HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-06-14 City Council Agenda Packet
06/14/10
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. A binder containing supporting materials is available in the Council
Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting.
Special Meeting
Council Chambers
June 14, 2010
7:30 PM
ROLL CALL
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing
Appreciation to Mark S. Herrera Upon His Retirement
ATTACHMENT
2. Resolution Of The Council Of The City Of Palo Alto Expressing
Appreciation To Gary R. Brooks Upon His Retirement
ATTACHMENT
3. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing
Appreciation to Steve Baca Upon His Retirement
ATTACHMENT
4. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing
Appreciation to Audrey Bates Upon Her Retirement
2 06/14/10
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
ATTACHMENT
5. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing
Appreciation to Police Canine Lukas Z Kyjoskeho Udoli Upon His
Retirement
ATTACHMENT
STUDY SESSION
6. San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority’s (SFCJPA) Capital Flood
Protection Project Studies and Design Work
ATTACHMENT
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the right to limit the duration or Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MAY 17, 2010
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
7. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Pediatric Dental Office
on the Second Floor of an Existing Office Building at 2345 Yale Street
CMR 278:10 and ATTACHMENT
3 06/14/10
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
8. Finance Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor’s Office
Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2010
ATTACHMENT
9. Finance Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor’s Office
Audit of Fleet Utilization and Replacement
ATTACHMENT
10. Approval of a Wastewater Treatment Enterprise Fund Contract with
Carollo Engineers, P.C. in an Amount of $389,715 for Design of Facility
Repair and Retrofit Projects at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant
- Capital Improvement Program Project WQ-04011
CMR 259:10 and ATTACHMENT
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the
public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members
of the public have spoken.
ACTION ITEMS
Include: Public Hearings, Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters
11. Public Hearing: Approval of a Levy of Assessment for California
Avenue Area Parking Bonds - Plan G: Fiscal Year 2010-2011 and
Adoption of a Resolution Confirming Engineer’s Report and Assessment
Roll, California Avenue Parking Project No. 92-13 (For Fiscal Year
2010- 2011)
CMR 273:10 and ATTACHMENT
4 06/14/10
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
12. Public Hearing: Adoption of an Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Section 18.28.050 (Site Development Standards)
to Chapter 18.28 Special Purpose Districts (PF, OS, AC) of Title 18
(Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to add a Maximum House Size
Limit to the Open Space Zone District. The Planning and
Transportation Commission recommended that the City Council not
adopt the ordinance. (Staff requests item to be continued by Council Motion to
10/04/10)
ATTACHMENT
13. Public Hearing: Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map and a Record of
Land Use Action to Subdivide the Existing Parcel into Five Separate
Condominium Parcels for Four Residential Units and One Commercial
Unit at 420 Cambridge Avenue
CMR 274:10 and ATTACHMENT
14. Public Hearing: Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal
and Replacement Project-Meeting to Receive Comments on the
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement
Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), Including
Comments Focused on: A) the Project Description, Land Use,
Population & Housing, and Public Services Chapters of the DEIR
(continued from June 7, 2010), and B) Visual Quality and
Architectural Design, Biological Resources, and Cultural Resources
Chapters of the DEIR
PRT A – MEMO PRT A CMR 260:10
PRT B – MEMO PRT B CMR 272:10
PRT B - PRESENTATION
COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
5 06/14/10
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
ADJOURNMENT
Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services, or programs or who
would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact
650-329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
1
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO MARK S. HERRERA
UPON HIS RETIREMENT
WHEREAS, Mark Steven Herrera served the City of Palo Alto and its citizens as a member
of the Palo Alto Police Department for more than 24 years, becoming a fulltime regular Officer
in May 1986, promoted to the rank of Agent in February 1991, and then promoted to the rank of
Sergeant in November 2000; and
WHEREAS, Sergeant Herrera has served as a Field Training Officer and Supervisor, Traffic
Team Motor Supervisor, Crime Suppression Team Detective, Head Range Master for the
Department, and was a long term member of the Special Weapons and Tactics Team; and
WHEREAS, Sergeant Herrera participated in Multi-Agency task forces committed to
assisting East Palo Alto Police in crime suppression; and
WHEREAS, Sergeant Herrera has received numerous public and departmental
commendations distinguishing his professionalism and commitment to service, and has been
recognized for his hard work and dedication to public service and to the field of law
enforcement; and
WHEREAS, Sergeant Herrera has pursued his career and duties diligently with distinction,
loyalty, courtesy, and a sense of humor.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto
herby commends the outstanding public service of Mark S. Herrera and records its appreciation,
as well as the appreciation of the citizens of this community, upon his retirement.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: JUNE 14, 2010
ATTEST: APPROVED:
____________________ ______________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________ ______________________
City Attorney City Manager
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO GARY R. BROOKS
UPON HIS RETIREMENT
WHEREAS, Gary Roy Brooks served the City of Palo Alto and its citizens as a
member of the Palo Alto Police Department for 31 years, becoming a Palo Alto Police
Officer in July 1979, promoted to the rank of Agent in August 1983, then promoted to the
rank of Sergeant in December 2005; and
WHEREAS, Sergeant Brooks has served as a Field Training Officer, Traffic Team
Supervisor, Community Policing Supervisor, and a distinguished Detective on the Allied
Agencies Narcotics Enforcement Team (A.A.N.E.T.), and while an Agent at A.A.N.E.T.
he initiated and worked undercover in the largest corporate narcotics buy sting operation
to that date at the FMC Corporation, Sergeant Brooks was on the multi-jurisdictional
Career Criminal Apprehension Team (C.A.T.) for almost three years averaging 3 Felony
arrests a day and recovering 92 stolen vehicles in one year; and
WHEREAS, Sergeant Brooks was a long time member of the Hostage Negotiation
Team and the Crime Scene Investigation Team, successfully acting as the primary
negotiator in over half a dozen barricaded/hostage situations, and helping gather evidence
and investigate crime scenes ranging from burglaries to homicides; and
WHEREAS, Sergeant Brooks has received countless public and departmental
commendations distinguishing his professionalism and commitment to service, he has
been recognized for his honesty, high ethical standards, dedication to public service and
to the field of law enforcement, giving unselfishly of his time and talent; and
WHEREAS, Sergeant Brooks has pursued his career and duties diligently with
distinction, loyalty, integrity, courtesy and a sense of humor.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Palo
Alto herby commends the outstanding public service of Sergeant Gary R. Brooks and
records its appreciation, as well as the appreciation of the citizens of this community,
upon his retirement.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: JUNE 14, 2010
ATTEST: APPROVED:
____________________ ______________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________ ______________________
City Attorney City Manager
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO STEVE BACA
UPON HIS RETIREMENT
WHEREAS, Steve Baca began his career with the City of Palo Alto on September 7,
1976 as an Animal Control Officer. He then joined the Palo Alto Police Communications
Unit on March 8, 1982 as a Public Safety Dispatcher, promoting to Lead Public Safety
Dispatcher on December 17, 1992; and
WHEREAS, Steve Baca has answered tens of thousands of emergency calls for
assistance from the residents of the City of Palo Alto, Stanford University, and
surrounding communities; and
WHEREAS, Steve Baca has served on countless occasions as a Communications
Training Officer, teaching new dispatchers the skills they need to be successful; and
WHEREAS, Steve Baca has received numerous letters of appreciation and
commendations from the public, police officers, fire fighters and allied agencies for his
superior performance during emergencies and routine calls for service; and
WHEREAS, Steve Baca has handled numerous critical incidents, emergencies, and
catastrophes over the past 34 years and is recognized by his peers, public safety
personnel, and allied agencies for his calm, professional demeanor in a crisis; and
WHEREAS, Steve Baca has demonstrated the ability to adapt to new changes in his
work environment having begun his career utilizing a microphone, telephone, pen and
paper and finishing his career operating sophisticated 9-1-1, radio, and computer systems;
and
WHEREAS, Steve Baca has pursued his 34 year public safety career with dedication,
professionalism, and enthusiasm, and plans to spend his retirement enjoying time with his
wife Laura and his family.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Palo
Alto hereby gratefully records and extends its sincere appreciation of the community to
Steve Baca for his faithful and excellent service rendered to the City.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: June 14, 2010
ATTEST: APPROVED:
____________________ ______________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________ ______________________
City Attorney City Manager
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO AUDREY BATES
UPON HER RETIREMENT
WHEREAS, Audrey Bates began her career with the City of Palo Alto on December
29, 1976 as a Public Safety Dispatcher; and
WHEREAS, Audrey Bates has, over the course of her career, answered tens of
thousands of emergency calls for assistance from the residents of the City of Palo Alto,
Stanford University, and surrounding communities; and
WHEREAS, Audrey Bates has served on countless occasions as a Communications
Training Officer, teaching new dispatchers the skills they need to be successful; and
WHEREAS, Audrey Bates has, during the course of her career, received numerous
letters of appreciation and commendation from the public, police officers, fire fighters
and allied agencies for her superior performance during emergencies and routine calls for
service; and
WHEREAS, Audrey Bates has handled numerous critical incidents, emergencies, and
catastrophes over the past 34 years and is recognized by her peers, public safety
personnel, and allied agencies for her calm, professional demeanor in a crisis; and
WHEREAS, Audrey Bates has demonstrated the ability to adapt to new changes in
her work environment having begun her career utilizing a microphone, telephone, pen
and paper, and finishing her career operating sophisticated 9-1-1, radio, and computer
systems; and
WHEREAS, Audrey Bates has pursued her 34 year public safety career with
dedication, professionalism, and enthusiasm; and
WHEREAS, Audrey Bates plans to spend her retirement enjoying time with her
family.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Palo
Alto hereby gratefully records and extends its sincere appreciation of the community to
Audrey Bates for her faithful and excellent service rendered to the City.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: June 14, 2010
ATTEST: APPROVED:
____________________ ______________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________ ______________________
City Attorney City Manager
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING
APPRECIATION TO POLICE CANINE LUKAS Z KYJOSKEHO UDOLI UPON HIS
RETIREMENT
WHEREAS, Lukas served the City of Palo Alto and its citizens as a Canine Team member from
June 2004 through March 2010; and
WHEREAS, Lukas has been a devoted and dedicated partner to his handler, Agent Duane
Tannock; and
WHEREAS, Lukas apprehended numerous criminals, including suspects wanted for robbery,
burglary, auto theft, and violent assaults; and
WHEREAS, Lukas assisted neighboring Police agencies such as Menlo Park, Atherton,
Mountain View, Stanford, Los Altos and East Palo Alto; and
WHEREAS, Lukas promoted positive public relations by visiting numerous schools, Boy Scout
Meetings, Rotary Club meetings, and outside training classes; and
WHEREAS, Lukas received numerous letters of commendations from the citizens of Palo Alto
and Palo Alto Police Department personnel; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto wishes to acknowledge Lukas for his commitment and loyalty
to the community and his consistent efforts.
NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby
commends the outstanding public service of Lukas and records its appreciation, as well as the
appreciation of the citizens of this community, upon his retirement.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENTIONS:
ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: ____________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________
City Attorney City Manager
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING
APPRECIATION TO POLICE CANINE LUKAS Z KYJOSKEHO UDOLI UPON HIS
RETIREMENT
WHEREAS, Lukas served the City of Palo Alto and its citizens as a Canine Team member from
June 2004 through March 2010; and
WHEREAS, Lukas has been a devoted and dedicated partner to his handler, Agent Duane
Tannock; and
WHEREAS, Lukas apprehended numerous criminals, including suspects wanted for robbery,
burglary, auto theft, and violent assaults; and
WHEREAS, Lukas assisted neighboring Police agencies such as Menlo Park, Atherton,
Mountain View, Stanford, Los Altos and East Palo Alto; and
WHEREAS, Lukas promoted positive public relations by visiting numerous schools, Boy Scout
Meetings, Rotary Club meetings, and outside training classes; and
WHEREAS, Lukas received numerous letters of commendations from the citizens of Palo Alto
and Palo Alto Police Department personnel; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto wishes to acknowledge Lukas for his commitment and
loyalty to the community and his consistent efforts.
NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Palo Alto
hereby commends the outstanding public service of Lukas and records its appreciation, as well as the
appreciation of the citizens of this community, upon his retirement.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: June 2010
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney City Manager
CITY OF PALO ALTO
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: JUNE 14,2010
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION ON THE SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK JOINT
POWERS AUTHORITY'S (SFCJP A) CAPITAL FLOOD PROTECTION
PROJECT STUDIES AND DESIGN WORK
Below is an outline for the study session on the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority's
capital projects scheduled for June 14,2010 at 7:30 pm.
1) Presentation by Len Materman, Executive Director of the San Francisquito Creek Joint
Powers Authority (SFCJP A)
a. Overview of the SFCJPA's comprehensive project
b. Preliminary design of the San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 capital project
c. Alternatives to provide flood protection and other benefits upstream of Highway 101
d. Next steps
2) Open ,discussion on presentation
iLl fU-
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: JUNE 14, 2010
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 278:10
SUBJECT: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a Record of Land Use Action to
allow a Pediatric Dental Office on the second floor of an existing office
building at 2345 Yale Street.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The recommended Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would allow a pediatric dental office on the
second floor of an existing building which has contained both first and second floor office space
for forty years. The dental business is relocating to 2345 Yale Street, since they must vacate their
current address on Welch Road. The Planning and Transportation Commission, after
considering neighborhood residents' comments about parking, signage, and the office on the first
floor of the building, found that the required CUP approval findings could be made, subject to
conditions of approval to install parking signage; bike ratio, and to require an amendment for any
intensification of use.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend that the City
Council (Council) approve the attached Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) approving the
Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
BACKGROUND
the CUP approval is requested by Edward Davidovits on behalf of S. Brian Liu, DDS, MS to
allow a pediatric dental office to be located on the second floor of the existing office building at
2345 Yale Street. The first floor of the office building is still occupied with a legal non-
conforming use.
On April 1, 2010, the Director of Planning and Community Environment tentatively approved
the CUP request along with the Architectural Review (AR) application, based on the required
findings criteria pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 18.76 (Permits and
Approvals). Within the prescribed timeframe, on April 9, 2010, a neighbor requested a hearing of
the CUP by the P&TC.
CMR:'278:10 Page 1 of4
COUNCIL REVIEW AUTHORITY
An Architectural Review Board (ARB) hearing of the AR application was held on May 6, 2010
and the Planning Director approved the AR application on May 10, 2010. The AR approval was
not appealed prior to the end of the appeal period, May 25,2010.
Section 18.77.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) provides for a Council "call up"
review of CUP applications that have been reviewed by the P&TC. Instead of the project
automatically being heard by Council, the recommendation of the P&TC is placed on the consent
calendar of the City Council within 30 days of the P&TC's review. A minimum of three Council
Member votes are required to remove the item from the consent calendar and schedule it for a
subsequent City Council meeting. Otherwise, the recommendation of the P&TC stands and no
hearing is held. If the Council votes to hear the item, a hearing shall be scheduled as soon as
practicable.
DISCUSSION
This project does not involve an increase in building floor area nor any decrease in the number of
parking spaces. The building and site improvements, as conditioned, will result in improved
parking lot striping meeting the required parking space and drive aisle widths, and additional
landscaping within the parking lot and in front of the existing building. The proj ect will allow an
existing Palo Alto-based pediatric dental business to remain in Palo Alto, and conditions of
approval associated with the CUP have been designed to address concerns expressed by
neighbors.
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On May 19, 2010, the P&TC reviewed the project and recommended that the City Council
uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment's decision to approve the
application pursuant to PAMC Section 8.76.030, subject to additional conditions. The vote was
5-1-1 (Keller opposed, Tuma absent).
Two members of the public who reside in the College Terrace neighborhood presented their
concerns and provided written statements to the P&TC (Attachment G). The residents spoke
about parking lot signage and the appropriateness of existing and proposed uses. The applicant
and property/business owner spoke to clarify the business operations and modifications to the
project to address concerns. The P&TC added conditions of approval to staff-recommended
conditions. The additional conditions recommended by the P&TC were as follows:
1. Install visible (directional) signage at both Yale Street and Cambridge Avenue to
inform clients/patients of the parking lot provided for their use;
2. Any intensification of use shall require an amendment to the Conditional Use
Permit; and
3. Install bicycle racks for three bicycles on the site.
The P&TC also encouraged the applicant to include on the dentist's website information about
the rear parking lot so that clients use the parking lot rather than street parking, and to work with
the residents to ensure signage information will address their concerns. These suggestions have
been incorporated into the RLUA.
CMR: 278:10 Page 2 of4
G. Correspondence Presented to P&TC May 19,2010
H. Questions from Commissioners and Staff Responses May 19, 2010
COURTESY COPIES
Edward Davidovits, Applicant
S. Brian Lieu, DDS, MS, Owner
Joy Ogawa, Neighbor requesting hearing
College Terrace Residents' Association
CMR: 278:10 Page 4 of4
ATTACHMENT A
APPROVAL NO. 2010-1
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE APPROVAL FOR
2345 YALE STREET: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10PLN-00058
(Edward Davidovits, APPLICANT)
On .June 14, 2010, the Council approved the Conditional Use
Permit to allow a Dental Office (Medical Office Use Category) in
the second floor of an existing office building with minor exterior
changes and parking lot landscaping (no increase in square footage
is proposed), making the following findings, determination and
declarations:
SECTION 1.
Palo Alto ("City
follows:
Background. The City Council of the City of
Council") finds, determines, and declares as
A. On February 16, 2010, Edward Davidovits applied on
behalf of S. Brian Lieu, DDS, MS, for a Conditional Use Permit and
Minor Architectural Review to allow a Dental Office (Medical Office
Use Category) in the second floor of an existing office building
with minor exterior changes' and parking lot landscaping (no
increase in square footage is proposed) .
B. The project was deemed complete on March 26, 2010. A
tentative Director's Decision was prepared approving the
conditional use permit and minor architectural review on April 1,
2010. A hearing before the Planning & Transportation Commission
("PTC") was requested on April 9, 2010. The PTC held a public
hearing on May 19, 2010 to consider the application. The PTC voted
to recommend approval of the conditional use permit. A hearing
before the Architectural Review Board (ARB) was held May 6, 2010
and the ARB recommended that the Director approve the Architectural
Review (AR) component of the application. On May 10, 2010, the
Director issued his approval of the AR application, a decision
which was not appealed to City Council.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review.
categorically exempt from the provisions
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
of
The
the
SECTION 3. Conditional Use Permit Findings
proj ect is
California
1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not
be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the'
vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
general welfare, or convenience.
1
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
proposed use is a neighborhood serving dental practice
within an existing office building. The proposed use has
equal parking requirements to the office use which was
previously in this location and is allowed without the
requirement of or controls of a Conditional Use Permit.
Condi tions of approval have been imposed to ensure the
proj ect conforms to the submitted plans and that the
restriping of the parking lot includes the planting of new
landscaping and an additional tree to increase the
property's conformance with the City's parking lot
landscaping requirements. Additional landscaping along the
front fa9ade of the existing building has also been agreed
upon and included in the conditions of approval.
2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a
manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the
purposes of the Zoning Ordinance.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
proposed dental office is designed to follow the
Comprehensive Plan policies which encourage small local-
serving businesses that reuse vacant sites. The proposed
project will include only minor exterior changes to the
building, but has' included improvements to the parking lot,
including additional tree shading.
SECTION 4. Conditional Use Permit Granted. Conditional
Use Permit No. is granted to allow a Dental Office (Medical
Office Use Category) in the second floor of an existing office
building with minor exterior changes and parking lot landscaping
(no increase in square footage is proposed).
SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval.
Department of Planning & Community Environment
1. The proposed dental office use shall operate in substantial
conformance with the project description and plans stamped
received February 16, 2010, on file with the City in planning
application no. 10PLN-00058.
2. A copy of this approval letter shall be printed on the first
page of the plans submitted for building permit. The building
permit will not be approved without this letter printed on the
plan set.
3. The Director of Planning and Community Environment shall have
continuing j u'risdiction over this Conditional Use Permit and
2
reserves the right to revoke or terminate this permit,
reaffirm this permit or modify the conditions or impose new
conditions with respect to this permit.
4. New rear entrance door shall be of materials and design to
match existing.
5. Install visible (directional) signage at both Yale Street and
Cambridge Avenue to inform clients/patients of the parking lot
provided for their use. The signageplans shall be reviewed by
Planning staff prior to installation and after consideration
by the applicant of neighbor's suggestions.
6. Any intensification of use shall require an amendment to the
Conditional Use Permit.
7. Install bicycle racks for three bicycles on the site; if
feasible, locate the racks under the new exterior stairway.
8. The applicant is encouraged to include on the business'
website information about rear parking lot so that clients
use the parking lot rather than street parking.
9. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include
the following information and notes on the relevant plan
sheets:
(a) Sheet T-l Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/urbancanopy.asp ),
Applicant shall complete the Tree Disclosure Statement.
Inspections and monthly reporting by the project arborist are
mandatory. (All projects: check #1)
(b) Protective Tree Fencing Type. Delineate on grading plans,
irrigation plans , site plans and utility plans, Type II
fencing around Street Trees and Type I fencing around
Protected/Designated trees as a bold dashed line enclosing the
Tree Protection Zone (all permeable ground area surrounding
the trunk) per instructions on Detail #605, Sheet T-l, and the
City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans.
10. The parking lot plans shall be revised to remove one parking
space and replace it with one planting island. The island
shall be at least 6 feet in width, and shall be located
approximately half way along the rear property line to bring
the existing parking lot into greater conformance with parking
lot shading requirements since the proposal is for greater
than 11 parking spaces in a row without a planting island. The
planting island will contain one 24 inch box tree, species
Chitalpa, or similar with approval of City Arborist.
3
11. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees and new
landscaping. For trees, PW Detail #513 shall be included on
the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on
flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers
shall not be mounted inside an aeration tube. The tree
irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from
other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the Ci ty' s
Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation for other
landscaping shall also include bubblers, PW Detail #513.
12. The plans submitted for building permit shall include a
landscaping plan showing details of new parking lot tree and
new landscaping along the building frontage. Landscaping strip
in front of building shall be planted with two Burgundy Flax,
one on either end, and a 24-inch box Burgundy Japanese Maple
located in the center on top of an 8" mound covered in mulch.
Alternate planting may be approved with review of City
Arborist. Irrigation per condition of approval 6 is required.
13. All of the parking stalls, with the exception of the ADA
accessible space #1 7 should be reduced to 17' -6" depth,
resulting in a 25'-0" (except for at the ADA space where it
would be 24'-6").
14. Spaces #14 and #15 shall be at least 9'-0" wide, and space #16
shall be as wide as possible given the extra space from the
planting island, but no less than 9' -0". With 9' -0" wide
stalls, 24' aisle width would be acceptable.
15. New rear entrance door shall be of materials and design to
match existing.
16. Per PAMC Section 18.23.050 (Visual, Screening and Landscaping)
and PAMC Section 18.23.060 (Noise and Vibration), all new
rooftop equipment installed for this dental office shall be
screened from public view and shall comply with Chapter 9.10
of the PAMC (the Noise Ordinance) .
utilities Department -Electric Engineering Division
17. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility
Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan
review.
18. Applicant/Developer must notify Utilities Engineering
(Electric) if the proposed renovation/change of use has any
impact on the existing electrical service size, voltage, or
location. If there are any changes, the Utilities will provide
4
comments and/or conditions along with any applicable fees and
cost estimate.
utilities Department -Water Gas Wastewater Division
19. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater
service connection application -load sheet for City of Palo
Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the existing
and new 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.).
20. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for any 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.
21. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete
bases, or other structures can not be placed over existing
water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain l'
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 /vaul ts /bases
shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet
field conditions.
22. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and
upgrading the 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 services.
23. Sewer drainage piping serving fixtures located less than one
foot above the next upstream sewer main manhole cover shall be
protected by an approved backwater valve per California
Plumbing Code 710.0. The upstream sewer main manhole rim
elevation shall be shown on the plans.
24. Flushing of any fire system to sanitary sewer shall not exceed
30 GPM. Higher flushing rates shall be diverted to a
detention tank to achieve the 30 GPM flow to sewer.
25. Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions:
(a) The pump (s) be limited to a total 100 GPM capacity or
less.
5
(b) The sewage line changes to a 4" gravity flow line at
least 20' from the City clean out.
(c) The tank and float is set up such that the pump run time
not exceed 20 seconds each cycle.
26. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees
associated with the installation of the new utility service/s
to be installed by the City of Palo Al to Utili ties. The
approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other
facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity
requesting the relocation.
27. 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.
28. An approved reduce 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' of the property line. Show the location
of the RPPA on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross
connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between
the meter and the assembly. The applicant shall provide the
City with current test certificates for all backflows.
29. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for
any existing or new water connection for the fire system to
comply with requirements of California administrative code,
ti tIe 17, sections 7583 through 7 605 inclusive. Reduced
pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's
property adj acent to the property line, wi thin 5' of the
property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure
detector assembly on the plans. Inspection by the utilities
cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe
between the City connection and the assembly.
30. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City
of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater.
Fire Department
31. A permit will be required to install the medical gas system. A
hazardous materials registration form shall be submitted.
Contact Hazardous Materials Inspector Joe Afong (650-329-2665)
for details.
6
Building Department
32. The project is currently comprised of two lots.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the lots shall be merged
to create a single parcel.
SECTION 6. Term of Approval. If the Conditional Use
Permit granted is not used within one year of the date of council
approval, it shall become null and void, pursuant to by Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 18.77.090(a).
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PROJECT DESCRIPTION REFERENCED:
APPROVED:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
1. The one page project description and nine page plan set prepared
by Edward Davidovits, dated received February 16, 2010.
7
the receipt of application. A request for this hearing was received from one of these neighbors (Joy
Ogawa) after the tentative approval was published. The hearing request was related to the Director's
tentative decision Qn the CUP as well as the minor architectural review, though there were no
specific comments about the architectural review. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) is
conducted a public hearing on May 6, 2010 on the proposed exterior modifications to the building
and site. The ARB recommended approval with one additional condition:
Revised plans shall return to the ARB subcommittee to address four items:
(1) show detail for the awning and modifY the color to be compatible with the building
paint color,
(2) revise the site plan to show the planting island (and location of gas cylinder),.
(3) provide material and color details for the new exterior stairway,
(4) provide a landscape and irrigation plan incorporating revised plantings in the front
landscape strip~
The Director followed the ARB's recommendation and approved the minor architectural review on
May 10,2010. Neighbor concerns are summarized below and included as Attaclnnent E .
. Project Description
The CUP application requests a permit to allow a Dental Office on the second floor of an existing
office building. Associated with this CUP is an application for Architectural Review of several
minor exterior changes and parking lot landscaping. The exterior modifications were included in the
Director's tentative approval issued April 1, 2010, based upon CUP and Architectural Review
findings and subject to approval conditions set forth in the approval letter (Attaclnnent D).
The exterior changes include a new door to the rear parking lot, a new awning over that door, and a
restriping of the parking lot to provide the required accessible space an~ bringing the remaining
parking spaces up to current code requirements. No in~rease in floor area is proposed, and the
number of parking spaces are intended to be increased by one space, as set forth in the applicant's
project description (Attachment C). The Director's tentative decision was conditioned upon the
planting of a tree in a new planting island within the parking lot, enhancing its confonnance with the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
City's parking lot shading requirements. Because of the space needed for planting of the tree, the
. resulting parking lot has no net increase or decrease in the existing number of p~rking spaces. The
conditions of approval also included a requirement for additional landscaping along the front fa~ade
of the building. The applicant agreed to these conditions of approval, which are included in the draft
Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REVIEW:
Conditional Use Permit
The action required of the P&TC is a recommendation on the CUP. A Conditional Use Permit is
required for Medical Office in the Neighborhood Comm~rcia1 zone, as shown in P AMC Section
18.16.040, Table 1. This dental office is categorized as medical office, a use category which has the
same parking requirements as the existing professional office use c~tegory.
Procedure for review by the Commission upon request for hearing is as follows: .
(1) Within 45 days foliowing the filing of a timely hearing request of a proposed director's decision
or revised proposed director's decision the planning and transportation commission shall hold a
hearing on the application, unless the request is withdrawn as described above.
(2) Notice of the revised director's decision shall be given by mail to owners and residents of.
property within 600 feet of the property, by publication, by e .. mail, and by posting in a public
place. Notice shall include the address of the property, a brief description of the proposed
project, and the date, time and location of the hearing.
(3) Following the hearing, the planning and transportation commission shall make a
recommendation on the application, which shall be forwarded to the city council.
(Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMe) Section 18.77.060(e»
Procedure for review by the Council upon recommendation from the Commission is as follows:
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The recommendation of the planning and transportation commission on the
application shall be placed on the consent calendar of the council within 30 days. The
council may:
(1) Adopt the findings and recommendation of the planning and transportation
commission; or
(2) Remove the recommendation from the consent calendar, which shall require . .
three votes, and:
(A) Discuss the application and adopt findings and take action on the
application based upon the evidence presented at the hearing· of the
planning and transportation commission; or
(B) Direct that the application be set for a new hearing before the city council,
following which the city council shall ad~pt findings and take action on
the application.
(Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.77.060(t)
Architectural Review Status
Background information related· to the project's details and history has been included within the
Record of Land Use Action, which contains findings and conditions of approvai associated with the
tentatively approved application for a CUP and Architectural Review. The ROLUA wasl adjusted
following the ARB hearing, on May 6, 20l0, and the Director's action following the ARB's
recommendation. The Director's approval of the Architectural Review component occurred on May
10,2010, during the week of the P&TC's packet containing this staff report. The approval letter is
included as attachment F. The appeal period fo~ a Director's .decision following ARB
recommendation is 14 days, so the appeal period will not have ended prior to the P&TC hearing.
Following the P&TC hearing and at the end of the ARB appeal period, the project will be forwarded
to the City Council for placement on its consent calendar. Three members of the City Council would
be ~equired to pull the item off the consent calendar and schedule a public hearing.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES:
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Neighbor Concerns
The concerns expressed by the residential neighbors adjacent to this project include increased
activity over the, previous office use and concerns over the existing use on the ground floor. These
comments, as well as the letter received requesting a public hearing, are included as Attachment E.
, Parking Facilities
The existing office building parking lot provides 21 automobile parking spaces where current code
requirements for office would result in a requirement for 24 spaces. ,The restriping of the parking lot
will not decrease the number of parking spaces, and the proposed medical office use would not
require an increase in the number of off-street parking spaces for use by the building tenants and
visitors. Because the zoning code only requires t~at a new use provide parking for any increase in
square footage or intensification, this use change does not require any additional parking be ,
provided.
Standards of Review
The draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A), includes a determination ~hat the proposed
project, as conditioned, meets all requirements of the City's Municipal Code and Comprehensive
Plan. The following findings must b~ met to grant the conditional use pennit. Staff believes that
both findings can be made and each is discussed below:
1, The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not b.e detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be, detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience ..
This finding can be made in the' affirmative in that the proposed use is a neighborhood serving
dental practice within an existing office building. The proposed use has parking requirements
equal to the offi~e use which was previously in this locat~on and is allowed without the '
requirement or controls of a Conditional Use Permit. Conditions of approval have been imposed
to ensure the project conforms to the submitted plans and that the restriping of the parking lot
City of Palo Alto Page 5
includes the planting of new landscaping and an additional tree to increase the property's I
conformance with the City's parking lot landscaping requirements. Additional landscaping along
the front faQade of the existing building has also been agreed upon and included in the conditions
of approval.
2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in. a manner in accord with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance.
This finding. can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed dental office is designed to
follow the Comprehensive Plan policies which encourage smalllocal .. serving businesses that
reuse vacant sites. The proposed project includes minot exterior changes. to the building and
improvements to the parking lot, including additional tree shading.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The proposed project is consistent with the Compre~ensive Plan and staffbelieves there are no other
substantive policy implications.
TIME LINE:
Application Received:
Application Deemed Complete:
Tentative Approv.al:
. Hearing Requested:
End of Hearing Request Period:
ARB Hearing:
Director's ARB Decision:
P&TC Hearing:
City of Palo Alto
Date:
February 16,2010
March 26, 2010
April 1 ~ 2010
April 9, 2010
April 15, 2010
May 6,2010
May 10,2010·
May 19,2010
Page 6
End of ARB appeal period: May 25,2010
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: ".
The project is cat«gorically exempt from environmental review under. provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15, Class 1, renovation of existing
facilities.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Record of Land Use Action
B. Location Map
C. Project Description*
D. Tentative Approval Letter
E. Comment & Request for Hearing CorrespOlidence
. F. ARB Approval Letter
G. Project Plans*
*provided by applicant
COURTESY COPIES:
Edward Davidovits, Applicant
S. Brian Lieu, DDS, MS, Owner
Joy Ogawa, Neighbor requesting hearing
Prepared by: Jennifer Cutler, Planner~?
Reviewed by: Amy French, Manager of Current Planning
DepartmentIDivision Head APproval: __ D:~~:looI,;:=-': ;:..:;.::....0. ~\~~,... .. ~~...;x.Ao\~CIo!: ...... ~~ _______ _
Curtis Williams, Director of Planning
City of Palo Alto Page 7
" ;
Attachment C
1 Special Meeting o/Wednesday, May 19,2010
2 Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor
3 250 Hamilton Avenue
4 Palo Alto, California 94301
5
6
7 DRAFT MINUTES
8 EXCERPT RE: 2345 Yale Street
9
10
11 AT 6:00PM
12
13 NEW BUSINESS.
14 Public Hearing:
15
16 2345 Yale Street: Planning and Transportation Commission Review of a Request for
1 7 Hearing on a Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Dental Office on the second
18 floor of an existing office building. Zoning: CN.
19
20 Ms. Jennifer Cutler, Planner: Yes. Good evening Commissioners. This project involves the
21 Conditional Use Permit to allow a dental office on the second floor of an existing office
22 building. The applicant also included minor architectural review for minor exterior changes
23 to the building and restriping of the existing parking lot.
24
25 A hearing was requested on the tentative Director's Decision on both the Conditional Use
26 Permit and the architectural review. A public hearing was held on the architectural review
27 elements of the applicant on May 6 with the Architectural Review Board, and the Director
28 has approved those aspects of the project based on their recommendation. If no appeal is
29 filed then that decision will become effective on May 24, next week.
30
31 The applicant for the Conditional Use Permit under review tonight is for Dr. Liu, who
32 currently has a pediatric dental practice on Welch Road. This is a solo practice as described
33 in the Staff s response to Commissioners comments, which is available at places and at the
34 table at the rear of Chambers.
35
36 One concern that was posed about this proj ect by the neighbor who requested this hearing is
37 the existing use of the first floor of the same building. However, Staff has conducted
38 additional research on this subject and has found that the use was established in early 2006
39 with a City issued Use and Occupancy Permit, which is different from a Conditional Use
40 Permit.
41
42 At that time, the beginning of 2006, a Conditional Use Permit was not required for any office
43 uses in the CN zone including medical office. They were allowed by right. It was a
44 permitted use. Therefore, this use is in conformance with the code. It is an existing legal
45 use.
46
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 1 of21
1 The second issue that was brought up was in regard to reserving specific parking spaces for
2 patients. The City's zoning code requires a certain number of parking spaces per square foot
3 of floor area. It does not require any reserved parking for this particular use. The
4 Transportation Division has reviewed the plans and provided conditions of approval to
5 ensure that the plans will meet the parking requirements in terms of dimensions and travel
6 space in between.
7
8 Staff recommends that the Commission recommend approval with the conditions proposed in
9 Attachment A. The applicant and property owner are here to answer any questions you may
10 have. I believe the neighbor requesting a hearing is also here as well. ~hank you.
11
12 Chair Garber: Thank you. Forgive me City Attorney. I am forgetting our protocol here
13 given that this· is a Request for Hearing as opposed to an application. We will open the
14 public hearing and then we will hear people in that way. So let us open the public hearing.
15 Our first speaker of the evening will be Joy Ogawa followed by Doria Summa. We will give
16 you five minutes.
17
18 Ms. Joy Ogawa, Palo Alto: Thank you for the five minutes. I should have enough time I
19 guess. I prepared for three but I will probably go over the three.
20
21 So I hope that you have been able to look over the materials that I have submitted, especially
22 the letter in the packet, which lists the conditions that the neighbors have requested. Also,
23 there is an additional modification that I submitted today by email. That modification is just
24 specifically asking that signage be displayed at the entrance to the parking lot driveway that
25 identifies the occupants of the building. There is signage right now for Lucile Packard but
26 the reason I am asking this is I remembered the time before that sign got put up when Lucile
27 Packard had moved in there were a lot of cars coming into our driveway because they didn't
28 know which driveway to go in and our driveway was the first one on Yale Street, the first
29 one on Cambridge after turning off of Yale Street so they would tum into our driveway. So
30 we had a lot of that going on. So I think it is very important to have appropriate signage at
31 the entrance to that parking lot driveway saying what that parking lot is for. It is for that
32 2345 building and who the occupants of that building are, whether it is a dentist or whoever
33 is going to occupy that ground floor. It is not clear who is going to be occupying that ground
34 floor in the future.
35
36 So I am not going to repeat everything that I submitted. I do want to ask the question, how is
37 it that this application was not only deemed complete by Planning Staff it actually got
38 approved by Planning Staff considering the condition that the application was in? I
39 submitted a copy to you. The document that I presume comprises the application is missing
40 a ton of important information, a lot of blanks there, and it has incorrect information. It was
41 really disturbing to me when I looked at the document because it is really important
42 information that is missing and that somehow it just got deemed complete and got processed
43 by Planning Staff and got approved by Planning Staff. So I find it is really disturbing to me
44 that this happens. I hope that Planning Commission will look into the criteria that Planning
45 Staff applies to determining when an application is deemed complete.
46
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 2 of21
1 I also want to emphasize that this application is for a Conditional Use Permit. Now, a
2 medical office use may have been a permitted use in 2006 but it is no longer a permitted use
3 it is a conditional use. It seems to me that the whole approach that Staff has taken has been
4 as though it were a permitted use. They looked at the parking requirement as though the
5 proposed use were a permitted use. It is like oh, it's a permitted use, that's fine it is all
6 grandfathered in, no problem. Then they approve the CUP without considering the real
7 concerns about impacts of the specific type of medical use involved here without considering
8 the potential of expansion of the use, and without making sure to prevent inappropriate uses.
9
10 So the zoning code says that a CUP can only be approved if it will not be detrimental to the
11 neighbors, and only if it is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan, and the purposes of the
12 zone. So a CUP in the CN zone can only be granted for a neighborhood serving use. That is
13 the purpose of the CN zone.
14
15 What the neighbors are asking is simply that all necessary and reasonable conditions be put
16 in place that minimize negative impacts to the neighbors and assure that the conditional use
17 is an appropriate neighborhood serving use and stays that way. Now, a solo dental practice
18 might be considered a neighborhood serving use. A larger multiple dentist practice might
19 not. I am asking please don't be afraid of being overly restrictive. This CUP would not shut
20 the door permanently on what can ever be done on this property. An amendment to the CUP
21 can always be applied for in the future. At that time an evaluation can be made on how well
22 the existing CUP has worked. By tightly restricting the CUP for now it gives the property
23 owner incentive to be a good neighbor and win the support of residential neighbors for any
24 future amendments to the CUP.
25
26 So I am asking the Commission to include conditions that ensure minimum negative impacts
27 to the neighbors and maximum accord with the Comprehensive Plan arid purposes of the CN
28 zone.
29
30 Chair Garber: Thank you. Doria Summa.
31
32 Ms. Doria Summa, Palo Alto: Hi, thank you for letting me speak tonight on behalf of the
33 College Terrace Residents Association Board of Directors. I serve on that as a city observer.
34 We emailed a letter in to you and I just wanted to go through it quickly.
35
36 The College Terrace Residents Association Board of Directors identified as one of our goals
37 this year to work to preserve and revitalize the Neighborhood Commercial District in College
38 Terrace. The municipal code describes the CN zone as a neighborhood commercial district
39 intended to create and maintain neighborhood shopping areas primarily accommodating retail
40 sales, personal service, eating and drinking, and office uses of moderate size serving the
41 immediate neighborhood under regulations that will assure maximum compatibility with
42 surrounding residential areas.
43
44 In general, lax adherence to zoning regulations creates a situation where developers are able
45 to circumvent the zone regulations resulting in uses that are inconsistent with the spirit and
46 intention of the CN zone. Medical office uses in particular have been identified as an area of
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 3 0/21
1 concern in a neighborhood survey conducted in December 2008. Residents expressed a
2 strong concern about the negative impacts of medical office uses in our CN zone. Part of that
3 concern comes from the potential migration of medical offices that are more regional in
4 nature. Projects in the CN zone that propose medical office use should be carefully reviewed
5 to assure adherence to the code and maximum compatibility with surrounding residential
6 areas.
7
8 We do not object to a sole dental practitioner on the second floor of2345 Yale Street, but we
9 urge the City require that the first floor reverts to general office and remains that way, and
10 that the appropriate conditions are put in place to minimize parking and traffic impacts.
11 Thank you very much.
12
13 Chair Garber: Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak?
14 We will keep the public hearing open if there is. Is the applicant here? Would you like to
15 speak? If you would like to speak please fill out a card. I have it? I apologize. Brian Liu.
16 Thank you.
17
18 Mr. Brian Liu, Palo Alto: Thanks for the opportunity to speak to you. Basically I just
19 wanted to give you a little bit of background of myself. I am originally from Taiwan. I got
20 my dental education from Taiwan. After dental school I applied to UCSF for specialty
21 training for three years. I am a board certified pediatric dentist and I still maintain my
22 teaching professor job at UCSF. So the office I have right now is at 750 Welch Road. I have
23 been practicing there since February of 2000. So it has been there for more than ten years
24 already. I have been serving the community for more than ten year. More than 80 percent of
25 my patient pool is from Palo Alto. The reason I moved my office is because Welch Road has
26 been taken by the Stanford Hospital and for that reason a lot of people have to move out of
27 Welch Road. I will be very sad for my patients if I have to move out of Palo Alto City
28 because it is very hard to find a medical location for a dental office.
29
30 I want to talk about my office. Because of my education as a professor at UCSF I have not
31 high quantity office. It is a high quality office. So I don't see a lot of patients. I see 20-plus
32 patients. Usually we have patient appointments for one hour so we don't have a lot of
33 patients coming in every day. So the impact of traffic I don't think is going to be a major
34 issue. Plus, we have enough parking for all patients. So I just wanted to have a chance to let
35 everybody know it is very nice to practice in Palo Alto City and I will be really sad to move
36 out of Palo Alto City. Thank you.
37
38 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners, questions, or comments? Commissioner Lippert.
39
40 Commissioner Lippert: So in the Staff Report and what you have described to us this is
41 really a legally existing nonconforming use. Is that correct?
42
43 Ms. Cutler: You are referring to the first floor?
44
45 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. I am referring to the zone that this building is in. It is in the
46 CN zone.
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 4 of21
1
2 Ms. Cutler: Office is an allowed use in the CN zone. When the ground floor use was
3 established that included office as well as medical office, professional office. Since then the
4 code has been changed so that medical office now is an allowed use but a Conditional Use
5 Permit is required.
6
7 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, so at the time the building was built. ..
8
9 Ms. Cutler: 1969.
10
11 Commissioner Lippert: It was a permitted use in there.
12
13 Ms. Cutler: Yes.
14
15 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then in 2006 we changed the rules.
16
17 Ms. Cutler: In 2007 the rules were changed. Office is still allowed but medical office
18 specifically got pulled out and a Conditional Use Permit is now required for any new medical
19 office established in the CN Zone.
20
21 Commissioner Lippert: That is in all CN zones.
22
23 Ms. Cutler: Correct.
24
25 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. The question I have I guess is for the City Attorney. When
26 does something like that become a downzoning? Would there physically always have to
27 have been -if there was a dental office in there obviously it would be a downzone if we
28 didn't allow another dentist to go into that building.
29
30 Mr. Larkin: As long as the medical use is continuous and doesn't expand that medical office
31 can continue in that location. They can't increase the intensity of the use. They can't do a
32 lot to expand that use but they can keep that medical use on the ground floor as long as they
33 are in continuous use doing that, and as long as the City doesn't decide that they want to
34 amortize that use out of existence. Otherwise they are okay there in perpetuity. Downzoning
35 or up-zoning those are not necessarily well defined terms.
36
37 Commissioner Lippert: Well, I guess where my line of questioning goes is when are we
38 taking away property rights because that is really where the rub is?
39
40 Mr. Larkin: If we were to say not only is it nonconforming but that we were going to create
41 a date certain in which that use could no longer be done on that property then that would be
42 where that would take place. Then we would have to do an amortization study so that the
43 owners of the business would be able to obtain the value of their improvements to the
44 business.
45
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 5 of21
1 Ms. French: I would like to add something too. When our attorney says continuous use, in
2 our Nonconforming Use Regulation, Chapter 18.70 it does state that for a period of 12
3 months or more if the nonconforming use vacates then it needs to be replaced by a
4 conforming use. So there could be a period of several months where it was vacant where
5 they could still come back and do a medical office use on the first floor. We are talking
6 about the first floor right now.
7
8 Commissioner Lippert: Correct. When did the Lucile Packard vacate?
9
10 Ms. French: They have not vacated.
11
12 Commissioner Lippert: Oh, they are still there.
13
14 Ms. French: They were issued a permit in January of2007 and they are still there.
15
16 Commissioner Lippert: So they have whatever their rights are by the fact that they are there
1 7 even though the zoning on it or the rules for them have changed as well. So they are a
18 legally existing nonconforming use as well.
19
20 Ms. Cutler: Correct.
21
22 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. I may have additional questions.
23
24 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez, then Keller, and Fineberg.
25
26 Commissioner Martinez: One thing when we get small applications or for smaller projects
27 like this is I feel like we get kind of hand-me-down drawings with it. I would have liked to
28 have seen the site plan that showed the setbacks, that showed the width of the street, that
29 showed that we had on-street parking, that showed the distance to public transportation, the
30 things that we really care about on the Commission rather than a building plan. Are you
3 1 going to correct me? Is it there?
32
33 Just as a general thing when we look at projects that are alterations in nature we don't really
34 care about the size of the elevator so much as we do sort of the neighborhood uses like what
35 is next door, what is across the street, how far is it to these properties, things like that. I think
36 that would give us more of a flavor of sort of the neighborhood and the consequence than an
37 architectural plan.
38
39 First before I forget, I really want to say this. I really want to thank Dr. Liu for choosing to
40 stay within Palo Alto. I think you should be commended for that. I think a thriving practice
41 could move to Menlo Park and your patients would follow you I am sure. So I am happy
42 about that. No, I am not suggesting that. I am just saying you had a choice and you made the
43 right choice.
44
45 One of the issues is that as urbanists we all love these kinds of mixed use neighborhoods
46 where you walk down the street and there is a sleepy little business you didn't know about.
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 60f21
1 You walk a little bit further and there is a cafe, and there is a house that has been there for 50
2 years, and there is something else like a duplex next to that. There is this rich texture that we
3 just adore in this city. I think College Terrace is my favorite neighborhood for that reason.
4 But when there is a change it is like all hell breaks loose. It is like this is going to change the
5 neighborhood for the worst. An office use is somehow now a dental use and this is going to
6 really start the downward slide of our neighborhood. That probably isn't true. I think this is
7 a small use with a small consequence. I think anything where there are children involved and
8 the practice is children's dentistry, there is an opportunity to add more life to it. It is near
9 public transportation. Teenagers can come on their own as mine used to do. There are kids
10 walking to and for with their bikes. There is added life to the neighborhood and there is no
11 reason to see this in the context that it is a negative addition to the neighborhood.
12
13 In addition, I think the parking is set at a fairly high bar, 250 square feet per parking place is
14 about as stringent as it gets. So I think we have some safeguards in the applicant's proposal
15 for a fairly small use of a second floor of a building. He is actually reducing the amount of
16 square footage in adding the elevator and equipment room to the project. So I think we as
1 7 neighbors I think we need to like take a deep breath and look at this in the context of a very
18 rich urban environment that is half a block to EI Camino Real that really can be something
19 that really isn't a big outside use, but is really something that very quickly is going to become
20 a part of your neighborhood. Thank you.
21
22 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller and then Fineberg.
23
24 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So my first question is we have a building that has been
25 there for a long time. There is a legal nonconforming use on the first floor. There are
26 representations that at some point in time it is expected that that legal nonconforming use
27 may end, and we have a Conditional Use Permit application for a new use in the same
28 building. Is it legal to condition the new use, the Conditional Use Permit, occupancy based
29 on the vacancy if you will of the nonconforming use on the first floor and discontinuance of
30 that nonconforming use?
31
32 Mr. Larkin: I think that if the Commission wanted to say that the new use couldn't come in
33 as long as the existing nonconforming use is there that could be a condition that the
34 Commission could decide to impose.
35
36 Commissioner Keller: We could allow construction to happen just not occupancy until the
37 current legal nonconforming use were terminated without requiring an additional Conditional
38 Use Permit for it to recur?
39
40 Mr. Larkin: Yes, if the condition thought that the combination of having the dental office on
41 the top floor along with the medical office on the ground floor was too much of a
42 concentration of medical then you could condition the new use couldn't come in as long as
43 the old use was there.
44
45 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Also, to Commissioner Martinez, you might want to look
46 at Attachment B to the Staff Report. Well, it doesn't have setbacks but it does give a context.
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 7 of21
1 I am actually personally very familiar with this building because I have in past patronized not
2 the Lucile Packard on the first floor but the intellectual property services, Lumen Intellectual,
3 that used to occupy the second floor. I guess this is the first time I have heard that they
4 moved or are about to move or something to that effect.
5
6 So what is interesting about this is that there is this letter from Joy Ogawa dated Saturday,
7 May 15, at 3:38 PM has attached to it an application for a Conditional Use Permit to locate
8 an 8,270 square foot professional office. What I am curious about is the building appears to
9 be 6,000-something or other. I am wondering what the discrepancy is between because it
10 does indicate that it is an existing structure. So does anybody have an answer as to why Lisa
11 Grote's comments were referencing an 8,270 square foot professional office while the new
12 building is somewhere just over 6,000?
13
14 Ms. Cutler: I do believe that that was in reference to an entirely different site on College
15 Avenue.
16
17 Chair Garber: About a block and a half away.
18
19 Ms. Cutler: Right. So it is a totally different location. It is actually a very different kind of
20 situation and not the building on this site.
21
22 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Because I am familiar with driving to this place it took
23 me awhile to even know.that there was a parking lot behind the building. I would have to say
24 that the first few times I visited Lumen Intellectual Property Services I parked. on Yale
25 because I was not aware of a parking lot around the comer. So I think that certainly is an
26 Issue.
27
28 There was reference by Commissioner Martinez to the fact that this is a pediatric dentist
29 location and that there would be potential for bikes. Is there any provision for bike parking
30 as far as this? I am not sure if I saw it.
31
32 Ms. Cutler: I believe the applicant is indicating that it could be added if that was desirable.
33
34 Commissioner Keller: Perhaps the applicant might want to say where it would go because I
35 can't figure out where it would go other than blocking a walkway or something.
36
37 Chair Garber: Is it important to know where other than to know that it should exist? It is
38 fine if it does.
39
40 Commissioner Keller: Well, the reason I would like to know where is because if the
41 alternative is removing a parking space that has its own risks.
42
43 Chair Garber: Okay, so maybe that is the question to be answered. Please identify yourself.
44
45 Mr. Edward Davidovits, Applicant: I am the applicant on behalf of Dr. Liu. We were not
46 aware of a requirement of bicycle parking but there are a couple of places where it could be
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 8 of21
1 added. One would be under the stairs, the emergency stairs leading to the second floor on the
2 right side of the bUilding. The other location could be at the entrance to the building from
3 Yale. There is plenty of landscape and a walkway where we could create a small area for
4 bicycle parking there too.
5
6 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. None of those would require reducing any parking
7 spaces. I do believe that staircase has space underneath if I remember correctly. What is the
8 code requirement for how many bicycle parking spaces might be required? I apologize for
9 not bringing this up in advance. Maybe we can defer that so you can answer that while you
10 are doing that. Shall I make comments or come back later?
11
12 Chair Garber: You can make comments. I think that is fine.
13
14 Commissioner Keller: I think that we should not allow the Conditional Use Permit without
15 requiring a termination of the nonconforming use on the first floor because it exacerbates a
16 problem that -we should not exacerbate a problem particularly with the nature of medical
17 office.
18
19 The second thing is I think that conditioning it on appropriate signage indicating the parking
20 being around the corner is an issue. I have noticed that myself. I would like to see an
21 appropriate condition on a certain amount of bike parking added as well.
22
23 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg.
24
25 Ms. French: To respond, two bicycle parking spaces would be needed for 5,000 square feet
26 of medical office in this district. So for 7,500 you would need three. So it is basically two
27 spaces.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
30
31 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Fineberg and then Tanaka.
32
33 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to first thank Dr. Liu for making the decision to stay in
34 Palo Alto. It is great to keep our local businesses local and to have our service providers be
35 here within town where they are walkable and accessible. Despite all the technicalities and
36 the hoops we put up I would like to echo Commissioner Martinez's thanks that you are
37 staying here in Palo Alto.
38
39 I am also concerned about the impact of the building on the neighbors, most specifically the
40 immediate neighbors, and then the greater neighborhood, which is undergoing a kind of de-
41 retailization. Ten years ago you used to be able to walk up and down the side streets there
42 and there was retail. Now it is not retail and dropping fast. So asa matter of planning just
43 beyond just this project looking at what is happening in the neighborhood points towards
44 maintaining neighborhood serving retail as a priority to honor the zoning in the
45 neighborhood. That said I am completely confused by our City Attorney's answers to
46 Commissioner Lippert and Commissioner Keller. Because from Commissioner Lippert's
City 0/ Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 9 0/21
1 questions I thought that if we said ground floor can no longer be a nonconforming medical
2 use that would be downzoning, which we can't do unless we have studies that you talked
3 about. Then with Commissioner Keller's questions it sounded like we can but we just link it
4 to the approval of a CUP. So did I get that right?
5
6 Chair Garber: Just before you respond let me just make a general announcement. We are
7 going to allow this item to pass beyond the seven 0' clock deadline to complete it before we
8 start the next item, which is High-Speed Rail and due to start at seven. So if anyone is here
9 for High-Speed Rail we will be starting that item a little later.
10
11 Mr. Larkin: That is fine. Technically what you would be doing is continuing it. To answer
12 Commissioner Fineberg's question we can't put a condition on the ground floor business to
13 cease existing. We can put a condition on the new proposed use on the second floor to not
14 start until that use is discontinued. So you are putting the condition on the new use not on the
15 old use.
16
17 Commissioner Fineberg: So we can't require the owner of the building to require Stanford to
18 vacate. If the owner chose to renew the lease let's say then the second floor Conditional Use
19 Permit couldn't begin operations.
20
21 Mr. Larkin: Yes, a condition of that use beginning in order to get their occupancy permit that
22 would be a legal condition. I am not suggesting this is what the Commission do. I am saying
23 that that would be a legal condition to impose.
24
25 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, that creates - I have no idea what the owner of the building
26 and Stanford -that is beyond the purview of this hearing tonight, but that condition could
27 , potentially subject the dentist office to a huge risk if they were to start construction until they
28 had some kind of legal guarantee that the medical office use on the ground floor would be
29 vacated. So that creates a pretty scary situation.
30
31 Mr. Larkin: Again, I am not recommending that condition. The question was whether it
32 could be imposed and the answer is yes.
33
34 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, but you are saying that we cannot permit the dentist use on
35 the second floor with a requirement that medical cease on the first floor.
36
37 Mr. Larkin: I am saying that you can condition the second floor use on the discontinuance of
38 the first floor use.
39
40 Chair Garber: You simply cannot specify when that would occur.
41
42 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes. Okay. I am trying to figure out which comes first.
43
44 Mr. Larkin: You could put an end date on the condition.
45
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 10 of21
1 Chair Garber: On the condition but in terms of Commissioner Fineberg's thread here what
2 the City would have no input on is when the bottom tenant would vacate.
3
4 Mr. Larkin: That's right.
5
6 Chair Garber: So therefore there would be no way that the City would also be able to allow
7 or define when the second floor tenant could occupy. So to your point Commissioner
8 Fineberg you are absolutely correct. You are creating a large ambiguity that would not be
9 able to be resolved by the City but could only be resolved by the relationship between the
10 tenant and the owner.
11
12 Commissioner Fineberg: I am not sure yet whether that condition is a good thing or a bad
13 thing. I am just seeing that for any business, ambiguity, especially that kind of ambiguity, is
14 not easy for business to live with.
15
16 When we are looking at what should be on the first floor do we have the ability in making the
1 7 decision about that kind of condition to look at what might be feasible or viable as a business
18 on the first floor? Is that space something that is so constrained that it would work
19 beautifully for general office use but there is no way it could be retail, there is no way it
20 could be other conforming uses? Do we have any sense of that?
21
22 Ms. Cutler: It is a little bit beyond the subject of this hearing, but general office is a use that
23 is permitted without any additional requirements in terms of Conditional Use Permit or
24 anything like that on the ground floor. The only thing that is a little bit weird about the
25 current use on the ground floor is the fact that if they came in today they would be required
26 to get a Conditional Use Permit before they went in. When they did come in and establish
27 that use they were as office is today allowed in that location.
28
29 Ms. French: Further, that the building, I think you were asking basically does it lend itself to
30 retail? I would say no. It was constructed in 1969 as an office building and that is exactly
31 the use it portrays. Maybe in architectural terms there is a better way.
32
33 Chair Garber: You are doing fine.
34
35 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, great. Thank you. A couple of other quick comments then.
36 I would absolutely support Ms. Ogawa's request that there be good signage on the driveway
37 to lead patients to the parking. I would also suggest that the applicant and business owner be
38 good neighbors, work with the neighbors, reach out make sure if this does go ahead that the
39 parking issues, the tenants pulling in, whatever it is a lot of times just open lines of good
40 communication fix problems or avoid problems. So that would be important. Not something
41 I think that we could condition necessarily though.
42
43 As far as Ms. Suma's request that we condition that the first floor revert back to the eN zone
44 I think our discussion has been pretty clear that we don't have the legal authority to do that,
45 but we can condition the occupancy of the second floor as a way of accomplishing that. I
46 would concur with the comments that there be a requirement condition for bike parking. I
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 11 0/21
1 would also like to ask Staff to address some of the questions raised, I believe it was by Ms.
2 Ogawa, about how the applicant was deemed complete and approved with partial
3 information, some misinformation, and what looked like not complete information on the
4 forms.
5
6 Ms. Cutler: I believe that the form that was attached to that specific letter that she sent in
7 was one form that we do ask them to fill out. We make sure that the relevant information
8 that we need for our evaluation is available there. There were also additional documents
9 submitted including two separate project description letters, one from the applicant and one
10 from the doctor describing the use, the fact that was a sole practitioner use, and some
11 additional details. So we did find that it had sufficient information for us to move forward
12 and recommend to the Director that it be approved.
13
14 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, I appreciate that. One last question if I could. She just
15 touched on that it is a sole practitioner use. Is there anything, given the way the application
16 has been submitted that requires it remain a sole practitioner, or can the office bring in
1 7 multiple assistants, multiple other partners? Is that within the purview of what we review or
18 solely a business operating decision?
19
20 Ms. Cutler: One of the first conditions of approval that is part of any of these applications is
21 that the use be in substantial conformance with the letters and plans submitted as part of the
22 application. So the project description letter that describes it as a sole practitioner. We have
23 also received from the applicant more detailed information as we included in our response to
24 Commissioner questions that gave more specificity as to the fact that there is an orthodontist
25 who comes in three days a week, in terms of the number of staff. I believe that the doctor
26 would like to have a little bit of room to expand to have some flexibility in his practice but as
27 it stands I believe it is supposed to meet the description in that project description letter.
28
29 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you.
30
31 Chair Garber: Commissioners Tanaka, Garber, and then Lippert. Then let's see if we can
32 get to a motion.
·33
34 Commissioner Tanaka: First I wanted to thank the applicant for coming out and trying to
35 stay in Palo Alto. I agree with my fellow Commissioners comments. I also want to thank the
36 residents for coming out and speaking and sending us information. This is very useful.
37 Thank you.
38
39 To me when I looked at this project it seemed that the central issue is about parking, whether
40 the residential streets were going to be filled with nonresident parking perhaps that would
41 impact on the residents in that area. So I wanted to ask Staff a few questions to see if I could
42 get a better understanding. So for the current project as it is with Lucile Packard on the first
43 floor and the current business, is the top floor empty right now? It is empty?
44
45 Ms. Cutler: That is my understanding.
46
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 12 of21
1 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. So with this Lucile Packard in peak time how many parking
2 spaces are free or are used with Lucile Packard? Do you know?
3
4 Ms. Cutler: I would actually defer that to the applicant and see if they have that information.
5
6 Commissioner Tanaka: Does the applicant know?
7
8 Chair Garber: Please identify yourself again.
9
10 Mr. Davidovits: I was there a couple of times. I would say midmorning one day and the
11 other was mid-afternoon. The parking lot looked like more than half empty and there were
12 several vacant stalls as well on the street in front of the building and across the street as well.
13 So I don't think the Lucile Packard tenant has a huge amount of vehicles coming in.
14
15 Commissioner Tanaka: Chair, may I ask one of the residents for their perspective since they
16 are there all the time?
17
18 Chair Garber: You may.
19
20 Commissioner Tanaka: Joy.
21
22 Ms. Ogawa: Actually I brought a photo. Fourteen cars Lucile Packard. This is last month
23 after Lumen had moved out so the second floor is empty. I would say at peak, 14 are about
24 peak, but it is a 21-space parking lot. Fourteen is more than half. There are certain times of
25 day, it depends on the time of day that he showed up, it is going to look pretty empty. At
26 lunchtime it kind of empties out and early morning it is emptier, and later afternoon it is
27 emptier. During the peak time if you want to see the photo I have a photo.
28
29 Commissioner Tanaka: Ms. Ogawa since you are up there or maybe Staff can answer. Do
30 you have any idea how much of the street parking is due to Lucile Packard or nonresidential
31 parking on Cambridge or Yale?
32
33 Ms. Ogawa: Well, I would say that patients maybe half of the patients will park on the street.
34 I kind of don't mind that so much because it is there for an hour and it is convenient for them
35 to get to the front door. That is the interesting thing, for Lucile Packard there are 14 cars, but
36 I don't think they have a lot of patients at anyone time. They maybe have like one or two
37 patients at anyone time. So really those 14 cars are like staff filling up the parking space.
38 Then they will have one or two patients and they often park on the street. At the moment
39 there is very little parking, I mean the staff don't park on the street anymore because there is
40 permit parking so they can't park for more than two hours on Yale Street anyway. I don't
41 pay too much attention to Cambridge but Cambridge gets a lot of parking from all over
42 because a lot of it is not permit parking. So it gets parking from the business districts all
43 over.
44
45 Commissioner Tanaka: So on Yale, the residential street, is that street okay then in terms of
46 parking or are there parking issues?
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 13 of21
1
2 Ms. Ogawa: We are worried about parking issues. What is concerning is there are ten
3 dentists here. If you have three or four patients an hour why do you need ten dental chairs?
4 So my concern is that there are going to be ten patients plus and maybe more because you
5 have ten dental chairs, you have patients in the waiting room, and in that case there are going
6 to be a lot of patients, lots of parking on the street, and that is going to be mostly patient
7 parking because it is a two hour limit. So that is our concern that there are going to be a lot
8 of patient parking because of this use. As I say, ten dental chairs and three or four patients, I
9 don't know.
10
11 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, thank you. So if I can continue? I have some questions for
12 Staff.
13
14 Chair Garber: Excuse me, unless you are recognized you many not speak. Commissioner
15 Tanaka.
16
17 Mr. Davidovits: The issue about the parking I understand the concern but the code requires
18 the same amount of parking for office or medical use. So the fact that it is a dental office or
19 is a high-tech company like Facebook taking the space and packing the people in little cubes
20 of one by five, you could end up having more people using the building on a full-time basis
21 than a doctor seeing two or three patients an hour. That is all I wanted to say.
22
23 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you, I appreciate that. Thank you Ms. Ogawa for your
24 comments as well. Thank you. I have a question for Staff. I want to understand the scope of
25 our authority on this. Is the scope of our authority just purely on this project site or can we
26 make restrictions on the street as well for parking?
27
28 Ms. French: Street parking is available for as it is marked. So if it is marked for two hour
29 parking then there is nothing about who can use that two-hour parking.
30
31 Chair Garber: It cannot be assigned.
32
33 Commissioner Tanaka: And we can't make any restrictions about parking must be in the
34 parking lot? Is that something that we can do?
35
36 Mr. Larkin: Under California law the streets belong to all the people of the State of
37 California. So we can't restrict people from parking in the streets other than restrictions that
38 apply across the board to anybody who might park there.
39
40 Commissioner Tanaka: How about signage? Can signage be put along let's say both
41 Cambridge and Yale alerting people of parking or this is where parking should be but not
42 necessarily enforcement?
43
44 Mr. Larkin: The City could put in parking sign.
45
46 Commissioner Tanaka: We could ask the applicant to pay for that.
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 14 of21
1
2 Mr. Larkin: Or the applicant could put in parking signs probably easier done onsite. If there
3 was a request to put in like you see in the cities with the big P and the arrows that is
4 something that could be done.
5
6 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, great. I guess my comment though is while I understand that
7 an office would have perhaps the same amount of parking the difference is that because of
8 the residential permit parking program, which restricts two hour parking, it is hard for an
9 office worker to run out there every two hours and move their car. So I guess I would think
10 having a little signage about the parking would be one possible solution. Those are all the
11 questions I have for now. Thank you.
12
13 Chair Garber: Myself and then Commissioners Lippert and then Keller. I don't have a lot to
14 say. I will align myself with the comments of Commissioner Martinez who I think was
15 eloquent and sums up my feelings. Commissioner Lippert.
16
1 7 Commissioner Lippert: Getting back to the Conditional Use Permit here. Because we have
18 an existing office use on the ground floor even if they were to vacate that underlying use is
19 permitted to remain there and another office can move in. The issue is with regard to another
20 medical use moving in and if I understand correctly, and correct me if I am wrong, the dental
21 office would not be able to occupy their space until the first floor tenant is vacant. Is that
22 what is going on?
23
24 Ms. Cutler: That is only if you as the Commission recommend and the City Council
25 approves that as a condition of this approval.
26
27 Commissioner Lippert: I am kind of lost as to why we would condition something that way.
28 What we are basically zoning for is vacant space then.
29
30 Chair Garber: So you wouldn't support that.
31
32 MOTION
33
34 Commissioner Lippert: I find that very perplexing. Don't we have enough vacancy in this
35 city right now? That is not a criticism there. I think I have enough information here. I am
36 going to make a motion. I am going to move with the Staff recommendations here and the
37 conditions said in there with one additional recommendation or condition in there, which is
38 that there be some visible signage for the parking lot so it is known that that is the parking for
39 this address. That signage I believe can be reviewed at Staff level.
40
41 Chair Garber: Do I hear a second?
42
43 SECOND
44
45 Commissioner Martinez: Second.
46
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 15 of21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez seconds. Would the maker like to speak to their
motion?
Commissioner Lippert: Yes. I am very sympathetic to what the neighborhood is going
through here and the reason for bringing this forward. I think these are very, very tough
economic times and we really with the Conditional Use Permit and everything it went
through the appropriate process. I agree that not every 'i' was dotted and every 't' was
crossed in terms of the completion of the application, but I fill out these applications on a
regular basis and there is a lot of information that just is not relevant to an existing building.
In fact, I was looking through and there were utility loads in there, and electrical, and water I usage, and either it wasn't relevant or it was covered in another application. So even though
it was left out it was covered somewhere else. So I look at this application as being very
complete for the level of review that this had to go through. If this was a brand new building
perhaps some of those blanks might have had to be filled in but an existing building where
we are really trying to make things work during these tough economic times I think is more
than adequate.
As for the conditional use here I think it is very appropriate. It is not on the ground floor. In
fact, the application triggers something very interesting that no one has even picked up on
which is that it requires that it have accessibility. It is very expensive to retrofit existing
buildings for accessibility particularly with an elevator. I know that from my own experience
in doing renovation work. What is being done here is that the building is being re-improved
which tells me that there is an investment in this building and that it is going to be retained,
and we are not going to see an intensification of that use with regard to perhaps a new project
or a bigger building. What we are in essence doing here by approving a Conditional Use
Permit for the second floor is that we are saying we are preserving the building here. At the
time that the building was built medical, dental, office use was something that was permitted.
The other general comment I just wanted to make is regarding the bicycle parking. I think
the bicycle parking is desirable but that is not within the purview of the Planning and
Transportation Commission. That is something that should have been picked up I believe
during the architectural review of the project when they were looking at the number of
parking spaces and the configuration of the parking. That is something that we generally do
not get involved in.
As I said, it is desirable. This is a building that is located within two important things public
transit, it is right off El Camino Real, and it is near a bus line, and it is also within walking
distance of the train. It is within half a mile of the Caltrain station, which makes it I think in
my opinion a building that people that are working there might very well take the train or
take the bus and then walk the rest of the way. So as far as I can see perhaps parking
reduction is appropriate here. Again, that is something that the Architectural Review Board
gets involved in not necessarily this body. So I am just going to cut it off at this point. I
think you have enough information there and perhaps my seconder has some more things to
add.
Chair Garber: Would the seconder like to speak to their second?
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 16 of21
1
2 Commissioner Martinez: I completely agree with Commissioner Lippert and his comments
3 and couldn't support any conditions on the ground floor. I am glad we are moving away
4 from that.
5
6 Obviously parking is really not completely known. My experience, I recall now it has been a
7 few years, with taking children to children dentistry is that traffic really picks up after three
8 0' clock when the kids get out of school. Ms. Ogawa said that is when the downstairs traffic
9 lightens up. So there may be an opportunity here to work out a parking plan that is a win/win
10 for both tenants.
11
12 I think it is a great use. I think the transportation adjacency is an added bonus. I am going to
13 vote for approval.
14
15 Chair Garber: Discussion. Commissioner Keller and then Fineberg.
16
1 7 Commissioner Keller: First of all I did not hear Ms. Ogawa saying anything about the
18 parking lightening up for downstairs occupancy after three 0' clock. I heard her say that it
19 varies from time to time and it is as many as 14 cars. So I am not sure if I can ask Ms.
20 Ogawa to verity that statement. Ms. Ogawa, could you please come to the microphone and
21 indicate your statement whether it does lighten up downstairs after three or not?
22
23 Ms. Ogawa: Well, the downstairs stays pretty busy I would say between ten and close to
24 five. After close to five it lightens up. So it is difficult to say. There is a peak time kind of
25 close to the middle of the day and then it lightens up after 12:30 maybe when the staff goes
26 out to lunch. But as I say it has a lot to do with - I don't know what their exact schedule is.
27
28 Commissioner Keller: So after lunch does it become busy again?
29
30 Ms. Ogawa: Yes, it becomes busy after lunch and then in the . late afternoon it is difficult for
31 me to say because ..... .
32
33 Commissioner Keller: Okay. I think that's fine.
34
35 Chair Garber: I think let's move on.
36
37 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. Do we know who currently owns the building?
38 Well, there is a lease from awhile ago but I am not sure who currently owns the building.
39 Could you speak on the microphone and identify yourself, please?
40
41 Dr. S. Lieu, Building Owner: I am the doctor there. I am the owner of the building.
42
43 Commissioner Keller: So you purchased the building?
44
45 Dr. S. Lieu, Building Owner: Yes.
46
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 170/21
1 Commissioner Keller: Okay. So you were the one who represented that the downstairs
2 people were possibly moving out, correct?
3
4 Dr. S. Lieu, Building Owner: Can you say again?
5
6 Commissioner Keller: Did you represent that Lucile Packard Children's Hospital occupancy
7 was going to end?
8
9 Dr. S. Liu, Building Owner: That was told by the sales agent. That was before I purchased
10 the building because I don't have any right to check with them, but the agent told me that.
11
12 Commissioner Keller: When you purchase the building did the property tax considerably
13 increase from your purchase of the building?
14
15 Dr. S. Liu, Building Owner: I don't know the property tax before.
16
17 SUBSTITUTE MOTION
18
19 Commissioner Keller: Well, I believe that the property tax when you purchase a building
20 would considerably increase when you purchase the building. I actually read the details as
21 much as I could read minus the addendum of the lease agreement for the downstairs as
22 provided by Ms. Ogawa. It indicated that there is a triple-net lease or at least a lease for
23 which the occupant of the downstairs pays the property tax, and therefore their rent is
24 automatically going to go up because they are paying an increased rent, unless the addendum
25 says otherwise which I don't have a copy of. So it is probably in the interest of the
26 downstairs occupant either to leave because their rent is going to shoot through the roof with
27 an increased amount of, or to renegotiate the rent. Therefore, since Mr. Liu is the owner he
28 does not take additional risk there because he can rent it out to somebody else. He has
29 control of that risk.
30
31 So I am going to make a substitute motion. Thank you sir. The substitute motion is that we
32 approve the Conditional Use Permit with the following four conditions. First that as stated in
33 the response to how many dentists will practice at the location that the occupancy be a sole
34 proprietor dentist, up to one consulting orthodontist, and up to four of the staff. Two that the
35 occupancy of the second floor conditional use be conditioned on the discontinuance of the
36 nonconforming use on the first floor unless there is a Conditional Use Permit granted there
37 too. So in other words, the first floor has to vacate prior to occupancy of the second floor
38 use. Three, that there be signage on Yale indicating parking is located on Cambridge, and
39 that there be parking on the Cambridge driveway indicating the offices to which that parking
40 is assigned. Fourth that there be at least three parking spaces provided onsite for the users of
41 this building. Thank you.
42
43 Chair Garber: That there are three assigned patient parking spaces, say.
44
45 Commissioner Keller: No three bicycle parking spaces.
46
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 18 of21
1 Chair Garber: I am sorry.
2
3 Commissioner Keller: Three bicycle parking spaces on this site for use of the occupants.
4
5 Chair Garber: Does the substitute motion have a second? I think the motion dies for lack of
6 a second.
7
8 Commissioner Keller: Okay.
9
10 Chair Garber: Well, we would return to the, underlying motion that is in place.
11 Commissioner Keller or Commissioner Fineberg if you like you could offer those as either
12 substitute motions or as amendments to the motion.
13
14 Commissioner Fineberg: Can I offer as a friendly amendment Commissioner Keller's one,
15 three, and four, which is substantively the removal of the condition of the reversion of the
16 first floor to CN, and it is really the addition of insertion of language relating to sole
17 practitioner, which Staff has said is in the report but I am not seeing, and then also the
18 addition of the requirement for the bikes.
19
20 Chair Garber: The first was that the occupancy of the second floor be restricted to a sole
21 practitioner, correct? The second is that the occupancy of the second floor being medical be
22 conditioned by the ground floor not being medical.
23
24 Commissioner Fineberg: Excuse me, that one I am not supporting.
25
26 Chair Garber: The third one was signage on Cambridge and Yale indicating the parking lot.
27 The fourth one that there be three parking places for bicycles.
28
29 Commissioner Lippert: I can't accept all of them. There are some of them that I can accept.
30
3 1 Commissioner Fineberg: Can you accept the first one, which would be the insertion of the
32 language of sole proprietor plus the consulting orthodontist and four other staff?
33
34 Commissioner Lippert: I have a problem with the first one because business entities change
35 all the time. What we are actually doing is tying this person's business to a Conditional Use
36 Permit and basically what it means is if the guy gets sick and he has to sell his practice who
37 knows who is going to buy it and if it turns out to be a partnership or somebody else he loses
38 his rights, and he has put all that investment into the building. I am a sole practitioner and
39 the thing that scares me is if something should happen to me well I have to unload my
40 practice somewhere. I think that this is difficult when especially he has investment in
41 equipment, a lease, and staff.
42
43 Mr. Larkin: Just as a suggestion because I think rather than dictate the form of business
44 entity I think what you could say is that any intensification of the use would require a new
45 Conditional Use Permit. That is what the code says anyway but if you make that explicit in
46 the conditions that should go someway towards alleviating the concern.
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 19 of21
1
2 Commissioner Lippert: I don't have a problem with that because that is tied to the square
3 footage and the square footage is really tied to the intensity of the site.
4
5 Chair Garber: So you are accepting that as the first condition. The second one was signage
6 and the third one was the bikes.
7
8 Commissioner Lippert: No problem with those.
9
10 Chair Garber: The seconder?
11
12 Commissioner Martinez: Yes, that is fine.
13
14 Chair Garber: Anything else Commissioner Fineberg?
15
16 Commissioner Fineberg: No~ thank you.
17
18 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tanaka.
19
20 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. So I have a friendly amendment to the friendly
21 amendment and it is a small one so I hope this is okay. I think I have two small suggestions.
22 The first one is that the applicant and the City as they craft the signage work with the nearby
23 residents so that it makes sense. The residents since they live there probably will understand
24 what makes sense.
25
26 The second suggestion is that how people advertise to their customers how to get to a
27 business could also have a big impact on traffic as well. So perhaps encouraging people to
28 go down Cambridge to get there versus Yale I think would also make a difference. So if that
29 could also be part of the amendment, Commissioner Lippert, I would appreciate it. Thank
30 you.
31
32 Commissioner Lippert: I don't have a problem with that language. Thank you.
33
34 Chair Garber: The seconder?
35
36 Commissioner Martinez: I accept it as well.
37
38 Chair Garber: May I just ask, Commissioner Tanaka, how you were imagining the second of
39 your friendly amendment to work? If I am understanding you correctly you are trying to find
40 a way to indicate to patients that they approach the building in a particular way. How would
41 they know?
42
43 Commissioner Tanaka: Good questions. So for instance someone goes to the doctor's
44 website or the dentist's website and it says how to get here. It wouldn't tell them go down
45 California, turn on Yale, turn on Cambridge, go in. It would be like go down EI Camino,
46 turn left on Cambridge, enter or something like that. So it would be more of a suggested
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 200f21
1 route. Also there is a lot of traffic calming stuff in that area so I think it would be to the
2 interest of the dentist to do that as well.
3
4 Chair Garber: So your language is to ask the applicant or to make the suggestion to the
5 applicant that this be the way to approach the building as opposed to a requirement.
6
7 Commissioner Tanaka: Let's make it a suggestion that is probably better. I think it is good
8 business sense anyway so it is probably going to happen.
9
10 Chair Garber: Are the maker and seconder okay with that?
11
12 Commissioner Lippert: Yes, as long as it is a suggestion.
13
14 MOTION PASSED (5-1-0-1, Commissioner Keller against and· Commissioner Tuma
15 absent)
16 .
17 Chair Garber: Okay, I am not seeing any more lights. Let's vote on the motion as it has been
18 stated with the five, actually four and one-half friendly amendments. All those in favor say
19 aye. (ayes) All those opposed? (nay) One nay. Motion passes with Commissioners
20 Tanaka, Martinez, Garber, Fineberg, and Lippert voting yea and one nay from Commissioner
21 Keller, and Commissioner Tuma absent.
22
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 21 of21
Joy Ogawa
2305 Yale Street, Apt. 1
Palo Alto, CA 94306-
April 9, 2010
Curtis Williams, Director
Attachment D
Department of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto. CA 94301
fiECEjVED
APR 0' 2010 t;rl-
DC;Jart 08fit of Piannina &
('<..i;11r"~i.~f ::'1.y C.tN(~·Gjlm:'(:~
Hand Delivered
RE: 2345 Yale Avenue (sic) -Request for Hearing re Director's Approval of CUP
Dear Director Williams:
Pursuant to SectionI8.77.060 c(4) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code ("PAMC"), I am
requesting a hearing of the Planning and Transportation Commission on the proposed
Director's decision for the project proposed at 2345 Yale Avenue [sic]. (Please note that
the correct project address is 2345 Yale Street. not Yale Avenue). I received a notice of
the proposed Director's Decision postmarked April 1, 2010. I understand that my request
will be deemed timely if filed by April 15.2010, which corresponds to 14 days after the
notice was mailed to me. For your reference. I am attaching a copy of the notice I
received.
I believe that a full public hearing is the best way to review my concerns about the
project, in the context of the communications that have taken place between myself. my
neighbors, and the Planning Department regarding this project, and to consider the
elements contained or lacking in the Director's proposed decision. It is unfortunate that
the project's neighbors were not given an opportunity for a hearing prior to the Director's
reaching the proposed decision.
Sincerely,
'::-9;-~. 0 0 __
L
Joy M. Ogawa
encl: Notice of Proposed Director's Decision
'.
\
Attachment H
Staff Response to Commissioner Keller's Questions regarding Item #2, 2345 Yale:
1. Please make sure that the last page of the attached PDF file is not made pUblic. It
appears to be irrelevant and contains what appears to be personally identifying
information of people uninvolved with this case.
Staff Response: Cityemails are public records unless Attorney-client privileged
correspondence. Since the description of first floor use, "General Business Office with
Physical and Occupational Therapy," is on the first page, this is the relevant page for any
discussion. Commissioner Fineberg's questions below expand on the current use of first
floor space.
2. The addendum is missing from the contract. The pages of the PDF file labeled 12 and
13 are missing. Perhaps they are the addendum.
Staff Response: The relevant part of this document is page one.
3. Please have staff explain the applicable parking regulations that apply to this project.
Can staff comment on the appropriateness and legality of patient-only parking spaces,
and about the appellants request regarding the number of these patient-only parking
spaces. Can staff also comment on circulation and turnaround space for the proposed
parking lot re-striping.
Staff Response: Parking regulations require 1 parking space per 250 square feet of office
space, and do not require designation of patient spaces. Staff would support either
designation, or non-designation, which would allow flexibility for employees and clients
of the office spaces on both floors. Transportation staff reviewed the plans for circulation
and turnaround and included conditions of approval #8 and #9 to ensure appropriate
width and length of spaces and drive area. Specifically, condition of approval #9 requires
additional width for parking spaces #14 -16.
4. Please clarify the number of dentists that will practice at this location.
Staff Response: There are two "consulting offices" shown on the plan set. Staffhas
queried the dentist who is moving his office to determine the number of dentists. A total
of one dentist will operate from this space. Other staff in the office include a conSUlting
orthodontist who comes in three days a week, and four other staff, including receptionist,
accountant, and dental assistants.
5. Please clarify what assurances have been made about the first floor tenant's departure
and the timing of that departure. Can occupancy of the CUP be conditioned upon the
first floor tenant's departure, but allow construction to occur in the interim?
Staff Response: No assurances have been made to staff about the first floor tenant's
departure. See below discussion regarding the existing medical use which was a
permitted use at the time it was established in early 2006.
6. Please clarify the number of patient chairs.
Staff Response: A total of 10 chairs are shown in plans. Two of the chairs are within
offices, one labeled "quiet room". The remaining eight are in common patient areas.
Staff Response to Commissioner Fineberg's questions posed in the pre-commission
meeting: .
1. Use and Occupancy Permit:
The building at 2345 Yale was constructed in 1969 as an office building. Records on file
show Use and Occupancy Permits for offices through the 1980's; a tenant improvement
permit for the first floor was issued at the end of2005 for Lucile Packard Children's
Hospital and a Use and Occupancy Permit was issued in January 2006. Prior to
November 2006, "Medical Office" use was a permitted use in the CN zone.
2. Conditions requested by neighbors:
(a) Designate reserved parking spaces by number of chairs: The PTC and Council
could do so; however, the zoning regulations specify parking spaces by floor area
total. .(I
(b) Require annual inspection of number of chairs: If the PTC and Council add a
condition to designate parking spaces by number of chairs, this would become a
code enforcement concern.
(c) Lucile Packard should vacate the first floor prior to second floor occupancy for
dental office use: This should not be a requirement, since medical use was
allowed in 2006 when it was established.
June 14, 2010
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Finance Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor’s Office
Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2010
At its meeting on April 20, 2010, the Finance Committee unanimously recommended to the City
Council acceptance of the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2010.
During the discussion, the Finance Committee also directed the City Auditor to return with a
recommendation for adding an Enterprise-funded position in the City Auditor’s Office. This position
would provide continuous coverage of Enterprise fund activities with a primary focus on Utilities.
The City Auditor provided a response to the Committee at our May 6, 2010 budget hearing (see
Attachment 3). The Finance Committee unanimously recommended approval to add a Senior
Auditor position funded by Enterprise Funds, to provide continuous and on-going audits of Utilities
and Enterprise Fund activity. The Finance Committee’s recommendation will be included in the
Fiscal Year 2011 Budget, scheduled for June 21, 2010.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynda Flores Brouchoud
City Auditor
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2010
Attachment 2 – Excerpt of Finance Committee Minutes of April 20, 2010
Attachment 3 – Finance Committee Recommendation to Identify Funding for Continuous
Auditing of Enterprise Funds (May 6, 2010)
CITY OF PALO ALTO
OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
ATTACHMENT 1
Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report Page 1 As of March 31, 2010
April 20, 2010
The Honorable City Council
Attention: Finance Committee
Palo Alto, California
Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2010
RECOMMENDATION
The City Auditor’s Office recommends the Finance Committee review and recommend to the City
Council acceptance of the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2010.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
In accordance with the Municipal Code, the City Auditor prepares an annual work plan and issues
quarterly reports to the City Council describing the status and progress towards completion of the
work plan. This report provides the City Council with an update on the third quarter activities and
summarizes our fiscal year 2010 Work Plan activities. Information on the status of each assigned
project is attached (pages A-1 through A-5).
Completed Reports
During the third quarter of the fiscal year, the City Auditor’s Office issued the following reports to the
City Council:
Palo Alto’s first Citizen-Centric Report, Issued January 2010
Geographic Subgroup Comparisons from the 2009 National Citizen Survey Results, Issued
January 2010
Sales Tax Digest Summary for Third Quarter Sales (July - September 2009), Issued
February 2010
Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2009 with attached Internal Controls
Review of SAP Upgrades and Utilities Module Implementation, Issued February 2010
To date, the Auditor’s Office revenue recoveries and other audit savings have resulted in a total
economic benefit of $452,681 plus an additional $2.5 million in avoided fleet replacement costs for
Fiscal Year 2010.
Community Outreach and other activities
During the third quarter, the Auditor’s Office conducted community outreach about the Service
Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) Report, and the Citizen-Centric Report, and the activities and
role of the Auditor’s Office. In January, the City Auditor led a presentation to the local chapter of
CITY OF PALO ALTO
OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
ATTACHMENT 1
Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report Page 2 As of March 31, 2010
the Association of Government Accountants on the value of SEA Reporting. In March, the City
Auditor met with the Chamber of Commerce and the Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN).
The Auditor’s Office also sent an audit staff member to represent Palo Alto on a peer review of the
Orange County Transportation Authority. This allows staff the opportunity for professional
development, and also helps satisfy part of Palo Alto’s reciprocal obligation for peer reviews.
Government Auditing Standards established by the United States Government Accountability Office
require audit organizations to have an external peer review at least once every three years.
On behalf of the Auditor’s Office, I would like to express my appreciation to City staff for their
cooperation and assistance during our reviews.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynda Flores Brouchoud
City Auditor
Attachment:
Status of Audit Projects as of March 31, 2010
City Auditor’s Quarterly Report A – 1 As of March 31, 2010
Status of Audit Projects as of March 31, 2010
Original Audit Project Description and Preliminary Objectives Status Accomplishments Year-To-Date Items to be Completed
AUDIT ADMINISTRATION, FOLLOW-UP, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES
1) Annual Audit Work Plan and Quarterly Status Reports – The
Auditor’s Office submits quarterly reports to the City Council outlining
project status and progress towards completing the assignments on
this annual work plan.
Completed Development of FY 2010 Work Plan
completed.
First, second, and third quarterly status
reports completed.
2) Annual Audit Recommendation Status Report – The Municipal
Code requires the City Auditor to issue an annual report on the
implementation status of recommendations from recently completed
audits. We also meet with the departments involved during the year to
discuss progress towards implementing open audit recommendations.
Completed Report issued October 2009.
The report summarized the status of 83
audit recommendations from 14 different
reports (63 carried over and 20 new
recommendations). The report determined
that 37 (45%) of the audit recommendations
were completed or resolved, 37 (45%) were
in-process, and 9 (11%) were not started.
3) Meeting Attendance – To facilitate internal communication and
coordination of efforts, the City Auditor attends:
a. City Manager’s weekly executive leadership team meetings
budget meetings.
b. Utility Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee (UROCC) –
Since issuance of our Assessment of Utility Risk Management
Procedures in July 2002, the City Auditor has acted as an
advisor to the UROCC.
On-going
On-going
City Auditor’s Quarterly Report A – 2 As of March 31, 2010
Original Audit Project Description and Preliminary Objectives Status Accomplishments Year-To-Date Items to be Completed
REVENUE AUDITS AND MONITORING
4) Sales and Use Tax Allocation Reviews – Sales and use tax
represented about 14%, or $19.65 million, of projected General Fund
revenue in the City’s Adopted Operating Budget for FY 2010.
According to the Administrative Services Department, projected sales
and use tax revenue has declined significantly and is now estimated at
$17.2 million for FY 2010.
The Auditor’s Office contracts with MuniServices for quarterly sales and
use tax recovery and information services, and we also conduct sales
and use tax monitoring in-house. The purpose of this monitoring is to
identify misallocations of local sales and use tax of companies doing
business in Palo Alto. In addition, MuniServices prepares the quarterly
sales and use tax information reports that are provided to the City
Council as informational items.
The contract with MuniServices has been renewed until March 2011.
On-going
In the first quarter of FY 2010, the City
received $31,121 in sales and use tax
recoveries related to misallocation of tax
from 4 companies.
In the second quarter of FY 2010, the City
received $62,118 in sales and use tax
recoveries related to the misallocation of tax
from 4 companies.
In addition, potential misallocations from
43 companies (12 MuniServices and 31
City of Palo Alto) are pending resolution by
the State Board of Equalization.
Total Sales and Use Tax Recoveries:
FY 2009-10 $93,239
(MuniServices- $5,961 and the City
Auditor’s Office - $87,278)
5) Alternative Fuel Tax Credit Recoveries – As part of the Auditor’s
Office continuous revenue monitoring efforts and preliminary findings
from the audit of Fleet Utilization and Replacement, the Auditor’s Office
initiated revenue recoveries from the Federal government’s alternative
fuel tax program, which was in effect through December 31, 2009.
Extensions have not yet been determined.
On-going The Auditor’s Office worked with ASD,
Utilities, and our revenue consultant to file
claims for the alternative fuel tax credit.
The City received $123,368 in recoveries
during the second quarter.
6) Unclaimed Property Recoveries – The State of California acquires
unclaimed property through State law which requires businesses to
annually report and deliver property after there has been no customer
contact for three years.
On-going The Auditor’s Office worked with ASD to file
five claims for unclaimed property with the
State. The City received $1,074 in
recoveries during the second quarter.
City Auditor’s Quarterly Report A – 3 As of March 31, 2010
Original Audit Project Description and Preliminary Objectives Status Accomplishments Year-To-Date Items to be Completed
FINANCIAL AUDITS AND PROCEDURAL REVIEWS
7) Annual External Financial Audit (contracted audit service) – The
City Charter requires that the City Council engage an independent
certified public accounting firm to conduct the annual external audit.
FY 2009
Completed
The FY 2009 audited financial statements
were issued in December 2009.
Maze & Associates began interim audit
work in March to prepare for the audit of the
June 30, 2010 financial statements.
8) Controls Review of SAP Upgrade and Utilities Module
Implementation – The City’s SAP upgrade is occurring in two phases –
Phase I on Employee Self-Service/Management Self-Service and
Phase II on Utilities. Phase I was completed July 2008. The Auditor’s
Office has reviewed general controls throughout the upgrades.
Completed
Internal Controls Review of SAP Upgrades
and Utilities Module Implementation, Issued
February 2010
9) SAP Account Sampling (NEW) – The City has implemented the SAP
system and upgrades to serve as an enterprise management system for
a variety of key financial information and transactions including payroll,
utility billing and financial transactions. The purpose of these reviews
will be to sample accounts within the SAP system to test for internal
controls and efficiencies.
Not started Target completion date:
TBD
10) American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) Monitoring
(NEW) – President Obama signed the ARRA in February 2009,
providing approximately $787 billion in federal stimulus grant funds,
including $144 billion for state and local fiscal relief. The ARRA
requires unprecedented accountability and transparency of the grant
funds. The Auditor’s Office will identify best practices and internal
controls to share with departments receiving ARRA funds.
On-going During the first quarter, the Auditor’s Office
developed a self-assessment checklist
consistent with specific expectations and
compliance requirements of the ARRA.
During the second quarter, the City
Manager’s Office distributed the checklist to
each department program awarded ARRA
funding. Three departments had been
awarded stimulus funds totaling $1,931,477.
The department responses did not note
any significant internal control weaknesses.
City Auditor’s Quarterly Report A – 4 As of March 31, 2010
Original Audit Project Description and Preliminary Objectives Status Accomplishments Year-To-Date Items to be Completed
PERFORMANCE AUDITS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS
11) Annual Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) Report Completed The 8th annual SEA Report was issued in
December 2009. Palo Alto’s SEA report
provides data about the costs, quality,
quantity, and timeliness of City services. It
includes a variety of comparisons to other
cities, and the results of an annual citizen
survey (the National Citizen Survey).
In January 2010, the Auditor’s Office issued
our first Citizen-Centric Report (CCR). The
CCR is a concise four-page summary of
Service Efforts and Accomplishments
Report highlights, financial data, and an
overview of Palo Alto's economic outlook.
The CCR follows the Association of
Government Accountants' recommended
report format, designed to be visually
appealing and to provide understandable
information to the public about the financial
condition and performance of our local
government.
12) Audit of Fleet Utilization and Replacement – The purpose of this
review is to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of fleet and
equipment replacement and maintenance operations.
In process Report scheduled for April 20, 2010 Finance
Committee meeting.
13) Citywide Cash Handling - The purpose of this review is to study
Citywide cash handling and travel reimbursement, oversight
procedures, and the City Auditor’s history of audits on cash services.
In process Field work in process. Target completion date:
July 2010
14) Prospective Analysis of Bond Measure Proceeds – Through the
2008 voter-approved Measure N, the City is preparing to issue general
obligation bonds to rebuild the Mitchell Park Library and adjacent
community center, and renovate the Main and Downtown libraries. This
audit will prospectively evaluate controls for the use of the general
obligation bond funds to ensure the funds are used efficiently and in
compliance with federal regulations for the use of tax-exempt bond
funds.
In process Preliminary survey in process. Target completion date:
TBD
City Auditor’s Quarterly Report A – 5 As of March 31, 2010
Original Audit Project Description and Preliminary Objectives Status Accomplishments Year-To-Date Items to be Completed
15) Audit of Purchasing Card Transactions – The purpose of this audit
is to determine the adequacy of controls over purchasing card
transactions, and to assess compliance with existing guidelines and
procedures.
Not started Target completion date:
TBD
16) Utilities Department – Several of the highest risk areas identified in
the Citywide Risk Assessment pertain to the Utilities Department. This
audit will conduct a preliminary survey of the Utilities Department and
develop an audit scope to identify opportunities for improvements in
efficiency and effectiveness.
Not started In preparation for the audit, the Auditor’s
Office issued a Request for Proposal to
select a consultant to provide utilities
expertise during the audit. The contract is
now in place and ready to begin once audit
staff is available.
Target completion date:
TBD
17) Wastewater Treatment Fund – The Regional Water Quality Control
Plant provides services to Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills,
Stanford, and East Palo Alto. With proposed revenues of $22 million,
proposed expenditures of $20 million, this is one of the areas
consistently targeted by our annual citywide risk assessment model.
The purpose of our audit would be to review the cost-sharing
agreements and allocation of charges to partner agencies.
Not started Target completion date:
TBD
18) Planning and Community Development Permit Process (NEW) –
According to the 2007-08 SEA Report, Planning and Community
Development revenue increased 68%, the number of inspections
increased 71%, and the number of building permits issued decreased
6%. The Department has also implemented the new Green building
program and certifications. This audit will focus on the efficiency and
effectiveness of the permit process.
Not started Target completion date:
TBD
Attachment 2
1
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
5. Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2010.
City Auditor, Lynda Brouchoud said the report included the first Citizen-Centric
Report, and the Internal Control Review of SAP upgrades and Utilities Module
Implementation. During the first half of the year the City Auditor’s Office
revenue recoveries and other audit savings had resulting in an economic benefit
of $452,681 plus an additional $2.5 million in avoided fleet replacement costs
for FY 2010.
Council Member Scharff said he noticed there were a number of items not
started and his concern was that the Auditor’s Office did not have the Staff to
do them. He asked where the Auditor’s Office was on its staffing and ability to
get the heavy workload done..
Ms. Brouchoud said they did not have the Staff to complete all of the items.
The next significant audit was the Utilities Department audit; they had a
consultant in place but were waiting to have Staff available to start the audit.
Council Member Scharff asked if it was possible to have a new dedicated
Auditor funded through the Enterprise Funds which would audit the Utilities
Department and other Enterprise Fund departments. He asked if that was
common practice in other cities.
Ms. Brouchoud said that was possible and something to explore through the
budget process. Right now, their costs are shown through the General Fund
and then allocated every year to cover the Enterprise Fund audit costs.
Council Member Scharff asked if there were reasons to not go through the
Enterprise Fund directly.
Attachment 2
2
Administrative Services Director, Lalo Perez said there was no reason. They
would have to implement a process that would involve some estimating on the
City Auditor’s part regarding the length of the project.
Council Member Scharff said if they were to hire a person for the City Auditor’s
Office, their salary and benefits would be fixed and there would always be a
person to audit the enterprise funds which are huge. It wouldn’t be a question
of how much money is in the budget, it would be a number we would know for
each on-going budget that would come out of the enterprise fund...
Mr. Perez said in that case it would be very possible.
Council Member Scharff asked if they could ask Staff to look into it.
Mr. Perez said that when an employee was dedicated to the Enterprise Funds
they have to allocate the workload to the individual fund.
Council Member Klein said they would have to clarify potential issues due to the
City Charter. The City Auditor was appointed by Council, but the Utilities Staff
fell under the purview of the City Manager. To place a full-time Staff Member,
funded by Utilities, in a position not reporting to the City Manager might require
an amendment to the City Charter. But if you are just talking about an auditor
then that can be funded in the same way the City Attorney has someone for
Utilities.
Council Member Scharff said he was not necessarily trying to change the
Charter, but trying to explore how to fund an auditor position to audit Utilities
and other enterprise funds.
Council Member Klein said that was his point. The allocations of that person’s
salary in the City Attorney’s Office is paid for by Utilities.
Council Member Scharff he was attempting to explore that type of funding for
the Auditor’s Office as well.
Council Member Klein suggested the Auditor’s Office follow up with the City
Attorney and Mr. Perez.
Mr. Perez said Staff would speak to the City Attorney.
Council Member Schmid thanked the City Auditor for the fleet report and knows
it will have a big impact on the City. He continues to find the SEA Report
Attachment 2
3
showing up around town effectively and knows the cash handling report will be
due out in a few months and is looking forward to it.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Chair Schmid, that the
Finance Committee recommends that the City Council accept the Auditors Office
Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2010, and that the City Auditor come back to
Finance Committee with an exploration of how to hire another Auditor in the
City Auditor’s Office to focus primarily on the Utility Funds, and how to arrange
getting that funded.
Council Member Scharff said it was important to start the Enterprise Funds
Audit.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
Page 1 of 2
May 6, 2010
Honorable City Council
Attention: Finance Committee
Palo Alto, California
Finance Committee Recommendation to Identify Funding for Continuous Auditing of
Enterprise Funds
RECOMMENDATION
The City Auditor’s Office requests the Finance Committee move forward with approval to add a
Senior Auditor position, funded by Enterprise Funds, to provide continuous and on-going audits of
Utilities and Enterprise Fund activity.
BACKGROUND
On April 20, 2010, in a 4-0 vote, the Finance Committee directed the City Auditor to return with a
recommendation for adding a position in the City Auditor’s Office to provide continuous audits of
Enterprise Funds, with a primary focus on Utilities. We are providing this memo in conjunction with
the Auditor’s Office FY 2011 scheduled budget hearing on May 6, 2010.
To date, the Auditor’s Office has had limited performance audit coverage of Utility Enterprise Funds;
the last Utilities-specific review consisted of a 2002 risk assessment. While Utility- funded
programs are included in the Auditor’s Office coordination of the City’s financial audits and other
Citywide reviews, the Office’s ability to focus performance audit resources on Utility and other
related Enterprise Funds has been constrained by limited staffing resources.
Nearly 70 percent of the City’s operating budget consists of Enterprise Fund operations in the
Utilities Department and Public Works Department. According to the FY 2009 Service Efforts and
Accomplishments Report, Enterprise Fund operating expenses increased 41% during the prior five
years. The City Charter and Municipal Code require the City Auditor to conduct audits of all
departments and transactions, which includes programs in both the General and Enterprise Funds.
In light of the above trends and audit coverage requirements, the City Auditor concurs and
supports the Finance Committee’s request to have dedicated and continuous performance auditing
of the Enterprise Fund activity.
FUNDING
Funding for the position will not impact the General Fund and will be provided through the City’s
Enterprise Funds beginning in FY 2011. The salary control point for a Senior Auditor position is
$97,469. ASD Budget staff estimates additional budgeted funds of $52,146 for benefits, and
$6,500 in other charges to be funded through the Enterprise Funds.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 2 of 2
The Finance Committee’s discussion suggested the Auditor’s Office review practices for funding
Enterprise activities in the City Attorney’s Office and the Administrative Services Department (ASD).
Enterprise Utility funds directly pay for a Senior Deputy City Attorney within the City Attorney’s
Office. ASD also has positions, including Accounting and Budget positions, funded through Utility
Enterprise Funds. Both of these departments also allocate additional support activities to the
Enterprise Funds. This proposed recommendation would create a similar funding structure within
the Auditor’s Office whereby an auditor would be continuously dedicated to Enterprise Fund audits
and costs of additional coverage would continue to be allocated.
We coordinated the information in this memo with the City Attorney’s Office, City Manager’s Office
and ASD.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynda Flores Brouchoud
City Auditor
June 14, 2010
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Finance Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor’s Office
Audit of Fleet Utilization and Replacement
At its meeting on April 20, 2010, the Finance Committee unanimously recommended to the City
Council acceptance of the Auditor’s Office Audit of Fleet Utilization and Replacement as of April 20,
2010. Excerpt of minutes are attached.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynda Flores Brouchoud
City Auditor
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Auditor’s Office Audit of Fleet Utilization and Replacement
Attachment 2 – Excerpt of Finance Committee Minutes of April 20, 2010
CITY OF PALO ALTO
OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
AAAUUUDDDIIITTT OOOFFF FFFLLLEEEEEETTT
UUUTTTIIILLLIIIZZZAAATTTIIIOOONNN AAANNNDDD
RRREEEPPPLLLAAACCCEEEMMMEEENNNTTT
OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
APRIL 2010
Attachment 1
-1-
City of Palo Alto
Office of the City Auditor
April 14, 2010
Honorable City Council
Attn: Finance Committee
Palo Alto, California
AUDIT OF FLEET UTILIZATION AND REPLACEMENT
In accordance with the FY 2010 Annual Audit Work Plan, the City Auditor’s Office has completed
an audit of the City’s fleet utilization and replacement as administered through the Equipment
Management section of the Public Works Department (referred to as PWD fleet management).
In Fiscal Year 2009, the City’s vehicle and equipment fleet had 630 units, including 461 rolling
stock and 169 non-rolling stock units. PWD fleet management estimates the fleet inventory value
at over $32 million before depreciation, and approximately $10.5 million after depreciation
The audit contains three main findings:
Finding 1: The City recently avoided spending about $2.5 million in Fiscal Year 2010
through a temporary freeze on non-urgent fleet replacements (of which $948,000 would
have been for underutilized units), but longer term efficiencies can be realized through
reducing the City’s vehicle and equipment fleet. Our analysis found that over 35% of
transport vehicles and 25% of City trucks and equipment did not satisfy minimum utilization
criteria. The audit recommends that PWD fleet management develop an action plan for
increasing utilization and identify an optimal fleet size and composition. The audit also
recommends alternatives to permanently assigning vehicles such as implementation of a
centralized Citywide vehicle and equipment pool, rotating vehicles, exploring opportunities to rent
specialized equipment or seasonal use equipment, and increasing use of mileage reimbursement.
Finding 2: Funding stability and improved processes are needed to adequately fund fleet
replacement and maintenance. The City’s budget process allocates most vehicle and
equipment expenses (including replacement, operation, and maintenance costs) across user
departments. Our analysis found that the charges to user departments did not cover the full cost
for operating the fleet. The fleet addition approval process did not consistently identify or budget
for the amount of on-going maintenance and replacement costs. These factors contributed to
declines in the Vehicle Replacement Fund reserve balances during FY 2007 and FY 2008.
Finding 3: Internal controls over fuel and parts inventory can be improved. The City spends
over $900,000 on fuel and nearly $800,000 on auto parts each year. Our analysis found
discrepancies between the consumption reports and inventories for CNG, unleaded, and diesel
fuels. We also found that a physical parts inventory had not been conducted for at least six years.
PWD fleet management is in the process of replacing the fuel management system and
anticipates the new system will provide improved controls to reconcile fuel purchases and
inventories, and limit fuel access. PWD fleet management is also in the process of constructing a
secure parts stockroom and surveying the inventory.
Attachment 1
-2-
Our report includes a total of 22 recommendations to achieve greater efficiencies in the use of
City fleet resources and to improve fleet policies and procedures. We thank the staff in the Public
Works Department, Public Works fleet management, City Manager’s Office, City Attorney’s Office,
the Administrative Services Department, Community Services Department, Fire Department,
Human Resources Department, Library Department, Planning and Community Environment
Department, Police Department and Utilities Department for their assistance and cooperation
during our review.
I will present this report to the Finance Committee on April 20, 2010.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynda Flores Brouchoud
City Auditor
Audit Staff: Edwin Young, Senior Auditor
Attachment 1
-3-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover Letter 1
Introduction 5
Background 5
Vehicle Replacement Fund 6
Public Works Department Fleet Management 7
City Replacement and Utilization Policies 7
Audit Scope and Methodology 8
Finding 1: The City recently avoided spending about $2.5 million in Fiscal Year
2010 through a temporary freeze on non-urgent fleet replacements (of which
$948,000 would have been for underutilized units), but longer term efficiencies
can be realized through right sizing the City’s vehicle and equipment fleet
9
Over 35% of the transport vehicles did not meet minimum utilization criteria 9
25% of City trucks and equipment did not meet minimum utilization criteria 12
PWD fleet management actions based on preliminary findings 14
Although PWD fleet management began to install a vehicle reservation system
in Fiscal Year 2007 to create a Citywide motor pool, employees are not yet
able to use the system, thereby limiting the usefulness and accessibility of a
centralized pool
15
The City’s Policies and Procedures should be revised to: identify cost-effective
utilization criteria, establish a rigorous and routine process to justify utilization
exemptions, clarify replacement criteria, and provide clearer policies for take-
home vehicle use
16
Replaced vehicles were allowed to remain and augment the City’s fleet 22
Vehicle rotation can reduce replacement costs of public safety vehicles by
balancing higher and lower usage
23
PWD fleet management does not have established criteria to assess the
efficiency and necessity of non-rolling stock equipment purchases such as
generators and trailers
23
Outdated and incomplete data makes it difficult to effectively manage the fleet 24
Finding 2: Funding stability and improved processes are needed to adequately
fund fleet replacement and maintenance
27
Charges to user departments did not sufficiently cover the City’s full fleet costs 27
The current budget process could be improved to provide incentives to reduce
fleet costs
30
The fleet addition approval process did not consistently identify or budget for
the amount of on-going maintenance and replacement costs
30
Developing a strategy for future replacement decisions could also help
promote the City’s Climate Protection Plan goal of replacing gasoline vehicles
with Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), hybrid, or fuel efficient alternatives to
the greatest extent feasible
31
Finding 3: Internal controls over fuel and parts inventory can be improved 33
Fuel invoices did not match the CNG consumption reports and the unleaded
and diesel fuel balances showed discrepancies
33
Attachment 1
-4-
Our sampling found weaknesses in the internal controls for fuel pump
transactions
36
Vehicles and equipment were not consistently secured or locked 37
A physical parts inventory had not been conducted for at least six years and
the valuation of the inventory was not verifiable
38
Conclusion 39
Recommendations 39
Attachment 1: Fleet Replacement Criteria, Policy and Procedures 4-01/PWD 43
City Manager Response 47
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: City Fleet Distribution by Type 6
Exhibit 2: Vehicle Replacement Fund Revenue and Expenditures 7
Exhibit 3: Transport Vehicles Driven Less than 2,500 Miles in FY 2008 and FY 2009 11
Exhibit 4: Examples of Underutilized Equipment Types FY 2008 13
Exhibit 5: Summary of Vehicle Fund Revenues Expenditures FY 2005 to FY 2010 28
Exhibit 6: Unleaded and Diesel Fuel Balances 35
Exhibit 7: Picture of Keys Left in Unlocked Vehicle During Physical Inspection 37
Attachment 1
-5-
Introduction
In accordance with the FY 2010 Annual Audit Work Plan, the City Auditor’s Office has
completed an audit of the City’s fleet utilization and replacement as administered
through the Equipment Management section of the Public Works Department
(hereafter referred to as PWD fleet management).
We conducted the audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained
provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
The City Auditor’s Office would like to thank the staff of the Public Works Department,
Public Works fleet management, City Manager’s Office, City Attorney’s Office, the
Administrative Services Department, Community Services Department, Fire
Department, Human Resources Department Library Department, Planning and
Community Environment Department, Police Department and Utilities Department for
their time, information, insight, and cooperation during the audit process.
Background
In FY 2009, the City’s vehicle and equipment fleet had 630 identified units, including
461 rolling stock and 169 non-rolling stock units. Rolling stock inventory includes
transport vehicles such as sedans, light pick-up trucks, and passenger vans; special
purpose vehicles; heavy equipment such as loaders and backhoes; and emergency-
response/public safety vehicles. Non-rolling stock inventory includes trailers,
compressors, generators, and other miscellaneous items. PWD fleet management
estimates the inventory of vehicles and equipment is valued at over $32 million before
depreciation and approximately $10.5 million after depreciation. The breakdown by
type is shown below.
Attachment 1
-6-
Exhibit 1: City Fleet Distribution by Type
Category Description Total
Rolling Stock
Police Public Safety Police Patrol 43
Police Motorcycle 9
Fire Public Safety Ambulance 4
Fire Engine 14
Transport Automobiles (sedan) 58
Compact Truck/van
(light pick-up or van) 68
Special Purpose Trucks Light duty trucks 116
Heavy Truck 70
Equipment Metered Equipment 70
Miscellaneous Miscellaneous 9
Total Rolling Stock 461
Non-Rolling Stock Trailers 102
Generators, Compressors,
and Other Metered
Equipment 40
Miscellaneous 27
Total Non-Rolling
Stock 169
Total Rolling and
Non-Rolling Stock 630
Source: City Auditor Analysis of Fleet Focus Database
Vehicle Replacement Fund
The City’s vehicle and equipment program is typically funded through the Vehicle
Replacement Fund (Vehicle Fund), with additional funding allocated through the City’s
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for specific purchases. The Vehicle Fund’s core
activities include vehicle and equipment replacement, preventive maintenance, repairs,
fueling, and service to the City departments. This internal service fund recovers its
costs through user charges paid by each department. The user charges are included
in the department budgets under the “allocated charges” expenditure category.
In FY 2009, the Vehicle Fund’s budgeted revenues were $9.9 million and budgeted
expenditures were $8.1 million. FY 2010 revenues are projected at $7.5 million and
total expenditures are projected to be $5.5 million. The Vehicle Fund’s revenues
primarily come from charges allocated to those City departments with assigned
vehicles and equipment. As shown in Exhibit 2 below, the Vehicle Fund’s expenditures
exceeded revenues from FY 2006 through FY 2008, requiring transfers from the Fund
reserves. Finding 2 of this audit report provides further discussion and analysis.
Attachment 1
-7-
Exhibit 2: Vehicle Replacement Fund Revenue and Expenditures
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
$10,000,000
FY 2005
Actual
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2008
Actual
FY 2009
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2010
Budget
Revenues Expenditures
Source: City Operating and Capital Budgets, Fiscal Years 2005- 2011
Public Works Department Fleet Management
The Public Works Department’s fleet management section administers the City fleet
program. Fleet management maintains a database of the vehicle and equipment
inventory called Fleet Focus. The fleet management staff consists of 16.2 budgeted
full-time equivalents (FTEs). According to the City’s budget documents, the fleet
management “provides timely replacement of vehicles and equipment in accordance
with prescribed schedules to ensure the safe, reliable, and efficient operation of
vehicles and equipment through systematic preventive maintenance and cost effective
repairs. It also provides safe, efficient fuel storage and dispensing facilities while
pursuing alternative fuel technologies and minimizing the pollution and carbon footprint
generated from the City’s vehicle fleet.”
City Replacement and Utilization Policies
City Policy and Procedures 4-01/PWD (Vehicle and Equipment Use, Maintenance, and
Replacement, April 2005) establishes regulations for the use, maintenance and
replacement of vehicles and equipment in the City’s fleet. Minimum utilization for City
vehicles and equipment is 2,500 miles or 50 hours per year for metered equipment. If
the minimums are not met, waivers are required.
Replacement varies by the type of vehicle and equipment. A copy of the fleet
replacement criteria contained in City Policy and Procedures 4-01/PWD, can be found
in Attachment 1.
Attachment 1
-8-
Audit Scope and Methodology
To evaluate the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the City’s vehicle and
equipment replacement and utilization, we reviewed the following:
Analyzed the City’s fleet utilization and replacement policies and practices;
Evaluated the fleet database information for completeness and accuracy;
Reviewed the adequacy of internal controls over the City’s fuel purchases
and use; and
Reviewed fleet management’s strategy for promoting the goals of the
City’s Climate Protection Plan.
We limited our audit scope to the areas noted above for the City’s non-emergency
vehicle and equipment fleet, with a focus on Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009. We did
not conduct extensive utilization reviews of the emergency vehicle fleet, but did review
the emergency fleet for opportunities to reduce costs through rotation.
To achieve our audit objectives, we reviewed the City Municipal Code and City policies
and procedures. We analyzed the fleet management database (called Fleet Focus),
compiled data from the City’s financial system and budget documents. We quantified
the miles driven per vehicle and equipment usage by hours. We also tested fuel and
inventory controls and conducted a physical inventory for a sample of vehicles and
equipment. Audit staff visited fleet management staff and facilities in the nearby cities
of Sunnyvale, Redwood City, and Mountain View. We also reviewed additions and
disposals from the City fleet, examined vehicle logs, and analyzed cost allocation
amounts used to charge individual departments for vehicle and equipment costs. We
tested the accuracy of the fleet management database and tables used by the fleet
management staff and concluded they were not completely accurate, but could be
used as part of our analysis. We also reviewed fuel purchases and invoices, and
internal controls over parts inventory.
We met with City staff in the Public Works Department, Public Works fleet
management, the Administrative Services Department, City Attorney, City Manager,
Community Services Department, Fire Department, Human Resources, Library,
Planning and Community Environment Department, Police Department and Utilities
Department. We also reviewed the 1993 Palo Alto City Auditor report on underutilized
vehicles.1
We reviewed California State laws and regulations related to emissions requirements
for vehicle and equipment replacement, operations and maintenance programs, and
alternative fuel programs. We read previous reports related to vehicle and equipment
use issued by the California State Auditor, the City of San Jose, and other audit
entities.
1 In 1993, the Palo Alto City Auditor issued an “Audit of City Vehicle Use” and reported that 35% of the cars and trucks
did not meet minimum use requirements.
Attachment 1
-9-
Finding 1: The City recently avoided spending about $2.5 million in Fiscal Year
2010 through a temporary freeze on non-urgent fleet replacements (of
which $948,000 would have been for underutilized units), but longer
term efficiencies can be realized through right sizing the City’s vehicle
and equipment fleet
The City has faced persistent budget challenges and projects a budget shortfall for FY
2011. It is imperative that the City’s fleet funds are utilized efficiently and effectively
and additional savings obtained wherever possible.
The City of Palo Alto’s fleet consists of an estimated 630 units (461 rolling stock units
and 169 pieces of non-rolling stock equipment). City policy sets minimum use
requirements for the City fleet at 2,500 miles or 50 hours per year for metered
equipment.2 6 Our analysis found that over 35% of the transport vehicles and over
25% of the equipment in the City fleet did not satisfy the annual minimums. Based on
available information, the City’s annual cost for the underutilized transport vehicles is
$396,000; cost data was not available for the equipment.
We shared our preliminary audit findings with PWD fleet management and its staff
proactively implemented our proposed audit recommendation to temporarily freeze
non-urgent vehicle and equipment replacements until the fleet size is reduced and
utilization increased. As a result, in 2009 the City froze the budget for vehicle and
equipment replacements for FY 2010. This action saved approximately $2.5 million in
planned replacements, including $948,000 for underutilized vehicles.
Our analysis indicates more can be done to reduce the size and cost of operating the
City’s fleet of vehicles and equipment. These options include (1) offering alternatives
such as pooling of vehicles and equipment, and increased use of mileage
reimbursement, (2) completing a reservation system that allows employees to reserve
items from a Citywide pool; and (3) revising City policies and procedures to include
cost-effective utilization criteria that can be used to evaluate exemption, replacement
and take home use requests. The revisions should also include criteria for assessing
purchase requests for non-rolling stock items such as generators and trailers.
Reducing the fleet size, increasing usage of underutilized units, re-assigning
underutilized vehicles, rotating vehicles, placing underutilized vehicles in a central
motor pool, and increasing use of mileage reimbursement can result in better
efficiencies.
Over 35% of the transport vehicles did not meet minimum utilization criteria
Public Works Department Policy and Procedures 4-01 (Revised April 2005), titled
“Vehicle and Equipment Use, Maintenance, and Replacement,” details specific criteria
for annual use of the City fleet units. The policy requires vehicles and equipment to be
used a minimum number of miles, work days, or hours each fiscal year to justify their
continued use. Vehicles or equipment must be operated a minimum of 2,500 miles or
50 hours or 75 per cent of annual workdays (220 base work days) in a fiscal year. The
policy also requires departments to request and justify exemptions for low use vehicles
and seek City Manager approval for the exemptions. The City’s Fleet Focus database
2 City Policy also requires usage of vehicles for 75% of work days; however, the City does not track this requirement.
Attachment 1
-10-
tracks the mileage usage for those items with odometers and hourly usage for those
items with meters.
In 1995, the City lowered the vehicle minimum utilization requirements from 5,000
miles per year to 2,500 miles per year.3 Our analysis of the City's transport vehicles
indicated many vehicles did not meet the reduced mileage minimum. We reviewed
available utilization data for 120 transport vehicles4 in the City's fleet during FY 2008
and FY 2009. The results showed over 38% (46 vehicles) were driven less than the
minimum in FY 2009. In FY 2008, 36% (43 vehicles) were driven less than the
minimum. The table below shows a breakdown of the underutilization by department,
program, and location.
3 The City’s policies and procedures 4-01/PWD, dated December 1993, defined low use vehicles as those operated less
than 5,000 miles per year. Vehicles with 2,500 miles or less were to be eliminated from the fleet or re-assigned.
Vehicles operated less than 5,000 miles, but more than 2,500 miles needed to be re-justified annually and exceptions
had to be approved by the City Manager. In 1995, the City issued revised minimum utilization requirements that
removed the threshold and stated “vehicles or equipment must be operated either a minimum of 2,500 miles or 50
hours or 75 percent of annual work days (220 base work days) in a fiscal year.” These minimum use requirements are
still in effect under the current policies and procedures 4-01/PWD, dated April 2005.
4 120 transport vehicles consisted of Class 1 and Class 4 - sedans, vans, and light pick-ups.
Attachment 1
-11-
Exhibit 3: Transport Vehicles Driven Less than 2,500 Miles in FY 2008 and FY 2009
Source: City Auditor Analysis of Public Works Fleet Focus Database
Abbreviations:
ASD Administrative Services Department PLN Planning and Community Environment
CSD Community Services Department POL Police Department
FIR Fire Department PWD Public Works Department
HRD Human Resources Department UTL Utilities Department
MSC Municipal Services Center
Department Total Assigned FY 2008 FY 2009
Dept Section Location Section Dept
Avg Miles
Driven
Driven
<2,500
miles
% Driven
<2,500
miles
Avg Miles
Driven
Driven
<2,500
miles
% Driven
<2,500
miles
ASD IT City Hall 2 2 2,048 2 100% 3,053 1 50%
CSD Arts & Culture Lucie Stern 2 771 2 100% 3,316 1 50%
CSD Recreation Lucie Stern 2 4,059 0 0% 2,741 1 50%
CSD Parks & Golf Golf Course 2 6 3,106 0 0% 3,385 0 0%
FIR Fire Operations City Hall 6 4,338 3 50% 3,600 4 67%
FIR Fire Support City Hall 4 10 2,827 2 50% 3,161 2 50%
HRD Risk Mgt City Hall 1 1 1,068 1 100% 1,065 1 100%
PLA Inspection Svc City Hall 14 14 3,734 6 43% 3,645 5 36%
POL Police City Hall 1 2,262 1 100% 2,420 1 100%
POL Animal Svc MSC 1 2 2,784 0 0% 19,086 0 0%
PWD Admin City Hall 1 10,004 0 0% 10,004 0 0%
PWD Engineering City Hall 5 2,899 2 40% 4,237 1 20%
PWD Facilities Mgt MSC 6 4,978 1 17% 4,111 1 17%
PWD Equip Mgt MSC 8 1,259 5 63% 3,342 4 50%
PWD Operations MSC 9 4,823 0 0% 3,803 2 22%
PWD Wastewater Landfill 6 2,859 3 50% 2,275 3 50%
PWD Refuse Landfill 2 37 1,498 2 100% 1,753 2 100%
UTL Admin City Hall 11 5,898 0 0% 5,796 1 9%
UTL Electric Ops MSC 14 4,224 2 14% 4,305 2 14%
UTL Electric Eng Elwell Ct. 3 2,115 3 100% 2,172 2 67%
UTL
Water, Gas,
Wastewater
Eng Elwell Ct. 8 2,165 4 50% 2,496 5 63%
UTL
Water, Gas,
Wastewater
Ops MSC 9 3,968 2 22% 4,007 5 56%
UTL Resource Mgt City Hall 3 48 4,625 2 67% 4,235 2 67%
Total 120 3,677 43 36% 3,880 46 38%
Attachment 1
-12-
As shown in Exhibit 3, several transport vehicles did not satisfy the minimum annual
use requirements. For example:
Of the 48 vehicles located at City Hall, 18 (38%) were driven less than 2,500
miles in FY 2009 and 19 (40%) were driven less than 2,500 miles in FY 2008.
Of the 14 vehicles assigned to the Inspection Services section in the Planning
and Community Environment Department, 5 (36%) were driven less than 2,500
miles in FY 2009 and 6 (43%) were underutilized in FY 2008.
The vehicle assigned to the Human Resources Department was driven less than
1,070 miles in both fiscal years.
3 of the 6 vehicles assigned to PWD's Wastewater division did not satisfy the
2,500 mile annual minimum.
2 of the 3 vehicles assigned to the Utilities Department's Electric Engineering
section were driven less than the minimum requirement in FY 2009 and all 3
were driven less than the minimum in FY 2008.
5 of the 8 vehicles in the Utilities Department's Water, Gas, and Wastewater
Engineering section were driven less than the minimum requirement in FY 2009
and 4 were driven less than the minimum in FY 2008.
Our analysis of the 120 transport vehicles also indicated 75% (90 units) were driven
less than 5,000 miles, the prior minimum utilization criteria.
Although the practice has typically been to assign vehicles to individual users or
workgroups, the City also offers mileage reimbursement to employees using their
personal vehicle for business purposes. Using mileage reimbursement for lower
mileage uses can save fleet costs. For example:
The PWD Engineering Inspection/Surveying section located at the Municipal
Services Center has 3 vehicles for 4 employees. The Inspection/Surveying
section also hires hourly employees. The hourly employees use their private
vehicles to perform their work and submit mileage reimbursement claims. For
the first six months of FY 2010, mileage reimbursements for the four hourly
employees totaled $1,408 for about 2,560 miles. Compared to the City’s annual
operating and maintenance cost of $7,240 for a sedan, the mileage
reimbursement saves about $26,000 per year.
25% of City trucks and equipment did not meet minimum utilization criteria
The City's utilization standards of 50 hours or 2,500 miles per year apply to equipment
and specialized trucks such as dump trucks, forklifts, tractors, aerifiers, and mowers.
Equipment with odometers use the 2,500 mileage criteria and equipment with meters
use the hourly criteria.
The fleet management database was missing utilization data for some of the
equipment units. Based on the available information, we estimate that 25% of the
City's trucks and equipment did not meet the minimum utilization criteria. The table
below lists examples of the underutilized equipment and trucks by type.
Attachment 1
-13-
Exhibit 4: Examples of Underutilized Equipment Types for FY 2008
Description Quantity Assigned Quantity Used Less than Minimum
Aerial Trucks 12 5
Air Compressors 8 5
Generator Trailers 30 24
Parking Scooters 5 2
Utility Tractors 22 2
Water Tankers 2 2
Dump Trucks 36 7
Heavy Trucks 25 10
Source: City Auditor Analysis of Public Works Fleet Focus Database
As shown in the table above, several types of equipment did not satisfy the minimum
annual use requirements. For example:
5 of 12 aerial trucks were driven less than 2,500 miles.
5 of 8 compressors were used less than 50 hours.
7 of the 36 dump trucks were driven less than 2,500 miles.
10 of 25 heavy trucks were driven less than 2,500 miles.
24 of 30 generator trailers were used less than 50 hours.
A number of trucks and equipment were geographically collocated, such as units
assigned to the Public Works, Utilities Department, and Community Services Parks
Division located at the Municipal Services Center (MSC). While there may be unique
uses for some equipment, this collocation creates an opportunity to increase utilization
and reduce costs through sharing, pooling, and rotating use. For example:
Public Works Operations and Utilities Water-Gas-Wastewater Operations had 5
backhoes located at MSC. These cost $46,300 to $66,400 a piece.
The City fleet had 61 dump and heavy trucks that cost as much as $250,000.
Many of these trucks were co-located at MSC.
Air compressors cost as much as $33,400. 8 of the air compressors assigned to
Public Works and Utilities were located at MSC and could be shared.
Heavy trucks and equipment can be some of the most costly pieces to replace and
maintain in the City fleet and therefore it is important to maximize their utilization. For
example, PWD fleet management’s cost to replace an air sweeper in 2007 was over
$198,000 and it was driven only 1,280 miles. A 1996 Chevrolet 3500 truck that cost
$44,220 was listed for replacement for $65,000 although it was driven only 1,949 miles
in FY 2008. Based on age, the truck would have been eligible for replacement.
Despite the underutilized equipment, we found examples of some equipment with
significantly higher use, indicating higher utilization is possible. For example, the
Public Works Landfill purchased two large tractors at a cost of $432,000 and $491,000
that respectively averaged 1,475 to 1,800 hours per year.
Attachment 1
-14-
While there may be unique operational features for some pieces of equipment,
maximizing the use of pooling and sharing equipment across programs and
departments could allow the City to reduce the size of the City fleet and save City
resources.
PWD Fleet Management Actions Based on Preliminary Findings
We shared our preliminary audit findings with PWD fleet management, and staff
proactively implemented our proposed audit recommendation to temporarily freeze
non-urgent vehicle and equipment replacements. As a result, in 2009 the City did not
budget for FY 2010 fleet replacements This action saved approximately $2.5 million in
planned replacements, including $948,000 for underutilized vehicles.
PWD fleet management also asked departments to voluntarily remove underutilized
transport vehicles from the City's fleet. In August 2009, the Public Works Director
distributed a list to City departments identifying 86 underutilized vehicles for possible
removal or reassignment. PWD fleet management followed up with a form to request
information on the programmatic use and data to determine if an exemption request
was justified.
Three departments (Planning, Community Services, and the Library) responded by
agreeing to turn in or share four underutilized vehicles. For example:
CSD and Library staff located at Lucie Stern agreed to consolidate and share
their vans.
CSD developed an internal vehicle reservation process for other work units
within their department to reserve vehicles.
The Planning Department agreed to turn in two underutilized vehicles.
However, the majority of departments and programs wanted to keep their assigned
underutilized vehicles. Of the 86 underutilized vehicles PWD identified, departments
submitted 65 requests for exemptions. Our review of the exemption requests and
discussions with the user departments identified the following main concerns:
Departments want the use of a vehicle in case an employee is called back to
work for emergencies.
Departments are concerned if they relinquish an exclusively assigned vehicle,
another vehicle may not be available when needed.
Departments with off-site locations are concerned that pool vehicles would not
be accessible.
If assigned vehicles are removed, each department’s mileage reimbursement
costs would increase, and this is not currently in the approved budgets.
Some employees may use alternative transportation to get to work and cannot
use mileage reimbursement.
PWD fleet management has begun to evaluate the requests and plans to conduct a
similar process with underutilized equipment. According to PWD fleet management,
without explicit authority to administer the fleet, PWD fleet management’s ability to
Attachment 1
-15-
reassign, reduce, or pool underutilized vehicles and equipment will continue to be
limited.
As PWD fleet management continues with this process, it will be important to have
appropriate criteria to use in the evaluation process and to address user-department
concerns.
In our opinion, fleet underutilization should be addressed before spending City
resources on additional replacements and additions. Public Works fleet management
should develop an action plan to increase fleet utilization and ensure the City has the
optimal size fleet and use of fleet resources. The action plan should include a variety
of available alternatives such as increased use of mileage reimbursement; rental of
specialized, seasonal, or other needed equipment; sharing of equipment; placing
underutilized vehicles and equipment into a central motor pool; and rotating vehicle
assignments.
We should also note some government fleets are exploring regionalization of fleet
purchases and shared use as the City considers options to partner with nearby entities
for other services.
RECOMMENDATION # 1: PWD fleet management should continue to freeze
replacement of non-urgent vehicles and equipment until it can reduce the size of the
fleet and increase utilization.
RECOMMENDATION # 2: PWD fleet management should develop an action plan
for increasing fleet utilization and identify an optimal fleet size and composition that
includes eliminating or re-assigning underutilized vehicles, exploring opportunities to
rent specialized equipment or seasonal use of equipment, not replacing vehicles,
utilizing mileage reimbursement, rotating vehicles, and placing underutilized vehicles
and equipment in a central motor pool.
Although PWD fleet management began to install a vehicle reservation system in Fiscal
Year 2007 to create a Citywide motor pool, employees are not yet able to use the system,
thereby limiting the usefulness and accessibility of a centralized pool
Throughout the audit, PWD fleet management noted difficulty in encouraging
departments to share vehicles or equipment, and a lack of authority to reassign or
redistribute vehicles. Once assigned a vehicle or equipment unit, individual
departments maintain control over the use.
The City's FY 2007 and FY 2008 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budgets
allocated $80,000 to implement an automated vehicle pool reservation system to allow
for an intranet-based reservation system for user departments. According to the most
recent budget documents, the project is about 30% complete and implementation has
taken longer than anticipated. In FY 2010, the CIP budget provided an additional
$25,000 to complete the project. In the absence of the automated vehicle reservation
Attachment 1
-16-
system, PWD fleet management maintains a small motorized pool of eight vehicles at
MSC. However, use of the pool has been limited and 4 of these 8 vehicles did not
meet minimum utilization requirements during FY 2008 and FY 2009. Public Works
also reports they have a small pool of vehicles available at City Hall, with keys located
at the Public Works Department. However, we found that employees in other
departments were not aware of this pool. Implementing the system could improve fleet
utilization and minimize the overall number of vehicles by encouraging the sharing of
vehicles and equipment.
In the absence of an accessible Citywide pool, departments have formed decentralized
vehicle pools throughout the City. For example, the fleet database notes small vehicle
pools at Elwell Court, Foothills Park, the golf course, landfill, Lucie Stern Community
Center, and the Water Quality Control Treatment Plant. Some departments have
created additional informal pools. However, each motor pool is operated separately
from the others, and there is no pool to allow sharing of equipment among user
departments.
In our opinion, fleet utilization could be further improved by centralizing fleet operations
through programs such as a Citywide pool and reservation system that allows
employees to reserve and share vehicles and equipment throughout the City.
RECOMMENDATION # 3: The Public Works fleet management should complete
implementation of a centralized Citywide vehicle and equipment pool, and make the
Citywide pool accessible to all departments.
The City's Policies and Procedures should be revised to: identify cost-effective utilization
criteria, establish a rigorous and routine process to justify utilization exemptions, clarify
replacement criteria, and provide clearer policies for take-home vehicle use.
While there can be critical service delivery considerations to justify underutilization of a
particular vehicle or equipment unit, we found the lack of a process and authority to
implement the established City procedures contributed significantly to the overall fleet
underutilization. We also found that the City’s policies and procedures could be
improved to identify cost-effective utilization, replacement criteria, and to provide
clearer guidance for take-home use.
The utilization criteria should be re-evaluated for cost-effectiveness
Cost-effective utilization criteria are important since they directly impact the size and
cost of the City's fleet. In 1995, the City lowered the minimum vehicle use
requirements from 5,000 miles per year to 2,500 miles per year. The City’s policies
also established a 50-hour minimum utilization for metered equipment, along with the
75% of annual work day use based on 220 work days in a fiscal year. PWD fleet
management has not tracked departmental compliance with the annual work day use
and we did not find this measurement utilized in other local jurisdictions we reviewed.
Overall, we found the City’s mileage minimums were considerably lower than other
jurisdictions with established criteria and should be re-evaluated. For example, the
City of Redwood City has a 5,000 annual mile minimum, similar to Palo Alto's previous
requirement. The City of San Jose has a 10,000 mile annual minimum for sedans and
Attachment 1
-17-
10,000 mile annual minimum for pick-up trucks. San Jose’s vehicle utilization
requirements are significantly higher than Palo Alto, but their geographical area is also
larger. Other nearby jurisdictions, such as Mountain View and Sunnyvale, do not have
minimum use requirements. The State of California does not differentiate between
transport passenger vehicles, light duty, or heavy duty vehicles and requires a
minimum use of 12,000 miles per year. The Federal Government's Code of Federal
Regulations requires 12,000 miles per year for passenger (transport) vehicles and
10,000 miles per year for light trucks and "general purpose" vehicles.
Ideally, a cost-benefit analysis should be performed to determine the break-even point
for when it makes economic sense to offer employees mileage reimbursement for City
business use, compared to the cost of permanently assigning a vehicle to an
employee or department. The federal mileage reimbursement rate is designed to
cover both direct and indirect costs of operating a vehicle (including cars, vans, pick-up
trucks and panel trucks) and is revised annually. As of January 2010, the current
federal rate was $0.50 per mile. At this rate, the City’s cost to reimburse employees
for 2,500 miles of use is $1,250 per year.
Although PWD fleet management’s cost data was incomplete for reasons noted later in
this report,5 their information estimates the City’s typical annual cost, including
depreciation, is about $7,420 for owning and operating a sedan and $11,176 for
owning and operating a pick-up. In our opinion, these costs should be used to
evaluate the City’s cost-benefit for owning transport vehicles versus other alternatives,
and in establishing more cost-effective utilization criteria.
In addition, the City's policy does not explain the reason for the 50-hour annual
minimum for metered equipment, which averages to about 14 minutes each work day
(based on the City policy of 220 workdays each year). The 50-hour per year minimum
also equates to over 97% of equipment downtime or equipment sitting idle, not in use.
Government standards for metered equipment are not as prevalent, but in comparison
to those we identified, Palo Alto’s standard appears to be significantly lower. A City of
San Jose report found 240 hours of annual use for metered equipment was not "cost
effective" and yet this use is 4 to 7 times higher than Palo Alto's minimum. Washoe
County, Washington identified 200 hours per year as the threshold for underutilization.
Unlike transport vehicles where a smaller geographic size could explain lower
utilization standards, the use of metered equipment is not dependent on the size of the
locality, but on the hours utilized in the field.
In our opinion, PWD fleet management should re-evaluate and increase the minimum
utilization standards, in consideration of the above noted factors.
RECOMMENDATION # 4: The City Manager’s Office and the Public Works fleet
management staff should review the fleet’s minimum utilization standards and
consider increasing the standards to more cost-effective levels.
5 See page 29.
Attachment 1
-18-
Exemptions should be routinely reviewed and justified using established criteria
While cost-effective utilization standards are an important influence on the City's fleet
size and cost, there should also be a mechanism to provide for utilization exemptions
to allow for flexibility to deliver critical services and accommodate unique situations.
Both the State and Federal governments allow users to request exemptions and some
cities, such as the City of San Jose, also have exemption process. Exemption
processes should have established criteria to confirm the critical need to provide an
assigned vehicle or equipment and evaluate the feasibility and cost of available
options. For example, the process should consider the number of similar units already
in the fleet, the utilization of these units, ability to utilize pool vehicles, ability to utilize
mileage reimbursement (if it is a transport vehicle), and the availability to rent seasonal
or specialized equipment.
The City's current policy requires departments to request exemptions from PWD fleet
management for any vehicle not meeting the minimum utilization requirements. The
City's policy states,
"In September with the budget process, the fleet manager will notify those
departments with vehicles not meeting the minimum requirements and require
them to provide written justification for continued use. If 60 days pass without a
response, then the vehicle will be considered surplus or reassigned. The fleet
manager will review the requests for continued use and forward a recommendation
to the Director of Public Works who will file the final recommendation and forward it
to the City Manager. The City Manager or designee will make the final decision
and approve any exceptions in writing. Vehicles or equipment must be operated
either a minimum of 2,500 miles or 50 hours or 75 percent of annual work days
(220 base work days) in a fiscal year... Those units given a permanent exception
due to the nature of the work will not require justification unless the nature of the
work changes."
However, in practice, PWD fleet management staff report that they have not been
given authority to implement the procedure stated above, and there has been no
mechanism to trigger a review of the exception list to ensure the vehicles should
continue to be exempted. The policy does not mention an exemption process for
vehicles and equipment that do not meet the minimum utilization requirement, so PWD
fleet management has not implemented a process to review underutilized equipment.
In addition, PWD fleet management does not have established criteria to identify,
evaluate, or follow up on exception requests.
In 2004, PWD fleet management went through a one-time process to exempt
underutilized vehicles, but as noted, lacked criteria to evaluate the requests and
authority to "pull" underutilized vehicles. Since 2004, PWD fleet management has not
conduct follow-up reviews to ensure the exemptions were still necessary. As a result,
18 of the 86 underutilized vehicles PWD fleet management is currently considering for
potential reassignment or removal, had not been evaluated. Those that were
previously evaluated, were permanently exempted for the life of the vehicle without
any follow-up review. Essentially the 2004 waivers justified permanent exemptions.
As a result, the underutilized vehicles were scheduled for replacement without
additional scrutiny of their utilization or necessity.
Ensuring the PWD fleet management has authority to operate and manage the fleet,
and introducing a Vehicle/Equipment Review Committee to scrutinize departmental
Attachment 1
-19-
requests for replacement and additions could improve the efficacy of the PWD fleet
management operations. According to Government Fleet Magazine, a vehicle
utilization review board is considered a best practice and is an effective method for
reviewing the need for underutilized vehicles and exploring options for elimination,
retention, or transfer to a centralized motor pool. The precedent for vehicle and
equipment review committees already exists among government programs. For
example:
In response to a 2009 audit of its fleet, Santa Clara County established a 10-year
fleet plan to standardize the fleet replacement process and system. County fleet
management conducts an annual utilization study of the fleet, recommends
specific vehicles for replacement based on 9 criteria, reviews proposed
replacements with department heads, and submits the recommendations to the
Board of Supervisors for approval.
The City of San Jose formed a committee to review departmental requests for
replacements, additions, and utilization exemptions. The process considers the
results of a comprehensive mechanical assessment of vehicles considered for
replacement, a review of mileage and use, years of service, repair costs, and
information on other similar items in the fleet inventory.
To help meet minimum utilization guidelines, some agencies at the federal level,
such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, utilize vehicle
utilization review boards to review utilization and reassignment of vehicles.
In our opinion, PWD fleet management needs to conduct routine utilization
assessments to identify underutilized vehicles and equipment for retirement,
redeployment, or inclusion into a centralized vehicle and equipment pool. PWD fleet
management needs to implement an exemption process and develop appropriate
criteria, standards, and forms to evaluate underutilization for both vehicles and
equipment. The City Manager’s Office should establish a committee with appropriate
representatives to review the exemption requests and PWD fleet management
information. PWD fleet management should also have the authority to manage and
operate the City fleet to ensure optimized use of fleet resources.
RECOMMENDATION # 5: The City Manager’s Office should establish a
Vehicle/Equipment Review Committee with representatives from Public Works
Department fleet management, Administrative Services Department’s budget staff,
and the City Manager’s Office to review vehicle and equipment replacements and
exemption requests to the utilization requirements.
RECOMMENDATION # 6: Public Works Department fleet management should
develop written standards, forms, and assessment criteria for the Vehicle/Equipment
Review Committee in their evaluations of fleet utilization such as: number of similar
units in the fleet, average annual miles/hours of similar units, consideration and
description of special uses, cost-benefit of retaining the item in terms of program
efficiency and service delivery, and mechanical condition.
Attachment 1
-20-
RECOMMENDATION # 7: Public Works Department fleet management should
conduct routine annual utilization assessments to identify vehicles and equipment for
retirement, redeployment, inclusion into a centralized vehicle and equipment pool.
PWD fleet management should provide this information for the Vehicle/Equipment
Review Committee to review the appropriateness of vehicle and equipment
exemptions based on established criteria from Recommendation # 6 (above).
RECOMMENDATION # 8: Public Works Department fleet management should
have the authority and responsibility to manage and operate the City fleet to ensure
optimized use of fleet resources.
The City's replacement criteria should be clarified
The City's policy provides replacement guidelines based on age and the mileage or
hours for each type of fleet unit. The policy also requires vehicles scheduled for
replacement to be reviewed and analyzed for condition, cost, usage, safety history and
operating performance. Mechanical assessments are a key component of fleet
industry standards to assess the safety and costs for repairs and maintenance of each
unit. However, our review found that PWD fleet management developed the
replacement list based primarily on the age of the units and did not routinely
incorporate utilization data or results from mechanical assessments.
In addition, the City's replacement guidelines listed in the policy contain ambiguity on
the application of the replacement criteria (See Attachment 1). For example:
Automobiles have a replacement criteria of "5 years/70,000 miles" for non-
emergency Fire and Police staff cars, and "7 years/70,000 miles" for all others -
the policy is not clear on whether both the age and mileage are required to
trigger the replacement consideration, or whether age alone can trigger the
replacement consideration. With a minimum utilization standard of 2,500 miles,
unless a vehicle is utilized more than the standards, it would take 28 years to
reach 70,000 miles for replacement.
The replacement criteria for forklifts is 10-15 years, without consideration for the
overall hours on the unit.
The replacement criteria for street sweepers is 6 years/60,000 miles for 3 wheels
and 7 years/60,000 miles for 4 wheels, but we found the City's broom sweeper
meters measured usage in hours.
With the current ambiguity in the policy's replacement criteria, coupled with the
findings of underutilization and lack of incorporating mechanical assessments, we
found that the age of a vehicle was more likely the factor for replacement consideration
Here are some examples we found:
The database included a directional boring unit assigned to the Utilities
Department that was replaced just under the five-year replacement cycle, after
only 402 total hours of service. With a purchase price of $71,287, the
Attachment 1
-21-
depreciation alone cost the City $177 for each hour of use, not including
operational and maintenance costs. According to PWD fleet management, the
new unit was replaced early because the Utilities staff reported the machine was
too small for their operations.
The Public Works Department replaced a large utility truck after only 61,300
miles of use. The vehicle was 11 years old. The new vehicle cost over
$124,000. PWD fleet management reported the truck was in poor condition and
replaced because it was inadequate for PWD needs.
According to PWD fleet management, they are beginning to incorporate mechanical
assessments into the replacement process. During the last two years, PWD fleet
management has also prolonged several vehicle replacements past the age criteria.
The concern is that without addressing the underutilization, replacing vehicles based
on age could result in an oversized, aged fleet.
RECOMMENDATION # 9: Public Works Department fleet management should
improve the replacement evaluation process through the following: revise the written
policies to clarify replacement criteria, reinstate mechanical evaluations as part of
the evaluation criteria for replacing vehicles (e.g. vehicles requiring cost-prohibitive
repairs vs. those in good mechanical condition); and incorporate utilization
requirements as part of the evaluation criteria to help ensure underutilized vehicles
are not replaced.
The City reduced the number of approved take-home vehicles, but clearer policies are
necessary to identify the appropriate use and authorization for take-home use
In 2007, the City Manager's Office reduced the list of positions authorized for take-
home vehicles from 22 to 7. We estimate this reduction saved about $3,000 in annual
costs per vehicle. As of June 2009, PWD fleet management had a list of 7 positions
authorized for exclusive and emergency use. However, the City’s policy listing the
authorized positions does not reflect these changes and has not been updated since
2005.
The policy also contains confusing definitions that can create ambiguity around the
appropriate use and authorization for take-home vehicles. For example, the policy
states that the Equipment Management Division of Public Works shall keep a record of
vehicles driven home under four permissible categories - Exclusive6, Emergency
Response, Permanent Standby and Occasional Overnight uses. However, a careful
read of the procedures allow for a variety of take-home uses. For example, as part of
the Emergency Response Use, the procedures allow for requests of “ongoing use” and
“occasional use”. The procedures also mention a Standby Vehicle category, which
appears to be the same as the Permanent Standby, but different than the category for
emergency response. It does not detail whether the employees can take home
vehicles each workday, or if there is a standby assignment schedule and the take-
home use is limited to this schedule. The procedures also allow for pool cars and
6 City policy defines exclusive use as the assignment of a City Vehicle to a department head or a Council Appointed
Officer. Positions authorized for Exclusive Use include the PWD Director and Police Chief. The policies and
procedures do not provide for monthly stipends, however, the Management Compensation Plan allows monthly
stipends up to a maximum of $325 for employees whose duties require use of an automobile.
Attachment 1
-22-
assigned cars (those assigned to a specific City department or employee) to be taken
home under a separate category of “occasional overnight use.” In effect, any vehicle
could potentially be authorized for take home use.
The procedures also contain various requirements to substantiate take-home use.
Documentation requirements varied from requiring employees to maintain monthly
logs to document the purpose or incident (under Emergency Response Use), to no
requirement of usage logs (under Standby Use and Exclusive Use). Occasional Use
under Emergency Response required email notification to PWD fleet management,
whereas Occasional Overnight Use under a different section required written approval
and notification.
PWD fleet management produced usage logs for Emergency Response vehicles
dating back to 2007, however current usage logs and notifications were not available.
As a result, we could not determine whether or not departments are, or are not,
following the policy. In our opinion, PWD fleet management should update and clarify
the take-home policy and conduct routine follow-ups with departments to document
their adherence to the policy.
RECOMMENDATION # 10: Public Works Department fleet management should
revise the policy and procedures to clarify the take-home policy and conduct routine
follow-ups with departments to document adherence to the policy.
Replaced vehicles were allowed to remain and augment the City's fleet
According to the City's policy, surplus vehicles (vehicles that were on the replacement
list and slated for disposal) may be reassigned to replace vehicles in other
departments, as determined by the Fleet Manager and approved by the Director of
Public Works. However, vehicle additions are requests to augment the City fleet and
are approved through a separate capital improvement budget process. We found that
PWD fleet management allowed departments to retain replaced vehicles as surplus
vehicles to fill temporary needs, without going through a separate vehicle addition
budget process. This practice essentially allowed the fleet size to grow.
As of June 30, 2009, the fleet surplus inventory included 13 surplus items – 8 autos, 2
pick-up trucks, 1 motorcycle, 1 heavy duty truck, and 1 ambulance. By retaining the
13 surplus items, fleet operating and maintenance costs increased to cover fuel and
maintenance for both the old, as well as the new vehicles. For example, a surplus
sedan assigned to the Planning Department’s Inspection Services section was driven
only 1,560 miles in FY 2009. According to PWD fleet management, the annual
operating cost for this vehicle was about $4,450. In comparison, instead of keeping
the surplus vehicle, mileage reimbursement at 55 cents per mile would have cost the
City only $858. Likewise, in FY 2008, another surplus sedan assigned to Inspection
Services was driven only 1,373 miles. The annual cost of operating this vehicle was
about $4,450, as estimated by PWD fleet management. Mileage reimbursement costs
would have been only $755.
In our opinion, PWD fleet management should have an established process to approve
and evaluate requests to add to the vehicle fleet. These requests should identify the
Attachment 1
-23-
budget impact of the purchase and on-going replacement and maintenance costs.
The request should also evaluate the need for the addition, the viability of other
alternatives such as mileage reimbursement or equipment rental, shared use of a
similar unit already within the City fleet, and utilization of other similar units within the
City fleet.
RECOMMENDATION # 11: Public Works Department fleet management should
establish a process to approve and evaluate requests to add to the City fleet. These
requests should identify the budget impact of the addition and funding for on-going
maintenance and replacement costs, the need for the addition including utilization of
similar units, and the feasibility of other alternatives such as mileage reimbursement,
rental, pooling, or sharing of similar units.
Vehicle rotation can reduce replacement costs of public safety vehicles by balancing
higher and lower usage
Our analysis indicates greater efficiencies could be achieved by rotating the use of
some emergency response vehicles. The City has replacement guidelines for
emergency response vehicles but it does not have specific utilization requirements or
rotational use requirements. As a result, we found a variety of uses ranging from high-
use to low-use in some types of emergency response vehicles. For example, the
Police Department had 25 marked sedans, with annual utilization ranging from 1,126
miles to 36,373 miles in FY 2008. According to the City’s policy and procedures, patrol
sedans are eligible for replacement at 85,000 miles. The patrol sedan with 36,373
annual miles would reach the mileage threshold within 3 years, but with vehicle
rotation the replacement could be extended. Motorcycle use also varied from 883
miles to 10,135 miles in FY 2008. The mileage for fire engines ranged from 497 miles
to 9,050 miles in FY 2008. By rotating the use of these vehicles, the City could even
out the utilization and reduce replacement costs.
The Police and Fire departments have agreed that vehicle rotation is possible and
could reduce replacement costs of emergency response vehicles.
RECOMMENDATION # 12: Public Works Department fleet management should
maximize use of Police Department patrol sedans and motorcycles, and Fire
Department fire engines, by rotating vehicle assignments among lower and higher
use areas.
PWD fleet management does not have established criteria to assess the efficiency and
necessity of non-rolling stock equipment purchases such as generators and trailers
The absence of established criteria to assess the efficiency and necessity of non-
rolling stock equipment purchases hinders PWD fleet management’s ability to
effectively scrutinize requests for equipment. In addition, trailers, generators and other
non-rolling stock equipment could be shared among departments with facilities at the
same location such as Utilities, Public Works, and CSD locations at the MSC. More
specifically:
Attachment 1
-24-
The City’s fleet inventory contains 169 non-rolling stock items assigned to
specific user departments. Most of these items are generators or trailers and do
not have a mechanism to monitor their use.
102 of the trailers are located at MSC and assigned to Public Works, Utilities,
and CSD.
Several items on the City’s budgeted replacement list consisted of non-rolling
stock equipment. In FY 2009, 15 out of the 44 planned replacement items
consisted of trailers and miscellaneous non-rolling stock equipment. In FY 2008,
the list included 12 trailers and 6 pieces of miscellaneous non-rolling stock
equipment out of 102 trailers.
Certain types of equipment, such as trailers, are not metered, so replacement
decisions are primarily based on the age of the unit.
The City’s replacement guidelines for trailers and miscellaneous equipment are
broad, ranging from 5 to 15 years.
Without additional criteria to assess the need to replace miscellaneous equipment, it
was difficult to determine the necessity of the replacements. In our opinion, PWD fleet
management should develop criteria for assessing the need for non-rolling stock
equipment.
RECOMMENDATION # 13: Public Works Department fleet management should
develop written criteria for assessing the need of non-rolling stock equipment.
Outdated and incomplete data makes it difficult to effectively manage the fleet
To properly manage the City fleet, departments and PWD fleet management need
accurate, complete, and timely data on the fleet inventory. Our analysis indicates the
Fleet Focus database was not consistently updated or complete. As a result, PWD
fleet management could not properly monitor or manage fleet resources, including
identifying replacements, reassigning underutilized equipment, or enforcing City fleet
policies. Following are examples we found:
The fleet database did not contain updated assignments. For example, during
our physical sampling:
o We could not locate 2 street sweepers assigned to MSC Maintenance
Operations because the department had transferred the sweepers elsewhere.
o Planning and Community Environment Department personnel reported that 3
vehicles shown in the fleet database as assigned to the department were no
longer assigned to them.
o The database listed a pick-up truck as assigned to CSD, but a review of the
notes indicated PWD had re-assigned this vehicle to the Utilities Department
to replace a truck involved in an accident.
Attachment 1
-25-
Some of the fleet database utilization data was incomplete, and therefore, it was
difficult to determine whether utilization minimums were met for individual units.
For example:
o The fleet inventory contains 6 turf gators, similar to riding lawn mowers, for the
Community Services Department’s Parks and Recreation section. However,
the database does not track the number of hours these are utilized. According
to PWD fleet management, these smaller items do not have meters, are fueled
from gas cans, and do not generate usage data.
o Several pieces of park equipment were not included in the inventory.
According to PWD fleet management, the Community Services Department is
responsible for repairing and maintaining these items.
We attempted to determine if items listed in the FY 2009 fleet inventory satisfied
minimum use requirements and were unable to accurately verify the results due to
missing data. According to PWD fleet management, there were reasons why
utilization data was not available. For example:
The City’s two boats did not have meters to track their use.
A wood chipper listed in the inventory was removed from service in FY 2007. It
was still listed on the inventory because the disposition was not complete as of
April 2009.
Two of the units classified in the database as fire engines were actually fire
aerials.
Of the six forklifts in the fleet inventory, three were electric and one was propane
fueled. Because of this, utilization data for these units was not available through
fuel transactions. Meter readings were available only when these items were
serviced or work order data reviewed, which is generally twice or more each
year.
A pumper truck in the fleet inventory was removed from service in FY 2005 due
to practical obsolescence and is still awaiting disposal.
According to PWD fleet management, staffing vacancies have hindered their ability to
follow up with departments to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the database
information. In our opinion, PWD fleet management should review the database
inventory for completeness, and accuracy and produce routine reports on vehicle and
equipment assignments for assessing utilization and allocation of City fleet resources.
RECOMMENDATION # 14: Public Works fleet management should routinely review
the database inventory for completeness and accuracy and develop necessary
processes for departments to provide accurate and timely utilization data.
Attachment 1
-26-
This page intentionally left blank
Attachment 1
-27-
Finding 2: Funding stability and improved processes are needed to adequately fund fleet
replacement and maintenance
The City’s vehicle and equipment program is typically funded through the Vehicle
Replacement Fund (hereafter referred to as Vehicle Fund) within the City’s Capital
Improvement Project (CIP) budget. Sources of funding are distributed among the
General Fund and Enterprise Funds. The City’s budget process allocates fleet
expenses (including replacement, operation, and maintenance costs) across user
departments (called “allocated charges”), based on information from the PWD fleet
management. However, Vehicle Fund expenditures exceeded revenues during FY
2006, 2007, and 2008.
Our analysis indicates three main reasons contributed to this funding deficit: (1) the
charges to user departments did not sufficiently cover the City’s full cost for operating
the fleet; (2) the current budget process could be improved to provide incentives to
reduce fleet costs; and (3) the fleet addition approval process did not consistently
identify or budget for the amount of on-going maintenance and replacement costs.
The size of the City fleet directly impacts the cost of on-going repair, maintenance, and
replacement budget in the Vehicle Fund. In our opinion, as PWD fleet management
reviews the appropriate fleet size through implementation of the audit
recommendations, it will also be imperative for PWD fleet management and ASD
budget staff to identify stable and on-going funding to maintain the fleet in an
appropriate condition. As PWD fleet management implements additional alternatives
for providing business-related transportation, the way the City budgets and allocates
fleet costs across departments will need to be updated to accommodate alternatives
such as the use of a Citywide vehicle and equipment pool and mileage
reimbursements.
Charges to user departments did not sufficiently cover the City’s full fleet costs
The City uses internal service funds to finance and account for special activities and
services performed for other departments on a cost reimbursement basis. The Vehicle
Fund accounts for maintenance and replacement of vehicles and equipment used by
all City departments. As an internal service fund, it should be self-sustaining and the
charges to the individual departments should be adequate to cover all costs related to
the program. The charges should also provide sufficient funds to replace vehicles and
equipment.
Although the Vehicle Fund is supposed to be self-supporting, transfers to the Vehicle
Fund’s reserves declined from positive $469,945 in FY 2005 to negative $140,072 in
FY 2008, as shown in Exhibit 6.
Attachment 1
-28-
Exhibit 5: Summary of Vehicle Fund Revenues and Expenditures FY 2005 to FY 2010
Fiscal Year
FY 2005
(Actual)
FY 2006
(Actual)
FY 2007
(Actual)
FY 2008
(Actual)
FY 2009
(Adjusted
Budget)
FY 2010
(Budget)
Operating
Revenue $5,328,372 $5,570,551 $5,672,726 $6,363,955 $9,136,007 $7,019,248
Interest Income $182,194 $105,293 $266,285 $338,053 $192,700 $207,600
Other Income $121,619 $90,107 $501,773 $81,608 $621,009 $266,009
Total Fund
Revenues $5,632,185 $5,765,951 $6,440,784 $6,783,616 $9,949,716 $7,492,857
Administration $125,767 $491,261 $2,214,106 $2,069,613 $143,015 $145,974
Vehicle
Replacement and
Additions $2,045,808 $2,875,971 $1,444,588 $1,065,357 $3,124,401 $895,2377
Vehicle
Operations and
Maintenance $2,990,665 $3,188,654 $3,315,224 $3,788,718 $4,861,458 $4,471,094
Total
Expenditures $5,162,240 $6,555,886 $6,973,918 $6,923,688 $8,128,874 $5,512,305
To/(From)
Reserves $469,945 ($789,935) ($533,134)($140,072)$1,820,842 $1,980,552
Source: City Operating and Capital Budgets, Fiscal Years 2005- 2011
Earlier decisions reduced allocated charges
According to PWD, earlier decisions to reduce the Vehicle Fund’s budget partially
contributed to the funding deficit. For example, in FY 2002 the City faced an $8.2
million revenue shortfall and reduced the vehicle replacement charges by $800,000.
The reductions continued in FY 2003 with approximately $700,000 in reductions of
allocated charges to user departments. In FY 2004 and FY 2005, the allocated
charges increased, but the increases were not sufficient to restore the original
reductions.
Deficits within the Vehicle Fund were offset by withdrawals from the Vehicle Fund’s
Unrestricted Assets reserves. The excess expenditures resulted in reserve
withdrawals of $789,935 in FY 2006, $533,134 in FY 2007, and $140,072 in FY 2008.
The operating shortfalls and withdrawals resulted in declining and negative balances in
the Vehicle Fund reserves and diminished the viability of the fund. According to ASD
Budget staff, Vehicle Fund’s reserve balance was negative $374,000 as of June 30,
2007 and negative $1,015,000 as of June 30, 2008.
As an alternative to purchasing replacements, PWD fleet management deferred the
purchase of some vehicles and equipment scheduled for replacement and did not add
to the fleet as planned and approved in the City’s CIP budget. In FY 2009, to restore
the Vehicle Fund’s balance, the ASD Budget Division imposed a 20% surcharge on all
fleet items and user departments. According to ASD Budget staff, the Vehicle Fund
balance increased from negative $1 million, to negative $103,000 by June 30, 2009.
7 Amount includes FY2010 capital improvements expenses for diesel truck emissions retrofits and continued
replacement of the City-wide fuel management system. The amount does not include replacements for vehicles or
equipment.
Attachment 1
-29-
Allocation formulas did not cover the full fleet cost
In addition to the earlier funding reductions, we also found that the formula for
allocating charges across user departments did not recover the full costs. Each year,
PWD fleet management reviews the fuel, repair, depreciation, replacement, and other
costs, related to each vehicle and piece of equipment in the City fleet. PWD fleet
management aggregates this data and submits a spreadsheet to the ASD Budget
Division. The ASD Budget Division uses this data to allocate fleet charges, based on
the vehicles and equipment assigned to each department. However, our analysis
indicates the allocation formulas did not cover the total cost to repair, operate,
maintain, and replace the fleet vehicles and equipment. For example:
The hourly rate ($90) used to allocate labor did not cover all of the costs.
The Operation and Maintenance charges covered only direct costs related to
parts, labor, repairs, fuel surcharges, and similar costs. The charges did not
include overhead or other administrative costs related to supporting the City
fleet.
The estimated replacement costs underestimated the actual replacement costs.
According to staff, some of these discrepancies occur due to differences between
disaggregated information in the Fleet Focus database and aggregated costs reflected
within the City’s SAP financial system. In our opinion, these differences should be
reconciled to ensure complete and accurate cost allocation charges in future years.
Although ASD Budget implemented a surcharge in FY 2009 to help address the fund’s
deficit, this was a temporary fix. PWD fleet management and ASD Budget staff agreed
that they need a better methodology to identify the complete cost of operating the City
fleet and allocate the entire cost to the user departments.
The City’s CIP budget plans capital expenses over five years, but only two years for the
CIP Vehicle Replacement Fund
The City’s annual capital budget is supposed to include a proposed CIP plan to cover
a total of five years. Although fleet replacements and additions are part of the CIP
budget plan, staff does not project funding beyond two years. In our opinion, the lack
of a funding projection and estimate for upcoming fleet purchases, combined with the
underestimates of replacement costs and allocated charges, has been a contributing
factor in funding shortfalls for some large equipment replacements.
For example, in October 2008, staff sought Council approval to replace six of eight fire
engines at a cost of $3.2 million. According to the staff report, the Vehicle Fund had
$2.4 million allocated for the purchase of the engines and the remaining $0.8 million
would be funded through the City’s agreement with Stanford. Although the CIP vehicle
replacement budget included $2.5 million, according to the CIP budget this amount
was intended to replace 44 vehicles and equipment units, including $1.2 million for
three fire engines. Because of the insufficient funding, the entire amount of $2.5
million was used to purchase the new fire engines and the other items on the
replacement list were deferred.
Attachment 1
-30-
RECOMMENDATION # 15: PWD fleet management and ASD Budget should revise
the methodology for charging user departments to include the total cost of operating
the City fleet and project CIP budget needs over the five-year CIP cycle.
The current budget process could be improved to provide incentives to reduce fleet costs
The budget process can serve as an important function to provide feasible and cost-
effective fleet alternatives. The City’s current budget practice allocates the cost of
assigned vehicles and equipment to user departments through “allocated charges.”
These fleet charges are combined with other allocated costs and shown together in the
City’s budget documents. The allocated charges are shown below each department’s
budgeted line items and are not directly controlled by the department. Unlike allocated
charges for vehicles and equipment, the budget process includes mileage
reimbursement costs in each department’s budget through the “travel and meeting”
category. As a result, departments must have an approved budget to utilize mileage
reimbursement, whereas the allocated vehicle and equipment charges do not need to
be budgeted within the department’s budget, as long as PWD fleet management made
the initial assignment. We found that this budget process creates a disincentive for
departments to reduce the number of vehicles and equipment assigned to their
respective departments. It also creates a disincentive for departments to utilize
mileage reimbursement, even if it is more economical to the City than having an
assigned vehicle.
In our opinion, ASD Budget Division and PWD fleet management should consider
revisions to the budget process that show vehicle and equipment costs within each
department’s line item budget. This would provide more flexibility to departments and
encourage economical decisions.
RECOMMENDATION # 16: ASD Budget Division and PWD fleet management
should revise the budget process to show fleet costs within each department’s line
item budget.
The fleet addition approval process did not consistently identify or budget for the amount
of on-going maintenance and replacement costs
Each vehicle addition or new piece of equipment adds to the City’s on-going cost to
replace, maintain and operate the unit. Because of these cost implications, the
approval process for fleet additions needs to identify an appropriate amount of on-
going funding needed to operate, maintain, and replace each addition to the City fleet.
Our review found that the fleet addition approval process did not consistently identify
or budget for on-going maintenance and replacement costs. According to the City’s
Policy and Procedures 4-01/PWD, “Requests for additions of vehicles and equipment
are submitted by departments as a Capital Improvement Program request.” The
procedures do not include criteria for determining whether the vehicle or equipment
addition is necessary, or require the identification of funding for on-going costs
associated with the addition.
Attachment 1
-31-
We also reviewed recent fleet additions and found that staff reports did not clearly
identify the total amount of on-going funding resources that would be necessary. For
example:
In September 2009, staff sought Council approval to purchase a Regional
Response Mobile Command Vehicle at a cost not to exceed $700,000. The staff
report identified grant funding for $300,000 of this cost. According to the staff
report, the Police and Public Works Departments’ current operating budgets
included on-going regular vehicle maintenance costs. However, the report did
not identify the amount of on-going maintenance and did not identify funding for
the replacement cost. If the replacement cost of this expensive unit is not
funded, then the Vehicle Fund may not be able to absorb the unit’s replacement
cost in the future.
In November 2009, staff sought Council approval to purchase an all terrain
directional boring unit at a cost not to exceed $285,945. The staff report did not
include funding for on-going maintenance or replacement of the unit.
The lack of a budget for on-going maintenance, operation, and replacements for fleet
items can contribute to budget shortfalls in the Vehicle Fund. In our opinion, the cost
for on-going maintenance, operation, and replacement should be identified and
budgeted for each fleet purchase.
RECOMMENDATION # 17: Requests for fleet purchases should identify and
budget an amount for on-going maintenance, operation, and replacement costs.
Developing a strategy for future replacement decisions could also help promote the City’s
Climate Protection Plan goal of replacing gasoline vehicles with Compressed Natural Gas
(CNG), hybrid, or fuel efficient alternatives to the greatest extent feasible
PWD fleet management has not purchased vehicle replacements in FY 2010 due to
the recent freeze on non-urgent replacements discussed in Finding 1 of this audit
report. However, the funding and type of vehicle selection for future replacements can
promote the City’s Climate Protection goals. In 2007, the City Council approved the
Climate Protection Plan (CPP), which inventoried the City’s municipal and community
emissions and set emission reduction goals. In 2009, the City Council approved
departmental action plans to help achieve these goals. Public Works’ plan included a
long-term goal of “replacing City gasoline vehicles with CNG, hybrid, or fuel efficient
alternatives to the greatest extent feasible.”
Public Works has already taken steps to retrofit diesel engine trucks, purchase CNG
automobiles for some of the City’s fleet replacements, and install CNG stations. PWD
fleet management has primarily selected CNG vehicles to help achieve emission
reductions. According to PWD fleet management, although hybrid vehicles contribute
fewer emissions, CNG vehicles are more economical to purchase and still achieve
emission reductions. In FY 2009, the City fleet had 87 CNG vehicles and 3 hybrid
vehicles.
There are new opportunities to create a strategy for vehicle replacements that will
promote, and even help exceed, the City’s CPP goals. Recent developments include
Attachment 1
-32-
grant funding to expand battery charging stations at the City Hall; options to lower the
cost of fuel efficient vehicles by pooling vehicle purchases with other organizations;
green purchasing programs; and financial incentives at the federal and state level. For
example, the City Auditor’s Office revenue monitoring program found that the City was
eligible for additional revenues from the federal government’s alternative fuel tax
incentives. As a result, the City received over $123,000 in additional revenues. Future
revenue recoveries or other financial incentives could potentially help offset the cost of
purchasing fuel-efficient vehicles for the City fleet. The City Manager’s Office recently
took a lead in coordinating the development of the City’s sustainability initiatives
through the creation of an Assistant to the City Manager (Sustainability) position.
In our opinion, it is important for PWD fleet management to coordinate with the City
Manager’s Office to help ensure the selection of fleet replacements aligns with the
City’s other strategies and developments to promote the CPP goals. For example,
PWD fleet management’s efforts to install CNG fueling stations create an infrastructure
to support CNG vehicles. Likewise, the City’s recent grant funding for expansion of
battery charging stations will also help create an infrastructure to support electric and
hybrid vehicles.
RECOMMENDATION # 18: PWD fleet management and the City Manager’s Office
should develop a strategy to align future fleet replacements with the City’s other
strategies that promote CPP goals.
Attachment 1
-33-
Finding 3: Internal controls over fuel and parts inventory can be improved.
According to Government Fleet Magazine, after the cost of depreciation, fuel is the
second largest expense for public sector fleets. During fiscal years 2008 and 2009,
the City fleet's annual fuel costs exceeded $900,000 for unleaded, diesel, bio-diesel,
and compressed natural gas (CNG). Auto parts inventory purchases were close to
$800,000 in fiscal year 2009. Our review found that internal controls should be
improved for the City to reconcile and properly account for fuel purchases and
inventory costs. At the time of our review, fuel purchases did not match consumption
reports and the parts inventory was not updated or reconciled. Specifically:
Fuel invoices did not match the CNG consumption reports and reports for
unleaded and diesel fuels showed discrepancies;
Our sampling found weaknesses in the internal controls for fuel pumping
transactions;
Vehicles and equipment were not consistently secured or locked; and
A physical parts inventory had not been conducted for at least six years and the
valuation of the inventory was not available.
The internal control weaknesses, if left unaddressed, could leave the fleet’s fuel,
equipment, and parts inventory susceptible to waste or abuse. The Public Works
Department’s (PWD) fleet management is aware of these issues and initiated steps to
implement a new fuel transaction management system, called FuelFocus, to mitigate
these risks. In our opinion, PWD fleet management should also work with the Utilities
Department to reconcile CNG fuel purchases. PWD fleet management should also
improve internal controls over the parts inventory.
Fuel invoices did not match the CNG consumption reports and reports for unleaded and
diesel fuels showed discrepancies
Internal controls should require City staff to reconcile fuel purchases, inventories, and
balances to ensure overcharges and losses do not occur. If an overcharge occurs, the
City should be able to detect and receive credits for the overcharge. If a loss or
shortage occurs, the City should be able to detect and quantify the loss. During fiscal
years 2008 and 2009, annual fuel costs exceeded $900,000 for unleaded, diesel, bio-
diesel, and compressed natural gas (CNG).
During our review, we attempted and could not reconcile the fuel inventories and
deliveries. Discrepancies, incomplete data, and un-reconciled fuel balances prevented
us from determining if the fuel amounts consumed and on hand were accurate or
appropriate. We could not determine if fuel shortages existed or if losses occurred
because the fuel balances and purchases were not reconcilable. PWD fleet
management was also unable to reconcile the fuel balances, purchases, and
consumption.
Attachment 1
-34-
CNG fuel billings
The Utilities Department is responsible for purchasing compressed natural gas (CNG)
and processing payments for these purchases. The Utilities Department receives the
CNG invoices and charges the Vehicle Fund (the fund that processes fleet related
costs) for the City fleet’s CNG consumption. The ASD processes the payments from
the Vehicle Fund; however, fleet management does not review or approve the
payments. The fleet management database tracks the consumption of CNG within the
City fleet and should be reviewed to verify the accuracy of the charges. Because PWD
fleet management approval is not required for CNG fleet charges and payments, PWD
fleet management was unaware of how much was charged to the Vehicle Fund for
CNG fuel. Our review found the CNG fuel charges from the Utilities Department did
not match the fuel consumption reports from PWD fleet management. For example:
During FY 2008, the Utilities Department reported that it charged the Vehicle
Fund for 137,806.8 gallon equivalents (114,839 therms) amounting to $130,917
for CNG fuel costs. The fleet management database indicated that only 85,803
gallons amounting to $66,887 were consumed during the same time. The
consumption report substantiated only 62% of the volume charged.
In FY 2007, the Utilities Department reports that it charged the vehicle fund for
111,910.8 gallons (93,259 therms) amounting to $128,697 for CNG fuel costs.
The fleet management database showed that only 71,006 gallons or $81,657
were consumed during this timeframe. The consumption report substantiated
only 63% of the volume charged.
Because PWD fleet management is not able to review the CNG fuel charges prior to
their payment, these differences were not reconciled.
Unleaded and diesel fuel purchases
Basic internal controls, such as periodic reconciliations of fuel deliveries, payments,
and inventory balances should be performed to help ensure accountability and use of
the fuel resources. Reconciliations help ensure fuel purchases are not excessive to
the operating needs and fuel purchases are matched to actual fuel on hand. Our
analysis of the fuel reserves and purchases indicated discrepancies. PWD fleet
management reported the following discrepancies.
Attachment 1
-35-
Exhibit 6: Unleaded and Diesel Fuel Balances
Fiscal Year 2007 Fiscal Year 2008 Fiscal Year 2009
Unleaded
(Gallons)
Diesel
(Gallons)
Unleaded
(Gallons)
Diesel
(Gallons)
Unleaded
(Gallons)
Diesel
(Gallons)
Beginning
Inventory 7,231 19,575 8,635 24,599 8,409 21,675
Fuel
Purchased 151,906 142,692 157,878 137,607 155,305 152,386
Fuel
Dispensed 156,012 140,329 151,300 124,254 133,555 127,241
Ending
Inventory
(Calculated) 3,125 21,398 15,213 37,952 30,159 46,819
Fuel Balance
Reported 8,635 24,599 8,409 21,675 18,974 34,282
Fuel
Discrepancy (5,510) (2,661) 6,804 16,277 11,185 12,537
Approximate
Value of
Discrepancy ($17,852) ($7,477) $28,780 $62,503 $26,508 $28,333
Source: PWD Fleet Management
PWD fleet management could not reconcile the fuel purchases, balances, and
payments. As a result, we could not determine if the ending fuel balances were
correct, if the City was overcharged for fuel delivered, or if fuel losses had occurred.
According to PWD fleet management, it has recognized the inaccuracy of the existing
Citywide fuel management system since 2006. The system has become unreliable
and does not consistently report all transactions (especially from Fire Station One and
the Landfill). It also does not interface with the existing tank inventory monitoring
system. This makes periodic inventory reconciliation difficult, and has resulted in year-
end discrepancies. Manual daily reconciliation is possible, but impractical due to the
staff time required and prior staffing vacancies. In order to improve oversight over
fueling operations, and facilitate fully automated inventory reconciliation, PWD fleet
management initiated a CIP project (VR-06801) to replace the existing system in the
FY 2007 Capital Budget. Contract #C09127499 was awarded to AssetWorks on June
1, 2009 and is anticipated to be completed by December 31, 2010.
We recommend that PWD fleet management staff work with the ASD Department and
Utilities Department (for CNG) to develop a system that reconciles fuel consumption,
purchases and balances.
RECOMMENDATION # 19: PWD fleet management should develop a system to
reconcile fuel purchases, balances, and consumption reports.
Attachment 1
-36-
Our sampling found weaknesses in the internal controls for fuel pump transactions
The City’s policies and procedures require all City vehicles and equipment to be fueled
at one of the City’s seven fueling facilities. City fueling stations are located at four fire
stations, the golf course, the landfill, and the City’s Municipal Services Center (MSC).
The fuel types dispensed in Fiscal Year 2008 included unleaded, diesel, bio-diesel,
and CNG. Existing controls at the fueling stations and pumps require employees to
enter the vehicle or equipment unit number, the mileage of the vehicle or equipment,
and the employee number before fueling. If the data is valid, the centralized computer
allows the fuel to be dispensed.
Our test of the controls at the fueling stations indicated the controls worked as
designed and fueling transactions were recorded in the fleet’s fuel management
system. However, we also found transactions showing fuel had been dispensed to
vehicles that were not yet in the fleet, vehicles that were no longer in the fleet, and
unusual fueling patterns. For example:
Gas was pumped for 3 months after the date a Caterpillar loader was disposed.
A 2004 Ford F-250 showed activity 5 months before it was placed in service.
A Ford F-250 showed unusual gas pumping activity from pumping every two
weeks to pumping every 2-3 days.
These unusual transactions were not identified or investigated further to identify the
causes. According to PWD fleet management, these types of discrepancies can occur
when an old vehicle has not been deleted from the fuel management system; when a
new vehicle is prematurely entered into the database; or when an employee enters
incorrect vehicle numbers.
According to PWD fleet management, other vulnerabilities existed. For example,
One departmental fuel code can cover numerous fuel cans and pieces of small
equipment. This internal control weakness makes the fueling system susceptible
for employees to dispense fuel into gas containers for personal use and to
charge their department for the fuel.
Employees could fuel vehicles and equipment by entering obsolete account
numbers. We could not determine if fuel pumped under these numbers were for
legitimate uses.
The City’s fleet manager also reported an employee was caught taking fuel for
his personal vehicle by entering the number of a vehicle in the City fleet. City
staff investigated the incident and discharged the employee.
Without improved controls, fuel losses would be difficult to detect, PWD fleet
management is aware of these issues and in 2006, sought funding to implement a new
fuel system. However, Public Works subsequently found that the system did not
provide fully automated fueling and integration into the existing fleet management
software. In June 2009, Public Works initiated steps to implement a new fuel
transaction management system, called FuelFocus, to mitigate these risks. Public
Works received Council approval to implement a new fueling system for three of the
Attachment 1
-37-
seven stations with the highest activity. According to Public Works, the new fuel
system should provide improved controls to reconcile fuel purchases and inventories
and limit fuel access.
In our opinion, PWD fleet management should complete the implementation of the
fueling system for all City fuel pumps and provide an evaluation of its effectiveness in
improving internal controls over fuel pump transactions.
RECOMMENDATION # 20: PWD fleet management should complete
implementation of the fueling system at all City fuel pumps and evaluate its
effectiveness at providing internal controls over fuel pump transactions.
Vehicles and equipment were not consistently secured or locked
Fleet policies frequently require drivers to lock and secure vehicles and equipment
when not in use. The City’s vehicle and equipment policies do not contain a similar
requirement. During the audit fieldwork, we conducted a physical inspection of 26
randomly selected City vehicles. At the Municipal Services Corporation (MSC) lot, we
found the keys for 10 of the Utility – Electric Operations trucks left in the ignitions with
the doors unlocked.
Exhibit 7: Picture of Keys Left in Unlocked Vehicle During Physical Inspection
During our inspection, the MSC entry gates were also left open and unsecured, leaving
the unlocked vehicles vulnerable. We also found an unlocked Palo Alto Utilities truck
parked at the Stanford Medical Center with the keys in the ignition.
We shared our findings with the Utilities Department and the department directed staff
to cease this practice. During our follow-up inspection in March and April 2009, we
found that all of the Utilities trucks were secured and the keys removed, with one
exception. Based on our advice, the employee removed the keys and secured the
vehicle.
The importance of securing City vehicles is demonstrated by two examples. In
October 2007, someone stole a CSD-Parks pickup truck from the MSC when an
employee left the keys in the unlocked vehicle overnight and the MSC gate was left
open and unsecured. Fortunately, the City recovered the stolen vehicle. In a second
example, several pieces of equipment valued at $16,000 were stolen from 3 Utilities
Attachment 1
-38-
service trucks when the items were left unsecured on or in the vehicles. The theft
included two dirt compactors, a gas generator, a camera reel, and a digital camera.
In our opinion, the Public Works Department should include requirements for securing
vehicles and equipment within the fleet policies and procedures, and departments
should ensure compliance by all employees.
RECOMMENDATION # 21: PWD fleet management should include requirements
for securing vehicles and equipment within the fleet policies and procedures, and
departments should ensure compliance by employees.
A physical parts inventory had not been conducted for at least six years and the valuation
of the inventory was not verifiable.
An accurate and complete parts inventory is important to ensure needed parts are
available for quick and efficient maintenance and repair of the City fleet. Parts
purchases for FY 2009 totaled $797,282. Although PWD fleet management reports an
inventory valuation is provided to the City’s accounting section at the end of each fiscal
year, we could not verify the amount. We tested the parts inventory and discovered
that the inventory listing was not updated for new or utilized parts, the inventory
database was not accurate, and a physical inventory had not been conducted for at
least 6 years. In addition, access to the inventory storage was not secured. As a
result, we were unable to determine whether parts had been properly accounted for or
if the parts inventory was efficiently or effectively utilized. Considering the dollar
amount of the inventory purchases, we recommend that the PWD fleet management
staff conduct regular inventories of the City auto parts, develop a system to ensure the
database is accurate and complete, and secure access to the auto parts inventory.
According to PWD fleet management, now that it is fully staffed, it is constructing a
secure stockroom area and is surveying the existing inventory.
RECOMMENDATION # 22: PWD fleet management should conduct regular
inventories of auto parts, develop a system to ensure the parts database is accurate
and complete, and secure access to the auto parts inventory.
Attachment 1
-39-
CONCLUSION
Improvements can be made to reduce the cost and size of the City’s vehicle and
equipment fleet, provide funding stability, and to strengthen internal controls over fuel
and parts inventory. The audit recommends alternatives to permanently assigning
vehicles and equipment to individual users and departments. These alternatives
include implementation of a centralized Citywide vehicle and equipment pool, rotating
vehicles, exploring opportunities to rent specialized equipment or seasonal use
equipment, and increasing usage of mileage reimbursement. Cost-effective utilization
criteria should be developed, along with a Vehicle/Equipment Review committee to
evaluate exemptions using established criteria. PWD fleet management has already
taken steps to initiate improvements, including the implementation of a temporary
freeze on non-urgent fleet replacements and review of underutilized vehicles.
RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATION # 1
Public Works Department fleet management should continue to freeze replacement of
non-urgent vehicles and equipment until it can reduce the size of the fleet and increase
utilization.
RECOMMENDATION # 2
Public Works Department fleet management should develop an action plan for
increasing fleet utilization and identify an optimal fleet size and composition that
includes eliminating or re-assigning underutilized vehicles, exploring opportunities to
rent specialized equipment or seasonal use of equipment, not replacing vehicles,
utilizing mileage reimbursement, rotating vehicles, and placing underutilized vehicles
and equipment in a central motor pool.
RECOMMENDATION # 3
The Public Works Department fleet management should complete implementation of a
centralized Citywide vehicle and equipment pool, and make the Citywide pool
accessible to all departments.
RECOMMENDATION # 4
The City Manager’s Office and the Public Works Department fleet manager staff
should review the fleet’s minimum utilization standards and consider increasing the
standards to more cost-effective levels.
RECOMMENDATION # 5
The City Manager’s Office should establish a Vehicle/Equipment Review Committee
with representatives from Public Works Department fleet management, Administrative
Services Department’s Budget staff, and the City Manager’s Office to review vehicle
and equipment replacements and exemption requests to the utilization requirements.
Attachment 1
-40-
RECOMMENDATION # 6
Public Works Department fleet management should develop written standards, forms,
and assessment criteria for the Vehicle/Equipment Review Committee in their
evaluations of fleet utilization such as: number of similar units in the fleet, average
annual miles/hours of similar units, consideration and description of special uses, cost-
benefit of retaining the item in terms of program efficiency and service delivery, and
mechanical condition.
RECOMMENDATION # 7
Public Works Department fleet management should conduct routine annual utilization
assessments to identify vehicles and equipment for retirement, redeployment,
inclusion into a centralized vehicle and equipment pool. Public Works Department
fleet management should provide this information for the Vehicle/Equipment Review
Committee to review the appropriateness of vehicle and equipment exemptions based
on established criteria from Recommendation # 6 (above).
RECOMMENDATION # 8
Public Works Department fleet management should have the authority and
responsibility to manage and operate the City fleet to ensure optimized sue of fleet
resources.
RECOMMENDATION # 9
Public Works Department fleet management should improve the replacement
evaluation process through the following: revise the written policies to clarify
replacement criteria, reinstate mechanical evaluations as part of the evaluation criteria
for replacing vehicles (e.g. vehicles requiring cost-prohibitive repairs vs. those in good
mechanical condition); and incorporate utilization requirements as part of the
evaluation criteria to help ensure underutilized vehicles are not replaced.
RECOMMENDATION # 10
Public Works Department fleet management should revise the policy and procedures
to clarify the take-home policy and conduct routine follow-ups with departments to
document adherence to the policy.
RECOMMENDATION # 11
Public Works Department fleet management should establish a process to approve
and evaluate requests to add to the City fleet. These requests should identify the
budget impact of the addition and funding for on-going maintenance and replacement
costs, the need for the addition including utilization of similar units, and the feasibility of
other alternatives such as mileage reimbursement, rental, pooling, or sharing of similar
units.
Attachment 1
-41-
RECOMMENDATION # 12
Public Works Department fleet management should maximize use of Police
Department patrol sedans and motorcycles, and Fire Department fire engines, by
rotating vehicle assignments among lower and higher use areas.
RECOMMENDATION # 13
Public Works Department fleet management should develop written criteria for
assessing the need of non-rolling stock equipment.
RECOMMENDATION # 14
Public Works Department fleet management should routinely review the database
inventory for completeness and accuracy and develop necessary processes for
departments to provide accurate and timely utilization data.
RECOMMENDATION # 15
Public Works Department fleet management and Administrative Services Department
Budget should revise the methodology for charging user departments to include the
total cost of operating the City fleet and Capital Improvement Project budget needs
over the five-year Capital Improvement Project cycle.
RECOMMENDATION # 16
Administrative Services Department Budget Division and Public Works Department
fleet management should revise the budget process to show fleet costs within each
department’s line item budget.
RECOMMENDATION # 17
Requests for fleet purchases should identify and budget an amount for on-going
maintenance, operation, and replacement costs.
RECOMMENDATION # 18
Public Works Department fleet management and the City Manager’s Office should
develop a strategy to align future fleet replacements with the City’s other strategies
that promote Climate Protection Plan goals.
RECOMMENDATION # 19
Public Works Department fleet management should develop a system to reconcile fuel
purchases, balances, and consumption reports.
RECOMMENDATION # 20
Public Works Department fleet management should complete implementation of the
fueling system at all city pumps and evaluate its effectiveness at providing internal
controls over fuel pump transactions.
Attachment 1
-42-
RECOMMENDATION # 21
Public Works Department fleet management should include requirements for securing
vehicles and equipment within the fleet policies and procedures, and departments
should ensure compliance by employees.
RECOMMENDATION # 22
Public Works Department fleet management should conduct regular inventories of
auto parts, develop a system to ensure the parts database is accurate and complete,
and secure access to the auto parts inventory.
Attachment 1
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 4-01/PWD
Revised: April 2005
ATTACHMENT B
Equipment Management Division
Fleet Replacement Criteria
The following serves as a general guideline for replacing vehicles and equipment based on
usage, operating costs, and downtime. Adjustments in time or miles will be made to replacement
criteria for individual units as conditions warrant.
CLASS 01-AUTOMOBILES
COMPACT/INTERMEDIATE/WAGON 7 YEARS/70,000 MILES
POLICE/FIRE STAFF CARS 5 YEARS/70,000 MILES
CLASS 02-AUTOMOBILES
POLICE UNDERCOVER (in police service) 4 YEARS/50,000 MILES
CLASS 03-POLICE PATROLS
FULL-SIZE PATROL SEDANS 4 YEARS/85,000 MILES
CLASS 04-TRUCKS TO 3/4 TON
COMPACT/STANDARD PICKUPS 7 YEARS/70,000 MILES
PICKUPS ON CALL 3 YEARS/70,000 MILES
VANS/SERVICE BODIES 7 YEARS/70,000 MILES
CLASS 05 TO CLASS 07-TRUCKS TO 24K LBS.
TRUCKS WITH GAS ENGINE 8 YEARS/ 80,000 MILES
TRUCKS WITH DIESEL ENGINE 0 YEARS/100,000 MILES
CLASS 08 TO CLASS 11-VARIOUS TRUCKS OVER 24K LBS.
TRUCKS WITH SERVICE BODIES/DUMPS 10 YEARS/100,000 MILES
TRUCKS WITH AERIAL LIFTS 10 YEARS/100,000 MILES
CLASS 12-AMBULANCES
TYPE III UNIT COMPLETE 4 YEARS/85,000 MILES
RECHASSIS MODULE 4 YEARS/85,000 MILES
Page 13 of 15
Attachment 1
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 4-01/PWD
Revised: April 2005
CLASS 13-FIRE APPARATUS
PUMPER ENGINES 20 YEARS/85,000 MILES
TRUCK AERIALS 15 YEARS/50,000 MILES
CLASS 14 TO CLASS 15-STREET SWEEPERS
3 WHEEL SWEEPERS 6 YEARS/60,000 MILES
4 WHEEL SWEEPERS 7 YEARS/60,000 MILES
CLASS 16-PARKING SCOOTERS
3 WHEEL MOTORCYCLE - GAS 5 YEARS/15,000 MILES
3 WHEEL MOTORCYCLE - ELECTRIC 7 YEARS/20,000 MILES
CLASS 17-BACKHOES
SMALL BACKHOE 10 YEARS/5,000 HOURS
LARGE BACKHOE 10 YEARS/6,000 HOURS
CLASS 18-TRACTORS
SMALL TRACTORS 12 YEARS/5,000 HOURS
LARGE TRACTORS 10 YEARS/6,000 HOURS
CLASS 19-REFUSE EQUIPMENT
LANDFILL DOZERS 7 YEARS/10,000 HOURS
LANDFILL COMPACTOR 6 YEARS/10,000 HOURS
SCRAPER 10 YEARS/10,000 HOURS
LOADER 8 YEARS/ 6,000 HOURS
CLASS 20-FORKLIFTS
VARIOUS MODELS 10-15 YEARS
CLASS 21 TO CLASS 22-AIR COMPRESSORS AND CHIPPERS
180 CFM COMPRESSOR 10 YEARS/5,000 HOURS
TOWED CHIPPER 10 YEARS/7,000 HOURS
CLASS 23 TO CLASS 28-METERED AND NONMETERED
MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION 5-15 YEARS/5,000 HOURS
EQUIPMENT, GENERATORS AND TRAILERS
Page 14 of 15
Attachment 1
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 4-01/PWD
Revised: April 2005
CLASS 25-STANDBY GENERATOR SETS
500 KVA UNITS 15 YEARS/5,000 HOURS
CLASS 30-MOTORCYCLES
VARIOUS MODELS 5 YEARS/25,000 MILES
Page 15 of 15
Attachment 1
-26-
This page intentionally left blank
Attachment 1
-47-
Attachment 1
brought to Council if a Budget Amendment Ordinance or approval of contract is required.
Equipment Management will procure and maintain fleet assets in the most cost effective and
efficient manner in order to support City programs and service delivery.
RECOMMENDATION #2
PWD Fleet Management should develop an action plan for increasing fleet utilization and
identifY an optimal fleet size and composition that includes eliminating or re-assigning
underutilized vehicles, exploring opportunities to rent specialized equipment or seasonal use of
equipment, not replacing vehicles, utilizing mileage reimbursement, rotating vehicles, and
placing underutilized vehicles and equipment in a central motor pool.
Agree
PWD Equipment Management initiated a review of underutilized vehicles which resulted in four
vehicles being voluntarily returned by the departments. Staff will continue to evaluate transport
vehicles already identified as underutilized, and will follow with an assessment of metered
equipment. The City's vehicle policy will be revised to detail a more stringent review and
approval process. The revision will incorporate the FRC's role and authority, and will include
forms and documents that will be utilized in the review process.
Due to timing and existing workload in PWD Equipment Management and the Administrative
Services Department, staff will seek outside assistance to compile, analyze and report out on
recommendations relative to vehicle assignment, rotation and utilization; the outsourcing of
specialized equipment needs; motor pool options; mileage reimbursement, and pool car
alternativlls. This goal of this effort will be to maximize the utilization of fleet resources, and to
improve the cost-effectiveness of the City Fleet in support of City programs; while assuring
reliable service delivery. The City Manager has included a placeholder of $483,000 in the
Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Internal Service Fund proposed in the FY 20 II budget as
expected budget savings from improved cost-effectiveness of the fleet.
RECOMMENDATION # 3
The Public Works Fleet Management should complete implementation of a centralized Citywide
vehicle and equipment pool, and make the Citywide pool accessible to all departments.
Agree
Staff has already commenced the implementation of a centralized, automated pool vehicle
reservation system, beginning with existing pool vehicles located at located at the Municipal
Service Center. This phase is scheduled for completion by sununer 2010. The next phase will
involve the addition of existing Civic Center pool vehicles to the automated system, and is
scheduled for completion by June 20 11. In order to include other City facilities such as Lucie
Stem, Elwell Court, and the libraries in the automated system, additional funding may be
necessary. Staffwill discuss the inclusion of additional funding with the Administrative Services
Department as we prepare the FY 2012 budget.
-47-
Attachment 1
RECOMMENDATION # 4
The City Manager's Office and the Public Works Fleet Manager staff should review the fleet's
minimum utilization standards and consider increasing the standards to more cost· effective
levels.
Agree
PWD Equipment Management will review current utilization standards in conjunction with the
FRC. These standards include thresholds for mileage, engine hours and days used dependent
upon the type of equipment. It should be noted that utilization guidelines, in order to be
successful, be driven not only by cost comparisons with other agencies and the private sector; but
also with the understanding that the City must own certain types of vehicles and equipment in
order to provide timely services to the public as well as to fulfill its emergency response
obligations.
The composition of the City's fleet is somewhat unique due to the City's ownership of a full·
service public utility, Water Quality Control Plant and landfill. The necessary vehicles and pieces
of equipment associated with these activities do not always meet established utilization criteria,
so they may need to be exempted or monitored against different criteria such as days of use rather
than engine hours, or engine hours rather than miles. Given the City's small service area (26
square miles, with 1/3 of that being open space), mileage thresholds cannot be the only
evaluation criteria.
Staff could implement a new RFID system at the MSC and Civic Center if funding is available.
The system would monitor the movement of all rolling stock, including trailers, which would
pass RFID readers located at entry points enabling tracking and documentation for days used.
RECOMMENDATION # 5
The City Manager's Office should establish a VehiclelEquipment Review Committee with
representatives from Public Works Fleet Management, Administrative Services Department's
budget staff, and the City Manager's Office to review vehicle and equipment replacements and
exemption requests to the utilization requirements.
Agree
PWD Equipment Management will work collaboratively with the Administrative Services
Department and the City Manager via a newly created Fleet Review Committee (FRC) to make
fleet size and replacement decisions. The FRC is comprised of the Fleet Manager, Budget
Manager, and a representative from the City Manager's Office. The FRC will review utiliZation,
and conduct programmatic analysis applying the revised guidelines and vehicle policy to ensure
efficiency and cost effectiveness of fleet replacements and purchases.
-47-
Attachment 1
RECOMMENDATION # 6
Public Works Fleet Management should develop written standards, forms, and assessment
criteria for the VehiclelEquipment Review Committee in their evaluations of fleet utilization
such as: number of similar units in the fleet, average annual mileslhours of similar units,
consideration and description of special uses, cost-benefit of retaining the item in terms of
program efficiency and service delivery, and mechanical condition.
Agree
PWD Equipment Management and the Administrative Services Department will seek outside
assistance to compile, analyze and report out on recommendations relative to vehicle assignment,
rotation and utilization; the outsourcing of specialized equipment needs; motor pool options;
mileage reimbursement, and pool car alternatives. The goal of this effort will be to maximize the
utilization of fleet resources, and to improve the cost effectiveness of the City Fleet in support of
City programs; while assuring reliable service delivery.
Once findings are complete the City's Vehicle Policy will be revised and will include standards,
forms and assessment criteria to be utilized by the FRC.
RECOMMENOATION # 7
Public Works Fleet Management should conduct routine annual utilization assessments to
identify vehicles and equipment for retirement, redeployment, or inclusion into a centralized
vehicle and equipment pool. PWD Fleet Management should provide this information for the
VehiclelEquipment Review Committee to review the appropriateness of vehicle and equipment
exemptions based on established criteria from Recommendation #6 (above).
Agreed
Fleet utilization and requests for exemption or additions will be reviewed by the FRC as part of
the armual budget process and creation of the five-year CIP plan.
RECOMMENDATION # 8
Public Works Fleet Management should have the authority and responsibility to manage and
operate the City fleet to ensure optimized use of fleet resources.
Agree
Per City Municipal Code 2.08.190 (11) the responsibility ofthe Equipment Management division
of the Public Works Department, is defined as follows: "To coordinate the needs of the city
departments in their requirements for motorized equipment, to operate the city garage, actively
supervise a preventative maintenance program, keep the operating records of all motorized
equipment used or operated by the city, monitor the use of pool cars, and maintain fuel sites at
city facilities;". Staff will restate this authority and responsibility within the revised Vehicle
-47-
Attachment 1
Policy. In addition, the FRC will lend a Citywide perspective and a greater level of authority to
decisions regarding the management of fleet resources.
RECOMMENDATION # 9
PWD Fleet Management should improve the replacement evaluation process through the
following: revise the written policies to clarify replacement criteria, re-instate mechanical
evaluations as part of the evaluation criteria for replacing vehicles (e.g. vehicles requiring cost-
prohibitive repairs vs. those in good mechanical condition); and incorporate utilization
requirements as part of the evaluation criteria to help ensure underutilized vehicles are not
replaced.
Agree
PWD Equipment Management will include/clarify replacement criteria within the revised
Vehicle Policy. This criteria will include the reinstatement of formal mechanical evaluations as
part of the replacement analysis.
RECOMMENDATION # 10
PWD Fleet Management should revise the policy and procedures to clarify the take-home policy
and conduct routine follow-ups with departments to document adherence to the policy.
Agree
PWD Equipment Management did revise the Vehicle Policy to include new take-home
guidelines in January 2008. The draft was submitted to the City Manager's office for review and
approval. Due to staffing changes, staffing shortages and higher priorities the review of the
revised policy has been placed on hold. PWD Fleet Management will withdraw this submittal
and incorporate this revision in the overall revision of the Vehicle Policy. The new take-home
policy will include a form for departments to use to document their compliance with the policy.
RECOMMENDATION # 11
PWD Fleet Management should establish a process to approve and evaluate requests to add to
the City fleet. These requests should identify the budget impact of the addition and funding for
on-going maintenance and replacement costs, the need for the addition including utilization of
similar units, and the feasibility of other alternatives such as mileage reimbursement, rental,
pooling, or sharing of similar units.
Agree
The newly created Fleet Review Committee (FRC) will make fleet size and replacement
decisions, review utilization, and conduct programmatic analysis applying the revised guidelines
and vehicle policy to ensure efficiency and cost effectiveness of fleet replacements and
-47-
Attachment 1
purchases. Newly created forms used in this review process will include budgetary impact
information.
RECOMMENDATION # 12
Public Works Fleet Management should maximize use of Police Department patrol sedans and
motorcycles, and Fire Department fire engines, by rotating vehicle assignments between lower
and higher use areas.
Agree
PWD Equipment Management will continue to provide usage data to the Police and Fire
Departments to enable staff to analyze vehicle assignments within their departments and develop
rotation plans.
RECOMMENDATION # 13
Public Works Fleet Management should develop written criteria for assessing the need of non-
rolling stock equipment.
Agree
PWD Equipment Management will include/clarifY non-rolling stock guidelines within the
revised Vehicle Policy. This criteria will include the reinstatement of formal mechanical
evaluations as part of the replacement analysis.
RECOMMENDATION # 14
Public Works Fleet Management should routinely review the database inventory for
completeness and accuracy and develop necessary processes for departments to provide accurate
and'timely utilization data.
Agree
For the last two years, staffing shortages have prevented timely update and review of some types
of fleet data. Now that Equipment Management is nearing full staff, our usual update and review
process will be reinstituted.
RECOMMENDATION # 15
PWD Fleet Management and ASD Budget should revise the methodology for charging user
departments to include the total cost of operating the City fleet, and project CIP budget needs
over the five-year CIP cycle.
Agree
-47-
Attachment 1
PWD Equipment Management and ASD staff have been working collaboratively on restructuring
Fleet's SAP cost center structure so that it more accurately reflects the way cost categories are
organized within the fleet database. Division activities such as in-house maintenance, contract
maintenance, parts operations, fueling and motor pool operations have been segregated in SAP to
facilitate the ready and accurate capture of expenditure information. At the same time, staff has
revised the cost accounting methodology to more accurately capture all costs associated with
managing the fleet. The new methodology has been applied to the departmental allocations
submitted to ASD Budget for the FY 2011 budget. In addition PWD Equipment Management
developed a five-year projection which is included in the FY 2011 CIP.
RECOMMENDATION # 16
ASD Budget Division and PWD Fleet Management should revise the budget process to show
fleet costs within each department's line item budget.
Agree
The ASD Budget Division currently budgets for fleet costs in each department's line item budget
as allocated charges from the the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance fund, which is an
Internal Service Fund. This type of fund provides goods or services to other funds on a cost-
reimbursement basis. Allocated charges are an acceptable method of recovering costs for
centralized services, including indirect costs. As with other allocated charges in the City's
budget, fleet costs are distributed to each department based on an allocation formula. This
formula takes into account the cost of replacing and maintaining the vehicles assigned to each
department. This is similar to the distribution of allocated charges for computer replacement and
maintenance and printing and mailing costs. All allocated charges are based on the internal
service fund model of centralizing costs for a specific aspect of the operation and then allocating
those costs based on a reasonable method. Allocated charges currently appear in SAP financial
reports and will continue to appear in the budget detail within individual department budgets.
During the development of the annual budget, a committee of ASD and PW staff will review
department fleet requests in relation to other options including mileage reimbursement. During
the budget process departmental requests for additions to the fleet will be evaluated with other
department requests to ensure that the department has considered the budget tradeoffs. The goal
of this step will be to limit the overall increase in departmental budgets that is due to vehicle
requests.
It is important to point out that past budget decisions made by staff during years of budget
constraints have resulted in a decrease in the cost of the fleet, which has resulted in reduced
budget expense for departments in the General.Fund. This demonstrates the current approach to
assessing fleet costs, which is done on an annual basis. The steps outlined above should enhance
this l\llllual budget process by incorporating the decisions at the department level.
-47-
Attachment 1
RECOMMENDATION # 17
Requests for fleet purchases should identify and budget an amount for on-going maintenance,
operation, and replacement costs.
Agree
It is staff's general rule, with some minimal exceptions, to budget for on-going maintenance,
operation, and replacement costs. An example of an exception is in the case of unique equipment
like the Police Mobile Command Vehicle, which was acquired with grant funding, however there
is no replacement charge budgeted. In addition, in past years where the Oeneral Fund could not
sustain increases the allocation were not fully charge.
RECOMMENDATION # 18
PWD Fleet Management and the City Manager's Office should develop a strategy to align future
fleet replacements with the City's other strategies that promote CPP goals.
Agree.
As the City further refines its Climate Protection goals and strategies, staff will review this
recommendation and determine opportunities for incorporating a recommended strategy.
RECOMMENDATION # 19
PWD Fleet Management should work with the Administrative Services Department and Utilities
Department (for CNG) to develop a system to reconcile fuel purchases, balances, and
consumption reports.
Agree
PWD Equipment Management will develop a process for reconciliation of fuel purchases,
balances and consumption for submittal to ASD. Staff has begun working with Utilities to
develop commodity cost methodologies for CNG sales to City and externally.
RECOMMENDATION # 20
PWD Fleet Management should complete implementation of the fueling system at all city pumps
and evaluate its effectiveness at providing internal controls over fuel P1.lmp transactions.
Agree
PWD Equipment Management is currently installing an electronic fueling transaction
management system (FueIFocus) which will be fully implemented by December 2010. The
Fue1Focus system will replace an existing system that has become increasingly inaccurate and
unreliable.
-47-
Attachment 1
RECOMMENDATION # 21
PWD Fleet Management should include requirements for securing vehicles and equipment
within the fleet policies and procedures.
Agree
The revised Vehicle Policy will include clear guidelines regarding securing of vehicles and
equipment.
RECOMMENDATION # 22
PWD Fleet Management should conduct regular inventories of auto parts, develop a system to
ensure the parts database is accurate and complete, and secure access to the auto parts inventory.
Agree
In 2006, the existing parts storeroom was moved to a temporary location so that the mezzanine
storage areas in the existing parts room could be replaced with structures that met seismic code
requirements. The new mezzanines were completed in 2007; however, due to earlier mentioned
staffing shortages, PWD Equipment Management has only recently been able to commence
moving the inventory into the new secure, dedicated parts storeroom. All parts and supplies will
be surveyed, inventoried and moved to their new location by December 2010. After the initial
inventory reconciliation is complete, PWD Equipment Management will reinstitute quarterly
inventory counts in accordance with Division policy.
Attachment 2
1
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
4. Audit of Fleet Utilization and Replacement.
City Auditor, Lynda Brouchoud offered an overview of the $3 million savings
identified in the report. She said that $2.5 million had already been realized
through the deferred fleet replacement. She said there was an annual cost of
$396,000 for the underutilized transport vehicles. In the proposed budget the
City Manager has included a $483,000 savings for fleet efficiencies. She said
there was another $123,000 identified through fuel recoveries due to
alternative fuels. She said the scope of the audit was to review the economy
and efficiency of the program. To accomplish this Staff analyzed City policies
for replacement as well as utilization requirements. They reviewed the internal
controls of fuel purchases and the fleet management strategy for climate
projection goals. They focused on FY 07-09 and on non-emergency vehicles.
She said that in 2009 the City had 630 units, 461 were rolling stock. Public
Works valued the fleet at $32 million before depreciation and $10.5 million after
depreciation. The Vehicle Replacement Fund was responsible primarily for the
operations, maintenance, and replacement of most of the City’s fleet. She said
the report consisted of three primary findings. Although the City avoided
spending about $2.5 million in Fiscal Year 2010, longer term efficiencies could
be realized through reducing the fleet. She said that 35% of the transport
vehicles did not meet the minimum use requirement in FY 08-09. Out of the
special purpose or work platform vehicles 25% did not meet the minimums. A
potential reason for this was that there was not a central vehicle pool where
employees could use vehicles, there were several pools and they were manually
managed. The one piece they looked at for emergency vehicles was on the
varying use. For example, the 25 marked police cars had wide varying use. In
one year it varied from 1,100 miles to over 36,000 miles. It was recommended
that those vehicles rotate to more evenly distribute the mileage and extend the
life of the vehicles. Criteria assessing the need for the non-rolling stock
materials should be created. She also said that the information in the Public
Works database should be kept current. She said that Public Works had taken
Attachment 2
2
some proactive steps based on the findings. She said the second finding
focused on the funding stability of the vehicle replacement fund. In FY 06-08
the expenses exceeded the revenues. Revenues were mainly generated
through the charges of the expenses to the departments that used the fleet.
They found that the charges were not enough to cover the fleet costs. The
costs that were distributed were done by allocated charges which did not allow
the departments control over the line items in their budget. Mileage
reimbursement was included in a department’s line items. She said, the audit
also has a recommendation about the Climate Protection Plan. In Fiscal Year
2009 the City had about 87 CNG vehicles and 3 hybrid vehicles. There has
been a lot of developments in the field and it would be a good time to take
advantage of new technology and have a strategy in place. The third finding
had to do with the fuel and parts inventory. Between the Compressed Natural
Gas vehicles (CNG), and the unleaded and diesel fuel vehicles, the consumption
reports did not match with the balances that were provided. There were also
issues with vehicles not being locked at the Municipal Services Center (MSC).
She recommended policies were revised to cover this. The parts inventory
could not be verified as there had not been an inventory done in a number of
years.
Council Member Klein said that 7-8 years ago the vehicle usage requirement
was reduced. He said there was no explanation as to why that happened. It
seemed counter intuitive as the vehicles become more reliable.
Director of Public Works, Glen Roberts said there were three criteria for annual
utilization. He explained that it was 2,500 miles per year, or 220 days per
year, or, for equipment, 50 hours per year. He said that many of the vehicles
may be utilized less than 2,500 miles but were utilized 220 days per year. He
said it makes sense because Palo Alto was condensed. He added that Staff
agreed with the City Auditor that the process needed to be refined.
Council Member Klein said the geography of the City had not changed since the
utilization requirements had changed. He said he was trying to find ways to be
more efficient. He added that if using a City car to drive from City Hall to the
Service Center, there should be a centralized pool.
Mr. Roberts said that from either place just about every location in the City
could be reached in less than five miles. Vehicles could be used every day and
accumulate 2,500 miles, it was not a case of them driving solely between MSC
and City Hall. He said that several vehicles on the list were used by Building
Inspectors who drive out virtually every day to perform site inspections, but
they were still used less than 2,500 miles. He addressed the replacement cycle
Attachment 2
3
by stating that the annual mileage usage threshold was lowered at the same
time the replacement cycle was lengthened.
Council Member Scharff asked when the vehicle reservation system would be
implemented.
Mr. Roberts said Staff was projecting to have a reservation system up by the
end of the calendar year. He added that there would still be some need to have
a bit of decentralization.
Council Member Scharff asked if the reservation system would allow users to
choose which location the reservation was for.
Mr. Roberts said yes.
Council Member Scharff asked about the three criteria. He asked what the
advantage would be to changing it to 5,000 miles instead of 2,500.
Mr. Roberts said the 5,000 level was causing them to target many vehicles
creating a need for more reviews.
Council Member Scharff asked if the system should track the criteria.
Otherwise, the 2,500 was a proxy for the 220 days or the 50 hours , then you
see if you meet the other two criteria and this might not be the most efficient
approach.
Mr. Roberts said Staff was working toward better track utilization logs.
Council Member Scharff stated that he felt the fleet was over stocked, and
asked if it was going to be reduced when the new system was implemented.
Mr. Roberts said it was their goal to reduce the size of the fleet, the expense of
the fleet and improve the utilization. He said that in order to accomplish this
they must review the budget issues that may affect the need of vehicles and
evaluate the specific vehicles with the client departments.
Council Member Espinosa asked about Staff’s consideration of the shared
bicycle plan and how it would affect the vehicle use rates.
Ms. Brouchoud said it’s a great idea. We don’t have available data at this time,
but it brings up ideas that you could have the reservation system also apply to
bicycles. They made general recommendations and hope Public Works will
Attachment 2
4
utilize the whole tool kit such as having a reservation system, utilizing mileage
reimbursement, with some exceptions for the unique situations Mr. Roberts
referred to. Those should be the exception and not the default, especially in
looking at the cost of having underutilized vehicles.
Mr. Roberts said it was in place through the Community Services Department.
He said there was some utilization during appropriate weather.
Council Member Espinosa said he would be interested in the City Auditor’s
comments on the implementation plans.
Chair Schmid said that while some vehicles were used every day they were
being used for round trips and then sitting all day. Fifty hours wasn’t very
much when there were several thousand hours in the work year. He asked if
there was a metric of emergency services when several pieces of equipment
were required at the same time.
Mr. Roberts said the hour issue was an hour meter on the equipment that
measured the amount of time it was actually running. He said that during
transport, and during the time the worker was completing other tasks on the
job site, the meter wasn’t running. It was not a good indicator of the 2,080
hour work year. He said that most of the emergency equipment was in Public
Works and Utilities.
Chair Schmid asked about the 16.5 fleet maintenance employees, with low
usage rates the maintenance should not be that great.
Mr. Roberts said the bulk of their time was spent on heavy equipment, not on
regular vehicles. There were two managers for 14 people. That Staffing level
had been reviewed several times, for the current fleet mix was it a valid staffing
ratio. He said it had been considered to change the sourcing on the sedans and
light trucks to an outside contract which would include maintenance.
Ms. Brouchoud, returning to the presentation, said they were recommending a
replacement freeze of non urgent vehicles until the analysis of the under-
utilized vehicles was complete. They were recommending that the City
Manager and Public Works consider increasing the fleet utilization requirements
and identify an optimal fleet size. They recommended a tool kit approach
where all opportunities were available such as renting, pooling, etc. She said a
best practice would be to have a committee from a variety of departments that
could review these options. Conducting annual assessments to cover
programmatic changes should be looked at. Public Works should have the
Attachment 2
5
authority to manage the fleet. They recommended revising Vehicle Policies and
Procedures to address areas on the report, revising the methodology for the
distribution of charges among the client departments, identifying the budget
impacts for additional units, and developing systems for reconciliation of fuel
purchases and inventory balances. She said that Pubic Works has reviewed
fleet utilization and already reassigned four vehicles. They were in the process
of implementing a reservation system and installing an electronic fueling
system. She said there would be some challenges in implementing the
recommendations. Cultural and procedural changes would be needed.
Council Member Scharff asked about the implementation of revising the
methodology for charging the client departments.
Mr. Roberts said it was a cross departmental effort. Public Works identified the
replacement costs, allocation spreadsheets which then were forwarded to
Administrative Services who added that to the department budget through
allocated charges. They have not been able to track well with the inflated cost
of the vehicles.
Administrative Services Director, Lalo Perez added that it was important to note
that in prior budgets they made funding decisions to not fully fund the
replacement costs of the vehicles in order to accomplish one-time savings.
Council Member Scharff said that when an employee makes a choice to use a
vehicle, the usage should affect the budget in a way that provides the
department head with an incentive to control the cost. He asked if that was the
vision of the recommendations.
Mr. Perez said that Staff agreed with that vision, but it would take longer to
implement. They would have to review expanding the car allowance policy as it
might cost less to offer a car allowance rather than the use of a car.
Council Member Scharff asked if the City was going to move away from having
a compartmentalized department based fleet toward a City fleet.
Mr. Roberts said that was the common vision. To address the issue of putting
employees on a mileage reimbursement plan he said, there were some
conflicting policy issues, for example employees that did not commute to work
using their cars would have to start driving to work if they had to use their own
cars which might even move them into a car with a larger carbon footprint. He
said that issues such as that would be overcome; they just were not yet sure
what that would look like. He said the word transport had been used to
broadly. These vehicles were not simply transporting people. Many were
Attachment 2
6
transporting tools and equipment which needed a home. He said it would not
be efficient to have workers move equipment from vehicle to vehicle or store it
in their private vehicles. Revising the policies for pure transit vehicles will be a
quicker process.
Ms. Brouchoud said they did look at this. There were some light pieces of
equipment that could be transported between vehicles. The decision would
have to be made about the amount of equipment, and whether you could have
a pool car with the light pieces of equipment available for different people to
use.
Council Member Scharff asked if the City Auditor would be part of that
committee.
Mr. Perez said that typically the City Auditor acted as an advisor rather than a
member of a committee.
Council Member Scharff asked about take home vehicles.
Mr. Roberts said there were two categories of equipment that went home with
Staff. The bulk of the take home vehicles are standby vehicles in the fleet that
went home with employees on a rotating basis to allow for the employees to
respond directly to a site. The second category is exclusive use vehicles, of
which there used to be 12, now there were 3 in the fleet.
Council Member Klein asked why the purchase of gasoline has increased.
Ms. Brouchoud said that should be reviewed. The data the Auditor’s Office
received from Public Works actually showed some decreases. This data is
based on the fiscal year. The data Mr. Van Orsdol presented last night was on
the calendar year basis. But even then, given some of the discrepancies, the
data should be reviewed.
Council Member Klein asked if Staff could respond to efficiencies regarding the
cost of new vehicles with respect to determining what size and type of car to
purchase as well as how to determine the best price to pay for it.
Ms. Brouchoud said that was not in the scope of the audit.
Mr. Roberts said there were specific guidelines regarding the size of the vehicles
for given tasks. He said their goal was to purchase the least expensive, lowest
carbon footprint vehicle possible for the task.
Attachment 2
7
Council Member Klein said that would be expected. He wanted to know if the
City Auditor could be a second set of eyes to determine if that was followed
through on.
Mr. Roberts said that, regarding the price of the smaller vehicles, they try to
piggy back on a larger bid, such as one by the State of California, so they get
the better price based on quantity. Larger equipment was awarded to the
lowest bid.
Chair Schmid asked about outsourcing to a regional pool for equipment or with
fleet suppliers.
Mr. Roberts said there were some aspects of shared use, such as in the Fire
Department. They had been meeting with some outside suppliers regarding
how that process would work. The budget process has not had this input yet.
Mr. Perez said there would be some factor for it in the budget as a placeholder.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member
Espinosa that the Finance Committee recommends that the City Council accept
the Audit of Fleet Utilization and Replacement, and direct Staff and the City
Auditor to report on the success of these implementation efforts to the Finance
Committee in January, and direct the City Auditor to determine whether there
had been a spike in the purchase of gasoline by the City in 2009 and if so why,
and to also direct the City Auditor to determine if the City was buying the right
size vehicles, and paying the best price.
Council Member Scharff asked to amend the Motion to direct the City Auditor to
identify any areas where there had been resistance from Staff.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER
AND SECONDER that the City Auditor identify any areas where there had been
resistance from Staff.
Council Member Klein said he did not mean for the vehicle report on the
purchase of vehicles to be due in January, but rather that it should be added to
the work plan. He added that he regarded this report as an opportunity for
significant savings, and for continued cooperation by Public Works, but he said
it was unfortunate that there had been that large of a problem.
Attachment 2
8
Council Member Espinosa added that the implementation time-line should also
be developed.
Council Member Schmid said the best metric for this would be the budget in
anticipation of what will come.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: JUNE 14,2010 CMR:259:10
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Approval of a Wastewater Treatment Enterprise Fund Contract with
Carollo Engineers, P.C. in an Amount of $389,715 for Design of
Facility Repair and Retrofit Projects at the Regional Water Quality
Control Plant -Capital Improvement Program Project WQ-04011
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract
with Carollo Engineers, P.C. (Attachment A) in an amount of $354,286 for engineering
design services for facility repair and retrofit projects at the Regional Water Quality
Control Plant Capital Improvement Program, Project WQ-04011; and
2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more contract
revisions to the contract with Carollo Engineers, P.C. for. related additional services as
specified in the contract, the total value of which shall not exceed $35,429.
DISCUSSION
The City engaged a consultant to prepare a Facility Condition Assessment for the Regional
Water Quality Control Plant. The study, which was completed in 2006, evaluated the condition
of the existing buildings, tanks and other structures, and recommended repairs, retrofits and/or
further investigation to correct deterioration or damage sustained in the normal course of aging
and of usage. The corrective repairs and retrofits ranged from minor repair of cracks in concrete
and coating touchup, to seismic retrofit and extensive coating replacement. The estimated total
cost of the recommended repairs and retrofits is $15 million. The first repair and retrofit
construction project was completed in 2010 and similar projects are expected to continue on an
annual basis through 2025 (fifteen years).
Scope of Services Description
The scope of work to be performed under this contract is for design and preparation of
construction bid documents for two annual repair and retrofit projects -one for construction in
FY 2011 and the other for construction in FY 2012, for inspection and support services during
construction, and for seismic structural analysis of the Operations Building and the Solids
Incineration Building. As currently planned, the project to be designed for construction in FY
2011 includes concrete repairs, sealing cracks in walls, replacing corroded steel members,
seismically retrofitting storage racks in the on-site warehouse, and other miscellaneous repairs.
The project to be designed for construction in FY 2012 currently has 16 items scheduled for
CMR:259:10 Page 1 of3
repair or retrofit -to include installing steel bracing on, and recoating of, walkways in the Solids
Handling Building (SHB), making spot repairs to the SHB roof, and other repairs andlor retrofits
similar to those in the FY 2011 project.
Summary of Solicitation Process
Proposal TitlelNumber Design Of Facility Repair And Retrofit Projects At The
Regional Water Quality Control Plant -RFP No. 135622
Proposed Length of Project 18 months
Number of Proposals mailed &/or 14
emailed
Total Days to Respond to Proposal 35
Pre-proposal Meeting Date March 17,2010
Number of Company Attendees at 28 firms
Pre-proposal Meeting
Number of Proposals Received: 8
Number of Companies Interviewed 3
Range of Proposal Amounts $38,684 to $636,945
Submitted
Evaluation of Proposals
The 8 proposals exhibited a wide range of price and quality. The submitter of the low price
proposal, $38,684, did not address all items of the scope of work and did not understand the
project.
An evaluation committee consisting of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant Manager and
engineering staff reviewed the proposals. Three firms were invited to participate in oral
interviews on April 26, 2010. The committee carefully reviewed each firm's qualifications and
submittal in response to the criteria identified in the Request for Proposal. The criteria used to
evaluate the proposing firms included: quality and completeness of proposal; quality,
performance, and effectiveness of the work plan; proposer's experience; proposer's ability to
perform the work within the time specified; cost; proposer's fmancial stability; proposer's prior
record of performance with the City; and proposer's compliance with applicable laws and
regulations.
Carollo Engineers was selected because of its understanding of needed design services, the
quality, innovation and thoroughness and of its proposed work plan, and the professional
experience of the key team members.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funds for this project are included in the proposed FY2011 and will be included in FY2012
Wastewater Treatment Enterprise Fund Capital Improvement Program project WQ-04011 budget
and subject to Council approval.
CMR:259:10 Page 2 00
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Authorization of this project does not represent a change in existing policies.
ENflRONMffiNTALRE~EW
The recommended action is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines Section 15301 (b), which includes maintenance of publicly-owned wastewatc:(r
facilities involving negligible expansion.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Contract
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR:259:10
P ADMAKAR M. CHAOBAL, Project Engineer
JAMES B. FLANIGAN, Senior Engineer
JAMES S. ALLEN
Manager, Water Quality Control Plant
fL)1JJ -
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
o
Page 3 of3
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C10135622
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
CAROLLO ENGINEERS, P.C.
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
DESIGN OF FACILITY REPAIR AND RETROFIT PROJECTS AT THE REGIONAL
WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT
This AGREEMENT is entered into on this day of June, 2010, by and
between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("CITY"), and
CAROLLO ENGINEERS, P.C., a corporation in the State of Arizona, with offices located at 2700
Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 300, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 ("CONSULTANT").
RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive portion ofthis Agreement.
I
A. CITY intends to design Facility Repair and Retrofit project No. 1 and 2 ("Project") and
desires to engage a consultant to design, engineer and prepare construction documents in connection
with the Project ("Services"). .
B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise,
qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses andlor certifications to provide the Services.
C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the
Services as more fully described in Exhibit "A", attached to aild made a part ofthis Agreement. -
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration ofthe recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, this
Agreement, the parties agree:
AGREEMENT
SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in
Exhibit "A" in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The
performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY.
SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution
through completion of the services in accordance with the Schedule of Performance attached as
Exhibit "B" unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.
SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is ofthe essence in the perfomlance of
Services under. this Agreement. CONSULT ANT shall complete the Services within the term ofthis
Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit "B", attached to and made apart
of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement
shall be commenced and completed by CONSULT ANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner
based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY's·
. Professional Services
Rev. January 11, 2010
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135622
agreement to extend the tenn or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages
for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. .
SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to
CONSULTANT forperfonnance of the Services described in Exhibit "A", including both payment
for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Three hundred Fifty-four
Thousand Two Hundred Eighty-six Dollars ($354,286.00). In the event Additional Services are
authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Three
Hundred Eighty-nine Thousand Seven Hundred Fifteen Dollars ($389,715.00).
The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit "C-l '~, entitled "HOURLY
RATE SCHEDULE," which is at~ached to and made a part of this Agreement.
Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of
Exhibit ·"C". CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed
without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is
determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not
included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit "A".
SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly
invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an
identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable
expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT's billing rates (set forth in Exhibit "C-l ''). If applicable,
the invoice shall ~llso describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in
CONSULTANT's payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall
send all invoices to the City's proj ect manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City
will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt.
SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be
performed by' CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT's supervision. CONSULT ANT represents
that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required
by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services
assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted,
have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications,
insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services.
All of the services to be furnished by CONSULT ANT under this agreement shall meet the
professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of
similar knowledge ~d skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or sinrilar
circumstances. .
SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itselfinforrned of and
in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may
affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform
Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all
charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services.
2
Professional SeIVices
Rev. January 11,2010
\\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOC\sAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI35622 Design of Facility Repair and Retrofit Projects at the
RWQCP\Conlracl C) 0135622 o\ROLLO ENGINEERS. doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135622
SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and
all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives
notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSUL TANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design
documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors,
omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project.
This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement.
SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works
project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of
design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%)
of the CITY's stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the CITY
for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations,
and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY.
The CONSULTANT has no control over the cost oflabor, materials, equipment or services furnished
by others, or over the construction contractor's method of determining prices, or other competitive
bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Cost estimates are based on
CONSULT ANT's opinion based on experience and judgment. CONSULT ANT cannot and does not
guarantee that proposals, bids or actual Project construction costs will not vary from cost estimates
prepared by CONSULTANT.
SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing
the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with
CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an
independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY.
SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of
CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or
transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULT ANT's obligations
hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not
be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval
of the city manager will be void.
SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING.
DOption A: No Subcontractor: CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to
be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or
designee.
~Option B: Subcontracts Authorized: Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that
subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The sub consultants authorized by CITY to
perform work on this Project are:
1. JDH Corrosion Consultants, Inc. -Corrosion
3
Professional Services
Rev. January II, 20 I 0
\\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOC\sAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP135622 Design of Facility Repair and Retrofit Projects at the
RWQCP\Contract CI0135622 CAROllO ENGINEERS.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135622
2. Bay Area Coating Consultants, Inc. -Coatings and paintings
3. AMEC Geomatrix, Inc. -Geotechnical & soil testing etc.
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any
compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning
compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a
subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of
the city manager or his designee.
SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Rick L. Chan, P.E.
as the project director to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution
ofthe Services and Mike Dadik, P .E. as the project manager to represent CONSULT ANT during the
day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, proj ect
coordinator, or any other key persOlmel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project
director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior
written approval ofthe CITY's project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY's request, shall promptly
remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are
uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion ofthe Project or a threat to
the safety of persons or property.
The City's project manager is Padmakar Chaobal, Public Works Department, Regional Water
Quality Control Division, at 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: 650-329-
2287. The project manager will be CONSULTANT's point of contact with respect to perfonnance,
progress and execution ofthe Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from
time to time.
SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including
without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents,
other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the
exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees
that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested
in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual
property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, ifany, shall make
any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of
the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the
work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work and
any such reuse of completed documents or use of partially completed documents without written
verification or concurrence by CONSULT ANT for the specific purpose intended will be at CITY'S
sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to CONSULTANT.
14.1 City-Provided Information: The CITY shall fumish the CONSULTANT available
studies, reports, and other data pertinent to CONSULTANT's services and CONSULTANT shall be
entitled to use all such information and services provided by the CITY or others in performing
CONSULTANT's services tmder this Agreement.
4
Professional Setvices
Rev. January 11, 20 I 0
\\CC-TERRA'jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI35622 Design of Facility Repair and Retrofit Projects at the
RWQCP\Contract Cl 0135622 CAROLLO ENGINEERS.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135622
SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during
thetenn of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSUL -rANT's records pertaining to
matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such
records for at least three (3) years after the expn:ation or earlier termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 16. INDEMNITY.
~[Option A applies to the· following design professionals pursuant to Civil Code Section
2782.8: architects; landscape architects; registered· professional engineerS and licensed
professional land surveyors.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall
protect, indemnify, defend and hold hannless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and
agents (each an "Indemnified Party') from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of ,
any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all
costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and
disbursements ("Claims') that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or
willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this
Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party.
D [Option B applies to any consultant who does not qualify as a design professional as defmed
in Civil Code Section 2782.8.) 16.1. To the fullest extent pennitted by law, CONSULTANT shall
protect, indemnify, defend and hold hannless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and
agents (each an "Indemnified party") from and against any and all demands, claims, 01' liability of
any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all
costs and expenses: of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and
disbursements ("Claims") resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance ()r
nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this
Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by'an Indemnified Party.
16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to
require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active
negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party.
16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT's services and duties by CITY shall not
operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive
the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of ~y breach or violation of any covenant,
tenn, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not
be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of
any subsequent breach or violation ofthe same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision,
ordinance or law.
5
Professional Services
Rev. January 11, 2010
\\cC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOc\sAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP135622 Design of Facility Repair and Retrofit Projects at the
RWQCP\Conlract ClO135622 CAROLlD ENGINEERS.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135622
SECTION 18. INSURANCE.
18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full
force and effect during the term ofthis Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D".
CONSULTANT and its contractors, ifany, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an .
additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies.
18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers
with AM Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to
transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and aU contractors of CONSULTANT
retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect
during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional
insured under such policies as required above.
18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently
with the execution ofthis Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY's Risk
Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not
be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the
Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification,
CONSULT ANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance
are provided to CITY's Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement.
18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies ofinsurlince will not be
construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions
of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the. policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be
obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as
a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss
arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired.
SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES.
19.1. The city manager may suspend the performance ofthe Services, in whole orin
part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice
thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately
discontinue its performance of the Services.
19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of
the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereofto CITY, but only in the event of a
substantial failure of performance by CITY.
19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the
City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other
data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULT ANT or its contractors, if any, or given to
CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will
become the property of CITY.
6
Professional Services
Rev. January II, 2010
\\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOC\sAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI35622 Design of Facility Repair and Retrofit Projects at the
RWQCP\Conlract CI 0 135622 CAROLLO ENGINEERS.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135622
19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY , CONSULTANT will be paid
for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on
or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided,
however, ifthis Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT,
CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT's
services which are of direct and iminediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by
the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise ofhislher discretion
19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will
operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement.
SECTION 20. NOTICES.
All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by
certified mail, addressed as follows:
To CITY: Office of the City Clerk
. City of Palo Alto
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
With a copy to the Purchasing Manager
To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director
at the address of CONSULTANT recited above
SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has
no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or inciirect, financial or otherwise, which would
conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement,
it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT
certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer
or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State ofCalifomia.
21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a "Consultant" as
that term is defined by the Regulations ofthe Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT
shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the
Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act.
SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in.Palo Alto Municipal Code section
·2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the perfonnance of this Agreement, it shall not
discriminate in: the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion,
Professional Services
Rev. January 11, 2010
7
\\CC-TERRA \jarreoIIPURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP135622 Design of Facility Repair and Retrofit Projects at the
RWQCP\Contract ClO135622 CAROLLO ENGINEERS.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cl0135622
disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status,
weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT aclmowledges that it has read and understands the
provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination
Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section
2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE
REOUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City's Environmentally Preferred
Purchasing policies which are available a:t the city's Purchasing Department which are incorporated
by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste
reduction, reuse; recycling and disposal requirements of the City's Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste
best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling
or compo sting waste. ill particular, Consul!ant shall comply with the following zero waste
requirements: .,
• All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal
computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices,
reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a
minimum of30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved .
by the City's Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional
printing company shall be a minimum of30% or greater post-consumer material and
printed with vegetable based inks.
• Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in
accordance with the City's Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not
limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and
packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office.
• Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant; at rio additional
cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation from
the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed.
SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION
24.1. This Agreement is subj ect to the fiscal provisions of the Charter ofthe City of
Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a)
at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year,
or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the
fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This Section 24.8 shall take
precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this
Agreement.
24.2. The indiViduals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have
the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California.
8
Professional Services
Rev. January 11,2010
\\CC-TERRA~arreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI35622 Design ofFacilily Repair and Retrofit Projects at the
RWQCP\Contracl CI0135622 CAROLLO ENGINEERS.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135622
25.2. fu the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action
will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of
California.
25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this
Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in comlection with that
action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of
legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys' fees paid to third
parties.
25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the
parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreementwill apply
to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the '
parties.
25.6. Ifa court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this
Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
4greement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices,
attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any
duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be
deemed to be a part of this Agreement.
24.10 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, City shares with
CONSULTANT personal information as defmed in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5( d) about
a California resident ("Personal fuformation"), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and
appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal fuformation, and shall infortn City
immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security
ofthe Personal fuformation. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal fuformation for direct marketing
purposes without City's express written consent.
.24.11 The services to be performed by CONSULTANT are intended solely for the
benefit of the CITY.
24.12 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement.
9
Professional Services
Rev. January 11,2010
\\CC-TERRA\jarreo!\PURCHDOc\sAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI35622 Design of Facility Repair and Retrofit Projects at the
RWQCP\Conlract CI0135622 o\ROLLO ENGINEERS. doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135622
IN. WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized ·
representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONSULTANT:
CAROLLO ENGINEERS, P.C.
City Manager
(Required for contracts over $85,000)
Purchasing Manager
(Required for contracts over $25,000)
Contracts Administrator
By: N ~ Idy.d~7M~
(Required for contracts under $25,000)
Name: (2u-.1e Uh'c>lf'==: /( Lyd(t{ (-/-01 M ~ S
Title: (wvl-he",""" I P~/'f-re v~
{ !
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sr. Assistant City Attorney
Attachments: '
EXHmIT "A":
EXHmIT "B":
EXHmIT "e":
EXHmIT "e-I":
EXHmIT "D":
SCOPE OF SERVICES
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
COMPENSATION
SCHEDULE OF RATES
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
10
Professional Services
Rev, January II, 2010
\\CC-TERRA \jarreoIIPURCHDOc\sAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI35622 Design of Facility Repair and Retrofit Projects at the
RWQCP\ContractClO135622 CAROLLO ENGINEERS,doc
Exhibit A
BASIC SERVICES
The scheduling priority for this project is outlined in Exhibit B
The study-assessments, Tasks 4 and 5 shall not interferewith the timely completion of Tasks 2
and 3, design and bid of the two construction projects. .
Task 1 -Project Management
1.1 Kickoff Meeting: Within 2 weeks of Notice to Proceed, hold a kickoff meeting at the
RWQCP. The Consultant shall prepare the agenda for the meeting, coordinating the
agenda items with engineering staff beforehand. Distribute the agenda no later than three
days prior to the meeting. Among the items to be covered in the meeting are: a)
Introductions and Consultant and RWQCP contact information for key team members, b)
project communications protocol, c) general work plan and project schedule.
1.2 Project Progress meetings: Allow for biweekly progress meetings, preferably at the Plant.
This does not include meetings during the construction phases.
1.3 Prepare a baseline project schedule with milestones, and update regularly.
1.4 Invoices
1.4.1 Submit invoices monthly:
1.4.2 Submit a draft of invoice format for City review prior to submitting the first invoice.
The invoice shall itemize, by task, a) the person and/or staff job classification, b)
hourly rate, c) subconsultant fees, d) reimbursable costs (itemized by type), and e)
Consultants markup.
1.4.3 The invoice package shall contain the following:
• Sub consultant and/or materials invoices, and any other backup which clarifies
charges.
• Updated project schedule.
• Monthly Letter Progress Report: Brief descriptions of work performed and
milestones accomplished, organized by task.
Task 2 -Pre-design for Two Construction Projects
. The task is to identify the repair and/or retrofit items to be included in each of the two
construction projects. For some of the items the Consultant will need to update andlor extend the
evaluations conducted for the FCA, as described below, revising the recommendations or design
elements as needed.
2.1 Observe the current field condition of each item/deficiency to be included in the two bid
packages. Confirm the repair method recommended in the FCA report, or propose an
alternate method. Make a preliminary estimate ofthe construction cost for the repair or
retrofit.
2.2 Existing Warehouse mezzanine level platform and storage racks:
2.2.a Retrofit of existing storage platform/rack system (FeA Item MWF-02): ,
The Warehouse facility contains an elevated platform for mezzanine levelstorage. The
platform is constructed of galvanized Grate-Lock channel grating and overlies ~ 7 foot
high open type metal storage racks which are the primary vertical support for the
platform. This storage rack/platform system is in need of additional cross bracing and
City of Palo Alto -'-Contract ClO135622 Page 1 of6
Exhibit A
floor anchorage to meet building code requirements. Appendix L of the FCA report
documents the structural analysis, assumed loadings and recommendations to improve
the load bearing capability of the existing Warehouse storage racks. The Consultant
shall extend the structural analyses to complete the pre-design/design of the
improvements to the existing storage platfonnirack.
2.2.b Installation of additional storage racks on the mezzanine level:
. Appendix L contains a preliminary analysis and recommendations for installation of
additional storage racks on the mezzanine level platform. The Consultant shall extend
this analysis to complete pre-design/design ofthe additional storage racks.
22.c Evaluation of third level storage space in the Warehouse (not part ofFCA):
Perform a-base-level analysis to determine the approximate load bearing capacity of
the flooring of a space, approximately 18 'x 18', which lies above two ground level
offices that are contained within the outside walls of the Warehouse structure. The
space is to the side of, and slightly elevated above, the Warehouse mezzanine level
and is accessed by a short stairway leading up from the mezzanine platform. The space
is currently used for file storage. The flooring support members can be observed by
removing ceiling panels from the offices below.
2.3 Coordinating with WQCP engineering staff, identify and group repair/retrofit iterns for
inclusion in the 2 bid packages.
2.4 -Prepare a concise memorandum or letter report briefly describing the pre-design, with a
. list of repair/retrofit items for each construction project. Also provide an estimate oftotal
construction cost for each of the two projects.
Deliverables:
1.· Pre-design memorandum or brief report, 4 copies.
Task 3 -Bid/Construction Documents
The Consultant will prepare two sets of bid documents, one set for each of the two separate
construction projects, which will be bid at different times. The projects will be titled Facilities
Repair and Retrofit Project (FRRP) No.2 and FRRP No.3. FRRP No.2 will be issued for bid as
. soon as possible after issuance of Notice to Proceed. The subtasks (3.1 through 3.6) and the
deliverables for this task pertain to each ofthe bid documents/construction projects separately,
i.e. each subtask will be performed twice; once for each project, and there will be one set of
deliverables for each bid project.
3.1 Prepare draft drawings and technical specifications and submit to the City for review.
Submit a set of draft drawings (4 copies) at approximately the 30 percent completion
level, and a final draft (4 copies) after the drawings is essentially complete (90%). Also
submit a 90% draft set of all technical specific~tions (4 copies). The City will review and
comment in writing on the draft documents.
3.2 Incorporate staffs comments into a final bid set and stamp 8¥d sign the final drawings
and specifications (bid documents).·
3.3 Prepare a final estimate of construction cost.
3.4 Provide one unbound reproducible copy ofthe final stamped and signed full size plans on
bond paper and specifications. The City will print and issue the bid documents to
prospective bidders.
City of Palo Alto -Contract Cl 0135622 Page 2 of6
Exhibit A
3.5 Assist the City dUring bid, including preparing text and graphics for addenda, issuing
responses to technical RFIs, and evaluating the bids. The City will print and issue the
addenda.
3.6 Prepare and provide one unbound reproducible copy of the conformed drawings and
specifications for construction by incorporating addenda items into bid documents. The
City will print and issue the conformed documents to the Contractor and Consultant.
Deliverables:
A. Drawings -30 percent draft (four llx17 copies to City)
B. DraWings -90 percent draft (four l1x17 copies to City)
C. Technical specifications -90 percent draft (four copies to City)
D. Final drawings, with electronic stamp and signature:
i. One unbound reproducible copy of full-size (22x34) plans on bond paper and
three llx17 bound sets, on bond paper
E. Final specificat~ons with electronic stamp and signature: one unbound reproducible copy
and three bound sets
F. Conformed drawings and specifications:
i. One unbound reproducible copy of full-size (22x34) plans on bond paper and one
. unbound reproducible copy of specifications and four l1x17 bound sets of the
) drawings, and four bound sets of the specifications (entire specification package)
for the City ..
ii. 'The drawings and specificationS in electronic formaton CD: AutoCAD ~010 and
PDF files of the drawings, MS Word and PDF files of the specifications . . .
Task 4 -Building Foundation Structural Assessments
The Consultant;shall conduct thorough structural assessments of the capability of the fou1;1dations
. ofthQ Operations Building (OPSB) and the Solids Incineration Building (Sm) to withstand the
seismic loading requirements of the current Building Code. A report shall be prepared
documenting the analysis, findings and recommendations of the assessment. A single.report for
both buildings, or two separate reports, will be prepared. The following bulleted task elements
are common to each ofthe assessments.
• Prior to conducting each of the assessments the Consultant shall meet with
RWQCP staff to discuss the scope of the assessment and apprise staff of any City
resources that will or may be,needed to support Consultant's work.
• Consultant shall prepare a draft of the assessment report for City review and
comment. The report shall include recommendations for repair and/or retrofit. The
report· shall detail the recommended solutions with products, procedures and/or
drawings 'or graphics, as applicable, with the intent that the recommendations can.
be readily incorporated into design documents.' ,
• Meet with the City to discuss the benefits and costs of alternative repair/retrofit
options.
• The final reports shall be stamped by a professional engineer and bound.
• Describe the assessment procedures, findings and recommendations in a meeting
with Plant staff.
City of Palo Alto -Contract CI0135622 Page 3 of6
Exhibit A·
4.1 Operations Building Foundation Structural Assessment (FCA Item OPSB-01):
A preliminary analysis of the pile supported foundation of the Operations Building
determined that the allowable pile loading may be exceeded during a seismic event. The
Consultant shall conduct an in-depth seismic analysis of the Operations Building·
foundation system as described on page 11 of the FCA report, 2nd paragraph from the
bottom, and elaborated in several places elsewhere in the FCA.
4.2 Solids Incineration Building Assessments:
4.2.1 . Foundation Seismic Loading Analysis (FCA Item SID-14): The FCA did not do a
structural analysis of the foundation ofthe Solids Incineration Building. However, due
to the relatively large height ofthe Solids Incineration Building above grade, the
recommendation was made that a structural analysis be conducted on the building's
foundation. The Consultant shall conduct a detailed structural analysis of foundation
to ascertain whether the foundation is adequate to withstand seismic event. The FCA
contains information on subsurface conditions, especially in the body ofthe report and
in Appendix D. At Consultant's request, additional soils data will be provided ifit is
available.
4.2.2 Exterior Pilaster Cracks and Spalls (FCA Item Sm-l3): Investigate the cause and
extent of cracks/spalls on the surface of the exterior pilasters on the northeast end of
the Solids Incineration Building. Include this investigation in the foundation
assessment report.
Deliverables:
A. Draft report, 5 copies.
B. Final report, 5 bound copies.
C. Electronic copy (Word and PDF) of the final report.
Task 5 -Minor Facility Assessments
5.1 Ground Settlement near Solids Incineration Building:
Investigate/evaluate the impact to buried utilities resulting from ground settlement around
Tunnel No.2 observed in the vicinity ofthe Solids Incineration Building. See FCA,
Appendix N, Assessment Summary for Tunnel No.2, page 4 of8 .
. 5.2 Maintenance Building Foundation Grade Beam (FCA·Item MWF-01)
Evaluate the seismic structural capacity ofthe foundation grade beam between the.
Electrical and Instrumentation Shop and the Maintenance/Engineering Offices. Prepare a
preliminary design for rectifying the structural deficiencies.
Deliverables:
A. Technical Memoranda summarizing the evaluations.
B. Preliminary design for grade beam retrofit (Can be included with technical
memorandum).
Task 6 -Engineering Services During Construction
Provide engineering services during construction for each of the two construction projects
described in Task 3. The work shall include but not limited to:
a. Review submittals and test reports and reply within seven days.
City of Palo Alto -Contract C1 0135622 Page 4 of6
Exhibit A
b. Prepare written response to contractor's RFIs within three days.
c. Issue design clarifications as and when needed.
d. Review and/or negotiate change order requests and prepare change orders, as
requested by the City.
e. Conduct weekly construction progress meetings, where applicable, and prepare
meeting minutes.
f. Resolve construction technical issues, including making field visits and/or onsite
inspection by design discipline experts and working with City staff, as needed.
g. Provide daily onsite field inspection services, where applicable, during construction.
The Consultant shall have the responsibility for final inspection of Contractor's
work. The City staff may assist with the inspections, including performing daily
inspections during non-critical and/or low activity periods. Submit a signed field
inspection report for each day of inspection.
h. Project completion: Prepare the ptmch list(s), conduct the final inspection and notify
the City that construction has been completed per the contract documents.
i. Review progress payment requests and submit to the;, City Project Manager with a
summary of budget status and recommendation for payment amount.
J. Construction Administration. Keep separate records for each construction project.
• Receive, log, control, track and process correspondence, submittals, RFIs,
design clarifications, change orders, progress payments, inspection reports
and any other project documents.
• Prevailing wage and labor codes: Enforce and document contractor's
compliance with Prevailing Wage requirements and any other applicable
labor codes.
• Maintain project records. Furnish all original project documents to the City
Project Manager within 30 days ofRWQCP's filing of the Notice ofPIoject
Completion.
k. Prepare the Record Drawings based on red line markups provided by the
Contractor. I
Deliverables: Record Drawings and Specifications:
A. Specifications -submit MS Word & PDF files on CDIDvn
B. Drawings:
i. Submit one full size (22x34) and tbree 11 "XI7" bound hardcopy of record
drawings.
ii. Submit AutoCAD 2010 and PDF files on CDIDVD of the record drawings.
'C. Originals of project documents after project completion.
CITY SUPPORT
The City will:
1. Provide existing data, as available and as re.quired.
2. Provide access to facilities including scaffolding and confined space entry supervision.
City of Palo Alto -Contract ClO135622 Page 5 of6
Exhibit A
3. Provide copies (electronic if available) of City of Palo Alto Standard Drawings and
Specifications. .
4. Assemble, reproduce and distribute the final bid package.
5. Issue/distribute addenda, whether or not they contain input from Consultant.
6. Provide testing services not customarily provided by general engineering consultants.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES:
Perfonn additional services as described in Exhibit "c"
City of Palo Alto -Contract CI0135622 Page 6 of6
EXHIBIT A-1
ITEMS FOR REEAlR. RETROFIT.DR EVALUATION
~ I"lanJ.llng-level
Ranking Opinion of
Schedulin Facility
Design 9 Priority Prloritlzat Probable package no. Ranking(1) ion Construction
Name or task (4) Recommendations 10 Ranking(ZI Cost(3) -
Aeration Basins Repair spalled concrete at the edges of the walkways. AB-01 1 19 $1'0,000
~eration Basins Replace waterproofing on the basin interior walls. AB-02 1 19 $500,000
Aeration Basins Seal cracks in concrete allowing moisture infiltration. AB-04 4 19 $20,00C
iAeration Basins
t"'roposea lOr
Package #2 Repair/replace corroded guardrail posts. AB-05* 10 19 $30,000
iAeration Basins
t"'roposea lOr ~eal leaK at Innuent cnannel exterior wall at JunctUre Wim
Package #3 DMF. AB-06 8 19 $10,00C
~eration Basins Replace deteriorated coating. on infl channel interior. AB-07 7 19 $500,00C
APPlY waterproonng to top or deCK SlaD over InT/uem
~eration Basins channel. AB-08 7 19 $50,000
Keplace coaung on exposed tHncn spray neader Teea
iAeration Basins • piping on interior of influent channel. AB-09 8 19 $40,OOC
iAeration Basins Replace corroded W4 feed in influent channel. AB-10 8 19 $30,000
I"\eplace corroaea StOP log gUlaes on moSt ~1::T1Y Stop'
Aeration Basins logs in influent channel if used frequenUy. -AB-11 7 19 $50,00C
I"\epalr corroaea relnT ana spallea concrete at perimeter
Aeration Basins of deck slab penetrations above influent channel. AB-12 8 19 $20,00C
mvesugate cause OT leaK at 1 anK ~ SlUice gate In mnuent
Aeration Basins channel and adjust gate. o' AB-13 3 19 $20,00C
investigate causeoT leaK at lanK 4 SlUice gate In Influent
Aeration Basins channel and adjust gate. AB-14 . 3 19 $20,OOC
I"\eplace coating on stem gUiaes TOr lanK ... sluIce gate In
Aeration Basins influent channel. AB-15 5 19 $20,OOC
ilnVeStlgate cause OT leaK at J anK ~ SlUice gate In Innuent I jAeration Basins channel and adjust gate. AB-16 3 19 $20,OOq
1 of 10
Remove corrosion from end of RAS pipe penetrating
~eration Basins
deck slab at influent channel and apply protective .
coating. AB-17 . 7 19 $20,000
Ilnvestlgate posslDle relnr corrosion at concrete spall at
Aeration Basins Tank 4 EffI~ent Box opening· and repair spall. AB-18 8· 19 $20,000
f-eration Basins Replace coatings on sluice gates in Tank 4 Effluent Box. AB-19-8 19 $40,000
Aeration Basins Replace coating on mixed liquor feed piping. AB-20 8 . 19 $50,00
AOmlnIstratlon Jjuuolng J
Reclamation Plant Seal cracks in parapet wall. . ADM-01 1 24 $20,000
AOmlnlstratlon JjulIOlng I It<.eplace corrooea ovemow pipe at JjaCKWasn vvastes
Reclamation Plant Tank with properly coated pipe. ADM-02 4 24 $6,000
Aamlnlstratlon tsullalng I .... roposeo TOr IInVeStlgate ancnorage OT WOOD Trame aaamons to
Reclamation Plant Package #3 concrete wall for cross-grain tension potential. ADM-03 8 24 $5,000
AamlnlStratlon JjuliOlng J It<.emove corrosion Trom JID crane ancnor DOlts ana apply
Reclamation Plant coating. ADM-04 8 24 $4,000
Ash Storage System
.... roposea Tor It<.elnTOrCe me ooorway at me DOllom OT me Asn ~torage
Package #2 Bin. ASH-01 8 22 . $10,OO(
It<.ecoat corrooeo ancnor DOltS on LoaOout Jjrn ~upport
Ash Storage System Structure. ASH-02 5 22 $2,OO(
.... roposeo Tor
Caustic Tank Package #2 Improve anchorage for Supply Water Tank. CAU-01 10 10 $20,OO(
llmprove·lateral stlrrness ana ancnorage OT me .... ump
Caustic Tank Shed support legs. CAU-02 8 10 $5,000
Caustic Tank Recoat existing pump shed (or replace if economical). CAU-03 1 10 $10,00
Caustic Tank Recoat interior of Supply Water Tank. CAU-04 5 10 $20,00C
It<.epalrlseal leaKing JOint DeMeen launaer ana com Inlet nortl
Chlorine Contact Tank and Outlet Boxes. CCT-01 8 28 Completed
Chlorine Contact Tank Repair cracks along top of launder exterior wall. CCT-02 3 28 $50,000
K.eplace lower stair lanamgs Wlm new lanalngs Wltn
Chlorine Contact Tank . improved ground support. CCT-03 7 28 $40,000
VVOf14
Chlorine Contact Tank Replace bolts connecting center Cage to turntable. CCT-04 7 28 Completed
Chlorine Contact Tank Recaat walkway and scum pipe stub. CCT-05 7 28 $50,00C
t<.emove corrosion Trom cut enas or oars at 'nlet oox wan
Chlorine Contact Tank penetration and coat. CeT-06 4 28 $10,00C
20f10
Proposed for Repair/replace corroded beams & supports at outlet box
Chlorine Contact Tank Package #2 grating. CCT-07~· 8 28 $30,00C APPlY protective sunace on rloor OT ounet oox aI ~u;t:
Chlorine Contact Tank pipe discharge. CCT-08 4 28 $10,00C mprove seismiC vertical moment capacity OT mSlae oase
Chlorine Contact Tank of tank wall... . CCT-09 8 28 $300,00C
[Improve seismic hOrizontal tensIon loaa capacity or tanK
Chlorine Contact Tank wall. . CCT-10 8 28 $500,00C
[SecoriOary Clanfiers I oucn-up areas or coating rallure on mecnamsms ana
Nos. 1,2,3, and 4 recently recoated RAS piping. CLR-01 3 19 $200,000
IKeplace aetenoratea waterproofing IT leaKage intO
Secondary Clarifiers occupied areas develops. Remove existing remnants to
Nos. 1,2,3, and 4 mitigate potential loss into process stream. CLR-02 3 19 $200,00(
~econaary t;larlTlerS
Nos. 1,2,3, and 4 Seal cracks in effluent launders. CLR-03 8 19 $80,OO(
[SeCOndary Clarifiers wor.
Nos. 1,2,3, and 4 Repair spalled concrete at bases of guardrail posts. CLR-04* 10 19 Completed
[SeConclary t;lanners wor~
Nos. 1,2,3, and 4 Repair/replace corroded guardrail posts. CLR-05* 10 19 Completed
l~econaaryUarifiers
Nos. 1,2,3, and 4 Replace corroded v-notch weirs. CLR-06 8 19 $60,aO(
[SeCondary clarmers
Nos. 1,2,3, and 4 Apply waterproofing material to top deck slab. CLR-07 7 19 $50,00(
[SeCondary ClarlTlerS [seal leaK arouna t;larlTler ;::: KA;j pipe at wall penetratIon
Nos. 1,2,3, and 4 in Clarifier 1. CLR-OB 6 19 $15,00(
Iseconaary Clarifiers
Nos. 1,2,3, and 4 Seal leak at effluent channel exterior wall. CLR-09 8 19 $10,00(
[Secondary Clarifiers
Nos. 5 and 6 Remove spots of soft concrete and fill voids. CLR-10 4 19 $20,00(
[SeCondary t;lanTlerS -
Nos. 5 and 6 Seal cracks in launders. CLR-11 8 19 $40,OOC
[SeCondary t;lanners
Nos. 5 and 6 Replace failed coatings on both mechanisms. CLR-12 3 19 $200,00C
ISecondary Clarltlers IKeplace rallea coating on t;larmer 4 KA;j piping In
Nos. 1,2,3, and 4 Clarifier 3. CLR-13 4 19 $25,00C
[Bridge -Main ::itructure
to New Clarifiers Repair cracks in th.e railing walls. CLRB-01 1 6 $15,000
3 of 10
Chlorination Station
Repair areas of concrete damage on the building
exterior. . CS.;Q1 5 24 $10,000
~eal craCK In exterior pilaster on sQutneast siae OT
Chlorination Station structure. CS"()2 7 24 $10,000
Dual Media Filters
t(epalr areas OT aamageOlcraCKea concrete ana exposea
and corroded reinforcing on building exterior: DMF-01 8 18 $15,000
Dual Media Filters
t(eplace excessivelY corroaed l..'or-I en siding on DUl/alOg
exterior. DMF-02 3 18 $50,000
APPlY coating 10 corroaea support DraCKets on oaCKWasn
Dual Media Filters waste piping. DMF"()3 4 18 $10,OOC
APPlY waterprooTlng to top sunace OT aeeK aoove
Dual Media Filters electrical panels to seal cracks. DMF"()4 3 18 $15,OOC
IAPPIY waterproonng to Intenor OT Tllter InTluent cnannel to
Dual Media Filters mitigate I~ks along concrete construction jOints. DMF-05 4 18 $80,aaC
I~eal nonzomal concrete construction JOint on NVV wall OT
Dual Media Filters Filter 12. DMF-06 4 18 $30,OOC
t"roposea TOr It(eplace coatings on Clear well NO. 4! entrance naten ana
Dual Media Filters Package #2 influent piping. DMF"()7 10 18 $30,OOC
I~eplace coatings on Mua wen NO. ~ entrance natcn ana
Dual Media Filters influent piping. . '. DMF"()8 8 18 $30,OOC
KeVlew conamon aT coaungs on metal surraces In all
Dual Media Filters clear wells and mud wells. DMF"()9 8 18 $aO,OOC
~econngure cmonne SOIUllon PIPing In l..'lear vvell NO. "./.
to mitigate additional damage to floor. Repair existing
Dual Media Filters damage to floor. DMF-10 8 18 $20,OOC
IMlscellaneousrree-Investigation
Standing Electrical needed Open cabinets to investigate anchorage (EP-2, EP·3, EP
Panels 4, EP-5, EP-6, EP-11, EP-12, EP-13, EP-14). EP"()1 8 24 $2,000
I~epalr miscellaneous craCKS In concrete wails ana
ceilings in Activated Sludge Pump, Blower, and Sludge
Equipment Rooms Pump Rooms. ER"()1 8 20 $100,OOC
t"roposeo TOr ~epalr spalleo concrete at nanarall post Dase on Stairs In
Equipment Rooms Package #2 Blower Room. ER"()2* 10 20 $4,000
Equipment Rooms Apply waterproofing material to top surface of deek slab. E~"()3 4 20 $150,000 c
Equipment Rooms Recaat interior of Scum Pit "B". ER-04 7 20 $50,000
4of10
.. !'
Replace coating at deteriorating superstructure I
Fixed Film Reactors members. FFR-01 8 20 $120,00d
Fixed Film Reactors
investigate conaltlon ot corroaea SlUice gare Slem cover
in recirculation box FFR-Q2 4 20 $5,OOe
vonauct aetallea conamon survey aT structural steel
Fixed Film Reactors superstructure. FFR-03 4 20 $100,00C It::srtoge -Main 8trUcture
to FFR Repair cracks in the railing walls. FFRB-01 1 6 $6,OOe
vonaUet aerallea investigation OT craCKs ana spalls at
edge of concrete slab supporting steel superstructure
FFR Equipment Rooms and media. FFRER-01 9 18 $50,OOC
Install lateral braces on aIr aUCYS to Improve resistance to
FFR Equipment Rooms lateral loads. FFRER-02 1 18 $10,OOC
Grit Handling Facility Replace coatings on building interior. GHF-01 7 19 $100,OOC
Grit Handling Facility Strengthen rod bracing system. GHF-Q2 8 19 $40,OOC
t-'roposea Tor
Grit Handling Facility Package #2 Repair eroded soil at building foundation. GHF-03 10 19 $30,00C
IInTlUent \.;jate Hyaraullcs
Building Repair cracks in foundation retaining wall. IGHB-01 5 22 $30,OOe
Meter Pit Seal wall penetration at bilge pump discharge pipe. MPIT-01 1 20 $8,00e
Meter Station Replace coatings in the wet pits. MSTA-Q1 8 24 $300,OOe
Meter Station Repair spa lied concrete at edge of roof. MSTA-02 3 24 $3,OO(
I"'roposea Tor Kepalr craCKS on InterIor surrace or concrete wails ana
Meter Station Package #2 underside of stair landing. MSTA-03 8 24 $50,000
Maintenance and
Ilmprove me seismIC structural capacny onoe Tounaallon
grade beam between the Instrument Shop and the Water
Warehouse Facility Task 5.2 Transmission Shop. MWF-01 8 28 $100,00d
Maintenance and
IKelroTit rne sIorage raCKS In me ~l:ores vvarenouse to
Task2.2a improve seismic capacity. (Complete system of cross
Warehouse Facility Package #2 bracing and anchor racks to floor.) MWF-02a* 8 28 $40,000
Maintenance and laSK~.~O Not part
Warehouse Facilitv Package #2 Install additional storage racks on the mezzanine level. MWF-02b ofFAC $10,000
IVlalmenance ana Kepalr me craCKS In me Maintenance ~nopana vvater
Warehouse Facility Transmission Shop floors. MWF-03 3 28 $10,000
Maintenance ana
Warehouse Facility Replace corroded flashing at the exterior wall panels. MWF-04 4 28 $8,000
5 of 10
Maintenance and Mitigate damage to the foundation from the adjacent
Warehouse Facility trees. MWF-05 5 28 $5,OO(
IRemove craCKeClIaelammatea concreteal areas o-r reDar
corrosion in Pump Room, install localized cathodic·
New Pumping Plant protection, patch. NPP-01 8 22 $80,OOC
Keplace section or corroaea conCfuif exposea at me
concrete spall beneath the overhead crane access
New Pumping Plant opening in pump room and patch wall. NPP-02 7 22 $5,000
New Pumping Plant Install lateral brace on pump discharge header support. NPP-03 8 22 . $5,000
proposea Tor KepaJr concrete suppOrt peaestal mr K~P NO.2
New Pumping Plant Package #2 discharge piping. NPP-04 9 22 $8,000
Kepalr craCKS In exterior concrete pilaster on SE slae of
New Pumping Plant building. NPP-05 7 22 $5,000
f-Iroposea TOr Keplace neavlly corroaea pipe supports In Bar screen
New Pumping Plant Package #3 Room. .. NPP-OS 8 22 $30,000
~eal craCKS m ceiling aDove Bioassay Lap, transrormer,
New Pumping Plant and MCC transfer-switches. NPP-07 7 22 $25,000
UUtTall ~ox I ~ultur
Dioxide Pump Proposed for Repair spalled and cracked concrete along top edges of
Enclosure Package #3 Outfall Box walls. OBOX-01 8 24 $25,000
uunall 1:I0X I ~ultur -
Dioxide Pump Proposed for
Enclosure Package #3 Replace stair lower landing. . OBOX-02 8 24 $40,00C
UUtTall ~ox I ~UITUr
Dioxide Pump
Enclosure Replace top,three stop logs. . OBOX-03 5 24 $25,000
uunall 1:I0X I ~UITUr
Dioxide Pump
Enclosure Replace stop·log guide rails if used frequently. OBOX-04 4 24 $80,000
.UUtTall ~ox I ~UITur
Dioxide Pump proposed for Remove corrosion from exposed rebar at penetration in
$40,000 Enclosure Package #3 SE wall and coat. OBOX-05 8 24
UUtTal1 ~x I ~ultur
Dioxide Pump Proposed for Remove exposed reinforcing at penetration for pipe from
$80,000 Enclosure Package #3 CCT and apply grout layer. ·OBOX-OS 8 24
60f10
I Outfall Box I Sulfur
$4o.ooJ Dioxide Pump Proposed for Replace eXisting chain around top perimeter with code-
Enclosure Package #2 . compliant fall protection system. OBOX-07* 9 24
uuuau tsOX I ~UlTur
$40,OOJ
Dioxide Pump Proposed for
Enclosure Package #3 Install seismic bracing on sulfur dioxide pump enclosure. OBOX-08 8 24
Kemove areas Of aeterloratea ana aelamlnatlng concrete
Proposed for in the Pump Room, install localized cathodic protection,
! Old Pumping Plant Package #2 patch the repair areas. OPP-01 10 11 . $150,OOq
I~eal JO[nt In concrete at I:: corner OT upper CleeK slaD to
$35,Ood Old Pumping Plant mitigate rain infiltration. OPP-02 8 11
Kepalr concrete oeneatn tne most soumwesterly suppOrt
Old Pumping Plant .. for the pump discharge header. OPP-03 8 11 $2,000
Old Pumping Plant Replace corroded pump base framing members. OPP-04 7 11 $20,000
KeCOat Tormer Tloat tuDe locatea In wet pit or remove IT
Old Pumping Plant not in use. OPP-05 3 11 $30,000
Old Pumping Plant Replace missing flap gate on floor of inlet channel. OPP-06 3 11 $30,000
Old Pumping Plant Recoat wet pit and influent channel. OPP-07 7 11 $240,000
:I::valuate Impact or leaKage past plastic plate covenng
Old Pumping Plant old inlet pipe and consider repairing/replacing plate. OPP-08 3 11 $30,000
IKepalr spa lied concrete and exposed reinforCing on Tloor
Old Pumping Plant above wet pit. OPP-09 8 11 $15,000
Task 4:1
Conduct detailed structural analysis of pile-supported
Operations Building foundation to assess capacity to resist seismic loading. OPSB:.01 10_ 28 $30,000
tsnage -IYlaln ~tructure
o Operations Building Repair cracks in the railing walls. OPSBB-01 1 6 $7,000
t-'roposeCl tor
Repair concrete at bases of guardrail posts. Oil Storage Building Package #2 OSB-01* 10 17 $20,00C
Oil Storage Building Seal/repair ~racks on face of exterior concrete wall. OSB-02 2 17 $100,OOC
Kemove mannole rungs Trom process sumps to prevent
Oil Storage Building usage. OSB-03* 8 17 $5,00C
,-,onaUct aetalled investigation or cracKS In aeCK slao
Oil Storage Building over process sumps. OSB-04 9 17 $20,00C
APPlY protective coating to wall tnlmDle at pIpe Inlet to
Oil Storage Building Backwash Sump. OSB-05 3 17 $8,OO(
7 of 10
Oil Storage Building Repair/replace lining in Backwash Sump outlet pipe. OSB-06 5 17 $70,000
Oil Storage Building -Replace failed coatings in process sumps. OSB-07 5 17 $150,000
t-'roposea Tor I"'(eplace corroaea grating Dearrrg Trames at process
Oil Storage Building Package #2 sumps. OSB-08* 9 17 $80,000
t-'roposea tor
Oil Storage Building Package #2 Replace corroded steel beam in Flash Mixer Sump. OSB-09 10 17 $25,000
Proposea Tor Il"'(emove corrosIon Trom exposed recar at ... Iasn MIxer
Oil Storage Building Package #2 Sump concrete beam and repair beam. OS8-10 10 17 $50,000
IKemove corrosIon Trom unaerslae OT plate supporting
Oil Storage Building flash mixer and apply protective coating. OSB-11 3 17 $15,000
APPlY protective coatmg to weir on ~w wall OT west
Oil Storage Building Sump. OSB-12 3 17 $8,000
It-'rrmary t:TT1uem
Diversion BoxIRAS Repair exposed reinforcing and rebuild floor surface at
Mixing Box RAS Mixing Box discharge channel. PEDB-01 8 17 $30,OOq
It-'nmary Innuem ana . I
Effluent Channels Apply waterproofing material to the top deck slab. PIEC-01 7 24 $50,OOq
It-'nmary Innuem ana ,
Effluent Channels Recoat influent channel. PIEC-02 7 24 $500,000
Ilnvestlgate extent or corrosIon or groovea couplings on 4·
Primary Influent and inch pipe in influent channel, replace as necessary and
Effluent Channels apply coating. PIEC-03 4 24 $120,OOq
t-'nmary InTluent ana t-'roposea Tor Il"'(epalraetenoratea concrete arouna opening 10 aeCK
Effluent Channels Package #3 slab above influent channel influent well. PI EC-04 8 24 $30,000
I-'nmary InTluent ana
Effluent Channels Recoat effluent channel. PIEC-05 7 24 $500,000
I-'nmary mnuem ana I-'roposea Tor I"'(epalr corroaea relnT ana-spallea concrete al perrmeter
Effluent Channels Package #3 of deck slab penetrations above effluent channel. PIEC-06 9 24 $50,000
nvestlgate extent OT corrosion on I"'(A;:; pIpe valve
Primary Influent and . operator and stem in effluent channel, replace as
Effluent Channels necessary and apply coating. . PIEC-07 7 24 $60,000
t-'nmary ;:;ealmemauon
Tanks Replace interior coatings. -PST-01 7 24 $2,100,000
t-'nmary ;:;eOlmematlOn
Tanks Apply waterproofing material to the top deck slab. PST-02 7 24 $600,000
--
8 of 10
Primary Sedimentation Proposed for Replace cracked/spalled concrete around deck hatch
Tanks Package #3 openings. PST-03 8 24 $90,000 pnmary-Seaimentanon proposed ror IKemove corrOSIon trom exposea relnrorclng al aecK SIaD
Tanks Package #3 penetrations and coat. .. PST-04 8 24 $60,000 II-'nmary Sedimentation
!ranks Clea.n cracks in beams and walls and epoxy inject. PST-OS 4 24 $100,000 Proposea tor Iloucn-up coatIng on exterior ot tanK at oonom OT tanK
Sludge Blend Tank Package #2 wall. SBT-01 9 16 $7,000 ISOlidS InCineration Kepalr vanous cracKS In concrete wails, extenor
Building pilasters, roof slab and roof beams. SIB-01 5 26 $50,OOC
SoMs InCIneration Keplace severallY aerenorarea srructural memDers al wor~
Building incinerator walkways. SIB-02* 10 26 Completed
::;OlldS InCIneration I-'rOpOSed tor
Building Package #3 Replace coating at incinerator walkways. SIB-03 8 26 $170,00C
[SOlIdS Incmeratlon
Building Replace coatings at belt press platform. . SIB-04 7 26 $110,00(
ISollds InCineration IKeplace poorly located concrete peaestal ar Delt press
Building platform column. SIB-05 3 26 $10,00(
lSolRfs Incmeratlon
Building Replace broken pipe support at belt press. S18-06 3 26 $10,OOC
:Solfds InCineratIon vvon
Building Replace severely corroded guardrail posts. 5IB-07* 10 26 Completed
[SolidS inCIneration I-'rOpOSed tor
Building Package #3 Install lateral bracing on incinerator walkways. SIB-08* 8 26 $40,OO(
ISOlidS incineration
Building Replace support angles at bottom of metal siding. SIB-09 4 26 $30,OOC
ISo lidS inCineratIon I-'roposea Tor I
Building Package #3 Repair grout at base of incinerator. SIB-10 8 26 $30,OOd
ISollas InCineratIon I-'rOposed tor IKepalr rOOT aralnage system ana reesraollsn overnow I Building Package #3 drains. 518-11 8 26 $90,ooq
ISolldslnclneranon IInStall mIssing anchor bolts at oase plate or steel cOlumn I
Building supporting walkway at Incinerator 2. 51B-12 5 26 $10,000
[S6TiCfs Incmeratlon Il..onauct aeralled Inyestlgatlon OT craCKS on exterior $20,OO~ Building pilasters on NE end of building. 51B~13 8 26
Task 4.2 11..OnauCr a structural evaluation or me founaatlon to
Solids Incineration assess its ability to withstand loading during a design I
Building seismic .event. 518-14 10 26 $60,OOq ~----"
90f10
t-'roposea Tor
Tunnel No. 1 Package #2 Seal cracks in the walls and ceilings. T1-01 8 20 $15,000 Tunnel No.1 ---Seal expansion joints at connections to structures. T1-02 7 20 $10,000 J-'roposea Tor
Tunnel No.2 Package #2 Seal cracks in the walls and ceilings. T2-01 8 22 $20,000
Tunnel No. -2 Seal expansion joints at connections to structures. T2-02 7 22 $10,000
Sludge Thickeners Apply waterproofing material to the top deck slab. -THK-01 7 20 $115,000
Sludge Thickeners Repair broken support bracket for FRP baffle. THK-02 3 20 $12,000
Ivvater KeClamatlOn Il"\eplace coatings on all metal sunaces \lnclualng wort
Filters submerged). . WRF-01 9 16 Completec
Iwater KeClamatlOn Ilmprove seismiC vertical moment capaclIY OJ mSJae face
Filters of upper tank wall. -. _ WRF-02 8 16 $1,000,OO(
IVvater KeClamatlOn
!Tank . Repair cracking on underside of stairs. WRT-01 7 14 $6,000
iwater Keclamallon
$12,00d Tank Remove loose snap-tie plugs and replace with grout WRT-02 5 14
[water Keclamatlon Kepalr deteriorating grou{ arouna tanK exterior at wall
$14,000 Tank thickness transition. WRT-03 1 14
lIonduct detailed investigation or exposea ana corroaea
Water Reclamation reinforcing on underside of walkway at top of tank
Tank perimeter. WRT-04 10 14 $30,000
vvater Keclamatlon
[ Tank Remove corroded center column. WRT-05 1 14 $3,000
Maintenance and I aSK L:.L:C IcvalUate structural capaCIIY Of mira level storage space Not part
Warehouse FaciI~ Package #2 in the Warehouse (above existing offices). ofFAC $10,000
10 of 10
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI013S622
EXHIBIT "B"
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSl.IT...T ANT shall perfonn the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number
of weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased
by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as
all work is completed within the tenn of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provid,e a
detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt ofthe
notice to proceed.
Milestones
1. Final Design and Construction
Documents for FRRP No.2: '
2 .. Final Design and Construction
Documents for FRRP No.3:
3. Seismic Assessments:
4. Services During Construction:
Completion
No. of Weeks
fromNTP
13
26
48
TBD*
. *Tentative schedule for construction completion
ofFRRP No.2 &3 is 4th Quarter 2011).
I
Professional Services
Rev. January 11, 2010
\\CC-TERRA\jarreo!\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP135622 Design of Facility Repair and Retrofit Projects at the
RWQCP\ContractClOI35622 CAROLLO ENGINEERS.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135622
EXHIBIT "C"
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in
accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget
schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached
as exhibit C" 1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services
described in Exhibit "A" ("Basic Services") and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed
$354,286.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable
expenses, within this· amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the
maximum compensation shall not exceed $389,715.00. Any work perfonned or expenses
incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of
compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY.
CONSULTANT shall perfonn the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted
below. The CITY's project manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts
between any offlletasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic
Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $354,286.00 and the total
col11pensation for Additional Services does not exceed $35,429.00.
BUDGET SCHEDULE
Task 1
(project Management)
Task 2
(pre-Design for Two Construction Projects)
Task 3
(Bid/Construction Documents)
Task 4
(Building Foundation Structural Assessment)
Task 5 .
(Minor Facility Assessment)
Task 6
(Services During Construction)
Sub-total Basic Services
Reimbursable Expenses
I 1
NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
$36,602
$49,910
$93,966
$61,572
$9,744
$90,492
$342,286
$12,000
Professional Services
Rev. January II, 2010
\\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposa]s\RFP\RFPJ35622 Design of Facility Repair and Retrofit Projects at the
RWQCP\Conlract CI 0 135622 CAROLLO ENGINEERS.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135622
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $354,286
Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $35,429
Maximum Total Compensation $389,715
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included
within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall
. reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for
which CONSULT ANT shall be reimbursed are:
A. Third party reproduction services, travel for site VISItS and meetings, including
transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto's
policy for reimbursement oftravel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees.
B. Project Equipment Communication Expense (PECE) per direct labor hour. PECE shall
include items such as computer, long distance telephone cellular phone, facsimile
transmission, filming, video, photographs, and postage charges.
All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information.
Any expense anticipated to be more than $1,000.00 shall be approved in advance by the
CITY's project manager.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULT ANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization
from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY's proj ect manager's request, shall submit a
detailed written proposal including a description ofthe scope of services, schedule, level of
effort, and CONSULTANT's proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable
expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-I. The additional services
scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by
the CITY's project manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services.
Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this
Agreement
Work required because the following conditions are not satisfied or are exceeded shall be
considered as additional services:
1. Design, engineering and preparation of bid documents for construction of the
recommendations which may result from the basic services Task 4 and/or Task 5.
2. Design, engineering and preparation of bid documents for construction of additions
to items in Exhibit A-I upon field verification.
2
Professional Services
Rev. January 11,2010
\\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP135622 Design of Facility Repair and Retrofit Projects at the
RWQCP\Contract Cl 0135622 CAROLLO ENGINEERS.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135622
EXHIBIT "C-l"
HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
POSITION
Senior Professional
Lead Proj ect Professional
Project Professional
Professional
Technician
Support Staff
1
HOURLY RATE
$234
$213
$197
$165
$142
$90
Professional Services
Rev. January 11, 2010
\\CC-TERRA \jarreo]\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP135622 Design of Facility Repair and Retrofit Projects at the
RWQCP\Contract Cl0135622 O\ROLLO ENGINEERS.doc
C 'f' ~XHI~fT D ert. reate ot nsurance
Agency Name and Address:
Heffernan Insurance Brokers THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION
ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE
1808 Embarcadero Road, Ste. A HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR
Palo Alto, CA 94303 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED THE POLICIES LISTED BELOW.
(650) 852-5200 Fax (650) 852-5201
Insured's Name and Address: Companies Affording Coverage
CAROLLO ENGINEERS, P.C. Compl:\ny A .. OneBeacon America Insurance Company
Risk Management Office Company B ~-Ace American Insurance Company
10540 Talbert Avenue, Suite 200 East
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
COVERAGES: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED.
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUEO OR MAY
PERTAIN. THE INSURANCE AFFORDED 8YTHE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEReIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS. EXCLUSIONS. AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES.
CO. TYPE OF POLICY POLICY POLICY
LTR. INSURANCE NUMBER EFFEC.DATE EXPIR.DATE LIMITS
A GENERAL LIABILITY 7180103170000 12131/2009 12131/2010 General Aggregate $ 2,000,000
[X ) Comml. Gen. Liability Products·Com/Ops Agg. $ 2,000,000
[ 1 Claims Made Personal & Adv. Injury $1000,000
[ X J Occurrence Each Occurrence $1,000,000
Gen'l Aggregate Applies per: Fire Damage (anv one fire) $ 500,000
(XI Polley Medical $ 25,000
[ J Project Other
A AUTO LIABILITY 7180103170000 12131/2009 12131/2010 Combined Single LImit $1,000.000
[X I Any Automobile
[ J All owned autos Bodily Injury (per person) $
( ) SCheduled autos
[ J Hired autos Bodily Injury (per accident) $
[ I Non-owned aulos
[ I Garage Iiabflity Property Damage $
[ j
A EXCESS LIABILITY 7180103170000 12131/2009 12131/2010
[ X] Umbrella Form Each Occurrence $1,000,000
[ j other than Umbrella Form Aggregate $
A WORKERS' 4060316440000 12131/2009 12131/2010 Statutory LImits: Yes
COMPENSATION Each Accldent $1,000,000
AND EMPLOYERS' Disease-Policy LImit $1,000,000
. LIABILITY Disease-Each EmJ)loyee $1,000,000
B PROFESSIONAL G21656495 006 07/0412009 07/04/2010 Each ClaIm $ 1,000,000
LIABILITY Retroactive Data: Aggregate $ 1,000,000
Unlimited Deductib[e $ 5,000
. .. DeSCription of Operabons/LocatronsNehlcles/Restrlctrons/Speclalltems:
All operations of the named insured. RE Project: Design of Facility Repair & Retrofit Projects at the Regional Water
Quality Control Plant, Contract No. Cl0135622 '" City of Palo Alto is included as additional insured with respects to
General & Auto Liability. General Liability is Primary & Non-Contributory.
Important Notice: This certificate does not disclose exclUSions, conditions and other limitations set forth in the p,0licy itself which may affect the
respective rights and obligations of the Insurer and Policyholder under the policy and may reduce or eliminate coverage for certain losses. The
Policyholder or one or more of lis corporate affiliates being obligated to directly or indirectly reimburse the Insurer for a portion of the losses paid under
the Policy. As a result, the financla[ cost of a portion of the Insured losses will Ultimately be borne by the Policyholder or one or more of its corporate
affiliates, and not b the Insurer.
Certificate Holder: THE AGGREGATE LIMIT IS THE TOTAL INSURANCE AVAILABLE FOR CLAIMS PRESENTED
WITHIN THE POLICY FOR ALL OPERATIONS OF .THE INSURED. CANCELLATION:
City of Palo Alto
Purchasing & Contract Administration
P.O. Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE
EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF. THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL MAIL 30 DAYS' WRITTEN NOTICE
TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE lEFT. EXCEPT ·IN THE EVENT OF
CANCELLATION DUE TO NON·PAYMENT OF PREMIUM IN WHICH CASE A 10 DAYS NOTICE
WILL BE GIVEN.
Date: June 1, 2010
Brandle Kirb ·Leler
ADDITIONAL INSURED
This form modifies insurance provided under the following:
GL CONTRACTORS EXTENDER (VCG 206 02 05)
WHO IS AN INSURED -(Section II) is deleted and replaced by the following wording:
A. Section II -Who Is An Insured is amended to include as an additional insured any person or organization for whom
you are performing operations when you and such person or organization have agreed in writing in a contract.
agreement or permit that such person or organization be added as an additional insured on your policy. Such person
or organization Is an additional Insured only with respect to liability for "bodily injury," "property damage" or "personal
and advertising injury" caused, In whole or in part, by:
1. Your acts or omissions; or
2. The acts or omissions of those acting on your behalf;
in the performance of your ongoing and completed operations for the additional insured.
The insurance provided to the additional insured is limited as follows:
a) This endorsement shall not Increase the limits stated in Section III-LIMITS OF INSURANCE.
b) This insurance does not apply to "bodily Injury: or "property damage" caused by "your work" included in the
"products-completed operations hazard" unless you are required to provide such coverage for the additional
Insured by a written contract or written agreement in effect during this policy period and signed and executed
by you prior to the loss for which coverage is sought.
B. With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, the following additional exclusions apply:
This insurance does not apply to:
1. "Bodily injury," "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" arising out of the rendering of, or the
failure to render, any professional architectural, engineering or surveying services, including:
a. The preparing, approving, or faiting to prepare or approve, maps, shop draWings, opinions, reporls,
surveys, field orders, change orders or drawings and specifications; or
b. Supervisory, inspections, architectural or engineering activities.
Primary & Non-Contributory: Any coverage provided by this endorsement to an additional insured shall be excess over
any other valid and collectible insurance available to the additional insured whether primary. excess, contingent or on any
other basis unless a written contract or written agreement In effect during this policy period and signed and executed by
you prior to the loss for which coverage. is sought specifically requires that this Insurance apply on a primary or
noncontributory basis.
Separation of Insureds: Except with respect to the limits of Insurance, and any rights or duties specifically assigned in
this Coverage Part to the first Named Insured, this insurance applies:
a. As if each Named Insured were the only Named Insured; and
b. Separately to each insured against whom claim is made or "suif' is brought.
Per Project Aggregate: Under Section III = limits of Insurance, the General Aggregate Limit applies separately to each
of your projects away from premises owned by or rented to you.
Waiver of Subrogation: Section IV -Transfer of Rights of Recovery Against Others to Us Condition is amende'd to add
the following: We will waive any right of recovery we may have against any person or organization because of
payments we make for injury or damage arising out of your ongoing operations done under a written contract or
agreement with that person or organization and included in "your work" or the "products-completed operations hazard".
This waiver applies only to persons or organizations with whom you have a written contract executed prior to the "bodily
injury" or "property damage", that requires you to waive your rights of recovery.
Named Insured:
Additional
Insured:
Carollo Engineers, P.C.
City of Palo Alto
Policy No.: 7180103170000
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAReFULLY.
@VANTAGE FOR AUTOMOBILE
This endorsement modifies Insurance provided under the fol/owing:
BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE fORM
The following ~chedule IIsls the coverage extension:. provided by tllia endorsement. Refer to the rndlvldual provl~
slons to determine the extent of your coverage. .
SCHEDULE OF COVERAGE EXTENSIONS
1. Additional Insured By Confract 11. ExtrQ Expense -8roadened Covorage
2. AJrbag Dlsoharge 12. Fellow Employee ExclusIon
3. Auto Theft Reward 13. Glass RepaIr -Waiver of OeducUble
4. Blanket Watver of Subrogallon 14. Hired Auto Physloal Damage Coverage
S. Bodily Injury Redelfnad -Mental AnguIsh 16. Hired Auto -WorldwIde Covera~e TE)ultory
6. Broad Form Named Insured 16. Lease Gap Coverage .
7. Communlcallons Equipment 17. Liability Coverage -Supplementary Payments
8, Drive Olher Car -Executive Otf'cen~ 18. Newly Formed or Acquired Organizations 9; Duties In The Evant of Accldenf, ClaIm, Suit or Loss 19, Physical Damage -TransportatIon Expenses
10. Employees As Insureds 20. Towing -Any Auto
1. ADDITIONAL rNSURED BY CONTRACT
. The Who Is An Insured provIsIon under SECTION 11-LIASILITV COVERAGE Is amended to fncrude as Ian
• addlllonal Insured any person or organlzallon with whom you agreed In a wrltten.contract, written Agreement or
permIt. to provide Insurance such as Is afforded under thIs Coverage Form. Such person or organlzaUon is an
Insured only with respect to tloblllly for "bodily Irllury" or "property damage" caused, In whole or In part by your
maintenance, operation or use ot your covored "autos",
With respoct to tha Insurance afforded to these addilional rl1sureds. this Insliranc$ does not apply:
ft. Unless the wrllten contract or agreement has been executed or the permit has been Issued prior to tho
"bodily Injury" or "property damage";
b. To any person or organlzaUon Included as an Insured by endorsement or In the Declarations, or
c. To any,lessor of "autos" when theIr contract or agreement with you tor slich leased "auto" ends.
2. AIRBAG DISCHARGE
If you purchased physloal damage coverage for a" covered "auto" under this policy. we will pay to raset or re-
place an alrbag that accidentally dIscharges wilhout the vehIcle baing Involved In ao 8CQldent. No deduQllble
applies to Ihls additional (loverage. However. this ooverage only applies If the alrbag Is not covered under a
manufaolurer's warranty and you did not Intentionally cause the alrbag to discharge.
3. AUTO THI:Fr REWARD
We will pay up to a $2,000 reWard In the event of a covered loss, for Information leading to the arrest and oon-
vlcUon of anyone stealing a covered "autou• A reward will not be paId to you. a family member, employoe or any
public official while performrng theIr duty •
. 4. BLANKET WAIVER OF 8U8ROGA'TION
The Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery AgaInst Others To Us condlUon under SECTION IV -LOSS CONDI-
TIONS Is replaoed by the foJlowfng:
We will waive <lny rlght of recovery we may have agaInst any person or organization because of payments we
make for injury or damage arisIng out of the operanol) of a covered "auto" when you have assumed liability for
such "bodily injury" or "property damage" under an "'nsured contract~. provided the contract Is In wflllng and
executed prior fo tho "bodily InJury" or "properly damage".
8, BODILY INJUflY REDEFINED -MENTAL ANGUISH
The definition of "bodily Injury" under SECTION V -DEFINrrtONS Is replaced by the following:
"Bodily injury" means bodily Injury. slokness, or dIsease sustained by a person, Including mental angulsn or
death resulting from any of Ihese at any lime.
VCA201 02 05 li\Cludes CQPYilghted maltrlal 0' Insurancll SolVk:es Olllco, Inc.
CoPytlgh! :2004. 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Pago 1 of 4
'.
$. aROAD FORM NAMED INSURED
a. The Who Is An Insured provIsion under SEOTION " -LIABILITY COVERAGE Is amended to Include tha
followIng: . . . .. ~ .
Any or'ganlzaUon whIch Is a legally Incorporated entity In whloh you own a financial Interest of more than
50% of the v.oUng slock on the offectlve datI) of this Coverage Form will be a Named Insured unlll1he 180th
day or the end of the policy period whichever comes first, provldad there Is no olher similar Insurance avail-
ablo to that organization .
. b. Paragraph a. of thIs provision 6. does not apply to "bodily Injury" or "ptoperly damage" for whloh an
"Insllred" Is also an Insured under any olher alilomobile policy or would be an Insured under such a policy.
but for Its t~rmlnatl~:>n or the exhaustion of Its limit of Insufanco.
r. COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT
a. The exclus!on for eleotronlo equfpment onder exclusions of SECTION III .. PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVeRAGE
does hot apply to loss of any permanently Instal/ed, lion-removable communloaUons e.qulpment designed
for use $S a:
1. Cll/zen's band radio;
2. Two-way mobile radIo or telephonej
3, Soannlng monitor receiver, or
4. GPS Navigation System
Including lis antenna and oth'ar accessories.
b. No Deducllble applies to this addflional coverage.
c. . The most we will pay for this coverage Is $2.000 par occllrrenoe.
8. PRIVEOTHERCAR-EXECUTIVE OFFloeRS .
a. The w~)O Is An Insured provisIon under SE~iION JJ -' LIABILITY COVERAGE Is ame~ded to In~lude:
If you are designated In the DeclaraUons' as:
1. An IndivIdual: you and yourspouse.
2. A partnership; your partners and their spouses.
. 3. An organization other than an IndIvidual or a partnership; you n$XOcuUve officers" and theIr spouses.
b. SECTION 11-LIABIUry COVERAGE and SEOTION /II ... PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE aro extended
to Include "autos" you don't own, hire, lease or borrow while In the oare, Qustody or control of an Insured
listed In 8.a. This does not Include any "auto":
1. Owned by any Insured lIsted In 8.8" or any member of their household. Including any suoh "auto" that Is
owned but not Insured;' .
2. Used by an Insured !fsted In 8,a. white working In tho business of seiling s9lVlcfng, repairing or parking
autos; Of,
3. Insured under anoth&r policy of Insuranoe.
If MedIcal Payments, UnfnsuredlUnderlnsured Molor!sf, Personal InJUly ProteoUon or other compulsory
coverages ft:lqulred by the governIng Jurisdlotlon are covered on Ihls policy, then Insureds listed In 8.a.
above and family members rllsldlng In the same households are "Insureds" while:
1. Oooupylng as a passenger, or
2. A pedestrla,n wheo struck by
any auto you do not own. hire, lease or borrow, except any auto' owned by that Insured ilatad·ln 8.ft, their
family members or an aut0,lnsured under any other polley. .
c. The limits and deduct/bles applloable to this provIsion will be tha largest applicable to any owned "auto" for
the specifiC: Insuranoe.
d. The following definition Is added to SECTION V -OEFINITIONS of the policy:
"Exeoutive officer" moans a person holding any of the ottloer positions created by your chartor. consUtu-
tlon. by~law$ or any Similar governing dooument,
e. The Other Insurance Condition, under SECTION IV -BUSINESS AUTO CONOITIONS, does not apply to
the provlslons of this Drive Other Car endorsement. There Is no "other In$uranc:e" applicable to this en-
dorsement.
P1Ige20r4 1f1<)ludes copyll,ghled material of InsurMC8 SOMceS Olllce, Inc. VCA 201 0205
Copyrfght 2004.11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
,
9. DUTJES IN THE EVENT OF ACCIDENT! CLAIM, SUIT OR lOSS
Ul1der saCT/ON IV -BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS -the DittIes In Tho Event Of Accident, Claim,
Surt Or loss Condlllon Is amended as follows:
The requIrements that you Jnust
a. notify us of an "accldoht" olalm, "suit" or "loss" and
b. send liS docum~nt$ concerning a claim or "suif'
apply only whan slIch "accIdent·, claIm, "sulf' or "loss" Is known to:
o. You. It you are an Indlvldual;
b. A partner. It you are a partnershIp;
c. An exeoullve officer of the corporation or Insurance manager! It you are a corporation; or
d. A manager, It you are a limited liability company.
10. EMPLOYEES AS INSUREDS •
The Who Is An Insured provision under SECTION" -LIABILITY COVERAGE Is-changed by adding the
following;
Anyemployse of yours while using a covered "auto" you don't own, hIre or borrow In your busIness or
your personal aftalrs. ThIs coverage Is excess over any other colleotlble Insurance.
11. EXTRA EXPENSE -BROADENEO COVERAGE I,
Under Paragraph A. of SECTION 111-PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE, the following Coverage Is added:
We will pay for the expense of roturnlng a stolen covered "auto" to you subject to Paragraph C. LImit
Of Insuranoe.
12. FELLOW EMPLOYEE EXCLUSION
The Fellow I:mp!oye9 exclusion under SECTION 11-LIABILITY COVERAGE does not apply If the "bodily
Injury" resulls from the use of a covered "auto" you own or hire. ThIs coverage Is excess over any othor In~ suranco.
13. GLASS REPAIR -WAIVER OF DEDUCTIBLE
Under Paragraph D. DeductIble -of SeCTION'" -PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE, the fol/owlng Is
added:
No deduotlble applfes to glass damage If the glass Is repaired rather than replaced.
14. HIRED AUTO-PHYSICAL DAMAGe COVl:RAGE
If hIred "autos" are covered "aulos" under SECllON " ... LIABILITY COVERAGE and If Comprehensive,
Specified Causes of Loss. or Collision coverages are provIded under thIs policy for any "auto" you OWO.
'then SECTION 111-PHYSICAl. DAMAGE COVERAGE Is extended to "autos" you hire, subJeot to tho fo/-
lowfng 11m/I:
The moat we will pay for "'oss" to any hIred "auto" is the lesser of:
a. $,50,000,
b. Tho aotual oash value, or
c. The cost of repairing or replacIng It with other property of like kind or quality.
The daducllble wlll be equal to the largest daducUble applicable to any owned "auto" tOT that ooverage. No
deductible applies to "Ioss" caused by fire or lightning. Hired Auto PhysIcal Damage coverage /s excess
over any other collecllble Insurance.
SubJeot to the above limit. deductible and eXOOS$ provisions, we will provIde coverage equal to the broadest
coverage applicable to any covered "auto" you own.
We will also cover loss of use otthe hired "auto"l1 the followIng condlllons are met:
a. It results from an accIdent,
b. you afe legally liable, and
c. tho lessor Incurs an aclual financial loss.
The most we will pay for this loss 01 US$ coverage Is $1,000 per "aceldent",
VCA201 0206 Includei copytlghted m3terlal of Insurance Servl~s OlflCe. Ino. Page30! 4
Copyr!ghl2004, II 1111111111" I II II IIII/I! 111111 III III 11111111 II II
,
16, H/RaD AUTO ... WORlOWIDE OOVERAGE raRRlrORY ,
Tho deflnilloll·of coverage t(lhl!o~ rn GpnBml O(mdllloll$ .... Policy Petlod, OOVl)fa(lo i<mltory -01 SIiO-
r/ON IV ... BUSINESS Auro OONDITIONS Is amended 10 add:
Anywhere In the world for aulos hIred for 30 day& or less, provided that any "suit" 1$ brpught til the
Ulllto" Slaies of Amolloa (fnoludl/l{lll$ terrllor/es and PO$$OSSIOM), Puerto Rloo or Oanada.
18, LEASE GAP OOVtiRAOE
Under Paragraph C. LImIt of Irumralloe -ot SeCTioN Ill'" PHYSIOA~ DAMM~ COVf:lRAGEJ Ihe foJ/ow-
Ing /s added; .
Wo WIll arso pay tho difference blllW~on Iho aolual cash vafq9 of a oovered "aU{oll at Ihe lime of -losslI and
Ihe remaInIng ba/ancG on.yourlease It !Ila fonowtng condlllons are mel:
a. rho "au ton has a long t(lfln ((IPse and Is covered on Ihle po!rcy. ' •
. 1>. iho lessorfs added as an AddJUonal Insurod In a WflUen loas9 agrooment.' .
. u, You nre legally obllgaled forth9 (omalnlt\g balance.
W~ wlll.llot pRy for flny'amollnts represtmllng excess wear and tear chArges; addlUonal mileaGe cfjnTOOfl; •
taxos; overdue paymonts; panalllos,lnterest or ohargo$ fosulUng (rom overdua paymenl$j or loftse term/nft-
HOIl feas.
17. l.IAbILlTY OOVERAGE EXTENSIONS -SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS
Ulidor SECTION 11-UABILI'f'Y COVERAOI!, the oovorttga exlell~lon for Sup'plomentary Payments Is ra·
vlsnd as follows: ',' . . .
a. The limit for tho cosl of ball bondals amended to $3,600.
b, The limit for reasonable OXpol\sotllnourred by the "Insurod" 1$ amended to $500 l\ day.
. 18. NEWLY }:ORMBD OR ACQUIREltORGANIZATIONS
a, Tho Who Is All'nflured provIsIon umlor SECTION II ... LJAJ3/J..ITY COVliRAGE Is amondod to Inolud&
as an I'lnsurad" any organIzation that 14101ma(( or acquIred by you and ()Ver whloh you maintaIn maJorIty
ownershIp. • ~
b. .Paragraph Q, of thla provIsIon 18. does not upply to any otganlzallon;
1. That 1& a Jelnt venture or pnrtno(shlp,
2. That Is an t'/nlmrod'· un40r allY oilIer poflGY.
3. That hus exhausted lis limIt of Insuranoe und&r any other polloy, or
4. 180 days or'moro flllar Its ttcqulaltloll or 'ormallon by YQU, l/Illoss YOll havo (liven Us lloUce of tho
ft¢qulslUon or 'orma\lon.
0. Paragraph A. of thIs provisloll 18. dOGS not apply 10 "bt;Jdl/y Injury" or "property damage" that reaulls
f(oln anl/acoldont" that ooourred bllfer!) yeu formed or acqulrod the organlzallon.
19. PHYSI~AI.. DAMAGE -TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES COV~RAGE
Under SEOTfON 1/1-PHYSIOAI. DAMAG!i Ooverage Ektensfon&. fh$lImll for Transportation expenso81$
amoodod to $75 per day and tho MaxImum Is amtlndod to $1,800.
20. rOWING ... oov.erum AUTOS
Under SE!OTION III ... PHYSIOAL DAMAGE COVe.RAGE, Ooverau~ furrowing 1$ emended as follows:
ft. ThIs covettlge ftppJ/es to allY covered "nuto" fotwhloh a premium oharge lor towfng and labor Is shown In the $ohudule Qr In the DeolanllloM.
b. The IImltfs$100.
Named !naurfldl CnrolJ.Q Ullgil\OlltB, A Profe4l/lio1lltl Corporation
Endorsement Date: 12/31/09
Policy Numpexi 1180103170000
Insuranoe OOJ1lpallY: OneBe4oon America Insul.'anc$ Cornptuty
Inctltd •• ~opYllghted malellel of Insl.l/an~ SeMetli O/IJo~, In\).
OopyrflJhl2004, 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: JUNE 14,2010 CMR:273:10
TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: Levy of Assessment for California Avenue Area Parking Bonds -Plan G: Fiscal
Year 2010-2011 and Adoption of a Resolution Confirming Engineer's Report
and Assessment Roll, California Avenue Parking Project No. 92-13 (For Fiscal
Year 2010-2011)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) confirming the
Engineer's Report and Assessment Roll for California Avenue District, Project No. 92-13 and
levying assessments for FY-2011.
BACKGROUND
By virtue of the prior establishment of the assessment district and issuance of debt, Council action is
required to levy assessments for the active parking project in the California Avenue area. These
assessments will be utilized for the payment of principal and interest on bonds for capital
improvements pursuant to the attached resolution. These funds are separate and distinct from permit
fees that are used to pay for operation and maintenance of parking facilities.
The active project is listed and described as follows:
1. California Avenue District, Ted Thompson Parking Structure, Project 92-13: Construction of a
two-level parking structure on Cambridge Avenue between Birch Street and Nogal Lane.
Parking bonds issued under Bond Plan G (Section 13.16.150, Palo Alto Municipal Code) require that
a public hearing be held annually (the second Monday in June) on the assessments, which must be
levied to pay principal and interest on the bonds. The purpose of the public hearing is to allow each
property owner the opportunity to question the computation ofhislher assessment and the elements
which comprise it, that is, the square footage of each occupied building, the off-street parking
requirements for the usage, and the off-street parking provided. Assessments are levied on the basis
of building square footage, with a credit given for the off-street parking provided by the property
owner. Additional details about the Parking Assessment District-Plan G bond capital improvement
program projects can be found in Attachment B.
CMR:273:10 Page 1 of3
DISCUSSION
The assessment rates for FY 2010-11 (Attachment C) per square foot of adjusted building area and
the amount levied for the projects are:
PROJECT
1. California Avenue District, Ted Thompson
Parking Structure, Project 92-13
*Rate per weighted assessment factor.
* * Rate per land square footage.
ASSESSMENT RATE PER
ADJUSTED BUILDING
SQUARE FOOTAGE
$9.89*
$0.056**
Total:
DOLLARS
LEVIED
$114,328.22
$ 38.109.39
$152,437.61
Approximately $341,000 in excess construction funds in the California Avenue District bond fund
for the Ted Thompson parking garage, Project 92-13, was used to reduce the tax roll required to pay
offfue bonds sold to fmance the project. To equalize assessments, the funds were spread uniformly
over the duration of the bonds (20 years) beginning with the 1996 assessments.
Attachment D lists changes made to the assessment rolls. The estimated assessments were sent to
property owners within the California Avenue district on March 25, 2010. Assessments were
modified due to recent changes in business site conditions (square footage, vacancy, etc.), which
were brought to staffs attention by property owners since the estimated assessments were prepared.
Because the hearing is the legally prescribed process for property owners to raise assessment
questions, it may be necessary to have a second addendum available at the Council meeting that
reflects changes brought to staff's attention since the Council packet was delivered. The public
hearing for the assessment district may need to be continued if staff receives late information from a
property owner that cannot be verified and included in the amended rolls prior to the hearing.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The project is funded by the assessment district and no City General Fund monies are involved.
Although assessments are generally subject to Proposition 218, this particular assessment is exempt
from Proposition 218 since all of the assessment proceeds are pledged to repay bond indebtedness
issued prior to enactment of Proposition 218 in 1996.
Parking district maintenance costs, including sweeping, landscaping, signing and lighting are
paid for by parking permit fees, which were last increased in 2005 in the California Avenue
Parking District. These are separate from the funds used to pay for construction of the parking
garage.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Approval of this action does not represent any change to existing City policies.
CMR:273:10 Page 2 of3
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. ---
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL
CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING PROJECT NO~ 92-13
(For Fiscal Year 2011)
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO DOES RESOLVE asfollows:
Section 1: After proceedings conducted pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a public
hearing has been duly held on the Engineer's Report and assessment roll prepared for the above fiscal
year to pay the principal and interest on bonds issued pursuant to Resolution of Intention No. 7930,
adopted by the Council of the City of Palo Alto on August 9, 1993;
Section 2: This Council has heard all persons having an interest in any real property within the
parking assessment district; has heard all objections, protests, or other written communications from any
persons interested in the real property within the district; has taken and received oral and documentary
evidence pertaining to the matters contained in the report; and has remedied and corrected any errors or
informalities in the report and revised and corrected any of the acts or determinations of the various City
officials as contained therein;
Section 3: The Engineer's Report and assessment roll, and each of the assessments. therein as
fully revised and corrected, is hereby approved and confirmed and adoption of this Resolution constitutes
the levy of the assessments for fiscal year 2010-11. '
/I
/I
/I
/I
/I
/I
/I
/I
/I
/I
-1-
ATIACHMENTD
CALIFORNIA AVENUE DISTRICT AMENDMENTS
PRELIMINARY ROLL
Address, Use Square Parking Parking Assessments
Parcel Number Feet Reqd. Prov 92-13
2250 Park 20C 1755 6 3 $527.43
124-28-002
240 Cambridge 13C 1620 13 3 $747.86
124-28-004 26B 780
306 Cambridge 20C 2125 7 0 $646.11
124-28-009
318 Cambridge 26B 4912 20 0 $1349.17
124-28-010
350 Cambridge 20C 19762 82 18 $4838.49
124-28-011 20C 2969 10
VAC 2467
200 California 20C 8133 27 $1692.23
124-28-027 20C 450
206 California 20C 10000 32 6 , $1713.13
124-289-028
220 California 20C 6930 22 0 $1423.08
124-28-029
230 CaIifornia 20C 6930 22 0 $1423.08
124-28-030
260 California 13C 9625 62 6 $4306.40
124-28-033
290 California 15B 7965 55 0 $3870.17
124-28-034 26B 7965
2363 Birch 23B 625 5 0 $405.57
124-28-035 13C 646
-2307 Birch 13C 923 31 $2080.55
124-28-036 26B 1285
23B 915
26B 4250
164 California 26B 16514 95 81 $3481.92
124-28-045 23B 680
20C 7406
250 Cambridge 20C 15908 113 28 $6363.73
124-28-050 20C 9000
VAC 10269
265 Cambridge 32 3493 9 5 $513.71
124-28-053 0
201 California 13C 2410 20 0 $1273.06
124-29-001 20C 1350
2418 Park 13C 1920 25 0 $1765.47
124-29-002 20C 3168
23B 1240
2435 Birch 13C 1246 24 0 $1460.45
124-29-004 20C 3776
23B 1350
299 California 20C 11608 52 0 $3376.28
124-29-005 23B 6662
249 California 26C 9844 28 $2058.22
124-29-007
265 California 32 4000 22 2 $1477.30
124-29-021 VAC 2800
261 California 26B 6820 28 0 $1792.25
124-29-022
2290 Birch 20C 3059 10 0 $803.59
124-32-002
366 Cambridge 13C 2250 20 0 $1358.13
124-32-003 20C 1075
20C 700
378 Cambridge 20C 8797 40 2 $2412.71
124-32-005 26B 2015
23B 1600
400 Cambridge 20C 9800 32 0 $1971.28
124-32-006
410 Cambridge 20C 6200 32 0 $1971.28
124-32-007 VAC 3600
430 Cambridge 20C 5420 20 0 $1412.11
124-32-009 20C 834
438 Cambridge 20C 3536 14 4 $934.27
124-32-010 VAC 776
450 Cambridge 26B 2400 10 $788.96
124-32-011
454 Cambridge 15B 1542 7 0 $770.39
124-32-012 23B 1542
2237 El Camino 13C 760 7 $435.66
124-32-016 20C 760
2231 El Camino 26B 2868 12 3 $620.45
124-32-017
2225 El Camino 15B 1040 7 5 $409.06
124-32-018 26B 72
2209 El Camino 13C 3167 21 3 $1239.65
124-32-019 15B 385
310 California 13C 1695 47 0 $3339.18
124-32-034 26B 2685
26B 6000
330 California 15B 4360 21 10 $1239.24
124-32-035 15B 3240
360 California 26B 6707 28 6 $1510.13
124-32-036
366 California 20C 5070 32 2 $1990.72
124-32-037 23B 2300
32 4430
392 California 26B 4000 20 5 $1085.81
124-32-038 26B 800
406 California 13C 3150 24 6 $1293.19
124-32-039 23B 1598
414 California 14A 6098 34 20 $1639.48
124-32-040
440 California 13C 1000 24 0 .$1661.22
124-32-041 26B 4250
442 California 20C 263 3 2 $278.93
124-32-042 15B 659
448 California 13C 1825 18 9 $928.59
124-32-043 23B 1000
26B 992
460 California VAC 7404 35 0 $2119.44
124-32-044 23B 3200
VAC 1196
480 California 20C 14166 73 5 $4136.03
124-32-045 20C 2204
20C 3010
20C 3240
490 California 20C 18387 81 37 $3391.17
124-32-046 15b 8037
2335 EI Camino 20C 5292 17 $1006.13
124-32-047
2325 EI Camino 26B 1360 9 5 $428.49
124-32-048 23B 1360
2305 EI Camino 13C 285 22 2 $1310.28
124-32-049 23B 1257
433 Cambridge 20C 2119 16 . $969.91
124-32-051 20C 1150
23B 1551
20C 330
20C 400
415 Cambridge 20C 6112 20 0 $1356.37
124-32-052
409 Cambridge 20C 3466 11 5 $621.48
124-32-054
375 Cambridge 20C 4934 16 6 $837.59
124-32-056
2265 EI Camino 13C 1716 40 0 $3221.70
124-32-070 20C 5621
23B 700
26C 3247
321 California 13C 4905 32 14 $1509.21
124-33-001
410 Sherman 20C 6691 22 8 $1518.30
124-33-005
430 Sherman 20C 11094 36 0 $2186.05
124-33-006
475 California 13C 1852 13 0 $845.66
124-33-012 23B 454
463 California 13C 1475 20 7 $1010.33
124-33-013 26B 2361
459 California 26B 3362 14 4 $829.23
124-33-014
451 California 26B 1062 8 3 $520.22
124-33-015 26B 1062
445 California 13C 1427 11 9 $425.45
124-33-016 15B 1248
437 California 20C 2200 1129 6 $1555.65
124-33-017 26B 5186
433 California 23B 1160 3 2 $191.82
124-33-018
429 California 26C 4989 16 0 $1195.39
124-33-019 26C 726
421 California 13C 1320 9 0 $548.50
124-33-020
415 California 13C 2514 26 4 $1426.13
124-33-021 26B 2513
405 California 20C 2370 21 6 $1079.98
124-33-022 15B 1200
26B 2291
2450 Ash 20C 1794 6 0 $578.20
124-33-025
2443 Ash 23B 421 25 $2332.56
124-33-027 20C 7388
381 California 3 580 47 0 $2819.94
124-33-028 13C 207
26B 1480
13C 2486
17 7407
361 California 13C 1872 12 5 $907.77
124-33-029
341 California 26B 4000 32 5 $1743.67
124-33-030 20C 4500
449 Sherman 20C 4500 33 0 $2401.04
124-33-042
445 Sherman 20C 22100 84 0 $8131.93
124-33-043 20C 3900
409 Sherman 20C 7869 38 6 $2406.78
124-33-046 VAC 4000
407 Sherman 20C 5074 16 0 $1051.66
124-33-047
385 Sherman 20C 21600 70 0 $5455.04
124-33-055
2401 El Camino 14A 3953 22 14 $1003.28
124-33-061
425 Sherman 20C 17752 74 0 $5153.53
124-33-065 VAC 5268
2441 Park ZOC 1191 4 2 $173.54
124-37-002
2441 Park 20C 1211 4 3 $108.01
124-37-014
109 California 13C 1112 9 8 $121.83
124-37-029 26B 480
125 California 20C 1530 5 3 $185.81
124-37-032
151 California 20C 3201 10 3 $575.02
124-37-043
AMENDED ROLL
Address, Use Square Parking Parking Assessments
Parcel Number Feet Reqd. Prov 92-13
2250 Park 20C 1755 6 3 $521.83
124-28-002
240 Cambridge 13C 1620 1~ 3 $705.45
124-28-004 26B 780
306 Cambridge 20C 2125 7 0 $634.95
124-28-009
318 Cambridge 26B 4912 20 0 $1316.60
124-28-010
350 Cambridge 20C 19762 82 18 $4709.46
124-28-011 20C 2969 10
VAC 2467
200 California 20C 8133 27 1 $1650.68
124-28-027 20C 450
206 California 20C 10000 32 6 $1671.58
124-289-028
220 California 20C 6930 22 0 $1387.97
124-28-030
230 California 20C 6930 22 0 $1387.97
124-28-030
260 California 13C 9625 62 6 $4197.42
124-28-033
290 California 15B 7965 55 0 $3767.43
124-28-034 26B 7965
2363 Birch 23B 625 5 0 $396.68
124-28-035 13C 646
2307 Birch 13C 923 31 $2080.55
124-28-036 26B 1285
23B 915
26B 4250
164 California 26B 16514 95 81 $3459.60
124-28-045 23B 680
20e 7406
250 Cambridge 20C 15908 113 28 $6196.92
124-28-050 20C 9000
VAC 10269
265 Cambridge 32 3493 9 5 $507.36
124-28-053
201 California 13C 2410 20 0 $1241.13
124-29-001 20C 1350
2418 Park 13C 1920 25 0 $1724.09
124-29-002 20C 3168
23B 1240
2435 Birch 13C 1246 24 0 $1422.17
124-29-004 20C 3776
23B 1350
299 California 20C 11608 52 0 $3286.85
124-29-005 23B 6662
249 California 26C 9844 28 $2015.13
124-29-007
265 California 32 4000 22 2 $1442.19
124-29-021 VAC I 2800
261 California 26B 6820 28 0 $1747.53
124-29-022
2290 Birch 20C 3059 10 0 $787.62
124-32-002
366 Cambridge 13C 2250 20 0 $1321..32
124-32-003 20C 1075
20C 700
378 Cambridge 20C 8797 40 2 $2352.02
124-32-005 26B 2015
23B 1600
400 Cambridge 20C 9800 32 0 $1919.71
124-32-006
410 Cambridge 20C 6200 32 0 $1919.71
124-32-007 VAC 3600
430 Cambridge 20C 5420 20 0 $1380.18
124-32-009 20C 834
438 Cambridge 20C 3536 14 4 $914.62
124-32-010 VAC 776
li50 Cambridge 20C 8942 29 10 4,228.61
124-32-011
454 Cambridge 15B 1542 7 0 $759.23
124-32-012 23B 1542
2237 El Camino 13C 760 7 $424.88
124-32-016 20C 760
2231 El Camino 26B 2868 12 3 $606.12
124-32-017
2225 EI Camino 15B lQ40 7 5 $405.46
124-32-018 26b 972
2209 El Camino 13C 3167 21 3 $1210.75
124-32-019 15B 385
310 California 13C 1695 47 0 $3258.31
124-32-034 26B 2685
26B 6000
330 California 15B 4360 21 10 $1221.64
124-32-035 15B 3240
360 California 26B 6707 28 6 $1475.02
124-32-036
366 California 20C 5070 32 2 $1941.00
124-32-037 23B 2300
32 4430
392 California 26B 4000 20 5 $1061.68
124-32-038 26B 800
406 California 13C 3150 24 6 $1264.43
124-32-039 23B 1598
414 California 14A 6098 34 20 $1617.16
124-32-040
440 California 13C 1000 24 0 $1621.29
124-32-041 26B 4250
442 California 20C 263 3 2 $277.30
124-32-042 15B 659
448 California 13C 1825 18 9 $914.26
124-32-043 23B 1000
26B 992
460 California VAC 7404 35 0 $2063.11
124-32-044 23B 3200
VAC 1196
480 California 20C 14166 73 5 $4025.75
124-32-045 20C 2204
20C 3010
20C 3240
490 California 20C 18387 81 37 $3312.84
124-32-046 15b 8037
2335 EI Camino 20C 5292 17 $980.55
124-32-047
2325 EI Camino 26B 1360 9 5 $422.14
124-32-048 23B 1360
2305 EI Camino 13C 285 22 2 $1278.35
124-32-049 23B 1257
433 Cambridge 20C 2119 16 $945.96
124-32-051 20C 1150
23B 1551
20C 330
20C 400
415 Cambridge 20C 6112 20 0 $1324.44
124-32-052
409 Cambridge 20C 3466 11 5 $611.86
124-32-054
375 Cambridge 20C 4934 16 6 $821.62
124-32-056
2265 EI Camino 13C 1716 40 0 $3145.07
124-32-070 20C 5621
23B 700
26C 3247
321 California 13C 4905 32 14 $1480.28
124-33-001
410 Sherman 20C 6691 22 8 $1490.62
124-33-005
430 Sherman 20C 11094 36 0 $2126.81
124-33-006
475 California 13C 1852 13 0 $824.07
124-33-012 23B 454
463 California 13C 1475 20 7 $989.56
124-33-013 26B 2361
459 California 26B 3362 14 4 $813.26
124-33-014
451 California 26B 1062 8 3 $512.24
124-33-015 26B 1062
445 California BC 1427 11 9 $422.27
124-33-016 15B 1248
437 California 20C 2200 29 6 $1518.91
124-33-017 26B 5186
433 California 23B 1160 3 2 $190.19
124-33-018
429 California 26C 4989 16 0 $1169.81
124-33-019 26C 726
421 California 13C 1320 9 0 $534.17
124-33-020
415 California 13C 2514 26 4 $1389.41
124-33-021 26B 2513
405 California 20C 2370 21 6 $1056.03
124-33-022 15B 1200
26B 2291
2450 Ash 20C 1794 6 0 $564.74
124-33-025
2443 Ash 23B 421 25 $2273.40
124-33-027 20C 7388
381 California 3 580 47 0 $2744.91
124-33-028 13C 207
26B 1480
13C 2486
17 7407
361 California 13C 1872 12 5 $896.61
124-33-029
341 California 26B 4000 32 5 $1700.58
124-33-030 20C 4500
449 Sherman 20C 4500 33 0 $2348.33
124-33-042
445 Sherman 20C 22100 84 0 $7913.28
124-33-043 20C 3900
409 Sherman 20C 7869 38 6 $2342.11
124-33-046 VAC 4000
407 Sherman 20C 5074 16 0 $1026.08
124-33-047
385 Sherman 20C 21600 70 0 $5334.66
124-33-055
2401 E1 Camino 14A 3953 22 14 $990.49
124-33-061
425 Sherman 20C 17752 74 0 $5014.50
124-33-065 VAC 5268
2441 Park 20C 1191 4 / 2 $169.60
124-37-002
2441 Park 20C 1211 4 3 $106.04
124-37-014
109 California 13C 1112 9 8 $119.86
124-37-029 26B 480
125 California 20C 1530 5 3 $181.87
124-37-032
151 California 20C 3201 10 3 $561.01
124-37-043
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Memorandum
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
JUNE 14, 2010 CMR: 264:10
REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 18.28.050 (Site
Development Standards) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to add
a Maximum House Size Limit to the Open Space Zone District.
Staff requests that this item be continued to a date certain of October 4, 2010. The open space
district neighborhood association, Palo Altans Protecting Open Space (P APOS), has requested a
continuance of the ordinance amendment scheduled for June 14, in order to have more time to
prepare and meet with Council members.
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: JUNE 14, 2010
REPORT TYPE: ACTION
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 274:10
SUBJECT: Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map and Record of Land Use Action
to Create Five Condominium Units on a 6,000 Square Foot Lot at 420
Cambridge Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2008, the City Council had approved a rezoning to Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development
(PTOD) zone to accommodate the mixed use project at 420 Cambridge Avenue, which was then
approved through the Architectural Review Board (ARB) process on March 11, 2010. This
Vesting Tentative Map is proposed for condominium purposes. The proposal is consistent with
the ARB approved project and with all applicable regulations for subdivisions per the Palo Alto
Municipal Code (P AMC). The findings for subdivision approval are phrased in the negative,
such that if they are made affirmatively, the subdivision can be denied. The Planning and
Transportation Commission has unanimously recommended approval of the map. Council's
review authority is limited to making the same subdivision findings. Council reviewed and
approved the site layout in the PTOD zoning in 2008.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council
approve the proposed Vesting Tentative Map and adopt the findings and conditions contained
within the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
The project site is located in the California Avenue Shopping District and is one block north of
California Avenue. After Council-approved the PTOD zoning for the site in 2008 (CMR:436:08),
the ARB reviewed the development plans and recommended approval by the Director of
Planning and Community Environment. The Director approved the ARB application March 11,
2010. The project was subject to appeal and none was filed. The approved project includes
1,449 square feet of commercial space, residential parking, storage, mechanical room,
recycling/trash and residential entry lobby on the ground floor, and four, three-story residential
units (approximately 1,485 square feet each) above. The applicant's intention for condominiums
CMR: 274:10 Page 1 of3
has been clear throughout the process, but the City requires the process to occur subsequent to
ARB approval. Additional background information related to the project's details and history are
included in the Record of Land Use Action, and in the Applicant's Project Description
(Attachment C).
Vesting Tentative Map regulations are set forth in PAMC Chapter 21.13. Vesting Tentative
Maps confer a vested right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with the
ordinances, policies and standards in effect at the time that an application is determined to be
complete by the City, provided that any fees required as a condition of approval of a vesting
tentative map, unless otherwise specified, shall be payable at the rates in effect at the time
building permits are issued.
DISCUSSION
The proposed Vesting Tentative Map is to subdivide one existing 6,000 square foot parcel to
establish five condominium units (four residential units and one commercial unit). The common
areas of this development include (1) the undesignated areas of the parking garage that include
the mechanical room, recycling/trash area, and access areas; (2) the open patio areas on the Plaza
level; and (3) the access bridges on the third level of the residential units. The private areas
include the individual units and the private patios directly adjacent to them, parking spaces
allotted to each unit, and designated storage units in the garage. The Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions (CC&R's) for this development outline the responsible parties for maintenance and
general upkeep. The Vesting Tentative Map includes information on the existing parcels and
onsite conditions.
City staff has determined that the Vesting Tentative Map application is in compliance with
zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances. The map contains all information and
notations required to be shown on a Vesting Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12.040 and
21.14.020). The required findings are included in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment
A). Pursuant to the State Subdivision Map Act, the required findings are stated in the negative
such that if any of the findings are made the map shall be denied. Staff believes none of the
findings can be made to require denial of the map.
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On May 26, 2010, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) conducted a public
hearing and recommended (6-0-0-1) that the City Council approve the Vesting Tentative Map.
No members of the public gave testimony at the hearing. Draft minutes from the PTC hearing are
included in Attachment E.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
As reported in CMR: 436:08 for the PTOD rezoning, the project is expected to result in $5,600
in annual property and utility user tax revenue for the City. Since the commercial floor area will
likely consist of a personal service use, there will be no sales tax revenue. Once the four
residential units are sold, an estimated $10,600 in one-time documentary taxes will be realized.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
The residential and "Personal Service" commercial use of the development are consistent with
CMR: 274:10 Page 2 of3
ATTACHMENT A
ACTION NO. 2010-xx
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO OF LAND USE ACTION
FOR 420 CAMBRIDGE AVENUE: VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 10PLN-00092
(CLARUM HOMES, APPLICANT)
On June 14, 2010, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto
approved the Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide one parcel to
create five condominium units (four residential and one
commercial), making the following findings, determination and
declarations:
SECTION 1. Background.
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council") finds,
determines, and declares as follows:
A. On March 15, 2010, Clarum Homes applied for a Vesting
Tentative Map to subdivide one existing 6,000 square foot parcel
for the development of five condominium units comprised of 1,449
square feet of commercial space (personal Service) and residential
parking on the ground floor and four three-story residential units
above, approximately 1,485 square feet each ("the Project") .
B. Following staff review, the Planning and
Transportation Commission ("Commission") reviewed the Project. on
May 26, 2010 and voted [6-0-0-1] to recommend that Council approve
the project. The Commission's actions are contained in the CMR:
XXX:10.
C. The Vesting Tentative Map plan set dated April 14,
2010 (received April 15, 2010) includes information on the existing
parcels, and onsite conditions. These drawings are in compliance
with the applicable provisions of the City's Subdivision Ordinance.
These plans contain all information and notations required to be
shown on a Vesting Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12), as well
as the design requirements concerning the creation of lots,
streets, walkways, and similar features (PAMC 21.20) .
SECTION 2. Environmental Review.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, requires that a
Lead Agency examine the potential environmental impacts of the
'whole of an action' which has the potential to physically change
the environment, directly or indirectly, and not just the act of
merely subdividing a parcel to create condominium units. In this
case, the subdivision would ultimately facilitate the construction
of mixed use development which is not exempt from CEQA
requirements.
An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project at
the time of the rezoning and architectural review, and it was
determined that, with the implementation of mitigations, no
Page 1 of5
potentially adverse impacts would result from the development and,
therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on
the environment. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted
November 17, 2008 in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
SECTION 3. Tentative Map Findings.
A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Vesting
Tentative Map, if it makes any of the following findings
(California Government Code Section 66474) :
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with
applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section
65451:
This finding can not be made in the af~irmative. The
site does not lie within a specific plan area and is consistent
with the provJ.sJ.ons of the Comprehensive Plan. The land use
designation in the area of the subdivision is Regional/Community
Commercial which allows mixed use development and the zoning
designation is PTOD. The proposed development is consistent with
the land use and zoning designations of the site.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed
subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific
plans:
This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The
map is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies:
(1) Policy L-l -Limiting future urban development to currently
developed lands within the urban service area; and (2) Policy L-6:
Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between
residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas
of different densities.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type
of development:
This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The
site can accommodate the proposed development. The site is adjacent
to established commercial development and multi-family development.
The site is relatively flat and regular in shape. The site is
close to the California Cal Train station and is currently served
by water, gas, wastewater, electric, and communication services.
The site also has standard access for ,emergency service delivery.
4. That the si te is not physically sui table for the
proposed density of development:
This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The
subdivision would be consistent with the site development
regulations of the PTOD zone district. The proposed density of
Page 2 of5
development is not considered growth inducing as indicated in the
project's Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
I 5 . Tha t the design of the subdi vi sion or the proposed
improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habi tat:
This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The
project is an infill site surrounded by development and in a
commercial shopping district. The proj ect' s Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration state that there are no significant
impacts to existing sensitive wildlife and plants.
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of
improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems:
This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The
subdivision will not cause serious public health problems. The
resulting mixed use development will, not cause a public health
problem in that it is designed to provide access for emergency
services, will supply necessary utility services, such as
sanitation, and is designed per City and State standards to ensure
public safety.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of
improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public
a t large, for access through or use of, property wi thin the
proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may
approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or
for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This
subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements
established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no
authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that
the public at large has acquired easements for access through or
use of property within the proposed subdivision.
The subdivision of the existing parcel will not
conflict with easements of any type, in that the subdivision is
compatible with the emergency vehicle access and any utility
easements that would be required to serve the proposed
developments.
SECTION 4. Approval of Tentative Map.
Vesting Tentative Map approval is granted by the City Council under
Palo Alto Municipal Code ("PAMC") Sections 21.13 and 21.20 and the
California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions
of approval in Section 7 of this Record.
Page 3 of5
SECTION 5. Final Map Approval.
The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council
of the City of Palo Alto shall be in substantial conformance with
the Vesting Tentative Map prepared by Giuliani & Kull, Inc titled
"Vesting Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes Tract No. __ "
consisting of one page, dated April 14, 2010 (received April 15,
2010), except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval
in Section 6.
A copy of this Tentative Map is on file in the Department
of Planning and Community Environment, Current Planning Division.
Within two years of the approval date of the Vesting
Tentative Map, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any
part thereof to be surveyed, and a Final Map, as specified in
Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Vesting
Tentative Map as condit~onally approved, and in compliance with the
provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Section 21.16 and
submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]).
SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval.
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Planning Division
1. A Final Map, in conformance with the approved Vesting.
Tentative Map, all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance
(PAMC Section 21.16), and to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer, shall be filed with the Planning Division and the
Public Works Engineering Division within two years of the
Tentative Map approval date (PAMC 21.13.020[c]).
2. The project shall comply with the previous Conditions of
Approval associated with the rezoning and architectural review
approvals (08PLN-00020 and 09PLN-00064) .
SECTION 8. Term of Approval.
Tentative Map. All conditions of approval of the Tentative
Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a Final Map (PAMC
Section 21.16.010 [c]).
Unless a Final Map is filed, a~d all conditions of approval
are fulfilled within a two-year period from the date of Tentative
Map approval, or such extension as may be granted, the Tentative
Map shall expire and all proceedings shall terminate, Thereafter,
no Final Map shall be filed without first processing a Tentative
Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[d]).
Page 4 of5
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
APPROVED:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Those plans prepared by Giuliani & Kull, Inc titled "Vesting
Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes Tract No. ____ " consisting
of one page, dated April 14, 2010 (received April 15, 2010).
Page 5 of5
I
ATTACHMENT B
LOCATION MAP
* 420 Cambridge Avenue
ATTACHMENT C
, ----
r-------1(.~LARLI!'0 He )MES
Environmental Innovalfons In Homebuilding
420 CAMBRIDGE AVE. PRELIMINARY ARB
Steven Turner
Senior Planner
17 January 2008
Department of Planning and Community Development
City of Palo Alto
1'ENT"4,...,e MAP .t1 AI()
RE: Preliminary Architectural Review Board Meeting and Zoning Request for
420 Cambridge Ave.
Mr. Turner:
Clarum Homes has prepared documents for a Preliminary Architectural Review Board
Meeting and PTOD zoning of420 Cambridge Avenue. We would appreciate your
scheduling the proposed project for the next available Preliminary Architectural Review
Board Meeting and re-zoning hearing. The project is preliminary in nature; and we are happy
to present you with an architectural design that intends to offer interest & vitality to the
integrated California Commercial & Pedestrian-Transit Oriented districts.
The following items are included with the submittal:
• Project Description
• Drawing Set
I
Please let us know if there is anything else that is required to proceed with the Preliminary
Architectural Review Board Meeting and PTOD re-zoning. We look forward to hearing
from you and moving this project one step closer to completion. RECEIVED
420 Cambridge Prelim ARB Letter 01112008
Sincerely,
;MAR 152010
Department of Planning &
Stuart Welte, AIA Communtty Environment
Clarum Homes
V.P. Architecture & Development
(650) 793-2856
599 College A "enlle, r' Floor, Palo Alto, Callfomia 94306
(650) 322-7069 Fat (650) 322·4550 Page 1 of J
1(~CAf~L 1M HCJMCS L . _ _ ___________ ~¥ ~
lintJIroumenlallllnovatfons In Homebuilding
420 CAMBRIDGE AVE. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Description
420 Cambridge Avenue
17 January 2008
. ~ ".. ~. # ."... I~· •• II ... '. CIa rum Homes is a Palo Alto based company that 'specialize's in near-zero energy green building. We at
Clarum Homes have been building green since 1999 and have been awarded the California Governor's
Award for Sustainability in 2006. We would like to continue our tradition of building highly energy
efficient, award winning, environmental1y friendly buildings by developing 420 Cambridge Avenue in Palo
Alto.
The site at 420 Cambridge Ave. is currently vacant. Clarum Homes is the owner and would like to develop
the property as part of the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Combining District (PTOD),
zone CC (2) and the Califolllia Avenue Parking Assessment District. The California Avenue Caltrain
Station is just a few blocks from the site and can be walked to in five minutes. We plan to offer Personal
Services on the ground floor and Residential Condominiums on the podium above. Clarum Homes desires to
develop this infill site in a way that compliments nearby businesses, residences and transportation hubs.
Clarum Homes has created a number of drawings to clarify the proposed design. The design is intended to
conform to the guidelines and requirements of the City of Palo Alto. Effort has been made to make the
project an attractive addition to Cambridge Avenue and the surrounding neighborhood. The site is located
close to Caltrain and major bus stops. Close access to public transportation will make both the residential
units and the personal services business easily accessible by public transportation. Clarum Homes would
like to have the California Avenue PTOD overlay zoning applied to this parcel and is applying to do so. This
document and the accompanying drawings is intended to provide enough information for the Architectural
Review Board to provide preliminary comments on the design and for the PTOD zoning to be approved.
A list of design parameters is shown in Table 1: Taylor Zoning lnformation in order to show how this project
conforms to city regulations. A more complete list of applicable zoning ordinances, including cross
references to the Palo Alto Municipal Code, is included in Appendix A.
420 Cambridge Project Description.Prelim ARB
01112008
599 Co/Jese Awnue, r Floor. Palo A 110, California 94306
(650) 322-7069 Fax (650) 322-4550 Page 1 of4
f
' . . .-'". . ----. -.----------.. ----
tCLARLIM HOMES;
Environmental Innovations in Homebulfdlng
420 CAMBRIDGE AVE. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
T bl 1 T I Zo' I ~ t' a e : aYJor nIDI! norma Ion
Item Required! Allowed Actual
Zone CC(2)
Parking Assessment District Calif. Ave. Area Parking
Assessment District
PTOD Calif. Ave. PTOD
Commercial Use Retail and Personal
Serv ices, Eating and
Drinking Services
Max Site Coverage 100% = 6000 sf 6000 sf
Commercial Square Min .25:1 FAR = 1500 sf 1500 sf
Footage
Residential Square Footage Max 1:1 FAR = 6000 sf 6000 sf
Total FAR 1.25:1 FAR = 7500 sf 7500 sf
BackYard 0 0
Side Yard 0 0
Landscape/Open Space 20%= 1200 sf 3050 sf
Coverage
Usable Open Space 200 sq ft per unit for 5 or 1400 sf
fewer units := 800 sf
Maximum Height 40' 40'
Daylight Plane at Back No Requirement
Number of Residences 5 4
Parking Exempt Floor Area Ground Floor Area = 1500 1500 sf
sf
Residential Parking Stalls 2 per2BR= 8 8 i 4 x 2 stacked)
Guest Parking Stalls 33% of Units = 1.33 1
Accessible Stalls 1 van accessible 1 van accessible
Loading Parking 0 0
Bicycle Parking Stalls 5 5
BMR Units 0 0
Ground Floor
The ground floor consists of 1500 square feet of commercial space utilized for personal services or eating
and drinking services. The ground floor is 5' below gtade. The below grade level is reached by a driveway
and pedestrian ramp leading to the back of the garage and stairs and an elevator at the front of the building.
All of the floor space on the ground floor is exempt from parking, as the total floor space is less than 0.5
FAR, and the building is in the California Avenue Parking Assessment District. There are a total of 10
parking spaces on the ground floor, one is a van accessible handicapped parking space, one is a guest parking
420 Cambridge Project Description-Prelim ARB
01112008
599 College Avenue, rt Floor, Palo Alto, Cali[omia 94306
(650) 322-7069 FCC( (650) 322-4550 Page 2 of4
. ~ ~ -----. -----~ -. -:(~LAI\lIM I-IC)MES
• ~ T' _. _ ••
Envlronmentallutl-ovations III Homebuilding
420 CAl\-IBRIDGE AVE. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
space and the remaining eight parking spots are provided via four stalls, each with a car stacker. Each
residential unit will be assigned a parking stall with a car stacker. The car stackers enable residents to safely
park one car on top of another. Thus each two bedroom unit is being provided with two parking spots. All
parking that is required by code is provided. A skylight brings light into the parking area and rear of the
cOlnmercial unit.
Bicycle parking is provided with bicycle lockers on the ground floor in two locations.
The commercial space has windows on the front and back of the unit. A ramp leads from the front sidewalk
down to the back entrance of the commercial space. The commercial space can also be accessed at the front
of the building, either through the elevator, or by descending stairs. The commercial unit has one accessible
unisex restroom. Trash, utility, mechanical, recycling and ground floor storage spaces are shared \vith
residential units. Portions of the back wall of the bottom floor and the garage door are open and allow the
passage of air through the garage.
Two sets of stairs connect the ground floor to the residence plaza level. One set of stairs is near the front of
the property, the other set of stairs is at the back of the property. The same elevator that a] lows access to the
commercial unit is used to access the plaza level of the residences. Separate key codes will offer security &
control access.
Plaza '
The plaza is located one floor above the garage. The plaza is open in the center with four loft style
townhouse residential units, one in each comer of the plaza. Gardens, planters, patios and the open plaza area
create open space for the residents. Two sets of stairs connect the plaza level with the ground floor along
with an elevator. A skylight at the plaza level gives light to the garage below. A trash/recycling chute gives
residents access to the conection area located on the ground floor.
Residential Units
Four townhouse residential units are situated at the plaza level. A courtyard separates all four units.
Windows occur on three sides of each unit, giving each unit abundant natural light and ventilation. Each
townhouse is 3 stories. The ends of the units that face the front and back of the lot are set back and angled
back from the property line. Each unit has patios and garden areas for open space. The midpoint of the roofs
is at 40 feet.
Architectural Style
The architectural style for the project is Eco-Functionalism. The project incorporates many ecologically
friendly components and incorporates them in a functional and attractive manner.
Green Features
Clarum Homes takes a sustainable approach to building all of its projects. This project is likely to employ
many of the following sustainable practices and products.
420 Cambridge Project Description-Prelim ARB
01112008
599 CQI/ege Arenlle, 21>.1 Floor, Polo AlIo, California 94306
(650) 322-7069 Fat (650) 322-4550 Page 3 of4
review of final details, and tThe Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director)
approved the ARB application on March 11,2010.
Project Description
The proposed Vesting Tentative Map is to subdivide one existing parcel to establish five
condominium units (four residential units and one commercial unit). The project site is located in the
California Avenue Shopping District and is one block north of California Avenue. The project parcel
is 6,000 square feet and the proposed approved development includes 1,449 square feet of
commercial space (Personal Service), now proposed as a for-sale commercial condominium unit for
personal service use, and residential parking on the ground floor, now proposed as a common area
for parking, storage and recycling/trash needs consistent with the approved ARB application, and
four, three-story residential units above (approximately 1,485 square feet each) on the two floors
above the common area, now proposed as individual residential condominium units with the podium
level designated as common area. The Vesting Tentative Map includes information on the existing
parcels and onsite conditions. Additional project information is included in Attachment C.
Scope of Commission Review
The scope of the Commission's review for the purposes of this Vesting Tentative Map application is
limited to the "design" and "improvement" of the proposed subdivision. In this context, the terms
"design" and "improvement" are defined in the Subdivision Map Act as follows:
"Design" means: (1) street alignments, grades and widths; (2) drainage and sanitary
facilities and utilities, including alignments and grades thereof; (3) location and size of
all required easements and rights-of-way; (4) fire roads and firebreaks; (5) lot size and
configuration; (6) traffic access; (7) grading; (8) land to be dedicated for park or
recreational purposes; and (9) other specific physical requirements in the plan and
configuration of the entire subdivision that are necessary to ensure consistency with, or
implementation of, the general plan or any applicable specific plan as required pursuant
to Section 66473.5. (Government Code, section 66418)
(a) "Improvement" refers to any street work and utilities to be installed, or agreed to be
installed, by the subdivider on the land to be used for public or private streets,
highways, ways, and easements, as are necessary for the general use of the lot owners
in the subdivision and local neighborhood traffic and drainage needs as a condition
precedent to the approval and acceptance of the final map thereof.
(b) "Improvement" also refers to any other specific improvements or types of
improvements, the installation of which, either by the subdivider, by public agencies,
by private utilities, by any other entity approved by the local agency, or by a
combination thereof, is necessary to ensure consistency with, or implementation of, the
general plan or any applicable specific plan.
(Government Code, section 66419)
The design and improvement of the subdivision should be distinguished from the design of the
approved structures to be located within the subdivision. The approved ARB plans (Attachment D)
are provided to Commissioners for information only.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES
Vesting Tentative Maps confer a vested right to proceed with development in substantial compliance
with the ordinances, policies and standards in effect at the time that an application is determined to
be complete by the City, provided that any fees required as a condition of approval of a vesting
tentative map, unless otherwise specified, shall be payable at the rates in effect at the time building
permits are issued.
City staffhave determined that the Vesting Tentative Map application is in compliance with zoning,
subdivision, and other codes and· ordinances. The map contains all information and notations
required to be shown on a Vesting Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12.040 and 21.14.020).
The findings allowing for Council approval of the map are included in the Record of Land Use
Action (Attachment A). Pursuant to the State subdivision Map Act, the required findings are stated
in the negative such that if any of the findings are made the map shall be denied. Staffbelieves none
of the findings can be made to require denial of the map, so it must be approved.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The
residential and "Personal Service" commercial use of the development are consistent with the
associated land use designation of Regional/Community Commercial use.
TIMELINE
Upon recommendation by the PTC, the project application will be forwarded to City Council for
final action, tentatively scheduled for June 14,2010.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted November 17,
2008 for this proposed project, which anticipated subdivision for condominium purposes.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Draft Record of Land Use Action
Attachment B: Location Map
Attachment C: Applicant's Project Description and Supplemental Information*
Attachment D: ARB Plans for Information Only (Commissioners Only)
Attachment E: Vesting Tentative Map (Commissioners only)*
*Prepared by Applicant
COURTESY COPIES:
Nicole Gittleson, Clarum Homes [nicole@clarum.com]
Prepared by: Clare Campbell, Planner
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ROLL CALL: 6: 00 PM
Commissioners:
Daniel Garber -Chair
Attachment E
Special Meeting of Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Staff:
Samir Tuma -V Chair ( absent)
Susan Fineberg
Julie Caporgno, Chief Plan. & Transp. Official
Melissa Tronquet, Senior Deputy City Attorney
Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager
Amy French, Current Planning Manager Eduardo Martinez
Arthur Keller Clare Campbell, Planner
Lee 1. Lippert Lisa Green, Admin. Assoc.
Greg Tanaka
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
1. Comprehensive Plan Update
2. 420 Cambridge Ave.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Special Meeting on May 12.
22 Chair Garber: I would like to call to order this Wednesday, May 26 meeting of the Palo Alto
23 Planning and Transportation Commission. Would the Secretary please call roll? Thank you.
24
25 Who do we have today as our Vice Chair? Commissioner Martinez you are to be the Vice Chair
26 today.
27
28 Now would be the time for anyone that would like to speak to the Commission on items that are
29 not on our agenda. We have no cards for those that would like to speak to us on items not on our
30 agenda.
31
32 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda
33 with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
34 speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and
35 Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15
36 minutes.
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 1 of76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items
added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
Chair Garber: We will have one change of our agenda, which is the order. We will do item
number two before item number one. Would Staff care to make a presentation? Commissioner
Fineberg has now joined us.
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearing:
2. 420 Cambridge Ave.: Request by Clarum Homes, on behalf of Lucco Inc., for approval
of a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide one existing parcel to establish five
condominium units (four residential units and one commercial unit). Zone: PTOD.
Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted November
17, 2008 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Ms. Clare Campbell, Planner: Good evening Commissioners. The proposed Vesting Tentative
Map is subdivide one existing 6,000 square foot vacant parcel located in the California Avenue
Shopping District to establish five condominium units, four residential units approximately 1,485
square feet each, and one 1,449 square foot c,ommercial unit.
23 The project has completed the Architectural Review and the rezoning process, and now lastly the
24 subdivision is the last step in the entitlements.
25
26 The approval of a Vesting Tentative Map shall confer a vested right to the applicant to proceed
27 with approved development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies, and
28 standards in effect at the time the application is approved. That is the difference between a
29 Vesting Tentative Map and just a regular Tentative Map.
30
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 20/76
1 City Staff has determined that the Vesting Tentative Map application is in compliance with
2 zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances. Pursuant to the state Subdivision Map Act
3 the required findings are stated in the negative such that if any of the findings are made the Map
4 shall be denied. Staff believes that none of the findings can be made to require denial of this
5 Map.
6
7 Also, for your reference I have put at places the Architectural Review Board and the PTOD
8 rezoning findings for you to refer to for Comprehensive Plan policies that support the project that
9 is here today. The applicant is present and available for questions. Thank you.
10
11 Chair Garber: Actually, the applicant may make a presentation. They will have up to 15
12 minutes if you would like. You don't have to. You can simply ask for questions, your choice.
13
14 Mr. Stuart Welte, Project Architect: Good evening. We have made so many presentations on the
15 project that I would be very happy to do so but thinking of you I would say that if you have any
16 questions I am more than happy to answer them. The owner is here as well. So to spare you yet
17 another presentation of this project, which has been here and developed through your guidance,
18 City Council's guidance, Architectural Review Board's guidance, Planning Staff's guidance, and
19 actually every department in the building like engineering, etc. we feel that the project is
20 fantastic at this time and we are just really anxious to get under construction. So with that I am
21 more than happy again to answer any questions you may have, and I will just take a seat until
22 you do so. Thank you.
23
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 3 of 76
1 Chair Garber: Thank you. I don't believe we have any cards from the public for item number
2 two, but we will open the public hearing. If anyone comes in from the public and would like to
3 speak we will recognize them as we need to.
4
5 Commissioners, back to us for questions or comments? I have lights from Commissioner Keller
6 and then Fineberg. Commissioner Keller.
7
8 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I notice that in the Staff Report and also in the Record of
9 Land Use Action in particular in Section 1, paragraph (a) it references that the commercial
10 spaces for personal service. I am not sure the extent to which this is in the conditions of
11 approval. It probably was but I notice that the attached CC&Rs do not make reference to the
12 nature of the uses allowed for the first floor commercial space. I am wondering whether the
13 CC&Rs should make reference to the allowed uses so that not only is it an enforcement issue for
14 the City but also since it affects the residential portion of the building whether the condo
15 association that is formed should have some purview over that usage.
16
17 Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: I just was going to mention that I just had a quick
18 look through the findings that were used for approval of the PTOD and the Architectural Review
19 and the reference in the findings for approving that project refer to commercial use. The project
20 was not approved based on findings that it was personal service as a specific commercial use,
21 though the plans did note personal service on the approved plans. I am just bringing that up just
22 if that has any bearing on your thinking.
23
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 4 of 76
1 As far as CC&Rs, would CC&Rs normally state what type of commercial use would be on the
2 ground floor?
3
4 Ms. Melissa Tronquet, Senior Deputy City Attorney: For the City's purposes I think you are
5 saying the zoning limits it to commercial uses.
6
7 Ms. French: Yes, well it is ground floor commercial use in a district that has limitations on
8 ground floor uses. So what Commissioner Keller is referencing is something about code
9 enforcement. We do have purview over saying what can go on the ground floor. What it was
10 approved for was personal services though it is referenced as commercial use in a more generic
11 fashion in the findings for those previous approvals.
12
13 Ms. Campbell: I can clarify something too for that. In the PTOD Ordinance itself it does call
14 out the uses that are allowed and it does say personal service in the PTOD Ordinance itself for
15 this project.
16
17 Commissioner Keller: Well, what I am wondering is there are multiple uses that are allowed.
18 When this project was brought before us there was a specific mention that there would be
19 personal services and not any of the other allowed uses. I am not worried about whether
20 personal services are allowed. I am concerned about whether other uses -in other words, this
21 project was proposed as personal services for the first floor. I am wondering what enforcement
22 there will be that is in fact as represented to us as personal services. In fact, it is mentioned in
23 the drawings as personal services. It is mentioned in parenthesis in Section 1, paragraph (a). I
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 5 of 76
1 am wondering to what extent does that have force of law, and whether by putting it in the
2 CC&Rs, and 1 am not sure whether this is the purview of the Commission or not, but by putting
3 it in the CC&Rs then the other owners of the building, the people who live there, would have say
4 over the use of this space, while otherwise only the City has say over the use of the space.
5
6 Chair Garber: A question perhaps and 1 am not exactly sure if it is to Commissioner Keller or to
. / /
7 Staff. The use as far as the Commission would be concerned or maybe as far as the City is
8 concerned would be anything that would be allowed as part of the PTOD that the project went
9 through two years ago. Correct?
10
11 Ms. Tronguet: Right. The City would be able to enforce any requirements that are in that zone
.12 as well as any requirements that are in the conditions of approval. So to the extent that is what
13 you are talking about that is what the City would be able to enforce.
14
15 Chair Garber: So let me just ask Commissioner Keller though, you are concerned about the
16 specific use is what, or how does it play into the question of the Map?
17
18 Commissioner Keller: Well, my concern is that this project was represented to us as personal
19 services be on the ground, and 1 am wondering whether that was along the way a condition of
20 approval. Also the issue is that right now the way that the CC&Rs read, by the way the CC&Rs
21 do have a comment in here in terms of ... 1 am trying to find it.
22
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 6 of 76
1 Chair Garber: As Commissioner Keller is looking for the quote let me just ask the attorney. The
2 approval of the Map is irrespective of the specific CC&Rs that may be in place, is that the case?
3
4 Ms. Tronguet: Right, it is a little bit outside the purview of what you are looking at in terms of
5 the subdivision map. What you are looking at for the subdivision map is design and
6 improvements. For the Map Act that means elements related really to Public Facilities. It is
7 outlined in your Staff Report but it is things like whether the site is physically suitable for the
8 type of development, things like that.
9
10 Chair Garber: To the Commissioner's other line of questioning though which is was there a
11 condition of approval though that specified this particular use? One moment, let's let Staff and if
12 we need some support we will do that. Was there any specific condition of approval that
13 specified that particular use that we should be concerned about here?
14
15 Ms. French: The ARB approval did not contain a condition that said it must be personal service
16 use on the ground floor. Clare has said that the ordinance for the PTOD referenced the personal
17 service as the ground floor use. So being that it was in that.
18
19 Chair Garber: The question was is it allowed or required as part of the PTOD?
20
21 Ms. French: It was the basis for which the parking was calculated, etc.
22
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 7 of 76
1 Chair Garber: I think germane to Commissioner Keller's question here the way that that PTOD
2 Ordinance is written is the personal services a required use or is that one of many uses that can
3 be located on the ground floor?
4
5 Ms. Campbell: For this particular ordinance it was limited to personal service. There was not
6 the full array of available uses that were listed in the PTOD code. So it is like a PC Ordinance
7 where it lists specifically these are the allowable uses.
8
9 Commissioner Keller: So what you are basically saying is that the ordinance that allowed for the
10 PTOD limited it to personal services. So the only kind of use, obviously it could be vacant if
11 nobody rents it, but the only kind of use allowed is personal services. Is that correct?
12
13 Ms. Campbell: That is my recollection, yes.
14
15 Commissioner Keller: Okay. In that case, then we understand what the City's point of view is.
16 I found the thing. It is basically Article 7, Use Restrictions, on page 25 of the CC&Rs. There is
17 a detailed description for use restrictions. Later on there are restrictions on hours in terms of
18 some restriction of hours of the commercial condominium, in particular page 30 has Commercial
19 Condominium Hours and Parking Restrictions. There is no corresponding restriction on use for
20 the commercial condo to personal services. That seems to be an omission that probably should
21 be corrected in the CC&Rs.
22
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 8 of 76
1 Whether the Commission has purview over that I am not sure but the issue is that if I were
2 considering living in that condo association and I knew that it was supposed to be restricted to
3 personal services I would want some right of action for that.
4
5 Chair Garber: City Attorney.
6
7 Ms. Tronguet: I think that is fine. I think the applicant can take that comment and consider it.
8 What is important for the City is really the ordinance and our ability to enforce is based on the
9 'ordinance. So the City, regardless of what the CC&Rs say, the City would still be able to
10 enforce the requirement for personal service that is in the ordinance.
11
12 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So let me give that then as instructions, if I may, to the
13 applicant that I would encourage you to modify the CC&Rs to put the limitation to personal
14 services in the CC&Rs as a limitation on use for the commercial condo. Then you have belts and
15 suspenders. Thank you.
16
17 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Fineberg.
18
19 Commissioner Fineberg: I have a question regarding the growth-inducing impacts. If you look
20 at Attachment A, the Record of Land Use Action, page 2 of 5, Section 4, could Staff please give
21 me a quick list of what potential growth-inducing impacts could be? Not necessarily limited to
22 the scope of this project. The reason I am asking that is it talks about growth-inducing with
23 respect to service and utilities infrastructure. I am wondering whether there are other growth-
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 9 of 76
1 inducing impacts of a project like changes in population, or demand for parking. What are the
2 other hypothetical growth-inducing impacts that are not mentioned?
3
4 Ms. French: I am probably not going to answer your question. This is a finding that is in the
5 negative. If you find that it is not physically suited for this proposed density then that would be
6 contrary to the approved project that the Planning Commission recommended to the Council,
7 which then approved, and then ARB approved this project with this density. So I guess maybe
8 your question goes to a larger concept.
9
10 Commissioner Fineberg: Let me try and get at this from a different direction. Let's say there are
11 20 potential things that could be growth-inducing from having built a project. If we are having
12 to make a finding that says the site is not suitable, and then if we found that we would deny it.
13 Then what is it that you are considering to say it is not suitable? So if we say it is suitable
14 because it doesn't do bad things on two parameters, therefore we don't make the finding, but are
15 we considering those eight other parameters? So for instance let's look at population growth.
16 We have a Comprehensive Plan that says we build roughly 2,400 units anything in excess of that
17 is growth-inducing and not analyzed in our Comprehensive Plan. I realize this is only four units
18 but I want to bring it up as a question of cumulative impacts. Four units here, 100 units
19 somewhere else, 50 units somewhere else, and we have exceeded the amount of cumulative
20 units. We are into growth inducements in population. Yet, the finding that we cannot make it in
21 the affirmative is because we are only saying it is not growth-inducing with respect to service
22 and utility infrastructure. What about population? What about school? What about traffic?
City of Palo Alto May 26,2010 Page 10 of 76
1 What about public infrastructure? Four plus 100, ten times cumulatively it is growth-inducing.
2 So where are we on this?
3
4 Ms. French: Perhaps you want to add a period after the word 'inducing,' so you are not having
5 to list the myriad potential.
6
7 Chair Garber: I do~'t know if this will help. This finding usually relates to, and Staff can
8 correct me, circumstances where for instance the proposal has somehow worked its way through
9 Staff to us and there are more units than you can fit, which· would require the project to be taller
10 or have greater mass, or to infringe upon a setback or something of that sort, using a really
11 obvious example. Then you would be able to make a very obvious finding that it is bigger than a
12 breadbasket. The sorts of things that you are talking about are not found on a project basis but
13 they would be found as part of the analysis that would have gone into the creation of the PTOD
14 Overlay initially. That sort of analysis would have been done relative to the overall
15 infrastructure that is being provided to the district as opposed to this specific project site. Is that
16 fair?
17
18 Ms. French: So cumulative impacts would have been addressed for the project with the
19 environmental document that was prepared.
20
21 Ms. Julie Caporgno, Chief Planning and Transportation Official: I think growth-inducing
22 normally is interpreted as you have to· increase for instance the sewage capacity. So in other
23 words, what this project would do is you would approve this project and then other projects
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 11 of76
1 could be added to the population or employment. So it is not that four units are growth-inducing.
2 Obviously there is some growth occurring but it is that it is going to induce additional growth.
3 That is what growth-inducing usually is.
4
5 Chair Garber: So by way of example, let's say that the allowable uses included, I am making
6 something up here, but laundering that let's say requires a tremendous amount more water than is
7 currently being delivered to site and a lot more waste being taken away from the site that would
8 cause impacts to infrastructure that is currently serving that site. That would be then a flag for
9 the City to come back and say you are beyond what the findings currently allow you need to
10 either submit or you are not allowed or we need to look at this as a variance or something of that
11 sort. Am I roughly in line there? Is any of this helping?
12
13 Commissioner Fineberg: It is but I am still struggling with why are we only saying it is not
14 growth-inducing with respect to service and utIlity infrastructure? There is so much beyond the
15 scope of just those two items. It is just sort of like why did we pick -that is why I started with
16 my question of what are the hypothetical 20 things that could be supported or required to be
17 improved if there was growth. I understand this is not a huge project. This is a small project.
18 This is only four residential units. When do we cumulatively look at the sum total of all the
19 projects that are growth-inducing? When do we look at our schools? We are having to build
20 new schools and new classrooms. Our streets? We are having more and more intersections
21 failing. Our parking on northern California is short. It is only four units and one commercial
22 space but cumulatively it is all together growth-inducing, and all we are saying here is but that is
23 okay because we don't have to build a new sewer, and what services are needed it is so small?
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 12 0/76
1 But cumulatively our Public Safety Building, this plus all 100 other projects that are moving
2 through the pipeline, all of it together we don't have the service. We are having to build lots of
3 stuff. Our infrastructure backlog is getting bigger and bigger, and yet we are saying it is not
4 growth-inducing on the utilities infrastructure. So when do we stop growing so we can catch up?
5 It is only a small project, I firmly get that. Why are we only looking at just those two growth-
6 inducing impacts when there are 20 of them? I guess where I am going is I would like to see in
7 this a statement that says it is not going to impact schools. It is not going to impact demand on
8 public safety. It is not going to impact demand on streets. It is not going to impact demand on
9 parking. Because I am not sure we could say all those things but yet we are not saying it is
10 impacting parking, it is impacting schools, but we can't consider that.
11
12 Ms. Caporgno: Just to clarify, I think what Amy had suggested is probably by singling out these
13 two aspects of what could be considered growth-inducing you are probably right. It sounds like
14 it probably should have said the proposed density of development is not considered growth-
15 inducing, and the CEQ A document that was prepared in conjunction with this demonstrates that
16 that is not the case. I guess it was unwise to have identified just the two elements.
17
18 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, that would satisfy me. Also, I looked down briefly and I have
19 been harping on the two, the service and the utility infrastructure, but if you also look it
20 continues with 'or with respect to access.' So there are sort of three things, but there could have
21 been 20 that we would have found the negative for. So I would be satisfied that saying it is not
22 growth-inducing period.
23
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 13 of 76
1 Chair Garber: Nice catch. Commissioner Lippert.
2
3 Commissioner Lippert: I just want to make a quick comment regarding Commissioner Keller's
4 previous comment with regard to the CC&Rs and limiting it to the personal services on the
5 ground floor. I am not in agreement with Commissioner Keller with regard to giving direction to
6 the applicant to include that in the CC&Rs, and for very good reason. Number one, when
7 somebody moves into that ground floor space they are going to have a Use and Occupancy
8 Permit. It is going to be very clear as directed by Staff when they go in for that it is going to
9 have to justify that it is in fact a personal service use that is going in on the ground floor. So if a
10 retail use tried to go in there, if an office use tried to go in there, they would be denied day one
11 that they went in. Number two, we are going through a very tough economic crisis right now.
12 By putting it in the CC&Rs it may be a belt and suspenders approach but it may be in fact instead
13 o~ keeping the pants up it may be keeping the developer or the person from actually taking their
14 pants off at all. What I mean by that, is the issue is that in this tough economic crisis if for
15 instance they were not able to get a personal services use in there on the ground floor all the
16 applicant would really need to do is come back before the Commission and the City Council and
17 ask that that space be rezoned. If they put it in the CC&Rs they have to get agreement from the
18 entire building and undo the CC&Rs. If residents in the building had a problem with that ground
19 floor use they could always remedy it by addressing it through us at the time that there was a
20 public hearing. So there is adequate process here. I am concerned about belt and suspenders
21 during tough economic times I think may in fact be doing us a disservice because what we want
22 to see is somebody in that ground floor space.
23
City of Palo (\lto May 26, 2010 Page 14 of 76
1 Chair Garber: I think the Commissioner was not making it a requirement but making it a
2 suggestion.
3
4 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, I am putting it on the record in case City Council picks this up
5 and does make it a requirement. I am cautioning against that.
6
7 Chair Garber: I think the City Attorney essentially said it is outside of our purview relative to
8 the Map Act that we have to take action on this evening, but just to clarify.
9
10 Commissioner Lippert: It is. Then I just wanted to make one other comment with regard to
11 Commissioner Fineberg's comments with regard to growth-inducing. My interpretation of that
12 is that the city built with excess capacity to address a certain amount of growth. When they put
13 in a sewer line, when they put in a water line in your street, and I think Julie had mentioned that
14 using the analogy with the waste line it is meant to take a certain amount of effluent. If we
15 needed to enlarge that sewer service then that is growth that needs to be addressed. In this case,
16 we have zoned for higher density when they met the requirements ()f PTOD. So what we are
17 actually doing is encouraging more density near where there is transit. That is why we have the
18 PTOD zone. What we are saying is we want to see higher density here and that the city
19 infrastructure can handle it and we don't want to see higher density in other areas, and that is
20 why we have zoning. So from that point of view I think it is just taking up some of the excess
21 capacity that the infrastructure already holds.
22
23 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, and then let's see if we can get to an action.
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 15 of 76
1
2 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. First, with all due respect to my fellow Commissioner
3 Lippert I would be really pissed off if I bought into this condo knowing the City requirements
4 were such that only personal services were allowed, and because of somebody going to the
5 Planning Commission and City Council that got changed, and my property rights got changed,
6 and I had no say over it through CC&Rs, which is why I think that that should be the case that
7 people should do that. It is in the interest of the residents of the building who are owners of their
8 condos to have a viable building that does not have a vacant space on the ground floor, I would
9 assume. So they would be concerned about that.
10
11 The second thing is I paraphrase Commissioner Fineberg's comment. It is sort of if you will the
12 Redwood City salt works project. It is both a large amount of growth and it is also growth-
13 inducing because of the increases in capacity that will be supplied in order to handle that such as
14 increases in water, sewage, supply and order. So those increases in themselves beyond that
15 growth could be further growth-inducing. I think that is the nature of what it is.
16
17 I liken Commissioner Fineberg's question as sort of when do we look at a project and say this is
18 not one more thin mint, in the Monty Python reference for those of you who understand that.
19
20 MOTION
21
22 So with that being said I move the Staff recommendation that the Planning and Transportation
23 Commission recommend that the City Council approve a Record of Land Use Action,
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 16 of76
1 Attachment A, and proposed Vesting Tentative Map to create five condominium units at 420
2 Cambridge Avenue.
3
4 SECOND
5
6 Commissioner Lippert: I will second that.
7
('
8 Chair Garber: A second from Commissioner Lippert. Would the maker like to speak to their
9 motion?
10
11 Commissioner Keller: Yes. So I think that this project has been before us and we have reviewed
12 it and we considered it favorably. I personally would like to see PTOD Ordinance in the future
13 changed so that there would be smaller units. What we approved here is what we got back and
14 therefore I think it is reasonable to deal with that. In the future if our objective is to meet the
,15 Housing Element we can do so more effectively with smaller units in the PTOD district which
16 would have less impact on our schools and would provide the kind of housing that we have not
17 provided in the last eight or so years. Basically, most of the housing that we have provided is
18 large units. So therefore we have a shortage of small units developed in the city. So I would
19 encourage us to direct ourselves in that direction in the future.
20
21 Basically, this is under the current ordinance, which allows this. We did review this and on that
22 basis I am happy to forward it onto the City Council.
23
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 17 of 76
1 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert, would you like to speak to your second?
2
3 Commissioner Lippert: When I reviewed this the first time around I believe I voted in support of
4 the project, but I had major concerns with it. Tonight in seconding the motion I am in agreement
5 with this. I think that the PTOD process is an excellent process. It is one that we have adopted
6 for this area of the city. It is a process that is definitely needed and I really think that this can be
7 an example by which other developers can go and rezone the property and make use of higher
8 density in meeting some really badly needed higher density development in the California
9 Avenue area. I think that this is almost like a world premier of a movie, this is our first one.
10 This is our premier project here, and I hope it winds up being a flagship project as far as setting
11 the bar for other projects like this.
12
13 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Fineberg, a friendly amendment?
14
15 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes, I would like to offer a friendly amendment. We have already
16 discussed it. In the Record of Land Use Action on page 2 of 5, Section 4, that bottom paragraph
17 reads: The proposed density of development is not considered growth-inducing, period. We
18 delete the next two lines.
19
20 I suggest that because we are not approaching this Record of Land Use Action and the Map from
21 a scatological planning view. There is a lot more there other than sewer and water. So I think
22 we need to just put a period and delete the remainder.
23
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 180/76
1 Chair Garber: Will the maker accept the amendment?
2
3 Commissioner Keller: I am wondering if there was a Negative Declaration maybe instead of
4 saying period it should make reference to the Negative Declaration. So in other words, the
5 proposed density of development is not considered growth-inducing as per the Negative
6 Declaration. Would that make more sense or not? Was there a Negative Declaration?
7
8 Ms. Campbell: Yes there was. We can make a reference to that if that is your desire.
9
10 Commissioner Keller: Is that acceptable to Commissioner Fineberg?
11
12 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes, Ijust don't want it hyper-focused on three narrow areas when
13 there are potentially other areas that might be perceived as growth-inducing and we are not
14 mentioning them, and focusing on three things that have no rationale. So that would be fine.
15
. ....
16 Commissioner Keller: So I am going to suggest that the wording be: The proposed density of
17 the development is not considered growth-inducing as per the Negative Declaration.
18
19 Ms. Caporgno: Maybe you could say as per the findings in the Negative Declaration, because
20 there is a mandatory finding of significance for cumulative impacts. We determined that it was
21 less than significant.
22
23 Commissioner Keller: Okay, as per the finding of the Negative Declaration. Thank you.
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 19 of 76
1
2 Ms. French: Mitigated Negative Declaration.
3
4 Commissfoner Keller: As per the finding of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Thank you.
5
6 Chair Garber: The seconder?
7
8 Commissioner Lippert: I will accept Commissioner Keller's amendment.
9
10 MOTION PASSED (6-0-01, Commissioner Tuma absent)
11
12 Chair Garber: If there is no more discussion. I am seeing no more lights. Commissioner
13 Fineberg? No. All right, let's vote on the action as amended. All those in favor of the motion
14 say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? The motion passes with Commissioners Tanaka, Fineberg,
15 Garber, Martinez, Keller, and Lippert all voting aye and no nays, with Commissioner Tuma
16 absent.
17
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 20 of 76
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Memorandum
14A
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
JUNE 14, 2010
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 260:10
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and
Replacement Project Draft Environmental Impact Report -Comment
on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, including an overview of the
Project Description, Land Use, Population and Housing and Public
Services Chapters.
This item was originally discussed by the City Council at the June 7, 2010 meeting. However,
the Council did not complete the review and continued,the item to June 14, 2010 for additional
discussion.
This item was previously reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission on June 2,
2010. The verbatim minutes document from the June 2, 2010 P&TC meeting is attached to this
report.
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
.~~~ W JAMES KEENE
'\ ~ City Manager
• Demolition of four existing SoM buildings and construction of three replacement buildings,
with no net increase in square feet;
• Demolition of shops and storage space, renovation of existing Hoover Pavilion, and net
addition of approximately 46,000 square feet of new medical, office, research, clinic, and
administrative facilities at the Hoover Pavilion Site for medical offices for community
practitioners and SUMC-related medical offices, clinical facilities, and support uses;
• Demolition of existing parking spaces and construction of 2,985 new and replacement
spaces, for a net increase of 2,053 spaces to address additional demand for the SUMC
project, to be located in surface parking and above-and underground structures;
• Construction of a new road connecting Sand Hill Road and Welch Road, and provision of
interior driveways and improved circulation connections, including the extension of Quarry
Road to Roth Way;
• Widening of Welch Road by the addition of a third lane to accommodate left turns in both
directions; and
• Related on-site and off-site improvements.
The SUMC Project sponsors have applied to the City for the following entitlements:
• Comprehensive Plan Amendment;
• Creation of a new Hospital zone;
• Conditional Use Permit;
• Architectural Review;
• Annexation of a small piece ofland adjacent to the SoM, and,
• A development agreement.
The SUMC Project sponsors have identified program, siting, circulation and cost objectives for the
SUMC Project. Primary objectives include:
• SHC and LPCH:
o Optimize delivery of healthcare and services to patients
o Achieve timely compliance with the seismic requirements of Senate Bill 1953
o Provide modern, state-of-the-art facilities
• SoM:
o Optimize ability to translate medical research discoveries into treatments and cures
o Allow design flexibility to be able to adapt to changes in medical research needs and
technology
• Siting and Circulation:
o Arrange the buildings and open space areas to create a highly functional medical
center environment
o Provide sufficient, convenient parking for patients and visitors with sensitivity to the
needs of elderly, limited mobility, and ill patients
In addition to the SUMC Project sponsor's objectives, the City has identified objectives for the
City of Palo Alto Page 4
j
J
SUMC Project. Some of those key objectives include:
• Provide high quality employment districts, each with its own distinctive character arid each
contributing to the character of the City as a whole
• Create a more walkable, bikeable, mixed-use, transit-oriented, and well-connected urban
environment
• Locate work force housing close to SUMC sites and train station in order to reduce traffic
trips of both employees and employee household members
• Encourage public and private preservation and maintenance of resources that have historic
merit
Additionally, the Project Description includes information on the location of the project, existing
setting, changes proposed under the SUMC Project, summary comparison of existing and proposed
development, project construction and approvals. Most of the information in this section of the Draft
EIR is based on the Project application. The analyses conducted throughout the Draft EIR are based
on the Project description.
2. Land Use
Land Use impacts are addressed in Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR.
Significance Thresholds
Land Use impacts are addressed in Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR. Based on the following significance
thresholds, the SUMC Project would result in a significant land use impact if it would:
• Conflict with any applicable City land use plan, policy, or regulation (including, but not
limited to the Comprehensive Plan, coordinated area plan, or the City's Zoning Ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect;
• Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the surrounding
area, including density and building height;
• Conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of
an area;
• Physically d'ivide an established community;
• Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance· (farmland) to
non-agricultural use; or
• Otherwise adversely change the type or intensity of overall existing or planned land use
patterns in the area.
Key Impacts and Mitigations
The following impacts have been identified as significant (S);however the impacts identified in this
chapter can be eliminated through mitigation. The mitigation measures developed for each ofthe
impacts are also identified below.
• LU-I: Conflicts with Adopted Land Use Plans and Policies (S).
City of Palo Alto Page 5 ,
J
• Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure), that exceeds ABAG projected levels;
• Displace substantial numbers of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere;
• Displace substantial numbers of people,· necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere; or
• Cumulatively exceed regional or local population projections.
Key Impacts and Mitigations
The DEIR found the impact on population and housing to be less than significant. However, for
informational purposes the DEIR also included a discussion ofthe secondary environmental impacts
relating to increasing the City's jobs/housing balance. Below is a summary of this analysis together
with some possible mitigation measures.
• PH-3: Impacts on Jobs to Employed Residents Ratio. The SUMC Project would have an
adverse impact on the City's jobs to employed residents ratio because it would exceed the
existing Comprehensive Plan and zoning allowances for the SUMC Sites and thus require
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning, and it would increase the City's jobs to
employed residents ratio by more than 0.01. However, this impact is not, itself, an
environmental impact. Mitigation is presented for informational purposes, and to ensure that
all possible options for mitigation of impacts are adequately considered.
Mitigation Measures -
o PH-3.1: Reduce the impacts on the City's Jobs to Employed Residents Ratio which
shall include one or more the following options:
• The City shall explore amending the Zoning Code to permit more residential uses,
particularly multifamily residential use;
• The SUMC Project sponsors shall ensure that a specified number of housing units in the
County shall be dedicated to SUMC employees;
• The City shall amend the Zoning Code to remove the hospital exemption from payment of
the affordable housing fee;
• The City shall impose an additional ad hoc housing fee on development to ensure
development of required affordable housing. The amount of the fee shall be based on the
cost ofthe additional affordable housing units induced by the SUMC Project as well as the
cost of the General Fund subsidy contribution to the existing housing impact fee; and/or
• The City shall provide an inclusionary housing requirement in the newly created Hospital
District. The requirement shall provide a number of options for development of additional
housing with an emphasis on affordable housing.
Discussion
The SUMC Project would not include the development of new housing units and would thus not
City of Palo Alto Page 8
ATTACHMENT A -
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: MAY 24,2010.
REPORT TYPE: STUDY SESSION
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 253:10
SUBJECT: Introduction of the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities
Renewal and Replacement Draft Environmental Impact Report and
Outline of Public Review Schedule
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City contracted with the environmental consulting finn PBS&J to prepare an environmental
impact report (EIR) for the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and
Replacement Project (SUMC). The Draft EIR was published on May 20,2010, commencing an
extended public review period that will conclude on July 27, 2010. The public review period has
been extended beyond the nonnal 45-day period to provide ample opportunity for the public to
comment on this important project.
RECOMMENDATION
The purpose of this Study Session is to provide the City Council with an overview of the EIR
process and to commence public review of the document.
BACKGROUND
The Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) comprises the general area between Sand Hill
Road, Vineyard Lane, Quarry Road, Pasteur Drive, and including Welch Road and Blake Wilbur
Drive. The area is zoned Medical Office and Medical Research (MOR) and Public Facilities
(PF). The applicant is proposing the demolition of the existing Stanford Hospital and Clinics
(SHC), construction of new hospital buildings, renovation and expansion of the Lucile Packard
Children's Hospital (LPCH), reconstruction of the School of Medicine (SoM) facilities, and
construction of a new medical office building near Hoover Pavilion to meet State mandated
,seismic safety standards (SB 1953) and to address capacity issues, changing patient needs and
modernization requirements. The renovation and expansion project, which would be constructed
over a 15-year horizon, would result in a net increase of approximately 1.3 million square feet of
hospital, clinic, and office space.
The original application for the project described above was filed on August 21, 2007 with the
City of Palo Alto. Subsequently, applicants filed nine fonnal application amendments with the
latest amendment dated March 25, 2010. The SUMC Project sponsors have applied for
1
amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, adoption of a new zoning district, changes in
zoning boundaries, a jurisdictional boundary change, design review approvals, and a
development agreement.
The City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on August 22,2007, announcing its intent to
prepare and distribute an EIR analyzing the impacts of the SUMC Project. The NOP identified
two separate projects, including the SUMC Project and the Simon-Properties Stanford Shopping
Center Expansion. However, in April 2009, after the DEIR was nearly complete, Stanford
withdrew the application for the expansion of the Stanford Shopping Center requiring significant
changes to the EIR and delaying the EIR release date.. As such, this EIR addresses only the
SUMC Project.
The Draft EIR for the SUMC Project was published on May 20, 2010, commencing a public
review period through July 27, 2010. At over 1,000 pages, the Draft EIR provides a
comprehensive review of environmental impacts, mitigations and alternatives, as described in
detail below. The Draft EIR is available for public review via the City's website,
www.cityofpaloalto.org/sumc, at the City of Palo Alto Development Center, and at the Palo Alto
Main Library. Copies of the document are available on-loan from the Department of Planning
and Community Environment, Fifth Floor, Palo Alto City Hall. Comments on the Draft EIR may
be submitted in writing or orally at any of scheduled Planning and Transportation Commission
(P&TC) hearings or City Council hearings, including the kick-off meeting on May 24, 2010.
Additionally, comments can be submitted in writing at any time during the public review period
to Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager, City of Palo Alto Planning and Community
Environment Department and via electronic mail at Stanford.Project@cityofpaloalto.org by 5:00
p.m. on July 27,2010.
DISCUSSION
Description of Physical Improvements
The SUMC Project is proposed jointly by Stanford Hospital and Clinics (SHC), the Lucile
Packard Children's Hospital (LPCH), and the Stanford University School of Medicine (SoM),
which are collectively referred to here as the SUMC Project sponsors. The SUMC Project would
demolish and replace on-site structures, adding approximately 1.3 million square feet of net new
floor area, broken down as follows:
• Demolition, renovation, and construction of SHC facilities, providing a net increase of
approximately 824,000 square feet;
• Demolition, renovation, and construction of LPCH facilities, resulting in approximately
442,000 additional square feet;
• Demolition of four existing SoM buildings and construction of three replacement
buildings, with no net increase in square feet;
• Demolition of shops and storage space, renovation of existing Hoover Pavilion, and net
addition of approximately 46,000 square feet of new medical, office, research, clinic, and
2
unavoidable environmental effects, approval of the SUMC Project would require the adoption of
a Statement of Overriding Considerations, indicating that the City of Palo Alto is aware of the
significant environmental consequences and believes that the benefits of approving the SUMC
Project outweigh its unavoidable significant environmental impacts.
Alternatives
As required by CEQA, the EIR analyzes several project alternatives. Included are two No Project
Alternatives, two Reduced Intensity Alternatives, a Tree Preservation Alternative, an Historic
Preservation Alternative and a Village Concept Alternative.
The Project sponsors have developed the Tree Preservation Alternative in order to preserve
biologically and aesthetically significant oak trees. The Tree Preservation Alternative maintains
the same square footage and programmatic functions as the SUMC Project, but proposes design
modifications to the new hospital building as well as FIM 1 to accomplish tree preservation. The
Project sponsor is promoting the Tree Preservation Alternative and has indicated to City staff
that it now prefers this alternative over its original proposal.The City's Architectural Review
Board has seen this revised design at study sessions and will be reviewing it through their
regularly scheduled meetings. The Tree Preservation Alternative would meet all of the objectives
outlined by the SUMC Project sponsors. The Project sponsors consider the Tree Preservation
Alternative their preferred Alternative.
Also, in an effort to better integrate the surrounding areas and regional transit facilities with the
SUMC Project, along with exploring alternative means for reducing vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) attributable to employee trips, the City has identified the Village Concept Alternative for
consideration. The Village Concept Alternative assumes that the previously approved housing
units located in the County of Santa Clara will be occupied by SUMC employees. Taken together
staff believes the Tree Preservation Alternative and the Village Concept Alternative meet the
Project sponsor's and City's project objectives.
Development Agreement
In addition, Stanford is seeking a Development Agreement, which will lock in the zoning
regulations for a negotiated period of time. Development Agreements are negotiated contracts
between the applicant and City. Developers typically apply for a Development Agreement to
ensure that the regulations will not change over time and to help secure financing for large-scale
projects. In exchange, the parties negotiate an acceptable community benefit package. Since
they are the product of voluntary negotiations rather than a unilateral imposition by the
governments, community benefits under a Development Agreement are typically broader than
EIR mitigation measures and project conditions of approval. As such, community benefits are
not legally required to have the same rigorous nexus applicable to other development conditions.
A Development Agreement in this case is a discretionary legislative action by the City Coucil
and is subject to referendum. The May 24,2010 CMR describes the status of the Development
Agreement negotiations.
It is not anticipated that the Development Agreement would result in physical environmental
impacts beyond those disclosed in the EIR for the SUMC Project.
5
Public Review
The Draft EIR is being distributed for a public review and comment period that concludes on
July 27, 2010. Readers are invited to submit written comments on the document. Comments are·
most helpful when they suggest specific alternatives or measures that would better mitigate
significant environmental effects.
Staff has shared with the cities of Menlo Park and East Palo Alto copies of the Traffic Impact
Report which is the technical analysis of traffic impacts prepared for the Draft EIR. Staff also
met with representatives from East Palo Alto on March 31 st and has made contact with staff from
Menlo Park to discuss traffic issues. Staff has also contacted these cities to let them know of the
release of the Draft EIR and the schedule for public review.
Public hearings to take oral comments on the Draft EIR will be held before the P&TC and also
the City Council. Traditionally, the public review period for a Draft ElR is 45-days. Due to the
complexity of this project and the volume of information contained in the ElR, the public review
period has been extended to July 27, 2010, which constitutes 69-days. This expanded review
period will allow the P&TC to hold a series of six weekly hearings starting on June 2, 2010.
Each hearing will be focused on particular topics in order to allow the Commission and the
public time to review the Draft ElR and to allow for more focused comments. The City Council
will also hold a series of five public hearings during this same time frame. The structure of the
hearing schedule is that the P&TC would review specific ElR topics first, which would then be
followed soon after with City Council hearings on the same topics. In total there will be 11
public hearings to collect comments on the Draft EIR as well as an expanded review period
enabling a broad forum for public testimony. A schedule of hearings and meeting topics is found
in Attachment C.
All comments received by 5:00 p.m., July 27,2010, will be responded to in writing as part of the
Final EIR. As required by CEQA, responses to all comments will be prepared, and both
comments and responses will be included in the Final ElR.
The purpose of the scheduled public hearings is to provide the public, P&TC and City Council
with opportunities to present comments on whether the information presented in the Draft EIR
adequately covers the environmental impacts that could result from the prqposed SUMC Project.
The hearings are not meant to be a forum for dialogue about the project merits, but to be
opportunities to collect comments on the Draft EIR to ensure that it adequately describes the
environmental impacts of the project.
NEXT STEPS
During the public review period and beyond, the applicant will continue to present preliminary
designs for the SHC, LPCH, FIM 1, Hoover Pavilion and Design Guidelines to the City's
Architectural Review Board.
Upon completion of the public comment period, PBS&J will prepare written responses to all
comments received during the comment period. The Comprehensive Plan amendments, zone
change, development agreement, architectural review and annexation will be reviewed by the
P&TC during the time PBS&J is preparing the Response to Comments document. The
Development Agreement negotiations will also continue (Attachment D).
6
ATTACHMENT A
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: DECEMBER 7~ 2009
REPORT TYPE: STUDY SESSION
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 453:09
Ii' ! •
SUBJECT: Review of the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal
and Replacement Project
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff will provide an update to the City Council of progress regarding the Stanford University
Medical Center (SUMC) project, particularly the -Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
preparation and the Development Agreement discussions. The City contracted with the
environmental consulting firm PBS&J to prepare a joint EIR for the SUMC Facilities Renewal.
and Replacement Project (Project) and Simon Properties -Stanford Shopping Center Expansion
Project. In April of 2009, Simon Properties formally withdrew their request for the Stanford
Shopping Center Expansion Project.
Over the past several months, staff has been working with the environmental consultant to
extract the Shopping Center Project from the environmental analysis. This involved updating
most sections ,of the EIR and updating the Citi s traffic model.
In June 2009 Stanford provided the City with a Development Agreement proposal.
Representatives from Stanford and the City have initiated discussions about the draft business
terms of the Development Agreement. '
RECOMMENDATION
The purpose of this Study Session is to provide the City Council with an overview of the EIR
and the status of the Development Agreement negotiations and allow for Council comment. The
current City Council has provided substantial input and direction to Staff and the applicants
throughout the review period of the project. This session is an opportunity for this City Council
to provide their additional Project comments before the new City Council is seated in January.
BACKGROUND
The Stanford University Medical Center comprises the general area between Sand Hill Road,
Vineyard Lane, Quarry Road, Pasteur Drive, and including Welch Road and Blake Wilbur Drive.
The Project applicant is proposing the demolition of the existing Stanford Hospital and Clinics
(SHC) at 300 Pasteur Drive, construction of a new hospital building, renovation and expansion
1
of the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital (LPCH), reconstruction. of the School of Medicine
(SoM) facilities, and construction of a new medical office building near Hoover Pavilion to meet
State mandated seismic safety standards (SB 1953) and to address capacity issues, changing
patient needs and modernization requirements. SB 1953 requires hospitals to retrofit or replace
noncompliant facilities by January 1,2013. There have been some legislative attempts to extend
this deadline and Stanford has received a partial concession from OSHPD to ,receive early plan
review.
The. renovation and expansion project, which would be constructed over a IS-year horizon,
would result in a new increase of approximately 1.3 million square of hospital, clinic, and office
space. The Project includes a request for the following entitlements:
• Comprehensive Plan amendments to:
o Change 701, 703 Welch Road and a small portion of Santa Clara County land on
Welch Road proposed to be annexed "Major InstitutionaVSpecial Facilities" land
use designation.
o Amend Program L-3 to revise the Citywide 50-foot height limit to allow
exceptions for taller buildings within the proposed "Hospital District."
o Amend Policy L-8 to clarify that the hospital and treatPlent uses are exempt from.
the development cap.
• Zoning Code and Map ahl.endments to:
o Create a new "Hospital Zone." I
o Rezone 701 and 703 Welch Road from MOR to the new "Hospital Zone."
. 0 Prezone the site to be annexed to the City to the new "Hospital Zone."
• ~ex the small parcel described above.
• ARB review of the SHC,LPCH, FIMI, medical office building at Hoover Pavilion, and
Design Guidelines.
• Development Agreement
• Certification of an Environmental Impact Report
The Project applicant has submitted seven substantive project amendments with the most recent
amendment submitted on June 2, 2009. Since the Project was first submitted to the City, SUMC
has made changes based upon Staff analysis and ARB, Planning and Transportation Commission
and City Council input. These changes include significant modifications to site planning and
building massing, revisions to the location of parking garages and site access for automobiles,
refmements to the pedestrian and bicycle network to promote stronger linkages and connections,
and changes to building placement and design to protect significant oak tree specimens.
DISCUSSION
Environmental Impact Report
The EIR will addr.ess the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project. The Project
would demolish and replace on-site structures, adding approximately 1.3 million square feet of
net new floor area.
2
The following is a summary of the key ElR sections and possible mitigation measures.
Land Use ,
EIR analyses of land use and planning generally consider the compatibility of a project with
, neighboring areas, change to or displacement of existing uses, and consistency of a project with
relevant local land use policies that have been adopted with the intent to mitigate or avoid an
envirorunental effect. With respect to land use conflicts or compatibility issues, the magnitude of
these impacts depends on how a project affects the existing development pattern, development
intensity, traffic circulation, noise, and visual setting in the immediately surrounding area.
Comprehensive Plan Policy (L-8) addresses growth in non-residential square footage for nine
planning areas evaluated in the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study. The City has
initiated a Comprehensive Plan amendment to provide clarification of this policy. City staff will
"recommend that the policy should not limit growth of hospital and treatment center uses. If
adopted by the City Council, the amendment will modify the text of the Policy to clarify that
such uses are exempt under this policy. Text modifications to the Comprehensive Plan are also
proposed to clarify proposed building height exceptions within the proposed hospital zone
district (discussed below). Following adoption of the proposed amendments, the Project would
not conflict with any Comprehensive Plan policies.
To address zoning issues, the Project sponsors propose creation of a new zoning district that
could be applied by the City to land used specifically for hospitals and clinics, associated
medical research, medical office, and support uses. The new "Hospital Zone" would include
development standards that accommodate the Project.
Visual Quality
This section of the ElR will discuss how development of the Project would affect the existing
visual quality in the Project Area and its vicinity. Visual quality pertains to how people see and
" experience the environment, particularly its visual character. Visual character consists of spatial
and scale ~elationships, and the line, form, color, and texture of an area's natural features and
man-made elements. Natural features include landforms, street trees, rock outcrops, vegetation,
and water bodies. Man-made elements include buildings, structures, parking areas, roads,
roadway interchanges and overpasses, above ground utilities, signs, and lighting fixtures. Full
buildout conditions will be depicted through visual simulations prepared by William Kanemoto "
and Associates.
The Project may degrade the existing visual character and quality of the SUMC Sites during
construction. Possible mitigation measures could be to aesthetically improve portions of the
project site that would remain unimproved for an extended period and screen the construction
zone from view by passersby along the public streets and sidewalks, conceal staging areas with
fencing and remove construction debris and refuse would reduce visual impacts during
construction to less than significant.
The analysis also considers if the Project would substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the SUMC Site and its surroundings, and alter public viewsheds, view
corridors or scenic resources. Given the size and scope of the Project it is likely that there would
3
be visual· character or quality impacts. Architectural Review of the Project would consider
among other factors, whether the Project has a coherent composition, and whether its bulk and
mass are harmonious with surrounding development. Architectural Review approval cannot be
granted unless the Project meets stringent criteria, including a fmding of consistency with the
sixteen Architectural Review Board (ARB) findings. Compliance with the ARB findings and
Comprehensive Plan visual quality policies would typically reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
Transportation
This section of the EIR will evaluate the potential transportation impacts resulting. from
construction and operation of the Project. Potential impacts include the addition of project
related pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and auto trips to the surrounding transportation system,
resulting in an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system; exceed either individually or cumulatively a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways; result in a change in air traffic patterns; substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature or incompatible uses; result in inadequate emergency access; result in inadequate parking
capacity; or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation.
The basis for the traffic analysis will be the revised citywide transportation model that was
originally developed in 1996 and last updated in 2008. The purpose of the model is to accurately
forecast demand for travel by vehicles, and conforms to upgraded modeling methodologies
adopted regionally. The citywide transportation model has been updated to account for changes
in Palo Alto demography, street network, transit services, and land use patterns.
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) travel demand model formed the basis
for the City's model, using 2005 Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) projections for
growth. The traffic conditions of the C/CAG (City/County Association of Governments of San
Mateo County) were investigated for the study area and reviewed by the City and the project
team. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) travel demand model growth
estimates were modified to an average 1.6% annual traffic growth through 2025. The City model
was initially developed without constrained volumes in the Palo Alto area. The City model was
then constrained at four identified locations (Sand HilllI-280, EI Camino Real/San Antonio, El
Camino Real/Sand Hill, Middlefield/San Antonio) based on those roadway capacities and VT A
travel demand growth rates. The traffic volumes at the freeways were constrained to their
capacities. The model results were reviewed and refined several times by the City to calibrate
intersection turning movement counts for both A.M. and P.M. peak hour, link and intersection
turning movement volumes of years 2006, 2015, and 2025 for both A.M. and P.M. peak' hour,
and 66 study intersections with turning movement volumes.
Recent updates to the Palo Alto model have resulted in a more accurate tool to analyze traffic
within Palo Alto as compared with other adjacent and nearby cities. The limitations of the Palo
Alto model are evident as when the analysis reflects traffic volumes entering Palo Alto from
other jurisdictions. The result is that more traffic would enter Palo Alto through the roadway
gateways than what would be expected due to intersection capacity constraints. Concerns have
4
been raised with the traffic model's regional growth assumptions. To address this, the model has
been modified to constrain additional gateways in addition to the four gateways mentioned above
(for a total of 11 constrained intersections), to limit traffic entering the. City during peak hours.
Post-processing the model will also look at the trips and spread some trips beyond the peak hour
and/or be transferred to other· roadways. The process of constraining gateways is commonly
practiced to more precisely address these variables. The VTA has previously accepted these
adjustments to address model limitations. . .
Some possible mitigation measures include: Participation in region-wide commute incentive
programs, construction/improvement of bicycle lanes and pedestrian crossings, expansion of the
City shuttle program, adjustment of traffic lanes, and signal timing adjustments. The EIR is also
evaluating the potential for CalTrain Go Pass use and remote parking as a potential mitigation.
The City Council has historically not approved physical widening of traffic lanes or physical
increases to intersections to accommodate increased traffic. These types of mitigations are not
expected to be recommended in the EIR.
A revised Traffic Impact Analysis is tentatively scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning and
Transportation Commission (Commission) and City Council prior to the release of the Draft EIR.
Air Quality
This section of the EIR will evaluate the potential impacts on air quality resulting from
construction and operation of the proposed Project. Possible air quality impacts could result from
construction activities, emergency generator testing and operation, increased vehicular traffic to
the hospital, and other stationary source emis~ions.
Possible mitigations include the development and approval of a construction management plan to
limit the operation or machinery and control on-site dust, limits on the testing on generators, and
similar practices.
Climate Change
It is recognized that anthropogenic (human caused) emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols
are contributing to changes in the global climate, and that such changes are having and will have
adverse effects on the environment, the economy, and public health. These are cumulative
effects of past, present, and future actions worldwide.
Pursuant to SB 97, the State Secretary for Natural Resources is in the process of promulgating
thresholds of significance for assessing greenhouse gases. The Governor's office of Planning
and Research (OPR) has recommended guidelines for assessing the significance of the project's
impact on greenhouse gases; and it is expected that the Secretary will formally adopt such
guidelines by January 2010. While OPR's suggested guidelines have not been formally adopted,
in anticipation of their adoption the EIR applies the guidelines for assessing the greenhouse gas
. impacts of the project. The OPR recommended guidelines provide that a lead agency should
make a good-faith effort, based on available information, to describe, calculate or estimate the
amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. In making this assessment the
agency may consider "[t]he extent to which the project complies with regulations or
requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or
5
preservation measures. If avoidance measures cannot be achieved, and protected trees are
removed, not retained, or relocated, then the Project could result in a significant and unavoidable
impact. Because it is unlikely that avoidance measures can be fully implemented to the extent
that all protected trees to be removed would be replaced or relocated, impacts would be
conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable. In response, Stanford has prepared an
Alternative to be studied in the EIR that shifts the SHe and one of the SoM building (FIMl)
footprints around to avoid significant oak trees. (See Alternative section below.)
Ge%gy, Soils, and Seismicity
Geology, soils, and seismicity conditions are important aspects of all development projects in the
San Francisco Bay Area. Although most projects have little or no effect on geology, any project
involving construction would have some effect on soils and topography, and all projects may be
affected by certain geologic events, such as earthquakes or landslides. Protection from the
effects of geologic events is provided through existing building codes and construction
standards, land use policies, and State and local regUlations.
Because one of the major effects of loss of topsoil is sedimentation in receiving waters, erosion
control standards are set by the State Water Quality Control Board through administration of the
NPDES permit process for storm drainage discharge. Erosion and sedimentation issues are
addressed in Hydrology because they are they are primarily related to turbidity and other
depositional effects in local and regional water bodies.
Hydrology
This section describes the hydrology and water quality conditions present at the Project Area
including surface and groundwater resources. This section evaluates whether the Project could
, affect storm drainage and streams, as well as local groundwater resources in the area. Potential
impacts expanded upon in this EIR section are ground and surface water quality degradation
during construction and operation, flooding and drainage, and loss of groundwater recharge. '
The Project could have a significant impact on groundwater quality during construction'.
Mitigation measures would be required to prevent construction site run-on and direct infiltration
to reduce this impact to less than significant.
Hazardous Materials
This section provides an analysis of the potential for the Project to expose persons or the
environment to hazardous materials. Potential environmental impacts can be associated with the
potential disturbance of contaminated soils or groundwater, if present in the Project Area, as well
as risk of spills from increased future use disposal, and transport of hazardous materials and
hazardous wastes associated with project construction or operation. Specific topics presented in
this section include the types of hazardous materials that would be handled and hazardous wastes
that would be generated, known on-site contamination from historic uses, the regulatory setting
applicable to such activities, and applicable health and safety policies and procedures.
Population and Housing
This section documents the existing population, housing, and employment conditions in the City
of Palo Alto and estimates changes in current conditions that could result from implementation
8
J
of the Project. Demographic changes in population and employment that would result from
development of the Project are not intrinsically physical environmental impacts. However,
environmental effects associated with increased population or daytime employment, such as
increased traffic, traffic-generated air quality and noise concerns, increased demands on public
services and utilities, and growth inducement could result from population growth. The impacts
associated with population growth are addressed separately in various sections of this EIR The
city's significance criteria treat substantial population growth and increases in the jobs to
housing ratio as significant environmental effects in order to ensure the effects of such growth
are analyzed.
The Project, as proposed, would not directly result in substantial population growth. It would,
however, increase local employment, which in turn could create demand for additional housing
and result in associated population.
In addition, the Project could have a significant adverse impact on the City's jobs to employed
residents ratio and the related jobs to housing ratio because it would generate a large number of
new jobs without adding housing to increase the number of employed residents in the City.
Possible mitigation measures include dedicating housing and/or providing a site near the Project
to house Medical Center employees, payment of housing fees, and an inc1usionary housing"
requirement in the Hospital Zone;
Public Services
This section addresses the potential environmental effects of the Project on public services,
including police and fire protection, schools, and parks and recreational services. Increases in
public service demand alone do not constitute a significant environmental effect. Instead, an
increase in demand for public services, such as additional staff or lengthier response times, could
lead to potentially significant enviro~ntal impacts only if constructing or expanding a new
facility were required and the construction or operation of the facility might adversely affect the
air, water, noise, or other aspects of the physical environment. The current EIR analysis
concludes that while the Project will likely increase demand for public services, such demand
will not result in an environmental impact.
For impacts to school, under proposition lA, payment of school impact fees by new development
is the exclusive method of considering and mitigating impacts on school facilities that may occur
as a result of approval of development of real property.
Utilities
The Project would result in increased on-site employment, visitors, and developed floor area.
These increases have the potential to create greater demand for utilities, including water supply,
wastewater collection and treatment, stonn drainage, solid waste disposal, and energy (which
includes electricity and natural gas). This section assesses whether the potential increase in
demand would overtax, to a significant degree, the capacity of the infrastructure systems serving
the Project Area.
A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was conducted for this project. In April 2009 the City
Council reviewed the SUMC WSA and directed staff to return to Council with a revised plan for
9
the Project that quantifies significant reductions in water use due to conservation measures. The
WSA has been amended and is tentatively scheduled for Council consideration in early 2010
prior to release of the Draft EIR.The EIR will inClude analysis and conclusions from the WSA.
Alternatives
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR "describe a range of reasonable
alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of
the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant
effects ofthe project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives".
Based on the objective of substantially reducing significant impacts, two No Project Alternatives,
two Reduced Intensity Alternatives, a Preservation Alternative, a Tree Preservation Alternative
and a Village Concept Alternative have been developed for the SUMC Project for evaluation in
the EIR.
No Project Alternatives
The two No Project Alternatives include: (A) Retrofitting only those hospital facilities that could
be retrofitted and no new buildings would be constructed; (B) Replace only SB 1953
noncompliant structures with new structures.
Reduced Intensity Alternatives
The two Reduced Intensity Alternatives include: (A) Right-sizing SHC and LPCH so
construction of new hospital facilities would be limited to the minimum additional square
footage required to right-size the existing LPCH and SHC facilities without adding space for
additional growth; (B) Right-size SHC and LPCH plus add 60-percent of the floor area of the
SUMC Project medical offices and 60 percent of the floor area of the SUMC Project hospital
space above the amounts needed for ri~t-sizing.
Preservation Alternative
The Preservation Alternative would retain the. 1959 Hospital Building complex, which includes
SoM buildings (Grant, Alway, Lane, and Edwards), along with the following SHC hospital/clinic
buildings: West Pavilion ("West"), East Pavilion ("East"), Boswell, and Core. However, these
buildings have a low seismic rating and do not comply with structural and non-structural criteria
that must be met by the deadlines imposed by Senate Bill (SB) 1953 for retrofit or replacement
of hospital facilities. Accordingly, under the Preservation Alternative, these buildings would not
be used as hospital buildings, as defined by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and
Development (OSHPD).
Tree Preservation Alternative
In response to a number of significant trees planned for removal, an Alternative is being prepared
that would preserve protected oak trees located in the portion of the SUMC known as Kaplan
Lawn and near Welch Road. Under the proposed SUMC Project a hospital module is proposed
to be located on the Kaplan Lawn, resulting in removal of nine protected trees. Under this
Alternative, the square footage and programmatic functions planned for this module would be
incorporated into the other hospital modules and the proposed ambulance route would be
reconfigured. In addition, the previously proposed underground SHC parking structure at the
10
would meet Stanford University's 2008 Building Performance Guidelines, which set a target
energy efficiency in new buildings of 30 percent below California Title 24/ ASHRAE 90.1
(2004). These buildings would include exterior sunshades, highly insulated building shells and
fenestration, high efficiency building lighting systems and. HV AC equipment, use of passive
cooling and smart building technology to coordinate building systems operations with occupancy
and use patterns.
Green building components include the use of sustainable building materials, where feasible,
. such as recycling crushed concrete from demolition, renewable/recyclable materials in flooring,
paint, construction adhesives, cabinet substrates, insulation, ceiling acoustical panels and
furniture. Permeable asphalt; permeable concrete, and grass pavers will be used. The Hospitals
would include measures such as: occupancy controls for patient rooms, and occupancy sensors
for lighting strategic· areas, reduced lighting power densities, use EPA EnergyStar labeled
equipment where available, link to the Stanford University cogeneration/thermal storage system
for generation of chilled water and steam, and implement various water saving features. The
Hospitals and SoM would continue to focus on environmentally preferable purchasing and
extensive recycling programs.
Transportation programs proposed would include consideration of the GO Pass for all eligible
hospital employees, expansion of the Marguerite Shuttle service between the Palo Alto Transit
Center and the SUMC, and inClusion of hospital employees in the Stanford C9mmute Club that
gives subsidies for vanpools and for not driving, guaranteed ride home, Bco Pass for free use of
VTA buses and light rails, Dumbarton Express, Highway 17 Express and U Line Stanford
Express that connects BART and ACE Train to Stanford.
Development Agreement Negotiations . . '\ Stanford is seeking a Development Agreement, which will lock in the zoning regulations for a
negotiated period of time. Development Agreements are negotiated contracts between the
applicant and City. Developers typically apply for a Development Agreement to ensure that the
regulations will not change over time and to help secure financing for large-scale projects. In
exchange, the parties negotiate an acceptable community benefit package. Since they are the
product of voluntary negotiations rather than a unilateral imposition by the government,
community benefits under a Development Agreement are typically broader than EIR mitigation
measures and project conditions of approval. As such, community benefits are not legally
required to have the same rigorous nexus applicable to other development conditions. A
Development Agreement is a legislative action and is subject to referendum.
On June 15, 2009, the City received a Development Agreement proposal from Stanford
(Attachment A). Stanford proposed a 30-year Development Agreement with some terms
extending to 51 years. The proposal focused on the following major categories of community
benefits: (1) health care, (2) fiscal benefits, (3) reduced vehicle trips, (4) linkages, and (5)
housing. The proposal noted that the most important community benefit would be the
applicants' investment in seismically safe, state of the art facilities that would enable the
hospitals to continue to provide high quality patient care. In addition, Stanford offered some
additional community benefits, including the following significant proposals:
12
• . Establishment of two new programs for the exclusive benefit of residents: a $3 million
fund to assist qualified low-income residents and a $4 million fund to subsidize
comrtlUnity health programs within Palo Alto.
• Proyide construction spending and associated use taxes of $8.3 million and obtain a use
tax direct payment permit that will generate approximately $26,000 annually.
• Purchase of "Caltrain Go Passes" for all SUMC employees at an estimated annual cost of
$1.3 million. (Currently only Stanford University employees are entitled to this benefit.)
• Expansion of the Marguerite service by purchasing additional shuttles in the amount of
$2 million and by funding additional annual operating costs of $450,000. .
• Funding a range of improvements to encourage use of transit and enhance pedestrian and
bicycle connections between the hospitals and downtown: $2.25 million for pedestrian
and bicycle connections around the Intermodal Transit Center, $400,000 for right of way
improvements along Quarry Road and $700,000 for pedestrian connection between the
Medical Center and Shopping Center (Stanford Bam area) ..
• Payment of housing in lieu fees in the amount of $23.1 million which is equivalent to
what a commercial project would pay.
Staff believes Stanford's proposal is substantive and responsive to many project impacts. The
proposal focuses on the key areas of concern raised by the Planning and Transportation
Commission, the City Council and the community. However, it is also important to note that
with a project of this magnitude many of the proposed community benefits would typically be
imposed as conditions of approval or EIR mitigation measures. Staff has had several meetings
with Stanford to discuss areas where the community benefit package can be enhanced. These
discussions to date have focused on health care, fiscal impacts and housing. Staff plans to
continue these discussions and will provide a further progress report in January or February. At
that time, staff will seek input from the Council on whether the offered package is acceptable and
if not which areas to prioritize.
NEXT STEPS
Substantial progress has been achieved in the preparation of the Project for formal entitlement
reviews, though significant work remains to see the project to completion. Initial staff work
focused on the preparation of the update tp the Stanford University Medical Center Land Use
Area Plan (Area Plan), which was presented to City Council in July 2007 for review and
comment. Staff and the applicant have since focused on four generally concurrent tracks: 1)
Preparation of the Draft EIR, 2) Preliminary ARB reviews of project components, 3)
Development Agreement preparation and discussions with the applicants, and 4) Community
outreach and updates with the Planning & Transportation . Commission and City Council. Due to
the complexity of the Project and the potential for substantial environmental impacts upon the
community, the timeline for preparation of the Draft EIR has been extended from initial
expectations. In addition, the withdrawal of the SSC Project has resulted in additional delays in
the completion and issuance of the DEIR.
Staff, in cooperation with the SUMC applicants and Stanford University representatives, is
committed to completion of the Draft EIR, the Development Agreement discussions,
13
It is important to emphasize that the hospitals served more than two-thirds
of the Palo Alto residents who required hospital~tion in 2007. The
addition of more beds for adults and children will alleviate' overcrowding and allow the two hospitals to serve patients who currently must be turned
away. In 2008, 924 patients could not be admitted to the hospitals because
of. a shortage of avai1abl~ beds. ' '
3
The hospitals ws6 pr~vide the only Levell Trauma Center between San
Francisco and San Jose. ,The Trauma Center and the Emergency
pep~ent ensure critical emergency preparedness and response resources
for the commUnity in the event of an earthquake, pandemic, or other major
disaster. The expansion of the Emergency DePartment and the associated
facilities needed to support the ED services will solve th~ critical problem
of-a wOefully undersized facility for the volume of people seeking care. In
the last year, the Emergency Department had to be closed numerous times
due to lack offacilities. ' , ,
Health Care: Additional Offered Community Benefits. the hospitals
propose to fund the following new programs specifically to benefit residents
of Palo Alto. Each of these funding obliptions will commence at issuance
of tile first gnlding permit for the Project.
e $3 million for in-patient and out-patient services at Stanford
, Hpspital and Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital for
residents of Palo Alto who have a self-payment responsibility
beyond their ~cial means. This program is additional to the
hospit$1s' charity policies. The hospitals will maintain and
distribute this fund, with reporting to the City of Palo Alto when the
tun4 ~s depleted. The reporting will be in a form that complies with
, all applicable, privacy laws and policies.
e$4 million for community health programs within the City of Palo'
Alto, paId in equal annual amounts over 10 years to selected
programs. The hospitals will work with a community Bdvisory
board to ~lect tb.e ~pecific community health programs to receive
funding. Examples of potentially eligible health programs and
groups include the Mayview Health Clinic, health programs in the
public schools, seniOTS health services provided by A venidas and
Lytton ,Gardens, Psychiatric services at the Opportunity Center,
programs for child: and adolescent suicide prevention, Breast Cancer
Comections, and health programs provided by Taube Koret Campus
for Jewish Life, Abilities United, Palo Alto YMCA, and Children's
Health Council.' '
300 Pasteur Drln -H3200 -M/C 5230. Shlnfol'd CA 94305. Telephone 650-721-2878
5
• ,S~ford University runs a free comprehensive Marguerite Shuttle
system, support"" by payments from the hospitals, that connects the
hospitals to local transit, Caltrain, shopping and dining.
• The hospitals provide an Eco Pass to their employees, which allows
:free use 'of VI' A buses and light rail, the Dumbarton :express, and
the Highway 17 Express, and the Monterey~San Jose Express.
• The hospitals provide free use of the U-Line Stanford Express that
connects BART and the ACE train, and the Ardenwood Park & Ride ,
to Stanford. .
• stanford also provides an extensive transportation website, transit
pass sales,altemative transportation information at new employee
orientation, regular e-mail updates to Commute Club members and
.: parking permit holders, one-on-one commute planning assistance,
and it commute cOst and carbon emissions calculator.
• . The hospitals also provide services to bicyclists; including maps,
clothes lockers and showers, bike lockers, safety education, and
commute planiling .
As described above, in connection with this Project, the hospitals also will
be paying $2 million in Citywide Transportation Impact Fees for public
facilities and services that relieve citywide traffic congestion caused by new
development projects, including advanced transportation management and
information systetns, expanded shuttle transit services, and bicycle and
pedestrian improvements .
Reduced VehiCle Trips: Additional Offered COmmunity Benefits. To
further minimize commute trips'in drive-alone vehicles, the hospitals
p~pose to provide the following benefits for the life of the Project:
• The hospitals will purchase annual Caltrain Go Pa~ses(free train
passes) for all existing and new hospital employees who work more
than 20 hours per week at a cost of up to $1.3 million per year,
. asSuming Caltrain continues to offer the Go Pass program at its .
. current cost (plus cost of living adjustments) or Caltrain offers a
substantially equivalent program at approximately the same cost.
While the hospit4ds cannot guarantee a specific level of Cal train
ridership, ifCaltrain ridership by hospital employees reaches the
. S8me level as is being achieved currently by University employees,
this program Would resUlt in o~etting all peak hour trips from the
Project's new employment.
300 Pasteur D.'lve-H3200 -M/C 5230, Stanrol'd CA 94305, Telephone 650-721-2878
,
--'
6
• The hQspitals will fund expansion of Marguerite service by
purchasing additional shuttles at a total capital cost of up to $2.0
million, and by funding annl18lopei'ating QOsts of providing
increased shuttle service in an amount of up to $450,000 per year in
order to acconunodate the increase in demand for shuttle services
res~lting from increased Caltrain ridership by hospital employees.
• The hospitals will provide an onsite Transportation Demand
Management Coordinator.
• The.total.value of these benefits over the life of the Project is $90.4
million.
Linkages
LinkA&esj .' Additional Offered Community ·Beriefits. To further encourage
use of.Galtrain, bus and. other transit services, and to enhance pedestrian and
bicycle connections between the hospitals and downtown Palo Alto, the
·hospitals propose to fund the following improvements:
• $2.25 million for improvements to enhance the pedestrian and
bicycle connection from the Palo Alto Intennodal Transit Center to
the existing intersection at EI Camino Real and Quarry Road, with
up to $2.0 million of that amount going to the development of an
. attractive, landscaped passive park/green space with a clearly
nuirked and lighted pedestrian pathway, benches, and flower
bonters. This amount will be paid to the City of Palo Alto upon
. . issuance of the first gniding permit for the Project, and the City wili
be responsible for constructing .these improvements.
• .$400,000 fc;>r improvements to the public right-of-way to enhance
the pedestrian and bi~ycle cOlUlection from EI Camino Real to
Welch Road along Quarry Road, including urban design elements
and way finding, wider bicycle lanes, as necessary, on Quarry Road,
enhanced transit nodes for bus and/or sputtle stops, and prominent
bicycle facilities. This amount will be paid to the City of Palo Alto
. upon issuance of the first grading pennit for the Proj~ct, and the City
will. be responsible for constructing these improvements.
• Up to $700,000 for improvements to enhance the pedestrian
connection between the Medical Center and the Stanford Shopping
Center going from Welch Road to Vineyard Lane, in the area
adjacent to the Stanford Bam. The hospitals will be responsible for
constructing these improvements prior to Project completion.
300 Pasteur Drive -H3200· M/C 5230, SIRnfOl'd CA 94305, Telephone 650·721·2878
7
Housing
Housing: Additional Offered Community Benefits. The Hospitals are
exempt from the City's housing impact requirements under Section 16.47 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Like other exempt entities (churches,
· schools and Gity facilities), hospitals provide needed services to the
conUnunity~ and therefore are not expected to also provide community
services in the form of affordable housing. Nevertheless, in recognition of
the relatively large number of jobs created by the Project, the need for City
. subsidies to entice affordable housing development, and the City's stated
desire to increase its affordable housing supply in Palo Alto, the hospitals
propose to provide payment to the city's housing fund in the amount of
$23.1 million. . .
· This amount is the same amount that a for-profit developer would pay under
· Municipal Code section 16.47, based on. the City's current in-lieu housing·
. fee.· The Agreement will provide that the portion of the fee that corresponds
to each new structure will be due and payable prior to the issuance ·ofthe
building permit by the City or OSHPD for that structure, and the amount of
the fee will be calcUlated at the· fee rate in effect on June 1,2009.
City Services
City Services: Direct and Indirect Hospitals Community Benefits. The
Fiscal Impact Report prepared by CBRE Consulting concludes that
revenues generated by the Project will more than offset the City's on-going
cost of providing services.
CitY Services: Additiopal Offered Community Benefits. To further support
the provision of City services, the hospitals propose to provide $70,000 in
funding for a jurlsdiction.,wide Standard of Service Fire Study. This '
funding will be provided to the Palo Alto Fire Department prior to issuance
of the first grading pennit for the Project.
School Fees
School Fees: Direct and Indire,s;t Hospitals Community Benefits. The
hospiWs will pay School Fees to the Palo Alto Unified School District in
the amount of$616,413, based upon the currently applicable School Fee.
The applicable fee for each new or expanded building will be due and
payable prior to receiving a building pennit from the City of Palo Alto. The
hospitals propose that, for buildings subject to OSHPD jurisdiction, school
fees willbe due Within five days of issuance of a building pennit from
OSHPD.
300 Pasteur Drive -H3200 -M/C 5230, Stanfol'd CA 94305, Telephone 650-721-2878
Development Agreement
Condidons and Understandings
, The proposal is bMed on .our un~tanding that the Development Agreement will apply
only to development olthe Project; and not to any other'property owned by Stanford or
any other project proposed })y the hospitals or Stanford. In addition, we have base our.
proposal on the following anticipated benefits of entering into a Development Agreement:
Project Appr,ovals, City Regulations
. .
The Agreement will vest the applicants' right to c~truct, use and occupy
the Project in accordance with (a) approvals for the Project granted by the
City, specified in the Agreement and acceptable to the hospitals and .
. Stanford, including amendments tQ the Comprehensive Plan and zoning
. ordinance, a jurisdictimial boundary change, and architectural review
approval (collectively!' Project Approvals"); (b) the ordinances, rules,
regulations, and official policies of the City in force and effect on June 1,
·2009 as modified by the Ploject Approvals ("City Regulations") and such
other ministerial and discretionary approvals.that are necessary or desirable
for the economic and efficient ~nstruction, use and occupancy of the
Pr9ject that maybe granted subsequent to the execution of this Agreement
("Subsequent Approvals"). Through incorporation of the Project
Approvals, th~ Agreement will specify the pennitted uses of the 'property,
the. density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size 9f proposed
bui1dings, and provisions (if any) for reservation or dedication ofland for
public pwposes.
The City will agree to grant all Subsequent Approvals, whether ministerial
or discretionary, subject only to its reasonable determination that the
application for the requested Subsequent Approval is complete and
8
. consistent with the Project Approvals, City Regulations, and any new City
rules, regulations, and .policies which do not conflict with the Project
Approvals and City Regulations. The City will agree not to impose any
requirement or condi~on Qn Subsequent Approvals or development or
operation of the Project other than those required by the Project Approvals,
City Regulati~ns, an<J any new City rules, regulations, and policies which do
not c~>nflict with the Project Approvals and City Regulations. The
Agreement will provide that the parties will cooperate and diligently work
to implement all Project Approvals and to expeditiously review and act
upon·all requests for Subsequent Approvals. From and after approval, each
. Subsequent Approval shall be vested under this Agreement to the same
extent as.the Project Approvals.
300 Pasteur Drive -H3200 -M/C 5230, Stanford CA 94305. Telephonr 650-721-2878
• • 'I V
9
Project Design
The Agreement will include the Design Guidelines for the Project as an
$chment. For those portions of the Project that have not yet received
architectural review approval by the time the City approves the
Development Agreement, the Design Guidelines will be the exclu.sive
design criteria applicable to tJte Project components, and the exercise. of the
City's· architectural review discretion will be limited to determining whether
a proposal is substantially consi~t with the' Design Guidelines; If
architectural review approval or any other type of site or design appfoval is
needed for Subsequent Approvals, the decisions shall be made by the
Director of Planning and Co~unity Environment, after recommendation
. by the Architectural Review Board, subject only to appeal to the City
Counci1'(purs~ai1t to Section 18.77.070 of the Municipal·Code).
PubUc Improvements, Fees and Exactions
The' A8feemenf will describe the public improvements (if any), fees,
dedications and exactions required by the Project Approvals or otherwise
required under the Dev~lopment Agreement, and the Agreement will
proVide that no other public improvements, fees, dedications or exactions
will be required. .
Inspections
The Agreement will describe protocols and procedures for Subsequent
Approvals and ~nspections, including agreed Upon tum arQund times.
Phasing Schedule
Phasing Schedule: The Agreement will confirm that the applicants are not
required to initiate or complete development of the Project, or any portion
thereof, or to initiate or complete the Project components within any period
oftime or in any particular order .. The Agreement will acknowledge that
the applicants may develop the Project components in such ord~ and at
such rate and times as they deem appropriate within the exercise of their
sole and subjective business judgment. The applicants also may choose, in
their discretion, to phase the Project.
Project Modification
The Agreement will provide a process and standard of review for future
City consideration of applicant-proposed modifications to the Project,
including to Project phasing if the applicants so choose, with the ol,ljective
300 Pasleu," D."lve -H3200 -M/C S230, SlnnfOl"d CA 94305. Telephont' 650-721-2878
"" I
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
VQ-3. Alteration of Public Viewsheds, View Corridors, or
Scenic Resources. The SUMC Project would result in
significant impacts on views.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-28
Mitigation Measures
VQ-2.1 Adhere to City's Architectural Review Process and
Recommendations. The SUMC Project sponsors shall submit
final building and site plans to the ARB prior to issuance of any
development permits. Architectural Review shall assess the
appropriateness of proposed demolitions, proposed building
heights and massing, siting of buildings and structures,
architecture and facade treatments, landscaping, circulation
plans, and parking. The ARB may require alterations to any of
the above project features, or the ARB may suggest new
features, such as new landscaping or public art, to improve the
proposed SUMC Project design. Any recommendations made by
the ARB with respect to the design of the SUMC Project shall be
implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors. .
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1, above, requires and
ensures compliance with ARB recommendations for final design and would
reduce impacts on views from the proposed buildings under the SUMC
Project. The Architectural Review of the SUMC Project would consider,
among other factors, whether the SUMC Project has a coherent
composition and that its bulk and mass are harmonious with surrounding
development. The ARB's recommendations regarding these factors will be
forwarded to the City Council for consideration. The City Council would
then review the recommendations and make findings, as appropriate, that
natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with tbe SUMC
Project; the design promotes hannonious transitions in scale and character
in areas betw·een different designated land uses; and the planning and siting
of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of
order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the
general community. Implementation of Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1
regarding the Architectural Review process would ensure tbat impacts on
views would be less than significant.
S = Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
VQ-4. Terrain Modifications. The SUMC Project would not
require substantial terrain modifications that would degrade the
visual character of the SUMC Sites.
VQ-5. New Sources of Light and Glare. The SUMC Project
could increase light and glare nuisance from exterior lighting;
resulting in a significant impact.
VQ-6. Shadowing of Public Open Space. The SUMC
Project would not substantially shadow public open space
(other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00
a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 2l.
VQ-7. Cumulative Impacts on Visual Character. The SUMC
Project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable
probable future development in the area, would have a less-
than-significant cumulative impact on visual character in the
vicinity of the SUMC Sites.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
NI
S
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-~ignijicant
Mitigation Measures
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1, above, requires
compliance with ARB recommendations for final design and would reduce
light and glare impacts from the proposed buildings under the SUMC
Project. The Architectural Review of the SUMC Project would consider,
among other factors, whether the SUMC Project incorporates quality
materials, harmonious colors, appropriate ancillary features, a cohesive
design with a coherent composition, and an appropriate lighting plan. The
ARB's recommendations regarding these factors will be forwarded to the
City Council for consideration. The City Council would then review the
recommendations and make findings, as appropriate, that the design is
compatible with the ilIimediate environment of the SUMC Sites; is
appropriate to the function of the SUMC Project; promotes harmonious
transitions in character in areas between different designated land uses; and
is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site. This
Architectural Review process would ensure that exterior treatment would
not emit substantial glare and that exterior lighting impacts would be less
than significant.
None required.
None required.
S=Signijicant SU= Sign(ficant Unavoidable
StaJ~ford University Medical Center Facilities Renel'l-'al and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
LTS
N/A
N/A
S-29
Impacts
NI = No Impact
!
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
TR-I.2 Maintain Pedestrian Access. The SUMC Project. sponsors shall
be prohibited from substantially limiting pedestrian access while
constructing the SUMC Project, without prior approval from the
City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works. Such approval
shall require submittal and approval of specific construction
management plans to mitigate the specific impacts to a less-than-
significant levels. Pedestrian access-limiting actions would
. include, but not be limited to, sidewalk closures, bridge closures,
crosswalk closures or pedestrian re-routing at intersections,
placement of construction-related material within pedestrian
pathways or sidewalks, and other actions which may affect the
mobility or safety of pedestrians during the construction period.
If sidewalks are maintained along the construction site frontage,
covered walkways shall be provided.
TR-I.3 Maintain Bicycle Access. The SUMC Project sponsors shall be
prohibited from limiting bicycle access while constructing the
SUMC Project without prior approval from the City of Palo Alto
Department of Public Works. Such approval shall require
submittal and approval of specific construction management plans
that warn cyclists prior to reaching the impacted bicycle lanes
and provide alternative routing around the construction sites to
mitigate the specific impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Bicycle access-limiting actions would include, but not be limited
to, bicycle lane closures or narrowing, closing or narrowing of
streets that are designated bicycle routes. bridge closures, the
placement of construction-related materials within designated
bicycle lanes or along bicycle routes, and other actions which
may affect the mobility or safety of bicyclists during the
construction period.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renel'olal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-31
Impacts
NI = No Impact
S-32
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
TR-l.4 Restrict Construction Hours. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
be required to prohibit or limit the number of construction
material deliveries from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and from 4pm
to 6pm on weekdays. The SUMC Project sponsors shall be
required to prohibit or limit the number of construction
employees from arriving or departing the site from the hours of
4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
TR-l.5 Restrict Construction Truck Routes. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall be required to deliver and remove all construction-
related equipment and materials on truck routes designated by the
cities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Heavy
construction vehicles shall be prohibited from accessing the site
from other routes. Figure 3.4-6 and 3.4-7 of the ElR illustrates
the Stanford Area Truck Routes which must be used by all
trucks.
TR-l.6 Protect Public Roadways During Construction. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall be required to repair any structural damage
. to public roadways, returning any damaged sections to original
structural condition. The SUMC Project sponsors shall survey
the condition of the public roadways along truck routes providing
access to the proposed project site before construction, and shall
again survey after construction is complete. A before-and-after
survey report shall be completed and submitted to the City of
Palo Alto Public Works Department for review, indicating the
location and extent of any damage.
TR-l.7 Maintain Public Transit Access and Routes. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall be prohibited from limiting access to public
transit, and from limiting movement of public transit vehicles,
without prior approval from the Santa· Clara County Valley
S = Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stal1/ord University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SummOlY
Impacts
NI = No Impact
· ~ .. I ..
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
Transportation Authority or other appropriate jurisdiction. Such
approval shall require submittal and approval of specific impacts
to a less-than-significant level. Potential actions which would
impact access to transit include, but are not limited to, relocating
or removing bus stops, limiting access to bus stops or transfer
facilities, or otherwise restricting or constraining public transit
operations.
TR-l.8 Prepare and Implement Construction Impact Mitigation Plan. In
lieu of the above mitigation measures, the SUMC Project
sponsors shall submit a detailed construction impact mitigation
plan to the City of Palo Alto for approval by the Director of
Public Works prior to commencing any construction activities
with potential transportation impacts. This plan shall address in
detail the activities to be carried out in each construction phase,
the potential transportation impacts of each activity, . and an
acceptable method of reducing or eliminating significant
transportation impacts. Details such as the routing and
scheduling of materials deliveIies, construction employee arrival
and departure schedules, employee parking locations, and
emergency vehicle access shall be described and approved.
TR-l.9 Conduct Additional Measures During Special Events. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall implement a mechanism to prevent
roadway construction activities from reducing roadway capacity
during major athletic events or other special events which attract
a substantial number of visitors to the campus. This measure
may require a special supplemental permit to be approved by
either Santa Clara County or the City of Palo Alto prior to
hosting such events during significant construction phases.
S = Significant SU= Significant Ulwvoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renel1lal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-33
Table S-4
SU1.\-1C Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
TR-2. Intersection Level of Service. Implementation of the
SUMC Project would result in significant impacts to
.' intersections during Peak Hour conditions.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-34
Mitigation Measures
MITIGATION MEASURES. Given the magnitude of the SUMC Project's
infersection impacts, there is no single feasible mitigation measure that can
reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. However, there are a
range of measures that, when taken individually, would each contribute to a
partial reduction in the SUMC Project's impacts. When combined, these
measures could result in a substantial reduction in th.e SUMC Project's
impacts.
Under all combinations of feasible mitigation measures below, impacts of
the SUMC Project on intersection LOS would remain significant and
unavoidable. Of all of the feasible combinations, the' one that would have
the largest reduction in impact, and that mitigates the greatest number of the
intersection impacts, is the combination of traffic adaptive signal
technology, additional bicycle and pedestrian undercrossings, enhanced
Travel Demand Management (TDM) program, and feasible intersection
improvements. This combination of mitigation measures would reduce the
SUMC Project impacts to a less-than-significant level at all of the impacted
intersections during the AM Peak Hour. However, intersection impacts
would remain significant and unavoidable in the PM Peak Hour at three
intersections with. mitigation.
TR-2.1 Install Traffic Adaptive Signal Technology. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall contribute to the Palo Alto Citywide Traffic
Impact Fee program, for the installation of traffic adaptive
signals. However, this fee is not structured to mitigate one
hundred percent of project related impacts, and an additional fee
could be imposed by the City on the SUMC Project sponsors to
mitigate the remaining share of the SUMC Project impacts. In
Menlo Park, the SUMC Project sponsors shall contribute their
fair share amount, which shall be tied to the amount of traffic
added to analyzed intersections by the SUMC Project. The
SUMC Project sponsors' contributions shall apply towards the
S = Significant SU= Significant U/lavoidable
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
SU
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SummaJY
Impacts
~
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
installation of traffic adaptive signals as listed below.
• SandHill Road (Oak Creek to Shopping Center) - 4 signals
• Arboretum Road (Shopping Center to Palm Drive) - 3
signals
• Embarcadero Road (Bryant to Saint Francis) - 7 signals
• University Avenue (Palm to Lincoln) -13 signals
• Lytton Avenue (Alma to Middlefield) -10 signals
• Hamilton Avenue (Alma to Middlefield) -10 signals
• Middlefield Road (San Antonio to Homer) - 9 signals
• Charleston Road (Alma to Middlefield) - 2 signals
• El Camino Real (northern city limits of Menlo Park to
southern city limits of Palo Alto) -signals would require
approval of Caltrans
TR-2.2 Fund Additional Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossings. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall contribute their fair share to the
cost of construction of the Everett Avenue undercrossing of the
Caltrain tracks in Palo Alto and the Middle Avenue
undercrossing in Menlo Park. In Palo Alto, there is a Citywide
Traffic Impact Fee program that the SUMC Project sponsors
shall contribute to. However, this fee is not structured to
mitigate one hundred percent of the SUMC Project related
impacts, and an additional fee may be imposed by the City to
mitigate the remaining share of the SUMC Project impacts. In
Menlo Park, the fair share contribution shall be tied to the
amount of traffic added to analyzed intersections by the SUMC
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-35
Impacts
NI = No Impact
S-36
1-
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
Project. The construction of the Everett Avenue and Middle
Avenue undercrossings would reduce traffic volumes on nearby
streets, such as Ravenswood Avenue and University Avenue.
TR-2.3 Enhance Stanford University Travel Demand Management (TDM)
Program. The SUMC Project sponsors shall enhance the
currently-implemented TDM program in order to achieve 35.1
percent usage of alternative transportation modes (i.e, carpool,
vanpool, bus, Caltrain, bicycle, and walk) by SUMC employees.
The initial enhancements to the SUMC TDM program shall
include the following:
• Provide Caltrain GO Passes, or an equivalent TDM
measure, to all eligible hospital employees and set target
Caltrain mode share for hospital employees equal to 15.8
percent.
• If Caltrain GO Passes would be provided to SUMC
employees, make arrangements with AC Transit to lease 75
spaces at the Ardenwood Park & Ride Lot, to serve SUMC
employees who commute from the East Bay.
• Expand bus service in support of the issuance of GO Passes.
• Expand the Marguerite shuttle bus service, and integrate it
'With the other City of Palo Alto shuttle bus service.
• Maintain load factors less than 1.00 on the U Line, and less
than 1.25 on the Marguerite shuttle.
• Expand and improve the bicycle and pedestrian networks.
• Provide a full-time on-site TDM coordinator by 2015 for the
hospital components. The coordinator would be responsible
for organizing and disseminating TDM information primarily
S=Significant SU= Significant Ullavoidable
'--.'-"~--'-'-'-~-.-... ~ .. -" -~.-~---
bnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal alld Replacement Draft EIR -SummaJY
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
to hospital employees and also to hospital patients. A central
location would be made available to provide information on
alternative travel modes. Also, the SUMC or hospitals'
website would contain information on TDM programs.
• Provide a guaranteed ride home program for all employees
who use transit and other transport alternatives like carpool
and vanpool. The guarantee ride home shall allow
employees with dependent children the ability to use
alternative modes to travel to and from work but still be able
to travel home mid-day in case of an emergency.
• Provide employees with shower facilities within the SUMC
Sites to encourage bicycling to work. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall also provide bicycle storage facilities on the
SUMC Sites that would be conveniently located near the
employee showers.
• Establish, in conjunction with the GO Pass implementation,
a "Zip Car" (or other similar car-sharing program) with Zip
Cars available at the medical complex.
• Perform annual TDM monitoring and submit the report to
the City of Palo Alto to ensure that the assumed modal split
to alternative forms of travel and away from autos is actually
achieved. .
These enhancements may not immediately change the mode split
for SUMC employees, because many employees would be unable
to change long standing commute patterns overnight. However,
with the passage of a mutually agreed amount· of time, it is
expected that the enhanced TDM program would gradually result
in a shift in the mode split of SUMC employees. If this proves
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -SumlllaJY
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-37
Impacts
NI = No Impact
S-38
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-SignificaIU
Mitigation Measures
not to be the case, then a second round of improvements to the
TDM program shall be implemented. Examples of additional
measures could be to increase the parking permit charges while
increasing the incentives to those who carpool or do not drive.
If, by the year 2025, at least 35.1 percent of SUMC employees
are not using alternative transportation modes, then a second
. round of improvements to the TDM shall be implemented.
Examples of additional measures could be to increase the parking
permit charges while increasing the incentives to those who
carpool or do not drive. Thereafter, SUMC Project sponsors
shall monitor/survey employee use of alternative modes of
transportation on an at least bi-annual basis, and shall continue to
improve its TDM program, until it is confirmed to the
satisfaction of the City that the target of 35.1 percent usage has
been met.
TR-2.4 Fund or Implement those Imersection Improvements that Have
Been Detennined to be Feasible. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall implement the following measures:
• For the intersection of EI Camino Real/Page Mill Road -
Oregon Expressway,. the SUMC Project sponsors shall pay a
fair share towards (1) provision of exclusive light-turn lane
for westbound Oregon Expressway, in addition to the two
through lanes, (2) increasing the cycle length to 160 seconds.
Improvements to the westbound right turn lane would
require right-of-way from the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) park-and-ride lot.
• At the intersection of Arboretum Road/Galvez Street, the
SUMC Project sponsors shall install a traffic signal.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
~ I
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
TR-3. Impacts on Roadway Segments. The SUMC Project
would result in adverse traffic impacts to roadway segments in
the City of Menlo Park.
TR-4. Local Circulation Impacts. The SUMC Project could
result in significant traffic impact to the local circulation
network in the immediate vicinity of the SUMC Sites.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-40
Mitigation Measures
Road. The City shall coordinate with the City of Menlo
Park regarding feasibility of this improvement.
• Junipero Serra Boulevard/Campus Drive West -Request that
Santa Clara County change the signal cycle length at this
intersection to 90 seconds. The City shall coordinate with the
County of Santa Clara regarding feasibility of this
adjustment.
MITIGATION MEASURES. With the provision of additional bicycle and
pedestrian undercrossings (Mitigation Measure TR-2.2), the enhanced
TDM program (Mitigation Measure TR-2.3), and contribution to the City
of Menlo Park shuttle fee (Mitigation Measure TR-7.2), there would still be
significant impacts on four Menlo Park roadways, including Marsh Road,
Willow Road, Sand Hill Road, and Alpine Road. Therefore, the traffic
impacts to Marsh Road, Sand Hill Road, Willow Road, and Alpine Road
would remain significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
MITIGATION MEASlJRES. Mitigation Measure TR-4.1, involving funding
and implementation of a traffic impact study, and Mitigation Measure
TR-4.2, involving re-striping of Durand Way. would reduce the SUMC
Project's impact to a less-than-significant level.
TR-4.1 FUlld Traffic Impact Study. Upon construction of the SHC and
LPCH Hospital components. the SUMC Project sponsors shall
fund an independent traffic evaluation, commissioned by the
City, based on actual travel patterns, volumes, and emergency
access. with an emphasis on ease of circulation around and
through the medical complex to determine if the private street
connection between Roth Way and Pasteur Drive should be
operated as a public street. If the independent traffic study
demonstrates that the connection between Roth Way and Pasteur
Drive as a public street would improve circulation. then the
S= Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
SU
LTS
Stan/ord University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -Summmy
"l"_~," """'""'_,_~,~"~~"'~_~,
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
TR-5. Freeway Impacts. The SUMC Project would result in
less-than-significant impacts on freeways.
TR-6. Bicycle and Pedestrian Impacts. The SUMC Project
could impede the development or function of planned bicycle
or pedestrian facilities, and result in a significant impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
s
NI = No hllpact LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
connection shall be designated as a public street for all vehicular,
bicycle, pedestrian, and transit traffic.
TR-4.2 Fund Signing and Striping Plan and Signal Optimization. In
addition to paying for the construction of the extension of Durand
Way from Sand Hill Road to Welch Road, the SUMC Project
sponsors shall also pay for the following improvements to ensure
that queues from the Durand Way/Sand Hill Road intersection do
not spillback onto the Durand Way/Welch Road intersection.
• A signing and striping plan for the Durand Way extension,
which would maximize the storage capacity by creating a
four-lane roadway with a left and through/right at Sand Hill
Road and a right and through/left at Welch Road;
• The installation and optimization of the two signals at the
intersections of Durand Way/Sand Hill Road and Durand
Way/Welch Road.
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-2.3 involving trip-
reducing measures, plus Mitigation Measure TR-6.1, which involves
several bicycle and pedestrian improvements, would reduce the SUMC
Project's impact to a less-than-significant level. The improved facilities
would mitigate the hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists brought about by
the increased vehicular traffic and congestion. "
TR-6.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall fund the expansion and improvement of
the bicycle and pedestrian network in the immediate vicinity of
the SUMC Project. -The intent of these improvements is to:
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renel',lal and Replacement Draft EJR -SumlllalY
Impact
Significance
With
:Mitigation
N/A
LTS
S-41
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
TR-7. Transit Impacts. Implementation of the SUMC
Project could impede the operation of the transit system as a
result of increased ridership, and result in a significant impact.
Impact
SignIficance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No IlIqJact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-44
Mitigation Measures
• Install the appropriate number of Class I and Class III
bicycle parking spaces as required by the City's Zoning
Ordinance for the total amount of existing and future
development. The SUMC Project sponsors shall install the
required number of bicycle parking spaces equally
distributed throughout the SUMC Sites.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-7.1 involves the addition
of transit centers to the SUMC Project's site plans, and Mitigation Measure
TR-7.2 involves financial contributions towards the expansion. of transit
service. Implementation of these measures would reduce the SUMC
Project's transit impacts to a less-than-significant level.
TR-7.1 IncOlporate Transit Centers Into Site Plans. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall revise their SUMC Project site plan to incorporate
two transit centers to reduce the impact to transit service caused
by the SUMC Project. These transit centers shall be located at
Hoover Pavilion and at SHC, and shall be off-street facilities.
The transit centers shall accommodate three to four buses
simultaneously, and shall have shelters, seating, lighting, signs.
maps, bus schedules, and bicycle parking. On-street bus stops
along Welch Road and Quarry Road shall also be provided, but
the transit centers shall accommodate the majority of transit
riders and shall· be located to maximize the convenience of
employees, patients, and visitors. One transit center shall be
located in the vicinity of Welch Road and Pasteur Drive to serve
SHC. The other transit center shall be located near the entrance
to Hoover Pavilion. Both of these b:ansit centers shall provide
the focal point for transit use for the SUMC.
TR-7.2 Provide Expanded Transit Sen'ice. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall make a fair share financial contribution to the cost of
expanding existing bus service of the Marguerite, Crosstown,
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacemelit Draft EIR -Summary
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
and Menlo Park Shuttle bus services, and to the VT A
Community Bus Service.
• Marguerite Shuttle. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
make a financial contribution to expand the Marguerite
shuttle service into Palo Alto.
• U Line. The SUMC Project sponsors shall make a financial
contribution towards the operation of the U Line.
Arrangements with AC Transit shall be made to increase U
Line service (such as decreasing headways) to meet the
increase in demand attributable to the SUMC Project, and
ensure that load factors remain below 1.0,
• Crosstown Shuttle. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
participate in operating the Palo Alto Crosstown Shuttle
service, by contributing to the. Citywide Traffic Impact Fee,
which would include covering the costs of this service.
Then current fee is $2,861 per net new PM Peak Hour trips.
A portion of Stanford's Citywide Traffic Impact Fee shall be
used by the City to expand City shuttle services.
• VTA Community Bus Service. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall contribute to fund the project's fair share of
Palo Alto's share of expanded VTA Community Bus
Service. '
• Menlo Park Shuttle Bus. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall pay into the City of Menlo Park shuttle fee at $0.105
per square foot of new development annually or a percentage
agreed between Menlo Park and SUMC Project sponsors. In
Menlo Park, the contribution shall be tied to the amount of
project traffic added to analyzed roadway segments and
intersections.
S=Signijicant SU= Sign(ficant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
lVlitigation
S-45
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
r LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
construction equipment emission reduction measures (Mitigation Measure
AQ-1.2 below) would further reduce NOx, ROG, PMIO and PM2.5
emissions during construction. However. reduction of NOx emissions
below 80 lbs/day during the first year of construction could not be
guaranteed, and this impact would still be considered significant and
unavoidable.
AQ-I.I Implement Recommended Dust ConJrol Measures. To reduce
dust emissions during project demolition and construction phases,
the SUMC Project sponsors shall require the construction
contractors to comply with the dust control strategies developed
by the BAAQMD. The SUMC Project sponsors shall include in
construction contracts the following requirements:
a. Cover all trucks bauling soil, sand, and other loose
materials including demolition debris, or require all trucks
to maintain at least two feet of freeboard;
b. Water all active construction areas (exposed or disturbed soil
surfaces) at least twice daily;
c. Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of
structures or break-up of pavement;
d. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil
stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas;
e. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) all paved access
roads, parking areas and staging areas during the earthwork
pbases of construction;
f. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent public streets;
g. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive
construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten
days or more);
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Staltord University Medical Center Facilities Renel1-'al and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-47
Impacts
NI = No Impact
S-48
_ ~ ... L",
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
h. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil
binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.);
i. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
J. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent
silt runoff to public roadways; and
k. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
AQ-l.2 Implement Equipment Et:haust Emission Reduction Measures. To
reduce emissions from construction equipment during project
demolition and construction phases. the SUMC Project sponsors
shall require tbe construction contractors to comply with the
following emission reduction strategies to the maximum feasible
extent. The SUMC Project sponsors sball include in construction
contracts tbe following requirements:
a. Where possible, electrical equipment sball be used instead
of fossil-fuel powered equipment.
b. The contractor shall install temporary electrical service
wbenever possibJe to avoid need for fossil-fuel powered
equipment.
c. Running equipment not being actively used for construction
purposes for more tban five minutes sball be turned off.
(e.g., trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate, or
other bulk materials; however, rotating-drum concrete trucks
may keep their engines running continuously as long as they
are on site).
d. Trucks shaH be prohibited from idling while on residential
streets serving the construction site (also included in
Mitigation Measure NO-I. 1).
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal alld Replacement Draft EIR -SummOlY
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
AQ-2. Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions.
Combined mobile and stationary source emissions during
operation of the SUMC Project would exceed the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District's significance threshold of 80
pounds/day of ROG, NOx and PMIO. Therefore, air emissions
would result in a substantial contribution to an existing
regional air quality problem and a significant impact.
AQ-3. Localized Carbon Monoxide Impacts from Motor
Vehicle Traffic. The SUMC Project would have less-than-
significant localized air emissions re&ulting from additional
traffic.
AQ-4. Toxic Air Contaminants. Simultaneous exposures to
DPM and T ACs from the construction and operational
components of the SUMC Project would have a less-than-
significant impact on air quality.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
e. Diesel-powered construction equipment shall be Tier III or
Tier IV California Air Resources Board (CARE) certified
equipment to the maximum feasible extent.
f. The engine size of construction equipment shall be the
smallest practical to accomplish the task at hand.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-2.3 involves
implementation of enhanced TDM measures. The enhanced TDM
measures include provision of the Caltrain GO Pass to SUMC employees,
or an equivalent TDM measure. If the GO Pass would be provided, then
remote parking spaces at the Ardenwood Park and Ride Lot in the East Bay
would also be provided to serve commuters from the East Bay. Provision
of the GO Pass plus remote parking spaces.in the East Bay would reduce
Vehicle'Miles Travelled by 13.5 percent. This reduction in SUMC Project
VMT, however, would not be sufficient to prevent project ROG, NOx and
PMlO emissions from exceeding the BAAQMD significance thresholds. In
addition, the City shall consider the feasibility of Mitigation Measure PH-
3.1. Nonetheless, impacts would be significant and unavoidable even with
mitigation.
None required.
None required.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
SU
N/A
N/A
S-49
Impacts
NI = No Impact
S-52
_~_I ______ ,~-.-,,"---------c~.~'"--~~-~~-----~"~~~' '~_~~~~
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
CC-l.2 Participate in Palo Alto Green Energy PrograJ7j, Other
Equivalent Renewable Energy Program, or combi1lation thereof
Under the Palo Alto Green program, residential, business and
industrial customers purchase renewable energy equivalent to
their electricity needs at an additional cost of 1.5 cents per kWh
above standard electric rates. The SHC and LPCH facilities
shall participate in this program to offset electricity emissIons;
develop new renewable generation sources in collaboration with
the CPAU; incorporate a renewable energy source (such as
photovoltaics) into the SUMC Project, or a combination thereof,
such that a minimum of 54,640 MWh of electricity usage is
offset annually.
CC-l.3 Provide Annual Greenhouse Gas Reporting. The SHC and LPCH
shall perform an annual inventory of greenhouse gas emissions
associated with hospital and medical facilities on the SUMC
Sites. This inventory shall be performed according to a common
industry-standard emissions reporting protocol, such ,-as the
approaches recommended by California Air Resources Board,
The Climate Action Registry, or Business Council for
Sustainable Development (BCSD). This inventory shall be shared
with the City of Palo Alto to facilitate the development of future
collaborative Emissions Reduction Programs. Emissions
associated with energy, water, solid waste, transportation,
employee commute and other major sources shall be reported in
this inventory.
CC-l.4 Prepare Waste Reduction Audit. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall perform a waste reduction audit of waste management'-
practices at the hospitals prior to construction of new facilities
and after completion of the SUMC Project to determine post-
project diversions. This audit shall be repeated annually, and
S=Significant S U = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summmy
Table S-4
SUl\<IC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
..•. L.
hnpact
Significance
With
Impacts
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation
CC-2 Emit Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The
proposed Emissions Reduction Program would minimize the
greenhouse gas emission increases associated with the
proposed development progranl, although the proposed
Emissions Reduction Program would not reduce emissions to
30 percent below business as usual (BAU) emissions.
Therefore the SUMC project would have a cumulative
considerable contribution to global climate change.
S
N! = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
with the results being made available to the public or to City of
Palo Alto staff.
CC-I.5 Implement Construction Period Emission Reduction Measures.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the SUMC Project
sponsors shall incorporate the following measures into the
construction phasing plan and submit to City Planning for
approval.
• Use alternative-fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction
vehicles/ equipment of at least 15 percent of the fleet:
• Use local building materials of at least 10 percent; and
• Recycle at least 50 percent of construction or demolition
materials.
MITIGATION MEAS1JRE. Mitigation Measures CC-l.l through CC-1.5, and
TR-2.3 would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, to further
reduce impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions, the City shall consider
the feasibility of Mitigation Measure PH -3.1.
However, even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures,
the anticipated emissions would remain above both the City of Palo Alto's
Climate Protection Plan and the CARB' s reduction emission goals of 30
percent below BAU emissions. Because these reduction levels cannot be
achieved, the SUMC Project would emit significant amounts of greenhouse
gases and would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to global
climate cbange.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
StaJ1ford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SummalY
SU
S-53
,. l, -"'~_~~"'~~"_~". __ ''"''" __ ~'~''''~~_ ~. ~~,~_~ .. ~ .. ___ ~.~_
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure CR-1.5 requires implementation of the Stanford
Hoover Pavilion Protection Documents (Documents) prepared by ARG and
dated September 21, 2009 (see Appendix J). These Documents provide
specifications for the treatment and protection of the Hoover Pavilion
during SUMC Project construction activities that could damage the historic
fabric of the building including the installation of protective covering of
certain exterior surfaces and the removal, cataloging, and storage of
selective historic elements. The Documents are based on National Park
Service and National Fire Protection Agency protection guidelines and
include details on materials and methods of installation for the protective
coverings to prevent damage from nearby demolition. Proper installation,
as required in the Documents would prevent the protective covering itself
from damage the building. The removal of historic elements would ensure
their. protection of some of the more fragile elements from construction
activities and property cataloging and storage of such elements would
ensure their proper care and reinstallation. The Documents include such
details as specifying under what weather conditions it is acceptable to
perform the various tasks that could be negatively impacted by different
weather conditions. Any variations on the specifications of the Documents
would not be allowed without prior consultation with ARG, or a qualified
preservation architect. Refer to Appendix J, Stanford Hoover Pavilion
Protection Documents, for a complete list of specifications for the Hoover
Pavilion.
CR-[l Manually Demolish Structures at the Hoover Pavilion Site.
Where feasible, the project sponsors shall establish a perinleter
of construction fencing around the Hoover Pavilion at a
minimum of 25 feet to establish a protective buffer around the
building. The demolition of these sheds and storage facilities
shall be accomplished manually without the use of vibration
causing equipment. Additional protective fencing at a height
sufficient to prevent any debris from hitting the building shall
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
StaJ;ford University Medical Center Facilities Renel""ai and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-57
Impacts
NI = No Impact
S-58
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
also be installed between the Hoover Pavilion and demolition
activities occurring within the 25 foot buffer.
CR-l.2 Prepare RABS Documentation for the Stone Building Complex.
The SUMC Project sponsors shall prepare HABS-like
documentation using the National Park Services' Historic
American Building Surveys Level III guidelines for each of the
buildings in the Stone Building complex prior to demolition of
each building that comprises this historic resource (East, West,
Core, Boswell, Edwards, Lane, Alway, and Grant). HABS-like
recordation shall not be required until each of the individual
buildings is vacated and prepared for demolition. The
documentation shall include written and photographic
documentation of each of the historic structures within the Stone
Building complex. The documentation shall be prepared by a
qualified professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior's
Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History or
History.
The documentation shaH be prepared based on the National Park
Services' HABS standards and include, at a minimum, the
following:
• Site-specific history and appropriate contextual information
regarding the Stone Building complex. This history shall
focus on the reasons for the buildings' significance: heart
transplantation program and the role of B.D. Stone in the
design of the complex.
• Accurate mapping of all buildings that are included in the
Stone Building complex, scaled to indicate size and
proportion of the buildings to surrounding buildings; if
existing plans accurately reflect these relationships these may
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
__ I. ___ .. __ ~._,,~~~~ .. ,,~"" ______ .. _~.~~_~~~_~._~~~.~
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
be reformatted for submittal per HABS guidelines for CAD
submittals_
• Architectural descriptions of the major exterior features and
public rooms within the Stone Building complex as well as
descriptions of typical patient, office, laboratory, and
operating rooms.
• Photographic documentation of the interior and exterior of
the Stone Building complex and Thomas Church-designed
landscape features" Either HABS standard large format or
digital photography may be used. If digital photography is
used, the ink and paper combinations for printing
photographs must be in compliance with National Register-
National Historic Landmark photo expansion policy and
have a permanency rating of approximately 115 years.
Digital photographs will be taken as uncompressed . TIF file
format. The size of each image shall be 1600x1200 pixels at
300 ppi (pixels per inch) or larger, color format, and printed
in black and white. The file name for each electronic image
shall correspond with the Index to Photographs and
photograph label.
CR-I.3 Distribute Written and Photographic Docwnentation to Agencies.
The written and photographic documentation of historic
resources shall be disseminated on archival-quality paper to
Stanford University, the Northwest Information Center, and
other local repositories identified by the City of Palo Alto.
CR-I.4 Prepare Permanent Interpretive DisplayslSignagelPlaques. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall install interpretive displays within
the SUMC Sites that provide information to visitors and residents
regarding the history of the Stone Building complex. These
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stal~ford University Medical Center Facilities Renev."al and Replacement Draft EIR -SummalY
hnpact
Significance
With
lVlitigation
S-59
...... -, ! .',,, ~.~-~ ......... ,.~'--~~~. ~"""""""''''''''''''-''-~-.. --'--'''''''''''--'-'-'-''''''~~.~.~-~~~.-~~--
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
CR-2. Impacts on Prehistoric or Archaeological Resources.
The SUMC Project could potentially encounter archaeological
resources and result in a significant impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-60
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
displays shall be installed in highly visible public areas such as
the property's open space or in public areas on the interiors of
buildings. The displays shall include historical data and
photographs as well as physical remnants of architectural
elements. Interpretive displays and the signage/plaques installed
on the property shall be sufficiently durable to Withstand typical
Palo Alto weather conditions for at least five years. Displays
and signage/plaques shall be lighted, installed at pedestrian-
friendly locations, and be of adequate size to attract the interested
pedestrian. Maintenance of displays and signage/plaques shall be
included in the maintenance program on the property. Location
and materials for the interpretative displays shall be subject to
review by the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board and
approval by the Planning Director.
CR-l.5 Implement Protection Documents for the Hoover Pavilion. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall ensure the implementation of the
Stanford Hoover Pavilion Protection Documents (Documents)
prepared by ARG and dated September 21, 2009. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall comply with the specifications for the
treatment and protection of the Hoover Pavilion during SUMC
Project construction activities that could damage the historic
fabric of the building as provided in the Documents.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure CR-2.1 provides discovery
and evaluation procedures for any previously unknown archaeological
resources on the SUMC Sites and requires that a professional archaeologist
employ preservation in place, data recovery, or other methods that meet the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archaeological Documentation to
reduce impacts on unique archaeological resources. Therefore,
implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure the
impact remains less than significant. (LTS)
S=Significant SU = Significant Ullavoidable
Stanford Ulliversity Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
LTS
-Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
CR-4. Impacts on Paleontological Resources. The SUMC
Project could have a significant impact on unique
paleontological resources or unique geologic resources.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NJ = Nolm;pact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-62
bnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
within 100 feet of the human remains should be halted and the
Stanford University Archaeologist. City of Palo Alto, and the
County coroner notified immediately. according to Section
5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5
of California's Health and Safety. Code. If the remains are
determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified
within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC adhered to in
the treatment and disposition of the remains. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall retain a professional archaeologist with Native
American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the
specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any;
identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may
provide professional assistance to the City of Palo Alto,
including the excavation and removal of the human remains. If
the human remains cannot be avoided, and the Most Likely
Descendant requests that the human remains be removed from its
location, the SUMC Project sponsors shall implement removal of
the human remains by a professional archaeologist. The City of
Palo Alto shall verify that the mitigation is complete before the
resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of
where the remains were discovered.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure CR-4.1 provides protocol for LTS.
encountering paleontological resources and would reduce the potential
impacts resulting from disruption to unique paleontological resources to a
less-than-significant level.
CR-4.1 Conduct Protocol and Procedures for Encountering
Paleontological Resources. Should paleontological resources be
identified during SUMC Project ground-disturbing activities, the
SUMC Project sponsors shall notify the City and the Stanford
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft Em -SummalY
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts aild Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
University Archaeologist and cease operations in the vicinity
of the potential. resource until a qualified professional
paleontologist can complete the following actions when
appropriate: .
• Identify and evaluate paleontological resources by intense
field survey where impacts are considered high;
• Assess effects on identified resources; and
• Consult with the City of Palo Alto and the Stanford
University Archaeologist.
Before operations in the vicinity of the potential resource resume,
the SUMC Project sponsors shall comply with the
paleontologist's recommendations to address any significant
adverse effects where determined by the City of Palo Alto to be
feasible. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by
the consulting paleontologist, the SUMC Project sponsors shall
consult with the Stanford University Archaeologist and the City
to determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light
of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, cost
policies and land use assumptions, and other considerations. If
avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g. data
recovery) shall be instituted to avoid a significant impact. Work
may proceed in other parts of the SUMC Sites while mitigation
for paleontological resources is completed.
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-63
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
CR-S. Cumulative Impacts on Historic Resources. The
SUMC Project, in combination with other past, current, and
probable future development in the City, would cause a
substantial change in the significance of the City'S historic
resources and thus have a significant cumulative impact. The
SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative impact would
be cumulatively considerable.
CR-6. Cumulative Impacts on Prehistoric andlor
Archaeological Resources and Human Remains. The SUMC
Project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable
probable future development, could cause a substantial change
in the significance of prehistoric and/or archaeological
resources or human remains and thus contribute to a significant
cumulative impact. The SUMC Project is conservatively
assumed to have a considerable contribution.
CR-7. Cumulative Impacts on Paleontological Resources.
The SUMC Project, in combination with other reasonably
foreseeable probable future development where the
Pleistocene-age creek bed may occur, could have a significant
cumulative impact. Such an impact would occur if the buried
Pleistocene-age creek bed is exposed in lengths greater [han
approximately 100 feet (or a sufficient length to support
detailed hydrological study) and if such deposits contain
substantially intact skeletons of extinct species. These
conditions would represent a major find for regional
paleontology. In the case that significant paleontological
finds-such as stretches of buried Pleistocene-age creek bed
greater than 100 feet in length and containing intact skeletons
of extinct species-are made on the SUMC Site, then the
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
S
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-64
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
MITIGATION MEASURES. Due to the d.emolition of the Stone Building SU
complex, the SUMC Project's contribution would remain cumulatively
considerable as this impact cannot be avoided. Implementation of
Mitigation Measures CR-1.2 through CR-1.4 would reduce the SUMC
Project's contribution to the cumulative impact, but not to a less than
cumulatively considerable level.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Compliance with Mitigation Measures CR-2.1 LTS
and CR-3.1 would reduce the SUMC Project's contribution to the
cumulative impact to a less than cumulatively considerable level.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Compliance with Mitigation Measure CR-4.1 LTS
would reduce the SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative impact to
a less than cumulatively considerable level.
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal alld Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impacts
LVI = No Impact
S-66
__ I
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significam
Mitigation Measures
BR-l.3 Develop and Employ Bat Nest Box Plan. If special-status bats are
found in structures to be removed, the SUMC Project sponsors
shall develop a bat nest box plan for the SUMC Sites employing
state-of-the-art bat nest box technology. The design and
placement of nest boxes shall be· reviewed by a qualified bat
. biologist.
BR-l.4 Avoid Tree Removal During Nesting Season. Tree removal or
pruning shall be avoided from February 1 through August 31, the
nesting period for Cooper's hawk, to the extent feasible. If no
tree removal or pruning is proposed during the nesting period, no
surveys are required.
BR-l.5 Protect Cooper's Hawk in the Event of Nest DiscovelY. If tree
removal or pruning is unavoidable during the nesting season, the
SUMC Project sponsors shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct
a survey for nesting Cooper's hawk within five days prior to the
proposed start of construction. If active Cooper's hawk nests are
not present. project activities can take place as scheduled. The
qualified' biologist shall visit the site daily to search for nests
until all nesting substrates are removed. This will avoid impacts
to Cooper's hawk that may have moved into the site and initiated
nest-building after the start of tree removal activities.
Additionally, if more than 5 days elapses between the initial nest
search and the tree removal, it is possible for new birds to move
into the construction area and begin building a nest. If there is
such a delay, another nest survey shall be conducted. If any
active Cooper's hawk nests are detected, the SUMC Project
sponsors shall delay removal of the applicable tree or shrub while
the nest is occupied with eggs or young who have not fledged. A
qualified biologist shall monitor any occupied nest to determine
when the Cooper's hawk nest is no longer used.
S = Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
lVlitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
j
..... J ..... "_.~."."._~. ~. ~.~~"." ...... ~.,~.~~~~.~~~~
Table 8-4
SUMe Project Suminary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
BR-2. Loss of Riparian or Otber Sensitive Habitats,
. Including Wetlands as Defined by Section 404 of tbe Clean
Water Act. Construction of the SUMC Project would have a
less-tban-significant impact on riparian or other sensitive
habitat resources, including wetlands.
BR-3. Interference with the Movement of Any Native
Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species or with
Established Native Resident or Migratory Wildlife Corridors,
or Use of Native Wildlife Nursery Sites. The SUMC Project
would have no impact on the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species, or use of native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, but could impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites and thus result in a significant
impact.
/
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
None required.
MmGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measures BR-3.1 and BR-3.2, below,
would reduce the SUMC Project's impact on nesting migratory birds to a
less-than-significant level.
BR-3.1 Avoid Tree Removal During Nesting Season. Tree or shrub
removal or pruning shall be avoided from February 1 through
August 31, the bird-nesting period, to the extent feasible. If no
tree or shrub removal or pruning is proposed during the nesting
period, no surveys are required.
BR-3.2 Protect Birds in the Event of Nest Discovery. If tree and shrub
removal or pruning is unavoidable during the nesting season, the
SUMC Project sponsors shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct
a survey for nesting raptors and other birds witbin five days prior
to tbe proposed start of construction. If active nests are not
present, SUMC Project activities can take place as scheduled.
The qualified biologist shall visit the site daily to search for nests
until all nesting substrates are removed. These procedures would
avoid impacts to any birds that may have moved into the sites
and initiated nest-building after the start of tree and shrub
removal activities. Additionally, if more than five days elapses
between the initial nest search and the vegetation removal, it is
possible for new birds to move into the construction area and
begin building a nest. If there is such a delay, another nest
survey shall be conducted. If any active nests are detected, the
SUMC Project sponsors shall delay removal of the applicable
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
LTS
S-67
.1. . .. "_"_~~_"'~ __ """' ____ "_~~._~~,_~, __ ~, ~_
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
BR-4. Result in a Substantial Adverse Effect on any
Protected Tree as Defined by the City of Palo Alto's Tree
Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10). The
SUMC Project could have a significant impact on Protected
Trees.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-68
Mitigation Measures
tree or shrub while the nest is occupied with eggs or young who
have not fledged. A qualified biologist shall monitor any
occupied nest to determine when the nest is no longer used.
MmGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measures BR-4.1 through BR-4.5,
below, to be implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors, would reduce the
SUMC Project's impact on Protected Trees. In addition, Mitigation
Measure BR-4.6 would require minor SUMC Project site plan adjustments
to avoid removal of some biologically and aesthetically significant Protected
Trees. However. the new Hospital District under the SUMC Project would
allow the removal of up to 48 Protected Trees that are protected under the
Municipal Code. In addition, minor modifications to the SUMC Project
site plans would not be able to avoid the nine biologically and aesthetically
significant Protected Trees in the Kaplan Lawn area. Therefore, the SUMC
Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to Protected
Trees.
BR-4.1 Prepare a Tree Preservation Reponjor all Trees to be Retained.
An updated tree survey and tree preservation report (TPR)
prepared by a certified arbolist shall be submitted for review and
acceptance by the City Urban Forester. For reference clarity,
the tree survey shall include (list and field tag) all existing trees
within the SUMC Sites, including adjacent trees overhanging the
SUMC Sites. The approved TPR shall be implemented in full,
including mandatory inspections and monthly reporting to City
Urban Forester. The TPR shall be based on latest SUMC plans
and amended as needed to address activity or within the dripline
area of any existing tree to be preserved, including incidental
work (utilities trenching, street work, lighting, irrigation, etc.)
that may affect the health of a preserved tree. The SUMC
Project shall be modified to address recommendations identified
to reduce impacts to existing ordinance-regulated trees. The
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
SU
StO/liord University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
25
. Impacts
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
·. L
Impact
Significance
With
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation
TPR shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the Tree
Preservation Ordinance, Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
.8.10.030, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00,
4.00 and 6.30.25 To avoid improvements that may be detrimental
to the health of regulated trees, the TPR shall review the SUMC
Project sponsors' landscape plan to ensure the new landscape is
consistent with Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.45 ~ and
Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks.
BR-4.2 Prepare a Solar Access Study (SAS) of Short and Long Tenn
Effects on Protected Oaks. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
prepare a SAS of Short and Long Term Effects on Protected
Oaks. The SAS shall be prepared by a qualified expert team
(horticulturalist, architect designer, consulting arborist) capable
of determining effects, if any, to foliage, health, disease
susceptibility and also prognosis for longevity. The SAS shall
provide alternative massing scenarios to provide sufficient solar
access and reduce shading detriment at different thresholds of
tree health/decline, as provided for in the SAS. The SAS
adequacy shall be subject to peer review as determined necessary
by the City. The SAS design alternatives shall be the subject of
specific discussioil at all levels of ARB, Planning Commission,
CitY, Council, and public review in conjunction with the SUMC
Project sponsors, the City Urban Forester, and Director of the
Planning and Community Environment Department, until a final
design is approved.
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 8.10.030 and the City. Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00, 4.00 and 6.30 is available at:
http://www . cityofpaloalto. org/ environment/urban_canopy. asp.
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary S-69
Impacts
NI = No Impact
S-70
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
BR-4.3 Prepare a Tree Relocation Feasibility Plan for Any Protected
Tree Proposed for Relocation and Retention. Because of
inherent mortality associated with the process of moving mature
trees, a Tree Relocation and Maintenance Plan (TRMP) shall be
prepared subject to Urban Forester's approval. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall submit a TRMP to determine the
feasibility of moving the Protected Trees to an appropriate
location on site. Feasibility shall consider current site and tree
conditions, a tree's ability to tolerate moving, relocation
measures, optimum needs for the new location, aftercare,
irrigation, and other long-term needs.
If the relocated trees do not survive after a period of five years,
the tree canopy shall be replaced with a tree of equivalent size or
security deposit value. The TRMP shall be inclusive of the
following mmlmUill information: appropriate irrigation,
monitoring inspections, post relocation tree maintenance, and for
an annual arborist report of the condition of the relocated trees.
If a tree is disfigured, leaning with supports needed, in decline
with a dead top or dieback of more than 25 percent, the tree shall
be considered a total loss and replaced in kind and size. The
fmal annual arborist report shall serve as the basis for return of
the Tree Security Deposit (see Mitigation Measure BR-4.4,
below, for a discussion of the Tree Security Deposit).
BR-4.4 Provide a Tree Preservation Bond/Security Guarantee. The
natural tree resources on the SUMC Site include significant
Protected Trees and those that provide neighborhood screening,
including two trees proposed for relocation. Prior to building
permit submittal, the Tree Security Deposit for the total value of
the relocated trees, as referenced in the Tree Technical Manual,
Section 3.26, Security Deposits, shall be posted to the City
S=Significan/ SU= Significant Unavoidable
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impacts
NI = No Impact
._1
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation Measures lVlitigation ,
Revenue Collections in a form acceptable by the City Attorney.
As a security measure, the SUMC Project sponsors shall be
subject to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the
City of Palo Alto and the SUMC Project sponsors describing a
tree retention amount, list of trees. criteria and timeline for
return of security, and conditions as cited in the Record of Land
Use Action for the SUMC Project. The SUMC Project sponsors
and SUMC Project arborist, to be retained by the SUMC Project
sponsors, shall coordinate with the City Urban Forester to
determine the amount of bonding required to guarantee the
protection and/or replacement of the regulated trees on the site
during construction and within five years after occupancy. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall bond for 150 percent of the value
for the relocated trees, and 50 percent of the value of the
remaining trees to be protected during construction (as identified
in the revised and fmal approved Tree Protection Report). The
SUMC Project sponsors 'shall provide an appraisal of the trees
with the proposed level of bonding in a tree value table to be
reviewed and accepted by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment with the description of each tree by
number. value, and total combined value of all the trees to be
retained. A return of the guarantee shall be subject to an annual
followed by a final tree assessment report on all the relocated and
retained trees from the SUMC Project arborist, as approved by
the City Urban Forester. five years following fmal inspection for
occupancy, to the satisfaction of the Director of the Planning and
Community Environment Department.
BR-4.5 Provide Optimum Tree Replacement for Loss of Publicly-Owned
Trees Regulated Tree Category. There are many publicly owned
trees growing in the right-of-way along various frontages (Welch
Road, Pasteur Drive, Quarry Road, Sand Hill Road, etc.).
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities ReneM-'al and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary S-71
26
Impacts
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
These trees provide an important visual and aesthetic value to the
streetscape and represent a significant investment from years of
public resources to maintain them. As mitigation to offset the
net benefits loss from removal of mature trees, and to minimize
the future years to achieve parity with visual and infrastructure
service benefits (C02 reduction, extended asphalt life, water
runoff management, etc.) currently provided by the trees, the
new public trees on all roadway frontages shall be provided with
best practices design and materials, including, but not limited to,
the following elements:
• Consistency with the City of Palo Alto Public Works
Department Street Tree Management Plan, in consultation
with Canopy, InC.26
• Provide adequate room for natural tree canopy growth and
adequate root growing volume. For large trees, a target goal
of 1,200 cubic feet of soil shall be used.
• For pedestrian and roadway areas that are to include tree
planting or adjacent to existing trees to be retained, utilize
City-approved best management practices for sustainability
products, such as permeable ADA sidewalk surfaces, Silva
Cell base support planters, engineered soil mix base, and
other advantage methods.
Canopy, Inc. is a non-profit organization that advises the City with regards to public trees. The City typically interfaces between applicants and rhe
'~Canopy, Inc., but it is recommended that the SUMC Project sponsors consult with Canopy, Inc. as well.
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Signijicam S=Signijicam SU= Signijicam UnClVoidable
S-72 StQJiford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacemem Draft EIR-SummaJY
"".1
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
BR-S. Conflict with any Applicable Habitat Conservation
Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. The SUMC
Project would have no impact on any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan.
BR-6. Cumulative Impacts on Special-Status Wildlife
Resources. The SUMC Project, in combination with other
foreseeable development, would have a less-than-significant
impact on Special-Status Plant Resources.
BR-7. Cumulative Loss of Riparian or Other Sensitive
Habitats, Including Wetlands as Defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. Cumulative impacts on riparian or other
sensitive habitats could be significant. However, the SUMC
Project's contribution to the cumulative impact would be less
than cumulatively considerable.
BR-S. Cumulative Interference with the Movement of Any
Native Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species or With
Established Native Resident or Migratory Wildlife Corridors,
or Use of Native Wildlife Nursery Sites. Cumulative
interference with movement of resident or migratory species or
with established migratory corridors could be significant.
However, the SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative
impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
NI
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
BR-4.6 Implement Minor Site Modifications to Preserve Biologically and
Aesthetically Significant Protected Trees. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall design and implement modifications to building
design, hardscape, and landscape to incorporate the below and
above ground area needed to preserve as many biologically and
aesthetically significant Protected Trees as possible.
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SummalY
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
S-73
... I
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HW-4. Stormwater Runoff and Erosion. The SUMC Project
would have a less-than-significant impact on stonnwater runoff
and erosion.
HW-5. Flooding and Stormwater Conveyance Capacity. The
SUMC Project would have a less-than-significant impact on
flooding and storm water conveyance capacity.
HW-6. Streanlbank Instability. The SUMC Project would
have a less-than-significant impact on streambaJ:l1( instability.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Signijicam
S-76
Mitigation Measures
Substances Contingency Plan (the "National Contingency Plan"
[NCP)).
The SUMC Project sponsors, or their representative, shall be
responsible for submitting the workplan for the DTSC's review
and approval prior to implementing field activities. The workplan
must include all information necessary for implementing field
work. The workplan shall include a Site Safety Plan (SSP) and a
Sampling Work Plan (SWP). The SSP must be submitted to the
DTSC in conjunction with the submittal of the SWP. The
objective of the SSP is to ensure protection of the investigative
team as well as the general public during sampling activities.
If risk to human or ecological health is identified, the SUMC
Project sponsors shall prepare and implement a Removal Action
Workplan (SB 1706 Stats. 1994, Chapter 441) (non-emergency
removal action or remedial action at 'a hazardous substance
release site which is projected to cost less than $1,000,000) that
is consistent with the NCP.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S=Signijicant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HW-7. Degradation of Surface Water QUality. TIle SUMC
Project would have a less-than-significant impact on
degradation of surface water quality.
HW-S. Dam Failure Inundation. TIle SUMC Project would
have a less-than-sigl1ificant impact regarding dam failure
inundation.
HW-9. Violation of Any Water Quality Standards or Waste
Discharge Requirements (WDRs). The SUMC Project would
have a less-than-significant impact regarding water quality
standards or WDRs.
HW -10. Cumulative Groundwater Recharge and Local Water
Table. The SUMC Project, in combination with reasonably
foreseeable probable future development, would have a less-
than-significant cumulative considerable impact on
groundwater recbarge and the local groundwater table.
HW-ll. Cumulative Groundwater Quality Impacts. The
SUMC Project, in combination with reasonably foreseeable
probable future development, would have a less-tban-
significant cumulative impact on groUlidwater qUality.
HW-12.Cumulative Stonnwater Runoff and Erosion. The
SUMC Project, in combination with reasonably foreseeable
probable future development, would have a less-than-
significant cumulative impact on stormwater runoff and
erosion.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S=Significant
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Mitigation Measures
SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
S-77
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HM-3. Exposure to Contaminated Soil and/or Groundwater
During Construction. The SUMC Project could expose
construction personnel and public to existing contaminated
groundwater and/or soil.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-80
Mitigation Measures
MITIGATION MEASURES. With implementation of Mitigation Measure
HM-3.1 through HM-3.4, below, the significant impact on construction
personnel and the public due to exposure to contaminated soil and/or
groundwater at the SUMC Sites would be reduced to less-than-significant
levels. In addition, Mitigation Measure HW-3.1 in Section 3.11,
Hydrology, would require the SUMC Project sponsors to develop a work
plan for any unknown contaminated site, wruch would further reduce the
imp,!cts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure HM-3.4 would require
specification of measures to prevent hazards from any remediation itself.
As such, these would be less-than-significant impacts from any remediation.
HM-3.1 Perfoml a Phase II ESAfor the 701 Welch Site. A Phase n ESA
shall be performed at 701 Welsh Site Building B. The Phase IT
ESA shall include sampling and analysis of soil, groundwater,
wastewater, and residues on surfaces such as laboratories
countertops, fume hoods, sinks, sumps, floors, and drain lines.
The County DEH and P AFD shall be notified by the Project
sponsors if contamination is discovered. If contamination is
discovered, the SUMC Project sponsors shall prepare a site
remediation assessment that (a) specifies measures to protect
workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards
and (b) certifies that the proposed remediation measures would
. clean up contaminants, dispose of the wastes, and protect public
health in accordance with federal, State, and local requirements.
Site excavation activities shall not proceed until the site
remediation has been approved by the County DEH and
implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors. Additionally, the
Site Remediation Assessment shall be subject to review and
approval by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. All appropriate
agencies shall be notified.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impacts
NI = No Impact
L"_ .....
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
HM-3.2 Excavate Contaminated Soil from the 703 Welch Site. For the 4-
to 9-square-foot area near every discharge point from the
building, soil samples shall be performed and contaminated soil
excavated, removed, and transported to an approved disposal
facility. in compliance with OSHA requirements. The County
DEH and the PAFD shall be notified by the SUMC Project
sponsors if contamination is encountered during construction.
HM-3.3 Conduct a Soil Vapor Program at the Hoover Pavilion Site. A
qualified consultant, under the SUMC Project sponsors'
direction, shall undertake the following activities:
• Remove all buried underground storage tanks from the
property after sheds and storage buildings on the Hoover
Pavilion Site have been demolished;
• To the extent necessary, additional soil sampling shall be
collected to determine health risks and to develop disposal
criteria;
• If warranted based on soil sampling, a human health risk
assessment shall be prepared and implemented to detennine
potential for impacts on construction workers as well as to
develop measures to ensure it is safe ,to redevelop the
Hoover Pavilion Site within engineering controls (e.g., SVE
or vapor barriers); and
• To the extent required based upon the results of soil
sampling and the results of a health risk assessment (if
applicable), a Site Health and Safety Plan to ensure worker
safety in compliance with OSHA requirements shall be
developed by the Project sponsors, and in places prior to
commencing work on any contaminated site.
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stal\ford University Medical Center Facilities Renel",'al and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-81
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HM-4. Hazardous Waste Generation and Disposal Resulting
in Increased Exposure Risk. The SUMC Project would not
substantially increase exposure risk related to hazardous waste
generation.
HM-5. Emit Hazardous Emissions or Handle Hazardous
Materials Within One-Quarter Mile of a School. The SUMC
Project would not emit or handle hazardous materials within
one-quarter mile of school.
HM-6. Construct a School OJ;l a Property that is Subject to
Hazards from Hazardous Materials Contamination, Emissions
or Accidental Release. The SUMC Project would not construct
a school that is subject to hazards from hazardous materials
contamination, emissions or accidental release.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
N1
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-82
Mitigation Measures
The SUMC Project sponsors shall cooperate with the County
DEH to proceed with closure of the Hoover Pavilion Site.
HM-3.4 Develop a Site Management Plan for the Hoover Pavilion Site.
The SUMC Project sponsors shall prepare a site remediation
assessment that (a) specifies measures to protect workers and the
public from exposure to potential site hazards, including hazards
from . remediation itself, and (b) certifies that the proposed
remediation measures would clean up contaminants, dispose of
the wastes, and protect public health in accordance with federal,
State. and local requirements. Site excavation activities shall not
proceed until the site remediation has been approved by the
County DEH and implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors.
Additionally, the Site Remediation Assessment shall be subject to
review and approval by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. All
appropriate agencies shall be notified.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S=Significant . SU = Significant Unavoidable
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SummalY
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HM-7. Occur on a Site Included on the Cortese List, a List of
Hazardous Materials Sites. The SUMC Project would result in
construction of facilities on a site included on the Cortese List.
HM-S. Wildland Fire Risk. The SUMC Project would not
expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires.
HM-9. Occur on a Site Located Within an Airport Land Use
Plan or Within Two Miles of a Public Airport, and Result in a
Safety Hazard. The SUMC Project would not be located
within an Airport Land Use Plan or within 2 miles of a Public
Airport.
HM~lO. Impairment of Emergency Plans. The SUMC Project
could impair implementation or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response or evacuation plan.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI
Nl
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
MmGATION MEASURES. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HM-3.3
and HM-3.4, which involve the implementation of a soil vapor program and
development of a site management plan, would reduce the potential for
exposure to hazardous materials. at the Hoover Pavilion Site to less-than-
significant levels. Additionally, compliance with current federal, State and
local regulations would help prevent any further exposure to hazardous
materials.
None required.
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure HM-lO.l requires advance
coordination with the City of Palo Alto on construction routes or roadway
closures. This measure, together with Mitigation Measures TR-l.l,
TR-l.4 through TR-1.6, and TR-1.S, which all involve construction-period
traffic controls, would reduce the significant construction-period impacts to
a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure TR-9.1, would involve
the installation of emergency vehicle traffic signal priority (OptiCom) at all
intersections significantly impacted by the SUMC Project. Mitigation
Measure TR-9.1 would reduce impacts on emergency access during
operation. Implementation of these measures would reduce the SUMC
Project's impact to emergency evacuation and response plans to a less-than-
significant level.
S = Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renel1!al and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
N/A
N/A
LTS
S-83
TabJe S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
PH-3. Impacts on Jobs to Employed Residents Ratio. The
SUMC Project would have an adverse impact on the City's
jobs to employed residents ratio because it would exceed the
existing Comprehensive Plan and zoning allowances for the
SUMC Sites and thus require amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan and rezoning, and it would increase the
City's jobs to employed residents ratio by more than 0.01.
However, this impact is not, itself, an environmental impact.
This impact will result in secondary environmental inlpacts
relating to additional commute traffic, including the significant
and unavoidable impacts on air quality and climate change, as
identified in Sections 3.5 and 3.6. The present analysis of
impacts to the "jobs to employed residents" ratio is presented
for informational purposes, and for the purpose of identifying
additional mitigation measures for those identified impacts.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
N/A
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-86
Mitigation Measures
MmGATION MEASURE. Implementation of Mitigation Measure PH-3.1
would reduce the impact on the City's jobs to employed residents ratio;
however, such implementation would not fully avoid the SUMC Project's
impact on the jobs to employed residents ratio because (1) the measures
would not guarantee provision of housing units to cover the demand from
the 1,052 households (or 8 percent thereof), and (2) due. to the various
factors that people consider in choosing where to live, it caDIlot be
ascertained that the 1,810 workers would choose to live in Palo Alto. Due
to the high concentration of jobs in Palo Alto, it is possible that a strong
affordable housing program would result in reduced traffic congestion,
vehicle miles traveled, and greenhouse gas emissions.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure PH-3.1 is not directly required in
order to mitigate a significant environmental impact, but rather should be
considered as possible additional mitigation for Impacts A Q-2, A Q-7 ,
CC-1, and CC-2, as discussed in Section 3.5, Air Quality, and Section 3.6,
Climate Change, of this EIR. However, it should be stressed that these
measures are presented here only in conceptual terms, and the City may
find that some or all of them are not feasible for various legal, practical, or
other reasons. As sucb, Mitigation Measure PH-3.1 is presented for
informational purposes, and to ensure that all possible options for
mitigation of tllese inlpacts are adequately considered.
PH-3.1 Reduce the Impacts OIL the Jobs to Employed Residents Ratio. In
order to reduce tile SUMC Project's impacts on the City's jobs to
employed residents ratio, one or more of the following measures
shall be implemented by both the City and the SUMC Project
sponsors:
• The City shall explore amending the Zoning Code to permit
more residential uses, particularly multifamily residential
use;
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal alld Replacement Draft EIR -SummaJY
... _ .. ~~·~~-=.·,-__ ~L...._._"""' .. ~ .• ".~~,,,,,,,,,,,,u._,.~_ .. _."""~_ ... u.L~L _......L...i4 __ '-__ ..... _ ..... ,~~· "'--_.~,-' __
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
. Impact'>
PS-2. Impacts from Police Protection Facilities. The SUMC
Project would require an increased lever of police services.
However, the increased level of police services would not be
large enough to trigger the need for construction of new
facilities, which could adversely affect the physical
environment. Impacts would be less than significant.
PS-3. Impacts Related to School Facilities. An increase in
students, which would require school e},.-pansions, would result
as a tertiary impact of the SUMC Project, since increased
employment from the SUMC Project could induce additional
housing units within the City. Both the SUMC Project and
induced housing projects would be subject to SB 50 School
Impact Fees, which would mitigate impacts to less than
significant.
PS-4. Impacts Related to Construction of New or Altered
Parks and Recreation Facilities. The SUMC Project would not
result in the construction or expansion of new parks or fields,
which would in turn result in adverse environmental inlpacts.
The SUMC Project would be required to pay a City
Community Facility Fee, which would be used to fund new
parks or an alteration to an existing park, and would mitigate
impacts to less than significant.
PS-S. Deterioration of Park and Recreation Facilities.
Increased recreational demand from SUMC Project employees
could accelerate the physical deterioration of the City's parks
and fields. The SUMC Project would be required to pay a
City Community Facility Fee, which reduce or avoid any such
deterioration, and would mitigate impacts to less than
significant.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-88
Mitigation Measures
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EJR -SUfnJ1'laJY
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
PS-6. Cumulative Fire Protection Demand and Emergency
Medical Facilities. Cumulative growth would increase demand
for fire protection and emergency response services within the
P AFD' s service area; however, no new P AFD facilities would
need to be constructed. Cumulative impacts would be less
than significant.
PS-7. Cumulative Police Protection Demand. Cumulative
growth in the City could necessitate construction of new or
expanded police facilities in order to meet increased demand
for services. Construction of new or expanded police facilities
could result in significant environmental impacts. As such,
cumulative impacts related to police service could be
significant. However the SUMC Project's contribution to the
cumulative need for new or expanded police facilities would be
less than cumulatively considerable.
PS-8. Cumulative School Demand. Cumulative
development in the City can be expected to necessitate
expansion of school facilities, which could have adverse
physical environmental impacts. TIris cumulative impact is
conservatively assumed to be significant, although the SUMC
Project's contribution to this cumulative impact would be less
than cumulatively considerable.
PS-9 Cumulative Demand for Parks and Recreation
Facilities, and for New Parks. Cumulative impacts related to
park deterioration would be less than significant due to the
City's Community Facility Fee. Cumulative growth in the
City would necessitate acquisition or development of new
parklands. which could result in significant environmental
impacts; however, the contribution of the SUMC Project to
Impact ~
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Signijicant
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S=Signijicant
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renev.'al and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
Mitigation Measures
SU= Signijicant Unavoidable
hnpact
Significance~
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
S-89
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
replacement or maintenance of storm drain facilities.
However, general replacement and maintenance of storm drain
facilities is included in City plans and would comply with
applicable environmental regulations. Therefore, cumulative
development would have a less-than-significant cumulative
impact related to the capacity or deterioration of storm drain
facilities.
UT-9. Cumulative Solid Waste Impacts. Cumulative
development would generate solid waste within the permitted
capacity of the SMART Station and Kirby Canyon Landfill.
Cumulative development would not result in substantial
deterioration of solid waste facilities. As such, cumulative
impacts related to solid waste generation would be less than
significant.
UT-lO. Cumulative Energy Demand. Cumulative
development in the City of Palo Alto would consume
additional energy and, therefore, would increase the demand
for energy. The City' s electrical and natural gas facilities are
projected to have adequate capacity to serve the City's
increased demand for energy. The increased level of energy
demand may trigger the need for the replacement or
maintenance of energy facilities. However, general
replacement and maintenance of energy facilities is expected
and would comply with applicable environmental regulations.
Therefore, cumulative development would not have a
significant cumulative impact related to energy demand and
energy facilities.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = l_ess-than-Signijicant
S-92
Mitigation Measures
None required.
None required.
S=Signijicant SU~ Signijicant Unavoidable
~---
hnpact
Significance
With
:Mitigation
N/A
N/A
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -SummalY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
14e,
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Memorandum
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
JUNE 14, 2010
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 272:10
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and
Replacement Project Draft Environmental Impact Report -Comment
on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, including an overview of the
Visual Quality, Biological Resources and Cultural Resources chapters.
This CMR was originally distributed in an early packet on June 2,2010.
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
~~
CCJAMES KEENE ~City Manager
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: JUNE 14,2010
REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 272:10
SUBJECT: Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement
Project Draft Environmental Impact Report -Comment on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report, including an overview ofthe Visual Quality,
Biological Resources and Cultural Resources Chapters.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the City Council and. Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC)
provide and accept public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the
Stanford University Medical Center Facility Renewal and Replacement Project (SUMC Project) and
forward comments to staff and consultants for response in the Final Environmental Impact Report
(Final EIR). The Draft EIR began a 69-day public review period on May 20,2010. The review period
ends on July 27,2010. Multiple meetings will be held with the City Council and P&TC to accept
comments on the Draft EIR. The P &TC will hear this item on June 9, 2010. The staff report provides
an overview of the Visual Quality, Biological Resources and Cultural Resources chapters of the
Draft EIR, including the key impacts and mitigation measures.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning and the Planning and Transportation
Commission:
1. Accept public comments on the Draft ErR; and
2. Forward comments on the Draft ErR to staff and the consultant for response in the Final EIR.
BACKGROUND
On May 20, 2010, the SUMC Project Draft EIR was published starting a 69-day public review
_p_erio_d.~hisjs_the_second_public_hearingjn_a_seriesoLmeetings-on-the Draft EIROn June 9 the
P&TC will hold a public hearing on the items identified in this staff report.
Copies of the Draft EIR can be obtained at the City of Palo Alto Development Center, at the Palo
Alto Main Library and via the City's website, www.cityofpaloalto.org/sumc.
\
City of Palo Alto Page 1
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff will provide an overview of the following chapters at the meeting:
• Visual Quality (pages 3.3-1 through 3.3-56)
• Biological Resources (pages 3.9-1 through 3.9-32)
• Cultural Resources (pages 3.8-1 through 3.8-29)
The comments on these chapters should be focused on whether the information presented in the
Draft EIR adequately covers the environmental impacts that could result from the proposed SUMC
Project. The hearings are not meant to provide a forum for dialogue about the project merits, but to
be opportunities to collect comments on the Draft EIR to ensure that it adequately describes the
environmental impacts of the Project.
1. Visual Quality
Visual Quality impacts are addressed in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR. Visual quality pertains to how
people see and experience the environment, particularly its visual character. William Kanemoto and
Associates prepared visual simulations analyzed in the chapter.
Significance Thresholds
Based on significance thresholds determined by the City of Palo Alto, the SUMC Project would
result in a significant visual quality impact if it would:
• Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality ofthe site and its surroundings;
• Significantly alter public viewsheds or view corridors or scenic resources (such as trees,
outcroppings or historic buildings along a scenic roadway);
• Require substantial terrain modifications that would degrade the visual character of the site;
• Allow for new development that would violate existing Comprehensive Plan policies
regarding visual resources;
• Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area; or
• Substantially shadow public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks)
between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21.
Key Impacts and Mitigations
The following impacts have been identified as significant (S); however the impacts identified in this
chapter can be eliminated through mitigation. The mitigation measures developed for each of the
impacts are identified below.
---~-.-"l[Q=-L:-Temporary-degradation-of-v:isual-character during construction (S).
Mitigation Measure-
o VQ-1.1: Implement construction visual improvement plans;
City of Palo Alto Page 2
• VQ-2: Permanent degradation of visual character post construction (S).
• VQ-3: Alteration of public viewsheds (S).
• VQ-5: New sources oflight and glare (S).
Mitigation Measure -
Discussion
o VQ-2.l: Compliance with the City's Architectural review process and
recommendations.
Significance determinations for the impact analysis are based on the extent of changes in the visual
character and quality of the SUMC Sites and surroundings, as well as the change in quality of views
from key vantage points. Changes in visual character are affected primarily by building scale, height,
and mass. Landscaping, lighting, exterior architectural treatments, and materials are also considered
in determining the resulting character and its compatibility with surrounding development. Context
and expectations are also considered.
To demonstrate potential impacts from the SUMC Project, visual simulations of existing and
representative post-construction (2025) views from five selected vantage points were prepared.
Figure 3.3-7 of the Draft EIR provides a map of the vantage points.
The SUMC Project would increase on-site massing by adding 1.3 million square feet of building
floor area and raising maximum building height on the SUMC sites from five to seven stories,
reconfigure on-site layout, alter on-site landscaping and lighting, and incorporate new building
materials and treatments.
Mitigation requires the SUMC Project sponsors to submit final building and site plans to the ARB
prior to issuance of any development permits. Architectural Review shall assess the appropriateness
of proposed demolitions, proposed building heights and massing, siting of buildings and structures,
architecture and fa9ade treatments, landscaping, circulation plans, and parking. The ARB may
require alterations to any of the above proj ect features, or the ARB may suggest new features, such as
new landscaping or public art, to improve the proposed SUMC Project design. Any
recommendations made by the ARB with respect to the design of the SUMC Project shall be
implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors.
At the P&TC and City Council meetings the applicant will be providing an overview of the SUMC
Project design, including an animation to provide the Council, P&TC and community an
understanding of each of the Project components, their respective building design intent and how the
different components of the Project tie together.
2. Biological Resources
Biological Resource impacts are addressed in Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR.
Significance Thresholds
Based on significance thresholds determined by the City of Palo Alto, the SUMC Project would
result in a significant biological resource impact if it would:
City of Palo Alto Page 3
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations;
• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, including federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means;
• Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites;
• Result in a substantial adverse effect to any "protected tree" as defined by the City of Palo
Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10); or
• Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community plan.
Key Impacts and Mitigations
The following impacts have been identified as significant (S); however these impacts can be
eliminated through mitigation. The mitigation measures developed for each of the impacts are
identified below.
• BR-l: Impacts on special-status plant or wildlife resources (S).
Mitigation Measures-
o BR -1.1: Conduct a pre-demolition survey;
o BR-1.2: Avoid roosting areas:
o BR -1.3: Develop and employ bat nest box plan;
o BR-1.4: Avoid tree removal during nesting season:
o BR-1.5: Protect Cooper's hawk in the event of nest discovery.
• BR-3: Use of native wildlife nursery sites (S).
Mitigation Measures-
o BR-3.l: Avoid tree removal during nesting season;
o BR-3.2: Protect birds in the event of nest discovery.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The following impacts have been identified as significant and unavoidable (SU) even after
implementation of mitigation measures:
• BR-4: Result in a substantial adverse effect on any protected tree (SU).
• BR-9: Cumulative impacts on protected trees (SU).
MitigatIOn Measures----------------
o BR -4.1: Prepare a tree preservation report for all trees to be retained;
o BR-4.2: Prepare a solar access study of short and long term effects on protected oaks:
o BR-4.3: Prepare a tree relocation feasibility plan for any protected tree proposed for
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Discussion
relocation and retention;
o BR-4.4: Provide a tree preservation bond/security guarantee:
o BR -4.5: Provide optimum tree replacement for loss of publicly-owned trees regulated
tree category.
o BR-4.5: Implement minor site modifications to preserve biologically and
aesthetically significant protected trees.
Approximately 1,562 trees have been identified in the SUMC sites. Coast live oaks and coast
redwoods above a certain size are regulated under the City's Tree Protection and Management
Regulations, which prohibit the removal of these trees, except under limited circumstances. There
are 176 trees large enough to be designated as Protected Trees. 71 Protected trees appear to be within
or sufficiently close to new building footprints or areas associated with the site reconfiguration.
Therefore, removal of up to 71 Protected Trees out of a total of 176 Protected Trees may occur.
Ofthe 71 Protected Trees, approximately 23 trees have been determined by the City to have both
biological and aesthetic resource characteristics. A "Biological Tree Resource" is a protected
category oak or redwood of a certain size as defined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10,
Tree Preservation and Management Regulations. An "Aesthetic Tree Resource" is a Protected Tree
that is deemed important relative to the SUMC Project, as designated by the Department of Planning
and Community Environment or the City Council, because it has one or more of the following
qualities: functions as an important or prominent visual feature; contributes to a larger grove or
landscape theme; and/or possesses unique character as defined in the designation of Heritage Trees
(per Municipal Code Section 8.10.090).
The City has determined that these 23 Protected Trees that are both biologically and aesthetically
significant would require retention and preservation under the SUMC Project. The 23 Protected
Trees include: nine Protected Trees in Kaplan Lawn (located between Pasteur Drive), 12 Protected
Trees in the area ofthe proposed SoM FIM 1 building, one Protected Tree located between the site of
the Blake-Wilbur Clinic building and Welch Road, and one Protected Tree east of the new LPCH
hospital building, along Welch Road.
The new "Hospital District" would create a procedure to permit the removal of the remaining
approximately 48 Protected Trees while preserving the 23 Protected Trees that are considered both
biologically and aesthetically significant. Site planning adjustments could be made to protect some of
the 23 trees, but not all. Therefore, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Tree Preservation Alternative
In an effort to retain as many Protected Trees as possible, the applicant has worked collaboratively
with staff to develop the Tree Preservation Alternative. Section 5 of the Draft EIR describes fully the
Project Alternatives. Although the Alternatives will be di~cus_sed ingreaterd~tail at the luly_IP&TC
meeting and July 26 City Council meeting, it is important to briefly discuss the Tree Preservation
Alternative in context with the Visual Quality and Biological Resources Chapters of the Draft EIR. A
description ofthis Alternative can be found in the Draft EIR on pages 5-15 through 5-22 and Figure
5-1 provides a site plan for this Alternative.
City of Palo Alto PageS
The Tree Preservation Alternative preserves biologically and aesthetically significant oak trees
located in the portion of the SUMC Project known as Kaplan Lawn, outside the proposed FIM 1
building near Pasteur Drive, and outside the new hospital building near Welch Road. The Tree
Preservation Alternative maintains the same square footage and programmatic functions as the
SUMC Project, but proposes design modifications to the new hospital building as well as FIM 1 to
accomplish additional tree preservation. The key difference under the Tree Preservation Alternative
is that the square footage and programmatic functions planned for the hospital module located within
the Kaplan Lawn (Hospital Module Six) would be incorporated into the other hospital modules. The
new design reduces the building footprint and allows all of the trees within the Kaplan Lawn to be
retained. Other changes are proposed to FIM 1 to preserve additional trees.
The Tree Preservation Alternative represents how the project design has changed from the original
application and how it continues to evolve throughout the public review process. The applicant has
identified this Alternative as their preferred alternative and has been working on further developing
the design shown in this Alternative with their Boards of Directors and with the Office of Statewide
Health Planning and Development (OSHPD). The refined SHC and FIM 1 building designs depicted
in the Tree Preservation Alternative, are the designs being supported by Stanford, being reviewed by
ARB and will be the designs presented for consideration after the EIR certification.
The applicant will be providing an overview of the Project design at both the P&TC and City
Council meetings to show how the project design continues to evolve based on information
presented in the Draft EIR (such as the impacts on visual quality and biological resources).
3. Cultural Resources
Cultural Resource impacts are addressed in Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR. This section of the EIR is
based primarily on the report titled Cultural Resources and the Stanford University Medical Center
Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project, prepared by Stanford University and a peer review of
that report prepared by Architectural Resources Group, Inc. (ARG).
Significance Thresholds
Based on significance thresholds determined by the City of Palo Alto, the SUMC Project would
result in a significant cultural resource impact if it would:
• Cause a substantial adverse effect (as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(b)) on an
historical resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or
listed on the City's Historic Inventory;
• Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory;
• Cause damage to an historic or unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5
of the CEQA Guidelines;
----.-Bisturb-Native Am~rican-human-remains, inc1udirrg those interred outside-of fannal
cemeteries;
• Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature; or
City of Palo Alto Page 6
• Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council
resolution.
Key Impacts and Mitigations
The following impacts have been identified as significant (S); however these impacts can be
eliminated through mitigation. The mitigation measures developed for each of the impacts are
identified below.
• CR-2: Impacts on prehistpric or archaeological resources (S).
• CR-6: Impacts on prehistoric and/or archaeological resources and human remains (S).
Mitigation Measure-
o CR -2.1: Construction staff training and consultation.
• CR-3: Impacts on human remains (S).
Mitigation Measure-
o CR -3.1: Conduct protocol and procedures for encountering human remains.
• CR-4: Impacts on Paleontological resources (S).
Mitigation Measure-
o CR-4.1: Conduct protocol and procedures for encountering paleontological resources.
• CR-6: Cumulative impacts on prehistoric and/or archaeological resources and human
remains (S).
Mitigation Measures-
o CR-2.1: Construction staff training and consultation;
o CR-3.l: Conduct protocol and procedures for encountering human remains.
• CR-7: Cumulative impacts on Paleontological resources (S).
Mitigation Measure-
o CR-4.1: Conduct protocol and procedures for encountering paleontological resources.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The following impacts have been identified as significant and unavoidable (SU) even after
implementation of mitigation measures:
• CR -1: Impacts on historical resources (SU).
• CR-5: Cumulative impacts on historical resources (SU).
Mitigation Measures-
o CR-1.1: Manually demolish structures at the Hoover Pavilion site;
o CR-1.2: Prepare HABS documentation for the Stone Building complex;
~ ____ 0 CR -1.3~ Distripute written an<iphotographic docllmentation to agencies;
o CR-1.4: Prepare permanent interpretive displays/signage/plaques;
o CR -1.5: Implement protection documents for the Hoover Pavilion.
Discussion
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Seven potential historic resources within the SUMC Sites were evaluated: Governor's Avenue,
Hoover Pavilion, Nurse's Cottage at Hoover Pavilion, 701 Welch Road, 703 Welch Road, 1101
Welch Road, and the Stone Building complex (including the East, West, Core, Boswell, Grant,
Alway, Lane, and Edwards buildings).
The Hoover Pavilion exemplifies the distinctive characteristics of a pre-World War II hospital and
appears to maintain sufficient integrity for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources
(CRHR). The Hoover Pavilion is considered to be an historical resource for purposes of the City's
CEQA analysis.
The Draft ErR concludes that no significant interior spaces remain intact from the period of
significance, exterior modifications would retain significant character defining features and eliminate
non-historic elements, and the proposed medical office building and parking structure retain
significant views and would not result in an adverse, material alternation of significant characteristics
and would result in a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation measures are included to protect the
Hoover Pavilion during construction.
the Stone Building complex was designed by Edward Durell Stone and the landscaping was
designed by Thomas Church. Additionally, the complex is associated with the first heart transplant in
the U.S. Although there have been some alterations to the complex's courtyards and the surrounding
setting; the complex as a whole is largely intact and conveys the original design intent. In addition,
the main entry facades and several architectural elements retain a high degree of integrity and convey
an expression of Stone's work during an important phase of his career. Additionally, enough time
has passed to understand the significance of the heart transplant that occurred at the hospital, and that
the building retains sufficient integrity for association with that time period. Therefore, the Draft
EIR concludes that the Stone Building complex appears eligible for listing on the CRHR and
therefore is an historical resource pursuant to CEQA. The demolition of the Stone Building complex
would result in a significant impact on an historical resource. Mitigation measures CR -1.2 through
CR-1.4 would reduce impacts due to the loss ofthe Stone Building complex; however, the impact
would remain significant and unavoidable.
In combination with the SUMC Project, cumulative development would have cumulatively
significant impacts on historic resources in the City because these would together result in loss of at
least one historically significant structure. Only one other E.D. Stone building in Palo Alto, the Palo
Alto Main Library retains sufficient integrity to be eligible for listing. The demolition ofthe Stone
Building complex would comprise a considerable loss of an historical resource that is a unique and
non-renewable member of a finite class. The demolition ofthe Stone Building complex would have a
cumulatively considerable impact due to the small body ofE.D. Stone's work present in the City that
retains sufficient integrity to be eligible as historicaL resources.
Due to the demolition of the Stone Building complex, the SUMC Project's contribution would
n -remam cumulativelycon.siderable, as this impact cannot be avoided. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures CR -1.2 through CR -1.4 would reduce the SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative
impact, but not to a less than cumulatively considerable level.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
i
!
Impacts
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
VQ-2. Permanent :qegradation of Visual Character Post S
Construction. The SVMC Project would have a significant
impact pertaining to, degradation of the existing visual
_act" 0' qu"'ity of r slIMe Si", md tb,", ,urroun,""g,.
I NI = No Impact DTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
activity or would remain unused for a period greater than six
months. Construction zones subject to this mitigation measure
shall be defined by the Planning Director, and shall consider the
size of the area, the nature and timing of the construction
activity, and the proximity or visibility of the area to public
vantage points or residential uses. The Construction Visual
Improvements Plan shall be implemented by the project
contractor(s) and must be approved by the Planning Director.
The intent of the plan is to aesthetically improve portions of the
project site that would remain unimproved for an extended period
and screen the construction zone from view by passersby along
the public streets and sidewalks. Possible improvements in the
plan include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. The SUMC Project sponsors shall conceal staging areas with
fencing material to be approved by the Planning Director
prior to commencement of use of the staging area for
construction equipment and vehicles.
b. The SUMC Project sponsors shan frequently remove
construction debris and refuse from the SUMC Sites.
c. The SUMC Project sponsors shall install all landscaping as
early as feasible to decrease visual impacts of construction.
Existing landscaping within the SUMC Sites that would not
be removed by the construction shall be maintained.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1, below, requires and
ensures compliance with ARB recommendations for final design. Such
compliance would ensure that impacts on on-site visual character and
quality would be less than significant because the ARB's recommendations,
through the Architectural Review process, would address massing, layout,
landscaping, and architectural design impacts from the SUMC Project, as
described further below.
S = Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford Univel'sity Medical Center Facilities Renru'al and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
Witb
Mitigation
S-27
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
VQ-3. Alteration of IpUblic Viewsheds, View Corridors, or
Scenic Resources. llfhe SUMC Project would result in
significant impacts on iews.
, ,
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
I NI = No Impact
I
LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-28
Mitigation Measures
VQ-2.1 Adhere to City's Architectural Review Process and
Recommendations. The SUMC Project sponsors shall submit
final building and site plans to the ARB prior to issuance of any
development permits. Architectural Review shall assess the
appropriateness of proposed demolitions, proposed building
heights and massing, siting of buildings and structures,
architecture and facade treatments, landscaping, circulation
plans, and parking. The ARB may require alterations to any of
the above project features, or the ARB may suggest new
features, such as new landscaping or public art, to improve the
proposed SUMC Project design. Any recommendations made by
the ARB with respect to the design of the SUMC Project shall be
implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors. .
MlTIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1, above, requires and
ensures compliance with ARB recommendations for final design and would
reduce impacts on views from the proposed buildings under the SUMC
Project. The Architectural Review of the SUMC Project would consider,
among other factors, whether the SUMC Project has a coherent
composition and that its bulk and mass are harmonious with surrounding
development. The ARB's recommendations regarding these factors will be
forwarded to the City Council for consideration. The City Council would
then review the recommendations and make findings, as appropriate, that
natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the SUMC
Project; the design promotes hannonious transitions in scale and character
in areas between different designated land uses; and the planning and siting
of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of
order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the
general community. Implementation of Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1
regarding the Architectural Review process would ensure that impacts on
views would be less than significant.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
I VQ-4. Terrain Modifications. The SUMC Project would not
require substantial terrkin modifications that would degrade the
visual character of the 8UMC Sites.
VQ-5. New Sources 10f Light and Glare. The SUMC Project
could increase light add glare nuisance from exterior lighting,
resulting in a significaqt impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
NI
S
VQ-6. Shadowing of Public Open Space. The SUMC LTS
Project would not sJbstantially shadow public open space
(other than public stre9ts and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00
a.Ill. and 3:00 p.m. fropI September 21 to March 2l.
I VQ-7. Cumulative Impacts on Visual Character. The SUMC L TS
Project, in combinatipn with other reasonably foreseeable
probable future devel9pment in the area, would have a less-
than-significant cumulative impact on visual character in the
vicinity of the SUMC Sites.
I
I NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Signijicant
I •
Mitigation Measures
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1, above, requires
compliance with ARB recommendations for final design and would reduce
light and glare impacts from the proposed buildings under the SUMC
Project. The Architectural Review of the SUMC Project would consider,
among other factors, whether the SUMC Project incorporates quality
materials, harmonious colors, appropriate ancillary features, a cohesive
design with a coherent composition, and an appropriate lighting plan. The
ARB's recommendations regarding these factors will be forwarded to the
City Council for consideration. The City Council would then review the
recommendations and make findings, as appropriate, that the design is
compatible with the inunediate environment of the SUMC Sites; is
appropriate to the function of the SUMC Project; promotes harmonious
transitions in character in areas between different designated land uses; and
is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site. This
Architectural Review process would ensure that exterior treatment would
not emit substantial glare and that exterior lighting impacts would be less
than significant.
None required.
None required.
S = Signijicant SU= Significant Unavoidable
StG1;ford Unive/;sity Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
LTS
N/A
N/A
S-29
Impacts
I NI = No Impact
" Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
TR-l.2 Maintain Pedestrian Access. The SUMC Project. sponsors shall
be prohibited from substantially limiting pedestrian access while
constructing the SUMC Project, without prior approval from the
City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works. Such approval
shall require submittal and approval of specific construction
management plans to mitigate the specific impacts to a less-than-
significant levels. Pedestrian access-limiting actions would
include, but not be limited to, sidewalk closures, bridge closures,
crosswalk closures or pedestrian re-routing at intersections,
placement of construction-related material within pedestrian
pathways or sidewalks, and other actions which may affect the
mobility or safety of pedestrians during the construction period.
U sidewalks are maintained along the construction site frontage,
covered walkways shall be provided.
TR-l.3 Maintain Bicycle Access. The SUMC Project sponsors shall be
prohibited from limiting bicycle access while constructing the
SUMC Project without prior approval from the City of Palo Alto
Department of Public Works. Such approval shall require
submittal and approval of specific construction management plans
that warn cyclists prior to reaching the impacted bicycle lanes
and provide altemative routing around the construction sites to
mitigate the specific impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Bicycle access-limiting actions would include, but not be limited
to, bicycle lane closures or narrowing, closing or narrowing of
streets that are designated bicycle routes. bridge closures, the
placement of construction-related materials within designated
bicycle lanes or along bicycle routes. and other actions which
may affect the mobility or safety of bicyclists during the
construction period.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stallford Univelisity Medical Center Facilities Rene'wal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-31
Impacts
NI = No Impact
S-32
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
TR-I.4 Restrict Construction Hours. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
be required to prohibit or limit the number of construction
material deliveries from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and from 4pm
to 6pm on weekdays. The SUMC Project sponsors shall be
required to prohibit or limit the number of construction
employees from arriving or departing the site from the hours of
4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
TR-l.5 Restrict Construction Truck Routes. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall be required to deliver and remove all construction-
related equipment and materials on truck routes designated by the
cities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Heavy
construction vehicles shall be prohibited from accessing the site
from other routes. Figure 3.4-6 and 3.4-7 of the EIR illustrates
the Stanford Area Truck Routes which must be used by all
trucks.
TR-l.6 Protect Public Roadways During Construction. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall be required to repair any structural damage
to public roadways, returning any. damaged sections to original
structural condition. The SUMC Project sponsors shall survey
the condition of the public roadways along truck routes providing
access to the proposed project site before construction, and shall
again survey after construction is complete. A before-and-after
survey report shall be completed and submitted to the City of
Palo Alto Public Works Department for review, indicating the
location and extent of any damage.
TR-I.7 Maintain Public Transit Access and Routes. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall be prohibited from limiting access to public
transit, and from limiting movement of public transit vehicles,
without prior approval from the Santa Clara County Valley
S = Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
StOliford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -SummalY
Impacts
I NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Sign(ficant
Mitigation Measures
Transportation Authority or other appropriate jurisdiction. Such
approval shall require submittal and approval of specific impacts
to a less-than-significant level. Potential actions which would
impact access to transit include, but are not limited to, relocating
or removing bus stops, limiting access to bus stops or transfer
facilities, or otherwise restricting or constraining public transit
operations.
TR-l.8 Prepare and Implement Construction Impact Mitigation Plan. In
lieu of the above mitigation measures, the SUMC Project
sponsors shall submit a detailed construction impact mitigation
plan to the City of Palo Alto for approval by the Director of
Public Works prior to commencing any construction activities
with potential transportation impacts. This plan shall address in
detrul the activities to be carried out in each construction phase,
the potential transportation impacts of each activity, . and an
acceptable method of reducing or eliminating significant
transportation impacts. Details such as the routing and
scheduling of materials deliveties, construction employee arrival
and departure schedules, employee parking locations, and
emergency vehicle access shall be described and approved.
TR-l.9 Conduct Additional Measures During Special Events. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall implement a mechanism to prevent
roadway construction activities from reducing roadway capacity
during major athletic events or other special events which attract
a substantial number of visitors to the campus. This measure
may require a special supplemental permit to be approved by
either Santa Clara County or the City of Palo Alto prior to
hosting such events during significant construction phases.
S = Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford Unive/isity Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-33
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
TR-2. Intersection rfvel of Service. Implementation of tbe
SUMC Project woulld result in significant impacts to
" intersections during Pehlc Hour conditions.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
I NI = No Impact
I
LTS = Less-than-Significant
I
S-34
Mitigation Measures
MITIGATION MEASURES. Given the magnitude of the SUMC Project's
infersection impacts, there is no single feasible mitigation measure that can
reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. However, there are a
range of measures that, when taken individually, would each contribute to a
partial reduction in tbe SUMC Project's impacts. When combined, these
measures could result in a substantial reduction in the SUMC Project's
impacts.
Under all combinations of feasible mitigation measures below, impacts of
the SUMC Project on intersection LOS would remain significant and
unavoidable. Of all of the feasible combinations, the one that would have
the largest reduction in impact, and that mitigates the greatest number of the
intersection impacts, is the combination of traffic adaptive signal
technology, additional bicycle and pedestrian undercrossings, enhanced
Travel Demand Management (TDM) program, and feasible intersection
improvements. This combination of mitigation measures would reduce the
SUMC Project impacts to a less-than-significant level at all of the impacted
intersections during the AM Peak: Hour. However, intersection impacts
would remain significant and unavoidable in the PM Peak Hour at tbree
intersections with mitigation.
TR-2.1 Install Traffic Adaptive Signal Technology. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall contribute to the Palo Alto Citywide Traffic
Impact Fee program, for the installation of traffic adaptive
signals. However, this fee is not structured to mitigate one
hundred percent of project related impacts, and an additional fee
could be imposed by the City on the SUMC Project sponsors to
mitigate the remaining share of the SUMC Project impacts. In
Menlo Park, the SUMC Project sponsors shall contribute their
fair share amount, which shall be tied to the amount of traffic
added to analyzed intersections by tbe SUMC Project. TIle
SUMC Project sponsors' contributions shall apply towards the
S = Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
bnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
SU
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SummaJY
Impacts
I NI = No Impact
I
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
installation of traffic adaptive signals as listed below.
• Sand Hill Road (Oak Creek to Shopping Center) -4 signals
• Arboretum Road (Shopping Center to Palm Drive) -3
signals
• Embarcadero Road (Bryant to Saint Francis) -7 signals
• University Avenue (Palm to Lincoln) -13 signals
• Lytton Avenue (Alma to Middlefield) -10 signals
• Hamilton A venue (Alma to Middlefield) -10 signals
• Middlefield Road (San Antonio to Homer) -9 signals
• Charleston Road (Alma to Middlefield) -2 signals
• EI Camino Real (northern city limits of Menlo Park to
southern city limits of Palo Alto) -signals would require
approval of Caltrans
TR-2.2 Fund Additional Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossings. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall contribute their fair share to the
cost of construction of the Everett Avenue undercrossing of the
Caltrain tracks in Palo Alto and the Middle A venue
undercrossing in Menlo Park. In Palo Alto, there is a Citywide
Traffic Impact Fee program that the SUMC Project sponsors
shall contribute to. However, this fee is not structured to
mitigate one hundred percent of the SUMC Project related
impacts, and an additional fee may be imposed by the City to
mitigate the remaining share of the SUMC Project impacts. In
Menlo Park, the fair share contribution shall be tied to the
amount of traffic added to analyzed intersections by the SUMC
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford Unive/isity Medical Center Facilities ReneYVal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-35
Impacts
I NI = No Impact ,
S-36
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
Project. The construction of the Everett Avenue and Middle
Avenue undercrossings would reduce traffic volumes on nearby
streets, such as Ravenswood Avenue and University Avenue.
TR-2.3 Enhance Stanford University Travel Demand Management (IDM)
Program. The SUMC Project sponsors shall enhance the
currently-implemented TDM program in order to achieve 35.1
percent usage of alternative transportation modes (i.e, carpool,
vanpool, bus, Caltrain, bicycle, and walk) by SUMC employees.
The initial enhancements to the SUMC TDM program shall
include the following:
• Provide Caltrain GO Passes, or an equivalent TDM
measure, to all eligible hospital employees and set target
Caltrain mode share for hospital employees equal to 15.8
percent.
• If Caltrain GO Passes would be provided to SUMC
employees, make arrangements with AC Transit to lease 75
spaces at the Ardenwood Park & Ride Lot, to serve SUMC
employees who commute from the East Bay.
• Expand bus service in support of the issuance of GO Passes.
• Expand the Marguerite shuttle bus service, and integrate it
""ith the other City of Palo Alto shuttle bus service.
• Maintain load factors less than 1.00 on the U Line, and less
than 1.25 on the Marguerite shuttle.
• Expand and improve the bicycle and pedestrian networks.
• Provide a full-time on-site TDM coordinator by 2015 for the
hospital components. The coordinator would be responsible
for organizing and disseminating TDM information primarily
S=Significant SU= Significant Ullavoidable
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SummGlY
Impacts
I NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Signijicant
Mitigation Measures
to hospital employees and also to hospital patients. A central
location would be made available to provide information on
alternative travel modes. Also, the SUMC or hospitals'
website would contain information on TDM programs.
• Provide a guaranteed ride home program for all employees
who use transit and other transport alternatives like carpool
and vanpool. The guarantee ride home shall allow
employees with dependent children the ability to use
alternative modes to travel to and from work but still be able
to travel home mid-day in case of an emergency.
• Provide employees with shower facilities within the SUMC
Sites to encourage bicycling to work. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall also provide bicycle storage facilities on the
SUMC Sites that would be conveniently located near the
employee showers.
• Establish, in conjunction with the GO Pass implementation,
a "Zip Car" (or other similar car-sharing program) with Zip
Cars available at the medical complex.
• Perform annual TDM monitoring and submit the report to
the City of Palo Alto to ensure that the assumed modal split
to alternative forms of travel and away from autos is actually
achieved.
These enhancements may not immediately change the mode split
for SUMC employees, because many employees would be unable
to change long standing commute patterns overnight. However,
with the passage of a mutually agreed amount of time, it is
expected that the enhanced TDM program would gradually result
in a shift in the mode split of SUMC employees. If this proves
S=Signijicant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stal!tord University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
I
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-37
Impacts
I , NI = No Impact
S-38
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
LTS = Less-than-Significam
not to be the case, then a second round of improvements to the
TDM program shall be implemented. Examples of additional
measures could be to increase the parking permit charges while
increasing the incentives to those who carpool or do not drive.
If, by the year 2025, at least 35.1 percent of SUMC employees
are not using alternative transportation modes, then a second
round of improvements to the TDM shall be implemented.
Examples of additional measures could be to increase the parking
permit charges while increasing the incentives to those who
carpool or do not drive. Thereafter, SUMC Project sponsors
shall monitor/survey employee use of alternative modes of
transportation on an at least bi-annual basis, and shall continue to
improve its TDM program, until it is confirmed to the
satisfaction of the City that the target of 35.1 percent usage has
been met.
TR-2.4 Fund or Implement those Intersection Improvements that Have
Been Detennined to be Feasible. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall implement the following measures:
• For the intersection of El Camino Real/Page Mill Road -
Oregon Expressway, the SUMC Project sponsors shall pay a
fair share towards (1) provision of exclusive right-tum lane
for westbound Oregon Expressway, in addition to the two
through lanes, (2) increasing the cycle length to 160 seconds.
Improvements to the westbound right tum lane would
require right-of-way from the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) park-and-ride lot.
• At the intersection of Arboretum Road/Galvez Street, the
SUMC Project sponsors shall install a traffic signal.
S=Significam SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stal'iford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
TR-2.5 Coordinate 'with Other Jurisdictions for Potentially Feasible
Roadway Improvements. The City of Palo Alto shall work with
other jurisdictions to try to achieve feasibility for the following
roadway improvements or adjustments. In the event that one or
more of the below improvements would then be determined to be
feasible, the SUMC Project sponsors shall pay their fair share
towards implementation of the improvements, if a fair share
contribution would apply.
•
•
•
•
Alpine Road/I-280 Northbound Off-Ramp -Signalize this
intersection. The City shall coordinate with Caltrans
regarding feasibility of these improvements.
EI Camino Real/Ravenswood Avenue -Re-stripe the
exclusive right-turn lane on southbound El Camino Real to a
shared through/right lane. Also, provide an additional
through lane for northbound EI Camino Real by removing
the right-turn slip island. Also, provide an exclusive right-
turn lane for eastbound Menlo Avenue. The City shall
coordinate with the City of Menlo Park and Caltrans
regarding feasibility of these improvements.
Bayfront Expressway/Willow Road -Provide one more
right-turn lane for eastbound Willow Road and make the
right-turn movement for southbound Bayfront Expressway
"overlap" with the left-turn of eastbound Willow Road. The
intersection has signals for the right-turn movement for
southbound' Bayfront Expressway, but the "overlap" phase is
not implemented. The City shall coordinate with the City of
Menlo Park regarding feasibility of these improvements.
Middlefield Road/Ravenswood Avenue -Provide an
additional exclusive left-turn lane for northbound Middlefield
S=Significant SU= Sign!ficant Unavoidable
Stanford Univei'sity Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-39
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
I
TR-3. Imp,",ts on Jadway Segments. The SUMC Pmje<:t
would result in advers~ traffic impacts to roadway segments in
the City of Menlo Par~.
TR-4. Local Circulation Impacts. The SUMC Project could
result in significant ~raffic impact to the local circulation
network in the immediate vicinity of the SUMC Sites.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
S
i NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-40
Mitigation Measures
Road. The City shall coordinate with the City of Menlo
Park regarding feasibility of this improvement.
• Junipero Serra Boulevard/Campus Drive West -Request that
Santa Clara County change the signal cycle length at this
intersection to 90 seconds. The City shall coordinate with the
County of Santa Clara regarding feasibility of this
adjustment.
MITIGATION MEASURES. With the provision of additional bicycle and
pedestrian undercrossings (Mitigation Measure TR-2.2), the enhanced
TDM program (Mitigation Measure TR-2.3), and contribution to the City
of Menlo Park shuttle fee (Mitigation Measure TR-7.2), there would still be
significant impacts on four Menlo Park roadways, including Marsh Road,
Willow Road, Sand Hill Road, and Alpine Road. Therefore, the traffic
impacts to Marsh Road, Sand Hill Road, Willow Road, and Alpine Road
would remain significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
MlTIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-4.1, involving funding
and implementation of a traffic impact study, and Mitigation Measure
TR-4.2, involving re-striping of Durand Way, would reduce the SUMC
Project's impact to a less-than-significant level.
TR-4.1 Fund Traffic Impact Study. Upon construction of the SHC and
LPCH Hospital components. the SUMC Project sponsors shall
fund an independent traffic evaluation, commissioned by the
City, based on actual travel patterns, volumes, and emergency
access, with an emphasis on ease of circulation around and
through the medical complex to determine if the private street
connection between Roth Way and Pasteur Drive should be
operated as a public street. If the independent traffic study
demonstrates that the connection between Roth Way and Pasteur
Drive as a public street would improve circulation, then the
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
SU
LTS
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
I
I
Impacts
TIt-5. P",eway Imp~". The SUMC Pmject would =uIt in
less-than-significant impacts on freeways.
TR-6. Bicycle and pkdestrian Impacts. The SUMC Project
could impede the deve~opment or function of planned bicycle
or pedestrian facilities. : and result in a significant impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Sign~ficant
Mitigation Measures
connection sball be designated as a public street for all vehicular,
bicycle, pedestrian, and transit traffic.
TR-4.2 Fund Signing and Striping Plan and Signal Optimization. In
addition to paying for the construction of the extension of Durand
Way from Sand Hill Road to Welch Road, the SUMC Project
sponsors shalJ also pay for the following improvements to ensure
that queues from the Durand Way/Sand Hill Road intersection do
not spillback onto the Durand Way/Welch Road intersection.
• A signing and striping plan for the Durand Way extension,
which would maximize the storage capacity by creating a
four-lane roadway with a left and througb/right at Sand Hill
Road and a right and through/left at Welch Road;
• The installation and optimization of the two signals at the
intersections of Durand Way/Sand Hill Road and Durand
Way /W elch Road.
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-2.3 involving trip-
reducing measures, plus Mitigation Measure TR-6.1, which involves
several bicycle and pedestrian improvements, would reduce the SUMC
Project's impact to a less-than-significant level. The improved facilities
would mitigate the hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists brought about by
the increased vehicular traffic and congestion ..
TR-6.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall fund the expansion and improvement of
the bicycle and pedestrian network in the immediate vicinity of
the SUMC Project. The intent of these improvements is to:
S = Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renel','al and Replacement Draft ElR -SumlllalY
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
LTS
S-41
S-42
Impacts
I NI = No Impact
I
Table S-4
SUMC Project. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation· Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
• reduce auto related traffic by providing the infrastructure for
alternative travel modes;
• improve the bicycle and pedestrian linkages between the
SUMC Project and Downtown Palo Alto, and between the
SUMC Project and the surrounding residential
neighborhoods; and
• mitigate the safety hazards to pedestdans and cyclists that
will result from the SUMC Project related increase in
vehicular traffic and congestion.
The specific improvements to be funded by the SUMC Project
sponsors shall include the following:
• Provide an enhanced pedestrian crossing at Quarry Road/E1
Camino Real to establish a strong connection between the
SUMC Project and Downtown Palo Alto. The pedestrian
crossing shall be 12 feet wide, have contrasting pavement,
countdown signal heads, and high visibility markings. Even
though the intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino Real
is projected to operate at acceptable levels of service, added
vehicular traffic through the intersection and added bicycle
and pedestrian volumes across the intersection would
potentially create safety hazards which would be mitigated
by the proposed enhanced crossings.
• Create a bicycle and pedestrian connection between the
Stanford Shopping Center and SUMC. The connection shall
provide an alternative route to Quarry Road, which is auto
dominated. This connection shall extend between Vineyard
Lane and Welch Road. Pedestrian traffic signals and
crosswalks shall be placed at the crossing of Vineyard Lane
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SummaJY
Impacts
I
I NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
and Welch Road. The crosswalk shall be enhanced either by
striping or by the use of contrasting paving.
• Provide a connection from the planned Everett A venue
bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing to the El Camino
Real/Quarry Road intersection. Once the tunnel is
completed, this linkage shall provide a direct connection
between the SUMC Project and Downtown North.
• Provide a bicycle and pedestrian trail through the Arboretum
Drive as part of future campus planning in the SUMC area.
This trail shall improve access to the SUMC Project. To
support this off-street path, bicycle and pedestrian crossings
at Arboretum Road and Palo Road shall be enhanced to
provide safe crossing of these streets. The crosswalks shall
be properly signed, marked, and lighted with enhanced
pavement markings and imbedded crosswalk lights.
Signalization of this crossing may ultimately be required.
• Incorporate into the Quarry Road corridor, from El Camino
Real to Welch Road, continuous sidewalks according to the
SUMC Project's Design Guidelines. The extension of
Quarry Road west of Welch Road shall continue the
pedestrian facilities into the SUMC Project.
• Enhance all signalized intersections in the Project Vicinty,
particularly along Quarry Road, Vineyard, and Welch Roads to
include 12-foot pedestrian crosswalks on all legs, with textured
or colored paving or diagonal or longitudinal zebra striping as
determined by the City, pedesnian push buttons and countdown
pedestrian signal heads, and other specific improvements that
are determined as necessary during the design process, such as
median refuge islands, advanced signing, flashing beacons, in-
pavement lighting, etc.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and. Replacement Draft ElR -SummalY
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-43
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
TR-7. Transit Impaers. Implementation of the SUMC
Project could impede the operation of the transit system as a
result of increased ridetship, and result in a significant impact.
Impact
SignIficance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No lntpact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-44
Mitigation Measures
• Install the appropriate number of Class I and Class III
bicycle parking spaces as required by the City's Zoning
Ordinance for the total amount of existing and future
development. The SUMC Project sponsors shall install the
required number of bicycle parking spaces equally
distributed throughout the SUMC Sites.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-7.1 involves the addition
of transit centers to the SUMC Project's site plans, and Mitigation Measure
TR-7.2 involves fmancial contributions towards the expansion of transit
service. Implementation of these measures would reduce the SUMC
Project's transit impacts to a less-than-significant level.
TR-7.1 IncOIporate Transit Centers Into Site Plans. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall revise their SUMC Project site plan to incorporate
two transit centers to reduce. the impact to transit service caused
by the SUMC Project. These transit centers shall be located at
Hoover Pavilion and at SHC, and shall be off-street facilities.
The transit centers shall accommodate three to four buses
simultaneously, and shall have shelters, seating, lighting, signs.
maps, bus schedules, and bicycle parking. On-street bus stops
along Welch Road and Quarry Road shall also be provided, but
the transit centers shall accommodate the majority of transit
riders and shall . be located to maximize the convenience of
employees, patients, and visitors. One transit center shall be
located in the vicinity of Welch Road and Pasteur Drive to serve
SHC. The other transit center shall be located near the entrance
to Hoover Pavilion. Both of these transit centers shall provide
the focal point for transit use for the SUMC.
TR-7.2 Provide Expanded Transit Sen'ice. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall make a fair share financial contribution to the cost of
expanding existing bus service of the Marguerite, Crosstown,
S=Significaru SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
Stanford Uhiversity Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
Impacts
I NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Signi.ficant
Mitigation Measures
and Menlo Park Shuttle bus services, and to the VT A
Community Bus Service.
• Marguerite Shuttle. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
make a financial contribution to expand the Marguerite
shuttle service into Palo Alto.
• U Line. The SUMC Project sponsors shall make a financial
contribution towards the operation of the U Line.
Arrangements with AC Transit shall be made to increase U
Line service (such as decreasing headways) to meet the
increase in demand attributable to the SUMC Project, and
ensure that load factors remain below 1.0,
• Crosstown Shuttle. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
participate in operating the Palo Alto Crosstown Shuttle
service, by contributing to the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee,
which would include covering the costs of this service.
Then current fee is $2,861 per net new PM Peak Hour trips.
A portion of Stanford's Citywide Traffic Impact Fee shall be
used by the City to expand City shuttle services.
• VTA Community Bus Service. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall contribute to fund the project's fair share of
Palo Alto's share of expanded VTA Community Bus
Service.
• Menlo Park Shuttle Bus. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall pay into the City of Menlo Park shuttle fee at $0.105
per square foot of new development annually or a percentage
agreed between Menlo Park and SUMC Project sponsors. In
Menlo Park, the contribution shall be tied to the amount of
project traffic added to analyzed roadway segments and
intersections.
S=Significant SU= Sign(ficant Unavoidable
Stanford Univelisity Medical Center Facilities ReneJ1,'al and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-45
Impacts
I NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
. LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
construction equipment emission reduction measures (Mitigation Measure
AQ-1.2 below) would further reduce NOx, ROG, PMlO and PM2.5
emissions during construction. However. reduction of NOx emissions
below 80 lbs/day during the first year of construction could not be
guaranteed, and this impact would still be considered significant and
unavoidable.
AQ-l.l Implement Recommended Dust Control Measures. To reduce
dust eniissions during project demolition and construction phases,
the SUMC Project sponsors shall require the construction
contractors to comply with the dust control strategies developed
by tbe BAAQMD. The SUMC Project sponsors sball include in
construction contracts the following requirements:
a. Cover all trucks bauling soil, sand, and other loose
materials including demolition debris, or require all trucks
to maintain at least two feet of freeboard;
b. Water all active construction areas (exposed or disturbed soil
surfaces) at least twice daily;
c. Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of
structures or break-up of pavement;
d. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil
stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas;
e. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) all paved access
roads, parking areas and staging areas during the earthwork
pbases of construction;
f. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent public streets;
g. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive
construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten
days or more);
S=Signijicant SU= Signijicant Unavoidable
Sraf~ford UniveT;sity Medical Center Facilities Renevlial and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-47
Impacts
I , NI = No Impact
S-48
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
h. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil
binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.);
i. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
] . Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent
silt runoff to public roadways; and
k. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
AQ-l.2 Implement Equipment E7.:haust Emission Reduction Measures. To
reduce emissions from construction equipment during project
demolition and construction phases. the SUMC Project sponsors
shall require the construction contractors t6 comply with the
following emission reduction strategies to the maximum feasible
extent. The SUMC Project sponsors shall include in construction
contracts the following requirements:
a. Where possible, electrical equipment shall be used instead
of fossil-fuel powered equipment.
b. The contractor shall install temporary electrical service
whenever possibJe to avoid need for fossil-fuel powered
equipment.
c. Running equipment not being actively used for construction
purposes for more than five minutes shall be turned off.
(e.g., trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate, or
other bulk materials; however, rotating-drum concrete trucks
may keep their engines running continuously as long as they
are on site).
d. Trucks shall be prohibited from idling while on residential
streets serving the construction site (also included in
Mitigation Measure NO-I.I).
S=Significant SU= Sign(ficant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal OlId Replacement Draft EIR -SummaJY
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
AQ-2. Operational ICriteria Air Pollutant Emissions.
Combined mobile and stationary source emissions during
operation of the SUMF Project would exceed the Bay Area
Air Quality Manageme:p.t District'S significance threshold of 80
pounds/day of ROG, I'fOx and PMlO. Therefore, air emissions
would result in a s~bstantial contribution to an existing
regional air quality problem and a significant impact.
I
AQ-3. Localized Cd-bon Monoxide Impacts from Motor
Vehicle Traffic. The iSUMC Project would have less-than-
significant localized air emissions re&ulting from additional
traffic.
AQ-4. Toxic Air Contaminants. Simultaneous exposures to
DPM and T ACs from the construction and operational
components of the SUMC Project would have a less-than-
significant impact on aj~· quality. I
I
I
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
LTS
LTS
I NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
e. Diesel-powered construction equipment shall be Tier III or
Tier IV California Air Resources Board (CARB) certified
equipment to the maximum feasible extent.
f. The engine size of construction equipment shall be the
smallest practical to accomplish the task at hand.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-2.3 involves
implementation of enhanced TDM measures. The enhanced TDM
measures include provision of the Caltrain GO Pass to SUMC employees,
or an equivalent TDM measure. If the GO Pass would be provided, then
remote parking spaces at the Ardenwood Park and Ride Lot in the East Bay
would also be provided to serve commuters from the East Bay. Provision
of the GO Pass plus remote parking spaces.in the East Bay would reduce
Vehicle Miles Travelled by 13.5 percent. This reduction in SUMC Project
VMT, however, would not be sufficient to prevent project ROG, NOx and
PMIO emissions from exceeding the BAAQMD significance thresholds. In
addition, the City shall consider the feasibility of Mitigation Measure PH-
3.1. Nonetheless, impacts would be significant and unavoidable even with
mitigation.
None required.·
None required.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
SU
N/A
N/A
S-49
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
AQ-5. Objectionable IOdors. The SUMC Project would have
a less-than-significant impact related to exposing the public to
objectionable odors th~t would affect a substantial number of
people. I
I AQ-6. Cumulative qonstruction Emissions. Construction
equipment NOx emissions associated with the SUMC Project
oould oontrlbuto o"",i!'abIY to regional aU quality proble"",
AQ-7. Cumulative qperational Emissions. SUMC Project
operation could contr~ute considerably to a degradation of
regional air quality as 4efined by the BAAQMD.
i
!
AQ-8. Cumulative Construction and Operational TAC
Emissions. SUMC Project T AC emissions could contribute
considerably to the h~alth risk of sensitive receptors on and
near the SUMC Proj~ct site and, thus, have a significant
cumulative impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
S
S
s
I NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-50
Mitigation Measures
None required.
M1TIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measures AQ-1.1 and AQ-1.2 would
reduce. the SUMC Project's contribution to cumulative construction
emissions, although the contribution to NOx would remain cumulatively
considerable.
M1TIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-2.3 involves
implementation of enhanced TDM measures. The enhanced TDM
measures include provision of the Cal train GO Pass to SUMC employees,
or an equivalent TDM measure. If the GO Pass would be provided, then
remote parking spaces at the Ardenwood Park and Ride Lot in the East Bay
would also be provided to serve commuters from the East Bay. As
additional mitigation, the City shall consider the feasibility of Mitigation
Measure PH-3.l, as identified and discussed in more detail in Section 3.13,
Population and Housing. These measures would reduce the contribution to
criteria pollutants during operation of the SUMC Project. However. even
with mitigation, emissions would still exceed the BAAQMD significance
thresholds, and the contribution would remain considerable.
M1TIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure AQ-l.2 (Implement Equipment
Exhaust Emission Reduction Measures) has been identified primarily to
reduce construction-phase criteria pollutant emissions, but it would also
reduce Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) emissions. However, the
emissions of criteria and DPM emissions from project construction sources
were based on current best estimates of the type, number, and duration of
use of the SUMC Project construction equipment. While some additional
reductions of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) would be expected with
Mitigation Measure AQ-1.2, where their implementation is feasible, their
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
SU
su
SU
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
Impacts
NI = No Impact
S-52
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Signijicant
Mitigation Measures
CC-l.2 Participate in Palo Alto Green Energy PrograrrJ, Other
Equivalent Renewable Energy Program, or combination thereof
Under the Palo Alto Green program, residential, business and
industrial customers purchase renewable energy equivalent to
their electricity needs at an additional cost of 1.5 cents per kWh
above standard electric rates. The SHC and LPCH facilities
shall participate in this program to offset electricity emissions;
develop new renewable generation sources in collaboration with
the CPAU; incorporate a renewable energy source (such as
photovoltaics) into the SUMC Project, or a combination thereof,
such that a minimum of 54,640 MWh of electricity usage is
offset annually.
CC-I.3 Provide Annual Greenhouse Gas Reporting. The SHC and LPCH
shall perform an annual inventory of greenhouse gas emissions
associated with hospital and medical facilities on the SUMC
Sites. This inventory shall be performed according to a common
industry-standard emissions reporting protocol, such as the
approaches recommended by California Air Resources Board,
The Climate Action Registry, or Business Council for
Sustainable Development (BCSD). This inventory shall be shared
with the City of Palo Alto to facilitate the development of future
collaborative Emissions Reduction Programs. Emissions
associated with energy, water, solid waste, transportation,
employee commute and other major sources shall be reported in
this inventory.
CC-I.4 Prepare Waste Reduction Audit. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall perform a waste reduction audit of waste management
practices at the hospitals prior to construction of new facilities
and after completion of the SUMC Project to determine post-
project diversions. This audit shall be repeated annually, and
S=Signijicant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stal1ford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SummaJY
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
CC-2 Emit Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The
proposed Emissions R~duction Program would minimize the
greenhouse gas emiSsion increases associated with the
I proposed development program, although the proposed
Emissions Reduction Program would not reduce emissions to
30 percent below business as usual (BAU) emissions.
Therefore the SUMC project would have a cumulative
considerable contribution to global climate change.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No Impact LTS = loess-than-Significant
Mitigatioll Measures
with the results being made available to the public or to City of
Palo Alto staff.
CC-l.5 Implement Construction Period Emission Reduction Measures.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the SUMC Project
sponsors shall incorporate the following measures into the
construction phasing plan and submit to City Planning for
approval.
• Use alternative-fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction
vehicles/ equipment of at least 15 percent of the fleet;
• Use local building materials of at least 10 percent; and
• Recycle at least 50 percent of construction or demolition
materials.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measures CC-l.l through CC-1.5, and
TR-l.3 would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, to further
reduce impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions, the City shall consider
the feasibility of Mitigation Measure PH-3.1.
However, even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures,
the anticipated emissions would remain above both the City of Palo Alto's
Climate Protection Plan and the CARB' s reduction emission goals of 30
percent below BA U emissions. Because these reduction levels cannot be
achieved, the SUMC Project would emit significant amounts of greenhouse
gases and would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to global
climate cbange.
S=Signijicant SU= Significant UnlIvoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigatioll
SU
S-53
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
NO-2. Construction fibration. Construction of the SUMC
Project would have lesrhan-Significant vibration impacts.
NO-3. Operational Noise Impacts from Transportation
Sources. Increased tr~ffic and helicopter noise levels due to
implementation of thJ SUMC Project would be less than
significant. However! noise from ambulances due to
implementation of the I SUMC Project would increase along
Sand Hill Road west qf El Camino Real, and would increase
roadside noise levels py an amount considered unacceptable
under the policies of the City Comprehensive Plan.
I
NO-4. Operational IStationary Source Noise Impacts.
Operational stationary I source noise generated by the SUMC
Project could potential~y increase anlbient noise levels in the
vicinity of the SUMC Sites and result in a significant impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
S
S
i NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Signfficant
Mitigation Measures
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURE. No mitigation measure (short of forbidding
ambulance access to the new emergency room via the Durand Way access
route; a measure that may be practically impossible given the emergency
nature of ambulance activity) would prevent or reduce the identified SUMC
Project-related ambulance noise impact at the noise-sensitive uses along
Sand Hill Road. As such, the impact would be significant unavoidable
impact.
MITIGATION MEASURE. The following mitigation measure would reduce
noise impacts to sensitive receptors from HV AC equipment and emergency
generators proposed for SUMC Project. Implementation of this measure
would reduce the SUMe Project's noise impacts at 1100 Welch Road.
NO-4.1 Shield or Enclose HVAC Equipment and Emergency Generators.
Noise levels from mechanical equipment shall be minimized to
the degree required by the City Noise Ordinance by proper siting
and selection of such equipment and through installation of
sufficient acoustical shielding or noise emission controls. Noise
levels for the emergency generators near Welch Road shall be
reduced such that noise levels do not. exceed the City's General
Daytime Exception standard of 70 dBA at 25 feet. An acoustical
analysis shall be prepared by a qualified professional to ensure
that the new mechanical equipment is in compliance with noise
standards of the Noise Ordinance.
S=Signijicant SU= Signijicant Unavoidable
Sta/~ford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
SU
LTS
S-55
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Signijicant
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure CR-1.5 requires implementation of the Stanford
Hoover Pavilion Protection Documents (Documents) prepared by ARG and
dated September 21, 2009 (see Appendix J). These Documents provide
specifications for the treatment and protection of the Hoover Pavilion
during SUMC Project construction activities that could damage the historic
fabric of the building including the installation of protective covering of
certain exterior surfaces and the removal, cataloging, and storage of
selective historic elements. The Documents are based on National Park
Service and National Fire Protection Agency protection guidelines and
include details on materials and methods of installation for the protective
coverings to prevent damage from nearby demolition. Proper installation,
as required in the Documents would prevent the protective covering itself
from damage the building. The removal of historic elements would ensure
their, protection of some of the more fragile elements from construction
activities and property cataloging and storage of such elements would
ensure their proper care and reinstallation. The Documents include such
details as specifying under what weatber conditions it is acceptable to
perform the various tasks that could be negatively impacted by different
weather conditions. Any variations on the specifications of the Documents
would not be allowed witbout prior consultation with ARG, or a qualified
preservation architect, Refer to Appendix J, Stanford Hoover Pavilion
Protection Documents, for a complete list of specifications for the Hoover
Pavilion.
CR-l.l Manually Demolish Structures at the Hoover Pavilion Site.
Where feasible, the project sponsors shall establish a perimeter
of construction fencing around the Hoover Pavilion at a
minimum of 25 feet to establish a protective buffer around the
building. The demolition of these sheds and storage faciljties
shall be accomplisbed manually without the use of vibration
causing equipment. Additional protective fencing at a height
sufficient to prevent any debris from hitting the building shall
S=Signijicant SU= Signijicant Unavoidable
Stal~ford University Medical Center Facilities Renev>'al and Replacement Draft EJR -Summary
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-57
Impacts
NI = No Impact
8-58
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
also be installed between the Hoover Pavilion and demolition
activities occurring within the 25 foot buffer.
CR-I.2 Prepare HABS Documentation for the Stone Building Complex.
The SUMC Project sponsors shall prepare HABS-like
documentation using the National Park Services' Histodc
American Building Surveys Level III guidelines for each of the
buildings in the Stone Building complex prior to demolition of
each building that comprises this historic resource (East, West,
Core, Boswell, Edwards, Lane, Alway, and Grant). HABS-like
recordation shall not be required until each of the individual
buildings is vacated and prepared for demolition. The
documentation shall include written and photographic
documentation of each of the historic structures within the Stone
Building complex. The documentation shall be prepared by a
qualified professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior's
Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History or
History.
The documentation shall be prepared based on the National Park
Services' HABS standards and include, at a minimum, the
following:
• Site-specific history and appropriate contextual information
regarding the Stone Building complex. This history shall
focus on the reasons for the buildings' significance: heart
transplantation program and the role of B.D. Stone in the
design of the complex.
• Accurate mapping of all buildings that are included in the
Stone Building complex, scaled to indicate size and
proportion of the buildings to surrounding buildings; if
existing plans accurately reflect these relationships these may
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
StaJiford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summmy
Impacts
i NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Signijicaru
Mitigation Measures
be reformatted for submittal per HABS guidelines for CAD
submittals.
• Architectural descriptions of the major exterior features and
public rooms within the Stone Building complex as well as
descriptions of typical patient, office, laboratory, and
operating rooms.
• Photographic documentation of the interior and exterior of
the Stone Building complex and Thomas Church-designed
landscape features. Either HABS standard large format or
digital photography may be used. If digital photography is
used, the ink and paper combinations for printing
photographs must be in compliance with National Register-
National Historic Landmark photo expansion policy and
have a permanency rating of approximately 115 years.
Digital photographs will be taken as uncompressed . TIF file
format. The size of each image shall be 1600x1200 pixels at
300 ppi (pixels per inch) or larger, color format, and printed
in black and white. The file name for each electronic image
shall correspond with the Index to Photographs and
photograph label.
CR-l.3 Distribute Written and Photographic Documentation to Agencies.
The written and photographic documentation of historic
resources shall be disseminated on archival-quality paper to
Stanford University, the Northwest Information Center, and
other local repositories identified by the City of Palo Alto.
CR-l.4 Prepare Permanent Interpretive DisplayslSignagelPlaques. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall install interpretive displays within
the SUMC Sites that provide information to visitors and residents
regarding the history of the Stone Building complex. These
S=Signijicant SU= Signijicaru Unavoidable
Sta/~tord University Medical Center Facilities Relll!VI:al and Replacement Draft ElR -SummalY
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-59
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
CR-2. Impacts on Prehistoric or Archaeological Resources.
The SUMC Project could potentially encounter archaeological
resources and result in a significant impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Signijicant
S-60
Mitigation Measures
displays shall be installed in highly visible public areas such as
the property's open space or in public areas on the interiors of
buildings. The displays shall include historical data and
photographs as well as physical renmants of architectural
elements. Interpretive displays and the signage/plaques installed
on the property shall be sufficiently durable to withstand typical
Palo Alto weather conditions for at least five years. Displays
and signage/plaques shall be lighted, installed at pedestrian-
friendly locations, and be of adequate size to attract the interested
pedestrian. Maintenance of displays and signage/plaques shall be
included in the maintenance program on the property. Location
and materials for the interpretative displays shall be subject to
review by the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board and
approval by the Planning Director.
CR-I.5 Implement Protection Documents for the Hoover Pavilion. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall ensure the implementation of the
Stanford Hoover Pavilion Protection Documents (Documents)
prepared by ARG and dated September 21, 2009. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall comply with the specifications for the
treatment and protection of the Hoover Pavilion during SUMC
Project construction activities that could damage the histotic
fabric of the building as provided in the Documents.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure CR-2.1 provides discovery
and evaluation procedures for any previously unknown archaeological
resources on the SUMC Sites and requires that a professional archaeologist
employ preservation in place, data recovery, or other methods that meet the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archaeological Documentation to
reduce impacts on unique archaeological resources. Therefore,
implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure the
impact remains less than significant. (LTS)
S=Signijicant SU = Signijicant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
Stal'iford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
CR-3. Impacts on Human Remains. The SUMC Project
could potentially encounter human remains and result in a
significant impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NT = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significcmt
Mitigation Measures
CR-2.1 Constmction Staff Training and Consultation. .Prior to any
construction or earth-disturbing activities, a qualified
archaeologist shall inform construction supervisors of the
potential to encounter cultural resources. All construction
personnel shall be instructed to be observant for prehistoric and
historic-era artifacts, subsurface archaeological features or
deposits, including accumulations of dark, friable soil
("midden"), stone artifacts. animal bone, and shell. In the event
that any prehistoric or historic subsurface archaeological features
or cultural deposits are discovered during construction-related
earth-moving activities, all ground-disturbing activity within 100
feet of the resources shall be halted and the City shall be notified.
The City shall consult with the Stanford University Archeologist
to assess the significance of the find. If the fmd is determined to
be an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource as
defined by CEQA, then representatives of the City and the
Stanford University Archaeologist shall meet to determine the
appropriate course of action. All significant cultural materials
recovered shall be subject to '-scientific analysis, professional
museum curation, and a report shall be prepared by the qualified
archaeologist according to current professional standards.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure CR-3.1 summarizes the
procedures to be taken in the event that any previously unknown human
remains are discovered on the SUMC Sites. Therefore, implementation of
the following mitigation measure would ensure that the potential impact
remains less than significant.
CR-3.1 Conduct Protocol and Procedures for Encountering Human
Remains. If human remains (including disarticulated or cremated
remains) are discovered at any SUMC Project construction site
during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity
S = Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stal~ford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replac~ment Draft ElR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
S-6J
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
CR-4. Impacts on Paleontological Resources. The SUMC
Project could have a significant impact on unique
paleontological resources or unique geologic resources.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-62
Mitigation Measures
within 100 feet of the human remains should be halted and the
Stanford University Archaeologist. City of Palo Alto, and the
County coroner notified immediately, according to Section
5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5
of California's Health and Safety Code. If the remains are
determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified
within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC adhered to in
the treatment and disposition of the remains. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall retain a professional archaeologist with Native
American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the
specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any,
identified by the NARC. As necessary, the archaeologist may
provide professional assistance to the City of Palo Alto,
including the excavation and removal of the human remains. If
the human remains cannot be avoided, and the Most Likely
Descendant requests that the human remains be removed from its
location, the SUMC Project sponsors shall implement removal of
the human remains by a professional archaeologist. The City of
Palo Alto shall verify that the mitigation is complete before the
resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of
where the remains were discovered.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure CR-4.1 provides protocol for
encountering paleontological resources and would reduce the potential
impacts resulting from disruption to unique paleontological resources to a
less-than-significant level.
CR-4.1 Conduct Protocol and Procedures for Encountering
Paleontological Resources. Should paleontological resources be
identified during SUMC Project growld-disturbing activities, the
SUMC Project sponsors shall notify the City and the Stanford
S = Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS.
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SummalY
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
University Archaeologist and cease operations in the vicinity
of the potential . resource until a qualified professional
paleontologist can complete the following actions when
appropriate: 0
• Identify and evaluate paleontological resources by intense
field survey where impacts are considered high;
• Assess effects on identified resources; and
• Consult with the City of Palo Alto and the Stanford
University Archaeologist.
Before operations in the vicinity of the potential resource resume,
the SUMC Project sponsors shall comply with the
paleontologist's recommendations to address any significant
adverse effects where determined by the City of Palo Alto to be
feasible. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by
the consulting paleontologist, the SUMC Project sponsors shall
consult with the Stanford University Archaeologist and the City
to determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light
of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, cost
policies and land use assumptions, and other considerations. If
avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g. data
recovery) shall be instituted to avoid a significant impact. Work
may proceed in other parts of the SUMC Sites while mitigation
for paleontological resources is completed.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renel'-'al and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-63
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
CR-5. Cumulative Impacts on Historic Resources. The
SUMC Project, in combination with other past, current, and
probable future development in the City, would cause a
substantial change in the significance of the City's historic
resources and thus have a significant cumulative impact. The
SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative impact would
be cumulatively considerable.
CR-6. Cumulative Impacts on Prehistoric andlor
Archaeological Resources and Human Remains. The SUMC
Project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable
probable future development, could cause a substantial change
in the significance Of prehistoric and/or archaeological
resources or human ref1lains and thus contribute to a significant
cumulative impact. The SUMC Project is cOI1.<;ervatively
assumed to have a considerable contribution.
CR-7. Cumulative Impacts on Paleontological Resources.
The SUMC Project, in combination with other reasonably
foreseeable probable future development where the
Pleistocene-age creek bed may occur, could have a significant
cumulative impact. Such an impact would occur if the buried
Pleistocene-age creek bed is exposed in lengths greater than
approximately 100 feet (or a sufficient length to support
detailed hydrological study) and if such deposits contain
substantially intact skeletons of extinct species. These
conditions would represent a major find for regional
paleontology. In the case that significant paleontological
finds-such as stretches of buried Pleistocene-age creek bed
greater than 100 feet in length and containing intact skeletons
of extinct species-are made on the SUMC Site, then the
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
s
s
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-64
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
MITIGATION MEASURES. Due to tbe d.emolition of the Stone Building SU
complex, the SUMC Project's contribution would remain cumulatively
considerable as this impact cannot be avoided. Implementation of
Mitigation Measures CR-1.2 through CR-1.4 would reduce the SUMC
Project's contribution to the cumulative impact, but not to a less than
cumulatively considerable level.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Compliance with Mitigation Measures CR-2.1 LTS
and CR-3.1 would reduce the SUMC Project's contribution to the
cumulative impact to a less than cumulatively considerable level.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Compliance with Mitigation Measure CR-4.1 LTS
would reduce the SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative impact to
a less than cumulatively considerable level.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summmy
Impacts
NI = No Impact
S-66
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Signijicaru
Mitigation Measures
BR-l.3 Develop and Employ Bat Nest Box Plan. If special-status bats are
fOlmd in structures to be removed, the SUMC Project sponsors
shall develop a bat nest box plan for the SUMC Sites employing
state-of-the-art bat nest box technology. TIle design and
placement of nest boxes shall be reviewed by a qualified bat
. biologist.
BR-l.4 Avoid Tree Removal During Nesting Season. Tree removal or
pruning shall be avoided from February 1 through August 31, the
nesting period for Cooper's hawk, to the extent feasible. If no
tree removal or pruning is proposed during the nesting period, no
surveys are required.
BR-I.5 Protect Cooper's Hawk in the Event of Nest Discovery. If tree
removal or pruning is unavoidable during tbe nesting season, the
SUMC Project sponsors shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct
a survey for nesting Cooper's hawk within five days prior to the
proposed start of construction. If active Cooper's hawk nests are
not present, project activities can take place as scheduled. The
qualified' biologist shall visit the site daily to search for nests
until all nesting substrates are removed. This will avoid impacts
to Cooper's hawk tbat may have moved into the site and initiated
nest-building after the start of tree removal activities.
Additionally, if more than 5 days elapses between the initial nest
search and the tree removal, it is possible for new birds to move
into the construction area and begin building a nest. If there is
such a delay, another nest survey shall be conducted. If any
active Cooper's hawk nests are detected, the SUMC Project
sponsors shall delay removal of the applicable tree or shrub while
the nest is occupied with eggs or young who have not fledged. A
qualified biologist shall monitor any occupied nest to determine
when the Cooper's hawk nest is no longer used.
S=Signijicant SU= Signijicant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Table S-4
SmIC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
BR-2. Loss of Riparian or Other Sensitive Habitats,
Including Wetlands asl Defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. Construction of the SUMC Project would have a
less-than-significant i!hpact on riparian or other sensitive
habitat resources, incl~aing wetlands.
BR-3. Interference with the Movement of Any Native
Resident or MigratorY Fish or Wildlife Species or with
Established Native Re~ident or Migratory Wildlife Corridors,
or Use of Native Wildlife Nursery Sites. The SUMC Project
would have no impact on the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species, or use of native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, but could impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites and thus result in a significant
impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measures BR-3.1 and BR-3.2, below,
would reduce the SUMC Project's impact on nesting migratory birds to a
less-than-significant level.
BR-3.1 Avoid Tree Removal During Nesting Season. Tree or shrub
removal or pruning shall be avoided from February 1 through
August 31, the bird-nesting period, to the extent feasible. If no
tree or shrub removal or pruning is proposed during the nesting
period, no surveys are required.
BR-3.2 Protect Birds in the Event of Nest Discovery. If tree and shrub
removal or pruning is unavoidable during the nesting season, the
SUMC Project sponsors shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct
a survey for nesting raptors and other birds within five days prior
to the proposed start of construction. If active nests are not
present, SUMC Project activities can take place as scheduled.
The qualified biologist shall visit the site daily to search for nests
until all nesting substrates are removed. These procedures would
avoid impacts to any birds that may have moved into the sites
and initiated nest-building after the start of tree and shrub
removal activities. Additionally, if more than five days elapses
between the initial nest search and tbe vegetation removal, it is
possible for new birds to move into the construction area and
begin building a nest. If there is such a delay. another nest
survey shall be conducted. If any active nests are detected, the
SUMC Project sponsors shall delay removal of the applicable
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renev.·al and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
LTS
S-67
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
BR-4. Result in a Substantial Adverse Effect on any
Protected Tree as Defined by the City of Palo Alto's Tree
Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10). The
SUMC Project could have a significant impact on Protected
Trees.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-68
Mitigation Measures
tree or shrub while the nest is occupied with eggs or young who
have not fledged. A qualified biologist shall monitor any
occupied nest to determine when the nest is no longer used.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measures BRA.1 through BR-4.5,
below, to be implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors, would reduce the
SUMC Project's impact on Protected Trees. In addition, Mitigation
Measure BR-4.6 would require minor SUMC Project site plan adjustments
to avoid removal of some biologically and aesthetically significant Protected
Trees. However. the new Hospital District under the SUMC Project would
allow the removal of up to 48 Protected Trees that are protected under the
Municipal Code. In addition, minor modifications to the SUMC Project
site plans would not be able to avoid the nine biologically and aesthetically
significant Protected Trees in the Kaplan Lawn area. Therefore, the SUMC
Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to Protected
Trees.
BR-4.1 Prepare a Tree Preservation ReponJor all Trees to be Retained.
An updated tree survey and tree preservation report (TPR)
prepared by a certified arborist shall be submitted for review and
acceptance by the City Urban Forester. For reference clarity,
the tree survey shall include (list and field tag) all existing trees
within the SUMC Sites, including adjacent trees overhanging the
SUMC Sites. The approved TPR shall be implemented in full,
including mandatory inspections and monthly reporting to City
Urban Forester. The TPR shall be based on latest SUMC plans
and amended as needed to address activity or within the dripline
area of any existing tree to be preserved, including incidental
work (utilities trenching, street work, lighting, irrigation, etc.)
that may affect the health of a preserved tree. The SUMC
Project shall be modified to address recommendations identified
to reduce impacts to existing ordinance-regulated trees. The
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
SU
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SummalY
1.5
Impacts
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
With
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation
TPR shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the Tree
Preservation Ordinance, Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
8.10.030, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00,
4.00 and 6.30.25 To avoid improvements that may be detrimental
to the health of regulated trees, the TPR shall review the SUMC
Project sponsors' landscape plan to ensure the new landscape is
consistent with Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.45 ~ and
Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks.
BR-4.2 Prepare a Solar Access Study (SAS) of Short and Long Tenn
Effects on Protected Oaks. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
prepare a SAS of Short and Long Term Effects 6n Protected
Oaks. The SAS shall be prepared by a qualified expert team
(horticulturalist, architect designer, consulting arborist) capable
of determining effects, if any, to foliage, health, disease
susceptibility and also prognosis for longevity. The SAS shall
provide alternative massing scenarios to provide sufficient solar
access and reduce shading detriment at different thresholds of
tree health/decline, as provided for in the SAS. The SAS
adequacy shall be subject to peer review as determined necessary
by the City. The SAS design alternatives shall be the subject of
specific discussion at all levels of ARB, Planning Commission,
City Council, and public review in conjunction with the SUMC
Project sponsors, the City Urban Forester, and Director of the
Planning and Community Environment Department, until a final
design is approved.
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 8.10.030 and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00, 4.00 and 6.30 is available at:
http://www . cityofpaloalto. org/ environment/urban_canopy. asp.
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant S=Signijicant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -Swnmary S-69
Impacts
NI = No Impact
S-70
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
BR-4.3 Prepare a Tree Relocation Feasibility Plan for Any Protected
Tree Proposed for Relocation and Retention. Because of
inherent mortality associated with the process of moving mature
trees, a Tree Relocation and Maintenance Plan (TRMP) shall be
prepared subject to Urban Forester's approval. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall submit a TRMP to determine the
feasibility of moving the Protected Trees to an appropriate
location on site. Feasibility sball consider current site and tree
conditions, a tree's ability to tolerate moving, relocation
measures, optimum needs for the new location, aftercare,
irrigation, and other long-term needs.
If the relocated trees do not survive after a period of five years,
the tree canopy shall be replaced with a tree of equivalent size or
security deposit value. The TRMP shall be inclusive of the
following mmlmum information: appropriate irrigation,
monitoring inspections, post relocation tree maintenance, and for
an annual arborist report of the condition of the relocated trees.
If a tree is disfigured, leaning with supports needed, in decline
with a dead top or dieback of IDore than 25 percent, the tree shall
be considered a total loss and replaced in kind and size. The
fmal annual arborist report shall serve as the basis for return of
the Tree Security Deposit (see Mitigation Measure BR-4.4,
below, for a discussion of the Tree Security Deposit).
BR-4.4 Provide a Tree Preservation Bond/Security Guarantee. The
natural tree resources on the SUMC Site include significant
Protected Trees and those that provide neighborhood screening,
including two trees proposed for relocation. Prior to building
permit submittal, the Tree Security Deposit for the total value of
the relocated trees, as referenced in the Tree Tec1mical Manual,
Section 3.26, Security Deposits, shall be posted to the City
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal OJxd Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table 8-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
Revenue Collections in a form acceptable by the City Attorney.
As a security measure, the SUMC Project sponsors shall be
subject to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the
City of Palo Alto and the SUMC Project sponsors describing a
tree retention amount, list of trees. criteria and timeline for
return of security, and conditions as cited in the Record of Land
Use Action for the SUMC Project. The SUMC Project sponsors
and SUMC Project arborist, to he retained by the SUMC Project
sponsors, shall coordinate with the City Urban Forester to
determine the amount of bonding required to guarantee the
protection and/or replacement of the regulated trees on the site
during construction and within five years after occupancy. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall bond for 150 percent of the value
for the relocated trees, and 50 percent of the value of the
remaining trees to be protected during construction (as identified
in the revised and fmal approved Tree Protection Report). The
SUMC Project sponsors shall provide an appraisal of the trees
with the proposed level of bonding in a tree value table to be
reviewed and accepted by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment with the description of each tree by
number. value, and total combined value of all the trees to be
retained. A return of the guarantee shall be subject to an annual
followed by a fmal tree assessment report on all the relocated and
retained trees from the SUMC Project arborist, as approved by
the City Urban Forester. five years following final inspection for
occupancy, to the satisfaction of the Director of the Planning and
Community Environment Department.
BR-4.5 Provide Optimum Tree Replacement for Loss of Publicly-Owned
Trees Regulated Tree Category. There are many publicly owned
trees growing in the right-of-way along various frontages (Welch
Road, Pasteur Drive, Quarry Road, Sand Hill Road, etc.).
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renev.·al and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-71
26
S-72
Impacts
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
These trees provide an important visual and aesthetic value to the
streetscape and represent a significant investment from years of
public resources to maintain them. As mitigation to offset the
net benefits loss from removal of mature trees, and to minimize
the future years to achieve parity with visual and infrastructure
service benefits (C02 reduction, extended asphalt life, water
runoff management, etc.) cuo-ently provided by the trees, the
new public trees on all roadway frontages shall be provided with
best practices design and materials, including, but not limited to,
the following elements:
• Consistency with the City of Palo Alto Public Works
Department Street Tree Management Plan, in consultation
with Canopy, InC.26
• Provide adequate room for natural tree canopy growth and
adequate root growing volume. For large trees, a target goal
of 1,200 cubic feet of soil shall be used.
• For pedestrian and roadway areas that are to include tree
planting or adjacent to existing trees to be retained, utilize
City-approved best management practices for sustainability
products, such as permeable ADA sidewalk surfaces, Silva
Cell base support planters, engineered soil mix base, and
other advantage methods.
bnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Canopy, Inc. is a non-profit organization that advises the City with regards to public trees. The City typically interfaces between applicants and the
Canopy, Inc., hut it is recommended that the SUMC Project sponsors consult with Canopy, Inc. as well.
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant S = Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
StOliford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SummaJY
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
BR-S. Conflict with any Applicable Habitat Conservation
Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. The SUMC
Project would have no impact on any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan.
BR-6. Cumulative Impacts on Special-Status Wildlife
Resources. The SUMC Project, in combination with other
foreseeable development, would have a less-than-significant
impact on Special-Status Plant Resources.
BR-7. Cumulative Loss of Riparian or Other Sensitive
Habitats, Including Wetlands as Defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. Cumulative impacts on riparian or other
sensitive habitats could be significant. However, the SUMC
Project's contribution to the cumulative impact would be less
than cumulatively considerable.
BR-8. Cumulative Interference with the Movement of Any
Native Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species or With
Established Native Resident or Migratory Wildlife Corridors,
or Use of Native Wildlife Nursery Sites. Cumulative
interference with movement of resident or migratory species or
with established migratory corridors could be significant.
However, the SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative
impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
NI
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
BR-4.6 Implement Minor Site Modifications to Preserve Biologically and
Aesthetically Significant Protected Trees. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall design and implement modifications to building
design, hardscape, and landscape to incorporate the below and
above ground area needed to preserve as many biologically and
aesthetically significant Protected Trees as possible.
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S=Significant SU= Significant Un.avoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
S-73
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HW-4. Stormwater Runoff and Erosion. The SUMC Project
would have a less-than-significant impact on stormwater runoff
and erosion.
HW-5. Flooding and Stormwater Conveyance Capacity. The
SUMC Project would have a less-than-significant impact on
flooding and storm water conveyance capacity.
HW-6. Streambank Instability. The SUMC Project would
have a less-than-significant impact on streambank instability.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-76
Mitigation Measures
Substances Contingency Plan (the "National Contingency Plan"
[NCP)).
The SUMC Project sponsors, or their representative, shall be
responsible for submitting the workplan for the DTSC's review
and approval prior to implementing field activities. The workplan
must include all information necessary for implementing Held
work. The workplan shall include a Site Safety Plan (SSP) and a
Sampling Work Plan (SWP). The SSP must be submitted to the
DTSC in conjunction with the submittal of the SWP. The
objective of the SSP is to ensure protection of the investigative
team as well as the general public during sampling activities.
If risk to human or ecological health is identified, the SUMC
Project sponsors shall prepare and implement a Removal Action
Workplan (SB 1706 Stats. 1994, Chapter 441) (non-emergency
removal action or remedial action ata hazardous substance
release site which is projected to cost less than $1,000.000) that
is consistent with the NCP.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HW-7. Degradation of Surface Water Quality. The SUMC
Project would have. a less-than-significant impact on
degradation of surface water quality.
HW-S. Dam Failure Inundation. TIle SUMC Project would
have a less-than-significant impact regarding dam failure
inundation.
HW-9. Violation of Any Water Quality Standards or Waste
Discharge Requirements (WDRs). The SUMC Project would
have a less-than-significant impact regarding water quality
standards or WDRs.
HW-IO. Cumulative Groundwater Recharge and Local Water
Table. The SUMC Project, in combination with reasonably
foreseeable probable future development, would have a less-
than-significant cumulative considerable impact on
groundwater recharge and the local groundwater table.
HW-U. Cumulative Groundwater Quality Impacts. The
SUMC Project, in combination with reasonably foreseeable
probable future development, would have a less-than-
significant cumulative impact on groundwater quality.
HW-12. Cumulative Stonnwater Runoff and Erosion. The
SUMe Project, ill combination with reasonably foreseeable
probable future development, would have a less-than-
significant cumulative impact on stormwater runoff and
erosioIl.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S= Significant
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Mitigation Measures
SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
S-77
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HW-13. Cumulative Flooding and Stormwater Conveyance.
The SUMC Project, in combination with reasonably
foreseeable probable future development, would have a less-
than-significant cumulative impact on stonnwater runoff and
erosion.
HW-14. Streambank Instability. The SUMC Project, in
combination with reasonably foreseeable probable future
development, would have a less-than-significant cumulative
impact on streambank instability.
HW-lS. Degradation of Surface Water Quality. The SUMC
Project, in combination with reasonably foreseeable probable
future development, would have a less-than-significant
cumulative impact on degradation of surface water quality.
HW-16. Dam Failure Inundation. 'The SUMC Project, in
combination with reasonably foreseeable probable future
development, would have a less-than-significant cumulative
impact regarding dam failure inundation.
HW-17. Violation of Any Water Quality Standards or Waste
Discharge Requirements (WDRs). The SUMC Project, in
combination with reasonably foreseeable probable future
development, would have a less-than-significant cumulative
impact on violation of water quality standards and WDRs.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
-LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-78
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S=Significant
Mitigation Measures
SU= Significant Unavoidable
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SummaJY
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HM-3. Exposure to Contaminated Soil and/or Groundwater
During Construction. The SUMC Project could expose
construction persOlmel and public to existing contaminated
groundwater and/or soil.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-80
Mitigation Measures
MITIGATION MEASURES. With implementation of Mitigation Measure
HM-3.1 through HM-3.4, below, the significant impact on construction
personnel and the public due to exposure to contaminated soil and/or
groundwater at the SUMC Sites would be reduced to less-than-significant
levels. In addition, Mitigation Measure HW-3.1 in Section 3.11,
Hydrology, would require the SUMC Project sponsors to develop a work
plan for any unknown contaminated site, which would further reduce the
imp~cts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure HM-3.4 would requi.re
specification of measures to prevent hazards from any remediation itself.
As such, these would be less-than-significant impacts from any remediati.on.
HM-3.1 Perfoml a Phase II ESAjor the 701 Welch Site. A Phase II ESA
shall be performed at 701 Welsh Site Building B. The Phase II
ESA shall include sampling and analysis of soil, groundwater,
wastewater. and residues on surfaces such as laboratories
countertops, fume hoods, sinks, sumps, floors, and drain lines.
The County DEH and P AFD shall be notified by the Project
sponsors if contamination is discovered. If contamination is
discovered, the SUMC Project sponsors shall prepare a site
remediation assessment that (a) specifies measures to protect
workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards
and (b) certifies that the proposed remediation measures would
clean up contaminants, dispose of the wastes, and protect public
health in accordance with federal, State, and local requirements.
Site excavation activities shall not proceed lmtil the site
remediation has been approved by the County DEH and
implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors. Additionally, the
Site Remediation Assessment shall be subject to review and
approval by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. All appropriate
agencies shall be notified.
S = Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SummalY
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
HM-3.2 Excavate Contaminated Soil/rom the 703 Welch Site. For the 4-
to 9-square-foot area near every discharge point from the
building. soil samples shall be performed and contaminated soil
excavated, removed, and transported to an approved disposal
facility in compliance with OSHA requirements. The County
DEH and the PAFD shall be notified by the SUMC Project
sponsors if contamination is encountered during construction.
HM-3.3 Conduct a Soil Vapor Program at the Hoover Pavilion Site. A
qualified consultant, under the SUMC Project sponsors'
direction, shall undertake the following activities:
• Remove all buried underground storage tanks from the
property after sheds and storage buildings on the Hoover
Pavilion Site have been demolished;
• To the extent necessary, additional soil sampling shall be
collected to determine health risks and to develop disposal
criteria;
• If warranted based on soil sampling, a human health risk
assessment shall be prepared and implemented to detennine
potential for impacts on construction workers as well as to
develop measures to ensure it is safe to redevelop the
Hoover Pavilion Site within engineering controls (e.g., SVE
or vapor barriers); and
• To the extent required based upon the results of soil
sampling and the results of a health risk assessment (if
applicable), a Site Health and Safety Plan to ensure worker
safety in compliance with OSHA requirements shall be
developed by the Project sponsors, and in places prior to
commencing work on any contaminated site.
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stal~ford University Medical Center Facilities Renl!l4'al and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
8-81
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HM-4. Hazardous Waste Generation and Disposal Resulting
in Increased Exposure Risk. The SUMC Project would not
substantially increase exposure risk related to hazardous waste
generation.
HM-5. Emit Hazardous Emissions or Handle Hazardous
Materials Within One-Quarter Mile of a School. The SUMC
Project would not emit or handle hazardous materials within
one-quarter mile of school.
HM-6. Construct a School on a Property that is Subject to
Hazards from Hazardous Materials Contamination, Emissions
or Accidental Release. The SUMC Project would not construct
a school that is subject to hazards from hazardous materials
contamination, emissions or accidental release.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
NI
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-82
Mitigation Measures
The SUMC Project sponsors shall cooperate with the County
DEH to proceed with closure of the Hoover Pavilion Site.
HM-3.4 Develop a Site Management Plan for the Hoover Pavilion Site.
The SUMC Project sponsors shall prepare a site remediation
assessment that (a) specifies measures to protect workers and the
public from exposure to potential site hazards, including hazards
from remediation itself, and (b) certifies that the proposed
remediation measures would clean up contaminants, dispose of
the wastes, and protect public health in accordance with federal,
State. and local requirements. Site excavation activities shall not
proceed until the site remediation has been approved by the
County DEH and implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors.
Additionally, the Site Remediation Assessment shall be subject to
review and approval by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. All
appropriate agencies shall be notified.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S = Significant . SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stanford Ulliversity Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact ..
HM-7. Occur on a Site Included on the Cortese List, a List of
Hazardous Materials Sites. The SUMC Project would result in
construction of facilities on a site included on the Cortese List.
HM-8. Wildland Fire Risk. The SUMC Project would not
expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires.
HM-9. Occur on a Site Located Within an Airport Land Use
Plan or Within Two Miles of a Public Airport, and Result in a
Safety Hazard. The SUMC Project would not be located
within an Airport Land Use Plan or within 2 miles of a Public
Airport.
HM-lO. Impainnent of Emergency Plans. The SUMC Project
could impair implementation or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response or evacuation plan.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI
NI
S
JIll = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
MITIGATION MEASURES. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HM-3.3
and HM-3.4, which involve the implementation of a soil vapor program and
development of a site management plan, would reduce the potential for
exposure to hazardous materials at the Hoover Pavilion Site to less-than-
significant levels. Additionally, compliance with current federal, State and
local regulations would help prevent any further exposure to hazardous
materials.
None required.
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure HM-lO.l requires advance
coordination with the City of Palo Alto on construction routes or roadway
closures. This measure, together with Mitigation Measures TR-l.l,
TR-l.4 through TR-1.6, and TR-1.8, which all involve construction-period
traffic controls, would reduce the significant construction-period impacts to
a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure TR-9.1, would involve
the installation of emergency vehicle traffic signal priority (OptiCom) at all
intersections significantly impacted by the SUMC Project. Mitigation
Measure TR-9.1 would reduce impacts on emergency access during
operation. Implementation of these measures would reduce the SUMC
Project's impact to emergency evacuation and response plans to a less-than-
significant level.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Slaf!ford University Medical Center Facilities Renev.·al and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
N/A
N/A
LTS
S-83
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HM-ll. Cumulative Handling, Storage. Disposal, and
Transport of Hazardous Materials. Cumulative development
would increase handling, storage, disposal, and transport
within the SUMC Sites and adjacent areas. However,
cumulative development would be subject to applicable federal,
State. and local regulations that would govern these activities.
As a result, the cumulative impact would be less than
significant.
HM-12. Cumulative Disturbance of Hazardous Materials from
Construction. The SUMC Project and adjacent development
could result in cumulative release of hazardous materials
during construction. a significant cumulative impact. The
SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative inlpact would
be considerable.
HM-13. Cumulative Exposure to Contaminated Soil and/or
Groundwater, and from Cortese List Sites. The SUMC Project
and adjacent development could result in cumulative
disturbance of contaminated soils, release of hazardous
materials during construction, a significant cumulative impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
S
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significam
S-84
Mitigation Measures
HM-IO.I Coordinate Constmetion Activities with the City of Palo Alto.
The SUMC Project sponsors shall provide to the City planned
construction routes, roadway closures, and access and closures
schedules. This information shall be provided to the City at least
two weeks in advance of the planned access and closures. The
City shall coordinate this information among affected emergency
service providers, including the City's Fire and Police
Departments, and private ambulance services, so that alternative
routes could be planned and announced prior to the scheduled
access and closures, as deemed necessary by the City.
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure HM-2.1. involving measures
to reduce exposure of persons to hazardous materials (such as asbestos),
would reduce the SUMC Project's contribution to a less-than-significant
level
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation MeasUre HM-3.2, which involves
remediation of known site contamination at the 703 Welch Road site, would
reduce the SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative impact to less
than considerable. Also, Mitigation Measures I-IM~3.1, HM-3.3, and HM-
3.4, involving investigations at other SUMC areas and preparation of the
S=Signijicam SU= Signijicant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
LTS
LTS
Stariford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
PH-3. Impacts on Jobs to Employed Residents Ratio. The
SUMC Project would have an adverse impact on the City's
jobs to employed residents ratio because it would exceed the
existing Comprehensive Plan and zoning allowances for the
SUMC Sites and thus require amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan and rezoning, and it would increase the
City's jobs to employed residents ratio by more than 0.01.
However, this impact is not, itself, an environmental impact.
This impact will result in secondary environmental inlpacts
relating to additional commute traffic, including the significant
and unavoidable impacts on air quality and climate change, as
identified in Sections 3.5 and 3.6. The present analysis of
impacts to the "jobs to employed residents" ratio is presented
for informational purposes, and for the purpose of identifying
additional mitigation measures for those identified impacts.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
N/A
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Signijicant
S-86
Mitigation Measures
MITIGATION MEASURE. Implementation of Mitigation Measure PH-3.1
would reduce the impact on the City's jobs to employed residents ratio;
however, such implementation would not fully avoid the SUMC Project's
impact on the jobs to employed residents ratio because (1) the measures
would not guarantee provision of housing units to cover the demand from
the 1,052 households (or 8 percent thereof), and (2) due to the various
factors that people consider in choosing where to live, it cannot be
ascertained that the 1,810 workers would choose to live in Palo Alto. Due
to the high concentration of jobs in Palo Alto, it is possible that a strong
affordable housing program would result in reduced traffic congestion,
vehicle miles traveled, and greenhouse gas emissions.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure PH-3.1 is not directly required in
order to mitigate a significant environmental impact, but rather should be
considered as possible additional mitigation for Impacts AQ-2, AQ-7,
CC-l, and CC-2, as discussed in Section 3.5, Air Quality, and Section 3.6,
Climate Change, of this EIR. However, it should be stressed that these
measures are presented here only in conceptual tenDs, and the City may
find that some or all of them are not feasible for various legal, practical, or
other reasons. As such, Mitigation Measure PH-3.1 is presented for
informational purposes, and to ensure that all possible options for
mitigation of these inlpacts are adequately considered.
PH-3.I Reduce the Impacts on the Jobs to Employed Residents Ratio. In
order to reduce tlle SUMC Project's impacts on the City'S jobs to
employed residents ratio, one or more of the following measures
shall be implemented by both the City and the SUMC Project
sponsors:
• The City shall explore amending the Zoning Code to permit
more residential uses, particularly multifamily residential
use;
S=Signijicant SU= Signijicant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summmy
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
. Impacts
PS-2. Impacts from Police Protection Facilities. The SUMC
Project would require an increased level of police services.
However, rhe increased level of police services would not be
large enough to trigger the need for construction of new
facilities, which could adversely affect the physical
environment. Impacts. would be less than significant.
PS-3. Impacts Related to School Facilities. An increase in
students. which would require school expansions, would result
as a tertiary impact of the SUMC Project, since increased
employment from the SUMC Project could induce additional
housing units within the City. Both the SUMC Project and
induced housing projects would be subject to SB 50 School
Impact Fees, which would mitigate impacts to less than
significant. .
PS-4. Impacts Related to Construction of New or Altered
Parks and Recreation Facilities. The SUMC Project would not
result in the construction or expansion of new parks or fields,
which would in tum result in adverse environmental impacts.
The SUMC Project would be required to pay a City
Community Facility Fee, which would be used to fund new
parks or an alteration to an existing park, and would mitigate
impacts to less than significant.
PS-5. Deterioration of Park and Recreation Facilities.
Increased recreational demand from SUMC Project employees
could accelerate the physical deterioration of the City's parks
and fields. The SUMC Project would be required to pay a
City Community Facility Fee, which reduce or avoid any such
deterioration, and would mitigate impacts to less than
significant.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
8-88
Mitigation Measures
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
PS-6. Cumulative Fire Protection Demand and Emergency
Medical Facilities. Cwnulative growth would increase demand
for fire protection and emergency response services within the
PAFD's service area; however, no new PAFD facilities would
need to be constructed. Cumulative impacts would be less
than significant.
PS-7. Cwnulative Police Protection Demand. Cumulative
growth in the City could necessitate construction of new or
expanded police facilities in order to meet increased demand
for services. Construction of new or expanded police facilities
could result in significant environmental impacts. As such,
cumulative impacts related to police service could be
significant. However the SUMC Project's contribution to the
cumulative need for new or expanded police facilities would be
less than cumulatively considerable.
PS-8. Cumulative School Demand. Cumulative
development in the City can be expected to necessitate
expansion of school facilities, which could have adverse
physical environmental. impacts. This cumulative impact is
conservatively assumed to be significant, although the SUMC
Project's contribution to this cwnulative impact would be less
than cwnulatively considerable.
PS-9 Cumulative Demand for Parks and Recreation
Facilities, and for New Parks. Cumulative impacts related to
park deterioration would be less than significant due to the
City's Community Facility Fee. Cwnulative growth in the
City would necessitate acquisition or development of new
parldands, which could result in significant environmental
impacts; however, the contribution of the SUMC Project to
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S=Significant
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renelt·al and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Mitigation Measures
SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance.
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
S-89
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
UT-5. Energy Demand. Although the SUMC Project is an
urban infill project and would not require the expansion of
natural gas facilities and would use existing utility facilities, it
may require the installation of near-site electrical facilities and
natural gas pipelines to accommodate the projected additional
demand. However, this installation is included in the SUMC
Project and no additional off-site construction relating to
electrical and natural igas facilities would occur. Therefore,
the SUMC Project would have a less-than-significant impact
related to the construction of energy facilities.
UT-6. Cumulative Water Impacts. Since the City has
sufficient water supply to accommodate water demands for
cumulative development up to 2025, new or expanded
entitlements for water supplies are not necessary. Therefore,
cumulative development would have a less-than-significant
cumulative impact related to water supply.
UT-7. Cumulative Wastewater Impacts. Since the RWQCP
has sufficient capacity to accommodate wastewater generated
by cumulative development up to 2025, implementation of
major facility and infrastructure improvements would not be
necessary. In addition, general replacement and maintenance
of old wastewater facilities is expected and would comply with
applicable environmental regulations. Therefore, cumulative
development would not have a significant cumulative impact
related to wastewater.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
LTS
UT-S. Cumulative Stonnwater Generation. Cumulative LTS
development in the City of Palo Alto and a1" St", f" J
l!niversitn co 1 1 •
Mitigation Measures
None required.
None required.
None required.
NoneL~auiirr~edd------------------
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
replacement or maintenance of storm drain facilities.
However, general replacement and maintenance of storm drain
facilities is included in City plans and would comply with
applicable environmental regulations. Therefore, cumulative
development would have a less-than-significant cumulative
impact related to the capacity or deterioration of storm drain
facilities.
UT-9. Cumulative Solid Waste Impacts. Cumulative
development would generate solid waste within the permitted
capacity of the SMART Station and Kirby Canyon Landfill.
Cumulative development would not result in substantial
deterioration of solid waste facilities. As such, cumulative
impacts related to solid waste generation would be less than
significant.
UT-lO. Cumulative Energy Demand. Cumulative
development in the City of Palo Alto would consume
additional energy and, therefore, would increase the demand
for energy. The City's electrical and natural gas facilities are
projected to have adequate capacity to serve the City's
increased demand for energy. The increased level of energy
demand may trigger the need for the replacement or
maintenance of energy facilities. However, general
replacement and maintenance of energy facilities is expected
and would comply with applicable environmental regulations.
Therefore, cumulative development would not have a
significant cumulative impact related to energy demand and
energy facilities.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-92
Mitigation Measures
None required.
None required.
S=Significant SU= Significant Un.avoidable
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal an.d Replacement Draft EJR -Summal}'