HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-11-08 Historic Resources Board Agenda Packet_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Historic Resources Board
Regular Meeting Agenda: November 8, 2018
Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 AM
Call to Order / Roll Call
Oral Communications
The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2
Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions
The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
City Official Reports
1. 2018 Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule and Assignments
Study Session
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
Action Items
Public Comment Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All
others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Historic Resources Board Input on Peninsula Corridor Electrification
Project (PCEP) Overhead Contact System Foundation & Pole Layouts Design for
Installation Within Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Right of Way in
Palo Alto. Environmental Assessment: The JPB Certified the Final Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) and Adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
(MMRP) in January 2015, Following Publication of the Draft EIR in February 2014 for
Public Comment.
Approval of Minutes
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
3. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of October 11, 2018
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Subcommittee Items
Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements
Adjournment
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Palo Alto Historic Resources Board
Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The HRB Boardmembers
are:
Chair David Bower
Vice Chair Brandon Corey
Boardmember Martin Bernstein
Boardmember Roger Kohler
Boardmember Michael Makinen
Boardmember Deborah Shepherd
Boardmember Margaret Wimmer
Get Informed and Be Engaged!
View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel
26.
Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card
located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Board
Secretary prior to discussion of the item.
Write to us. Email the HRB at: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning
& Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM the Thursday preceding the meeting date will be
included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 3:00 PM the day before
the meeting will be presented to the Board at the dais.
Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the HRB after distribution of the
agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above.
Americans with Disability Act (ADA)
It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a
manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an
appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs,
or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing
ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least
24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report (ID # 9799)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 11/8/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 2018 HRB Meeting Schedule and Assignments
Title: 2018 Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule and
Assignments
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) review and comment as appropriate.
Background
Attached is the HRB meeting schedule and attendance record for the calendar year. This is
provided for informational purposes. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from
a future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item.
No action is required by the HRB for this item.
Attachments:
Attachment A: 2018 HRB Meeting Schedule Assignments 11.08.18(PDF)
2018 Schedule
Historic Resources Board
Meeting Schedule & Assignments
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned
1/11/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
1/25/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
2/8/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Retreat/Fieldtrip
2/22/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
3/8/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled
3/22/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled
4/12/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled
4/26/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Bower/Kohler –
conflict item 2
5/10/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
5/24/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
6/14/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Bower/Kohler –
conflict item 2;
Shepherd absent
6/28/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
7/12/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
7/26/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
8/9/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
8/23/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
9/13/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
9/27/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
10/11/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Bower
10/25/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Makinen
11/8/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
11/22/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
12/13/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
12/27/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
2018 Subcommittee Assignments
January February March April May June
July August September October November December
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report (ID # 9760)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/8/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Overhead Contact
System
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Historic Resources Board Input on Peninsula
Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Overhead Contact
System Foundation & Pole Layouts Design for Installation
Within Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Right of
Way in Palo Alto. Environmental Assessment: The JPB Certified
the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Adopted a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) in January
2015, Following Publication of the Draft EIR in February 2014
for Public Comment.
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s):
1. Provide comments on the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Overhead
Contact System (OCS) design for proposed pole and foundation installations in Caltrain
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) right of way.
Report Summary
The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP), partly funded by the Federal Transit
Administration, is the conversion of Caltrain from diesel-hauled trains to electrically-powered
trains for service between San Francisco and San Jose. The OCS design is for improvements
only within the Caltrain Joint Powers Board (JPB) right of way. The City of Palo Alto does not
have permitting authority; therefore, this review is considered a courtesy review. The JPB has
agreed to accept and consider input from the City Council, with advice from the HRB and
Architectural Review Board (ARB). This report provides the HRB with information to enable
discussion and any input on the project for the JPB’s consideration.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
The Caltrain Joint Powers Board (JPB) published the PCEP Draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) in February 2014 and Palo Alto City Council provided comments on the Draft EIR. In
January 2015, JPB certified the Final EIR with a statement of overriding considerations, and
adopted the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan (MMRP). The PCEP webpage containing
multiple environmental review document links is viewable here:
http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/Modernization/PeninsulaCorrid
orElectrificationProject/PCEP_FEIR_2014.html. The PCEP Final EIR disclosed ‘permanent visual
alterations’ from the project, along with other impacts.
Foundation work for the poles is anticipated to begin in March 2019 or thereafter. JPB staff
stated that there are remedies if the contractor fails to follow the EIR mitigation measures; staff
can issue a Statement of Objection to require the contractor to fix any work that has been done
incorrectly. JPB staff committed to considering input from Palo Alto boards, as designs move
beyond the current plan set, which reflects 65% completion. The JPB will enter into an
agreement with Palo Alto; a draft agreement was considered by the Rail Committee on
September 26, 2018 (included in Attachment A, also viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=60164.71&BlobID=66798).
The agreement is tentatively scheduled to be approved by City Council on November 27, 2018.
The historic resources within the project area in Palo Alto are San Francisquito Bridge, El Palo
Alto Tree, Palo Alto Southern Pacific Railroad Depot (95 University Avenue), University Avenue
Underpass, Embarcadero Underpass, and Greenmeadow Neighborhood. The PCEP EIR cites
these resources, impacts thereto, and mitigation measures. Content from the EIR are
excerpted in this report.
Background
Project Location and Design Build Input Request
The Palo Alto segment (Segment 3, work areas 2 and 1) of the PCEP involves real property and
fixtures between milepost (MP) 29.7 and 33.6 (JPB Right-of-Way). Along this corridor there are
four at-grade vehicular crossings, located at: Alma Avenue, Churchill Avenue, East Meadow
Drive, and Charleston Road. In February 2015, the JPB issued the PCEP design-build request for
proposals to engage a design-build contractor; in July 2016, the JPB awarded the contract to
Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. (BBII). JPB/BBII provided Palo Alto staff with plans at “65%
completion” for the OCS pole layouts and system foundation design. The plans are provided to
the HRB in hard copy (and a link to plans and other Caltrain provided documents is noted on
Attachment G). The JPB and BBII request comments on the OCS design within Palo Alto; the
comments or input will be considered and potentially addressed in subsequent design
packages. No City action is to be taken on the project, aside from Council action on the
Comprehensive Agreement between Palo Alto and the JPB that is currently being drafted.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
EIR and Cultural Resources Impacts
The EIR chapter describing the setting, impacts, and mitigation measures is viewable here:
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/FEIR/3.4+Cultural.pdf. The
Final EIR also included a Cultural Resources Programmatic Agreement, viewable here:
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/FEIR/App+E+Cultural+Reso
urces.pdf. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is viewable here:
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Electrification+Documents/
MMRP.pdf. Within Palo Alto, the project will impact the intersections at Alma/Sand Hill Road
(#64), Meadow/Alma (#63), Churchill/Alma (#66), and Charleston/Alma (#68).
The EIR Cultural Resources chapter addresses the cited historic resources - San Francisquito
Bridge, El Palo Alto Tree, Palo Alto Southern Pacific Depot, University Avenue Underpass,
Embarcadero Underpass, and the Greenmeadow Neighborhood. The Depot and Greenmeadow
Tract are on the National Register of Historic Places. El Palo Alto is designated as California
Landmark #2. The others are Eligible for the National Register. Staff collected images
(Attachment B) of the Palo Alto historic resources disclosed in the certified EIR, and attached
copies of available historic resources inventory forms and evaluations (Attachment C). The
following images show JPB ownership from Everett to Churchill Avenues, where all EIR-cited
Palo Alto historic resources, except Greenmeadow, are located.
Electrification Project General Description
The project includes installation of facility improvements, including overhead catenary wires,
support poles, traction power facilities, and other appurtenances necessary to convert service
from the existing diesel-locomotive driven trains to Electric Multiple Units (EMUs). EMUs are
self-propelled electric trains that do not have a separate locomotive. EMUs can accelerate and
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
decelerate at faster rates than diesel-powered trains, even with longer trains. With EMUs,
Caltrain can run longer trains without degrading speeds, thus increasing peak-period capacity.
This will support operations of up to six Caltrain trains per peak hour per direction (an increase
from 5 trains per peak hour per direction at present). Electrification of the rail line is scheduled
to be operational by 2020 or 2021. The project includes operating 114 trains per day between
San Jose and San Francisco and six trains per day between Gilroy and San Jose.
Overhead Contact System Description
Approximately 130 to 140 single-track miles of Overhead Contact System (“OCS”) will be
installed for the distribution of electrical power to the new electric rolling stock (trains). The
OCS would be powered from a 25 kilovolt (kV), 60 Hertz (Hz), single-phase, alternating current
(“AC”) traction power system consisting of the following Traction Power Facilities (“TPF”): two
Traction Power Substations, one Switching Station and seven Paralleling Stations. The OCS
poles are typically about 180 to 200 feet apart. On curved sections, the span lengths between
supports must be reduced. The OCS poles are to be placed approximately nine to 11 feet from
the centerline of the tracks. Associated with the OCS, an electric safety zone to adjacent
vegetation is needed. This electric safety zone distance is approximately 10 feet from the face
of the OCS pole.
Palo Alto-Specific Project Description
The following documents are attached to this report:
Pole Schedule (Attachment D);
Letter from Balfour Beatty (Attachment E);
City Stations Pole Color Recommendations (Attachment F); and
OCS Foundation and Pole Layouts Segment 3 Drawings (Attachment G provides a link).
The project includes the following components in Palo Alto:
1. OCS poles. Installation of foundations, poles and appurtenances along the 3.9 mile section of
JPB Right-of-Way within the City.
2. Stringing wire for OCS. Installation of OCS wires using different support systems (i.e., two-
track cantilever brackets, side or center cantilever brackets) depending upon the track
segment’s exact configuration and other site-specific requirements and constraints, as
determined by the DB Contractor, and consistent with Mitigation Measure AES-2b to provide
aesthetic treatment for OCS structures. Examples of the various structures are depicted in the
"Project Description" portion of the FEIR (Section 2.3.1). This activity may necessitate
temporary road closures.
3. Paralleling Station. Paralleling Station 5 would be constructed within the JPB ROW south of
Page Mill Road. The location of this facility is shown in Exhibit B as “Paralleling Station 5 (PS-5).”
The JPB will be submitting the Paralleling Station plans in 2019, but comments are requested
now on the location. A “Paralleling Station” means a type of traction power facility that helps
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
boost the Overhead Contact System voltage and reduce running rail return current by means of
an autotransformer. The JPB notes the paralleling station will be shifting a few hundred feet
north of the shown location.
4. Staging areas. During the Project, JPB and its DB Contractor intend to use staging areas
within the JPB ROW as identified in the FEIR, which are located along the west side of the JPB
ROW both north and south of Alma Street, and between W. Meadow Drive and W. Charleston
Drive along the west side of the JPB ROW.
Pole Types and Colors
The pole types are indicated on OCS Foundation and Pole Layouts plans, OCS Basic Design
Poles and Structures package. None of the poles are proposed within the City’s rights of
way. Proposed pole color recommendations are under consideration. The HRB and ARB are
invited to comment on several color options, noted below, for the two train depots in Palo
Alto, and for the Stadium stop (near Town and Country Center).
Discussion
Council Comments on Draft EIR
On April 21, 2014, Council discussed and approved a draft comment letter from the City of Palo
Alto on the Draft EIR. The purpose of the Final EIR is to address or provide responses to the
Draft EIR comments. Council had modified the comment letter (draft viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/40017) with these changes
(annotated by staff to reflect a change related to a historic resource):
1) take a look at ridership estimates up and down the peninsula,
2) use clear and demonstrative language shall (word change from should),
3) address the future impacts of High Speed Rail,
4) add centerfold alternative, support for the Catenary system in the middle,
5) give further attention to appropriate procedures for trimming trees,
6) address protection of El Palo Alto tree,
7) analyze affects if the California Supreme Court rules to end High Speed Rail,
8) to evaluate fixed location/wayside horns to reduce noise impacts,
9) make grade separation language stronger and not lost within point on,
10) any discussion of grade separation should ensure that the electrification project would not
preclude potential improvements to the corridor, and
11) all opportunities created for additional pedestrian access should emphasize safety for the
public.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
Environmental Impact Report and Historic Resources
The Palo Alto historic resources are discussed (along with other cities’ resources) in the PCEP
Final EIR. Table 3.4-2 reflects listed historic properties for the purposes of CEQA, as well as
registered historic properties. The content in italics (description and approved mitigations
below the table excerpt) was taken from the Final EIR regarding these properties.
Excerpt of Table 3.42 Historic Properties (To Show Registered/ Listed Palo Alto Properties)
(1) San Francisquito Bridge
Final EIR content: “The installation of the power system supports on this historically significant
bridge could result in significant adverse impacts. San Francisquito Bridge, a steel through-truss
bridge, is eligible under Criterion 1 for its association with the image and development of Palo
Alto in the 20th century, and under Criterion 3 for being the only significant steel bridge in Palo
Alto and a distinctive example of an important standard type of truss bridge. Substantial
alteration of the bridge structure could be a significant impact. With implementation of
Mitigation Measure CUL-1d, the historic resource would not be altered other than the small
clearance holes, and the cables would be suspended above and parallel to the existing railroad
line. Thus, with mitigation there would be no significant impact on the characteristics of the
bridge that make it appear to meet the criteria for listing in the CRHR.”
Note that, in addition to eligibility for California Register, this bridge is National Register Eligible
under Criterion A and also Criterion C (in that the property embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a
master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable
entity whose components may lack individual distinction.)
(2) El Palo Alto
Final EIR content: “A large ancient redwood tree, known as “El Palo Alto,” is located adjacent to
the Caltrain ROW in 9 Palo Alto. The tree has been recognized through at least three historic
preservation programs, both locally and statewide, and is identified as California State Historic
Landmark #2, a State Point of Historic Interest, and City of Palo Alto Heritage Tree #1. The state
landmark status (Landmark #2) was conferred in 1954. Because SHPO did not develop specific
uniform standards for landmark designation until well after many resources had been identified,
landmarks with a number lower than 770 and recognized as state historic landmarks prior to
1998 are not considered to have been evaluated for the CRHR. Nevertheless, the tree is
described as follows in SHPO's published list of state landmarks: “Portola Journey’s End. In 1769
the Portola expedition of 63 men and 200 horses and mules camped near El Palo Alto, the tall
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
tree. They had traveled from San Diego in search of Monterey but discovered instead the Bay of
San Francisco. In 1974, the tree was designated as State Point of Historic Interest #SCL-026, in
recognition of its local significance” (Office of Historic Preservation 2014). A City of Palo Alto
press release states that the tree is estimated to be more than 1,000 years old and more than
110 feet high (San Jose Mercury News 2004).”
Final EIR content: “The tree trunk is located outside of the electrical safety zone, and all power
system supports would be attached to the adjacent San Francisquito Bridge. However, as
described in Section 3.3, Biological Resources, minor pruning would be necessary to keep tree
branches out of the San Francisquito Bridge truss which is similar to current tree maintenance
practices. Mitigation Measure BIO-5, Section 3.3, Biological Resources, requires a Tree
Avoidance, Minimization, and Replacement Plan (including specific attention to minimization of
effects on El Palo Alto) will be developed by a certified arborist in consultation with each
jurisdiction’s arborist (e.g., the City of Palo Alto Urban Forester in this case). Thus, the impacts
on this resource would be reduced to a less than significant level.”
In the Biological resources section of the Final EIR, this note appears regarding El Palo Alto:
“Special care will be taken to minimize construction period effects on El Palo Alto including
minimization of any pruning. Pruning of El Palo Alto, if necessary, will be coordinated with the
City of Palo Alto arborist, in advance.”
Note that, in addition to being California Landmark #2, El Palo Alto is Palo Alto’s Heritage Tree
#1. The City Council report supporting the local designation of El Palo Alto included an arborist
report, viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/9611.
(3) Palo Alto Station, MP 30.10 (Built 1940)
Final EIR content: “The 1996 NRHP and CRHR listing of the Palo Alto Station name two buildings
and two objects as the historic property. The property is an example of the Streamline Modern
style of architecture, listed under Criterion 3/C. The historic structures are both east and west of
the tracks (confirm). Poles and OCS would be installed near the current location of the historic
station. To avoid a potentially significant impact, Mitigation Measure CUL-1d includes specific
design commitments. With mitigation, the installation of poles in these locations would have no
adverse a less-than-significant impact on the attributes that make the Palo Alto Station eligible
for listing in the NRHP and the CRHR, and none of the resources listed in the nomination would
be directly affected by the installation of the poles. Only the setting of the tracks would be
slightly affected, in that the poles would be installed between the sets of tracks, and would
extend over them, at this location. This, however, is a less-than-significant impact.”
Note that the Palo Alto Southern Pacific Railroad Depot is also a Local Historic Resources
Inventory Category 1. The Final EIR includes a mitigation measure (MM) CUL-1d) intended to
address impacts anticipated impact from pole placements:
MM CUL-1d: Implement design commitments at historic railroad stations
“Palo Alto Station: Side poles shall not be placed in front of or within 40 feet of historic
station on the west side of the Caltrain ROW. Given the separation between MT1 and MT2,
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8
single center poles are not Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project EIR 3.4-25 December
2014 ICF 00606.12 Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation
Measures Cultural Resources feasible. Thus, to minimize visual impacts on the property,
single pole/cantilevers will be placed in the median between MT1 and MT2. Additionally,
prior to the installation of the OCS, the station will be recorded to HABS level III standards
from the track side of the building, from the opposite platform.”
(4) University Avenue Underpass and (5) Embarcadero Underpass
Final EIR content: “The University Avenue Underpass, built between 1939 and 1941, is
significant under CRHR and NRHP Criterion 1/A for its association with the transformation of
Palo Alto’s transportation core, and is central to the redesign of University Avenue as it
intersected two of the most historically important transportation corridors between San
Francisco and San Jose: Southern Pacific’s Coast Line and El Camino Real/U.S. Highway 101. The
Embarcadero Underpass, constructed in 1939 as part of the government’s grade separation
program, is eligible under CRHR and NRHP Criterion 1/A. The installation of the power system
supports on these historically significant bridges could result in significant adverse impacts. To
avoid a potentially significant impact, Mitigation Measure CUL-1d includes specific design
commitments. Under this mitigation measure, the cables would be suspended above and
parallel to the existing line and there would be no impact on historic fabric of these bridges, nor
would the placement of the poles alter the use of or character-defining features of these
underpasses that make them appear to meet the criteria for listing in the CRHR and NRHP.
Additionally, the immediate vicinities of the underpasses have already been altered, so the
addition of the power systems would not impact the bridges’ settings.”
The ‘specific design commitments’ (underlined in the above paragraph) include these
statements: “Power cables shall be suspended parallel to and above the University Avenue
Underpass. The poles in this configuration shall be set at the side of the track they power. No
poles shall be set on the bridges themselves.”
The National Register Eligible University Avenue Underpass, aka HP19 Bridge, is eligible under
Criterion A (in that the property is associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history). The Final EIR includes a mitigation measure
(MM) CUL-1f) intended to address the impact:
MM CUL-1f: Implement historic bridge/underpass design requirements
“This mitigation measure addresses the approach to installing Proposed Project facilities at nine
historic bridges/underpasses to ensure that the power system supports are not attached to the
historic fabric of these bridges/underpasses and avoid adverse impacts on their historic integrity
and visual appearance. All modifications will be completed following the Secretary of the
Interior’s standards for the treatment of historic properties.”
(6) Greenmeadow Neighborhood, Palo Alto
Final EIR content: “The Greenmeadow Neighborhood in Palo Alto is a residential district listed
on the NRHP on July 28, 2005. Greenmeadow consists of 243 single-family homes and one
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9
community center complex of two buildings and one swimming pool. The subdivision was
developed by Eichler Homes, Inc. between 1954 and 1955. The single-story homes, designed by
architects A. Quincy Jones and Frederick Emmons, have three or four bedrooms, two bathrooms,
and attached garages. The homes are designed in a mid-century modern style and were built
with a slab-on-grade post-and-beam construction. The designs emphasize privacy on the
relatively blank street facades and openness to the rear with floor-to-ceiling, wall-to-wall plate
glass windows. The district was listed at the state level of significance under Criterion C in the
area of architecture as an excellent example of Joseph Eichler’s mid-century modern subdivision
housing in California. Eichler made a significant contribution in the area of modern home design
and innovative construction methods. Working closely (and alternately) with architects Anshen
and Allen, and Jones and Emmons, Eichler wished to offer middle-class families high-quality,
contemporary design in an affordable production house. Greenmeadow is an excellent example
of Joseph Eichler’s contribution to mid-century residential modernism and the California
suburban environment. When Eichler developed Greenmeadow in 1953, he had already built
hundreds of lower priced, architect-designed homes in more than a dozen subdivisions on the
Peninsula. With Greenmeadow, Eichler decided to move up the price range and tap into the
growing market for larger houses with more amenities (California Office of Historic
Preservation). The community was designed with an inwardly oriented street pattern for
security and to discourage through traffic. The district is bounded by Nelson Drive, El Capitan
Place, Adobe Place, and Creekside Drive.”
Final EIR content: Paralleling Station 5 (PS-5), Option 1 is proposed between the railroad and
Alma Avenue, outside of the district boundaries; it therefore it has no potential to directly
impact the historic district. The proposed PS5, Option 1 would be opposite the entrance to
Greenmeadow Way, which leads into the district; the residences on Alma Avenue, opposite the
proposed PS5, Option 1, are not included in the NRHP district (the closest residences within the
historic district are approximately 250 feet east of Alma Street). This paralleling station would
not diminish the historic character-defining features of the historic district by introducing a
visual change to the district. PS5, Option 1 would be visible only by individuals leaving the
historic district by way of Greenmeadow Way. The closest homes in the district to the proposed
paralleling station are oriented facing Creekside Drive, opposite from Alma Avenue; the homes
on the second block of Creekside Drive face each other and not toward the proposed PS5, Option
1. Continuing northeast on Creekside Drive is the Thomas Church-designed park with its
community center, a significant distance from the proposed PS-5, Option 1. This is not the main
entrance to the center, but a footpath. The mature landscaping of this area of the community
center further blocks any potential visual impact. Therefore the Proposed Project would have no
impact on this historic resource. PS5, Option 1B is approximately 500 feet south of the nearest
part of the historic Greenmeadow neighborhood and would not be visible from within the
neighborhood and would not affect views of any part of the historic neighborhood.”
Pole Schedule Considerations
In addition to a plan set, the JPB staff provided a ‘Pole Schedule’ (Attachment D) reflecting pole
types and foundation sizes to be used. The submitted schedule appears to conflict with the
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10
nomenclature on the plans provided to date (and therefore, notes about poles used are in
reference to the plan notes). JPB staff intends to provide an explanation of design
considerations for the pole design. Considerations for pole designs include (1) Utilities, (2)
Operations and maintenance – outside (double) poles allow a robust system, and (3) Avoiding
significant impacts to vegetation. Spacing between the poles is also a consideration, as is the
foundation design for the poles at the stations.
It appears that double poles are proposed in most locations, but single poles are proposed at
the Palo Alto Depot. The JPB staff noted that a distance of 21 feet is needed between tracks in
order to have a center, single pole. Palo Alto staff asked JPB staff to consider increasing the
center pole use, as aesthetically superior option. JPB will study whether the tracks are too
narrow to use a single center pole in some locations. This center pole feasibility evaluation will
help the JPB to understand cost and schedule implications. If center poles were considered in
each case, but proved to be technically infeasible, Palo Alto would seek a written explanation to
share with the public. Staff anticipates that, from aesthetics and tree preservation standpoints,
a single pole design in the center of the tracks would be preferable. However, double poles
minimize the risk of failure in case of a ‘knockdown’ so these are preferred to be used, where
possible, by the JPB.
Below left is an image of a centered, single pole. Below middle is an image of double poles –
one on each side of the tracks. Below right is a cantilever structure with a long reach.
Below left images of the ‘long reach cantilever’ show dimensions (30 feet from the cantilever to
the base plate of the foundation for the pole, with another 13’10” to the part of the pole on
which the wire or wires would be attached to support the cantilever at a point 26 feet from the
pole). Below right image is of the portal type of pole (with a horizontal beam stretching across
three tracks.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11
The plans indicate four series of pole types:
WF = Wide Flange design of different types,
TT = Tapered Tubular (single cantilever pole, or center pole with two cantilevers)
SQ = Square Tube design of different types, and
PW1 = Wide Flange Portal extending over three tracks.
Staff tallied the height and number of each pole type in the project in Palo Alto shown in plans.
The pole heights as shown on the plans and schedule range from 32 feet up to 45.5 feet:
WF-1 (32’ tall - 58 poles –single cantilever), WF-3 (32’ tall – 3 poles, single cantilever or
center pole with two cantilevers), WF-4A (45.5’ tall - 5 poles, long reach cantilever), WF-5
(32’ tall - 11 poles, single cantilever), WF-7 (32’ tall - 9 poles, single cantilever)
TT: TT-1 (32’ tall – 20 poles), TT-1A (35’ tall – 4 poles), TT-3A (35’ tall – 9 poles), TT-4 (32’ tall
– 10 poles), TT-4A (35’ tall – 6 poles)
SQ series: SQ-1 (45.4’ tall - 2 poles),SQ-3 (32’ tall -12 poles), SQ-8 (45.5’ tall – 3 poles), SQ-
9A (35’ tall – 24 poles), SQ-9B (38’ tall – 4 poles), SQ-11B (38’ tall – 2 poles)
PW-1 (34’ tall, only two of these three-track portals are proposed; one approximately 350
feet north of El Dorado Avenue and the other approximately 120 feet north of El Dorado
Avenue).
The JPB representatives stated that a 75’ tall pole type will be needed at six or seven locations
and that this is related to undetermined timing of utilities undergrounding, so installation of
these taller poles would have a separate timeline from the other poles. Below images show the
proposal beginning at about 250 feet north of Palo Alto Avenue and ending approximately 800
feet south of the Palo Alto Depot.
Shunt Wire
When there is a crossing wire underground, the project will not need a shunt wire. But there
are cases where the overhead wire would conflict and a shunt wire is needed. For instance,
there are power lines for service to residences stretching over Alma and the railroad tracks. The
City is looking to underground these, but this is a separate project with a separate timeline.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12
Tree Impacts
The City is in conversation with JPB regarding significant removals proposed within the JPB right
of way in Palo Alto. The JPB plans to post tree removal notification prior to work and has
provided Palo Alto with a tree removal plan showing the number of trees to be removed
outside the JPB right of way, and a timeline for removals. Some work has already recently
occurred at the path behind Palo Alto High School – oaks within the JPB right of way were
removed. A small number of oaks and other trees are also proposed to be removed outside JPB
right of way. Staging plans are anticipated to be submitted prior to Council input.
El Palo Alto
Tree protection is especially important for El Palo Alto, a California Landmark and local Heritage
Tree. El Palo Alto’s trunk is located approximately 25 feet from the train tracks. The project
plans show two of the OCS 36-inch foundations and poles less than 100 feet from the El Palo
Alto Redwood (the closer foundation and pole is 49 feet away, on the west side of the train
tracks). There are constraints presented by the location of the tree, the San Francisquito Creek
bridge trestle, and the Palo Alto Avenue grade crossing. Palo Alto’s Urban Forester initially
requested a 100 foot buffer from El Palo Alto. Palo Alto and JPB staff are working on
Comprehensive Agreement language to provide the maximum feasible protection for El Palo
Alto, including minimizing unnecessary work and staging within 100 feet, and ensuring that Palo
Alto staff will be able to observe the work near El Palo Alto, and that Caltrain staff with
authority over the contractor will be available.
Environmental Review
In 2009, the JPB completed the PCEP Final Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact
Report for the Project. Based upon that document, the Federal Transit Administration issued a
Finding of No Significant Impact in 2009, which completed the federal environmental review for
the Project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
On January 31, 2013, JPB issued a Notice of Preparation of an EIR and, in February, 2014, issued
a Draft EIR for a 60-day comment period ending April 29, 2014. A Final EIR was issued in
December 2014. On January 8, 2015, pursuant to Resolution No. 2015-03, the JPB certified
conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to the extent that it is
applicable to the Project, and certified the Project’s Final EIR. On January 8, 2015, pursuant to
Resolution No. 2015-04, the JPB adopted CEQA findings of fact, a statement of overriding
considerations, and the MMRP. The Final EIR notes: “Permanent visual alterations would
result from the Proposed Project, comprising the introduction of poles and wires, and TPFs.
Additionally, trees and mature vegetation would be removed and pruned. Some trees and
vegetation would not be replaced on-site, resulting in a physical and aesthetic permanent
change in certain locations. As documented in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, these physical changes
would alter views from residential or business areas in various locations along the corridor, but
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13
they would not significantly obscure a scenic view or vista. However, even with mitigation,
some local visual character would be permanently altered.”
Public Notification, Outreach & Comments
A notice for the HRB meeting was sent to the Daily Post for publication on October 27, 2018.
No additional outreach has been undertaken by City staff. Attachment G to this report
provides links to Caltrain webpages regarding outreach and other project information. On
August 28, 2018, at the Lucie Stern Community Center, a community meeting was held
regarding Caltrain Electrification. The event advertisement provided this link:
http://calmod.org/event/.
Next Steps
The Architectural Review Board is scheduled to conduct a hearing to provide input on the
project on November 15, 2018. Council is scheduled to consider the Comprehensive
Agreement on November 26, 2018.
Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 Liaison & Contact Information
Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official
(650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2336
amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft PCEP Agreement within Rail Committee Report (PDF)
Attachment B Historical Resources Images (DOCX)
Attachment C1: Historic Resources Evaluations (Part 1 SP Depot DPR) (PDF)
Attachment C2: HRE (Part 2: SPPR Bridge - San Francisquito Creek) (PDF)
Attachment C3: HRE (Part 3: University Avenue Underpass) (PDF)
Attachment C4: HRE (Part 4: Embarcadero Underpass) (PDF)
Attachment D: Pole Schedule (PDF)
Attachment E: Balfour Beatty Letter for City Review (DOCX)
Attachment F: OCS Color Pole Options for Passenger Station (PDF)
Attachment G: Page of Links to Plans and Project Information (DOCX)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org
City of Palo Alto (ID # 9582)
City Council Rail Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/26/2018
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Caltrain Electrification
Title: Proposed Cooperation Agreement with the Peninsula Corridor Joint
Powers Board Regarding Caltrain Electrification Project
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Authorization for the City Manager to enter into a Comprehensive Agreement with the
Peninsula Joint Powers Board on the Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Rail Committee recommend that the City Council authorize the City
Manager to enter into a comprehensive agreement with the Peninsula Joint Powers Board on
the Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project.
Background
The Peninsula Joint Powers Board (“JPB”) currently runs commuter rail service (Caltrain) along
the peninsula. The current system utilizes traditional diesel locomotives to run the trains. To
improve efficiency and reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, Caltrain has undertaken the
Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) to electrify the corridor and run Electric
Multiple Units (EMU) for the system. EMUs consist of self-propelled carriages that are powered
by electricity. The electrification includes overhead catenary power lines that supply power to
the EMUs. The JPB certified the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the PCEP on
January 8, 2015.
The JPB has been entering agreements with the different jurisdictions along the corridor to
address particular issues related to implementation of the PCEP. Work on the PCEP began in
July 2017 on the northern segments of the line; Caltrain currently anticipates completing the
project by fiscal year 2020-21.
Discussion
Prior to commencing detailed design specifications for each section of the corridor, Caltrain has
been entering into comprehensive agreements with affected jurisdictions to clarify procedures
City of Palo Alto Page 2
and processes for project implementation in order to minimize impacts and disruption during
construction, and ensure effective communication throughout the project.
Although Caltrain has the authority to proceed with the project without entering these
agreements, it desires to work cooperatively with each city to facilitate implementation and
lessen disruption to the cities and public. Staff anticipates that a number of issues will arise
during the detailed design, site preparation, and construction phases of the project. Execution
of a cooperation agreement will facilitate the resolution of issues to the extent possible, by
providing a clear and agreed-upon process for the project to proceed.
To that end, staff has worked with Caltrain to develop the proposed comprehensive agreement
for Palo Alto, attached hereto as Attachment A. Terms of the agreement include:
• Caltrain will cover all City costs for design review, permit work, inspection, and other
related expenses incurred in connection with the project; Caltrain will pay the City’s
standard permit and processing fees;
• A summary of relevant mitigation measures identified in the EIR, including traffic signal
timing modifications, measures to reduce light spillover into residential areas during
nighttime construction, aesthetic measures to minimize visual impacts through design
and vegetative screening, preparation of a Tree Avoidance, Minimization, and
Replacement Plan;
• Provisions related to protection of El Palo Alto, the City’s namesake historic redwood;
• Identification, replacement and procedures regarding potential betterment of any City
improvements (streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, traffic control devices, utilities, etc.);
• Anticipated work hours, construction staging areas, truck routes, and submittal of a
logistics plan;
• Notification requirements, community outreach, and construction complaint-resolution
process;
• Encroachment permit and design review process, including courtesy review by the
Architectural Review Board and Historic Resources Board, and expected timelines for
review;
• Provisions to minimize disruption of City utility service;
• Acknowledgement that the City is actively engage in a planning process for future grade
separations, and a commitment to take an active role in grade separation planning as
funding and local concerns permit; and,
• Dispute resolution process.
While Caltrain is aware of the City’s interest and ongoing planning for grade separations, JPB
staff have indicated that the Comprehensive Agreement should not specifically address grade
separations. As such staff is working with JPB staff on a separate instrument that acknowledges
their cooperation with the City on grade separation planning and mutual interest in ensuring
coordination between the projects.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Resource Impact
The cost of staff time for the City’s review of the PCEP is proposed to be covered by Caltrain as
outlined in the proposed agreement along with all standard permit fees. Pending JPB’s
preparation of a comprehensive list of City Improvement Impacts the City may be responsible
for the costs associated with addressing the impacts for facilities located within the JPB right-of-
way, as outline in Section 8 of the agreement.
Environmental Review
The Joint Powers Board is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) for the PCEP. On January 8, 2015, the JPB certified compliance with CEQA to the extent
it is applicable to the PCEP, certified a final Environmental Impact Report and findings of fact,
adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan (see JPB Resolution Nos. 2015-03 and 2015-04) Entering into this Agreement is
not a project as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it has no potential to result
in a direct or foreseeable physical change in the environment.
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Agreement
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
1
13718272.3
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD
AND CITY OF PALO ALTO
RELATING TO THE PENINSULA CORRIDOR ELECTRIFICATION PROJECT
This Comprehensive Agreement (“Agreement”) between the City of Palo Alto, a California
chartered municipal corporation (“City”) and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, a joint
exercise of powers agency (“JPB”) is entered into as of this _____ day of _______ 201__ (the
“Effective Date”), each of which is referred to herein individually as “Party” and jointly as
“Parties.”
RECITALS
A. City is a duly established chartered municipal corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of California.
B. JPB is a joint exercise of powers agency organized and existing under the laws of the
State of California.
C. JPB the owner of the Peninsula Corridor Railroad right-of-way and specifically certain
real property and fixtures located in the City of Palo Alto between milepost (MP) 29.7
and 33.6, (the “JPB Right-of-Way”), and includes the four (4) at-grade vehicular
crossings located at: Alma Avenue, Churchill Avenue, East Meadow Drive, and
Charleston Road.
D. The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (“Project” or “PCEP”) consists of
converting Caltrain from diesel-hauled to electrically-powered trains for service between
the 4th and King Street Station in San Francisco and the Tamien Station in San Jose.
E. In 2009, the JPB completed a Final Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact
Report (“EA/EIR”) for the Project. Based upon that document, the Federal Transit
Administration issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) in 2009, which
completed the federal environmental review for the Project in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”).
F. On January 31, 2013, the JPB issued a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report and, in February, 2014, issued a Draft Environmental Impact Report for a
60-day comment period ending on April 29, 2014. A Final Environmental Impact Report
was issued in December 2014.
G. On January 8, 2015, pursuant to Resolution No. 2015-03, the JPB certified conformance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) to the extent that it is applicable
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
2
13718272.3
to the Project, and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) for the
Project.
H. On January 8, 2015, pursuant to Resolution No. 2015-04, the JPB adopted CEQA
findings of fact, a statement of overriding considerations, and a mitigation monitoring and
reporting plan (“MMRP”).
I. On February 5, 2015, pursuant to Resolution No. 2015-08 the JPB authorized the
issuance of the PCEP Design Build Request for Proposals to engage a Design-Build
Contractor to construct the Project and on July 7, 2016, the JPB awarded the Design-
Build Contract (“Contract”) to Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. (the “DB Contractor”)
to construct the Project.
J. The City and JPB desire to cooperate to facilitate the design and construction of the
Project. The JPB and the City desire to memorialize such interagency cooperation and
consultation between the Parties in this Agreement.
K. The Parties acknowledge that the Project is funded in part with funds made available by
the Federal Transit Administration. Accordingly, this Agreement and the obligations
imposed on the Parties hereby shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with Federal,
State and local laws and regulations.
L. The locations of certain elements of the Project may require the use of certain City
streets for hauling operations and staging of construction during construction of the
Project.
M. The JPB and the City acknowledge that it will be necessary to develop procedures to
ensure careful and continued cooperation between the Parties and to minimize
disruption and costs to the City during design and construction of the Project, including
the following: (1) procedures to promote cooperation during the design and construction
process; (2) procedures to avoid, or where not possible, to minimize all unnecessary
delays to either the contracting, design or construction process; and (3) procedures for
minimizing disruption and costs imposed on the City; (4) procedures for recovery of the
City’s costs associated with work related to the Project; and (5) procedures for designing
and inspecting the construction, modification, relocation, and replacement, as
necessary, of City Improvements.
N. The Parties recognize and agree that this Agreement may not reasonably anticipate all
aspects of the Project and changes thereto which may occur due to unforeseen
circumstances. Accordingly, the Parties acknowledge their respective obligations to act
reasonably and in good faith and to modify the terms hereof when necessary to
accomplish their mutual goals.
SECTION 1: AFFIRMATION OF RECITALS.
The JPB and the City affirm that the above Recitals are true and correct.
SECTION 2: DEFINITIONS.
The following definitions relate to such terms found in the entire Agreement, including, without
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
3
13718272.3
limitation, all Exhibits hereto.
A. “City,” as referred to in the Preamble to this Agreement, means the City of Palo
Alto, its Council Members, officers, employees, agents, consultants and contractors.
B. “City Improvements” means City streets (including curbs, gutters and sidewalks),
traffic control devices (excluding advance signal preemption equipment which is
currently owned and managed by JPB), storm drains, sanitary sewers, water lines,
electric and gas underground utilities, fiber lines, conduit, hydrants, electroliers,
landscaping, irrigation systems, and all other public facilities and appurtenances that
are constructed, operated, utilized or otherwise maintained by the City.
c. “Contract Documents” means the executed Design-Build Contract, Contract
Change Orders and additional documents incorporated by express reference into the
Contract.
D. “Issued for Construction Plans” means final approved design documents, including
drawings and specifications, used by the DB Contractor for the start of construction.
E. “JPB”, as referenced in the Preamble to this Agreement, means the Peninsula
Corridor Joint Powers Board, its employees, agents, consultants, and contractors.
F. “JPB Right-of-Way” or “JPB ROW” has the meaning set forth in Recital C of this
Agreement, a map depicting the JPB ROW is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and
incorporated herein.
G. “Paralleling Station” means a type of traction power facility that helps boost the
Overhead Contact System voltage and reduce running rail return current by means
of an autotransformer.
H. “Project Improvements” means all structures, features and fixtures constructed or
installed for the Project, including all necessary changes to signal, fiber optic facilities
and appurtenances, relocation of all utilities and pipelines of any kind within the
Right-of-Way, grading, drainage, access roadways to the Right-of-Way, preliminary
and construction engineering, and any and/or all other work of every kind and
character necessary to build the Project.
I. “Project”, as referenced in Recital D, means the Peninsula Corridor Electrification
Project described in the FEIR, consisting of converting Caltrain from diesel-hauled to
electrically-powered trains for service between the 4th and King Street Station in San
Francisco and the Tamien Station in San Jose, aspects of which are also described
with additional specificity in Section 4 and the Exhibits attached to this Agreement.
J. “Traction Power Facility” or “TPF” means facilities (traction power substations,
paralleling stations, switching stations) that transform the utility supply voltage for
distribution to trains via the Overhead Contact System.
SECTION 3: PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT.
The purpose of this Agreement is to memorialize the Parties’ desire for consultation and
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
4
13718272.3
cooperation, designate their respective rights and obligations, and facilitate cooperation
between the JPB and the City in connection with the design and construction of the Project.
SECTION 4: TERM; TERMINATION.
A. Term. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall end
six months following recordation of the Notice of Completion for the Project.
B. Termination.
1. Without Cause. A Party may terminate this Agreement with thirty (30) days
prior written notice to the other Party.
2. With Cause. A Party may terminate the Agreement or suspend performance
hereunder by giving sixty (60) days prior written notice thereof to the other
Party, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance under the
Agreement.
SECTION 5: PROJECT FEATURES AND IMPACTS.
The Project features and impacts set forth below are not intended to constitute a comprehensive
list, but are described in this Agreement to provide a general description of the elements of the
Project. A comprehensive list of Project features and impacts associated with the Project is set
forth in the FEIR.
A. General Project Description.
1. The Project will install facility improvements, including overhead catenary
wires, support poles, traction power facilities, and other appurtenances
necessary to convert service from the existing diesel-locomotive driven trains
to Electric Multiple Units (EMUs). EMUs are self-propelled electric trains that
do not have a separate locomotive. EMUs can accelerate and decelerate at
faster rates than diesel-powered trains, even with longer trains. With EMUs,
Caltrain can run longer trains without degrading speeds, thus increasing
peak-period capacity. This will support operations of up to 6 Caltrain trains
per peak hour per direction (an increase from 5 trains per peak hour per
direction at present). Electrification of the rail line is scheduled to be
operational by 2020/2021. The Project includes operating 114 trains per day
between San Jose and San Francisco and six trains per day between Gilroy
and San Jose.
2. The Project will include the installation of 130 to 140 single-track miles of
Overhead Contact System (“OCS”) for the distribution of electrical power to
the new electric rolling stock. The OCS would be powered from a 25 kilovolt
(kV), 60 Hertz (Hz), single-phase, alternating current (“AC”) traction power
system consisting of the following Traction Power Facilities (“TPF”): two
Traction Power Substations, one Switching Station and seven Paralleling
Stations. The OCS poles are typically about 180 to 200 feet apart. On curved
sections, the span lengths between supports must be reduced. The OCS
poles are placed approximately 9 – 11 feet from the centerline of the tracks.
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
5
13718272.3
Associated with the OCS, an electric safety zone to adjacent vegetation is
needed. This electric safety zone distance is approximately 10 feet from the
face of the OCS pole.
B. City-Specific Project Description. Specific to the City, and based on JPB’s
preliminary design, the Project elements that JPB anticipates within the City include:
1. OCS poles. Installation of foundations, poles and appurtenances along the
3.9 mile section of JPB Right-of-Way within the City.
2. Stringing wire for OCS. Installation of OCS wires using different support
systems (i.e., two-track cantilever brackets, side or center cantilever
brackets) depending upon the track segment’s exact configuration and other
site-specific requirements and constraints, as determined by the DB
Contractor, and consistent with Mitigation Measure AES-2b to provide
aesthetic treatment for OCS structures. (Examples of the various structures
are depicted in the "Project Description" portion of the FEIR (Section 2.3.1).
This activity may necessitate temporary road closures.
3. Paralleling Station. Construction of Paralleling Station 5, located within the
JPB ROW south of Page Mill Road. The location of this facility is shown in
Exhibit B as “Paralleling Station 5 (PS-5).”
4. Staging areas. During the Project, JPB and its DB Contractor intend to use
staging areas within the JPB ROW as identified in the FEIR, which are
located along the west side of the JPB ROW both north and south of Alma
Street, and between W. Meadow Drive and W. Charleston Drive along the
west side of the JPB ROW. The specific locations of these staging areas are
shown in Exhibit C. There are no current plans to use areas outside of the
JPB ROW for staging areas. Should the DB Contractor desire to use other
areas within the City of Palo Alto, they will be responsible for acquiring any
required permits from the City.
C. City-Specific Project Impacts. City-specific Project impacts, as identified in the
FEIR, include the following:
1. Intersections. The Project may impact the following intersections in the City:
Alma/Sand Hill Road (#64), Meadow/Alma (#63), Churchill/Alma (#66), and
Charleston/Alma (#68).
2. Historic Resources. The Project may impact the following Historical
Resources in the City:
(a) San Francisquito Bridge
(b) El Palo Alto Tree
(c) Palo Alto Station
(d) University Avenue Underpass
(e) Embarcadero Underpass; and
(f) Greenmeadow Neighborhood
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
6
13718272.3
The list of City Specific Impacts as contained in this Subsection 5C is intended for
information only. Nothing in this subsection serves or has the effect of creating any
independent or additional requirements or obligations on the part of the JPB beyond
what is contained in the certified environmental record for the Project.
SECTION 6: GENERAL COMMITMENTS.
A. City Improvements. The JPB and City will cooperate with respect to City
Improvements as set forth in Section 8 of this Agreement.
B. Building Inspection. Paralleling Station. JPB agrees to allow the City to perform:
1. A side-by-side review of design documents for the Paralleling Station (PS-5)
with JPB’s design teams. JPB agrees to include the City in reviews once the
design documents are 65% and again prior to Issued for Construction Plans;
and
2. A final courtesy inspection of its PS-5 facility upon completion. The final
courtesy inspection does not include any punch list items and is for
informational purposes only, as JPB is exempt from local building codes.
C. Working Hours. In order to minimize disruption to the Caltrain passenger service
during project construction as well as maximize protection of people and property,
JPB plans to perform the majority of its Project work outside of the weekday peak
commute hours (Monday through Friday, 7AM to 9:30AM and 4PM to 7:30PM). JPB
acknowledges that this work schedule will cause noise impacts to the neighborhoods
adjacent to the JPB ROW, and along with implementing a Construction Noise
Control Plan, as required by Mitigation Measure NOI-1a, JPB will provide City with a
Logistics Plan, as further described in Paragraph E. below. JPB agrees that the
Construction Noise Control Plan will include a JPB point of contact for noise
complaints, and that JPB will timely respond to noise complaints; the contact person
may be the “lead representative,” as further described in Paragraph I(1) and (2)
below.
D. Staging Areas and Haul Routes. The JPB will provide the City with plan(s)
addressing haul routes along city streets and roadways, and any staging areas or
property owned or controlled by the City for City review and approval, which approval
shall not be unreasonably withheld. Truck haul routes within City streets shall
conform to the Palo Alto Municipal Code, including, without limitation Chapter 10.48,
unless otherwise approved in advance and in writing by the City. JPB will also
collaborate with the City to document existing conditions by video and photographic
record of the proposed and accepted haul routes for comparison at the end of the
project. The JPB shall be responsible for damages to City roadways but only to the
extent and in the event that use of the roadways for this Project creates damages
that exceed ordinary wear and tear of the roadways.
E. Logistics Plan. As an accommodation to the City, JPB agrees to submit only
applicable elements of the City Logistics Plan for City approval prior to the start of
work on the Project. The Logistics Plan with applicable elements only will conform to
the City’s Logistics Plan Preparation Guidelines, available online at:
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
7
13718272.3
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2719. In addition, JPB will
provide City with copies of its Project Description [Two page "FAQ's, dated July,
2017], Project Plans, Project Schedule, Tree Avoidance, Mitigation and Replacement
Plan, and its Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. JPB's cooperation in this regard
shall not operate to expand the City's jurisdiction over the JPB beyond that provided
for by applicable law.
F. Emergency Services Access. The JPB and the City will cooperate to reduce
impacts of the Project on local police, fire, and emergency services.
G. Contact Information. During construction of the Project, the JPB shall provide the
City with a list of JPB personnel to be contacted in the event of an emergency on the
Project construction site within the City.
H. Project Security. During construction of the Project, the JPB will take responsibility
for maintaining the security of the JPB construction areas within the City in
consultation with the City’s public safety and emergency departments, as necessary.
I. Community Outreach.
1. For the duration of Project construction, the JPB shall assign a lead
representative to handle Project-related complaints from City residents, City
officials, and/or staff. The JPB shall provide written notice to the City and
shall publicize the telephone number, and E-mail address of the lead
representative.
2. The JPB shall make an initial response to all complaints and inquiries within
24-hours. For emergencies or other urgent matters, the JPB will make initial
contact immediately. Follow-up for complaints and inquiries will be
completed by JPB within 48-hours following initial contact with the
complainant. The JPB shall take all reasonable actions to ensure that its lead
representative is authorized to and does, in fact, ensure that corrective
actions are implemented within a reasonable period of time following the
determination that corrective actions are appropriate.
3. The JPB will provide weekly construction updates via social media, the
Caltrain website and by email. JPB will work with City’s Communication
Department to ensure timely on-line notification to the public of construction
activity.
4. The JPB will provide a 60-day advance notice for construction within the City.
The JPB will provide an initial notice of road and driveway closures 14 days in
advance of the closure and the visual notifications for closures will be posted
72-hours in advance. In addition, JPB shall distribute seven-day and 48-hour
advance notice door hangers to all residences and businesses on all
properties that border on the JPB ROW, as well as on all streets impacted by
the work within the project.
J. Tree Work.
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
8
13718272.3
1. Tree Pruning and Tree Removal.
(a) In General. JPB will comply with any City tree pruning and replacement
requirements for tree pruning or removal involving public or private
property outside of the JPB ROW.
(b) Tree Permits. JPB agrees to secure all applicable tree pruning and
removal permits from the City for work located outside of the JPB ROW.
A public tree care permit is required for pruning or removal of any
protected trees on private property.
2. El Palo Alto.
(a) Exceptional caution shall be employed in performing any work near the El
Palo Alto redwood tree located adjacent to the San Francisquito Bridge.
(b) JPB agrees to design the Project in a manner that limits all construction
activities, including off-track construction vehicles, equipment staging,
and material laydown areas, for the Project within a 25 foot clearance
from the outside edge of El Palo Alto’s tree trunk (“25 Foot Zone”).
(c) JPB shall maintain the 25 Foot Zone at all times throughout all phases of
PCEP construction.
(d) No staging of materials or equipment is allowed within the 25 Foot Zone
without exceptional reason and advanced, written approval from the City
Manager or his designee.
(e) Except within the existing footprint, from embankment to embankment, of
the San Francisquito Bridge, JPB shall not place Project elements (e.g.
OCS Poles, including support arms for wires) in the 25 Foot Zone during
construction of the Project or during the Project’s operation. If an
exception to this prohibition is needed for technical reasons, the JPB shall
obtain advance, written approval from the City.
(f) Pruning of El Palo Alto will be compliant with the electrical safety
clearance requirements defined in the California Public Utility
Commissions (CPUC) Safety and Enforcement Division (SED) Resolution
SED-2. All tree trimming will follow pruning specifications including:
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 and international
Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Best Management Practices.
(g) Pruning of El Palo Alto will only be completed by the City’s directed
certified arborist. The City will complete the necessary pruning to comply
with CPUC SED-2 within seven (7) calendar days’ notice from JPB. If the
pruning is not completed by the City within this timeframe, the JPB will
perform the necessary pruning of El Palo Alto. Once the PCEP project
has been implemented, the JPB and the City will enter into a separate
document agreement to memorialize that the City will continue to perform
pruning of El Palo Alto.
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
9
13718272.3
K. Permits. The City will cooperate with JPB in identifying all City permits applicable to
the Project. JPB will obtain and pay for any City permit required for construction of
the Project, including, without limitation, Encroachment Permits, Street Work
Permits, and Tree Permits, as applicable. The City shall not unreasonably withhold
approval of the issuance of any such permit.
L. Construction Standards. The JPB is designing and constructing the Project. The
design and construction of the Project shall conform with JPB’s adopted standards,
specifically JPB Standards dated September 30th, 2011 and the Contract documents.
M. Minimize Disruption of City Utility Service. To the maximum extent practicable,
JPB agrees to perform its work in a manner that minimizes disruption to City utility
services. In particular, JPB agrees to work closely with City staff to avoid requests to
re-route or shut down City utility service, particularly electrical service, multiple times,
or to re-route or shut down City utility services during peak utility service hours when
impacts on customers will be most significant.
N. Design Review.
1. Architectural Review Board (“ARB”) Courtesy Review JPB agrees to provide
information regarding the following Project elements to the City for ARB
review and recommendation to the City Planning Director:
(a) OCS Poles, including pole design, color, location, and configuration (e.g.
gull-wing versus standard design);
(b) Proposals for vegetation removal and plans for Project screening ;and
(c) Paralleling Station(s).
2. Historical Resources Board (“HRB”) Courtesy Review. JPB agrees to
provide information to the HRB regarding the final design of any Project
elements or features adjacent to, or with the potential to impact the historical
resources specifically identified in section (5)(C)(2),any other designated
historical resources within the City.
3. Timeframes for ARB and HRB Courtesy Review. JPB agrees to provide the
information described in Sections N.1. and N.2. above when the plans are at
the 65% level. City shall have 45 calendar days from the date the information
is provided by JPB to conduct the ARB and HRB courtesy review.
4. 65 % Level Staff Review. The JPB agrees to do a page-turn design review,
and/or detailed walkthrough with City staff of the Project elements within the
City at the 65% level and the Issued for Construction design level prior to
official submittal of the plans for final approval by City. Project elements for
the City to review and comment on will include those project elements
identified in Section 5(B)) above and/or project elements affecting any City
Improvements. All City comments received by JPB during the 65% review
will be addressed prior to submittal of Issued for Construction Plans to the
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
10
13718272.3
City.
5. Extent of City Review of Issued for Construction Plans. Since JPB is exempt
from local planning and building regulation, submittal of information and plans
to the City is for the purposes of a courtesy review only, with the exception of
any required work that alters or replaces City Improvements, in which case
the City shall have 21 business days to review the Issued for Construction
Plans.
O. Grade Separation Planning Considerations; Statement of Understanding.
City is actively engaged in a planning process to consider design, construction, and
funding of future grade separations along the JPB corridor to improve safety and
reduce local traffic congestion; JPB is committed to taking an active role in grade
separation planning as funding and local concerns permit.
SECTION 7: MITIGATION MEASURES.
A. The JPB will require the DB Contractor to perform the work to implement the
mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan
adopted by the JPB on January 8, 2015, including the following:
1. Mitigation Measure Aesthetics-2b. Aesthetic treatments for OCS poles, TPFs
in sensitive visual locations.
(a) The JPB shall coordinate with the City to obtain their input into OCS pole
design relative to station aesthetics.
(b) Vegetative screening will be provided to visually buffer view of the traction
power facility in the City (PS-5 Option 2 in the PCEP FEIR). Acceptable
screening that may be used includes: tree planting, fencing with creeping
vines, landscape buffer planting or vegetative wall fence. The JPB will
maintain the Right-of-Way screening on an on-going basis.
2. Mitigation Measure Aesthetics-4a. Minimize spillover light during nighttime
construction adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The JPB will direct any
artificial lighting onto the worksite and away from adjacent residential areas at
all times.
3. Mitigation Measure Biology-5. A Tree Avoidance, Minimization, and
Replacement Plan will be developed in consultation with a certified arborist
and in consultation with cities, counties, and affected property owners along
the Project. A complete field survey of the entire Project area will be
completed to support the plan development by preparing a tree inventory for
all affected areas.
4. Mitigation Measure Traffic-1a. Implement Construction Road Traffic Control
Plan.
5. Mitigation Measure Traffic-1c. Implement Signal optimization and, if feasible,
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
11
13718272.3
roadway geometry improvements will be implemented at impacted
intersections for the 2020 Project condition per FEIR. The feasibility of signal
optimization and/or roadway geometry improvements will be evaluated at a
later date. The impacted intersection with feasible mitigation for the City is:
(a) El Camino Real and Alma Street and Sand Hill Road.
B. Nothing in this section shall otherwise limit JPB’s obligations to implement all
applicable aspects of the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan adopted by the
JPB on January 8, 2015 in Palo Alto, or to comply with all applicable federal, state or
local laws, regulations and permit conditions, or to satisfy other JPB obligations
under this Agreement.
SECTION 8: CITY IMPROVEMENTS.
A. Avoidance of Impact on City Improvements. The JPB will make its best efforts to
avoid damage to, interference with operations, maintenance or construction, or
otherwise affecting City Improvements (collectively, “City Improvement Impacts”),
to the extent feasible.
B. Addressing City Improvement Impacts.
1. Identification of City Improvement Impacts. JPB agrees to prepare a
comprehensive list of City Improvement Impacts, if any (“City Improvement
List”), as part of JPB’s final design documents for the Project. JPB will
provide the City Improvement List to the City for City’s review. City and JPB
will mutually agree on a final list of City Improvement Impacts. The City
agrees to cooperate with JPB to identify all City Improvement Impacts.
2. Costs. Subject to existing agreements, JPB will be responsible for the costs
associated with construction, modification, relocation and/or related mitigation
associated with addressing the City Improvement Impacts for facilities located
within City property. City will be responsible for the costs associated with
construction, modification, relocation and/or related mitigation associated with
addressing the City Improvement Impacts for facilities located within the JPB
ROW. Any replacement City Improvements will be of a similar kind and
capacity to the existing City Improvement, subject to applicable federal, state
and local requirements (including existing City codes). If City desires to
increase or upgrade a City Improvement beyond its existing codes, it shall be
responsible for any additional costs for that change.
3. Responsibility for Work to Address City Improvement Impacts.
(a) JPB and City shall mutually agree on whether City or JPB shall be
responsible for the design and construction, modification, relocation
and/or related mitigation to address the City Improvement Impacts.
(b) The Parties shall agree in writing with regards to which Party will be
obligated to perform the work necessary for the new, modified,
replacement City Improvements and/or other mitigation to address the
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
12
13718272.3
City Improvement Impacts, and such writing shall be incorporated as
Exhibit D to this Agreement. Such writing shall also establish a protocol
for the review of plans and the inspection of the construction,
modification, relocation and/or related mitigation for the City
Improvement. Any changes to the design, construction, protocols or
other aspect of such obligations must be in writing and approved by both
Parties.
(c) Regardless of which Party performs the design and/or construction, the
work shall conform to City codes, requirements, standards, standard
details and specifications. If no City standards exist for such work, it shall
be designed to applicable Caltrans standard details and specifications
with City approval, or if no Caltrans standard details and specifications
apply, it shall be designed to such standards as JPB shall reasonably
determine to apply, with City approval.
(d) With respect to work related to City Improvements, JPB shall not accept
any work related to City Improvements until the City has had the
opportunity to inspect the work, DB Contractor has made any necessary
corrections requested by City, and City has accepted the work.
(e) Upon acceptance of any Project work related to City Improvements, City
will have the responsibility for any maintenance, repairs, alterations or
future upgrades or replacements.
C. Coordination. During construction of the Project, the City shall provide the JPB with
a list of City personnel to be contacted in the event of an emergency on the Project
construction site within the City.
D. Real Property Rights. At, or shortly following the completion of the Project, the
Parties agree to execute updated real property documents to accurately reflect all
new or relocated or modified City Improvements crossing the JPB ROW in the City at
nominal cost to the City.
E. Costs Associated with Overhead Work. JPB agrees to compensate City for any
costs associated with work City must perform on overhead City infrastructure to the
extent such work is caused by JPB requirements that exceed those set forth in the
California Public Utilities Commission Resolution SED-2, adopted on November 10,
2016.
SECTION 9: CITY COST RECOVERY.
A. Initial Deposit, Payment of Permit Fees. JPB agrees to make an initial deposit of
$25,000 to the City for costs incurred by the City for design review, permit work,
inspection costs and other related expenses the City incurs in connection with the
Project. In addition, JPB agrees to pay the City’s standard permit and processing
fees, as applicable to the Project.
B. Replenishment of Initial Deposit, Additional Funds. The City agrees to notify the
JPB when 75% of the initial deposit has been spent, at which time the JPB and the
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
13
13718272.3
City agree to review the Project status, anticipated costs, and remaining budgets to
determine the need for additional deposits or other payments beyond the initial
deposit. Any changes to the deposit amount at this stage shall be agreed upon by
the JPB and the City. JPB acknowledges and agrees that City may, in its sole
discretion, cease to process the Project in the event that JPB fails to comply with its
obligations under this section or elsewhere under the Agreement.
C. Return of Deposit. Upon Project completion, or in the event the Term of this
Agreement expires or the Agreement is otherwise terminated, the City agrees to
return any portion of the deposit that has not been expended or otherwise committed
by the City in connection with the Project to JPB.
D. City Control of Consultants, Contractors. Any consultants, contractors or other
third parties hired by the City under this Agreement shall be directed solely by the
City. JPB shall not direct or control their work or conclusions.
SECTION 10: TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE AND DETOURS.
A. The JPB will assume full responsibility for maintaining in service, or causing to be
maintained in service, all traffic detours during JPB construction of the Project in a
manner satisfactory to the City, subject to and consistent with all applicable
California Department of Transportation requirements. All traffic control, lane
closure, and detour plans shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to
commencement of any phase of construction requiring either traffic control or
detour(s), which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The traffic control,
lane closure, and detour plans shall specify the length of time that portions of City
streets will likely be closed. As many of the at-grade crossings in the City serve
large numbers of school children walking and bicycling to school, the JPB will ensure
that advanced notification of any work at the grade crossings is provided to the
nearby schools and that all required temporary bicycle and pedestrian traffic control
requirements are met during construction.
B. Although certain City streets will, of necessity, be partially closed for some period
during construction of the Project, the JPB will, to the greatest extent practicable,
maintain in service, or cause to be maintained in service, all City streets and related
City Improvements within the limits of the Project area in a manner reasonably
satisfactory to the City. At a minimum, two-way service will be maintained on all City
streets affected by the Project, unless otherwise agreed to by the JPB and the City.
All travel lanes will be maintained, if possible, on Alma Street during peak hours.
Stringing OCS wire may require temporary street closures when work occurs at an
existing at-grade crossing. Specificity about the closures will be included in JPBs
Traffic Control Plan.
C. In its Contract Documents, the JPB will require the DB Contractor to submit plans
showing haul routes, temporary traffic control plans, employee parking areas, and
staging areas to the City for approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld. The City shall approve or disapprove the plans no later than twenty-one
(21) calendar days following the City’s receipt of such plans.
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
14
13718272.3
D. In its Contract Documents, the JPB will, prior to the temporary closure to traffic of all
or part of any street, sidewalk, or other public access, require that its contractor(s)
provide at least fourteen (14) calendar days’ notice of such closure to the City.
Deviation from this fourteen (14) calendar day requirement may be permitted in
emergency situations as determined and agreed upon in advance and in writing by
the JPB and the City.
E. At least seventy two (72) hours prior to the temporary closure to traffic of all or part of
any street, sidewalk, or other public access, the JPB will post notice of such closure.
Such notice of any road closure shall include, at minimum, use of an electronic sign.
The JPB will also provide closure-information fliers to residents, schools, and
businesses within a one hundred (100) foot radius of any such closure.
SECTION 11: EROSION CONTROL PLAN.
The JPB shall provide an erosion control plan to retain sediments on site in accordance with the
JPB’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program and Contract Documents. This plan should be
submitted with the Issued for Construction plans. All stockpiled earthwork shall be protected
from wind and water erosion. Dust control shall be undertaken in accordance with the JPB
Contract Documents and the Contract Documents shall provide for dust, erosion and pollution
control seven days a week, 24 hours a day for the duration of construction activities
SECTION 12: INDEMNIFICATION.
A. City’s Indemnity.
1. City shall fully release, indemnify, hold harmless and defend the JPB, as well
as the San Mateo County Transit District, the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority, and the City and County of San Francisco, Transit
Services America, the Union Pacific Railroad Company and/or their
respective officers, directors, employees, contractors and agents (collectively,
“JPB Indemnitees”) from and against all liability, claims, suits, sanctions,
costs or expenses for injuries to or death of any person (including, but not
limited to, the passengers, employees and contractors of City and JPB), and
damage to or loss of property arising out of or resulting from any act or
omission by City, its agents, employees, contractors or subcontractors in the
performance of its obligations under this Agreement.
2. City’s obligation to defend shall include the payment of all reasonable
attorney’s fees and all other costs and expenses of suit, and if any judgment
is rendered against any JPB Indemnitee, City shall, at its expense, satisfy
and discharge the same, so long as said claim has been timely tendered to
the City without prejudice to City’s rights and/or abilities to undertake a
defense of said claim.
B. JPB’s Indemnity.
1. JPB shall fully release, indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City and its
respective Council Members, officers, directors, employees, contractors and
agents (collectively, “City Indemnitees”) from and against all liability, claims,
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
15
13718272.3
suits, sanctions, costs or expenses for injuries to or death of any person
(including, but not limited to, passengers, employees and contractors of City
and JPB) and damage to or loss of property arising out of or resulting from
any act or omission by the JPB, its agents, employees, contractors or
subcontractors in performance of its obligations under this Agreement.
2. JPB’s obligation to defend shall include the payment of all reasonable
attorney’s fees and all other costs and expenses of suit, and if any judgment
is rendered against City Indemnitee’s or any one of them, JPB shall, at its
expense, satisfy and discharge the same, so long as said claim has been
timely tendered to the JPB without prejudice to JPB’s rights and/or abilities to
undertake a defense of said claim.
C. Severability. It is the intention of the Parties that should any term of this indemnity
provision be found to be void or unenforceable; the remainder of the provision shall
remain in full force and effect.
D. Survival. This indemnification shall survive termination or expiration of this
Agreement.
SECTION 13: INSURANCE.
The JPB shall include in its Contract Documents a requirement that the City be named an
additional insured on all policies of insurance required of its contractors. JPB and DB Contractor
shall provide a copy of evidence of insurance to City Risk Manager prior to any work under the
Agreement going forward.
SECTION 14: RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES.
Prior to commencement of any formal litigation arising out of this Agreement, the Parties agree
to submit the matters in controversy to a neutral mediator jointly selected by the Parties. The
costs of said mediator shall be borne evenly by the Parties involved in said dispute.
SECTION 15: NOTICES.
The City day-to-day contact person for all matters related to this Agreement will be the City
Manager or his or her designee. The JPB’s day-to-day contact person for all matters related to
this Agreement will be Lin Guan (650-508-7976; guanz@samtrans.com) or his designee.
All notices required hereunder may be given by personal delivery, US Mail, or courier service
(e.g. federal express) transmission. Notices shall be effective upon receipt at the following
addresses.
PCJPB: Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
1250 San Carlos Avenue
San Carlos, CA 94070
Attn: Executive Director
City: City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
16
13718272.3
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn: City Manager
With copies to: City Clerk
SECTION 16: PARTIES NOT CO-VENTURERS.
Nothing in this Agreement is intended to nor does it establish the Parties as partners, co-
ventures or principal and agent with one another.
SECTION 17: FURTHER ASSURANCES, TIME PERIODS AND RECORDS.
A. Each Party shall execute and deliver to the other all such additional instruments or
documents as may be necessary to carry out this Agreement or to assure and
secure to the other Party the full and complete enjoyment of its rights and privileges
under this Agreement, subject to appropriate approvals of each Party’s governing
body.
B. Should unforeseen circumstances occur, the JPB and the City shall negotiate in
good faith to reach agreement on any amendment(s) that may be necessary to fully
effectuate the Parties’ respective intentions in entering into this Agreement.
C. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 8546.7, the Parties shall be subject
to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of the JPB or as part
of any audit of the JPB by the State Auditor, for a period of three (3) years after final
payment under this Agreement. The examination and audit shall be confined to
those matters connected with the performance of this Agreement including, but not
limited to, the cost of administering the Agreement.
SECTION 18: NON-LIABILITY OF OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS.
No director, member, official, employee or agent of the City or the JPB shall be personally liable
to any Party to this Agreement or any successor in interest in the event of any default or breach
of this Agreement or for any amount which may become due on any obligation under the terms
of this Agreement.
SECTION 19: HEADING AND TITLES.
Any titles of the Sections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only, and
shall be disregard in construing or interpreting any part of its provisions.
SECTION 20: APPLICABLE LAW.
This Agreement shall be interpreted under and pursuant to the laws of the State of California.
The Parties agree that the jurisdiction and venue of any dispute between the Parties to this
Agreement shall be the Superior Court of San Mateo County.
SECTION 21: SEVERABILITY.
If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement is held by a court of competent
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
17
13718272.3
jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions shall continue in
full force and effect unless the rights and obligations of the Parties have been materially altered
or abridged by such invalidation, voiding or unenforceability.
SECTION 22: BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS.
This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the transferees, successors
and assigns of each of the Parties to it, except that there shall be no transfer of any interest by
any of the Parties to this Agreement except pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.
SECTION 23: REMEDIES NOT EXCLUSIVE.
No right or remedy conferred upon or reserved to the JPB or the City under this Agreement is
intended to be exclusive of any other right or remedy, except as expressly stated in this
Agreement, and each and every right and remedy shall be cumulative and in addition to any
other right or remedy given under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity
or by statute, except such rights or remedies as are expressly limited in this Agreement.
SECTION 24: FORCE MAJEURE.
In addition to specific provisions of this Agreement, performance by either Party shall not be
deemed to be in default where delays or defaults are due to war, insurrection, strikes, lockouts,
riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, quarantine restrictions, casualties, acts of God, acts of the
public enemy, epidemic, government restrictions on priorities, freight embargoes, shortage of
labor or materials, unusually inclement weather, lack of transportation, court order, or any other
similar causes beyond the control or without the fault of the Party claiming an extension of time
to perform. An extension of time for any cause will be deemed granted if notice by the Party
claiming such extension is sent to the other Party within thirty (30) days from the
commencement of the cause and such extension is not rejected in writing by the other Party
within thirty (30) days of receipt of the notice. Time of performance under this Agreement may
also be extended by mutual written agreement, signed by both Parties.
SECTION 25: INTEGRATION.
This Agreement represents the full, complete and entire agreement of the Parties with respect
to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes any and all other communications,
representations, proposals, understandings or agreements, whether written or oral, between the
Parties hereto with respect to such subject matter.
SECTION 26: COUNTERPARTS.
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original
but all of which together shall constitute a single Agreement.
SECTION 27: AMENDMENTS.
This Agreement may be amended only in a writing that is executed by the Parties hereto.
SECTION 28: THIRD PARTY RIGHTS.
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
18
13718272.3
Nothing herein shall be considered as creating any rights and/or obligations by any of the
Parties to this Agreement to any third parties. Specifically, none of the duties to inspect or
maintain shall in any way be construed as creating or expanding any additional obligations to
any third Party beyond those required and established under the applicable statues, regulations,
ordinances or law.
SECTION 29: SUCCESSORS.
This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the respective successors
and assigns of the Parties hereto.
SECTION 30: WAIVER.
The wavier by either Party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition, or
provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to
be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law, or of any
subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision,
ordinance or law.
SECTION 31: BONDING.
JPB will require the DB Contractor for this Project to provide performance and payment bonds in
the full amount of the contract and will require a two-year warranty period. The bond shall be
maintained in full force and effect during the entire period that work is performed by the DB
Contractor until such work is accepted by JPB.
SECTION 32: EXHIBITS
The Agreement includes the following Exhibits, which are incorporated into the Agreement as if
fully set forth herein:
A. EXHIBIT A – Depiction of JPB ROW within City
B. EXHIBIT B – Location and Specifications for Paralleling Station 5 (“PS-5”)
C. EXHIBIT C – Location of Staging Areas
D. EXHIBIT D – JPB and City Agreements RE: City Improvements (as developed)
This Agreement is made and entered into as of the Effective Date.
PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS
BOARD
By:
Jim Hartnett
CITY OF PALO ALTO
James Keene
City Manager
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
19
13718272.3
General Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JPB Attorney
By:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Palo Alto City Attorney
By:
ATTACHMENT B: Images of Historical Resources
El Palo Alto and Bridge over San Francisquito Creek
1878 1924 1926 Plaque
1951 1963 1987 Plaque Nat’l Arborist Assoc’n
California Historical Landmark #2 is recognized by the National Arborist Association and
International Society of Arboriculture for its historical significance as "a campsite for the Portola
Expedition Party of 1769"; being frequented by the Costanoan/Ohlone Indians; and for its use
as a sighting tree by surveyors plotting out El Camino Real. The tree is depicted on the city of
Palo Alto's official seal and on the seal of Stanford University. It is the origin of the city's name.
A plaque at the base of the tree bears the following inscription: “Under this giant redwood, the
Palo Alto, November 6–11, 1769, camped Portola and his band on the expedition that
discovered San Francisco Bay, this was the assembling point for their reconnoitering parties.
Here in 1774 Padre Palou erected a cross to mark the site of a proposed mission. The celebrated
Pedro Fottopographical map of 1776 contained the drawing of the original double trunked tree
making the Palo Alto the first official living California landmark. It was two years after Padre
Palou's visit that Padre Font, on the De Anza Expedition's way back to Mexico after founding
San Francisco, measured the giant redwood "five and a half yards around" in his diary on March
30, 1776. Also at El Palo Alto, de Anza and Font found the wooden cross that Palou had placed
two years earlier, but de Anza decided to move the mission location to Santa Clara because San
Francisquito Creek's water was too low in the dry season.”
Efforts to restore the tree's health by the Southern Pacific Railroad, the City of Palo Alto and
local citizens included progressive pruning of the dying treetop, addition of soil and mulch at
the tree’s base, removal of dead limbs, pesticide spraying and installation of a pipe up its trunk
to bring water to mist the top of the tree. Although the tree stands today at only 68% of its
former stature, it enjoys greater health than nearly a century ago.
Southern Pacific Railroad Depot, 95 University Avenue
Left image: Streamline modern depot at 95 University Avenue viewed from across
the tracks, with steam locomotive approaching. The roof of the veterans building
is visible behind the station on the left. Below right image is from 1980s or 1990s.
Underpass Images
University Underpass Embarcadero Underpass
Below Image: Dedication of Embarcadero Underpass October 17, 1936
1964 Embarcadero Underpass image below
Greenmeadow
Pole ID Pole Type
Foundation
Size Offset / Track Stationing Drawing Number
City ROW
(Y/N)Pole in Station Pole
Location
29.5‐06 FD‐36A WF‐4A 10.00'R MT2 1562+65 MT2 W3205 N
29.6‐01 FD‐36A WF‐4A 10.33'R MT2 1563+27 MT2 W3205 N
29.6‐02 FD‐36A WF‐4A 10.33'R MT2 1564+40 MT2 W3205 N
29.6‐03 FD‐36A WF‐4A 10.33'R MT2 1566+10 MT2 W3205 N
29.6‐04 FD‐36A WF‐4A 10.00'R MT2 1567+65 MT2 W3205 N
29.7‐01 FD‐30 WF‐3 12.74'R MT1 1569+17 MT1 W3205 N
29.7‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1570+82 MT1 W3205 N
29.7‐03 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1571+10 MT2 W3205 N
29.7‐04 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1572+52 MT1 W3206 N
29.7‐05 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.33'R MT2 1572+80 MT2 W3206 N
29.8‐01 FD‐36 WF‐5 11.33'L MT1 1574+23 MT1 W3206 N
29.8‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.33'R MT2 1574+51 MT2 W3206 N
29.8‐03 FD‐30 TT‐1 10.33'L MT1 1575+91 MT1 W3206 N
29.8‐04 FD‐36 TT‐4 11.33'R MT2 1576+22 MT2 W3206 N
29.8‐05 FD‐30 TT‐1 10.33'L MT1 1577+72 MT1 W3206 N
29.8‐06 FD‐30 TT‐1 10.33'R MT2 1578+31 MT2 W3206 N
29.8‐D01 DG‐2 ‐ 11.33'L MT1 1579+98 MT1 W3206 N
29.8‐D02 DG‐2 ‐ 11.33'R MT2 1575+97 MT2 W3206 N
29.9‐01 FD‐36 TT‐4 11.00'L MT1 1579+72 MT1 W3206 N
29.9‐02 FD‐30 TT‐1 10.00'R MT2 1580+12 MT2 W3206 N
29.9‐03 FD‐36 TT‐4 18.99'R MT1 1581+91 MT1 W3206 N Palo Alto Station Center
29.9‐04 FD‐30 TT‐1 18.99'L MT1 1583+60 MT1 W3207 N Palo Alto Station Center
29.9‐D01 DG‐2 ‐ 11.00'L MT1 1579+97 MT1 W3206 N
29.9‐D02 DG‐2 ‐ 18.99'R MT1 1582+47 MT2 W3207 N Palo Alto Station Center
30.0‐01 FD‐30 TT‐1 18.49'R MT1 1585+69 MT1 W3207 N Palo Alto Station Center
30.0‐02 FD‐36 TT‐4 10.00'R MT2 1588+10 MT2 W3207 N
30.0‐03 FD‐36 TT‐4 10.00'L MT1 1587+80 MT1 W3207 N
30.0‐D01 DG‐2 ‐ 10.00'L MT1 1587+54 MT1 W3207 N
30.0‐D02 DG‐2 ‐ 10.00'R MT2 1587+84 MT1 W3207 N
30.1‐01 FD‐30 TT‐1 10.33'L MT1 1589+40 MT1 W3207 N
30.1‐02 FD‐30 TT‐1 10.33'R MT2 1589+69 MT2 W3207 N
PALO ALTO ‐ SEGMENT 3 WORK AREA 2
1
65% Submittal - Pole Schedule
Pole ID Pole Type
Foundation
Size Offset / Track Stationing Drawing Number
City ROW
(Y/N)Pole in Station Pole
Location
PALO ALTO ‐ SEGMENT 3 WORK AREA 2
30.1‐03 FD‐36 SQ‐3 10.33'L MT1 1591+20 MT1 W3207 N
30.1‐04 FD‐36 SQ‐3 10.33'R MT2 1591+50 MT2 W3207 N
30.1‐05 FD‐36 WF‐5 10.33'L MT1 1592+80 MT1 W3208 N
30.1‐06 FD‐36 WF‐5 10.33'R MT2 1593+11 MT2 W3208 N
30.1‐07 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1594+30 MT1 W3208 N
30.1‐08 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.33'R MT2 1594+62 MT2 W3208 N
30.1‐D01 DG‐2 ‐ 10.33'L MT1 1593+04 MT1 W3208 N
30.1‐D02 DG‐2 ‐ 10.33'R MT2 1593+36 MT2 W3208 N
30.2‐01 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1595+80 MT1 W3208 N
30.2‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1596+12 MT2 W3208 N
30.2‐03 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'L MT1 1597+60 MT1 W3208 N
30.2‐04 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'R MT2 1597+92 MT2 W3208 N
30.2‐05 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.33'L MT1 1599+60 MT1 W3208 N
30.2‐06 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.33'R MT2 1599+92 MT2 W3208 N
30.3‐01 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.33'L MT1 1601+60 MT1 W3208 N
30.3‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1601+92 MT2 W3208 N
30.3‐03 FD‐36A SQ‐1 22.00'L MT1 1603+40 MT1 W3209 N
30.3‐04 FD‐36A TT‐3A 10.33'R MT2 1603+71 MT2 W3209 N
30.3‐D01 DG‐1 ‐ 22.00'L MT1 1603+14 MT1 W3209 N
30.3‐D02 DG‐1 ‐ 10.33'R MT2 1603+46 MT2 W3209 N
30.4‐01 FD‐30 TT‐1A 10.00'L MT1 1605+19 MT1 W3209 N
30.4‐02 FD‐30 TT‐1A 10.00'R MT2 1605+51 MT2 W3209 N
30.4‐03 FD‐36 TT‐4A 10.00'L MT1 1607+19 MT1 W3209 N
30.4‐04 FD‐36 TT‐4A 10.00'R MT2 1607+51 MT2 W3209 N
30.4‐05 FD‐36 TT‐4A 13.50'L MT1 1609+39 MT1 W3209 N Standford Stadium Station Outer
30.4‐06 FD‐36 TT‐4A 13.50'R MT2 1609+71 MT2 W3209 N Standford Stadium Station Outer
30.4‐D01 DG‐1 ‐ 10.00'L MT1 1607+44 MT1 W3209 N
30.4‐D02 DG‐1 ‐ 10.00'R MT2 1607+76 MT2 W3209 N
30.5‐01 FD‐30 TT‐1A 13.50'L MT1 1611+59 MT1 W3209 N Standford Stadium Station Outer
30.5‐02 FD‐30 TT‐1A 13.50'R MT2 1611+91 MT2 W3209 N Standford Stadium Station Outer
30.5‐03 FD‐36A TT‐3A 13.50'L MT1 1613+66 MT1 W3210 N Standford Stadium Station Outer
2
65% Submittal - Pole Schedule
Pole ID Pole Type
Foundation
Size Offset / Track Stationing Drawing Number
City ROW
(Y/N)Pole in Station Pole
Location
PALO ALTO ‐ SEGMENT 3 WORK AREA 2
30.5‐04 FD‐36A TT‐3A 13.50'R MT2 1613+97 MT2 W3210 N Standford Stadium Station Outer
30.6‐01 FD‐36 TT‐4A 13.50'L MT1 1615+86 MT1 W3210 N Standford Stadium Station Outer
30.6‐02 FD‐36 TT‐4A 13.50'R MT2 1616+17 MT2 W3210 N Standford Stadium Station Outer
30.6‐03 FD‐30 TT‐1 10.00'L MT1 1618+06 MT1 W3210 N
30.6‐04 FD‐30 TT‐1 10.00'R MT2 1618+37 MT2 W3210 N
30.6‐05 FD‐36 TT‐4 10.00'L MT1 1620+26 MT1 W3210 N
30.6‐06 FD‐36 TT‐4 10.00'R MT2 1620+57 MT2 W3210 N
30.6‐D01 DG‐2 ‐ 10.00'L MT1 1620+01 MT1 W3210 N
30.6‐D02 DG‐2 ‐ 10.00'R MT2 1620+32 MT2 W3210 N
30.7‐01 FD‐36 SQ‐3 10.00'L MT1 1622+06 MT1 W3211 N
30.7‐02 FD‐36 SQ‐3 10.00'R MT2 1622+37 MT2 W3211 N
30.7‐03 FD‐36 SQ‐3 10.00'L MT1 1623+86 MT1 W3211 N
30.7‐04 FD‐36 SQ‐3 10.00'R MT2 1624+17 MT2 W3211 N
30.7‐05 FD‐36 WF‐5 11.00'L MT1 1625+66 MT1 W3211 N
30.7‐06 FD‐36 WF‐5 11.00'R MT2 1625+97 MT2 W3211 N
30.7‐D01 DG‐2 ‐ 11.00'L MT1 1625+91 MT1 W3211 N
30.7‐D02 DG‐2 ‐ 11.00'R MT2 1626+22 MT2 W3211 N
30.8‐01 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1627+86 MT1 W3211 N
30.8‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1628+17 MT2 W3211 N
30.8‐03 FD‐36A SQ‐9B 10.00'L MT1 1630+06 MT1 W3211 N
30.8‐04 FD‐36A SQ‐9B 10.00'R MT2 1630+37 MT2 W3211 N
30.9‐01 FD‐42S SQ‐8 10.00'L MT1 1631+86 MT1 W3211 N
30.9‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1634+06 MT1 W3212 N
30.9‐03 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1634+37 MT2 W3212 N
30.9‐04 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1636+26 MT1 W3212 N
30.9‐05 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1636+57 MT2 W3212 N
31.0‐01 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1638+46 MT1 W3212 N
31.0‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1638+77 MT2 W3212 N
31.0‐03 FD‐42A WF‐7 10.00'L MT1 1640+66 MT1 W3212 N
31.0‐04 FD‐42A WF‐7 10.00'R MT2 1640+97 MT2 W3212 N
31.1‐01 FD‐30 WF‐3 10.00'L MT1 1642+86 MT1 W3213 N
3
65% Submittal - Pole Schedule
Pole ID Pole Type
Foundation
Size Offset / Track Stationing Drawing Number
City ROW
(Y/N)Pole in Station Pole
Location
PALO ALTO ‐ SEGMENT 3 WORK AREA 2
31.1‐02 FD‐30 WF‐3 10.00'R MT2 1643+17 MT2 W3213 N
31.1‐03 FD‐42S SQ‐11B 10.00'L MT1 1645+06 MT1 W3213 N
31.1‐04 FD‐42S SQ‐11B 10.00'R MT2 1645+37 MT2 W3213 N
31.1‐05 FD‐42S SQ‐8 10.00'L MT1 1647+26 MT1 W3213 N
31.2‐01 FD‐36A SQ‐1 10.00'L MT1 1649+46 MT1 W3213 N
31.2‐02 FD‐42S SQ‐8 10.00'L MT1 1651+26 MT1 W3213 N
31.3‐01 FD‐36A SQ‐9B 10.00'L MT1 1653+46 MT1 W3214 N
31.3‐02 FD‐36A SQ‐9B 10.00'R MT2 1653+77 MT2 W3214 N
31.3‐03 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1655+66 MT1 W3214 N
31.3‐04 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1655+97 MT2 W3214 N
31.3‐05 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1657+86 MT1 W3214 N
31.3‐06 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1658+17 MT2 W3214 N
31.4‐01 FD‐36 WF‐5 11.00'L MT1 1659+86 MT1 W3214 N
31.4‐02 FD‐36 WF‐5 11.00'R MT2 1660+17 MT2 W3214 N
31.4‐03 FD‐36A TT‐3A 10.00'L MT1 1661+56 MT1 W3214 N
31.4‐04 FD‐36A TT‐3A 10.00'R MT2 1661+97 MT2 W3214 N
31.4‐D01 DG‐2 ‐ 11.00'L MT1 1659+61 MT1 W3214 N
31.4‐D02 DG‐2 ‐ 11.00'R MT2 1659+92 MT2 W3214 N
31.5‐01 FD‐36A TT‐3A 10.00'L MT1 1663+26 MT1 W3215 N
31.5‐02 FD‐36A TT‐3A 10.00'R MT2 1663+77 MT2 W3215 N
31.5‐03 FD‐36 TT‐4 10.00'L MT1 1665+15 MT1 W3215 N
31.5‐04 FD‐36 TT‐4 10.00'R MT2 1665+57 MT2 W3215 N
31.5‐05 FD‐30 TT‐1 13.50'L MT1 1667+19 MT1 W3215 N California Avenue Station Outer
31.5‐06 FD‐30 TT‐1 13.60'R MT2 1667+51 MT2 W3215 N California Avenue Station Outer
31.5‐D01 DG‐2 ‐ 10.00'L MT1 1665+40 MT1 W3215 N
31.5‐D02 DG‐2 ‐ 10.00'R MT2 1665+82 MT2 W3215 N
31.6‐01 FD‐30 TT‐1 13.50'L MT1 1668+79 MT1 W3215 N California Avenue Station Outer
31.6‐02 FD‐30 TT‐1 13.59'R MT2 1669+11 MT2 W3215 N California Avenue Station Outer
31.6‐03 FD‐30 TT‐1 13.50'L MT1 1670+84 MT1 W3215 N California Avenue Station Outer
31.6‐04 FD‐30 TT‐1 13.57'R MT2 1671+16 MT2 W3215 N California Avenue Station Outer
31.6‐05 FD‐30 TT‐1 13.50'L MT1 1673+04 MT1 W3216 N California Avenue Station Outer
4
65% Submittal - Pole Schedule
Pole ID Pole Type
Foundation
Size Offset / Track Stationing Drawing Number
City ROW
(Y/N)Pole in Station Pole
Location
PALO ALTO ‐ SEGMENT 3 WORK AREA 2
31.6‐06 FD‐30 TT‐1 13.56'R MT2 1673+36 MT2 W3216 N California Avenue Station Outer
31.7‐01 FD‐30 TT‐1 10.00'L MT1 1675+05 MT1 W3216 N
31.7‐02 FD‐30 TT‐1 10.00'R MT2 1675+36 MT2 W3216 N
31.7‐03 FD‐30 TT‐1 10.00'L MT1 1677+00 MT1 W3216 N
31.7‐04 FD‐30 TT‐4 10.00'R MT2 1677+32 MT2 W3216 N
31.8‐01 FD‐36A TT‐3A 10.00'L MT1 1679+10 MT1 W3216 N
31.8‐02 FD‐36A TT‐3A 10.33'R MT2 1679+47 MT2 W3216 N
31.8‐03 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'L MT1 1681+20 MT1 W3216 N
31.8‐04 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.33'R MT2 1681+51 MT2 W3216 N
31.8‐05 FD‐42A WF‐7 10.00'L MT1 1683+25 MT1 W3217 N
31.8‐06 FD‐42A WF‐7 10.00'R MT2 1683+57 MT2 W3217 N
31.9‐01 FD‐36 NOTE 2 10.00'L MT1 1685+05 MT1 W3217 N
31.9‐02 FD‐36 PW‐1 10.00'R T3208 1685+38 MT2 W3217 N
31.9‐03 FD‐36 NOTE 2 10.00'L MT1 1687+20 MT1 W3217 N
31.9‐04 FD‐36 PW‐1 10.00'R T3208 1687+51 MT2 W3217 N
31.9‐05 FD‐36 NOTE 2 10.00'L MT1 1689+40 MT1 W3217 N
31.9‐06 FD‐36 PW‐1 10.00'R T3208 5+25 T3208 W3217 N
31.9‐D01 DG‐1 ‐ 10.00'L MT1 1687+45 MT1 W3217 N
31.9‐D02 DG‐1 ‐ 10.00'R T3208 1687+76 MT2 W3217 N
32.0‐01 FD‐36 NOTE 2 10.33'L MT1 1691+60 MT1 W3217 N
32.0‐02 FD‐36 PW‐1 26.47'R T3208 1691+91 MT2 W3217 N
32.0‐03 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'L MT1 1693+75 MT1 W3218 N
32.0‐04 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'R T3208 1694+07 MT2 W3218 N
32.1‐01 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'L MT1 1695+85 MT1 W3218 N
32.1‐02 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'R MT2 1696+17 MT2 W3218 N
32.1‐03 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'L MT1 1698+05 MT1 W3218 N
32.1‐04 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'R MT2 1698+37 MT2 W3218 N
32.2‐01 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1700+25 MT1 W3218 N
32.2‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1700+57 MT2 W3218 N
32.2‐03 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1702+45 MT1 W3219 N
32.2‐04 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1702+77 MT2 W3219 N
5
65% Submittal - Pole Schedule
Pole ID Pole Type
Foundation
Size Offset / Track Stationing Drawing Number
City ROW
(Y/N)Pole in Station Pole
Location
PALO ALTO ‐ SEGMENT 3 WORK AREA 2
32.2‐05 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 11.00'L MT1 1704+65 MT1 W3219 N
32.2‐06 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 11.00'R MT2 1704+97 MT2 W3219 N
32.2‐D01 DG‐2 ‐ 11.00'L MT1 1704+40 MT1 W3219 N
32.2‐D02 DG‐2 ‐ 11.00'R MT2 1704+72 MT2 W3219 N
32.3‐01 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'L MT1 1706+45 MT1 W3219 N
32.3‐02 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'R MT2 1706+77 MT2 W3219 N
32.3‐03 FD‐36 SQ‐3 10.00'L MT1 1708+25 MT1 W3219 N
32.3‐04 FD‐36 SQ‐3 10.00'R MT2 1708+57 MT2 W3219 N
32.3‐05 FD‐36 WF‐5 11.00'L MT1 1710+05 MT1 W3219 N
32.3‐06 FD‐36 WF‐5 11.00'R MT2 1710+37 MT2 W3219 N
32.3‐D01 DG‐2 ‐ 11.00'L MT1 1710+30 MT1 W3219 N
32.3‐D02 DG‐2 ‐ 11.00'R MT2 1710+62 MT2 W3219 N
32.4‐01 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1712+25 MT1 W3220 N
32.4‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1712+57 MT2 W3220 N
32.4‐03 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1714+45 MT1 W3220 N
32.4‐04 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1714+77 MT2 W3220 N
32.5‐01 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1716+65 MT1 W3220 N
32.5‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.33'R MT2 1716+97 MT2 W3220 N
32.5‐03 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1718+55 MT1 W3220 N
32.5‐04 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.33'R MT2 1718+87 MT2 W3220 N
32.5‐05 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1720+45 MT1 W3220 N
32.5‐06 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1720+77 MT2 W3220 N
32.6‐01 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1722+35 MT1 W3221 N
32.6‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.33'R MT2 1722+67 MT2 W3221 N
32.6‐03 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1724+55 MT1 W3221 N
32.6‐04 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.33'R MT2 1724+87 MT2 W3221 N
32.7‐01 FD‐42A WF‐7 10.00'L MT1 1726+75 MT1 W3221 N
32.7‐02 FD‐42A WF‐7 10.00'R MT2 1727+07 MT2 W3221 N
32.7‐03 FD‐30 WF‐3 10.00'L MT1 1728+55 MT1 W3221 N
32.7‐04 FD‐30 WF‐7 10.00'R MT2 1728+87 MT2 W3221 N
32.7‐05 FD‐42A WF‐7 10.00'L MT1 1730+35 MT1 W3221 N
6
65% Submittal - Pole Schedule
Pole ID Pole Type
Foundation
Size Offset / Track Stationing Drawing Number
City ROW
(Y/N)Pole in Station Pole
Location
PALO ALTO ‐ SEGMENT 3 WORK AREA 2
32.7‐06 FD‐42A WF‐7 10.00'R MT2 1730+67 MT2 W3221 N
32.8‐01 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1732+55 MT1 W3222 N
32.8‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1732+87 MT2 W3222 N
32.8‐03 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'L MT1 1734+75 MT1 W3222 N
32.8‐04 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'R MT2 1735+07 MT2 W3222 N
32.8‐05 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'L MT1 1736+55 MT1 W3222 N
32.8‐06 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'R MT2 1736+87 MT2 W3222 N
32.9‐01 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1738+55 MT1 W3222 N
32.9‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1738+87 MT2 W3222 N
32.9‐03 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1740+65 MT1 W3222 N
32.9‐04 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1740+97 MT2 W3222 N
33.0‐01 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1742+75 MT1 W3223 N
33.0‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1743+07 MT2 W3223 N
33.0‐03 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1744+85 MT1 W3223 N
33.0‐04 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1745+17 MT2 W3223 N
33.0‐05 FD‐30 WF‐5 10.00'L MT1 1746+95 MT1 W3223 N
33.0‐06 FD‐30 WF‐5 10.00'R MT2 1747+27 MT2 W3223 N
33.0‐D01 DG‐2 ‐ 10.00'L MT1 1746+70 MT1 W3223 N
33.0‐D02 DG‐2 ‐ 10.00'R MT2 1747+02 MT2 W3223 N
33.1‐01 FD‐36 SQ‐3 10.00'L MT1 1748+75 MT1 W3223 N
33.1‐02 FD‐36 SQ‐3 10.00'R MT2 1749+07 MT2 W3223 N
33.1‐03 FD‐36 SQ‐3 10.00'L MT1 1750+55 MT1 W3223 N
33.1‐04 FD‐36 SQ‐3 10.00'R MT2 1750+87 MT2 W3223 N
33.1‐05 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 11.00'L MT1 1752+35 MT1 W3224 N
33.1‐06 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 11.00'R MT2 1752+67 MT2 W3224 N
33.1‐D01 DG‐2 ‐ 11.00'L MT1 1752+60 MT1 W3224 N
33.1‐D02 DG‐2 ‐ 11.00'R MT2 1752+92 MT2 W3224 N
33.2‐01 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'L MT1 1754+16 MT1 W3224 N
33.2‐02 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'R MT2 1754+47 MT2 W3224 N
33.2‐03 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1756+36 MT1 W3224 N
33.2‐04 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1756+67 MT2 W3224 N
7
65% Submittal - Pole Schedule
Pole ID Pole Type
Foundation
Size Offset / Track Stationing Drawing Number
City ROW
(Y/N)Pole in Station Pole
Location
PALO ALTO ‐ SEGMENT 3 WORK AREA 2
33.3‐01 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1758+56 MT1 W3224 N
33.3‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1758+87 MT2 W3224 N
33.3‐03 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1760+76 MT1 W3224 N
33.3‐04 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1761+07 MT2 W3224 N
33.3‐05 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1762+96 MT1 W3225 N
33.3‐06 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1763+27 MT2 W3225 N
8
65% Submittal - Pole Schedule
www.balfourbeattyus.com
November 1, 2018 BBII-PCEPDB-LTR-
BBII Letter #
Mr. / Mrs.
Title
City of Menlo Park
Street address
City, state, zip
Re: Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Design-Build
Contract No. 14-PCJPPB-P-053
Subject: Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) /City of Palo Alto
Selected CDRL 34610 OCS Foundation & Pole Layouts Segment 3 Work
Area 2 & 1 65% Design Submittal for Review
Dear Mr./Mrs. ____;
The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Design/Builder, Balfour Beatty
Infrastructure, Inc. (BBII) and Designer, PGH Wong, are developing the OCS Foundation
& Pole Layouts design submittal documents for the Electrification Project. We are
providing the 65% design submittal package for the City’s review. Comments from the
City will be addressed through subsequent design packages as required. Electronic
copies of the following submittals for your team’s review have been sent to you through
the project’s document control system, Aconex.
OCS Foundation & Pole Layouts 65% Submittal Drawings -
Selected OCS Foundation & Pole Layouts Segment 3 Work Area 2 & 1 65%
Design Submittal Drawings for the City of Palo Alto – for review
City Stations Pole Color Recommendations
Pole Schedule
Comment Response Sheet
Conformed Set CDRL 34230 OCS Basic Design Poles and Structures (as of
7/19/18) – for reference only.
2121 S. El Camino Real,
Ste. 1000
San Mateo, CA 94403
www.bbiius.com
Page 2 of 3
As per the city agreement, the city is required to review and approve the design within
the city right-of-way. Please note that none of the OCS poles are within the City’s right-of-
way.
Pole types indicated on the plan sheets in the OCS Foundation and Pole Layouts refer to
the typical pole structures shown in the provided OCS Basic Design Poles and Structures
package. Proposed pole color recommendations are also included for Palo Alto,
California Avenue and Stanford Stadium Stations, please provide the City’s selected
color with the comment response form by the response date identified herein.
To ensure review comments are received and addressed thoroughly, please include the
City’s comments in the Review Comment Form, which is attached. As part of the review
process the Design Team will request the agency to concur and confirm resolution to
comments. Please transmit the comments no later than November 12, 2018.We
appreciate the City’s review and attention to this design review package. If you would
like to schedule a design review meeting please contact me at (650) 282-8404 or Marcia
Sagami (650) 282-8419.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if there are any questions.
Sincerely,
Balfour Beatty Infrastructure Inc.
Davie McCulloch
PCEP Project Manager
Enclosure
c: Brent Tietjen – Caltrain
Zhenlin Guan – Caltrain
Joshua Bibb - BBII
Martin Gillman – BBII
Nenad Radmanovic - BBII
Jeffrey Katz, P.E. – PGHW
Arash Monsefan, P.E. – PGHW
Benny Ho, P.E. - PGHW
Marcia Sagami – PGHW
Page 3 of 3
Catherine Doyle - PGHW
JPB DocControl
BBII DocControl
PENINSULA CORRIDOR
ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PALO ALTO
STANFORD STADIUM
AND
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
STATIONS
OCS COLOR POLE OPTIONS
FOR PASSENGER STATION
Caltrain Electrification Existing Station furniture and poles color and recommended OCS pole color 7/30/2018
Notes: Option 1 is the visually dominant color; Option 2 is the secondary color; Option 3 is the least dominant color or defaults to FS 14052, the standard color for sensitive areas
location municipality Mile Post existing pole
color
existing
furniture color
existing shelter
color
Option 1 color for
Poles
Option 2 color for
poles
Option 3 color for
poles Notes
17 Palo Alto Palo Alto 30.00‐30.2 grey brown n/a color FS 23522 color FS 36495 color FS 30032 Option 1 to match the color of the structure
(historic RR Sta recomm.), 2 to match poles,
3 to match furniture
18 California Palo Alto 31.80 black black/brown black color FS 27040 color FS 30032 color FS 14052 Option 1 to match poles and shelters
xx Stanford Stadium Palo Alto color FS 14052 color FS 14052 color FS 14052 Assumed Marine Green to match stated
environmentally sensitive standard.
PENINSULA CORRIDOR
ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PALO ALTO
STATION
OCS COLOR POLE
OPTIONS FOR PASSENGER
STATION
Palo Alto Station
Color Option 1: To match structure - FS 23522
Palo Alto Station
Color Option 2: To match poles - FS 36495
Palo Alto Station
Color Option 3: To match furniture - FS 30032
PENINSULA CORRIDOR
ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM
CITY OF PALO ALTO
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
STATION
OCS COLOR POLE
OPTIONS FOR PASSENGER
STATION
California Avenue Station
Color Option 1: To match poles and shelters - FS 27040
California Avenue Station
Color Option 2: FS 30032
California Avenue Station
Color Option 3: FS 14052
PENINSULA CORRIDOR
ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM
CITY OF PALO ALTO
STANFORD STADIUM
STATION
OCS COLOR POLE
OPTIONS FOR PASSENGER
STATION
Stanford Stadium Station
Color Option: Marine Green - FS 14052
ATTACHMENT G
Hardcopy plans to HRB Members and Libraries only
Project plans (Design Build Electrification Project) can be reviewed on Palo Alto
Building Eye under the address 95 University Avenue at this location:
https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning
http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/Plans.html
The above link leads to information including construction announcements.
At the time this report was written, there was an announcement about work through
November 2nd to locate underground utilities and prune and remove trees along the project
route, and during the night to locate underground utilities. Work hours were posted as 7 a.m.
to 7 p.m. for daytime work and 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. for nighttime work. A hotline was also
provided: 650-399-9659 or toll-free at 855-463-4373.
The below link is to informative documents and outreach efforts for Palo Alto
https://calmod.org/resources/
Below is a listing of relevant documents found on the link:
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report (ID # 9798)
Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 11/8/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Approval of HRB October 11, 2018 Draft Minutes
Title: Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of October
11, 2018
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) adopt the attached meeting minutes.
Background
Attached are minutes for the following meeting(s):
October 11, 2018
Attachments:
Attachment A: HRB Draft Minutes of October 11, 2018 (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Deputized Chair Martin Bernstein, Board Member Wimmer, Board Member Makinen,
Board Member Shepherd
Absent: Chair Bower, Vice Chair Corey, Board Member Kohler
Chair Bernstein: Good morning everybody and welcome to the October 12th, is today the 12th or the 11th?
Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Today is the 11th.
Chair Bernstein: Yeah, welcome to the October 11th meeting of the Historic Resources Board. Would staff
please call roll.
Ms. French: We have a quorum. Sorry, Council Member Holman present.
Oral Communications
Chair Bernstein: First for our agenda, I would like to call if there are any oral communications. If there
any members of the public who would like to speak on any item not on our agenda, please come up to
the speaker. And I see none.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Chair Bernstein: Next, if there are any agenda changes, additions or deletions?
Ms. French: There are none.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you.
City Official Reports
1. 2018 Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule and Assignments.
Chair Bernstein: City Official Reports, any meeting schedule and assignments? I don’t believe there are
any.
Ms. French: Well, I think we are doing pretty good in October to have two meetings, so, we’ll be, well we
had one in September and this one in October. I don’t believe we’re going to meet again in October,
towards November.
Chair Bernstein: Okay, thank you.
Study Session
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES: October 11, 2018
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 A.M.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Chair Bernstein: All right, Study Sessions, there is nothing listed under Study Session.
Action Items
2. QUASI-JUDICIAL. 1107 Cowper Street. [18PLN-00202]: Request for Review of an
Individual Review Application for Consistency with the Professorville Historic District Design
Guidelines. The Project Includes the Demolition of an Existing Two-Story Home and Construction
of a New Two-Story Home. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with Guideline Section 15303 (New
Construction). Zoning District: R-1 (Single Family Residential). For More Information Contact the
Project Planner Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org.
Chair Bernstein: The next is Action Items. And I’ll read the item. Quasi-judicial, so if anyone has any
disclosures, we’ll do that. 1107 Cowper Street: Request for review of an individual review application for
consistency with the Professorville Historic District Guidelines. The project includes the demolition of an
existing two-story home and construction of a new two-story home. Environmental Assessment: It’s been
deemed, it is in accordance with the Guideline Section of new construction, and does staff have a
presentation for us?
Graham Owen, Project Planner: Thank you Mr. Bernstein. Graham with the Planning Staff. I don’t have a
formal presentation, but just kind of to give a recap of where we are and why we’re here. The application
that’s before you today was on your previous calendar, previous public hearing on the 27th of September.
At that meeting the HRB looked at the project as it was presented as an individual review application for
a two-story home in Professorville. The Board weighed in on a number of aspects of the design of the
project and had a discrete list of specific things that they wanted to see returned to the Board. The Board
did approve the project overall, but with that discrete list asked for those items to come back on the
Consent Agenda. So, those particular things, there are as I mentioned, four things and so I’ll let the
applicant, if it’s okay with the Board, review the changes that they’ve made to the project.
Chair Bernstein: Okay, thank you Graham. Okay, any questions for staff before we invite the applicant to
speak? Okay, I’d like to welcome the applicant. If you would like to present your project today. Thank
you. Oh, I’m sorry for interrupting, I’m sorry. One other thing I just need to do administratively. This
being quasi-judicial, are there any disclosures any Board Members need to make, other than the ones we
made last week, or two weeks ago. Okay, sorry for the interruption. Please continue.
Kristen Lomax: Hi, nice to see you again. So, we responded to four items that you asked us to from last
time, and I just wanted to walk through those changes. So, the first change that we made was to the
arch area in the center of the front porch. We brought the trim that was on the horizontal sides across to
kind of beef up that arch area, and then we also brought in the two front columns which made the arch
feel a little bit rounder than it felt last time. The second change that we made was to the chimneys.
Before they were sloped a little bit at the top. We took that away and brought them straight up and then
we detailed the top of the chimney top, thinking ahead for what venting requirements would be needed
for that chimney. And then the third change that we made was about the plinth, so we wanted to
emphasize that. We increased the height of the trim along the water table and then we also increased
the height of the boards along the bottom and we decided to paint them a different color to help
emphasize that. The last change that we made was to the grading at the front porch area. One of the
comments we got last time was that typically in Professorville the houses are a little bit more raised up
than ours, so by grading that front porch area, we could add another step. This is something we need to
check in with Planning to make sure that’s okay. And then the last change that we made was to the
windows. The window in the lower left corner, which was two smaller windows, it’s now one larger
window, and then the windows in the top right gabled area were just two windows, now there are three
to mimic the other side, so it’s more symmetrical. And we also increased the size of the windows on the
gabled ends a little bit. And that was it. Those are the changes that we made.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Chair Bernstein: Okay, thanks. Any questions for the presenter, Kristen, right?
Ms. Lomax: Yes.
Chair Bernstein: I do have one. Looking on what we have in front of us, it looks like the floor is 12 inches
above grade, right?
Ms. Lomax: The floor is?
Chair Bernstein: Yeah. I’m looking at the first floor is 51.7 and grade is 50.7, so the floor is 12 inches
above grade, right?
Ms. Lomax: On average, yes. And in the center, it’s now a little bit lower due to our grading changes.
Chair Bernstein: Oh, I see. Your drawing does show that. I see that. It does drop. Okay, good. That’s
how you can get the three risers there.
Ms. Lomax: Yeah.
Chair Bernstein: Okay, good. That was my question. Any other questions Board Members? Seeing none,
all right. Thank you very much. So, looking for any other comments or questions or discussion or
motions. Board Member Makinen.
Board Member Makinen: I think the overall appearance is much improved from what we had before, so I
would certainly endorse this project.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Wimmer.
Board Member Wimmer: I agree with Board Member Makinen that I think it looks great. I think you guys
have done a fantastic job and I hope that going through this process, even though it seems a little
daunting at times, you end up with a better project in the end. I really hope so, but it’s beautiful.
Ms. Lomax: Thank you.
Chair Bernstein: Any other?
Board Member Shepherd: May I add?
Chair Bernstein: Oh, yes.
Board Member Shepherd: Yes, I concur. I think this building now is significantly more compatible than
the existing structure, and I think that’s worth commenting on because we are making an important
decision in endorsing an opportunity to actually tear down a building in Professorville, but this is really a
far superior design.
Chair Bernstein: Okay. I look for any more comments or motions?
Mr. Owen: Chair Bernstein, I have just one point of clarification, because the applicant was asking a
question about the height of the porch. I’ve taken a look at the Municipal Code and what you have is this
12-foot height restriction for the porch, Section 1812 of Municipal Code which deals with the R-1 Zone,
specifies that it be no more than 12 feet in height. It doesn’t say above grade but I think that the
conservative approach would say, would be to say that it is above just grade, which for the purposes of
R-1 is existing grade prior to any grading. So, that would be staff’s interpretation of that, so that would
impact the one change that Kristen was talking about.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Chair Bernstein: Right, so then that porch would not be counted for additional FAR or, is it lot coverage
or FAR that?
Mr. Owen: It’s floor area, yeah. If it’s higher than 12 feet above existing grade, then it would count twice
towards the FAR, but if it’s at 12 feet or less, then it would not count.
Chair Bernstein: Okay, so this won’t trigger that doubling then?
Mr. Owen: I’m sorry?
Chair Bernstein: This will not double that FAR?
Mr. Owen: Well, it would if it’s more than 12 feet above grade, which I think it’s…
Chair Bernstein: Above existing grade?
Ms. Lomax: It’s not. We were just differentiating between existing and new.
Mr. Owen: Okay.
Ms. Lomax: So, we’re saying that it’s less than 12 feet above existing grade, but since we’re lowering the
grade, it would be more than 12 feet above new grade. That’s the question.
Mr. Owen: Oh. We can look into it. What’s the differential? Is it…
Ms. Lomax: It’s about six inches.
Mr. Owen: Six inches. I think we can condition it one way or the other so that it would conform, yeah.
Chair Bernstein: The ordinance says the, it exists 12 feet above…
Mr. Owen: Existing grade.
Chair Bernstein: All right, yeah. Because the light wells are lower and all those things. Thank you. Okay.
So, that works for your house design, I believe.
Ms. Lomax: Yeah.
Chair Bernstein: Okay, looking for any motions.
MOTION
Board Member Makinen: I’d like to make a motion that we approve the project as presented today.
Chair Bernstein: Okay, looking for a second.
Board Member Wimmer: I’ll second that.
Chair Bernstein: Okay. Is there any other discussion on the motion? All right. I will also comment that I
do appreciate your responses to our questions last time for the detailing and the windowing, and I think
it’s a good solution to, yeah, there is the ordinance and then for example, that 12-foot issue. And then
there’s also the aesthetic concerns that you heard expressed from the Board, so I think that was a good
creative solution to meet the ordinance and still attend to your goals for the project. All right, so I’ll be
supporting this project also. Okay, all those in favor saying aye. Okay that passes unanimously with the
four Board Members that are present today.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0, 3 ABSENT.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you for that presentation.
Ms. Lomax: Thank you.
Approval of Minutes
3. Draft Minutes the Historic Resources Board Meeting of September 27, 2018 for
Approval.
Chair Bernstein: All right, next on our agenda would be approval of Minutes from two weeks ago, or our
last meeting September 27th. Any motions to approve or amend or correct?
Board Member Makinen: Well, I’ll just make a comment. There were certain areas where it did not come
through on the tape right there, and I know the one area where I brought up the recommendation for
increasing the height of the porch was completely obliterated from there so…
Ms. French: It’s a problem, I’ll just weight in here, Amy French. We don’t know what happened with the
video tape. I have looked at it personally to see, and it just skips. So, there’s no capturing the minutes.
Board Member Makinen: Well, yeah, the only recommendation I would add after the minutes then that I
did make a recommendation that we increase the height of the porch, and my comment was completely
non-represented there, so if we can modify the minutes to reflect that, that would be good.
(inaudible)
Board Member Makinen: I can’t find the particular page it’s on right now.
Ms. French: It’s packet page 37.
Board Member Makinen: Page 37. Let’s see.
Ms. French: Because you are talking in that paragraph about the porch.
Board Member Makinen: What page are you on?
Chair Bernstein: Page 37.
Ms. French: Packet page 37 or Minutes page 37, or Minutes page 11.
Board Member Makinen: No, I think it was before that.
Chair Bernstein: Well, I guess the message is that there are some things that are missing from these
minutes.
Board Member Makinen: Yes.
Chair Bernstein: And then at least we have a recorded comment of what you’re making now.
Board Member Makinen: Right.
Ms. French: Thank you.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Chair Bernstein: All right, motion to approve or amend further?
MOTION
Board Member Wimmer: I’ll move to approve the minutes.
Board Member Makinen: Would the maker like to include the amendment too, with your motion?
AMENDMENT
Board Member Wimmer: Yes, in consideration of the comments that Michael just made that some of his
original comments were missing.
Board Member Makinen: Okay, approve the minutes with the amendments. That’s the motion. I’ll second
it.
Ms. French: I think the amendment is to recognize that there was more that wasn’t captured. Generally,
your comment about the porch, is that correct? Just the porch, because we aren’t going to capture the
rest of the minutes.
Chair Bernstein: Okay, all approve, or I mean…
Board Member Makinen: We have to have a second here. I’ll second it.
Chair Bernstein: Okay, it’s been moved and seconded. All those in favor saying aye. That passes for those
Board Members present. Thank you.
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0, 3 ABSENT
Subcommittee Items
Chair Bernstein: Next is Subcommittee Items. Any Subcommittee Items?
Ms. French: None.
Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Chair Bernstein: Any Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements? Board Member Wimmer.
Board Member Wimmer: Yes, I am working on a new application that we haven’t formally submitted yet
at 281 Addison, and I don’t know if it’s something that I could bring in as a Study Session, but I think
we’ll just submit it and go through the process. I don’t know if it’s – I think it’s probably an HRB review,
exterior changes. I don’t know if it’s staff level or HRB, but I’m pretty sure…
Ms. French: Is it listed as a category?
Board Member Wimmer: No, but it’s a Group A Resource.
Ms. French: We shouldn’t talk about it too much.
Board Member Wimmer: I think I’ll just, we’ll just go through the submittal application and see where it
goes.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Chair Bernstein: Any other Board Member questions, comments and announcements? Yes, Council
Member Holman.
Council Member Holman: I don’t have the exact date, but there will be coming to the Council, hopefully
before the end of the year, and there are public comments still being accepted until November 7th I think
it is, on the new updated Zero Waste Plan, and the reason I bring it up to this body is because it does
involve deconstruction and salvage and I think it might be of interest to this group to get a hold of that
copy and comment on it. You can contact Phil Bobel in Public Works Department. He’d be happy to share
it with you all.
Chair Bernstein: That’s an excellent program coming up. I’ve been involved in about four projects now
where we do the deconstruction and the tax credits. Are Board Members familiar with the Federal Tax
Credit?
Board Member Makinen: Tax credit?
Chair Bernstein: It’s a great program. It’s win, win, win all over the place, so, okay. It would be good to…
Ms. French: I can send it out.
Chair Bernstein: Okay, that would be great. And then when it comes to Council, does that count for
something for Council to adopt or?
Council Member Holman: Yes, it would be an amendment to the current Zero Waste Program. This is
something personally I’ve been waiting on for like 13 years, since we first adopted our C&D or
Construction and Demolition Ordinance, and finally we’re getting – and with the support and I would say
the encouragement of Phil Bobel who has been wonderful in Public Works to try to address this.
Chair Bernstein: I think it was George Bush the younger who made that Federal Law, that Deconstruction
Tax Credit. It’s, I think it’s a great program. Okay, any other comments, question or announcements?
Okay, I think that brings us to adjournment. Thank you.
Adjournment