treatment devices are within 10’ of the property line. 38. Porter Dr was recently resurfaced and this street is under a moratorium. Applicant will be required to grind and overlay the full width (from curb to curb) of Porter Dr over the full project frontage 3.d Packet Pg. 137 per Public Works standards. 39. PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD CONDITIONS: The City’s full-sized “Public Works Engineering Services Standard Conditions” sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available on the Public Works website: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=67175.06&BlobID=66261 BUILDING DIVISION 40. A building permit is required to be submitted for the project. Building applications submitted after 12/31/19 will be based on the 2019 building codes as amended by City of Palo Alto. Contact the building division for submittal requirements. RECYCLING 41. PAMC 5.20.108 Internal Waste Stations. Internal waste stations are required for common areas such as conference rooms, coffee stations, fitness room, laundry room, office, restroom, club house, community room, and front entrances. The three waste station containers shall be black for landfill waste, blue for recycling, and green for compostable. The green compostable container, if bags are used, shall use green compostable bags. The waste station containers must also have color coded signs. If site uses paper towels in the restrooms there must be a green compost container within the restroom to collect paper towels. A small garbage container may be added for personal hygiene waste or diapers. To determine the number of waste station locations or obtain signage please contact GreenWaste of Palo Alto (650) 493-4894 or email pacustomerservice@greenwste.com. 42. PAMC 5.20.108 External Waste Stations. External waste stations are required for common areas such as pool, mailboxes, courtyard, playground area, and front entrances. If the site choses to have external refuse containers they will need to be installed at convenient and appropriately selected locations. The three waste station containers shall be black for landfill waste, blue for recycling, and green for compostable. The green compostable container, if bags are used, shall use green compostable bags. Waste station containers must also have color coded signs. To determine the number of waste station locations or obtain signage please contact GreenWaste of Palo Alto (650) 493-4894 or email pacustomerservice@greenwste.com. URBAN FORESTRY 43. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 3.d Packet Pg. 138 44. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 45. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.202.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 46. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 47. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (c) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. 48. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 49. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 50. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #1-7 applies) 3.d Packet Pg. 139 b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc.) and added to the sheet index. c. Plans to show protective tree fencing. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show the correct configuration of Type I, Type II or Type III fencing around each Regulated Tree, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T- 1; City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans); or by using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 51. Existing electrical boxes shall be moved away from sewer main to provide at least 1ft clearance. 52. 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. 53. A completed Utility Service Application and a full set of plans must be included with all applications involving electrical work. The Application must be included with the preliminary submittal. 54. 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. 55. 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. 56. 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. 57. 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 checked for underground facility marking shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 58. 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 California 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 3.d Packet Pg. 140 part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. 59. 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. 60. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 61. For services larger than 1600 amps, a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear may be required. See City of Palo Alto Utilities Standard Drawing SR-XF-E-1020. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Division for review and approval. 62. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct or x-flex cable 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. 63. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the California Electric Code and the City Standards. 64. 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. 65. 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 66. For 400A switchboards only, catalog cut sheets may be substituted in place of factory drawings. 67. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. 68. 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. 69. The follow must be completed before Utilities will make the connection to the utility system and energize the service: • All fees must be paid. 3.d Packet Pg. 141 • All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. • All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. • Easement documents must be completed. WATER, GAS, WASTEWATER 70. Revise plans to relocation vaults above existing CPAU sewer main per previous redlines. 71. Revise plans to remove proposed extensive planting above CPAU sewer main per previous redline. 72. Include profile and sectional of manhole rim elevation change proposed, onsite private lateral connection to onsite sewer main, and all gravity crossing of CPAU sewer main. 73. Update plans per WGW site plan red-lines. 74. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - loadsheet per unit for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the new total loads 75. 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. 76. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater lateral need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 77. The applicant shall be responsible for 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. 78. The gas service, meters, and meter location must meet WGW standards and requirements 79. 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. 3.d Packet Pg. 142 80. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. 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. 81. 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. 82. 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. 83. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 84. 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. 85. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION 86. PARKING FACILITY DESIGN: Drive aisle in the garage is 20 feet wide which is non-conforming with the PAMC 18.54. Provide drive aisle width at least 23 feet wide to comply with PAMC 18.54.070 Table-3. 87. TDM PROGRAM AND ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT: The applicant voluntarily proposes a TDM program with monitoring. The applicant shall abide by the Final Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, entitled “Stanford Transportation Management Association Program”, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The TDM plan includes measures and programs to achieve a reduction in single-occupancy vehicle trips to the site by a minimum of 30%, in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The TDM plan includes an annual monitoring plan to document mode split and trips to the project site. The TDM annual report shall be submitted to the Chief Transportation Official. Monitoring and reporting requirements may be revised in the future if the minimum reduction is not achieved through the measures and programs initially implemented. Projects that do not achieve the required 3.d Packet Pg. 143 reduction may be subject to daily penalties as set forth in the City’s fee schedule. PUBLIC ART 88. The applicant must pay a contribution into the Public Art fund in-lieu of commissioning art on site, in the total amount of $47,235.00 or amount equivalent to 1% of actual cost of construction, whichever is greater. This actual amount to be paid shall be determined during building permit submittal and be paid prior to building permit issuance. FIRE 89. Install a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler, NFPA 14 standpipe (garage & roof level), NFPA 24 underground fire service, NFPA 72 fire alarm, two-way call box and emergency responder radio system. 90. Confirm the onsite access roadway will support a 75,000 lbs fire apparatus. 91. Roof access ladder, as simulated, may not be functional for Fire department use. Please contact Karl Schneider w/ PAFD 650-329-2194 to discuss ladder access to roof. 92. Install a Knox disconnect switch for main electrical disconnect, secondary electrical disconnect (if provided), 100% garage exhaust and garage level security barrier (if provided). 3.d Packet Pg. 144 EXHIBIT A: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 3.d Packet Pg. 145 Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program PROJECT NAME 3215 Porter Drive Application Number 19PLN-00237 Applicant/Owner The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Date [4/27/2020] The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the 3215 Porter Drive project identifies the mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the impacts associated with the project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was amended in 1989 to add Section 21081.6, which requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to proposed development. As stated in section 21081.6(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code: ... the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. Section 21081.6 also provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined as part of adopting an EIR. The mitigation monitoring table lists those mitigation measures that would be included as conditions of approval for the project. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. 3.d Packet Pg. 146 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Complianc e Oversight of Implementatio n BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MM BIO-1.1 Nesting Bird Protection Nesting Birds Survey and Avoidance. The project owner or designee shall schedule demolition and construction activities to avoid the nesting season. The nesting season for most birds, including most raptors in the San Francisco Bay area extends from February 1st through August 31st. If it is not possible to schedule demolition and construction between September 1st and January 31st to avoid the nesting season, pre-construction surveys for nesting raptors and other migratory nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist, as approved by the City of Palo Alto, to identify active nests that may be disturbed during project implementation on-site and within 250 feet of the site. Projects that commence demolition and/or construction activities between February 1st and August 31st shall conduct a pre-construction survey for nesting birds no more than 14 days prior to initiation of construction, demolition activities, or tree removal. Applicant or designee/Construc tion contractor Prior to and during constructio n CPA Planning Department 3.d Packet Pg. 147 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Complianc e Oversight of Implementatio n If an active nest is found in or close enough to the project area to be disturbed by construction activities, a qualified ornithologist shall determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone (typically 250 feet for raptors and 100 feet for other birds) around the nest, to ensure that raptor or migratory bird nests would not be disturbed during ground disturbing activities. California Department of Fish and Wildlife will be notified, as appropriate. The construction- free buffer zones shall be maintained until after the nesting season has ended and/or the ornithologist has determined that the nest is no longer active. The ornithologist shall submit a report indicating the results of the survey and any designated buffer zones to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto prior to any grading, demolition, and/or building permit. CULTURAL RESOURCES MM CUL-1.1 Resource Recovery Procedures Resource Recovery Procedures. In the event any significant cultural materials are encountered during construction grading or Applicant or designee/Construc tion contractor During Constructi on CPA Planning Department 3.d Packet Pg. 148 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Complianc e Oversight of Implementatio n excavation, construction within a radius of 50 feet of the find would be halted, the Director of Planning shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate treatment of the resource. Recommendations could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be submitted to the Director of Planning. MM CUL-1.2 Human Remains Recovery Procedures Human Remains Recovery Procedure. Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California in the event of the discovery of human remains during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the Native American Applicant or designee/Construc tion contractor During Constructi on CPA Planning Department 3.d Packet Pg. 149 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Complianc e Oversight of Implementatio n Heritage Commission (NAHC) who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this state law, then the landowner shall reinter the human remains, and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. If the Director of Planning finds that the archaeological find is not a significant resource, work would resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after provisions for reburial and ongoing monitoring are accepted. GEOLOGY/SOILS MM GEO-1.1 Paleontological Remains Recovery Procedure Paleontological Remains Recovery Procedure. Should a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature be identified at the project site during any phase of construction, all ground disturbing activities within 25 feet shall cease and the City’s Planning Director notified immediately. A qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the find and prescribe mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for Applicant or designee/Construc tion contractor During Constructi on CPA Planning Department 3.d Packet Pg. 150 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Complianc e Oversight of Implementatio n paleontological resources or geologic features is implemented. Upon completion of the paleontological assessment, a report shall be submitted to the City and, if paleontological materials are recovered, a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MM HAZ-1.1 Prior to conducting earthwork activities at the Site, a Site Management Plan (SMP) and Health and Safety Plan (HSP) shall be prepared. The purpose of these documents will be to establish appropriate management practices for handling and disposal of impacted soil, soil vapor and groundwater that may be encountered during construction activities. Based on the history of the site, areas of impacted soil, soil vapor and/or groundwater likely will be encountered during construction activities, which may require special monitoring, handling and/or disposal. The SMP shall also outline the specific plan for the on-site groundwater treatment system, including monitoring wells and associated conveyance piping. These features shall be Applicant or designee/Construc tion contractor Prior to and during constructio n CPA Planning Department, DTSC, and SCVWD 3.d Packet Pg. 151 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Complianc e Oversight of Implementatio n protected during project activities or properly removed with a permit from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The SMP and HSP shall be submitted to the Planning Director and DTSC for review. DTSC approval shall be obtained prior to commencing ground disturbing activities at the site. 3.d Packet Pg. 152 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3215 Porter Drive, 19PLN-00237 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.20 (RP DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth 1 acre, 100 feet, and 150 feet 1.67 acres 1.67 acres Minimum Front Yard (2) 20 feet 0 50 feet Rear Yard 20 feet 0 20 Interior Side Yard 20 feet 0 20 Street Side Yard 20 feet N/A N/A Min. yard for site lines abutting or opposite residential districts 20 feet N/A N/A Special Setback 50 feet – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps 0 50 Max. Site Coverage 30% (21,837sf) 0% (Vacant) 16.9% (12,315 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 40% (29,116sf) 0% (Vacant) 28.6% (20,929sf + 1,100 sf amenity space not included in FAR) Max. Building Height 35 ft or 25 ft when located within 40 ft of residentially zoned property (4,5) None 35 ft (40 ft measured to rooftop mechanical enclosure per PAMC 18.20.040(e)(2) Daylight Plane N/A N/A N/A Employee Showers List use and requirement with sf range. 0 2 required for new square footage between 20,000- 49,999 (4) See subsection 18.20.040(e) below for exceptions to height and floor area limitations in the ROLM and RP zoning districts. (5) Residential zones include R-1, R-2, RE, RMD, RM-15, RM-30, RM-40 and residential Planned Community (PC) zones. 3.e Packet Pg. 153 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Profession/General Office Uses* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/300 sf of gross floor area for a total of 70 parking spaces 0 70 Bicycle Parking 1/3,000 sf (80% long term and 20% short term) equals 7 spaces 0 52 (18 long term, 34 short term) Loading Space 1 loading spaces for 10,000 – 99,999 sf 0 1 * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements 3.e Packet Pg. 154 Attachment E Project Plans and Environmental Documents Hardcopies of project plans and environmental documents are provided to Board members. These documents 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 “3215 Porter Drive” 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/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4766&TargetID=319 3.f Packet Pg. 155 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11290) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/7/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Appoint Subcommittee for Objective Standards Title: Appoint Subcommittee for Objective Standards. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) Chair take the following action: 1. Appoint two Board members to a subcommittee to help staff development draft objective standards Background Strengthening objective standards was a key action in the City’s 2018 Housing Work Plan. The changes would simplify and clarify standards and guidelines for staff, decision-makers, and applicants. State law relies more and more on projects’ compliance with objective standards. Therefore, the objective standards project aims to strengthen standards to identify the City’s priorities and ensure applicants’ compliance with these priorities, to facilitate the development of housing. Subcommittee Objectives Once appointed, the two Subcommittee members would work with City staff and consultants, to help: • Refine design guidelines/context-based design criteria as objective standards • Identify new objective standards for housing and mixed-use projects, to complement existing standards, guidelines, and adopted policy goals; • Call out areas of redundancy, inconsistency, and lack of clarity in the Zoning Ordinance. • Determine what zoning graphics and/or architectural review checklists would be helpful to streamline the review process. Next Steps Based on feedback from the Subcommittee, staff and consultants will prepare draft objective standards and preliminary graphics to share with the ARB at a subsequent meeting. 4 Packet Pg. 156 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Public Notification, Outreach & Comments Notice of this agenda item was published in the Daily Post on April 24, 2020, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2575 jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Packet Pg. 157 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11132) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 5/7/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 411 Lytton Avenue: Addition of two units (Prelim) Title: 411 Lytton Avenue [19PLN-00348]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of an Addition to an Existing Category 2 Historic Single-Family Residence. The Project Also Proposes the Expansion of an Existing Partial Basement to Construct two new Units and the Renovation and Rehabilitation of the Historic Structure. Zoning District: Downtown Commercial With Pedestrian Combining District (CD-C(P)). Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. For More Information Please Contact the Project Planner: Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m- group.us. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Review and provide informal comments. No formal action is requested. Report Summary The applicant requests preliminary review by the ARB. No formal direction needs to be provided to the applicant and ARB should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in support or against the project. As this is a preliminary review application, Planning & Development Services staff performed a cursory review of the project for compliance with the zoning code. A comprehensive review of a future project to applicable codes, including context-based design criteria and other standards, would follow the submittal of a formal application. Accordingly, there may be aspects of this preliminary review application that do not comply with municipal regulations or require additional discretionary applications beyond architectural review. 5 Packet Pg. 158 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Similarly, there has been no comprehensive review of the project for consistency with the comprehensive plan or other policy documents. Such review will occur upon the filing of a formal application. The purpose of this meeting is to provide an applicant an opportunity to present a conceptual project to the ARB and receive initial comments. The ARB may identify the project features that are appropriate for the neighborhood context and consistent with city policies. The ARB can cite areas of concern the applicant may want to reconsider in a formal submittal. Community members are also encouraged to provide early input to the project. Background Project Information Owner: Mortgage Investors VI LLC (Brad Ehikian) Architect: Ken Hayes Representative: Not Applicable Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Property Information Address: 411 Lytton Avenue Neighborhood: Downtown North Lot Dimensions & Area: 43’ x 63’; 2,843 square feet Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, street trees Historic Resource(s): Yes, Category 2 Existing Improvement(s): 854 sf; 1-story; 16’-8”; 1901 Existing Land Use(s): Single-family residence Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: RMD (NP) - Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District (Multi-family residential) West: CD-C (P) - Downtown Commercial District, Pedestrian Combining District (Commercial, financial institutions) East: CD-C (P) Downtown Commercial District, Pedestrian Combining District (Commercial, financial institutions) South: CD-C (P) Downtown Commercial District, Pedestrian Combining District (Commercial, offices) Aerial View of Property: 5 Packet Pg. 159 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Source: CNES/Airbus, Maxar, USGS 2020 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: CD-C (P) Downtown Commercial District, Pedestrian Combining District Comp. Plan Designation: CC (Regional / Community Commercial) Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes Downtown Urban Design Guide: Yes South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable 5 Packet Pg. 160 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes Located w/in Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: August 15, 2016 for previous mixed use project https://tinyurl.com/CC-8-15-2016 PTC: None HRB: March 10, 2016 for previous mixed use project https://tinyurl.com/HRB-3-10-2016 April 9, 2020 for proposed project https://tinyurl.com/HRB-4-9-2020 ARB: March 17, 2016 for previous mixed use project https://tinyurl.com/CC-8-15-2016 Project Description The applicant proposes new construction, renovation, and rehabilitation of the existing historic resource, a single-family residence. The project includes a 223 square foot addition to the rear of the existing building and work that would accommodate two new units below grade. The three total units would reclassify the site’s land use as ‘multi-family residential’. The existing temporary carport would be removed. Excavation would occur underneath the building and at the rear of the property. This would expand an existing half-basement and create a full basement with a depressed private open space area for the residents. Two studios with 478 and 699 square feet respectively would be constructed within the basement. The rear of the units would have direct access to the depressed private open space area. Three of the four parking spaces would be provided off-site at the adjacent 437 Lytton Avenue property, which is under the same ownership. The renovation and rehabilitation would involve both exterior and interior work. The interior work includes the moving of walls and fixtures. The following items would be part of the proposed exterior rehabilitation work: • Perform structural engineering assessment of building foundation and settlement of front porch; • Based on the engineering assessment, repair the foundation, if necessary; • Inspect wood shingles at dormer. Replace deteriorated shingles, as necessary; • Inspect roof fascia boards and rafter tails for any deterioration. Repair or replace deteriorated wood members if necessary. Repair, rather than replace as much historic wood as possible; • Inspect chimney. If feasible, remove stucco cladding from bricks. If stucco is applied directly to bricks and removal is not possible, repair stucco cracks; and 5 Packet Pg. 161 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 • Paint the building. Figure 1: Perspectives of Proposed Project Source: Hayes Group Architect 2019 Figure 2: Cross Section of Proposed Project Source: Hayes Architect 2019 Because the existing building is a designated historic building, all proposed work would need to comply with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Anticipated Entitlements: The following discretionary applications are anticipated: • Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. The ARB reviews the project and ARB recommendations are forwarded to the Director of Planning & Development Services (PDS). The PDS Director takes action within five business days of receiving the ARB’s recommendation. Because this project is a historic structure within the Downtown, the formal project will be referred to the HRB for a recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. 5 Packet Pg. 162 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 Failure to make anyone finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. • Off-Site Parking: Pursuant to PAMC Section 18.18.090(c), Parking may be provided off- site if such parking is within a reasonable distance of the site and approved in writing by the Director of PDS. The Director shall assure sufficient covenants and guarantees are provided to ensure use and maintenance of such parking facilities. This includes an enforceable agreement that any development occurring on the site where parking is provided shall not result in a net reduction of parking spaces provided. The Director considers the parking spaces previously provided on the site, and the parking spaces required by the proposed use. Discussion Preliminary review applications receive a cursory review for compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the comprehensive plan or other applicable policy documents. Attachment C includes a comparison table of development standard requirements and proposed project. Staff transmitted this information previously to the applicant. A more comprehensive review will occur upon formal submittal, which may reveal other code or policy concerns. The required findings for approval of an Architectural Review are included in Attachment B. At this point in project development, the ARB is encouraged to provide objective feedback to the applicant on the preliminary drawings. The ARB may want to consider comments that relate to: Historic The current building is on the City’s historic building inventory as a designated Category 2 building. This is defined as a "Major Building" of regional importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. Pursuant to PAMC 16.49.050, the ARB considers such projects with a recommendation from the Historic Resources Board (HRB). The applicant seeks a floor area bonus in accordance with PAMC 18.18.070 because of related historic rehabilitation work. However, the applicant does not intend to use the bonus floor area on the subject site. The bonus floor area could be transferred to a non-historic, Downtown- located receiver site in the future. Scale and mass / Relationship to the neighborhood setting and context / Transitions in scale to adjacent properties (Finding #2) The proposed rear addition would not be visible from Lytton Avenue. Occupants of neighboring properties could look down into the site and the proposed outdoor open space area. Architectural design, theme, cohesiveness, and quality of materials (Findings #2 & 3) 5 Packet Pg. 163 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 Since this project is a major modification to a Downtown, designated historic building, a recommendation from the HRB is required. On April 9, 2020, the HRB conducted a preliminary review. A video of the public hearing can be found here - https://tinyurl.com/HRB-4-9-2020- Video. The HRB struggled with the proposal and offered suggestions to help the addition to be “differentiated from yet compatible with” the historic resource. The HRB’s purview is to review the formal project’s consistency with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. The primary focus will be the compatibility of new construction with the resource, and secondarily to ensure its differentiation from the resource. Their evaluation will assist staff and the ARB in the evaluation of the project in accordance with CEQA and the Architectural Review findings. Pedestrian-orientation and design (Finding #4) The project includes a pathway from the street frontage (Lytton Avenue) down on the left side to an outdoor patio providing access to the two new units. There is also a path from the outdoor patio area that leads up along the rear of the property to the neighboring property (437 Lytton), accessing the proposed off-site parking spaces. Preservation of existing native or mature landscaping or features, if any (Finding #5) Street trees would be protected during construction. The mature avocado tree would be removed because it is located at the foundation of the existing house. Consideration to any applicable policy documents (Urban Design Guide) The proposed project would not change the residential character of the site as it relates to the Urban Design Guide. The Lytton Avenue Sub-district includes a mix of commercial and residential uses. Off-site parking / Covered parking The existing use is a single-family residence. The current parking requirement for single-family residences is two spaces, with one space required to be covered. Currently, the site provides one parking space with a temporary covered structure. With the addition of the two units, the site as defined in the PAMC becomes multi-family residential. As a multi-family residential project, the site requires four parking spaces, one of which must be covered. The applicant proposes one on-site space and three off-site spaces located at the adjacent 437 Lytton Avenue site. In accordance with PAMC 18.18.090(c), off-site parking spaces may be permitted under certain criteria, with Director’s approval of an enforceable agreement. The applicant does not propose a covered parking space. There is no feasible way to locate covered parking on-site without substantially altering the character of the historic structure. Next Steps There is no further action required by the ARB after its discussion. The applicant may elect to file a formal application. 5 Packet Pg. 164 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 Environmental Review The subject review involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If a formal application is filed, an analysis of the project’s conformance with CEQA will be performed. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 x 109 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B: Required Findings (DOCX) • Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) • Attachment D: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 5 Packet Pg. 165 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels Subject Property 0' 86' 411 Lytton Avenue 19PLN-00348 P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f 6 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto sahsing, 2020-03-19 16:26:40 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) CDC-P 5.a Packet Pg. 166 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 411 Lytton Avenue 19PLN-00348 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. 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. 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.). 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. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. 5.b Packet Pg. 167 CONTEXT-BASED DESIGN CRITERIA 411 Lytton Avenue 19PLN-00348 Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements 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 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks 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 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment 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 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project 5.b Packet Pg. 168 Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 411 Lytton Avenue, 19PLN-00348 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.18 (CD-C DISTRICT) Mixed-Use and Residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Building Setback Front Yard None Required 9’ No Change Rear Yard 10 feet for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion 28’ 11’ Interior Side Yard None Required 4’ 10’-6” No Change Maximum Site Coverage (building footprint) None Required 854 sf 2,843 sf Landscape Open Space Coverage 20% (569 sf) 63% (1,791 sf) 24% (682 sf) Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit (450 sf) 1,795 sf 477 sf Maximum Height Within 150 ft. of an abutting residential zone (1) 50 feet 40 feet 16’-8” No Change Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zoning districts or a residential PC district Daylight plane height and slope identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the lot line Complies Complies Residential Density (net) No maximum 0.065 acre site and 1 unit = 15 units / acre 0.065 acre site and 3 units = 46 units / acre Maximum Weighted Average Residential Unit Size 1,500 sf per unit Unit A: 854 sf Unit A: 1,077 sf Unit B: 478 sf Unit C: 699 sf Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1 (2,843 sf) 0.3:1 (854 sf) 0.79:1 (2,254 sf) (1) For sites abutting an RM-40 zoned residential district or a residential Planned Community (PC) district, maximum height may be increased to 50 feet. 5.c Packet Pg. 169 Page 2 of 2 18.18.100 Performance Standards. In addition to the standards for development prescribed above, all development shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. All mixed use development shall also comply with the provisions of Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. 18.18.110 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Bicycle Parking) for Multi-family Projects Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1 space per studio and one- bedroom; 2 spaces per two- bedroom unit (at least one covered) Total: 4 spaces (one covered) 1 space 4 spaces (three off- site) (none covered) Bicycle Parking Residential: 1 Long-term per unit (3) Total = 3 long-term Not Applicable (Single-Family Residential) Long Term: None* *Will need to demonstrate compliance with formal submittal. 5.c Packet Pg. 170 Attachment D Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Development Services 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 “411 Lytton 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/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4824&TargetID=319 5.d Packet Pg. 171 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11289) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 5/7/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Discuss Procedures for Virtual Hearings Title: Discuss Procedures for Virtual Hearings. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1.Review and provide informal comments. No formal action is requested. Discussion Due to the required shelter-in-place, the ARB held its first virtual hearing via Zoom on April 16, 2020. While this meeting was successful, the virtual format does present new issues for ARB members and staff. Specifically, paper packets are no longer delivered to ARB members and color/material boards are no longer passed around at the hearing. Packets are now delivered electronically, and color/material boards are now photos of materials. Staff would appreciate hearing from the ARB as to whether these new methods are sufficient for virtual public hearings during the shelter in place order. Staff is open to ideas for any other changes to optimize our new virtual meeting format. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code does not require noticing of study sessions. Nevertheless, this item was published in a local paper, Daily Post, on April 24, 2020, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 6 Packet Pg. 172 (650) 329-2575 jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org