Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2012-03-19 City Council Agenda Packet
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Council Chambers March 19, 2012 5:30 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting. 1 March 19, 2012 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. Call to Order Closed Session Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Pamela Antil, Lalo Perez, David Ramberg, Sandra Blanch, Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray) Employee Organization: Service Employees International Union, (SEIU) Local 521 Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a) 2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Pamela Antil, Dennis Burns, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Sandra Blanch, Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray) Employee Organization: Palo Alto Police Manager’s Association (PAPMA) Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a) Special Orders of the Day 3. Proclamation Recognizing Kiwanis Study Session 4. City of Palo Alto Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) Report for Fiscal Year 2011 Annual Report on City Government Performance 2 March 19, 2012 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. City 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 of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Minutes Approval December 5, 2011 Consent Calendar Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members. 5. Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $900,000 to Capital Improvement Program Project PE-86070 to be Used in the San Antonio Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Project; and Approval of a Contract with Granite Construction in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,302,963 for the San Antonio Highway Safety Improvement Program Capital Improvement Program Project PE-86070 6. Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Record of Land Use Action for Construction of a New Two-Story Single Family Residence and Associated Site Improvements at 830 Los Trancos Road. * Quasi-Judicial 7. Resolution to Modify the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan Implementation Tasks Related to the City's Study of Energy Storage Systems to Conform to Requirements Under the Public Utilities Code 8. Approval of an Additional $108,730 for the 2012 Consolidated Maintenance Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Public Safety Systems, Inc. for Computer Aided Dispatch, Police Records Management, Fire Records Management, Mobile Data, and Geovalidation and an Additional Six Months of Maintenance for Calendar Year 2013 9. 2nd Reading: Ordinance to Amend the Contract Between the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CALPERS) and the City of Palo Alto to Implement California Government Code Section 20475: Different Level of Benefits Provided for New Employees, 3 March 19, 2012 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. Section 21363.1: 3.0% @ 55 Full Formula, Section 20037: Three Year Final Compensation, and Without Section 20692: Employer Paid Member Contributions for Safety Fire Employees (1st Reading March 5, 2012, Passed: 8-0 Yeh Absent) 10. 2nd Reading: Ordinance Amending Two Sections of Chapter 2.30 of the Municipal Code Relating Facilitation of the Clean Local Energy Accessible Now Program (1st Reading March 5, 2012, Passed 8-0 Yeh absent) 11. Adoption of Resolution Amending 2011-2014 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Local 1319, International Association of Fire Fighters to Add One New Classification of Fire Fighter Trainee 12. Confirmation of Appointment of Kathryn Shen as Chief People Officer/Director of Human Resources and Approval of At-Will Employment Contract Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes per speaker. Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 13. Public Hearing: Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center - Consideration of Approval of a Resolution Certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report and Adoption of An Ordinance (1) Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Approve a Planned Community Zone District Allowing Renovation of Three Retail Structures, Relocation of One Retail Structure, Construction of Ten Single Family Homes and Creation of a 0.2 Acre Park and Associated Site Improvements, and (2) Approving a Tentative Map to Merge Three Parcels into One Parcel for Resubdivision into Eleven Parcels (One Commercial Parcel and Ten Residential Parcels) and Off-Site Improvements, for a 3.58 Acre Site Located at 2080 Channing Avenue. * Quasi- Judicial 4 March 19, 2012 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. 14. Finance Committee Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Amending the Gas Utility Long-term Plan Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan 15. Selection of Option for Connectivity Between the Art Center and the Main Library (CIPs PE-11000, PF-07000) Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the Public are entitled to directly address the City Council/Committee concerning any item that is described in the notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council/Committee on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council/Committee, but it is very helpful. 5 March 19, 2012 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Supplemental Information Standing Committee Meetings Finance Committee Packet City Council Rail Committee Packet Special City Council Packet-Board and Commission Interviews Action Minutes Action Agenda s- February 6, 2012 February 13, 2012 February 21, 2012 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Finance Committee Tentative Agenda Informational Report Second Semi-Annual Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) Update Public Letters to Council CITY OF PALO ALTO PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING PALO ALTO KIWANIS WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto places a pre-eminent value on its Parks, Playgrounds and Urban Forest; and WHEREAS, the Kiwanis Club of Palo Alto, established in 1925, has been an organization devoted to Public Service in our community and throughout the world; and WHEREAS, the members of Palo Alto Kiwanis have selflessly contributed many hours to enhancing the appearance and usefulness of Palo Alto’s parks, playgrounds and open space including, Heritage Park, Hoover Park, Mitchell Park, Peers Park, Byxbee Park, and Rinconada Park; and WHEREAS, Palo Alto Kiwanis has worked closely with The Friends of Palo Alto Parks in bringing color to our parks; and WHEREAS, the volunteer efforts of Palo Alto Kiwanians have been significant in enabling Palo Alto to provide the highest level of service to our youth and adults and to maintain the attractiveness and livability of our community; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto wishes to recognize this valued organization and its contributions in our Community. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Yiaway Yeh, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council do hereby recognize the significant contributions of The Kiwanis Club of Palo Alto to the City of Palo Alto, and express my personal appreciation and that of our Community for their outstanding work. Presented: March 2012 ______________________________ Yiaway Yeh Mayor City of Palo Alto (ID # 2559) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/19/2012 March 19, 2012 Page 1 of 4 (ID # 2559) Summary Title: BAO and Contract for San Antonio St Resurfacing Title: Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $900,000 to Capital Improvement Program Project PE-86070 to be used in the San Antonio Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)Project; and Approval of a Contract with Granite Construction in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,302,963 for the San Antonio Highway Safety Improvement Program Capital Improvement Program Project PE-86070 From:City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1.Adopt the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) in the amount of $900,000 funding for Street Maintenance Program project PE-86070 -San Antonio Highway Safety Improvement Capital Improvement Program Project; 2.Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with Granite Construction Company in an amount of $1,302,963 for Street Maintenance Program project PE-86070 -San Antonio Highway Safety Improvement Capital Improvement Program; and 3.Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Granite Construction Company for related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $130,296. Background The San Antonio Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) project will implement the second phase of needed improvements to a highly traveled corridor at the City’s southern gateway. The first phase of improvements on San Antonio Avenue from Middlefield Road to Briarwood Way was completed in 2009. In 2009, the City was awarded a maximum federal grant award of $900,000 to reconstruct the roadway along San Antonio from Middlefield Road to the Highway 101 March 19, 2012 Page 2 of 4 (ID # 2559) interchange. The project addresses the deteriorated condition of sidewalk, curb and gutter, median curb and pavement on San Antonio Avenue. The subsurface roots have caused significant damage to the roadway and median curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways and pavement. To enhance the project further, the City Council awarded a separate contract in 2011 to remove and replace the street trees and irrigation system, San Antonio Landscape Improvements Phase II, CIP PE-00104. The Italian Stone pine trees were at the end of their useful life and required significant ongoing maintenance including branch removal, surface root grinding and extensive sidewalk and road repair. Median and street reconstruction is scheduled to start after the recently completed tree removal and other related site preparation work. The proposed phase II improvements for San Antonio will closely mirror work performed in phase I. An artist rendering of the improvements is included as Attachment C. Staff is requesting Council approval of a BAO in the amount of $900,000 (Attachment A) to fund the project which will be reimbursed via the HSIP grant. The City will be fully reimbursed for this amount. Discussion The work to be performed under the contract includes removal and replacement of curb and gutter, median island curb, driveways, sidewalks, installation of new accessible curb ramps and repaving of the street with new striping and signage. The project construction is proposed to begin in Spring 2012 and includes the following mitigation measure: §At least one traffic lane must remain open in each direction during the construction hours of 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Public Outreach and Review Two community meetings were held to discuss this second phase of San Antonio Avenue.A conceptual plan showing proposed landscape and roadway improvements were discussed at a community meeting in April 2010. An additional community meeting was held in February 2011 to present the final landscaping plans and to discuss the proposed widening at San Antonio and Middlefield to improve the service level of the intersection and proposed roadway, striping and signage changes along San Antonio. The reaction among those in attendance was positive. A public outreach plan has been prepared for this project and includes monthly email updates, postings on rBlock as well as a webpage to provide milestone updates to the public and press releases as necessary. The Public Works Department will coordinate March 19, 2012 Page 3 of 4 (ID # 2559) with the Economic Development Manager to minimize possible impacts to the business along this stretch. Project Coordination This project is being closely coordinated with numerous CIP projects including the San Antonio Landscape Improvement project –Phase II, 2012 Sidewalk Replacement Project and the Street Resurfacing Project. San Antonio Landscape Improvement project includes the removal of existing trees, contaminated soil removal, streetlight relocations and conduit replacement, stump removal and irrigation installation. The widening on San Antonio at Middlefield Road will be completed followed by the replacement of median curbs, curb and gutter, sidewalks and street repaving. In the Fall, the last step will be to plant the trees and install all landscaping as part of the San Antonio Landscape Improvement project – Phase II. The project was also coordinated with the City’s Utilities Department and necessary utility upgrades were completed last year. Summary of Bid Process Bid Name/Number San Antonio Highway Safety Improvement Program Project IFB 142411 Proposed Length of Project 140 calendar days Number of Bid Packages Mailed to Contractors 46 Number of Bid Packages Mailed to Builder’s Exchanges 1 Total Days to Respond to Bid 41 Pre-Bid Meeting?Yes Number of Company Attendees at Pre-Bid Meeting 13 (mandatory) Number of Bids Received:8 Bid Price Range (no add alternates)From a low of $1,302,963 to a high of $1,664,796 Bids ranged from a high of $1,664,796 to a low bid of $1,302,963 and ranged from 20% above to 2% below the engineer’s estimate. The bid summary is included as Attachment D. Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and found that the bid totaling $1,302,963 submitted by Granite Construction Company was the lowest and that Granite Construction Company be declared the lowest responsible bidder. Staff recommends awarding for a contract total of $1,302,963 to Granite Construction Company (Attachment B). The contingency amount of $130,963, which equals 10 percent of the total contract, is requested for related, additional, but unforeseen work which may develop during the project. March 19, 2012 Page 4 of 4 (ID # 2559) The lowest responsible bidder, Granite Construction Company,successfully worked with the city on a paving project in 2010-2011. Staff also checked with the Contractor's State License Board and found that the contractor has an active license on file. Resource Impact Staff is requesting a BAO in the amount of $900,000 from the Infrastructure Reserve to accept the grant awarded by the federal government grant program and to increase the Street Maintenance Capital Improvement Program project PE-86070 budget in the amount of $900,000 which will be reimbursed to the Infrastructure Reserve after the completion of the project. The remaining funds required for the award of this construction contract are currently available in the Street Maintenance project. The BAO will have no net impact on the Infrastructure Reserve balance. Policy Implications This project is in conformance with City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan and does not represent any changes to existing City policies. Environmental Review In February 2007, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was adopted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND covered the implementation of landscape and roadway improvements along the entire length of San Antonio Avenue and the frontages. An addendum was made to this MND in April 2011 in order to include the roadway widening at the intersection of San Antonio and Middlefield Road that will be done as part of the Street Resurfacing Project (CMR ID#1634). Because of the grant, this project is also subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA certification was received in December 2011. Attachments: ·A -Budget Amendment Ordinance (DOC) ·B -C12142411_Granite_SA HSIP Contract (PDF) ·C -Artist Rendering (PDF) ·D -Bid Summary (PDF) Prepared By:Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager Attachment A ORDINANCE NO.xxxx ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 TO PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATION OF $900,000 TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT NUMBER PE-86070, STREET MAINTENANCE, FOR THE SAN ANTONIO HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 20, 2011 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2012; and B.In fiscal year 2012, the Council appropriated $1,407,883 for CIP Project PE-86070, Street Maintenance, for annual resurfacing, slurry seal, crack seal, and reconstruction of city streets. Included in CIP Project PE- 86070 is the San Antonio Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Project to reconstruct the roadway along San Antonio Avenue from Middlefield Road to the Highway 101 interchange. The project addresses the deteriorated condition of sidewalk, curb and gutter, median curb, and pavement on San Antonio Avenue; and C. In 2009, the City was awarded a maximum federal grant award of $900,000 for the San Antonio HSIP Project subject to Caltrans approval. The City received final Caltrans approval for the grant in January 2012. An appropriation of $900,000 to CIP Project PE-86070 is needed to authorize expenditures related to the grant which includes removal and replacement of curb and gutter, median island curb, driveways, sidewalks, and accessible curb ramps. The work to be performed also includes street repaving with new striping and signage;and D. City Council authorization is needed to amend the 2012 budget as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2.The sum of Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($900,000) is hereby appropriated to CIP Project PE-86070, Street Maintenance, for the San Antonio Highway Safety Improvement Program Project. SECTION 3.The sum of Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($900,000) is hereby transferred from the Capital Projects Fund Infrastructure Reserve. SECTION 4.The Infrastructure Reserve will later be reimbursed by grant funding from the Highway Safety and Improvement Program in the amount of Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($900,000). SECTION 5.The transactions above will have no net impact on the balance of the Capital Projects Fund Infrastructure Reserve. SECTION 6. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance. SECTION 7. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. SECTION 8.In February 2007, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was adopted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND covered the implementation of landscape and roadway improvements along the entire length of San Antonio Avenue and the frontages. An addendum was made to this MND in April 2011 in order to include the roadway widening at the intersection of San Antonio and Middlefield Road that will be done as part of the Street Resurfacing Project (CMR ID#1634). Because of the grant, this project is also subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA certification was received in December 2011. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Senior Assistant City Attorney Director of Public Works Director of Administrative Services Rev. January 3, 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Contract No. C12142411 City of Palo Alto and Granite Construction Company PROJECT SAN ANTONIO HSIP PROJECT Rev. January 3, 2012 IFB Construction Contract i CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS....................................1 1.1 Recitals................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Definitions ...........................................................................................................................1 SECTION 2. THE PROJECT ...................................................................................................1 SECTION 3. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS........................................................................1 LIST OF DOCUMENTS.....................................................................................................................1 3.2 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE ...............................................................................2 SECTION 4. THE WORK.........................................................................................................2 SECTION 5. PROJECT TEAM ................................................................................................2 SECTION 6. TIME OF COMPLETION.....................................................................................3 6.1 Time Is of Essence .............................................................................................................3 6.2 Commencement of Work ...................................................................................................3 6.3 Contract Time......................................................................................................................3 6.4 Liquidated Damages...........................................................................................................3 6.4.1 Entitlement...................................................................................................................3 6.4.2 Daily Amount................................................................................................................3 6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy........................................................................................................3 6.4.4 Other Remedies...........................................................................................................3 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time ..........................................................................................3 SECTION 7. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR ..............................................................3 7.1 Contract Sum ......................................................................................................................1 7.2 Full Compensation..............................................................................................................1 7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work ........................................................................1 7.3.1 Self Performed Work....................................................................................................1 7.3.2 Subcontractors.............................................................................................................1 Rev. January 3, 2012 IFB Construction Contract ii SECTION 8. STANDARD OF CARE.......................................................................................1 SECTION 9. INDEMNIFICATION ............................................................................................5 9.1 Hold Harmless.....................................................................................................................5 9.2 Survival................................................................................................................................5 SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION ......................................................................................5 SECTION 11. INSURANCE AND BONDS................................................................................5 SECTION 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.............................................................5 SECTION 13. NOTICES ............................................................................................................6 13.1 Method of Notice.................................................................................................................6 13.2 Notice Recipients................................................................................................................6 13.3 Change of Address.............................................................................................................7 14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes.......................................................................................7 14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes............................................................................................7 14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes.................................................................................................7 14.2.2 Litigation, City Election.................................................................................................7 14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute.......................................................................................8 14.3.1 By Contractor...............................................................................................................8 14.3.2 By City..........................................................................................................................8 14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process ..............................................................................8 14.4.1 Direct Negotiations.......................................................................................................8 14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes.......................................................................................9 14.4.3 Mediation......................................................................................................................9 14.4.4 Binding Arbitration........................................................................................................9 14.5 Non-Waiver........................................................................................................................10 SECTION 15. DEFAULT..........................................................................................................11 15.1 Notice of Default ...............................................................................................................11 15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.............................................................................................11 SECTION 16. CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES....................................................................11 16.1 Remedies Upon Default ...................................................................................................11 16.1.1 Delete Certain Services .............................................................................................11 16.1.2 Perform and Withhold ................................................................................................11 Rev. January 3, 2012 IFB Construction Contract iii 16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract..........................................................................11 16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default........................................................11 16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond....................................................................................11 16.1.6 Additional Provisions..................................................................................................12 16.2 Delays by Sureties............................................................................................................12 16.3 Damages to City................................................................................................................12 16.3.1 For Contractor's Default.............................................................................................12 16.3.2 Compensation for Losses ..........................................................................................12 16.5 Suspension by City for Convenience .............................................................................12 16.6 Termination Without Cause.............................................................................................13 16.6.1 Compensation............................................................................................................13 16.6.2 Subcontractors...........................................................................................................13 16.7 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination...........................................................................13 SECTION 17. CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ..................................................14 17.1 Contractor’s Remedies ....................................................................................................14 17.1.1 For Work Stoppage....................................................................................................14 17.1.2. For City's Non-Payment.............................................................................................14 17.2 Damages to Contractor....................................................................................................14 SECTION 18. ACCOUNTING RECORDS...............................................................................14 18.1 Financial Management and City Access.........................................................................14 18.2 Compliance with City Requests ......................................................................................14 SECTION 19. INDEPENDENT PARTIES................................................................................14 SECTION 20. NUISANCE........................................................................................................15 SECTION 21. PERMITS AND LICENSES...............................................................................15 SECTION 22. WAIVER............................................................................................................15 SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW ...........................................................................................15 SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT ..............................................................................15 SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.............................................................................15 SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES......................................................................................15 Rev. January 3, 2012 IFB Construction Contract iv SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION ...................................................................................16 SECTION 28 GOVERNMENTAL POWERS...........................................................................16 SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES ............................................................................................16 SECTION 30 SEVERABILITY ................................................................................................16 1 Rev. January 3, 2012 IFB Construction Contract CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on March 19th, 2012 (“Execution Date”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following: R E C I T A L S: A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. Contractor is a Corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of California, Contractor’s License Number 89. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the State of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the obligations set forth in this Construction Contract. C. On January 12, 2012, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the San Antonio Hsip Project (“Project”). In response to the IFB, Contractor submitted a bid. D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and other services as identified in the Bid Documents for the Project upon the following terms and conditions. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS. 1.1 Recitals. All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference. 1.2 Definitions. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the General Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract and in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail. SECTION 2 THE PROJECT. The Project is the construction of the San Antonio HSIP Project ("Project"). SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 3.1 List of Documents. The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”) consist of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby incorporated by reference. 1) Change Orders 2) Field Change Orders 3) Contract 4) Project Plans and Drawings Rev. January 3, 2012 IFB Construction Contract 2 5) Technical Specifications 6) Special Provisions 7) Notice Inviting Bids 8) Instructions to Bidders 9) General Conditions 10) Bidding Addenda 11) Invitation for Bids 12) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Affidavit 13) Reports listed in the Bidding Documents 14) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications dated 2007 and updated from time to time 15) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards dated 2005 and updated from time to time 16) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements 17) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations 18) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre- Qualification Checklist (if applicable) 19) Performance and Payment Bonds 20) Insurance Forms 3.2 Order of Precedence. For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence, the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best interests of the City. SECTION 4 THE WORK. The Work includes all labor, materials, equipment, services, permits, fees, licenses and taxes, and all other things necessary for Contractor to perform its obligations and complete the Project, including, without limitation, any Changes approved by City, in accordance with the Contract Documents and all Applicable Code Requirements. SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM. In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Project requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the Project. Rev. January 3, 2012 IFB Construction Contract 3 SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION. 6.1 Time Is of Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents. 6.2 Commencement of Work. Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. 6.3 Contract Time. Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be completed not later than . within One Hundred Fourty calendar days (140) after the commencement date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. 6.4 Liquidated Damages. 6.4.1 Entitlement. City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that if Contractor fails to fully and satisfactorily complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will suffer, as a result of Contractor’s failure, substantial damages which are both extremely difficult and impracticable to ascertain. Such damages may include, but are not limited to: (i) Loss of public confidence in City and its contractors and consultants. (ii) Loss of public use of public facilities. (iii) Extended disruption to public. 6.4.2 Daily Amount. City and Contractor have reasonably endeavored, but failed, to ascertain the actual damage that City will incur if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. Therefore, the parties agree that in addition to all other damages to which City may be entitled other than delay damages, in the event Contractor shall fail to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time, Contractor shall pay City as liquidated damages the amount of $500 per day for each Day occurring after the expiration of the Contract Time until Contractor achieves Substantial Completion of the entire Work. The liquidated damages amount is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work. 6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy. City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that this liquidated damages provision shall be City’s only remedy for delay damages caused by Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. 6.4.4 Other Remedies. City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have where City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time. The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and agreed to by Change Order executed by City and Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR. 1 Rev. January 3, 2012 IFB Construction Contract 7.1 Contract Sum. Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the Contract Documents the Contract Sum of One Million Three Hundred Two Thousand Nine Hundred Sixy-Three Dollars ($1,302,963). [This amount includes the Base Bid and Add Alternates .] 7.2 Full Compensation. The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall cover all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of the Work until its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance of the Work. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change Orders issued, executed and satisfactorily performed in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. 7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work. The Contract Sum shall be adjusted (either by addition or credit) for Changes in the Work involving Extra Work or Deleted Work based on one or more of the following methods to be selected by City: 1. Unit prices stated in the Contract Documents or agreed upon by City and Contractor, which unit prices shall be deemed to include Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups permitted by this Section. 2. A lump sum agreed upon by City and Contractor, based on the estimated Allowable Costs and Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markup computed in accordance with this Section. 3. Contractor’s Allowable Costs, plus Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markups applicable to such Extra Work computed in accordance with this Section. Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups set forth herein are the full amount of compensation to be added for Extra Work or to be subtracted for Deleted Work that is attributable to overhead (direct and indirect) and profit of Contractor and of its Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors, of every Tier. When using this payment methodology, Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups, which shall not be compounded, shall be computed as follows: 7.3.1 Markup Self-Performed Work. 10% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be performed by Contractor with its own forces. 7.3.2 Markup for Work Performed by Subcontractors. 15% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be performed by a first Tier Subcontractor. SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE. Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project. Rev. January 3, 2012 IFB Construction Contract 5 SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION. 9.1 Hold Harmless. To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City, from and against any and all Losses arising directly or indirectly from, or in any manner relating to any of, the following: (i) Performance or nonperformance of the Work by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors, of any tier; (ii) Performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub- subcontractors of any tier, of any of the obligations under the Contract Documents; (iii) The construction activities of Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors, of any tier, either on the Site or on other properties; (iv) The payment or nonpayment by Contractor to any of its employees, Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors of any tier, for Work performed on or off the Site for the Project; and (v) Any personal injury, property damage or economic loss to third persons associated with the performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub- subcontractors of any tier, of the Work. However, nothing herein shall obligate Contractor to indemnify any Indemnitee for Losses resulting from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitee. Contractor shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Nothing in the Contract Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee. 9.2 Survival. The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract. SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS. On or before the Execution Date, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained insurance and Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions. Failure to do so shall be deemed a material breach of this Construction Contract. SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS. City is entering into this Construction Contract based upon the stated experience and qualifications of the Contractor and its subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment, hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be null and void. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy shall result in changing the Rev. January 3, 2012 IFB Construction Contract 6 control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity. SECTION 13 NOTICES. 13.1 Method of Notice. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following: (i) On the date delivered if delivered personally; (ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided; (iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission; (iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or (iv) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail. 13.2 Notice Recipients. All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Claims) from Contractor to City shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be addressed to City at: To City: City of Palo Alto City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Copy to: City of Palo Alto Public Works Administration 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Elizabeth Ames Or City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be provided to the following: Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, California 94303 All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail. Rev. January 3, 2012 IFB Construction Contract 7 All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to: Granite Construction Company 715 Comstock Street Santa Clara, Ca 95054-3403 Attn: Barbara Jacob 13.3 Change of Address. In the event of any change of address, the moving party shall notify the other party of the change of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace any individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided. SECTION 14 DISPUTE RESOLUTION. 14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes. Contract Disputes shall be resolved by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this Section 14, in lieu of any and all rights under the law that either party have its rights adjudged by a trial court or jury. All Contract Disputes shall be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process set forth in this Section 14, which shall be the exclusive recourse of Contractor and City for such Contract Disputes. 14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes. 14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes. Contract Disputes shall not include any of the following: (i) Penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation imposed by a governmental agency; (ii) Third party tort claims for personal injury, property damage or death relating to any Work performed by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub- subcontractors of any tier; (iii) False claims liability under California Government Code Section 12650, et. seq.; (iv) Defects in the Work first discovered by City after Final Payment by City to Contractor; (v) Stop notices; or (vi) The right of City to specific performance or injunctive relief to compel performance of any provision of the Contract Documents. 14.2.2 Litigation, City Election. Matters that do not constitute Contract Disputes shall be resolved by way of an action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, and shall not be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process. However, the City reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to treat such disputes as Contract Disputes. Upon written notice by City of its election as provided in the preceding sentence, such dispute shall be submitted by the parties and finally decided pursuant to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the manner as required for Contract Disputes, including, without limitation, City’s right under Paragraph 14.4.2 to defer resolution and final determination until after Final Completion of the Work. Rev. January 3, 2012 IFB Construction Contract 8 14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute. 14.3.1 By Contractor. Contractors may commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process upon City's written response denying all or part of a Claim pursuant to Paragraph 4.2.9 or 4.2.10 of the General Conditions. Contractor shall submit a written Statement of Contract Dispute (as set forth below) to City within seven (7) Days after City rejects all or a portion of Contractor's Claim. Failure by Contractor to submit its Statement of Contract Dispute in a timely manner shall result in City’s decision by City on the Claim becoming final and binding. Contractor’s Statement of Contract Dispute shall be signed under penalty of perjury and shall state with specificity the events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the asserted effect on the Contract Sum and the Contract Time. The Statement of Contract Dispute shall include adequate supporting data to substantiate the disputed Claim. Adequate supporting data for a Contract Dispute relating to an adjustment of the Contract Time shall include both of the following: (i) All of the scheduling data required to be submitted by Contractor under the Contract Documents to obtain extensions of time and adjustments to the Contract Time and (ii) A detailed, event-by-event description of the impact of each event on completion of Work. Adequate data to support a Statement of Contract Dispute involving an adjustment of the Contract Sum must include both of the following: (a) A detailed cost breakdown and (b) Supporting cost data in such form and including such information and other supporting data as required under the Contract Documents for submission of Change Order Requests and Claims. 14.3.2 By City. City's right to commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall arise at any time following City's actual discovery of the circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute. City asserts Contract Disputes in response to a Contract Dispute asserted by Contractor. A Statement of Contract Dispute submitted by City shall state the events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the damages or other relief claimed by City as a result of such events. 14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties shall utilize each of the following steps in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the sequence they appear below. Each party shall participate fully and in good faith in each step in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process, and good faith effort shall be a condition precedent to the right of each party to proceed to the next step in the process. 14.4.1 Direct Negotiations. Designated representatives of City and Contractor shall meet as soon as possible (but not later than ten (10) Days after receipt of the Statement of Contract Dispute) in a good faith effort to negotiate a resolution to the Contract Dispute. Each party shall be represented in such negotiations by an authorized representative with full knowledge of the details of the Claims or defenses being asserted by such party in the negotiations, and with full authority to resolve such Contract Dispute then and there, subject only to City’s obligation to obtain administrative and/or City Council approval of any agreed settlement or resolution. If the Contract Dispute involves the assertion of a right or claim by a Subcontractor or Sub-subcontractor, of any tier, against Contractor that is in turn being asserted by Contractor against City (“Pass-Through Claim”), then the Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor shall also have a Rev. January 3, 2012 IFB Construction Contract 9 representative attend the negotiations, with the same authority and knowledge as described above. Upon completion of the meeting, if the Contract Dispute is not resolved, the parties may either continue the negotiations or any party may declare negotiations ended. All discussions that occur during such negotiations and all documents prepared solely for the purpose of such negotiations shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152. 14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes. Following the completion of the negotiations required by Paragraph 14.4.1, all unresolved Contract Disputes shall be deferred pending Final Completion of the Project, subject to City’s right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to require that the Contract Dispute Resolution Process proceed prior to Final Completion. All Contract Disputes that have been deferred until Final Completion shall be consolidated within a reasonable time after Final Completion and thereafter pursued to resolution pursuant to this Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties can continue informal negotiations of Contract Disputes; provided, however, that such informal negotiations shall not be alter the provisions of the Agreement deferring final determination and resolution of unresolved Contract Disputes until after Final Completion. 14.4.3 Mediation. If the Contract Dispute remains unresolved after negotiations pursuant to Paragraph 14.4.1, the parties shall submit the Contract Dispute to non-binding mediation before a mutually acceptable third party mediator. .1 Qualifications of Mediator. The parties shall endeavor to select a mediator who is a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in mediating public works construction disputes. In addition, the mediator shall have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in mediation skills. .2 Submission to Mediation and Selection of Mediator. The party initiating mediation of a Contract Dispute shall provide written notice to the other party of its decision to mediate. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a mediator within fifteen (15) Days after the receipt of such written notice, then the parties shall submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association (AAA) at its San Francisco Regional Office for selection of a mediator in accordance with the AAA Construction Industry Mediation Rules. .3 Mediation Process. The location of the mediation shall be at the offices of City. The costs of mediation shall be shared equally by both parties. The mediator shall provide an independent assessment on the merits of the Contract Dispute and recommendations for resolution. All discussions that occur during the mediation and all documents prepared solely for the purpose of the mediation shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152. 14.4.4 Binding Arbitration. If the Contract Dispute is not resolved by mediation, then any party may submit the Contract Dispute for final and binding arbitration pursuant to the provisions of California Public Contract Code Sections 10240, et seq. The award of the arbitrator therein shall be final and may be entered as a judgment by any court of competent jurisdiction. Such arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the following: .1 Arbitration Initiation. The arbitration shall be initiated by filing a complaint in arbitration in accordance with the regulations promulgated pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 10240.5. Rev. January 3, 2012 IFB Construction Contract 10 .2 Qualifications of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be approved by all parties. The arbitrator shall be a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in arbitrating public works construction disputes. In addition, the arbitrator shall have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in arbitration skills. In the event the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the provisions of California Public Contract Code Section 10240.3 shall be followed in selecting an arbitrator possessing the qualifications required herein. .3 Hearing Days and Location. Arbitration hearings shall be held at the offices of City and shall, except for good cause shown to and determined by the arbitrator, be conducted on consecutive business days, without interruption or continuance. .4 Hearing Delays. Arbitration hearings shall not be delayed except upon good cause shown. .5 Recording Hearings. All hearings to receive evidence shall be recorded by a certified stenographic reporter, with the costs thereof borne equally by City and Contractor and allocated by the arbitrator in the final award. .6 Limitation of Depositions. The parties may conduct discovery in accordance with the provisions of section 10240.11 of the Public Contract Code; provided, however, that depositions shall be limited to both of the following: (i) Ten (10) percipient witnesses for each party and 5 expert witnesses per party. Upon a showing of good cause, the arbitrator may increase the number of permitted depositions. An individual who is both percipient and expert shall, for purposes of applying the foregoing numerical limitation only, be deemed an expert. Expert reports shall be exchanged prior to receipt of evidence, in accordance with the direction of the arbitrator, and expert reports (including initial and rebuttal reports) not so submitted shall not be admissible as evidence. .7 Authority of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall have the authority to hear dispositive motions and issue interim orders and interim or executory awards. .8 Waiver of Jury Trial. Contractor and City each voluntarily waives its right to a jury trial with respect to any Contract Dispute that is subject to binding arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 14.4.4. Contractor shall include this provision in its contracts with its Subcontractors who provide any portion of the Work. 14.5 Non-Waiver. Participation in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall not waive, release or compromise any defense of City, including, without limitation, any defense based on the assertion that the rights or Claims of Contractor that are the basis of a Contract Dispute were previously waived by Contractor due to Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents, including, without limitation, Contractor’s failure to comply with any time periods for providing notice of requests for adjustments of the Contract Sum or Contract Time or for submission of Claims or supporting documentation of Claims. Rev. January 3, 2012 IFB Construction Contract 11 SECTION 15 DEFAULT. 15.1 Notice of Default. In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. 15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default. Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations under the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice. SECTION 16 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 16.1 Remedies Upon Default. If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth above in Section 15, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including, without limitation, the following: 16.1.1 Delete Certain Services. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 16.1.2 Perform and Withhold. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion, appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs Contractor to resume Work. 16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default. City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part, upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 15. City’s election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless otherwise provided therein. 16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond. City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond. Rev. January 3, 2012 IFB Construction Contract 12 16.1.6 Additional Provisions. All of City’s rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity. Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not waive the City’s authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City’s right to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the Agreement for breaches that are not material. City’s determination of whether there has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City. 16.2 Delays by Sureties. Without limiting to any of City’s other rights or remedies, City has the right to suspend the performance of the Work by Contractor’s sureties in the event of any of the following: (i) The sureties’ failure to begin Work within a reasonable time in such manner as to insure full compliance with the Construction Contract within the Contract Time; (ii) The sureties’ abandonment of the Work; (iii) If at any time City is of the opinion the sureties’ Work is unnecessarily or unreasonably delaying the Work; (iv) The sureties’ violation of any terms of the Construction Contract; (v) The sureties’ failure to perform according to the Contract Documents; or (vi) The sureties’ failure to follow City’s instructions for completion of the Work within the Contract Time. 16.3 Damages to City. 16.3.1 For Contractor's Default. City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents. 16.3.2 Compensation for Losses. In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents, City shall be entitled to withhold monies otherwise payable to Contractor until Final Completion of the Project. If City incurs Losses due to Contractor’s default, then the amount of Losses shall be deducted from the amounts withheld. Should the amount withheld exceed the amount deducted, the balance will be paid to Contractor or its designee upon Final Completion of the Project. If the Losses incurred by City exceed the amount withheld, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and shall promptly remit same to City. 16.4 Suspension by City for Convenience. City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension of the Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order, delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the Work. Rev. January 3, 2012 IFB Construction Contract 13 16.5 Termination Without Cause. City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or in whole by giving thirty (30) Days written notice to Contractor. The compensation allowed under this Paragraph 16.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole and exclusive compensation for such termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination without cause. 16.5.1 Compensation. Following such termination and within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 16.5, City shall pay the following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the Work : .1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor. .2 For Close-out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors for: (i) Demobilizing and (ii) Administering the close-out of its participation in the Project (including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty (30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination. .3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work. 16.5.2 Subcontractors. Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section. 16.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination. Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless the notice directs otherwise, do the following: (i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice; (ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities, except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not discontinued; (iii) Provide to City a description, in writing no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes, payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract; (iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and (v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site or in transit thereto. Rev. January 3, 2012 IFB Construction Contract 14 SECTION 17 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 17.1 Contractor’s Remedies. Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the following: 17.1.1 For Work Stoppage. The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a national emergency making material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any work stoppage resulting from the City’s issuance of a suspension notice issued either for cause or for convenience. 17.1.2 For City's Non-Payment. If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract (30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to terminate the Construction Contract. 17.2 Damages to Contractor. In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided for in Paragraph 16.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind. SECTION 18 ACCOUNTING RECORDS. 18.1 Financial Management and City Access. Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take-offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of (i) final payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for such longer period as may be required by law. 18.2 Compliance with City Requests. Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 18 shall be a condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract Documents. City many enforce Contractor’s obligation to provide access to City of its business and other records referred to in Section 18.1 for inspection or copying by issuance of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony. SECTION 19 INDEPENDENT PARTIES. Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint venturers of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set forth. Rev. January 3, 2012 IFB Construction Contract 15 SECTION 20 NUISANCE. Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract. SECTION 21 PERMITS AND LICENSES. Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor shall provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other government jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all costs and expenses for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non-City inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies. SECTION 22 WAIVER. A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW. This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California. SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT. The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the Construction Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities, payment obligations, and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract. SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES. This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. The Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project, because the City, pursuant to its authority as a chartered city, has adopted Resolution No. 5981 exempting the City from prevailing wages. The City invokes the exemption from the state prevailing wage requirement for this Project and declares that the Project is funded one hundred percent (100%) by the City of Palo Alto. Or The Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. Copies of these rates may be obtained at cost at the Purchasing office of the City of Palo Alto. Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, Rev. January 3, 2012 IFB Construction Contract 16 1810, and 1813 of the Labor Code. SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 28 AUTHORITY. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES. Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney’s fees through the completion of mediation. If the claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation and in any dispute described in Paragraph 14.2, the prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provision of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorney’s fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorney’s’ fees paid to third parties. SECTION 30 SEVERABILITY. In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the date and year first above written. 1 Rev. January 3, 2012 IFB Construction Contract CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ Purchasing Manager City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney APPROVED: ___________________________ Public Works Director CONTRACTOR GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY By:___________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:________________________ Attachment D San Antonio HSIP Project HSIPL 5100(015) Bid Summary PE - 86070 IFB 142411 ITEM # BASE BID DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITS 1 AC Milling 200,000 SF 0.25$ 50,000.00$ 0.25$ 50,000.00$ 0.420$ 84,000.00$ 0.39$ 78,000.00$ 0.25$ 50,000.00$ 2 3" AC Overlay, 1/2" max, Type A 3,500 TON 88.00$ 308,000.00$ 85.00$ 297,500.00$ 87.00$ 304,500.00$ 84.00$ 294,000.00$ 90.00$ 315,000.00$ 3 Over excavation 2,000 SF 3.00$ 6,000.00$ 2.00$ 4,000.00$ 5.00$ 10,000.00$ 2.00$ 4,000.00$ 3.00$ 6,000.00$ 4 PCC Base Repair 8" Depth / Bus Pad 500 SF 10.00$ 5,000.00$ 14.00$ 7,000.00$ 14.00$ 7,000.00$ 15.00$ 7,500.00$ 15.00$ 7,500.00$ 5 AC Base Repair 1,000 TON 95.00$ 95,000.00$ 110.00$ 110,000.00$ 130.00$ 130,000.00$ 100.00$ 100,000.00$ 150.00$ 150,000.00$ 6 Adjust utility box to grade 15 EA 400.00$ 6,000.00$ 440.00$ 6,600.00$ 300.00$ 4,500.00$ 400.00$ 6,000.00$ 425.00$ 6,375.00$ 7 Adjust manhole to grade 10 EA 550.00$ 5,500.00$ 740.00$ 7,400.00$ 550.00$ 5,500.00$ 600.00$ 6,000.00$ 675.00$ 6,750.00$ 8 Remove and Replace Blue Pavement Marker 10 EA 30.00$ 300.00$ 11.50$ 115.00$ 20.00$ 200.00$ 20.00$ 200.00$ 18.00$ 180.00$ 9 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 10 6,080 LF 2.00$ 12,160.00$ 0.50$ 3,040.00$ 0.75$ 4,560.00$ 0.30$ 1,824.00$ 0.30$ 1,824.00$ 10 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 23 820 LF 2.00$ 1,640.00$ 1.65$ 1,353.00$ 1.85$ 1,517.00$ 1.00$ 820.00$ 0.80$ 656.00$ 11 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 25 A 430 LF 2.00$ 860.00$ 0.70$ 301.00$ 1.10$ 473.00$ 1.00$ 430.00$ 0.90$ 387.00$ 12 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 27 B 2,940 LF 2.00$ 5,880.00$ 0.40$ 1,176.00$ 1.00$ 2,940.00$ 1.00$ 2,940.00$ 0.80$ 2,352.00$ 13 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 30 140 LF 2.00$ 280.00$ 3.35$ 469.00$ 3.60$ 504.00$ 2.00$ 280.00$ 1.60$ 224.00$ 14 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 36 70 LF 2.00$ 140.00$ 1.40$ 98.00$ 5.00$ 350.00$ 2.00$ 140.00$ 1.60$ 112.00$ 15 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 37 C 325 LF 2.00$ 650.00$ 1.60$ 520.00$ 2.00$ 650.00$ 1.00$ 325.00$ 0.80$ 260.00$ 16 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 38 A 635 LF 2.00$ 1,270.00$ 0.70$ 444.50$ 1.75$ 1,111.25$ 2.00$ 1,270.00$ 1.60$ 1,016.00$ 17 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 38 C 2,430 LF 2.00$ 4,860.00$ 1.70$ 4,131.00$ 1.85$ 4,495.50$ 1.00$ 2,430.00$ 0.80$ 1,944.00$ 18 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 40 A 250 LF 2.00$ 500.00$ 2.80$ 700.00$ 2.00$ 500.00$ 1.00$ 250.00$ 0.90$ 225.00$ 19 Thermoplastic Striping, Paited Curbs 500 LF 1.00$ 500.00$ 1.00$ 500.00$ 1.50$ 750.00$ 2.00$ 1,000.00$ 1.80$ 900.00$ 20 Thermoplastic Striping, 12" white 2,000 LF 3.00$ 6,000.00$ 3.35$ 6,700.00$ 3.25$ 6,500.00$ 3.00$ 6,000.00$ 2.70$ 5,400.00$ 21 Thermoplastic Legends 130 EA 20.00$ 2,600.00$ 51.50$ 6,695.00$ 50.00$ 6,500.00$ 70.00$ 9,100.00$ 63.00$ 8,190.00$ 22 Remove and replace Type A curb and gutter 5,200 LF 35.00$ 182,000.00$ 42.00$ 218,400.00$ 42.00$ 218,400.00$ 41.00$ 213,200.00$ 43.00$ 223,600.00$ 23 Remove and replace A1-8 Vertical Curb 5,600 LF 30.00$ 168,000.00$ 23.00$ 128,800.00$ 26.25$ 147,000.00$ 40.00$ 224,000.00$ 38.00$ 212,800.00$ 24 Remove and replace 3' Valley Gutter 150 LF 55.00$ 8,250.00$ 46.00$ 6,900.00$ 45.00$ 6,750.00$ 58.00$ 8,700.00$ 60.00$ 9,000.00$ 25 New ADA Concrete Curb Ramp 8 EA 1,500.00$ 12,000.00$ 1,700.00$ 13,600.00$ 1,750.00$ 14,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 2,100.00$ 16,800.00$ 26 Install Truncated dome panel 14 EA 350.00$ 4,900.00$ 200.00$ 2,800.00$ 280.00$ 3,920.00$ 500.00$ 7,000.00$ 525.00$ 7,350.00$ 27 Remove and replace concrete sidewalk 5,000 SF 9.00$ 45,000.00$ 8.00$ 40,000.00$ 8.00$ 40,000.00$ 8.25$ 41,250.00$ 8.50$ 42,500.00$ 28 Remove and replace concrete driveway 3,000 SF 10.00$ 30,000.00$ 8.00$ 24,000.00$ 8.00$ 24,000.00$ 9.50$ 28,500.00$ 10.00$ 30,000.00$ 29 Provide and install regulatory signage 30 EA 300.00$ 9,000.00$ 270.00$ 8,100.00$ 230.00$ 6,900.00$ 230.00$ 6,900.00$ 240.00$ 7,200.00$ 30 Adjust catch basin 8 EA 800.00$ 6,400.00$ 500.00$ 4,000.00$ 500.00$ 4,000.00$ 400.00$ 3,200.00$ 420.00$ 3,360.00$ 31 Recycling of Inert Solid Materials 6,000 TON 5.00$ 30,000.00$ 0.10$ 600.00$ 5.00$ 30,000.00$ 1.00$ 6,000.00$ 2.00$ 12,000.00$ 32 Install 6' x 6' Traffic Loop 10 EA 2,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 700.00$ 7,000.00$ 350.00$ 3,500.00$ 600.00$ 6,000.00$ 500.00$ 5,000.00$ 33 Planter Strip Conform Work 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 500.00$ 500.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 34 Utility Tie Out Submittal 1 LS 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 720.00$ 720.00$ 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 35 Traffic Signal Cameras 1 LS 125,000.00$ 125,000.00$ 140,000.00$ 140,000.00$ 150,000.00$ 150,000.00$ 145,000.00$ 145,000.00$ 125,000.00$ 125,000.00$ 36 Traffic Control 1 LS 150,000.00$ 150,000.00$ 198,700.00$ 198,700.00$ 90,000.00$ 90,000.00$ 125,000.00$ 125,000.00$ 92,980.00$ 92,980.00$ 37 Project notifications and postings 1 LS 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 100.00$ 100.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ BASE BID TOTAL 1,330,190.00$ 1,302,962.50$ 1,337,020.75$ 1,358,759.00$ 1,365,885.00$ TOP GRADE CONSTRUCTIONO'GRADY PAVING, INC.ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE GRANITE CONSTRUCTION C.F. ARCHIBALD PAVING, INC. Attachment D San Antonio HSIP Project HSIPL 5100(015) Bid Summary PE - 86070 IFB 142411 ITEM # BASE BID DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITS 1 AC Milling 200,000 SF 0.25$ 50,000.00$ 0.60$ 120,000.00$ 0.31$ 62,000.00$ 0.41$ 82,000.00$ 0.51$ 102,000.00$ 2 3" AC Overlay, 1/2" max, Type A 3,500 TON 88.00$ 308,000.00$ 100.00$ 350,000.00$ 100.00$ 350,000.00$ 99.00$ 346,500.00$ 105.00$ 367,500.00$ 3 Over excavation 2,000 SF 3.00$ 6,000.00$ 3.00$ 6,000.00$ 2.20$ 4,400.00$ 3.40$ 6,800.00$ 3.95$ 7,900.00$ 4 PCC Base Repair 8" Depth / Bus Pad 500 SF 10.00$ 5,000.00$ 12.00$ 6,000.00$ 14.25$ 7,125.00$ 20.00$ 10,000.00$ 18.00$ 9,000.00$ 5 AC Base Repair 1,000 TON 95.00$ 95,000.00$ 135.00$ 135,000.00$ 131.00$ 131,000.00$ 127.00$ 127,000.00$ 226.00$ 226,000.00$ 6 Adjust utility box to grade 15 EA 400.00$ 6,000.00$ 400.00$ 6,000.00$ 450.00$ 6,750.00$ 410.00$ 6,150.00$ 440.00$ 6,600.00$ 7 Adjust manhole to grade 10 EA 550.00$ 5,500.00$ 650.00$ 6,500.00$ 700.00$ 7,000.00$ 680.00$ 6,800.00$ 740.00$ 7,400.00$ 8 Remove and Replace Blue Pavement Marker 10 EA 30.00$ 300.00$ 21.00$ 210.00$ 20.00$ 200.00$ 11.50$ 115.00$ 12.00$ 120.00$ 9 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 10 6,080 LF 2.00$ 12,160.00$ 0.80$ 4,864.00$ 0.75$ 4,560.00$ 0.50$ 3,040.00$ 0.50$ 3,040.00$ 10 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 23 820 LF 2.00$ 1,640.00$ 2.00$ 1,640.00$ 1.85$ 1,517.00$ 1.65$ 1,353.00$ 1.65$ 1,353.00$ 11 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 25 A 430 LF 2.00$ 860.00$ 1.20$ 516.00$ 1.10$ 473.00$ 0.70$ 301.00$ 0.70$ 301.00$ 12 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 27 B 2,940 LF 2.00$ 5,880.00$ 1.00$ 2,940.00$ 1.00$ 2,940.00$ 0.40$ 1,176.00$ 0.40$ 1,176.00$ 13 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 30 140 LF 2.00$ 280.00$ 4.00$ 560.00$ 3.60$ 504.00$ 3.35$ 469.00$ 3.35$ 469.00$ 14 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 36 70 LF 2.00$ 140.00$ 5.00$ 350.00$ 5.00$ 350.00$ 1.45$ 101.50$ 1.45$ 101.50$ 15 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 37 C 325 LF 2.00$ 650.00$ 2.00$ 650.00$ 2.00$ 650.00$ 1.65$ 536.25$ 1.65$ 536.25$ 16 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 38 A 635 LF 2.00$ 1,270.00$ 2.00$ 1,270.00$ 1.75$ 1,111.25$ 0.75$ 476.25$ 0.75$ 476.25$ 17 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 38 C 2,430 LF 2.00$ 4,860.00$ 2.00$ 4,860.00$ 1.85$ 4,495.50$ 1.70$ 4,131.00$ 1.70$ 4,131.00$ 18 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 40 A 250 LF 2.00$ 500.00$ 2.25$ 562.50$ 2.00$ 500.00$ 2.85$ 712.50$ 2.85$ 712.50$ 19 Thermoplastic Striping, Paited Curbs 500 LF 1.00$ 500.00$ 1.50$ 750.00$ 1.50$ 750.00$ 1.00$ 500.00$ 1.00$ 500.00$ 20 Thermoplastic Striping, 12" white 2,000 LF 3.00$ 6,000.00$ 3.50$ 7,000.00$ 3.25$ 6,500.00$ 3.35$ 6,700.00$ 3.35$ 6,700.00$ 21 Thermoplastic Legends 130 EA 20.00$ 2,600.00$ 50.00$ 6,500.00$ 50.00$ 6,500.00$ 51.50$ 6,695.00$ 51.50$ 6,695.00$ 22 Remove and replace Type A curb and gutter 5,200 LF 35.00$ 182,000.00$ 35.00$ 182,000.00$ 48.00$ 249,600.00$ 64.00$ 332,800.00$ 47.00$ 244,400.00$ 23 Remove and replace A1-8 Vertical Curb 5,600 LF 30.00$ 168,000.00$ 25.00$ 140,000.00$ 33.00$ 184,800.00$ 47.00$ 263,200.00$ 36.00$ 201,600.00$ 24 Remove and replace 3' Valley Gutter 150 LF 55.00$ 8,250.00$ 56.00$ 8,400.00$ 93.00$ 13,950.00$ 60.00$ 9,000.00$ 44.00$ 6,600.00$ 25 New ADA Concrete Curb Ramp 8 EA 1,500.00$ 12,000.00$ 2,250.00$ 18,000.00$ 2,592.00$ 20,736.00$ 3,150.00$ 25,200.00$ 5,362.00$ 42,896.00$ 26 Install Truncated dome panel 14 EA 350.00$ 4,900.00$ 1,050.00$ 14,700.00$ 266.00$ 3,724.00$ 1,310.00$ 18,340.00$ 1,050.00$ 14,700.00$ 27 Remove and replace concrete sidewalk 5,000 SF 9.00$ 45,000.00$ 12.50$ 62,500.00$ 6.00$ 30,000.00$ 10.25$ 51,250.00$ 6.00$ 30,000.00$ 28 Remove and replace concrete driveway 3,000 SF 10.00$ 30,000.00$ 14.00$ 42,000.00$ 13.25$ 39,750.00$ 17.25$ 51,750.00$ 13.25$ 39,750.00$ 29 Provide and install regulatory signage 30 EA 300.00$ 9,000.00$ 250.00$ 7,500.00$ 230.00$ 6,900.00$ 280.00$ 8,400.00$ 395.00$ 11,850.00$ 30 Adjust catch basin 8 EA 800.00$ 6,400.00$ 425.00$ 3,400.00$ 553.00$ 4,424.00$ 1,310.00$ 10,480.00$ 553.00$ 4,424.00$ 31 Recycling of Inert Solid Materials 6,000 TON 5.00$ 30,000.00$ 0.10$ 600.00$ 0.01$ 60.00$ 2.50$ 15,000.00$ 0.50$ 3,000.00$ 32 Install 6' x 6' Traffic Loop 10 EA 2,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 600.00$ 6,000.00$ 385.00$ 3,850.00$ 550.00$ 5,500.00$ 560.00$ 5,600.00$ 33 Planter Strip Conform Work 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 3,600.00$ 3,600.00$ 2,575.00$ 2,575.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 2,575.00$ 2,575.00$ 34 Utility Tie Out Submittal 1 LS 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 1,600.00$ 1,600.00$ 1,872.00$ 1,872.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 720.00$ 720.00$ 35 Traffic Signal Cameras 1 LS 125,000.00$ 125,000.00$ 150,000.00$ 150,000.00$ 107,000.00$ 107,000.00$ 142,500.00$ 142,500.00$ 167,456.00$ 167,456.00$ 36 Traffic Control 1 LS 150,000.00$ 150,000.00$ 65,000.00$ 65,000.00$ 130,000.00$ 130,000.00$ 78,600.00$ 78,600.00$ 135,763.00$ 135,763.00$ 37 Project notifications and postings 1 LS 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,300.00$ 3,300.00$ 2,600.00$ 2,600.00$ 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 750.00$ 750.00$ BASE BID TOTAL 1,330,190.00$ 1,370,772.50$ 1,401,166.75$ 1,636,576.50$ 1,664,795.50$ GRANITEROCK DBA PAVEXENGINEER'S ESTIMATE INTERSTATE GRADING AND PAVING GOLDEN BAY CONSTRUCTION, INC. GHILOTTI CONSTRUCTION City of Palo Alto (ID # 2513) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/19/2012 March 19, 2012 Page 1 of 3 (ID # 2513) Summary Title: 830 Los Trancos ROLUA and Mit. Neg. Dec. Title: Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Record of Land Use Action for Construction of a New Two-Story Single Family Residence and Associated Site Improvements at 830 Los Trancos Road. * Quasi-Judicial From:City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend that the City Council approve the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Site and Design Review to allow the construction of a two-story single family residence, a swimming pool, a detached pool house and other associated site improvements. Executive Summary The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires that the City Council review new development in the Open Space zone district and provides for Council Consent Calendar review of new single family homes. The proposed new home would replace the existing residence at this site in the same general location. A number of trees would be removed to accommodate the new site plan but the existing perimeter screen trees would remain to provide a visual buffer of the proposed residence from offsite views. The Planning and Transportation Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project. Background Planning and Transportation Commission Review The Commission reviewed the application on January 11, 2012. At the hearing, a neighbor spoke in favor of the proposed residence. There was discussion about the proposed tree removal mitigation and the proposed lighting intensity relative to the comments raised by The Town of Portola Valley. The Commission ultimately found that the conditions of approval adequately address these issues and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project with no changes. Project Description The project consists of a Site and Design Review application for the construction of a new 7,524 square foot two-story home within the Open space (OS) zone district. The March 19, 2012 Page 2 of 3 (ID # 2513) attached Commission report provides greater detail of the existing site conditions and project details (Attachment I). Discussion Key Issues Potential concerns such as tree removal and off site views were discussed in the attached Commission staff report. The Commission believed that the proposed Conditions of Approval, such as the planting of new trees as mitigation for the trees to be removed, would be adequate to address these potential issues. A question was raised by the Town of Portola Valley’s Architectural and Site Control Commission related to the amount and intensity of lighting. The types of outdoor lighting proposed in the project are a combination of under-soffit lighting, spot lighting, and low voltage path lighting. The lighting has been specifically designed so as not to result in off-site impacts. Policy Implications The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as set forth in the Draft Record of Land Use Action (ROLUA). The proposal substantially complies with the Open Space Development Criteria as noted in the ROLUA. There are two areas where the proposal deviates somewhat from the Development Criteria. One of them is Development Criteria #2 related to locating development away from hilltops and the other is Development Criteria #6 related to not removing trees that exceed a circumference of 37.5 inches. While the proposal does deviate from these two Open Space Development Criteria, the deviations are necessary and appropriate. As set forth in the ROLUA, the new house will be located in the same general location as the existing house, and will remain well screened from off-site views; thus, the intent of development criteria provisions is met. A single family residence is a permitted use within the Open Space zone district. Staff believes there are no other substantive policy implications. Environmental Review This project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were available for a 30 day public review period beginning on January 5, 2011.No public comments were received on the document. Attachments: ·Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action (PDF) ·Attachment B: Site Location Map (PDF) ·Attachment C: Statement of Design Intent (PDF) ·Attachment D: Offsite Visibility Study (PDF) March 19, 2012 Page 3 of 3 (ID # 2513) ·Attachment E: Arborist Report (PDF) ·Attachment F: Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (PDF) ·Attachment G: Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes of January 11, 2012 (PDF) ·Attachment H: Public Correspondence (PDF) ·Attachment I: February 11, 2012 Planning and Transportation Commission Report (PDF) ·Attachment J: Plans (Council Only)(PDF) Prepared By:Russ Reich, Senior Planner Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager 1 ACTION NO. 2012-03 RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 830 LOS TRANCOS ROAD: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (11PLN-00384) On March 19, 2012, the Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Site and Design Review application for a new two-story residence in the Open Space Zone District, 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. Jim Stoecker, on behalf of Bert Bower and Jerome Shaw, property owners, has requested the City’s approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family residence, swimming pool, detached pool house, and other associated site improvements, on a previously developed residential site of approximately 9.43 acres within the Open Space Zoning District. The new residence would be approximately 7,524 square feet and would be built in the approximate same location as the home that currently occupies the site. The existing home and pool would be removed. B. The site is currently in residential use, designated on the Comprehensive Plan land use map as Open Space/Controlled Development, and located within the Open Space (OS) zoning district. C. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed the Project on January 11, 2012, and recommended approval. The Commission’s recommendations are contained in CMR:2513 and the attachments to it. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead agency for the Project has determined that the project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guideline section 15070, Decision to Prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration. An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and it was determined that no potentially adverse impacts would result from the development, therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public review beginning January 5, 2012 through February 4, 2012. The Environmental Impact Page 2 of 14 Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration are contained in CMR: XXX:12. SECTION 3. Site and Design Review Findings 1. The use will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The proposed residence would have minimal off site views. The proposed building site is surrounded by a screen of mature oak trees. To further reduce the structures’ visibility, earth tone roofing and wall materials were selected and additional screen plantings are proposed. The colors and materials for the project were selected to blend with the surroundings. The roof was also designed with a low roof slope and flat roof areas to reduce the overall height of the structure, to further reduce its visibility. 2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. The redevelopment of the site represents a significant investment in the property and serves to improve the quality of development on the property. This investment enhances the value of the subject property and those around it. The construction of all improvements will be governed by the regulations of the current Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and other applicable codes to assure safety and a high quality of development. 3. Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance are observed in the project. The project has been designed to minimize noise and lighting impacts, and minimize visibility of the new residence as viewed from off site. The project would also minimize any impact to the natural environment by limiting the project to the relatively flat area of the site that had been previously developed. The new home would be resource efficient and is anticipated to reach 142 points on the Build It Green Green Point Rated Checklist. 4. The use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Page 3 of 14 The project, as conditioned, complies with the policies of the Land Use and Community Design and the Natural Environment elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The project meets Policy L-3 in that the construction will not impact the views of the Palo Alto foothills due to the existing landscape screen material and its low profile and earth tone roof material and color. Similarly, the project complies with Policy N-6 by not having any new impact on views of the hillsides, on the character of the open space, or the natural ecology of the hillsides. The project meets the Open Space Development Criteria (Policy N-7) numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,& 11 and the intent of the Comprehensive Plan regarding development in designated open space areas. Compliance with the Open Space Criteria is as follows: 1. The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. As much as possible, development should be sited so it is hidden from view. The proposed residence would not be visually intrusive in that its design is intended to be low profile and blend with the surrounding landscape. The new residence would only be approximately five feet taller than the existing residence. The existing residence is not clearly visible from any off site views. Only small portions of the existing roof are visible from some vantage points. The roof would have a shallow roof slope and flat roof areas and the colors and materials have been selected such that the home would blend in to the hillside environment. 2. Development should be located away from hilltops and designed to not extend above the nearest ridgeline. While the Review Criteria states that development should be located away from hill tops, the hill top on this property is the most appropriate location for the project. The proposed residence would be built upon the highest point of the subject property since this is the location on the property that had been previously developed. To select an alternative location on the property would require a much greater number of trees to be removed as well as a much greater amount of cut and fill because the rest of the property is steeply sloped and covered with trees. Additionally, any other location is likely to be more visible than the hill top location, due to the existing landscape screen of mature oak tress that surrounds it. 3. Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of neighboring properties. Page 4 of 14 As stated in Review Criteria #1, the project has been designed to limit off site views both public and private. The new home would be built far from any other residence and would not impact the privacy or views of neighboring properties. Additionally, new trees and shrubs would be planted around the perimeter of the project to further screen it from off site views. 4. Development should be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area surrounding it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of natural habitats. The new residence is proposed to be built in the location of the existing residence so as not to disturb other parts of the property. The proposed two-story home is a more compact design to avoid extending the new building’s footprint over a greater area of the site. No new access roads are proposed, thus preserving natural habitats. 5. Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building lines should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a distance. The new home, rather than sprawling over the site as a single story residence and reinforcing the leveling off of the hilltop that occurred years ago when the property was originally developed, introduces a two-story form where the second floor is inset from the first. The plan keeps the mass to the east end of the site to mimic the natural topography with the ridgeline that descends from east to west across the site. The primarily native species of trees and shrubs proposed to be planted have been specifically chosen and placed to maintain the natural look of the open space. 6. Existing trees with a circumference of 37.5 inches, measured 4.5 feet above the ground level, should be preserved and integrated into the design. The proposal does include the removal of four trees that exceed the 37.5 inch threshold established in the Review Criteria. These are noted on sheet TR.1 of the project plans as tree numbers 1, 2, 3, and 16. These trees, in combination with others at the project site, currently occupy over 40% of the developable area of the site. The removal of these trees is necessary for the implementation of the project and does not open up the site to off site views. The loss of these trees will Page 5 of 14 be mitigated since new oak trees will be planted at a ratio of 2.25 trees to each removed tree. 7. Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enable the development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and should never be distributed within the driplines of existing trees. Locate development to minimize the need for grading. On site grading will be kept to a minimum. 508 cubic yards of cut will be taken for the new pool, crawl space, and the open lawn area at the western edge of the site. 269 cubic yards of this cut will be used to fill in the existing pool. The remainder 239 cubic yards will be hauled off site. No fill will be distributed within the driplines of any trees. 8. To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided. The impervious paved surfaces have been limited to walkways and patio area around the perimeter of the house. Decomposed granite and grass grid are proposed for the driveway to allow for greater permeability than a traditional asphalt or concrete driveway. All runoff will be accommodated on site and will not be directed to the City’s storm sewer system. 9. Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors. The proposal includes natural materials and earthtone colors to enable the new home to blend into the natural hillside environment. The walls would be integral color cement plaster in shades of green and yellow. The yellow is intended to mimic the golden hues of the California grasses and the green is intended to mimic the oak tree canopy prevalent in the open space. The roof would be a brown clay tile so as not to draw attention and the home is finished out with natural wood detailing. The patios, paths, and decomposed granite driveway would all be natural earthtone colors. 10. Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as a fire prevention technique. The new plant materials proposed for the project are primarily water conserving native species planted in random patterns to Page 6 of 14 blend with the natural hillside environment. These would be planted away from the house to ensure a fire protection buffer that will conform to the Wildland-Urban Interface requirements. 11. Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly visible from off-site. The new lighting for the project is low voltage and would consist of shielded fixtures that direct light downward rather than out and shielded monopoint downlights to cast light on specific areas to minimize offsite visibility. There is limited usage of uplights that are only proposed to illuminate the three fruitless olive trees in the auto court. Criterion 12,13 do not apply to the project as there are no new roads proposed, and the development is not within an unincorporated area. SECTION 4. Site and Design Review Approval Granted. Site and Design Review Approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.30(G).070 for application 11PLN-00384, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 8 of the Record. SECTION 5. Plan Approval. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Stoecker and Northway Architects Incorporated entitled “Bower Shaw residence”, consisting of 23 pages, dated January 11, 2012, and received January 3, 2012, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section Six. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Environment. The conditions of approval in Section 6 shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval. Department of Planning and Community Environment Planning Division 1. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans received on January 3, 2012, Page 7 of 14 except as modified to incorporate the following conditions of approval and any additional conditions placed on the project by the Planning Commission or City Council. The following conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. 2. The approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on the building permit drawings. 3. The applicant shall incorporate and maintain screening features approved by City Council and the Planning and Transportation Commission to mitigate the potential aesthetic impacts. 4. Tree Preservation Bond/Security Guarantee. The vegetative screening element of this approval is critical its function and success of the natural open space environment of the area. As a security measure to secure the health and/or replacement, as the case may be, of the screen trees and bushes, the project shall be subject to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the City of Palo Alto and the Applicant describing a tree and shrub retention amount totaling the installed value of all the trees and shrubs as shown on the final landscape plan or $8,000, whichever is greater. The MoU shall cite size, number and species of trees and shrubs, attached map, criteria and timeline of five years (5-years) for return of security, and conditions as cited in this Record of Land Use Action for the project. For a period of five (5) years following completion of construction/planting of this project, Principal shall maintain a security guarantee reflected here by a cash deposit, letter of credit, or surety bond and shall be filed with the Revenue Collections/Finance Department or in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. A return of the guarantee shall be subject to a final tree assessment from the project arborist as approved by the City Arborist, five years following final inspection of the current project, to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto Planning Arborist. The applicant and property owner shall be responsible to coordinate with the Director of Planning and Community Environment and City Arborist for the final inspection. The template for the MoU is available from Planning Division staff. 5. Any proposed exterior lighting shall be shown on the final construction drawings and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Palo Alto Planning Division. All lighting shall be minimal and shall direct light down and shield light away from the surrounding residences and open space lands. Page 8 of 14 6. Any new windows, glass doors and skylights shall be of a non-reflective material and shall require prior approval from the Palo Alto Planning Division. 7. If during grading and construction activities, any archeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address the find. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner's office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendent, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. 8. All measures identified by the Fire Department to address fire hazards on this site must be incorporated into the design. 9. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division. Landscape and irrigation plans shall include: a) All existing trees identified to be retained. b) Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. Drought tolerant and native plant material compatible with the open space district shall be specified. The Plant list and Procedures for Landscaping under Native Oaks, Tree Technical Manual, Appendix L, shall be consulted. c) Irrigation schedule and plan. d) Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. e) Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. f) Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all new trees. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the right- of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards of a building permit. 15. Any revision to the plans which may affect the welfare of the trees and vegetation shall be reviewed and approved Page 9 of 14 by the applicant's arborist and Planning Arborist prior to implementation. 16. During construction fenced enclosures shall be erected around trees to be protected to achieve three primary functions, 1) to keep the foliage canopy and branching structure clear from contact by equipment, materials and activities; 2) to preserve roots and soil conditions in an intact and non-compacted state and 3) to identify the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) in which no soil disturbance is permitted and activities are restricted, unless otherwise approved. 17. Tree fencing shall be erected before demolition; grading or construction begins and remain in place until final inspection of the project, except for work specifically allowed in the TPZ. Work in the TPZ requires approval by the project arborist or City Arborist (in the case of work around Street Trees). The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. Watering Schedule. All trees to be retained shall receive monthly watering as identified in the Tree Protection Plan during all phases of construction per the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.45. A written log of each application of water shall be kept at the site. The City Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of this log before final inspection is requested. 18. For the life of the project, all landscape and trees shall be reasonably well-maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Nursery and American National Standards for Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance-Standard Practices (ANSI A300-1995) as outlined in the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. 19. The following controls shall be implemented for the duration of project construction to minimize dust related construction impacts: All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily. Page 10 of 14 All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at least two feet of freeboard. All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be swept and watered daily. Streets shall be swept daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. 20. Construction activities shall comply with Chapter 9.10 (Noise) of the PAMC (limiting construction between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m. Monday – Friday, nine a.m. and six p.m. on Saturday, and construction activities prohibited on Sunday and Holidays) to reduce construction-related noise impacts to less than significant levels. 21. During construction, the site shall be kept clear of debris on a daily basis. 22. Install a monitored NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. 23. Install a non combustible roof. 24. Maintain the proposed vegetation. 25. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan and building review. 26. Applicant/Developer must notify Utilities Engineering (Electric) if the proposed project has any impact on the existing electrical service size, voltage, or location. If there are any changes, the Utilities will provide comments and/or conditions along with any applicable fees and cost estimate. 27. The recommendations set forth in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Murray Engineers shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City to ensure the structural integrity of the new buildings, pool, and any other existing and new site improvements. 28. An application for a Grading & Excavation Permit must be submitted to Public Works when applying for a Building Permit. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 29. The plan set must include a Grading & Drainage Plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate Page 11 of 14 proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2%. Downspouts and splash blocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales. Grading will not be allowed that increases drainage onto, or impedes existing drainage from, neighboring properties. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to pervious areas on the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for Residential Developments on our website. 30. The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at the Development Center or on our website. 31. The proposed project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 32. 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 information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m. and fire demand in g.p.m.). 33. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including water meters, backflow preventers, and fire service requirements. Note: wastewater and gas service not available in this area. 34. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 35. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the water utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the water mains and/or services. 36. The applicant's engineer shall submit flow Page 12 of 14 calculations and system study showing that the on-site and off- site water mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation and fire flows needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands without collapsing the main at the top of the hill. Field testing may be required to determine current flows and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. 37. For contractor installed water mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of water utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. After the work is complete but prior to sign off, the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of the contractor installed water mains and services per City of Palo Alto Utilities record drawing procedures. 38. For contractor installed services the contractor shall install 3M marker balls at each water service tap to the water main. 39. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 40. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for dedicated connection for fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. Page 13 of 14 41. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 42. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new water service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 43. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for facilities installed in private property. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies of the public utilities easement across the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the development. 44. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not be placed over water mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water mains/services or meters. Maintain 10’ between trees and water services/mains/meters. 45. Utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. SECTION 7. Term of Approval. Site and Design Approval. In the event actual construction of the project is not commenced within two years of the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.30(G).080. SECTION 8. Indemnity Clause. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party Page 14 of 14 against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: 1. Those plans prepared by Stoecker and Northway Architects Incorporated entitled “Bower Shaw residence”, consisting of 23 pages, dated January 11, 2012, and received January 3, 2012. Buckeye Creek o L s r T n a o c s r . C OS PF WYLN W O LE P L AVE VALENCIA CREEK PARK DRGULCH CORDO BEAR D R GOLDEN OAK C T H O LD E NCT CT HIL LB ROO A NT NIO CT AL DR SHADY LN HORN LOS TRANCOS RD DR FIRET RIDGE OD NATHHORST APP A L PIN E CISVW F RAN MI PASO DEL ARROYO DR VA LLEY OA K GOLDEN OAK DR TORO CT A MEADOW LOS TRANCOS RD LOS ST NEL BE E H O ES RS HO RD LOS TRANCOS ND MONTARA K O ADAIR LN R D CREEK CT CAN AVE LN VA Arastradero Preserve 635 575 805 607 856 850 610 611 614 620 810 622 615 614 619 630 820 618 830 61 6 640 623 622 650 632 662 660 701 670 500 730 680 690 750 706 712 1791 708 714 720 2625 2502 3010 2596 2620 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend 830 Los Trancos (Project Site) City Jurisdictional Limits Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels 0' 1000' 830 Los Trancos Road Area Map CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2012 City of Palo Alto rrivera, 2012-01-03 16:53:54830 LosTrancos zone RR (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\rrivera.mdb) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 1 of 41 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PLANNING& TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 1 2 3 4 MINUTES ==========MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26========== Wednesday, January 11, 2012 6:00 PM, Council Chambers 1st Floor, Civic Center 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: 6:10 pm PTC Commissioners: Staff: Eduardo Martinez - Chair Curtis Williams, Planning Director Susan Fineberg – V-Chair Donald Larkin, Senior Asst. City Attorney Daniel Garber Amy French, Acting Asst. Director of Planning Samir Tuma Russ Reich, Senior Planner Arthur Keller Zariah Betten, Admin. Assoc. III Greg Tanaka Mark Michael AGENDIZED ITEMS: NEW BUSINESS 27 28 Public Hearing: 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 1. 355 Alma Street*: Request by Lund Smith on behalf of Lytton Gateway LLC for Planning and Transportation Commission review of a new Planned Community (PC) zone district and Comprehensive Plan land use designation amendment to allow a mixed use, five story (64-foot high) building on the 21,713 square foot former Shell station site zoned CD-C (P) and CD-N (P).The Applicant requests three concessions under State Density Bonus Law (Government Code 65915-65918) for: 1) the building height exceeding the 35-foot height limitation, 2) relief from the more restrictive PC zone daylight plane requirement, and 3) additional commercial floor area above the 2.0:1 requirement, as allowed by the proposal of affordable rental housing units. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared. 40 41 42 43 44 2. 830 Los Trancos Road*: Request by Jim Stoecker on behalf of Bert Bower and Jerome Shaw for Site and Design review for the construction of a new two story single family residence and associated site improvements. Environmental Review: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared. Zone District: Open Space 45 46 Other Items: _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 2 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 3. Review and Discussion of Planning and Transportation Commission Procedures Related to Ex-Parte Meetings (One Year after Adoption of Current Procedures). a) Current PTC Procedural Rules, Section IV: Requirements for Quasi-Judicial Hearings (electronic document pages 15-18) http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=8257 6 7 8 9 b) PTC Meeting Dec 15, 2010 including Colleagues Memo, Attachments, Minutes and other related documents http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/planning.asp 10 11 12 13 14 c) Prior version of PTC Procedural Rules Chair Martinez: This is the January 11, 2012 meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission. Secretary Betten please call roll. 15 16 17 Ms. Zariah Betten, Admin. Assoc. III: Vice-Chair Fineberg, Commission Garber, Commission Keller, Chair Martinez, Commissioner Michael, Commissioner Tanaka, Commissioner Tuma. Seven present. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. Chair Martinez: Thank you. We’re going to begin with what we call Oral Communications, the opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item that is not on tonight’s agenda. There is still a chance for speaker cards to be offered. We see none so we are going to… Yes, Planning Director. 28 29 30 31 32 Mr. Curtis Williams, Planning Director: If the Commission doesn’t mind, I would like to make a brief announcement before you start and let you know, I think all of you probably know Mary Underhill, our Administrative Assistant, who sits outside my office. Tomorrow is her last day of work so we have promoted Zariah Betten to that position and she will now be the Administrative Assistant for the department. We’ll be recruiting for her position. She’ll still be in touch with the Commission for a while at least and we’ll see how the transition goes. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Chair Martinez: With that I resign as Chair. I count on Zariah for everything but congratulations. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 3. Review and Discussion of Planning and Transportation Commission Procedures Related to Ex-Parte Meetings (One Year after Adoption of Current Procedures). We have two items on tonight’s agenda and at the request of the Planning Director and with the consent of the Commission, we are going to reverse the order. I apologize to members of the Los Trancos team but the item for 830 Los Trancos Road is scheduled to be heard at 7:00 but _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 3 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 you are welcome to stay. The first item is a discussion among the Planning Commissioners on Ex-Parte Meeting with members of the public and Applicants on meetings on items that are Quasi-Judicial and not yet heard before the Commission or the City Council. We’ve allowed an hour for this and I would like to begin with asking our City Attorney to give us a little overview on what this means. Mr. Donald Larkin, Senior Asst. City Attorney: Certainly. I’ll keep it fairly brief because it’s an item that’s come before the Commission before and there haven’t been any significant changes in the law since the item was last addressed by the Commission but it is helpful to do a little background. Also, Commissioner Michael sent out to me today and I had it put in places, it’s a memo for a legislator on what some state agencies’ policies are with regard to Ex-Parte contacts and its not directly relevant to the Commission because these state agencies fall within different rules and have different requirements and function in a different way but it has some good background information that I thought was very helpful particularly the very first section where it talks about the key element, procedural bias. I think that actually explains the issue with Ex- Parte communications in a way that is probably the most clear and concise of all the materials that you have. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 The difficulty, and the other thing the memo points out, is that other bodies struggle with the same questions and come up with different ways of addressing it but looking at what that first section is about, it’s about the Federal Constitutional Right to due process and that’s really the element we’re trying to balance along with rights of members of the public to petition their legislators for, the Constitution says redress of grievance, but that means to send information or share their views with their legislative bodies that represent them so its really a way to balance those two interests. The most important aspect of, or the reason this causes so much angst, is that ultimately when the Planning Commission is sitting as a Quasi-Judicial body, both Applicants and other affected parties have a right to expect a hearing before a fair and impartial body that is going to weigh the evidence and make a decision based on the evidence that is presented at the hearing and members of the public and Applicants who have projects before that body have a right to know the basis for the decisions that are being made by the body. They have a right to test the evidence and challenge the evidence and to address it. If the Commissioners are giving evidence that those members of the public and Applicants aren’t aware of, they aren’t able to respond so the ideal practice is that everything happens at a meeting. As a practical reality, that’s not always the most efficient way to function. You can’t tell members of the public that they can’t talk to you. You can say, you can ask I’d like to hear this at the meeting, come to the meeting, give it to me in writing, I’ll give it to the rest of the Commission, but you can’t prevent people from talking to you. What is absolutely required is if Commissioners are getting information outside of a public meeting that isn’t part of the official record that hasn’t been distributed to the public that needs to be disclosed up front at the beginning of the meeting and that goes with communications in either direction. Those things have to be disclosed. I think it’s really the Commission’s decision to adopt a policy, go back to the old policy prohibiting Ex-Parte contacts or continue with a new policy and I think both ways fit within the framework of due process. It’s really up to the Commission to decide but those are the key elements the Commission needs to consider when _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 4 of 41 1 2 3 making a determination about whether to stick with the current policy or go back to the old policy so with that I’ll be happy to answer questions. Chair Martinez: Commissioners, any questions? Commissioner Keller. 4 5 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I’m wondering if you have any guidance for us in terms of what adequate disclosure of the nature of the contacts has been. I think that most of disclosures that have occurred in the last year have been, oh, I had contact with so and so and is cumulative of the public record and I am not sure whether that is adequate. I think that one time I went on for three pages of notes on a phone conversation I had with a member of the public and I got distressful looks from at least one other member of the Commission who was concerned about my taking up so much time disclosing to the public what I had learned so I sort of wondered where we should be and I have some questions about the wording of the current policy that perhaps you can help us with as well. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Mr. Larkin: There is no hard and fast rule about what disclosure is adequate but I think what is important is that if there is information the public doesn’t have that you have, that you got through an Ex-Parte contact, that that be disclosed. As a practical matter, it’s not a requirement that it be disclosed orally at the beginning of the meeting. It can be done in writing before the meeting so in a situation where a Commissioner has a meeting and you have three pages of notes and you’re not certain that that’s all duplicate of what’s in the packet that’s public, its advisable in that situation to type up those notes and distribute them so people actually have a chance to see those. It doesn’t mean you can’t disclose them orally but in the case where it’s a voluminous amount of information… I would also say that a key element is if you are receiving information in writing from an Applicant that isn’t in the packet, and this is one of the issues that the Council has addressed as well, that should be given to the Secretary and the Secretary should distribute that to members of the Commission and make them available to members of the public at the same time they are distributed. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 I didn’t answer your question entirely clearly because there isn’t a black and white issue but the fundamental takeaway is that if you know it and the public doesn’t, then it needs to be disclosed. Chair Martinez: Yes, please continue. 33 34 Commissioner Keller: The second thing is about the wording of the current policy and I wonder what you think about some of the things I am going to point out about the wordings of the current policy. If you look at Page IV-2, Paragraph B, the current policy. The one that’s dated 11.03.30 at the bottom. Oh, is this not ours? Sorry, this is not the current policy. Which is the current policy? 35 36 37 38 39 40 Mr. Larkin: The footer should say 110330SYN012137. 41 42 Commissioner Keller: Apparently there is a document on the back of it. There is an attachment to it so it is the right document. So I was looking at the right document after all. It’s just weird that the back of it says it’s signed by Sherry Kelley and Tom Baits but apparently attached to it is the Berkeley Policy. 43 44 45 46 47 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 5 of 41 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So if you look at Paragraph B, the third line, let me read from the second line. It says Commissioners will disclose any contacts that have significantly influenced their preliminary views or opinions and I’m wondering whether the word significantly is advisable or simply influencing their opinions or views is sufficient. Whether the word significantly is appropriate there or is that too high a bar for what should be disclosed? 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mr. Larkin: I think my preference would be… It doesn’t raise a big red flag but I think my preference would be to remove significantly and just leave influence. 7 8 9 Commissioner Keller: And also it says if a Commissioner does participate in such discussions, and I’m probably reading this too fast for the transcriber so let me start again, if a Commissioner does participate in such discussions, that Commissioner should publicly disclose that the meeting took place and disclose any information that he or she has said or learned that may have an impact on how the Commissioner decides the matter but since this is disclosed at the beginning of the meeting and the matter has not been decided, the idea of an impact on information that decides the matter, the wording is rather poor there. In other words, that might have an impact on how the matter will be decided, there is a tense problem and a condition problem. I’m not a grammarian but there is something odd about the way that that is… Does that make any sense? Do you see what I’m getting at? 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Mr. Larkin: I do and unfortunately Curtis and I were just mentioning that you don’t have the Council’s current policy in front of you and that was something we addressed in the Council policy on Ex-Parte Communications but I do think it should be influenced. The intent is if it influenced the way the Commissioner thinks about the project. So in other words, if there is a piece of information that is completely meaningless then that probably doesn’t need to be disclosed, but if it actually influences the way the Commissioner is actually thinking about the project then… 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Commissioner Keller: Suppose a meeting takes place before the packet goes out, so at the time the meeting takes place you get a document from the Applicant. The Commissioner gets a document from the Applicant and subsequently the document is given with the packet but maybe not to all members of the public. I’m not sure how that works. Some of these things are given to members of the public, some are not. So the question is, is it better to disclose, yes I got X and Y document which is the same one that is given in the packet, or is that not necessary to disclose? 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Mr. Larkin: If the document is in the packet, then under the Brown Act we are required to make it available to the public as well. All the documents that are in the packet plus all the documents that are put at places get put at the table and are available from the Planning Department so there shouldn’t be any document that’s in the packet that’s not available to the public unless its confidential legal advice. That’s the only exception. 36 37 38 39 40 41 Commissioner Keller: The drawings are made available to the public but they can’t walk away with them. They can’t examine them. 42 43 44 Mr. Larkin: That’s correct. They’re not always made available but they are always prominently posted and made available for review by the public and theoretically they could be copied or not scale drawings but 8 ½ by 11s are often given out or posted on the website. It isn’t probably 45 46 47 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 6 of 41 1 2 3 necessary to disclose that you received a document that has already been made public but it doesn’t hurt to err on the side of disclosure. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 4 5 Chair Martinez: Anyone else? Commissioner Tuma. 6 7 Commissioner Tuma: What is the current Council policy? 8 9 Mr. Larkin: Council’s policy is similar to and I wish it was in the packet, but it is similar to what the Commission’s current policy is with the exception that the Council was very concerned about not having communications with people, or Ex-Parte communications about projects while they are pending before the ARB and Planning Commission so they have a prohibition on Ex-Parte communications while something is still pending before the Commissions. It is strongly discouraged, those types of contacts but the substance of their policy, the wording is different, but the substance is very similar to what the Commission’s current policy is. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Chair Martinez: We’re going to open the Public Hearing. Okay, follow up Vice-Chair Fineberg. Go ahead. 18 19 20 Vice-Chair Fineberg: I’d be curious to get your thoughts on the email we received from a member of the public, Fred Balin and he is recommending or asking that if we change our policies we adopt policies similar to what Council has relating to late submittals of correspondences and submittals of materials directly to Council. I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to review it but I’d love to get your thoughts on that. 21 22 23 24 25 26 Mr. Larkin: I have not had a chance to review it. I just got the email. 27 28 Chair Martinez: Don, is that something that we can’t discuss tonight since it is somewhat different from the Ex-Parte meetings? 29 30 31 Mr. Larkin: It is not what was agendized but just to share my thought, I do not have a problem if this goes back to bring back that language and suggestions because I think, I mean, Council gave a lot of discussion and thought to that policy change and so it probably is something that is worth bringing back to the Commission and we probably can’t talk about it in the context of Ex-Parte communications but… 32 33 34 35 36 37 Chair Martinez: Okay, we are going to open up the Public Hearing. We have two speaker cards. Vice-Chair Fineberg. Three minutes each. 38 39 40 Vice-Chair Fineberg: The two items are both for Los Trancos so nothing on this item. 41 42 Chair Martinez: Okay then we’re going to close the Public Hearing and continue to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Garber. 43 44 45 Commissioner Garber: I just had a couple more questions Don. Actually I wanted to query the Commission. I had asked Staff for a list of the projects that came before us since the current policy has been in place and they provided a list that Zariah just gave to me and the Chair had 46 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 7 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 mentioned to me just briefly before of the 15 projects, I believe 4 had requested Ex-Parte conversations and with your help here I think they were 355 Alma, I know that I participated in one there. 711 El Camino which was, the Westin Hotel, correct? Yes, owned by the same owner. What else? I’m sorry. Chair Martinez: The Summer Hill housing, 525 San Antonio. 6 7 Commissioner Garber: And then I think there might have been one more. 8 9 Chair Martinez: Palo Alto Commons, I don’t remember the address. 10 11 Commissioner Garber: 200 San Antonio? 12 13 Chair Martinez: No, El Camino Way. 14 15 Commissioner Tuma: That may in fact be it. It says El Camino Real. It was a PC amendment and about a year ago. I’m guessing but it seems like that was it. 16 17 18 Commissioner Garber: Yeah. I saw that we saw some of these twice. I’m particularly curious to learn about some reflections from our other Commissioners on their experiences here. I think I participated in all but the one on San Antonio. I did not have an Ex-Parte conversation there. I had a phone call. Commissioner? Were you? 19 20 21 22 23 Chair Martinez: Vice-Chair Fineberg. 24 25 Vice-Chair Fineberg: I don’t know if you’re looking back to the 2010 but the couple in the open space on Alexis and Los Trancos, several of us went up to those. 26 27 28 Commissioner Garber: Were those site visits or were those conversations? 29 30 Vice-Chair Fineberg: Site visits and sometimes accompanied. I can speak to whether other Commissioners had conversations. 31 32 33 Commissioner Garber: Okay, not that my memory is perfect, but I think the Alexis Drive I actually walked but I do not think I had a conversation. And Los Trancos I don’t think I walked or had a conversation. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 So I was just going to mention… Oh I had another question that I asked Don that I was going to share with the rest of you and that was that I asked Don how long the previous policy was in place. Correct me if I’m wrong but it has been in place since 2005 but there was an informal policy that preceded that for some period of time? Mr. Larkin: 2005 is when I started here and that was when we began work on creating the formal policy. I don’t know exactly when it was adopted and before I had been here I was told that was the informal policy of the Commission. 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Garber: So it was in place for 5 years and then this one was voted into place in the winter of 2010. So I think I am very sensitive to Commissioner Keller’s question about 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 8 of 41 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 disclosure because I think he does have a point in the sense that I know that, I think for the three items I had Ex-Parte conversations in, my recollection, although I did not go back through the minutes at what I actually said, but my recollection is that I said since I was there I did not receive any new information and that was it. I did not go into much detail for any of those things. As I’m saying that, I’m recognizing I think there was one of them that I went into some detail but it wasn’t any more or less information. I found myself thinking back to the conversation that I and some of the other Commissioners had with the Applicant for the Westin Hotel or their proposal. There was no new information and again I’m reaching into my memory here, that had to do with, there was no written information or no new exhibits or something of that sort but in retrospect I probably should have spoken in a certain sense more about the emphasis by which the Applicant spoke about certain things that made me recognize certain things about the site. Its nearness to, in that particular case, the medical foundation, in particular the landscaping that I would interrupt. That was not clear from any of the documents that were part of the package, at least to my memory. As well as some of the background information that gave rise to understanding to how they ended up programming that space meaning the nearness of the other hotel allowed them to not have a kitchen, allowed them to maximize the number of hotel rooms. So some of that background information was very helpful for me in understanding the decisioning that led them to that particular solution that was not clear in that packet of information. There was sort of helpful background information. And then I’d say the other thing that I probably could have picked up if I had been focused on that, I could have picked up myself by sort of walking down the sidewalk, was the proposed prominence of that particular proposal on the street on El Camino and how El Camino turns there and how you’d see that and how that had an impact on the streetscape which is also not clear. Because I picked that up myself it pointed out and became more obvious as I was standing there and became part of the conversation. So those are all things that, did they influence my decision to support it or not support it? I don’t know if any of them had a significant impact, but they did sort of help me round out the project and my understanding of it. Even though they weren’t a written piece of material in additional exhibit or substantial in any way, I think in retrospect, I should not have been as quick to sort of say I didn’t get anything new. I should have been more introspective about what information did come even if it was just small. Chair Martinez: So what is your conclusion from that? 36 37 Commissioner Garber: I have a couple. I am going to save them though because I’m curious to see if some of the other conversation triggers some other thoughts as well. If you give us an opportunity to wrap up, I’ll offer some. 38 39 40 41 Chair Martinez: Okay Commissioners, we’ve got to step it up a bit so we’re going to start using the timer. Five minutes a piece. Commissioner Michael, are you ready? 42 43 44 Commissioner Michael: Yes. I’m new so I wasn’t here for any of these matters although in being new it’s interesting the relevance of this issue. I received a very warm and gracious communication from a resident of the City of Palo Alto last Thursday congratulating me for joining the Commission and thanking me for my work in IBRC and also asking if he could tell 45 46 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 9 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 me about his favorite project over a cup of coffee and he wanted to meet with me alone and have this conversation. I was impressed at the election of the new Mayor, the testimonials that said what’s good about Palo Alto is elected officials’ return calls from constituents. So I responded to the email and also in the email was, we apparently were members of the same college class at Stanford although I had no recollection whatsoever of ever having encountered this gentleman and wouldn’t recognize him on the street if I saw him and vice versa I’m sure. But I said I don’t have any objections to sharing memories of life on the farm and having a cup of coffee but I wanted to check with City Attorney to see if there’s any ethical guidelines that affect my behavior and just then the packet arrived for this meeting and I noted what was on the agenda and low and behold there was a Quasi-Judicial item and there was also this whole history of discussion on the policy of Ex-Parte communications for Quasi-Judicial matters so I thought wow, this is really interesting. I better get studying up on this and so in the course between now and last Thursday there have been seven emails back and forth between me and this very engaged resident and one of which copied Councilmember Klein, Deputy City Manager Emslie, Director Williams and others and that was one that asserted that he had had over 200 Ex-Parte communications with members of the City Council and members of the Planning Commission and encouraged me to meet him for a cup of coffee. And I thought well, I’m going to get legal advice which I have been trying to get and I’ve been doing some research and I found this article on the California Procedures and studied that and I’m actually quite interested in the experience of the Council Members. I am convinced that this is a very ethical, diligent, well qualified, very impressive group and I’m delighted to be a member but I think this issue is very important and I would for the moment yield to others who have been serving on the Council for a longer period of time because it is obviously a hot issue. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Do you want me to come back to you? Commissioner Tanaka. 25 26 Commissioner Tanaka: So I actually wasn’t here for the 711 El Camino Hotel project site and I didn’t talk to anyone there. I think the other three projects I did. I guess my feel is that I’ve seen it before and I’ve seen it after and for really contentious projects I think, kind of as was spoken earlier, there’s only a certain amount of time we have in a meeting and sometimes people need to be heard. You get three minutes, maybe five minutes at most and probably the most effective meeting was one that I attended, I think it was the Palo Alto Commons meeting with the Chair and in that project the neighbors were very upset about the new senior housing project and how it was going to look into their bathroom windows and this and that and I don’t think we necessarily heard anything new at that meeting or anything that wasn’t disclosed publicly but what it did was give people a chance to talk to each other that you can’t really do in a meeting like this. It’s very formal, structured and time limited. I think it helped diffuse it somewhat although there is still some angst but it gave people a chance to be heard and to hear each other that can’t really happen in a meeting like this. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 I’m still supportive of this because its one thing to have everything disclosed and I think it should be disclosed but it’s another thing to be heard and to hear each other and sometimes it’s hard to do that in a very structured meeting especially when you have certain time limits you have to meet. So that’s my feel so far versus what’s happened before. Basically everything has to come out at this exact meeting and there is rarely enough time for everything. Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tuma. 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 10 of 41 Commissioner Tuma: It’s interesting that Commissioner Garber asked this question. The two projects I have the best recollection of in terms of having had meetings that have come to resolution were the hotel and the Commons. This is relatively small sample and this has only been in place for a year and maybe that’s sort of one of the issues but I reflected on both of those and one of the things that was interesting to me was the swiftness of resolution to both of those items. One with a recommendation up and one with a recommendation down. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 But they relatively quickly came to resolution and this Commission and the City as a whole has often been criticized for the Palo Alto process and going back and forth and back and forth with Applicants and giving them coming to a hearing and then at the hearing hearing all sorts of issues or questions raised or other information back and forth and back and forth. Maybe it’s simply coincidental but the two where this occurred did come to a relatively swift resolution. Again, a very small sample so not something necessarily conclusive but it was interesting. As I thought about the individual meetings I had in the context of both of those and the subsequent disclosures both by myself as well as others, one of the things that I came to realize is that a good portion of the information that was discussed during those meetings was information that was in the packet, information that was in the public domain and I don’t know if Commissioner Keller was earlier referring to me as the person who sort of shuffled a few times when he was making his very lengthy disclosures but I certainly was. The issue that I had was that there seemed to be a need to disclose everything that was discussed during the course of the meeting. Specifically what this entire subject is about is to disclose things that are not part of the public record, are not part of information that is otherwise available, not information that everyone has access to and so I think there is one thing to recite every single question with every single response that took course during a meeting. It’s another thing to disclose items that are not in the public domain and I wholeheartedly agree that information that is not in the public domain, that is not part of the record, if it has been discussed and is relevant, absolutely should be disclosed as part of the meeting. I don’t have the same recollection that Commissioner Keller does that is simply, everything is in the papers. I think there was a range of disclosures made but going back to the fundamental practice here in looking at some of the information that was provided and in particular the article that Commissioner Michael pointed out. One of the things that I think is extremely important to bear in mind is the nature of our responsibility as a Commission. We are not a decision making body. We are a recommending body. As I think most of the Commissioners on this dais know and perhaps only one doesn’t, I’m actually a trained attorney and spent years practicing law and I could never imagine a circumstance under which an Ex-Parte communication with a judge, well there are limited circumstances on which it is appropriate, but as a matter of course those should not happen. But that’s a very different environment and a very different situation. One is the judge is a decision maker. Two is our system is an adversarial system and when you are being adversarial about a particular item, a trial, that’s a very different set of circumstances. The Commission is charged with being the arms and legs of the Council. Going into the community and finding out the details, finding out the information, bringing that and making it part of the public record, mulling over and going into a level of detail that the Council would never have the opportunity to go into and shouldn’t. That’s our job. But we’re not making a _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 11 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 decision. We’re not decision makers even though these are Quasi-Judicial items. We are recommenders and part of our charge is to uncover in depth all of the information that is relevant and put that forward into the record and make that as part of our communications so I continue to believe our current policy is the right one and also consistent with what Council does. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Keller. 6 7 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. First I want to express my appreciation of the observation of Commissioner Garber with respect to disclosure and the interesting thing is that if the purpose of meeting with the Applicant, for example, is to find out what is simply in the public record then there is no reason to do that. If you simply find that within the public record, why bother? And so its seems to me that the only purpose to this is to get an insight that you wouldn’t otherwise have or to learn something that is otherwise not as clearly indicated in the public record and therefore more complete disclosure is required from my perspective, if you’re going to have a policy that allows Ex-Parte meetings. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 With respect to Commissioner Tuma’s comments about resolution, the issue is that its not clear that those projects would have been resolved slower if there had not been Ex-Parte communications. He has linked two items as a correlation and correlation does not imply causality. They teach that in law school too but they taught that to me in logic when I took that as a Scientist. So it seems to me that first of all, there were a number of things at that meeting with respect to 525 San Antonio Road that I disclosed that were disclosed to me that were not part of the public record including offers of the amount of dollars that were being committed to the project and since it was disclosed to me I had a duty to disclose it to the public at that meeting. The second thing is that as Commissioner Garber pointed out, the information that occurred there were things that were insights that I might not have had from public record and the fact that they occurred to me in that way was nonetheless useful. One of the things that is interesting about this is that when a Commissioner has a meeting with a member of the public, prior to the packet going out, everything is new. Everything is new. And you can’t at that point in time determine whether or not what you’re learning is cumulative of a packet you have not yet received. So in some sense it seems to me that the fact that you learned it from an Ex-Parte communication is news. And anything that you learned from that you may have learned it later from public packet but you may not have because you may not have noticed it or observed it and it seems to me there is something intrinsically new about learning it prior to the packet going out because you don’t know anything else. There is no public record to rely on. I do think that if the Commission decides that we want to keep Ex-Parte communications, we need a much clearer and definitive disclosure policy and perhaps the policy of the Council should be studied, in particular the issue brought by a member of the public about late materials, also considered at the same time. I certainly think that’s worthwhile considering. My preference is that communications is better if communications are mediated through Staff rather than occurring directly. That it is not the purpose of the Commission to mediate agreements between members of the public, neighbors and Applicants to the extent that there is something to be done, that’s really Staff’s role rather than the role that we ourselves should be _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 12 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 participating in but I do think, and we can go through the record of all these things but I would say that to the extent they are Ex-Parte, my recollection is to the extent they were Ex-Parte communications, the majority of the disclosures of such Ex-Parte communications were everything is cumulative of the record and so it seems to me that to the extent that that’s justification for doing it, that’s no justification at all because if cumulative of the public record then why do you need it in the first place? My preference is not to have these but to the extent they do exist, I think we need a much clearer and complete disclosure. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Vice-Chair Fineberg. 11 12 Vice-Chair Fineberg: Looking at the list of past projects, my practice was not to engage with Applicants, not to have Ex-Parte contacts except for in the open space district projects where there isn’t physical access to the property for members of the public. In the one on Los Trancos and on Alexis, not tonight’s, by having site visits, by being on site, I could get a sense of the impacts on surrounding areas, I could feel being in the environment and get answers to the questions that normally one could get when one can drive to an area that there is a road that goes up to it. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 The one on Alexis where the Applicant was present, he was actually trying to engage in a conversation that would have crossed the line of him advocating on his own behalf and I simply had to ask him to stop because I wanted to remain impartial so there was no information I learned but it was the closest I came to a significant exchange that would have tested my ethical sense of remaining impartial. The other situation that happened, I believe it was on 525 San Antonio, Commissioner Keller had actually sent me an email that he had received and it had a fairly trivial snippet of information in it but then during the evening I realized, and I think it was on 525 San Antonio, but there were other Commissioners who had also engaged with the Applicant and I realized that the receipt of that email made me the 4th person in a seriatic conversation that the others may not have even been aware of. I immediately talked to the City Attorney who was here that evening and because the nature of the material was not significant and the factoid in it had been disclosed, she didn’t consider it a problem. But what that taught me was by simply reading that email I could be part of a serial conversation of four Commissioners if the other three didn’t realize they had each talked to one. That was disturbing and I was very thankful that there hadn’t been much in the email because that meant it wasn’t an issue and it didn’t impact the decision making, but it concerned me. It was close and it could have been had the email been different. As far as I think at a minimum we should take a look in detail at some of the semantics and possibly consider Mr. Balin’s suggestions on policies relating to late materials. Again, a little far afield from tonight’s topic but I think at a minimum we might want to visit some semantic changes and tightening language. There were a couple of places where there is some redundancy and we might want to do some clean up and then I am very concerned about the clause on Section 4-2 where it says that all current and new Commissioners shall receive training on the appropriate conduct in communications outside of Quasi-Judicial hearings. It’s been a year and there’s been no training. _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 13 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 The fact that we’ve changed the policy and not followed through with the appropriate training doesn’t allow the Commissioners to stay in a safe place. We are all prudent. We all have the best of intentions but especially as new Commissioners come on board or older Commissioners, because this is a matter of personal philosophies about ethics, if we are each making our own decisions, we are going to be making different decisions unless we have a consistent set of guidelines that we all said, here, this is how you make your decisions. So I think we must follow up with training that allows us to stay on the correct side of what we’re supposed to be doing. I’d also just like to close by saying, I don’t think that whether we have Quasi-Judicial or Ex- Parte contacts or not means that we are for or against Applicants or for or against a specific project. I think it is more a matter of ethical decision making, how we define who we serve and that our purpose as a deliberative body on a Quasi-Judicial matter is to serve the entire public, the Applicants, the land owners, the consultants, the City Staff, the general public who would be positively or negatively impacted and its our job to represent all of those interests, not just either the Applicant or the parties who are positively or negatively affected. Chair Martinez: Okay, in 2009 this idea of Ex-Parte meetings was first presented to the group when I was a new Commissioner and to me, the idea of being able to engage with the public is the most important thing we could do but I was also taken back by this notion of transparency and the public trust and even the tradition of the Commission of discouraging such meetings and so I didn’t support the Motion at the time. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 The following year with a new member of the Commission, the proponents brought this back again. The attorneys on our Commission should be familiar from law school of the concept in stare decisis which to me means that we will abide by an established precedent. In other words, that just because the composition of a governing body or a Commission changed, that doesn’t mean that it is appropriate to change the rules by which we govern or by which we are governed. But having lost that argument, I tried to embrace the positive and that’s really trying to reach the public in a more engaging way. It’s still important to me and I thought this may give us the opportunity. Closing the loophole between Council, our recommendations and Council decision which was argued at that point, I sort of didn’t fully appreciate but sort of accepted. Being able to gain more access to information which would make our deliberations go more smoothly and quickly and be more intelligent about it, I also thought well, why not. I still wasn’t in favor of going this route but once it passed, I fully embraced it and I probably more than any other Commissioner, mostly because of my nature but when somebody asked to meet with me I readily accepted this. There was one occasion when our packets hadn’t been passed out and I asked that we wait until this was done so I could become familiar with their project. The difference between what we read in our packet and what’s presented in the field is like night and day because it’s rational, it sort of follows a line of why the project is good for the city and why it makes sense for this particular site. In the field it’s a sales pitch. Its ratcheted up to everything from I have a right to do this to the City is going to make a ton of money in taxes to its way better than what is here now and aren’t you pro-growth and a lot of arguments that you wouldn’t make in writing and so the dynamics of this Ex-Parte meetings versus not doing it is very different and we had to really walk a very careful line of which I have to say was not the easiest thing to do. _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 14 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 On one particular project, I got a call from the Applicant later and he said, and we had already heard this and he was still trying to sort of work with what our recommendations were and he said you know, I’ve got the number of units up and I’ve made these changes and I’m proposing different benefits and he said, what do you think? And I said you know, this still is coming back to us. I really can’t advise you on what to do and to me that was like the most critical thing because this is the best advice I could have given him, that you are doing your best, you’re making the project better. It’s going to be better for the City, but yet I was not able to give him some just simple straightforward, no benefit for me advice about it. I just sort of had to back down and say I just can’t tell you what to do and so there is a dilemma I struggle with. If we vote to continue with Ex-Parte meetings I’m going to recommend some changes to our current policy. If we vote to go a different way, I think I’ll be okay with that. I wanted to use my prerogative as Chair to reopen the public hearing because there is one prominent member of the community that we should hear from. Vice-Chair. Vice-Chair Fineberg: Thank you. You’ll have three minutes. Fred Balin. 17 18 Mr. Fred Balin, Palo Alto: Thank you. Fred Balin of College Terrace. I didn’t realize you were going to move the item up. I’ll be short. I refer to my two emails today requesting that one, the subsection on identification of Quasi-Judicial matters from the prior version of Section 4 of your procedures be reinstated and two, that the substance of three sections in the current Council handbook and protocols be integrated into yours. That a fixed deadline for submission of planning materials prior to Staff Report release be instigated or instituted, that submittal to Staff of any such materials provided to Commissioner after the deadline go into effect so no bypassing of Staff. A prohibition of persons entering the Staff area without permission be instituted. All three respond to past problems here and/or at the Council. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 The matter of Ex-Parte communications is part of the larger framework of transparency and fairness, a key to proper decision making and the public’s trust in the Commission’s decisions. Although not part of the Quasi-Judicial hearing, a recent example of good judgment on the Commission appeared prior to our October discussions on East Meadow Circle. When a letter to three Commissioners appeared to try to increase the skids toward approval of a specific plan. Wisely the letter was made public. At the Council recently and during a Quasi-Judicial hearing, one Councilmember, to his credit, disclosed information that he had received that impacted his thinking. Subsequent follow up for another Councilmember led to a Staff explanation of what was actually correct. It was an important interaction. Your current procedures related to Quasi-Judicial and PC Ex-Parte communications states that a Commissioner will disclose any information he or she has said or learned that may have an impact on how that Commissioner decides the matter. It’s a low threshold like the CEQA threshold or reasonably possibility triggering an EIR or a jury’s view of reasonable doubt. So unless what you have learned has zero impact on your thinking it should be disclosed. If the current procedures remain in effect, for those Commissioners who communicate privately in Quasi-Judicial and PC hearings, that is the standard you should meet. Thank you. _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 15 of 41 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Garber. 1 2 Commissioner Garber: Just a couple of thoughts to complete my thoughts this evening. First off, I think in general Commissioner Tuma’s comment that we have a fairly small sample to evaluate is right and the policy hasn’t been in place long enough to truly test it and find out what its opportunities and/or weaknesses are. I think the previous policy was in place over quite a number of years and there were a lot of examples where I think this body and others have agreed that having greater opportunity to outreach into the community would have substantially benefited a lot of the projects that this community had problems with, not that that was the only thing that could have been impeding the success of this project. 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 I think, although I would agree with Commissioner Keller that we should not be mediating disputes between community members and Applicants, etc. etc., I do applaud Commissioner Tanaka and his interest in outreach to get various points of view. He’s done a better job of it than I have and I think many of us have done at the times where he has been asked to participate in these meetings and he’s made outreach to these community members to ask them what they think about it, all trying to find a balanced understanding of the issues, etc. which I think is what should happen. In general, I still support this policy. I am very open to a number of suggestions and refinement that Commissioner Fineberg and Commissioner Keller in particular have made and I think there is a lot of good that could be done there. I am moved by our Chair’s retelling of the difficulty that he has finding the line to thread between one end and the other and I think that’s exactly the sort of dilemma that we’re supposed to find and we aren’t supposed to give that advice but we are supposed to be, in my mind, available and being able to at least participate in those conversations to move the ball forward. This community has suffered for many many years under the label of being one of the more difficult communities to get things done in and I think the cloak of transparency has kept us, not just as Commission but as Council and a variety of the other appointed and elected bodies from participating actively in our community’s future because we have raised this wall that is significantly higher than every other community. If you go back and look at our research that’s been done in previous years, it’s a higher bar to be met than all of our neighbors, a higher bar than I think most other communities in the Bay Area and statewide. What is so unique about Palo Alto that we can’t operate the same way as everyone else? But more important for me is I believe the transparency is an important issue but I think that can be taken care of with disclosure, perhaps with some refinements that have been suggested and the opportunity for us to not appear as though we are unwilling, unable, that we have no procedure to participate in the conversation except in these formal environments does not help our community grow and reach the future that I think we all want to get to. Chair Martinez: Commissioner Michael. 41 42 Commissioner Michael: So this again is just a very important topic and I think one benefit of my being here new is having a fresh perspective. The Palo Alto process obviously is an issue for the community and the Commission and what if any is wrong with the Palo Alto process and if so what is the solution? People have talked about efficiency, public access, greater insight through more interaction, Ex-Parte or otherwise but I think you have the process and the outcome as two different elements. 43 44 45 46 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 16 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Then we have procedural due process that we’ve been advised by the City Attorney tonight and previously from the record I see whether the U.S. Constitution, the California Constitution, Municipal Code or other laws or regulations dictate what policy we adopt and we have some latitude it would appear although we do have to respect procedural due process in the end. I started with 100% respect for this body and irrespective of the Palo Alto process, you can in abstract do things the right or the wrong way and reach a right or wrong result. I think the transparency really militates against us doing things in the right way and I think the issue about bias, the appearance of bias, is very significant in terms of the public trust. The report given to the California Assembly about the California State Commissions of which I think there are 64, they had similar policies to ours and one of the problems they had in mandating disclosure of Ex- Parte communications was that it was unmanageable. There was a detailed review of the record and much of what was discussed this evening, it’s a very hard thing to do. People would sometimes do it, sometimes not, sometimes a disclosure would be minimal, sometimes it would be excessive, but in reviewing the record of the California State Commissions, disclosure was not a good means of ensuring transparency or integrity or the public trust so I would be concerned that if we rely on disclosure that that’s not sufficient. In thinking about this abstractly, I think you have the example of Olive Renata Judicial Body, if a judge gets elevated to a higher court and heard a matter at the lower level, they recues themselves from hearing it again. The Ex-Parte communication introduces the possibility that you get something in your conscious or unconscious mind that influences your thinking whether or not you know it that’s outside the record. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 I think finally the point is whether we are making recommendation or decision that affect life, liberty and rights of residents, this Commission operates as a body and the benefit of acting as a body is we all hear the same information whether or not it is efficiently presented at the same time. We can hear the questions that are advanced by our colleagues and their points of view and the result of acting as a body is qualitatively different and better than decisions or points of view that we consciously or unconsciously reach individually. And that’s why there’s a Commission with 7 people, a quorum and procedural rules for us to act as a body and I think that the Ex-Parte communication is very difficult to manage and disclosure is not a sufficient curative. Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller. 36 37 Commissioner Keller: So I’ll try to be brief in this. First of all, in terms of disclosure, I agree with Commissioner Michael that disclosure is problematic and there was a comment made earlier that I should have made my disclosure in a written document. In particular, in my disclosure, I actually suggested to this very body that written disclosures in advance of the meeting were to be done and this Committee specifically voted against written early advance disclosures to the body so the fact that my disclosure is lengthy should not require it to be written if everybody else’s is not required to be written. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Secondly, the problem with the Palo Alto process in my personal opinion has nothing to do with access to members of the Commission by the public, Applicant, or opponents of the project. My opinion is the Palo Alto process is due to the fact that we push along projects being unable to say _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 17 of 41 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 no to them early on and if we simply said no and we were clear saying no we will not approve this project unless it contains X, Y and Z and if the Commission were able to take straw votes so we could make our position clear to the Applicant in a public hearing, that whatever our position was without being binding, that’s much more effective than having a bunch of discussions with the Applicant. A bunch of discussions with the Applicant have no more value to the process than a bunch of Commissioners at a preliminary hearing having various comments that they make without a specific answer going to the Applicant saying four Commissioners kind of likes this or five Commissioners kind of likes this or none of the Commissioners liked something so it seems to me straw votes go much more toward the idea of helping and making early decisions, being able to say no unless you do X, or Y or Z that has much more effect across the thing than dealing with the Palo Alto process than anything else we could possibly do. It also means that the City Council should back us up when we say unless you do X, Y or Z. That’s when things have occurred. So speaking with one voice is what makes clarity and straw votes allow for clarity. Finally, the issue is that there is nothing that an Applicant or member of the public and in particular… Members of the public can give us written materials any time they want, we’ll look at it, but if an Applicant wishes to show us a project, an Applicant is within his or her rights to say I’m going to have a public meeting and invite anybody who wishes to come to it. Applicant, members of the public, neighbors, or anybody, come to a meeting that is presented. Anybody, the Commissioners can then go and listen and not ask any questions and get all the information the Applicant wishes to make available to us at such an event and that would allow for additional method of communication to us that would be transparent and available to the public and I would suggest that be a substitute if we were to change this policy to not have Ex-Parte communications. That would be an adequate substitute in my view. Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tuma. 28 29 Commissioner Tuma: I don’t have a lot to add at this point other than to remind the Chair that there is a second prong of stare decisis which has to do with respecting the policies of your superior bodies, in this case if you were to apply the policy of stare decisis given the policy of the City Council we would retain our current policy. I think having a policy that is inconsistent with the way that the Council operates particularly where we are charged with what we are charged to do is problematic and I think we’re going to get ourselves right back into the problems that we had that led to the change in policy. That’s it for now. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Chair Martinez: Thank you. I didn’t go to law school. Commissioner Tanaka. 38 39 Commissioner Tanaka: So I do actually agree with Commissioner Keller about having straw votes. I think it’s important for us to give feedback to Applicants that is clear. A lot of times it’s not clear. You get 7 different opinions and Applicants have a hard time figuring out what is the direction, but I know its one way to say no to a project or Applicant and I think there are a couple of views of that. One is which an Applicant is trying to invest in the community, that’s one view but the Applicant needs to respect the current situation making sure other people’s rights are not impeded upon. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 18 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I think there is a lot of, ideally of course everything happens at this meeting, the Commission meetings, but the reality is that there’s a lot of, any maybe the alternative you proposed is a possibility but I think a lot of people here have been talking about and implying or using the analogy of a courtroom or judge which we’re not. We’re a recommending body, not a deciding body. If you look at the judicial process, and I’m not a lawyer so I’m going outside my area, but you have the concept of having before trials. Of all the lawsuits, very few of them go to trial and I think a lot of the reasons why is because they are mediated or there are other mechanisms outside the courtroom where things happen for efficiency reasons so I think it is important to have strong and clear disclosure. It makes sense and is needed. I do recognize need for improvements on some of this but just as in the judicial area there are depositions, I think our current policy seems to make sense especially since it lines up with what Council currently does. Chair Martinez: Vice-Chair Fineberg. 13 14 Vice-Chair Fineberg: Regarding Commissioner Tuma’s comment about the second pawn of stare decisis, I’m not sure its fair to say that we have to have the same policies as Council and I think as a matter of fact, last year you argued that Council doesn’t dictate to this body what its policies should be and that we develop our own policies. I’m trying not to put words in your mouth having not read the record of last year’s meetings but I remember that you were saying that we develop our own policies and Council directs us when there’s an issue that they need to give us direction, but we are responsible for our own policies. If we took that literally, we’d be getting paid $600 a month too and get health insurance so there are clearly things that definitely apply to Council’s policies and procedures that absolutely don’t apply to us. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Also, the fact that we are a recommending body, we’re the eyes and ears and legs of Council is important but we still have the responsibility and the legal requirement to act in a Quasi-Judicial manner so while we are not elected and while we are not judges, we must comport ourselves in ways that are consistent with laws that dance around this particular legal issue but don’t give us clear guidance so I my thoughts come down, this is a matter of policy and we as a body decide and I think we have a responsibility to decide in a way that upholds the public’s trust, keeps us beyond the appearance of having conflicts and keeps us in a place where we are least likely to run afoul of being on the wrong side of those tough individual decisions. So I think I’d like to make a Motion that we, and if the City Attorney could correct me if I don’t get this right, that we… Chair Martinez: Excuse me, I don’t think we’re permitted to vote on anything tonight. 37 38 Mr. Larkin: It’s fine to make a Motion but what the Motion should be would be for the Staff to return with a formal recommendation, not a formal recommendation but whatever it is you want us to return with for formal adoption by the Commission. 39 40 41 42 Vice-Chair Fineberg: Can we quote that as what I said? So basically we ask Staff to bring this item back on our agenda, based on a number of items that each of us have discussed tonight and then also is there a way we can ask individual Commissioners to send Zariah hopefully in the meantime if there are particular issues or phrases or clauses or suggestions or changes and then we can go through and during the items and action items figure out what we want to do with each of those. 43 44 45 46 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 19 of 41 1 Mr. Larkin: Is your Motion going to give us anything more specific about what to come back with? Or just to come back with options? 2 3 4 Chair Martinez: Can I try something Vice-Chair? Can we ask the City Attorney to provide us for our next meeting two separate items. The first an amendment to the Commission’s procedures which discourages Ex-Parte meetings. The second is a document or a proposed amendment to our procedures which continues our current policy for a period of time of two years with the additional revisions, one that an Applicant wishing to have an Ex-Parte meeting shall make that request through the Planning Director’s office and that the Secretary to the Commission shall advise all Commissioners of this request. Second, that at least two members of the Commission are present at the Ex-Parte meeting, two or three. Third, that it is stated that we are permitted to speak to the Applicant about our concerns about the project provided that we disclose in writing that we have expressed these concerns and in no way am I saying are we advising the Applicant of our support or non-support for a project, only that we be permitted to have some form of discussion with the Applicant otherwise I feel these meetings are purposeless. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Finally, and I think I mentioned this that this item not come back to us for a minimum of 2 years or at least until I’m not Chair anymore. Mr. Larkin: We can come back with something. It might not be that exact language because I think there is an issue. Ex-Parte contacts are not limited to contacts with Applicants, but anybody, so I wouldn’t want to bring back that exact language but… 21 22 23 24 Mr. Williams: I was going to say I think we’ll also have to discuss, I think what we need to get is that you’re looking at these alternatives and we can come back with something on that but I also think there would be some issue about expressing your concerns to the Applicant and how that’s a very fine line between expressing concerns and indicating which way you might vote on a project. 25 26 27 28 29 30 Commissioner Tuma: This matter came to us as a Study Session. It wasn’t put on the agenda by the Commission as a whole and what the Chair has just stated sounds very much like an Action. I understand that it is couched in the context of come back to us with, but the two proposals that the Chair has put forward in this couching dictates an outcome that isn’t necessarily consistent with having a Study Session. It seems to me that procedurally the right thing to do here would be that if there are people who wanted to bring this item forward, bring it forward as an Action Item or the vehicle we typically use which is a Colleague’s Memo but to have a Motion coming out of a Study Session that predetermines what the outcome might be to me seems to be running afoul of our procedural rules. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Mr. Larkin: That’s a good point but what might be better if Commission wants to make a Motion and not through the Colleague’s Memo which is not the only way to do it is to agendize it for an Action Item and have Staff come back with options and based on the discussion that could include these options that the Chair has stated. 41 42 43 44 45 Chair Martinez: Fair enough Commissioners. Vice-Chair Fineberg. 46 47 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 20 of 41 Vice-Chair Fineberg: I understand that this is not an Action Item, we’re only asking for it to be agendized to come back but I want to clarify whether your version was in addition to or sort of part of my more general and we all get to give input or was it instead of because I don’t want to preclude the ability for everyone else that has a different perspective or different tweaks or semantic changes, I’d like Staff to come back with all of that in a draft so that we can look at what works and doesn’t work and not have to do five versions of it. So can your suggestion be in addition to we all give individual input on suggestions or cleanup, things that Commissioner Keller talked about semantics, or Mr. Balin’s suggestions on procedure and Staff come back with language addressing those issues. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Chair Martinez: I’m fine with that. 11 12 Mr. Larkin: Because some of the suggestions are completely contradictory it won’t be just one document, but we’ll come back with options. 13 14 15 Chair Martinez: Yes, Commissioner, last comment. 16 17 Commissioner Keller: I’m assuming that the document will come back in the alternative in various places and I’m assuming the document will also come back with a copy of the Council’s procedures and to the extent reasonable the alignment in wording where it makes sense to do that? 18 19 20 21 22 Mr. Larkin: Yes. That will be the goal. At least one of the things presented would be essentially with the Council’s procedures as is appropriate as one of the options. 23 24 25 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Or at least where the procedures align use their language and not ours. 26 27 28 Mr. Larkin: We wouldn’t ask the Commission not to have the Ex-Parte contacts before the Commission. 29 30 31 Chair Martinez: Having taken up our hour, I’d like to thank the Los Trancos team for your patience and give us five minutes to go in the back room and we’ll be ready. Thank you. 32 33 34 2. 830 Los Trancos Road*: Request by Jim Stoecker on behalf of Bert Bower and Jerome Shaw for Site and Design review for the construction of a new two story single family residence and associated site improvements. Environmental Review: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared. Zone District: Open Space 35 36 37 38 39 Chair Martinez: Okay everyone if we can try to get ready to start. The second item on our agenda tonight is site and design review of 830 Los Trancos Road. Can we begin with the report from Staff? 40 41 42 43 Russ Reich, Senior Planner: Yes, thank you Chair Martinez and Commissioners. The project before you this evening is for the removal of the existing house and pool at 830 Los Trancos Road and for the construction of a new two story home, new pool and new pool house. The project would be constructed in the same general location as the existing home on the property. The project site is relatively flat. It’s a relatively flat area at the southeast corner of the property. 44 45 46 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 21 of 41 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 While it is a hilltop location at the highest point of the property, it is a suitable location for a new home due to several factors. It is the only location on the property that has vehicular access. It is the only location on the property that is relatively flat and not covered with trees and the fact that it is surrounded by several oak trees to provide a visual buffer for the new home to offsite views. As a single family residence, this project is not subject to Architectural Review by Palo Alto’s Architectural Review Board. Pal Alto’s municipal code specifically exempts single family homes from Design review. It is Staff’s understanding that Palo Alto has traditionally left the design of a property owner’s home up to them. This is not to say that Palo Alto does not regulate a new home’s construction in terms of how it blends into the context in which it is proposed to be built. While you are not being asked to review the proposed architectural style, you are being asked to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the home’s compliance to the city’s Comprehensive Plan. More specifically, you are being asked to determine if you believe the proposed project has been designed as such that it conforms to the open space design review criteria contained within both the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Items such as colors, materials, site planning, lighting and landscaping are all within your purview to review and comment on. Portola Valley’s Architectural and Site Control Commission has reviewed the proposed project and provided comment. They had no concerns relative to the citing of the project and the approach to new residential development. They appreciated that the existing building site will be used for the new project and that the new construction minimizes grading and tree removal and includes a number of new trees and other plantings for screening of onsite views. They did however express one concern related to lighting. The Architectural and Site Control Commission found the proposed lighting, particularly on the west side to be excessive and with potential for considerable spill offsite if all lighting were on at the same time. They also had concerns about the lighting of the pool. Staff believes the Applicant has focused a great deal of attention for the proposed lighting for this project. Staff believes the proposed lighting would be in compliance with our regulations to minimize spill offsite as well as address Portola Valley’s concerns over light spill. In addition Condition of Approval #5 contained within the record of land use action insures that the Applicant work with Staff such that the lighting does not create an offsite impact. Staff believes that the proposal meets each of the Design review criteria as outlined in the record of Land Use Action attached to the Staff Report and has recommended that you forward a recommendation of approval of the project and the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council. The Applicant is here to make a brief presentation and Staff is available for any questions you may have. Chair Martinez: Amy, would you give us a quick review of our purview for Site and Design review, why this project is coming to the PTC. 40 41 42 Ms. Amy French, Acting Assistant Director: Sure. As Russ had noted, there is one single family home in which case it does not go to the Architectural Review Board so the Planning and Transportation Commission is the sole body for the hearing whereby the visuals of the project are subject to public comment and review. The Site and Design review findings are applicable findings in this case. They reference the Comprehensive Plan, policies of course as well as the open space review criteria which Russ remunerated in his conversation that reflected site 43 44 45 46 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 22 of 41 1 2 3 planning, visual lighting, colors, materials, but you know we’re not focused on the articulation of the building design, that kind of thing. Does that help? Commissioner Martinez: Does the Applicant care to speak tonight? You’ll have ten minutes. Can you state your name please? 4 5 6 Mr. Jim Stoecker, Stoecker North Bay Architects: We’re happy to be able to be here tonight to present this project to you. Bert Bower and Jerome Shaw are the homeowners and just before I start to let you know they were Portola Valley residents for the past 14 years. They lived in Portola Valley Ranch and prior to that they were Palo Alto residents for 16 years so in someway this is a homecoming for them and I’m sure they are happy to be here as well. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Also a thank you to Russ Reich and Zariah. They’ve done an excellent job to create a Staff Report and gives a good description of the project as we see it as well. I’ll make my comments somewhat brief. We provided you a pretty comprehensive application package that went beyond plans and color boards. We also included an offsite visibility study package with the idea that probably the most relevant part of the zoning ordinance design criteria and the Site and Design criteria would be offsite impacts as well as making sure that this project was consistent with maintaining and being sensitive to the surrounding environment. If you would look up at the screen here I’ll start a presentation I put together and I’ll try to be somewhat brief because I do think that through Russ’s report we’ve done a pretty good job of covering the most important parts of this project. Before we start it’s probably good to get oriented and I’ll just talk about north, south, east and west directions of the areas that surround the properties. I’ll start way back in South Bay, Palo Alto City Hall and here is the 280 corridor and Alpine Road coming into the heart of Portola Valley and the end of the Arastradero Preserve which is right below the 8 here. If you zoom in here is the 280 corridor, Felt Lake, Alpine Road, coming into Portola Valley and this whole open space here is the Arastradero Preserve so just want to point that out as that will be part of the presentation I’ll be giving relative to vantage points from the Arastradero Preserve. A good reference is this little red dot which is the Alpine Hills Country Club tennis courts and at this intersection at Alpine Hills and Los Trancos Road and at this intersection of Alpine Hills and Los Trancos Road which turns into a left right after the tennis courts, there are some vantage points back up to the project site and those are included in the offsite visibility package as well. Behind the tennis courts is the Golden Oak neighborhood of Portola Valley. I just want to point that out as we’ll probably be talking about that in a little detail also. To the west, you can make out Windy Hill and between Windy Hill and the project site is Portola Valley Ranch. This is the back side of Portola Valley Ranch that can look back at the project site so relative to the site that’s sort of a general description of what we’ll be looking at. All the plans are oriented so straight up the page is north, south is down, east to the right and west to the left so when we’re talking about certain oak trees and screening around the project you can get oriented in that way. So closer up, as you take a left up Los Trancos Road you’ll see the project site, at the top of a steep incline. Most of the project site is covered by a dense live oak forest to the north between the Arastradero preserve at the top of this spur ridge where the project site is located. It falls off to the west as well to a flat area below the project site more than 200 feet down so this is actually _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 23 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 quite elevated relative to the surrounding features like Arastradero, the tennis courts and Los Trancos Road which is this road here. This is access by a shared driveway as Russ mentioned. You come through an easement through the 810 property and 820 and then you finally arrive at 830. That’s important because essentially this property is landlocked in some way and it has no adjacent property to a public right of way. To give you an idea of the property on a whole you can see again the outline of the property, the shared driveway access coming up this direction and then dumping you out onto this level pad area that Russ referenced in his Staff Report. The adjacent property to 830, 820 which is a little below that property is vacant and undeveloped. The other shared property on this driveway is 810. It’s so far down the hill that you can’t pick it up or see it from this vantage point or any vantage points on the property. Below here you can see the Portola Winery which is in the flat area below the spur ridge that declines to the northwest and down to some other residences that are accessed off Los Trancos Road. I think the most relevant part of the Site and Design criteria is probably to discuss offsite impacts. We’ve tried to develop a site plan and landscape plan that minimize site impacts from some of these vantage points as much as possible. There is basically four site constraints that we needed to address in developing a project. One was the fact that of the 9 ½ acres, only about half an acre of this property is truly or reasonably developed. It is the top half acre that you see in this southeast corner. There is an existing structure on the pad area currently and it is accessed by this shared driveway but there is really no other access so in addition to this small half acre of developable building pad, you have an additional site constrain of the shared access dumping you out into the front half of that and based on discussions with the Fire Marshal we needed to create at least a big enough area to turn an engine around up there. Further site constraint not just in addition to the small pad that we have to work with is the fact that the driveway is really just putting you onto that southeast corner. If you look at this site plan, get a little more of a close up view of this pad area, this is the more or less 19,000 square feet that we’re dealing with. The second site constraint is the steep sloping off to the northwest and to the north that surround this pad. It really wouldn’t be appropriate to try to phase a project down any of these sloping areas, especially on the west end of this knoll because its probably the most exposed part of this project in some residences across the valley may be able to look back at this property from that view. Rather than trying to sprawl out a first floor plan that takes up a lot of this pad, we chose to go with a second story design and try to mask the building in the eastern corner of the property. Here you can see how we’ve situated the structure. This is the easternmost setback. This yellow area is the area we’ve reserved for fire truck turnout, guest parking and access to the garage. By keeping the structure to the east, we were able to put it more or less in the same location as the existing house and we have a great advantage of having a very healthy and robust live oak screening all along this north edge. In particular, this northwest grove of live oaks and also along the southern border of this bank. To the east, up this spur ridge there is nothing other than an oak forest and no vantage points from that direction so the biggest concern would be to try to nestle the structure into the eastern and northeastern part of the buildable area and protect it from offsite views. _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 24 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 This is the first part of the offsite visibility study package we put together for you. Again, it is showing Arastradero Preserve and all these numbers or letters are different points where you can look back at the property and we took shots from each of these to try to represent what that north screening looks like. This is probably the most representative shot and I’m not going to go through all of them but I’ve chosen just this one to more clearly define what that live oak screening on the north looks like. Again, you have this northwest live oak forest, you have three or four live oaks in front of what you can see right here which is a small section of existing roof so there is really a small corridor between some of these oaks that you can actually pick up the existing ridgeline and that corridor is right through these two. So going back to this, we felt like again trying to keep the structure in more or less the same spot and northeast corner was the best strategy moving forward. It helps us eliminate any kind of sizable structure or development of the western edge of the property or buildable area and it keeps us nestled in these oak trees for many vantage points from Arastradero. The same is true… Let me go back to this actually. This is a photo simulation of that same shot just blown up. So we took the view from vantage point B, we zoomed in and we put a yellow line over the existing roof ridge line that represents the approximate new location of the new ridge line. Per the Planning Staff request, we actually mocked this up with story poles onsite as well. This is approximately five feet higher than the existing ridgeline so we have a great advantage of having an existing structure there that is close to the same height as the project that we’re proposing. You can see that with just a five foot increase in elevation, a lot of these oak trees continue to provide the same visual screening that they’ve been providing for the past 30 years for this existing project. The tops of these oak trees that are outlined in red are some that we’re removing and that is the third site constraint that we are dealing with and Russ alluded to it in his Staff Report which is that of this 19,000 square foot pad, about 40% of it is covered in protective oak canopy and for the zoning ordinance that was actually recommended to us by the City Arborist, if 25% of that buildable area is covered by oak trees, we can remove some protected oak trees to reasonably develop the buildable area. While we have chosen to remove some of them, specifically some over by the garage area in order to keep the structure cited to the east and the more protected spot of the buildable area, we’ve preserved the majority of the screening oaks which are the dark green circles around the south, north and northwest which will all be probably the biggest concerns as far as site impacts go however if you look at a lot of the vantage points and offsite visibility study package, really what you’re seeing is something like this. You’re seeing a very small sliver of roof canopy through most of the vantage points. Not just the northwest but also from Alpine Hills down to the north of this slope. That was a second photo simulation that we did. This is a view from the tennis courts, or on Alpine Road from the tennis courts looking back at the site. You can see a small corridor just to the left of this large northwest oak tree canopy where you can see a sliver of that existing roof. Again, zooming in and blowing it up you can see that that is that yellow line represents, its not coming in too clearly, but that yellow line represents a five foot increase in that existing ridgeline. We’re preserving all of these oak trees and just illuminating some of the silk trees which is a non-protected species to the south of the project which clearly wouldn’t affect this view. Again, _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 25 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 another vantage point from the Golden Oak neighborhood looking back at the property you see this small sliver of roofline. So in summary, the most relevant points to show compliance to what we felt would be the most sensitive part of this project were to discuss our strategy and process behind citing the structures and we felt that a second story project that we could nestle into the eastern part of the property or buildable area would probably be the most appropriate way to develop the site. As far as the floor plan is concerned this is a more open floor plan to the south and west which is a flip flop of what is there right now. The existing pool is on the north side of the existing house and we’ve basically mirrored that to provide more of a southern exposure on the southern part. So I think I’m out of time but I got through what I wanted to get through which is what we felt was the most important process behind citing the project and that is minimizing impacts and being sensitive to the surrounding environment. Chair Martinez: Thank you. We actually gave you fifteen minutes which is what we were supposed to do. 16 17 18 Mr. Stoecker: Oh so that was a whole fifteen. I tried to be more brief. I apologize. 19 20 Chair Martinez: That’s fine. You did just fine. Commissioners, any questions for the Applicant? I have one. I noticed in the Staff Report you received 142 Green Building points. Which of those are attributed to Site Design? Can you go over those? 21 22 23 24 Mr. Stoecker: I would have to look back through the Green Point rating system to answer that question specifically. So your question was which of those are specifically related to site preservation? 25 26 27 28 Chair Martinez: Site and Design. 29 30 Mr. Stoecker: Well I could go through each one and we can talk about each one if that is what you’re asking. 31 32 33 Chair Martinez: Well, really the most significant ones. If you want to just highlight them I want to better understand your approach to citing the building, grading, drainage, things of that nature. 34 35 36 Mr. Stoecker: Sure. As far as minimizing impacts to the natural setting, let’s say grading for instance, the finish for the proposed project is only 6 inches off the finished floor of the existing structure and since this pad is relatively flat right now the only really cut and fill is for the removal of the crawl space so the cut and fill is minimized to the point where we only have 239 cubic yards of cut to be removed. The majority of that is for foundation work so as far as the actual overall impact to what you see, there is really hardly any grading and same with the drainage in that we would have most of the drainage being dissipated on site and we are using a lot of as far as the vegetation and the planting and planning goes, mainly native and almost all native as far as the perimeter of them goes, we’re taking a little bit of leeway as far as the interior courtyard but we are providing very highly native planting plan that is more or less drought tolerant and I think we do pick up some points for the development of that aspect as far as irrigation goes. 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 26 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Other aspects of the project that helped in the Green Points rating was using what we’ll probably be using on the entire first floor is ICF walls. It will help with our value of the actual energy performance of the project. Construction materials, let’s see, we are getting specifically to landscape mulching all planting beds, we’re picking up points there. Constructing resource efficient landscapes, like I said noninvasive species. Minimizing turf in the landscape installed by the builder. There is a section that where you are showing native grass lawn around the entire pool. The only real turf on the entire ten acre site is the small patch at the west lawn. Chair Martinez: That’s fine Jim. Thank you. 10 11 Mr. Stoecker: I can go through the points we are picking up in the landscape section of this if you’d like. 12 13 14 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Garber. 15 16 Commissioner Garber: I am looking at your sheet A1.1 in these very tiny sections here. It appears in your Section BB when you have the dash line for the existing house and it’s noted in the Staff Report that the new residence would be approximately five feet taller than the existing residence. Am I getting that really the portion that is five feet taller appears to be the chimney? 17 18 19 20 21 Mr. Stoecker: No, actually, the master bedroom parapet if you look at BB, you see that dash line below it to the right, that is going up to a ridge line which is also a dash and represents the existing ridgeline of the existing structure. That parapet, this is a very small scale remember, is actually about five feet above that ridgeline and so that’s the highest point of our project is the master bedroom parapet. 22 23 24 25 26 27 Commissioner Garber: Was the existing house two stories as well? 28 29 Mr. Stoecker: No it’s just a vaulted ceiling. 30 31 Commissioner Garber: And the first floor you had mentioned is six inches higher or lower than what it was? 32 33 34 Mr. Stoecker: Yes. It is six inches higher than the existing. 35 36 Commissioner Garber: Just out of curiosity, why was it six inches higher as opposed to what it was? 37 38 39 Mr. Stoecker: When we were developing the site walls and all the patios around the property it worked out that the ideal elevation for the first floor entry turned out to be around six inches higher. 40 41 42 43 Commissioner Garber: The amount of earth you mentioned that you are moving was 239 cubic yards which is actually a fairly small amount. I assume if you went down further you would end up moving more Earth? 44 45 46 47 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 27 of 41 Mr. Stoecker: Yes, the amount of Earth we are moving is the net amount. We have about 500 cubic yards of cut but since we’re filling the existing pool a lot of that went into that. This is a raised floor so we’ll probably be locating a lot of the furnaces in the crawl space so we’re showing a three foot crawl space between bottom of first floor and mat slap and that’s where the majority of that cut comes from. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Commissioner Garber: So other than the solar panels here up on the roof there isn’t any equipment on the roof. 7 8 9 Mr. Stoecker: The solar panels will be hidden on the master bedroom roof behind that parapet correct. There will be a 14 ton evaporative condenser, probably a single one, located somewhere in the landscape off to the most probably buried out here. 10 11 12 13 Commissioner Garber: Invisible to anyone else. A quick question for Staff. On Page 5 of the attachment following the draft record of land use, etc., the new oaks will be planted in a ratio of 2.25 trees to each removed tree. Is that typical of projects like this or where did that number come from? 14 15 16 17 18 Mr. Reich: That just happens to be the resulting calculation based on how many new trees they are planting relative to how many they are removing but there are so many trees on this site that they worked closely with Dave Dockter to determine an appropriate ratio and mix of trees and where they should be planted so that’s just the resulting number. Dave Doctor is pleased with that number. 19 20 21 22 23 24 Commissioner Garber: That’s it for me. Thank you. 25 26 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller. 27 28 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. A couple of simple questions. The first, I’m not as knowledgeable about 36 inch box trees or 48 inch box trees. Can you give me just an idea how big, what the diameter or the breast height of such a tree is or how tall it will be because those are measurements I understand better than the size of the box. 29 30 31 32 33 Mr. Stoecker: Well obviously it would vary depending on which specimen you choose and what nursery you go to but a 36 inch box is about this wide and a 48 inch box maybe this wide. As far as the caliper of the tree goes, I would assume that we’re talking about probably a four to five inch diameter at three feet and maybe an initial canopy of 8 feet, possibly 10 feet tall. They could be bigger, they could be less depending on what we chose. 34 35 36 37 38 39 Commissioner Keller: How does that compare to the trees that are being removed? 40 41 Mr. Stoecker: It depends because there are several trees being removed. Most of the trees being removed are multi-trunks but since you add the multi-trunks together they equate to being bigger than the 11 ½ inch minimum so for instance these trees right here, these two trees, one is a six plus an eight and the one next to it is another six plus a seven. Those trees, as far as height goes, maybe they’d be triple the size of what you would get with a 48 inch box initially. Their height, I think we can look at the Arborist report but it’s probably a canopy of 15 feet, a height of 16 to 17 feet and we’re talking about a 40 inch box that would start out at 8 or 6. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 28 of 41 1 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. My next question is with respect to the slope to the east. That slopes upward? 2 3 4 Mr. Stoecker: Yes, if you look at this section cut through the project, that’s this section here and you can see it start to slope up to the east. 5 6 7 Commissioner Keller: How far up does it go? 8 9 Mr. Stoecker: It goes all the way into Foothill Park. This path is the end of a spur ridge that is coming down from going northwest from the southeast and it goes all the way up to basically Page Mill. 10 11 12 13 Commissioner Keller: So would there be views in that direction or is it sort of behind the saddle of the hills? 14 15 16 Mr. Stoecker: There’s no views from the east either off the property or from any neighbor onto the property. In fact, you can see here is the property pad and the closest neighbor as you come up this spur ridge is through this dense forest right here and there you can see the start of that house. This is the Lee property and as far as I know and I think Bert and Jerome will attest to this because they met the Lees not too long ago, they can’t see down through that forest at the property so the eastern part is really the protected part of the site. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Commissioner Keller: My last question has to do with the solar panels. Is there any vantage point that during the daytime people might see reflections off the solar panels or see some sort of bright? I know solar panels are shiny so I’m wondering if that’s an issue. 24 25 26 27 Mr. Stoecker: No and part of the reason is this project is so high relative to everything that’s around it. There is really no chance for anyone to look down on the project and they’ll also be enclosed in a 2 ½ foot parapet on the master bedroom so they’ll be protected. 28 29 30 31 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 32 33 Chair Martinez: Anyone else? Vice-Chair Fineberg. 34 35 Vice-Chair Fineberg: I’m curious of not having seen the fence surrounding the property. What led you to decide not to enclose it in a fence as many of the nearby properties have done? 36 37 38 Mr. Stoecker: We don’t like fences. This is a rural property. Its out in the woods, it’s out in a forest that you can’t really see too much around it and that’s the type of feel that the owners wanted to maintain. Not having a fence is probably one of the reasons they decided to buy this property. 39 40 41 42 43 Vice-Chair Fineberg: Thank you. 44 45 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Garber. 46 47 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 29 of 41 Commissioner Garber: I wanted to come back to your photo simulation number 2. Remind me where that is from. 1 2 3 Mr. Stoecker: Photo simulation number 2 is based on vantage point H. So this is Alpine Hills Country Club and this is taken from Alpine Road at the intersection of Gold and Oak. 4 5 6 Commissioner Garber: There may have been others but if there were I’m not recalling them but it appears to be the only vantage point where I would see the house against the sky. It’s a very small portion of the sky. 7 8 9 10 Mr. Stoecker: Its one of the only ones in that photo simulation 1 you do have a backdrop of the view beyond so this is really the only place as you drive up Alpine Road that you can actually see that against the sky. 11 12 13 14 Commissioner Garber: Between where we are looking in this view and the house itself is the driveway and drive court. 15 16 17 Mr. Stoecker: No it’s actually on the other side. 18 19 Commissioner Garber: Are there opportunities to put oaks there that would grow and obscure that view at all? 20 21 22 Mr. Stoecker: This sliver right here? The problem with increasing or adding planting on that side of the site is that these contours are representing about a 60% slope so it would be rather difficult to plant something down in this corridor and this actually provides an opportunity to look out to the north from the property. We felt like it was such a small piece of the actual ridgeline and property that you see through that corridor that we didn’t feel we wanted to fill it with more live oaks. It’s an opportunity to have a view outside the property as well. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Commissioner Garber: Thank you. 30 31 Commissioner Keller: With respect to photo simulations 1 and 2, especially 1, you have these silk trees on top of tree 3, that is trees being removed? And then there is a yellow line which indicates the approximate height of the proposed building? How far does that yellow line extend and to what extent would the building be visible to the left where the trees are being removed? 32 33 34 35 36 Mr. Stoecker: This yellow line extending to the left does not get as far as the silk trees and furthermore this is a representation of the second story. If we look at the plan itself, the second story ends here. Right here so there is a roof deck over the eastern and northeast part of the garage so it will actually be less of a massing at that height over where the silk trees used to be and in my opinion the buffer that is created between these two oaks and this third and this one will probably protect that side of the building so that you won’t see it beyond what the yellow line is showing. 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 and this one will probably protect that side of the building so that you won’t see it beyond what the yellow line is showing. _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 30 of 41 Commissioner Keller: Just a comment about the diagram here. I think that if Staff asks for diagrams like this in the future it might be useful if there is a dotted line or a hairline showing you the outline of the building even when it’s not visible. It first of all would help with scale and massing and answer questions like that when there are trees missing and that might be helpful in the future. Thank you. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Chair Martinez: Okay thank you very much Jim. We’re going to open the Public Hearing. We have two speaker cards. Vice-Chair Fineberg. 7 8 9 Vice-Chair Fineberg: The first card is from Jim Stoecker. 10 11 Mr. Stoecker: Zariah told me to give that to her. Unless you want to hear from me more. 12 13 Vice-Chair Fineberg: The second card is from Leonard Lehman. 14 15 Chair Martinez: You’ll have 3 minutes. 16 17 Mr. Leonard Lehman: Good evening Commissioners. My name is Leonard Lehman and I reside at 850 Los Trancos Road in Palo Alto. I reside immediately adjacent to the Applicant’s property on the southwest side and I’ve read the Staff Report, I’ve taken a look at the Applicant’s design and I’m also very familiar with the guidelines for development in the open space. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 I’m very supportive of this project. I’m very pleased that the development will only be limited to about 5% of the site and very pleased there is no fencing in the project. The site is invisible from our property. I also drive Alpine Road quite a bit to get to and from my property and the existing house is almost invisible from vantage points along Alpine Road. The materials and the design I think will be very compatible with the open space and will really look very natural and harmonious in the open space location. Tree removal plan and mitigation plans for tree removal look very sensible to me. I also applaud the Applicants for meeting with many of the neighbors and soliciting their inputs and showing their plans prior to the meeting. We have no concerns and we’re very pleased the design really respects the natural environment as much as it does. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Thank you very much. With that we’ll close the Public Hearing. Jim if you care to have a response. Commissioner Tuma. 35 36 37 Commissioner Tuma: Question for Staff. In the Staff Report there is reference to the City Arborist having been involved and there was some mention of that but we don’t have any report from the City Arborist, is that right? No written report? 38 39 40 41 Mr. Reich: That’s correct. 42 43 Commissioner Tuma: Did he review the Arborist report that was prepared by the Applicant? 44 45 Mr. Reich: Yes, he did. 46 47 Commissioner Tuma: Any comments, suggestions or things that came out of that discussion? 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 31 of 41 1 Mr. Reich: No he worked pretty closely with the Applicant and he went up to the site and looked at each of the trees proposed to be removed. They talked about the mitigation and placement of the new trees and he had a very significant discussion with me that he was really on board with what was proposed. He has reviewed their tree protection measures and all of those things and really has no issues. The Conditions of Approval that are in the packet reflect the basis of his analysis. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Commissioner Tuma: So Dave’s 100% happy with this? 9 10 Mr. Reich: He’s very supportive. 11 12 Commissioner Tuma: Just a small note for the future. Those of us from the Commission have a great respect for Dave and having him here or having some sort of statement in there just about his own qualified support is something… he is much more learned than we are on these topics and he is not hesitant to express his concerns when he does have them so the fact that he doesn’t have any concerns, at least for me personally, goes a long way. That’s the only question I had. Thanks. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Commissioner Keller: With respect to the story poles that are mentioned on Page 4 of the Staff Report, perhaps the Commission can remind me about this but I vaguely remember a discussion about story poles suggesting we have them in the corner along with some mesh showing the complete outline. Is that what people remembered or not? I don’t remember exactly what we talked about there. Maybe Vice-Chair Fineberg can enlighten us about that. 20 21 22 23 24 25 Vice-Chair Fineberg: My memory and Staff can tell me is that it had to be outlines and a visible yellow caution tape or something strung between them. 26 27 28 Commissioner Keller: So an outline of the site. 29 30 Vice-Chair Fineberg: I think there is mandated criteria for it. 31 32 Mr. Reich: There isn’t specific criteria for it. It’s at the Director’s discretion. It is typical that you erect wooden sticks and have the orange mesh spanning between it to represent the ridgelines and things like that. 33 34 35 36 Commissioner Keller: So although I don’t have particular concerns about the project I think that I have concerns about the nature of the story poles and I’m just not, not that it’s a particular problem, but I want to make sure that our procedures are clear so next time a project like this comes before us we have the right story poles up. 37 38 39 40 41 Mr. Reich: We do look at these on a case by case basis and the reason the story poles are how they are we asked the Applicant to just represent what the height of the roof would be at five feet taller than the existing structure. We didn’t ask them and we specifically told them you do not need to detail the whole extent because of the extreme amount of screening that the property does have we weren’t concerned about the offsite visibility but we did want to have some kind of representation to understand how tall that would be relative to the existing trees to make sure that 42 43 44 45 46 47 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 32 of 41 1 2 3 there wouldn’t be a visibility issue and we thought that the story poles they did would be adequate to make that determination. Commissioner Keller: Perhaps if we have an opportunity to do this again, or something like this, not saying this particular project, to the extent that there are variations in how story poles are put in, the rationale for that but I do think that some consistency… I thought the Commission had some kind of criteria and that’s why I’m asking about that. I think that the project is reasonable as described but I think that the way that our processes need to be followed in a reasonable way so every time there is a project we need to make sure we are dealing with it consistently. Thank you. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 MOTION Commissioner Garber: Unless there are other comments, I can make a Motion. I move that the Commission supports Staff’s recommendation that the City Council approve the record of land use action, approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Site and Design review to allow the construction of a two story single family residence, swimming pool and detached pool house and the other associated site improvements at 830 Los Trancos Road. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 SECOND Commissioner Tuma: Second. 22 23 Chair Martinez: Okay we have a Motion by Commissioner Garber. Second by Commissioner Tuma. Do you wish to speak to your Motion? 24 25 26 Commissioner Garber: Yes, I would simply add for the record let me walk through the items that are noted in the open space criteria. Number one, the development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands as much as possible developments should be hidden from view. I recognize that this particular project is approximately five feet taller, that there are certain points where you are going to see it against the sky but I think that relative to the other benefits and lessened impacts of having a house in this particular location, I would overlook those particular shortcomings in this particular criteria. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Number two the development should be located away from hilltop design to not extend above the nearest ridgeline. Again, I would reference my previous comments relative to the overall lessening of impacts by utilizing the existing site location on that site. And relative to the high impacts there would be, if you try to develop a new house site there. Number four the development should be clustered or closely grouped. Not applicable given this particular project. Number five, build forums and landscape forums should mirror the natural topography. I will note that the building is largely horizontal and does not create geometries which seem out of place given the nature of that particular hill. Number six, existing trees with circumference of greater than 37.5 inches measured 4 ½ feet into the ground should be preserved and integrated into the design. I note that the trees that are being removed and have been recommended for removal, the impacts are being mitigated by the addition of 2.25 trees for each removed tree which is a large number actually. _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 33 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Number seven, cut is encouraged when necessary for geotechnical stability, etc. Again, check there. Number eight, to reduce the need for cut and fill essentially the amount of earth that you’re moving is relatively small to very small and I think the project meets this particular criteria. Building should use natural materials and earth tone and subdued colors which is indicated by your color board. Number ten, landscape should be native species and should require little or no irrigation. You have represented that as in fact the case. Number eleven, exterior lighting should be low intensity and shielded from views so it’s not directly visible from offsite which you have done. So therefore, I support the project as has been submitted. Commissioner Tuma: The one thing that I would add to what Commissioner Garber has just said is to thank both the Applicant and Staff and the Architect for taking the time to do the footwork with your neighbors. Not everybody does that and I think there are learnings from doing that and I think that’s something that if we had all of our Applicants spending more time sorting things out before they got here it would make the process better. I know planning and project of this scale is a lot to do but taking the time for these conversations is always a smart thing to do so I would applaud you for doing that. I think the project is a good one. Compatible with the open space and I wish you luck with the construction projects. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Chair Martinez: I have a question Russ. Where is the record of land use action do we require the Applicant to work to the concerns of Portola Valley on the exterior lighting? Has that been addressed? 21 22 23 24 Mr. Reich: It’s Condition number 5. It doesn’t talk about it working with Staff but I can read it to you. It says any proposed exterior lighting shall be shown in the final construction drawings and be subject to the review and approval of the Palo Alto Planning Division. All lighting should be minimal and shall direct light down and shield light away from other residents in open space lands so when the building permit drawings do come in we’ll reevaluate and insure that the lighting proposed is going to comply as well when the project is built if it turns out there is an issue we can work with the Applicant to modify the lighting so it doesn’t create an offsite impact. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Chair Martinez: Okay good. I think that was a small item but we want to be responsive to our neighbors. I think this is a very nice house and you can imagine living in it and walking through it and experiencing the open space. Quite unlike some houses that we see that appear to be sort of built for some kind of grandioseness of speculation with the big entry and grand stairways, even though it is a quite large house it comes off modestly and its kind of nice and refreshing to see that. I’m not sure I would call it modern Mexican because it’s a little bit complex and I think it would benefit from being a little simpler but nevertheless I think it really does well on the site and I commend the Architects and I fully support this motion. Commissioners, other comments? Vice-Chair Fineberg. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Vice-Chair Fineberg: I have a couple quick questions for Staff. What is the enforcement mechanism for Staff interacting with the Applicant after the drawings are in regarding the lights? I’ll exaggerate. Let’s say it’s a horrible plan, the lighting is awful or worse the house is built and there are floodlights pointing to the sky. I’m not implying you are going to do this which is why 44 45 46 47 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 34 of 41 1 2 3 I’m taking it to the extreme. How can Staff have any… what enforcement mechanisms give the City any control later? Mr. Reich: The first step of enforcement is that we can control whether or not the building permit gets issued so they have to detail in their building permit plans as they actually have already presented in this package they’ve presented a pretty significant and detailed set of drawings relative to what they’re doing with lighting but they’ll also have to include that same information in their building permit drawings and if it isn’t to their satisfaction we can have them modify it before approving their building permit drawings and there is an occupancy permit that you are required to do once the building is constructed and so once the building is in place we can take a look at the lighting prior to issuing the final on the project so we can assure the lighting is in compliance with the guidelines of the code before. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Vice-Chair Fineberg: Okay so the language that’s in Section 5 that you talked about before that its subject to review and approval of Palo Alto Planning Division, has that in the past been used in other projects and it allows you the ability to have that enforcement? 14 15 16 17 Mr. Reich: The process is designed for us to have the enforcement regardless of the condition even existing in this packet but I’m not aware of any issues relative to this in the past so I can’t speak to it being an issue before. 18 19 20 21 Vice-Chair Fineberg: I’d like to just ask the City Attorney to make sure as this moves forward that they make sure that whatever enforcement mechanisms that they require are there, or maybe they are happy with it as it is. 22 23 24 25 Mr. Larkin: We have plenty of tools if a project is built that is not in conformance with the conditions or the building permits to go back and take code enforcement action and have either the offending additions that aren’t part of the building permit removed or have to take it to the full extreme if somebody is building without building permits we can have it torn down. 26 27 28 29 30 Vice-Chair Fineberg: Okay if you’re comfortable that assures me. The second question is more for background. Regarding the fence, I think it’s wonderful that you’re not putting a fence up. It minimizes an impact to the creatures that live in the space, it doesn’t close down their migratory patterns, it doesn’t create a visual wall. Its friendly to the environment, minimizes impact. I think that’s a fantastic thing. It’s a decision that you’ve made and it doesn’t necessarily mean that there will never be a fence, subsequent owners may choose they want fences. So my question for Staff is if a fence were to be built either by this or the next owner, does that require CEQA review or do we need to condition this property that there won’t be fences or is it something that they apply for fence and it’s a quick permit and if it complies its built with no CEQA review? 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Ms. French: Fences do require Site and Design in the open space district. It’s a lesser process so it would be more of a Staff level review of that. As to being a CEQA issue, are you thinking of the animal migration thing? Yeah, I would guess we’d take a look at that and there are certain designs that are, whether there would be any point in fencing the whole property or a certain area, we’d take a look to see what they would be proposing, if it was closer to the house or what have you. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 35 of 41 Vice-Chair Fineberg: Thank you. Let me just say in summary that I am in support of the project. I think many of the things you have done make it fit into the space with minimal impact and it fits, it feels like it fits in the place where it is. On the two areas where you are not consistent and you deviate from the development criteria, I would agree that the nonconformance reduces impacts and is better than a strict compliance. Locating it on the existing site while it is not consistent with our development criteria, means that you are not cutting new driveways, cutting down trees, not doing lots of things that would potentially have significant negative impact so I think it’s the right decision and agree that that’s something where noncompliance is good. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 The second thing of removing the limited number of trees, I have to echo what Commissioner Tuma said that if Dave Dockter has reviewed it, I rely on his expertise and its simply something that has to happen and if Dave’s reviewed it, that’s what I need to feel comfortable and I’ll be in support of the project. Commissioner Keller: Very briefly, what is DG which is listed on the proposed impervious coverage and is not listed on the list of abbreviations by the way so I didn’t know what it was. Dan Garver? Decomposed Granite. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Thank you. The second thing is, this is going to be ironic and considering the first topic we discussed, we did not actually poll the Commissioners whether there were Ex-Parte communications on a Quasi-Judicial matter and I would suggest we do that at the beginning of every Quasi-Judicial matter and ask whether there were any Ex-Parte contacts and so state yes or no. Chair Martinez: We’ll ask the City Attorney to include that in the work he’s bringing back to us. 26 27 Commissioner Keller: I would suggest that if anybody had any Ex-Parte contacts that they disclose them now. 28 29 30 Mr. Larkin: It’s a little bit late but if there were to be disclosed… 31 32 Chair Martinez: Okay anybody? Fess up. No. 33 34 Vice-Chair Fineberg: Thanks. I did not have any Ex-Parte contacts but I just want to follow up on that by thanking the Applicant and Staff for arranging to have the property available and open for us for site visits. I was not able to do my own personal schedule to avail myself of it but I would also like to echo Commissioner Tuma’s comments that it s a good thing to do. Thank you for making that available and it really helps make informed decisions and if Staff could continue to encourage Applicants it’s a good thing. 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Chair Martinez: Okay let’s call for the vote. All those in favor of the Motion say Aye. 42 43 Vice-Chair Fineberg: Aye. 44 45 Commissioner Garber: Aye. 46 47 Commissioner Tuma: Aye. 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 36 of 41 1 Commissioner Keller: Aye. 2 3 Commissioner Tanaka: Aye. 4 5 Commissioner Michael: Aye. 6 7 Chair Martinez: Okay, all those opposed? The Motion passes unanimously with Commissioner Garber, Michael, Keller, Chair Martinez, Vice-Chair Fineberg, Commissioner Tuma and Commissioner Tanaka all in support of the Motion. Thank you and to Bert and Jerome welcome to the hood. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 MOTION PASSED (7 – 0) Chair Martinez: Okay, moving right along. We’re going to have a brief update by Vice-Chair Fineberg on the Report to Council. 15 16 17 18 19 REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS/COMMITTEES Vice-Chair Fineberg: I am the current lone member of the subcommittee preparing the Report to Council and I’ve put some thinking into the form it should be in. I’d like to have it follow the same structure as we’ve had in past years in that we’ll look back at the data Staff has provided us but given the lateness of the Report it will have less analysis rather than more so we’ll try and pull out the most important details and it will also include a recap of, since we’ve already had our joint meeting with Council, I’m going through and tallying all Council comments and Commissioner comments and our priorities that we had developed to prepare for the joint meeting and it will recap those priorities and attempt to, in a fair manner, tally the significant comments or the multiple comments that occur to Council Members to kind of pull a consensus out of what was the thoughts of 9 individuals. I would like to solicit the help of a fellow Commissioner and when I was speaking with Chair Martinez I thought that the experience I had as a new Commissioner would point me to ask Commissioner Michael to this subcommittee and the reason is when I was a new Commissioner I was asked to be on the subcommittee for Report to Council and it gave me a fantastic opportunity to look back at what had happened when I was not on the body. I obviously read tons of the minutes and had kind of tried to bring myself up to speed on many of the issues but having to be proficient enough to write about what happened when I wasn’t around really brought me up to speed fast so if I can do a little arm twisting and ask Commissioner Michaels to join me on this and also since his workload has decreased with the final results of the IBRC report, he should have some spare time. 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 I think the timeframe, I’m going to be out of the country for two weeks so we’ll start in January. So you have two weeks and if I can give you some work to do in the meantime, we can start in January and keep the scale of it finite and be done… I’m sorry start in February and keep the scale finite so that we’ll be done by the end of February and bring it back to the Commission and get it done. Commissioner Michael: So I’m happy to accept the invitation. The only issue on scheduling is that I’ve got two weeks toward the end of January and early February that I may be out so. 46 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 37 of 41 Vice-Chair Fineberg: That’s perfect. We’ll start working early February. 1 2 Chair Martinez: Let me give you a little background on what we’re thinking on this. We traditionally meet with Council in September of each year and I know the Commission has busted it’s to try and get the report done in time for this meeting and soon thereafter. We think that the schedule of producing it in January in this case unfortunately into February will be better because it will reflect the prior year and in today, we’re thinking and it has been suggested in our last meeting with Council that we have a follow up meeting so our proposal will be to have a follow up meeting in the spring sometime with Council, able for them to have the report in plenty of time prior to that meeting, for us to set an agenda for new items for that discussion and to release this as the method the Commission works from here on out rather than continuing like the Comp Plan, trying to catch up to four or five years that we’re behind schedule. Yes, Commissioner Keller. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Commissioner Keller: I agree with the idea of in the future trying to release the report in the January timeframe when the new Council is elected and presenting our results somewhat thereafter to the new Council so in 2013 there will be a new Council seated so it will be good to do that after they’re seated as opposed to before so that’s another reason for that strategy. 15 16 17 18 19 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Any other comments on that? And thank you Commissioner Michael for volunteering. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meetings of November 9 and December 14, 2011 MOTION We received minutes in the packet but I didn’t see it agendized so… Is it there? Oh, it’s at the bottom. Okay so do I have a Motion for minutes of November 9th, 2011 and December 14th, 2011? Those in favor of approval? Or are you asking? Second? Now I’m going to let Commissioner Tanaka Second. Care to speak to the Second? All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes unanimously. MOTION PASSED (7 – 0) Commissioner Keller: Just indicating that I was not present for November 9th. 35 36 Chair Martinez: According to the charter you don’t have to be present to vote on it. Okay, report from our January liaison to the Council? 37 38 39 Commissioner Tuma: Nothing to report from this week’s meeting. 40 41 Chair Martinez: Okay, if you noticed on the agenda we’ve proposed the next four or five months of Council liaisons. We do need or ask for volunteers for pre-commission for February and March. February Commissioner… 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Tuma: You had already assigned February for pre-commission. At least it’s already been put in my calendar by Zariah for pre-commission. It may not be in here but it’s in my calendar because Zariah already sent me the notices for it. 46 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 38 of 41 1 Chair Martinez: So Commissioner Tuma for February and March Commissioner Garber. 2 3 Commissioner Tuma: I thought you wanted us to do pre-commission when we were also doing Council Rep. 4 5 6 Chair Martinez: No, that’s your prerogative but I think it’s a bit much. Unless there’s a good reason… 7 8 9 Commissioner Tuma: Let’s have a bit of discussion on this. Unless you can do both this month and I’ll do next month. 10 11 12 Commissioner Garber: I think everyone’s preferences are to have them in the same month in part because I travel quite a bit so its easier for me to schedule to be in town for the month of January, that kind of thing and having a lot of Commission meetings and pre-commission and Council Representation, because we have Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday with that you’re locked in anyway. That’s my preference personally but that doesn’t mean that’s the way we should do it all the time. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Commissioner Tuma: At the moment I’m happy to switch and I can do pre-commission in February as well as Council in February. 20 21 22 Chair Martinez: I’m going to leave that up to you individually whether you want to take that on both for one month. Any other reports? Commissioner Keller. 23 24 25 Commissioner Keller: I noticed in the newspaper a couple of weeks ago there was a discussion about El Camino Real and Bus Rapid Transit and I request that the Planning Commission have an opportunity to weigh in on that particularly when we are looking at Bus Rapid Transit at the intersection of Arastradero/Charleston and El Camino where there is a BRT stop. I think that’s something the Commissioners should look at carefully and to the extent there may be a narrowing of lanes on El Camino to support the BRT station. We should look at that carefully so I’m requesting that that be agendized for the Commission prior to it going to the Council. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 In addition, people saw… Yes. Vice-Chair Fineberg: Can we ask Staff that that include involvement with the Transportation Official Jaime Rodriguez so that it can be iterative? 36 37 38 Commissioner Keller: Yes, that’s fine with me. 39 40 Chair Martinez: Can you repeat that? 41 42 Vice-Chair Fineberg: If we have it agendized as an item that the Staff who is most expert at it which would be Jaime Rodriguez would be involved so if we have questions or comments or if there’s input that it be meaningful rather than a report or somebody representing the item that isn’t the expert. 43 44 45 46 47 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 39 of 41 Commissioner Keller: I would hope that to be the case and also just to telegraph a bit what I am thinking is that the City has been talking about improving that intersection so of Charleston/Arastradero and El Camino and to the extent that we can roll that into our discussions with the VTA we may be able to get them to pay for improvements that would otherwise be made at the same time so I would not want that to be done in isolation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Secondly, people have seen the scoreboard demographics that were sent out today and I’m not sure of the propriety of doing this but I would personally welcome the next time that we have a discussion about housing in general to have a representative of the School Board participate with us in the process so we can learn a little bit more demographics and understand the impacts that housing has on schools because this is the one time that we have the opportunity to talk about this more in the housing element and we haven’t had any particular input from the School Board. I realize the School Board has the City School Liaison Committee but I think if we could somehow invite that participation and giving us feedback that would be quite valuable. I’m not sure how that can be arranged but I would encourage it. Chair Martinez: Good point. 17 18 Commissioner Tuma: Just a thought about that. I don’t know whether it would be the School Board or someone from Staff who would be potentially informed on the details of the demographic studies so you might want to think about whether it would be a Staff member or School Board member but I agree wholeheartedly for the district is would be very helpful. 19 20 21 22 23 Commissioner Keller: Maybe Bob Golton or Kathy Marx. 24 25 Chair Martinez: Okay, Zariah has been polling Commissioners about February 22nd meeting date. She mentioned to me she has a quorum so the meeting date is about to be set. Good. So you have that now. We are going to continue working with our subcommittees on what to schedule in about a month the next update so I look forward to meeting with each of you on your subcommittee work and really trying to get some traction on that in moving things forward but to have a robust session maybe after the 22nd meeting. Anything else? Yes, Commissioner Tuma. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Commissioner Tuma: I have a sort of legal or procedural question with respect to the subcommittees. Commissioner Keller and I are on the Transportation Subcommittee and there is a meeting coming up for a Project Applicant for a hotel in South Palo Alto and my question would be as Planning Commissioners, what should or would be our role at such a meeting given that it is a project that, as I understand it in all likelihood won’t come to the Planning Commission but could come to the Planning Commission depending on what the final project winds up looking like so we don’t create a conflict for ourselves or in someway become disqualified for future discussions on the project. Any thoughts on how we should conduct ourselves at that meeting? 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Mr. Larkin: This is new to me. You’re meeting with the developer as the subcommittee or as the subcommittee you’ve been invited to another meeting? 43 44 45 Commissioner Tuma: Jaime Rodriguez has arranged a meeting that I understand is a presentation from the developer to the stakeholders and among the stakeholders are considered the subcommittee and Commissioner Keller and I were invited to that meeting. 46 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 40 of 41 1 Ms. French: This is the first I’m hearing of it. The Hilton Garden project? That is not a Planning Commission project. It’s an Architectural Review project so I don’t really understand the stakeholder… 2 3 4 5 Mr. Larkin: I get the question and in that case I think what the concern would be if the project was to come back to morph into something that does require a variance or Planning Commission review to not have taken a position. I think information gathering, questions, that sort of thing is appropriate in this kind of a stakeholder meeting but its not appropriate to say I wholeheartedly support the project or wholeheartedly oppose the project because you’d be expressing bias in advance of a Commission meeting and that would be the concern in the event it does come back in a Quasi-Judicial matter you don’t want to have taken public positions either way on the project overall but certainly there wouldn’t be an issue in terms of the Ex-Parte discussion that we had before because the stakeholder meeting is an open meeting. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Commissioner Tuma: It’s an open meeting but not a publicly noticed meeting. 16 17 Mr. Larkin: If it’s a meeting that’s set up by a developer and it’s a community meeting and you’ve been invited to come, even if its not publicly noticed with the cards the same way that its formally noticed with us, if it is open to the public and it is a general public meeting, there is an exception in the Brown Act that allows attendance of those meetings as long as Commissioners aren’t having the discussions among themselves. 18 19 20 21 22 23 Commissioner Tuma: So attendance, but would our input or discussion… There’s a lot of gray area between there as to what might be said during the course of those meetings. I know in the past there have been issues with Commissioners becoming disqualified or having issues later on because of something said at these public meetings so I’m just trying to get some guidance on what’s permissible or not. 24 25 26 27 28 29 Mr. Larkin: It comes down to would there be a conflict for bias so making comments that give the impression of bias for or against the project or asking questions in a way that is overtly hostile, those are the types of things that are to be avoided or overtly positive. This is a great fantastic project and I love it, right? Is probably not an appropriate question but clarifying questions are about the plan or proposal and certainly transportation being the issue and being done for transportation demand management, those types of questions are perfectly appropriate to discuss at that type of a stakeholders meeting. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Chair Martinez: Vice-Chair. 38 39 Vice-Chair Fineberg: Just as a follow up for my own edification in this kind of situation, Commissioner Tuma said that there were stakeholders and I don’t know the particular meeting but it sounds like there are 30 specific people who are being invited by name as opposed to the entire neighborhood is getting an email that 200 people might show up. If there were 30 specific named participants, is that an open public meeting? 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. Larkin: I’ll go back and check with Jaime to see what this is. If it’s a type of stakeholder meeting that he typically puts together that’s not what this would be. It would be something 46 47 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto January 11, 2012 Page 41 of 41 1 2 3 where specific people were invited but generally broad notices are sent to neighborhood groups so broader than that but if it is a closed door meeting that is not what I’m envisioning. Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller. 4 5 Commissioner Keller: So I understand the Charleston/Arastradero stakeholders group as being a relatively small group, not open notice meetings and that I’ve gone to a number of those meetings as the representative of the Planning Commission for the Charleston/Arastradero corridor and usually the issues for that don’t involve projects because the issues involve the non- Quasi-Judicial corridor and within that there is give and take about discussions about have you tried this or I’m concerned about that and that happens from members of the public and I’ve expressed concerns and offered opportunities and solutions. I’m not sure if that’s a particular problem. That might be more problematic when related to a specific project and I doubt if I or Commissioner Tuma would say I like the project or don’t like the project but I’m more likely to say I’m concerned about the traffic impacts at this particular intersection, how might we mitigate that, are there ways to put in signage or whatever. Questions and suggestions of that nature which would arise to whether or not or have little bearing as to whether or not we would approve the project as a whole if it were to come to us. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Mr. Larkin: I don’t want to get into it because I don’t have all the facts. I’ll go back to Jaime and get all the information and give advice once I talk to Jaime but since it does tie back to our earlier conversation, if it’s an open meeting that’s generally open to the public and you’re asking those questions, with exception of the Brown Act I think its okay. If it’s a closed door meeting then it comes back for Quasi-Judicial hearing then that’s an Ex-Parte contact and those communications would need to be disclosed if it’s the type of stakeholders meeting where it’s not a stakeholders meeting that the city is setting up but a group that identifies stakeholders as a closed door group. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Chair Martinez: Okay, anyone else? Then, with that the meeting is adjourned at 9:12. 29 30 31 32 ADJOURNED 9:12 p.m. PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION DIVISION City of Palo Alto Page 1 STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: Russ Reich, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: January 11, 2012 SUBJECT: 830 Los Trancos Road: Request by Jim Stoecker on behalf of Bert Bower and Jerome Shaw for Site and Design Review of a new two story single family residence, pool house and associated site improvements on a 9.43 acre parcel of land in the Open Space zone district. Environmental Review: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend that the City Council approve the Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Site and Design Review to allow the construction of a two story single family residence, a swimming pool, a detached pool house and other associated site improvements at 830 Los Trancos Road. BACKGROUND Existing Conditions The project site is 9.43 acres and is located west of highway 280 in the Palo Alto foothills and accessible from Los Trancos Road. The site is accessed by a long narrow driveway that serves a total of three properties. The subject property consists primarily of steep terrain and is covered with oak trees and other vegetation. There is currently a 3,563 square foot single story residence on the property that sits on a relatively flat clearing at the high point of the property. This approximately 1/2 acre area is situated in the southeast corner of the property and is predominantly surrounded by Coast Live Oak trees. The existing tree canopy provides a significant visual buffer to off site views of the existing residence. This area of the property, currently improved for single family use, is referred to as “the project site” in this staff report. The scope of work associated with this project is limited to this area of the property. Existing improvements include a small auto court on the south east side of the house, a swimming pool on the north side of the house, and a small open lawn area west of the existing house. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Project Description The proposal includes the removal of the existing home and swimming pool. A 7,524 square foot, two-story single family residence would replace the current home. The project includes a new swimming pool and a 606 square foot pool house and study, and landscape improvements. The existing pool, located on the north side of the existing home, is located in a well-shaded area. The new pool would be moved to the south side of the new home for increased solar exposure. The architectural style of the proposed residence is described by the applicant as contemporary Mexican style with gently sloping brown clay tile roofs, cement plaster walls and an intimate courtyard. The design has some characteristics of a modern Adobe or Pueblo Style home with thick sculptural wall elements, areas with flat roofs, and natural wood details including posts, beams, rafters, outriggers, and doors. While the project does make use of the existing housing site to avoid impacting the oak covered slopes of the rest of the property, several existing trees are proposed to be removed to accommodate the new home. SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION Commission Purview Site and Design Review is a process intended to ensure the development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, compatible with environmental and ecological objectives and in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Planning and Transportation Commission shall recommend approval or shall recommend such changes as it may deem necessary to accomplish the following objectives: 1. To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. 2. To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. 3. To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. 4. To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. A Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) provides tailored findings for Site and Design Review approval of the project for the P&TC to review and recommend to the City Council. In addition to the Site and Design Review Objectives, PAMC 18.28.070 Additional OS District Regulations, Section (p) Open Space Review Criteria, sets forth 12 review criteria taken from the Comprehensive Plan Conservation Element. Staff’s analysis of the projects compliance with these Criteria has been provided in the attached Record of Land Use Action. City of Palo Alto Page 3 DISCUSSION Proposed Tree Removal The project includes the planting of 23 trees to fill in some hillside areas that are currently exposed to off site views, as well as the removal of 17 existing trees. Of the 23 new trees, 18 would be oak trees; the other new trees include three Fruitless Olive trees, one Japanese Pagoda tree and one California Buckeye tree. Sheets L1.0 and L1.1 of the plans indicate the proposed locations for the planting of these 23 new trees. Each of the trees slated for removal has been analyzed in great detail by staff, including the City Arborist. One of the most significant concerns related to any proposal to remove trees is the screening of the project from off site views. Staff has been careful to ensure that each removal is necessary and would not expose the construction to off-site views. Staff performed an onsite inspection to understand the significance of the tree canopy and proposed removals, to ensure the removals will have little, if any, impact on the screening of the new structures. Of the 17 trees to be removed, eight are protected oak trees under the City of Palo Alto Tree Protection Ordinance (TPO), based on their size and species. Some of the trees proposed for removal are too close to another tree and removal would benefit the health and growth of the other tree and in some cases, several other trees. Some are small and unhealthy and others are planted in a location where removal is necessary to make the best use of the site. While there are some trees on the flat hilltop area of the housing site, the property has the unique benefit of having a dense ring of oaks on the downhill slope, located next to the project site, that form a visual screen of the home from off site views. The proposed tree removals would not impact this dense screening. There are an extensive number of oak trees covering the slopes of the property as well as surrounding the relatively flat project site (the relatively small ½ acre flat area at the top of the hill where the existing residence had previously been developed). The existing tree canopy covers over 40% of the developable area. The TPO allows for removal of protected trees when the canopies cover more than 25% of the developable area of the lot. As mitigation for the removal of the 8 protected oak trees, the applicant has proposed to plant 18 new Coast Live Oak and Valley Oak trees in a combination of 36” box and 48” box sizes. Sheet TR.1 of the plan set describes the species of trees to be removed and status as to whether they are “protected” or not. The arborist report (Attachment F) describes the condition of each of the trees in this area. Each tree is numbered and an asterisk is provided next to those trees that are proposed for removal. Tree number 25, a Valley Oak, needs to be removed to accommodate the new pool house but its condition and form warrant relocating the tree rather than removing it. This tree is proposed to be relocated to the north east corner of the project site just beyond the area where three Silk trees are proposed to be removed. Off Site Views One of the key considerations for new homes in the open space district is that a new home should be designed to have the least physical and visual impact to the property and off site views. It’s important that new homes be designed to blend into the rural environment and be as unobtrusive as possible. The goal is to maintain the natural look and feel of the hillside environment. City of Palo Alto Page 4 The proposal to place the new home in the location of the existing home is an appropriate choice. While the location is at the high point of the lot where the Open Space Review Criteria recommend not building a structure, it is clearly the best place on this particular property to build for several reasons. First, it is the only part of the property not covered by trees. Second, it is the only location on the lot that is currently accessible. Any other area of the property would need a new access driveway cut through the existing trees resulting in a greater number of tree removals. Third, is that the project site having been previously developed is the only relatively flat area of the lot and needs little grading compared to what would be needed to attempt development on a different area of the parcel. Lastly, the fact that the proposed development site is screened from off site views by a mature ring of oak trees that would provide a substantial visual barrier of the new home to off site views from both public and private vantage points. The applicant has provided an offsite visibility study providing photographs of the project site from a multitude of vantage points, including the Arastradero Preserve, the Blue Oaks Subdivision, and several areas within Portola Valley. The study demonstrates that the building site is heavily screened from off site views and there are only a few vantage points where small portions of the proposed residence would be visible. The applicant has also provided photo simulations where they superimpose what the view would look like after the homes construction to demonstrate that while the new building would be slightly taller it will not significantly increase the visibility of the new home to off site views. These simulations may not have met the packet deadline but will be at places if they are not in the packet. The applicant has also erected story poles at the project site. The story poles do not detail the exact outline of the home as the applicant was only directed by staff to erect a simple demonstration to show the new height of the proposed building. The site is currently not occupied and the Commissioners are welcome to visit. A site visit is strongly encouraged as it is very helpful in understanding how the site is currently screened from offsite views and how the removal of the proposed trees will would not result in additional off site visual impacts. The design employs a multitude of strategies to limit the visibility of the new home. The height of the structure was kept low using a combination of shallow roof slopes and flat roof areas. The new two story home would be only 5’-2” taller than the current one story home. A more compact two story plan was chosen over a single story design to avoid having the structure sprawling over the site and spreading out to the edges of the developable portion of the lot. It was especially important to avoid the western edge that is more exposed due to a thinner tree canopy in this location. The massing of the structure is reduced by a design that offsets the second floor from the first floor, thereby avoiding tall two story wall elements. The colors and materials selected for the project would also help the proposed structure to blend into its hilltop setting. The materials are natural consisting primarily of cement plaster walls, clay tile roofs, and wood details. The two colors selected for the exterior finish are green and yellow. These colors were selected because they are the most prominent colors of the existing natural landscape in the area. The green would blend with the color of the heavy tree canopy of the oak woodlands that cover the property as well as the surrounding hillsides and the yellow would blend with the golden hues of the California meadow grasses that are typically found in areas where there are gaps in the tree canopy. The wall colors are complimented by the brown tile roofs, the golden decomposed granite driveway, the natural earth tones of the walls and walkways, and the textured sandstone pavers that cover the courtyard and patio areas. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as set forth in the Draft Record of Land Use Action. The proposal substantially complies with the Open Space Development Criteria as noted in the RLUA. There are two areas where the proposal deviates from the Development Criteria. One of them is Development Criteria #2 related to locating development away from hilltops and the other is Development Criteria # 6 related to not removing trees that exceed a circumference of 37.5 inches. While the proposal does deviate from these two Open Space Development Criteria, they are necessary and appropriate as explained in the RLUA and do not represent a substantive shift in City Policy. A single family residence is a permitted use within the Open Space zone district. Staff believes there are no other substantive policy implications. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were available for a 30 day public review period beginning on January 5, 2011. NEXT STEPS Upon recommendation by the P&TC, the project would be placed on the City Council consent calendar for approval. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Record of Land Use Action B. Site Location Map C. Zoning Compliance Table D. Statement of Design Intent* E. Off Site Visibility Study* (Commission and Libraries only) F. Arborist Report* (Commission and Libraries only) G. Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration H. Plans (Commission and Libraries only)* * Provided by applicant COURTESY COPIES Tom Vlasic, Town of Portola Valley Prepared by: Russ Reich, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Amy French, Acting Assistant Director City of Palo Alto Page 5 Department/Division Head Approval: Curtis Williams, Director PLACEHOLDER City of Palo Alto (ID # 2581) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/19/2012 March 19, 2012 Page 1 of 3 (ID # 2581) Summary Title: Changes to Utilities Energy Storage Study Title: Resolution to Modify the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan Implementation Tasks Related to the City’s Study of Energy Storage Systems to Conform to Requirements Under the Public Utilities Code From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council adopt a resolution, amending the Utilities Department’s Implementation Plan Items 7 and 21, as adopted in the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan, to incorporate specific target dates for the evaluation of energy storage systems, as required by California Public Utilities Code section 2836 (“Section 2836”). Executive Summary Section 2836 requires the Council on or before March 1, 2012 to initiate a process to determine if the City should establish targets for the Electric Utility regarding the procurement of energy storage systems by the end of calendar years 2016 and 2021. On March 7, 2011, the Council initiated a study of energy storage, when it approved the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (“LEAP”). Included in the LEAP Implementation Plan are two items that direct staff to assess the feasibility, value and need for energy storage systems. The Resolution (Attachment A) would amend the LEAP implementation plan to reference the target dates in compliance with these statutory requirements. Background Assembly Bill 2514 (Chapter 469, Statutes of 2010) added section 2835 et seq. to the California Public Utilities Code to address the expansion of use of energy storage systems within California. Specifically, section 2836 requires that on or before March 1, 2012, the governing board of each local publicly owned electric utility shall initiate a process to determine appropriate targets, if any, for the utility to procure viable and cost-effective energy storage systems to be achieved by December 31, 2016, and December 31, 2021. Section 2836 requires the Council to adopt any energy storage procurement targets, if determined to be appropriate, by October 1, 2014. The Council will need to reevaluate these targets not less than once every three years. March 19, 2012 Page 2 of 3 (ID # 2581) If the Council adopts energy storage system targets by October 2014, then the Electric Utility must report to the California Energy Commission the procurement targets and policies adopted by the Council, and must subsequently report modifications made to those targets as a result of any reevaluation undertaken. Discussion The LEAP Implementation Plan, adopted by the Council on March 7, 2011 (Resolution No. 9152), included two tasks pertaining to evaluating the feasibility and potential for energy storage systems. The Council’s action adopting the LEAP Implementation Plan is compliant with the new law as it initiated a process to determine if energy storage would be feasible and cost- effective in Palo Alto. However, the tasks need to be modified to include the specific dates cited in the law. The changes recommended for the items are shown in the table below. LEAP Current Proposed Implementation Plan Item 7 Assess the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of using current and potential thermal energy storage (TES) systems to shift load from on-peak periods to off-peak periods, for use in a demand response program, or for meeting any energy storage needs. Assess the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of using current and potential thermal energy storage (TES) systems to shift load from on-peak periods to off-peak periods, for use in a demand response program, or for meeting any energy storage needs. Coordinate with task 21 to develop targets if appropriate. Implementation Plan Item 21 Assess the need for and value of energy storage to support local renewable distributed generation resources. Assess the need for and value of energy storage to support local renewable distributed generation resources. Determine any appropriate energy storage targets to be achieved by December 31, 2016, and December 31, 2021. Report back to the Council regarding what procurement targets, if any, are deemed to be appropriate so that the Council may adopt such procurement targets, if determined to be appropriate, by October 1, 2014. Resource Impact There is no direct resource impact as a result of the changes to the LEAP implementation plan items. Resource impacts will be evaluated as a result of any subsequent recommendation to adopt energy storage system procurement targets. March 19, 2012 Page 3 of 3 (ID # 2581) Policy Implications The LEAP implementation plan amendments are proposed to fully comply with California Public Utilities Code Section 2836. Environmental Review Adoption of the attached resolution does not meet the definition of a project pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, thus no California Environmental Quality Act review is required. Attachments: Attachment A: DRAFT RESO Approving amendments to energy storage implementation tasks in LEAP (PDF) Prepared By: Debra Lloyd, Manager Department Head: Valerie Fong, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager *Not Yet Approved* 1 120306 dm 0073730 Resolution No.______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving Modifications to the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) Implementation Plans Related to Evaluation of Energy Storage Systems A. California Public Utilities Code Section 2836 (“Section 2836”) requires a publicly owned electric utility to initiate a process to determine appropriate targets, if any, for the utility to procure viable and cost-effective energy storage systems. If it is determined that there is an appropriate level of viable and cost-effective energy storage systems that, as a first target, can be achieved by December 31, 2016 and, as a second target, can be achieved by December 31, 2021, the publicly owned utility shall adopt the procurement targets by October 1, 2014. B. The Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (the “LEAP”) is a strategic planning document focused on how the City of Palo Alto’s Utilities Department (“CPAU”) can successfully balance environmental and economic sustainability as it provides electric service to CPAU customers. The Council adopted Resolution No. 9152, approving the current LEAP on March 07, 2011. C. The Council approved the LEAP Implementation Plan, which included two tasks (Implementation Plan Items 7 and 21) that direct staff to evaluate the feasibility and potential for deploying energy storage systems. The Council’s approval is compliant with Section 2836, as it initiated a process to determine if energy storage would be feasible and cost-effective in Palo Alto. D. CPAU staff recommends that the LEAP Implementation Plan tasks be modified to include the specific dates referred to in Section 2836. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The Council hereby approves the following modifications to the Long- term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan, as they relate to the evaluation of energy storage systems: “Implementation Plan Item 7: Assess the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of using current and potential thermal energy storage (TES) systems in order to shift load from on-peak periods to off-peak periods, for use in a demand response program, or for meeting any energy storage needs. Coordinate with Implementation Plan Item 21 to develop targets, as appropriate. ATTACHMENT A *Not Yet Approved* 2 120306 dm 0073730 Implementation Plan Item 21: Assess the need for and value of energy storage to support local renewable distributed generation resources. Determine any appropriate energy storage targets to be achieved by December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2021, respectively. Report back to the Council regarding what procurement targets, if any, are deemed to be appropriate so that the Council may adopt such procurement targets, if determined to be appropriate, by October 1, 2014.” SECTION 2. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not constitute a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore, no environmental assessment is required. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ _____________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Utilities _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services City of Palo Alto (ID # 2615) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/19/2012 March 19, 2012 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 2615) Summary Title: Approval of Add’l Funds for PSSI Contract Title: Approval of an additional $108,730 for the 2012 Consolidated Maintenance Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Public Safety Systems, Inc. for Computer Aided Dispatch, Police Records Management, Fire Records Management, Mobile Data, and Geovalidation and an Additional Six Months of Maintenance for Calendar Year 2013 From: City Manager Lead Department: Police Recommendation Staff recommends that Council authorize an additional authority of $108,730 for the 2012 maintenance contract with Public Safety Systems Inc. (PSSI) for the not-to-exceed amount of $404,755, for the current contract that ends on December 31, 2012. Staff also recommends that Council authorize an additional six months of maintenance for calendar year 2013. Background In 1999, the City signed a contract with PSSI for the purchase and installation of Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD). In subsequent years, the City has contracted for other critical public safety systems with PSSI, and PSSI provides maintenance and support for these systems. The systems include: Police Records Management (ICIS); Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD); a component of Fire Records Management (EMBRS); a GIS-based location validation application (GeoServer); and mobile data software for the police mobile data computers (Mobile). In 2009, the City consolidated the five separate maintenance contracts into one consolidated contract and invoice. In March 2012, the City entered into a contract with Intergraph Inc. to replace those systems with a regional enterprise-wide system in 2013. As the planned system is not fully integrated, the additional maintenance cost of $108,730 is required to maintain the existing public safety systems in 2012. March 19, 2012 Page 2 of 2 (ID # 2615) Discussion The City has signed a contract for a new CAD vendor in partnership with the cities of Mountain View and Los Altos. Project development and implementation will take approximately one calendar year from project kickoff scheduled for April 1, 2012. The maintenance contract with the existing vendor PSSI will need to be renewed for 2012 for CAD and the first six months of 2013. The other legacy systems covered under this contract will require maintenance for that time frame as well, and the Mobile application and ICIS records management system may require month by month maintenance in the latter half of 2013 until the replacement applications are fully installed and accepted. Resource Impact The annual cost for systems maintenance is covered in Information Technology’s existing application maintenance fund. Policy Implications The recommendations in this report do not represent a change in City policies. Environmental Review The recommendations in this report do not constitute a project requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: PSSI Agreement 022912 (PDF) Prepared By: Charles Cullen, TSD Coordinator Department Head: Dennis Burns, Police Chief City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager Public Safety Systems Incorporated SOFTWARE SUPPORT AGREEMENT This Software Support Agreement is made by and between Public Safety Systems Incorporated, a Corporation, hereinafter referred to as PSSI, and the City of Palo Alto, California, hereinafter referred to as CUSTOMER. This agreement, together with all appendices or other attachments referenced herein. constitutes the entire agreement between PSSI and CUSTOMER and supersedes all proposals, oral or written, between the parties on this subject. 1. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED. a . Telephone assistance fOT reproducible software problems will be provided between the hours of 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Eastern time, Monday through Friday, exclusive of PSSl's holidays, at those numbers as provided by PSS!. A reasonable degree of preliminary evaluation by appropriate CUSTOMER personnel is expected prior to calling for telephone assistance. Emergency after hour telephone support for RESPONSE (Computer Aided Dispatch) will be provided on a 24 hour a day basis for the tenn of this Agreement. After hour emergency support should only be used for critical problems. b. Periodic updates of the software that may incorporate (A) corrections of substantial defects, (B) fIxes of minor bugs, and (C) at the sole discretion of PSSI, enhancements to the software, will be developed and coordinated between PSS! and all users that have a current support Agreement. These periodic updates will be distributed via new releases. 2. MAINTENANCE FEE. a. Software to be covered by the Agreement and compensation for it. lCIS EMBRS CAD Mobile GeoServer $11,250.00 $3,400.°0 $57,570.°0 $25,260.°0 $11,250.00 1 b. CUSTOMER understands that if CUSTOMER discontinues and then reSUTIles purchase of Software Support, CUSTOMER will be required to pay PSSI the entire Maintenance Fees for the period of discontinuance, plus the Maintenance Fee for the term set forth in the invoice for the services. 3. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The term of this Agreement is for a period of one year and shall commence on the 1st day of January 2012, and terminate on the 31st day of December 2012. This Agreement may be renewed by mutual consent of PSSI and CUSTOMER. The new term will be stated on the renewal notice and shall become a part of this Agreement. 4. PAYMENT. The compensation, as outlined in this Agreement, is due on the commencement date as defined in Paragraph 3 above and will be paid within thirty (30) days thereafter. S. CUSTOMER OBLIGATIONS. a. CUSTOMER shall notify PSSI of CUSTOMER's designated contact. To the maximum extent practicable, CUSTOMER's communication with PSSI will be through this contact. b. CUSTOMER agrees to install all corrections of substantial defects, minor bug fIxes, and any enhancements, for the software in accordance with the instructions and in order of receipt from PSSI. c. CUSTOMER agrees to grant PSSI access to CUSTOMER's facilities and personnel concerned with the operation of the software to enable PSSI to provide services. d. CUSTOMER agrees not to modify, enhance, 'or otherwise alter the software, unless and only to the extent specifically authorized in writing by PSSI. e. Upon detection on any error in the software, CUSTOMER, as requested by PSSI, agrees to provide PSSI a listing of output and any other data, including databases and backup systems, that PSSI reasonably may request in order to reproduce operating conditions similar to those present when the error occurred. 6. PROPRIETARY SERVICE. The software and services provided under this Agreement are proprietary to PSSI, and CUSTOMER acknowledges that it is for their exclusive use only. CUSTOMER agrees to not give the service or software to any person or entity unless it is specilically 2 allowed by PSSI in writing. CUSTOMER further agrees to reasonably safeguard the above to prevent any unauthorized taking of it 7. WARRANTIES. Other than specified herein, PSSI provides this software and service without any warranties and conditions either expressed or implied, including without limitation, any implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose. PSSI disclaims any and all liability for incidental or consequential damages arising out of the use or operation of the software, except for damages caused by the negligence or other fault of PSSI. 8. JURISDICTION. This Agreement shall be subject to the laws of the state of Maryland. 9. NOTICES. All notices under this Agreement are to be sent by registered mail to the address below or to any other address as the party may designate: PSSI Attn: Lou Henneke 10001 Derekwood Ln, Ste#204 Lanham, MD 20706 City of Palo Alto, California Attn: ~--------------- IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties h.ave caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives. PSSI CUSTOMER Signature: Signature: Name: Name: Title: Title: Date: Date: ATTEST: 3 ----Invoice To: -------------Palo Alto Police Department 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attention: Chanes Cullen ,--- Customer 10 PaloAito --- Customer PO Number -.. --~--_._------- Sal88 Rep 10 Contract Number -- Quantity Description 1 Software Support Services for Response CAD System 1 Software Support Services for Response Mobile In-Fieldlln-Fonn 1 SofbNare Support Services for GeoServer (Tier 2) 1 ! Software Support Services for ICIS Records' System 1 I Software Support Services for Embrs CFS : Period of Coverage -01101/12 through 01/01/13 Subtotal Sales Tax ----Make all checks payable to: Total Invoice Amount Public Safety Systems Inc. --- --- PaymenVCred~ Applied I TOTAL ------ Thank You! 10001 Derekwood Lane Suite 204 Lanham, Maryland 20706 Voice: 301-459-8600 Fax: 301-459-1987 INVOICE Invoice Number: '-"k....:..;12=2~ ___ ---' Invoice Date: IDee 1 , 2011 -.- Payment Tenna Net 30 Days --Ship Data Due Date 12131/11 - Unit Price Amount 57,570.00 57,570.00 25,260.00 25,260.00 11,250.00 11,250.00 11,250.00 11 ,250.00 3,400,00 3,400,00 108,730.00 -- 108,730.00 -- I 108,730.00 We appreciate your business City of Palo Alto (ID # 2672) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/19/2012 March 19, 2012 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 2672) Summary Title: Resolution Amending IAFF MOA Title: Adoption of Resolution Amending 2011-2014 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Local 1319, International Association of Fire Fighters to Add One New Classification of Fire Fighter Trainee From: City Manager Lead Department: Human Resources Recommendation Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution amending the 2011-2014 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Local 1319, International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) to add one new classification of Fire Fighter Trainee. Discussion The City is currently in process to establish a second pension tier with reduced benefits as was negotiated in both the IAFF and Fire Chiefs’ Association (FCA) labor agreements. Staff expects the new tier to be in effect on May 19, 2012. However, the Fire Department needs to hire new staff before that date to enroll them in the Joint Fire Academy beginning April 2, 2012. Therefore, the City and IAFF have agreed to a side- letter modifying their MOA to add the classification of “Fire Fighter Trainee” to hire new employees as non-sworn until they graduate from the academy and are sworn in as fire fighters. Their pay and benefits will be similar to other fire fighters with the exception that these new employees will be placed initially in the non-sworn 2%@60 pension plan. Upon completion of the academy they will be sworn into the fire service and move to the sworn pension plan of 3%@55. This new classification is modeled after “Police Trainee” which has been used for many years in the Police Department, with new hires placed in the non-sworn pension plan until they successfully graduate from the academy. Resource Impact March 19, 2012 Page 2 of 2 (ID # 2672) There is no immediate impact to the budget as a result of establishing this new classification. No new positions are being added, current vacancies will be filled using this new classification. These new employees in the Fire Fighter Trainee classification will receive similar pay and benefits with the exception of the pension plan. Fire Fighter Trainees will be placed in the non-sworn 2%@60 plan until successful completion of the academy. The City will realize long- term pension savings beginning with this class of fire fighter trainees, as they will be the first employees to be placed in the second pension tier upon successful completion of the fire academy. See City Manager Report (CMR) ID# 2603 Resolution to Amend Contract with CalPERS for more information on the projected savings from the 3%@55 formula. Policy Implications This action recommended by this report is consistent with City policies which require Council approval of employee salaries and a listing of positions and approved salaries in the MOA. Environmental Review This is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: Resolution Amending MOA IAFF (PDF) IAFF Side Letter Agreement 2012 (PDF) Fire Fighter Trainee Job Description 2012 (PDF) Prepared By: Elizabeth Egli, Administrative Assistant Department Head: Sandra Blanch, Interim Director, Human Resources Department City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager ** NOT YET APPROVED ** 1 Resolution No. ______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the 2011-2014 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Local 1319, International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) to Add One New Classification of Fire Fighter Trainee The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the 2011-2014 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Local 1319, International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), adopted by Resolution No. 9204 is hereby amended to add one new classification of Fire Fighter Trainee as set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, effective with the pay period including March 19, 2012. SECTION 2. The Director of Administrative Services is authorized to implement the amended Compensation Plan as set forth in Section 1. SECTION 3. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ______________________________ Sr. Deputy City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services ____________________________ Director of Human Resources ** NOT YET APPROVED ** 2 EXHIBIT A Local 1319, International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) MOA Changes – Effective March 19, 2012 Job Code Classification Title Grade Code Top Step Approx. Annual Approx. Monthly TBD Fire Fighter Trainee - Shift (New position) TBD 31.73 66,004 5,500 TBD Fire Fighter Trainee – Non-Shift (New position) TBD 44.43 92,406 7,700 Side i"etler of Agreement I. Parties The Parties to this Side Letter of Agreement (hereinafter "Side Letter") are the City of Palo Alto, California (hereinafter "City") and the Palo Alto Firefighters Association, by and through Local 1319 of the International Association of Firefighters (hereinafter "Union"). The Parties agree as follows: II. Background 1. The Parties approved and adopted a Memorandum of Agreement on October 17,2011 (hereinafter" MOA") covering Firefighters and related classifications of employees. 2. The MOA includes the establishment of a new lower pension tier for hew hires, commonly referred to as the "3% at age 55 with three year final compensation" formula. 3. Since adoption of the MOA a substantial number of positions covered by the MOA have become vacant, many created by retirements of personnel within this Unit; 4. Said vacancies have led to increased overtime requirements for existing staff, limiting opportunities for time off. At the same time, the existence of vacancies increases City overtime costs. 5. The Parties desire to address both interests as quickly as practicable. 6. New hires that have not previously achieved and maintained status as a sworn Firefighter in the State of California typically attend a training academy to acquire such status. 7. Such academies for P AFD personnel are currently offered twice per year, commencing on either April 1 or October 1. 8. The Parties desire that the City hire to fill existing vacancies in time for the new hires to commence their academy training on April 1,2012 but also desire that the new hires, when they have achieved sworn status by reclassification by the' City into Firefighter EMT or Firefighter Paramedic classifications, are subject to the terms of the new pension formula authorized in the MOA. 9. The adoption of a new PERS formula is an administrative process that consumes several months before the new pension tier can take effect. THEREFORE, to permit the expeditious hire of the new employees into vacant positions in the bargaining unit, their ultimate placement under the new pension second tier set forth in the MOA, and the expeditious relief of ~xi~ting overtime requirements for current employees, the parties agree to the steps set forth below. III. Modifications of Classification and Compensation 1. The City will establish a Firefighter Trainee job classification for employees hired for eventual service as a Sworn Firefighter but who have not completed the Firefighter Academy training or been classified by the City into a Firefighter EMT or Firefighter Paramedic classification. 2. The Union will represent employees in said Firefighter Trainee job classification. 3. The City will pay employees in the Firefighter Trainee classification a base hourly wage rate equal to Step I for the Firefighter classification. 4. Employees in the Firefighter Trainee classification will participate in the PERS Miscellaneous 2%@60 pension tier for the duration of their service as a Firefighter Trainee while in the Joint Fire Academy. The intent is to reclassify Firefighter Trainees as sworn firefighters upon successful completion of the Joint Fire Academy. 5. While serving as a FF Trainee, a Fire employee who is injured in the line of duty will receive full salary continuation for up to 12 months or until condition is permanent and stationary, consistent \vith Govt. Code section 4850. 6 Upon successful completion of the Fire Training Academy, employees in the Firefighter Trainee classification will be reclassified into Firefighter EMT or Firefighter Paramedic classification and participate prospectively in the new sworn employee pension tier for new hires set forth in the MOA. Entry into sworn status once reclassified as Firefighter EMT or Paramedic will also commence a twelve month probationary period. 7. Firefighter Trainee employees who successfully complete the Academy and are reclassified into Firefighter EMT or Firefighter Paramedic classification, will thus be granted employee status as a Sworn Firefighter, but in no event before the City has completed the administrative process necessary to place in effect the new pension tier set forth in the MOA. 8. Except as provided herein, the terms ofthe MOA will apply to employees in the Firefighter Trainee classification in the same manner as would apply to a newly hired employee who had California Sworn Firefighter status at the time of hire. 2012 Side Letter re: Firefighter Trainees City of Palo Alto and lAFF Local 1319 Page 2 of3 " -~-., .~~- .. 9.: The parties will proceed with the necessary steps to adopt the second pension tier as soon as administratively possible. 10. This written instrument contains the entire agreement between the parties. There are no promises, terms or conditions pertaining to the subject matters addressed herein except as set forth in writing herein. 1 L This Side Letter will take effect upon adoption by the City Council and will automatically expire two months after the second pension tier is in effect unless the parties mutually agree in writing to extend its term. Made and entered into this day, March 1:3 \f)eCity: \~j~Mttl~~ f~es R Keene, City Manager Marcie Scott, HR!Labor Relations APPROVED AS TO FORM MOLLY STUMP, City Attorney By ________________ __ 2012 Side Letter re: Firefighter Trainees City of Palo Alto and IAFF Local1319 Page30f3 ,2012. For the Union: Tony Spitaleri, Business Representative City of Palo Alto Classification Specification Title: FIRE FIGHTER TRAINEE FLSA: NON-EXEMPT Revision Date: 03/07/2012 Reports To: Higher level of Command Supervises: Non-supervisory position Purpose of Classification Under close supervision, this position attends a Joint Fire Academy, participating in and passing all required classes for a period of approximately 12-16 weeks. Upon successful completion of academy, position becomes a probationary Fire Fighter. Distinguishing Characteristics The Fire Fighter Trainee position is distinguished from the Fire Fighter position by its assignment to the Joint Fire Academy. Essential Duties and Responsibilities - Essential and other important responsibilities and duties may include, but are not limited to, the following: Essential Functions: - Attends Joint Fire Academy, participating in and passing all required classes, tests and evaluations with a minimum of 70%. -During training develops awareness and understanding of the functions and responsibilities of Fire Fighters. Academy training may include: - Instruction on proper handling of all firefighting equipment; - Review of communications and applicable protocols; - Overview of the Mutual Aid and Automatic Aid systems; - Observing emergency activities such as fire fighting, medical services, hazardous materials response and technical rescue; - Review of rules, regulations, and procedures; - Developing and maintaining high level of physical fitness; and - Learning and demonstrating competence in fire fighting skills and incident situational awareness. Related Functions: -Perform related duties and responsibilities as required Minimum Qualifications Sufficient education, training and/or work experience to demonstrate possession of the following knowledge, skills, and abilities which would typically be acquired through: Knowledge, Skills and Abilities - Ability to maintain physical condition to perform essential duties as specified by the Joint Fire Academy. - Ability to maintain physical condition appropriate to the performance of assigned duties and responsibilities which may include performing life threatening fire fighting activities in an emergency situation; running, walking, crouching or crawling during emergency operations; moving equipment and injured/deceased persons; climbing stairs/ladders; performing life- saving and rescue procedures; walking, standing or sitting for extended periods of time; operating assigned equipment and vehicles. - Ability to effectively deal with personal danger which may include exposure to fire encompassed surroundings, dangerous persons, dangerous animals; hazards of emergency driving; hazards associated with traffic control and working in and near traffic; and natural and man-made disasters. - Ability to communicate with others, make sound decisions, and to assimilate and understand information in a manner consistent with the essential job functions. Special Requirements: Age: 21 YEARS OR OLDER. Height and weight proportional according to medical standards. Vision correctable to 20/30 in one eye and 20/40 in the other eye. Mild red-green color defects are acceptable, but complete color blindness is disqualifying. Possession of a valid California Driver's License at time of appointment. Ability to pass medical examination. Certified E.M.T.-B or E.M.T.-P in California with ability to accredit in Santa Clara County within 60 days of hire. Possess a current valid CPAT card issued within the last 12 months Working Conditions / Physical Requirements Work in an emergency fire fighting environment; work in intense life- threatening conditions; exposure to fire, smoke, bodily fluids, and noise; running, walking, crawling, climbing, stooping and lifting; work in inclement weather conditions JD620 The City of Palo Alto is an Equal Opportunity Employer. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City will provide reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities and encourages both prospective and current employees to discuss potential accommodations with the employer. City of Palo Alto (ID # 2674) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/19/2012 March 19, 2012 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 2674) Summary Title: Appointment of Chief People Officer Title: Confirmation of Appointment of Kathryn Shen as Chief People Officer/Director of Human Resources and Approval of At-Will Employment Contract From: City Manager Lead Department: Human Resources RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council confirm the appointment of Kathryn Shen as Chief People Officer/Director of Human Resources and approve the attached at-will employment agreement. BACKGROUND Municipal Code Section 2.08.020 requires that the City Council confirm the City Manager’s appointment of City department heads. DISCUSSION The City Manager is recommending appointment of Kathryn (Kathy) Shen to serve as the Chief People Officer/Director of Human Resources. Kathy Shen, J.D., M.B.A., was selected as a result of a national search conducted by the executive recruitment firm of Peckham & McKenney. Eighty-three applications were received and qualified individuals were selected to interview with two panels including City department stakeholders, Palo Alto union representatives and Bay Area public sector leaders. After the panels narrowed the candidates down to two finalists, the City Manager selected Ms. Shen. Ms. Shen has 23 years experience in successfully leading mission-critical initiatives for complex, rapidly changing businesses including unionized industries. Ms. Shen is currently the Director, Workforce Planning & Development, for the Northern California March 19, 2012 Page 2 of 2 (ID # 2674) Region at Kaiser Permanente, where she has focused on succession planning, talent management, and organizational development for the past five years. Previously, Ms. Shen worked for LTV Steel Corporation in labor relations, conducting negotiations, and managing employee relations. Ms. Shen is an attorney and holds a Juris Doctor and Masters of Business Administration from Case Western Reserve University as well as being a graduate of Michigan State University's James Madison School of Social Science, where she majored in Urban Planning. Ms. Shen practiced law for six years in Cleveland, Ohio with a law firm in addition to working at Firestone Tire & Rubber Company with their in-house legal group. RESOURCE IMPACT The annual salary for the Chief People Officer/Director of Human Resources will be $185,000. The attached at-will employment for Ms. Shen reflects that salary level, and all other terms are consistent with the at-will agreement template that the Council approved in 2004 when it transitioned to an at-will system for new department heads. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation is consistent with existing City policies for appointed Department heads. Attachments: CPO Employment Agreement (PDF) Prepared By: Sandra Blanch, Interim Director, Human Resources Department Department Head: Sandra Blanch, Interim Director, Human Resources Department City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager Mar-14-2012 01:39am From-KAISER CA LEARNING & OEVELOPiENf 51Q 873 6101 f-ill P.OOI/004 F-945 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO AND KATHRYN F. SHEN THIS AGREEMENT is between the City of Palo Alto. II municipal cOl.'pOtation and chartered city ("City") and Kathryn F. Shen ("Shen"). It is effective on the latest date next to the signatures on the last page. This Agreement is <mtcred into on the basis of the following facts, among others: A. City, acting by and through its duly appointed City Manager and with the appl'Oval of its duly elected City Councll. desires to employ Shen as its Chief People OfficerlDircclOr, Human Resources, subject to the terms Ilnd conditions set forth in tbis Agreement, the Palo Alto Municipal Code and in the Charter of the City of Palo Alto (the "Charter"). B. Shen desires to be employed by the City as its Chief People OfficerlDirector, Human Re'lOllTces, subject to the terms lind conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and in the Charter. C. City and Shen desire to establish specific terms and conditions relating to compensation and benefits, performance evaluations, and related matters. D. Notwithstanding any provision of the City of Palo Alto Merit System Rules and Regulations, the Chiei' People OffieerJDirector, Human Resources serves on an at-will basis, with no expectation of continued employment, and with 00 right to pre-or post-separation due process or appeal. E. Shen desire$ a predictable amount of severance notice and severance pay should her employment be terminated with or without cause or notice. BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, CITY AND SHEN AGREE AS FOLLOWS: J. Employment.. City will appoint and employ Shen as Chief People OfficerJDirector, tIuDlan Resources with the City of Palo Alto and Shen will accept the appointment and employment for the City for an indefinite term to begin on Aprlll7, 2012. In the I'lvent Sben does not acmally report for or commence wo:rk on April 17, 2012, the employment start date will be the date, if any, as otherwise muma1Jy agreed by the parties. 2. Duties of the Chief Poople Qfficer. Shoo shall perform the duties established for the Chief People Officer/Director, Human Resources by the Charter, Palo Alto Municipal Code, direction of the City Manager, or as otherwise provided by law, ordinance, or reguJation. SheD agrees to comply with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, mles and regulations applicable to or associated with these duties. 1 t:!1131311h 8261841 I i - I Mar-14-2012 Og:3gam Frem-KAISER CA LEARNING & DEVELOPMENT 510 m 5109 2.1. Full Energy and Skill. Shen shall devote her full energy, skill. ability, and productive time to the performance of her duties. 2.2. No Conflict. Shen shall not engage in any CIl'lployment, activity. consulting service, or other enterprise, fur compensation or otherwise, which is actually or potentially in conflict with. inimical to, or which interferes with the performance of her duties. SheJl acknowledges thllt she is subject to Ibe verious oonflict of interest requirements found in the California Government Code and slate and local policies and regulations. 2.3 Pennission Required For Outsjde Activities. Shen shall not engage in any employment, activity, consulting service, or olber enterprise. for compe!lSlltion or otherwise, without the express, written pem:rission of the City MantlSer. 3. Compensation. While performing the duties of Chief People OfficerlDirectoT, Human ResoUl'Ces, Shen shall be complllllSl1ted as provided in this Section 3. 3.1. ~ompe!WItion. Shen shall receive an initial base annual salary of One Hundred Eighty Fivc Thousand Dollars ($185,000.00) commencing on the Employment Star! Date, subject to authorized or required deductions, prora:ted and paid on City'S regular paydays. Slten shall be an exempt employee under applicable wage and hour law and her base salary shall be compensation for aU hoUl'S worked. City agrees that the amount of SheD's base annual SlIiary shall not decrease, =ept as part of a permanent decrease that is consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act and that is applicable to all City executive staff. 3.2. Salaty Adjustments. Not less than once each year, the City Manager shall meet with Shen for the express ]JUIllOse of evaluating the performance of Shen. The City Manager will act in good faith in derennining whetber to increase Ibe salary of Shen, but the ultimate decision in this regard is witbin the gole discretion of the City Manager. 4. Benefits and Allowances. Shen will be eligible for, and shall receive, all regular benefits (i.e., health insurance, PERS contributions to the extant paid by City, etc.) and vacation, sick leave, and managemant leave lIS arc generally providM to management employees pursuant to the City Council-approved Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees, as it currently exists and may be cha.uged from rime to time. s. AdditiOllal Benefir.q and Allowances. In addition to the benefits specificd in seCtiOD 4, Shen shall receive the following additional benetilS and allowances: 5.1 Leave Balance upon Start of Enmlovmcnt Shan shall be credited with forty (40) hcrurs of vacation leave upon the start of employment, notwithstanding the Management and Professional Personnel and COWlcil Appointees Compensation Plan. S.2 VaC!!tion Accrual. Notwithstanding the Management and Professional Personn~l and Council Appointees Compensation Plan and based on service witb prior CIl'lPloyers, Sben's vacation accrual rate shall be calculllted at the me of one hundred and sixty (160) haUl'S annually, prorated and credited each pay period. 2 12031) &II 8261841 Mar-14-2012 09,19am From-KAISER CA LEARNING & DEVELOPMENT 510 era 5109 T-T91 p.00a/004 F-945 6. Additional Expenses of Employment. City shall pay the following llSUal and customary employment expenses: 6.1 The cost of any fidelity or other bonds required by law for the Chief People Officer/Director, Human lbsources. 7. Duration of Em;ployment Shen understands and agrees that she has no constitutionally protected property or other interest in her employment as Chief People OfficerJDirector, HIlDIlIIl RCllo111'Ces. She WlIives lll1y and all rights, if any, under the Merit System Rules and Reb'lJlations, iIwluding without limitation, the right to pre-or post-disciplinaty due process. She understaruls and agrees that she works at the will and pleasure of tile City Manager and that she may be terminated, or asked to resign, at any time, with or without cause. Shen may terminate this agreement (terminating all employment) upon 30 days written notice to the City Manager. 7.1. Semllll~~ fm!. IfSheI1 is asked to resign Of is terminsted as Chief People OfficerlDirector, Human Resources she shall reccive a cash severance payment, or payments (without interest) at intervals specified by Shen, equating three (3) mOlltbs salaty and benefits at the date oftennination. . 7.z Non·Payment of Severance Under Certain Conditions. If the tennination of Shen is the result of conviction of a felony, she shall not be paiel any severance pay. 8. Miscel1!111eous. 8.1. Notices. Notices given under this Agreement shall be in writing and ~hall be either; a) served personally; or b) sent by facsimile (provided a hard copy is mailed within one (1) business day); or c) delivered by first-class United Stlites mail, certified, with postage prepaid and a return receipt requested; or d) sent by Federal Express, or some equivalent private mail delivety service. Notices s11all be deemed received at the earlier of acl:Ulll receipt or three (3) days following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid. Notices shall be directed to the addresses shown below, provided that a perty may change such party's addrCIIs for notice by jiving written notice to the other party in accordance with this subsection. CITY; SHEN: Attn: City Manager City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 95901 Phone: (650) 329-2226 Fax: (650) 328-3631 Kathryn Shen 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 9430 I 8.2. Entire Agreement/Amendment. This Agreemellt constituteS the entire undeI1ltandillg and agreement between ,the parties as to those matters contained in it, and 3 ~r-14-2012 09:40am From-KAISER CA LEARNING & DEVELOPMENT 510 m 5109 T-rel P.004/004 F-945 supersedes any and all prior or contemporaneous agreements, representations and understandings of the parties. This Agreement may be antended at any time by mutual agreement of the parties, but any such amendment must be in vvriting. dated, and siilled by the parties and attached hereto. 8.3. Applicable Law M.d y~ This Agreement shall be interpreted accotding to the laws of the State of California. Venue of any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the proper court in Santa Clara County. 8.4. Severability. In me o::vent any portion of this Agreement is declared void, such portion shall be so::vered from this Agreement and the remaining provisions shall remain in effect, unless the result of such so::vemnce would be ttl substantially alter this Agreement or the obligations of the parties, in which case this Agrccmont shall be immediately terminated. 8.5. Waiver. Any failure of a party to insist upon strict compliance with any term, undertaking, or condition of this Agreement shall not be deemed ttl be ~ waiver of such term, undertaking, or condition. To be effective, ~ waiver must be in writing, signed and dated by the parties. S.6. RCJltllsentation by CounseL Shen and City acknowledge that they each did, or had the opportunity to, consult with legal counsel of their respective choices with respect to the matters tbat are the subject of this Agreentent prior to executing it. 8.7 Section Headings. The beadings on each of the sections and subsections of this Agreement are for the convemence of dle parties only and do not limit or expand the contents of any such section or subsection. Dated: ____ _ SHEN ~,)*A~ KiItbryn R en ATTEST: CityCJerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By; ~~ __ ~~ ______ __ Sr. Deputy City Attorney 4 120::113 Bh 8261841 City of Palo Alto (ID # 2262) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 3/19/2012 March 19, 2012 Page 1 of 8 (ID # 2262) Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning Summary Title: Edgewood Plaza PC Request Title: Public Hearing: Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center -Consideration of Approval of a Resolution Certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report and Adoption of An Ordinance (1) Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Approve a Planned Community Zone District Allowing Renovation of Three Retail Structures, Relocation of One Retail Structure, Construction of Ten Single Family Homes and Creation of a 0.2 Acre Park and Associated Site Improvements, and (2) Approving a Tentative Map to Merge Three Parcels into One Parcel for Resubdivision into Eleven Parcels (One Commercial Parcel and Ten Residential Parcels) and Off-Site Improvements, for a 3.58 Acre Site Located at 2080 Channing Avenue. * Quasi-Judicial From:City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1) Approve the Resolution (Attachment A) certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Amendment to the FEIR (previously distributed and available on the City’s website at the following location: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/news/details.asp?NewsID=1874&TargetID=85.), and 2) Adopt an Ordinance (Attachment B) approving the Planned Community (PC) project (modify three retail structures, and add a new park and ten single family homes on a 3.58 acre property) and the eleven parcel Tentative Map (one commercial parcel including a 0.20 acre park and ten single family parcels). Executive Summary The Edgewood Plaza project includes a Planned Community (PC) Zoning request to allow the redevelopment of an existing mostly vacant and historic shopping center, including the relocation of one of the three retail buildings, the addition of ten homes and a new 0.20 acre March 19, 2012 Page 2 of 8 (ID # 2262) park. The proposal also includes a Tentative Map request to subdivide the property into one commercial parcel, which would include the 0.20 acre park, and ten residential fee simple lots. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) initiated the PC rezoning request on April 27, 2011, following an initial hearing and preliminary review on September 8, 2010. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) recommended approval of the project on October 19, 2011. On November 3, 2011, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended conditional approval of the project, and reviewed details in accordance with these conditions on February 1, 2012. At its hearing on February 29, 2012, the PTC recommended that the Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) by a 4-2-1 vote and approve the PC and Tentative Map requests (6-1). Background Edgewood Plaza is a commercial shopping center built between 1956 and 1958 by Joseph Eichler/Eichler Homes and A. Quincy Jones of Jones and Emmons. The center was originally built with the existing grocery building (1957), two retail buildings (1958), an office building that formerly housed the office of Eichler Homes (1959), and a gas station (1957). The office building and gas station sites are a part of the original Planned Community but are not included in this new Planned Community (PC) project. The 3.58-acre commercial site is located at the northeastern area of the City, adjacent to the Duveneck/Saint Francis neighborhood, which is part of the Green Gables subdivision. The property is bounded to the south by Channing Avenue, West Bayshore Road to the east, Saint Francis Drive to the west and the office building and gas station to the south. Embarcadero Road is located south of the site. The project site has a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial and is zoned Planned Community (PC-1643). The existing PC site is comprised of five parcels; three of these parcels (3.58 Acres) are owned by the applicant, Ho Holdings No 1 LLC for Sand Hill Property Company, and are the subject of this PC application. The other two parcels are owned separately and are not part of this application; the Maharishi School of Vedic Science of California owns the building located at 1101 Embarcadero Road (a 13,688 sq. ft. building on a 24,150 sq. ft. parcel), and A.U. Energy LLC owns the gas station site at 1161 Embarcadero Road (a 15,409 sq. ft. parcel developed with a 192 sq. ft. building). Board and Commission Review PTC Review The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommended certification of the FEIR (4-2- 1 vote), including the First Amendment to the FEIR, and approval of the project and associated findings, on a 6-0-1 vote on February 29, 2012. The following items are the modifications the PTC made to the proposed ordinance: ·Replace the word preservation with rehabilitation. ·Amend the proposed public benefit of the three onsite electric vehicle charging stations to require one level 3 charging station and two level 2 charging stations. ·Install a no left turn sign on Embarcadero Road, north of Channing. March 19, 2012 Page 3 of 8 (ID # 2262) ·Correct condition of approval number 36, as discussed by staff, to require raised islands and median striping enhancements at the intersection of West Bayshore Road/Embarcadero Road (rather than “Middlefield Road”) to limit turning movements at West Bayshore to right-turns only. ·Require the Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM) to (1) ensure loading hours will be consistent with the Municipal Code and (2) reevaluate one year after occupancy whether traffic calming measures are needed. One such measure could be the installation of speed humps on Channing Avenue. The Commissioners were generally supportive of the overall project, including the PC request and Tentative Map. They stated that construction of ten homes was an appropriate tradeoff for the renovation and rehabilitation of this neighborhood shopping center. The PTC expressed support for the relocation of the one retail building and the design of both the commercial and residential components of the project, as recommended for approval by the ARB. The PTC agreed that the public benefits were worthy of the PC approval. The primary discussion was regarding the FEIR and the draft Amendment to the FEIR. A detailed summary is provided in the discussion section below. Commissioners Fineberg and Keller were specifically concerned about the draft Amendment to the FEIR. A PTC hearing on the Draft EIR was held on October 26, 2011. The concerns and comments were related to historic impacts, parking, size of the residences, interface between the residences and commercial buildings, and traffic and bicycle/pedestrian access and safety. Meeting minutes and the staff reports are available on the City’s website (URL noted at the end of this report). Eleven members of the public spoke to the PTC regarding the project. Four of the speakers who spoke in favor of the projects were area residents and members of the neighborhood Architectural Control Committee. Five of the speakers were generally supportive of the project, but expressed concern about the traffic impacts and safety along West Bayshore Road and Wildwood Lane. Two of the speakers, who reside north of the project site, had concerns about the lack of sidewalks on West Bayshore Road between Edgewood Plaza and the San Francisquito Creek Bridge and were concerned that the EIR did not adequately address this potential impact. The two speakers also requested that the addition of sidewalks and traffic calming for West Bayshore Road be incorporated into the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Transportation staff has initiated discussions with those residents regarding incorporating their requested project into that plan. One area resident specifically raised concern about the reduction of parking onsite and its impact on the adjacent office building located at 1101 Embarcadero Road. One speaker spoke against the proposed PC zoning and stated that the EIR did not adequately analyze traffic and circulation impacts. Chair Martin Bernstein of the Historic Resource Board and Chair Heather Young of the Architectural Review Board spoke at the hearing regarding the reviews and recommendations of approval by their respective boards. The PTC reports provide additional background on the project. The February 29, 2012 PTC staff reports and minutes are attached. The links for the other PTC staff reports can be found as follows: March 19, 2012 Page 4 of 8 (ID # 2262) September 15, 2010 Report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=24678 September 15, 2010 Minutes: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=25008 April 27, 2011 Report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=27014 April 27, 2011 Minutes: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=27617 October 26, 2011 Report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=29117 October 26, 2011 Minutes: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=29418 HRB Review The Historic Resources Board (HRB) held preliminary review hearings on September 15, 2010 and on July 6, 2011, specifically regarding the historic resources reports prepared for the project. The project was brought before the HRB because the center, now more than 50 years old, has been deemed a historic resource even though it is not on state or federal registers, or the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. A formal hearing by the HRB on the project and the EIR was held on October 19, 2011. The HRB agreed that the larger grocery store building had been modified to an extent that it no longer possessed the integrity of the original design and therefore would not be considered a historic resource. The HRB recommended approval of the project as proposed and agreed that the relocation of Building 1 was appropriate because the project was designed appropriately and would preserve the historic fabric of the center. The HRB also made recommendations regarding the EIR prepared for the project. They stated that the relocation of Retail Building 1 and addition of residential homes to the site was not significant and that the rehabilitation of two of the retail buildings would be adequate to mitigate the alteration of the resource. The HRB recommended that the EIR be amended to reflect their assessment that with the addition of mitigation measures, the impacts to historic resources, including (1) the relocated Building 1; (2) the center; and (3) the addition of the residential units, will be reduced to a less than significant level. Although there was some support for the mitigation measure (CR-2.1) requirement of the HABS survey, some members of the HRB expressed that the requirements of the HABS documentation was too onerous and not necessary. The HRB did encourage gathering photos that have been taken of the existing center for future reference. There was also some discussion that the requirement (CR-2.2) for the display of the history of Eichler Homes should not be imposed. Links to the HRB staff report for the following HRB dates are provided below: September 15, 2010 Report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=24682 July 6, 2011 Report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=27907 October 19, 2011 Report: March 19, 2012 Page 5 of 8 (ID # 2262) http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=29083 ARB Review The Architectural Review Board (ARB) conducted three reviews of the project; a preliminary review on June 2, 2011, and two formal reviews, on November 3, 2011 and February 2, 2012. The ARB reports provide additional background information on the project. There were a total of five speakers for these hearings. One of the speakers, who also represented two other members of the neighborhood Architectural Control Committee, spoke in favor of the project. One area resident expressed concern about parking and the closure of the driveway between the site and the adjacent gas station. A speaker expressed her concern about the impact to the historic character of the site. One speaker asked that adequate parking be included and that the park remain public at all times. The chair of the HRB spoke at the hearing reiterating that the HRB voted in favor of the project. The project was conditionally approved to return on the ARB consent calendar for review of a few details such as walls/fences, street furniture, new parking lot light fixture, and corrected color elevations. The project was brought back on March 1, 2012 for review of those minor items, where the ARB recommended approval with a condition for three minor items to return to them at an ARB Subcommittee. Those items consist of the trellis and trellis base, street furniture and landscaping. The ARB minutes of February 2, 2012 is attached within the PTC Staff Report (Attachment F). Links to the ARB staff reports for the following ARB dates are provided below: 6/2/11 report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=27438 11/3/11 report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=29230 2/2/12 report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=30094 3/1/12 report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=30389 Discussion The resolution for the Final Environmental Impact Report (Attachment A) and the Ordinance for the Planned Community Rezoning and the Tentative Map (Attachment B) are attached. Key issues discussed below are: (1) the Amendment to the Final EIR and historic impacts and (2) Planned Community Public Benefits. 1.Amendment to the Final EIR As defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was drafted to serve as a disclosure document to provide information to the public and decision making bodies as they consider pending applications. CEQA requires agencies to not only disclose the significant environmental effects of proposed projects, but the feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that could help avoid or reduce the environmental impacts. The site has been determined to be a historic resource in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document is used by staff to make recommendations for the CEQA clearance and project. The EIR was prepared for this project because potentially significant environmental impacts were identified for historic resources. All other impacts were deemed less than significant because mitigation measures were identified to reduce the level of impacts. Detailed discussions regarding the impacts and the EIR can be found in the PTC staff March 19, 2012 Page 6 of 8 (ID # 2262) reports for the October 26, 2011 and February 29, 2012 hearings. In conformance to the requirements of CEQA, the Draft EIR was released on September 30, 2011 and the FEIR was published on February 18, 2012. The FEIR and DEIR together represent the CEQA document for this project. An initial historic resources report was prepared by Page & Turnbull, the applicant’s consultant, for the EIR. As part of the EIR review process, a peer review was prepared by Carey & Company, the City’s historic resources subconsultant. The historic consultants agree that the center is a historic resource but that the grocery building is compromised. The two historic consultants, however, expressed a difference in opinion about the historic character of the center. The essential difference is about whether the potential impact to the historic resource is only limited to the retail building (Buildings 1 and 2) or to the larger context, the placement of the buildings within the shopping center itself and the larger neighborhood. The Carey & Co. review and findings note that the historic character of the buildings would be retained, as described by Page & Turnbull, but the relocation of one building and addition of housing to the site may affect the relationship between the buildings as well as their relationship to the larger Edgewood Tract neighborhood. Page & Turnbull, on the other hand, stated that because the largest building (grocery building) no longer has historic integrity; it lacks the necessary components needed to designate the center as a historic district. When experts differ in such a case, it is the lead agency (City of Palo Alto in this case) that makes the determination for the purposes of the environmental review based on substantial evidence. To be conservative, the EIR included analysis by both historic consultants, as well as the findings of both, with two conclusions. The Page & Turnbull conclusion stated that all historic impacts would be fully mitigated with the project. The Carey & Company conclusion stated that the project would have unmitigated significant historic impacts. As part of the disclosure, the FEIR concluded with the Carey & Company assessment. During the preparation of the staff report for the February 29th PTC hearing, however, and based on the analysis provided in the EIR, consultation with various professional consultants and the recommendation by the HRB, staff recommended that the PTC recommend that the relocation of Retail Building #1 and addition of residential homes to the site was not a significant impact and that the rehabilitation of two of the retail buildings was adequate to mitigate the alteration of the historic resource. This conclusion was outlined in the EIR as one of the recommendations by one of the two qualified historic consultants. The staff report for the February 29th hearing stated that the impacts to the historic character of the site would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Because all impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level, adoption of overriding considerations would not be required. In the interest of clarifying and strengthening the record, a first Amendment to the Final EIR was prepared to address revisions to the historic resources discussion as summarized in the February 29th PTC staff report. Language was also included in the revised CEQA resolution identifying the Amendment and clarifying that the only change is regarding historic impacts and that the conclusion has changed. No new impacts have been identified. Therefore, recirculation March 19, 2012 Page 7 of 8 (ID # 2262) of the EIR is not required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. The Amendment to the FEIR and the revised CEQA resolution was emailed to the Commissioners on February 29th and put at places for their review. Two Commissioners were concerned about the late additions of this document. As discussed above, staff responded that the Amendment and revised resolution were clarifications regarding staff’s recommendation for the EIR in the PTC staff report. 2.Public Benefits The preservation of the historic Edgewood Plaza shopping center is the primary public benefit of this project. In addition to the preservation of the shopping center, the following project components are proposed as public benefits: 1)Rehabilitation and reopening of the existing grocery building (approx. 20,600 sq. ft.); 2)A new (approx. 0.20 acre) park with an on-site display highlighting Joseph Eichler’s achievements; 3)Rehabilitation of a historically significant sign, associated with the shopping center; and 4)Three onsite electric vehicle charging stations, including one level 3 and two level 2 charging stations. Timeline Initiation by P&TC April 27, 2011 PTC EIR Hearing October 26, 2011 HRB Hearing October 19, 2011 First ARB Hearing November 3, 2011 Second ARB Hearing February 2, 2012 Formal P&TC Hearing February 29, 2012 Council Hearing Date March 19, 2012 Resource Impact The project’s addition of 10 residential units, along with its creation of 38,400 square feet of retail space to the existing shopping center, would yield the City additional annual revenues in the form of property taxes, sales taxes, and utility user taxes, estimated in the range of $100,000 to $150,000. One-time revenues would include impact fees of approximately $1.6 million and documentary Transfer Fees of approximately $0.07 million. On the expenditure side, the project’s residential portion will create additional demand for City services, but these should be offset by the developer impact fees mentioned above. Environmental Review An Environmental Impact report (EIR) has been prepared for the project, with a focus on impacts to historic resources, as discussed above. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review between September 30 and November 14, 2011. The Final EIR was circulated on February 17, 2012 to respond to various comments received by the comment end date. A subsequent Amendment to the Final EIR was released on February 29, 2012. CEQA requires that FEIR and associated amendments be circulated a minimum of ten days prior to actions by the decision making body, which is the City Council. Copies of the EIR and the amendments March 19, 2012 Page 8 of 8 (ID # 2262) have previously been distributed. The documents are also available online on the City’s website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/news/details.asp?NewsID=1874&TargetID=85. Attachments: ·Attachment A: Draft EIR Resolution (PDF) ·Attachment B: Draft PC Ordinance (includes Tentative Map findings)(PDF) ·Attachment C: Site Location Map (PDF) ·Attachment D: Applicant's Development Program Statement and Correspondence (PDF) ·Attachment E: Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (PDF) ·Attachment F: February 29, 2012 P&TC Staff Report (w/ attachments that include ARB, HRB staff reports and minutes)(PDF) ·Attachment G: February 29, 2012 P&TC Minutes (PDF) ·Attachment H: Public Correspondences provided at places at the March 19, 2012 PTC Hearing (PDF) ·Attachment I: FEIR, First Amendment to the FEIR, Draft EIR and Appendices for the Edgewood Plaza Project (TXT) ·Attachment J: Plan Sets (TXT) Prepared By:Elena Lee, Senior Planner Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager REVISED VERSION RESOLUTION NO _________ RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE EDGEWOOD PLAZA PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Introduction and Certification. (a) The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”), in the exercise of its independent judgment, makes and adopts the following findings to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”; Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.), and Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15000 et seq.). All statements set forth in this Resolution constitute formal findings of the City Council, including the statements set forth in this paragraph. These findings are made relative to the conclusions of the City of Palo Alto Edgewood Plaza Project Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030) (the “Final EIR”), which includes the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”), Public Comments, and Responses to Comments. The Final EIR addresses the environmental impacts of the implementation of the Edgewood Plaza Project (the “Project”, as further defined in Section 2(b) below) and is incorporated herein by reference. These findings are based upon the entire record of proceedings for the Project. (b) Mitigation measures associated with the potentially significant impacts of the Project will be implemented through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program described below, which is the responsibility of the City. (c) The City of Palo Alto is the Lead Agency pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21067 as it has the principal responsibility to approve and regulate the Project. Sand Hill Property Company is the Project applicant. (d) The City exercised its independent judgment in accordance with Public Resources Code section 20182.1(c), in retaining the independent consulting firm David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. (“Powers & Associates”) to assist with preparation of the Final EIR under the supervision and at the direction of the City’s Director of Planning and Community Environment. (e) The City, with assistance from David J. Powers & Associates, initially prepared the Draft EIR and circulated it for review by responsible and trustee agencies and the public and submitted it to the State Clearinghouse for review and comment by state agencies, for a comment period which ran from September 30, 2011, through November 14, 2011. As noted above, the Final EIR includes the Draft EIR, copies of all comments on the Draft EIR submitted during the 1 comment period, the City’s responses to those comments, and changes made to the Draft EIR following its public circulation. (f) The City’s Planning and Transportation Commission has reviewed the Final EIR and a draft of these findings and has provided its recommendations to the City Council regarding certification of the Final EIR. The City Council has independently reviewed the Final EIR and has considered the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendations in making these findings. (g) Based upon review and consideration of the information contained therein, the City Council hereby certifies that the Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA, and reflects the City of Palo Alto’s independent judgment and analysis. The City Council has considered evidence and arguments presented during consideration of the Project and the Final EIR. In determining whether the Project may have a significant impact on the environment, and in adopting the findings set forth below, the City Council certifies that it has complied with Public Resources Code sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21082.2. (h) Section 6 of the Final EIR and the First Amendment to the Final EIR shows all revisions which the Final EIR made to the Draft EIR. All references to the Draft EIR in these findings include references to all revisions to the Draft EIR made in the Final EIR (as amended). Having reviewed this section and the Final EIR as a whole, the City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that no significant new information has been added to the Final EIR so as to warrant recirculation of all or a portion of the Draft EIR. Likewise, the City Council has considered all public comments and other information submitted into the record since publication of the Final EIR, and further finds that none of that additional information constitutes significant new information requiring recirculation of the Final EIR. SECTION 2. Project Information. The following Project information is supplied to provide context for the discussion and findings that follow, but is intended as a summary and not a replacement for the information contained in the Draft EIR, Final EIR, or Project approvals. (a) Project Objectives The Project Objectives of the Project applicant are set forth in Section 2.4 of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference. (b) Project Description The proposed Project is the renovation of three existing commercial buildings at the Edgewood Shopping Center containing approximately 38,400 square feet of retail uses, and the redevelopment of the northern portion of the site with ten single-family residences and an approximately 0.20 acre park. The three buildings currently on site are arranged in an L-shaped plan, with the grocery 2 store to the east, and the two one-story retail buildings to the west. The grocery store and the retail buildings are wood-framed with elements of stucco and concrete block, and have flat roofs. One of the existing retail buildings (Building 1) would be relocated to the north and west of its current location on the site to allow for a modified configuration of parking for the grocery store. This building and the other building to remain in place (Building 2) would be renovated for continued retail use. Building 1 would be disassembled, and significant elements with distinctive design qualities, such as the walls and walkway overhangs would be retained. The building would be reconstructed to the north and west of the current Building 1 location, and visible historic building elements from the existing building would be rehabilitated and installed on a new building structure. The grocery building would remain in place and be renovated to allow for use as a small- scale grocery store. A conceptual site plan of the proposed Project is shown on Figure 4. A breakdown of the proposed development areas and building square footage are shown in Table 2.3-1. Conceptual elevations of the commercial buildings are shown on Figures 5-10, and conceptual residential elevations are shown on Figure 11. (All references to figures and tables are to those appearing in the Draft EIR, as modified where applicable in the Final EIR.) A complete description of the Project as proposed by the Project applicant is set forth in Section 2.3 of the Draft EIR, as modified in the Final EIR. (c) Required Approvals The approvals required by the City as lead agency for implementation of the Project include: A. Planned Community Zoning B. Tentative Subdivision Map C. Final Subdivision Map D. Lot Line Adjustments E. Tree Removal Permits SECTION 3. Record of Proceedings. (a) For purposes of CEQA, CEQA Guidelines section 15091(e), and these findings, the Record of Proceedings for the Project includes, but is not limited to, the following documents: (1) The Final EIR, which consists of the Edgewood Plaza Project Draft 3 Environmental Impact Report, published and circulated for public review and comment by the City from September 30, 2011 through November 14, 2011 (the “Draft EIR”), and the Edgewood Plaza Project Final Environmental Impact Report, published and made available on February 17, 2012, a First Amendment to the Final EIR and made available on February 29, 2012 and all appendices, reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps, testimony, and other materials related thereto; (2) All public notices issued by the City in connection with the Project and the preparation of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR, including but not limited to public notices for all public workshops held to seek public comments and input on the Project and the Notice of Preparation, Notice of Completion, Notice of Availability; (3) All written and oral communications submitted by agencies or interested members of the general public during the public review period for the Draft EIR, including oral communications made at public hearings or meetings held on the Project approvals; (4) The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; (5) All findings and resolutions adopted by the City Council in connection with the Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein; (6) All final reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the Project prepared by the City of Palo Alto and consultants with respect to the City of Palo Alto’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA, and with respect to the City of Palo Alto’s actions on the Project, including all staff reports and attachments to all staff reports for all public meetings held by the City; (7) Minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all public meetings and/or public hearings held by the City of Palo Alto in connection with the Project; (8) Matters of common knowledge to the City of Palo Alto, including, but not limited to, federal, state, and local laws and regulations; (9) Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above; and (10) Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6(e). (b) The custodian of the documents comprising the record of proceedings is the Director of Planning and Community Environment, City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California, 94301. 4 (c) Copies of all of the above-referenced documents, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City of Palo Alto’s decision on the Project is based, are and have been available upon request at the offices of the Planning and Community Environment Department, City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California, 94301, and other locations in the City of Palo Alto. (d) The City of Palo Alto has relied upon all of the documents, materials, and evidence listed above in reaching its decision on the Project. (e) The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the above-referenced documents, materials, and evidence constitute substantial evidence (as that term is defined by section 15384 of the CEQA Guidelines) to support each of the findings contained herein. SECTION 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. (a) CEQA requires the lead agency approving a project to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the changes made to the project that it has adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. An MMRP has been prepared and is recommended for adoption by the City Council concurrently with the adoption of these findings to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during Project implementation. As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the MMRP designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period. (b) The City Council hereby adopts the MMRP for the Project attached hereto and incorporated by reference, and finds, determines, and declares that adoption of the MMRP will ensure enforcement and continued imposition of the mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR, and set forth in the MMRP, in order to mitigate or avoid significant impacts on the environment. SECTION 5. Potentially Significant Impacts. By these Findings, the City Council ratifies and adopts the Final EIR’ s conclusions for the following significant environmental impacts which, based on the analyses in the Final EIR, this City Council determines will be less than significant after the implementation of the mitigation measures described below. All citations to the Draft EIR chapters and sections below include reference to all revisions to those chapters and sections contained in the Final EIR. Section 3.2.5.3 Historic Resources Impacts in the Draft EIR included summaries of the expert opinion of two qualified historic resources consultants, Page &Turnbull and Carey & Company. The City Council finds the opinion of Page & Turnbull to be valid and agrees with their conclusions regarding the significance of project impacts on historic resources. The significance conclusions for Impact CR-2 and Impact CR-3 below reflect a revision of the impact statements in the Final EIR made available on February 17, 2012, based upon the City Council’s independent judgment of the two analyses by experts presented in the EIR. 5 5.1 Cultural Resources Impact CR-1: Unknown subsurface archeological or paleontological resources could be present on the site, and could be disturbed during Project construction. a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.5.2 of the Draft EIR. b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and as further described in the remainder of these findings: Mitigation Measures CR-1.1 and CR-1.2. c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level by: (i) requiring that all construction activities be halted within a radius of fifty (50) feet of any potentially significant archeological or paleontological resources encountered during construction; (ii) requiring that such resources be examined by qualified professionals; and (iii) following the recommendation of the qualified professional to preserve, collect, record and/or analyze the resources, thereby ensuring that significant archeological and paleontological resources are not inadvertently destroyed and are appropriately preserved and/or recorded. The above-noted measures will also reduce the severity of this potentially impact to a less-than-significant level by: (i) requiring that all construction activities be halted in the event that any human remains are encountered during construction; (ii) requiring that such remains be examined by the County Coroner to determine whether or not the remains are Native American; (iii) to contact the California Native American Heritage Commission and County Coordinator of Native American Affairs if the remains are determined to be Native American; and (iv) by prohibiting any further disturbance of the site except as authorized by the County Coordinator as provided by state law, thereby ensuring that any Native American remains encountered are not inadvertently destroyed and handled appropriately. Based upon the expert opinion of Page & Turnbull presented in the Draft EIR, the City Council finds that the following impact statement (Impact CR-2) regarding impacts to historic resources reflects its independent judgment. Impact CR-2: The Edgewood Plaza site is considered historically significant under federal, state and City of Palo Alto criteria. Although relocation of Building 1 on the site would alter the site design and characteristics of Edgewood Plaza, this change in spatial relationship would not result in a significant impact to the historic character of the buildings. The physical relocation of Building 1 and renovation of Buildings 1 and 2, however, could result in modifications to the historic design and integrity of the buildings. a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section 3.2.5.3 of the Draft EIR. 6 b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and as further described in the remainder of these findings: Mitigation Measures CR-2.1, CR-2.2 and CR-2.3. c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level by: (i) documenting the exterior of Buildings 1 and 2 and their settings in accordance with Historic American Buildings Survey Level III documentation requirements, as described in greater detail in Section 6 of the Final EIR, and preserving such documentation with the Palo Alto Historic Resources Preservation Officer; (ii) creating a display illustrating the history of the Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes prior to approval of final occupancy; (iii) requiring that the distinctive and defining architectural features, finishes and construction techniques of Buildings 1 and 2, including windows, frames, and eaves, be retained to the extent feasible during the relocation and reconstruction of Building 1 and the rehabilitation of Building 2, subject to verification by qualified professionals that work on these resources is completed in conformance with applicable federal standards; and (iv) requiring review and approval of the final design and materials to be used in the renovation of these buildings by the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department; thereby ensuring that this Impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. While the Draft and Final EIRs conservatively identified this impact as significant and unavoidable based upon conflicting expert opinion, the City Council agrees with the conclusions of the experts, as reflected in the record, that this impact can, in fact, be mitigated. Based upon the expert opinion of Page & Turnbull presented in the Draft EIR, the City Council finds that the following impact statement (Impact CR-3) regarding impacts to historic resources reflects its independent judgment. Impact CR-3: The Edgewood Plaza site is considered historically significant under federal, state and City of Palo Alto criteria. While construction of ten new single-family houses on the site would alter the overall site design and characteristics of Edgewood Plaza, this construction would not result in a significant impact to historic resources. 5.2 Air Quality Impact AQ-1: Construction of the proposed Project could result in temporary air quality impacts associated with dust and particulate matter generation at nearby residential uses. a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section 4.3.2.3 of Appendix C the Draft EIR. b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and as further described in the remainder of these findings: 7 Mitigation Measure AQ-1.1. c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the applicant to implement numerous construction practices determined by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to significantly reduce the adverse air quality effects of construction activities. These practices include watering all exposed surfaces, covering all haul trucks, regularly removing all mud, dirt and debris from public roads, limiting vehicle speeds on the construction site, paving all appropriate surfaces as soon as possible, limiting idling times of construction vehicles and equipment, properly maintaining all construction equipment, and publicly posting contact information for public complaints regarding construction activities, all as described in greater detail in Section 4.3.2.3 of the Appendix C of the Draft EIR. Implementing these measures will minimize the extent to which dust and particulate matter generated by Project construction activities is dispersed to nearby residential uses and other sensitive receptors. 5.3 Biological Resources Impact BIO-1: Excavation during construction of the proposed Project could result in disturbance to active raptor nests. a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section 4.4.2.1 of Appendix C of the Draft EIR. b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and as further described in the remainder of these findings: Mitigation Measure BIO-1.1. c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the applicant to implement numerous several measures, pursuant to the requirements of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Department of Fish and Game, designed to reduce adverse effects on raptors and their nests. These measures include having a qualified ornithologist complete pre-construction surveys to identify active nests that might be disturbed by Project activities, postponing all tree removal and pruning activities for trees containing active raptor nests and establishing buffer or exclusion zones around such trees, and monitoring such trees and nests and prohibiting construction activities within the buffer/exclusion zones until the young raptors have fledged from the nests. Implementing these measures will ensure that active raptor nests are not unduly disturbed by construction activities, thereby avoiding and reducing the potential adverse effects of the Project on raptors and their nests to less-than-significant levels. 5.4 Hazardous Materials Impact HAZ-1: Construction of the proposed Project could expose 8 construction workers and others to residual hazardous materials contamination in soil and groundwater. a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section 4.8.3.2 of Appendix C of the Draft EIR. b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and as further described in the remainder of these findings: Mitigation Measures HAZ-1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5. c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level by: (i) requiring the applicant to prepare and implement a Soil Management Plan, to be reviewed and approved by the City of Palo Alto and in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local regulations and in conformance with applicable industry standards, to govern the handling of contaminated soil and other hazardous materials encountered during Project construction activities; (ii) requiring each contractor working on the site to prepare a health and safety plan that addresses the health and safety hazards that may affect each phase site operations due to potential exposures to hazardous materials, which plan includes requirements and procedures to ensure protection for each contractor’s employees, in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local regulations and in conformance with applicable industry standards,; and (iii) requiring soil and groundwater sampling and, if appropriate, soil vapor sampling, from under 2125 St. Francis Drive to ensure that soil exceeding applicable tetrachloroethene levels (PCE-affected soils) is not present within five (5) feet of the ground surface, requiring removal and disposal of any PCE-affected soils by qualified professionals using appropriate protective gear in accordance with applicable federal, state and local requirements, requiring an excavation base confirmation sample to confirm that sufficient PCE-affected soils have been removed, and requiring that documentation of all PCE- affected soils be provided to the City of Palo Alto and appropriate oversight agencies prior to installation of pavement in the parking lot area; (iv) requiring characterization of all excavated soils prior to off-site disposal or on-site reuse; requiring that contaminated soils be disposed of at a licensed facility in accordance with all applicable local, state and federal regulations; (v) requiring that all excavated soil characterizations, storage, transportation and disposal be in conformance with all applicable federal, state and local procedures and requirements; and (vi) requiring the applicant to prepare a contingency plan prior to the beginning of Project construction to address any previously unknown sumps, hydraulic hoists, or tanks that may be present in the work area. Implementation of these measures will ensure that the risks associated with exposure to contaminated soils and other hazardous materials are reduced to a less-than- significant level. Impact HAZ-2: Renovation and relocation of Project buildings could expose construction workers and sensitive receptors, including the surrounding residential uses, to lead- based paint and/or asbestos-containing materials (ACMs). a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in 9 b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and as further described in the remainder of these findings: Mitigation Measures HAZ-2.1, 2.2 and 2.3. c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level by: (i) requiring surveys by qualified professionals of all structures proposed for renovation on the site to determine the presence of asbestos and lead-based paint, prior to commencing any work on such structures; (ii) requiring that a registered asbestos abatement contractor by retained to remove and dispose of all potential friable asbestos-containing materials, in accordance with applicable federal and state laws, regulations, guidelines and requirements, prior to any relocation or renovation activities that may disturb such materials; and (iii) requiring that all building materials containing lead- based paint be removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state and local standards, which include requirements relating to employee training, air monitoring and dust control. Implementation of these measures will reduce the risks associated with potential exposures to asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint to less-than-significant levels. 5.5 Hydrology and Water Quality. Impact HYDRO-1: Construction of the proposed residential units on the Project site may expose people or structures to flooding risks. a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section 4.9.3.1 of Appendix C of the Draft EIR. b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and as further described in the remainder of these findings: Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1.1 and 1.2. c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level by: (i) requiring that all construction activities on the site comply with the City of Palo Alto Flood Hazard Ordinance, including elevation of habitable spaces above anticipated flood levels; (ii) requiring that all Project plans show the base flood elevations on all applicable elevations, sections, and details, and otherwise comply with all other requirements listed in the Ordinance; and (iii) requiring that all construction activities on the site also comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for flood hazard areas. Implementation of these measures will ensure that structures on the site are constructed to minimize to the extent feasible risks associated with flooding on the site and that this potentially significant impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level. 10 Impact HYDRO-2: Construction activities could temporarily increase pollutant loads in stormwater runoff. a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section 4.9.3.5 of Appendix C of the Draft EIR. b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and as further described in the remainder of these findings: Mitigation Measures HYDRO-2.1 and 2.2. c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level by: (i) requiring the implementation of certain erosion and sediment control measures based upon Best Management Practices recommended by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), including installing stormwater inlet protection around all storm drain inlets, watering all exposed surfaces, suspending all dust-producing activities during periods of high winds, covering and watering stockpiles of soil and other materials, covering all haul trucks, regularly sweeping and removing all mud, dirt and debris from all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas, and replanting all vegetation in disturbed areas as soon as possible, as described in greater detail in Section 4.9.3.5 of the Appendix C of the Draft EIR; (ii) requiring that an erosion and sedimentation control plan be submitted to the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits; and (iii) requiring certain post-construction measures based on RWQCB Best Management Practices, including providing roofs on all trash enclosures on site, providing onsite treatment of stormwater runoff from the site prior to discharge to the City of Palo Alto stormwater system, preparing and submitting to the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department an annual post-construction maintenance agreement prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, requiring commercial development on the site to implement regular maintenance activities to prevent soil and litter from accumulating on the site, and requiring that landscaping and landscape maintenance on the site employ minimal pesticide use. Implementation of these measures will mitigate the Project’s potential impacts relating to pollutant loads in stormwater runoff to less- than-significant levels. 5.6 Noise Impact NOISE-1: Future residential uses on the site could be exposed to noise levels above City of Palo Alto standards for residential uses. a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section 4.12.2.2 of Appendix C of the Draft EIR. b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and as 11 Mitigation Measures NOISE-1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5. c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level by: (i) requiring that sound-rated windows, doors, and exterior wall assemblies be used in residential buildings; (ii) requiring acoustical test reports of all sound-rated windows and doors, to be reviewed by a qualified professional and compared with traffic noise spectrums, prior to approval; (iii) requiring ventilation or air conditioning systems in all residential units that provide habitable interior environments, so that windows need not be relied upon to provide ventilation; (iv) requiring six (6) foot tall noise barriers in specific locations; (v) requiring that residential mechanical equipment be selected and located to meet the properly line limits in the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, and additional measures such as equipment barriers and enclosures if determined to be necessary by the acoustical test and review described above, all as described in greater detail in Section 4.12.2.2 of Appendix C of the Draft EIR. Implementation of these measures will reduce the severity of potential noise impacts on future residents on the Project site to less-than- significant levels. Impact NOISE-2: Commercial activities on the site could result in significant noise impact at the proposed residential units. a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section 4.12.2.4 of Appendix C of the Draft EIR. b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and as further described in the remainder of these findings: Mitigation Measures NOISE-2.1 and 2.2. c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level by: (i) requiring that measures be included in the renovation of the commercial buildings on the site to reduce noise impacts at nearby residences, in conformance with the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, which measures may include installing solid noise barriers along the north and east sides of the loading dock combined with a shed roof, and lining roofs and walls with sound absorbing materials; and (ii) limiting all truck deliveries to the site to daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.), communicating to vendors that their drivers will be operating close to residences so that they will limit noise, and providing a full disclosure statement to the owners of residential Lots Nos. 9 and 10 regarding potential truck noise, which statement shall be incorporated into the deeds for these residential properties. Implementation of these measures would reduce the severity of this potential Impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact NOISE-3: Noise from rooftop mechanical equipment for the retail buildings may exceed the noise standards at adjacent residential properties on the Edgewood Plaza site. 12 a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section 4.12.2.4 of Appendix C of the Draft EIR. b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and as further described in the remainder of these findings: Mitigation Measure NOISE-3.1. c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level by: (i) requiring that mechanical equipment to be installed and used on the Project site be selected, designed and located to minimize noise impacts on adjacent and nearby residential uses; (ii) using solid rooftop screens or noise barriers as determined by a qualified professional to be necessary to meet applicable City of Palo Alto noise standards at the residential property lines; and (iii) providing for review and approval of mechanical equipment plans by the City of Palo Alto Building Department prior to the issuance of building permits; all as described in greater detail in Section 4.12.2.4 of Appendix C of the Draft EIR. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce the severity of this Impact to a less-than-significant level. 5.7 Transportation Impact TRANS-1: Project traffic would cause a significant impact at the Wildwood Land-North California Avenue and Embarcadero Road unsignalized intersection. a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section 4.16.2.2 of Appendix C of the Draft EIR. b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and as further described in the remainder of these findings: Mitigation Measure TRANS-1.1. c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level by: (i) restriping Embarcadero Road to create a left turn receiving lane; and (ii) installing a left turn lane receiving area at the Embarcadero Road/St. Francis Drive intersection at Wildwood Lane. Installation of these improvements will facilitate left turns and reduce left turn delays, thereby mitigating this Impact to a less-than-significant level. 13 SECTION 6. Findings Regarding Project Alternatives. Public Resources Code section 21002 prohibits a public agency from approving a project if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the project. When a lead agency finds, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, that a project will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, it must, prior to approving the project as mitigated, first determine whether there are any project alternatives that are feasible and that would substantially lessen or avoid the project's significant impacts. Under CEQA, "feasibility" includes "desirability" to the extent that it is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors, and an alternative may be deemed by the lead agency to be "infeasible" if it fails to adequately promote the project applicant's and/or the lead agency's primary underlying goals and objectives for the project. Thus, a lead agency may reject an alternative, even if it would avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant environmental effects of the project, if it finds that the alternative's failure to adequately achieve the objectives for the project, or other specific and identifiable considerations, make the alternative infeasible. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project, which could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project, and that the City Council has evaluated the comparative merits of the alternatives. As explained in the findings set forth above, the Project will not result in any significant effect on the environment that cannot be mitigated through the mitigation measures which are hereby being adopted and imposed on the Project. Therefore, the Council need not make any additional findings regarding the feasibility of any Project alternative. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________________ _________________________________ City Clerk Mayor 14 15 APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________ City Manager ______________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney _________________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment *NOT YET APPROVED* ORDINANCE NO.________ Ordinance of the Council of the City Of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Located at 2080 Channing Avenue (Edgewood Plaza) from Planned Community (PC 1643) to PC Planned Community Zone (PC_______) tor the Renovation of the Three Existing Eichler Retail Structures, On-Site Relocation of One of the Retail Structures, Construction of Ten New Single- Family Homes, And Creation Of A 0.20 Acre Park The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. (a) Sand Hill Property Company, (“the Applicant”) applied on June 1, 2010 to the City for approval of (1) a rezoning application (the “Project”) for a new Planned Community (PC) district for a property located at 2080 Channing Avenue (the “Subject Property”) to accommodate the uses set forth below and (2) a Tentative Map to subdivide the 3.58 site into one commercial lot, including a 0.20 acre park, dedicated to the City with public access easements and maintained by the commercial property owner, and ten single family residential lots. (b) The Tentative Map plan set, dated February 15, 2012, and last revised on March 19, 2012 includes information on the existing parcels, onsite conditions, and the layout of the proposed new lots. 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 Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.13), as well as the design requirements concerning the creation of lots, streets, walkways, and similar features (PAMC 21.20). (c) The Planning and Transportation Commission, at its meeting of April 27, 2011, acted favorably on the applicant’s request for initiation of the Planned Community Zone process for the establishment of Planned Community Zone District No. xxxx. (d) The Architectural Review Board, at its meeting of February 2, 2012, reviewed the Project design and recommended the City Council approve the project with associated draft conditions of approval ‘Exhibit B.’ (e) The Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing held February 29, 2012, reviewed, considered, and recommended 120313 dm 0120529 1 *NOT YET APPROVED* certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, then reviewed the Planned Community and Tentative Map and this ordinance, and recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to rezone the Subject Property to a new Planned Community zone for the proposed project depicted on ‘Exhibit A,’ (the “Project”), consistent with conditions included in the Planned Community zone related to allowable land uses and required development standards, and subject to provision of the public benefits outlined in this ordinance and recommended approval of the Tentative Map. Draft conditions of project approval “Exhibit B” attached to this document and incorporated by reference were presented to the PTC for review and comments. (f) The Palo Alto City Council, after due consideration of the proposed Project, the analysis of the City staff, and the conditions recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission, certified the Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program, concurred with the recommendations from the PTC and the ARB, and found that the proposed project and this Ordinance is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth. (g) The Council finds that (1) the Subject Property is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow for the Project; (2) development of the Subject Property under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts, as set forth in Section (4)(c) hereof; and (3) the use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the proposed district are consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Goals, Policies, and proposed designation of Mixed Use for the Subject Property) and are compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the “Zoning Map,” is hereby amended by changing the zoning of Subject Property from Planned Community (PC- 1643) to “PC Planned Community ”. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the Subject Property that the project (the “Project”) comprises the following uses included in this ordinance and a mixed use development, depicted on the Development Plans dated February 2, 2012, incorporated by reference, including the following components: (a) Renovation of an existing 37,965 sq. ft. shopping center, including relocation and renovation of the 10,000 sq. ft. retail building, renovation of the 7,800 sq. ft. retail building in place, and renovation of the 20,600 sq. ft. building in place for use as a 120313 dm 0120529 2 *NOT YET APPROVED* grocery store, deletion of the outer parking lots and expansion of the remaining parking lot, and associated site improvements (b) Construction of ten detached residential units on fee simple lots along Channing Avenue, including five surface parking stalls and ten two-car garages. (c) Construction of a 0.20 acre park at the corner of Channing Avenue and St. Francis Drive. The park shall include public access easement so that it would be a public park to be maintained by the commercial property owner in perpetuity. There shall not be any use of the park for the purposes of the retail tenants. (d) A Tentative Map to subdivide the 3.58 acre site into eleven parcels. The first parcel (2.73 acres) would contain the existing grocery building, the other two retail buildings (“Buildings 1 and 2”) and the new 0.20 acre park. The park would include a public access easement allowing use as a public park, and would be maintained by the owner of the commercial parcel. The remaining ten parcels (ranging from 3,376 to 4,026 sq. ft.) would be created for the ten residences. Private easements would be provided for the driveways and walkways. SECTION 4. The Development Plan for the Subject Property dated February 29, 2012, and any approved supplemental materials for the Subject Property, as submitted by the applicant pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC §18.38.090), shall be subject to the following permitted and conditional land uses and special limitations on land uses, development standards, parking and loading requirements, modifications to the development plans and provisions of public benefits outlined below, and conditions of project approval, attached and incorporated as “Exhibit B”. (a) Permitted, Conditionally Permitted land uses shall be allowed and limited as follows: Permitted Uses (subject to the limitations below under Section 4(b)): (1) Ten residential units; (2) Retail Services (excluding liquor stores); (3) Eating and Drinking Services (excluding drive-in services); (4) Personal Services; (5) Neighborhood Business Services; (6) Financial Services (excluding drive-up services); (7) A 0.20 acre public park, via public access easements; 120313 dm 0120529 3 *NOT YET APPROVED* (8) Accessory facilities and activities customarily associated with or essential to permitted uses, and operated incidental to the principal use. Conditionally Permitted Uses: (1) Small tutoring center or afterschool program center; (2) Limited commercial recreation; (3) Farmer’s Markets or similar. (b) Special limitations on land uses include the following: (1) The 20,600 sq. ft. building shall be primarily used for grocery uses only; (2) No medical office shall be permitted within the development; (3) No administrative office use shall be permitted within the development; (4) The “Retail” space as identified on the Development Plan shall be occupied by retail uses, personal service uses, eating and drinking services or customer serving financial services only, except where a conditional use permit is required in accordance with 4(a). (c) Development Standards: Development Standards for the site shall comply with the standards prescribed for the Planned Community (PC) Zone District (PAMC Chapter 18.38) and as described in Section Three and Section Four herein and in the Approved Development Plans. (d) Parking and Loading Requirements: In addition to the parking and loading requirements specified in PAMC §§18.52 and 18.54, a Transportation Demand Management Plan (“TDM”) Program shall be developed for the Project in accordance with PAMC §18.52.050(d) for employees of the Project. The TDM plan shall include bicycle, pedestrian and public transportation functions. The TDM plan shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment prior to issuance of building permits for the site and shall include, at a minimum, offer for parking cash out, bike facilities, transportation information kiosks, and the designation of a transportation demand coordinator for the building. The TDM program will include monitoring reports, which shall be submitted to the Director not later than two years after building occupancy and again not later than five years after building occupancy, noting the effectiveness of the proposed measures as compared to the 120313 dm 0120529 4 *NOT YET APPROVED* initial performance targets, and suggestions for modifications if necessary to enhance parking and/or trip reductions. Where the monitoring reports indicate that performance measures are not met, the director may require further program modifications. (e) Modifications to the Development Plan and Site Development Regulations: Once the project has been constructed consistent with the approved Development Plan, any modifications to the exterior design of the Development Plan or any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or the site development regulations contained in Section 4 (a) – (c) above shall require an amendment to this Planned Community zone, unless the modification is a minor change as described in PAMC §18.76.050 (b) (3) (e), in which case the modification may be approved through the minor Architectural Review process. Any use not specifically permitted by this ordinance shall require an amendment to the PC ordinance. (f) Public Benefits: Development of the site under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. The Project includes the following public benefits that are inherent to the Project and in excess of those required by City zoning districts. (1) Preservation and renovation of an existing historically significant shopping center developed by Eichler Homes, eligible for federal, state and local historic registries; (2) Provision of a grocery store in the 20,600 sq. ft. building; (3) Provision of a 0.20 acre public park, via public access easements, in perpetuity. (Land is dedicated for the ten units, plus an additional 5,000 sq. ft., where an in-lieu fee could also be proposed. The park would be maintained by the commercial property owner.) The park shall not be used for seating/activities associated with the retail uses. (4) Provision of three (3) electrical vehicle (EV) charging stations installed onsite, subject to final City approval. The applicant shall incur all costs of the installation. 120313 dm 0120529 5 *NOT YET APPROVED* (g) Development Schedule: The project is required to include a Development Schedule pursuant to PAMC §18.38.100. The approved Development Schedule is set forth below: Construction of the Project shall commence immediately following the adoption of the PC zone, unless a change in the development schedule is approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, not to exceed a one year extension in time and only one such extension without a hearing, pursuant to PAMC §18.38.130. The total time for the project construction and occupancy of tenant spaces is expected to be 24 months following adoption of the PC zone, or by March 2014, unless extended by the Director for up to one additional year. (h) No building permit shall be approved (other than for model homes with no more than one model home per plan type) for residential development prior to submittal to the Director of a lease agreement or other legally binding commitment from a grocery operator to occupy 20,600 square feet in the Grocery Building. The Lease Agreement shall require that Occupancy of the grocery store shall occur not later than 15 months after the issuance of the first building permit for the Grocery Building or 15 months after issuance of the first building permit for the residential development (other than a model home). Final inspection and occupancy shall be allowed for not more than 5 homes (including model homes) prior to final inspection and occupancy approval for the grocery store. Bonding or other financial security may be considered in lieu of these requirements only upon review and approval by the City Council as an amendment to this PC ordinance. SECTION 4. Tentative Map Findings. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a 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 affirmative. The site does not lie within a specific plan area and is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. The land use designation in the area of the subdivision is Neighborhood Commercial and the zoning designation is Planned Community (PC) District. The proposed development of the commercial and residential mixed use development is consistent with the land use and zoning designations of the site. 120313 dm 0120529 6 *NOT YET APPROVED* 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 applicable Comprehensive Plan policies, particularly including: (1) Policy L-1 – Limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area; (2) Policy L-4 – Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable qualities; (3) Policy L-9 – Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development; and (4) Policy B-27 - Support the upgrading and revitalization of Palo Alto’s four Neighborhood Commercial Centers. 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 subdivision, as it is currently vacant, flat, and absent any significant vegetation. The lots conform to the width, depth, and area requirements of this Planned Community Zoning District. The design of the mixed use, commercial and residential buildings require Architectural Review approval. The proposed development was recommended for approval by the City Council from the Architectural Review Board on February 2, 2012. 4. That the site is not physically suitable 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 this Planned Community Zoning District and would not affect the location of the existing property lines at the perimeter of the site. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision would not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat, as the site is currently fully developed with a vacant commercial development. An Environmental Impact Report was adopted certifying that there will be no significant unmitigated environmental impacts. 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: 120313 dm 0120529 7 *NOT YET APPROVED* This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision of the existing parcel for a commercial and residential mixed use development will not cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision of the existing parcel will not conflict with easements of any type, in that the subdivision is compatible with adequate emergency vehicle access and any utility easements that would be required to serve the proposed developments. SECTION 5. Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice SECTION 6. Monitoring of Conditions and Public Benefits. Not later than three (3) years following the approval of building occupancy by the City and every three (3) years thereafter, the applicant shall request that the City review the project to assure that conditions of approval and public benefits remain in effect as provided in the original approval. The applicant shall provide adequate funding to reimburse the City for these costs. If conditions or benefits are found deficient by staff, the applicant shall correct such conditions in not more than 90 days from notice by the City. If correction is not made within the prescribed timeframe, the Director of Planning and Community Environment will schedule review of the project before the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council to determine appropriate remedies, fines or other actions. 120313 dm 0120529 8 *NOT YET APPROVED* 120313 dm 0120529 9 SECTION 7. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council certified the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program and adopted a resolution at its meeting of March 19, 2012. SECTION 8. The plans referenced consist of plans titled “Edgewood Shopping Center” prepared by Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners, Burton Architecture, Sandis and the Guzzardo Partnership, dated February 29, 2012, including the Tentative Map for Edgewood Plaza, prepared by Sandis, dated February 15, 2012. SECTION 9. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption (second reading). INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: __________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Assistant City Attorney __________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment _________________________ Mayor _________________________ City Manager 0.0' 57.0' 4.1' 00.0' 64.0' 0.0' 00.0' 64.0' 00.0' 114.9' 47.4' 22.7' 13.8' 71.5' 78.4' 167.0' 00.0' 64.0' 00.0' 00.0' 64.0' 00.0' 100.0' 64.0' 00.0' 17.9'33.6' 51.1' 100.0' 5.8' 24.6' 75.9'55.0' 397.4' 21.3' 114.9'15.0' 28.3' 92.0' 228.9' 17.1'18.9' 131.4' 92.0'28.3' 182.0' 12.6' 76.8' 38.2' 213.2' 215.0'31.4' 137.0' 168.2' 1 4 2.8' 43.7' 397.4' 104.6' 10 55.0' 102.3' 104.6' 53.0' 100.0' 1' 102.3' 53.0' 23.6' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 11.6'48.4' 120.5' 110.3' 5 0.0' 120.5' 60.0' 110.5' 50.0' 110 .3' 60.0' 56.3' 121.9' 62.0' 152.2' 37.2' 152.2' 62.0' 125.8' 3 9 32.1' 125.8' 53.0 110.5' 50.0' 121.9' 24.2'29.5'17.6' 60.0' 31.4' 65.0' 31.4' 60.0' 120.3' 70.7' 141.7' 5.2'52.3' 141.7' 10.0' 40.0' 73.0' 65. 122.6' 40.0' 21.8' 44.0' 149.2' 67.8' 122.6' 2 0.4' 24.6' 95.1' 5.5' 120.3' 96.9' 45.0' 31.4' 90.0' 65.0' 110.0' 65.0' 15.0'73.1' 38.4' 10.4' 56.4' 115.0' 190 82 2170 2154 2146 130 11611101 2080 2105 2129 2125 2121 2115 2113 1 1106 1110 2285 2291 2297 2303 2311 2317 2327 2159 21602085 2029 2090 2082 2103 2107 2109 1250 2050 2161 1 1 0 0 ST FRANCI S DR IVE E M B A R C A D E R O R O A D BAYSHORE ROAD BA Y S H ORE ROAD WES T SANDALW EDG This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0' 101' 2080 Channing Avenue Edgewood Plaza Location Map CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2012 City of Palo Alto elee2, 2012-02-23 18:30:58Parcel Report - (w/ grayscale image) (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (DRAFT) Edgewood Plaza Project, Environmental Impact Report Palo Alto File No. 08PLN-00157/10PLN-00198 State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030 February 2012 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Edgewood Plaza Project, 2080 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto Palo Alto File No. 08PLN-00157/10PLN-00198, State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance Method of Compliance and Oversight of Implementation Timing of Compliance Cultural Resources Impact CR-1: Unknown subsurface archaeological or paleontological resources could be present on the site, and could be disturbed during project construction. [Significant Impact] MM CR-1.1: In the event any significant cultural materials are encountered during construction grading or excavation, all construction within a radius of 50-feet of the find would be halted, the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate mitigation. Recommendations could include collection, recordation and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. MM CR-1.2: In the event that human skeletal remains are encountered, the applicant is required by County Ordinance No. B6-18 to immediately notify the County Coroner. Upon determination by the County Coroner that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission, pursuant to subdivision (c) of section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs. No further disturbance of the site may be made except as authorized by the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs in accordance with Project applicant and contractors. All measures will be required as part of development permits, and will be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans prior to issuance of development permits. Oversight of implementation by the City of Palo Alto Director of Planning and Community Environment. During construction and excavation. Edgewood Plaza Project (2080 Channing Avenue), Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1 of 16 City of Palo Alto February 2012 Edgewood Plaza Project (2080 Channing Avenue), Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2 of 16 City of Palo Alto February 2012 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Edgewood Plaza Project, 2080 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto Palo Alto File No. 08PLN-00157/10PLN-00198, State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance Method of Compliance and Oversight of Implementation Timing of Compliance the provisions of state law and the Health and Safety Code. The Director of Planning and Community Environment shall also be notified immediately if human skeletal remains are found on the site during development. Impact CR-2: The Edgewood Plaza site is considered historically significant under federal, state, and City of Palo Alto criteria. Relocation of Building 1 on the site would alter the overall site design and characteristics of Edgewood Plaza, and therefore this relocation would result in a significant impact to historic resources. Impact CR-3: The Edgewood Plaza site is considered historically significant under federal, state, and City of Palo Alto criteria. Construction of ten new single- family houses on the site would alter the overall site design and characteristics of Edgewood Plaza, and therefore this construction would result in a significant impact to historic resources. MM CR-2.1: Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) Level III documentation of the exterior of Buildings 1 and 2 and their setting shall be prepared by the applicant and project consultants prior to the relocation of Building 1 and remodeling of Building 2. Following the HABS guidelines, this documentation shall include: Sketch plan of the existing site and reproduction of original drawings. Up to 12 large-format photographs (4 by 5 inches) of exterior views. A written summary of project site’s history. Transmittal of one set of documents to the Historic Resources Planner in the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department, and to a relevant local historical society, library, or repository. The documentation shall be filed by the applicant prior to the start of construction. MM CR-2.2: The applicant shall create a display illustrating the history of the Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, prior to approval of final occupancy. MM CR-2.3: Distinctive materials and defining architectural features, finishes, and construction techniques of Buildings 1 and 2 including windows, frames, and eaves will be retained to the extent possible, as the building elements will require some alterations due to ADA compliance, Project applicant and consulting historic preservation architect. All measures will be required as conditions of approval of development permits, and will be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans prior to issuance of development permits. Oversight of implementation by the City of Palo Alto Director of Planning and Community Environment. Prior to the issuance of demolition, grading and/or building permits, as applicable. Edgewood Plaza Project (2080 Channing Avenue), Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3 of 16 City of Palo Alto February 2012 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Edgewood Plaza Project, 2080 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto Palo Alto File No. 08PLN-00157/10PLN-00198, State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance Method of Compliance and Oversight of Implementation Timing of Compliance public safety, building code compliance, or deteriorated condition. The existing building components may be constructed out of new building materials that match the character and form of the existing, if reuse of existing building components is not feasible. Prior to the relocation and reconstruction of Building 1 and the rehabilitation of Building 2, a qualified historic preservation architect shall review the plans for the remodeled buildings and verify that the work on these buildings is in keeping with the buildings’ original design and applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, such as Standards #5, 6, 7, and 9. The final design and materials to be used in the renovation of these buildings will be reviewed and approved by the Director and the Historic Resources Planner of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department. Air Quality Impact AQ-1: Construction of the proposed project could result in temporary air quality impacts associated with dust and particulate matter generation at nearby residential uses. MM AQ-1.1: The following mitigation measures shall be implemented during all phases of construction on the project site to prevent visible dust emissions from leaving the site: All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. Project applicant and contractors. All measures will be required as conditions of approval of development permits, and will be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans prior to issuance of development permits. Oversight of implementation by the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment and the City’s Building Division. Concurrent with and throughout all development activities, including but not limited to excavation, demolition, grading, building, interior finishing, and all other development related activities. Edgewood Plaza Project (2080 Channing Avenue), Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4 of 16 City of Palo Alto February 2012 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Edgewood Plaza Project, 2080 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto Palo , State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030 Alto File No. 08PLN-00157/10PLN-00198 Environmental Impacts Responsibility for Compliance Method of Compliance and Oversight of Implementation Timing of Compliance Mitigation Measures All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer‘s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Biological Resources Impact BIO-1: Construction of the proposed project could result in disturbance to active raptor nests. MM BIO-1.1: In compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code, the proposed project shall implement the following measures: Pre-construction surveys shall be completed by a qualified ornithologist to identify active nests that may be disturbed during project implementation. All potential nesting areas (trees, tall shrubs) shall be surveyed no more Project applicant and contractors. All measures will be required as conditions of approval of development permits, and will be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans prior to issuance of development permits. Oversight of implementation by the City of Palo Alto Department of Pre-construction surveys shall be completed prior to the start of site clearing and construction activities and prior to the issuance of grading permits; Edgewood Plaza Project (2080 Channing Avenue), Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5 of 16 City of Palo Alto February 2012 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Edgewood Plaza Project, 2080 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto Palo -00198, State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030 Alto File No. 08PLN-00157/10PLN Environmental Impacts Responsibility for Compliance Method of Compliance and Oversight of Implementation Timing of Compliance Mitigation Measures than 30 days prior to tree removal or pruning, if the activity will occur within the breeding season (February 1 – August 31). If more than 30 days pass between the completion of the preconstruction survey and the initiation of construction activities, the preconstruction survey shall be completed again and repeated at 30 day intervals until construction activities are initiated. If an active nest is observed, tree removal and pruning shall be postponed until all the young have fledged. An exclusion zone shall be established around the nest site, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Exclusion zones for active passerine (songbirds) nests shall have a 50-foot radius centered on the nest tree or shrub. Active nests shall be monitored weekly until the young fledge. No construction activities, parking, staging, material storage, or other disturbance shall be allowed within the exclusion zones until the young have fledged from the nest. Planning and Community Environment. monitoring and observations shall continue through all site clearing, construction and excavation activities. Although not considered a significant impact, impacts to trees to remain on site and to public street trees could occur during project construction. CONDITION BIO-2.1: A Tree Preservation Report (TPR) will be prepared for trees to be preserved and protected, consistent with Policy N-7 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. 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. The TPR incorporate the following measures, safeguards and information: The TPR shall be based on latest plans and amended as needed to address activity or improvements within the dripline area, including but not limited to incidental work Project applicant and contractors. All measures will be required as conditions of approval of development permits, and will be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans prior to issuance of development permits. Oversight of implementation by the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment and Palo Alto City Urban Forester. The Tree Preservation Report shall be reviewed and approved by the City Urban Forester prior to the start of site clearing and construction activities and prior to issuance of building and/or tree removal permits; inspections by and reports to the City Edgewood Plaza Project (2080 Channing Avenue rting Program 6 of 16 City of Palo Alto February 2012 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Edgewood Plaza Project, 2080 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto Palo 98, State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030 ), Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Repo Alto File No. 08PLN-00157/10PLN-001 Environmental Impacts Responsibility for Compliance Method of Compliance and Oversight of Implementation Timing of Compliance Mitigation Measures (utilities trenching, street work, lighting, irrigation, patio material, leveling, etc.) that may affect the health of the trees. The project shall be modified to address TPR concerns and recommendations identified to minimize below ground or above ground impacts. The TPR shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the tree preservation ordinance, PAMC 8.10.030 and the City’s Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00, 4.00 and 6.30 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/ environment/urban_canopy.asp. To avoid improvements that may be detrimental to the health of the trees the City Urban Forester shall review the applicant's landscape plan to ensure that patio flat work, irrigation, planting or potted plants is consistent with the Tree Technical Manual. The approved TPR shall be implemented in full, including mandatory inspections and monthly reporting to City Urban Forester. CONDITION BIO-2.2: Provide optimum public tree replacement for loss of one or more public street trees. Publicly owned trees are growing in the right-of-way along Saint Francis Drive, Channing Avenue, and West Bayshore Road. Provide mitigation in the event of a public tree removal. The new frontage should be provided maximum streetscape design and materials to include the following elements: Consistency with the Public Works Department Tree Management Program. Provide adequate room for tree canopy growth and root growing volume resources. Create conflict-free planting sites by locating tree sites and underground utility services at least 10-feet apart (electric, gas, sewer, Urban Forester, required tree replacement, and Best Management Practices shall continue through all construction activities, including all landscaping. Edgewood Plaza Project (2080 Channing Avenue), Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 7 of 16 City of Palo Alto February 2012 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Edgewood Plaza Project, 2080 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto Palo LN-00198, State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030 Alto File No. 08PLN-00157/10P Environmental Impacts Responsibility for Compliance Method of Compliance and Oversight of Implementation Timing of Compliance Mitigation Measures water, fiber optic, telecom, etc.). Utilize city-approved best management practices for sustainability products, such as permeable ADA sidewalk, Silva Cell planters, engineered soil mix base, generous planter soil volume (800 to 1,200 cubic feet) to sustain a medium to large tree. Hazardous Materials Impact HAZ-1: Excavation during construction of the proposed project could expose construction workers and others to residual hazardous materials contamination in soil and groundwater. MM HAZ-1.1: Considering the property will be redeveloped and that potentially regulated soils may be encountered during site preparation activities, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared to reduce or eliminate exposure risk to human health and the environment. The SMP shall be developed to establish management practices for handling contaminated soil or other materials if encountered during construction activities. The SMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Palo Alto prior to commencing construction activities. MM HAZ-1.2: Each contractor working at the site shall prepare a health and safety plan (HSP) that addresses the safety and health hazards of each phase of site operations that includes the requirements and procedures for employee protection. MM HAZ-1.3: At the time Building 1 is moved, soil and groundwater samples, and/or soil vapor samples, if appropriate, shall be obtained from under 2125 Saint Francis Drive (the former Moon Cleaners) to ensure that soil exceeding the applicable levels for tetrachloroethene (PCE) and its breakdown products is not present within five feet of the ground surface. PCE-affected soil shall be removed by properly trained and licensed personnel and contractors, in conformance with Project applicant and contractors. All measures will be required as conditions of approval of development permits, and will be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans prior to issuance of development permits. Oversight of implementation by the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment and the City’s Building Division, and responsible agencies (e.g., the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, or Regional Water Quality Control Board), as appropriate. The Soil Management Plan (MM HAZ-1.1) and contingency plan (MM HAZ-1.5) shall be reviewed and approved prior to the start of construction and issuance of grading permits;each contractor’s Health and Safety Plan (MM HAZ-1.2) shall be submitted to the City prior to the contractor beginning any work on the site; all measures to address potential soil contamination at 2125 Saint Francis Drive (MM HAZ 1.3 and MM HAZ-1.4) shall be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit for that parcel. Edgewood Plaza Project (2080 Channing Avenue), Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 8 of 16 City of Palo Alto February 2012 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Edgewood Plaza Project, 2080 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto Palo Alto File No. 08PLN-00157/10PLN-00198, State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance Method of Compliance and Oversight of Implementation Timing of Compliance procedures in the soil management plan (MM HAZ-1) prior to paving the area. Contaminated soil will be handled by trained personnel using appropriate protective equipment and engineering controls, in accordance with local, state, and federal laws. An excavation base confirmation sample will be collected and analyzed to document sufficient soils removal. Documentation of removal of PCE-affected soil shall be provided to the City of Palo Alto and appropriate oversight agencies prior to installation of pavement in the parking lot area. MM HAZ-1.4: Excavated soils will be characterized prior to off-site disposal or reuse on- site. Appropriate soil characterization, storage, transportation, and disposal procedures shall be followed. Contaminated soils shall be disposed of at a licensed facility in accordance with all appropriate local, state, and federal regulations, in accordance with its characteristics. MM HAZ-1.5: The applicant shall prepare a contingency plan prior to the beginning of the project construction that will address any previously unknown sumps, hydraulic hoists, or tanks that may be present in the area of work. Impact HAZ-2: Renovation and relocation of project buildings could expose construction workers and sensitive receptors, including the surrounding residential uses, to lead- based paint and/or asbestos-containing materials (ACMs). MM HAZ-2.1: In conformance with local, state, and federal laws, an asbestos building survey and a lead-based paint survey shall be completed by a qualified professional to determine the presence of ACMs and/or lead-based paint on the structures proposed for renovation. The surveys shall be completed prior to work beginning on these structures. MM HAZ-2.2: A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose Project applicant and contractors. All measures will be required as conditions of approval of development permits, and will be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans prior to issuance of development permits. Oversight of implementation by the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment and the City’s Building ACM and lead- based paint surveys shall be completed prior to the start of construction and issuance of grading permits;ACM and lead-based paint removal and disposal shall be completed during Edgewood Plaza Project (2080 Channing Avenue), Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 9 of 16 City of Palo Alto February 2012 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Edgewood Plaza Project, 2080 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto Palo Alto File No. 08PLN-00157/10PLN-00198, State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance Method of Compliance and Oversight of Implementation Timing of Compliance of all potentially friable asbestos-containing materials, in accordance with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines, prior to building relocation or renovation that may disturb the materials. All construction activities shall be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards, contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Materials containing more than one percent asbestos are also subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations. MM HAZ-2.3: During renovation activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. Division. construction and excavation, on a schedule to be approved by City’s Building Division. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYDRO-1: Construction of the proposed residential units on the project site may expose people or structures to flooding risks. MM HYDRO-1.1: Construction of the proposed project on site will comply with the City of Palo Alto Flood Hazard Ordinance, including elevation of habitable spaces above anticipated flood levels, as listed in the Municipal Code, Section 16.52, Flood Hazard Regulations. All project plans must show the base flood elevations on all applicable elevations, sections, and details, and must comply with all other requirements as listed in the ordinance. MM HYDRO-1.2: Construction of the proposed project on site will comply with the requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for Project applicant and contractors. All measures will be required as conditions of approval of development permits, and will be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans prior to issuance of development permits. Oversight of implementation by the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment and the City’s Building Division, and/or Public Works Department. Prior to the start of construction and issuance of grading permits, during construction and excavation. Edgewood Plaza Project (2080 Channing Avenue), Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 10 of 16 City of Palo Alto February 2012 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Edgewood Plaza Project, 2080 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto Palo Alto File No. 08PLN-00157/10PLN-00198, State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance Method of Compliance and Oversight of Implementation Timing of Compliance flood hazard areas. Impact HYDRO-2: Construction activities could temporarily increase pollutant loads in stormwater runoff. MM HYDRO-2.1: Erosion and Sedimentation Control. The following erosion and sediment control measures, based upon Best Management Practices recommended by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, shall be included in the project to reduce potential construction-related water quality impacts. Many of these measures are the same as or similar to measures required to reduce air quality impacts. Erosion and sedimentation control plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Stormwater inlet protection will be installed around storm drain inlets to keep sediment and other debris out of the stormwater drainage system. All exposed or disturbed soil surfaces will be watered at least twice daily to control dust as necessary. Earthmoving or other dust-producing activities will be suspended during periods of high winds (instantaneous gusts exceed 25 miles per hour). Stockpiles of soil or other materials that can be blown by the wind will be watered or covered. All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials will be covered and all trucks will be required to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas adjacent to the construction sites will be swept daily with water sweepers. Vegetation in disturbed areas will be Project applicant and contractors. All measures will be required as conditions of approval of development permits, and will be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans prior to issuance of development permits. Oversight of implementation by the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment and the Department of Public Works. Prior to the start of construction and issuance of grading permits, during construction and excavation. Edgewood Plaza Project (2080 Channing Avenue), Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 11 of 16 City of Palo Alto February 2012 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Edgewood Plaza Project, 2080 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto Palo PLN-00198, State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030 Alto File No. 08PLN-00157/10 Environmental Impacts Responsibility for Compliance Method of Compliance and Oversight of Implementation Timing of Compliance Mitigation Measures replanted as quickly as possible. MM HYDRO-2.2: Post-Construction Mitigation. The following mitigation measures, based on RWQCB Best Management Practices and City of Palo Alto requirements, are included in the proposed project to ensure compliance with NPDES permit requirements to reduce post- construction water quality impacts: All onsite trash enclosures shall have roofs. Storm runoff from the site shall be treated prior to discharge to the City of Palo Alto stormwater system. (Treatment may or may not include the use of mechanical devices.) An annual post-construction maintenance agreement shall be prepared and submitted to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading or building permits. The commercial development shall implement regular maintenance activities (i.e., litter control and maintaining on-site drainage facilities) to prevent soil and litter from accumulating on the project site and contaminating surface runoff. Landscape maintenance shall employ minimal pesticide use, including landscape maintenance techniques listed in the Fact Sheet on Landscape Maintenance Techniques for Pest Reduction prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. Noise Impact NOISE-1: Future residential uses on the site could be exposed to noise levels above Palo Alto standards for residential uses. MM NOISE-1.1: Sound-rated windows, doors, and exterior wall assemblies will be used in residential building construction to reduce interior noise from outdoor sources to the 45 dB DNL and Lmax 50/55 dB criteria. Specific details and sound Project applicant and contractors. All measures will be required as conditions of approval of development permits, and will be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans prior to Proposed noise control treatements shall be submitted to Building Division prior to the start of Edgewood Plaza Project (2080 Channing Avenue), Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 12 of 16 City of Palo Alto February 2012 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Edgewood Plaza Project, 2080 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto Palo Alto File No. 08PLN-00157/10PLN-00198, State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance Method of Compliance and Oversight of Implementation Timing of Compliance insulation ratings shall be determined during the design phase, when the final site, grading and floor plans, and exterior elevations have been determined. An acoustical consultant shall review drawings during the design phase and finalize appropriate noise control treatments, which will be submitted to the City of Palo Alto Building Division along with the building plans, and approved prior to issuance of building permits. MM NOISE-1.2: Dual pane windows and doors with equal glass thicknesses can have resonances that result in audible tones indoors. Acoustical test reports of all sound rated windows and doors shall be reviewed by an acoustical consultant, and compared with traffic noise spectrums, prior to approval. MM NOISE-1.3: Since windows will have to be closed to maintain the interior noise goals, “ventilation or air conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment,” even with windows closed, shall be included in the project (i.e., windows shall not be relied upon for ventilation). MM NOISE-1.4: Overall outdoor noise in yards is expected to be between DNL 60 and 65 dBA, based on a combination of local and distant transportation sources. Since the proposed residences would include private fenced yards, six- foot tall noise barriers shall be incorporated where plans currently show walls or fences separating private yards from the adjacent roadways. Barriers should be solid from bottom to top with no cracks or gaps, and a minimum surface density of three pounds per square foot. issuance of development permits. Oversight of implementation by the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment and the City’s Building Division. construction and issuance of grading permits and building permits; implementation of noise control treatments and requirements for residential uses shall be completed prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy . The City's Noise Ordinance limits noise MM NOISE-1.5: Residential mechanical Project applicant All measures will be required as part Compliance shall be Edgewood Plaza Project (2080 Channing Avenue), Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 13 of 16 City of Palo Alto February 2012 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Edgewood Plaza Project, 2080 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto Palo Alto File No. 08PLN-00157/10PLN-00198, State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance Method of Compliance and Oversight of Implementation Timing of Compliance from mechanical equipment to 53 dBA at the residential property lines and 55 dBA at the commercial property line. The following mitigation measure would be included in the project to further reduce any potential impacts from this equipment. equipment shall be selected and located to meet the property line limits in the City’s Noise Ordinance. If determined to be necessary during the design phase and the acoustical review described in MM NOISE-1.1, additional measures may consist of equipment barriers and/or enclosures. and contractors. of development permits, and will be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans prior to issuance of development permits. Oversight of implementation by the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment and the City’s Building Division. confirmed prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for the residential structures Impact NOISE-2: Commercial activities on the site could result in a significant noise impact at the proposed residential units. MM NOISE-2.1: Measures shall be included in the renovation of the commercial buildings to reduce noise impacts at nearby residences, in conformance with the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance. These measures would be finalized during the design phase and acoustical analysis (as described in Mitigation Measure MM NOISE-1.1), submitted to the City of Palo Alto Building Division along with the building plans, and approved prior to issuance of building permits. These measures could include: Solid noise barriers along the north and east sides (the eastern wall extending south alongside delivery trucks) of the loading dock, combined with a shed roof. These barriers would reduce the estimated noise levels from unloading activities to the allowable limits in the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance. The roof and walls shall be lined with a sound absorbing material (for example, perforated metal panels, such as Kinetics KNP, or a spray on material, such as Pyrok Acoustement 40, applied to a thickness of 1- 1/2”). MM NOISE-2.2: Trucks entering and leaving the Project applicant and contractors. All measures will be required as part of development permits, and will be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans prior to issuance of development permits. Oversight of implementation by the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment and the City’s Building Division. Prior to the issuance of building permits, during project operations. Edgewood Plaza Project (2080 Channing Avenue), Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 14 of 16 City of Palo Alto February 2012 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Edgewood Plaza Project, 2080 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto Palo Alto File No. 08PLN-00157/10PLN-00198, State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance Method of Compliance and Oversight of Implementation Timing of Compliance site must pass close to a residential property line. As they do, they are likely to exceed the noise ordinance limits. Although it may not be feasible to completely eliminate this noise, the following measures would reduce this impact. Limit deliveries to daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) Communicate to vendors that their drivers will be operating close to residences, so they limit noise (e.g., avoid excess idling, high engine speeds, un-necessary backing, etc.) Provide a full disclosure statement to the owners of residential Lots #9 and #10 to make them aware that trucks entering and leaving the site may generate noise levels in excess of the Noise Ordinance limits. This disclosure would be incorporated by the project applicant into the deeds for these residential properties. Impact NOISE-3: Noise from rooftop mechanical equipment for the retail buildings may exceed the noise standards at adjacent residential properties on the Edgewood Plaza site. MM NOISE-3.1: Mechanical equipment shall be selected, designed, and located so as to minimize impacts on adjacent and nearby residential uses. This can be accomplished by locating noise- generating equipment away from residential uses or by providing acoustical shielding. Preliminary estimates suggest that solid rooftop screens or noise barriers will be needed. An acoustical specialist will review the mechanical equipment plans prior to construction to confirm that the City’s Noise Ordinance would be met at the residential property line. These plans will be submitted to the City of Palo Alto Building Division, and approved prior to issuance of building permits. Project applicant and contractors. All measures will be required as part of development permits, and will be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans prior to issuance of development permits. Oversight of implementation by the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment and the City’s Building Division. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Noise levels generated by construction activities on the site would not be expected to adversely affect adjacent land CONDITION NOISE-4.1: The following mitigation measures are included in the project to further reduce construction noise impacts on Project applicant and contractors. All measures will be required as part of development permits, and will be printed on all construction documents, Prior to the start of construction and issuance of grading Edgewood Plaza Project (2080 Channing Avenue), Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 15 of 16 City of Palo Alto February 2012 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Edgewood Plaza Project, 2080 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto Palo Alto File No. 08PLN-00157/10PLN-00198, State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance Method of Compliance and Oversight of Implementation Timing of Compliance uses provided the project conforms to the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, and standard construction best management practices are implemented at the site. Although not identified as a significant impact, the project includes the following measures as conditions of approval. neighboring properties: Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment; Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; Route construction related traffic to and from the site via designated truck routes and avoid residential streets where possible; Utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists; Locate all stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors and portable power generators, as far away as possible from adjacent land uses; Shield adjacent sensitive uses from stationary equipment with individual noise barriers or partial acoustical enclosures; Temporary noise barriers (e.g., solid plywood fences (minimum 8 feet in height) and/or acoustical blankets could be erected, if necessary, along affected property boundaries facing the construction site. This mitigation would only be necessary if conflicts occurred which were irresolvable by proper scheduling. Noise control blanket barriers can be rented and quickly erected; Locate staging areas and construction material storage areas as far away as possible from adjacent sensitive land uses; Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures warranted contracts, and project plans prior to issuance of development permits. Oversight of implementation by the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment and the City’s Building Division. permits, and during construction and excavation. Edgewood Plaza Project (2080 Channing Avenue), Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 16 of 16 City of Palo Alto February 2012 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Edgewood Plaza Project, 2080 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto Palo 98, State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030 Alto File No. 08PLN-00157/10PLN-001 Environmental Impacts Responsibility for Compliance Method of Compliance and Oversight of Implementation Timing of Compliance Mitigation Measures to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule; Hold a preconstruction meeting with the job inspectors and the general contractor/on-site project manager to confirm that noise mitigation and practices (including construction hours, construction schedule, and noise coordinator) are completed. Transportation and Traffic Impact TRANS-1: Project traffic would cause a significant impact at the Wildwood Lane-North California Avenue and Embarcadero Road unsignalized intersection. MM TRANS-1.1: Because of signal spacing considerations, a traffic signal is not recommended at this intersection. To mitigate this impact, the proposed project will restripe Embarcadero Road to create a left turn receiving lane. As part of the project left turn lane improvements at the Embarcadero Road/Saint Francis Drive intersection, a left turn receiving area will be built at Wildwood Lane. This will facilitate outbound left turns and reduce left turn delay, which would reduce the project impact to a less than significant level. Project applicant. Oversight of implementation by the City’s Department of Community Environment and Transportation Division. Following project approval and prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for residential uses. _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 1 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes Wednesday, October 26, 2011 EXCERPT 1. 2080 Channing Avenue: Public hearing to accept comments from the public and the 7 Commission related to the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) 8 prepared for the request by Sand Hill Properties for a Planned Community proposal for the 9 Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center for the renovation of the three existing Eichler retail structures, on-site relocation of one of the retail structures, construction of 10 new single- family homes, and creation of a 0.22 acre park. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared. Zone District: PC-1643. 10 11 12 13 14 Chair Martinez: October 26, 2011 meeting of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission. Secretary to the Commission Betten please call roll. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. Chair Martinez: Thank you. We’ll begin this evening with what is known as Oral Communications where members of the public are encouraged to speak on items that are not on the agenda. You are given three minutes to speak. During the last minute the yellow light will come on warning you to bring your comments to a close and we have several speakers tonight. Vice-Chair Garber please read them in order. 24 25 26 27 28 29 Vice-Chair Garber: We have four speakers this evening. John Morris to be followed by Ben Linder then Vanessa Davies and Tench Coxe. Mr. Morris. 30 31 32 Mr. John Morris: Thank you. Good evening. I feel the need to express my continuing frustration regarding AT&Ts unchanged design for their proposed residential cellular transmitters. On August 4th our city’s Architectural Review Board made it clear to AT&T that they needed to see two or three design options in order to proceed any further with a decision on AT&Ts proposal. In September, AT&T provided the city with a new proposal which includes designs that appear to be exactly the same as what was previously rejected by the ARB. Where are the new design options that the ARB instructed AT&T to provide? 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 The reason the ARB rejected the original design is because they objected to it esthetically. In a word, the design is ugly. Should it be any surprise to AT&T that there is now an even larger number of residents that find that same design to continue to be ugly? It was ugly then, it is ugly now and will continue to be ugly as long as AT&T stonewalls the city and its residents with the same ugly design. I know that many residents have written letters to city and AT&T representatives. I’d like to know how and what the actual response rate has been. My household has been waiting for an answer to our design option question from Clear Campbell and the Planning Department since September 29th. We finally received a letter of apology from AT&T _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 2 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 last week stating they were having difficulty responding to all of the letters they received from residents. I have to assume that the various city departments involved have merely been forwarding resident’s written inquiries to AT&T hoping AT&T would respond in a responsible manner. All I can say is we’re still waiting for the design options and how many transmitters, really. First nine, now twenty, then sixty more, as is proposed. Then what? How many? Is one ugly? Is sixty ugly? Is 120 ugly? Is 400 ugly? It seems to me that if the design is esthetically unacceptable then there needs to be a design change and we’re looking forward to improving cellular reception in our city, absolutely, but not with this design. Thank you. Vice-Chair Garber: Ben Linder to be followed by Vanessa Davies. 11 12 Mr. Ben Linder: Hi my name is Ben Linder. I live at 1650 Waverly Street. My across the street neighbors, John and Cynthia Gunn and my next door neighbor Fabio Rosati all will look quite directly at this lovely AT&T distributed antenna system tower that is slighted to go in front of our house. My point, and I will answer John’s question about how many, but AT&T wants to put up 80 towers in our city. Because they are claiming this is a public right of way therefore they don’t need your permission. The only permission they need is the ARBs permission. This city will not be able to discriminate against the other four carriers in the area. 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 So let’s just assume all five carriers, Verizon, Sprint, Metro PCS, T-Mobile, they’ll all want 80 towers also. We’ll have 400 towers in the city and then we’ll have some alternative carrier who may want to provide other services for us who will also argue that they should be allowed to put things on top of our electrical poles. So the problem we have is that without a master plan, without logical planned out way to deploy this technology through the city we are going to have chaos. Not only are we going to have chaos, but potential liability because everyone is going to want to put antennas on our light poles because of this precedent. I represent a group called Palo Alto Citizens for a Responsible Wireless Plan. Over 120 Palo Alto residents have signed this petition which I will give the secretary to enter into the record. I will read it: Please halt the construction of the AT&T DAS system and create a wireless master plan. Halt the construction of the DAS system. The citizens of Palo Alto demand a responsible and deliberate plan to provide us with the best possible wireless service while preserving the character of our neighborhoods. We live in a city where we need this building’s permission to chop down 20% of an Oak tree. We should take the time and effort to find the right technology, the right way to deploy it, and to find the right way to deliver excellent service to all the residents of Palo Alto without a chaotic deployment of these antennas. Very short sided and chaotic deployment not to mention ugly and noisy given the information AT&T has provided us. Thank you very much. Vice-Chair Garber: Thank you. Vanessa Davies to be followed by Tench Coxe. 41 42 Ms. Vanessa Davies: Thank you. If my neighbor wanted to remodel his or her home and put an ugly and noisy parched monstrosity in their front yard I’d have a significant say on what they could or could not do if it impacted my home yet AT&T announced they want to place a humming antenna 40 feet from my home and it appears they are on the fast track for approval. 43 44 45 46 47 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 3 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I’ve yet to hear from anyone associated with the city why it appears that they are valuing corporate interests over their residents. I understand that some of the City Council and commissions believe we don’t want to fall back in technology. We’re Silicon Valley so we should be on the cutting edge but there is nothing new about this DAS antenna technology. All it is is the current technology on a much more intrusive scale. AT&T has stated there are no better options for the city and it appears everyone has taken their word and their paid consultants. This is a fact. There are no technical reasons why additional antennas cannot be placed in commercial areas. It’s simply a financial matter for AT&T. If the cities insists they be placed in commercial areas as is the case now AT&T will abide and will just cost AT&T a bit more to set it up, that’s all. These noisy and ugly antennas do not belong perched over residential homes. They belong in the many commercial areas available in Palo Alto. Thank you. Vice-Chair Garber: Thank you. Our final speaker, Tenche Coxe. 15 16 Mr. Tenche Coxe: Hi my name is Tenche Coxe and I’ve been in the venture capital business in Palo Alto for the last 25 years and I’ve done a lot of telecommunications investing. I’m here to talk about this DAS system at well. You may already know this but these antennas are quite obtrusive. On top of 80 telephone poles AT&T is asking to put these systems, their 9 feet tall, 7 feet across with 2 five gallon essentially dipole antennas spread on either side and then beneath them would be the equipment that has the fans at 12 feet up from the street. The length from here is 12 feet of equipment and it’s about 6 inches thick here. This about 12 inches thick so their quite large. I got into this because I got one of these notices that said they’re coming. It is 80 proposed antennas and the reason I’m here in addition to the fact that they’re ugly is I am in the venture capital industry and I see Wi-Fi coming. Cisco, Erickson and a bunch of start-ups are about to obsolete the technology AT&T wants to put on those telephone poles using Wi-Fi and I just think it will be a real shame because when I first moved to Palo Alto I lived in Southgate and I remember what a great thing it was when we succeeded in getting that power underground. I realize the city has huge budget challenges but I do think we still have a goal in the long run of undergrounding power and I think that putting these DAS systems on top of these telephone poles goes exactly against that goal and moreover the real issue to me, I don’t understand, I think we can all save AT&T a lot of money. These are truly going to be obsolete in a couple of years. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 I got a quote here from the CTO at Cisco who said the other day that Wi-Fi service will become a much more valuable tool for wireless carriers in the coming year as they work to make connectivity more seamless and ubiquitous according to Cisco Systems Wireless Technology Chief Bob Friday. I know this stuff because I’m living it. I’m on the board of companies that are enabling it. Two- thirds of calls originate in homes or businesses or places where there is Wi-Fi and the technology for making it seamless and roamable so you can use it in your car is imminent. The issue with Wi-Fi or the beauty is it’s the size of a shoebox but they’re a hundredth of the cost of a DAS system. There are cities all over the world that are now deploying Wi-Fi meshed Wi-Fi networks and they don’t have any 3G or 4G or DAS. They are just using meshed Wi-Fi networks and places like Bangalore have perfect coverage so I’m thinking to sum up I just want to let you guys know that we’re going backwards and we shouldn’t let this thing happen. _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 4 of 30 1 1. 2080 Channing Avenue [10PLN-00198]: Public hearing to accept comments from the 2 public and the Commission related to the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for the request by Sand Hill Properties for a Planned Community proposal for the Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center for the renovation of the three existing Eichler retail structures, on-site relocation of one of the retail structures, construction of 10 new single-family homes, and creation of a 0.22 acre park. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared. Zone District: PC- 1643. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Chair Martinez: Thank you all. We cannot comment on items that aren’t agendized but I want to let you know we appreciate you coming forward. We have one agenda item for this evening, 2080 Channing Avenue, also known as the Edgewood Plaza to receive public testimony on the draft Environment Impact Statement and with that I will open the public hearing and for a brief overview from staff. 11 12 13 14 15 16 Ms. Elena Lee, Senior Planner: Thank you Chair and Commissioners. The item before you tonight is a public hearing to accept public and commission comments on the draft EIR and prepare for the request for planned community rezoning. Following staff presentation the City’s EIR Consultant, Judy Fenerty of David J. Powers and Associates will make a short presentation that will also be followed by the City’s Historic Consultant, Charlie Duncan from Carey and Company. Also here tonight is a representative for the Historic Resources Board, Scott Smithwick to summarize the HRB’s recommendations from the October 19th hearing held on the project and the EIR. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 The project is also scheduled for formal review by the Architectural Review Board on Thursday, November 3rd, 2011. The purpose of tonight’s hearing is to solicit and receive comments regarding the EIR at a public hearing and assist the City to prepare responses for the final EIR as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. A subsequent hearing on the project itself following the HRB hearing and recommendation on November the 3rd will return to the Commission along with the EIR for a formal hearing and recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission hearing is tentatively scheduled for November 30th. The draft Environmental Impact Report was released for a 45 day circulation period per the requirements of the CEQA on September the 30th through November 14th, 2011. Ms. Fenerty will discuss the process. Comments are requested no later than the close of business on November the 14th to allow adequate time for the preparation of the final EIR. The draft EIR identified ten impacts with mitigation measures which will reduce them to a less than significant level. Those impacts consist of archaeological or paleontological resources, air quality, biological hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality along with noise and transportation resources. The DEIR identified three significant unavoidable impacts for cultural resources related to the two buildings and the shopping center as a whole as it relates as a historic resource. Although mitigation measures were identified the impacts were not reduced to a less than significant level. Certification of the EIR would require adoption of overriding considerations. As stated earlier, the EIR and the project were heard by the HRB on October 19th. The Board found that the EIR adequately addressed historic impacts and recommended approval of the project. The Board also recommended that the DEIR be amended to reflect their assessment that _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 5 of 30 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 with the addition of the mitigation measures such as compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation that the historic resource impacts have been reduced to a less than significant level. Some members of HRB also expressed that mitigation measures to require the Historic American Building Survey and the Eichler display were not necessary. At the time of preparation of the packet and included in your packet are two comment letters received regarding the draft EIR. Responses to all comment letters received will be included in the final EIR. One of the letters was a no comment letter from the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health and a second letter was received from a member of the public which is included in the packet. A third communication was received from the Department of Toxic Substance Control requesting a copy of a subservice investigation report. The letter from the member of the public which will be addressed in depth in the final EIR expressed concerns primarily about parking and specifically about parking at the adjacent building at 1101 Embarcadero Road which is not actually part of this project. As indicated in the Staff Report analysis about parking and transportation has been completed for the project and there was only one impact identified which would be reduced to a less than significant impact related to traffic. The project proposed is to provide 156 parking spaces in two tandem stalls and as discussed the property is also subject to recorded easement for the benefit of that adjacent office building referenced in the letter. The easement requires a provision of 16 non-exclusive parking stalls and access for use by the occupants of the adjacent building. The 156 or 158 counting the two tandem spaces includes the 16 non-exclusive parking stalls per the agreement. The project is therefore providing the required parking stalls per the municipal code. Detailed discussion about parking will be provided with a formal hearing on the project on November the 30th. Next to speak is Judy Fenerty of David J. Powers followed by Charlie Duncan of Carey and Company and then followed by the HRB Board Member Scott Smithwick. Thank you. Ms. Judy Fenerty, David Powers & Associates: Good evening Commission Chair and Commissioners. My name is Judy Fenerty and I am a Project Manager with David J. Powers and Associates. Our firm is assisting this lead agency of the City of Palo Alto with preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Edgewood Plaza Project at 2080 Channing Avenue. This evening I am going to provide an overview of the purpose of preparing an EIR and the steps in the EIR process. The California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA was adopted in 1970 with the purpose of ensuring decision makers such as the Planning Commission or City Council consider the environmental consequences of their actions. The Edgewood Plaza Project Environmental Review was initiated first in 2008. Because their was evidence that the project could result in a significant effect on the environment that would not be reduced to a less than significant level with the mitigation proposed, an environmental impact was prepared. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 The purpose of preparing and Environmental Impact Report is to provide information and objective analysis to the public and decision makers of the environmental consequences of the proposed project. An EIR provides responsible agencies and the public with detailed information of the effects of a proposed project and identifies ways in which the significant effects might be minimized and identifies alternatives to a project that could avoid or reduce the significance of those environmental impacts. _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 6 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 An EIR describes the environmental effects of the project and is not a document that advocates for approval or denial of a particular project. How are these environmental effects defined? For the purposes of CEQA the environmental means the physical conditions that exist within the area that will be affected by a proposed project. These conditions include land, air, water, plants, wildlife, noise and objects of historic or cultural significance or esthetic significance. A number of steps are required as part of the environmental review or CEQA process. In the case of the Edgewood Plaza Project a draft initial study was first prepared to focus the EIR on the effects determined to be significant. Following that, a Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR was prepared and circulated to responsible agencies and the public. The Notice of Preparation requests a response on the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the draft EIR. This process assists the lead agency with defining the scope of the analysis. For the Edgewood Project a Notice of Preparation draft EIR was sent out to the city in February 2011 for 30 days. The next step is preparation of the draft EIR itself. Draft EIR includes an evaluation of environmental effects of a proposed project based on project plans and project information submitted to the city by the project applicants. Draft EIR includes discussions of individual subject areas and assessment whether the project would result in a significant impact under CEQA that is evaluated based on the city’s threshold of significance listed in each section. The Edgewood Draft EIR began circulation on September 30th for 45 days and circulation will end on November 14th. In addition to describing the existing environmental setting of the project area and the environmental impacts of a proposed project the draft EIR would also include a discussion of mitigation measures that could reduce those impacts based on the city’s thresholds of significance. The EIR also includes a discussion of the consistency of the proposed project with programs and plans such as the city’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance and also includes identification of alternatives to the project. The purpose of the alternative section is to determine whether there are alternatives of design, scope and location that will substantially lessen identified significant impacts while meeting most of the basic objectives of the project. This draft EIR of the Edgewood Plaza Project describes two significant historic resources impacts. The first one is the relocation of retail building 1 and the marquee sign for Edgewood Plaza which would alter the overall site design and characteristics of the plaza. The other one is construction of ten new single family houses which would also alter the overall site design and characteristics of the plaza. Significant environmental impacts for Edgewood Plaza that were identified as being reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation measures include a subsurface or buried cultural resources, construction impacts to air quality, water quality and nesting raptors. Hazardous materials impacts during construction activities, ambient noise levels and operational noise, flooding risks and a traffic impact at one unsignalized intersection. In addition, Conditions of Approval are described in the draft EIR to further reduce less than significant construction impacts to trees and impacts from construction noise. The draft EIR once completed is generally required to circulate for 45 public review period. During the review period, agencies and the public may submit comments on the analysis and the draft EIR to the city. Comments to the draft EIR can be submitted in writing and for this project the city is also taking verbal and _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 7 of 30 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 written comments in the contents of the draft EIR at this Planning and Transportation Commission meeting. Upon completion of the public comment period which will be on November 14th, the next step in the Environmental Review Process is preparation of written responses to comments in the draft EIR where the responses to comments make important changes to the information provided in the text of the draft EIR text revisions are made. The responses to comments and any text revisions are incorporated into a final EIR document which is circulated for a minimum of ten days prior to any action on the proposed project. The draft EIR and responses to comments which together constitute the final EIR are considered by the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council prior to project approval. Before project approval the final EIR must be certified. Certification of the EIR is the adoption of a resolution by the City Council that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and that the final EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis. Please note that certification of the draft EIR is not the same thing as project approval. In addition to submitting written comments on the draft EIR during the public circulation period which is currently underway, the public can also provide comments to decision makers regarding the final EIR at a hearing or hearings on certification of the EIR. Comments submitted after the November 14th close of circulation may not receive written responses. That completes my overview of the purpose of the EIR and the CEQA process. The last slide is a calendar of schedule of where we are currently and what meetings have been scheduled going forward. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Before we go further I just want to let the public know that if you care to speak on this item, there is a speaker card at the back of the room to be filled out and there’s still time to turn them in if you wish to speak. I think they’re on the table. Thank you. 26 27 28 29 Vice-Chair Garber: Staff was there a second speaker for the applicant? 30 31 Mr. Charlie Duncan: Good evening Chair Martinez and Commissioners. My name is Charlie Duncan. I’m an Architect with Carey and Company. My city of residence of Richmond, California where I am the Chairman of the Planning Commission so it’s instructive to be on the other side of the dice tonight. I’ll be brief. I don’t think there’s a lot to say however at the onset… 32 33 34 35 36 37 Ms. Fenerty: Sorry if I may, I wanted to clarify that Charlie represents part of the City’s consultant team, not the applicant consultant team. 38 39 40 Mr. Duncan: We were the contributors to the cultural resources chapter in your EIR. At the outset there was a difference of opinion as to the historicity of the site between Page and Turnbull who is the applicant’s preservation architect and Carey and Company which is the city’s consultant. Paige and Turnbull viewed the site as a group of three buildings, objects, and made their analysis on that basis. However, when we walked the site it was very apparent to us that it wasn’t the architecture of the buildings, but it was the siding and the location and the spatial relationships between those buildings that made the site significant because it was a very fine example of post war suburban American planning and not only did it extend across the site 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 8 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 itself beyond the building but into the neighborhood because there is an Eichler neighborhood beyond. They are all connected. So our analysis in the EIR had to do with not only the buildings but the broader context having to do with the site. As it panned out, I think the EIR as its been written with mitigation measures encompasses those two opinions, acknowledges them. I think the analysis is accurate, it’s been handed and I think you have all the tools you need to make a decision. Especially with impact CR2 and CR3 which are significant unavoidable impacts which will automatically assume that the overriding consideration and process is engaged if we move forward with this project but I believe the EIR is complete and you have the tools you need to make the decision and recommend to City Council. I can answer any questions if you like. Chair Martinez: I believe we’re going to hold our questions until the end. 13 14 Mr. Scott Smithwick: Good evening. My name is Scott Smithwick. I am a member of the HRB since this past May. I am also an Architect by profession and I’m here as the HRB’s representative. The report that staff has outlined for you summarizes our Board’s discussion last week but I just wanted to recap it for you. Our Board, just to let you know, voted six to one in favor of this project and the majority of our Board felt that the EIR was done very well but we felt that the relocation of building 2 with the plan that Page and Turnbull had put into place in the documents that we reviewed was entirely appropriate and met the Secretary of Interior standards and because of that, we felt that the project should be approved with less than significant impact. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 While we agreed with Carey and Company that the site is important, it is a good early example of suburban planning. We also felt that just because something is old, original and intact didn’t necessarily make it a good design or successful design and we feel very strongly that the relocation of building 1 is extremely important for this project to be viable in today’s world from the site planning standpoint and to achieve the applicant’s goals. We are also very, very happy that we did not see this complex of buildings torn down which it easily could have been. Just to also mention, because we felt that the project as proposed was less than significant we did not agree with placing the three mitigation measures which are on page 11 in your report for the HAB survey, the display and the additional review by the building department so that concludes my comments. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Thank you Scott. Anyone else? I wanted to hear from our City Attorney, Don. 36 37 Mr. Donald Larkin, Senior Asst. City Attorney: Thank you. Chair Martinez had asked me to talk a little bit about what the Commission’s role and purview is tonight and the primary purpose of the hearing tonight is to hear from members of the public and give them an opportunity to comment on the DEIR but its also an opportunity for members of the Commission to comment and to ask questions. Unlike a lot of the items the quasi-judicial items that come before the Commission, your purview tonight is not limited to just making findings but you are able to comment on any aspect of the DEIR, not just those aspects of the DEIR that relate to the Commission’s normal purview however tonight is not the time to give direction to the applicant or to receive substantive responses to questions. That will happen when the item comes back for formal recommendations by the Commission and substantive responses to the comments will be handled as part of the final EIR. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 9 of 30 1 Ms. French: I’m just going to add that the applicant John Tze is here in the audience but he is not planning to present the project but he is here for questions. 2 3 4 Chair Martinez: Okay, with that I am going to go to the Commission, if you have questions before we go to the public. Commissioner Tuma. 5 6 7 Commissioner Tuma: I had a few questions for our City Attorney and just a little bit about procedure here. Are we taking an action tonight or simply making comment? 8 9 10 Mr. Larkin: It’s primarily making comment. You aren’t taking action except to forward the DEIR on and continue. The comment period will remain open until November 14th so no formal action is being taken tonight. 11 12 13 14 Commissioner Tuma: The second question has to do with the process leading up to potentially a statement of overriding consideration. If I heard right, I just heard two different opinions about whether a statement of overriding consideration is necessary here. The first that it is necessary because of the site and the second that it is not necessary because the mitigations are adequate to reduce the impact below a significant threshold. Is that sort of fair about where we are on that issue? 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Mr. Larkin: That issue would come back as part of the final EIR so that’s a fair assessment of where we are. 22 23 24 Commissioner Tuma: In terms of a statement of overriding consideration, are there criteria? Is there a specific standard? How do we go about analyzing? I assume it is somewhat of a balancing of the impact that would not be mitigated versus valuing the project moving forward, but are there specific legal criteria or specific criteria that we are going to use to make that decision or recommendation as far as whether an overriding consideration should be applied in this situation? 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Mr. Larkin: I think, and I may oversimplify this because we’ll come back with more detail when it comes back, but essentially it’s a balancing test and there are criteria that would be analyzed and there are circumstances in which its not possible to make a statement of overriding consideration so we would come back with that formal analysis if and when that time comes. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 And actually there might be an opportunity, Rick Jarvis who was our outside CEQA legal consultant is in the audience and maybe he can, if you want more specifics on that, he can probably answer that. Commissioner Tuma: To me it might be helpful because we get a sense for where we might be going with respect to if we get to the issue of having to decide such a statement is necessary to understand what the criteria would be, I’d love to hear it from the consultant but is there anything about this in the Staff Report? The criteria or analysis we would go through? 41 42 43 44 45 Ms. Lee: For the purposes of overriding considerations no there isn’t. That would come back to you November 30th. 46 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 10 of 30 Mr. Larkin: It’s a little bit premature which is why it’s not in the Staff Report but I think if it’s helpful it’s a good thing for Rick to explain. 1 2 3 Commissioner Tuma: To me it would be helpful to know and for the public to understand, if we go there what are we looking at factually in order to get to this balancing test so I realize we aren’t going to make that decision tonight but knowing where to probe and what to listen for and what questions to ask would be helpful. 4 5 6 7 8 Mr. Rick Jarvis: My name is Rick Jarvis, I’m the outside CEQA Attorney for the city. I can speak to the issue of the statement of overriding considerations. The threshold, CEQA requires analysis of what are the environmental impacts, what are the ways to mitigate those impacts and are there going to be any impacts that are going to remain significant and cannot be mitigated to a level below significance. The draft EIR identifies one such impact for this project and that’s the cultural resources historic impact and that’s a little bit of a weird situation because that determination was based on conflicting opinions. There was one opinion by an expert who said this was significant and unavoidable and another expert said it was possible to mitigate it. 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 The draft EIR for purposes of public disclosure and public review took the more conservative approach while at the same time still flagging that as an issue for the decision maker ultimately to decide whether this impact will be significant and avoidable or not. The Historic Resources Board just looked at it and they’ve concluded that they don’t think it’s significant and unavoidable. So if the decision maker, ultimately the City Council at the end of the day, accepts HRB’s position on that, then you will not even get to the point of having a statement of overriding considerations because there are no unmitigated impacts for this project. If, on the other hand, there is a significant and unavoidable impact such as the historic resource impact is found to be unavoidable, then what CEQA provides is the agency can still approve the project even if there’s a significant environmental impact but it has to explain what are the overriding considerations which justify approving the project notwithstanding that impact. There really isn’t that much of a standard for making that determination. It is really a policy determination for the City Council to make in weighing the apples and oranges. On one hand you’ve got this significant environmental impact. On the other hand you’ve got the benefit to the community of redeveloping this site so it really is an apples and oranges comparison where you can’t compare the two and the point of CEQA is not to prohibit the city or whatever agency from making that decision but to force them to disclose that. To force the city to go on record saying, yes there is a significant impact and we acknowledge that but we think it’s more important to have those benefits and you identify what those benefits are. Commissioner Tuma: Let me just ask one follow up question to that procedurally and that’s that would it be appropriate potentially for recommending body or deciding property to come to the conclusion that there is not an impact that can’t be mitigated however, if it was felt that there was an impact that couldn’t be mitigated, nonetheless we would come with a statement of overriding consideration, in other words a belt and suspender type of approach essentially protecting the city from some sort of attack there where you say it doesn’t rise to that level but even if it does we think its appropriate to take these things into consideration but approve the project. 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Jarvis: The short answer to that question is yes. I could debate the points of it. I mean if an agency at the one point is saying we don’t find it significant how much weight you give to the 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 11 of 30 1 2 3 4 agency’s finding that’s saying we think that something else is more important and overriding and there is no requirement that the agency do that next step of the analysis but there is nothing prohibiting the city from doing that. Chair Martinez: Okay, Commissioner Lippert. Before you speak I would like to kind of hold our comments and try to get to the public before it gets too late. Commissioner Lippert. 5 6 7 Commissioner Lippert: Mr. Jarvis, I have some questions along the same lines. There are subtle aspects of this report that I’m trying to get a handle on. Under the impact CR2 and CR3 it says the Edgewood Plaza is considered historically significant under federal, state and city criteria and then I go through the report and maybe I’m understanding this wrong but it doesn’t appear on the National Register of Historic Places. It’s not on the state inventory and it’s not designated under the city inventory so I’m trying to understand how it could be considered historically significant and yet it doesn’t appear on any of these resource lists. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Mr. Jarvis: It’s not uncommon. There could be any number of reasons why a particular structure might be deemed historically significant even though it hasn’t been officially designated as such and CEQA requires, obviously if its been designated then it automatically gets deemed significant but CEQA requires a next step of analysis to be done which is even if its not designated, some analysis of whether it meets the criteria for being designated, there could be any number of reasons why the steps weren’t taken to actually designate it but CEQA requires that you look at and evaluate the criteria for whether something is in fact significant and it is a factual determination at the end of the day for the city to make. You have two experts who do both agree that this shopping mall is a historic resource. From a lay perspective I can see debating that but at the end of the day it would be for the city to make that determination as to whether it’s significant or not. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Commissioner Lippert: As a follow up to that, under the CC&Rs for the site itself it states that it has to remain a shopping center but there is nothing in the CC&Rs that the buildings have to remain, it just has to remain as a shopping center. Is that correct? 28 29 30 31 Mr. Jarvis: I can’t speak to that. I might have to turn to staff for that. 32 33 Mr. Curtis Williams, Planning Director: They are actually private CC&Rs that we don’t enforce but that’s my understanding is that the CC&Rs require it to remain a shopping center. 34 35 36 Commissioner Lippert: The reason I asked that question is that the relevancy is that the neighbors have reached a negotiation or an agreement that those CC&Rs would remain in place and from our point of view as a city reviewing this, we wouldn’t look at this and rezone it as say, housing. 37 38 39 40 41 Mr. Williams: The CC&Rs themselves are a private matter to the parties that are subject to them. The city is not a party to the CC&Rs so in terms of what the city’s action is, the CC&Rs don’t matter but from the applicant’s perspective, complying with the CC&Rs would likely save them some objections and possibly a challenge. 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Lippert: One other question for you Mr. Jarvis. With regard to again the EIR, if the applicant were to come forward and say, hey we want to bulldoze the site and build a new 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 12 of 30 1 2 3 shopping center there based on what is permitted in the underlying zoning as well as the CC&Rs, could they do that and would it require the same environmental analysis? Mr. Jarvis: The applicant can propose whatever it wants to propose and the city can consider whatever it wants to consider but that’s not what this EIR analyzes so if the applicant were to come forward with a different proposal like that I would think there would need to be another environmental analysis prepared to make sure it complied with CEQA. I’m not sure if that answers the question. 4 5 6 7 8 9 Commissioner Lippert: Well, I’m interested again, going back to the historic, I’m trying to understand the complexity of the use which is embodied in the CC&Rs and zoning and the historic entitlement or the historic structures that are there and I’m just trying to understand how this all fits together. If somebody said well, there is no benefit in those buildings but there is a benefit in having a retail shopping center. 10 11 12 13 14 15 Mr. Jarvis: I’m still not sure if I understand the question to the extent that there is anything I haven’t already answered. 16 17 18 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, thank you. 19 20 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka, quickly. 21 22 Commissioner Tanaka: It’s quick. Two quick questions. So in terms of considering, I guess we might need overriding consideration, I’m a little bit confused on that topic, but is this also a place to consider or discuss school impacts and deficiency of public benefit? 23 24 25 26 Mr. Larkin: No. And it’s actually not the time to consider the overriding considerations. They are a good background information to have but at this time we’re not requesting or asking for a statement of overriding consideration. 27 28 29 30 Commissioner Tanaka: I also wanted to know in terms of talking about public benefits or school impacts. 31 32 33 Mr. Larkin: Public benefits is part of the discussion on the PC ordinance and then school impacts is not a subject that can be analyzed, just determining whether or not to approve the development project. 34 35 36 37 Chair Martinez: Okay, we are going to go to public comment. We have several cards from the public and we will give you each three minutes to speak. Commissioner. 38 39 40 Vice-Chair Garber: We have currently five speakers. The first is Jeff Levinsky to be followed by Beth Bunnenberg. You’ll have three minutes. 41 42 43 Mr. Jeff Levinsky: Good evening Commissioners and staff. I live a few blocks from Edgewood and shopped there a lot when Albertsons was still there. I’ve been following the ups and downs for years. I hope we can make progress at the center and very much appreciate the draft EIR and additional information the staff has circulated. I submitted eleven questions and comments to the 44 45 46 47 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 13 of 30 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 EIR process. The online version of the staff report omitted most of them however they are in the printed version. I hope you all received the full version of my questions. My basic concern is the parking needs of the office building. The office is a historic building as well. To provide it with just 16 parking spaces when it appears to require 55 creates numerous concerns including parking gridlock throughout the shopping center and surrounding neighborhood. The office building currently houses the Maharishi Enlightenment Center and they may need no more than 16 parking spaces but they have already tried once to sell the building. We learned that once Hewlett Packard occupied these offices and any similar company when faced with a 14,000 square foot building are going to want more than 16 parking spaces. I believe the easement is a private agreement between the two different parcels and the city’s interests are different. The city’s interest is making sure there is enough parking for everybody in the neighborhood. In fact, I think that there has been an unfortunate outcome that the historic preservation of the office building has not been considered. If it does not have adequate parking, it will have financial viability problems and it’s effectively become the sacrificial victim for the retail and housing projects and it suffers in silence for I find no mention of this in either the draft EIR or any staff report. Ownership could also change at the retail sites. In March, the San Jose Business Journal reported that a default notice had been filed by Comerica Bank against Ho Holdings listed as the actual owner of the retail site. The article points out that such a notice precedes a foreclosure sale. While perhaps the bank and investors have worked something out, the finances appear precarious. We might wake up one morning to find a brand new owner so just please make sure everything is enforceable rules that survive market volatility, tenant turnover and of course new owners. Finally, Eichler tried to create a harmonious community of homes, shopping and offices. It was in his interest to ensure every site had what it needed. I can’t imagine that he would have built an office building with inadequate parking but with separate owners the interest of one might conflict with another so please ensure the EIR looks at the impacts of each building’s viability and of Eichler’s original community vision. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Can I get staff to respond to the adequacy of the parking please? 33 34 Ms. Lee: Thank you Chair. Basically, the office building located at 1101 Embarcadero is a separate building but there is an easement recorded on both properties providing for vehicular access and 16 nonexclusive parking spaces so the applicant is continuing to maintain then I guess historically the occupants of that office building has parked on the parking center site so the applicant is continuing to provide that same situation and in fact through this project we’ll probably improve the parking lot situation. 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 In terms of the CEQA impacts, we are looking at this subject site and the applicant is proposing to comply with the city’s requirements and ordinance and we can certainly look at the parking more in terms of the actual PC formal review but in terms of the CEQA EIR we believe that it is adequately addressed. Again, his comment letter has been included and will be included in the final EIR along with specific comments and responses. Chair Martinez: Okay, thank you. I’m sorry for interrupting. 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 14 of 30 1 Vice-Chair Garber: The next speaker is Beth Bunnenberg to be followed by Robert Moss. 2 3 Ms. Beth Bunnenberg: Good evening. I’m Beth Bunnenberg, 2351 Ramona Street on Palo Alto. Tonight I’m speaking as an individual, not as a representative of the HRB. Edgewood Plaza is a wonderful candidate for rehabilitation. Just to speak to Lippert’s question, the Dames and Moore survey was conducted before Edgewood became 50 years old so that’s why it was not included in that major survey that we did. In fact, it hadn’t been too long ago that Edgewood became 50 years old so Commissioner Lippert that’s the part of the answer to what you were asking. 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 I come to you really representing a minority of one and with all due respects to my colleagues I would like to present a different opinion because of the Secretary of Interior standards and you will notice in the draft EIR, references are made all along to the Secretary of Interior standards and integrity and all this kind of thing. I disagree with the less than significant impact. At this point, the city is putting in this draft EIR that significant environmental impacts of relocation of building 1, the marquee sign and construction of ten new family homes. It’s the job of the HRB to determine whether a project meets the standards of the Secretary of Interior and Edgewood obviously has become 50 years old and people look at it as its tired, it’s dingy, and it’s hard to see the basic bones of the building. As you’ve heard the applicant Page and Turnbull and the city’s peer reviewer took opposite positions in this area of the siding and whether that was a really significant feature to this project and obviously the HRB had difference around that matter. The Carey report sees the Eichler design and the relationship to adjoining Eichler housing such as now Green Gables is a national register district and the Edgewood tract of Eichler homes. The Page and Turnbull as you’ve heard just looks at the three individual buildings in their evaluation. Edgewood Plaza is Eichler’s only shopping center. The vision was a walkable bike safety way for the neighborhood to get to their needed shopping and this was a kind of ground breaking thing at that time. The Secretary of Interiors standards says that in the rehabilitation the property should be used for historic purpose or placed in a new use that requires minimal changes to the building site and environment and that the removal of historic materials or alterations of features or spaces that characterize a property should be avoided. In fact their not recommending section says removal or relocation of historic buildings or landscape features that destroys the historic relationship between buildings, landscape features and open space should not happen so that that is the guidepost that the HRB is working on and I agree with the Carey report that moving the building and the housing would not conform to the Secretary of Interior standards. Thank you. Vice-Chair Garber: Thank you. Robert Moss to be followed by Adena Rosmarin. 39 40 Mr. Robert Moss: Thank you Chair Martinez and the Commissioners. I have a different concern about the project and that’s the residential portion. The staff report gives the floor area of the homes as 18,105 square feet but doesn’t give the area of the lots but it does give the minimum and maximum size of the buildings and the smallest home as 2153 and the smallest lot is 3396 then it’s the equivalent of a 0.63 FAR. The largest building is 2696 and the largest lot assuming that they are matches is 4148, that’s and FAR of 0.65. The normal FAR for single family homes is 0.43 for this is significantly more than we normally would get. 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 15 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Second, the commercial portion of the site is a little over 37,000 square feet and now we’ve got 18,000 square feet of homes added so along from having a historically important commercial center to a property which is one third housing and two thirds commercial which significantly skews what you’ve got on the site so I would suggest that you adopt alternative three which is mentioned in the report which is to reduce the number in the total area of residential units by two or three units instead of having ten units have seven or eight. That will make the FAR smaller. It will make the continuity between the residential and commercial less jarring and it will be more consistent with the existing homes in the neighborhood which are not this large next to small lots so you’d have a better project all around. One of the other things to keep in mind is that if you reduce it you’re also going to be reducing traffic and potential parking overflows. Since this is over five units and over five units or more are required to have a BMR unit but staff report doesn’t specifically say there is going to be one but there has to be one. Which one of these homes is going to be the BMR? I don’t think it should be the smallest one and obviously they are not going to make it the largest one but you should identify which home is the BMR and it should try to be consistent with the overall project, one of the medium sized homes. It’s a bad idea to have the BMR units always be the smallest and the least attractive on a site so that should be explicit if this comes back. Thank you. Vice-Chair Garber: Thank you Adena Rosmarin to be followed by Jon Foster. 21 22 Ms. Adena Rosmarin: Good evening. My daughter Heather Rosmarin’s home is a few hundred feet north of the project and she has submitted a letter by email and I have hard copies here which I can give the Secretary for the record. I have a procedural comment and then several comments on the adequacy of the EIR more directly. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 First, we request that there be clarification and recirculation of the notice and comment deadline. Currently, as has been stated, comments may be submitted by November 14th but in a following paragraph it stated that all issues must be raised by the time of this hearing or they cannot be considered in court. Clearly, there should be one deadline to constitute adequate notice for the full 45 day public review and comment period. To be effective the public should be allowed to submit comments and raise issues until November 14th so there should be a re-notice to that effect. On the DEIR’s adequacy, more directly, we believe the description of surrounding land uses is inadequate. There are approximately 90 condominium homes a few hundred feet north of the project which do not even receive a mention and which will be clearly impacted during both the operation of the project and its construction and we believe the DEIR should be revised to study that impact. More broadly, the analysis of traffic impacts is flawed and incomplete. Both the DEIR and the traffic transportation analysis failed to study the impacts of increased vehicle traffic on West Bayshore Road both during construction and operation and that flaw should be corrected. The TIA fails to note that there is a major Cal Trans project that will run concurrently with the construction of this project and CEQA requires that there be an analysis of concurrent projects. _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 16 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 The plans provided for public review were unclear as to whether truck traffic will come from the north on West Bayshore Road and if it does there will clearly be impacts to the residents along that road and the DEIR should be revised to study those impacts. The analysis of bicycle and pedestrian access to the project site is both flawed and incomplete. There are bald statements that the access in both ways is adequate and that is incorrect. There is currently no safe pedestrian or bicycle access… Is that my time? …From West Bayshore Road therefore the project will increase use and traffic hazards and these should be studied in the EIR. Thank you. Vice-Chair Garber: Thank you. Before you leave one of the Commissioners has a question for you. Commissioner Lippert. 9 10 11 Commissioner Lippert: I had a question for staff and the City Attorney which is could you clarify the deadlines and how they work as well as could you talk about our process in terms of certification of the EIR and how the item would be returning? 12 13 14 15 Ms. Lee: The public comment or circulation period is 45 days from September 30th and so it ends close of business on November 14th so we request comments by that time to include in the final EIR. In terms of the second question, basically what’s going to happen is that at the close of the comment period the consultant and staff will prepare responses to comments that will be put in the format of the final EIR with the draft. All of that is considered the final EIR. That will come back to the Commission along with the project for formal recommendation whether the formal EIR should be certified as well as the project should be approved or not. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Chair Lippert: So when it is referring to the hearing date it is referring to the whole period in which we take our action. Is that correct? 24 25 26 Ms. French: The next hearing date before the Planning and Transportation Commission would have the whole of the action as far as the project plan review, the ordinance and the responses to the comments hopefully by that time prior to getting it to the City Council for their action. 27 28 29 30 Chair Lippert: Okay, beg my ignorance but it doesn’t subrogate any of the public’s rights in terms of filing a lawsuit or raising comments. 31 32 33 Ms. French: That is correct. We’re simply wanting to get the comments before the end of the public comment period to make sure we can respond to those comments in the final EIR. People can still comment on the document afterwards but there is no answering those in the final EIR document. 34 35 36 37 38 Ms. Rosmarin: I’m sorry, the reason we flagged this issue is that the last paragraph on the comment section states very clearly that to be considered in court the issue must be raised by this hearing, October 26th. 39 40 41 42 Ms. French: I would just say in general we always put on our notice cards because its in the best interest of somebody who could bring a lawsuit if they attend hearings at every opportunity so we put that as a qualifier on our cards but you can submit your comments at any time to get them answered in a formal document, you submit them by November 14th. 43 44 45 46 47 Ms. Rosmarin: That’s not what it says. 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 17 of 30 1 Mr. Williams: We will take a look at the card and if it looks like there is confusion we’ll send out notice and let people know that they do have until November 14th. I appreciate what the speaker is saying, that it sounds like there is some confusing language there and we don’t want to let anybody misunderstand that they must speak tonight at this hearing in order to have legal standing in terms of this issue so we’ll look at that and if its necessary we’ll set up notice and clarify that they do have until November 14th to provide written comments as well. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Vice-Chair Garber: The next speaker is Jon Foster to be followed by our final speaker Herb Borock. Mr. Foster. 9 10 11 Mr. Jon Foster: Thank you and good evening everyone. My name is Jon Foster. I live on Channing Avenue. I live several blocks away from the project site. I am going to limit my comments only to the issue of the historic preservation aspect of moving one of the buildings on the site. I think if you talk to residents in the neighborhood which I’ve done quite a bit of, there could be debate on the issue of the historic nature of the building and I think many people would feel comfortable if those buildings weren’t there at all but if you limit it to the issue of simply moving those buildings, there would be very few residents concerned about it. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 I’m not an expert on the historic preservation laws, I’m simply a resident of the Duveneck St. Francis neighborhood but the reality is that shopping center has been empty now for however many years. It’s a blight on the neighborhood and it would be great to see it redeveloped and be back to the purpose it was intended for along with a few housing which I personally feel very comfortable with so the key to me from a realistic, layman’s point of view is the idea of moving one building some distance to accommodate the new design, I’m sure the developer would just assume not move a building but the new design as I see it really does require that. So from my perspective, as one balances the historic preservation which the developer is doing by keeping the structures as they are, simply moving one is a no-brainer. I would absolute support moving the structure and I think the developer has gone out of their way to preserve the structures and the structural integrity so I think moving one structure to allow for redevelopment of a shopping center that has been abandoned and blighted for years is an easy decision to make and I would support it. Thanks for your time and consideration. Vice-Chair Garber: Our final speaker, Herb Borock. 34 35 Mr. Herb Borock: Thank you Chair Martinez and good evening Commissioners. Earlier when Mr. Levinsky was making some comments it sounded to me as if the Chair was asking staff to respond to his comments at this time. My understanding is that the purpose of this meeting and until November 14th was to receive comments on the draft EIR and the appropriate time to get responses is when whoever is preparing them after the comment period closes, that it’s not the place here for Commissioners to be asking staff to respond to comments that are being made. I realize that you may have questions to ask the staff to clarify some issue that enable you to make comments. Those would be the appropriate type questions to ask, not to ask staff to respond to comments that either the public or the Commissioners make at this time. Thank you. 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 One more thing, on the card, it was described by the speaker on the deadline. It seems to me that as Mr. Williams indicated, that a correction is in order not just giving the new date but explaining that it’s a correction to the previous one. Sometimes these things happen. I think the _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 18 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 reason is in the past, I believe before Gary Baum became City Attorney is that the normal process was to wait until the comment period ended before public hearings were held before boards and commissions. That the public hearings were not held in the middle of the comment period. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Okay, thank you for that. Commissioners, I would like to see if we could kind of address the issue of historic cultural resources sort of as a body but there are other issues related to this DEIR and I wanted to see if you had questions or comments related on the other impacts before we delve into this. Commissioner Garber. 6 7 8 9 10 Vice-Chair Garber: Staff, could you help me with just two things? One, could you briefly summarize the impacts that the EIR summarizes relative to traffic on the residential side of the project? That was one and then the other was how the EIR addresses the issues of the homes both in terms of the increase in bulk and mass on that side which includes the topic of FAR floor area ratio and if there were other issues that the EIR really focuses on so the summary of both of those would help me a little bit. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Ms. Lee: Thank you. The Environmental Impact Report did include a TIA, Traffic Impact Analysis and the analysis identified only one significant impact and that was that the project would cause a significant impact at Wildwood Lane north of California Avenue and Embarcadero signal lights intersection. The EIR also identified a mitigation measure transportation 1.1 where that, basically it states that because of a signal spacing consideration, traffic signal is not recommended however what the project should be required to do would be to restripe Embarcadero Road to create a left turn receiving lane. As part of the project left turn lane improvements at Embarcadero St. Francis drive a left turn receiving lane would be built at Wildwood Lane. This would facilitate outbound left turns and reduce left turn delay which would reduce the project impact to a less than significant impact. That is regarding transportation. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Vice-Chair Garber: Actually, if I may interrupt before you get to the other portion. So were pedestrian bicycle use or potential mitigations considered from access from the residential side onto and off of the subject property? 30 31 32 33 Ms. French: The Environmental Impact Report did look at pedestrian and bicycle safety and the consultant, Judy, may be better able to answer these questions. Rafael Ruis, our Transportation Engineer is also here in the audience. 34 35 36 37 Vice-Chair Garber: If we can take a moment, sure. 38 39 Ms. French: This is Nora Monette, also with David J. Powers. 40 41 Ms. Nora Monette: Hello. My name is Nora Monette. I’m Principal Project Manager at David J. Powers and Associates and again we’re assisting the city in the preparation of the EIR. In the initial study portion of the EIR transportation is discussed in that section and there are tables that show the trip generation from both the housing and the commercial and also evaluate the access points to the project and the residential access is primarily off of Channing and then the access points to the commercial are kind of in their existing locations. There isn’t really the only access off of West Bayshore is for trucks and so that’s not a primary pedestrian or bike access. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 19 of 30 1 Vice-Chair Garber: So let me just ask sort of a general question recognizing that EIRs are trying to focus in on quantitative data such that the differences can be measured but we are looking at a property that has not had tenancy for some number of years. The environment in that particular corner of Palo Alto has changed in that the use of Embarcadero and 101, etc. presumably has changed over some period of time and the use of that property, there’s not a lot of traffic going in and out of it now. I’m thinking less quantitatively in terms of the traffic that is generated in terms of trips, etc. but in terms of impacts of children utilizing the shopping center or utilizing the park area, etc., there may not be, if you will, significant pedestrian trips but are there issues that the EIR considered that have to do with public safety, changes in the rate, the miles per hour that cars are allowed on the street or additional stop signs, markings on streets, things of that sort that would increase or address some of those issues. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Ms. Monette: Probably the best thing at this point is to get some of these questions into the record and we can respond to them in the final EIR. There are discussions of bicycle and pedestrians and so… 14 15 16 17 Vice-Chair Garber: That’s fine. Part of the reason I wanted the summary was to find out sort of where it was focusing to see if those issues had and if they hadn’t been to get them into the record. 18 19 20 21 Ms. Monette: Right. There is a discussion if there are particular issues like access for school children speeds if we can get that into the record and make sure they’re responded to by the traffic engineer and city traffic specialist to make sure that answers that question so if you want to pose specific ones that would be great. 22 23 24 25 26 Vice-Chair Garber: Great. And in regards to the housing? 27 28 Ms. French: So the housing and the impact of the housing was looked at both from a historic resources perspective in terms of how it affects the site and it was also looked at for the aesthetics perspective where the requirement would be that it would be reviewed by the ARB and required to be consistent with the city’s ARB findings. 29 30 31 32 33 Chair Martinez: Anyone else? Yes, Commissioner Tuma. 34 35 Commissioner Tuma: First I wanted to thank staff for the format of tonight’s report. Oftentimes we get these big huge documents and to analyze an EIR we have to actually go through page by page and look at the chart and see where it is and see what the meat of the issue is and tonight’s report sort of brings that out and that not only makes our job a lot easier but it also I think allows the public to digest what the key issues are and so I would encourage all the time to sort of have this format where we bring the issues out of the EIR and into the document itself because oftentimes even for the public to get a hold of one of these or download it or sift through it is difficult so good job on bringing that out and making it easier to use. 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 The one topic I wanted to talk about other than the historic has to do with the office building. I know the office building isn’t part of this project but when you look at Section 3.1.1.1 deals with surrounding land use and that paragraph simply mentions the fact that that building is there. But it’s difficult for me to believe that perhaps while the existing tenant is there the impact of only _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 20 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 having 16 parking spaces, maybe there isn’t an impact, but if that were to change tenants or evolve forward to a different use, what have you, you may wind up with an obsolete building. You may end up with a situation where they say they’re only going to have a certain number of cars but cars park into the neighborhood and you have spill over and impact. It seems while this isn’t part of the project, it is part of the surrounding land use and I just want to make sure that that gets addressed in the EIR itself because I think the impact there may be from spill over parking as a result of the project even though that particular building is not technically part of the project. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Commissioner Lippert, do you have comments other than cultural resources? 11 12 Commissioner Lippert: They are related to cultural resources but they have to do really with the different scenarios. 13 14 15 Chair Martinez: Well, why don’t you try? 16 17 Commissioner Lippert: Reading through the different alternative scenarios here and the first one of course is a no project current conditions scenario but the next one down is a no project remodeling scenario and the reason I cite this is that it is my understanding that what is triggering this project in terms of public benefit is the historic rehabilitation of the buildings as well as the additional housing if I’m correct, in the PC. Director. 18 19 20 21 22 23 Mr. Williams: And assuring there is a shopping center. 24 25 Commissioner Lippert: Yes, three of them. So what I’m looking at here is under the no project remodeling scenario here it specifically states that future work on buildings 1 and 2 would be completed following Secretary of Interior’s standards for rehabilitation of historic properties however, if there really is no change in adding the housing element, they are keeping a shopping center and they are renovating a shopping center, the Secretary of Interior really doesn’t come into play as a necessity therefore, why is it being considered as one of those scenarios or alternatives in a no project remodeling scenario. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Mr. Williams: Just to clarify, is your comment that it’s not an alternative that should be considered or is it just an observation? 34 35 36 Commissioner Lippert: It’s an observation that the Secretary of Interior’s standards are not necessary for remodeling that shopping center if we are not looking at the historic rehabilitation as being a public benefit. In fact, today the shopping center could be remodeled and rehabilitated and the buildings could be left where they are without any review by this body. It would have to go before the Architectural Review Board for any exterior improvements such as signage or color but in fact, there is no planning involved in a no project remodeling scenario and it’s questionable whether it would even have to go before the Historic Resources Board. 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Ms. Lee: If the applicant was proposing to remodel the center and not add in the housing and if the change were significant enough to trigger architectural review, it would trigger CEQA. If we had evidence that the site may be historic, we would require historic analysis and that would be part of the Architectural Review Board hearing and if we determine that it is a historic resource 45 46 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 21 of 30 1 2 3 which we would have, we probably would request HRB recommendation on whether the project observes or adequately addresses the historic impacts. Commissioner Lippert: So is it fair to say that it would require that it be remodeled under the Secretary of Interior standards even if they weren’t proposing doing anything other than tenant improvements? 4 5 6 7 Ms. Monette: It depends on the extent of the change. If the change rises to the level of being an architectural review permit, whether its by staff or by board, that is a discretionary permit that requires CEQA and if CEQA is required we would definitely be looking at impacts to historic and that could trigger a requirement of conformance with the Secretary of Interior standards. 8 9 10 11 12 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Lippert, to follow what the EIR consultant said just a few minutes ago, I think if you could put your questions as a comment for clarification, I think that might be beneficial rather than questions to staff so that if you’re looking for more clarification on alternative scenario number 2 because you don’t understand it it might be important to ask that to be addressed in the final draft. 13 14 15 16 17 18 Mr. Larkin: Just to clarify a little bit on what that’s about, we’re required as part of the CEQA review to look at a range of other alternatives to the proposed project to determine if there are environmentally superior projects that would also meet the goals of the applicant and project description and that’s what this is really about. It’s not about this proposed project but its one of the alternative scenarios that was examined to determine there was a superior alternative that would also meet the goals of the applicants so it’s not really whether it would require a different review, its part of the alternatives analysis. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Commissioner Lippert: What I’m trying to understand is I think that, as Mr. Jarvis pointed out, just because a building is old doesn’t necessarily make it historic and I’m trying to understand what the threshold is that begins to trigger the historic review and having to renovate a building or rehabilitate a building under the Secretary of Interior standards. If we had had this project move forward and there was no housing element associated with it, if there was no moving of the building, if there was no park associated with it, would it trigger the necessity to follow the Secretary of Interior standards. The reason I’m asking this line of questioning with regard to the scenarios is that it helps me in making the findings for a statement of overriding consideration as to, is what we currently have better than what is being proposed here? 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 I don’t discount any of the scenarios here. I am just trying to understand how specific the scenarios have to be and whether in fact it is correct that it would need to be remodeled according to the Secretary of Interior’s standards. Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka. 41 42 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. So I had when I was looking at the report I had some questions and concerns about the FAR and about the way it was calculated. It was not as clear as I was hoping and so one question for staff is I know that Palo Alto has some private streets concept where we are not supposed to… Well can staff clarify what is a private street and what is considered a private street? 43 44 45 46 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 22 of 30 Ms. French: When there are more than four housing units being served by a driveway, there are different standards involved and I believe in this configuration, Elena can clarify where this is found. Our set of plans that are going to the Architectural Review Board next week are more detailed. 1 2 3 4 5 Mr. Williams: If I could just add, there are private street standards for width and also provisions that go to the zoning code as to how to calculate FAR. Those from the zoning standpoint are not applicable because this is a planned community. So the planned community is defining on this site what is the FAR for this site so it’s entirely discretionary to the Commission ultimately as to whether or not this is adequate both in terms of the street layout as well as the size of the homes and number of homes, etc. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Commissioner Tanaka: With the final report, will be get an exact calculation of the FAR for each house and how this is compatible to the neighborhood? 13 14 15 Mr. Williams: Yes. 16 17 Chair Martinez: Are you done? Okay, I wanted to do one follow up on the alternative scenarios and that’s the no project scenario because the implication is that there is no impact. Is that sort of the standard for what an EIR should state? For example, it’s clearly that there will be impacts of no project. The neighborhood will suffer with continued blight. We will not have the advantage of another grocery store. The storm water will continue to sort of not be managed to current standards and so on so my question is, is it pro forma to say that no project means no impact or should that be addressed in an EIR? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ms. Lee: I think staff would like to defer to Judy or Nora to discuss requirements for alternatives. Rick. 26 27 28 Chair Martinez: Thanks Rick. 29 30 Mr. Jarvis: I’ll address that. Yes, it’s basically a pro forma to treat for CEQA purposes the impacts of the no project alternative as being no impact and the reason for that is the CEQA analysis requires an analysis of what is the change in existing conditions that will result from this activity? If the project is approved and the EIR analyzes all the different changes that will happen from approval of the project. If the project is not approved and nothing happens then the existing environment will continue to persist in this existing state and so for CEQA purposes that’s considered to be no impact, that CEQA conclusion certainly does not constrain or prohibit the city from making the observations that you just made that the practical real world consequences of no project will be a continued state of these negative things happening. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Chair Martinez: Don’t go away Rick. I heard the statement saying that the purpose or limit of the EIR is to acknowledge the impacts to the environment. What is the purpose of quoting and considering the Comprehensive Plan in the EIR? 41 42 43 44 Mr. Jarvis: One of the area of “environmental impact” that the EIR has to look at is impact of the project on the city’s land use planning and that requires an analysis of how the project relates to the city’s existing Comprehensive Plan, zoning ordinances, and the purpose of that analysis is 45 46 47 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 23 of 30 1 2 3 to ferret out any impacts that may result from approving a project that might have some inconsistency with the city’s planning and what that would mean for the city. Mr. Duncan: I can just build on what Rick said. It’s not every aspect of the general plan but those aspects of the plan that deal with mitigating impacts on the environment and health and safety. 4 5 6 7 Chair Martinez: Okay, I lost my train of thought on this one but then should there not be a finding in the DEIR regarding the Comprehensive Plan? I didn’t see it and I’m not saying I read everything in it, but… 8 9 10 11 Mr. Larkin: It’s on the initial checklist so if you go through the initial checklist there is a place where they have to indicate whether it is consistent with those provisions in the general plan. I don’t have the bound volume so I can’t point it out. 12 13 14 15 Ms. Lee: Page 26 of the EIR has discussion on the Comprehensive Plan. 16 17 Chair Martinez: I got that far but it only discusses if I recall the neighborhood center’s discussion of it but it doesn’t talk about transportation which some of these things I found later and one of my comments recommendation is I would like to see the discussion of Comprehensive Plan be in one place and not all over because I’d like to look… It is sort of a cross referencing document and I’d like to be able to see a discussion of all of the relevant elements in one place and I’d like to see a discussion or a conclusion of how it impacts the land planning in the city. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Okay, thank you for that staff. Commissioners, are we ready now to take on the big one? I’m going to start with Commissioner Garber. Vice-Chair Garber: I think I had actually addressed this issue fairly directly in our April 27th meeting but I will if the Commissioners will allow me, reiterate my conversation at that time. I’m going to back into the issue here. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 The way that I think about this project is that the Edgewood Plaza when it was initially built in the 50s was really built for a significantly different set of circumstances that our community and this project is trying to address today. The city was a fraction of its population. The roadways were used at a fraction of the intensity that they are today. The nexus that I think the developer was trying to take advantage of in 1950 had very little to do, I suspect, with the neighborhood than it did with the recent completion of Highway 101 and its connection of San Jose and San Francisco so in that way it shares a history with a lot of shopping centers across the nation as the highway systems were being connected and completed throughout the country and shopping centers all over the country were being developed. That nexus has changed dramatically as has our community which is now significantly larger, significantly more dense, and all of our roadways are significantly used at a much higher rate and intensity. You can see those difference in the vision of the design. The design as it was done in the 50s is what might be referred to as an island or poached egg scheme and you had all the buildings in the center with a lot of parking surrounding it. That vision is significantly different and that vision of our community is significantly different than it is today. The change now and the _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 24 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 nexus that I suspect the applicant and developer is looking forward to capitalizing on has to do with this as a community resource and recognizing that it is not a community resource but a neighborhood resource and has an impact directly on the neighborhood and the design has changed dramatically. It is no longer an island as was discussed back in April by moving the building slightly over to the side essentially the building has become the dividing line between what is the commercial side of the property and residential side of the property and the impacts and scale relative to those two sides is much different. It is therefore not surprising to me at all that there is a lot of discussion and debate as to the impact of the slight move. I am not surprised that it would be seen as a significant change to the historic resource however as I discussed back in April I think there is an aspect of utility of this site which is extremely important and if this project and the buildings and its planning does not address the current conditions of the city that are active in this particular part of the city it will become significantly less useful to the community and the neighborhood specifically so if in fact it is deemed to be greater than a significant impact relative to our historic resources I think it is very obvious that there are mitigating circumstances which would cause us to overlook that… I shouldn’t say overlook that but cause us to support that moving in a way that has been proposed here. I think I’ll leave it at that for the moment. Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tuma. 20 21 Commissioner Tuma: What he said. I know we’re supposed to say I align myself with the comments of Commissioner Garber, he said it much more eloquently than I can. I think the core issue here and bringing something that Commissioner Lippert was saying also which is you know, the reality is that this project has evolved from a much more intense, much bigger project redevelopment into something that the neighborhood seems it can live with, by and large the impact from a housing perspective is minimal and really what its about is turning a blighted, may by a bit tough of a word, but a place that isn’t doing justice to Mr. Eichler and the original design as it is right now. People see it and they say oh, boy look how bad that has gotten. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 So I think its to continue, the phrase Commissioner Garber was looking for was a statement of overriding concern and I would completely agree that, or overriding consideration, that’s the proper one, either it doesn’t rise to the level or if it does rise to the level, changing it to a use that makes sense, that works for the community, works for the CC&R holders, works for the developer, it just seems to me to be the right thing to do. We talk a lot about a bikeable, walkable city and what we want as our values as a city. The members of this community have a long way to go to get their groceries and do other sort of community oriented shopping. Some of them on the southern end of it can walk down to Trader Joe’s in Town and Country but many people can’t so if I think we’re looking at what we want to be as a community and what our values are, what I see is a minimal impact on the historic resource here is acceptable. That’s all I have. Chair Martinez: I appreciate that but do you want to put some of that into your comments that should be addressed in the final EIR? You don’t have to but… Commissioner Tanaka. 43 44 45 Commissioner Tanaka: While I largely agree with my fellow Commissioners’ comments I do think it’s important that this project adapt with the times. I understand the historic value of this project and the meaning it has for Palo Alto and I think as times change things need to adapt so 46 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 25 of 30 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 that it continues to serve the purpose. It is clear that the site needs to be rehabilitated and we want the site to be economically viable. What I mean by that is it’s not just viable today or after part of the parcel is converted to housing to fund the redevelopment but in the long term as well. I know it’s hard to actually forecast the future and figure out what’s really going to be needed but that’s one part for me that seems to be missing. Over the past 50 years things have changed. We’ve moved from this omelet or poached egg like concept to the half residential and half commercial but the thing that is still in the back of my mind and I said it last time and I’ll say it again now is that this is in a very affluent area, its on a very busy freeway and why has this site not worked before? I still don’t understand, well we’re going to have unified parking and that should help somewhat. I’m concerned that we’re getting a temporary shot in the arm for this site to make it viable for the community but I don’t know if the longer term issues have been solved. What I’m concerned about is that in another 20 or 30 years we’ll have to chop off another piece of this retail property to convert to housing to fund yet another redevelopment so I want to make sure that doesn’t happen because I think this is a valuable resource for the neighborhoods and for Palo Alto. Palo Alto needs the revenue for the city and that’s one part for me I would love to see addressed better. I am also concerned about the issue Commissioner Tuma mentioned earlier which is the office and how that wasn’t really contemplated in terms of, is this going to be enough parking in this redevelopment because we are losing a lot of parking on this site. Will this affect the viability of the surrounding commercial properties and I don’t think we necessarily want that. We want to encourage that still and by this dramatic reduction in parking, we don’t want this to spill into the neighborhoods. This would be a very adverse impact that this project would have so I think this is certainly a good attempt to make this a viable project and to make this to improve the situation but I don’t know if everything has been thought through in terms of parking impacts in context to the surrounding commercial properties as well as the long term viability of this project. Can it continue to be a viable resource economically so businesses, and I’m not talking about the developer, but the businesses that reside in these properties. Can they sustain themselves longer term? Because we can have beautiful renovated buildings but it can be a commercial failure. We don’t want that and the developer doesn’t want that. We want this to be an occupied, vibrant used by the community center and I think we want to make sure that actually happens so some sort of retail analysis or some sort of retail consultant that the developer is planning to do but that kind of work needs to be done carefully. Maybe improving the signage or doing something to make this project fly not just today but 10, 20, 30, 40 years from now. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Lippert. 38 39 Commissioner Lippert: First of all, I want to thank the applicant as well as members of the community and the authors of the EIR for your report this evening. In reviewing this document, where I find that I’m torn or have some difficulty is, and this is in reviewing the sufficiency of the document is under the scenarios. The reason I have difficulty with that particular portion of it is that I don’t think that the range of scenarios go far enough. I think the most significant item that has been identified here is the historic element or historic significance of the shopping center. But what I have difficulty with, and I do a lot of historic preservation and rehabilitation work, I’ve done six projects in the last four years, is the undermining of the historic fabric of the shopping center and that a sufficient amount of the historic fabric has been removed from the 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 26 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 shopping center or from the buildings and so there is something left of it and it has been identified as a potentially historic site but one of the main buildings in it has been totally undermined. So it goes back to again the scenarios or alternative scenarios that are being proposed and I’m not looking at them in terms of whether they are desirable but I’m looking to understand what else would have been possible and preserve the last piece of historic fabric of that architecture. So in some ways, perhaps a scenario that and again, I’m saying this not that I’m proposing this, but demoing out the main building there and looking at reinforcing or having the buildings 1 and 2 preserved in their location where they are and perhaps having the housing integrated into the main building and going with more of a mixed use scenario there. The reason I suggest that is that the Secretary of Interior standards are very specific in terms of creating a distinction between what’s original to the site and what’s new to the site and so it creates a contrast or an understanding of what was there and what was being preserved. I think that that’s in some ways what’s sort of missing from these scenarios. An architect or developer could go in and build no housing and have shops move in there and have it be a shopping center as it almost is. It would continue perhaps to deteriorate, perhaps it wouldn’t. It could be renovated under the Secretary of Interior’s standards and have a housing element associated with it and those buildings remain where they are. I think that in order to look at the full range of possibilities there in some ways perhaps something needs to be done in terms of what isn’t historic being removed from the site and what is potentially viable on that site and in some ways then bringing back as I think Commissioner Garber mentioned, responding to the needs of the community and the neighborhood in terms of a viable shopping center. Now I’m going to put that aside for the time being and I’m going to comment on what I like about or what I see in the EIR that I do like. I like what’s being proposed here in terms of moving the building. I think its appropriate and what I think is important about it is that right now there is a side of building 1 and a side of building 2 that is basically obscured by each other and if those buildings were rearranged on the site in a way that they were obscuring other elements or other parts of the building, I would say that doesn’t work but these are actually being disconnected and moved apart in a way that it doesn’t really change the overall viewing ability or the viewing of any of these existing historic buildings. There are examples of how we have taken houses in Palo Alto, historic houses, and have literally in the SOFA area moved them one block from the corner of Homer Avenue down to Addison or Channing and the historic fabric of the neighborhood remains intact and the context of those buildings or houses remain totally intact and in some ways that is what is being proposed here, moving a single building so the adjacency changes a tiny bit. That shopping center will be felt and will be perceived exactly as that shopping center has always been and so first of all, I’m not going to be here for the final, whatever action the Board takes here but I have no problem with regard to moving on the sufficiency of this EIR the way it is right now sans of course the public comments that will be coming in. But I think what’s being proposed here is very appropriate. It’s needed by the community. It’s needed by the developer in terms of moving forward with this and I wouldn’t have any problem at some point voting on some kind of a motion of overriding consideration in terms of relocating that building. So those are my comments. _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 27 of 30 Chair Martinez: Thank you. In the interest of the city getting its money’s worth, I’d like our consultant from Carey and Company to step up if you may. Mr. Borock, if I overstep my bounds the City Attorney here will sensor me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I happen to be a great fan of Quincy Jones and I grew up in L.A. and as a kid I would drive up to the Hollywood Hills and look at the case study houses and it really motivated me and I was very disappointed when I didn’t get into USC. I had to settle for Berkeley. Sorry about that… And Harvard. I tried to see if I could find any work by Jones on urbanism, on you know, on sort of community design and I didn’t see anything. Is there a part of his legacy that speaks to that? Mr. Duncan: To my knowledge not. He was an architect’s architect and like so many architect he tended to be building centric. A good landscaping friend of mine accuses me of building centric only because I tend to forget the trees. To my knowledge he didn’t write anything about that but he was a man that was a product of his time and many of the principles of the kind of urbanism and urban theories that came after the Second World War were things he just naturally engaged because that was the environment in which he practiced but to my knowledge he wrote no scholarly papers or put forth any positions. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Chair Martinez: So you’re kind of speculating on that. In your opinion, is his an example of his best work? 21 22 23 Mr. Duncan: No, quite frankly its not. I think we all know that his opus has some brilliant and inspiring pieces in it and a few rather mundane, fairly simple glass boxes on a site is not a master work by any stretch. 24 25 26 27 Chair Martinez: I feel like an attorney. And in your own work, have you ever recommended and how do I say, sort of maintaining a project that is really poor design? 28 29 30 Mr. Duncan: That’s actually a really good question. If I could kind of turn your question around a little bit, there’s an elephant in the room in the process here that we may not be seeing. As a preservation architect I am obligated to the CEQA process. I stand by my feeling that to answer Mr. Lippert’s question, the grocery building in our point of view is historic because of its site location, because of the principles of post-war urbanism that sited it although the building’s fabric may have been compromised. If you pull back to 30,000 feet and look at that site it’s a very fine example of that kind of urban design. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 If I take that hat off and I put on my architect hat, I’m a great proponent of new urbanism and mixed use and housing being right next to commercial so we don’t have to bike as far, so we don’t have to drive and if you stop and think about it the post war urban design principles are exactly those things that we’re trying to design against today and that’s the elephant in the room and that’s in part the conflict that we all have here because you can say it’s a bad design. The right way to say it is it’s a design based on an urbanistic principle that no longer suits us today so its not bad, it was good in its day and it was heralded however, its no longer appropriate to the world in which we live and so our task to a great degree here is finding a way of maintaining its historic character as much as possible and successfully adaptively reusing it within the context of the standards. I don’t know if that answers your question. _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 28 of 30 1 Chair Martinez: It absolutely does and I appreciate your candidness about that. So if I may conclude then you’re saying that the proposed design is actually superior to what exists there now. Yes. 2 3 4 5 Mr. Duncan: I’m saying that it solves a myriad of problems for our time and it solved problems on its own terms in its time. It’s just aged badly. We’ve changed. I think if we take the fact that there are I think two significant unavoidable impacts, just in terms of the CEQA process only, not in terms of what we like about the project or what we think. This is about the CEQA process and I think we can get to the point of a project if we acknowledge the fact that there are two unavoidable impacts at which point there is a process which is overriding considerations that allows you to find that its okay to tweak this side of it to make it work better for us in 2011 and that’s essentially what this is about. It’s about following that process. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Chair Martinez: Thank you very much. I really appreciate that. Staff, can we incorporate that in the comments, please. Commissioner Lippert. 15 16 17 Commissioner Lippert: I have one follow up question on that. I agree with what you said in terms of the siding of the buildings but it’s also known in historic preservation principles to acknowledge a footprint and yet replace what is there if its not working and that’s another approach. Is that not fair to say? 18 19 20 21 22 Mr. Duncan: That’s not done very commonly and I can’t think of any example of that. 23 24 Commissioner Lippert: Let’s give you an example. Ben Franklin’s house in Philadelphia. 25 26 Mr. Duncan: The reasons for that are because there was no documentary evidence of Franklin’s house and Robert Venturi was given the task of doing a Franklin museum because the standards very clearly say you cannot reconstruct without documentary evidence. Venturi made a ghost house and it was a cartoon of what the house might have been and if you walk through the white steel frame he made an imagined plan of what the house might have been based on archaeological evidence they found. So the fireplaces, as you look down and they’re in just the right place, because its in the standards that you cannot reconstruct without drawing evidence or photographic evidence which of course we wouldn’t have that, he had to make it up. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Commissioner Lippert: But by the same token, and I appreciate your presentation and line of rationale, there is a point where enough of a building has been taken away where it ceases to have its historic fabric intact. 36 37 38 39 Mr. Duncan: That’s correct. 40 41 Commissioner Lippert: And that in fact one of the best approaches might be to remove the rest of that material and keep in place some of the elements that are original and re-improve the structure to the point that it functions and you can identify the parts that are new and the parts that are old. What comes to mind is for instance, its deterioration of windows for instance. Its not uncommon for wood windows, even steel windows to deteriorate and having to be replaced and try to replicate what those windows might be could in fact be very costly but it still is not the 42 43 44 45 46 47 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 29 of 30 1 2 3 original windows therefore using a different kind of window to contrast what was there so you can distinguish new and old is a fair approach. Mr. Duncan: That is correct. In fact, I had a site meeting in Mountain View that addressed that just the other day. There were a number of historic windows that were removed and we opted to use windows that were similar to the historic windows that survived using the same proportion but not to put the mutton bars in because they were multi-divided lights and we thought we’d just put single light windows in. They were the same proportion and the same material but it makes a distinction between what’s old and what’s new while being contemporary and compatible with the historic fabric of the building. I think that’s what you’re saying. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Commissioner Lippert: Correct. So if I were to go so far, and I haven’t analyzed the grocery building and what has been undermined there, but if what characterizes Quincy Jones’ architecture really is that siding and the use of laminated beams and glass and once those become impacted and removed it ceases to be in some ways a Quincy Jones building, it becomes an outline similar to the Venturi house. 12 13 14 15 16 17 Chair Martinez: Thank you very much. A couple comments. I think the DEIR is way too long. It’s very repetitive. It’s got a lot of stuff in there that we hear over and over again. I’m not asking you to go back and thin it out but I think for me and maybe for others it really was daunting. It sat on my coffee table for days. It was intimidating and I would like to see a way to reduce the volume of that. Secondly, related to that, I would like to see a better Executive Summary. This is where it could be longer. It’s very brief. It doesn’t really outline the issues and state its conclusions well at all so I think it would be very helpful for that to be done. I think Commissioner Garber had a final comment. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Vice-Chair Garber: Just a couple of comments. I think you’ve already recorded my comments regarding children routes to school but in particular some discussion about the intensity of use that will occur or we would anticipate to occur and specifically about children and the safety of the streets and the pedestrian bike traffic that will occur at that portion of the site. Those are all issues that are covered in the Comp Plan and can be wrapped into some discussion. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 The other comment regarding the third alternative, the reduced residential alternative. Presumably that allows for an enlarged park area or at least outdoor area. There are potentially opportunities there that can be mentioned in terms of either dedicated park land, outdoor space. I don’t know what they all are but it seems to me there should be some fuller discussion on that and those opportunities with that alternative. Chair Martinez: Commissioners, any final comments? I had one request and City Attorney you can give me a little guidance if I can’t do this but there is going to be a meeting in a week or so on this project for the ARB and I wanted to ask if you had any recommendations that you wanted to pass forward to them. 39 40 41 42 43 Mr. Larkin: It’s not the place of the Commission to advise the ARB or make recommendations to the ARB but to the extent that there are comments on the esthetic sections of the EIR those are appropriate comments to make. Comments on sections of the EIR that you would like the ARB to look at. 44 45 46 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 26, 2011 Page 30 of 30 Chair Martinez: In that regard, Commissioners, I have a couple. One is I’m concerned esthetically about the relationship of the back wall of the grocery store to the residential units. There’s about six feet there and it seems like a design flaw. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Second, in regard to the historic quality of the grocery store, the screening on the rooftop is pretty heavy looking and I would like to see that addressed. Third, it didn’t come up and I’m kind of surprised but the proposed landscaping, I’m wondering whether it is appropriate to the historic site and it should be addressed in the EIR or for follow up by the ARB. Anyone else? Commissioner Tanaka. Commissioner Tanaka: You did make me think about one thing. I heard a comment earlier and actually I agree with it but I think a lot of the surrounding neighborhood, the housing is not as large as the houses being contemplated here and I think having the housing sizes and comparisons to the neighboring houses around there make a lot of sense. The alternative of reduced residential may want to contemplate maybe smaller houses instead so smaller, higher, denser houses because I also agree with the Chair that it does seem a little bit jarring, the back of the grocery to the housing. There should be some sort of transition because you’re going from single family to commercial and it doesn’t seem to fit very well. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I think to fall into Commissioner Lippert’s comment about the historic fabric being disturbed, I do agree it’s a pretty big impact to the historic fabric but that’s balanced out by hopefully improved economic viability and hopefully public benefit so if perhaps there was a reduced residential there would be a bigger park and that’s going to be a bigger benefit for the surrounding community. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Anyone else? Okay, again I forgot this. The public hearing will close and this item is complete. Thank you all very much. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Okay, we have a couple of items. We have some minutes to approve and I had suggested earlier that we continue this but our minutes are kind of backing up and I wanted to see if we could either approve them as is or if there are any amendments to the September 14th minutes. Commissioners? Well, Commissioner Garber. Vice-Chair Garber: I move that we approve them. 35 36 Commissioner Tuma: Second. 37 38 Chair Martinez: I have some corrections. On the second page there is reference to Vice-Chair Lippert and it is Vice-Chair Fineberg and also in several places BMR is VMR and that should be corrected. That appears four or five times and in the applicant statement she was referring to R1 and it reads as R18. I think Commissioner Tuma was called Chair Tuma in a couple of places. Those are the amendments I suggest. 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 So do we vote on it? All in favor of the amendment? Aye. City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 1 of 58 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Verbatim Minutes Wednesday, February 29, 2012 EXCERPT 2080 Channing Avenue, Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center*: Request by Sand Hill Properties for Planning and Transportation Commission review of: (1) certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) Planned Community Ordinance for the renovation of the three existing retail structures and on-site relocation of one of the retail structures, the construction of 10 new single-family homes, and the creation of a 0.20 acre park; and (3) a Tentative Map to subdivide the lot into one commercial parcel (including a park) and ten single family residential parcels. Zone District: Planned Community (PC-1643). 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Vice Chair Fineberg: This afternoon at about noon members of the Planning Commission received copies of a revised version of the Resolution certifying the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report and we received a First Amendment to the Final Environmental Impact Report and I have some significant concerns about whether receiving documents six hours in advance of a Public Hearing gives my fellow Planning Commissioners adequate time to review the documents, understand them and then ask questions and significant concerns about whether the documents, while being posted on the internet about three or four hours in advance of the hearing satisfies legal technical requirements. My significant concerns are with whether the public has the knowledge that those documents exist, has the ability to review them and understand them and comment on them in a public hearing and I would just like to make sure that through our Staff presentation those concerns are addressed and hopefully allayed and if not maybe we need to discuss alternatives about how to deal with that. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Mr. Curtis Williams, Planning Director: Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment. I think we’ll have the Environmental Consultant and our Attorney, Outside Counsel talk to the nature of those changes which we think are not substantive. Thank you. 29 30 31 32 Ms. Melissa Tronquet, Deputy Asst. City Attorney: Vice Chair Fineberg, I did just want to confirm that the posting of the documents does comply with the legal requirements for the Brown Act. We did confirm that they were posted online and made available to the public at the same time they were provided to the Commissioners today. However, if the Commission determines it needs more time to review these documents its certainly within your purview to make a decision whether to continue this item to another meeting but it did comply with the legal requirements. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Chair Martinez: Any members of the Commission care to comment on this? Can we hear from our Consultant… I’m sorry. Yes, Commissioner Garber. 41 42 43 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 2 of 58 Commissioner Garber: I was just going to ask if we could highlight what has changed in the documents if that’s easy to do. 1 2 3 Ms. Elena Lee, Senior Planner: Basically the changes made in the Amendment basically are the addition of strikeouts and a few minor technical word changes to reflect Staff’s recommendation that the project be considered fully mitigated. If you look through the document it strikes out language saying that it is a significant unavoidable impact and inserts language confirming the agreement that the project is fully mitigated. Similar changes were made to the Resolution and the City’s Environmental Consultant can speak to the details on the exact changes. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Commissioner Garber: So just by way of example I’m looking at the revised version of the resolution, etc. I just quickly leafed through it because I didn’t see it when it was emailed to me but I’m not noticing any strikeouts for example or underlines. Is that in fact the case? 11 12 13 14 Ms. Lee: That is correct. The strikeouts are not in the resolution. They’re only really in the amendment to the final EIR. The only change really to the resolution of the final EIR is just the addition of language clarifying that the reason the site was considered historic was more for architectural reasons rather than the site and its just added language strengthening that position and saying that because its more of an architectural issue that changes to the site would not cause a significant unavoidable impact to the site. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Commissioner Garber: Okay. I’ll scan through the other document. 22 23 Commissioner Keller: So correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding is that the original FEIR basically said that there were significant unavoidable impacts and then the First Amendment to the Final EIR basically said that there are no significant impacts. The impacts were changed from significant unavoidable to insignificant impacts. Is that right? 24 25 26 27 28 Ms. Lee: Correct. The Draft EIR provides the assessment by both the Historic Consultants and based on those two assessments Staff took the more conservative approach in agreement with Carey and Company and in the Resolution that you received in the Staff Report, Staff recommended that the project be considered fully mitigated and then in the Amendment to the Final EIR which you received tonight was a clarification of all those points but originally the Consultant drafted the EIR to reflect that we’re taking a more conservative approach but upon further assessment we changed our position and agreed with the assessment… Curtis is correct. That change was not made tonight. It was made in the original Staff Report and Resolution that was submitted to you. So the documents you received tonight were basically minor technical changes to clarify the Staff’s original position in the Staff Report and Resolution. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Commissioner Keller: So perhaps you can identify where in the original Staff Report it indicates that the FEIR was an error and that there were… Where in the Staff Report are the changes to the FEIR that are being proposed? 40 41 42 43 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 3 of 58 Mr. Rick Jarvis, Consultant to City Attorney’s Office: Maybe I should address that. I’m Rick Jarvis, Outside Legal Counsel to the City and I was asked to tonight to address this overall issue and maybe it makes sense to address it now rather than later in the process. It really isn’t an error in the EIR. The Draft EIR explained that there were conflicting expert opinions as to whether or not the historic impact, this project’s impact on historic resources was significant and unavoidable or significant but mitigatable. All the experts agree that the site did contain historic resources but the experts disagreed as to the feasibility of mitigating that impact so the Draft EIR explained and summarized the conclusions of each expert and informed the public that the City Council would have to make the final decision as to whether the impact was significant and unavoidable or significant but mitigatable. 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 In order to make sure we’re fully complying with CEQA and fully disclosing impacts the decision was made to have the Draft EIR conservatively identify the impact as significant and unavoidable in case that was the ultimate conclusion of the City Council. At the same time it did state that this was an open question. After the Draft EIR was circulated and published the Historic Resources Board did take a look at the issue and they came down on the side of finding that the impact would be mitigatable so that was one factor that weighed in Staff’s consideration to decide yes, the Draft EIR was probably being overly conservative and ultimately Staff decided to recommend that that conclusion be adopted. That conclusion, and this is an important point, is reflected in the Staff Report was circulated well in advance of this hearing and I would direct the Commission’s attention to Pages 19 and 20 of the Staff Report where it indicated that no statement of overriding considerations will be needed because all of the impacts would be mitigated and starting from Pages 16 to 19 there is extensive discussion by Staff of the Historic Resource issues. For the purpose of this meeting and for the purpose of the Staff Report, Staff recommended and is continuing to recommend a conclusion that the impact can be mitigated. After the Staff Report was published the question came up of what about the Draft and Final EIR that has the more conservative conclusion and in order to make the record clear for the purposes of tonight’s meeting, the documents that were circulated earlier today were clarifications and revisions to the Final EIR that are consistent with the position that Staff has taken in this Staff Report. Commissioner Keller: Would it be fair to say that the statements in the FEIR that say that the impacts are significant and unavoidable were actually something that should have been changed and weren’t. That was the intent but that change was not made in the FEIR. 34 35 36 37 Mr. Jarvis: The FEIR states, as does the Draft EIR, that there is a conflict of expert opinion on this and the original FEIR did say in light of this conflict we are going to take the more conservative approach of flagging these impacts as significant and unavoidable but the City Council will make the final decision on that. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Now that Staff has decided to recommend in favor of the same recommendation reached by the City’s Historic Resource Board, that the impact can be mitigated, it was decided to amend, and City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 4 of 58 this is a proposed amendment to the final EIR, indicating that the impact can be mitigated. Now, when this matter comes before the City Council, the City Council will decide whether to certify the EIR as prepared by Staff or whether they disagree with Staff’s recommendation and the recommendation of the Historic Resources Board and if the City Council ultimately concludes that the impact remains significant and unavoidable then the Council would certify the EIR without these revisions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Commissioner Keller: I assume the EIR is prepared by an EIR Consultant? 8 9 Mr. Jarvis: Under the direction of City Staff that’s correct. 10 11 Commissioner Keller: I’m wondering when an EIR is prepared is the decision that an impact, the nature of an impact and how significant it is, whether it is unavoidable or mitigatable or whatever, is that decision made by the EIR Consultant or is that a decision generally made by Staff? This sort of brings out the issue of what the relationship is in making that decision. 12 13 14 15 16 Mr. Jarvis: The Staff was fully engaged and involved in, and actually I consulted with Staff on the legal side of that issue too and Staff made the direction to the EIR Consultant to treat, and actually this was my recommendation for the purposes of the Draft EIR, is to identify the impacts as significant and unavoidable and the reason for that is it’s okay to back off… If the Draft EIR concludes an impact is significant and later the decision maker finds it’s not a significant impact, that doesn’t trigger recirculation. But if the Draft EIR designates the impact as significant but mitigatable and the City Council disagrees with that, that raises an argument that maybe the Draft EIR needs to be recirculated as newly identifying a significant impact that wasn’t previously identified as significant so the safer approach legally is to be more conservative in the Draft EIR and flag potentially significant and unavoidable all issues that may be that way. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Commissioner Keller: So what I’m trying to understand is why is it that the changes that are mentioned in the amendment were not made to the FEIR in the first place. 29 30 31 Mr. Jarvis: Again, there was further Staff discussion. Staff only recently prior to the preparation of the Staff Report for tonight’s meeting, it was shortly before that when Staff decided to recommend in favor of that approach and so at the time the Final EIR was originally produced, Staff had not yet reached that conclusion. 32 33 34 35 36 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 37 38 Chair Martinez: We have the Staff Report and the Final EIR. I understand the circumstances of making the change but when we make a change to the EIR especially the Final EIR and it changes how we look at it, doesn’t it deserve, not necessarily being recirculated, but the opportunity for members of the public to agree or disagree with that and haven’t we put it sort of in a precarious state of not giving them that opportunity? 39 40 41 42 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 5 of 58 Mr. Jarvis: I guess I would disagree with that because the Draft EIR in this case that was circulated for public review clearly disclosed that there was a conflict in opinions between the experts that summarized both sets of opinions. It explained I think in at least two different locations that the City Council would have to make the final determination as to what expert to agree with and it also had the language that said for the purposes of this Draft EIR and for the purposes of ensuring full public disclosure we are going to treat this impact as significant and unavoidable due to this conflict in expert opinion. It was taking the more conservative route. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 So even the Draft EIR fully identified and disclosed to the public that there was the potential to go either way on this issue and explain the basis for either conclusion and the public had the opportunity to review that and comment on it during the circulation period. Mr. Williams: If I could just add to that a reminder that the EIR is an informational document. The EIR does not make recommendations on the project so as Rick indicated the document has pointed out the different ways to look at this and it’s fully covered those alternatives. Then the Staff Report has recommendations in it and the resolution ultimately has findings as to how we do treat that and recommend it so it is in our mind very appropriate that the EIR cover that, the findings and recommendation of the Staff Report are that this and were in the packet you got last week, that the approach was the historic impact was mitigatable and so again what we’ve done though just to clarify that is gone back and made sure all that language was in the FEIR so that there’s not confusion there. The kind of thing you’re talking about is going back and making sure there’s consistency there and its well documented and supported. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Vice Chair Fineberg: Thank you for taking the time to have this discussion because as I said earlier its absolutely important for the public to have a chance to understand the information going into our thought process and while something may be legal, it may be wrong and whether we are adequately prepared to review the material, whether we understand it, whether we’ve had a chance to ask questions and whether the public has had the same opportunity I think is what we’re struggling with. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 If I could go back, you mentioned in the Staff Report on Page 18 and 19 it talked about overriding considerations would not be required, a statement of overriding considerations. I’m confused by your statement because unless I’m missing it, the only thing I see is at the bottom of Page 18 where it says, “Overriding considerations must be made in order for the project to be approved as proposed”. So members of the public, if I read that right, would assume that either the proposal has to change or it is required there be a statement of overriding considerations so what changed that and where does it say there is no need for a statement of overriding considerations. Mr. Jarvis: At the top of Page 20 it says that Staff finds that the impacts to the historic character of the site would be mitigated to a less than significant level with the incorporation of the three mitigations measures described above because all impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level, adoption of overriding considerations would not be required. That is the language I was referring to. 40 41 42 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 6 of 58 1 2 3 4 I think the language you refer to is a summary of the expert’s opinion that the impact would not be mitigated but the final recommendation of Staff is on Pages 19 and 20. Vice Chair Fineberg: Thank you. You mentioned the next thing and I don’t think it has to happen right in the moment but in the issue of expert witnesses giving different opinions, is it correct that Carey and Company was the Consulting Firm hired by the City to represent the City and do a peer review of the work done by the Applicant’s Consultant which maybe I’m being presumptive but I would assume they represent the Applicant’s best interest so what we’ve done is moved away from the conclusions from the Consultant that we hired to represent our own best interest and that sort of not obvious in how we’re stating it, that it’s just dueling experts. We rely on our experts. I rely on the Historic Consultants. I rely on the Environmental Impact Reports. I rely on Staff. Either something was wrong in the FEIR that it didn’t say there were no significant impacts or something changed and I don’t know what supports that change to change the conclusion. So I’m baffled how we got on February 27th new documents being drafted without substantiation. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Mr. Jarvis: Again, I do believe and I haven’t had a chance to consider and review the record but I do believe there is discussion in the Draft EIR that Carey and Company is the City’s Consultant. I could be incorrect, I’d have to take time to look at that but I do believe Carey and Company is the City’s Peer Review Consultant, Page and Turnbull is the Applicant’s Consultant. Both are reputable and I think there’s even language in Carey’s report that recognizes that this is an issue of a difference of opinion between two different experts and certainly that is a factor that the City decision makers certainly view the Planning Commission, the Historic Resources Board, the City Council should take into account in weighing the two experts but ultimately we do have a situation where the Historic Resources Board, which is the City’s independent body that’s assigned to review this did end up still agreeing with Page and Turnbull rather than Carey and Company and that influenced Staff’s recommendation I believe. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 You raised some other issues. I’m not sure if I answered every question. Chair Martinez: That’s okay because it’s kind of going into another topic so… Yes, Commissioner Tuma. 32 33 34 Commissioner Tuma: I don’t know if we’re done with that. I just have a disclosure to make because it is a Quasi-Judicial matter. I don’t know if we’re done with the discussion we were having but before we get into that I just wanted to make a disclosure. 35 36 37 38 Chair Martinez: Right. Thanks for reminding me of that. Go ahead. 39 40 Commissioner Tuma: So I did receive an email from a member of the public which I forwarded onto Staff and it was subsequently forwarded to Commissioners and the member of the public was simply indicating that they had had discussions with the Applicant regarding potential implementation of some green measures around some of the programs that the City has that are 41 42 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 7 of 58 available so all that information has been shared with other Commissioners. I did subsequently, a couple of hours before today’s meeting, have a conversation with that same member of the public at which he simply asked whether it made sense for him to appear tonight at the meeting to which I responded, completely your choice. You’re a member of the neighborhood and if you so desire that would be a wonderful thing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Chair Martinez: Okay thank you. Anyone else on disclosures? Okay with that we are going to open the Public Hearing and go to the Staff Report. 7 8 9 Ms. Lee: Thank you. Some of what I’m about to say is a little repetitive. The item before you tonight is a request for a Planned Community Zoning and Tentative Map to allow the renovation of an existing historic shopping center, Edgewood Plaza. The project includes the relocation of an existing retail building, construction of ten residential buildings and a park to be made public via public access easements to be maintained by the property owner. The map would subdivide the lot into one commercial lot and ten residential parcels. The Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the project following an initial analysis that determined that there were potential historic impacts. 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 The Draft EIR was released for a 45 day public circulation period per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act between September 30th and November 14th. A Hearing on the EIR was held before the Commission on October 26th where Staff received comments from both the Commission and members of the public. Following that circulation period, the City’s Environmental Consultant, David J. Powers and Associates, prepared a Final EIR that addressed all comments received during the comment period. The FEIR is required to be circulated a member of ten days before the decision by the lead agency. In this case that would be City Council. As previously stated the EIR was prepared for historic reasons because the City had two different assessments by two qualified Historic Consultants. The EIR includes and analyzes both assessments in compliance with CEQA regulations. When experts differ, per CEQA the City as the lead agency makes the determination between the two based on substantial evidence. Based on both the studies and recommendation by the Historic Resources Board it was determine the project as proposed with the mitigation measures would be mitigated to a less than significant impact. The key difference is that one Consultant found the fact that the grocery store is no longer historic which makes the center as a whole not historic in terms of citing and the Environmental Consultant can go into detail on that. Therefore overriding considerations would not be required as there would not be significant unavoidable impacts. Staff has provided at places an Amendment to the FEIR and a revised CEQA Resolution and in reference to Commissioner Garber’s question about what changes in the Resolution, it is on Page 5 under Section 5, additional languages added to the introduction clarifying the differences of the two Consultants and reflection of Staff’s new position. The documents are technical modifications made at the request of legal counsel and Environmental Consultant to clarify Staff’s position as reflected in the original Staff Report as City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 8 of 58 well as the original CEQA Resolution. There are no substantive changes to either document. Additionally, Staff would like to address the mislabeling of the related attachments. The PC Ordinance was mislabeled as Attachment A and the CEQA Resolution was also mislabeled as Attachment B. The Resolution should be labeled with A and is referenced as such in the Staff Report. Similarly, the PC Ordinance should be labeled as Attachment B and is referenced as such in the Staff Report. 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 The Ordinance also serves as an approval document for not just a PC request but for the Tentative Map. It contains the findings for both the PC and Tentative Map. Accordingly, there does not have to be a separate record of land use action for the Map request. The Chair has also requested a clarification on the term rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is a term defined by the Secretary of Interior as a process of returning a property to a state of utility through repair, alteration and efficient and contemporary use while preserving the components of the property which have historic architectural cultural values therefore the work on the two smaller buildings which have been deemed as historic are deemed as rehabilitation per the Secretary of Interior. The Environmental Consultant will also provide further clarification on this. Following Staff’s presentation the City’s EIR Consultant, Powers and Associations, will make a short presentation followed by the City’s CEQA Attorney Rick Jarvis, who you’ve heard from already. Also here tonight is the HRB Chair Martin Bernstein and ARB Chair Heather Young to discuss the HRB and ARB Hearings. The HRB did recommend that the PC Zoning be approved by the Council at the October 19th Hearing. They also expressed their position that the project in their opinion was deemed fully mitigated. The ARB recommended that the project be approved on February 2nd. The Applicant will also make a presentation. The Planning and Transportation Staff, along with the City’s Environmental Consultant and Traffic Consultant are available to answer the Commission’s questions. Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that Council certify the EIR and approve the PC and Tentative Map requests. Next to speak would be Judy Fennerty of David J. Powers followed by Rick Jarvis. Ms. Nora Monette: Good evening. I’m Norah Monette with David Powers and Associates and we assisted the City with preparation of the EIR. Just to clarify some information about the Historic Resources conclusions. As was discussed at the previous Planning and Transportation Hearing on October 26, 2011, the EIR includes a somewhat unique discussion of impacts to Historic Resources. The discussion of impacts to Historic Resources in Section 3.2.5.3 of the Draft EIR includes a comparison of the opinions of two expert Historic Consultants. In some aspects, the experts agree and in some aspects, particularly the importance of the spatial relationship of the retail buildings on the site, the expert opinions differ. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 The discussion of Historic Resources impacts was subsequently modified in the Final EIR circulated in February 2012 to reflect that the City’s Historic Resources Board has taken the position of the relocation of Retail Building 1 and the addition of residential homes to the site is not significant and the rehabilitation of the two retail buildings as proposed by the project and City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 9 of 58 outlined in mitigation measures CR-2.1 and CR-2.2 is adequate to mitigate the alteration of the identified Historic Resources. As noted in the EIR the Palo Alto City Council will consider the expert opinions of Page and Turnbull and Carey and Company provided in the EIR and ultimately make a decision regarding the significance of Historic Resources impacts. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 The Draft EIR circulated starting on September 20, 2011 and identifies two significant impacts to Historic Resources based on the expert opinion of Carey and Company. At the request of City Staff, a Draft First Amendment to the Final EIR circulated in February 2012 and was prepared to provide decision makers with information on what the impact conclusions would be based on the expert opinion of Page and Turnbull and the Motion passed by the Historic Resources Board regarding the project. As Rick Jarvis said, the changes to the Historic Resources impact conclusions shown in the Draft First Amendment to the Final EIR provided to the Planning Commission, first they do not identify a new significant environmental impacts. Second, they don’t identify an impact that is substantially more severe than is previously described and third, they don’t identify other significant new information that was not included in the EIR. Therefore, while the significant conclusions could change, it is important to note that recirculation of the EIR would not be required under the CEQA Guideline Section 15008.5 because information on the evidence presented by experts is included in the EIR. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Commissioners, any questions before she leaves? Okay thank you. 21 22 Mr. Jarvis: I actually already made the presentation I was going to make so I don’t have anything more to say on that right now. 23 24 25 Chair Martinez: Who is next? I thought the Historic Resources Chair was going to speak. Thank you. 26 27 28 Chair Martin Bernstein: Thank you Chair Martinez. Martin Bernstein, Chair of the Historic Resources Board. HRB voted six to one in support of the proposed relocation of Commercial Building 1 because the United States Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation for Historic Buildings and the California State Office of Preservation allows for relocation if the historic character of the properties is preserved and the HRB agreed that the historicism of the three buildings would remain intact. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Further, the Secretary of Interior Standards allows for relocating a building on its site if the relocation results in an easy and natural relationship to the other site elements. Just to perhaps offer a simple discussion about this is about moving a building or not, imagine the Hewlett Packard garage over on Madison Avenue. That’s very site specific. If a proposal was to move that building on that site that would likely be considered a significant impact because of a relationship to the rest so that’s an example where its appropriate to look at a particular structure frozen in time and significance in keeping it exactly where it is. As many of you know, it’s been restored using the exact nails that were on that building. City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 10 of 58 The project before you today, it’s a changing economy, changing use of automobiles, changing 101 from its original history and therefore, making any changes to the location of one particular building, if its viewed to be an easy and natural relationship to the existing site elements, that’s the basis for the HRB supporting six to one to move the building as proposed. Thank you. 1 2 3 4 5 Chair Martinez: Yes. 6 7 Commissioner Michael: One question I have is that if you, or on the current orientation of the buildings on the site, there is parking kind of along the outside, both on St. Francis towards West Bayshore. The parking where the new housing units will be will be replaced with housing units and then the parking on the St. Francis side will be replaced by the park and then the building would move so the primary visual change of the effect of relocating Building 1 would be to move the parking area from the exterior of the site to the space in between the grocery and other buildings. Can you comment on how that affects your work on the HRB and your conclusion? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Chair Bernstein: The work on the HRB looks at, and it is quoting some of the wording in the National Guidelines for Rehabilitation and that talks about the feeling of the site. That was part of the thoughtfulness of the HRB and that is to say is the historic feeling intact and we voted that it did by making the change that you’re referring to. 16 17 18 19 20 Vice Chair Fineberg: In the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, the second standard says that the historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alterations of features and spaces that characterize the property shall be avoided. So I want to reemphasize the spaces, changes or alterations to spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. So can you talk about how HRB gets from shall be avoided to is allowed and whether there should be mitigations in there somewhere. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Chair Bernstein: The book that the City has directed the HRB to respond to is the entire booklet and that also includes guidelines so the word shall is, there may be and there can be preferred ways of looking at all projects and then it becomes the ability of every Board, every Commission and every Council to make good judgments of how that fits in with the societal goal so they are standards to start with and then becomes a local discussion. There is a report, it may be in your packet or I’ve seen it in other Commissions, about how careful the Applicant is going to be doing, whenever there is a relocation, how the materials for keeping the historic qualities through the repair so perhaps that helps address the idea of the quality of the entire site and will still have the historicism as the building gets relocated. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Chair Martinez: Thank you very much for coming. Chair Young of the ARB. 38 39 Chair Heather Young: Good evening Commissioners. I am Heather Young representing the Architectural Review Board. As Elena has done in her very thorough report, it has indicated this project came to the ARB somewhere in the neighborhood of five to six times and many of us also publicly disclosed that we met individually with the Applicant to review specific issues that they wanted to share with us prior to the actual formal hearings. They had engaged an Architect 40 41 42 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 11 of 58 for the retail spaces, a second Architect for the residential units and a Landscape Architect to design the public park and the parking plaza areas so each time they came to us they presented three different projects that were all clearly integrated together. 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 The presentations over the last year began with more tentative proposals that were large in scale such as could the Building 1 be relocated. If we had ten units and their orientation was this and their site coverage was that, how do you respond to this as Architects? We gave them feedback encouraging them to look to the neighborhood housing development, the Eichler style, to take keys and clues for the massing, the orientation of the roof planes, the size of the apertures, the actual compositional elements of the housing to help it become more compatible with the local neighborhoods. Similarly on the retail buildings, we encouraged them to think about the views to and from the residential neighborhoods, the pedestrian access and experience going to and from the residential neighborhoods and as they developed contemporary solutions that weren’t required when the buildings were originally built such as roof screens for required mechanical and garbage enclosures for recycling and trash pickup, again asking them to take clues from the local neighborhood as far as massing and proportion and again to think about the local neighbors’ experiences of the new project as well as the experiences of the new inhabitants to the ten residential units. They took those comments very well and came back to us with improved designs each time. We also requested that they look at reducing the size of the residential units. Putting them further away from the property lines, giving them greater setbacks, asked them to think carefully about the privacy issues between the residential units, not just to the existing neighborhood but between the new residential units. They again took those comments and actually came back with a new Architect and made further improvements. The Board after this number of meetings and presentations came down with a 4-0-0-1 vote in favor of the project. The one was actually an abstain vote by our newest Board Member Lee Lippert who was a former PTC member and he didn’t feel that he could vote or to have made comments as a PTC member and then formally take action as an ARB member would be a conflict of interest in the taking two bites of an apple scenario that is sometimes described in the City. In general, the Board was in favor and our final hearing on February 2nd we did give it an approval with conditions to come back to subcommittee with some minor elements regarding a few specific materials and there is a long list of specifics that you can look at if you’d like. Regarding the comments or questions about the relocation of Building 1, I’m going to anticipate a question. We did look at that and we talked about it extensively and we weren’t thinking about it from a historic standpoint the way that Martin’s group was. We were actually thinking about it from the way that that building related to Retail Building 2, the grocery building and how it related to the neighbors across the street. One of the comments that had come up early from some of the neighbors were some concerns about this increase of activity and the parking directly across from them, particularly on St. Francis and it is my understanding that they actually welcomed that the parking was consolidated City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 12 of 58 in the interior space and it reduced the traffic on St. Francis. We actually agreed with that, that you had a more efficient parking configuration, it would reduce time of people driving around looking for parking spaces. All of the entrances proposed by the Applicant were facing the interior parking lot so it all made sense to relocate that from that perspective. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 As to the buildings themselves, by making that shift we felt that it improved the visual connections between the park and the parking lot and the relationship between the two buildings on the park and the parking lot and that it helped to bring more light and air circulation into the complex. It was an improvement to the project so we actually found ourselves not talking about if but how much and how much could we do to improve or recommend rather to improve the situation. I hope that addresses that question. Chair Martinez: Anyone? Yes, Commissioner Michael. 13 14 Commissioner Michael: That was an excellent answer. I just have one disclosure. I grew up in Palo Alto and when I was eleven years old I used to ride my bicycle down to the Edgewood Plaza and read comic books and eat candy I spent my allowance on so I have some very fond memories. I don’t know if that rises to historic character but it’s definitely a childhood memory. There were concerns about parking in terms of number of parking spaces and I wondered if, and this is towards the end of the process with many hearings and approvals earlier but was there any discussion of the feasibility of underground parking when Building 1 is relocated to the extent that that might mitigate concerns about the overall project being under parked. I know that it may be close to the water table as you get near the Bay but I just had that curiosity. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Chair Young: I don’t recall that coming up as a topic but maybe Staff has recollection one way or the other. I don’t know if that was ever brought forward as a proposal. 25 26 27 Chair Martinez: A follow up, Vice Chair. 28 29 Vice Chair Fineberg: Is Edgewood Plaza in the tidal flood zone so it wouldn’t be allowed? 30 31 Ms. Amy French, Acting Assist. Director: Construction of a below grade parking in an area with a finished floor requirement above the flood level, you have to construct it as a bathtub basically and it becomes quite expensive and Staff is not or hasn’t seen the need for that or hadn’t encouraged that approach and neither did the ARB. 32 33 34 35 36 Chair Martinez: One question before you go. I noticed in the drawings that there were quite a few improvements to the existing retail buildings, like the mechanical screening that you mentioned and some change of materials. Did you find that sort of in keeping with the historic character of the building? 37 38 39 40 41 Chair Young: We weren’t particularly looking at the historical character as much as the architectural character and how it related to the… I should back up. They also had to make some seismic improvements to the building and I think some of the material changes that you’re 42 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 13 of 58 referencing were to help mitigate the impact esthetically of those seismic improvements. Also the buildings I understand had been modified a number of times through the years. The grocery store in particular had a large series of clear story windows that had been completely boarded over so there was a concerted effort on the Applicant’s part to bring back some of the original proportion and quantity of glazing as well as to increase its attractiveness today and coordinate with the seismic and the roof screens. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I don’t know enough about what it looked like originally historically to comment on that particular thing but we did feel that the final presentation with taking in accessibility and the requirements for door widths and for seismic and for roof screens actually did a very nice job bringing the plaza up to make it an attractive retail destination. Chair Martinez: What about the marquee sign? 13 14 Chair Young: The marquee sign is something I think, and Staff needs to jump in here if I get this wrong but my understanding is that they are still waiting for the tenants to come back with the actual presentation or proposal for the graphics and the size. We did an approval with the condition that the signs actually came back once they had a firm proposal. Keeping the original sign I think was an attempt to maintain as much of the historic quality of the original complexes that they had and we won’t really know how close they come until we get a final proposal. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Okay, with that we have a few members of the public that wish to speak. Okay the Applicant has fifteen minutes for their presentation. 22 23 24 Mr. Jim Baer: Good evening Commissioners. There will be three of us presenting on behalf of the Applicant. I will be presenting background and public benefits. John Tze the primary Applicant will discuss and present graphics and show you the design and development of the site and buildings and then Lynn Sedway, one of Palo Alto’s most favored Land Use and Retail Economists will present the significance of why relocating Building 1 creates a unified parking field, visual access that is necessary for the success of a grocer and retail. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 So to begin with the background, the two parcels of Edgewood Plaza had been un-unified for over 25 years. They were under separate ownership, one a local Menlo Park group and then a matriarch in San Diego so there could be no Master Planned opportunity for the center without the unification which took place in 2006 under the current owners and Applicant. The neighborhood CC&Rs have been amended to approve the proposed site and building plans with enormous legal support to the residential owners within Edgewood. The CC&R Amendment includes this site plan and this number of homes and this location of buildings and driveways and parking. It was that comprehensive a plan to settle the opportunity to enforce that there not be the opportunity for an Applicant to think that there might be 25 or 27 homes or as at Alma Plaza of a similar size, 37 homes so the 10 homes is part of what took place in the CC&R Amendment. The project historic analysis has been approved and adopted by the Historic Resources Board and you’ve heard plenty of that tonight. The site plan commercial City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 14 of 58 buildings and homes have been approved by ARB subject to minor items returning on the consent calendar primarily for the homes. The porch, the mailbox and the doorbell. Those level of details are always more important and require more final hearing as plans develop by the ARB than new commercial buildings. 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 The proposed project has been favorably reviewed, not by formal vote but by the PTC multiple times last year and this year. With respect to public benefits, there is a commitment to provide a grocery store for which there are two precedents for this being the overriding benefit. At Alma Plaza no homes could be sold without there being a grocery store that both signed a lease and pulled tenant improvement building plans. That grocery store commitment was for the useful life of the building. I may be incorrect. It may be in perpetuity or for the useful life of the building. JJ&F 50,000 square foot office building was added to preserve an 8,000 foot grocery store, to rebuild an 8,000 foot grocery store. Enormous increased development rights and again I’m not sure if it is in perpetuity or for the useful life of the improvement as its developed so the commitment to write a grocery store for its useful life or in perpetuity and I’m sorry I don’t have the Ordinance presented to you in front of me, is an overwhelming public benefit that cannot be compelled under any Ordinance including the PC Ordinance. This could be an athletic club, this could be a Walgreens, CVS, Rite Aid. To provide a grocery store is what the community wanted and is of enormous public benefit. In an earlier Planning and Transportation Commission meeting a couple of the members said you should identify the preservation of the historic buildings as a public benefit and the reason for that is there are opportunities to modify or demolish buildings through overriding considerations or through other analysis of the Federal Standards for Historic Buildings and we didn’t do that. We said we will restore and renovate Eichler Building 1 and 2 and even though the grocery building is not historic because it lacks architectural integrity we are making it compatible to the other Eichler buildings and to the original Eichler design. There will be a display honoring Joseph Eichler in several ground based diagrammatic in metals in the plaza. There will be, this is not a public benefit but just to point out there will be over $2 million of ongoing revenue benefits and impact fees. $371,000 per year for property taxes and sales taxes and then an initial impact fee of $1,613,000. Those are stated as public benefits. If there is an opportunity only after the presentation of the other two I may want to respond to the lengthy letter of Dr. Angelica Volterra who writes very well and very intelligently but with great tangentiality as was proven for Campus for Jewish Life, Sunrise Assisted Living and the medical building on East Embarcadero where the size of the buildings, the site plan and the use of the buildings were not changed in response to her lengthy and intelligent writing. We think you will find that true for this project as well. Now for John Tze and a presentation of the site plan and building plans. Mr. John Tze: Good evening Commissioners. My name is John Tze, 203 Redwood Shores Blvd. in Redwood City. Thank you for seeing us again. I’m sure you’re getting tired of seeing me here over and over. Let me try and focus more on new things that you may not have seen in your package. This is in your package. The basic program has not changed for quite a while. 41 42 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 15 of 58 Ten homes to the north, a relocated historic building, unified parking field. When we brought this project the first thing that we looked at is how do we get more land out of the project and basically you can do that by going underground for parking. Typically, like with what was formally the Rambus Building and Marriott next to it and now it’s a box, with that two level parking underground on El Camino or down the street with our Whole Foods and two levels of underground parking, its not too hard to do $15 or $20,000 per stall of underground if you’re on one level. Two you’re going a little bit more expensive. That’s a cheap way to get land so we looked at trying to do that here but as was pointed out we are right at the flood zone, literally the finished floors of these buildings are within a foot of the 100 year flood by FEMA. The clay or soil in this location is not favorable to going underground but basically as Amy had said you have to build this bathtub and we have enough problems with the Whole Foods and dry land over there being right next to the Bay and the water elevation provided by that it became prohibitive as far as cost. It’s possible, but economically it just wasn’t feasible and so we had to give up on that idea. Of course, back then we were also looking at starting new with fresh ground and see what we could build from there so, here we are today. 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 Again the basic program has not changed. The main focus, you know last week we had a neighborhood meeting, about 150 people came out and what I wanted to emphasize with them is that a lot of the project has been designed around this is a neighborhood center anchored by a grocery store and it is intended to be that way going forward. A key element in our property as kind of a premier location in my opinion is this park that we’re designing up in the northwest corner and the reason is as you’re coming down Channing Avenue, as ARB pointed out to us at one of the earlier hearings, if you’re riding or walking down the street along Channing which is major thoroughfare, you don’t want to do it on Embarcadero necessarily. As you’re walking towards our center and riding your bike or driving your car you’re going to be able to look right through the park, see the front end of the first historic building, see the other front end of the second historic building through the park and then you’ll see the front doors of the grocery building so this connectivity is intended and that was a suggestion by ARB. We shifted the buildings around to accomplish that but the main focal point of the project has always been to have a park at the premium location that opens up to the neighborhood. The six years that we’ve been on this project I’ve gotten to know a lot of neighbors and one of them is John Foster who suggested to me that I look into a new program that the utility program may be coming out with as far as putting solar panels up on your roof and getting reimbursement or something like that. I haven’t gotten into the details yet but we are certainly going to be looking at these alternative resources. In getting to know the neighbors, the mothers have mentioned their fine meeting up on the street corner and talking and having their kids but there is really no place for community. The reason for this park is not to be playing football or anything like that. Yes, there is a little park horse thing and there is something for children to climb up and down on. You can see detail in your own packages but basically it’s a plaza for community gathering. It’s going to be pedestrian scale, lots of bench seating. There is going to be a lot more shade than what’s shown now and that’s a comment that came from neighbors but basically its somewhere for people to gather. City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 16 of 58 You want to play chess, you want to bring food there, its open to the public and will have a public access easement recorded over the park. Specifically we designed up against the two retail edges that you see in the center photo. There is seating that is designated for those tenants and those are supposed to be restaurant or food uses so those so called private areas are segregated from the public so not to be able to mix over time. Certainly, people from retail will be invited to eat out in the large plaza area and so forth but that is a comment that came that we segregate the public from private. 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 This is just kind of obviously a rendering, and you have this is your package, of the entry coming into Edgewood Plaza. Back in the far left is one of the renovated historic buildings. That is the one that is relocated. The sign is essentially where it is now but we are going to reorient it so the main body of the sign is parallel to Embarcadero Road and you might think you can’t see past all the trees along Embarcadero and on the southbound off ramp of 101. Well CalTrans is happy for you to pay them and let you come and maintain their trees and clear out their bushes so we’re going to do the same thing that Arrillaga did kitty corner across 101 and they put a nice little fence in, cleared out all the brush and what not so we’re going to get the visibility which retail requires back on the retail so its not just a blink of an eye that the property goes by and you’ll be able to see the sign and a lot more of the retail once we clear out some of this foliage. These are images you’ve also received in your package so I won’t go over that but this bottom one is more or less from Channing looking through the park. The one above is the building that is across from the Vedic Center right now and of note that Page and Turnbull tells us that CMU Wall over on the far left side. That’s historic so we have to maintain a CMU wall, we can’t put art on it or anything. It has to be a plain CMU wall and we’ll do that. These are some renderings that the artist came up with after we were able to put your packet together so you haven’t seen them. They’re basically the same photos you have in your package but they are more accurate as to color and material. ARB asked us to use integrated colors into the plaster siding and then the rest of the siding you see that looks like wood is actually intended to be wood and so you have to have specialists come in and put these wood panels on. The fence was specifically designed to only be four feet and that was in response to our neighbors who we met regularly with from the architectural control company as part of the CC&R. These few large trees are not the correct trees. The true trees are much bushier and much larger and would extend beyond the front of that house but that’s what we have on these renderings. That’s another shot of a couple of homes along Channing Avenue. The five homes along Channing specifically face their front doors out onto Channing to be a little bit more inviting. This is actually the house that is the first house right past the park so this is kind of a little more accurate rendering than what you have in your package on some of those others. This is a bird’s eye view of the model that the architects built and that’s already in your package. So in the five years that we’ve held this property we’ve been looking for a grocery store off and on and in the last few years we’ve really focused on trying to get a grocery store. It hasn’t been easy. The economy has sagged and most people basically cleared their real estate departments City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 17 of 58 out and weren’t looking to expand anything anywhere. Low and behold a company called Fresh Market who is only east of the Mississippi right now, they have about 125 stores, they are public, and eventually they were drawn to this property. We lured them and invited them to come to Edgewood Eats and their executives came. The whole neighborhood came out. They were all writing on the Facebook page and trying to encourage Fresh Market to take this site seriously. I would not be very comfortable with Fresh Market dipping their toes into Northern California or California if they weren’t that they were making a concerted commitment to the State of California. It’s not only this one as the first Northern California location for them but they are looking at many communities in California and so I think we as landlords we don’t want the risk of somebody just opening and then three years later they can’t do it and so we’re shutting down and going back home east of Mississippi. I don’t think that’s the case because they’re on their way to having at least six stores open within the next year in California. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 The below photo is just a typical store that they have and basically they are… Chair Martinez: You may finish if you can wrap it up. 16 17 Mr. Tze: Just a few more images of what they have inside there. They’re not specifically organic like Whole Foods but they consider themselves a little more value oriented than Whole Foods. That was about it actually so if I may I’d like to have Lynn Sedway, our Economist say just a brief word and I’m sure she won’t go more than just a couple of minutes. 18 19 20 21 22 Chair Martinez: You’re going to have five minutes after the public has spoken if you want to use that time. 23 24 25 Mr. Tze: Okay thank you. 26 27 Chair Martinez: We have quite a few members of the public who wish to speak. You’ll each be given three minutes. The first three speakers are Martin Yonke to be followed by Diane Sekimura to be followed by Gayle Olsen. 28 29 30 31 Mr. Martin Yonke: Good evening. My name is Martin Yonke. I live at 1954 Edgewood Drive in Palo Alto and I live just up the street from Edgewood Plaza. In the CC&R Zone that was established by Joseph Eichler when he built the shopping center and the 90 homes that surround it he did that as a single project and his goal was to have a neighborhood friendly shopping center within walking distance of his house and homes. I’m also a member of the ACC, the Architectural Control Committee of the CC&Rs that was established by Joseph Eichler. My fellow members are Diane Sekimura and Gayle Olsen. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 The ACC had concerns about some earlier proposals from the developer and along with, or after long discussions and a court case we came to an agreement in 2009 and that agreement was a compromise from both sides and is essentially the proposal that you see here. It maintains a neighborhood serving shopping center that fits in with the surrounding Eichler homes. Since them John Tze has been meeting with us regularly and giving us updates and changes and City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 18 of 58 discussing the issues. I’d also like to acknowledge John’s efforts and that of Jim Baer for contributing to the compromise and working with the ACC. I’m here as a neighbor and speaking for the ACC to say that we’re in favor of the Edgewood Plaza project. We’re looking forward to having a revitalized neighborhood shopping center that can once again be an asset to Palo Alto. Thank you. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Vice Chair Fineberg: Diane Sekimura to be followed by Gayle Olsen. 7 8 Ms. Diane Sekimura: Good evening. I’m Diane Sekimura. 2082 Sandalwood. I want to say that the first thing I see when I walk out my driveway is Edgewood Plaza so I’m very interested in its redevelopment. I’m also a member of the Architectural Control Committee for Edgewood Tract. It’s the responsibility of the ACC to insure that the new construction comply with our CC&Rs. When Sand Hill first proposed its plans for Edgewood development, it seemed obvious to our committee that the most efficient way to proceed would be to work together from the beginning of the process to insure compliance with our CC&Rs. Our CC&Rs stipulate that the design of and the materials used in the new construction conform to the mid century design of the surrounding houses. To accomplish this goal, as you have heard we’ve been meeting regularly with John and Jim to discuss the design of the residences and the grocery store. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 We’re pleased with the preliminary designs of the grocery store particularly because it appears much closer to the original design of the Lucky market when it opened in the 1950s. We are also happy that the plan includes preserving and rehabilitating the two small shops buildings according to the Secretary of Interior’s standards. The designs of the residences have been refined during our many meetings to reflect the Eichler architectural features that are familiar such as wide overhangs and large windows and strong horizontal lines. We also appreciate the thought that has gone into designing a park that can be used as a neighborhood gathering place. At a meeting last week with our neighbors and CC&R holders, the designs for the houses, the park and the plans for the future grocery and small shops, renovations were presented. I believe that based on audience comments, our community is very interested specifically in our new market and generally in a successfully renovated Edgewood Plaza. Thank you. Vice Chair Fineberg: Gayle Olsen to be followed by Michael DeMarzo. 32 33 Ms. Gayle Olsen: I’m Gayle Olsen. I live at 715 Wildwood Lane. The back of my property faces towards Edgewood Plaza. I’ve lived there for more than 40 years. As you can imagine, in that location I’ve been very interested and concerned about the development of Edgewood Plaza, the height of the building, noise, traffic. All of those issues are very important to us and so I have been attending meetings for years regarding this whole project. Also, I live in an Eichler and am very interested in the historic value of the shopping center. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 At the meeting that Sand Hill Properties held last week, a representative from Fresh Market was there. She was well received and I think this market is going to be a great asset to the community and will be more in keeping with the kind of markets that we’re accustomed to. I’d like to comment on why the Albertson’s failed because that’s a question that has come up a City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 19 of 58 couple of times in these meetings. Albertson’s purchased the Lucky store some long time ago. They made no effort to upgrade it. The store was frequently dirty. Produce was poor quality and expensive given the quality and other items of the store, there were no amenities like you could find in other grocery stores. Consequently, everyone went elsewhere to shop and all we did is go there to buy milk or bread or something last minute. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I do think the new renovated market is going to be a big success. There is a lot of enthusiasm for having a good market there. People will be able to walk and bike which is something we all want to do so I am in favor of the project and I’m also a member of the Architectural Control Committee and we have been working very closely with John and Jim on this development. Thank you. Vice Chair Fineberg: Michael DeMarzo to be followed by Jinny Henke. 13 14 Mr. Michael DeMarzo: Hi. I live on 2160 Edgewood Drive on the corner of Edgewood and Channing so I’m directly across the street from Edgewood Plaza. I would like to thank the ACC who I think has done a tremendous job representing the neighborhood and the neighborhood interests in this project and also Sand Hill Properties for hanging in there and working with the neighborhood to put a proposal together that I think everybody can support. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 I think its time to move this project forward. We’ve been living with a dilapidated shopping center in the middle of our neighborhood for a really long time. This is a good proposal. It’s a good compromise between the community and the developer. I think Palo Alto needs to step up and show that yeah, people can work together and we can move projects through the City that are a benefit to the neighborhood and it can still have some economic benefit for the developer so I strongly support the project. I live right across the street. I have to deal with that shopping center everyday and I’m really excited about having it developed and retail within walking distance to my house and seeing this thing get underway and go so I strongly encourage the Commission to move this project forward. Thank you. Vice Chair Fineberg: Jinny Henke to be followed by Lenore Cymes. 31 32 Ms. Jinny Henke: Hi. I’m Jinny Henke and I live at 774 Wildwood Lane. That is three houses from Embarcadero. I have a lot of concerns about the project but tonight I would like to discuss traffic concerns just very briefly. I’ve had a lot of experience turning left and right onto Embarcadero from Wildwood Lane and as you know Embarcadero is a very busy road and we have a lot of traffic coming off of Highway 101 at a very high speed. I’d like to know if there is going to be a left hand turn arrow on Embarcadero for people turning left onto St. Francis. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 I don’t know if any of you know that but I talked to Rafael Ruis yesterday at the planning and transportation and he was not able to tell me whether there is going to be a green arrow but I think its going to be extremely important for people who want to take a left onto Embarcadero from the shopping center and right now its almost impossible during heavy traffic times to take a City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 20 of 58 left onto St. Francis because traffic comes across so fast and some people even run the red light at the St. Francis and Embarcadero intersection. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Also, I understand that the entrance that exists right now that takes us from inside the shopping center to the gas station will no longer exist which means that people will have to turn left from Embarcadero into the gas station and again that’s dangerous with the amount of traffic coming off of the highway. So I would like to know if I can get some answers to my questions. Thank you. Chair Martinez: I see Commissioners taking notes and I think your questions are going to be coming up. Thank you. 10 11 12 Vice Chair Fineberg: Lenore Cymes to be followed by Brenda Erwin. 13 14 Ms. Lenore Cymes: Thank you. My name is Lenore Cymes and I live at 714 Wildwood. My concern is given where the project is right now that some thought be given to putting speed bumps on Wildwood because if there’s a left hand turn lane, as it is now I’m home a lot and I’m in and out a lot and there are always cars parked on both sides of the street and I have seen so many cars turn the corner off of Channing onto Embarcadero or turn off of Embarcadero to go down towards Channing at great speeds. This is like an accident just waiting for the moment and in the process of planning and consideration that speed bumps be put in there so people have to slow down on that street because it is quite dangerous. That’s one part. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 The other thing I want to say is that I, too, am very happy there will be a shopping center. I’m glad it’s going to be moving on with a grocery store but I think we’re kidding ourselves if the historic value of the shopping center is not just the buildings. This was architecturally planned way back in the 50s and maybe we can’t live that way anymore but if I look at that drawing versus what exists now for space in terms of getting around the buildings, in terms of walking around, this just feels claustrophobic and a lot of the space and a lot of integrity the architectural integrity of the shopping center, some of it has had to go but I don’t think we should kid ourselves and say this is an Eichler shopping center anymore because it had to be changed but it would be nice to be able to have the open space and the open feeling. Thank you. Vice Chair Fineberg: Brenda Erwin to be followed by Heather Rosmarvin. 34 35 Ms. Brenda Erwin: Hi I’m Brenda Erwin and I’m the HOA President of Woodland Creek Condominiums at 1982 West Bayshore Road. Earlier today a petition was sent to you guys from our property and I just want to read it very quickly. We welcome the redevelopment of Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center and the creation of a new park at Channing Avenue and St. Francis Drive. Neighbors living within the walking biking distance of Edgewood Plaza should be able to safely walk and/or bike to the new shopping center or park. The current conditions on West Bayshore Road between San Francisquito Creek Bridge and Edgewood Plaza are extremely hazardous for pedestrians and bicyclists. There are currently no bike lane, sidewalk path, or protective divider of any kind. This dangerous section of West Bayshore Road is within the 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 21 of 58 jurisdiction of the City of Palo Alto. We expect there to be an increase in pedestrian and bicycle activity on West Bayshore Road as a result of the redevelopment of Edgewood Plaza and the creation of the new park. We are concerned that pedestrians and bicyclists, particularly children traveling to the new park will be at risk of being hit by vehicles if no safety improvements are made to West Bayshore. We urge the City of Palo Alto to improve West Bayshore Road between San Francisquito Creek Bridge and Edgewood Plaza to enable safe pedestrian and bicycle access to Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center and the new park. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Currently we have more than 70 homeowners and residents who signed the petition. When it was sent to you it was about 70 and since then more have signed and I expect more to sign up. I travel West Bayshore Road everyday towards Embarcadero twice a day. It’s incredible the speed with which cars travel on that road and the number of times I’ve seen pedestrians and bicyclists almost get hit is incredible. I’ve seen pedestrians who don’t want to walk in the ivy have to jump to the ivy to avoid getting hit by a vehicle on the two blind curves that currently exist to the south of the bridge. Thank you very much. Vice Chair Fineberg: Heather Rosmarvin to be followed by Angelica Volterra. 17 18 Ms. Heather Rosmarvin: Thank you. Heather Rosmarvin, Woodland Creek, 1982 West Bayshore Road. I want to echo the support for the project and also follow up on Ms. Erwin’s concerns as stated in the petition. There are factual errors and omissions in the EIR and unfortunately also in the Staff Report that I first want to clarify with you. I did bring a display of a map because the geographic details are important. I want to know whether I should approach the Commission with the map which is on this board or whether you can see it from here. So the stretch of road that is hazardous… okay perhaps I can be given an extra 30 seconds or something while we set up the display. 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 So West Bayshore Road currently has a sidewalk or a curb from Cooley Avenue to San Francisquito Bridge moving north to south and the north part is off that map. The sidewalk traverses the Woodland Creek property, the San Francisquito Creek Bridge and then terminates abruptly. There is a gap of about 1,200 feet of absolutely no protection whatsoever for bicyclists or pedestrians. There has been a sidewalk on Channing Avenue that picks up. Right now there are pedestrians and bicyclists that risk getting hit by a car to traverse this road. Imagine what would happen when there is a beautiful new shopping center with attractive retail and a nice park with a children’s play structure. I imagine that many children on bicycles and on foot like Mr. Michael did when he was eleven will be traversing this road. Since 2010 we have highlighted this hazard to various parties. The Commission has actually been very responsive on this issue but unfortunately the EIR does not even analyze pedestrian and bicycle activity on this road. It only looks at vehicles. It only analyzes vehicles, not pedestrians, not bicyclists. So there is no data, no information. At the September hearing Mr. Garber said you need to look at the impacts on children traveling to the shopping center and the park. That was not done so the serious flaw in the EIR, we are not going to nitpick any of the other things we might have seen. This is our one issue, our one focus. City Staff and we have City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 22 of 58 had a productive conversation over the last week. We definitely appreciate their responsiveness but until this is actually studied and analyzed in the EIR as required by CEQA, I do not think that the City can legally or in good conscience certify this EIR. We’d like to move as quickly as possible to solution. That’s what we’ve conveyed to Mr. Tze, that’s what we’ve conveyed to Staff. We want to move as quickly as possible to solution on this because it is a public safety issue and we want to see this redevelopment happen. We also don’t want to have this hazard continue and escalate because of the project. Thank you so very much. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Vice Chair Fineberg: Angelica Volterra to be followed by Jeff Levinsky. 9 10 Ms. Angelica Volterra: Thank you. Good evening. I submitted detailed comments to you yesterday that document just a few of the many deficiencies for the Final EIR for the proposed project. This document is legally inadequate and cannot be approved. I’d like to focus on three traffic related issues. First, the City’s failure to perform the required tire analyses. Second, the City’s failure to perform the required analysis of the worst case traffic scenario and third, future redevelopment within the City of East Palo Alto that will impact the project area. 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 With regard to the first two issues, yesterday I had the opportunity to discuss the project with a very experienced professional Traffic Engineer, Tom Brohard of Brohard and Associates. Mr. Brohard confirmed for me that the City must perform the tire analyses on the adjacent streets, St. Francis, West Bayshore and Channing Avenue and also that the City must consider the site as a unified site including the office building and perform a worst case scenario analysis of trip generation of both the office building and the proposed project. Tom Brohard is an expert in the field of Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning with over 40 years of experience all in California. He has an engineering degree from Duke University and was previously Chair of the Orange County Traffic Engineers Council. His extensive experience in Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning includes both private and public sectors including extensive experience providing services to public agencies. By failing to do the required tire analyses the City is failing to follow its own procedures and failing to adhere to its own standards in the evaluation of this project. The tire analysis is included in the City Standards of Significance. Also CEQA requires an evaluation of the reasonable expected worst case condition. The EIR must use the highest trip generation rates from the various permitted uses on and adjacent to the site including any permitted use that may generate higher trips than those of general office to forecast peak hour trips from the proposed project for the adjacent office use and to identify project impacts. Finally, there will be significant redevelopment in coming years in a very large area of East Palo Alto north of the project and west of Highway 101. As it has done in the past it is likely that East Palo Alto will allow projects that may create very significant traffic impacts that would directly affect the project area including the surrounding Crescent Park and Duveneck St. Francis areas because the only routes into and out of this area of East Palo Alto are West Bayshore, City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 23 of 58 Newell and University Avenue. This project would create a traffic bottleneck at West Bayshore and St. Francis and result in significant and dangerous traffic, transportation, roadway, driveway and intersection impacts at a very sensitive location. These will be immensely compounded by future redevelopment in East Palo Alto. Please deny the project and require the City to conduct a new and independent traffic analysis that properly and adequately studies the project and correctly discloses the property’s multiple significant traffic impacts as required under CEQA. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I also would like the record to reflect that Mr. Baer’s comments about me were inaccurate. I would welcome the opportunity to address his comments before you this evening if you would grant this opportunity. My comments would show my prior very detailed including a 100 page analysis of the project at 2300 East Bayshore were accurate, substantive and supported by legal evidence. Thank you. Vice Chair Fineberg: Jeff Levinsky followed by Jane Volk-Brew. 14 15 Mr. Jeff Levinsky: Good evening Commissioners and Staff. I live a few blocks from Edgewood and I have a couple of concerns about the center. First, and environmental law expert I spoke with raised concerns about the air quality study, considerations of the gas station and the proper years of operation need to be included in that. 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 Secondly, I’ve raised concerns before about the office building. The EIR has a statement that I think would mislead many. It says if the proposed use, speaking of the office, is more intense than current use the City would require a planning study to address any potential impacts including the adequacy of parking supply. I checked with the City Planner and he said such a study only happens if the type of use changes, not the amount of use. The building is currently being used as an office and as long as it continues to be used as an office the City will not lift a finger if more employees or visitors are in the building. A different tenant, using it as an office could easily meet all 55 parking spaces required by code or more but there won’t be 55 spaces. That means employees and visitors will be forced to travel through neighboring streets, interfering with bike lanes, increasing traffic delays and parking all day in front of people’s homes or maybe some of the office workers and visitors will just park at the center as we’ve been told there won’t be regular monitoring. That will then force shoppers to park in the neighborhood. The bike lane on St. Francis makes it unlikely that they will find parking there so cars will fan out to Channing, Wildwood, Edgewood, Sandalwood and beyond. Imagine having to walk blocks with your groceries and kids. There is another victim of the under parking that never gets discussed, namely the office building itself. It’s absolutely unique. It’s the only office building ever designed and built for Eichler. It was once its headquarters. We want that building to remain viable. Today it is because it can lease extra parking spaces at the center which has adequate parking for all four buildings but the plan in front of you makes that an impossibility. There will never again be adequate parking at Edgewood for the office. This plan will forever impair the building’s financial viability. What City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 24 of 58 folly. To have a gem in one’s hands and then to throw it away. Ask a simple question. Why isn’t this project an amendment to the existing PC which has been amended several times before? Because then you’d have to confront the under parking. And why isn’t there a proposed amendment to the existing PC that removes the new area? Again, that would bring light to the under parking but no matter how the proposal and EIR tiptoe around it, out at the real site where things matter this plan will likely create enormous neighborhood parking problems and will forever harm a unique part of Palo Alto’s architectural and historical heritage. Please address this tonight. Thank you. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Vice Chair Fineberg: Final card is Jane Volk-Brew. 10 11 Ms. Jane Volk-Brew: My name is Jane Volk-Brew. I live at 587 Greer Road in the adjacent neighborhood. I’ve lived there for 26 years. I just have two questions. When I look at the map it appears to me that trucks that will come to provide materials for the shopping center will have to come in off of Bayshore and back into the grocery store in a very small area. That means that the West Bayshore traffic pattern will be disrupted as the trucks ingress and egress. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 The other question I had has to do with the fuel trucks that will be coming to the Shell station and if the access to the shopping center is eliminated, those trucks which currently pull into the Shell station and then exit through the shopping center will no longer be able to do so. I believe the only way they are going to be able to get out is to back out onto Embarcadero so I think those are issues that whoever is evaluating the traffic patters with respect to this plan should address. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Thank you. The Applicant has five minutes to make their final statement. 25 26 Ms. Lynn Sedway: Thank you Chair Martinez and members of the Commission. My name is Lynn Sedway. I’m a Real Estate and Urban Economist. I was asked to address the potential of the shopping center. I should mention that Sedway Group under previous professional name looked at the shopping center in the year 2000 and I want to comment on that in a minute. The center, as you know, is located next to a lovely residential neighborhood in one of the nation’s most desirable cities yet it is now severely blighted. It is not performing at all. It is largely vacant. It is not providing significant taxes to the City but it is providing significant crime. Its current configuration has virtually no hope of being successfully released and re-tenanted. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Since the 2000 report it has declined dramatically. In 2000 there was an Albertsons. Not a particularly good one, but an Albertsons and only two vacancies although we were then as a firm concerned about blight in undertaking the study for the City of Palo Alto. In May of 2011 when we provided this recent report we found not two vacancies but only two occupied stores, no grocery store and significant blight and disrepair. The major problem is clearly the site configuration. The lot was under parked near the grocery store. Visibly the issues occurred between the store and the parking. You couldn’t see where the parking was or if you were in the parking lot you didn’t see the store exist. The revitalization City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 25 of 58 calls for correcting that situation. The site is reconfigured and remodeled and has an anchor tenant as you’ve heard. A quality new grocery store to the area of a nice size, 20,000 square feet is the size I particularly like. With the anchor tenant in place other stores will follow. I’m very excited about the reconfiguration and look forward to a successful center and of course I’m available to answer questions. Thank you. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Chair Martinez: Thank you very much. Jim you have two minutes left if you want to use it. Okay with that we will close the Public Hearing. Commissioners where are we in terms of time? Two hours so let’s do a round on the Final EIR with questions and comments and let’s start with Commissioner Keller. 7 8 9 10 11 Commissioner Keller: I will go ahead and ask the questions that were brought up about traffic since I seem to be Mr. Traffic. Do you have any comments on the tire analysis and whether that’s needed or whether that’s an adequate one? 12 13 14 15 Ms. Lee: Jaime Rodriguez can address that question along with Gary Black from Hexagon and the Environmental Consultant. 16 17 18 Mr. Gary Black: Gary Black with Hexagon Transportation Consultants. The tire index is a methodology for studying traffic on residential streets. It’s used in Palo Alto. It’s not required by CEQA or related to impacts as defined by CEQA but it is a local procedure that you have used in the past to assess likely impacts with a small eye on local residential streets. The reason I say small eyes is because it’s not a CEQA impact criteria. Typically when you look at the tire index which is a measure of whether traffic increases on neighborhood streets would be noticeable, you’re trying to quantify the potential for cut through traffic, traffic that doesn’t “belong in the neighborhood”. So it doesn’t originate or have origin or destination in the neighborhood so it’s just passing through and that would be an impact to the neighborhood. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 The particular streets that were mentioned in the comment, Channing and St. Francis for example, those streets provide access from the neighborhood to the shopping center which is also in the neighborhood so it was the determination in conjunction with City Staff when we scoped the traffic study originally we had discussions amongst our whole group about what would be the streets that might be used for cut through traffic and those were the ones that were analyzed for tire index but neighborhood traffic, driving on a neighborhood street to go to a neighborhood shopping center, that doesn’t meet the definition of cut through traffic so typically the City has not applied the tire index in that situation. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. The other question is in regard to the left turns from Embarcadero onto Wildwood and into the Shell gas station and perhaps that’s more of a Jaime question. Maybe you can address the things that were brought up by the members of the public regarding that. 38 39 40 41 42 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 26 of 58 Mr. Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official: I’m sorry Arthur. Jaime Rodriguez with the City of Palo Alto. I had a few people talking to me as you asked that question and I didn’t hear that whole thing so if you can repeat the question. 1 2 3 4 Commissioner Keller: Yes a member of the public had mentioned concerns about left turns from eastbound Embarcadero onto St. Francis and the potential for a left arrow and also the issue about the access to the Shell gas station and whether that would be problematic with the closure of the access to the Shell gas station from the shopping center. 5 6 7 8 9 Mr. Rodriguez: So first in relation to the left hand turn signal at St. Francis and Embarcadero, we actually did look at the numbers in the study. Normally when we’re looking at adding a left turn arrow to an intersection there is specific criteria we apply. Usually that criteria is a simple mathematical equation and we look at the cross products of the left turns on the street against the through volumes that conflict with that left turn movement and we look for a certain threshold of 100,000 or more to say that we need to install a left turn signal. We did look at that particular case at St. Francis. The cross product was 50,000 which would not warrant a left turn arrow to be installed. It is a good comment and a good note. I think there is some validity in the concerns of that comment and there are simple things that can be included such as signs that say left turn, revolve, and different improvements that we’d love to have a discussion with the Applicant to address those concerns. 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 The other issue for the Shell gas station, so the gas station currently has in terms of drivers that cut and goes into the existing parking lot and the question if I’m understanding it is if it needs to be protected in relation to access off of Embarcadero Road. As part of the Conditions of Approval of the project, the intersection at West Bayshore and Embarcadero Road will become a left turn lane movement for the site to protect that movement going in but when we were looking at this project with the developer we had some concerns about the spacing of Embarcadero Road and West Bayshore intersection in relation to the southbound 101 off ramp traffic onto Embarcadero Road. They are very close together and we were concerned that there would be potential for increased collisions with movements coming out of the shopping center of West Bayshore Road with the existing volumes of traffic coming off the off ramp so we worked with the developer on a concept for a closure of the left turn out movement and maintain just the left turn in. The gas station will still have left turn out but given that the left turn out on West Bayshore would be eliminated there really isn’t a specific need to protect the movement back into the shopping center because they have the access off of West Bayshore still so if that answers your question. Commissioner Keller: May I ask the other two questions about traffic if I may? So the other two questions were, there was a question about trucks and the trucks backing into the grocery store from West Bayshore and the traffic impacts of that and the safety concerns. Do you have any issues to discuss with that? 38 39 40 41 42 Mr. Rodriguez: I’ll look to the developer to answer the specific question. I will provide that when we looked at the project we did address that question. We looked at whether it was 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 27 of 58 feasible for the movements to happen onsite and we were told that the developer by the Applicant that they could actually make those movements within the site and we provided comments to reconfigure the docking bay to make sure that those movements could be protected because we didn’t want to see movements on West Bayshore. I feel pretty comfortable from the design of the site plan and from the responses from the developer that that can be maintained onsite. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. The last question in the series was brought up about fuel trucks and whether fuel trucks will have adequate access to the site from Embarcadero Road and not have issues of egress. 8 9 10 11 Mr. Rodriguez: We’re not changing the ingress access to the gas station and that shouldn’t be changed and again the access out of the gas station is still maintained on Embarcadero Road so that access is protected. I don’t think that will be an issue at this point, not unless I had a specific diagram from the Shell station about what they are doing. I was just this afternoon filling up myself and I think it should work fine. 12 13 14 15 16 17 Commissioner Keller: Thank you very much and thank you to the Chair for letting me finish this series. 18 19 20 Chair Martinez: Before you go Jaime there is a couple of other public comments about traffic in the street. The one comment about adding speed bumps to slow traffic, has that been considered on Wildwood? 21 22 23 24 Mr. Rodriguez: We have a traffic calming policy within the City of Palo Alto and we’re looking at the installation of speed humps and speed tables within the community, in this case speed humps. Those are usually community requested through a separate process. We wouldn’t look at a traffic speed hump in anticipation of a development as a mitigation which in this case there is no CEQA impact that would require that and as far as Condition of Approval we did not consider that because we weren’t seeing a specific need now and so my initial thought is that probably wouldn’t be appropriate to condition it with the project. Definitely we would always monitor those types of conditions if we needed to and could respond to the community request for them if it was what the community desired. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Chair Martinez: And the gaps in the sidewalks and safety for pedestrians and bicycles. Have you looked at that on Bayshore? 35 36 37 Mr. Rodriguez: We did. It was something that was brought to our attention in the last week from the same people that spoke tonight. We actually included that as a recommendation in our Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan which we will hear about hopefully later tonight. We actually are including that and identified it specifically as a sidewalk gap within Palo Alto that we recommend for closure of the gap in reconstructing of sidewalk facilities and we would definitely look for a partnership opportunity with the Applicant if they were interested in looking at feasibility studies or something else for that area. This is a gap that needs to be addressed and 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 28 of 58 having it within our Bicycle Transportation Plan and make sure we know that issue is documented and we’re trying to move forward to address the issue. 1 2 3 Chair Martinez: Yes Commissioner Tuma. 4 5 Commissioner Tuma: I just wanted to ask a follow up that is not necessarily for Jaime but the other component that was raised by members of the public, this would maybe either go to Mr. Jarvis or CEQA experts but is there an issue, a CEQA issue or lack of analysis about the impact on that stretch of West Bayshore or is that a nonissue here? 6 7 8 9 10 Mr. Jarvis: Based upon my review, I reviewed the Final EIR in administrative draft form with Staff and at the end of the day I was satisfied that the traffic folks gave an explanation that certainly on paper to me looked adequate. I can’t speak to the merits about what is actually going on out there but from a legal perspective what I’ve seen seems to address the issues. 11 12 13 14 15 Commissioner Tuma: Did Staff want to make any comment? 16 17 Mr. Rodriguez: I’ll just make the Staff response and Amy and Curtis are more than welcome to chime in afterwards. Usually when we’re looking at CEQA impacts and we’re looking at pedestrian circulation we are focused specifically around the site for an immediate nexus connection and there are opportunities to provide improvements outside of that project zone but from a CEQA perspective I think the project has done a pretty good job of circulating pedestrian movements in the site specifically and around its immediate periphery so from a CEQA perspective and transportation point of view we weren’t seeing anything that would require immediate mitigation. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Chair Martinez: Okay Vice Chair Fineberg. 27 28 Vice Chair Fineberg: Question for Mr. Rodriguez relating specifically to doing some follow up on the transportation stuff. On the A1.1 chart it shows the area where the trucks back up to the grocery building so they go on Bayshore heading north and then back up on a diagonal into the loading bay and can you confirm for us that they’ll be clear of whatever path it is that people are going to be trying to scramble between the trees or on the shoulder and that that won’t obstruct pedestrian traffic there? The diagram looks like they are sort of under the tree canopy. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Mr. Rodriguez: It looks to me like something is underneath the tree canopy. That truck temple that you’re seeing within this specific diagram… 36 37 38 Vice Chair Fineberg: Is that where people are going to be trying to scramble without a sidewalk? 39 40 41 Mr. Rodriguez: Oh you’re talking about the sidewalk issue. I’m sorry I was focused on the truck. 42 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 29 of 58 Vice Chair Fineberg: I’m looking at A1.1 in that sort of middle right hand section. 1 2 Mr. Rodriguez: Right where the truck is. It would be no different than any other driveway you would see on a residential house or commercial access point where a pedestrian as they’re going through should be aware of their surrounding environment for vehicles and vehicles going into that driveway should be doing the same. It’s not an unusual condition in this particular case as anywhere else we have within the City of Palo Alto or anywhere in general. 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ms. Lee: If I may I also wanted to clarify that there are no sidewalks proposed on that side of the property. The intention would be for people to go on Channing to access going along Channing to access the park or the residential units or the shopping center. 9 10 11 12 Vice Chair Fineberg: Okay thank you. Also, do we have any in the plans, do we have anything that shows what happened to West Bayshore as it progresses past this project and how does it hit and marry up with Embarcadero? Is that in our drawing somewhere? 13 14 15 16 Mr. Rodriguez: I don’t think you’d see it specifically in here because it is more focused on the site and that is probably an offsite type of improvement or Condition of Approval that would follow but I did mention earlier that the proposal we had worked out with the developer was to convert that Embarcadero and West Bayshore intersection to maintain the eastbound left turn onto northbound West Bayshore but the left turn movement would be eliminated and become a right turn only movement toward westbound Bayshore. I think I said westbound before but I meant eastbound. That isn’t shown here on this specific plan. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Vice Chair Fineberg: Do we have it shown anywhere so we can see what the circulation plan is? Staff can answer that later. Thank you. 25 26 27 Commissioner Michael: Before you go too far, I first want to acknowledge in terms of the comment letter from Angelica Volterra, this is exceptionally well written and one of the more impressive sort of attention to detail that I can recall seeing. I think that although all the questions have been asked and answered and I think are quite possibly from our process standpoint and legal standpoint satisfactory, from a practical standpoint, just having a lot of personal experience with this location, I’m not convinced the traffic safety is adequately addressed by what I see in the plans and I would compare it to the attention to controlling traffic around the Town and Country and Palo Alto High School area where you’ve got the crosswalk with the signal and the signal that is very controversial because it blocks traffic on a daily basis but it does assure safety. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 I think the traffic along West Bayshore, the reference in Dr. Volterra’s letter about being on this 5% report being notoriously dangerous and high speed thoroughfare is consistent with my personal experience. Also the difficulty of making the left turn off of Embarcadero into the gas station and blighted vacant shopping center area with the high speed traffic coming off of 101 southbound where people sit and habituate it to traveling at 75 mph and all of a sudden they’re coming into a 20 mph zone. This is a difficult transition for drivers and there are all those blind City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 30 of 58 curves on the off ramp and onto West Bayshore. These unsignalized left turns to me are problems that don’t seem to have been adequately addressed notwithstanding the very credible testimony from the neighborhood that this successful development would be extremely welcome and seems to be incontrovertible but I would think the possible addition of signals, traffic calming measures would be pretty significant although I rode my bike to read comic books when I was 11, I was struck by a car when I was 12 on my bicycle, an experience I hope never to repeat nor to have any other 12 year olds have that same experience but I think that it is probably legally sound but it doesn’t make sense to me personally that its going to be safe. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mr. Rodriguez: Let me answer your question or comments with two perspectives. One is when we are looking at the preparation of Traffic Impact Analysis reports we try to apply a consistent method across the board for developers so we aren’t being unfair to any one developer in the methodology in which they are deploying when they are applying an analysis. That’s why when Gary answered the previous question and we were looking at the tire analysis did we really focus on the areas that were outside of the streets that were feeding into the development themselves and really focus the tire analysis the way it should be on the streets that are potentially negatively impacted and directly from that shopping center and so that’s one thing we try to be consistent in the way we apply requirements for developers. 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 As far as the issue of safety and your perception of that specifically at West Bayshore and Embarcadero, I think that’s one of the reasons we met early on with the developer and really looked at what should be the appropriate operations at this intersection and I personally felt very strong that the left turn out of West Bayshore given the spacing and the 101 southbound off ramp and vehicles coming over from Embarcadero needed to be addressed and this was an opportunity to eliminate a movement and make it just an eastbound left turn onto West Bayshore into the development but eliminate that potential conflict for vehicles coming down grade from the 101 overpass towards that intersection. As far as the traffic signal, we did not consider that just because of the spacing to the off ramp. I think if we tried to signalize that movement that might have introduced some pretty significant impacts to the Highway 101 corridor. We didn’t specifically study it but in having discussions with the developer we thought that might not be the right way to go and restricting movements through the intersection would be a better safety method to address potential concerns for the future. Commissioner Michael: Okay. I had one other question coming from Dr. Volterra’s letter which was sort of a legal issue. Maybe the City Attorney or the Consulting Attorney could talk about the adequacy of the CEQA report as referenced in Dr. Volterra’s letter. Is that something you’ve looked at? 36 37 38 39 40 Mr. Jarvis: You’re going to have to refresh my memory as to which letter is Dr. Volterra’s because… Are we talking about the parking? 41 42 43 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 31 of 58 Commissioner Michael: The material that was sent to the Commissioners by Angelica Volterra sent Tuesday February 28th, about 12 pages long. 1 2 3 Mr. Jarvis: So you’re talking about the letter that was just received? 4 5 Commissioner Michael: Yes, along with all the other things that were just received. 6 7 Mr. Jarvis: What I want to stress is that CEQA provides for a public comment period for people to submit comments on the Draft EIR and imposes an obligation upon the agency to respond to the comments that were submitted during the comment period. This letter was only submitted very recently, like in the last day or two outside of the comment period so from a legal perspective there is not an obligation to respond to it point by point as there would be if the letter had been submitted during the public comment period that was provided for this document. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 There was one new issue that stuck out to me looking at the letter and that is the question about the tire analysis which I don’t recall was addressed before so yeah, I’d like to see a response to that but we had a response to that and I thought it was a good response. I don’t see that as being an issue. There is nothing else in the letter that pops out to me as not having been addressed in the environmental document but I’ve only had a brief opportunity to review it. Obviously we will be looking at it further before the City Council hearing to make sure all issues are addressed. Chair Martinez: I’m going to ask the speaker to come forward and to, first reopen the Public Hearing for a moment and ask the member of the public who raised those questions to step forward and clarify what her… Two minutes. 22 23 24 25 Ms. Volterra: Thank you. I want you to understand that the City uses thresholds, standards of significance by which it evaluates projects under CEQA and the City’s own standard uses the tire analysis and the tire analysis and the threshold statement by the City, I was provided this by the City, cause any change in traffic that would increase the traffic infusion on residential, environment, the entire index by 0.1 or more on a local or collective residential street. They don’t say we’re just going to go to a street two blocks away from this project and assess that one for cut through traffic. I want to address also the issue that in the past, I have the document, the TIA and I can show it to you. There is a TIA for a prior project at this site that did a tire analysis of those three streets and you have to understand the historical context. Back then the City was using a legally inadequate baseline standard to evaluate this project and other projects including the 2300 East Bayshore project. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Now the City has been compelled because the court cases have supported our position which for ten years the City has used an inadequate baseline. They’re now using an adequate baseline but not doing a tire analysis on the streets. To a member of the public like myself it looks like they continue to use the baseline and analyses that will show that the project doesn’t have significant traffic impact. They did the tire analysis on these three streets in the past for a prior project at this location. It has been in the past what they have done. They have done tire analyses in the past for streets surrounding these projects, not just look through traffic cut through data. Their City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 32 of 58 own standards of significance which the City provided to me state any change in traffic that would increase the tire index by 0.1 on a local or collector residential street does not say anything about cut through traffic or where they have to do this analysis. These are the City’s own standards. 1 2 3 4 5 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Rick now can you respond to that? 6 7 Mr. Jarvis: I’d have to defer to Staff on what the City’s standards of significance are and where they apply and how they apply. I heard an explanation earlier tonight from the City’s consultant Gary Black that sounded reasonable and sound to me. I’m not in a position… I haven’t independently reviewed what the City standards are. That hasn’t been my role. That’s Staff’s role. What I heard tonight appeared legally defensible to me. Obviously the decision has to be made by the City Council and the recommendation has to be made by you as to what to do with all of this information but I don’t see an evidentiary defect in the record here. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Mr. Williams: So I think that we have CEQA significance criteria. The member of the public mentioned one. They’re generally written as she read two line type thing. There is a lot of analysis, assumptions, etc. that go into those and any kind of traffic study there is a determination of what kind of traffic, where its coming from, going to and you don’t analyze every single road that there is out there. You look at where the likely impacts are and analyze those. I think Gary Black has indicated specifically why certain street may have been analyzed and others were not and that analysis happens with all of our criteria and trying to focus on that and I think we’re very comfortable with that kind of approach for this and with the overall traffic analysis that’s been done. I appreciate the comments about West Bayshore. West Bayshore has been there and has been vast roadway and such for when this was a shopping center and we’re going to try to work to create better access there but it is not this project’s sort of impact that is causing that and within the bounds of this project we should do what we can do to provide a safe environment but we can’t address this project… We can’t try to address West Bayshore’s problems through this project. Jaime indicated there are some things we can look at there but it is a bigger context than just the project itself. Thank you. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Chair Martinez: Commission, I think we’re going to move on thank you. Commissioners any further questions about transportation? Yes, Commissioner Keller. 32 33 34 Commissioner Keller: There was a question regarding the traffic impacts and potential increase in intensity of use of the office building that is not as far as I understand proposed to be changed as part of the project. Does a CEQA analysis or traffic analysis have to take into account the potential increase in traffic of an unchanged building or preexisting building? 35 36 37 38 39 Mr. Black: I’ll give you my experience in how we deal with existing buildings. Typically for traffic studies we take the existing conditions as they are and sometimes in special circumstances we do account for vacant buildings if there is a feeling that occupancy of a vacant building might actually change the environment in the area. This particular building is not vacant. It is leased. Some might argue that it could be more intensely used than it currently is but the typical practice 40 41 42 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 33 of 58 that we use in traffic studies is if buildings are in use they are taken as they are. If you kind of project that thought and say we want to go through the entire City and go building by building by building and make an assessment about whether that building is underused or potentially could be used more than it already is that’s an exercise in futility. We’d never finish any studies if we did that so we take existing conditions how they are with one little asterisk. If we know there is something big, a 16,000 square foot office building, doesn’t even come close to what we consider to be big but if there is something really big and vacant that if it got filled could change the environment we’d take that into consideration but in this particular case we don’t feel that’s what’s occurring. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. There was also a comment made about potential cumulative impacts with potential increased development in East Palo Alto. 11 12 13 Mr. Black: Yes. The traffic study did a cumulative analysis which projected quite a bit of growth throughout Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. Not specifically because there are no specific proposals within East Palo Alto but we used a growth factor to apply to the study area. 14 15 16 17 Commissioner Keller: Finally, there was a notion about a “worst case analysis”. How is that related to what CEQA and what you did? 18 19 20 Mr. Black: What we consider is, I’m not sure how to answer that. We try to project what’s actually going to happen in terms of our estimates of traffic from the project, from other development in the area, things that might happen in the future. We do our best to estimate a realistic situation. We do sort of I guess tend towards the worst case because if we have a range we tend to pick the higher number on the range so we can be certain that the impacts will not be more than what we say they are. They could be less but we try to make sure that there won’t be cases where it will be more than the estimated. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Commissioner Keller: So if you think of it like a bell shaped curve you might pick somewhere that is one standard deviation above? 29 30 31 Mr. Black: We typically look at the 85th percentile. 32 33 Commissioner Keller: Which I guess is 1 ½ or 2 standard deviations above. 34 35 Chair Martinez: Okay that was Gary Black, Traffic Consultant, responding to Commissioner Keller’s questions. Commissioner Tuma yes. 36 37 38 Commissioner Tuma: I just had a follow up to the first point that Commissioner Keller had raised which is something that I had raised a couple of hearings ago and it has to do with not the traffic from the office building but the parking because I believe we have a situation now where this office building essentially uses some of the parking for a shopping center that is more or less vacant but they don’t necessarily have parking for themselves. So when we fill the parking lot with all of these wonderful people from the neighborhood that want to shop there, what becomes 39 40 41 42 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 34 of 58 of… What sort of parking problems are we going to be facing and how do we deal with that if this office building does become more intensely used or even as it’s currently used because it has no parking of its own. Where does this leave us with parking that’s going to be used by the new development is going to lessen the parking to be used by this office building. How do we deal with that? 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ms. Lee: Basically the legal condition of this site is that there is an easement agreement between the two property owners that 16 nonexclusive parking spaces be provided on the subject site for the benefit of the office building so the Applicant has designed the project to provide those 16 spaces which are in addition to the parking that they’re providing that is required by our code for the project so those spaces will remain available for that office building in perpetuity unless there is a different agreement made. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 With respect to the office building, should the office building change in use or if it gets redeveloped in any way, the City would look at that at that point and require the property owner to provide the required parking. Commissioner Tuma: But the 16 spaces are they going to continue to be nonexclusive? 18 19 Ms. Lee: The agreement is nonexclusive but the Applicant is providing all the required parking spaces plus the 16 spaces. 20 21 22 Commissioner Tuma: Okay. What would the parking requirement be for this office building? I don’t know how many square feet it is but is 16 adequate under our code? 23 24 25 Ms. Lee: I’ll check on that. 26 27 Ms. Monette: Nora Monette, Powers and Associates. This question was extensively answered in comment letter F in the Final EIR because this was an identified concern of members of the Planning Commission and the public. As Elena said currently there are 16 parking spaces that are dedicated for this office use and the entire site is part of a Planned Community zone and in response F1, its acknowledged that a future change in building use has the potential to increase parking demand but that would be addressed as Elena mentioned as part of the City’s Planning Division’s use permit process. Also stated in response F1 under CEQA speculation about future uses that are not part of the project and parking demand at this adjacent building is beyond the scope of the EIR and the environmental review under CEQA. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Commissioner Tuma: That’s fine but I’d still like an answer to the question. 38 39 Ms. Lee: Depending on the specific use it can range from about 40 to 55 parking spaces. 40 41 Commissioner Tuma: As office? 42 43 Ms. Lee: As office or personal service which would be allowed in this building. 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 35 of 58 1 Commissioner Tuma: Current use is office is that right? 2 3 Ms. Lee: It’s actually not quite office. It’s a combination of office and personal service. 4 5 Commissioner Tuma: Okay so 40 to 50 spaces would be normally required by the code. Thank you. 6 7 8 Chair Martinez: Vice Chair. 9 10 Vice Chair Fineberg: Has Staff been able to determine if we have a circulation map of the area of Bayshore and Embarcadero and Mr. Rodriguez mentioned that there would be some changes along that intersection and I’m just not sure where to see it in the documentation. I don’t know how to determine if it’s adequate if I can’t look at it or see it described in writing. Can you point me toward that please? 11 12 13 14 15 16 Ms. Lee: Sure. The overall circulation map is part of the EIR and the TIA that was submitted. The improvements that you were referencing are mitigation measures that the Applicant isn’t necessarily proposing but would be required as a Condition of Approval. The Applicant would have to provide those documents to us if the project is approved. 17 18 19 20 21 Vice Chair Fineberg: So if I can quote Commissioner Tuma, I’d still like an answer. Do we have a circulation map that shows that intersection and if it is a proposed mitigation which one, where can I read what it is? 22 23 24 25 Ms. Lee: The circulation is shown in the TIA. There are various maps in the TIA that show the traffic volumes and it shows the general area. In terms of the actual improvement I guess it’s not part of this set. 26 27 28 29 Vice Chair Fineberg: So how do we consider whether or not the proposed mitigation is good, bad or indifferent? We’re talking about Bayshore and Embarcadero. That’s not a residential street in the middle of nowhere. That’s, I would assume, a fairly high traffic intersection and I’m not getting direction to look at what is being proposed in that intersection. 30 31 32 33 34 Mr. Black: Maybe I can help. There is not a diagram or a drawing in the EIR or the traffic study but I can read you what the language actually says. It says under existing background and cumulative project conditions the left turns from West Bayshore Road to Embarcadero Road would operate at level service E and F during both peak hours respectively. The project would add traffic to this left turn and increase delays. The peak hour signal warrant would not be met. That answers the question about the signal there. Therefore, the project impact is considered insignificant. Nevertheless, the project should be required to build a median island to eliminate the outbound left turn movement. The other movements at the intersection would operate at acceptable levels of service. So to us who deal with this a lot, we can envision in our mind what that looks like and if there was a board here we could draw what it looked like but what it is is a 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 36 of 58 raised island, like a concrete island in the road that physically prevents cars from turning left out of Bayshore onto Embarcadero. They would be physically blocked from doing that but the opposite movement would be possible. 1 2 3 4 Commissioner Keller: What you’re saying is that you can turn left from eastbound Embarcadero onto northbound West Bayshore but you will no longer be able to turn left from southbound West Bayshore onto eastbound Embarcadero. Is that correct? 5 6 7 8 Mr. Black: Exactly. 9 10 Vice Chair Fineberg: And again, I’m sorry I’m stuck on this but what mitigation is that in our resolutions and ordinances? If it is not in there it doesn’t exist and I’m not finding it and nobody is telling me which mitigation measure it is. 11 12 13 14 Mr. Rodriguez: I want to make a quick note that that specific documentation that Gary just read was from the Traffic Impact Analysis but it isn’t a specific mitigation for CEQA and the difference there is we had this discussion the night before with the 101 Lytton project and it is the mitigation versus Condition of Approval. It is not a mitigation for CEQA that that median be built but it is a recommendation of the project for consideration of a Condition of Approval. 15 16 17 18 19 20 Vice Chair Fineberg: So do we have it in our Conditions of Approval and what page is it on? 21 22 Ms. Lee: Yes of the PC Ordinance it is Exhibit B of Attachment A and that would be Condition 36. So that would be the 5th page of Exhibit B. 23 24 25 Vice Chair Fineberg: Thank you. 26 27 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller. 28 29 Commissioner Keller: Is there any expectation that that diversion of traffic that would presumably be going towards 101 might wind up increasing traffic on Greer between Embarcadero and Oregon Expressway in order to get in that general direction? 30 31 32 33 Mr. Rodriguez: In this particular case the island that would be built would divert traffic toward St. Francis and Embarcadero to get that left turn access to 101 but we probably wouldn’t anticipate it diverting traffic farther south of that towards Greer Road. 34 35 36 37 Commissioner Keller: So traffic would go down Channing to St. Francis and then turn left onto eastbound Embarcadero where there is a traffic light that would allow them to do it. 38 39 40 Mr. Rodriguez: That is correct and was documented in the Traffic Impact Analysis. 41 42 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 37 of 58 Vice Chair Fineberg: So the cars coming on southbound East Bayshore Road that don’t necessarily know they’re supposed to turn right onto Channing to escape not being able to make a left turn to get to 101, they would be forced to make a right turn onto Embarcadero and then we would increase the u-turn traffic at the first one or two intersections. Did the analysis look at the impact of the increased u-turn traffic? 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mr. Rodriguez: I think what you meant was the southbound traffic coming down West Bayshore turning onto in this case Channing toward St. Francis, I’m sorry turning onto Embarcadero so what we would likely do as part of this is knowing that’s an issue, when we work with the developer on their offsite improvements to build their Conditions of Approval we would include signage north of Channing on southbound West Bayshore to guide people towards both 101 or towards Embarcadero. That’s how we would handle that situation to avoid that impact. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Vice Chair Fineberg: Thank you. I appreciate that. 14 15 Chair Martinez: Okay Planning Director Williams, you were suggesting that perhaps we look at moving Item 2 if we’re still far behind in this one. 16 17 18 Mr. Williams: Certainly at the discretion of the Commission we do have our consultant here and a few people in the audience so I think if you’re not going to get there it would certainly be good to get to it and let them take off. 19 20 21 22 Chair Martinez: Okay Commission. 23 24 Mr. Williams: Jaime I’m thinking the 28th of March. 25 26 Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you Curtis. I agree that would be a good target date. 27 28 Mr. Williams: If you could continue it to that date then we don’t have to renotice. 29 30 Mr. Rodriguez: That would fall at the end of our public comment period which is all of March so that would be in line with that. 31 32 33 Chair Martinez: Thank you. We need a Motion. 34 35 36 37 MOTION Commissioner Keller: I move that we continue Item 2 on the agenda to a date certain of March 28th. 38 39 40 41 42 SECOND Chair Martinez: Do I have a Second? Okay all those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously with Commissioner Garber, Commissioner Michael, Commissioner Keller, Chair 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 38 of 58 Martinez, Vice Chair Fineberg and Commissioner Tuma voting in support. Commissioner Tuma absent. The item will be continued to March 28th. Thank you. 1 2 3 4 5 MOTION PASSES (6 – 1) Chair Martinez: Commissioner Garber are you still here? You had raised your hand hours ago. 6 7 Commissioner Garber: Actually most of my comments have been raised by other Commissioners. But I did want to come back. There was one member of the public who had raised some concerns about the air quality study. I’m not recalling exactly what the concerns were but does Staff have some response to those? 8 9 10 11 12 Ms. Monette: Actually I would need some clarification about what their concerns were with the air quality study. Gas stations are a source of toxic air contaminants but that would have been considered. 13 14 15 16 Commissioner Garber: I know that volatility studies had been done and they were finding less than significant amounts however, Mr. Levinsky would you clarify your concerns about the air quality? 17 18 19 20 Mr. Levinksy: Thank you. I’m not prepared to do that at this time. I just wanted to get them in on the record. 21 22 23 Commissioner Garber: Thank you. And that was Mr. Levinsky who just spoke. Question for Staff, there is clearly a number of issues which are of concern to the Commission not related to the CEQA review but they can be addressed presumably in the Conditions of Approval or other TDM measures that can be made correct? I am hearing a yes. I will save my comments until we are ready for action. 24 25 26 27 28 29 Chair Martinez: Anyone else? Yes, Commissioner Keller. 30 31 Commissioner Keller: There was a question raised by a member of the public as to the question of whether there should be a new PC or whether the existing PC that covered I’m not sure how much of the property should be amended instead. First, do you know how much of the property, or exactly what the scope of the original PC was and why we have a new PC as opposed to an Amendment. 32 33 34 35 36 37 Ms. Lee: The original PC from the 1950s covered the five parcel so that would include the three parcels on the site and then the office building at 1101 and then as well as the Shell gas station so those were the PCs that were covered. In regard to why this PC wasn’t amended, I think part of it is also because just this wasn’t proposed by the Applicant and in essence this project really is a different project, a stand alone project and that was part of the reason we did not recommend that the old PC be amended and the original PC was written in the 1950s that were done in a very 38 39 40 41 42 43 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 39 of 58 different way than what we typically do now and so it seemed best to kind of start new and then have a new PC that really addressed what our current ordinance requires. 1 2 3 Ms. French: I might add to that that the original PC was under the same ownership for all the site and of course now the three parcels are under one ownership and then there’s two other owners so we don’t require a PC to come in mandating that the other owners join in with it so the PC here amends the existing PC with these three parcels. It acknowledges the other two parcels are part of that previous PC Ordinance and those are still part of that. If they wanted to come forward they would have to amend the PC Ordinance individually or I suppose together they could come in if they got together and somebody bought the other out. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Commissioner Keller: So that brings up the question if there was an original PC that covers all the parcels including the office building then the combination of all of those parcels would require adequate parking. Now what we’re doing is dividing off the PC of the retail and new residential portion and in doing so even though it is an easement for the office building for a certain number of identified spaces the current combination PC presumably includes sufficient parking spaces for the entire parking requirement of the office building so what I’m wondering is why the requirement on the part of the remainder where the parking is because the office building doesn’t have much parking of its own if any, why is it a requirement that the office building be fully parked even though the easement is not there because its part of a single PC. Do you understand what I’m getting at? Independent of how many parking spaces are in the easement, the issue is it was part of a PC that at one time was adequately parked. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ms. Lee: At the time when the PC was approved we had a different standard of parking so presumably when the PC was approved they did have adequate parking. Sometime in the past the property was subdivided with that easement being required on the subject site to provide the 16 spaces so legally the condition is we have two separate parcels with the easement agreement to provide the 16 spaces and those multiple parcels including the separate 1101 parcel exist currently with the condition it is now. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Commissioner Keller: So in other words the thing happened that when the City allowed the parcels to be divided and presumably required that an easement be done that its not clear whether the number of spaces that were required in the easement were adequate to park the office building and that might have been the failing but because that was done in the past we can’t revisit that now? 31 32 33 34 35 36 Ms. Lee: So at the time and the thing I also wanted to add, at the time the PC was approved they similar to what we have now they had site specific parking so whatever was approved is how it currently stands. At some point in the past the City granted a subdivision to allow these two pieces. Normally if we have properties providing parking for other properties we usually require a Conditional Use permit or some other Planning permit. In this case there was only the easement so right, the Condition now is we have two legal parcels and two separate property owners with two separate properties and it does make a complicated situation. 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 40 of 58 Commissioner Keller: Presumably there is no prescriptive easement on the property that is not merely the 16 spaces but a prescriptive easement for the full parking of the property. 1 2 3 Ms. Lee: Correct. It’s just the 16 spaces. 4 5 Chair Martinez: I’m going to reopen the Public Hearing and allow the person from the public who wishes to speak, Ms. Volterra, excuse me I forgot your name. Two minutes to get in your last remarks please. 6 7 8 9 Ms. Volterra: I’m hoping that you will understand, I want to help you understand the issue of the worst case scenario. It’s a very important issue. Even though the project proposes changes to the retail site and ten houses there is a separate office building site there. They need to be treated as one site because for a number of reasons they share driveways, they share parking, they have to be treated as one site for the purpose of the study. It is very important that you understand that this has happened in the past. Again my hundred page analysis of the 2300 East Bayshore project, we asked and we hired a Traffic Consultant who supported us, who entered comments into the public record that the City was required under CEQA to do a worst case scenario analysis that was a proposed office building. The City only analyzed it as a general office building in trip generation and parking and we stated correctly that the uses for that building could change. There were other permitted uses that were more intense including a medical office building. We specified the City needed to do a worst case analysis of that building including evaluating it as a medical office building. The City refused to do that and guess what that building has become? It has become at least in part a medical office building. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 So what I’m saying is these are requirements. You have to understand the difference between the use of the building, this is an office building use and usages that may have less requirements or use that might have a more intense requirement. I hope I’ve clarified that for you but again we had documentation that this was required. We had a consultant that confirmed that for us and I talked to a consultant today who confirmed this site should be treated as one site. They share driveways, they share parking, the trip generation figures need to be done at a worst case scenario for the office building as well as the retail and parking needs to be considered in that same way. Thank you very much. Chair Martinez: Thank you but before you go I think Commissioner Garber had a question. Oh, after. Thank you very much and I will close the Public Hearing again. Commissioner Garber. 34 35 36 Commissioner Garber: The Transportation Director please. So forgive me I was searching through the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan and checking sidewalk apps as well as recommendations by subarea and I know I’m looking for a needle in a haystack here but do you have an idea of where the issue of the Bicycle and Pedestrian issues are along West Bayshore are addressed in here? 37 38 39 40 41 42 Mr. Rodriguez: You won’t see them specifically in the very nice presentation you’re not going to see tonight. We noted comments that came in since the Draft Plan had been released back to 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 41 of 58 you a few weeks ago. That’s something we added in. In Chapter 3 there is a sidewalk gap element that was left out and we’re actually putting that back in and putting a recommendation in the pedestrian section of the plan to recommend a sidewalk gap closure on the West Bayshore project so that’s how that comment will be fed back into the plan. It is a comment we spoke about at the Parks and Recreation Commission as well and noted that very same comment. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Commissioner Garber: Okay thank you. 7 8 Chair Martinez: It’s my turn. It’s going to be quick. I want to bring it back to the historic renovation question again but lightly. In the documents, the drawings that the Applicant provided they show the historic sign and a nice photograph of when there was a Lucky sign on top and then they show the new sign and its similar but not exact. The new sign has these horizontal bars and support out to the left of it and I’m wondering whether I’m missing something that that’s what the original sign looked like and they were going back to it or are they proposing to update and both signs are fine. I’m not doing an esthetic argument but I wanted to know, should that be addressed in the Final EIR? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Ms. Lee: The EIR did analyze the relocation of the sign and it acknowledged that the sign is historic and it specifically on the site plan was shown where the sign would be relocated but the exact design of the sign is going to depend on who the tenants are and it is a Condition of Approval for it to come back to the City and to the ARB for review but the Final EIR does cover the general location of the sign as well as the general parameters of the sign. 18 19 20 21 22 23 Chair Martinez: Okay but my point was that the sign is different. It’s not a restoration of the historic resource. It’s different and shouldn’t the difference be addressed in the EIR? 24 25 26 Ms. Lee: The intent of the EIR is to cover I guess if you will a kind of box of what the possibilities are and the EIR contains language kind of mandating what can be done to fit in with to maintain its historic significance but if that is a concern we can certainly bring it to the HRB for their review because it is considered historically significant. 27 28 29 30 31 Chair Martinez: As a Condition of Approval? 32 33 Ms. Lee: Yes we can do that. 34 35 Chair Martinez: My larger concern is that the same thing is happened to retail buildings. They are being modernized during rehabilitation and I wanted to know whether that was addressed in the EIR as well. 36 37 38 39 Ms. Lee: Yes. The Consultant Page and Turnbull took a look at their proposal work closely, getting information from the Applicant and the concept of it is that the building is considered a kit of parts with parts being the historically significant components and the Applicant is required by the EIR to work with the Historic Consultant to put together back this kit of parts that would still comply with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. 40 41 42 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 42 of 58 1 Chair Martinez: So again is that a Condition of Approval? 2 3 Ms. Lee: It is not only a Condition of Approval, it is a mitigation measure. 4 5 Chair Martinez: Great. Vice Chair Fineberg. 6 7 Vice Chair Fineberg: That was a perfect segway because I too wanted to get back to the Environmental Impacts Review of the historic components and historic resources in the project. I have had a chance during tonight’s hearing to look a little bit more in depth given Staff’s responses to my questions about the last minute comments to the resolution and the FEIR and I would concur that the resolution has a couple of paragraphs that says basically Page and Turnbull has through the weight of its information gotten Staff to change or state a position differently about significance. Those, while they may be technical in nature, I’m not coming to the same conclusion about the changes I’m seeing in the amendment to the EIR so first I want to ask what relationship do changes in the FEIR have to our decisions about determining adequacy of the CEQA review? The reason I’m asking that is I’m doing a side by side comparison in our Final EIR compared to the First Amendment to the Final EIR which was prepared dated February 27th. I’m looking at in our FEIR, its Page 102 and in this Amendment it Page 2 and I’m looking at the impact CR-2 and in the Final EIR it says that the relocation would result in significant impact to historic resources. In the Amendment it crosses it off and says, or actually adds new language, that says it would not result in a significant impact to the historic character of the building and then it crosses off the language that says therefore this relocation would result in a significant impact and it does that another five or ten times as the document proceeds. 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 So how do we get from an FEIR that the City has reviewed, drafted, circulated to suddenly two days before our review the things that were significant in the FEIR are not significant in the Amendment and where was there new information that got us to make those changes? Is there some additional analysis that was done? How do we substantiate that it’s okay to strike the significance and change them to not significant ten or fifteen times from the FEIR to the Amendment? Mr. Jarvis: We get there based upon the analysis that actually was in the Draft EIR all along which is the Draft EIR identified this as an impact as to which the experts disagreed and the Draft EIR presented both rationales, summarized both the expert opinion that the impact could be mitigated and the expert opinion that the impact could not be mitigated and the Draft EIR explained that the City Council could reach either conclusion. The more conservative conclusion was set forth in the Draft EIR for the purposes of insuring that the impact was not understated in the event that the City Council adopts the more conservative approach so it is okay for the EIR conclusion to change because that was forecast as a possibility in the Draft EIR. It was disclosed to the public that that may well be the end conclusion and as I said this type of approach is a prudent approach to take. You don’t want the Draft EIR to announce the less conservative approach and then risk the City Council at the end of the day adopting the worst conclusion because that could result in a finding that you need to recirculate the EIR and disclose to the 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 43 of 58 public the worst conclusion but because the Draft EIR discloses the worst conclusion and flags it as a possibility but also that an alternative conclusion could be reached, its just a matter of then the Final EIR specifying what the final conclusion is and this is what is being recommended by City Staff. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The City Council can take a look at this as you can take a look at it in making your recommendations and say, well we disagree with this and these changes and we agree with the Final EIR without the changes and then it would be a simple matter of them producing the Final EIR as it was prepared and then have Council certify that without these amendments. Vice Chair Fineberg: I understand that the Draft presented possible alternatives debating Expert Witnesses but the Final EIR which I rely on as Staff’s best judgment concluded in ten places or more that there are significant impacts. Something changed between… I’m using this as my FEIR so something changed after Staff said significant, significant, significant, significant. To change it to not significant no impact, not significant no impact, I’m ticking and tying down pages of this so either there was no new information after the FEIR and Staff was in error in the Final EIR and that scares me to death because I really need to rely on these documents that you just don’t change or there has to be something, some reason, information that came in after the FEIR was prepared that substantiates and justifies why you change multiple references from significant impact to insignificant impact and I’m just stuck on that. I don’t get it. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Mr. Jarvis: The Final EIR’s terms are not decided until the Council certifies it so what you’re looking at dated February 2012, the Final Environmental Impact Report, that was circulated as proposed by Staff and it continues to have the language that was in the Draft EIR that emphasizes there is a difference of opinion among the experts. I’ll give you an example, Pages 108 to 109 of the Final EIR, and this is just one place where it summarizes what it says. There is a disagreement among experts. The circulated Draft EIR concluded it would not be to a less than significant level. I’m summarizing here. The Historic Resources Board has taken the position that it is not significant. The Palo Alto City Council will consider these opinions and ultimately make a decision regarding the significance of the impacts and the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measure so this document continues to state that its an open question and does not definitively state that it’s significant but it continues to apply the Draft EIR’s approach of treating it as significant for the purposes of one possible conclusion so what you have with these amendments is the Staff amending this language to make it consistent with Staff’s recommendation as set forth in the Staff Report that was timely produced and again its been consistently identified as being an open question for the final determination by the City Council. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Vice Chair Fineberg: Okay so Page 109 you pointed to in CR-2, in the FEIR it says it’s a significant unavoidable impact and it spells out that there’s potentially other ways of viewing the significance of the impact. Something made Staff decide that it’s no longer a significant unavoidable impact so you can say it’s no impact or not significant. It isn’t just random. There are reasons and I don’t know what they are. We don’t have them. 38 39 40 41 42 43 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 44 of 58 Mr. Jarvis: Yes you do. The reasons are in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR presents two alternative methodologies. Staff at the time the Final EIR was circulated hadn’t made a recommendation, hadn’t made a decision. All the language you point to includes the caveat saying this is an open question and the Historic Resources Board has taken a different position and the City Council will ultimately decide it. It wasn’t until after this physical document was printed and produced that Staff following further considerations decided, and I think, but I can’t speak for Staff on this but I was inferring that the opinion of the Historic Resources Board did have significant weight with which way they decided to recommend and basically in the course of preparing the Staff Report and presenting it to the Planning Commission, that was Staff’s time to make that decision. They prepared the Staff Report, they reached their conclusion and after the Staff Report was produced it was decided to make the Final EIR consistent with what we Staff are recommending. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Chair Martinez: We’re going to have somebody else take over for you Vice Chair. Commissioner Tuma. 14 15 16 Commissioner Tuma: Let me take a stab at this because I’m seeing I think a disconnect on both sides of this so let me pull it together. I think an analogy might be that we have, and we’ve seen this before when we’re working with Staff, a Staff Report is prepared, it would have to go through the approval cycle, their processes, etc. so it then comes to us and we’ve had many occasions where some additional information comes along and Staff has a new version of the proposed resolution or what have you to, and it may have a different resolution or different set of language because some intervening act or some information has come in that’s changed their mind. I would look at this thick document as the then current best thinking and in their opinion a proposal about what Council should approve. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 In the meantime they got feedback from the HRB… Am I wrong about that? So I guess that leaves the open question of what changed your mind? Is that maybe what Susan’s trying to ask here? Mr. Williams: Again, the FEIR does not have a conclusion or Staff recommendation in it. The FEIR lays out the issue, talks about the impacts and says there are two different ways to look at this. Then you got a Staff Report last week that says Staff finds that the impacts to the historic character of the site would be mitigated to a less than significant level… 31 32 33 34 35 Commissioner Tuma: I’m with you. 36 37 Mr. Williams: In putting the findings together that support all this it became apparent that it would be more consistent to tweak the FEIR to be sure that it addressed this fully before adopting these findings and supporting this recommendation but the recommendation is in here so nothing happened between last week and the FEIR coming out to change our mind. We’ve always talked about which way we should go and when we got down to doing the Staff Report and the findings decided that the best way to go particularly because the HRB’s recommendation 38 39 40 41 42 43 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 45 of 58 was very powerful to us, that if they felt comfortable that the impacts were mitigated then we felt that’s probably the way we should go. 1 2 3 Commissioner Tuma: So the intervening event was simply the opportunity to come to a recommendation based on the information that was in this document so all that happened was you had the light of day to think about okay, which way do we want to recommend the forcing event being tonight’s hearing so in coming up with that you said, no we’ve decided which way we think we should go so let’s update the document to reflect that thinking. That makes complete sense to me. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Chair Martinez: It kind of reminds me of when I was a kid those Saturday morning cowboy hero shows where the hero is just about to be inundated by an avalanche and the show ends for that day. The next Saturday the narrator says avoiding the avalanche the hero goes on. So we don’t know how you avoided the avalanche here and I think it would help if what triggered the thinking, because you had all of this information before but really a statement in there that says Staff has come to the conclusion that… You know and this compelling argument of this compels us to say this is less than significant. Because to go from significant impacts to less than significant, especially three hours before this hearing, just doesn’t feel right and I hear Rick what you’re saying about it was always there but it was always sort of hidden and we felt we were going to have to just sort of live with the fact that this is a significant impact that you know we have to find someway to provide mitigation through the HAB survey or the black or a documentary or whatever its going to be. We felt that this was just sort of the value of the project itself and then we just hear well we’re changing it now and we’re emailing it to you and you’re going to have it at places. It doesn’t sit right even though we understand and it may be legally sort of able to fly. It just doesn’t feel like this is the way Palo Alto does it. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Mr. Jarvis: On a factual matter, the Staff recommendation was not made three hours before the meeting. The Staff Recommendation was reflected in the Staff Report that was prepared and circulated last week or whenever that was done and the only thing that was done more recently was to modify the Final EIR to make it consistent with Staff’s recommendation. 27 28 29 30 31 Chair Martinez: I know. Commissioner Garber I apologize. 32 33 Commissioner Garber: Not that I want to add one more moment to this conversation however I think its important to recognize that what we’re dealing with are the coordination of documents and decisioning and limited resources which would happen in even the best environments and the process is not perfected until it is actually actioned by the Council. This is not the first time we have documents that are in conflict with each other. There isn’t the requirement although it certainly lessens the confusion and suspicion that something may be being passed over on us which I don’t think is the case here. In many ways I am less concerned about how the recommendation came to be and when it came to be. Richard Nixon is not the subject of this evening’s investigation. I am much more concerned about what the recommendation is because it will tell me what action I want to take, whether I move to support Staff’s recommendation or take action opposed to it so with that, can we move on? I guess not. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 46 of 58 1 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller first then Commissioner Tuma. 2 3 Commissioner Keller: So this is my trying to tease this together so first of all to paraphrase Saturday Night Live Richard Millhouse Nixon is still dead. In any event, there is a wonderful quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson which is a foolish consistency is the hob goblin of little minds adored by little statesman, philosophers and divines but obviously what we’re dealing with here is not a foolish consistency but quite an important thing. What seems to me going on here is that the FEIR was produced based on the DEIR and that the FEIR did in fact come to a conclusion because it does say that this is a significant unavoidable impact although the FEIR does talk about there being a conflict but it appears to take a position. 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 Since the FEIR was produced, it seems to me that Staff did further analysis and thought that in the preparation of the Staff Report came to the conclusion as Commissioner Tuma said that in fact they are coming to the conclusion based on the HRB’s analysis that there was not a significant impact, that it was an impact that is mitigatable based on the mitigations therefore mitigated to less than significant. It seems to me in some sense there was inconsistency between what Staff was ultimately coming up with in the recommendation and what appeared in the FEIR and to undo that inconsistency the amendment was made to the FEIR so that the FEIR was brought in to be consistent with the Staff recommendation. So in some sense it seems to be more like an error was made in the FEIR, not to actually change it and to draw the Staff’s ultimate conclusion that appeared in the Staff Report and I can understand that. What you’re trying to do is make it more consistent but in some sense it seems to be a failure of process that in the future hopefully the analysis to go in a certain way would have come out to go in the FEIR and the conclusion would have been made that its less than significant with mitigations and done that way and then we wouldn’t have that question. It seems to me there was either an oversight or the conclusion wasn’t yet come to so you didn’t make that change but it seems to me that sort of process was going on to make it consistent but other than that I’m not sure we need to figure out who knew and when did they know but in some sense it does indicate a process that could be improved in the future and if it’s a consistency thing that you’re dealing with then that’s something I can understand. So do you want to try to address that rambling remark. Chair Martinez: You don’t have to. 35 36 Mr. Williams: Well let me just say I appreciate that. I wouldn’t say it’s an error but a tightening up in a correct or clarifying but I will tell you that late last week we had a discussion about whether we should make this Amendment or not and we could have come to you tonight without this Amendment and we would not be having this discussion I suppose. There might be some questions about does the FEIR cover it well enough and maybe you would have said go back and make some tweaks in it. The recommendation hasn’t changed, the conclusion hasn’t changed since last week but we did feel just to clean it up we ought to do this and ought to let the Commission see it before it goes forward so I don’t think substantively there is a difference. I do 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 47 of 58 appreciate that it has caused some confusion. I’m sorry about that and hope that you understand that the substance of the determination is what was stated in the Staff Report and our recommendation hasn’t changed since last week. 1 2 3 4 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tuma you still have something to say? 5 6 Commissioner Tuma: What I was going to say what if we just tore this up and pretended it didn’t exist. In a practical matter if you had never done this we would still move forward. You have Choice A, Choice B and here’s the recommendation so I think we’re putting form well over substance here. 7 8 9 10 11 Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg wants to address that. 12 13 Vice Chair Fineberg: I appreciate that Staff made the decision to bring the Amendments to us so we could know the direction the projects going but I disagree that it’s a question of form or process. We’re being asked tonight to decide the adequacy of the Environmental Review. The FEIR says in multiple places that there’s significant negative impacts and it would require then that either the project be changed or Council to issue a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The adequacy of the Final EIR points to that. I don’t think its little technicalities to in multiple places in an FEIR go from significant to no impact when there is no new information other than upon review of the cumulative known information we come to a different conclusion therefore we go back and edit the Environmental Review. To me, that points to there was a significant flaw in the adequacy of how the conditions of significant impact were done in the FEIR and then that tells me I can’t rely on the adequacy of the review in the FEIR and so now we have this new better amendment or it tells me that the Amendment isn’t based on the analysis that went into the findings of significance that went into the FEIR. Either way I find it troubling and its not just procedural and its not just technical corrections, it’s the finding in the FEIR of whether something specifically let’s look at the Edgewood site and its consideration as a historic significance if you move a property. That’s a key question about this project and we’re being asked tonight to say are the findings that moving the one building has no impact because Staff decided something based on no new information and I don’t think that’s a triviality. I don’t think that’s a technical thing. It’s not a process thing. We’re finding something very different and we’re saying there’s no impact. 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 I don’t understand how to say that we could say it is significant in the FEIR and then say it’s not significant in an Amendment unless one of the two documents either is an error or has no information. Chair Martinez: I want to try and get in the last word here and partially disagree with Vice Chair Fineberg. I think in the FEIR there was a statement that says that it’s less than significant because the historic significance of the buildings is the focus, not the site. I think just that simple statement itself shows why Staff could change its point of view on whether its significant or less than significant and I’d rather have that in there rather than sort of a legal judgment that CEQA rules allow us to do such a thing because we hinted at it in the past so I would recommend that 39 40 41 42 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 48 of 58 we change the language to make sure we include that in this First Amendment. Commissioners, we need to take a break and in coming back let’s try to get a Motion on the floor. Five minutes. Thank you. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Commissioners please take your seats and we shall return to the item at hand. Okay Commissioner Garber. MOTION Commissioner Garber: Yes, I am going to make a Motion that we’ll support Staff’s recommendations here with one slight modification and then open it up to, if it gets a Second, open it up to the other Commissioners for potential friendly amendments or amendments friendly or unfriendly so with that, I’ll make the Motion. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I move that the Commission support Staff’s recommendation that we certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and this will be my one modification I will have to that and that is to address Commissioner Fineberg’s concern and to recognize Staff’s further perfection of their document and that our approval also certify the First Amendment to the Final Environmental Impact Report as well as part of that. 2) A Planned Community for the renovation of the three existing retail structures, the onsite relocation of one of the retail structures, the construction of ten new single family homes and the creation of a 0.2 acre park and 3) a Tentative Map to merge these three lots and subdivide the resulting 3.58 acre lot into one 2.73 acre commercial parcel including the 0.2 acre park and ten single family residential parcels. Chair Martinez: Before we ask for the Second, City Attorney, do we need to vote on these one at a time? 25 26 27 Ms. Tronquet: No you can do them one at a time or all together. 28 29 Chair Martinez: Okay because we haven’t discussed part 2 and 3 yet. Okay that’s fine. Do we have a Second? 30 31 32 33 34 SECOND Commissioner Tuma: Second. 35 36 Chair Martinez: Okay Motion by Commissioner Garber, Second by Commissioner Tuma. Maker of the Motion want to speak to it? 37 38 39 Commissioner Garber: Not in any detail. I think I have spoken in the previous hearings about my support for the project and specifically related to the historic concerns. I think I will look for amendments from my Commissioners and I have some myself I may want to offer if other Commissioners do not. 40 41 42 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 49 of 58 Chair Martinez: And the Seconder? 1 2 Commissioner Tuma: Just a couple of things. One is a thanks to the members of the community and also specifically to the members of the ACC and CC&R holders for very much being a part of the process and shaping the result of the project we have before us and thanks to the developer for six years of sticking with it and making it happen. I know that there are a lot of people particularly in that immediate surrounding community that are looking forward to having an operating shopping center, one with a grocery store and likelihood other amenities that go with it. I think that given what’s there where they started six years ago the realities of the intervening economy that what we have before us is quite a good, as several people said, quite a good compromise. Often times its said with compromise, everyone’s a loser and no one gets what they want but in this case this compromise will result in positive outcomes for a large percentage of the stakeholders here so that’s the main reason that I’m supporting the project. 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 I do think that when we left it last even though it wasn’t before us formally, in my mind the open issue was around the historic issues and I think it’s sort of an unfortunate sequence of events that’s led to several hours of airtime tonight on this topic not at all diminishing or dismissing the topic but it’s the substance of what we’re talking about hasn’t really changed. We’ve always known that there were these conflicting reports and ultimately Council will make the decision as to which way they want to go. Given that we have this before us we’ve spent a fair amount of time on discussing it tonight and I’m very comfortable making a recommendation one way or another and in this case its supporting Staff’s recommendation but we’ve had plenty of opportunity to talk about it and it will obviously go to Council so while maybe not ideal in terms of how this information has come out and I’m sure Staff is sitting there perhaps kicking themselves for putting the Amendment out but we’ve had plenty of opportunity to look at it and I think its time to move it up to Council and have them ultimately make the decision and perhaps they go the other direction and perhaps they also then come up with a Statement of Overriding Concern. I don’t know. But at this point I feel we’ve done our job. We’ve vetted it several times and are vetting it formally. The residents have done a great job with their input. The developer has really worked with the community to get the kind of support that he’s gotten through this process. There are several other offsite issues that need to be addressed and some of those will be addressed in perhaps what was going to be item two tonight and as areas of the community evolve, things like well gee now we’ve reached a certain level where we do need a left turn lane or we do need speed bumps, it doesn’t appear that we’re there now but down the road if other factors come along and create that situation it can be dealt with. A lot of the issues we’ve talked about tonight are good and relevant and need to be watched over time but I think its time to move this forward. Chair Martinez: So that we can introduce the public benefits into the conversation, Staff can you go over those for us? Thank you. 39 40 41 Ms. Lee: The public benefits that the Applicant is including as part of this project consist of the renovation of a historic shopping center, the provision of the park made public via public access 42 43 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 50 of 58 easements and also specifically for the provision of a grocery store within the existing 20,000 square foot building. 1 2 3 Commissioner Garber: I would be happy to accept those as part of the Motion. 4 5 Chair Martinez: Okay anyone else? Commissioner Keller. 6 7 Commissioner Keller: I’m not sure if this changed but at least the Staff Report indicates that there is a fourth public benefit of three electric vehicle charging stations so I’m assuming those exist. So let me deal with that last but first let me say that I am supportive with the overall project and in particular I’d like to contrast this project with another redevelopment of a neighborhood center. If this project had been developed along the lines of a certain Alma Plaza then we would have a grocery store, we would have demolished the two other store buildings and we would have built 34 homes instead of what we’re doing, ten homes… With a lot fewer parking spaces so what’s interesting to me about this is in this particular case we’re getting a real shopping center. We’re getting a reasonably sized grocery store of 20,000 square feet and we’re getting two other shopping center buildings which will basically create a full compliment of stores that will be reasonably considered a neighborhood center. 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 I think it’s reasonable to have the trade off with the ten homes to provide for that rehabilitation and to me that’s a reasonable trade off. Here we have a developer who is trying very hard to maintain the structure of what we have as opposed to trying to cram as many houses into there as possible so I think that is a great difference between this and the other project. I also think that the fact that the community had, through the Architectural Control Committee, through the CC&Rs, was able to influence the project. That’s also, I think if that other development had a similar structure it would not look like what it is today and in some sense I would dare say that the project is probably what it is today because of the veto power the CC&R holders had over the project which in many ways forced a compromise that worked out for everybody and I think that’s important to point out, as Commissioner Tuma did, the incredible role of the people in the neighborhood, the CC&R holders and the ACC and also the patients of the developers in working through that process and I think that that’s very key here. Goodwill here, this is an example of, it may have taken a long time, but when the process goes a really long time. This is a good example of that. I am also pleased that not directly as part of this project but addressing the concerns of the safety condition on West Bayshore adding as part of the Bike and Pedestrian Plan prioritizing a path from the San Francisquito Creek to Channing Avenue on West Bayshore is an improvement there and I do think that that is something we can do for the safety here. I think it is a useful thing to provide this amenity in Palo Alto and for those people living nearby in East Palo Alto particularly with the shortage of grocery stores in East Palo Alto however I’m a little distressed that the people from that condo development in East Palo Alto feel that this park is a necessary thing and basically indicates the inadequacy of park land in East Palo Alto that East Palo Alto needs to address itself, not necessarily through stuff Palo Alto does. City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 51 of 58 Finally, with respect to the EV stations, I’m going to ask to be specific about that and that is I’ve actually gotten inquiries and I know that we were successful in getting a Level 3 charger downtown and I’ve gotten inquiries about the desirability of having one near the 101 corridor and I’m wondering whether the developer would be amenable to the idea that the three EV chargers that are in there that one of them be a Level 3 charger and the remaining be Level 2 chargers and I’m wondering if the developer can signal whether that’s acceptable. Level 3 and the remainder will be Level 2. Is that okay? So I hear that from the developer so that’s a friendly amendment. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Commissioner Garber: Accepted. 10 11 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. That’s the only thing I have and I look forward to this being an asset to the community at large and particularly to revitalizing a neighborhood center that will be a particular asset to that part of town. Thank you. 12 13 14 15 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Michael. 16 17 Commissioner Michael: So I’m in agreement with the comments of my colleagues and in all respects I wanted to acknowledge the involvement of the community and the process, the concerns, the questions, the support and also the concerns about particularly the traffic safety which I understand may be outside the scope of this particular development but will certainly be addressable in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and other ongoing projects. I believe that the complexity of this will probably require further observation and analysis but I think that its easily foreseeable that there will be problems and I think it should be given some urgency and attention in terms of any actions through our normal process but I think that this project will be a significant enhancement of our community and of the City and somebody who lives within a mile of the project I look forward to shopping at the grocery store and visiting the park and I think it will be a really welcome development. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Chair Martinez: Leave your bike at home. We’re worried about you. 30 31 Vice Chair Fineberg: I’d like to ask the Maker and Seconder if they would consider splitting the Motion into three pieces. The reason I’d like to do that is because overall I’m in support of the project, the retention of the grocery store is a significant public benefit. I have some smaller questions about, and I can go into those in a moment, about some possible other public benefits and some things that if we build them as Conditions of Approval might make it a better project and I think that the two big issues with it are moving the structure and its impact whether its significantly impacting the historic resource and the addition of the ten houses, I’ve said enough about how we’re analyzing the impact of moving the structure and I’m concerned that there might be an impact on adding the ten houses on the changes to the site design and all that goes back to how we’re analyzing our impacts but when I think of it in terms of its adding ten houses, that’s a nice compromise. That’s a lot better than older higher numbers and I understand that sometimes compromise is good as long as the analysis supports it and we get there the right way in a transparent and fair and open process so I’m kind of stuck on that environmental issue, 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 52 of 58 whether we’re doing the analysis according to the open and transparent processes regardless of whether it is legal versus how I feel overall about the project so as a friendly amendment would you consider splitting the vote into three separate votes, 1) of certification of environmental adequacy, 2) of the PC Ordinance and 3) of the Tentative Map. 1 2 3 4 5 Commissioner Garber: I’m not inclined to but before I accept it or not let me use the Keller straw vote system here and just get a show of hands if there is support for doing that from the other Commissioners. Those that are interested raise your hand. 6 7 8 9 Chair Martinez: Can I ask a question to the Maker of the Amendment? Why is it important to separate the Ordinance and the Tentative Map since they’re part and parcel of the same thing? 10 11 12 Vice Chair Fineberg: I have different findings. For the Tentative Map I think I can make the findings for approval but the adequacy of CEQA review, I don’t think the findings are there. 13 14 15 Chair Martinez: I was speaking of the Ordinance and the Tentative Map could be approved as one. 16 17 18 Vice Chair Fineberg: Yes. That could go together. 19 20 21 22 : Yes. That could go together. Chair Martinez: Okay so do you want to change your friendly amendment? 23 24 Vice Chair Fineberg: Okay let me change it so that we’re doing it as two votes. One is the adequacy of the Environmental Review and the second is the Ordinance and the Tentative Map so the vote would ride with the two documents so one document and then the next document. 25 26 27 28 Commissioner Garber: Got it. Sorry. The Seconder had raised his hand. No I was curious as to how the Seconder had wanted to respond. 29 30 31 Commissioner Tuma: To be honest with you, I think we should vote on it as a whole and the reason is because if it fails or it goes nowhere, perhaps we can break it into different pieces. I think what we’re doing here at the end of the day is a recommendation so what I would anticipate is that we would have a vote and everyone would vote on the Motion and express their concerns. If they’re going to support the Motion they would say why and if they’re not going to support the Motion they would say why and through that process there would be a very clear record for Council to understand what the differences of opinion are. Breaking it into several Motions just accomplishes the same goal I think so the extra complexity and various other amendments to those sub-Motions, I think we should just vote on it and if it doesn’t pass then we go from there. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Commissioner Keller: Two things. Firstly, I believe that my guess is that the person who made the friendly amendment wishes to vote yes on one and no on the other and the question is 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 53 of 58 whether to accommodate. Secondly, according to my reading of Robert’s Rules of Orders which could be clarified by our two able attorneys here, the Chair has the prerogative to split the Motion into two Motions independent of whether the Makers wish to do so or not. 1 2 3 4 Chair Martinez: Can we get an opinion on that? 5 6 Ms. Tronquet: You don’t precisely follow Robert’s Rules but I believe that is correct under your procedural rules in any case so if you want to do that you could. 7 8 9 Chair Martinez: So I can do it. I don’t have to ask for a vote. Okay then as Chair and my prerogative I’m going to ask that we split our vote. 10 11 12 Commissioner Garber: And which would the Chair like to take first? 13 14 Chair Martinez: We have to take the Final EIR first before we can vote on the Ordinance. 15 16 Commissioner Garber: So with some advice from the Attorney does the action return to the Maker or does the action go to the Chair to reform the Motion? If the action is mine I will simply restate the Staff’s recommendation and see where we go. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MOTION I’ve got a finger in the air from the City’s Attorney. Ms. Tronquet: The rule doesn’t address that. 25 26 Commissioner Garber: Wouldn’t you know that Commissioner Keller would find that? 27 28 Ms. Tronquet: It just says that the presiding officer may upon the request of a Commissioner divide the question. But it does not say whose Motion it is so I think maybe we’ll leave that to the Commissioner also to be consistent with the rule, the Chair. 29 30 31 32 Chair Martinez: I’m going to allow Commissioner Garber to remake his Motion. 33 34 Commissioner Garber: So I will go back to not to Staff’s recommendation but to the way I framed the Motion initially which was that the Commission certify the Final Environmental Impact Report including the First Amendment to the Final Environmental Impact Report. 35 36 37 38 Chair Martinez: Do we have a Second? 39 40 41 42 SECOND Commissioner Tuma: Second. 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 54 of 58 Chair Martinez: Okay a Motion by Commissioner Garber, Second by Commissioner Tuma. Care to speak to your Motion? 1 2 3 Commissioner Garber: No but I’m very interested in the follow up. 4 5 Commissioner Tuma: I don’t want to speak to the Motion but I do have a question for the City Attorney. What is the, if we were to not certify or not recommend certification but then recommend approval of the project, can you do that? Where does that leave you legally? Or does effectively voting down the recommendation of approval leave us at a point where we can’t vote on the underlying project? 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mr. Jarvis: Since you are only acting in the capacity of making a recommendation to the City Council, you can address both issues if of course you were the decision making body and determined you could not certify the EIR then you would not be able to approve the project but you can under these circumstances in theory recommend against certification of the EIR but if the Council does decide to certify it you could make a different recommendation on the project. 12 13 14 15 16 17 Commissioner Tuma: Thank you. 18 19 Chair Martinez: Anything further Commissioner Tuma? Okay anyone else. Let’s call for the vote. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 VOTE Let’s call for the vote. No amendments, last chance? All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Nay. Are you nay? Okay the Motion passes with Commissioner Garber, Michael, Chair Martinez and Commissioner Tuma voting in support, Commissioner Keller and Vice Chair Fineberg voting against the Motion. Commissioner Tanaka absent. MOTION PASSED Okay let’s move onto the PC Ordinance. Commissioner Garber. MOTION Commissioner Garber: From here I will move that the Commission move to form a Planned Community Ordinance for the renovation of the three existing retail structures and on-site relocation of one of the retail structures, the construction of 10 new single-family homes, and the creation of a 0.20 acre park; and a Tentative Map to merge the three lots and subdivide the resulting 3.58 acre lot into a 12.73 acre commercial parcel including the 0.2 acre park and 10 single family residential parcels. 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Chair Martinez: Okay we have a Motion by Commissioner Garber, Second by Commissioner Tuma. Do you care to speak to your Motion? 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 55 of 58 1 Commissioner Garber: No but I’m assuming Commissioner Keller would want to add his amendment for the three EV chargers, one that would be a Level 3 and the remaining a Level 2. Also we would include the public benefits as they were iterated previously in that. I would also add that the Commission would certify the findings which I should probably read here. Do I need to read it into the record or can we just simply refer to them? 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ms. Tronquet: You can just reference the part. 8 9 Commissioner Garber: So that’s Section 4 of Exhibit A which is the Draft Ordinance I believe. Yep. That’s the amendment. Are there any other additions that Commissioners would like to suggest? 10 11 12 13 Vice Chair Fineberg: As far as the adequacy of the public benefits I have mixed feelings on whether some of the items are really public benefits as stated. On our Staff Report, Page 7 talks about the preservation of a historically significant Eichler designed shopping center. We’re using the word preservation and I know it’s just a technical term. The reality is we’re going to have a grocery store. We’re going to be having parking. We’re going to maintain the same uses and that’s the important part but I just don’t see it as preservation given that it’s really meeting the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation not preservation and it’s a technical term that we’re using in a nontechnical way so the Applicant and/or the Maker of the Motion be willing to accept the word maintain or rehabilitation so that we’re technically correct? 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Commissioner Garber: Let me just ask Staff is that word better relative to keeping the definition straight with the Secretary’s? 24 25 26 Ms. Lee: I guess we would propose the word rehabilitation be used and that would be fine. 27 28 Commissioner Garber: So I will accept that as an amendment. 29 30 Vice Chair Fineberg: And then that would populate wherever it goes off in the document. The 0.2 acre park I don’t find that that is a public benefit. That is really a landscaping strip that is a required part of good design. It’s mostly sidewalk. The usable area is behind buildings. It’s not going to behave like a park that people walk from ten blocks away to go to. It will serve as a neighborhood gathering spot for people who are in the project but that’s part of making the site a vital place that will make it financially successful. I’m not going to quibble on whether it be included or excluded but to me that reads as landscaping that is part of good design as opposed to a public benefit and maybe we could call it a private landscaping strip but I don’t need to go there with word changes even though I believe that would be more accurate. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 One area that I talked about earlier that’s in the Conditions of Approval on, it doesn’t have a page so let me find the section heading. In Exhibit B of the PC Ordinance what is now Attachment B, in the section of Transportation Division, Item 38 is the Condition of Approval for what’s going on at the intersection of West Bayshore and Embarcadero and it reads as City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 56 of 58 signing and striping modifications per mitigation measure identified on Embarcadero between St. Francis and Wildwood will be included. I’d like the language in there and maybe Staff can craft it better than I can but I’d like the language to include the wording raised islands the same way as it is up above in Item 36 and also based on the recommendation or idea of our Transportation Director that there be the addition of signage north of Channing directing traffic towards 101 so it doesn’t make the mistake of coming south on Bayshore to hit Embarcadero and then not be able to make the left onto 101. The reason I’m recommending the raised island is because if all it is is paint striping we see on Charleston everyday cars cross the double doubles, they do the most insane crazy things and the double doubles don’t stop people and it creates a dangerous situation if we’ve got people doing illegal lefts across double doubles. So would the Maker, double double yellow lines, would the Maker agree to adding the wording that instead of it being striping modifications that it be raised islands? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Commissioner Garber: Yes that’s fine. 14 15 Vice Chair Fineberg: And also that the signage include signage north and specifically call out that it is on West Bayshore north of Channing. 16 17 18 Commissioner Garber: May I suggest we do it this way? I think we’ve made it obvious to the Staff what needs to happen there and I don’t know exactly where the signage should occur. 19 20 21 Ms. French: Could we interject something? The Transportation Official just noted Condition 36 which has a typo and says Middlefield West Bayshore Embarcadero intersection. That’s where the raised islands are and that might address what you’re thinking of. 22 23 24 25 Commissioner Garber: I’m sorry what’s the typo? 26 27 Ms. French: Condition 36 says West Bayshore and Middlefield but that needs to say Embarcadero. 28 29 30 Commissioner Garber: Is that the location Commissioner Fineberg is speaking of now once we make that change? 31 32 33 Ms. French: We think so. 34 35 Vice Chair Fineberg: Okay because I was taking that Middlefield as really meaning Middlefield. Okay so then I would just ask that the median striping enhancements be deleted and that there be preference for the… I guess it would be median striping off a raised island and maybe Mr. Rodriguez could help me on it but that there be a preference to raised medians to prevent cars from crossing and that be done in the main part of it and then you know the stripes just go off at the end. 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Mr. Rodriguez: That’s right Commissioner Fineberg and we just clarified the typo in the Conditions and we all just overlooked it until 15 minutes ago and so the issue we were talking 43 44 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 57 of 58 about earlier that Commissioner Garber mentioned is that you change Middlefield to Embarcadero it really does change the island in the intersection to prevent turns onto southbound West Bayshore. The other Condition 38 includes the recommendations for striping to the west of that because the project is going to be doing some restriping on Embarcadero to a left turn lane and that addresses that specific issue but you’re bringing up a third one which is the extra signage north of Channing and that’s definitely a great recommendation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Commissioner Garber: So the amendment would be what he said which is the raised island, the additional striping and then the signage. Yes, accepted. So that includes the clarification of the Conditions of Approval. Anything else? 8 9 10 11 Chair Martinez: Anyone else? 12 13 Commissioner Garber: Just a couple of comments before we move forward. Staff, does it make sense to include in this or just simply as a comment that the bike that we wanted to make sure that the Bike and Pedestrian Plan includes the gap. I know it’s been caught but I was thinking procedurally here. I know that’s unusual for me. Yeah I’m not sure if its relevant to this project so if it just needs to be a comment that’s fine. 14 15 16 17 18 19 Mr. Rodriguez: My thought is it’s probably just a comment if you’re asking us to make sure it’s included in the bike plan and it will be. 20 21 22 Commissioner Keller: May I just simply suggest as a side item that when the Bike and Pedestrian Plan come back on March 28th that if there’s an errata sheet that might be an appropriate way of handling it. 23 24 25 26 Commissioner Garber: One other comment as opposed to an amendment here, and that is as part of the TDM measures that are indicated in Conditions of Approval 33 Staff might want to include the timing of loading of trucks to the grocery store because it seems to me that’s the very easy way of dealing with potential conflicts there. Also, there is obviously as part of that TDM measure a potential check back at an increment of time, perhaps a year, to see if traffic calming measures need to be addressed on the adjoining streets. Some of the things that were mentioned were the traffic humps, speed on Channing, etc. and with that I think we’re ready to vote. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Chair Martinez: Before we vote I want to get in my final comments. I want to thank everyone for coming out tonight. They are helpful comments. I especially want to thank our Sister Commissions, HRB and ARB for being present and helping move this project along. I also want to mention something that our Chief Transportation Official said and that is if his department hears from the community enough they’ll address the problem so if it’s a matter of the speed humps or traffic calming measures, signage, those important gaps in our sidewalks, Jaime you want to give them your number? Please continue to let them know that there’s a problem there because that’s the only way we really hear about it. 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 City of Palo Alto February 29, 2012 Page 58 of 58 Finally, I want to give a tip of the hat to the developer and the architect. I think it would have been the easiest path to leave that retail building where it is. The project wouldn’t have been as good. It wouldn’t have made the shopping center reflect more of a new urbanism but it would have been a heck of an easier path for you to follow and I think you did a courageous thing in making the project better and to the landscape architect and architect also I think its going to be a high quality development when its completed. So with that, I want to call for the Vote. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 VOTE All those in favor of the Motion say Aye. Aye. None opposed. The Motion passes with Commissioner Garber, Commissioner Michael, Commissioner Keller, Chair Martinez, Vice Chair Fineberg and Commissioner Tuma in support. Commissioner Tanaka absent. Thank you all very much. MOTION PASSES (6 – 0 – 1 – 0) 4915.txt Previously distributed and also available online at: <http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/news/details.asp?NewsID=1874&TargetID=85> Page 1 4866.txt Plans Sets (Council Members, Libraries and Development Center Only but available online). Page 1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 2552) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 3/19/2012 March 19, 2012 Page 1 of 4 (ID # 2552) Summary Title: Gas Utility Long-term Plan Revisions Title: Finance Committee Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Amending the Gas Utility Long-term Plan Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff, the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC), and the Finance Committee recommend that the City Council approve the attached resolution adopting revisions to the Gas Utility Long-term Plan (GULP) Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan. Executive Summary The proposed changes to the Gas Utility Long-term Plan (GULP) Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan will align GULP to the Council direction to discontinue the gas laddered purchasing strategy for pool customers and implement gas supply rates that change every month based on the market price of gas. Both the UAC and the Finance Committee unanimously support the proposed changes to GULP. Background At its November 1, 2011 meeting, the Council directed staff to develop market price-based, monthly-adjusted gas supply rates (Staff Report #2106). In that report, staff identified the need to revise some sections in the GULP Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan that were adopted by Resolution #9151 (Staff Report #1313). Discussion The transition to market-based gas supply rates requires revisions of GULP Objective 1, Strategy 1 and Implementation Plan Items 1 and 2. The current language and the proposed revisions are shown in the table below: GULP Current Proposed Objective 1 Balancing Stability and Competitiveness Passing a market supply cost signal through to customers March 19, 2012 Page 2 of 4 (ID # 2552) GULP Current Proposed Strategy 1 Balance supply cost stability with market exposure by: a. Diversifying energy purchases for the pool across commitment date, delivery date, duration, suppliers, pricing terms & delivery points; b. Leaving some fraction of the forecasted gas pool needs exposed to near-term market prices; and c. Avoiding long-term (>10 years) fixed-price commodity contracts. Pass a market supply cost signal through to customers by: a. Purchasing natural gas at prices based on the monthly and daily market index prices; and b. Changing gas supply rates monthly to reflect market prices. Implementation Plan Items 1. Continue to implement a laddered commodity purchasing strategy for the pool. 2. Review the laddering strategy and rate stability with the Utilities Advisory Commission and recommend changes, if appropriate. 1. Transition from the laddering strategy to market price-based, monthly-adjusted gas supply rates by: a. Developing a new purchasing plan to be approved by the Director of Utilities; b. Designing a new monthly- adjusted gas supply rate; c. Recommending revisions to the reserve guidelines for Council approval; and d. Conducting customer communication and outreach. The transition to market-based gas supply rates makes gas storage (a seasonal price hedging tool) irrelevant. Therefore, the proposed changes remove the references to gas storage in Strategy 2 and eliminate Implementation Plan Item 3. The current language and proposed changes are shown in the table below: GULP Current Proposed Objective 2 Lower delivered gas cost over the long term No change Strategy 2 Lower delivered gas cost over the long term by: a. Acquiring pipeline and/or storage assets that yield supply costs below market and meet operational needs; b. Taking advantage of the City’s low cost of capital to acquire gas supply and assets; and c. Optimizing existing assets. Lower delivered gas cost over the long term by: a. Acquiring pipeline assets that yield supply costs below market and meet operational needs; b. No change c. No change March 19, 2012 Page 3 of 4 (ID # 2552) GULP Current Proposed Implementation Plan Item 3 Pursue cost-effective gas storage services by: a. Signing enabling agreements with available gas storage service providers; b. Monitoring gas prices for seasonal differences; and c. Purchasing gas storage services when cost-effective. Deleted The other GULP Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan tasks remain unchanged. The complete set of GULP Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan with the proposed changes is provided as Attachment B. Commission Review and Recommendations On December 7, 2011, the UAC unanimously (5-0) approved, without discussion, a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed revisions to the GULP Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan. Commissioners Keller and Eglash were absent. The excerpted minutes of the UAC’s December 7, 2011 meeting are included in Attachment C. On February 7, 2012, the Finance Committee approved (2-1) a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed revisions to the GULP Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan (Staff Report #2440). Council Member Burt voted against the motion, and Council Member Price was absent. The excerpted draft minutes of the Finance Committee’s February 7, 2012 meeting are provided as Attachment D. Resource Impact Short-term resources will be required for implementation of the new gas commodity purchasing and rate strategy. In the long-term, it is anticipated that 0.4 FTE will be redeployed from gas portfolio management to other projects. This savings includes small amounts of time spread across multiple individuals in Utilities and Administrative Services. Policy Implications The Council direction to implement market price-based, monthly-adjusted rates represents a shift from prior policy to provide stable gas rates to customers. Staff will propose changes, if appropriate, to the Gas Supply Rate Stabilization Reserve Guidelines when it presents the Fiscal Year 2013 gas budget and rates. Environmental Review The proposed changes to the GULP Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan do not meet the definition of a project pursuant to Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Thus, no environmental review is required. March 19, 2012 Page 4 of 4 (ID # 2552) Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution Approving Amendments to GULP (PDF) Attachment B: Proposed GULP Strategies and Objectives (PDF) Attachment C: Minutes from Dec 7 UAC meeting (PDF) Attachment D: Draft Excerpt Minutes of Finance Meeting of 2-7-12 (PDF) Prepared By: Karla Dailey, Sr. Resource Planner Department Head: Valerie Fong, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager *NOT YET APPROVED* 120305 dm 6051680 Resolution No. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Gas Utility Long-term Plan Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan A. On March 7, 2011, the Council adopted Resolution No. 9151, which approved the Gas Utility Long-term Plan Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan (the “Plan”). B. The Utilities Advisory Commission and the Council Finance Committee have recommended the Council’s approval of certain amendments to the Plan, which are attached and incorporated by reference. Those amendments pertain to the discontinuation of the gas laddering purchase strategy and the implementation of gas supply rates that change monthly according to market prices. C. Resolution No. 9151 is intended to be amended to reflect the current version of the Plan. NOW, THEREFORE,the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The Council hereby approves the amendments to the Gas Utility Long-term Plan Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan (GULP), attached to this Resolution as Attachment B. SECTION 2. Resolution No. 9151 is hereby amended in so far as the Plan, as amended, is hereby approved. SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines // // // // ATTACHMENT A *NOT YET APPROVED* 120305 dm 6051680 and, therefore, no environment assessment is required. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _____________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ City Manager ______________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney ______________________________ Director of Administrative Services ______________________________ Director of Utilities ATTACHMENT B Proposed Gas Utility Long‐term Plan (GULP) Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan GULP Objectives: 1. Market price transparency – Pass a market supply cost signal through to customers. 2. Supply Cost Management – Lower delivered gas cost over the long term. 3. Energy Efficiency – Ensure the deployment of all feasible, reliable, cost‐effective energy efficiency measures. 4. Climate Protection – Reduce the carbon intensity of the gas portfolio in accordance with the Climate Protection Plan. 5. Parity with PG&E – At a reasonable cost, protect the City’s interests and maintain access to transportation on par with PG&E’s core customers. GULP Strategies: 1. Pass a market supply cost signal through to customers by: a. Purchasing natural gas at monthly and daily market index prices; and b. Changing gas supply rates monthly to reflect market prices. 2. Lower delivered gas cost over the long term by: a. Acquiring pipeline assets that yield supply costs below market and meet operational needs; b. Taking advantage of the City’s low cost of capital to acquire gas supply and assets; and c. Optimizing existing assets. 3. Ensure the deployment of all feasible, reliable, cost‐effective energy efficiency measures by: a. Developing and implementing a ten‐year gas efficiency plan every three years that includes a reasonable carbon price premium for traditional gas supplies; and b. Considering the impacts (cost, benefits, and GHG emissions) of substituting electricity‐using appliances for gas‐using appliances and vice versa in the ten‐year gas efficiency plan. 4. Reduce the carbon intensity of the gas portfolio in accordance with the Climate Protection Plan by: a. Designing and implementing a voluntary retail program using reasonably priced non‐ fossil fuel gas resources; and b. Purchasing non‐fossil fuel gas for the portfolio as long as it can be done with no rate impact. 5. At a reasonable cost, protect the City’s interests and maintain access to transportation on par with PG&E’s core customers by: a. Participating in the regulatory and legislative arenas when the potential impact on the City is aligned with the cost to intervene and the probability of success; a. Negotiating with PG&E for fair access to transportation and storage; and b. Exploring potential joint action with other public agencies. ATTACHMENT B GULP Implementation Plan: 1. Transition to market price‐based, monthly‐adjusted gas supply rates by: a. Developing a new purchasing plan to be approved by the Director of Utilities; b. Designing a new monthly‐adjusted gas supply rate; c. Revising the reserve guidelines for Council approval; and d. Conducting customer communication and outreach. 2. Pursue below‐market assets available through the Gas Transportation and Storage Settlement by: a. Evaluating the pipeline capacity reservation options available; and b. Contracting with PG&E for any pipeline capacity with an estimated cost below the forecasted market value. 3. Pursue opportunities for natural gas prepay transactions by: a. Hiring a consultant to help staff with: i. Identifying any internal policy changes needed including the policy on the use of financial instruments; ii. Identifying system and internal processes required; iii. Identifying opportunities; and iv. Evaluating opportunities and quantifying the benefits and costs; and b. Seeking UAC recommendation and Council approval regarding whether to proceed with a gas prepay transaction. 4. Develop an implementation plan to meet the gas efficiency targets by summer 2011 including the: a. Evaluation of the cost‐effectiveness of substituting gas‐using appliance for electric‐ using appliances and vice versa and the greenhouse gas impacts of such substitutions; and b. Incorporation of any cost‐effective substitution measures in the implementation plan to meet the gas efficiency targets. 5. Track and report progress against adopted gas efficiency goals by: a. Providing quarterly updates on the gas efficiency program achievements to the UAC; and b. Providing annual updates on gas efficiency program achievements to the UAC and the City Council. 6. Continue evaluating new gas efficiency technologies and undertake pilot studies where appropriate. 7. Pursue reasonably priced non‐fossil gas for a voluntary program through NGPP by: a. Reviewing the due diligence report to be provided to NGPP participants by the end of October 2010; and b. Based on the results, recommending whether to continue participating in the projects. ATTACHMENT C Excerpted Utilities Advisor Commission Meeting Minutes of December 7, 2011 ITEM 3: ACTION: Proposed Revisions to the Gas Utility Long‐term (GULP) Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan Director Valerie Fong stated that the changes ensure that GULP is in line with the Council approval of the new gas purchasing/rate strategy. ACTION: Vice Chair Berry made a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed revisions to the GULP Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan. Commissioner Cook seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5‐0). FINANCE COMMITTEE DRAFT EXCERPT Meeting February 7, 2012 Proposed Revisions to the Gas Utility Long-Term Plan Objectives, Strategies, and Implementation Plan. Utility Director, Val Fong said this item was in regards to Administrative updates on the Gas Utility Long-Term Plan (GULP) to reflect the Council’s direction on the gas implementation plan. City Manager, James Keene said the Council had taken action on the item and Staff had to identify the language changes that needed to be made in the policy. Chair Shepherd asked if the Commission wanted to speak to the item. The Commission stated there was no discussion. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Chair Shepherd, that the Finance Committee recommend that the City Council approve the proposed revisions to the Gas Utility Long-Term Plan (GULP) Objectives, Strategies, and Implementation Plan. MOTION PASSED:2-1, Burt no, Price absent ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 8:54 pm. 1 FIN 02-07-12 ••••••••••• ATTACHMENT D City of Palo Alto (ID # 2039) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 5/21/2012 May 21, 2012 Page 1 of 12 (ID # 2039) Summary Title: Art Center/Main Library Connectivity Title: Selection of Option for Connectivity Between the Art Center and the Main Library (CIPs PE-11000, PF-07000) From:City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1.Approve the removal of a redundant driveway in front of the Art Center, installation of a plaza area between the Art Center and Main Library, removal of a parking lot shed (Component I of Options A, B C and D, defined below); and 2.Approve the construction of a vehicular connector and an accessible path between the Art Center and Main Library parking lot and removal and relocation of impacted community garden plots. (Component II of Option A defined below). An existing redwood tree would be retained and the connector driveway would be curved as much as feasible so as to slow traffic. (Recommendation 1 and 2 together form Option A, discussed herein). Or, as an alternative to Recommendation No. 2,one of the following three Options: 4.Approve the construction of a bicycle and pedestrian connection and an accessible path between the Art Center and Main Library parking lot and removal and replacement of impacted community garden plots. (Component II of Option B defined below). May 21, 2012 Page 2 of 12 (ID # 2039) 5.Direct staff to design and construct a bicycle/pedestrian connecting path which is adjacent to, (but not impacting) the Community garden plots (Option C). 6.Direct staff not to construct a new connector between the Arts Center and Library parking lot (Option D). Executive Summary Staff is recommending approval of a project to connect the Art Center and Main Library into a more cohesive campus, restructuring the space between the two buildings to improve pedestrian links and safety, and to create a visually pleasing landscaped area (Component I).Staff is also recommending linking the parking lots for the two buildings with a connecting driveway to enhance visitor parking and reduce the search time for parking (Option A of Component II).Alternative types of connectors are also included in which the link is a path for pedestrians and cyclists, but not cars. Background Measure N approved $76 million in funding for improvements to the Downtown Library (PE-09005), Mitchell Park Library and Community Center (PE-09006),and the Main Library (PE-11000). Of the total funding, $18 million was allocated for the design and construction of the Main Library improvements and expansion. At a November 2010 Architectural Review Board and at a community meeting, questions were raised as to whether the Main Library site could be better integrated with the adjacent Art Center. In responding to these requests for a more campus-like feel, on July 25, 2011, Council directed Group 4 Architecture to develop conceptual options for a redesign of the landscaping and parking areas on the south side of the Main Library to provide improved parking and circulation as well as a visual connecting link with the adjacent Art Center (staff report 1438). Over the last few months, these conceptual options have been presented to the community,boards and commissions. Although these parking and circulation improvements were not included in the original cost estimates or preliminary designs in existence at the time Measure N was submitted to the voters, they fall reasonably within the scope of renovations and improvements to Main library and, to the extent they relate to the library, are expenses that may be covered by bond funds. To the extent the improvements May 21, 2012 Page 3 of 12 (ID # 2039) are proposed on Art Center property or for access to the Art Center, costs would be attributable to the general fund. Thus, the design fee for the Main Library/Art Center was shared equally between the general fund (PF-07000) and the Measure N funds for the Main Library (PE-11000). Depending upon the design option, if any, chosen by Council, the construction cost would also be shared between the general fund and the Measure N library/community center funds. Based on conceptual design of the square footage and materials for construction, costs are to be in the range of $400,000 to $500,000 for the general fund (for the Art Center’s share of the improvements) and $400,000 to $500,000 from Measure N library bond proceeds for the Main Library’s share of improvements. The design of the Main Library is nearing completion and has been reviewed at community, Historic Resources Board, Architectural Review Board and Library Advisory Commission meetings. The Main Library improvements will include small group study rooms that are acoustically separated from the rest of the existing building, and a new adjacent program space that will seat 100 people. To accommodate the new program space, the Main Library will expand by approximately 4,000 square feet from the current 21,000 square feet on the ground floor of the building (CMR:434:06). The interior of the existing library will also be reconfigured to make better use of the space. Lighting and other existing building systems will also be upgraded. All of the improvements will be made with consideration for the historic nature of the existing building. The building will be designed to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design “Silver” level. Improvements to the Main Library will be the final component of the Measure N Bond measure projects. During the recent reviews of the Main Library, the Art Center parking and integration options were also discussed. Discussion Parking and Circulation Improvements Between the Art Center and Main Library The issue of integrating the Main Library and Art Center had originally been explored during the previous 2002 library bond, Measure D. Years later, however, renovations for the Main Library and Art Center sites later began the design process as separate projects. Because these renovations were being planned separately, under different design firms and project managers, little attention was paid to the overall integration of the campus. It was only during design development presentations of the Main Library project to the Architectural Review Board and at a community meeting in November 2010 that the issue of May 21, 2012 Page 4 of 12 (ID # 2039) improving the connection of the Art Center, Main Library and Community gardens into an overall campus site was raised again. As a result of these inquiries, Group 4 Architecture was asked to make a cursory exploration of the feasibility and cost related to making the site have a more campus-like feel. These initial designs were discussed in a joint exploratory meeting between the library and Art Center stakeholders and staff in the spring of 2011. Both groups recommended exploring the concept further. On July 25, 2011, Council approved Contract Amendment Four with Group 4 Architecture to better develop the initial designs, gather input and report the findings back to Council for further direction (staff report 1438). Group 4 Architecture and staff then met with a task force of community gardeners to gather more input and took those comments into consideration in the development of two design options. The updated design concepts, Option A and Option B, were subsequently presented to the Architectural Review Board (ARB), Historic Resources Board (HRB), Library Bond Oversight Committee (LBOC), Library Advisory Commission (LAC), Parks and Recreation Committee (PARC) and at community meetings. These two options, discussed in more detail below (and shown in Attachment A) are very similar with the exception being the driveway that would connect the two sites. The driveway in Option A is wide enough to allow cars on the driveway. The driveway in Option B is narrower and only wide enough for bicyclists and pedestrians. Site Issues Several issues related to connecting the two sites were identified as a result of the exploration of design options: Safety: -The existing driveway in front of the Art Center is used by cut- through traffic avoiding the traffic signal at Embarcadero and Newell. Combined with reduced visibility due to landscaping, this creates unsafe conditions for people accessing the parking lot. -There is little to no sight lighting provided on the campus which makes traversing the campus on foot or bicycle after daylight hours unsafe and challenging. May 21, 2012 Page 5 of 12 (ID # 2039) -The storage shed in one of the parking lots between the two sites is dark and attractive to vagrants. People are unclear if the area under the shed roof is open to the public. -During high-participation events, drivers jog from parking lot to parking lot via Newell Road, creating increased traffic and impacting a bicycle lane. Access: -No easy and clear access between sites for pedestrians or drivers Wayfinding: -Visitors new to the site often cannot easily locate individual facilities -Campus lacks an overall, cohesive plan with walkways and gathering spots -Parking: The community has expressed concerns about insufficient site parking during large events. With a new community room planned for the Main Library and anticipated increased visitors to the Art Center, parking demands may increase. In addition, no additional parking was ever provided for gardeners with the creation of the Community Gardens. There are four separate parking lots on the campus, three of which are linked (Art Center side) and one of which is not (Library side). Site Utilization: -There are significant areas of the campus that are underutilized by the community because they are inaccessible and the landscaping is not inviting Design Options Several conceptual design options were originally developed by Group 4 Architecture in response to the site issues and presented to Council in July 2011 (see staff report 1438). Since that time and working with library and Art Center staff and gardeners,two options have been refined as follows: -Option A: - Component I:Remove the redundant driveway in front of the Art Center to reduce hazards caused by speeding and cut-through traffic May 21, 2012 Page 6 of 12 (ID # 2039) from Embarcadero and Newell; reconfigure the parking area between the Art Center and Main Library entrances into a curved design to slow traffic and better align the entrances to the Art Center and Main Library; create pedestrian plazas and integrate new trees and other landscaping between the two sites; remove a storage shed in one of the parking lots in order to increase parking, - Component II: Add a new connector roadway accessible by cars, to connect the Main Library and Art Center parking areas.Removable bollards will be included in the connector design and can be inserted to restrict cars as needed for special events. -Option B: - Component I:is the same as Option A, - Component II:differs from Option A in that the driveway connecting the Main Library and Art Center sites would not be accessible to cars and could therefore be narrower. -Option C: -Component I: is the same as Option A, -Component II: following an April 19, 2012 community meeting, another option was identified, namely,the creation of an accessible, non- vehicular footpath connector adjacent to (but not impacting) the community Garden. Component II differs from Option A and Option B in that there would be no impact to the community gardens. -Option D: -Component I: is the same as Option A, -Component II: No connector between the Arts Center and the Main Library Parking Lot.The initial design and construction cost estimate for the Main Library improvements did not include any connectivity elements for the Main Library and the Art Center. -Other: Council may decide to direct staff to make some modifications to the site, such as removal of the shed in the smaller parking lot between the Art Center and Main Library,but likely not to the extent of either Option A or B. May 21, 2012 Page 7 of 12 (ID # 2039) Main Library/Art Center Integration-Summary Driveway accessible by cars? Boards and Comm. Favoring Construction Cost – Measure N portion Only Parking Difference Garden Plot Gain/Loss Option A Yes LAC, HRB, ARB $400-500K. Of this, the ‘car connector’ driveway is approx $100K -2 (less spaces than Option B) Loss and relocation of up to 12 plots; gain 800 sf elsewhere Option B No PRC $400-500K. Of this, the ‘bike + ped connector’ driveway is approx $80K +2 (more spaces than Option A) Loss and relocation of up to 12 plots; gain 800 sf elsewhere Option C No n/a $400-$500K. Of this, the ‘ped +bike path’is approximately $90K No change from current None Community Gardens Impact The Community Gardens would be impacted if either Option A or B is selected because of the construction of either a car or bike/pedestrian driveway would result in the relocation of up to 12 plots. Explorations suggest that connecting the Art Center and Library parking lots with a driveway would require the relocation of up to 12 garden plots. The plots could be relocated to an area currently used as an internal access road, which would also provide approximately a 1,000 square foot net increase in garden square feet resulting in potentially one additional garden plot. At community meetings on May 5, 2011,and April 19, 2012, gardeners associated with the Community Gardens expressed concerns about the possible loss of garden plots due to any driveway construction;the noise and safety impacts of a May 21, 2012 Page 8 of 12 (ID # 2039) driveway near the garden and the need for a buffer zone and increased parking needs resulting from the loss of approximately two parking spaces in the library parking lot needed for the driveway (see Attachment A). Gardeners questioned whether some of the lawn area at the Main Library might be used for parking, whether ‘parking lot full’ electronic signs could be employed or whether speed tables could be used to improve crossing safety in front of the Art Center. After Council approval of additional design on July 25, 2011, Group 4 Architecture met with a working group of comprised of people who have plots at the community garden to gather input on potential design options. At a subsequent community meeting on October 24, 2011, Group 4 Architecture presented the result of their more detailed design, which is reflected in Options A and B. People commenting felt that digital parking counter signs that would indicate ‘parking lot full’ were overkill for such small parking lots. Parking on the lawn is problematic given the visual impact and historic nature of the Main Library and the number of trees in the lawn area. Speed tables, which are slightly elevated crossing walkways, may be incorporated into the design to further slow vehicles that cross pedestrian crossing zones. Discussion Overall, the feedback from the gardeners was that a driveway connecting the Main Library to the Art Center through the Community Gardens might at worst be dangerous and at best be unnecessary. The Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC) and many gardeners (particularly those whose plots would be relocated) supported the idea of improving connectivity and circulation but preferred Option B, which had a connector driveway that was narrower and could not be used by cars. No redwood or oak trees would need to be removed to construct the driveway, although one other tree might need to be removed. This tree is not a heritage tree and its potential removal has been reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. The construction cost of Option B (bicycle/pedestrian option)would be approximately $10-20,000 less than Option A (car accessible)due to the difference in costs between landscaping and paving materials for the reduced road width. If the narrower bike/pedestrian connector were to be constructed, the cost of deciding years later to widen the connector to accommodate cars would be more than $20,000 due to the need to design, re-mobilize and construct (with matching materials, if possible)a wider connector. May 21, 2012 Page 9 of 12 (ID # 2039) In October and November 2011, the Library Advisory Commission (LAC), the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and Architectural Review Board (ARB) expressed support for Option A. Meeting minutes for the LAC and PARC are shown in Attachments B and C, respectively. The Library Director, Art Center Director, Library Stakeholders group and Art Center Foundation have previously expressed support for the driveway concept in Option A. The ARB liked the idea of the vehicular connecting driveway in Option A, but wanted to explore the idea of removing a redwood tree and making the driveway a straight-line connection between the Main Library and Art Center parking lots. Members felt that a straight connection would be a more visible, obvious route to drivers, as opposed to the curved roadway shown in Option A. Staff, however, recommends that Council direct that the redwood tree remain and that the connector road should be curved so as to slow traffic. A final community meeting was held on April 19, 2012,to insure that all comments from adjacent residents (especially those on Walnut Drive)were aware of the project and had the opportunity to comment. Postcards and door hangers were used to publicize the meeting. Attendees were asked if there were comments or concerns about impacts to homes or yards on Walnut. No concerns about impacts to locations on Walnut Drive were raised. The concerns raised at the meeting were in large part the same ones raised at earlier meetings-impacts to the garden, safety, disrupting the ‘rural” feel of the location, and parking issues Resource Impact Design costs to complete the design of either Option A B, or C have already been included in Amendment 4 with Group 4 Architecture and, since the improvements benefit each site, costs were evenly split between the Art Center (CIP PF-07000) and the Main Library (PE-11000) at $53,843 apiece. Funding for the construction of either Option A or B will be included as part of the upcoming Main Library CIP budget proposal for FY 2013 for the Main Library (PE-11000). Various code compliance and deferred maintenance improvements approved by Council in July 2011 (Staff Report 1438)will also be included in the upcoming FY 2103 budget proposal. All of these additional improvements are consistent with necessary renovations to the Main Library and have been determined to be bondable expenses.Option C, which is for a smaller footpath that does not impact the May 21, 2012 Page 10 of 12 (ID # 2039) garden at all, would be less costly than either Option A, and could be covered within the upcoming FY 2103 budget for the Main Library. The estimated construction costs of $800,000 to $1 million would be shared between the Art Center and Main Library projects. The construction cost can be better determined once materials are selected through the board and commission review process. Assuming that the parking lots and driveway are equally used by Art Center and Library patrons, a 50 percent ($400,000 to $500,000) cost allocation to each project (PE-11000, Main Library and PF-07000, Art Center Renovation) could be assumed. Funding for the non-bondable portion of the work would come from construction cost savings of approximately $300,000 from the Art Center renovation now underway (PF-07000) and the remaining $200,000 would come from a Budget Amendment Ordinance from the Infrastructure Reserve.Bollards will be added to the connector design and can be used as needed to restrict cars some or part of the time. The project cost for the Main Library was originally estimated at $18 million and has recently been updated to $20 million by the construction manager, Turner Construction. Of this increase, roughly $1.5 million was due to the July 25, 2011, approval by Council of deferred maintenance, code compliance and other enhancements (staff report #1438). The remaining $500,000 cost increase is due to $500,000 that was budgeted for any approval of improved connectivity between the Art Center and Main Library. Even assuming the updated Main Library project cost of $20 million, and if the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center costs were to increase to the level of the original $50 million budgeted for Measure N, the overall library bond measure costs would still be roughly $7 million below the bond limit of $76 million. Policy Impacts The Art Center and Main Library site integration was not considered nor discussed at any public meetings leading up to the Measure N bond,but only became identified during the public review process of the Main Library. The integration of the Art Center and Main Library sites is a renovation that would contribute to the functionality of the library building and enhance the user experience by improving circulation and parking for the building. The City’s bond counsel has determined that these added costs related to the May 21, 2012 Page 11 of 12 (ID # 2039) library are bondable under Measure N as renovations that will serve the newly expanded building. While staff recommends approval of Option A, it should be noted that adding this improvement will have an impact on property assessments because bonds will need to be issued in an amount sufficient to cover the initial project cost and newly proposed renovations, including the connectivity component. However, based on current cost estimates for all Measure N work, the expected, final assessment for property owners is well within $76 million approved in Measure N. Timeline If a design option is selected by Council, the design would be completed and advertised for construction bids as part of the overall Main Library construction package. Specifics of the connectivity design such as materials, colors and plantings would be reviewed by the ARB and HRB along with any design items that relate to the Main Library building. Staff would work with the gardeners and PARC for items that pertain specifically to the community garden. If a connector between the Art Center and Main Library is approved by Council, those plots impacted by the connector driveway would be closed shortly before construction and relocated to another area. Staff will work with impacted gardeners prior to the start of construction to determine the best means of, and season for moving existing garden beds, materials and plants. With the exception of the time needed to move impacted garden plots, gardeners should have access to their plants throughout the construction period via the Art Center parking lot off of Embarcadero Road. The Downtown Library re-opened on July 16, 2011,and the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center is currently estimated to re-open to the public in early 2013. The design for the Main Library is approximately 90 percent complete and the plans are expected to be ready to bid in November or December of 2012. Construction on the Main Library is expected to last 14 to 16 months. The temporary Main Library will be located in the Art Center Auditorium which is now under construction as part of the Art Center renovation. It is expected to be opened to the public once the Main Library has closed. Environmental Review On July 21, 2008, the Council confirmed the Director of Planning and Community May 21, 2012 Page 12 of 12 (ID # 2039) Environment’s approvals of a 2007 Addendum to the 2002 final Environmental Impact Report for the Main Library. Attachments: ·Attachment A: Connection Options (PDF) ·Attachment B: Library Advisory Commission meeting minutes (PDF) ·Attachment C: PARC Meeting Minutes, Oct 25, 2011 (DOC) Prepared By:Karen Bengard, Senior Engineer Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager Existing Site Community Garden Art Garden Main Library Art Center 2 Option A –Vehicle Connector 3 Option B – Pedestrian + Bike Connector 4 Option C –Option C – Pedestrian + Bike Path 5 Existing Garden Annex ‐Aerial 6 Proposed Garden Plots ‐Aerial 7 Proposed Garden Matrix 8 LAC:20111027m 1 MINUTES Library Advisory Commission (LAC) October 27, 2011 Downtown Library Community Room 270 Forest Ave. 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Present: Tolulope Akinola (7:30), Leonardo Hochberg, Eileen Landauer, Bob Moss, Theivanai Palaniappan, Mary Beth Train Staff Present: Monique le Conge, Cornelia van Aken, Evelyn Cheng Council Liaison: Greg Schmid CALL TO ORDER – Palaniappan called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS – None AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS – The order of Agenda items #3 and #4 were switched to accommodate the public. BUSINESS 1. Establishing Rules of Conduct and Procedures at LAC Meetings Palaniappan recommended that the Commission establish the following rules of conduct and procedures at meetings: - Adhere to time limits for agenda items. - Stay focused on the topic of discussion. - Aim to end the meeting by 9:30 p.m. If not, stop at 9:30 p.m. to assess if remaining agenda items should be moved to the next meeting. . MOTION: Landauer moved, seconded by Hochberg. “The LAC accepts the rules of conduct and procedures as presented by the LAC Chair.” Motion passed, 5-0 (Akinola was not present at time of voting). 2. Approval of Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting on July 28, 2011 With corrections, Hochberg moved to approve minutes of Regular Meeting on July 28, 2011. Landauer seconded. Minutes were approved unanimously. APPROVED LAC:20111027m 2 3. Main Library Design update and Main Library/Art Center Connectivity Plan Palaniappan recognized Rita Morgin, 600 Channing Ave., from the audience. Morgin spoke against the option to widen the connector between the Main Library and Art Center to allow pedestrians, bikes as well as vehicles. Karen Bengard, Senior Engineer/Public Works, gave background on how the idea to better integrate the two buildings came about, with Group 4 Architecture developing conceptual options for a visual connecting link. These conceptual options have been presented to the community and boards and commissions. Dawn Merkes, Group 4 Architecture, gave updates on Library projects schedule and more specifically on the Main Library building design – sustainable building strategies, additions to the building, e.g. bracing, bicycle canopies, study/program rooms, restrooms - including landscape and tree preservation plan, as well as the Main Library and Art Center campus integration concepts. There are two options for the site integration: Option A – Road connector with concrete/cobbled textured paving, widens the connector to allow vehicles but reduces the parking count by 3 spaces Option B - Concrete path for pedestrian/bike only; adds two stalls for parking Site integration goals are 1) Provide a safer pedestrian crossing and entry connection between the two facilities 2) Provide as much parking as practical within existing hardscape areas 3) Create a campus design that connects the Library, Art Center and Community Garden 4) Improve access to campus parking Palaniappan recognized the following from the audience, who spoke about their concern for safety with the proposed shared space for cars, pedestrian and bikes (Option A), and their preference for Option B: - Andrew Boone, resident (nauboone@gmail.com) - Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto Borock also spoke about the venue for LAC meetings, now held at Downtown Library instead of City Hall’s Council Conference Room. - Adina Levin, 1015 Fremont St., Menlo Park LAC:20111027m 3 Discussion followed, with members of the LAC providing comments, asking questions/clarification about the additions for Main Library and stating preferences regarding the site integration concepts. MOTION: Moss moved, Landauer seconded. “That the LAC recommends Option A, with the caveat/understanding to reconfigure if any problem does arise later.” Motion passed, 5-1 (Hochberg opposing) City Council’s discussion of the options for connectivity between the Art Center and the Main Library is scheduled for December 12 (Action item). 4. Presentation on Art for Main Library and Art Center Percent for Art Project Le Conge introduced Larisa Usich, Vice Chair of the Public Art Commission (PAC), who gave a background of the process for selecting the public art for the Main Library and Art Center, and a presentation on the work of the artists selected for this project. The goal is to enhance the connectivity between the Art Center, Main Library and adjacent Community Gardens. Commissioners watched the proposal video of the artists Joe O’Connell and Blessing Hancock of Tucson AZ: six interactive metal sculptures in lantern like forms for the plaza with letter cutouts forming words and narrative phrases. These sculptures are lit at night and will change colors when the public interacts with the sculptures. Usich said the artists and PAC would like some help to refine the design and would be interested to get input on thoughts for the languages and texts to be used in the art pieces. Members of the LAC asked questions about the art concept – where each piece will be situated, safety issue, if any, etc. – and provided comments/suggestions for moving the pieces around and for gathering some statistics on what languages and texts to use. Usich added that the artists will be coming back in December to get community feedback. The LAC thanked Usich for her presentation. The contract with artist team Joe O’Connell and Blessing Hancock to create site specific artworks for the Art Center and Main Library combined percent for art project will go to Council on November 1. LAC:20111027m 4 5. Reports from LAC Subcommittees on 2011 Priorities The three LAC sub-committees met with le Conge to discuss their work prior to the LAC meeting. Moss and Train on measurement and analytics – will focus on developing a simple dashboard and defining what the Commission wants to know/work on and why. Landauer provided a draft of dashboard metrics, with key information taken from the Library’s statistical dashboard (How the Library Served You @ http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=28746) and included information highlighting those items chosen as key projects by the LAC for the current year. Akinola and Hochberg on communication/marketing – the sub- committee is leaning towards focusing on a virtual branch for marketing opportunities, utilizing the Library website to engage patrons to access library resources and services. Commissioners agreed to duplicate Landauer’s exercise to come up with suggestions for a dashboard to streamline the process. Staff will send out the two documents to Commissioners and comments, if any, will be given to le Conge for review and/or to collate. 6. Planning for LAC Joint Meeting with City Council on December 5, 2011 Le Conge said the date for the Joint Meeting with City Council has been moved to December 12 (new date), to coincide with Council’s discussion of the options for connectivity between the Main Library and Art Center. Members of the LAC gave suggestions for topics of discussion at the December 12 meeting: the subcommittees’ work, why chosen and current status; virtual branch for Library; populated dashboard; Link+; e-Books; long-term takeaways - ideas on how to keep all five libraries open with existing resources; suite of services available; how to be creative to provide new needs/services to the community. Hochberg said it would be more efficient to focus on a small number of topics, get Council’s feedback and answer questions. Schmid encouraged the LAC to use the time to not only bring issues to Council, but to mention success stories as there is a sense of celebration with the library building projects. LAC:20111027m 5 The usual practice is for the Chair and Vice Chair to meet with the Mayor and Vice Mayor to decide on the agenda for the meeting. Palaniappan said it would be helpful if this meeting can be held before the LAC meeting on November 17. Staff will send the meeting request. LIBRARY DIRECTOR’S REPORT Le Conge provided a written report of recent library activities of interest in the packet, which included All Palo Alto City Libraries will be closed on October 31 for a major technology upgrade that will improve its Integrated Library and Public Access Computer Systems. While the Library is closed, staff will work on special projects that do not require a working catalog, including program planning, community collaboration, and statistical analysis. A tour of the Mitchell Park construction site is scheduled for (1) the LAC and Parks and Recreation Commission on November 4, 4 p.m, (2) the Palo Alto Library Foundation (PALF) on November 18. Diane Lai’s first day in Palo Alto will be on November 17. She is the new Division Head, Collections and Technical Services, replacing Mary Minto who retired after 39 years of service. Google Chromebooks (internet browsers) will be available to library users at the Downtown, Main, and Mitchell Park Temporary Libraries from November 8, 2011 through February 7, 2012. Palo Alto is the only public library that Google approached for testing its product. September’s Library Card Sign-up campaign was very successful in encouraging City staff to visit the Downtown Library and sign up for library cards. Update on Mitchell Park project: Construction is progressing well and 5% of the contingency has been spent to date. Upcoming Council dates: November 7 - Report on Automated Materials Handling November 21 – Community presentation on Project Safety Net OTHER REPORTS Commissioner reports and questions: Train said she appreciates getting copies of public letters to Council and responses from staff. Commissioners reported on other meetings that they attended in October: Palo Alto Library Foundation Board meeting on October 11 - Train Friends of the Palo Alto Library’s Board and Annual Meeting held on October 12 – Moss Library Bond Stakeholder’s Meeting on October 4 and 13 - Hochberg LAC:20111027m 6 Council Liaison Report: Council interviewed candidates for the LAC vacancy on October 24 and will be voting to appoint on November 7. The submittal of the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Monthly Construction Contract Report to Council and Council’s direction to staff to continue these reports will be scheduled in November. Schmid looks forward to the upcoming LAC Joint Meeting with Council in December. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioners agreed to continue to hold LAC meetings at Downtown Library but with a different room set-up, similar to that in the Council Conference Room, to interact effectively with the public. Hochberg has photos available for Commissioners to review of his recent visit to a London library. le Conge asked about a December meeting for the LAC. In recent years, the Commission did not meet in December unless there is a need to respond to Council action. AGENDA for meeting on November 17, 2011: The items suggested for the meeting are: Staff Presentation: Youth Services, e-Readers, Strategic Planning Planning for LAC Joint Meeting with City Council on December 12, 2011 Library Dashboard Virtual Library Plan Hochberg moved to adjourn. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 10:28 p.m. APPROVED October 25,2011 Approved Minutes 1 Attachment C MINUTES PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2011 City Hall 250 Hamilton Ave Commissioners Present:Deidre Crommie, Sunny Dykwel, Jennifer Hetterly, Ed Lauing,Pat Markevitch,Daria Walsh Commissioners Absent:Paul Losch Others Present: Council Liaison Karen Holman Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Greg Betts, Sally Camozzi, Rob de Geus, Joe Vallaire I.ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Sally Camozzi II.AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: III.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:Mark Petersen-Perez commented that Police Chief Dennis Burns is holding meetings behind closed doors, which he believes is a violation of the Brown Act. IV. BUSINESS: 1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the September 27, 2011 regular meeting - The September 27,2011 draft minutes were approved as amended. Approved 6:0 2.Presentation from the Friends of Palo Alto Parks –Daren Anderson introduced Susan Beale, a long-time resident of Palo Alto and a board member of the Friends of Palo Alto Parks. She said the Friends work to achieve three objectives: a. to provide funding to enrich, enhance and beautify Palo Alto Parks and Open Space Preserves; b. to foster greater public awareness, appreciation and ownership; and c. to raise funds to assist in the purchase of additional parks and open space. She went over some of the projects that they have and are currently working on together as a public/private partnership. These included working with the Kiwanis’ to provide color to the beds on Embarcadero Road and Heritage APPROVED October 25,2011 Approved Minutes 2 Park playground. The beautification and the renaming of Lytton Plaza, the Magical Bridge Project at Mitchell Park, one of the first universally accessible playgrounds in Palo Alto’s park system. Susan Beale also invited the Commissioners to come to one of their board meetings at 1950 University Avenue on the second Tuesday of each month at 11:30am. Public Comment Mark Weiss –Mr. Weiss spoke on the renaming of Lytton Plaza. He made some suggestions such as;Joan Baez, Wallace Stegner,and Goodwin Steinberg. 3.Recommendation to Council for a Park Improvement Ordinance for the installation of a restroom at Juana Briones Park –Holly Boyd with the Public Works Engineering department presented the Park Improvement Ordinance and asked for the support of the Commission. Based on a community meeting in September 2011, the public supports a restroom but preferred an alternative location.The proposed new location near the fire station would require the removal of 3 fruit trees; however they would be replaced with new trees and plantings in the vicinity of the new restrooms. The restrooms would be 20’ x 25’ with automatic locks which would be programmed to unlock at dawn and lock for the night at dusk. Public Comment Aram James –Mr. James expressed concern about locking restrooms between dusk and dawn. He suggested surveillance instead if the City is concerned about criminal activity in the restrooms. He again stated that he was in favor of a restroom for everyone’s use. Trina Lovercheck –Ms. Lovercheck spoke in support of the restroom in the park, and feels the location near fire station is a good idea. Mark Petersen-Perez –Mr. Peterson-Perez also expressed concern about vandalism, and suggested that perhaps the public could use the restroom at the fire station instead. He would like to see a green design for the new restroom that would utilize green technology such as solar panels to provide power, and would like to see no additional expense incurred to provide the restroom. Commissioner Crommie suggested placards on the restroom to provide the location of the nearest open restroom and a number for the public to call to report graffiti. She also suggested the use of a graffiti-resistant coating to protect the restroom structure.It was noted that the residents preferred the Seale Park model for the new restroom. Commissioner Dykwel commented that the City has an ordinance that closes all parks from dusk to dawn.Chair Walsh asked whether the restroom could be moved to the decomposed granite area adjacent to the basketball court as opposed to on the grass area requiring the removal of trees. Holy Boyd responded by saying the location was recommended by the public at the community meeting and further she would be APPROVED October 25,2011 Approved Minutes 3 concerned that the safety buffer zone needed for the basketball court would likely be a problem. Motion: The Parks and Recreation Commission Recommend to Council to approve the Park Improvement Ordinance for the installation of a restroom at Juana Briones Park. Passed 6:0. 4.Review updated concepts for improving the Main Library/Art Center connectivity - Rob de Geus introduced Karen Bengard, Senior Engineer Public Work Department who presented some renderings of three possible designs to improve Art Center / Main Library connectivity. Karen Bengard stated that they had four goals in mind while planning the project. a. to respect the historical character of the site; b. to embrace sustainable concepts; c. to utilize the external space to allow people to gather; and d. to integrate the design to provide a consistent campus. The plan includes removal of 11 trees, of which 8 are large juniper shrubs. A total of 21 new trees would be planted to replace these existing trees/shrubs. The goals for the integration of the space would be for safety and lighting. Two separate options were introduced; one option (A) calls for a shared roadway for cars, pedestrians and bicyclists sharing the road. Another option (B) calls for a pedestrian/bicycle pathway only. Public Comment Pingyu Liu -Mr. Liu felt the proposed renderings represented a beautiful, thoughtful design, but doesn’t want the City to spend the money since he doesn’t see the project as a necessity. He supports the proposed safety aspects but thinks signage could be used to achieve the same purpose. Andrew Boone –Mr. Boone frequently visits the Community Garden; he is concerned about a road being placed into this safe and peaceful environment. Palo Alto should be promoting more pedestrian only zones; he felt the city should be promoting safety for children over having to drive a few extra minutes to find a parking space in an adjacent lot. Rita Morgin -Ms. Morgin expressed her concern over the design featuring cobblestones. She felt the pedestrian and bicycle pathways should be handicap-accessible, paved with smooth surfaces and clear, well-lit way-finding. She supports pedestrian and bicycle- friendly pathways, but not car friendly. She also inquired about the cost of the project. Ute Engelke -Ms. Engelke supported the previous public comment and reminded the Commission that this is the year of the bicycle not the automobile. She added that she would like to see more information related to the cost and the comparison of all the options and a better understanding of the connectivity between the library and the gardens which doesn’t appear to be shown in the design concepts. Commissioner Comments APPROVED October 25,2011 Approved Minutes 4 Commissioner Crommie agreed that the proposed connection was very beautiful; but expressed concern over the need to connect parking lots. She felt there were two separate issues; the connection between buildings and the connection between parking lots.She also questioned the rationale for constructing a vehicle connector road and was not convinced it would resolve the concerns of frustrated drivers. Commissioner Markevitch suggested changing the timing for the light on Newell and Embarcadero to relieve the car-parking issue. She stated that the reason for the public’s frustration with cutting through lots is largely due to the long wait at the light at Newell and Embarcadero. She also supports a pedestrian/bicycle pathway without cars. Further discussion followed regarding the need to include Parks staff in the selection of the plantings as they will be responsible for maintaining them. Commissioners were interested to learn more about the cost of the connector road versus the bicycle pedestrian path. According to Bengard, the Library Director fully supports the vehicle road. The funding for this project would be divided 50/50 between the Art Center project budget and the library project budget. Motion: The Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommendation is Option B, the pedestrian/bicycle pathway, between the Art Center and Library. Passed: 4:2 (Commissioners Walsh and Crommie) Note –Chair Walsh opposed the motion in support of the Art Center Director and Library Director who both support a connector road for vehicles believing it would be beneficial to their respective operations. Commissioner Crommie opposed the vote for entirely different reasons, believing that an option of no path, leaving the area more natural with mulch should be considered. 5. Informational report on Public Art planned for the Main Library/Art Center Project Elise DeMarzo of the City’s Art Center presented the artists’ renderings for the proposed Art for the Art Center and Main Library connectivity. The Commission was pleased with the proposed art. Commissioner Dykwel suggested that the youth in our community come up with words and phrases to be contained in the public art such as “proactive”, “open spaces” and “innovation”. Commissioner Hetterly suggested that the lights in the art pieces shine more brightly down and less brightly up. She also suggested some words for the art such as “citizen engagement and informed” and recommended staff suggest words that speak to the communities values. APPROVED October 25,2011 Approved Minutes 5 6.Presentation and discussion on the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration Configuration -Rob de Geus provided some background information to the Commission. In his discussion he provided specific information such as: ·The cost to run the golf course is approximately $3 million a year (excludes overhead cost and debt service) ·Debt service is $650,000 ·Play decline for the last 10 years ·100,000 rounds in 1990 to 70,000 rounds in 2011 ·Palo Alto Golf Course still doing better then other local golf courses. Forrest Richardson presented the process he has gone through in coming up with the initial reconfiguration alternatives of the golf course in conjunction with the flood control project. Mr. Richardson has completed a course evaluation and study, and based on this information he has come up with various schematic design options. He has been contracted by the City separately to also prepare a master plan for the golf course. Mr. Richardson’s goals for this project include accommodating the creek mitigation, improving play, creating a more memorable golf experience (the WOW factor) and establishing a roadmap for the future. Given the current constraints, he offered 6 different solutions by providing 6 schematic design options to reconfigure the holes to accommodate the creek mitigation project. He also discussed incorporating the Baylands theme into the master plan which can be implemented right now or over the next 10 years, all with the goal of creating a better facility to include: a.New entry signage and a new road into the golf course; b.Expanded and enhanced parking with more spaces and landscaping; c.A trail system (hiking and biking) with access to food and drink or perhaps the driving range; d.An open-air cart storage building with natural ventilation; e.A high-tech range performance building; f.A public putting green; g.An expanded driving range with an estimated $30,000 per bay in projected annual revenue; h.A second putting green; i.A wedding lawn; and j.A clubhouse expansion/enhancement. Public Comment Craig Allen –Mr.Allen spoke on behalf of himself and other golfers saying that they were excited about the options being proposed. He also felt that the City by not selecting Option A and going with Option D would be beneficial to the city by drawing in more APPROVED October 25,2011 Approved Minutes 6 golfers and increase revenue. Mr. Allen was also pleased with the cooperation that SFCJPA has provided and felt it has added to the strength of the project. The Commission was then given time for comments. Council Liaison Holman asked if there were figures for the profit potential of the other options which include weddings, utilizing the restaurant for dinner, etc. Rob de Geus responded that they weren’t there yet, and they had just seen the schematics earlier that day. Commissioner Markevitch asked if it was possible to combine use of the driving range with a soccer field after 8:00pm. Forrest Richardson responded that it was possible but an analysis would be required. The driving range is currently graded for golf and not a soccer field and he is not aware of another multi-use situation Commissioner Hetterly knows golfers who would never choose Palo Alto Muni Golf Course as their first choice, and she would not support Option A. She supports the other options that would move the golf course up from the last choice course. She loves the idea of bringing the Baylands feel into the golf course, and making the restaurant into a lunch spot for the area. Commissioner Crommie is not a fan of the golf course, and thinks if we plan to keep the golf course we should make it an asset. She likes the dual-use concept, incorporating trails for hikers and bikers. She also introduced the idea of bike rentals at the golf course and feels it would make a better entry to biking at the Baylands. She also suggested a name change for the course to Palo Alto Baylands Golf Course. In response to Commissioner Crommie’s questions about the levy trail, Kevin Murray (SFCJPA) responded that trail improvements are planned in the project which would include improved connection to the Bay Trail to the north and south. Also, there will be improved access and a wider trail from 12 to 16 feet wide. Commissioner Lauing was really impressed with the architectural design of the proposed buildings and also impressed with the price. He feels there would be many opportunities for programming and he envisions it becoming another community center. His concern is that in the past, Council has not been supportive of investments in the golf course, but thinks this architectural design could prove to be a spectacular community center. Chair Walsh believes it is critical to find new and creative ways to increase resident use and participation of the golf course. If this becomes a place Palo Alto residents will go and use, they will value it. She also recommends the plans for the golf course and APPROVED October 25,2011 Approved Minutes 7 buildings are as environmentally friendly as possible which will appeal to the community. 7. Recommendation to revise Municipal Code 22.04.180 to place limits on amplified sound at Lytton Plaza –Daren Anderson reviewed the recommendation of amending the existing Ordinance 22.04.180 (Parks and Recreation Building Use and Regulations) of the Municipal Code that was included in the Commissioners packet. The amendment is to impose a permit requirement and time use limitations for sound amplification on equipment only at Lytton Plaza.He informed the Commission that there have been numerous complaints made to the police department from the surrounding local businesses and citizens.According to April Wagner of the Police department, they do not have enough resources to respond to these complaints. Public Comment Mark Weiss -Mr. Weiss commented on his disappointment with the staff report. He encouraged the Commission to not approve this amendment. He referenced the cities of Los Angeles and Seattle, stating that they both have attempted to ban amplified music from street musicians and both cases wee subsequently thrown out of courts. Herb Borack –Mr. Borack also opposed the amendment and felt it would have a definite impact on the freedom of expression at Lytton Plaza. Susan Webb –Ms. Webb spoke on not supporting this amendment. She has utilized this location every Wednesday and Friday night since January 2010 and felt it would be a shame to make the musicians pay for a permit to perform in the plaza. The Commission after discussing this item felt that it needed to be discussed further and Commissioners Markevitch and Dykwel suggested that a subcommittee be formed to look into it further. An ad hoc committee was formed with Commissioners Lauing, Markevitch and Dykwel.It was then agreed to take no action until after the ad hoc committee meets and bring it back to the Commission at a later date. V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS None VI.TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 13, 2011 MEETING VII. ADJOURNMENT 12 midnight