Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-19 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO Special Meeting CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers September 19, 2011 6:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting. 1 September 19, 2011 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Call to Order Study Session 1.Potential Topics of Discussion for the Joint Study Session Meeting with the Planning and Transportation Commission Special Orders of the Day 2.Proclamation Honoring Audrey Rust, President of the Peninsula Open Space Trust, For her Outstanding Service to the Community and Leadership in the Preservation of Open Space Lands 3.Proclamation Sea Otter Awareness Week. City Manager Comments Oral Communications Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Consent Calendar Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members. 4.Approval of a Contract Amendment with AV Integrators, Inc., for Additional Work Required to Complete the Council Chambers Audio and Visual Equipment Upgrades 2 September 19, 2011 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 5.Adoption of a Resolution Adopting The Affidavit of Loss and Indemnity Agreement with American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC and Authorizing the City Manager to Sign the Affidavit and Agreement 6.Adoption of a Resolution Summarily Vacating a 10-foot Portion of an Original 30-foot Dedication for Street Purposes Easement at 945 Matadero Avenue 7.Approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $52,108 and Approval of a Contract with Petrotek in an Amount not to Exceed $147,108 for Design and Construction of Replacement Fuel Pumps and Related Equipment at Foothills Park (CIP VR-92006) 8.Recommendation from the Policy & Services Committee on Proposed Changes to the City Council Procedures and Protocols 9.Request for Authorization to Enter into a Contract with the Law Firm of Liebert Cassidy & Whitmore in an Amount Not to Exceed $185,000 for Legal Services Relating to the IAFF, Local 1319 Interest Arbitration and Approval of a Budget Amendment Increasing the Budget of the Office of the City Attorney by $185,000 10.Request for Authorization to Increase the Existing Contract with the Law Firm of Stubbs & Leone by an Additional $100,000 for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $185,000 for Litigation Defense Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 11.PUBLIC HEARING: Pursuant to Proposition 218 -Adoption of a Resolution Amending Water Utility Rate Schedules W-1, W-3, W-4 and W-7 for a Water Rate Increase 3 September 19, 2011 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 12.PUBLIC HEARING: Pursuant to Proposition 218 -Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Utility Rate Schedules R-1, R-2, and R-3 for a Refuse Rate Increase; Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2012 to Adjust Projected Revenues and Expenses in Refuse Fund and Authorize Short Term Loan from General Fund to Refuse Fund 13.Council Direction in Response to Sustainable Communities Strategy (SB375) Alternative Scenarios and Update of Regional Housing Needs Assessement (RHNA) Process (continued from September 12, 2011) 14.PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of an Appeal of an Architectural Review Approval, a Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes, and a Record of Land Use Action (1) Approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration, (2) Upholding the Director's Architectural Review Approval of a Three Story Development Consisting of 84 Residential Units within the Upper Floors, 50,467 s.f. Ground Floor Research and Development area, Subterranean and Surface Parking Facilities, and Offsite Improvements, with Two Concessions Requested under State Government Code 65915 and (3) Approving a Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes on a 2.5 Acre Parcel at 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. PUBLIC COMMENTMembers of the Public are entitled to directly address the City Council/Committee concerning any item that is described in the notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council/Committee on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council/Committee, but it is very helpful. 4 September 19, 2011 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Supplemental Information Informational Report 1.Gifts to the City Fiscal Year 2011 2.First Semi-Annual Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan Update Standing Committee Meetings Standing Committee Packets from the City Clerk Standing Committee Packets from the City Clerk Standing Committee Packets from the City Clerk Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings from the City Clerk Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda from the City Clerk Public Letters to Council 3.Public Letters to Council from the City Clerk City of Palo Alto (ID # 2041) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study SessionMeeting Date: 9/19/2011 September 19, 2011 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 2041) Summary Title: Joint CC/PTC Meeting Title: Potential Topics of Discussion for the Joint Study Session Meeting with the Planning and Transportation Commission From:City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Potential Topics for Discussion A.Past Year-in-Review The PTC agenda and recommendations to the City Council B.Present Priorities 1. Comprehensive Plan Update: Status • Timeline 2.Council Priorities • What are Council priorities for the PTC? • How can PTC better serve the Council and the Public? C. Future Study Sessions 3.Scope and Focus of Comprehensive Plan Update • Are we taking too long and losing sight that it is an ‘amendment’? • Should we amend the timetable? • How can we improve the review/amendment process? 4.New Challenges for the Housing Element • Should we be developing local implementation guidelines for density bonuses? • How do we address ‘concessions’ (SB1818) in applying the Zoning Ordinance? 5.Priorities for the Transportation Element • Where does the Rail Corridor Study belong? September 19, 2011 Page 2 of 2 (ID # 2041) • How do we address the transportation infrastructure priority dilemma? 6.Incorporating Climate Mitigation into the Comp Plan • Should climate adaptation be addressed in the Comp Plan as an emergency preparedness policy/program challenge? • Should sea level rise be addressed in zoning or land use considerations? Prepared By:Zariah Betten, Administrative Associate III Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager City of Palo Alto (ID # 1953) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 9/19/2011 September 19, 2011 Page 1 of 1 (ID # 1953) Summary Title: Reso for Audrey Rust, POST Title: Resolution of City Council Honoring Audrey Rust, President of the Peninsula Open Space Trust, For her Outstanding Service to the Community and Leadership in the Preservation of Open Space Lands From:City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Attachments: ·Attachment A -Resolution for Audrey Rust (DOC) Prepared By:Erin Perez, Administrative Assistant Department Head:Greg Betts, Director, Community Services City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager CITY OF PALO ALTO PROCLAMATION HONORING AUDREY RUST FOR HER OUTSTANDING SERVICE AND LEADERSHIP IN THE PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE LANDS WHEREAS,Audrey Rust has provided exceptional leadership as the Executive Director and President of the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) for the last 24 years; and WHEREAS,Audrey Rust has been an essential and tireless partner of the open space agencies and the City of Palo Alto, helping to preserve thousands of acres of critical lands now in public ownership, including the 13-acre Bressler property at the Arastradero Preserve,among many others; and WHEREAS,Audrey Rust has helped POST become a national leader among land trusts through creative and successful fundraising and has helped realize the public’s goal of preserving connected natural lands in the Bay Area by partnering with many public and private organizations; and WHEREAS, during Audrey Rust’s tenure, dollar by dollar and acre by acre, POST has raised $325 million and preserved over 53,000 acres of land in San Mateo, Santa Clara,and Santa Cruz Counties for critical wildlife and plant habitat, scenic views, public recreation and productive farmland; and WHEREAS, Audrey Rust’s tenacity and commitment to an unwavering vision has forever changed the Bay Area landscape, the health of the natural environment and the quality of life of its current and future residents for the better; and WHEREAS, Audrey retired on July 1,2011. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sidney A. Espinosa, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council do hereby honor Audrey Rust’s remarkable career, the legacy of protected lands she has helped to preserve for all time and her bold vision for future land preservation in the San Francisco Bay Area and beyond. Presented: September 2011 ______________________________ Sidney A. Espinosa Mayor Peninsula  Open  Space  Trust _______________________________________________________________ OUR MISSION Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) gives permanent protection to the beauty, character and diversity of the San Francisco Peninsula and Santa Cruz Mountain range. POST encourages the use of these lands for natural resource protection, wildlife habitat, public recreation and agriculture for people here now and for future generations. POST acts to protect the threatened and spectacular landscapes of San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties. We are dedicated to two basic principles: that open lands are necessary for a high quality of life and that we must care for the land today so that future generations may enjoy its physical and spiritual benefits tomorrow. ABOUT POST Since our founding in 1977, POST has helped give permanent protection to 64,000 acres of land—an area one and a half times the size of San Francisco and 12 times the size of Yosemite Valley. POST has succeeded in preserving key natural lands along Skyline Ridge, San Francisco Bay and the San Mateo Coast. POST is working now with local conservation organizations to extend the corridor of protected land into Santa Cruz and southern Santa Clara counties. HOW WE WORK The high cost of land in our region—one of the nation’s most expensive and desirable real estate markets—means an organization like POST needs diverse and September 2010 creative methods of funding. Using funds from private donors and foundations, we move quickly to purchase critical open space from willing sellers as opportunities arise. Private dollars also enable us to leverage matching funds from local, state and federal agencies to secure our region’s natural legacy. Our 12-member Board of Directors provides policy oversight, financial support and guidance on legal, land-use, agricultural and community matters. A staff of 30 people handles POST’s day-to-day operations. We also enlist the assistance of a 35- member Advisory Council, a number of pro bono attorneys and teams of volunteers who monitor properties and conservation easements on a regular basis. To ensure permanent protection and, in many cases, public access to the land we acquire, POST works closely with county, state and federal park systems, including the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), California State Parks and the National Park Service (NPS), which in our area manages the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, one of the world’s largest urban national parks. CITY OF PALO ALTO PROCLAMATION Sea Otter Awareness Week WHEREAS, the sea otter is a symbol of wilderness, an integral part of California’s natural ecosystem, and serves as an indicator for the overall health of California’s near shore marine ecosystem; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto protects and enhances 1,940 acres of the Palo Alto Baylands and salt marsh; and WHEREAS, a community of volunteers contributed a total 7,135 hours this year to protect and maintain the habitats of the Baylands; and WHEREAS, the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo’s employees taught 940 in-depth science lessons to 2,673 children in Palo Alto and East Palo Alto during the 2010-11 school year, conducted a two-week intensive study of the earth’s oceans to 590 students, and conducted 159 field trips/interpretive programs for 3,392 school children at the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Interpretative Center, and conducted 9 weeks of Bay Camp, during the summer of 2011 where students explored Palo Alto’s salt marshes and marine ecology; and WHEREAS, a growing awareness of the benefits of maintaining the health of the near shore marine ecosystem has raised public interest in the sea otter; and WHEREAS, the survival of the sea otter in California remains dependent upon continued public support and increased understanding of the essential role sea otters play in nature. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED THAT I, Sidney Espinosa, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council, hereby proclaim the last week of September to be Sea Otter Awareness Week from this day forward. Presented: September 2011 ______________________________ Sidney A. Espinosa Mayor City of Palo Alto (ID # 2025) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/19/2011 September 19, 2011 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 2025) Council Priority: {ResProject:ClearLine} Summary Title: Council Chamber Sound System Replacement Change Title: Approval of a Contract Amendment with AV Integrators, Inc., for Additional Work Required to Complete the Council Chambers Audio and Visual Equipment Upgrades From:City Manager Lead Department: IT Department Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the contract amendment with AV Integrators (AVI) to complete the Council Chamber’s audio and visual equipment upgrades. The original cost of the sound system replacement was $84,808. Additional engineering and reverse-engineering work is needed to complete mechanical engineering drawings (e.g., conduit and signal paths) which under this contract amendment total $17,634.75, and thus bringing the project total to $102,431.35. Staff is recommending appropriation of an additional $5,121.60 in contingency funding to this contract, bringing the total funding to $107,564.35. The contingency funding requested is for unexpected work as the furniture is being delivered later than expected. Thus, there will be additional work to remount and reinstall cabling, and other necessary components. The additional funding requested is within standard parameters for a change order. Background and Discussion The maintenance of the audio system in the Council Chambers has been discontinued by the manufacturer. The system was originally installed decades ago. Due to this, it was difficult and extremely challenging to support and maintain the old audio system. This was especially true given the frequent and extended use of the existing system. A Request for Proposal (RFP), 141423, was issued to solicit solutions and vendors to replace the existing audio system. The maintenance of the Council Chambers projection system is also manufacturer discontinued and the old system offered little flexibility in image display. A RFP, 142260, was issued to solicit solutions and vendors to replace the existing system. AVI was the sole responder to both RFP’s. Staff utilized the standard RFP process and sent the solicitation out to several potential vendors and posted the solicitations online. The installations of the projection and sound system were very complex due to the limited information available on the installed infrastructure in the building. Staff did not have existing engineered diagrams, either in electronic or hard copy format, pertaining to the existing wiring, electrical, conduit, mechanical, and related systems for the Council Chambers. This lack of information required additional engineering September 19, 2011 Page 2 of 2 (ID # 2025) and reverse-engineering work by AVI. Funding for this project is available from the Fiscal Year 2012 Public Works Department Facility Interior Finishes Replacement CIP (PF 02022). Prepared By:Ron Fong, Manager, IT Department Head:Rob Braulik, Project Manager City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager City of Palo Alto (ID # 2014) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/19/2011 September 19, 2011 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 2014) Summary Title: AboveNet, Inc. Stock Certificate Reissuance Title: Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting The Affidavit of Loss and Indemnity Agreement with American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC and Authorizing the City Manager to Sign the Affidavit and Agreement From:City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution (Attachment A) which authorizes the City Manager or designee, to: sign an Affidavit of Loss of Indemnity Agreement with American Stock Transfer and Trust Company, Inc; pay the AboveNet, Inc (ANI) stock certificates reissuance costs; and sell the ANI stocks as soon as possible. Background MetroMedia Fiber Networks, Inc. (MFN), now doing business as AboveNet, Inc. (ANI), was a licensee of the City’s dark fiber backbone program. The company provides high-bandwidth connectivity solutions for large business and communication carriers. Its private optical network delivers key network and IP services in and among top U.S. and European markets. In May 2002, the company sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after being unable to pay debts from building its fiber optic network. The company’s cited the telecommunications industry’s decline for its inability to pay creditors and vendors. At the time of its bankruptcy filing, the company owed the City $124,368 for use of the City’s dark fiber system. The firm subsequently emerged from bankruptcy in September 2003. As a creditor, the City received ANI stock certificates of 899 shares in August 2004 and 179 shares in August 2007 for a total of 1,078 shares. Then, in August 2009, a two-for-one stock split occurred,doubling the City’s shares to 2,156. The stock split (1,078) shares are currently in “book entry” form under the City’s name. Also, in FY 2011, the City also received a cash payment of $10,780. Discussion The City’s Investment Policy prohibits stock investments, so staff recommends selling these securities as soon as possible. In order to sell the two stock awards, however, the City will need to procure the two stock certificates. After repeated searches, staff has been unable to locate or confirm receipt of the two stock certificate issues. As a result, replacement certificates for original 1,078 shares the City owns must be obtained with the assistance of the ANI’s stock September 19, 2011 Page 2 of 2 (ID # 2014) transfer agent, American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, Inc.(AST&TC). To obtain replacement certificates, AST&TC requires the City to: (1) Sign and notarize its Affidavit of Loss and Indemnity Agreement; (2) Pay an administrative fee and fiduciary bonds cost; and (3)Submit a resolution of the Council, authorizing the replacement of these stock certificates. As of close of September 2, 2011, ANI shares were selling at $59.06 per share making the City shares worth $127,333. Based on the current stock price, the AST&TC cost to reissue the certificates is estimated to be $1,323. The fee is based on 2% of the 1,078 shares of stock value plus $25 per certificate. The final fee will be dependent upon the stock price on the date of the stock certificate reissuance. This cost will be more than offset by the funds realized from the stock sale. Staff is recommending Council adopt the attached resolution,which authorizes staff to obtain replacement stock certificates and sell the ANI stock. The net stock proceeds will go to the Fiber Optics Fund. Resource Impact The Fiber Optics Funds will receive the net proceeds of the stock sale. The proceeds are dependent upon the stock price on the date of sale. Policy Implications Stock ownership is not consistent with the City’s Investment Policy and State regulations. Environmental Review This does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code section 21080, subdivision (b) (8). Attachments: ·Attachment A: Resolution Approving the Affidavit of Loss and Indemnity Agreement with American Stock Transfer and Trust Company and Authorizing The City Manager to Sign the Affidavit and Agreement (PDF) Prepared By:Tarun Narayan, Senior Financial Analyst Department Head:Lalo Perez, Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager * Not Yet Approved* Resolution No. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving The Affidavit of Loss and Indemnity Agreement with American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC and Authorizing the City Manager To Sign the Affidavit and Agreement WHEREAS, MetroMedia Fiber Networks, Inc. ("MFN") was a licensee of the City'S dark fiber backbone program, which later emerged from bankruptcy and is now doing business as AboveNet, Inc. ("AN!"); WHEREAS, since 2004, ANI has distributed to the City of Palo Alto two stock certificates for a total of 1,078 shares, announced a two-for-one stock split, which shares are held in book entry form, and issued a cash payment of $10,780; WHEREAS, the City cannot locate the two stock certificates and must seek their replac6ment with the assistance of the stock transfer agent, American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, Inc. ("AST&TC"); WHEREAS, in order to secure the replacement of the two certificates, AST &TC requires the City to (1) sign and notarize its Affidavit of Loss and Indemnity Agreement, (2) pay an administrative fee and fiduciary bond costs (to be determined when the Affidavit is submitted) in connection with the replacement of the certificates, and (3) submit a resolution of the Council, authorizing the replacement of these stock certificates; The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The Council hereby authorizes the City Manager or designee, on behalf·of the City of Palo Alto, to sign the Affidavit of Loss and Indemnity Agreement with American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, Inc. in regard to the replacement of certificates AN 0002604 (179 shares) and 0000965 (899 shares), pay the requested administrative fee and bond costs, and submit a certified copy of this Resolution to AST &TC. SECTION 2. The Council further authorizes the City Manager or designee to sell the AboveNet Inc. stock as and when it is deemed appropriate to do so and pay any and all appropriate costs incurred in connection with the sale. II II II 110727 dm 0073587 * Not Yet Approved* SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code section 21080, subdivision (b)(8). INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager Director of Utilities Director of Administrative Services 110727 dm 0073587 City of Palo Alto (ID # 2003) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/19/2011 September 19, 2011 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 2003) Summary Title: Resolution to Vacate an Easement at 945 Matadero Title: Adoption of a Resolution Summarily Vacating a 10-foot Portion of an Original 30-foot Dedication for Street Purposes Easement at 945 Matadero Avenue From:City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve the attached Resolution Summarily Vacating a 10-foot portion of the original 30-foot dedication for street purposes easement (Easement) at 945 Matadero Avenue, Palo Alto, CA. Discussion The owners of the property at 945 Matadero Avenue have requested that the City vacate 10- feet of an original 30-foot wide dedication for street purposes easement which runs along the frontage of their property (see attached map). The owners’ architect found that the easement exists and that it encompasses an area that contains mature landscaping, large trees and is very near the existing home. The owners of the home are planning to rebuild a home and in working with their architect came to realize that the 30’ wide easement, which was obtained and recorded in March of 1967, exists and that it contains no public utilities and was never used for street, right-of-way, or any public purpose. Staff has received confirmation from the City Utilities,Public Works and Planning and Transportation departments, as well as AT&T, formerly Pacific Bell, that there are no existing utilities and that this portion of the easement has never been used for any public street, right- of-way or bike/pedestrian purpose. In some cases the City elects to reserve excess right of way in the event that it is needed in the future, however, based on the confirmation from the above mentioned departments, including AT&T, there is no plan or future need for this area of the easement for street, right-of-way or bike/pedestrian purposes. As this portion of the easement has never been used, and there are no plans or need for its use as to street purposes, the easement constitutes excess right-of-way, it may be summarily vacated in accordance with Section 8334 of the California Streets and Highways Code. September 19, 2011 Page 2 of 2 (ID # 2003) RESOURCE IMPACT The easement vacation processing fee of $1,675.00, as set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule, has been paid by the owner. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommendation does not represent any change to City policies. The Planning Department has determined that the vacation of this easement is in conformity with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed summary vacation of the 10-foot portion of the dedication for street purposes easement is categorically exempt from the review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15305 as a minor alteration in land use limitations. Attachments: ·Attachment A: Summary Vacation Resolution (PDF) Prepared By:Donna Hartman, Senior Financial Analyst Department Head:Lalo Perez, Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager 1 Recorded at no charge in accordance with Streets & Highways Code Section 8325 at the request of and when recorded return to: CITY OF PALO ALTO/REAL ESTATE 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 ________________________________________________________________ SPACE ABOVE LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE A.P. No.: 137-16-022 Project No.: CEV 11/02 Project: Vacation of Easement 945 Matadero S U M M A R Y V A C A T I O N RESOLUTION NO. _____ RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO SUMMARILY VACATING A 10-FOOT PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT FOR STREET PURPOSES AT 945 MATADERO AVENUE WHEREAS, Chapter 4 of the Public Streets, Highways and Service Easements Vacation Law, commencing with Streets and Highways Code section 8330, provides for summary vacation of streets and public service easements; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto maps show a 30-foot easement at 945 Matadero Avenue as shown on that certain Dedication for Street Purposes Easement document dated March 20, 1967, recorded in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, on March 24, 1967, in Book 7731 of Maps at page 8; and WHEREAS, 10-feet of this 30-foot wide dedication for street purposes easement has never been used and there are no utilities or public improvements located within the 10-foot easement area to be vacated; and WHEREAS, Section 8334 of the Streets and Highways Code authorizes the City Council to summarily vacate excess right-of- way for a street which is not required for street or highway purposes; and 2 WHEREAS, the City Council intends to summarily vacate the 10-foot area of the dedication for street purposes easement, as more particularly described in Exhibit “A”, attached to this resolution and depicted on the plat map attached as Exhibit “B” to this resolution, reserving there from the 20-foot portion depicted; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. This vacation is made under the authority of California Streets and Highways Code Chapter 4 of part 3 of Division 9, commencing at Section 8330 et. seq. 1. The 10-foot portion of the dedication for street purposes easement is excess right-of-way and is not required for street or highway purposes, and there are no public facilities located within this portion of the easement; and 2. The 10-foot portion of the dedication for street purposes easement is not needed for present or prospective street or highway purposes or public facilities and as such has been determined to be excess; and 3. The public convenience and necessity do require the reservation of the 20-foot portion of the easement as described on the attached Exhibit “A” and depicted on the plat map attached as Exhibit “B”; and 4. The Council has considered the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and ratifies the determination of the planning department that the vacation of the 10-foot portion of the dedication for street purposes easement is in conformity with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 2. Based upon the findings made in Section 1 of this Resolution and the provisions of Section 8334 of the Streets and Highways Code, the City Council does hereby order that the 10-foot portion of the dedication for street purposes easement as shown on the attached map shall be and hereby is summarily vacated. SECTION 3. The City Clerk, acting by and through the Real Property Manager, is hereby directed to record at Santa Clara County Records a certified copy of this Resolution, including the Maps. 3 SECTION 4. The 10-foot portion of the dedication for street purposes easement described in Exhibit “A” and depicted in the plat map attached as Exhibit “B” will no longer constitute a public street right-of-way easement from and after the date of recordation of the documents identified in Section 3 of this Resolution. SECTION 5. The Council finds that the summary vacation of the 10-foot portion of the dedication for street purposes easement is exempt from review under the California Environmental Act pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations section 15305 as a minor alteration in land use limitations. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: __________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ ______________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager ______________________________ Director of Administrative Services ·(,';" _ ~'i (.j . , EXIllBIT "A" 945 MATADERO AVENUE I A.P.N. 137-16-022 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Job# 3404-10 August 26, 20 II Page I of2 RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR INGRESSIFAiRESS AND STREET PURPOSES TO BE VACATED PARCEL "A" All thai real property situate in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of CalifOrnia, being a portion of Parcel I as shown on that certain Record-of-Survey Map filed March 3, 1967 in Book 219 of Maps at Page 43 in the Office of the Recorder of said County and State; also being the southeasterly 10 feet oCthe Right-of-Way as described in the deed recorded May 24, 1967 in Book 7731 of Official Records at Page 8 in said Office of the Recorder of said County and State; and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southwesterly line of said Parcel I, said point being on a line parallel and distant 10.00 feet northwesterly from the southeasterly line of said Right-of-Way. Thence along said parallel line North 33°05'00" East, 207.79 feet to a point on the northeasterly line of said Parcel I; Thence along said northeasterly line South 56°55'00" East, 10.00 feet to the southeasterly line of said Right-of-Way; Thence along said line South 33°05'00" West, 207.85 feet to a point on said southwesterly line of Pareell; Thence along said southwesterly line North 56°32'50" West, 10.00 fcct to the Point of Beginning. Containing 2,078 square feet, more or less. As shown on the plat attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and made a part hereof. Description prepared by MacLeod and Associates, Ine. ~ LS.5304 Date V "' " EXHIBIT "B" A.P.N. 137-16-003 EXISTING 40' WIDE RIGHT-Of-WAY (2819 O"R. 116) ---.,- PAGE 2 OF 2 PROPERTY LINE IS THE CENTERLINE Of THE 40' WIDE RIGHT-Of-WAY MATADERO AVENUE 1----" POINT OF BEGINNING .., 5 I ., ~ ,.L .., ~ ;i ,,: <- ~ >-00 « '" ~~ I wO ~ LL. ° W 0 Ii) I 1";;; J, I-",,, I " ~ ~ S! ui~ I LANDS OF t) d '" l{]r:' CROSS F AMIL Y mUST ~ w <>:-0 0-' ;i DOC. NO. 20965884 ~ ;;: ~~ 0"-' ,,: PARCEL 1 "0 z" "0 1il() <-:::l 219 MAPS 43 -0", '" W:::l ",. 0 <r:ro A.P.N. 137-16-022 00 "':::l "',,-, Z ~D.. WO) F 0", [J) <>:0 Zm X oz :::>~ W LL.« ~·-----~N~33:05"1'0~0·I":'!'E-""'--~2~O~8.-=7~2·"" - ------~-:I'------ A.P.N. 137-16-015 11TLE: PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIP110N FOR VACA110N OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR INGRESS/EGRESS AND STREET PURPOSES PALO ALTO SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: PLAT: RJD PETER CROSS SCALE: 1"= 40~ DATE: 08-26-11 CIVIL ENGINEERING • LAND SURVEYING JOB /I: 3404-10 965 CENTER STREET SAN CARLOS CA 94070 (650) 593-8580 Y ,)')rr---9-fl·· 1\ City of Palo Alto (ID # 1832) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/19/2011 September 19, 2011 Page 1 of 3 (ID # 1832) Summary Title: Foothill Park Fueling Station Upgrade Title: Approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $52,108 and Approval of a Contract with Petrotek in an Amount not to Exceed $147,108 for Design and Construction of Replacement Fuel Pumps and Related Equipment at Foothills Park (CIP VR-92006) From:City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1.Approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment A) in the amount of $52,108 for the design and construction of replacement fuel tanks and installation of related fueling equipment at Foothills Park. 2. Approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the attached contract (Attachment B) with Petrotek, Inc., in the amount of $133,735 for the design and construction of new fuel pumps and related equipment at Foothills Park; and 3.Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Petrotek, Inc. for related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $13,373. Discussion This project will replace the fuel tanks, pumps, related equipment and install a concrete fueling pad within Foothills Park’s enclosed staff maintenance yard. The fueling station will service vehicles and equipment used by staff for Foothills Park, Pearson-Arastradero Preserve and seasonal use by Fire Department staff. The fuel station could also be used by State and mutual aid fire crews in the event of a fire or other emergency in the foothills. The fuel station at Foothills Park has not been operational since approximately January 1999 due to an equipment breakdown. As a result, staff is required to drive five trucks September 19, 2011 Page 2 of 3 (ID # 1832) (including three emergency response patrols) to the Municipal Service Center (MSC) located on East Bayshore Road for fuel and to fill gas cans for maintenance equipment. Fueling trips for the five trucks occur approximately four times a week, a round trip of approximately 60 minutes each. In addition to the lost work time due to travelling, there are costs related to increased fuel usage, vehicle mileage and greenhouse gas emissions. On July 26, 2010, Council adopted a resolution authorizing use of a design-build project delivery method for this project rather than the more traditional design-bid-build. (CMR:308:10). This delivery method was requested due to the complexity of the design and permitting process and the resulting budget uncertainty. For this project Petrotek will complete the design and construction documents, secure the necessary permits and install new fuel tanks, pumps, electrical wiring and improve the concrete pad area. This project also includes fuel transaction management and tank inventory monitoring systems. These systems are currently being upgraded and standardized City-wide under CIP project VR-06801 (Fuel Transaction Mgmt System Replacement). Summary of Proposal Process Bid Name/Number Design-Build of Foothills Park Fueling Station Project- RFP#138543 Proposed Length of Project 120 days Number of Bids Mailed to Contractors 12 Number of Bids Mailed to Builder’s Exchanges None Total Days to Respond to Bid 47 Pre-Bid Meeting?Yes (Mandatory) Number of Company Attendees at Pre-Bid Meeting 6 Number of Design Bids Received: 2 Number of Company Interviewed 2 On February 3, 2011, a Request for Quotation was sent to 12 contractors with 47 days to respond to the Design Build RFQ. A Mandatory Pre-Bid Conference was held at Foothills Park on February 15, 2011. Bids were received from two contractors on March 22, 2011, as listed on the attached bid summary (Attachment B). Staff reviewed the two proposed designs, interviewed the two bidders, and selected Petrotek as the preferred design-build company. After the selection of Petrotek as the preferred design-build firm, staff then opened the sealed bids, reviewed the bid submitted by Petrotek and recommends that the bid of $133,735 be accepted. The change order amount of $13,373 which equals 10 percent of the bid is requested for related, September 19, 2011 Page 3 of 3 (ID # 1832) additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project. Staff confirmed with the Contractor's State License Board that the contractor has an active license on file. Resource Impact A Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $52,108 is needed from the Vehicle Replacement Reserve with the remaining funding in the amount of $95,000 available in Capital Improvement Program Projects VR-92006 (Fuel Storage Tank); for a total amount of $147,108.The fund balance in the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund will decrease to $7,447,200. Policy Implications This is design-build project, and is therefore different from the City’s customary design- bid-build practice. However, this recommendation is consistent with existing City policies, and with Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 2, section 2.30.300, Public Works Contracts, with respect to alternative delivery methods. Timeline Design work will begin shortly after contract approval and should be completed in early 2012. Environmental Review Replacement of the fuel station pumps and improvement of the existing concrete pad area is determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review pursuant to Section 15301, “existing facilities”. Attachments: ·A: Budget Amendment Ordinance (DOC) ·B -138543 Agreement_Petrotek (PDF) Prepared By:Karen Bengard, Senior Engineer Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager Attachment A ORDINANCE NO.XXXX ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF $52,108 TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) PROJECT VR-92006, FUEL STORAGE TANKS UPGRADE The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 20, 2011 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2012; and B.The fuel station at Foothills Park has not been operational since approximately January 1999, due to equipment breakdown, requiring staff to drive five trucks (including three emergency response patrols) to the Municipal Service Center (MSC) located on East Bayshore Road for fuel and to fill gas cans for maintenance equipment; and C. This project will replace the fuel tanks, pumps, related equipment and install a concrete fueling pad within Foothills Park’s enclosed staff maintenance yard,for service vehicles and equipment used by staff for Foothills Park, Pearson-Arastradero Preserve and seasonal use by Fire Department staff, and could be used by State and mutual aid fire crews in the event of a fire or other emergency in the foothills; and D. Council approved CIP project VR-92006 to replace the existing gasoline and diesel fueling facility at Foothills Park; and E. Following a bid process, staff recommends that a contract in the total amount of $147,108 be awarded to Petrotek for the design and construction of new fuel pumps and related equipment at Foothills Park; and F. CIP project VR-92006 has available funds of $95,000, requiring additional funding of $52,108 from the Vehicle Replacement Reserve. G. City Council authorization is needed to amend the 2012 budget as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2.The sum of Fifty-two Thousand One Hundred Eight dollars ($52,108)is hereby appropriated to CIP Project Number VR-92006. SECTION 3.Fifty-two Thousand One Hundred Eight dollars ($52,108) is hereby transferred from the Vehicle Replacement Fund reserve, leaving a balance of $7,447,200. SECTION 4. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance. SECTION 5.Replacement of the fuel station pumps and improvement of the existing concrete pad area is determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review pursuant to Section 15301, “existing facilities”. SECTION 6. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Director of Public Works Director of Administrative Services CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C12138543 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND PETROTEK FOR THE DESIGN-BUILD OF DESIGN-BUILD OF FOOTHILL PARK FUELING FACILITY PROJECT This AGREEMENT is made as of the 19th day of September in the year bf 2011, by and between the following parties, for services in connection with the PROJECT identified below. CITY: CITY OF PALO ALTO, a charter city and Municipal corporation of the State of Cali fomi a (CITY) 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 DESIGN-BUILDER: PETROTEK PROJECT: 13270 Depot Street (Mail: P.O. Box 612317) San Marin, CA 95046 DESIGN-BUILD OF FOOTHILL PARK FUELING FACILITY PROJECT In consideration of the mutual covenants and obligations contained herein, City and Design-Builder agree as set forth herein. Article 1 Scope of Work 1.1 Design-Builder shall perform all design and construction services, and provide all material, equipment, tools and labor, necessary to complete the Work described in and reasonably inferable from the Contract Documents, as more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 1.2 Definitions. 1.2.1 Agreement shall mean this Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Protek (Name of Design-Builder) for the DESIGN-BUILD OF FOOTHILL PARK FUELING FACILITY PROJECT Project, including the exhibits, which exhibits are specifically made a part of this Agreement by this reference. City ofpalo Alto -RFP 138543 Attachment A Page 10 08154\CPA_DB-agmt.doc 1.2.2 Application for Payment constitutes a representation by Design-Builder that the design and/or construction has progressed to the point indicated by the end of the month, that the quality of the Work covered by the Application for Payment is in accordance with the Contract Documents and that Design-Builder is entitled to payment in the amount requested. 1.2.3 Application for Final Payment constitutes a representation by Design-Builder that Design-Builder has completed all of the Work in conformance with the Contract Documents and that Design-Builder is entitled to final payment in the amount requested. The Application for Final Payment shall be submitted in accordance with Section 6.6 of the General Conditions. 1.2.4 Certificate of Substantial Completion shall mean a certificate prepared and issued by the City, setting forth: (i) the date of Substantial Completion of the Work or portion thereof, (ii) the remaining items of Work that have to be completed before final payment, (iii) provisions (to the extent not already provided in the Contract Documents) establishing City's and Design-Builder's responsibility for the Project's security, maintenance, utilities and insurance pending final payment and (iv) an acknowledgment that warranties commence to run on the date of Substantial Completion, except as may otherwise by noted in the Certificate of Substantial Completion. 1.2.5 Change Order is a written instrument issued after the execution of this Agreement signed by the City and Design-Builder stating their agreement upon the scope of the change in the Work and the adjustment in the Contract Price and/or Contract Time(s), if any. 1.2.6 City shall mean the City of Palo Alto. 1.2.7 City's Project Criteria shall mean the City's requirements and objectives for the Project, including use, space, price, time, site requirements, as well as submittal requirements and other requirements governing Design-Builder's perfonnance of the Work. City's Project Criteria may include conceptual documents, design criteria, performance requirements and other Project-specific technical materials and requirements. 1.2.8 City's Representative shall mean the person designated to be the City's representative pursuant to Section 8.1.2 of this Agreement. 1.2.9 City's Senior Representative shall mean the person designated to be the City's senior representative pursuant to Section 8.1.1 of this Agreement. 1.2.10 Construction Documents shall mean documents setting forth in detail the requirements for construction of the Work, which may consist of drawings, specifications and other documents and electronic data. 1.2.11 Contract Documents shall mean the documents referred to in Section 1.3 hereof. 1.2.12 Contract Price shall mean the Design-Builder's Fee plus the Cost of the Work, subject to the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) and any adjustments made in accordance with the General Conditions of Contract. City of Palo Alto Page 11 08154\CPA _ DB-agmt.doc 1.2.13 Day or Days shall mean calendar days unless otherwise specifically noted in the Contract Documents. 1.2.14 Design-Builder shall mean PETROTEK (Name of Design-Builder). 1.2.15 Design-Builder's Representative shall mean the person designated to be Design-Builder's representative pursuant to Section 8.2.2 of this Agreement. 1.2.16 Design-Builder's Senior Representative shall mean the person designated to be Design- Builder's senior representative pursuant to Section 8.2.1 of this Agreement. 1.2.17 Design Consultant is a qualified, licensed design professional who is not an employee of Design-Builder, but is retained by Design-Builder, or employed or retained by anyone under contract with Design-Builder, to furnish design services required under the Contract Documents. 1.2.18 Differing Site Conditions shall mean concealed or latent physical conditions or subsurface conditions at the Site that (i) materially differ from the conditions indicated in the Contract Documents or (ii) are of an unusual nature, differing materially from the conditions ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in the Work. 1.2.19 Final Completion is the date on which all requirements for the design and construction of the Project identified under this Agreement are fully satisfied. 1.2.20 General Conditions o/Contract shall mean Exhibit A of this Agreement. 1.2.21 GMP or Guaranteed Maximum Price is as defined in Section 6.5 of this Agreement. 1.2.22 Hazardous Conditions are any materials, wastes, substances and chemicals deemed to be hazardous under applicable Legal Requirements, or the handling, storage, remediation, or disposal of which are regulated by applicable Legal Requirements. 1.2.23 Legal Requirements are all applicable federal, state and local laws, codes, ordinances, rules, regulations, orders and decrees of any government or quasi-government entity having jurisdiction over the Project or Site, the practices involved in the Project or Site, or any Work. 1.2.24 Notice 0/ Completion means and refers to a Notice of Completion pursuant to California Civil Code §3093. 1.2.25 Parties means the City of Palo Alto and Protek(Name of Design-Builder). 1.2.26 NOT USED. 1.2.27 Project shall mean the improvements for which Design-Builder is to provide services under this Agreement, including the Design-Build of Foothill Park Fueling Facility Project (Project title). 1.2.28 Project Schedule shall mean that schedule for performance of the Work prepared by Design-Builder and approved by the City as set forth in Exhibit C, as such schedule may City ofpalo Alto Page 12 081541CPA _ DB-agmt.doc be updated from time to time pursuant to Section 2.1.3 of the General Conditions of Contract. 1.2.29 Site is the land or premises on which the Project is located. 1.2.30 Subcontractor is any person or entity retained by Design-Builder to perform a portion of the Work and shall include material, men and suppliers. 1.2.31 Sub-Subcontractor is any person or entity retained by a Subcontractor to perform any portion of a Subcontractor's Work and shall include material, men and suppliers. 1.2.32 Substantial Completion means the date on which the Work, or an agreed upon portion of the Work, is sufficiently complete so that City can occupy and use the Project or a portion thereoffor its intended purposes. 1.2.33 Work is comprised of all Design-Builder's design, construction and other services required by the Contract Documents, including procuring and furnishing all materials, equipment, services and labor reasonably inferable from the Contract Documents necessary to complete the Project. 1.2.34 Work Product is comprised of all writings, reports, drawings, plans, specifications, calculations, electronic data, and other documents, and copyright interests developed under this Agreement. 1.3 Contract Documents. The Contract Documents are comprised of the following documents and everything incorporated by these documents: 1.3.1 All written modifications, amendments and change orders to this Agreement issued in accordance with the General Conditions of Contract; 1.3.2 This Agreement, including all exhibits and attachments; 1.3.3 The General Conditions of Contract attached as Exhibit A to this Agreement; 1.3.4 Construction Documents prepared and approved in accordance with Section 2.4 of the General Conditions of Contract; 1.3.5 City's Project Criteria as described in the RFP; and 1.3.6 Request for Proposal RFP 138543. Article 2 The Parties' Services and Responsibilities 2.1 Design Services. Design-Builder shall, consistent with applicable state licensing laws, provide design services, including architectural, engineering and other design professional services, required by this Agreement. Such design services shall be provided through qualified, State of California licensed design professionals who are either (i) employed by Design-Builder, or (ii) procured by Design-Builder from independent sources. Nothing in this Agreement creates any legal or contractual relationship between City ofpalo Alto Page 13 081541CPA _ DB·agmt.doc City and any independent design professional. Design-Builder shall have a separate written agreement with any such persons or entities providing such an;hitectural, engineering or other design professional services, and shall require such entities to obtain and maintain professional liability coverage in the amounts set forth in Attachment B of the RFP any claims, damages, errors and omissions arising out of the professional services to be performed by such parties. 2.2 Preliminary Services 2.2.1 Design-Builder will assist City in expanding upon the City's preliminary design. The Design-Builder shall review and prepare a written evaluation of the City's Project Criteria, including recommendations to City for any necessary different and innovative approaches to the design and construction of the Project. The Parties shall meet to discuss Design-Builder's written evaluation of the City's PER and agree upon what revisions, if any, should be made to the City's preliminary design. Any revisions to the preliminary design that result in additional costs or saved costs, shall be documented by a change order and executed in accordance with Article 9 of the General Conditions. 2.3 Construction Documents. Design-Builder shall prepare Construction Documents based on City's final design, as may be revised in accordance with Section 2.2.1 hereof. The Construction Documents shall include design criteria, drawings, diagrams, specifications and all other items necessary to build the Project. The Parties shall meet to discuss the Construction Documents and agree upon what revisions, if any, should be made. No revisions shall be made to the Construction Documents without City's approval. Design- Builder shall make such agreed-upon revisions. To the extent that changes to the Construction Documents impose increased costs on Design-Builder, Design-Builder shall be entitled to a change order pursuant to Article 9 of the General Conditions. 2.4 Proposal. Based on City's final design, the Construction Documents, as each may be revised pursuant to Sections 2.2.1 and 2.3 above, and any other documents upon which the Parties may agree, Design-Builder shall submit a proposal to City (the "Proposal"), which shall include the following, unless the Parties mutually agree otherwise: 2.4.1 A proposed Contract Price for the design and construction of the Project, which price shall be the Design-Builder's Fee plus the Cost of the Work subject to the Guaranteed Maximum Price ("GMP"); and 2.4.2 A schedule and date of Substantial Completion of the Project upon which the Contract Price for the Project is based. 2.5 Review of Proposal. Design-Builder and City shall meet to discuss and review the Proposal. If City has any comments regarding the Proposal, or finds any inconsistencies or inaccuracies in the information presented with respect to the City's final design, it shall promptly give written notice to Design-Builder of such comments or findings. If Design-Builder finds the revisions acceptable, Design-Builder shall, upon receipt of City's notice, adjust the Proposal. If Design-Builder and the City do not agree on a price or time of completion, either Party may terminate the Agreement without further costs. City of Palo Alto Page 14 08154\CPA_DB-agm!.doc Article 3 Interpretation and Intent 3.1 The Contract Documents will provide for the Design-Builder to complete the Work and all obligations required by the Contract Documents within the Contract Time(s) for the Contract Price. The Contract Documents are complementary and shall be interpreted in harmony so as to avoid conflict, with words and phrases interpreted in a manner consistent with construction and design industry standards. In the event of any inconsistency, conflict, or ambiguity between or among the Contract Documents, the Contract Documents shall take precedence in the order in which they are listed in Section 1.3 hereof. 3.2 Terms, words and phrases used in the Contract Documents shall have the meanings given them in this Agreement, if not defined elsewhere in the Contract Documents. 3.3 The documents constituting the Contract Documents as set forth in Section 1.3 hereof, represent the entire and integrated agreement between City and Design-Builder and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, whether written or oral, between City and Design-Builder related to the Project or the Work. Article 4 Ownership of Work Product 4.1 Work Product. All Work Product, including without limitation, all writings, reports, drawings, plans, specifications, calculations, electronic data, and other documents, and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of the City without restriction or limitation upon their use. All copyrights which arise from creation of the Work pursuant to. this Agreement shall be vested in City, and Design-Builder waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the City. Neither Design-Builder, its Subcontractors, or its Sub-Subcontractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the City's prior written approval. Article 5 Contract Time 5.1 Date of Commencement. The Work shall commence within five (5) days of Design- Builder's receipt of a written notice issued by the City authorizing Design-Builder to proceed with the Work or some portion of the Work ("Date of Commencement") unless the Parties mutually agree otherwise in writing. 5.2 Substantial Completion and Final Completion. 5.2.1 Substantial Completion of the entire Project shall be achieved no later than the date determined pursuant to Section 2.4.2 hereof ("Scheduled Substantial Completion Date"). City ofpalo Alto Page 15 08154ICPA_DB-agmt.doc 5.2.2 Interim milestones and/or Substantial Completion of identified portions of the Work shall be based upon final negotiated schedule proposed by DESIGN-BUILDER and agreed upon by CITY. 5.2.3 Final Completion of the Work or identified portions of the Work shall be achieved as expeditiously as reasonably practicable. 5.2.4 All of the dates set forth in this Article 5 ("Contract Time(s)") shall be subject to adjustment in accordance with the General Conditions of Contract. 5.3 Time is of the Essence. City and Design-Builder mutually agree that time is of the essence with respect to the dates and times set forth in the Contract Documents. 5.4 Liquidated Damages. Design-Builder understands that if Substantial Completion is not attained by the Scheduled Substantial Completion Date, City will suffer damages which are difficult to determine and accurately specifY. If Substantial Completion is not attained by fourteen (14) days after the Scheduled Substantial Completion Date (the "LD Date"), Design-Builder shall pay City five hundred dollars ($500.00) as liquidated damages for each day that Substantial Completion extends beyond the LD Date. The liquidated damages provided herein shall be in lieu of all liability for any and all extra costs, losses, expenses, claims, penalties and any other damages, whether special or consequential, and of whatsoever nature incurred by City which are occasioned by any delay in achieving Substantial Completion. Article 6 Contract Price 6.1 Contract Price 6.1.1 City shall pay Design-Builder in accordance with Article 6 of the General Conditions of Contract, a Contract Price which is equal to Design-Builder's Fee (as defined in Section 6.2 hereof), plus the Cost of the Work (as defmed in Section 6.3 hereof), subject to the GMP established in Section 6.5 hereof and any adjustments made in accordance with the General Conditions of Contract. 6.2 Design-Builder's Fee 6.2.1 Design-Builder's Fee shall be: One Hundred Forty-Seven Thousand One Hundred Eight Dollars ($147,108.00). 6.3 Cost of the Work. The term Cost of the Work shall mean costs reasonably incurred by Design-Builder in the proper performance of the Work for the procurement, furnishing, installation and construction of the Work. The Cost of the Work shall also include only the following: .1 Wages of direct employees of Design-Builder performing the Work, provided, however, that the costs for employees of Design-Builder performing design services shall be calculated on the basis of prevailing market rates for design professionals performing such services. City ofpalo Alto Page 16 08154ICPA_DB·agmt.doc .2 Wages or salaries of Design-Builder's supervisory and administrative personnel engaged in the performance of the Work to assist in the production or transportation of material and equipment necessary for the Work . . 3 Wages or salaries of Design-Builder's personnel stationed at Design-Builder's principal or branch offices and performing the following functions. The reimbursable costs of personnel stationed at Design-Builder's principal or branch offices shall include up to a fifteen percent (15%) markup (maximum) to compensate Design-Builder for the Project-related only overhead associated with such personnel. .4 Costs incurred by Design-Builder for employee benefits, premiums, taxes, insurance, contributions and assessments required by law, collective bargaining agreements, or which are customarily paid by Design-Builder, to the extent such costs are based on wages and salaries paid to employees of Design-Builder covered under Sections 6.3.1 through 6.3.3 hereof. .5 The reasonable portion of the cost of travel, accommodations and meals for Design-Builder's personnel necessarily and directly incurred in connection with the performance of the Work . . 6 Payments properly made by Design-Builder to Subcontractors and Design Consultants for performance of portions of the Work, including any insurance and bond premiums incurred by Subcontractors and Design Consultants . . 7 Costs incurred by Design-Builder in repairing or correcting defective, damaged or nonconforming Work, provided that such defective, damaged or nonconforming Work was beyond the reasonable control of Design-Builder, or caused by the ordinary mistakes or inadvertence, and not the negligence, of Design-Builder or those working by or through Design-Builder. If the costs associated with such defective, damaged or nonconforming Work are recoverable from insurance, Subcontractors or Design Consultants, Design-Builder shall exercise best efforts to obtain recovery from the appropriate source and credit City if recovery is obtained . . 8 Costs, including transportation, inspection, testing, storage and handling, of materials, equipment and supplies incorporated or reasonably used in completing the Work . . 9 Costs less salvage value of materials, supplies, temporary facilities, machinery, equipment and hand tools not customarily owned by the workers that are not fully consumed in the performance of the Work and which remain the property of Design-Builder, including the costs of transporting, inspecting, testing, handling, installing, maintaining, dismantling and removing such items . . 10 Costs of removal and lawful disposal of debris and waste from the Site . . 11 The reasonable costs and expenses incurred in establishing, operating and demobilizing the Site office, including the cost of facsimile transmissions, long- City of Palo Alto Page 17 08154ICPA_DB·agmt.doc distance telephone calls, postage and express delivery charges, telephone service, photocopying and reasonable petty cash expenses . . 12 Rental charges and the costs of transportation, installation, minor repairs and replacements, dismantling and removal of temporary facilities, machinery, equipment and hand tools not customarily owned by the workers, which are provided by Design-Builder at the Site, whether rented from Design-Builder or others, and incurred in the performance of the Work. .13 Premiums for insurance and bonds required by this Agreement or the performance of the Work. .14 All fuel and utility costs incurred in the performance of the Work . . 15 Sales, use or similar taxes, tariffs or duties incurred in the performance of the Work . . 16 Legal costs, court costs and costs of mediation and arbitration reasonably arising from Design-Builder's performance of the Work, provided such costs do not arise from disputes between City and Design-Builder . . 17 Costs for permits, royalties, licenses, tests and inspections incurred by Design- Builder as a requirement of the Contract Documents . . 18 The cost of defending suits or claims for infringement of patent rights arising from the use of a particular design, process, or product required by the City, paying legal judgments against Design-Builder resulting from such suits or claims, and paying settlements made with City'S consent. .19 Deposits which are lost, except to the extent caused by Design-Builder's negligence . . 20 Costs incurred in preventing damage, injury or loss in case of an emergency affecting the safety of persons and property . . 21 Other costs reasonably and properly incurred in the performance of the Work to the extent approved in writing by City. 6.4 Non-Reimbursable Costs The following shall be excluded from the Cost ofthe Work: .1 Compensation for Design-Builder' s personnel stationed at Design-Builder' s principal or branch offices, except as provided for in Sections 6.3.1, 6.3.2 and 6.3.3 hereof . . 2 Overhead and general expenses, except as provided for in Section 6.3 hereof . . 3 The cost ofDesign-Builder's capital used in the performance of the Work. City of Palo Alto Page 18 08154\CPA _ DB·agmt.doc .4 If the Parties have agreed on a GMP, costs that would cause the GMP, as adjusted in accordance with the Contract Documents, to be exceeded. 6.5 The Guaranteed Maximum Price 6.5.1 Establishment of the GMP 6.5.1.1 Design-Builder guarantees that it shall not exceed the GMP of One Hundred Forty-Seven Thousand One Hundred Eight Dollars ($147,108.00). Design-Builder will be responsible for paying all costs for completing the Work which exceed the GMP, as adjusted in accordance with the Contract Documents. Documents used as a basis for the GMP shall be identified in an exhibit to this Agreement ("GMP Exhibit"). 6.5.2 Savings 6.5.2.1 If the sum of the actual Cost of the Work and Design-Builder's Fee (and, if applicable, any prices established under Section 6.1.2 hereof) is less than the GMP, as such GMP may have been adjusted over the course of the Project, the difference ("Savings") shall be shared as follows: Eighty percent (80%) to Design-Builder and twenty percent (20%) to the City. 6.5.2.2 Savings shall be calculated as part of the City's final payment under Section 7.3 hereof, with the understanding that to the extent Design-Builder incurs costs after Final Completion which would have been payable to Design-Builder as a Cost of the Work, Design-Builder shall be entitled to payment from the City for that portion of such costs that were allocated to the City as Savings. Article 7 Procedure for Payment 7.1 Progress Payments 7.1.1 Design-Builder shall submit to the City on or before the twenty-fifth (25th) day of each month, beginning with the first month after the Date of Commencement, Design-Builder's Application for Payment in accordance with Article 6 of the General Conditions of Contract. 7.1.2 The City shall make payment within thirty (30) days of City's receipt of each properly submitted and accurate Application for Payment in accordance with Article 6 of the General Conditions of Contract, but in each case less the total of payments previously made, and less amounts properly withheld under Section 6.3 of the General Conditions of Contract. 7.1.3 If Design-Builder's Fee under Section 6.2.1 hereof is a fixed amount, the amount of Design-Builder's Fee to be included in Design-Builder's monthly Application for Payment and paid by the City shall be proportional to the percentage of the Work completed, less payments previously made on account of Design-Builder' s Fee. City of Palo Alto Page 19 08154ICPA_DB·agmt.doc 7.2 Retainage on Progress Payments 7.2.1 Unless otherwise provided below, the City will retain ten percent (10%) of progress payments for construction costs until thirty-five (35) days following recordation of a Notice of Completion. City will not retain any portion of the progress payments reflecting design costs. 7.2.2 In accordance with law, or otherwise, City may withhold payment (in excess of retentions) or, on account of subsequently discovered evidence, nullifY the whole or a part of any certificate to such extent as may be necessary to protect City from loss on account of the following: .1 Defective work not in the process of being remedied . . 2 "Stop Notice" or mechanic's liens claims filed with City . . 3 State, federal and govermnental agency claims or liens . .4 Failure of Design-Builder, its Subcontractors or Sub-Subcontractors to make payments properly to contractors for material or labor when no actual dispute exists concerning such payment. .5 Default of Design-Builder or its Design-Consultants in the performance of any material term of this Agreement. .6 If stop notices or mechanic's liens are filed against the Project or state, federal or other govermnental agency claims or liens are filed, City shall withhold the amount required by law from progress payments or certificates until such claims and liens .shall have been resolved pursuant to applicable law. However, if the cause of the stop notice is due to City's unexcused failure to pay Design-Builder in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, then Design-Builder shall be entitled to make a claim for any damages incurred as a result of or arising out of the withholding. 7.2.3 Upon Substantial Completion of the entire Work or, if applicable, any portion of the Work, pursuant to Section 6.4 of the General Conditions of Contract, City shall release to Design-Builder all retained amounts relating, as applicable, to the entire Work or completed portion of the Work, less an amount equal to the reasonable value of all remaining or incomplete items of Work as noted in the Certificate of Substantial Completion and less an amount equal to the reasonable value of the City's loss on account of any items listed under Section 7.2.2 of this Agreement. 7.2.4 When the Certificate of Substantial Completion is fully executed and all remaining incomplete items noted in the Certificate of Substantial Completion have been completed, the City's Representative will issue a Notice of Completion and within ten (10) days after formal acceptance by the City Council of the City, will record such Notice of Completion. A certified, conformed copy of the recorded Notice of Completion will be sent to Design-Builder. 7.3 Final Payment. Design-Builder shall submit its Application for Final Payment to the City in accordance with Section 6.6 of the General Conditions of Contract. The City shall make payment on Design-Builder's properly submitted and accurate Application for Final Payment within thirty (30) days after City's receipt of the Application for Final City of Palo Alto Page 20 08 I 541CPA _ DB-agmt.doc Payment, provided that Design-Builder has satisfied the requirements for final payment set forth in Section 6.6.2 of the General Conditions of Contract. 7.4 Record Keeping and Finance Controls. Design-Builder acknowledges that this Agreement is to be administered on an "open book" arrangement relative to Cost of the Work. Design-Builder shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper fmancial management, using accounting and control systems in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and as may be provided in the Contract Documents. During the performance of the Work and for a period of three (3) years from the effective date of the Notice of Completion, Design-Builder shall preserve and City and City's accountants shall be afforded access from time to time, upon reasonable notice, to Design-Builder' s records, books, correspondence, receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to the Work. Article 8 Representatives of the Parties 8.1 City's Representatives 8.1.1 City designates the individual listed below as its Senior Representative ("City's Senior Representative"), which individual has the authority and responsibility for avoiding and resolving disputes under Section 10.2.3 of the General Conditions of Contract: Karen Bengard, Project Manager City of Palo Alto, (Dept & Div) 250 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329-2636 phone Email: Karen.bengard@cityofpaloalto.com 8.1.2 City designates the individual listed below as its City's Representative, which individual has the authority and responsibility set forth in Section 3.2 of the General Conditions of Contract: Hung Nguyen Project Engineer City of Palo Alto, (Dept & Div) 250 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329-2548 phone Email: hung.nguyen@cityofpaloalto.com 8.2 Design-Builder's Representatives 8.2.1 Design-Builder designates the individual listed below as its Senior Representative ("Design-Builder's Senior Representative"), which individual has the authority and responsibility for avoiding and resolving disputes under Section 10.2.3 of the General Conditions of Contract: (insert contact info for DESIGN-BUILDER) City of Palo Alto Page 21 08154ICPA_DB-agmt.doc 8.2.2 Design-Builder designates the individual listed below as its Design-Builder's Representative, which individual has the authority and responsibility set forth in Section 2.1.1 of the General Conditions of Contract: lim Ruble P.O. Box 1137 San Martin, CA 95046 lim@petrotek.biz 408-683-4537 Article 9 Notices 9.1 All notices, demands or other communications required or permitted to be given under the Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly delivered: (a) upon personal delivery to the individual intended to receive such notice; (b) four (4) days after mailing by United States mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid, addressed to the proper party at the appropriate address set forth below; or (d) if transmitted by facsimile, by the time stated in a machine generated confirmation that notice was received at the facsimile number of the intended recipient at the appropriate fax number set forth below. If to City: Karen Bengard, Project Manager City of Palo Alto, (Dept & Div) 250 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329-2636 cell phone Email: Karen.bengard@cityofpaloalto.com If to Design-Builder Petrotek: Jim Ruble, Project Manager 13270 Depot Street (Mail: P.O. Box 1137) San Marin, CA 95046 408-690-5568 phone City of Palo Alto Page 22 OB154\CPA_DB-agmt.doc General ATTACHMENT A GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT BETWEEN CITY AND DESIGN-BUILDER Article 1 1.1 Mutual Obligations 1.1.1 City and Design-Builder shall at all times cooperate fully with each other, and proceed on the basis of trust and good faith, so that each party shall realize the benefits afforded under the Contract Documents. Article 2 Design-Builder's Services And Responsibilities 2.1 General Services 2.1.1 Design-Builder's Representative shall be reasonably available to City and shall have the necessary expertise and experience required to supervise the Work. Design-Builder's Representative shall communicate regularly with City and shall be vested with the authority to act on behalf of Design-Builder. Design-Builder's Representative may be replaced only with the agreement of the City. 2.1.2 Design-Builder shall provide City with a monthly status report detailing the progress of the Work, including whether (i) the Work is proceeding according to schedule, (ii) discrepancies, conflicts, or ambiguities exist in the Contract Documents that require resolution, (iii) health and safety issues exist in connection with the Work, and (iv) other items require resolution so as not to jeopardize Design-Builder's ability to complete the Work for the Contract Price and within the Contract Time(s). 2.1.3 Design-Builder shall prepare and submit, at least three (3) days. prior to the meeting contemplated by Section 2.1.4 hereof, a Project Schedule including Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) charts for the execution of the Work for City's review and response. The Project Schedule, including the WBS and PERT charts, shall indicate the dates for the start and completion of the various stages of Work, including the dates when City information and approvals are required to enable Design-Builder to complete the Project within the Contract Time(s). The Project Schedule shall be revised as required by conditions and progress of the Work, but such revisions shall not relieve Design-Builder of its obligations to complete the Project within the Contract Time(s), as such dates may be adjusted in accordance with the Contract Documents. City's review of and response to the Project Schedule shall not relieve Design-Builder of its complete and exclusive obligation to control the means, methods, sequences and techniques for executing the Work. 2.1.4 The Parties will meet within seven (7) days after execution of the Agreement to discuss issues affecting the administration of the Work and to implement the necessary procedures, including procedures relating to submittals and payment, to facilitate the ability of the Parties to perform their obligations under the Contract Documents. City of Palo Alto Page II 08154\CPA _DB-agmt.doc 2.2 Design Professional Services 2.2.1 Consistent with State of California licensing . laws, Design-Builder shall provide the necessary design services, including architectural, engineering and other design professional services for the preparation of the required drawings, specifications and other design submittals to complete the Project consistent with the Contract Documents through qualified, licensed design professionals employed by Design-Builder or procured from qualified, independent licensed Design Consultants. 2.2.2 Design-Builder is an independent contractor and is not an agent or employee of the City. Nothing in the Contract Documents creates any legal or contractual relationship between the City and any Design Consultant. 2.3 Standard of Care for Design Professional Services 2.3.1 The standard of care for all design professional services performed to execute the Work shall be the care and skill ordinarily used by members of the design profession practicing under similar conditions at the same time and locality of the Project. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, in the event the Contract Documents specifY that portions of the Project be performed in accordance with specific performance standards, the design professional services shall be performed to achieve such standards. 2.4 Design Development Services 2.4.1 Design-Builder and City shall, consistent with any applicable provision of the Contract Documents, agree upon any interim design submissions that City may wish to review, w\lich interim design submissions may include design criteria, drawings, diagrams and specifications setting forth the Project requirements. On or about the time of the scheduled submissions, Design-Builder and City shall meet and confer about the submissions, with Design-Builder identifYing during such meetings, among other things, the evolution of the design and any significant changes or deviations from the Contract Documents, or, if applicable, previously submitted design submissions. Minutes of the meetings will be maintained by Design-Builder and provided to all attendees for review within seven (7) days of the meeting. Following the design review meeting, City shall review and approve the interim design submissions in a time that is consistent with the turnaround times set forth in the Project Schedule. 2.4.2 Design-Builder shall submit to City Construction Documents setting forth in detail drawings and specifications describing the requirements for construction of the Work. The Construction Documents shall be consistent with the latest set of interim design submissions, as such submissions may have been modified in design review meetings. The Parties shall have a design review meeting to discuss, and City shall review and approve, the Construction Documents in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 2.4.1 above. Design-Builder shall proceed to construct the Project in accordance with the approved Construction Documents and shall submit one set of approved Construction Documents to City prior to commencement of construction. 2.4.3 City's review and approval of interim design submissions and the Construction Documents is for the purpose of mutually establishing a conformed set of Contract Documents compatible with the requirements of the Work and consistent with the PER. City of Palo Alto Page 12 08154ICPA_DB-agmt.doc Neither City's review nor approval of any interim design submissions and Construction Documents shall be deemed to transfer any design liability from Design-Builder to City. 2.4.4 To the extent not prohibited by the Contract Documents or Legal Requirements and subject to the City's approval, Design-Builder may prepare interim design submissions and Construction Documents for a portion of the Work to permit construction to proceed on that portion of the Work prior to completion of the Construction Documents for the entire Work. 2.5 Legal Requirements 2.5.1 Design-Builder shall perform the Work in accordance with all Legal Requirements and shall provide all notices applicable to the Work as required by the Legal Requirements. 2.5.2 The Contract Price andlor Contract Time(s) shall be adjusted to compensate Design- Builder for the effects of any changes in the Legal Requirements enacted after the date of the Agreement affecting the performance of the Work, or if a Guaranteed Maximum Price is established after the date of the Agreement, the date the Parties agree upon the Guaranteed Maximum Price. Such changes may include, without limitation, revisions Design-Builder is required to make to the Construction Documents because of changes in Legal Requirements. 2.6 Permits and Approvals 2.6.1 Design-Builder shall provide, procure and pay for all permits, approvals, licenses and fees required for construction of the Project. Payment of all costs and expenses for such permits, approvals, licenses and fees shall be included in the Cost of the Work pursuant to Section 6.3 of the Agreement. 2.7 Design-Builder's Construction Phase Services 2.7.1 Unless otherwise provided in the Contract Documents, Design-Builder shall provide through itself or Subcontractors the necessary supervision, labor, inspection, testing, start-up, material, equipment, machinery, temporary utilities, and all other temporary facilities necessary to complete the Project consistent with the Contract Documents. 2.7.2 Design-Builder shall perform all con.struction activities efficiently and with the requisite expertise, skill and competence to satisfy the requirements of the Contract Documents. Design-Builder shall at all times exercise complete and exclusive control over the means, methods, sequences and techniques of construction. 2.7.3 Design-Builder shall employ only Subcontractors who are duly licensed, qualified to perform the Work consistent with the Contract Documents, and in compliance with all applicable laws of the City and all other governmental entities including, but not limited to, the state, federal and county governments. The City may reasonably object to Design- Builder's selection of any Subcontractor. 2.7.4 Design-Builder assumes responsibility to City for the proper performance of the Work of Subcontractors and any acts and omissions in connection with such performance. Nothing in the Contract Documents shall create any legal or contractual relationship between City and any Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor, including but not limited to City of Palo Alto Page 13 08154\CPA _ DB-agmt.doc any third-party beneficiary rights. Design-Builder shall bind every Subcontractor (and require every Subcontractor to so bind its subcontractors and material suppliers) to all the provision of the Agreement and the Contract Documents as they apply to the Subcontractor's portion of the Work. 2.7.5 All Subcontractors and Sub-Subcontractors must comply with the terms of the Contract Documents. Design-Builder shall contractually require its Subcontractors and Sub- Subcontractors to cooperate with, and coordinate their activities so as not to interfere with separate contractors under the City's control, in order to enable the timely completion of the Project. If the City performs other Work on the Project or at the Site with separate contractors under City's control, Design-Builder shall reasonably cooperate and coordinate its activities with the activities of such separate contractors so that the Project can be completed in an orderly and coordinated manner without unreasonable disruption. 2.7.6 Design-Builder shall keep the sites reasonably free from debris, trash and construction wastes, and shall perform its construction services efficiently, safely and without interfering with the use of adjacent land areas. Upon Substantial Completion of the Work, or a portion of the Work, Design-Builder shall remove all debris, trash, construction wastes, materials, equipment, machinery and tools arising from the Work or applicable portions thereof to permit City to occupy the Project or a portion of the Project for its intended use. 2.8 Design-Builder's Responsibility for Project Safety 2.8.1 Design-Builder recognizes the importance of performing the Work in a safe manner so as to prevent damage, injury or loss to (i) all individuals at the Site, whether working or visiting, (ii) the Work, including materials and equipment incorporated into the Work or stored on-Site or off-Site, and (iii) all other property at the Site or adjacent thereto. Design-Builder assumes responsibility for implementing and monitoring all safety precautions and programs related to the performance of the Work. Design-Builder shall, prior to commencing construction, designate an individual at the Site in the employ of Design-Builder who shall act as Design Builder's designated safety representative with the necessary qualifications and experience to supervise the implementation and monitoring of all safety precautions and programs related to the Work. Unless otherwise required by the Contract Documents, Design-Builder's designated safety representative shall be an individual stationed at the Site and may have responsibilities on the Project in addition to safety. The designated safety representative shall make routine daily inspections of the Site and shall hold weekly safety meetings with Design-Builder's persoimel, Subcontractors and others as necessary or appropriate. 2.8.2 Design-Builder and Subcontractors shall comply with all Legal Requirements relating to safety, as well as any City-specific safety requirements set forth in the Contract Documents, provided that such City-specific requirements do not violate any applicable Legal Requirements. Design-Builder will immediately report in writing any safety-related injury, loss, damage or accident arising from the Work to City's Representative and, to the extent mandated by Legal Requirements, to all government or quasi-government authorities having jurisdiction over safety-related matters involving the Project or the Work. 2.8.3 Design-Builder's responsibility for safety under this section 2.8 does not relieve Subcontractors and Sub-Subcontractors of their own contractual and legal obligations and City of Palo Alto Page 14 08154ICPA_DB-.gmt.doc responsibility for (i) complying with all Legal Requirements, including Legal Requirements related to health and safety matters, and (ii) taking all necessary measures to implement and monitor all safety precautions and programs to guard against injury, losses, damages or accidents resulting from their perfonnance of the Work. 2.9 Design-Builder's Warranty 2.9.1 Design-Builder warrants to City that the construction, including all materials and equipment furnished as part of the construction, shall be: (a) of good quality and new; (b) in conformance with the Contract Documents; (c) free of defects in materials and workmanship; (d) performed in a good and workmanlike manner; and (e) in compliance with Legal Requirements and conditions of the permits. In the event any construction does not conform with the requirements of the preceding sentence, Design-Builder shall correct such nonconformances in accordance with Section 2.10 hereof. Design-Builder's warranty obligation excludes defects caused by abuse, alterations, or failure to maintain the Work by persons other than Design-Builder or anyone for whose acts Design-Builder is responsible. Nothing in this warranty limits any manufacturer's warranty which provides City with greater warranty rights than set forth in this Section 2.9 or the Contract Documents. Design-Builder will provide City with all manufacturers' warranties upon Substantial Completion. 2.10 Correction of Defective Work 2.10.1 Design-Builder will correct any defective Work that is not in conformance with the Contract Documents, including that part of the Work subject to Section 2.9 hereof, within a period of one year from the date of Substantial Completion of the Work or any portion of the Work, or within such longer period to the extent required by the Contract Documents. 2.10.2 Design-Builder shall, within seven (7) days of receipt of written notice from City that the Work is not in conformance with the Contract Documents, commence correction of such nonconforming Work, including the correction, removal or replacement of the nonconforming Work and any damage caused to other parts of the Work affected by the nonconforming Work. If Design-Builder fails to commence the necessary steps within such seven (7) day period, City, in addition to any other remedies provided under the Contract Documents, may provide Design-Builder with written notice that City will commence correction of such nonconforming Work with its own forces. If City does perform such corrective Work, Design-Builder shall be responsible for all reasonable costs incurred by City in performing such correction. If the nonconforming Work creates an emergency requiring an immediate response, Design-Builder shall immediately take steps to correct the problem, and shall not have the seven (7) day period identified herein in which to commence correction of the nonconforming Work. 2.10.3 The one (I) year period referenced in Section 2.10.1 above applies only to Design- Builder's obligation to correct nonconforming Work and does not constitute a period of limitations for any other rights or remedies City may have regarding Design-Builder's other obligations under the Contract Documents. City of Palo Alto Page 15 081541CPA _ DB-agmt.doc Article 3 City's Services And Responsibilities 3.1 Dnty to Cooperate 3.1.1 City shall, throughout the performance of the Work, cooperate with Design-Builder and perform its responsibilities, obligations and services in a timely manner to facilitate Design-Builder's timely and efficient performance of the Work and so as not to delay or interfere with Design-Builder's performance of its obligations under the Contract Documents. 3.1.2 City shall provide timely reviews and approvals of interim design submissions and Constrnction Documents consistent with the turnaround times set forth in the Project Schedule. 3.2 City's Representative 3.2.1 City's Representative shall be responsible for providing City supplied information and approvals in a timely manner so that Design-Builder can fulfill its obligations under the Contract Documents. City's Representative shall also provide Design-Builder with prompt notice if it observes any failure on the part of Design-Builder to fulfill its contractual obligations, including any errors, omissions or defects in the performance of the Work. 3.3 Furnishing of Services and Information 3.3.1 Unless expressly stated to the contrary in the Contract Documents, if requested in writing by Design-Builder, City shall provide to Design-Builder the following: .1 To the extent available, as-built and record drawings of any existing structures at the Site; and .2 To the extent available, environmental studies, reports and impact statements describing the environmental conditions, including Hazardous Conditions, in existence at the Site. 3.3.2 City is responsible for securing and executing all necessary agreements with adjacent land or property owners that are necessary to enable Design-Builder to perform the Work. City is further responsible for all costs, including attorneys' fees, incurred in securing these necessary agreements. 3.4 Permits and Approvals 3.4.1 It is the Design-Builder's responsibility to obtain all necessary permits, approvals paperwork and licenses required for the project. The City will submit the plans, developed by the Designer-Builder, to the City's Planning Department for Planning approval. 3.5 City's Separate Contractors City of Palo Alto Page 16 08154\CPA_DB-agmt.doc 3.5.1 City is responsible for all Work performed on the Project or at the Site by separate contractors under City's control. City shall contractually require its separate contractors to cooperate with, and coordinate their activities so as not to interfere with Design- Builder in order to enable Design-Builder to timely complete the Work consistent with the Contract Documents. Article 4 Hazardous Conditions and Differing Site Conditions 4.1 Hazardous Conditions 4.1.1 Unless otherwise expressly provided in the Contract Documents to be part of the Work, Design-Builder is not responsible for any existing Hazardous Conditions encountered at the Site. Upon encountering any Hazardous Conditions, Design-Builder will stop Work immediately in the affected area and duly notifY City in writing and, if required by Legal Requirements, all government or quasi-government entities with jurisdiction over the Project or Site. 4.1.2 Upon receiving notice of the presence of suspected Hazardous Conditions, City shall take the necessary measures required to ensure that the Hazardous Conditions are remediated or rendered harmless. Such necessary measures shall include City retaining qualified independent experts to (i) ascertain whether Hazardous Conditions have actually been encountered, and, if they have been encountered, (ii) prescribe the remedial measures that City must take either to remove the Hazardous Conditions or render the Hazardous Conditions harmless. 4.1.3 Design-Builder shall be obligated to resume Work at the affected area of the Project after City's expert provides it with written certification that (i) the Hazardous Conditions have been removed or rendered harmless and (ii) all necessary approvals have been obtained from all government and quasi-government entities having jurisdiction over the Project or Site. 4.1.4 Design-Builder will be entitled, in accordance with the General Conditions of Contract, to an adjustment in its Contract Price and/or Contract Time(s) to the extent Design- Builder's cost and/or time of performance have been adversely impacted by the presence of Hazardous Conditions. 4.1.5 To the extent not caused by the solely negligent acts or omissions of Design-Builder, Design Consultants, Subcontractors, Sub-Subcontractors, anyone employed directly or indirectly for any of them, or their officers, directors, employees and agents, City shall indemnifY, defend and hold harmless Design-Builder, Design Consultants, Subcontractors, Sub-Subcontractors, anyone employed directly or indirectly for any of them, and their officers, directors, employees and agents, from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, liabilities and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expenses, arising out of or resulting from the presence, removal or remediation of Hazardous Conditions at the Site which were on the Site prior to the date of the Agreement. 4.1.6 Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Section 4.1, City is not responsible for Hazardous Conditions introduced to the Site by Design-Builder, Subcontractors, Sub- Subcontractors or anyone for whose acts they may be liable. Design-Builder shall indemnifY, defend and hold harmless City and City's officers, directors, employees and City of Palo Alto Page 17 08154\CPA _ DB-agmt.doc agents from and against all claims, losses, damages, liabilities and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expenses, arising out of or resulting from Hazardous Conditions introduced to the Site by Design-Builder, its Subcontractors, Sub-Subcontractors or anyone for whose acts they may be liable. 4.2 Differing Site Conditions 4.2.1 Concealed or latent physical conditions or subsurface conditions at the Site that (i) materially differ from the conditions indicated in the Contract Documents or (ii) are of an unusual nature, differing materially from the conditions ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in the Work are collectively referred to herein as "Differing Site Conditions." If Design-Builder encounters a Differing Site Condition, the Parties shall meet and confer in order to determine if an adjustment in the Contract Price and/or Contract Time(s) is warranted to the extent Design-Builder's cost and/or time of performance are adversely impacted by the Differing Site Condition. 4.2.2 Upon encountering a Differing Site Condition, Design-Builder shall, within fourteen (14) days after discovery of the Differing Site Condition, provide prompt written notice to City of such condition, setting forth with specificity the nature of the Differing Site Condition and a recommendation for handling the Differing Site Condition in a manner which causes the least disruption to the Project Schedule. Design-Builder shall, to the extent reasonably possible, provide such notice before the Differing Site Condition has been disturbed or altered. 4.2.3 Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event the Parties are unable to agree to an adjustment in the Contract Price and/or Contract Time within sixty (60) days of the City's receipt of notice in accordance with Section 4.2.2 above, the City may at its election (i) terminate the Agreement in accordance with Article 8 of the Agreement, or (ii) resolve the dispute using the procedures established in Article 10 of these General Conditions of Contract. Article 5 Insurance and Bonds 5.1 Design-Builder's Insurance Requirements 5.1.1 Design-Builder is responsible for procuring and maintaining from insurance companies authorized to do business in California, and with a minimum rating set forth herein, the following insurance coverages for certain claims which may arise from or out of the performance of the Work and obligations under the Contract Documents, see Attachment CoftheRFP. 5.1.2 Design-Builder's liability insurance shall include completed operations insurance for the period oftime set forth in the Contract Documents. 5.1.3 Design-Builder's liability insurance shall specifically delete any design-build or similar exclusions that could compromise coverages because of the design-build delivery of the Project. 5.1.4 To the extent City requires Design-Builder or any Design Consultant to provide professional liability insurance for claims arising from the negligent performance of City of Palo Alto Page 18 08154\CPA_DB-agmt.doc design services by Design-Builder or the Design Consultant, the coverage limits, duration and other specifics of such insurance shall be as set forth in Article 5 hereof. Any professional liability insurance shall specifically delete any design-build or similar exclusions that could compromise coverages because of the design-build delivery of the Project. Such policies shall be provided prior to the commencement of any design services under the Contract Documents. 5.1.5 Prior to commencing any construction services under the Contract Documents, Design- Builder shall provide City with certificates evidencing that (i) all insurance obligations required by the Contract Documents are in full force and in effect and will remain in effect for the duration required by the Contract Documents and (ii) no insurance coverage will be canceled, renewal refused, or materially changed unless at least thirty (30) days prior written notice is given to City. 5.2 City's Property Insurance 5.2.1 Unless otherwise provided in the Contract Documents, City shall procure and maintain from insurance companies authorized to do business in the state in which the Project is located, property insurance upon the entire Project to the full insurable value of the Project, including professional fees, overtime premiums and all other expenses incurred to replace or repair the insured property. The property insurance obtained by City shall include as additional insureds the interests of City, Design-Builder, Design Consultants, Subcontractors and Sub-Subcontractors, and shall insure against the perils of fire and extended coverage, theft, vandalism, malicious mischief, collapse, flood, earthquake, debris removal and other perils or causes of loss as called for in the Contract Documents. The property insurance shall include physical loss or damage to the Work, including materials and equipment in transit, at the Site or at another location as may be indicated in Design-Builder's Application for Payment and approved by City. 5.2.2 Unless the Contract Documents provide otherwise, City shall procure and maintain boiler and machinery insurance that will include the interests of City, Design-Builder, Design Consultants, Subcontractors and Sub-Subcontractors. 5.2.3 Any loss covered under City's property insurance shall be adjusted with City and Design- Builder and made payable to both of them as trustees for the insured as their interests may appear, subject to any applicable mortgage clause. All insurance proceeds received as a result of any loss will be placed in a separate account and distributed in accordance with such agreement as the interested parties may reach. Any disagreement concerning the distribution of any proceeds will be resolved in accordance with Article 10 hereof. 5.2.4 City and Design-Builder waive against each other and City's separate contractors, Design Consultants, Subcontractors, agents and employees of each and all of them, all damages covered by property insurance provided herein, except such rights as they may have to the proceeds of such insurance. Design-Builder and City shall, where appropriate, require similar waivers of subrogation from City's separate contractors, Design Consultants and Subcontractors and each of them shall include similar waivers in their contracts. 5.3 Bonds and Other Performance Security. Design-Builder shall obtain perfonnance and labor and material payment bonds, or other fonns of perfonnance security, the amount, fonn and other conditions of such security as set forth herein: City of Palo Alto Page 19 08154ICPA_DB·agmt.doc 5.3.1 General Requirement . . 1 Before allowing a contractor to enter upon the Site and perform Project construction work, Design-Builder shall file with City duplicates of each performance bond, labor and material payment bonds, and a warranty bond in the form attached to the Agreement as Exhibits E-l, and E-2, respectively, and incorporated herein by this reference, required under this section. These bonds shall be in the amounts and for the purposes specified below. The surety bonds shall be issued by an admitted surety insurer which complies with the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure §99S.660 . . 2 Should any surety or sureties upon said bonds or. any of them become insufficient, Design-Builder's contractors shall obtain replacement bonds with good and sufficient sureties within ten (10) days after receiving notice from City that the surety or sureties are insufficient. The costs of any required bonds (whether original or replacement) are included in the GMP. 5.3.2 Performance Bond. Design-Builder shall post: (a) a performance bond in favor of City in substantially the form attached to the Agreement as Exhibit E-l, as security for the faithful performance by Design-Builder of its obligations under the Agreement, and (b) require each Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor to deliver to City an executed performance bond in favor of City in substantially the form attached to the Agreement as Exhibit E-l b, as security for the faithful performance by such contractor of the contractor's obligations under its construction contract. The cost of the foregoing bonds are included in the GMP. 5.3.3 Labor and Material Payment Bonds. Design-Builder shall obtain a labor and materials payment bond in favor of City in substautially the form attached to the Agreement as Exhibit E-2, as security for the payment to the Subcontractors or Sub-Subcontractors, and (b) require each Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor to deliver to City an executed payment bond in favor of City in an amount equal to 100% of the contract sum of such Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor's construction contract as security for the payment of all persons performing labor and furnishing materials under such construction contract. The cost of the foregoing bonds is included in the GMP. 5.3.4 Correction of Defective Work and Guarantee to Repair Period. In addition to any specific warranty mentioned in these specifications, the Contractor shall guarantee that all material, apparatus, equipment, and workmanship used, installed, or incorporated in the work is free from defects, and agrees to replace at no expense to the City any and all defective Work or materials which become evident within one (I) year ("Guarantee To Repair Period"), unless a longer period of time is specified in the Contract documents. Article 6 Payment 6.1 Schedule of Values 6.1.1 Within ten (10) days of execution of the Agreement, Design-Builder shall submit for City's review and approval a schedule of values for all of the Work. The schedule of values will (i) subdivide the Work into its respective parts, (ii) include values for all items City of Palo Alto Page 20 08154\CPA _ DB-agmt.doc comprising the Work and (iii) serve as the basis for monthly progress payments made to Design-Builder throughout the Work. 6.2 Monthly Progress Payments 6.2.1 On or before the date established in the Agreement, Design-Builder shaIl submit its Application for Payment to the City. The City shaIl have five (5) business days to review and approve the Application for Payment requesting payment for all Work performed as of the date of the Application for Payment. The Application for Payment shaIl be accompanied by all supporting documentation required by the Contract Documents and/or established at the meeting required by Section 2. 1.4 hereof. The City shall make payment within thirty (30) days of City's receipt of each properly submitted and accurate Application for Payment, but in each case less the total of payments previously made, and less amounts properly withheld under Section 6.3 hereof. 6.2.2 The Application for Payment may request payment for equipment and materials not yet incorporated into the Project, provided that (i) City is satisfied that the equipment and materials are suitably stored at either the Site or another acceptable location, (ii) the equipment and materials are protected by suitable insurance and (iii) upon payment, City will receive the equipment and materials free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. 6.2.3 The Application for Payment shaIl constitute Design-Builder's representation that the Work has been performed consistent with the Contract Documents, has progressed to the point indicated in the Application for Payment, and that title to all Work will pass to City free and clear of all claims, liens, encumbrances, and security interests upon the incorporation of the Work into the Project, or upon Design-Builder's receipt of payment, whichever occurs earlier. 6.3 Withholding of Payments 6.3.1 On or before the date established in the Agreement, City shaIl pay Design-Builder all amounts properly due. If City determines that Design-Builder is not entitled to all or part of an Application for Payment, it will notifY Design-Builder in writing at least five (5) days prior to the date payment is due. The notice shaIl indicate the specific amounts City intends to withhold, the reasons and contractual basis for the withholding, and the specific measures Design-Builder must take to rectifY City's concerns. Design-Builder and City will attempt to resolve City's concerns prior to the date payment is due. If the Parties cannot resolve such concerns, Design-Builder may pursue its rights under the Contract Documents, including the rights under Article 10 hereof. 6.3.2 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Contract Documents, City shaIl pay Design-Builder all undisputed amounts in an Application for Payment within the times required by the Agreement. 6.4 Design-Builder's Payment Obligations 6.4.1 Design-Builder will pay Design Consultants and Subcontractors, in accordance with its contractual obligations to such parties, all the amounts Design-Builder has received from City on account of their work. Design-Builder will impose similar requirements on Design Consultants, Subcontractors and Sub-Subcontractors to pay parties with whom they have contracted. City of Palo Alto Page 21 08 I 54\CPA _ DB-agmt.doc 6.5 Substantial Completion 6.5.1 Design-Builder shall notifY City when it believes the Work, or to the extent permitted in the Contract Documents, a portion of the Work, is substantially complete. Within five (5) days of City's receipt of Design-Builder's notice, City and Design-Builder will jointly inspect such Work to verifY that it is substantially complete in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. If such Work is substantially complete, City shall prepare and issue a Certificate of Substantial Completion that will set forth (i) the date of Substantial Completion of the Work or portion thereof, (ii) the remaining items of Work that have to be completed before final payment, (iii) provisions (to the extent not already provided in the Contract Documents) establishing City's and Design-Builder's responsibility for the Project's security, maintenance, utilities and insurance pending final payment and (iv) an acknowledgment that warranties commence to run on the date of Substantial Completion, except as may otherwise by noted in the Certificate of Substantial Completion. 6.5.2 Upon Substantial Completion of the entire Work or, if applicable, any portion of the Work, City shall release to Design-Builder all retained amounts relating, as applicable, to the entire Work or completed portion of the Work, less an amount equal to the reasonable value of all remaining or incomplete items of Work as noted in the Certificate of Substantial Completion. 6.5.3 City, at its option, may use a portion of the Work which has been determined to be substantially complete, provided, however, that (i) a Certificate of Substantial Completion has been issued for the portion of Work and addressing the items set forth in Section 6.5.1 above, (ii) Design-Builder and City have obtained the consent of their sureties and insurers, and to the extent applicable, the appropriate government authorities having jurisdiction over the Project, and (iii) City and Design-Builder agree that City's use or occupancy will not interfere with Design-Builder's completion of the remaining Work. 6.6 Final Payment 6.6.1 After receipt of an Application for Final Payment from Design-Builder, City shall make final payment by the time required in the Agreement, provided that Design-Builder has completed all of the Work in conformance with the Contract Documents. 6.6.2 At the time of submission of its Application for Final Payment, Design-Builder shall provide the following information: .1 an affidavit that there are no claims, obligations, liens or stop notices outstanding or unsatisfied for labor, services, material, equipment, taxes or other items performed, furnished or incurred for or in connection with the Work which will in any way affect City's interests; .2 a general release executed by Design-Builder waiving, upon receipt of final payment by Design-Builder, all claims, except claims previously made in writing to City and remaining unsettled at the time of final payment; .3 consent of Design-Builder's surety, if any, to final payment; City of Palo Alto Page 22 08154\CPA _ DB-agmt.doc .4 all operating manuals, warranties and other deliverables required by the Contract Documents; and .5 certificates of insurance confirming that required coverages will remain in effect consistent with the requirements of the Contract Documents. 6.6.3 Upon making final payment, City waives all claims against Design-Builder except claims relating to (i) Design-Builder's failure to satisfY its payment obligations, if such failure affects City's interests, (ii) Design-Builder's failure to complete the Work consistent with the Contract Documents, including defects appearing both before and after Substantial Completion and (iii) the terms of any special warranties required by the Contract Documents. Article 7 Indemnification 7.1 Patent and Copyright Infringement 7.1.1 Design-Builder shall defend any action or proceeding brought against City based on any claim that the Work, or any part thereof, or the operation or use of the Work or any part thereof, constitutes infringement of any United States patent or copyright, now or hereafter issued. City shall give prompt written notice to Design-Builder of any such action or proceeding and will reasonably provide authority, information and assistance in the defense of same. Design-Builder shall indemnifY and hold harmless City from and against all damages and costs, including but not limited to attorneys' fees and expenses awarded against City or Design-Builder in any such action or proceeding. Design-Builder shall keep City informed of all developments in the defense of such actions. 7.1.2 If City is enjoined from the operation or use of the Work, or any part thereof, as the result of any patent or copyright suit, claim, or proceeding, Design-Builder shall at its sale expense take reasonable steps to procure the right to operate or use the Work. If Design- Builder cannot so procure such right within a reasonable time, Design-Builder shall promptly, at Design-Builder's option and at Design-Builder's expense, (i) modifY the Work so as to avoid infringement of any such patent or copyright or (ii) replace said Work with Work that does not infringe or violate any such patent or copyright. 7.1.3 Sections 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 above shall not be applicable to any suit, claim or proceeding based on infringement or violation of a patent or copyright (i) relating solely to a particular process or product of a particular manufacturer specified by City and not offered or recommended by Design-Builder to City or (ii) arising from modifications to the Work by City or its agents after acceptance of the Work. If the suit, claim or proceeding is based upon events set forth in the preceding sentence, City shall defend, indemnifY and hold harmless Design-Builder to the same extent Design-Builder is obligated to defend, indemnifY and hold harmless City in Section 7.1.1 above. 7.1.4 The obligations set forth in this Section 7.1 shall constitute the sole agreement between the Parties relating to liability for infringement of violation of any patent or copyright. 7.2 Design-Builder's Indemnification for Professional Design Services City of Palo Alto Page 23 08154ICPA_DB·agmt.doc 7.2.1 In connection with its professional design services, and to the fullest extent permitted by law, Design-Builder shall protect, indemnifY, defend and hold harmless City, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an "Indemnified Party") from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, expert fees, court costs and disbursements ("Claims") that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Design-Builder or any of its officers, employees, subconsultants, agents or contractors in the performance of its professional design services under the Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 7.2.2 If an employee of Design-Builder, Design Consultants, Subcontractors, anyone employed directly or indirectly by any of them or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable has a claim against City, its officers, directors, employees, or agents, Design-Builder's indemnity obligation set forth in Section 7.2.1 above shall not be limited by any limitation on the amount of damages, compensation or benefits payable by or for Design- Builder, Design Consultants, Subcontractors, or other entity under any employee benefit acts, including workers' compensation or disability acts. 7.3 Design-Builder's General Indemnification 7.3.1 In connection with all claims not covered by Section 7.2 above, and to the fullest extent permitted by law, Design-Builder shall protect, indemnifY, defend and hold harmless City, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an "Indemnified Party") from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, expert fees, court costs and disbursements ("Claims") resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by Design-Builder, Design Consultants, Subcontractors, anyone employed directly or indirectly by any of them or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party . . 1 Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 7.3 shall be construed to require Design-Builder to indemnifY an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party . . 2 The acceptance of Design-Builder's services and duties by City shall not operate as a waiver of the rights of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 7.3 shall survive the expiration or early termination of the Agreement. City of Palo Alto Page 24 08154\CPA _ DB-agmt.doc 7.4 City's General Indemnification 7.4.1 City, to the fullest extent pennitted by law, shall indemnifY, hold hannless and defend Design·Builder and any of Design-Builder's officers, directors, employees, or agents from and against claims, losses, damages, liabilities, including attorneys' fees and expenses, for bodily injury, sickness or death, and property damage or destruction (other than to the Work itself) to the extent resulting from the sole negligent acts or omissions of City's separate contractors or anyone for whose acts any ofthem may be liable. Article 8 Time 8.1 Obligation to Achieve the Contract Times 8.1.1 Design-Builder will commence perfonnance of the Work and achieve the Contract Time(s) in accordance with Article 5 of the Agreement. 8.2 Delays to the Work 8.2.1 If Design-Builder is delayed in the perfonnance of the Work due to acts, omissions, conditions, events, or circumstances beyond its control and due to no fault of its own or those for whom Design-Builder is responsible, the Contract Time(s) for perfonnance shall be reasonably extended by Change Order. By way of example, events that will entitle Design-Builder to an extension of the Contract Time(s) include acts or commissions of City or anyone under City's control (including separate contractors), changes in the Work, Differing Site Conditions, Hazardous Conditions, wars, floods, labor disputes, unusual delay in transportation, epidemics abroad, earthquakes, adverse weather conditions not reasonably anticipated, and other acts of God. 8.2.2 In addition to Design-Builder's right to a time extension for events set forth in Section 8.2.1 above, Design-Builder shall also be entitled to an appropriate adjustment of the Contract Price provided, however, that the Contract Price shall not be adjusted for events set forth in Section 8.2.1 above that are beyond the control of both Design-Builder and City, including the events of wars, floods, labor disputes, earthquakes, epidemics, adverse weather conditions not reasonably anticipated, and other acts of God. Article 9 Changes to the Contract Price and Time 9.1 Change Orders 9.1.1 A Change Order is a written instrument issued after execution of the Agreement signed by City and Design-Builder, stating their agreement upon all of the following: .1 The scope of a change in the Work; .2 The amount of the adjustment, if any, to the Contract Price; and .3 The extent of the adjustment, if any, to the Contract Time(s). City of Palo Alto Page 25 08 I 54\CPA_DB-agmt.doc 9.1.2 All changes in the Work authorized by applicable Change Order shall be performed under the applicable conditions of the Contract Documents. City and Design-Builder shall negotiate in good faith and as expeditiously as possible the appropriate adjustment for such changes. 9.1.3 If City requests a proposal for a change in the Work from Design-Builder and subsequently elects not to proceed with the change, a Change Order shall be issued to reimburse Design-Builder for reasonable costs incurred for estimating services, design services and services involved the preparation of proposed revisions to the Contract Documents. 9.2 Work Change Directives 9.2.1 A Work Change Directive is a written order prepared and signed by the City, directing a change in the Work prior to agreement on an adjustment in the Contract Price and/or the Contract Time(s). 9.2.2 City and Design-Builder shall negotiate in good faith and as expeditiously as possible the appropriate adjustments for the Work Change Directive. Upon reaching an agreement, the Parties shall prepare and execute an appropriate Change Order reflecting the terms of the agreement. 9.3 Contract Price Adjustmeuts 9.3.1 The increase or decrease in Contract Price resulting from a change in the Work shall be determined by one or more of the following methods: .1 Unit prices set forth in the Agreement or as subsequently agreed to between the Parties; .2 A mutually accepted, lump sum, properly itemized and supported by sufficient substantiating data to permit evaluation by City; .3 Other costs and fees set forth in the Agreement; and .4 If an increase or decrease cannot be agreed to as set forth in items .1 through .3 above and City issues a Work Change Directive, the cost of the change of the Work shall be determined by the reasonable expense and savings in the performance of the Work resulting from the change. Design-Builder shall maintain a documented, itemized accounting evidencing the expenses and savings associated with such changes. 9.3.2 If unit prices are set forth in the Contract Documents or are subsequently agreed to by the Parties, but application of such unit prices will cause substantial inequity to City or Design-Builder because of differences in the character or quantity of such unit items as originally contemplated, such unit prices shall be equitably adjusted. 9.3.3 If City and Design-Builder disagree upon whether Design-Builder is entitled to be paid for any services required by City, or if there are any other disagreements over the scope of Work or proposed changes to the Work, City and Design-Builder shall resolve the disagreement pursuant to Article 10 hereof. As part of the negotiation process, Design- City of Palo Alto Page 26 08154\CPA_DB·agmt.doc Builder shall furnish City with a good faith estimate of the costs to perform the disputed services in accordance with City's interpretations. If the Parties are unable to agree and City expects Design-Builder to perform the services in accordance with City's interpretations, Design-Builder shall proceed to perform the disputed services, conditioned upon City issuing a written order to Design-Builder (i) directing Design- Builder to proceed and (ii) specifying City's interpretation of the services that are to be performed. If this occurs, Design-Builder shall be entitled to submit in its Applications for Payment an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of its reasonable estimated direct cost to perform the services, and City shall pay such amounts, with the express understanding that (i) such payment by City does not prejudice City's right to argue that it has no responsibility to pay for such services and (ii) receipt of such payment by Design-Builder does not prejudice Design-Builder's right to seek full payment of the disputed services if City's order is deemed to be a change to the Work. 9.4 . Emergencies 9.4.1 In any emergency affecting the safety of persons and/or property, Design-Builder shall act, in its reasonable discretion, to prevent threatened damage, injury or loss to persons or property. Any change in the Contract Price and/or Contract Time(s) on account of emergency work shall be determined as provided in this Article 9. Article 10 Contract Adjustments and Disputes 10.1 Requests for Contract Adjustments aud Relief 10.1.1 If either Design-Builder or City believes that it is entitled to relief against the other for any event arising out of or related to the Work or Project, such party shall provide written notice to the other party of the basis for its claim for relief. Such notice shall, if possible, be made prior to incurring any cost or expense and in accordance with any specific notice requirements contained in applicable sections of these General Conditions of Contract. In the absence of any specific notice requirement, written notice shall be given within a reasonable time, not to exceed ten (10) days, after the occurrence giving rise to the claim for relief or after the claiming party reasonably should have recognized the event or condition giving rise to the request, whichever is later. Such notice shall include sufficient information to advise the other party of the circumstances giving rise to the claim for relief, the specific contractual adjustment or relief requested and the basis of such request. 10.2 Dispute Avoidance and Resolution 10.2.1 The Parties are fully committed to working with each other throughout the Project and agree to communicate regularly with each other at all times so as to avoid or minimize disputes or disagreements. If disputes or disagreements do arise, Design-Builder and City each commit to resolving such disputes or disagreements in an amicable, professional and expeditious manner so as to avoid unnecessary losses, delays and disruptions to the Work. 10.2.2 Design-Builder and City will first attempt to resolve disputes or disagreements at the field level through discussions between Design-Builder's Representative and City's Representative. City of Palo Alto Page 27 081541CPA _ DB-agmt.doc 10.2.3 If a dispute or disagreement cannot be resolved through Design-Builder's Representative and City's Representative, Design-Builder's Senior Representative and City's Senior Representative, upon the request of either party, shall meet as soon as conveniently possible, but in no case later than thirty (30) days after such a request is made, to attempt to resolve such dispute or disagreement. Prior to any meetings between the Senior Representatives, the Parties will exchange relevant information that will assist the Parties in resolving their dispute or disagreement. 10.2.4 If after meeting, the Senior Representatives determine that the dispute or disagreement cannot be resolved on terms satisfactory to both parties, the Parties shall submit the dispute or disagreement to non-binding mediation. The mediation shall be conducted by a mutually agreeable impartial mediator, or if the Parties cannot so agree, a mediator designed by the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") pursuant to its Construction Industry Mediation Rules. The mediation will be governed by and conducted pursuant to a mediation agreement negotiated by the Parties or, if the Parties cannot so agree, by procedures established by the mediator. 10.3 Arbitration 10.3.1 Any claims, disputes or controversies between the Parties arising out of or relating to the Agreement, or the breach thereof, which have not been resolved in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 10.2 above shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the AAA then in effect, unless the Parties mutually agree otherwise. 10.3.2 The award of the arbitrator(s) shall be final and binding upon the Parties without the right of appeal to the courts. Judgment may be entered upon it in accordance with applicable law by any court having jurisdiction thereof. 10.3.3 Design-Builder and City expressly agree that any arbitration pursuant to this Section 10.3 may be joined or consolidated with any arbitration involving any other person or entity (i) necessary to resolve the claim, dispute or controversy, or (ii) substantially involved in or affected by such claim, dispute or controversy. Both Design-Builder and City will include appropriate provisions in all contracts they execute with other parties in connection with the Project to require such joinder or consolidation. 10.3.4 The prevailing party in any arbitration, or any other final, binding dispute proceeding upon which the Parties may agree, shall be entitled to recover from the other party reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by the prevailing party. 10.4 Duty to Continue Performance 10.4.1 Unless provided to the contrary in the Contract Documents, Design-Builder shall continue to perform the Work and City shall continue to satisfY its payment obligations to Design-Builder, pending the final resolution of any dispute or disagreement between Design-Builder and City. City of Palo Alto Page 28 08154\CPA_DB-agmt.doc Article 11 Stop Work and Termination for Cause 11.1 City's Right to Stop Work 11.1.1 City may, without cause and for its convenience, order Design-Builder in writing to stop and suspend the Work. 11.1.2 Design-Builder is entitled to an adjustment of the Contract Price and/or Contract Time(s) if its cost or time to perform the Work has been adversely impacted by any suspension or stoppage of work by City. 11.2 City's Right to Perform and Terminate for Cause 11.2.1 If Design-Builder persistently fails to (i) provide a sufficient number of skilled workers, (ii) supply the materials required by the Contract Documents, (iii) comply with applicable Legal Requirements, (iv) timely pay, without cause, Design Consultants or Subcontractors, (v) prosecute the Work with promptness and diligence to ensure that the Work is completed by the Contract Time(s), as such times may be adjusted, or (vi) perform material obligations under the Contract Documents, then City, io addition to any other rights and remedies provided in the Contract Documents or by law, shall have the rights set forth in Sections 11.2.2 and 11.2.3 below. 11.2.2 Upon the occurrence of an event set forth in Section 11.2.1 above, City may provide written notice to Design-Builder that it intends to terminate the Agreement unless the problem cited is cured, or commenced to be cured, within seven (7) days of Design- Builder's receipt of such notice. If Design-Builder fails to cure, or reasonably commence to cure, such problem, then City may give a second written notice to Design-Builder of its intent to terminate within an additional seven (7) day period. If Design-Builder, within such second seven (7) day period, fails to cure, or reasonably commence to cure, such problem, then City may declare the Agreement terminated for default by providing written notice to Design-Builder of such declaration. 11.2.3 Upon declaring the Agreement terminated pursuant to Section 11.2.2 above, City may enter upon the premises and take possession, for the purpose of completing the Work, of all materials, equipment, scaffolds, tools, appliances and other items thereon, which have been purchased or provided for the performance of the Work, all of which Design- Builder hereby transfers, assigns and sets over to City for such purpose, and to employ any person or persons to complete the Work and provide all of the required labor, services, materials, equipment and other items. In the event of such termination, Design- Builder shall not be entitled to receive any further payments under the Contract Documents until the Work shall be finally completed in accordance with the Contract Documents. At such time, if the unpaid balance of the Contract Price exceeds the cost and expense incurred by City in completing the Work, such excess shall be paid by City to Design-Builder. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if the Agreement establishes a Guaranteed Maximum Price, Design-Builder will only be entitled to be paid for Work performed prior to its default. Design-Builder is only entitled to be paid for Work performed prior to its default regardless of whether the Agreement establishes a Guaranteed Maximum Price, whether a Guaranteed Maximum Price is established after the Agreement, or whether the Work was performed on a fixed fee basis. If City's cost and expense of completing the Work exceeds the unpaid balance of the Contract Price, City of Palo Alto Page 29 08154ICPA_DB·agmt.doc then Design-Builder shall be obligated to pay the difference to City. Such costs and expenses shall include not only the costs of completing the Work, but also losses, damages, costs and expense, including attorneys' fees and expenses, incurred by City in connection with the re-procurement and defense of claims arising from Design-Builder's default. 11.2.4 If City improperly terminates the Agreement for cause, the termination for cause will be converted to a termination for convenience in accordance with the provisions of Section 11.3 of these General Conditions of Contract. 11.3 City's Right to Terminate for Convenience 11.3.1 Upon ten (10) days written notice to Design-Builder, the City may, for its convenience and without cause, elect to terminate the Agreement without liability to Design-Builder. In such event, the City shall pay Design-Builder for the following: .1 All labor and materials supplied to the Project up to the date of termination, unpaid but earned portions of fees to Design-Builder, Subcontractors and Sub- Subcontractors. 11.3.2 Ifthe City terminates the Agreement pursuant to Section 11.3.1 above and proceeds to design and construct the Project through its employees, agents or third parties, the City's right to use the Work Product shall be as set forth in Section 4.3 ofthe Agreement. 11.4 Design-Builder's Right to Terminate for Cause 11.4.1 Design-Builder, in addition to any other rights and remedies provided in the Contract Documents or by law, may terminate the Agreement for cause for the following reasons: .1 The Work has been stopped for sixty (60) consecutive days, or more than ninety (90) days during the duration of the Project, because of court order, any government authority having jurisdiction over the Work, or orders by City under Section 11.1.1 hereof, provided that such stoppages are not due to the acts or omissions of Design-Builder or anyone for whose acts Design-Builder may be responsible . . 2 City's failure to provide Design-Builder with any information, permits or approvals that are City's responsibility under the Contract Documents which result in the Work being stopped for sixty (60) consecutive days, or more than ninety (90) days during the duration of the Project, even though City has not ordered Design-Builder in writing to stop and suspend the Work pursuant to Section 11.1.1 hereof. 11.4.2 Upon the occurrence of an event set forth in Section 11.4.1 above, Design-Builder may provide written notice to City that it intends to terminate the Agreement unless the problem cited is cured, or commenced to be cured, within thirty (30) days of City's receipt of such notice. If City fails to cure, or reasonably commence to cure, such problem, then Design-Builder may give a second written notice to City of its intent to terminate within an additional thirty (30) day period. If City, within such second thirty (30) day period, fails to cure, or reasonably commence to cure, such problem, then Design-Builder may declare the Agreement terminated for default by providing written City of Palo Alto Page 30 08154\CPA _ DB-agmt.doc notice to City of such declaration. In such case, Design-Builder shall be entitled to recover in the same manner as if City had terminated the Agreement for its convenience under Section 11.3 hereof. 11.5 Bankruptcy of City or Design-Builder 11.5.1 If either City or Design-Builder institutes or has instituted against it a case under the United States Bankruptcy Code (such party being referred to as the "Bankrupt Party"), such event may impair or frustrate the Bankrupt Party's ability to perform its obligations under the Contract Documents. Accordingly, should such event occur: .1 The Bankrupt Party, its trustee or other successor, shall furnish, upon request of the non-Bankrupt Party, adequate assurance of the ability of the Bankrupt Party to perform all future material obligations under the Contract Documents, which assurances shall be provided within ten (J 0) days after receiving notice of the request; and .2 The Bankrupt Party shall file an appropriate action within the bankruptcy court to seek assumption or rejection of the Agreement within sixty (60) days of the institution of the bankruptcy filing and shall diligently prosecute such action. If the Bankrupt Party fails to comply with its foregoing obligations, the non-Bankrupt Party shall be entitled to request the bankruptcy court to reject the Agreement, declare the Agreement terminated and pursue any other recourse available to the non-Bankrupt Party under this Article 11. 11.5.2 The rights and remedies under Section 11.5.1 above shall not be deemed to limit the ability of the non-Bankrupt Party to seek any other rights and remedies provided by the Contract Documents or by law, including its ability to seek relief from any automatic stays under the United States Bankruptcy Code. . Article 12 Miscellaneous 12.1 Assignment 12.1.1 Neither Design-Builder nor City shall, without the written consent of the other, assign, transfer or sublet any portion or part of the Work or the obligations required by the Contract Documents. Any attempted assignment, transfer or sublet without such written consent shall be void and confer no rights upon any third person and shall constitute a default under the Contract Documents. 12.2 Successorship 12.2.1 Design-Builder and City acknowledge that the provisions of the Contract Documents are binding upon the Parties, their employees, agents, heirs, successors and assigns. 12.3 Governing Law 12.3.1 The Agreement and all Contract Documents shall be governed by the laws of the state of California. City of Palo Alto Page 31 08154\CPA_DB·agmt.doc 12.4 Severability 12.4.1 If any provision or any part of a provision of the Contract Documents shall be finally determined to be superseded, invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable pursuant to any applicable Legal Requirements, such determination shall not impair or otherwise affect the validity, legality, or enforceability of the remaining provision or parts of the provision of the Contract Documents, which shall remain in full force and effect as if the unenforceable provision or part were deleted. 12.5 No Waiver 12.5.1 The failure of either Design-Builder or City to insist, in anyone or more instances, on the performance of any of the obligations required by the other under the Contract Documents shall not be a construed as a waiver or relinquishment of such obligation or right with respect to future performance. 12.6 Headings 12.6.1 The headings used in these General Conditions of Contract, or any other Contract Document, are for ease of reference only and shall not in any way be construed to limit or alter the meaning of any provisions. 12.7 Notice 12.7.1 Whenever the Contract Documents require that notice be provided to the other party, notice will be deemed to have been validly given (i) if delivered in person to the individual intended to receive such notice, (ii) four (4) days after being sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid to the address indicated in the Agreement or (iii) if transmitted by facsimile, by the time stated in a machine generated confrrmation that notice was received at the facsimile number ofthe intended recipient. 12.8 Amendments 12.8.1 The Contract Documents may not be changed, altered, or amended in any way except in writing signed by a duly authorized representative of each party. City of Palo Alto Page 32 08154\CPA_DB-agmt.doc Exhibit B FOOTHILL FUELING STATION RETROFIT VR-92006 BACKGROUND The existing fueling facility at Foothills Park is located at 3300 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto. This facility was built in the 1970's and consists of one SOO-gallon diesel and one 1 ,OOO-galion gasoline above ground tanks, a concrete containment area, and two dispensers with associated underground piping and wiring. The facility has been shut down since 1999. Design-Build Delivery The delivery method for this project is "design-build". This method for contracting by an entity under a single contract of responsibility with an owner for both design and construction, where services within the scope of the practice of professional engineering as defined by the laws of the State of California, are performed by an engineer duly registered in the State of California; and where services within the scope of construction contracting, as defined by the laws of the State of California, are performed by a contractor qualified and licensed under the applicable statues. SCOPE OF WORK Tasks The Contractor shall replace the existing above-ground tanks with a new split tank for gasoline and diesel and replace the existing dispensers with a single dual product dispenser and remove and dispose of the existing dispensers and all ' . associated abandoned underground piping associated with the retrofit project. The only equipment within this Scope of Work that shall be provided by the City as a new, dual product dispenser. The Contractor shall install the dispenser but not be responsible for operability, manufacturing defects or warranty issues related to the dispenser but shall be responsible for proper connections and testing of the dispenser. Purchase of all other materials and equipment beyond the dispenser shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. The Contractor shall perform the following tasks, at a minimum, as part of the design-build for this project: City of Palo Alto Page 33 08154ICPA_DB-agmt.doc 1. The Contractor shall prepare plans and specification and obtain a building permit from the City of Palo Alto Planning, Building and Fire Department. 2. Obtain a closure permit from the City of Palo Alto Fire Department and remove the existing tanks, dispensers and piping. 3. Sample the soils per Santa Clara Water District's guidelines and requirements and submit samples to a state accredited laboratory for analysis. 4. Grade, compact and install 3,000 psi concrete to provide a 12'x 21'x 8" drive pad. Concrete pad shall have #4 rebar at 16" on center each way. This new concrete pad shall be tied into the existing bermed area with #4 rebar set in epoxy at 16" on center with a minimum 6" embedment. 5. Demolish and dispose of the existing tank saddles to obtain room for the new tank. Patch all cracks and damaged concrete surfaces and overlay the containment area with 1/8" thick of "thin spread" concrete. The bermed area shall be painted with fuel resistant epoxy paint per manufacturer's recommendation and tested for liquid tightness using a method acceptable to the City. 6. Supply and install a 1,000 gallon UL 2085 (protected vault tank) tank, which shall be split into 250 gallons gasoline and 750 gallons diesel. The supplied tank shall be "standing loss" compliant and 18-foot long fueling hoses shall be provided. 7. Supply and install a new Veeder-Root TLS 350C fuel monitor system with overfill alarm and communications software. The installation shall include all electrical wiring and data cables as necessary. 8. Install and connect the City-supplied dispenser on a Bravo "Marina" under-dispenser containment sump. 9. Purchase and install all tank trim items to industry or manufacturer specifications. 10. Purchase and install a FleetData card reader system (model to be approved by City). This work shall include all electrical, computer, software and telephone line to the existing shed as well as tests and start-up. City will compensate Contractor through an Allowance for FleetData card reader purchase and installation. 11. Install all necessary electrical services from the shed to the dispensers and card readers. The Contractor shall also provide and install all data cables between the dispenser, card reader and Veeder-Root monitoring system as required. 12. The Contractor shall prepare and submit all necessary documents, permits and/or plans to all governing agencies for a construction permit. The Contractor shall also prepare and submit a spill prevention plan as required by the County of Santa Clara. Contractor is responsible for the cost of said permits. City of Palo Alto Page 34 08154\CPA _ DB-agmt.doc Meetings and Reimbursables The cost of meeting with staff and outside agencies is considered as included in this proposal. Reimbursable expenses, such as travel, permits, telephone and computer costs, copying and other administrative costs are considered as included in this proposal. Hazardous Materials No hazardous material removal is anticipated for this site. If, however, testing or removal is required, the Contractor may be authorized to proceed with this work at a price to be negotiated between City and Contractor. Authorization from the City shall be in writing, prior to any work being performed. Additional Services Additional services may include, but are not limited to, additional construction work due to unforeseen underground conditions, changes to the scope that trigger additional costs, etc. Approval of Additional Services by the City shall be authorized in advance, in writing. Duration The fueling station shall be tested and ready for use within 120 days of the Notice to Proceed from the City. City afPala Alto Page 35 08154\CPA_DB-agmt.doc Milestone: EXHIBITC SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE Design/Construction Phase ( 120 days) Award of contract Design Start-Notice to Proceed Notice of Completion City of Palo Alto Approx. Date: September 2011 October 20 II February 2012 Page 36 08154\CPA _ DB·agmt.doc EXHIBITD COMPENSATION The guaranteed maximum for tasks 1-12. Allowance for underground unforeseen conditions to include hazardous materials removal and testing. Allowance for task #10, purchase and install FleetData card reader system. Subtotal: Additional Services/Contingency (l0% of Subtotal): Total maximum cost. $98,735.00 $10,000.00 $25,000.00 $133,735.00 $13,373.00 $147,108.00 The hourly rates that the Consultant/Contractor fee is based on, is itemized in the table below: Team Member Project Manger Engineer Foreman Laborer City ofpalo Alto Rate ($lhour) 2011-2012 $85 $85 $85 $85 Page 37 08154\CPA _ DB-agmt.doc Exhibit E-l CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE SURETY BOND WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto, State of California ("City") and ("Principal") have entered into an agreement dated , and identified as , which is hereby referred to and made a part hereof whereby Principal agrees to install and complete certain designated public improvements; and WHEREAS, Principal is required under the terms of said agreement to furnish a surety bond for the faithful performance of said agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, Principal and ____________________ ---', as Surety, incorporated under the Laws of the State of , and duly authorized to transact business as an admitted surety, under the Laws of the State of California, are held and firmly bound unto City in the penal sum of dollars ($ ), for the payment whereof Principal and Surety bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. The condition of this obligation is such that if the Principal, Principal's heirs, executors, administrators, successors, or assigns shall promptly and faithfully keep and perform the covenants, conditions, and provisions of the above-mentioned agreement and any alteration thereof, with or without notice to the Surety, and if Principal shall satisfy all claims and demands incurred under such agreement and shall fully protect, indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, its officers, agents, and employees from all claims, demands, or liabilities which may arise by reason of Principal's failure to do so, and shall reimburse and repay City all outlay and expenses which City may incur in making good any default, then this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise, it shall remain in full force and effect. City of Palo Alto Page 38 08154\CPA _ DB-agmt.doc As part of the obligations secured hereto, and in addition to the face amount specified therefore, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligations, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. Surety shall be liable for any liquidated damages for which the Principal may be liable under its agreement with the City, and such liquidated damages shall be part of the obligations secured hereto, and in addition to the face amount specified therefore. The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the agreement or to the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same, shall in any way affect its obligations on this security, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the agreement or to the work or to the specifications. Surety hereby waives the provisions of California Civil Code Section 2845 and 2849. The City is the principal beneficiary of this bond and has all rights of a party hereto. City of Palo Alto Page 39 08154\CPA _ DB-agmt.doc IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the Principal Surety above named on _______ , 20 __ . ___________________ Phone Number: ______ _ Name of Surety Signature of Surety By: _________________________ ___ Typed or Printed Name Name ofContractorlPrincipa1 Signature of Contractor /Principal By: _________ ---'--____ _ Typed or Printed Name City of Palo Alto Its: ____ --,----_____ _ Title Its: __________ _ Title Page 40 081541CPA _ DB·agmt.doc CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT (Civil Code § 1189) STATE OF _______ ) COUNTY OF ______ --') On _____ ', before me, __________ , a notary public in and for said County, personally appeared _________ , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in hislher/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by hislber/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certifY under penalty of peljury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. City of Palo Alto (Seal) Page 41 08154ICPA_DB-agmtdoc Exhibit E-lb SUBCONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE SURETY BOND WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto, State of California ("City") and ("Principal") have entered into an agreement dated , and identified as , which is hereby referred to and made a part hereof whereby Principal agrees to install and complete certain designated public improvements; and WHEREAS, Principal is required under the terms of said agreement to furnish a surety bond for the faithful performance of said agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, Principal and ____________________ -', as Surety, incorporated under the Laws of the State of , and duly authorized to transact business as an admitted surety, under the Laws of the State of California, are held and firmly bound unto City in the penal sum of dollars ($ ), for the payment whereof Principal and Surety bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. The condition of this obligation is such that if the Principal, Principal's heirs, executors, administrators, successors, or assigns shall promptly and faithfully keep and perform the covenants, conditions, and provisions of the above-mentioned agreement and any alteration thereof, with or without notice to the Surety, and if Principal shall satisfY all claims and demands incurred under such agreement and shall fully protect, indemnifY, defend, and hold harmless City, its officers, agents, and employees from all claims, demands, or liabilities which may arise by reason of Principal's failure to do so, and shall reimburse and repay City all outlay and expenses which City may incur in making good any default, then this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise, it shall remain in full force and effect. City of Palo Alto Page 42 08154\CPA_DB-agmt.doc As part of the obligations secured hereto, and in addition to the face amount specified therefore, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligations, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. Surety shall be liable for any liquidated damages for which the Principal may be liable under its agreement with the City, and such liquidated damages shall be part of the obligations secured hereto, and in addition to the face amount specified therefore. The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the agreement or to the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same, shall in any way affect its obligations on this security, and. it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the agreement or to the work or to the specifications. Surety hereby waives the provisions of California Civil Code Section 2845 and 2849. The City is the principal beneficiary of this bond and has all rights of a party hereto. City of Palo Alto Page 43 08154\CPA_DB-agmt.doc IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the Principal Surety above named on _______ , 20 __ , __________________ Phone Number: ______ _ Name of Surety Signature of Surety By: _____________ _ Typed or Printed Name Name of ContractorlPrincipal Signature of ContractorlPrincipai By: ______________ _ Typed or Printed Name City of Palo Alto Its: _________ _ Title Its: __________ _ Title Page 44 081541CPA _ DB-agmt.doc CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT (Civil Code § 1189) STATEOF ______ ~------) COUNTYOF _____________ ) On _____ " before me, ___________ , a notary public in and for said County, personally appeared _________ , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by hislher/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under penalty of peljury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. City of Palo Alto (Seal) Page 45 08154\CPA_DB-agmt.doc ExhibitE-2 CONTRACTOR'S PAYMENT (LABOR AND MATERIALS) SURETY BOND WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto, State of California ("City") and , ("Principal"), have entered into an agreement dated , and identified as __ ("Agreement"), which is hereby referred to and made a part here of, whereby Principal agrees to install and complete certain designated public improvements; and WHEREAS, under the terms of said agreement, Principal is required before entering upon the performance of the work to file a good and sufficient payment surety bond with City to secure the claims to which reference is made in Title 15 (commencing with Section 3082) ofPart 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code of the State of California. NOW, THEREFORE, Principal and as Surety, incorporated under the laws ofthe State of ______________ , and duly authorized to transact business as an admitted surety, under the Laws of the State of California, are held and firmly bound unto City in the penal sum of dollars ($ ), this amount being not less than one hundred percent of the total amount payable by the terms of the Agreement per Civil Code section 3248(a), for the payment whereof Principal and Surety bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. The condition of this obligation is such that if Principal, Principal's subcontractors, heirs, executors, administrators, successors, or assigns shall fail to pay any of the persons, companies, or corporations, referred to in Section 3181 of the California Civil Code, as amended, with respect to any work of labor performed or materials supplied by any such persons, companies, or corporations, which work, labor, or materials are covered by the above-mentioned agreement and any amendments, changes, change order, additions, alterations, or modifications thereof, or any amounts due under the California Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to such work or labor, or for any amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the Employment Development Department from the wages of employees of the Principal and its subcontractors pursuant to Section 13020 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, as amended, with respect to such work and labor, the Surety will pay for the same, in an amount not exceeding the sum herein above specified, and also, in case suit is brought upon this bond, the Surety will pay reasonable attorney's fees in an amount to be fixed by the court. City of Palo Alto Page 46 08154ICPA_DB-agmt.doc It is hereby expressly stipulated and agreed that this surety bond shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons, companies, and corporations entitled named in Section 3181 of the California Civil Code, as amended, so as to give a right of action to them or their assigns in any suit brought upon this surety bond. The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no amendment, change, change order, addition, alteration, or modification to the terms of the agreement of the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same, shall in any way affect its obligations on this surety bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such amendment, change, change order, addition, alteration, or modification to the terms of the agreement or to the work performed thereunder or to the specifications accompanying the same. Surety hereby waives the provisions of California Civil Code Sections 2845 and 2849. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the Surety and Principal above named on ______ " 20 _ ___________________ Phone Number: ______ _ Name of Surety Signature of Surety By: _______________ Its: ________ ,---_ Typed or Printed Name Title Name ofContractor/Principal Signature of Contractor/Principal By: _______________ Its:_~-------- Typed or Printed Name City ofpalo Alto Title Page 47 08154\CPA_DB·agmt.doc CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT (Civil Code § 1189) STATE OF ) COUNTYOF _____________ ) On _____ , before me, ___________ , a notary public in and for said County, personally appeared _________ , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in hislher/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under penalty of peljury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ------------------------(Seal) City ofpalo Alto Page 48 08154\CPA _ DB-agmt.doc Attachment F INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST'S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY'S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: MINIMUM LIMITS REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES WORKER'S COMPENSATION STATUTORY YES EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY STATUTORY BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 LIABILITY COMBINED. BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 -EACH PERSON $1,000,000 $1,000,000 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, -EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, $1,000,000 $1,000,000 COMBINED PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, YES INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND YES EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULT ANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIDED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY'S PRIOR AFPROV AL, II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO "ADDITIONAL INSUREDS" A. PRIMARY COVERAGE Rev. 11/07 Attachment F INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARIUED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. Rev. 11107 C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION I. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303. CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL September 19, 2011 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Recommendation from the Policy & Services Committee on Proposed Changes to the City Council Procedures and Protocols RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed changes by the Policy & Services Committee to the City Council Procedures and Protocols as outlined in this report. BACKGROUND On November 22, 2010 the City Council approved ministerial changes to the Council Procedures and Protocols and referred back to the Policy & Services Committee the further discussion on changes to these documents. The Council Protocols require that the City Council at the beginning of each legislative year to hold a special meeting to review both the Council Procedures and Protocols. Once the Council has approved these changes, my department will be reformatting both documents to enable them to be more user friendly. The Policy & Services Committee met on December 14, 2010, February 15, 2011, March 8, 2011, April 20, 2011, and June 7, 2011. The following is a list of changes recommended by the Policy & Services Committee: Changes Recommended by the Policy and Services Committee for the City Council Procedures Handbook · “Quasi-Judicial” should be “Quasi-Judicial/Planned Community” throughout. · Changes approved by P&S Motion on 4/20/11 Pages II-1 and II-2 Study Sessions are meetings during which the Council receives information about City business in an informal setting. The informal study session setting is Updated: 9/14/2011 11:24 AM by Beth Minor Page 2 intended to encourage in-depth presentations discussion, by city staff and detailed questioning and brainstorming by Council on issues of significant interest, including City policy matters, zoning applications, and major public works projects. The Council may discuss the material freely without following formal rules of parliamentary procedure. Staff may be directed to bring matters back for Council consideration at future Council consideration as no action can be taken at a study session. During regular study sessions, public comments are Public comments on study session items may be typically received together with oral communications at the end of the immediately following the session or may be heard during discussion of the item as determined by the Mayor at another appropriate time at the discretion of the chair. During special study sessions, public comments will be heard at the end of any Council discussion, but oral communications will be consolidated with the oral communications section of the regular meeting, if one follows study session. The Decorum rules still apply to the behavior of the Council and public. · Changes approved by P&S Motion on 3/8/11 and 6/7/11 Page II-5 c) Late Submittal of Correspondence or Other Information Related to Planning Applications. In order to allow for adequate Staff review and analysis, and to ensure public access to information, all plans, correspondence, and other documents supporting or commenting on planning applications being heard by the City Council must be submitted to staff not later than noon five working days prior to the release of the Council Agenda Packet. If any correspondence or other information is submitted after this deadline to Council Members or staff,and Staff determines additional review is needed Staff will reschedule the item for a future Council meeting. If a Council member receives planning application materials from a project applicant he or she shall notify the City Clerk and the City Manager as soon as possible. There are no restrictions on the rights of applicants or others to comment or respond to information contained within the Staff Report. At the meeting the City Council may determine whether to continue or refer the item to the appropriate Board and/or Commission if significant changes to a project or significant new information become known. Nothing in this statement is intended to restrict the rights of applicants or other interested Updated: 9/14/2011 11:24 AM by Beth Minor Page 3 parties to respond to information contained in or attached to a Staff Report. · Changes made per Staff recommendation at P&S on 4/20/11 Page II-12 Oral Communications and Public Comments. Oral communications and public comments will be listed together on the agenda and heard at the end of the study session. If a meeting follows the study session, public comments will be heard at the end of any Council discussion, but oral communications will be consolidated with the oral communications section of the following meeting. b)No Formal Rules. Study sessions are intended to be conducive to in-depth factual presentations by City staff and detailed questioning and brainstorming by Council. The Council may discuss the material freely without following formal rules of parliamentary procedure, and the Mayor shall have discretion to determine the appropriate process for conducting the study session, including when public comment and oral communications will be heard. c) However, t Public Participation. The general rules of decorum apply. · Changes approved by P&S Motion on 2/15/11 Page IV-1 Purpose. These rules are intended to assure that City Council decision making on quasi-judicial matters is based upon facts and evidence known to all parties and to support the autonomy role of Boards and Commissions in making independent recommendations to Council. · Changes approved by P&S Motion on 4/20/11 Page IV-1 For purposes of this Section IV, a Quasi-Judicial or Planned Community Development Project subject to these rules is a formulated plan, whether formal or conceptual to go forward with a particular project or development. · Changes approved by P&S Motion on 12/14/10 Page IV-1 Restrictions on Council Communications Outside of Quasi-Judicial and Planned Updated: 9/14/2011 11:24 AM by Beth Minor Page 4 Community Zone Hearings. It is the policy of the Council to discourage the gathering and submission of information by Council Members outside of any noticed public meeting, prior to final recommendations by the Architectural Review Board or Planning & Transportation Commission. The following procedural guidelines are intended to implement this policy, but shall not be construed to create any remedy or right of action. Changes Recommended by the Policy and Services Committee for the City Council Protocols Handbook · “For all purposes, applicant also refers to applicant agent.” Added as a footer. · Changes approved by P&S Motion on 2/15/11 Page 4 Council Members may attend any Board or Commission meeting, which are always open to any member of the public. Any public comments by a Council Member at a Board or Commission meeting, when that Council Member is not the liaison to the Board or Commission, should be clearly made as should make a point to clearly state it is an individual opinion and not a representation of the feelings of the entire City Council. · Changes approved by P&S Motion on 2/15/11 Page 5 Refrain from Lobbying Limit Contact with Board and Commission members to questions of clarification. Concerns about an individual Board or Commission Member should be pursued with tact. If a Council Member has concerns with the effectiveness of a particular Board or Commission member fulfilling their his or her roles and responsibilities and is comfortable in talking with that individual privately, the Council Member should do so. Alternatively, or if the problem is not resolved, the Council Member should Updated: 9/14/2011 11:24 AM by Beth Minor Page 5 consult with the Mayor, who can bring may address the issue to the Council as appropriate. · Changes approved by P&S Motion on 2/15/11 Page 6 If Council receives planning application materials related to agenda item matters they will notify the City Clerk and the City Manager as soon as possible. · Changes approved by P&S Motion on 6/7/11 Page 6/7 Late Submittal of Planning Application Materials. In order to allow for adequate staff review and analysis and to ensure public access to materials, all plans and other applicant* materials related to Planning applications being heard by the City Council must be submitted not later than noon 5 working days prior to the release of the Council agenda packet. This includes materials delivered to staff or to Council members either before or during the meeting. If items are not submitted by this date or if staff determines additional review is needed, staff will reschedule the item to a future Council meeting. Additionally, if there are significant changes, staff will analyze whether the need exists to continue the item. c) Late Submittal of Correspondence or Other Information Related to Planning Applications. In order to allow for adequate Staff review and analysis, and to ensure public access to information, all plans, correspondence, and other documents supporting or commenting on planning applications being heard by the City Council must be submitted to staff not later than noon five working days prior to the release of the Council Agenda Packet. If any correspondence or other information is submitted after this deadline to Council Members or staff, and Staff determines additional review is needed Staff will reschedule the item for a future Council meeting. If a Council member receives planning application materials from a project applicant he or she shall notify the City Clerk and the City Manager as soon as possible. There are no restrictions on the rights of applicants or others to comment or respond to information contained within the Staff Report. At the meeting the City Council may determine whether to continue or refer the item to the appropriate Board and/or Commission if Updated: 9/14/2011 11:24 AM by Beth Minor Page 6 significant changes to a project or significant new information become known. Nothing in this statement is intended to restrict the rights of applicants or other interested parties to respond to information contained in or attached to a Staff Report. · Changes approved by P&S on 3/8/11 Page 8 Purpose Statement: The purpose of the Policy & Services Committee is to review and identify important community issues and City policies and practices to ensure good public policy with a focus on ensuring good public policy and best practices. A particular focus of the Committee is to ensure that the City organization is responsive, effective, and aligned with community values and City Council priorities. The Committee shall consider and make recommendations to Council on matters relating to parliamentary and administrative procedures and policy matters. ATTACHMENTS: ·a:P&S All Procedures and Protocols Excerpts (DOC) ·b:Procedures Handbook Redlined(DOC) ·c:Protocols Handbook Redlined (DOC) Department Head:Donna Grider, City Clerk Updated: 9/14/2011 11:24 AM by Beth Minor Page 7 3283.doc 1 POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE Excerpt Special Meeting December 14, 2010 Procedures and Protocols from City Council 11-22-10. ·Procedures and Protocols comments, letters, and email communications received from the City Council 11-22 (information only) ·Developer late submittals, quasi-judicial hears and ex-parte communications Interim City Attorney Don Larkin spoke regarding the letter he submitted to the Finance Committee. He said it was not intended to be a Staff Report but rather a response to questions discussed at prior Policy and Services Committee meetings. He discussed whether it was possible to disallow ex-parte communications with the public. He stated that members of the public must be allowed to discuss quasi-judicial matters with their Council. It could, however be discouraged during the meetings and as a matter of practice any should be disclosed. He said Staff contacted municipalities across the state to compare policies. No city prohibits all ex-parte communications. Some cities discouraged some gathering of information under certain circumstances. He said that quasi-judicial is defined by the law as a decision that impacts property rights, interested people have a right to due process under the law. The matters that Council reviews most often come up on the Consent Calendar, though there are exceptions. It is an internal policy to treat Planned Community (PC) applications as quasi-judicial but it is not defined as such under the law. City Manager James Keene spoke regarding Staff’s attempts to consolidate the various concerns into concise language for both ex-parte communications and late submittals being the focus for the current meeting. Mr. Larkin said that Staff attempted to respond to Council Members comments from the November 22, 2010 Policy and Services Committee meeting as well as those received subsequently. 3283.doc 2 Council Member Price asked if the first section on page 4 of the letter where it stated “discouraging communications prior to ARB and PTC recommendations” was intended to be conceptual about PC zones. She wanted to know if this revised language would prohibit a Council Member from going to neighborhood meetings regarding the applications or having a discussion with someone in a grocery store. Mr. Larkin said that the intent was that Council Members may attend public meetings however a casual discussion at a grocery store would be discouraged under the policy. Council Member Price confirmed that this would discourage but not prohibit this type of casual meeting. Mr. Larkin said that was correct as the City could not tell a citizen they may not speak to a Council Member. Council Member Price spoke about a Colleagues Memo regarding an upcoming item at a Planning Commission meeting that she wanted to know more about. She observed that there were two bodies examining similar topics. She said it would be useful for the Council to know what transpired at the Planning Committee meeting. Planning and Community Development Director Curtis Williams said that the item Council Member Price was referring to was reviewed on November 10, 2010 and rescheduled for the Planning Committee meeting the following day. The affect of the action would be to allow the Planning Commission more flexibility to meet with applicants and public relative to quasi-judicial materials. He said they currently had a policy that strongly discouraged communications between Planning Commissioners and applicants outside of public meetings. He said the action pending the following day, if taken, would delete that sentence. It would also add a handful of disclosure rules. Council Member Price voiced concern about discussing the same topic with the two bodies not being aware of the others concerns. Mr. Williams said the Planning Commission knew the City Council was discussing the issue and considered waiting until the Council made a decision. Council Member Price said this was a significant piece of information. She said the Colleagues Memo created a more moderate approach. She confirmed that it clearly recommended some flexibility in terms of engagement. She requested confirmation that the policy would clearly provide guidance for disclosure. 3283.doc 3 Mr. Williams agreed that it did. Mr. Keene said that the issue did not need to be too complex. He stated that the Planning Commission was ancillary to the Council and advisory to them. These are ultimately the Council decisions. He recommended the Council determine how they want to proceed with these issues and the Planning Commission can take their queue from that rather than Council basing their choices on the Planning Commissions decisions. Council Member Holman asked if site and design projects were quasi judicial. Mr. Larkin said they were. It was not his intent to exclude them. Council Member Holman asked about disclosures. She said the agendas are not indicating which items are quasi judicial so they are not being asked for disclosures and they are easy to forget. Mr. Larkin said Staff would designate quasi-judicial items. Mr. Keene said if the Policy and Services Committee recommended that agenda’s indicate which items are quasi judicial Staff would implement it. Council Member Holman said that study sessions were rigid. She suggested Staff develop methods to make the sessions more informative. Mr. Keene said that this was not directly connected to the topics on the agenda. He stated it was a larger issue. Council Member Holman stated that it was pertinent as one argument regarding ex parte communications is that study sessions need to provide better information for the public. Mr. Keene said they could have a study session on social service needs that might be structured differently than a land use hearing. The setting the study sessions were conducted in could change the nature of them. He also said that defining when a study session occurs with land use items could affect the sequence of when these items come to Council. The Policy and Services Committee could direct Staff to review options. Council Member Holman said that the Planning Director should also respond to pre-screenings. 3283.doc 4 Mr. Williams said that projects don’t often have study sessions. He said that Staff had discussed changing the approach to study sessions. They will continue to work on refining the format. Study sessions would need to be separated from regular Council Meetings in order to be effective. Mr. Larkin said the rules would not have to change as the Council already has flexibility to change the study sessions. Council Member Holman said it would be helpful to know what is appropriate versus inappropriate in an ex-parte communication. Mr. Larkin said that it is concerning when there is a perception of back room deals. It is inappropriate to not disclose information to the public. Secondly where a Council Member has become so invested in a project based on meetings with applicants that when the project comes before the Council that Council Member is no longer objective. Council Members should not help design a project or be so involved to interfere with objectiveness. It’s not a black and white question rather it’s a question that requires judgment. Council Member Holman asked what could be accomplished in a private meeting that can’t be in a public meeting. Mr. Larkin said an example would be if a Commissioner visits a site with an applicant. As long as the tour and any learned information is disclosed there is no legal problem in that. Council has the ability to create a more transparent process. Council Member Holman said site visits can be public meetings. Mr. Larkin said there are Brown Act issues with meeting in an open space. It is difficult to have a public meeting in a setting where Council and attendees can be spread over a wide area and not hear all communications. He said it is not conducive to the public’s needs. Council Member Holman said that it made sense for the Council to make a decision regarding ex-parte communications prior to the Planning Commission. There was concern with having ex-parte communications at Planning Commission meetings. Applicants can convince Commissioners based on appearance. By the time the item gets to the Council what is approved is a document that has not been amended by the Commission. Council Member Shepherd said that making deals before an item was voted on was a problem. She asked if it were possible to give the Policy and Services 3283.doc 5 Committee clear guidance so they have an understanding of what they are allowed to do and what type of information must be disclosed. She had found it helpful to understand the project through direct communication with the applicants. Mr. Larkin said it would be possible to provide examples of ex-parte communications. Council Member Shepherd said the liaison tended to clarify the statement. Mr. Larkin said it was important to understand those conversations are what this language was intending to discourage. He reiterated that Staff would include examples of what is and is not discouraged. Emails and site visits without the applicant are information gathering outside of a public hearing. Yet emails are not discouraged too strongly as they can be forwarded and included in public information. Council Member Shepherd asked if it was the City Attorney’s responsibility to stop ex parte communications from taking place during a meeting. Mr. Keene said this was not related to the topic. Council Member Shepherd asked about the difference between a protocol and a procedure. Mr. Larkin said the context of the two different documents was that procedures defined how the Council conducts itself and the rules by which it relates to the community. The protocols defined how the Council operates internally. Chair Yeh said it was important to understand that ex parte communications involved an honor system among Council Members. It was important that the language not prohibit first amendment rights of the public to communicate. He said there had been times where it had been helpful to hear the public’s perspective. He said the language addresses that issue and he would be supportive of it. He did not want to rewrite the document word-by-word. Mr. Larkin added that when the ex parte communications began to impede the impartiality of Council Members was when it became a problem. Mr. Keene suggested the verbiage state “a Council Member” instead of just “Council” when referring to restrictions on communications outside of publicly noticed meetings. He added that there were many roles and responsibilities for 3283.doc 6 Council Members including a quasi judicial role, and a role as an accessible public official. Council Member Shepherd asked if they were going to accept the language provided by the City Attorney. Mr. Larkin said the language revisions on the second item were based on what the Committee had previously approved. He said they could address the language regarding late submittals. There were differences between clarifications and changes in the publications. There was some language regarding what makes Staff change the timeline on applications. The Council needed to decide what they wanted to have further conversation on. He said Staff’s recommendation was that everything that goes before Council should come to the packet five days before. He said the language should reflect that items delivered after this date would trigger an analysis by Staff. Staff was not comfortable determining what was important to Council; the direction should come from Council. There was some other language proposed by members of the public. He said Staff had not had an opportunity to study the legal impediments to the public’s suggestions. They were open to further revisions. Staff was comfortable with the Committee suggestions already made. He clarified that they might want to add a clarifying sentence regarding applicants and members of the public always having a right to address Council. He was uncomfortable with the previous verbiage because it implied that it was constrained in other places. He suggested “Nothing in this policy is intended to restrict the right of applicants or other interested parties to respond to information contained in or included with the Staff Report.” Council Member Holman suggested “If any correspondence or other information is submitted after the deadline and Staff determines additional review is needed Staff will reschedule the item to a future Council Meeting.” She asked, if Staff was uncomfortable making that decision, how it should be made. Mr. Larkin said he was comfortable with the way it was written. Staff can determine if new information changes the project and requires postponement. The next sentence about Staff analyzing significant changes was his concern as it is Councils decision. Council Member Holman asked if the option for Staff to return an item to the Architectural Review Board or to the Planning Commission ought to be provided for. Mr. Williams suggested the City Attorney would have to comment on the legality of that. 3283.doc 7 Mr. Larkin said in most cases it would be the City Council’s decision. Council Member Holman asked if language should be added granting that ability to Council. Mr. Larkin said it could clarify it. Council Member Holman said she had seen Council struggle on the dais because they felt they didn’t have the ability to send an item back to the Planning Commission. Council Member Price said that she was concerned about being too prescriptive. The issue of the authority of the Council to return a project is widely understood. The language as already stated is well written and clear. They must recognize both Staff’s expertise and the Council’s authority. Mr. Larkin said his concern was that commenting on a Staff Report is not a right given by this policy. It is already a Council right. Council Member Holman said she didn’t believe Council was comfortable with that. Mr. Williams said Council was clear on their authority, even if they have never exercised that specific right. Council Member Holman disagreed. Council Member Price suggested this was a training issue. Council Member Holman said she wanted it clear that this exercise was to provide good process, transparency, and fairness to all parties. Chair Yeh said the intention was to clarify. He would support the last addition mentioned by the City Attorney. Jean McCown of Palo Alto spoke regarding encouraging communications with the public. The language “strongly discourage” sent a negative message. Council should be trusted to gather information without forming a bias. She said the Planning Commission Colleagues Memo was very positive. She added that in her tenure on the City Council they had full disclosure. She would ask the public not to speak with her until after she read the Staff Report. 3283.doc 8 Council Member Holman asked Ms. McCown if she was indicating that Council should only be allowed to speak with applicants after they read the Staff Report. Ms. McCown said it does not need to be in writing. This language revision felt like a solution looking for a problem. Fred Balin of Palo Alto said that according to the City Attorney Council communications outside of quasi judicial hearings were legislative. But the handbook defines it as other matters determined by the City Attorney. Council Members should refrain from ex parte communications related to quasi judicial items until after Council makes a final decision. He also spoke regarding confusion on late submittals with the City Attorney’s revisions. The suggested revision narrows the focus to the Staff Report. Bob Moss of Palo Alto said that Planning Commissioners often will stop members of the public from speaking to them off-line. They should allow sending it back to the Planning Commission. However if it is not put in writing no one will remember it in five years. Clear standards, understood by all, were important and that was what these documents were. PC’s are different than every item and should be handled more restrictively clear. Restricting the time and manner of the public communicating with Council was not restricting members of the publics right to communicate. Tom Jordan of Palo Alto said regarding ex parte communication, there were six public letters in favor of the policy and was distributed to everyone. He stated that not defining a policy was like when the financial community said they didn’t need a policy. Rules were important and they had not been followed. Speaking to the applicant prior to the Planning Commission decision undercuts their decision. Council Member Holman commented that appearances were important. These recommendations were to suggest that our standards are high and appearances matter. Restraining ourselves until after the Commissions make their decisions eliminates that imposition and perception that decisions had been arrived at earlier. She said that much of the procedures and protocols were intended to provide clarity and adding new items for the purpose of clarity would not be a problem. The quasi judicial hearings, Procedures Handbook IV-I, used the word “autonomy” which concerned her. She suggested instead “the integrity of the Boards and Commissions process in making recommendation to Council will support the independence of. . .” City Clerk Donna Grider said that this was not on the agenda. 3283.doc 9 Chair Yeh agreed saying they could discuss that at a later meeting. Council Member Holman said regarding ex parte on page one of City Attorneys letter the last paragraph regarding restrictions on Council communications “outside of quasi judicial and PC hearings it is the policy of the Council to strongly discourage the gathering and submission of information by Council Members outside of any noticed public meeting including prior to final recommendations by Architectural Review Board or Planning and Transportation Commission.” Mr. Keene suggested it state “when such information may interfere with the impartiality of Council Members.” Council Member Holman said she was omitting that based on a suggestion by Council Member Klein. He suggested that the entire purpose would be negated if it does not impair a Council Members judgment. So she suggested removing the line. She did want to leave the last line the document. Mr. Keene said he thought Council Member Klein was saying the Council Member would be exercising their own judgment whether it affected them or not. Council Member Holman said she thought Council Member Klein was saying that no one is going to compromise a Council Members judgment. Council Member Price agreed with the City Manager. MOTION:Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Chair Yeh to recommend the City Council change the City Council Procedures Handbook Page IV-10, section B-2 to read “Restrictions on Council Communications Outside of Quasi-Judicial and Planned Community Zone Hearings. It is the policy of the Council to strongly discourage the gathering and submission of information by Council Members outside of any noticed public meeting, including prior to final recommendations by the Architectural Review Board or Planning & Transportation Commission. The following procedural guidelines are intended to implement this policy, but shall not be construed to create any remedy or right of action.” Chair Yeh said he supported the Motion based on the independent review. 3283.doc 10 INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to delete the word “including.” Mr. Keene said that as it as worded it seemed to say that the policy is to strongly discourage the gathering of information including prior to final recommendations period. It did not indicate that there could be any exceptions. The language discussing impairing the Council Members impartiality opens the door to an individual Council Member to have something articulated stating that’s what they should do. Council Member Holman said the City Attorney said they were on the more restrictive end of policies compared to other cities. She disagreed. No Council Member refuses to meet with applicants. It is not restrictive. Mr. Larkin said the Palo Alto Council did not act any differently than any other council. His research implied that Palo Alto’s language was more restrictive than other cities, but the Council acts the same. Council Member Holman said there were cities that discourage ex parte communications. Mr. Larkin said there were some that discourage. Council Member Shepherd argued against using the word “strongly” and would prefer to remove it. Discourage was strong enough. Chair Yeh said this is ultimately an honor code and agreed to remove the word from the Motion. Council Member Holman disagreed. Council Member Price suggested moderation and thought “strongly” should be removed. She said Council Members should have a clear understanding of disclosure. Mr. Larkin said that Staff was suggesting changes regarding disclosure. Council Member Price said she agreed with the language and intention of the rest of the Motion. Council Member Holman accepted removal of the word strongly. 3283.doc 11 INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to delete the word “strongly.” Council Member Shepherd asked, if a developer wanted a PC, how they would search for good information to submit a sound proposal. Mr. Williams said there was a more formal process with prescreening where the Council provided input. He said there was not much feedback from study sessions, which can be problematic. Council Member Holman said it was similar to CEQA. She suggested the prescreening process that was in place was important to provide input to applicants. She said she would make a Motion to have staff come back with suggestion for prescreening and study sessions so they could be more helpful to everyone and that there will be an action item after the session. That preliminary stage doesn’t need guidance. Chair Yeh asked for comments regarding the Motion on the floor. Council Member Shepherd asked if PC hearings were quasi judicial. Mr. Larkin said they were not, though Council treated them as such. MOTION RESTATED AS AMENDED:Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Chair Yeh to recommend the City Council change the City Council Procedures Handbook Page IV-1, section B-2 to read “Restrictions on Council Communications Outside of Quasi-Judicial and Planned Community Zone Hearings. It is the policy of the Council to discourage the gathering and submission of information by Council Members outside of any noticed public meeting, prior to final recommendations by the Architectural Review Board or Planning & Transportation Commission. The following procedural guidelines are intended to implement this policy, but shall not be construed to create any remedy or right of action.” Mr. Keene asked what this meant for communication post ARB or PTC direction. He assumed there were no restrictions on this. Council Member Shepherd asked if Council Members could still attend PTC meetings. Mr. Larkin said that was a public hearing and Council Members were free to attend. 3283.doc 12 Council Member Holman said they were still subject to disclosures as the City Manager pointed out. Chair Yeh said he would be more comfortable discussing that with late submittals. MOTION AS AMEDED PASSED 4-0. Council Member Holman suggested the following verbiage be added to the Procedures and Protocols document on Page II-4/II-5 “Late Submittal of Correspondence or Other Information Related to Planning Applications. In order to allow for adequate Staff review and analysis, and to ensure public access to information, all plans, correspondence, and other documents supporting or commenting on planning applications being heard by the City Council must be submitted not later than noon five working days prior to the release of the Council Agenda Packet. If any correspondence or other information is submitted after this deadline and Staff determines additional review is needed Staff will reschedule the item for a future Council meeting. The City Council can determine continuance or referral if significant changes to a project, or significant new information becomes known.” Mr. Larkin suggested adding to the end “nothing in this statement is intended to restrict the rights of applicants or other interested parties to respond to information contained in or included with a staff report.” Council Member Holman agreed with Mr. Larkin’s suggested verbiage, but added “related to this item.” Mr. Larkin said the verbiage could state “attached to the Staff Report.” Council Member Holman repeated “The City Council can determine continuance or referral if significant changes to a project, or significant new information becomes known.” Council Member Price said she didn’t think that statement was needed. Council Member Holman said it was not always understood and should be added. Mr. Larkin suggested the sentence be rewritten to say “The City Council can determine whether to continue or refer the item to the appropriate Board and/or Commission if significant changes to a project or significant new information become known.” 3283.doc 13 Mr. Keene suggested the statement read “At the meeting the City Council can determine whether to continue or refer the item to the appropriate Board and/or Commission if significant changes to a project or significant new information become known.” Mr. Larkin changed “can” to “may.” Council Member Holman agreed to the rewrite. She stated that this new verbiage would lead to better outcomes. Council Member Price agreed. MOTION:Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Price to add a Section C on Page II-4/II-5 in Procedures and Protocols be changed to “Late Submittal of Correspondence or Other Information Related to Planning Applications. In order to allow for adequate Staff review and analysis, and to ensure public access to information, all plans, correspondence, and other documents supporting or commenting on planning applications being heard by the City Council must be submitted not later than noon five working days prior to the release of the Council Agenda Packet. If any correspondence or other information is submitted after this deadline and Staff determines additional review is needed Staff will reschedule the item for a future Council meeting. At the meeting the City Council may determine whether to continue or refer the item to the appropriate Board and/or Commission if significant changes to a project or significant new information become known. Nothing in this statement is intended to restrict the rights of applicants or other interested parties to respond to information contained in or attached to a Staff Report. Mr. Larkin stated that originally the submission was for materials from applicants. He said the same behavior from applicants and opponents should be treated the same. This also applies if Staff has a lengthy environmental report to submit. Council Member Holman said it is important to support Staff and this was one of the objectives for adding this verbiage. MOTION PASSED:4-0 Mr. Keene stated that late submittals can come after the five day period but it’s the earlier ones that are received in time to inform the public. The Council has a right to let people speak to an item, even if it is delayed because of late submittals. 3283.doc 14 Council Member Holman said the public would prefer to show up a second time rather than have incomplete information. Mr. Keene said that once this policy is in effect the behavior will change and late submittals will decrease. Council Member Shepherd said that there are times when the Mayor will let them speak, but not again at the next meeting. And the wording in the Motion was “and” not “or” giving some flexibility. Mr. Grider said that additional information might necessitate a second public hearing notice, making it less desirable to take public testimony at the first meeting. Council Member Holman asked about study sessions and asked if they could give direction to Staff. Mr. Larkin said they will bring those study session and prescreening items back. There were other items that could come back as well. Council Member Holman asked if these additional items could go to straight to Council or if they could at least inform Council there are outstanding items. Mr. Larkin said they would let Council know the process was not complete yet. 3283.doc 15 POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE Regular Meeting February 15, 2011 DRAFT EXCERPT Discussion of future topics Chair Price spoke of the Council’s Retreat, 2010 topics, and the five areas of focus for discussion. She said reference materials were provided to Policy and Services Committee members since two members were new. City Manager, James Keene spoke about topics carried forward from last year. He said Mr. Braulik would be sharing the five priorities that were in the stages of getting finalized. Assistant Director Administrative Services, Rob Braulik provided to the Committee members copies of the City Council Priorities Spreadsheet, a memo addressed to the City Manager and Assistant City Manager following the January 22nd Council Retreat, and a sample of a detailed description of one Council priority. He said notes from the Retreat were integrated with the two-year plan and focused on key items of each priority to be accomplished by December 2011. He gave an overview of a workplan that would involve monitoring progress and Staff’s feedback on performance measures and standards regarding the workload. A quarterly report from the City Manager’s office would be generated to the Council based on the progress of the workplan, milestones, and a performance metrics. The Executive Leadership Team (ELT) would schedule time as part of the regular meeting schedule to focus on the template information and performance metrics and make adjustments accordingly. The Five Council Priorities were as follows: City Finances o Complete labor negotiations with all major bargaining groups o Complete refuse study and execute plan to balance and stabilize fund o Complete and execute an economic development strategic plan o Execute new budget and fiscal measure to help ensure long-term financial stability 3283.doc 16 o IBRC complete analysis of city long-term infrastructure needs & report to CC Emergency Preparedness o Conduct one major community emergency preparedness event exercise o Evaluate a secondary electrical transmission line and make a report to the CC o Execute a Foothills fire emergency operations plan o Execute a reorganization plan based on Fire operations study o OES will initiate methods and strategies to enhance citizen volunteer support Environmental Sustainability o Evaluate construction of compositing digester or alt's to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) o Evaluate plan to install electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at commercial/residential sites o Establish formal collaborative relationship with Stanford re: sustainability initiatives o Explore methods to integrate PA Green into City sustainability program o Prepare and present an Urban Forest Master Plan to monitor and manage City Tree inventory Land Use & Transportation o Complete strategies and plans at the Development Center to improve customer service o Complete draft Rail Corridor Study outlining measures to provide 4 community land use, transportation.& corridor urban design o Complete Stanford University Medical Center rehabilitation and expansion project o Substantially complete update of City Comprehensive Plan including draft Housing Element, 2 area Concept Plans o Continue HSR monitoring & facilitate w/ other Peninsula cities, regional agencies plan to assure short and long-term Caltrain operational viability o Actively participate, provide input into prep of regional Sustainable Communities Strategy (SB375), Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) o Prepare Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Update to facilitate bide and pedestrian facilities, programs and education Youth Well Being o Execute Project Safety Net 3283.doc 17 o Monitor private fundraising efforts and status to raise funds for Magical Bridge playground Mr. Keene said Mr. Braulik’s presentation was a follow-up to the Council’s Retreat of January 22, 2011. Future discussions could develop that were not included in the workplan. He said there were several in-service policy questions that faced the City and needed to be identified. He wanted to report on the most appropriate venues and to let the Committee know of items that would be coming back. Council Member Klein said he would like a calendar of when Staff would be bring back the items to the Committee. He raised concerns regarding the agenda title being unclear since it consisted of only four words. He said the City had not been commenting on legislation at the State and Federal level, consequently they were not being heard as much as other communities. Chair Price asked Council Member Klein if that item would be ongoing and if it would be coming through the Policy and Services Committee. Council Member Klein said it would come through the Policy and Services Committee with a request for authority to act without the Council’s approval if necessary. He said not everything would need to go to the Council. Council Member Holman agreed the agenda title was unclear and thought the topic was going to be a different conversation. She said there were partnerships affected by the workplan and it would be helpful to have a column to reflect their involvement. She raised concerns regarding the work done in 2010 on the priorities that was not provided at the Retreat. The presentation contained data in setting parameters and an informational mode but was not presented to the full Council. She said a fair amount of work and effort was made in compiling the information and did not want to have it put aside. Council Member Price said that she had requested copies of the matrix. Mr. Braulik said he had a copy of the matrix but did not know if it had gone to the entire Council. He recognized the amount of work that was involved and said it could be used as a framework to look for additional ideas. The Committee may want to focus on items not included in the 2011 priorities. Council Member Holman said the matrix was drawn from the 2010 Retreat and established the priority list. 3283.doc 18 Mr. Keene said the challenge was to identify the column titled “priority” and to determine what needed to get captured in strategies, actions, deliverables, and for what purpose. The question was what level of information did the Council need to help get the most important tasks done versus the less important tasks. Chair Price said one of last year’s issues was identifying the items grouped by priority that would help the Council get a better understanding of what was required in accomplishing a task. There were items in the list that were mandatory and others that had more flexibility in scheduling. She requested clarification on what needed to be accomplished at this evening’s meeting and clarification on whether Staff needed help in managing the list. Mr. Keene suggested focusing on items that were essential for the Council’s leadership to help drive an initiative or to redirect an issue. Chair Price said one process the Committee could use was for each member to make comments on the more important and timely items for the current year and to decide which items could be accomplished. Council Member Burt asked to deal with mandatory functions first. He said certain subjects may have different emphases during certain years depending on the ongoing activity of the topic such as labor negotiations. He suggested to not include ongoing normal topics in the organization. Mr. Keene agreed that the Council should not spend time on routine issues. Council Member Burt said the Policy & Services Committee’s primary function was to review at the policy level. It was important to understand the distinction between management functions and oversight versus auditing the Staff. The Committee responsibility was oversight and not to have a management or an auditing role. The City Manager and the other Council Appointed Officers (CAO) were responsible for implementing priorities and accountable to the Council for implementations. The Council was accountable for reporting at a higher level. Council Member Klein agreed with Council Member Burt. He said the 2010 matrix was confusing and found this evening’s presentation to be useful and Staff should prioritize the 24 items. He raised concerns about the Committee micromanaging. Chair Price said the Committee struggled with the 2010 matrix. She said the one-sheet summary presented at this evening’s meeting was what the 3283.doc 19 Committee had been looking for. It allowed flexibility to identify items and to consider or add items. Council Member Burt introduced a different context. He said the Committee and the community was not getting enough credit when presenting each item in a two-dimensional approach. He found that almost every item impacted and fulfilled one of the other priorities. For example, every emergency preparedness items affected City finances as well as land use and environmental sustainability. He suggested identifying a primary classification and establishing a cross-reference because one accomplished task might be fulfilling a number of policies. Another column should be added to capture what had been fulfilled and used as a reporting measure to the Council. He concurred with Council Member’s Holman’s comment about having a collaboration, partnership or resource linkage for some of the items. The information should be on an 8-1/2 by 14 sheet of paper, not 10 pages, and to have the whole picture reflect integration. Achievements could be appreciated in broader terms and have a more valuable prioritization rather than the two- dimensional approach. Chair Price said she was in agreement with Council Member Burt’s comments. One of the venues was not only to simplify the matrix but to have a useful document. She raised concerns about the Committee members having issues they wanted addressed. Council Member Holman said she had a few issues for consideration and wanted to review the contents in detail in order to be able to come back to the next meeting with more well thought-out comments. Council Member Klein was in agreement with Council Member Holman and suggested adding the Fire Department’s Study. Mr. Keene said the Fire Department’s Study was listed under Emergency Preparedness, Item No.4, Execute a reorganization plan based on Fire operations study. Council Member Burt reaffirmed the need for cross-referencing. MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Holman for Staff to bring back to the Policy and Services Committee, at a date uncertain, a brief, yet detailed discussion of the City Council Priorities Worksheet and a list of what Staff can reasonably accomplish. 3283.doc 20 Chair Price spoke of the need to clarify the liaison’s role, assignments of Council Members. Council Member Keene said it was a Policy & Procedures issue. Chair Price said it was noted in 2010 that Discussion of Binding Arbitration Models and Options was an issue to be discussed with the Policy & Services Committee. Council Member Klein said he thought there was a timeline for that issue and would be coming back to the Policy and Services Committee. Mr. Keene said the item was scheduled to come back quickly. Chair Price said the Tentative Agenda noted the Stanford Agreement and the Project Safety Net Update would be returning on March 8,2011. Mr. Keene confirmed Project Safety Net Update would be come back on March 8th. The Stanford Agreement was undermined at the time but Staff would have a clearer idea of the timing shortly. Council Member Holman said she wanted part of the Motion to include that items that needed to be added to the worksheet could be forwarded to Staff and report back on how long the assignments would take. Council Member Price asked if Staff would need a deadline. Mr. Keene said Staff was open and for the Committee to pick a date. Council Member Burt said he was confused about what needed to be done based on the examples and raised concerns about reverting back into a laundry list. The list included many items that had actions from last year as well as current actions. He was under the impression that items under major policies were at a higher level than specific action items. Council Member Klein said that would be appropriate for discussion at the next meeting. Council Member Burt said he felt the Committee should leave this meeting in agreement regarding how to frame the items with confirmation on what to include in the categories with a focus on major categorical level versus details. The Committee should be in agreement about what the Committee was attempting to do. 3283.doc 21 Council Member Holman was in agreement regarding the higher level but there would be discussion on whether an item was at a higher level or not. Deputy City Clerk Ronna Gonsalves restated that Council Member Klein stated to reagendize the assignment for the next meeting asking Staff to come up with a more detailed discussion of the 24 items with a reasonable list of what Staff can accomplish in a year. Council Member Klein said to add the Committee members would be free to propose addition or deletions to the 24 items. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Holman for Staff to return to the Policy and Services Committee at the next meeting with a brief, yet detailed discussion of the City Council Priorities Worksheet including a list of what Staff can reasonably accomplish, allowing the Committee members to propose additions or deletions to the list. Mr. Keene said it would be helpful for the Council to define whether or not priorities were successful for the year. Chair Price agreed it would help to determine the trade-offs in achieving priorities in terms of, what was manageable, Staff’s capacity, what could be accomplished, and what were important priorities. MOTION AS AMEDED PASSED:4-0 3283.doc 22 POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE Regular Meeting March 8, 2011 DRAFT EXCERPT Approval of the City Council Priorities for 2011 Rob Braulik,Assistant Director of Administrative Services,recalled the City Council Priorities set at the Council Retreat in January 2011. He discussed a spreadsheet that detailed the Priorities. With the approval of the Policy and Services Committee, Staff would bring the Priorities to the full Council on March 21, 2011. All Priorities were scheduled for completion, or to be reported on, by December 2011. He said that Staff had very brief descriptions about how they would accomplish the Priorities on the spreadsheet. James Keene,City Manager,stated that the Priorities would be an informational item to the full Council. If Council wanted additional actions the item could be agendized. He suggested a quarterly report should be delivered to the full Council beginning with the second quarter. He also suggested Staff would follow up on the Year in Review report that Mayor Burt launched the previous year. Chair Price commended Staff for delivering a spreadsheet that complied with previous Policy and Services Committee requests. She asked if Staff could include scheduling information. Mr. Braulik said many of the items were already being worked on. He said that Staff was planning on providing quarterly reports with scheduling updates. Mr. Keene said the reports would have variances in the level of detail. Some projects were easier to chart than others. The quarterly reports would keep Staff on track. The Council’s role was oversite and policy guidance. There would be more detailed information at the Staff level. 3283.doc 23 Council Member Holman asked Staff to clarify “x’s” and check marks on the spreadsheet. Mr. Braulik said the “x’s” were City Financial Goals. Check marks were where those priorities crossed over into other areas of the organization. He said the Policy and Services Committee had requested that Staff illustrate items that cross into multiple areas, and the “x’s” and check marks were Staff’s attempt to comply. NO ACTION REQUIRED 3283.doc 24 POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE DRAFT EXCERPT Special Meeting April 20, 2011 Follow Up Issues re: Council Protocols and Procedures. Don Larkin, Assistant City Attorney, reviewed the changes made to the Protocols and Procedures books at the last Policy & Services Committee including some of the language changes in the policy statements. Council Member Klein asked if all developmental projects were quasi-judicial. Mr. Larkin stated zone changes were generally considered legislative and Planned Community (PC) zoning was different but overall was legislatively treated as quasi-judicial for disclosure purposes. He noted it was not Staff’s intent to expand the definition to include other types of projects. The idea was that, within that group of quasi-judicial, this is what they were talking about in development projects. Council Member Klein suggested adjusting the wording to reflect a quasi judicial development project. Council Member Holman stated she would agree to change the wording to accommodate quasi-judicial and PC development projects. Council Member Klein noted other wording required revisions to increase clarity regarding whether suggestions were formal or conceptual. This remained difficult to determine. Mr. Larkin stated this was the reason for the wording, “a particular project,” in order to eliminate this confusion. Council Member Klein stated it remained unclear how the statement provided guidance to a Council Member. 3283.doc 25 Mr. Larkin stated Staff struggled to clarify this. He requested guidance from the Finance Committee on how to aid Council Members in determining the difference between property owners trying to figure out what to do with a specific property or somebody looking for feedback on a specific project. Council Member Klein asked for the conclusion of where this ultimately would lead. Mr. Larkin stated if discussions led to Council Members developing an opinion on how to develop a project based on off-the-record conversations, it had to be reported. Council Member Holman stated they had not heard the right definition; however, an applicant requesting input from Council prior to the application process circumvented the entire purpose of the proposed policy. Council Member Burt reviewed hypothetical instances illustrating where to draw the line in order to find some clarity on the issue. Mr. Larkin stated he struggled with the issue because he did not want to make policy determinations for the Council or make recommendations on what the policy should be. The intent in the language was to find something conceptual a Council Member could respond to. Council Member Burt asked if Council Member Holman could clarify what she meant by “or conceptual.” Council Member Holman noted she had trouble with this wording as well. She said she hoped to prevent the circumventing of their procedures by an applicant, who might come to Council for input or opinions on a project that is formed prior to filing out an application. Council Member Burt stated this language was still fuzzy and he did not want to see language in the procedures that was ambiguous. Mr. Fred Balin spoke regarding the five-day window of the release of The Staff Report. He referred to materials in the minutes and Motions made regarding materials received outside the normal channels. He hoped the wording regarding the late release of materials could be resolved, in order to keep these materials in, as an important aspect to preventing more circumvention. Mr. Tom Jordon strongly recommended that wording should be drafted by the Committee rather than by Staff. He suggested the two people discussing it 3283.doc 26 should come up with language that would work and then move it forward. He made further comments on the quasi-judicial discussions. He stated that PC projects were in fact quasi-judicial projects. He stated they were land use planning projects and were required to have a master plan. Council Member Holman suggested defining “project” as “for purposes of this section, for a quasi-judicial or PC development project subject to these rules is a formulated plan to go forward with a particular project or development.” She said the proposed verbiage indicated there were specific details having to do with a project being discussed. MOTION:Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Klein, that the Policy and Services Committee recommend the City Council adopt the following language in the Staff Report, page 3, Definition of Project: “For purposes of this Section IV, a Quasi-Judicial or Planned Community Development Project subject to these rules is a formulated plan, whether formal or conceptual to go forward with a particular project or development.” And, the following language on page 1 of the Staff report, Study Sessions: Study Sessions are meetings during which the Council receives information about City business in an informal setting. The informal study session setting is intended to encourage in-depth presentations discussions by City staff,and detailed questioning and brainstorming by Council on issues of significant interest,including City policy matters, zoning applications, and major public works projects.The Council may discuss the material freely without following formal rules of parliamentary procedure. Staff may be directed to bring matters back for Council consideration at future Council consideration meetings, but as no action can be taken at a study session. During regular study sessions, public comments are typically Public comments on study session items may be received together with oral communications at the end of the immediately following the session or may be heard during discussion of the item as determined by the Mayor. or at another appropriate time at the discretion of the chair. During special study sessions, public comments will be heard at the end of any Council discussion, but oral communications will be consolidated with the oral communications section of the regular meeting, if one follows the study session. The Decorum rules still apply to the behavior of the Council and public. Council Member Holman stated the language, as amended as she proposed, 3283.doc 27 would provide some assurance to colleagues that they were referring to a formulated plan. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to amend the Staff recommended language for Study Sessions on the Staff Report, page 2(b) No Formal Rules: a)No Formal Rules. Study sessions are intended to be conducive to in-depth factual presentations by City staff and detailed questioning and brainstorming by Council. The Council may discuss the material freely without following formal rules of parliamentary procedure, and the Mayor shall have discretion to determine the appropriate process for conducting the study session, including when public comment and oral communications will be heard. Examples of potential formats for conducting a study session include, but are not limited to: ·Town hall-style or round table style meetings (these may be particularly appropriate for applicant and community dialogue with the Council related to specific development projects) ·Staff or other city-sponsored informational presentations ·Council question and answer. Council Member Holman asked how future Councils would understand study session formats without these examples. Council Member Klein stated the Mayor had the discretion to determine an appropriate process for conducting a study session. Council Member Klein questioned the suggested verbiage on page 3, paragraph 1 of the Staff Report regarding follow up meetings. He asked for clarification regarding the intent of the additional language. Council Member Holman stated action could not be taken at study sessions. So the reason for the followup Council meeting was in order for the Council to take action and give direction. Council Member Klein stated action and direction were not the same thing. Council Member Holman said study sessions addressed policy issues such as land use and appropriateness of location, but project specifics would not be addressed. Council Member Klein stated there were several meeting types, and the 3283.doc 28 meeting they were discussing above was not covered in those meeting types. If something is agendized it is because some form of action is being taken Council Member Holman stated the purpose was to take action or not, because the Council may or may not agree to take an action. However, they were not to get into any specific details of the project. Council Member Klein asked again, if the item was agendized why Council were not being asked to take action. Council Member Holman stated there had been meetings where projects that went to council prior to having formal review. In the past, there had been study sessions on these projects where very finite specifics have been indicated which tie the hands of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). Council Member Klein understood this scenario, but stated that the paragraph they were discussing did not speak to this. Council Member Holman stated they were talking about a formal City Council meeting where action can be taken to give guidance to an applicant. Council Member Klein stated if the Council had agendized an item inappropriately then somebody needed to bring that up, but if it were properly agendized then they were to do what was appropriate under that item. Council Member Holman stated what they were trying to do was identify what was appropriate given the early stage of review. Mr. Larkin stated the language would come into play with a PC application or in a City-sponsored project, such as the library project. City Manager, James Keene, stated one problem with study sessions was the Council Members can say things that the ARB or Staff may construe as needing to be incorporated formally in some way, but these are not real actions by the Council. As a prelude to the Council’s ultimate decisions, they are referring to intermediate type meetings. He agreed with Council Member Klein that this would be a regular Council meeting and this would be an agendized item requiring Council action. They could try to prescribe some limits to their actions. Council Member Holman stated the limits would be policy issues and not the project specifics, which is why it was stated that the guidance should address 3283.doc 29 policy issues. Mr. Larkin stated the PC zone is the only place where it does not fall within the guidelines of the existing zoning ordinance. Council Member Holman stated this had been an issue for years. She spoke regarding the policy direction coming prior to environmental review. The language was retained to ensure the direction was not binding. Council Member Burt asked who this direction was intended for. Council Member Holman stated the direction was intended for both the applicant and Staff. Council Member Burt noted if it was a PC they do not give the applicant direction, but they give them guidance. Council Member Holman gave her observations and experiences of what occurs at study sessions. Council Member Burt asked if her explanations and observations were moving outside of what they were discussing at the moment which was PCs. Council Member Holman stated she was discussing PCs and City projects and whether to go forward on any given project, and does the Committee want Staff to spend time in their exploration of these projects. With a followup action at a Council meeting they can give clear direction whether or not to move forward. Council Member Price agreed with Council Member Klein’s comments. She encouraged flexible language regarding study sessions emphasizing that they were a “safe environment.” AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to delete the following from the Staff Recommendations, first paragraph, page three of the Staff Report: (1)Follow up meetings regarding development projects. Council may direct staff to bring study session matters back for Council consideration at a future meeting, prior to formal review of the project. If Council wishes to provide guidance or direction to an applicant at a follow up meeting, such guidance should address policy issues, including such as land use and appropriateness of location, but should not address project specifics (such as number of units, square footage, density, etc.)prior to 3283.doc 30 environmental analysis and Board and Commission review. Any guidance provided by the Council prior to formal review should not be relied upon as a final decision nor shall it be binding on future hearings of the Council or any Board or Commission. Council Member Burt noted there were times when study sessions were rushed at the end. He stated the feedback loop and individual Council Member comments are sometimes lost. He suggested they consider either longer study sessions to prevent this or a followup session to catch up these comments. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT:Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XXXX, to retain the first sentence of the first paragraph on page three of the Staff Report to read as follows: (1)Follow up meetings regarding development projects. Council may direct staff to bring study session matters back for Council consideration at a future meeting, prior to formal review of the project. If Council wishes to provide guidance or direction to an applicant at a follow up meeting, such guidance should address policy issues, including such as land use and appropriateness of location, but should not address project specifics (such as number of units, square footage, density, etc.) prior to environmental analysis and Board and Commission review. Any guidance provided by the Council prior to formal review should not be relied upon as a final decision nor shall it be binding on future hearings of the Council or any Board or Commission. AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Holman provided a further example of an issue that resulted in poor Study Session policies with the 800 High Street project. Council Member Klein added that the present rules needed to be enforced rather than adding layers to the process. AMENDMENT PASSED:3-1 Holman no Council Member Burt asked if they were voting on everything else, at what point did they consider the changes that Mr. Fred Balin brought forth. Council Member Holman suggested that this be done separately, or it could be added as an amendment. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 4-0 3283.doc 31 Mr. Larkin spoke regarding the outside normal channels language. He stated Staff was comfortable with the language in the minutes and the changes within can be incorporated into the motion. Council Member Price asked if he was speaking to the minutes they had in front of them. Mr. Larkin confirmed. Council Member Burt clarified that the minutes reflected, “If a Council Member receives materials other than through City staff they would notify the City Clerk and City Manager as soon as possible.” If so, in order to eliminate any ambiguity, he wished to place this as a Motion. MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Holman that the Policy and Services Committee recommend to the City Council the following language be included in the Procedures Handbook: “If a Council Member receives materials other than through City Staff they would notify the City Clerk and City Manager as soon as possible.” Council Member Klein stated applicants and members of the public had to be treated the same, so he questioned what they would do with regard to an email/s received from citizens over a weekend prior to a Monday meeting. Mr. Larkin stated this was not intended to include phone calls, but anything added to the administrative record should be given to the City Clerk as soon as possible. Council Member Price asked if he was suggesting that all the emails the Council receives should be forwarded to the City Clerk. Mr. Larkin stated he was not suggesting anything, but this was a policy previously discussed at the last meeting. If it was a policy matter being discussed at the meeting the email should be forwarded to the clerk. Council Member Burt asked if this could be pointed out in the meetings. Mr. Larkin did not have them. He knew the issue had come up but did not know if it was resolved. Council Member Holman went from memory and not the minutes, but she believed it was clarified because they had talked about it in the context of 3283.doc 32 materials that would come forward that substantially affected a project. It was not specifically to include email comments that you get from someone in support of a project or in non-support of a project. It was for literal focus on substantive information that would change or influence a project. Council Member Klein stated he was still troubled by this and the Council Members frequently get citizen emails that do not limit themselves to opinions of yes or no on a project and then provide lots of information. SUBSTITUTE MOTION:Council Member Price moved, seconded by Council Member Klein to defer this discussion for future Policy and Services Committee meeting. Council Member Holman suggested this return to Council rather than coming back to Policy & Services. Council Member Burt preferred closure on the matter. Council Member Klein did not expect this to be on the agenda, but did not believe it was a trivial matter since it puts an unnecessary burden on the Council. Council Member Holman suggested, when this item returns at the next meeting that it returns as a full redline version so they have the context. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED:4-0 3283.doc 33 Policy and Services City Council Committee Excerpt Special Meeting Tuesday, June 7, 2011 Changes to Council Procedures and Protocols. Assistant City Attorney, Don Larkin, stated Staff had returned with changes in Council Procedures, paragraph 3, section II-5 based on directions from the previous meeting and review of the minutes. A sentence was added regarding materials received by Council Members from Applicants and Applicants Agents. Notification of the receipt of these materials must be directed to the City Clerk and the City Manager as soon as possible. This does not include correspondence from constituents. Council Member Klein noted the language repeated itself in two different places but was not consistent. Mr. Larkin believed this was in the section where they were changing the language. Council Member Klein noted it was in yet another place besides this. He spoke to the need for consistency in the language. He also asked how this covered a situation where an Applicant responded to suggestions or questions by a member of the public. Mr. Larkin stated the Applicant had the right to respond to questions, but as long as there were no changes to the Application or Development Plan, these responses did not need to be passed on to the City Clerk or City Manager. Council Member Klein asked if an Applicant responded in such a way that the materials had to be handed over to the City Clerk and the City Manager did this mean that the Item was held over because new materials had come forth. Mr. Larkin stated it would only be held over if it were Staff’s opinion that changes were being made to the project. A simple response to questions or additional comments would not cause an item to be held over. 3283.doc 34 Council Member Klein was still not sure the language was consistent and conveyed these terms exactly. He noted the importance of clarity and consistency in this before they passed it on to Council. Mr. Larkin asked for the location of the second instance. City Clerk, Donna Grider, noted under Protocols on page 6 there was a second bullet with reference to this same subject. Council Member Holman stated they had discussed in the prior meeting and it was reflected in the minutes that this was not regarding all communications to Council, just those that affected a Planned Project Application. She asked if there was consideration of further language to clarify. Mr. Larkin agreed this was a concern for the Committee when they last met, which was why they had clarified the language to reflect the communications from Applicants regarding projects rather than constituents’ communications. Council Member Holman stated it was well addressed in the last sentence, but wondered if it should be worded in the same way in the second instance where the subject reappeared. Council Member Burt also spoke to the language in the Protocols section. This language should be consistent with the language in a preceding instance. Mr. Larkin agreed. Fred Balin submitted suggested changes to the Procedures Handbook, Section II, Council Meeting & Agenda Guidelines which includes the following italicized changes: 1) In the sentence beginning with “In order to allow for adequate Staff review, and other documents from the applicant or agent of the applicant”,delete “or comment on”and 2) In the sentence “If a Council Member receives, add the wording “planning application”materials directly from a project applicant, add the wording “or agent of the applicant” he or she shall notify the City Clerk and the City Manager as soon as possible.” He reiterated that this section pertains to the applicant or agent of the applicant submitting documents that support a planning application. Council Member Burt spoke to Mr. Balin’s handout. He asked if colleagues or staff had questions or comments on the handout. Council Member Klein did not think it was necessary to define Applicant and Agent of Applicant since in legal terms they were one in the same; the Agent 3283.doc 35 was the Applicant. The other changes they were discussing appeared, as Ms. Grider had pointed out, in the Protocols section and this language had not yet been dealt with. Mr. Larkin agreed they had not looked at or made changes to this subject matter or language in the Protocols section but would address the changes to this language prior to moving things on to Council. MOTION:Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to: 1) approve Staff recommendation to recommend the City Council adopt the changes to the Procedures Handbook, regarding late submittal of correspondence and other information related to planning applications, 2) add the wording “planning application” after the word receives, to the sentence “If a Council Member receives(planning application) materials directly from a project applicant, and 3)forward the previously adopted changes to the Procedures and Protocols Handbook to the full Council for approval. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to modify to the Procedures Handbook, regarding late submittal of correspondence and other information related to planning applications: 1) to add language “from the applicant supporting planning applications”, and 2) to add “there is no restriction on the rights of applicant or others to comment on or respond to information contained within the staff report.” Council Member Burt spoke to leaving the language in regarding the Agent of the Applicant. There was discussion about not every community member being a legal expert when it came to terminology. Council Member Klein disagreed again noting it was redundant language. Council Member Holman agreed with Council Member Burt on leaving this language in. AMENDMENT:Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to include the verbiage of “agent of the applicant” where it now refers to project applicant. Council Member Klein stated if they pulled out these two sections specifically with their Amendment and the language regarding “applicants” and “agents” this would create problems elsewhere in the document as far as consistency. 3283.doc 36 Council Member Burt was receptive to clarification of these definitions elsewhere in the document in an over-riding fashion. Council Member Holman agreed with Council Member Burt including definitions for further clarification. Mr. Larkin stated they could add a foot notation at the first occurrence and a footnote then with the definition of terms. Council Member Burt was comfortable with the change as was Council Member Holman. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER AMENDMENT: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to include a footnote that for all purposes applicant also refers to applicant agent, at the first occurrence that we use the term applicant. AMENDMENT PASSED: 3-0 Price absent Chair Price arrived at 7:30 P.M. Council Member Klein repeated his Motion. Council Member Holman clarified that the agreed upon language would also be placed in the Protocols section. MOTION PASSED:3-0 Price abstaining City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Introduction & Contents This handbook describes the way the Palo Alto City Council does its business. It is intended to accomplish two goals. First, the handbook is an information guide for anyone doing business or appearing before the City Council. Second, the handbook is a compilation of procedural rules that have been formally adopted by Council Resolution. The handbook is organized in five sections. Public Participation in Council Meetings This section explains the basic rules for speaking to the City Council. It covers things like when to speak, time limits, and how groups of speakers are handled. Council Meeting & Agenda Guidelines This section explains the different kinds of meetings the City Council holds, what they are for, and how the meeting agenda is prepared. Motions, Debate & Voting This section explains the simplified rules of parliamentary procedure the Council follows (like Roberts’ Rules of Order, but simpler!). Quasi-Judicial Hearings This section explains the special way the City Council handles hearings that raise constitutional due process concerns. These are usually hearings that seriously impact someone’s life, liberty or property. Standing Committees This section explains how the City Council’s two standing committees –Finance and Policy & Services –operate during their own separate meetings. If you have any questions about this handbook, please feel free to contact the City Clerk by phone at (650) 329-2571 and e-mail at city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org or the City Attorney by phone at (650) 329-2171 and e-mail at city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org. Comment [G1]: Should be Quasi- Judicial/Planned Community throughout the book. City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ I-1 City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised1/28/11 ____ I.Public Participation in Council Meetings A.Policy.It is the policy of the City Council to assure that members of the public have the opportunity to speak to any regular or special meeting agenda item before final action. These rules establish the rights and obligations of persons who wish to speak during City Council meetings. (1)Purpose. These rules are intended to enhance public participation and Council debate so that the best possible decisions can be made for Palo Alto. Palo Alto has a long and proud tradition of open government and civil, intelligent public discourse. Open government meetings must allow everyone to be heard without fear of cheers or jeers. For these reasons, the City Council takes these rules seriously. Disruptive or unruly behavior in violation of the law can result in removal from the Council meeting and/or arrest and prosecution. (2)Summary of Rules. Every regular City Council agenda has two different kinds of opportunities for the public to speak. The first is during Oral Communications.This part of the meeting is provided so that the public can speak to anything that is in the City’s jurisdiction, even if there is no action listed on the agenda. The Council allows three minutes per speaker, but limits the total time to 30 minutes per meeting. State law does not permit the Council to respond to oral communications, but City staff may be asked to follow up on any concerns that are raised. The second opportunity to speak is during the public comment or public hearing portion of Each Agenda Item. Public comments or testimony must be related to the matter under consideration. The Council allows three minutes per speaker for most matters. During “quasi-judicial”hearings (where the City Council is legally required to take evidence and make impartial decisions based upon that evidence), the applicant or appellant may have up to ten minutes at the outset and three minutes for rebuttal at the end. These hearings are specially marked on the Council agenda. A person who wants to speak to the Council must fill out a speaker card and hand it in to the City Clerk. The Clerk will give the cards to the Mayor or Vice Mayor so that the speakers can be identified and organized in an orderly way. B.General Requirements. 1.Accessibility. Palo Alto makes every reasonable effort to accommodate the needs of the disabled. Any provision of these rules may be modified if needed to provide reasonable accommodation. Persons needing assistance City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ I-2 City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised1/28/11 ____ should contact: Larry Perlin, ADA Director, City of Palo Alto, 650/329-2496 (voice) or 650/328-1199 (TDD). 2.Presiding Officer's Permission Required. The presiding officer at Council meetings (usually the Mayor or Vice-Mayor) is legally required to “preserve strict order and decorum.”i This is important in order to assure a fair opportunity for everyone to participate in an open and civil setting. a)Any person desiring to address the Council must first get the permission of the presiding officer by completing a speaker card and handing the card to the City Clerk. b)The presiding officer shall recognize any person who has given a completed card to the City Clerk. c)No person, other than a Council Member and the person having the floor, shall be permitted to enter into any discussion without the permission of the presiding officer. d)No person shall enter the staff area of the Council dais without the permission of the Presiding Officer or appropriate Council Appointed Officer. 3.Recording and Identification. Persons wishing to address the Council shall comply with the following: a)Use the microphone provided for the public and speak in a recordable tone, either personally or with assistance, if necessary. b)State their name and address if presenting evidence in a hearing required by law. c)Other speakers should state their name and address, but cannot be compelled to register their name or other information as a condition to attendance at the meeting. 4.Specific Requirements and Time Limits. a)Oral Communications. Oral communications shall be limited to three minutes per speaker and will be limited to a total of thirty minutes for all speakers combined. City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ I-3 City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised1/28/11 ____ 1)Oral communications may be used only to address items that are within the Council’s subject matter jurisdiction, but not listed on the agenda. 2)Oral communications may not be used to address matters where the receipt of new information would threaten the due process rights of any person. 3)All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a body and not to any individual member. 4)Council members shall not enter into debate or discussion with speakers during oral communications. 5)The presiding officer may direct that the City Manager will respond to the person speaking and/or the Council at a later date. b)Other Agenda Items. Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes per speaker unless additional time is granted by the presiding officer. The presiding officer may reduce the allowed time to less than two minutes if necessary to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1)Spokesperson for a Group. When any group of people wishes to address the Council on the same subject matter, the presiding officer will request that a spokesperson be chosen by the group to address the Council. Spokespersons who are representing a group of five or more people who are present in the Council chambers will be allowed ten minutes and will to the extent practical be called upon ahead of individual speakers. 2)Quasi-Judicial Hearings. In the case of a quasi-judicial hearing, single applicants and appellants shall be given ten minutes for their opening presentation and three minutes for rebuttal before the hearing is closed. In the case of a quasi- judicial hearing for which there are two or more appellants, the time allowed for presentation and rebuttal shall be divided among all appellants, and the total time allowed for all appellants shall be a total of twenty minutes for the opening presentation and six minutes for rebuttal before the City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ I-4 City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised1/28/11 ____ hearing is closed; however, under no circumstances shall an individual appellant be given less than five minutes for presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. In the event a request is made and the need for additional time is clearly established, the presiding officer shall independently, or may upon advice of the city attorney, grant sufficient additional time to allow an adequate presentation by the applicant or appellant in a hearing required by law. 3)Addressing the Council after a Motion. Following the time for public input and once the matter is returned to the Council no person shall address the Council without first securing the permission of the Council so to do, subject to approval of the City Attorney with respect to any hearing required by law. c)Decorum. The Palo Alto Municipal Code makes it unlawful for any person to: 1)Disrupt the conduct of a meeting; 2)Make threats against any person or against public order and security while in the Council chamber. 3)Use the Council Chambers during meetings for any purpose other than participation in or observation of City Council Meetings. Any Council Member may appeal the presiding officer’s decision on a decorum violation to the full Council. Decorum violations are punishable as a misdemeanor and may lead to a person being removed from the Council meeting.ii ··•••·· City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ II-1 City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised1/28/11 ____ II.Council Meeting & Agenda Guidelines A.Policy. It is the policy of the Council to establish and follow a regular format for meeting agendas. 1.Purpose. The purpose of these guidelines is to facilitate the orderly and efficient conduct of Council business. This purpose recognizes the value of establishing a community understanding of meeting procedures so that broad public participation is encouraged. This purpose also recognizes that Council Members must have a common approach to the discussion and debate of City business so that meetings are both streamlined and thorough. 2.Summary of Guidelines. The City Council generally conducts four different kinds of meetings. These are Regular Meetings, Special Meetings, Study Sessions, and Closed Sessions. Regular meetings are conducted at City Hall on the first three Monday nights of each month, except during the Council’s annual vacation. The meetings will begin at 7:00 p.m. Regular meeting agendas must be posted in the City Plaza by the elevators no later than 7:00 p.m. on the preceding Friday as required by the Brown Act. It is City policy to make every effort to complete and distribute the agenda and related reports by the preceding Wednesday. For major complex projects and policies, the City will make every effort to distribute these reports two weeks prior to the meeting when the item will be considered. Once the agenda is posted, it shall also be uploaded to the City Council web page for use by the public. It is City policy to make every effort to complete and distribute the agenda and related reports by the preceding Wednesday.For major, complex projects and policies, the City will make every effort to distribute these reports two weeks prior to the meeting when the item will be considered. Special meetings are “special” because the mayor or Council can call them on a minimum of 24 hours notice. Special meetings need not be held at City Hall, as long as the alternate location is within the City. The Council makes every effort to provide notice well in advance of 24 hours, especially when the special meeting is for the purpose of conducting a Study Session. Study Sessions are meetings during which the Council receives information about City business in an informal setting. The informal study session setting is intended to encourage in-depth presentations discussionby City staff, and detailed questioning and brainstorming by Council on issues of significant interest, including City policy matters, zoning applications, and major public works projects. The City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ II-2 City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised1/28/11 ____ Council may discuss the material freely without following formal rules of parliamentary procedure. Staff may be directed to bring matters back for Council consideration at future Council consideration meetings, butas no action can be taken at a study session. During regular study sessions, public comments are Public comments on study session items may be typically received together with oral communications at the end of the immediately following the session or may be heard during discussion of the item as determined by the Mayor. at another appropriate time at the discretion of the chair. During special study sessions, public comments will be heard at the end of any Council discussion, but oral communications will be consolidated with the oral communications section of the regular meeting, if one follows the study session. The Decorum rules still apply to the behavior of the Council and public. Closed Sessions can be part of regular or special meetings. Closed sessions are the only kind of Council meeting that the public cannot attend. State law allows closed sessions to discuss pending litigation, employment issues, real estate negotiations and certain other matters. Members of the public are permitted to make public comments on closed session matters. The Council must make a public report after the session when certain kinds of actions are taken. These are guidelines, not rules. The Council intends that City staff and Council Members will follow these guidelines. However, these guidelines should not be used in a way that leads to inefficiency, unfairness, or the promotion of form over substance. State law establishes a variety of mandatory meeting rules the City must follow in order to assure open and public government, regardless of unusual situations and consequences. B.General Requirements. 1.Regular meetings. a)Attendance Required. Council Members, the City Clerk, City Attorney, and City Manager, along with any other city officers and department heads that have been requested to be present, shall take their regular stations in the Council chamber at 7:00 p.m. on the first, second and third Mondays of each month, except during the established Council vacation.iii The Council expects its members to attend regularly and notify the City Clerk of any planned absences. The Council may levy fines of up to $250.00 against Council members who willfully or negligently fail to attend meetings.iv (1)Telephonic Attendance Of Council Members At Council Meetings: The City Council Procedures Comment [G2]: Verbiage approved by P&S Motion on 4/20/11. City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ II-3 City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised1/28/11 ____ provisions concerning Telephonic Attendance shall apply to all Boards and Commissions as well as the City Council. Requests by Council Members to attend a Council meeting via telephonic appearance are actively discouraged. Telephonic attendance shall only be permitted in the event of extraordinary events such as a medical, family or similar emergency requiring a Council Member’s absence. In addition, at least a quorum of the Council must participate from a location within the City (Government Code Section 54953(b)(3)). If these two threshold requirements are met, the Council Member who will be appearing telephonically must ensure that: a.The meeting agenda identifies the teleconference location and is posted at that location in an area that is accessible and visible 24 hours a day for at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. b.The teleconference location is open and fully accessible to the public, and fully accessible under the Americans with Disabilities Act, throughout the entire meeting. These requirements apply to private residences, hotel rooms, and similar facilities, all of which must remain fully open and accessible throughout the meeting, without requiring identification or registration. c.The teleconference technology used is open and fully accessible to all members of the public, including those with disabilities. d.Members of the public who attend the meeting at the teleconference location have the same opportunity to address the Council from the remote location that they would if they were present in Council Chambers. e.The teleconference location must not require an admission fee or any payment for attendance. If the Council Member determines that any or all of these requirements cannot be met, he or she shall not participate in the meeting via teleconference. City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ II-4 City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised1/28/11 ____ (2) Approved Teleconference Guidelines for Council Members: a. One week advance written notice must be given by the Council Member to the City Clerk’s office; the notice must include the address at which the teleconferenced meeting will occur,the address the Council packet should be mailed to, who is to initiate the phone call to establish the teleconference connection, and the phone number of the teleconference location. Cellular telephones shall not be used to participate in teleconferenced meetings. b. The Council Member is responsible for posting the Council agenda in the remote location, or having the agenda posted by somebody at the location and confirming that posting has occurred. The City Clerk will assist, if necessary, by faxing or mailing the agenda to whatever address or fax number the Council Member requests; however, it is the Council Member’s responsibility to ensure that the agenda arrives and is posted. If the Council Member will need the assistance of the City Clerk in delivery of the agenda, the fax number or address must be included in the one-week advance written notice above. c. The Council Member must ensure that the location will be publicly accessible while the meeting is in progress. d. The Council Member must state at the beginning of the Council meeting that the 72-hour posting requirement was met at the location and that the location is publicly accessible, and must describe the location. e. Furthermore, the City Clerk will provide Council with a quarterly report detailing the telephone charges associated with teleconferenced meetings. b)Items considered after 10:30 p.m. The City Council makes every effort to end its meetings before 11:00 p.m. The Council also generally does not take up new matters after 10:30 p.m. Before 10:00 p.m. the Council will decide and announce whether it will begin consideration of any agenda items after 10:30 and, if so, which specific items will be taken up. City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ II-5 City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised1/28/11 ____ c) Late Submittal of Correspondence or Other Information Related to Planning Applications. In order to allow for adequate Staff review and analysis, and to ensure public access to information, all plans, correspondence, and other documents supporting or commenting on planning applications being heard by the City Council must be submitted to staff not later than noon five working days prior to the release of the Council Agenda Packet. If any correspondence or other information is submitted after this deadline to Council Members or staff,and Staff determines additional review is needed Staff will reschedule the item for a future Council meeting. If a Council member receives planning application materials from a project applicant he or she shall notify the City Clerk and the City Manager as soon as possible. There are no restrictions on the rights of applicants or others to comment or respond to information contained within the Staff Report. At the meeting the City Council may determine whether to continue or refer the item to the appropriate Board and/or Commission if significant changes to a project or significant new information become known. Nothing in this statement is intended to restrict the rights of applicants or other interested parties to respond to information contained in or attached to a Staff Report. d) Agenda Order. City Council agendas will be prepared by the City Clerk and presented to the City Council in the order described below. It is the Council’s policy to hear the major items of business first at each meeting, to the extent possible. The City Manager, with prior approval of the Mayor, is authorized to designate upon the agenda of the Council, and the City Clerk shall publish in the agenda digest, items that shall be taken up first or at a specific time during the course of the meeting.v The City Council may take matters up out of order upon approval by a majority vote of those present: 1)Roll call; 2)Special orders of the day; 2a)City Manager Comments; 3) Oral communications, including oral communications related to any study session that began immediately before the regular meeting; Comment [G3]: Verbiage approved byP&S Motion on 6/7/11. Comment [G4]: Verbiage Approved by P&S Motion 6/7/11. Comment [G5]: Verbiage approved by motion at Policy &Services meeting on 12/14/10 and revised and then approved on 3/8/11. City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ II-6 City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised1/28/11 ____ 4)Approval of minutes; 5)Consent calendar. Items may be placed upon the consent calendar by any council-appointed officer whenever, in such officer's judgment, such items are expected to be routinely approved without discussion or debate. The consent calendar shall be voted upon as one item. (a) Council Comment. No discussion or debate shall be permitted upon items upon the consent calendar; however, any Council Member may request that his or her vote be recorded as a "no" or "not participating" due to a specified conflict of interest on any individual item. Council Members may also explain their "no" votes at the end of the Consent Calendar, with a 3 minute time limit for each Council Member. Council Members may also submit statements in writing to the City Clerk before action is taken. The City Clerk shall preserve and make available such written statements in a manner consistent with the Brown Act and shall assure that the minutes of the meeting make reference to the existence and location of such written statements. (b) Public Comment. If members of the public wish to speak to items on the Consent Calendar, the Mayor will have the option of allowing the testimony prior to adoption of the Consent Calendar, or removing the item from the consent calendar and hearing the public comment at a later time, prior to the vote on the item. (c) Council Requests to Remove Item. Any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the consent calendar; if the request is seconded, the item will be removed from the consent calendar. The City Manager’s office should be advised, in writing, of a request for removal no later than noon the day of the meeting. (d) Hearing of Removed Items. Removed items will be heard either later in the meeting or agendized for a discussion at a subsequent meeting, depending upon the number of speakers and the anticipated length of the items that have been officially scheduled for discussion on a particular evening. The Mayor will decide when during the meeting any removed items will be heard. City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised 1/28/11 II-7 ___ (e) Consent calendar categories. The consent calendar shall be presented in 5 categories in the following order: (1) Ordinances and resolutions. The Mayor shall read the titles of each ordinance before Council action. The Council may by majority vote request that the ordinance be read in full. The following ordinances and resolutions may appear on a consent calendar: (i) Second Reading (passage and adoption) of Ordinances. (ii) a resolution which are ceremonial in nature. (iii) Ordinances or resolutions that implement a prior Council policy direction in the manner contemplated by the Council's previous actions, in the Adopted Budget (including the Capital Improvement Program and especially in the department key plans); and the Council Top Priority Workplan, among other sources. (iv) Budget amendment ordinances that accept funding such as grants or gifts, provided Council has previously approved the activity or program. (v) Resolutions approving funding applications, such as grants or loans, provided that the program or activity has been previously approved by Council. (2) Administrative matters including contracts, appointments, approval of applications,and any other matter. The titles of administrative matters need not be read. An administrative matter may be placed on the consent calendar if it is: (a) An action that is merely the administrative execution of previous Council direction. The Council direction and vote will be quoted in the staff report accompanying the item. (b) A contracts for which the subject or scope of work has been previously reviewed by the City Council. (c) A contract for goods, general services, professional services, public works projects, dark fiber licensing City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised 1/28/11 II-8 ___ contracts or wholesale commodities, purchases, as outlined in the Purchasing Ordinance, provided such contracts represent the customary and usual business of the department as included in the Adopted Budget. Examples include: routine maintenance contracts, annual audit agreement; software and hardware support agreements, janitorial services, copier agreements or postage machine agreements. (d) Rejection of bids. (e) Designation of heritage trees. (f) Designation of historic building at the request of the property owner if there are no unusual policy ramifications. (g) Approval of funding applications, such as grants or loans, provided that Council has previously approved the general program or activity. (h)Formal initiation, for consideration at a later date, of a zoning code amendment or review process, such as preliminary review. (i) Status report required by law for fee administration. (j) Cancellation of meetings or scheduling of special meeting. (3) Request to refer items to any Council Standing Committee, committee, board, commission or Council Appointed Officer. The consent calendar includes matters for which staff is merely seeking Council approval of a referral to a Council standing committee or other City official, advisory board or commission. This does not preclude staff from making referrals to the standing committees. Staff uses such referrals in order to expedite the business of the full Council, since its agenda is so full. Discussion of a complex issue by another body, provides an opportunity for public input and extended discussion by the members of the body. The full Council is then able to benefit from the minutes of that discussion when the item comes back to the Council for final approval. This practice also allows the City/School Liaison Committee to consider City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised 1/28/11 II-9 ___ items of interest to both agencies without having to go through the formality of a Council agenda referral. (4) Items recommended for approval if the Committee unanimously recommends placement on the consent calendar, unless otherwise recommended by the Committee, Mayor, or Staff. (5) Items recommended for approval, and for placement on the consent calendar, by any council-appointed boards and commissions, provided that other public hearing requirements are not in effect. 6)Agenda changes, additions, and deletions; 7)Action Items: (a)Unfinished Business. (b)Public Hearings. (c)Reports of committees/commissions. (d)Ordinances and Resolutions. (e)Reports of officials. (f)Council matters. Any two Council Members may bring forward a colleague memo on any topic to be considered by the entire Council. Two Council Members are required to place such a memo on the agenda, reflective of the Council procedure requiring a motion and a second for consideration of a motion by the Council. Up to four Council Members may sign a colleague memo. The City Attorney recommends that the colleague memo be limited to three Council Members in order to avoid the potential of a Brown Act issue. Prior to preparing a colleague memo, Council Members will consult with the City Manager to determine whether he/she is or is willing and able to address the issues as part of his/her operational authority and within current budgeted resources. Colleague’s memos should have a section that identifies any potential staffing or fiscal impacts of the contemplated action. This section will be drafted by the City Manager. Council Members shall provide a copy of the proposed memo with the City Manager or appropriate senior staff prior to finalization. City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised 1/28/11 II-10 ___ Completed Council colleagues memos shall be provided to the City Clerk’s staff by noon on the Tuesday prior to the Council meeting that the memo is intended to be agendized, to provide time for the City Clerk to process for the Council packet. The City Council will not take action on the night that a colleague memo is introduced if it has any implications for staff resources or current work priorities which are not addressed in the memo. The Council will discuss the colleague memo and then direct the City Manager to agendize the matter for Council action within two meetings, allowing City staff time to prepare a summary of staffing and resource impacts. Action may be taken immediately by the Council on colleague memos where there are no resource or staffing implications or where these are fully outlined in the colleagues memo. The Brown Act requires that the public be fully informed of the potential action by the Council via the Agenda 72 hours before a scheduled Council meeting. In order to satisfy the Brown Act requirements, the Council should consult with the City Attorney to ensure that the proposed title to the colleague memo contains all actions that the Council Members want completed on the night of the Council review. 9)Council member Questions, Comments and Announcements. The purpose of this agenda item is to allow Council to question staff briefly on matters upon which Council has taken action or given direction, make general comments as a reference to staff on factual matters of community concern, or make brief announcements in a manner consistent with Government Code section 54952.2. New assignments will not be given nor will major policy issues be discussed or considered. To the extent possible, Council will confer with staff before raising matters under this agenda item. This agenda item will generally be limited to 15 minutes in length and the public may not speak to matters discussed; 10)Closed Sessions; 11)Special closed sessions will be scheduled before or after regular or special Council meetings to the extent possible and appropriate. Closed sessions may be scheduled during a regular or special Council meeting, but this is discouraged by Council; City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised 1/28/11 II-11 ___ 12)Adjournment. d)Unfinished and Continued Business. When the Council is unable to complete its agenda the remaining business will generally be rescheduled as follows. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to supersede or conflict with state law. (1)Meeting adjourned sine die. When a regular meeting is adjourned sine die (without a day), all unfinished items will be listed under unfinished business on the next regular Council meeting agenda; except, that where deemed necessary, the City Clerk, with the City Manager's concurrence, may place those business items in a different order on the agenda. (2)Meeting adjourned to date certain. When a regular meeting is adjourned to another regular meeting night, all unfinished items will be listed in their original order after roll call on the agenda of such designated regular meeting. (3)Continued items. When an item on the agenda is continued to a subsequent meeting, such item will be listed under unfinished business on such agenda unless the Council by majority vote chooses to place such item in a different location on such agenda or unless the City Clerk, with the City Manager's concurrence, deems it necessary to place such item at a different location on such agenda. e)Adding New Items to the Agenda. No matters other than those on the agenda shall be finally acted upon by the Council. However, emergency actions (as defined in Government Code section 54956.5) and matters upon which there is a lawful need to take immediate action (as defined in Government Code section 54954.2) may, with the consent of two-thirds, or all members present if less than two- thirds are present, be considered and acted upon by the Council. 2.Special Meetings. Special meetings may be called by the Mayor or City Council by providing a minimum of 24-hours posted notice in the manner required by state law. To the greatest extent possible, special meetings called for other than regular meeting days should be scheduled by a majority of the Council present and voting at a regular meeting.vi Unlike regular meetings, there are no circumstances that permit the City Council to add new items to a special meeting agenda or notice. 3.Study Sessions. Study sessions are meetings during which the Council receives information about City business in an informal setting. City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised 1/28/11 II-12 ___ a)Time. Special study sessions will be held as needed. b)Oral Communications and Public Comments. Oral communications and public comments will be listed together on the agenda and heard at the end of the study session. If a meeting follows the study session, public comments will be heard at the end of any Council discussion, but oral communications will be consolidated with the oral communications section of the following meeting. b)No Formal Rules. Study sessions are intended to be conducive to in-depth factual presentations by City staff and detailed questioning and brainstorming by Council. The Council may discuss the material freely without following formal rules of parliamentary procedure, and the Mayor shall have discretion to determine the appropriate process for conducting the study session, including when public comment and oral communications will be heard. c)However, tPublic Participation. The general rules of decorum apply. d)No Final Action. Staff may be directed to bring matters back for Council consideration at future meetings, but no final action can be taken. 4.Closed Sessions. Closed sessions are the only kind of Council meeting that the public cannot observe. State law allows closed sessions to discuss pending litigation, employment issues, real estate negotiations and certain other matters. To the greatest extent possible, the City Attorney and City Clerk shall use standardized agenda descriptions that are consistent with Government Code section 54954.5. a)Announcements before Closed Sessions. The mayor shall announce the item or items to be considered in closed session by reference to the appropriate agenda number or letter, or in an alternate form that shall be provided by the City Attorney. b)Public Comments. Members of the public are permitted to make public comments on closed session matters. The City Clerk shall be present in the open session to record Council attendance and any statements made during oral communications or by the Council. c)Attendance. The City Manager and City Attorney, or their designees, shall attend closed sessions unless it is necessary to excuse them. Only such additional staff shall attend as are necessary Comment [G6]: Deleted Per Staff Recommendation at P&S on4/20/11. Comment [G7]: Verbiage Approved by P&S Motion 4/20/11. Comment [G8]: Verbiage Approved by P&S Motion 4/20/11. City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised 1/28/11 II-13 ___ and then only if the legal privileges of confidentiality obtained in an executive session are not waived. d)Public Reports. State Law and a Palo Alto initiative require the Council to make a public report after a closed session when certain kinds of actions are taken.vii Reports from closed sessions shall be made by the Mayor, the Vice Mayor in the Mayor's absence, or such other City representative as designated by the Council or its committees. Such designated person is the only individual authorized to make public statements concerning the closed session. It is the policy of the City Council to inform the public of action taken in closed session to the greatest extent possible. It is recognized, however, that the need for confidentiality is inherent in closed sessions and that certain matters if revealed may be a detriment to the results desired. The Council shall publicly report: (a) any decision to appoint, employ, or dismiss a public employee and the roll call vote thereon at its next public meeting, (b) actions related to litigation and the roll call vote on such actions, unless the report would, in the written opinion of the City Attorney for specifically stated reasons, clearly jeopardize the city’s ability to effectuate service of process on one or more unserved parties or impair the city’s ability to resolve the matter through negotiation, mediation or other form of settlement. Notwithstanding the City Attorney's written opinion, the Council may under any circumstance, by majority vote, determine that it is in the City's best interests to disclose actions taken in closed session related to litigation. The public report shall be given as soon as possible, but no later than the next regular meeting, and shall include the vote or abstention of every member present. The City Attorney’s written opinion shall be made public, along with any action taken and any vote thereon, as soon as any litigation is concluded. The City Attorney shall record any action and vote upon such forms as the City Attorney may deem desirable. e)No Minutes. No minutes of closed sessions shall be kept. The City Attorney shall record the information necessary to comply with state law and the Palo Alto initiative. f)Confidentiality. No person in attendance at a closed session may disclose the substance or effect of any matter discussed during the session.viii··•••·· City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised 1/28/11 III-1 ___ III.Motions, Debate & Voting A.Policy. It is the policy of the Council to follow simplified rules of parliamentary procedure for motions, debate and voting. These rules focus on the types of motions the Council can debate and when those motions are properly used. 1.Purpose. The purpose of these rules to facilitate orderly and thorough discussion and debate of Council business. These rules shall not be applied or used to create strategic advantage or unjust results. 2.Summary of Rules. . Palo Alto does not follow Roberts Rules of Order. See the Summary Table below. B.Motions. A motion is a formal proposal by a Council Member asking that the Council take a specified action. A motion must receive a second before the Council can consider a matter. Matters returning to the Council with unanimous approval from a standing committee will be introduced without a motion if directed by the committee. 1.Types of motions. There are two kinds of motions. These are the “main” motion and any secondary motions. Only one main motion can be considered at a time. 2.Procedure. a)Get the Floor. A Council Member must receive the permission of the Mayor (or other presiding officer) before making a motion. b)State the Motion. A motion is made by a Council Member (the “maker”) stating his or her proposal. Longer proposals can be written and may be in the form of a resolution. c)Second Required. Any other Council Member (including the presiding officer) who supports the proposal (or who simply wishes it to be considered) may “second” the motion without first being recognized. A motion to raise a question of personal privilege does not require a second. d)Motion Restated. The Mayor should restate the motion for the record, particularly if it is long or complex. City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised 1/28/11 III-2 ___ e)Lack of a Second.If there is no second stated immediately, the Mayor should ask whether there is a second. If no Council Member seconds the motion the matter will not be considered. f)Discussion. The maker shall be the first Council Member recognized to speak on the motion if it receives a second. Generally Council Members will speak only once with respect to a motion. If the Mayor or Council permits any Council Member to speak more than once on a motion, all Council Members shall receive the same privilege. g)Secondary Motions. Secondary motions may be made by a Council Member upon getting the floor. h)Action. After discussion is complete the Council will vote on the motion under consideration. 3.Precedence of Motions. When a motion is before the Council, no new main motion shall be entertained. The Council recognizes the following secondary motions which may be considered while a main motion is pending. These motions shall have precedence in the order listed below. This means that a secondary motion that is higher on the list will be considered ahead of a pending secondary motion that is lower on the list: a)Fix the time to which to adjourn; b)Adjourn; c)Take a recess; d)Raise a question of privilege; e)Lay on the table; f)Previous question (close debate); g)Limit or extend limits of debate; h)Motion to continue to a certain time; i)Refer to committee; j)Amend or substitute; 4.Secondary Motions Defined. The purpose of the allowed secondary motions is summarized in the following text and table. a)Fix the time to which to adjourn. This motion sets a time for continuation of the meeting. It requires a second, is amendable and is debatable only as to the time to which the meeting is adjourned. b)Adjourn. This motion ends the meeting or adjourns it to another time. It requires a second and is not debatable except to set the time to which the meeting is adjourned, if applicable. A motion to adjourn shall be in order at any time, except as follows: (a) when City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised 1/28/11 III-3 ___ repeated without intervening business or discussion; (b) when made as an interruption of a member while speaking; (c) when the previous question has been ordered; and (d) while a vote is being taken. c)Take a recess. This motion interrupts the meeting temporarily. It is amendable, but is not debatable. d)Raise a question of personal privilege. This motion allows a Council Member to address the Council on a question of personal privilege and shall be limited to cases in which the Council Member's integrity, character or motives are questioned, or when the welfare of the Council is concerned. The maker of the motion may interrupt another speaker if the presiding officer recognizes the "privilege." The motion does not require a second, is not amendable and is not debatable. e)Lay on the table. This motion is used to interrupt business for more urgent business. A motion to lay on the table requires a second, is not amendable and is not debatable. It shall preclude all amendments or debate of the subject under consideration. If the motion prevails, and the subject is tabled, the matter must be reagendized in the future if further consideration is to be given to the matter. f)Previous question. This motion “calls the question” by closing debate on the pending motion. A motion for previous question requires a second, is not debatable and is not amendable. It applies to all previous motions on the subject unless otherwise specified by the maker of the motion. If motion for previous question fails, debate is reopened; if motion for previous question passes, then vote on the pending motion. A motion for previous question requires a two-thirds vote of those Council Members present and voting. g)Limit or extend debate. This motion limits or extends the time for the Council or any Council Member to debate a motion. It requires a second, is amendable and is not debatable. The motion requires a two-thirds vote of those Council Members present and voting. h)Continue to a certain time. This motion continues a matter to another, specified time. It requires a second, is amendable and is debatable as to propriety of postponement and time set. i)Refer to a city agency, body, committee, board, commission or officer. This motion sends a subject to another city agency, body, committee, board, commission or officer for further study and report City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised 1/28/11 III-4 ___ back to Council, at which time subject is fully debated. It requires a second, is amendable, and is debatable only as to the propriety of referring. The substance of the subject being referred shall not be discussed at the time the motion to refer is made. j)Amend or substitute. This motion changes or reverses the main motion. It requires a second, is amendable, and is debatable only when the motion to which it applies is debatable. A motion to amend an amendment is in order, but one to amend an amendment to an amendment is not. An amendment modifying a motion is in order but an amendment raising an independent question or one that is not germane to the main motion shall not be in order. Amendments take precedence over the main motion and the motion to postpone indefinitely. City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised 1/28/11 III-5 ___ Motion Description 2nd Req’d Debatable Amendable 2/3 Vote Fix the time to which to adjourn Sets a next date and time for continuation of the meeting X Only as to time to which the meeting is adjourned X Adjourn Sets time to adjourn. Not in order if (a) repeated without intervening business (b) made as an interruption of a member while speaking; (c) the previous question has been ordered; and (d) while a vote is being taken X Only to set the time to which the meeting is adjourned Take a recess Purpose is to interrupt the meeting X X Raise a question of privilege Lay on the table Interrupts business for more urgent business X Previous question (close debate or “call the question”) Closes debate on pending motion X X Limit or extend limits of debate Purpose is to limit or extend debate X X X Motion to continue to a certain time Continues the matter to another, specified time X X X Refer to committee Sends subject to another city agency, body, committee, board, commission or officer for further study and report back to council, at which time subject is fully debated X Only as to propriety of referring, not substance of referral X Amend or substitute Modifies (or reverses course of) proposed action. Cannot raise independent question. Can amend an amendment, but no further X Only if underlying motion is debatable X City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised 1/28/11 III-6 ___ C.Debate and Voting. 1.Presiding officer to state motion. The presiding officer shall assure that all motions are clearly stated before allowing debate to begin. The presiding officer may restate the motion or may direct the City Clerk to restate the motion before allowing debate to begin. The presiding officer shall restate the motion or direct the City Clerk to restate the motion prior to voting. 2.Presiding officer may debate and vote. The presiding officer may move, second and debate from the chair, subject only to such limitations of debate as are by these rules imposed on all Council Members. The presiding officer shall not be deprived of any of the rights and privileges of a Council Member. 3.Division of question. If the question contains two or more divisible propositions, each of which is capable of standing as a complete proposition if the others are removed, the presiding officer may, and upon request of a member shall, divide the same. The presiding officer's determination shall be appealable by any Council Member. 4.Withdrawal of motion. A motion may not be withdrawn by the maker without the consent of the Council Member seconding it. 5.Change of vote. Council Members may change their votes before the next item on the agenda is called. 6.Voting. On the passage of every motion, the vote shall be taken by voice or roll call or electronic voting device and entered in full upon the record. 7.Silence constitutes affirmative vote. Council Members who are silent during a voice vote shall have their vote recorded as an affirmative vote, except when individual Council Members have stated in advance that they will not be voting. 8.Failure to vote. It is the responsibility of every Council Member to vote unless disqualified for cause accepted by the Council or by opinion of the City Attorney. No Council Member can be compelled to vote. 9.Abstaining from vote. Council Members should only abstain if they are not sufficiently informed about an item,e.g. when there was a prior hearing and they were unable to view the prior meeting before the current meeting. In the event of an abstention the abstainer in effect, "consents" that a majority of the quorum of the Council Members present may act for him or her. City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised 1/28/11 III-7 ___ 10.Not participating. A Council Member who disqualifies him or herself pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974 because of any financial interest shall disclose the nature of the conflict and may not participate in the discussion or the vote. A Council Member may otherwise disqualify him or herself due to personal bias or the appearance of impropriety. 11.Tie votes. Tie votes may be reconsidered during the time permitted by these rules on motion by any member of the Council voting aye or nay during the original vote. Before a motion is made on the next item on the agenda, any member of the Council may make a motion to continue the matter to another date. Any continuance hereunder shall suspend the running of any time in which action of the City Council is required by law. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any Council Member from agendizing a matter that resulted in a tie vote for a subsequent meeting. 12.Motion to reconsider. A motion to reconsider any action taken by the Council may be made only during the meeting or adjourned meeting thereof when the action was taken. A motion to reconsider requires a second, is debatable and is not amendable. The motion must be made by one of the prevailing side, but may be seconded by any Council Member. A motion to reconsider may be made at any time and shall have precedence over all other motions, or while a Council Member has the floor, providing that no vested rights are impaired. The purpose of reconsideration is to bring back the matter for review. If a motion to reconsider fails, it may not itself be reconsidered. Reconsideration may not be moved more than once on the same motion. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any Council Member from making a motion to rescind such action at a subsequent meeting of the Council. 13.Appeal from the decision of presiding officer. When the rules are silent, the presiding officer shall decide all questions of order, subject to appeal by a Council Member. When in doubt, the presiding officer may submit the question to the Council, in which case a majority vote shall prevail. Any decision or ruling of the presiding officer may be appealed by request of any member. The presiding officer shall call for a roll call or electronic voting device vote to determine if the presiding officer's ruling shall be upheld. If said vote passes or results in a tie vote, the presiding officer's ruling shall stand. If said vote fails, the decision or ruling of the presiding officer is reversed. 14.Getting the floor; improper references to be avoided. Every Council Member desiring to speak shall address the chair and, upon recognition by the presiding officer, every Council Member shall be confined to the question under debate, avoiding all indecorous language and personal attacks. City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised 1/28/11 III-8 ___ 15.Interruptions. Except for being called to order, a Council Member once recognized, shall not be interrupted when speaking, except as otherwise provided for in these rules. A Council Member called to order while speaking shall cease speaking until the question or order is determined, and, if in order, said Council Member shall be permitted to proceed. ··•••·· City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised 1/28/11 IV-1 ___ IV.Quasi-Judicial Hearings A.Policy. It is the policy of the Council to assure that the due process rights of all persons are protected during City hearings. A “quasi-judicial” hearing is a hearing that requires a higher level of procedural due process because of the potential impact on life, liberty or property. Usually, quasi-judicial hearings involve a single parcel of land and apply facts and evidence in the context of existing law. Findings must be stated to explain the evidentiary basis for the Council’s decision. 1.Purpose. These rules are intended to assure that City Council decision making on quasi-judicial matters is based upon facts and evidence known to all parties and to support the autonomy role of Boards and Commissions in making independent recommendations to Council. B.General Requirements. 1.For purposes of this Section IV, a Quasi-Judicial or Planned Community Development Project subject to these rules is a formulated plan, whether formal or conceptual to go forward with a particular project or development. 2.Quasi-Judicial Proceedings Defined. Quasi-judicial proceedings subject to these procedural rules include hearings involving the following matters: a)Conditional Use Permits b)Variances c)Home Improvement Exceptions d)Design Enhancement Exceptions e)Subdivisions, other than final map approvals f)Architectural Review g)Assessment protest hearings h)Other matters as determined by the City Attorney i)Appeals related to any of the above j)Environmental Review relating to any of the above 3.Restrictions on Council Communications Outside of Quasi-Judicial and Planned Community Zone Hearings. It is the policy of the Council to discourage the gathering and submission of information by Council Members outside of any noticed public meeting, prior to final recommendations by the Architectural Review Board or Planning & Transportation Commission. The following procedural guidelines are intended to implement this policy, but shall not be construed to create any remedy or right of action. k)Identification of Quasi-Judicial Matters. The City Attorney, in conjunction with the City Clerk and City Manager, will identify Comment [r9]: Verbiage Approved by P&S Motion 2/15/11. Comment [G10]: Verbiage Approved by P&S Motion 4/20/11. Comment [G11]: Verbiage Approved by P&S Motion 12/14/10. City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised 1/28/11 IV-2 ___ agenda items involving quasi-judicial decisions on both the tentative and regular Council agendas. This identification is intended to inform the Council, interested parties, and the public that this policy will apply to the item. b)Council to Track Contacts. Council Members will use their best efforts to track contacts pertaining to such identified quasi-judicial decision items. Contacts include conversations, meetings, site visits, mailings, or presentations during which substantial factual information about the item is gathered by or submitted to the Council Member. c)Disclosure. When the item is presented to the Council for hearing, Council Members will disclose any contacts which have significantly influenced their preliminary views or opinions about the item. The disclosure may be oral or written, and should explain the substance of the contact so that other Council Members, interested parties, and the public will have an opportunity to become apprised of the factors influencing the Council's decision and to attempt to controvert or rebut any such factor during the hearing. Disclosure alone will not be deemed sufficient basis for a request to continue the item. A contact or the disclosure of a contact shall not be deemed grounds for disqualification of a Council Member from participation in a quasi-judicial decision unless the Council Member determines that the nature of the contact is such that it is not possible for the Council Member to reach an impartial decision on the item. d)No Contacts after Hearings. Following closure of the hearing, and prior to a final decision, Council Members will refrain from any contacts pertaining to the item, other than clarifying questions directed to City staff. 3.Written Findings Required. On any matter for which state law or City ordinance requires the preparation of written findings, the staff report and other materials submitted on the matter will contain findings proposed for adoption by the Council. Any motion directly or impliedly rejecting the proposed findings must include a statement of alternative or modified findings or a direction that the matter under consideration be continued for a reasonable period of time in order for staff to prepare a new set of proposed findings consistent with the evidence which has been presented and the decision which is anticipated. 4.Rules of Evidence. Council hearings need not be conducted according to formal rules of evidence. Any relevant evidence may be considered if it is the sort of evidence upon which responsible persons rely in the conduct of City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised 1/28/11 IV-3 ___ serious affairs. The presiding officer may exclude irrelevant or redundant testimony and may make such other rulings as may be necessary for the orderly conduct of the proceedings while ensuring basic fairness and full consideration of the issues involved. Evidentiary objections shall be deemed waived unless made in a timely fashion before the Council. 5.Burden of Proof. The applicant and appellant shall bear the burden of proof on all aspects of the action or relief they seek. The person with the burden of proof must offer evidence to the Council to support his or her position. 6.Council Members Who are Absent During Part of a Hearing. A Council Member who is absent from any portion of a hearing conducted by the Council may vote on the matter provided that he or she has watched or listened to a video or radio broadcast, or video or audio recording, of the entire portion of the hearing from which he or she was absent and if she or he has examined all of the exhibits presented during the portion of the hearing from which he or she was absent and states for the record before voting that the Council Member deems himself or herself to be as familiar with the record and with the evidence presented at the hearing as he or she would have been had he or she personally attended the entire hearing. 7.Appeals. Appeals to the Council shall be conducted de novo, meaning that new evidence and arguments may be presented and considered. All matters in the record before any other City board, commission or official shall be part of the record before the Council. ··•••·· City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised 1/28/11 V-1 ___ V.Standing Committees A.Policy. It is the policy of the Council to use standing committees in open and public meetings to study City business in greater depth than what is possible in the time allotted for Council meetings. 1.Purpose. These rules are intended to enhance public participation and committee meetings so that the best possible decisions can be made for Palo Alto. B.General Requirements. Council standing committees shall be subject to the following procedural rules. 1.Quorum. A majority of the committee membership shall constitute a quorum. 2.Referrals. Only the Council or City Manager shall make referrals to the standing committees. Referrals will generally be directed to only one of the standing committees. Items may be withdrawn from the committee and taken up for consideration by the Council at any Council meeting with the consent of a majority of the Council, and subject to any applicable noticing or agenda posting requirements. Council members who submit matters to the Council which are referred to a standing committee may appear before the standing committee to which the referral has been made in order to speak as proponents of the matter. Standing committee meetings during which such referrals may be considered shall be noticed as Council meetings for the purpose of enabling the standing committee to discuss and consider the matter with a quorum of the Council present. 3.Function of committees. The purpose and intent of committee meetings is to provide for more thorough and detailed discussion and study of prospective or current Council agenda items with a full and complete airing of all sentiments and expressions of opinion on city problems by both the Council and the public, to the end that Council action will be expedited. Actions of the committee shall be advisory recommendations only. 4.Minutes. The City Clerk shall be responsible for the preparation and distribution to the Council of the minutes of standing committee meetings. The minutes for these meetings shall be sense minutes which reflect the motions made during these meetings. The minutes shall be delivered to all Council Members before the Council meeting at which the committee's recommendations are to be discussed. City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised 1/28/11 V-2 ___ 5.Report of committee. The minutes of each committee meeting shall serve as the report to the Council. Any member may write a separate report. 6.Agenda. The chairperson of each standing committee shall prepare the agenda for committee meetings, the sequence of study being, within reasonable limits of practicality, the same as the sequence of referral. 7.Public Participation. Public comment on agenda items will be limited to a maximum of five minutes per speaker, or any alternate time limit specified by the presiding officer. 8.Conduct of standing committee meetings. The chairperson of each committee may conduct meetings with as much informality as is consistent with Council procedural rules, which shall also be in effect during committee meetings. The views of interested private citizens may be heard in committee meetings, but in no case shall a committee meeting be used as a substitute for public hearings required by law. 9.Oral Communications. Opportunities for oral communications shall be provided in the same manner as Council meetings. ··•••·· City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised 1/28/11 VI-1 ___ VI.Ad Hoc Committees A.Policy. The Council may use Ad Hoc Committees on a limited basis where necessary to study City business in greater depth than what is possible in the time allotted for Council and Standing Committee meetings. 1.Purpose. These rules are intended to clarify the distinctions between Standing and Ad Hoc Committees, and to set up guidelines for creation of Ad Hoc Committees. B.General Requirements. Council Ad Hoc Committees shall be subject to the following procedural rules. 1.Definition of Ad Hoc Committee. An Ad Hoc Committee is an advisory committee composed solely of less than a quorum of members of the Council. The work of an Ad Hoc Committee is limited to a single finite purpose. By contrast,a Standing Committee has continuing subject matter jurisdiction extending for a lengthy time period and/or a meeting schedule fixed by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of the Council. 2.Brown Act. Ad Hoc Committees do not constitute legislative bodies and are not subject to the requirements of the Brown Act. 3.Appointment. The Mayor or the City Council may appoint four or less members of the Council to serve on an Ad Hoc Committee. In contrast,only the Council and not the Mayor alone can create a Standing Committee. The Mayor will publicly announce any Ad Hoc Committee created by him or her, its membership and stated purpose and posted on the City Council website. The City Manager shall prepare a report to Council about the anticipated time commitment required for staff to assist the Ad Hoc Committee. 4.Duration. Ad Hoc Committees are created for a finite period of time.If an Ad Hoc Committee does not complete its task by the end of the calendar year, it shall not continue unless reappointed by the new Mayor in the following year. 5.Members. Ad Hoc Committees shall consist of less than a quorum of Council members only, and shall not include any other persons such as members of other legislative bodies. 6.Reporting. Ad Hoc Committees shall report their recommendations to the Council no less than once per quarter in writing or orally. Any Council City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised 1/28/11 VI-2 ___ Member may during the COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS request that an updated Ad Hoc Committee report be placed on the next meeting’s agenda. 7.Termination of Ad Hoc Committee by Majority of Council. A majority of the Council may vote to terminate any Ad Hoc Committee following placement of the issue on an agenda. 8.Conclusion. A public announcement shall be made any time the Ad Hoc Committee has concluded its work and/or upon dissolution. ··•••·· City Council Procedures Handbook ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ City Council Procedures Handbook (Revised 1/28/11 VII-1 ___ VII.Election of Mayor Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.060 governs the election of the Mayor. Nominations for Mayor may be made by any individual Council Member and do not require a second. ··•••·· i Palo Alto Municipal Code, § 2.04.080(b). ii Palo Alto Municipal Code, § 2.04.120(c); 2.04.150(b) iii Palo Alto Municipal Code, § 2.04.010(b). iv Palo Alto Municipal Code, § 2.04.050(a). v Palo Alto Municipal Code, § 2.04.070(c)vi Palo Alto Municipal Code, § 2.04.020. vii Palo Alto Municipal Code, § 2.04.030.viii Palo Alto Municipal Code, § 2.04.040. CITY OF PALO ALTO COUNCIL PROTOCOLS (Updated 11-22-2010) All Council Members All members of the City Council, including those serving as Mayor and Vice Mayor, have equal votes. No Council Member has more power than any other Council Member, and all should be treated with equal respect. All Council Members should: ·Demonstrate honesty and integrity in every action and statement ·Comply with both the letter and spirit of the laws and policies affecting the operation operations of government. ·Serve as a model of leadership and civility to the community ·Inspire public confidence in Palo Alto government ·Work for the common good, not personal interest ·Prepare in advance of Council meetings and be familiar with issues on the agenda ·Fully participate in City Council meetings and other public forums while demonstrating respect, kindness, consideration, and courtesy to others ·Participate in scheduled activities to increase Council effectiveness ·Review Council procedures, such as these Council Protocols, at least annually ·Represent the City at ceremonial functions at the request of the Mayor ·Be responsible for the highest standards of respect, civility and honesty in ensuring the effective maintenance of intergovernmental relations ·Respect the proper roles of elected officials and City staff in ensuring open and effective government ·Provide contact information to the City Clerk in case an emergency or urgent situation arises while the Council Member is out of town Council Conduct with One Another Councils are composed of individuals with a wide variety of backgrounds, personalities, values, opinions, and goals. Despite this diversity, all have chosen to serve in public office in order to improve the quality of life in the community. In all cases, this common goal should be acknowledged even as Council may "agree to disagree" on contentious issues. *For all purposes, applicant also refers to applicant agent. 2 In Public Meetings ·Use formal titles. The Council should refer to one another formally during Council meetings as Mayor, Vice Mayor or Council Member followed by the individual’s last name. ·Practice civility and decorum in discussions and debate. Difficult questions, tough challenges to a particular point of view, and criticism of ideas and information are legitimate elements of a free democracy in action. Be respectful of diverse opinions. ·Honor the role of the presiding officer in maintaining order and equity. Respect the Chair's efforts to focus discussion on current agenda items. Objections to the Chair's actions should be voiced politely and with reason, following the parliamentary procedures outlined in the City Council Procedural Rules. ·Demonstrate effective problem-solving approaches. Council Members have a public stage to show how individuals with disparate points of view can find common ground and seek a compromise that benefits the community as a whole. Council Members are role models for residents, business people and other stakeholders involved in public debate. ·Be respectful of other people's time. Stay focused and act efficiently during public meetings. In Private Encounters ·Treat others as you would like to be treated. Ask yourself how you would like to be treated in similar circumstances, and then treat the other person that way. Council Conduct with City Staff The key provisions on Council-staff relations found in section 2.04.170 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code: “Neither the council nor any of its committees or members shall direct, request or attempt to influence, either directly or indirectly, the appointment of any person to office or employment by the city manager or in any manner interfere with the city manager or prevent the city manager from exercising individual judgment in the appointment of officers and employees in the administrative service. Except for the purpose of inquiry, the council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the city manager, and neither the council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any of the subordinates of the city manager, either publicly or privately.” Governance of a City relies on the cooperative efforts of elected officials, who set policy, and City staff, which analyze problems and issues, make recommendations, and implement and administer the Council’s policies. Therefore, every effort should be made *For all purposes, applicant also refers to applicant agent. 3 to be cooperative and show mutual respect for the contributions made by each individual for the good of the community. ·Treat all staff as professionals. Clear, honest communication that respects the abilities, experience, and dignity of each individual is expected. As with your Council colleagues, practice civility and decorum in all interactions with City staff. ·Channel communications through the appropriate senior City staff. Questions of City staff should be directed only to the City Manager, Assistant City Manager,City Attorney, City Clerk, Assistant City Clerk, City Auditor, Senior Assistant City Attorneys, or Department Heads. The Office of the City Manager should be copied on any request to Department Heads. Council Members should not set up meetings with department staff directly, but work through Department Heads, who will attend any meetings with Council Members. When in doubt about what staff contact is appropriate, Council Members should ask the City Manager for direction. However, nothing in these protocols is intended to hinder the access Council-appointed liaisons (e.g. to the San Francisquito JPA or NCPA) may require in order to fulfill their unique responsibilities. ·In order to facilitate open government, all Council Members should make decisions with the same information from staff on agendized or soon-to-be agendized items (i.e. items on the tentative agenda or in a Council Committee). ·Never publicly criticize an individual employee, including Council-Appointed Officers. Criticism is differentiated from questioning facts or the opinion of staff. All critical comments about staff performance should only be made to the City Manager through private correspondence or conversation. Comments about staff in the office of the City Attorney, City Auditor or City Clerk should be made directly to these CAOs through private correspondence or conversation. ·Do not get involved in administrative functions. Avoid any staff interactions that may be construed as trying to shape staff recommendations. Council Members shall refrain from coercing staff in making recommendations to the Council as a whole. ·Be cautious in representing City positions on issues. Before sending correspondence related to a legislative position, check with City staff to see if a position has already been determined. When corresponding with representatives of other governments or constituents, remember to indicate if appropriate that the views you state are your own and may not represent those of the full Council. ·Do not attend staff meetings unless requested by staff. Even if the Council Member does not say anything, the Council Member’s presence may imply support, show partiality, intimidate staff, or hampers staff’s ability to do its job objectively. *For all purposes, applicant also refers to applicant agent. 4 ·Respect the “one hour” rule for staff work. Requests for staff support should be made to the appropriate senior staff member, according to the protocol for channeling communications.Any request, which would require more than one hour of staff time to research a problem or prepare a response, will need to be approved by the full council to ensure that staff resources are allocated in accordance with overall council priorities. Once notified that a request for information or staff support would require more than one hour, the Council Member may request that the City Manager place the request on an upcoming Council agenda. ·Depend upon the staff to respond to citizen concerns and complaints. It is the role of Council Members to pass on concerns and complaints on behalf of their constituents. It is not, however, appropriate to pressure staff to solve a problem in a particular way. Refer citizen complaints to the appropriate senior staff member, according to the protocol on channeling communications. The senior staff member should respond according to the Policy and Procedure for Responding to Customer Complaints. Senior staff is responsible for making sure the Council Member knows how the complaint was resolved. ·Do not solicit political support from staff. The City Charter states that “Neither the city manager or any other person in the employ of the city shall take part in securing or shall contribute any money toward the nomination or election of any candidate for a municipal office.” In addition, some professionals (e.g., City Manager and the Assistant City Manager) have professional codes of ethics, which preclude politically partisan activities or activities that give the appearance of political partisanship. Council Conduct with Palo Alto Boards and Commissions The City has established several Boards and Commissions as a means of gathering more community input. Citizens who serve on Boards and Commissions become more involved in government and serve as advisors to the City Council. They are a valuable resource to the City’s leadership and should be treated with appreciation and respect. Council Members serve as liaisons to Boards and Commissions, according to appointments made by the Mayor, and in this role are expected to represent the full Council in providing guidance on Council processes or actions to the Board or Commission. Refrain from speaking for the full Council on matters for which the full council has not yet taken a policy position. In other instances, Council Members may attend Board or Commission meetings as individuals, and should follow these protocols: ·If attending a Board or Commission meeting, identify your comments as personal views or opinions. Council Members may attend any Board or Commission meeting, which are always open to any member of the public. Any public comments by a Council Member at a Board or Commission meeting, when that Council Member is not the liaison to the Board or Commission,should be clearly made as should make a point to clearly state it is an individual opinion and not a representation of the feelings of the entire City Council.Comment [G1]: Verbiage approved by P&S at 2/15/11 meeting *For all purposes, applicant also refers to applicant agent. 5 ·Refrain from Lobbying Limit Contact with Board and Commission members to questions of clarification. It is inappropriate for a Council Member to contact a Board or Commission member to lobby on behalf of an individual, business, or developer, or to advocate a particular policy perspective. It is acceptable for Council Members to contact Board or Commission members in order to clarify a position taken by the Board or Commission. ·Remember that Boards and Commissions are advisory to the Council as a whole, not individual Council Members. The City Council appoints individuals to serve on Boards and Commissions, and it is the responsibility of Boards and Commissions to follow policy established by the Council. Council Members should not feel they have the power or right to unduly influence Board and Commission members. A Board and Commission appointment should not be used as a political reward. ·Concerns about an individual Board or Commission member should be pursued with tact. If a Council Member has a concerns with effectiveness of a particular Board or Commission member fulfilling their his or her roles and responsibilities and is comfortable in talking with that individual privately, the Council Member should do so. Alternatively, or if the problem is not resolved, the Council Member should consult with the Mayor, who can bring may address the issue to the Council as appropriate. ·Be respectful of diverse opinions. A primary role of Boards and Commissions is to represent many points of view in the community and to provide the Council with advice based on a full spectrum of concerns and perspectives. Council Members may have a closer working relationship with some individuals serving on Boards and Commissions, but must be fair to and respectful of all citizens serving on Boards and Commissions. ·Keep political support away from public forums. Board and Commission members may offer political support to a Council Member, but not in a public forum while conducting official duties. Conversely, Council Members may support Board and Commission members who are running for office, but not in an official forum in their capacity as a Council Member. ·Maintain an active liaison relationship. Appointed Council liaisons or alternates are encouraged to attend all regularly scheduled meetings of their assigned Board or Commission. Staff Conduct with City Council ·Respond to Council questions as fully and as expeditiously as is practical. The protocol for staff time devoted to research and response is in application here. If a Council Member forwards a complaint or service request to a department head or a Council Appointed Officer, there will be follow-through with the Council Member as to the outcome. Comment [G2]: Verbiage approved by P&S at 2/15/11 meeting. Comment [G3]: Verbiage approved by P&S at 2/15/11 meeting. *For all purposes, applicant also refers to applicant agent. 6 ·Respect the role of Council Members as policy makers for the City Staff is expected to provide its best professional recommendations on issues. Staff should not try to determine Council support for particular positions or recommendations in order to craft recommendations. The Council must be able to depend upon the staff to make independent recommendations. Staff should provide information about alternatives to staff recommendations as appropriate, as well as pros and cons for staff recommendations and alternatives ·Demonstrate professionalism and non-partisanship in all interactions with the community and in public meetings ·It is important for the staff to demonstrate respect for the Council at all times. All Council Members should be treated equally. OTHER PROCEDURAL ISSUES ·Commit to annual review of important procedural issues. At the beginning of each legislative year, the Council will hold a special meeting to review the Council protocols, adopted procedures for meetings, the Brown Act, conflict of interest, and other important procedural issues. ·Don’t politicize procedural issues (e.g. minutes approval or agenda order) for strategic purposes. ·Submit questions on Council agenda items ahead of the meeting. In order to focus the Council meetings on consideration of policy issues and to maintain an open forum for public discussion, questions which focus on the policy aspects of agenda items should be discussed at the Council meeting rather than in one-on-one communications with staff prior to the meetings. Any clarifications or technical questions that can be readily answered can be handled before the meeting. Council Members are encouraged to submit their questions on agenda items to the appropriate Council Appointed Officer or City Manager as far in advance of the meeting as possible so that staff can be prepared to respond at the Council meeting. More detailed procedures relating to agenda questions can be found in the addendum to these protocols titled “Policy and Procedures for Council E-mails for Agenda Related Items” ·Submittal of Materials Directly to Council. If Council receives planning application materials related to agenda item matters they will notify the City Clerk and the City Manager as soon as possible. ·Late Submittal of Planning Application Materials. In order to allow for adequate staff review and analysis and to ensure public access to materials, all plans and other applicant materials related to Planning applications being heard by the City Council must be submitted not later than noon 5 working days prior to the release of the Council agenda packet. This includes materials delivered to staff or to *For all purposes, applicant also refers to applicant agent. 7 Council members either before or during the meeting. If items are not submitted by this date or if staff determines additional review is needed, staff will reschedule the item to a future Council meeting. Additionally, if there are significant changes, staff will analyze whether the need exists to continue the item. Late Submittal of Correspondence or Other Information Related to Planning Applications. In order to allow for adequate Staff review and analysis, and to ensure public access to information, all plans, correspondence, and other documents supporting planning applications being heard by the City Council must be submitted to staff not later than noon five working days prior to the release of the Council Agenda Packet. If any correspondence or other information is submitted after this deadline to Council Members or staff,and Staff determines additional review is needed Staff will reschedule the item for a future Council meeting. If a Council member receives planning application materials from a project applicant he or she shall notify the City Clerk and the City Manager as soon as possible. There are no restrictions on the rights of applicants or others to comment or respond to information contained within the Staff Report. At the meeting the City Council may determine whether to continue or refer the item to the appropriate Board and/or Commission if significant changes to a project or significant new information become known. Nothing in this statement is intended to restrict the rights of applicants or other interested parties to respond to information contained in or attached to a Staff Report. ·Respect the work of the Council standing committees. The purpose of the Council standing committees is to provide focused, in-depth discussion of issues. Council should respect the work of the committees. If a matter is taken forward to the full Council for approval and it receives a unanimous vote at Committee, the item will be placed on the Consent Calendar unless otherwise /recommended by the Committee, Mayor or staff. ·The Mayor and Vice Mayor should work with staff to plan the Council meetings. There are three purposes to the pre-Council planning meeting: 1) to plan how the meeting will be conducted; 2) to identify any issues or questions that may need greater staff preparation for the meeting; and 3) to discuss future meetings. The purpose of the meeting is not to work on policy issues. Normally, only the Mayor and Vice Mayor are expected to attend the pre-Council meetings with the City Manager and other CAOs. Consideration in building the agenda should be given to the potential length of the meeting and at what point items of significant public concern may be heard. POLICY & SERVICES COMMITTEE –ROLE, PURPOSE, & WORK PLANNING The Municipal Code states that the role of the Council Policy & Services Committee is to: …consider and make recommendations on matters referred to it by the council relating to parliamentary and administrative procedures and policy matters pertaining to intergovernmental relations, personnel policies, planning and zoning, traffic and parking, public work, and community and human services. (§2.04.220) Comment [G4]: Verbiage approved by P&S Motion on 6/7/11 *For all purposes, applicant also refers to applicant agent. 8 In 2009 and 2010, the Council reviewed the purpose and structure of the Committee and adopted recommendations on several items related to this. This section documents these agreements related to the Committee. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the Policy & Services Committee is to regularly review and identify important community issues and City policies and practices to ensure good public policy. with a focus on ensuring good public policy and best practices. A particular focus of the Committee is to ensure that the City organization is responsive, effective and aligned with community values and City Council priorities. The Committee shall consider and make recommendations to Council on matters relating to parliamentary and administrative procedures and policy matters. ENFORCEMENT Council Members have the primary responsibility to assure that these protocols are understood and followed, so that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of government. As an expression of the standards of conduct expected by the City for Council Members, the protocols are intended to be self-enforcing. They therefore become most effective when members are thoroughly familiar with them and embrace their provisions. For this reason, Council Members entering office shall sign a statement affirming they have read and understood the Council protocols. In addition, the protocols shall be annually reviewed by the Policy and Services Committee and updated as necessary. Comment [G5]: Verbiage approved by P&S on 3/8/11. *For all purposes, applicant also refers to applicant agent. 9 CITY OF PALO ALTO COUNCIL PROTOCOLS ETHICS ADDENDUM The citizens, businesses and organizations of the city are entitled to have fair, ethical and accountable local government, which has earned the public’s full confidence for integrity. To this end, the City Council has adopted Council Protocols and this Code of Ethics for members of the City Council to assure public confidence in the integrity of local government and its effective and fair operation. Comply with Law Members shall comply with the laws of the nation, the State of California and the City in the performance of their public duties. These laws include but are not limited to: the United States and California constitutions, the city Charter, laws pertaining to conflicts of interest, election campaigns, financial disclosures, employer responsibilities and open processes of governments and City ordinances and policies. Conduct of Members The professional and personal conduct of members must be above reproach and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Members shall refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of other members of the Council, boards and commissions, the staff or the public. Respect for Process Members shall perform their duties in accordance with the processes and rules of order established by the City Council governing the deliberation of public policy issues, meaningful involvement of the public and implementation of policy decisions of the City Council by City staff. Decisions Based on Merit Members shall base their decisions on the merits and substance of the matter at hand, rather than on unrelated considerations. Conflict of Interest In order to assure their independence and impartiality on behalf of the common good, members shall not use their official positions to influence decisions in which they have a material financial interest or where they have an organizational responsibility or personal relationship, which may give the appearance of a conflict of interest. Gifts and Favors It is contrary to the city of Palo Alto’s ethical standards for any council member to accept gifts or gratuities from an individual, business, or organization doing business, or seeking to do business, with the City or who is seeking permits or other entitlements from the City. The acceptance of gifts can convey an appearance of favoritism and conflict of interest. Gifts can be perceived as attempts to influence City operations or as compensation for *For all purposes, applicant also refers to applicant agent. 10 services rendered and can erode the public confidence in the impartiality of decisions made by Council Members. Council Members exercise good faith in carrying out this Protocol. It is impossible to list every situation and fact pattern, so it anticipates that Council Members will exercise their good judgment in determining whether the item is a gift or not. This policy is supplemental to the gift limitations of the Fair Political Practices Commission’s Limitations and Restrictions on Gifts, Honoraria, Travel and Loans. The following are not considered gifts under this Protocol: ·Gifts which the Council member returns (unused) to the donor, or for which the Council Member reimburses the donor, within 30 days of receipt. ·Gifts from a Council Member’s spouse, child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, parent-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or first cousin or the spouse of any such person, unless he or she is acting as an agent or intermediary for another person who is the true source of the gift. ·Minor gifts of hospitality involving food or drink, that the Council Member receives in an individual’s home or at another location of business. ·Gifts approximately equal in value exchanged between the Council Member and another individual on holidays, birthdays, or similar occasions. ·Informational material provided to assist the Council member in the performance of their official duties, including books, reports, pamphlets, calendars, periodicals, videotapes, or free or discounted admission to informational conferences or seminars. ·A bequest or inheritance. ·Campaign contributions. ·Personalized plaques and trophies with an individual value of less than $250. ·Tickets to attend fundraisers for campaign committees or other candidates, and tickets to fundraisers for organizations exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(3)of the Internal Revenue Code.·Free admission, refreshments, and similar non-cash nominal benefits provided to the Council Member at an event at which the Council Member gives a speech, participates in a panel or seminar, or provides a similar service. Transportation within California, and any necessary lodging and subsistence provided directly in connection with the speech, panel, seminar, or similar service, are also not considered gifts. ·Passes or Tickets which provide admission or access to facilities,goods, services, or other benefits (either on onetime or repeat basis) that the Council Member does not use and does not give to another person. ·Wedding gifts ·A prize or award received in a bona fide competition not related to official status. ·(These exceptions are paraphrased from FPPC publications.) ·Gifts from Sister Cities or other entities, other municipalities, if forwarded to the City. *For all purposes, applicant also refers to applicant agent. 11 Confidential Information Members shall respect the confidentiality of information concerning the property, personnel or affairs of the City. They shall neither disclose confidential information without proper legal authorization, nor use such information to advance their personal, financial or other private interests. Use of Public Resources Members shall not use public resources, such as City staff time, equipment, supplies or facilities, for private gain or personal purposes. Representation of Private Interests In keeping with their role as stewards of the public interest, members of Council shall not appear on behalf of the private interests of third parties before the Council or any other board, commission or proceeding of the City, nor shall members of boards and commissions appear before their own bodies or before the Council on behalf of the private interests of third parties on matters related to the areas of service of their bodies. Advocacy Members shall represent the official policies or positions of the City Council, board or commission to the best of their ability when designated as delegates for this purpose. When presenting their individual opinions and positions, members shall explicitly state they do not represent their body or the City, nor will they allow the inference that they do. Positive Work Place Environment Members shall support the maintenance of a positive and constructive work place environment for City employees and for citizens and businesses dealing with the City. Members shall recognize their special role in dealings with City employees to in no way create the perception of inappropriate direction to staff. *For all purposes, applicant also refers to applicant agent. 12 POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR CITY COUNCIL E-MAILS FOR AGENDA-RELATED ITEMS Policy The Council adopted protocols provide a framework for the policy on e-mail communications between Council Members and Staff on agenda-related items, including the following: ·In order to facilitate open government, all Council Members should make decisions with the same information from Staff on agendized or soon-to-be agendized items (i.e. items on the tentative agenda or in a Council Committee) ·Submit questions on Council agenda items ahead of the meeting, In order to focus the Council meetings on consideration of policy issues and to maintain an open forum for public discussion, questions which focus on the policy aspects of agenda items should be discussed at the Council meeting rather than in one-on- one communications with Staff prior to the meetings. Any clarifications or technical questions that can be readily answered can be handled before the meeting. Council Members are encouraged to submit their questions on agenda items to the appropriate Council Appointed Officer or City Manager as far in advance of the meeting as possible so that Staff can be prepared to respond at the Council meeting. In its settlement agreement with the San Jose Mercury News of February 2003, the City Council agreed to consider a policy under which the Council would waive any deliberative or other privilege, other than attorney-client privilege, that it might assert with regards to e-mails on agendized items. This policy and procedure implements that agreement. The Council, in adopting this policy, does not waive attorney-client-privilege or any other privilege associated with a closed session authorized under the Brown Act. Procedure: ·Council Members should direct any questions on staff reports to the City Manager or designee. Questions on reports from the City Auditor, City Attorney, or City Clerk should be directed to the appropriate Council Appointed Officer. Council Members should not direct any questions on agenda items to other members of the City Manager’s Staff or the Staff of the other Council Appointed Officers. ·Council Members will submit questions on agenda items no later than 9 a.m. on the Monday of the Council meeting at which the item will be discussed. Any questions received after that time may be responded to via e-mail, or alternatively, will be responded to at the Council meeting. ·Staff will not engage in “dialogues” with individual Council Members regarding questions, i.e. follow-up questions to initial questions will be responded to at the Council Meeting. ·Staff will give highest priority to responding prior to the Council meeting via e- mail only on items on the Consent Calendar. Questions which address the policy aspects of the item on the Council agenda will not be responded to prior to the meeting, although Staff welcomes such questions in advance of the meeting in *For all purposes, applicant also refers to applicant agent. 13 order to prepare for the Council and public discussion. Technical and clarifying questions on non-Consent Calendar items will be responded to as time permits.·If the Staff will be responding to a Council Members Consent Calendar question at the meeting rather responding to the question via e-mail, Staff will inform the Council Member as early as possible after receipt of the question(s). ·Questions and all Staff-prepared responses will be forwarded to all Council Members as well as put up on the special web page created for public review of Council agenda questions and Staff responses. Staff will include the name of the Council Member posing the questions in the “subject” field of the e-mail response. ·Written copies of all Council Member agenda questions and Staff responses will be at Council places at the meeting; additionally copies will be made available in the Council Chambers for members of the public. *For all purposes, applicant also refers to applicant agent. 14 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL AND BOARDS AND COMMISSSIONS POLICY FOR TRAVEL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT March 2006 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS This policy is set by the City Council and applies to Council Members and to Board and Commissions members, who will be referred to as “Officials” in the policy. In reimbursing travel and miscellaneous expenses, a municipal purpose requiring the expenditure of public funds must be in evidence; also, in accord with the Charter and Municipal Code, such expenditures must be from authorized appropriations. ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES The following activities (“Eligible Activities”)are recognized by the Council as advancing municipal purposes and are eligible for expense reimbursement, subject to limitations on activities and specific and total expenditures described elsewhere in this policy: 1.Communicating with representatives of regional, state and national government on adopted city policy positions; 2.Attending educational seminars designed to improve officials’ skill and information levels; 3.Participating in regional, state and national organizations whose activities affect the city’s interest; 4.In collaboration with city staff, implementing a city-approved strategy for attracting or retaining businesses to the city. All other expenditures require prior approval by the City Council at a regular or special meeting. OUT-OF-TOWN CONFERENCES OR MEETINGS Reimbursement All payments for travel and meetings shall be on the basis of either reimbursement of expenses advanced by the Council Member/Official or payments made directly to travel agencies/websites, hotels, airlines or the organization sponsoring the meeting. All *For all purposes, applicant also refers to applicant agent. 15 requests for payments or reimbursements must be accompanied by supporting vouchers, invoices or paid detailed receipts and a copy of descriptive literature about the conference or meeting. The Mayor or Chair for Officials must approve, in advance, individual travel requests for out-of-town meetings and conferences, e.g., Annual League of California Cities Conference, National League of Cities Conference, etc., including Eligible Activates. Allowable expenses for local or Bay Area Eligible Activates do not require prior approval by the Mayor or Chair. The total reimbursement shall not exceed the budget adopted by the Council for this purpose. All reimbursements shall comply with the limits of Policy and Procedures 1-02 (Citywide Travel Policy). Expense reports should be submitted within 30 days of end of trip. Inability to provide such documentation in a timely fashion may result in expense being borne by the Council Member or Official. Meals and Incidentals Notwithstanding the preceding general policy regarding reimbursement, a Council Member or Official may submit a payment request (supported by conference literature) for advance payment of meals and incidentals allowance according to the Internal Revenue Service authorized mileage reimbursement rate and payment for meals and incidentals consistent with City Policy and Procedures 1-02. If the amount advanced is exceeded, additional reimbursement may be requested upon return from the meeting. Requests for additional reimbursement must be supported by a detailed report and receipts for all meals and incidentals. The Mayor shall pro-approve additional reimbursements, and if the expenses are determined to be excessive, they may not be approved. Lodging Expense Reimbursements or payment of hotel bills will be limited to the highest group or governmental rate available and will cover room charges, applicable taxes and any other item listed in this policy for the Council Member or Official. Telephone calls to Palo Alto City Hall may be made collect. Other charges on the bill such as extra guests and the like are not reimbursable. Transportation 1.Air Transportation: Reimbursement or payment will be limited to economy class commercial air carrier, or an available group travel rate if lower. 2.Private Automobiles: Private automobiles may be used for personal or group transportation on extended trips. Reimbursement shall be made at the rate *For all purposes, applicant also refers to applicant agent. 16 established by the Internal Revenue Service authorized mileage reimbursement rate consistent with the City Policy and Procedures 1-02. Mileage reimbursement for private automobiles shall not exceed the cost of round trip air transportation (economy class) and rental car, if applicable, or an available group travel rate if lower. 3.Rental Car: Economy level only when Council Member or Official has traveled by airplane out of the Bay Area. 4.Shuttle/Taxi: When traveling out of the area. LOCAL OR BAY AREA ACTIVITES Council Members or Officials who have been requested or designated to represent the City may receive the actual cost of: 1.Meals, if they are a scheduled feature of the activity, e.g., SCCCA dinner meetings. 2.Registration fees where applicable. 3.Mileage if activity is outside the City (mileage claims should be submitted monthly, with details: date and type of meeting, number of miles traveled to be indicated), consistent with City Policy and Procedures 1-02. 4.Council Members and Officials may be reimbursed by the City for use of a private bicycle to attend local or Bay Area activities outside the City of Palo Alto consistent with City Policy and Procedures 2-9. OTHER EXPENSES 1.Airport parking fees, but Council Members and Officials must use long-term parking for travel exceeding 24 hours. 2.Meal expenses and associated gratuities must be within the limits set in City Policy and Procedures 1-02. 3.Telephone/Fax/Cellular expenses will be reimbursed for actual expense incurred on City business. 4.Internet Fee up to $15 per day, if a Council Member or Official is traveling on official business and needs access for City-related business. 5.Baggage Handling Fee up to $3 per bag will be reimbursed. *For all purposes, applicant also refers to applicant agent. 17 6.Ethics Training Expenses –AB1234 requires ethics training every two years and such fee and related expenses are eligible for reimbursement. ACTIVITES NOT CONSIDERED REIMBURSABLE 1.Voluntary attendance at any conference or meeting, not representing the City. 2.Meetings of social or service organizations. 3.Meetings of voter groups or with individual citizens concerned with agenda items. 4.Election campaign activities. 5.Alcohol and entertainment expenses. 6.Personal portion of the trip and other non-mileage automobile expenses. REPORTS TO COUNCIL Council Members and Officials shall provide brief verbal reports on meetings attended at the City’s expense at the next regular Council/Board/Commission meeting. If multiple Officials attended, a joint report may be made. All related documents are subject to the Public Records Act and can be periodically reviewed by auditors. VIOLATION OF THIS POLICY Use of public resources or falsifying expense reports is in violation of this policy and may result in any or all of the following: 1)Loss of reimbursement privileges 2)A demand for restitution to the City 3)The City reporting the expenses as income to the elected or appointed Official to state and federal tax authorities 4)Civil penalties of up to $1000 per day and three times the value of the resources used 5)Prosecution for misuse of public resources MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION *For all purposes, applicant also refers to applicant agent. 18 The Mayor shall receive $150 monthly and the Vice Mayor $100 monthly to defray additional expenses of these offices. BOARDS AND COMMISSION COMPENSATION Board/Commission Frequency Amount Human Relation Commission Quarterly $ 50.00 Planning and Transportation Commission Quarterly $120.00 Architectural Review Board Quarterly $120.00 SUPPORT SERVICES The City Clerk’s Office makes travel arrangements for Council Members. This service includes conference registration, hotel reservations, per diem advances and reimbursement of unforeseen expenses. The department liaison for each board and commission will be responsible for arrangements for Officials. CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY September 19, 2011 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Request for Authorization to Enter into a Contract with the Law Firm of Liebert Cassidy & Whitmore in an Amount Not to Exceed $185,000 for Legal Services Relating to the IAFF, Local 1319 Interest Arbitration and Approval of a Budget Amendment Increasing the Budget of the Office of the City Attorney by $185,000 The Office of the City Attorney is requesting Council authorization to enter into a contract with the law firm of Liebert Cassidy & Whitmore in an amount not to exceed $185,000. Council authorization is required because this contract exceeds the contract authority set forth in PAMC § 2.30.220. Since 1999, Liebert Cassidy & Whitmore has represented the City in the area of employment law and personnel matters. Under this contract, Liebert Cassidy & Whitmore will be representing the City in the IAFF, Local 1319 Interest Arbitration. The amount of the contract is an amount not to exceed of $185,000. This contract includes costs for the City's outside counsel, including counsel presenting the City's case and the City's arbitration panel member. This contract does not include costs for expert witnesses, the court reporter, or the neutral arbitrator's fees. Those costs will be paid from other department budgets. This contract also does not reflect the costs associated with the City's outside bargaining agent or the time of City employees preparing and participating in the arbitration proceeding. In coordination with the Administrative Services Department, staff recommends Council direct staff to increase the budget for the Office of the City Attorney by an additional $185,000. The funding for this budget increase will come from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve and will be included in the mid-year budget amendment ordinance. A two-thirds vote of the Council is required to approve this budget amendment. Department Head:Molly Stump, City Attorney CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY September 19, 2011 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Request for Authorization to Increase the Existing Contract with the Law Firm of Stubbs & Leone by an Additional $100,000 for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $185,000 for Litigation Defense The Office of the City Attorney is requesting Council authorization to increase the existing contract with the law firm of Stubbs & Leone, a Professional Corporation by an additional $100,000 for a total not to exceed amount of $185,000. Council authorization is required because this contract exceeds the contracting authority set forth in PAMC § 2.30.220. Stubbs & Leone has defended the City in various tort litigation matters since 2004. The current contract with Stubbs & Leone for $85,000 covered litigation defense services since January 2011 in two matters. This amendment brings the total contract to an amount not to exceed $185,000 for services through May 2012. The funding for this contract increase does not require additional budgetary authority as it can be accommodated within the Office of the City Attorney’s budget for 2011-12. Department Head:Molly Stump, City Attorney City of Palo Alto (ID # 1860) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 9/19/2011 September 19, 2011 Page 1 of 6 (ID # 1860) Summary Title: Water Rate Changes Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Pursuant to Proposition 218 -Adopt a Resolution Amending Water Utility Rate Schedules W-1, W-3, W-4 and W-7 for a Water Rate Increase From:City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff requests that the City Council adopt a resolution to amend Utility Water Rate Schedules W-1, W-3, W-4, and W-7, as attached, which will result in an overall retail water rate increase of 20.9% effective October 1, 2011. The recommended rate increase triggered the notice and protest hearing procedures under Proposition 218. Executive Summary On June 20, 2011 the City Council directed staff to design water rate schedules that: 1) did not include a third tier for rate schedule W1 or a second tier for rate schedule W4; and 2) would increase Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 revenues for the Water Fund by $3.4 million, as approved during the FY 2012 budget process. Subsequently, on June 27, 2011, City Council selected staff’s Alternative 1 for possible implementation by October 1, 2011. Implementation of the proposed rates are subject to a public hearing process provided for under Proposition 218, and may only be available for approval by the City Council should written protests against the rates be received from less than 50% of affected property owners. Tables 1a and 1b show the current and proposed water rates incorporating Council’s modifications for FY 2012 for the W1, W3, W4 and W7 rate schedules. Table 1a shows the volumetric rates and 1b the fixed monthly charges by meter size. Although there is a decrease in the volumetric rates for schedule W4 and Tier 1 (“First 7 ccf”) in schedule W1, the increase in the monthly fixed charges results in an average rate increase for all rate classes. With the FY 2012 $3.4 million revenue increase and a re-allocation of revenue collection by rate class, the average rate increase effective October 1, 2011 will be 29.6% for residential (W1), 4% for residential master-metered and general non-residential (W4), and 60% for irrigation (W7) accounts. September 19, 2011 Page 2 of 6 (ID # 1860) Table 1a -Proposed Volumetric Rates to be Effective October 1, 2011 Current Rates Proposed Rates Change Rate Schedule Applicable Volume Rates (per ccf) Applicable Volume Rates (per ccf) $ (per ccf) Percent Change First 7 ccf $3.949 First 6 ccf $3.60 -$0.349 -8.8%W1 –General Residential Over 7 ccf $5.624 Over 6 ccf $7.34 $1.716 30.5% W4 –Residential Master-Metered and General Non- Residential All ccf $4.946 All ccf $4.93 -$0.016 -0.3% W7 –Non-Residential Irrigation All ccf $4.946 All ccf $7.86 $2.914 58.9% Table 1b -Proposed Fixed Monthly Charges to be Effective October 1, 2011 Rate Schedule Meter Size Current Monthly Charge Proposed Monthly Charge Change ($) Change (%) 5/8 ”$5.00 $10.00 $5.00 100.0% 3/4 ”$5.00 $10.00 $5.00 100.0% 1”$6.50 $13.00 $6.50 100.0% 1 1/2 ”$12.27 $27.00 $14.73 120.0% 2”$19.37 $43.00 $23.63 122.0% 3”$77.65 $114.00 $36.35 46.8% 4”$130.60 $195.00 $64.40 49.3% 6”$260.43 $406.00 $145.57 55.9% 8” $383.67 $644.00 $260.33 67.9% Applicable to the following: W1 –General Residential W4 –Residential Master- Metered and General Non-Residential W7 –Non-Residential Irrigation 10”$383.67 $644.00 $260.33 67.9% 2”N/A $3.63 $3.63 N/A 4”$4.20 $7.27 $3.07 73.1% 6”$7.00 $16.13 $9.13 130.4% Applicable to the following: W3 –Fire Service Connections 8”$10.75 $28.53 $17.78 165.4% Background In preparation for the FY 2012 budget adoption, staff assessed major cost drivers, expected costs, short-term risks, reserve adequacy, and determined the revenue requirements for the Water Fund. Staff projected a revenue shortfall of $6.2 million in FY 2012 and requested a revenue increase of $3.4 million for FY 2012. Due to sufficient reserve levels in the Water Rate Stabilization Reserves (W-RSR), the remaining shortfall of $2.8 million in FY 2012 will be drawn out of the reserves. The proposed revenue adjustment achieves the goals of ensuring that the balance of the W-RSR is adequate and within the Council-approved reserve guideline levels for FY 2012. On June 13th and 20th, 2011, staff recommended water utility rate adjustments and rate structure changes to the City Council.Council agreed with staff’s proposed budget revenue increase of $3.4 million (which would have resulted in an average retail water rate increase of September 19, 2011 Page 3 of 6 (ID # 1860) 12.5% effective July 1, 2011) for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2012, but did not approve the proposed rate structure changes. Staff was directed to return with alternative rate structures that did not include a third tier for rate schedule W1 or a second tier for rate schedule W4. Staff presented alternative rate structures at the June 27th Council meeting, shown in Attachment F, and Council recommended Alternative 1 for possible implementation by October 1, 2011. To achieve a revenue increase of $3.4 million for the fiscal year with implementation delayed to October 1, a higher average rate increase of 20.9% is required to compensate for the months in which additional revenues can not be captured. In addition to the $3.4 million revenue increase, the proposed rate changes also include a re- allocation of revenue collection by rate class. These revenue-neutral rate adjustments result in an average rate increase of 4.2% for the residential class, an average rate decrease of 9.9% for the residential master-metered and general non-residential class, an average increase of 14.2% for the irrigation rate class, and an average increase of 93% for the private fire service rate class. With the $3.4 million revenue increase requirement applied to these alignments, the average rate increase effective October 1, 2011 will be 29.6% for residential, 4% for residential master- metered and general non-residential, and 60% for irrigation accounts. Discussion The Water Utility’s revenue requirement increase is primarily driven by the rapidly rising cost of water supply. The City’s water supply costs are projected to increase by 37 percent in the next fiscal year and double by 2016, largely as a result of the infrastructure projects currently undertaken by the City’s primary water supplier, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). SFPUC’s $4.6 billion initiative includes the repair, replacement and seismic upgrades of the regional system’s deteriorating pipelines, tunnels, dams, reservoirs, pump stations and other facilities. The City Council supports this program (CMR: 311:00), the cost of which is shared by all of the SFPUC’s water customers. Safe and reliable water delivery is also a local priority. The Water Utility has planned capital improvement projects for our local City water supply infrastructure, including necessary seismic retrofitting of the City’s water tanks and this is also reflected in the new rates. Customer Bill Impact of Proposed Rate Changes Table 2 shows the impact of the proposed rate increase on customer bills based on different consumption levels for the residential and commercial classes. September 19, 2011 Page 4 of 6 (ID # 1860) Table 2: Impact of Proposed Rate Increase on Customer Bills Customer Usage (ccf) Current Monthly Bill ($) Proposed Monthly Bill ($) Increase Amount ($) Percent Increase Small Residential (5/8” Meter) 6 $ 28.69 $ 31.60 $2.91 10.1% Medium Residential (5/8” Meter) 14 72.01 90.32 18.31 25.4% Large Residential (5/8” Meter) 35 190.12 $ 244.46 54.34 28.6% Medium Commercial (3" Meter) 300 1,561.45 1,593.00 31.55 2.0% Large Commercial or Industrial (6" Meter)1200 6,195.63 6,322.00 126.37 2.0% Large Commercial or Industrial (6" Meter) (irrigation only) (W-7)3000 15,098.43 23,986.00 8,887.57 58.9% The $3.4 million revenue increase for FY 2012 results in a total revenue increase of $2.5 million (17%) collected from the residential customers and $0.9 million (8%) from the business customers. The impact of the proposed October 1, 2011 water rate adjustments is an additional $18.31 on an average1 residential customer’s current monthly water utility bill of $72.01. The impact on individual customers will vary depending on customer class and individual customer water usage levels. Comparison of Palo Alto Water Rates and Surrounding Cities For several years, Palo Alto's retail water rates have generally been higher than those in surrounding areas. Staff initiated a Benchmark Study for the Water Utility in May 2010 and presented its findings to the UAC in October 2010 and to the Finance Committee in November 2010 and submitted to the Council in March 2011. The objective of the study was to develop benchmarks and to provide insight as to the main reasons for the higher water rates in Palo Alto. The findings of this study highlighted some key areas such as more spending by Palo Alto for replacement of aging infrastructure; lack of access to lower cost water supply; more expensive service terrain to serve; higher quality of service; and higher rent payment for its use of real estate in the service territory. Rent charges for the Water Utility’s use of real estate in the service territory are adjusted annually to market value based on a survey conducted by the City. Table 3 below, which compares monthly water bills using municipal water rates as of July 1, 2011 for Mountain View, Redwood City, Santa Clara and Menlo Park, indicates that the average 1 Average residential customer is defined as a single family customer with 5/8” meter using 14 ccf (hundred cubic feet) of water per month. September 19, 2011 Page 5 of 6 (ID # 1860) residential customer in surrounding cities pays approximately 14% less than the average Palo Alto residential customer. Table 3 –Monthly Residential Water Bill Comparison (rates in effect as of July 1, 2011) Water Customer Usage (ccf) Palo Alto Menlo Park Redwood City Mountain View Santa Clara Average Benchmark (%) Diff. Small 6 $28.69 $42.47 $36.06 $24.96 $17.94 $30.36 5.8% Average 14 $72.01 $82.23 $65.79 $57.68 $41.86 $61.89 -14.1% Large 35 $190.12 $189.57 $202.12 $183.87 $104.65 $170.05 -10.6% Difference from CPAU 14.2%-8.6%-19.9%-41.9%-14.1% Proposition 218 Water Rate Increase Procedure Proposition 218 amended the California Constitution and set forth procedural requirements that public agencies must follow in order to enact or increase a property-related fee. Since Proposition 218 applies to the water rate increases described here, the City must provide written notice by mail to water customers subject to the proposed fees (notices were mailed August 5, 2011), followed by a public hearing held not less than 45 days after notice is mailed (the September 19, 2011 Council meeting). Per the requirements, the notice included the amount of the fee, the basis upon which the fee is calculated, the reason for the fee, and the date, time and location of the public hearing. If a majority of customers submit written protests against the proposed fees, the City may not impose the fee. Possibility of Water Use Restrictions due to Water Shortage In the event of a water shortage, the SFPUC will declare a water shortage emergency and impose mandatory water use reductions. If this action is taken, then staff will return to the Council with an updated proposal for a rate adjustment and water rate schedules. Staff does not expect a water shortage for FY 2012 at this time. Board/Commission Review and Recommendations At the June 27, 2011 Council meeting, the City Council voted 7-1 to recommend Water Rate Alternative 1 for adoption at the September 19, 2011 public hearing. Resource Impact Approval of this rate proposal will increase the Water Fund retail sales revenues by approximately $3.4 million for FY 2012. Policy Implications This recommendation does not represent a change to current City policies. Environmental Review The restructuring of water rates to meet operating expenses and financial reserve needs is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public September 19, 2011 Page 6 of 6 (ID # 1860) Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a)(1) and (3). Attachments: ·Attachment A: Resolution Water Utility Rate Schedules October 1 2011 (PDF) ·Attachment B: W-1 effective 10-1-2011 (PDF) ·Attachment C: W-3 effective 10-1-2011 (PDF) ·Attachment D: W-4 effective 10-1-2011 (PDF) ·Attachment E: W-7 effective 10-1-2011 (PDF) ·Attachment F: Staff Report ID 1857 -Revised Water Rates w/o Attachments (PDF) ·Attachment G: Excerpt Draft Minutes of June 20, 2011 City Council Meeting (PDF) ·Attachment H: Excerpt Draft Minutes of June 27, 2011 City Council Special Meeting (PDF) ·Prop 218 Water Protest Letters (PDF) Prepared By:Ipek Connolly, Sr. Resource Planner Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager * Not Yet Approved* 110817 dm 8450002 ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. _________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility Rate Schedules W-1, W-3, W-4, and W-7 WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Council of the City of Palo Alto may by resolution adopt rules and regulations governing utility services and the fees and charges therefore; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIIID Section 6 of the California Constitution, on September 19, 2011, the City of Palo Alto held a public hearing to consider all protests against the proposed water rate increases; and WHEREAS, the total number of written protests presented by the close of the public hearing was less than fifty percent (50%) of the total number of customers and property owners subject to the proposed water rate increases; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule W-1 (General Residential Water Service) is hereby amended to read in accordance with sheets W-1-1 and W-1-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective October 1, 2011. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule W-3 (Fire Service Connections) is hereby amended to read in accordance with sheets W-3-1 and W-3-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective October 1, 2011. SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule W-4 (Residential Master-Metered and General Non-Residential Water Service) is hereby amended to read in accordance with sheets W-4-1 and W-4-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective October 1, 2011. SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation Water Service) is hereby amended to read in accordance with sheets W-7-1 and W-7-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective October 1, 2011. SECTION 5. The Council finds that the revenue derived from the authorized adoption enumerated herein shall be used only for the purpose set forth in Article VII, Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto. * Not Yet Approved* 110817 dm 8450002 SECTION 6. The Council finds that a restructuring of water rates to meet operating expenses and financial reserve needs is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code, Section 21080, subdivision (b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15273(a)(1) and (3). INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ___________________________ Acting Deputy City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ Director of Utilities ___________________________ Director of Administrative Services GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Effective 10-1-2011 Supersedes Sheet No W-1-1 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-1-1 A. APPLICABILITY: This schedule applies to all separately metered single family residential water services. B. TERRITORY: This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services. C. RATES: Per Meter Monthly Customer Charge: Per Month For 5/8-inch meter ............................................................................................................$ 10.00 For 3/4 inch meter ............................................................................................................ 10.00 For 1 inch meter ............................................................................................................ 13.00 For 1 1/2 inch meter ............................................................................................................ 27.00 For 2-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 43.00 For 3-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 114.00 For 4-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 195.00 For 6-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 406.00 For 8-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 644.00 For 10-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 644.00 Commodity Rate: (To be added Customer Charge and applicable to all pressure zones.) Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf) Per Month All Pressure Zones Tier 1 usage ........................................................................................................................ $3.60 Tier 2 usage (All usage over 100% of Tier 1) ....................................................................... 7.34 Temporary unmetered service to residential subdivision developers, per connection ........................................................................ $6.00 D. SPECIAL NOTES: Deleted: 5.00 Deleted: 5.00 Deleted: 6.50 Deleted: 12.27 Deleted: 19.37 Deleted: 77.65 Deleted: 130.60 Deleted: 260.43 Deleted: 383.67 Deleted: 383.67 Deleted: 3.949 Deleted: 5.624 Deleted: 7 Deleted: 2009 Deleted: 11-1-2008 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Effective 10-1-2011 Supersedes Sheet No W-1-2 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-1-2 1. Calculation of Cost Components The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as calculated under Section C. 2. Calculation of Usage Tiers Tier 1 water usage shall be calculated and billed based upon a level of 0.2 ccf per day rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of service. As an example, for a 30 day bill, the Tier 1 level would be 0 through 6 ccf. For further discussion of bill calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation 11. {End} Deleted: 33 Deleted: 7 Deleted: 7 Deleted: 2009 Deleted: 11-1-2008 FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-3 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Effective 10-1-2011 Supersedes Sheet No W-3-1 dated 11-1-2008 Sheet No W-3-1 A. APPLICABILITY: This schedule applies to all public fire hydrants and private fire service connections. B. TERRITORY: This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services. C. RATES: 1. Monthly Service Charges Public Fire Hydrant.................................................................................................... $5.00 Private Fire Service: 2-inch connection....................................................................................................... $3.63 4-inch connection....................................................................................................... 7.27 6-inch connection....................................................................................................... 16.13 8-inch connection....................................................................................................... 28.53 10-inch connection..................................................................................................... 44.48 2. Commodity (To be added to Service Charge unless water is used for fire extinguishing or testing purposes.) Per Hundred Cubic Feet All water usage .......................................................................................................... $10.00 D. SPECIAL NOTES: 1. Service under this schedule may be discontinued if water is used for any purpose other than fire extinguishing or water used in testing and repairing the fire extinguishing facilities. Such water used for other purposes is illegal and will be subject to the commodity charge as noted above and fines. 2. No commodity charge will apply for water used for fire extinguishing purposes. 3. For a combination water and fire service, the general water service schedule shall apply. 4. Utilities Rule and Regulation No. 21 provides additional information on Automatic Fire Deleted: $ 4.20 Deleted: $ 7.00 Deleted: $ 10.75 Deleted: $ 15.75 Deleted: 11-1-2008 Deleted: 7-1-1992 FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-3 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Effective 10-1-2011 Supersedes Sheet No W-3-2 dated 11-1-2008 Sheet No W-3-2 Services. 5. Repairs and testing of fire extinguishing facilities are not considered unauthorized use of water if records and documentation are supplied by the customer. 6. Unauthorized use of water which is unrelated to fire protection is subject to criminal prosecution pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. {End} Deleted: 11-1-2008 Deleted: 7-1-1992 RESIDENTIAL MASTER-METERED AND GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-4 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Effective 10-1-2011 Supersedes Sheet No W-4-1 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-4-1 A. APPLICABILITY: This schedule applies to non-residential water service in the City of Palo Alto and its distribution area. This schedule is also applicable to multi-family residential customers served through a master meter. B. TERRITORY: This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services. C. RATES: Per Meter Monthly Customer Charge Per Month For 5/8-inch meter ................................................................................................$ 10.00 For 3/4-inch meter ................................................................................................ 10.00 For 1-inch meter ................................................................................................ 13.00 For 1 ½-inch meter ................................................................................................ 27.00 For 2-inch meter ................................................................................................ 43.00 For 3-inch meter ................................................................................................ 114.00 For 4-inch meter ................................................................................................ 195.00 For 6-inch meter ................................................................................................ 406.00 For 8-inch meter ................................................................................................ 644.00 For 10-inch meter ................................................................................................ 644.00 Commodity Rates: (to be added to Customer Charge) Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf) Per Month All Pressure Zones Per ccf ........................................................................................................................ $4.93 Deleted: 5.00 Deleted: $5.00 Deleted: $6.50 Deleted: $12.27 Deleted: $19.37 Deleted: $77.65 Deleted: $130.60 Deleted: $260.43 Deleted: $383.67 Deleted: $383.67 Deleted: 4.946 Deleted: 7 Deleted: 2009 Deleted: 11-1-2008 RESIDENTIAL MASTER-METERED AND GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-4 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Effective 10-1-2011 Supersedes Sheet No W-4-2 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-4-2 D. SPECIAL NOTES: 1. Calculation of Cost Components The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as calculated under Section C. {End} Deleted: 7 Deleted: 2009 Deleted: 11-1-2008 NON-RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-7 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Effective 10-1-2011 Supersedes Sheet No W-7-1 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-7-1 A. APPLICABILITY: This schedule applies to non-residential water service supplying dedicated irrigation meters in the City of Palo Alto and its distribution area. B. TERRITORY: This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services. C. RATES: Per Meter Monthly Customer Charge Per Month For 5/8-inch meter ................................................................................................$ 10.00 For 3/4-inch meter ................................................................................................ 10.00 For 1-inch meter ................................................................................................ 13.00 For 1 1/2 inch meter ................................................................................................ 27.00 For 2-inch meter ................................................................................................ 43.00 For 3-inch meter ................................................................................................ 114.00 For 4-inch meter ................................................................................................ 195.00 For 6-inch meter ................................................................................................ 406.00 For 8-inch meter ................................................................................................ 644.00 For 10-inch meter ................................................................................................ 644.00 Commodity Rates: (to be added to Customer Charge) Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf) Per Month All Pressure Zones Per Ccf ........................................................................................................................ $7.86 D. SPECIAL NOTES: Deleted: 5.00 Deleted: $5.00 Deleted: $6.50 Deleted: $12.27 Deleted: $19.37 Deleted: $77.65 Deleted: $130.60 Deleted: $260.43 Deleted: $383.67 Deleted: $383.67 Deleted: 4.946 Deleted: 7 Deleted: 2009 Deleted: 11-1-2008 NON-RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-7 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Effective 10-1-2011 Supersedes Sheet No W-7-2 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-7-2 1. Calculation of Cost Components The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as calculated under Section C. {End} Deleted: 7 Deleted: 2009 Deleted: 11-1-2008 City of Palo Alto (ID # 1857) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 6/27/2011 June 27, 2011 Page 1 of 8 (ID # 1857) Summary Title: Water Utility Rate Increases for Fiscal Year 2012 Title: Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Water Utility Rate Schedules W-1, W-3, W-4 and W-7 or Selection of an Alternative Water Utility Rate Structure From:City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to develop water rates based on one of the two alternative options presented in this staff report. Council can also choose to adopt the attached resolution, based on staff’s original rate proposal to: 1.Increase overall retail water rates and annual revenues for the Water Fund by 12.5 percent or $3.4 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2012; and 2.Amend Utility Water Rate Schedules W-1, W-3, W-4, and W-7, as attached. Direction to develop alternative water rates will trigger the notice and protest hearing procedures under Proposition 218. Executive Summary Staff assessed expected costs, demand, short-term risks and reserve guidelines, and determined the revenue requirements for the Water Fund for the next five years. Staff projects a revenue shortfall of $6.2 million in FY 2012 and requested a revenue increase of $3.4 million or an average rate increase of 12.5% for FY 2012. Staff also recommended, in concurrence with Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) and Finance Committee discussions in October and November 2010, a redesign of the residential and commercial rate structures and a re- allocation of revenue collection by rate class. Both the UAC at its February 2, 2011 meeting and the Finance Committee at its March 1, 2011 meeting indicated agreement with the staff recommendation on the annual revenue increase of 12.5% and the revenue-neutral rate adjustments between distinct rate classes reflecting the relative cost to provide service.Both the UAC and Finance Committee also agreed to the addition of tiers to residential and commercial rate classes and a reallocation of costs between fixed and volumetric rate recovery mechanisms. However, neither the UAC nor the Finance Committee was unanimous in their recommendations for the rate redesigns. Subsequently, at their June 20, 2011 meeting, the City Council expressed concern at the June 27, 2011 Page 2 of 8 (ID # 1857) addition of tiers to the residential and commercial rate structures. Council directed staff to return on June 27, 2011 with additional information for Council consideration including new rate options as follows: ·2-tiered residential rates and 1-tiered commercial rates; ·a budget that assumes $2.8 million from the Water Rate Stabilization Reserves; and ·a Fiscal Year 2012 Financial forecast consistent with the budget; Per Council’s direction staff presents the following two rate options: ·Alternative 1:2-tiered residential rates with the Tier 1 breakpoint at 6 ccf (same "tier breakpoint" as in staff's proposed 3-tiered rate proposal), and Tier 1 priced at $3.60 (same as in staff's proposed 3-tiered rate proposal), and one tier for commercial rates. ·Alternative 2:2-tiered residential rates with the Tier 1 breakpoint at 7 ccf (same as rates in effect today), and Tier 1 priced $3.95 (same as rates in effect today), and one tier for commercial rates. For background and perspective, staff is also presenting a comparison of the two rate alternatives with today’s rates (those effective as of June 27, 2011) and staff’s current water rate proposal (3 tiers for residential rates and 2 tiers for commercial rates). Table 1 compares today’s volumetric rates for residential customers with the three other options. The rates under the current staff proposal would become effective July 1, 2011, but the alternatives would not be effective until October 2011 because they would trigger the notice and protest hearing procedures under Proposition 218. The fixed charge component for a residential customer with a 5/8’’ meter would increase from $5/month to $10/month under each option, which is designed to phase in the full fixed charge of $14.75 over a two-year period. Table 1: Comparison of volumetric rates under alternative rate designs for residential customers Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Volume Rates (per ccf) Volume Rates (per ccf) Volume Rates (per ccf) Today’s Rates 0 -7 ccf $3.949 Over 7 ccf $5.624 N/A Current Staff Proposal (Starting July 2011) 0 -6 ccf $3.60 7 -29 ccf $6.08 Over 29 ccf 7.64 Alternative 1 (Starting Oct 2011) 0 -6 ccf $3.60 Over 6 ccf $7.34 N/A Alternative 2 (Starting Oct 2011) 0 -7 ccf $3.95 Over 7 ccf $8.10 N/A (Note: Alternatives 1 and 2 collect the Council approved revenue requirement for the Water Utility over a 9 month period beginning in October 2011. Staff’s proposed rates assume a 12- month collection period beginning July 2011.) Background June 27, 2011 Page 3 of 8 (ID # 1857) During Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 staff initiated a Cost of Service Analysis (COSA) for the Water Utility. A COSA is conducted to review utility rate structures and the alignment of revenues with the cost of providing service for each customer class. Based on the results of the COSA, and a review of Water Utility rate structures, staff analyzed water customer use patterns and various alternative rate structures in preparation for revisions to rate structures to ensure equitable rates for all customer classes. The COSA determined: 1)The appropriate percentage of revenue to be collected from each of the rate classes as a whole; 2)The appropriate amount of revenue that should be collected as a fixed charge rate component based on meter size; and 3)The appropriate amount of revenue that should be collected from volumetric (usage based) charges from each rate class as a whole. In October 2010 and November 2010, staff brought to the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) and the Finance Committee respectively, an assessment of existing rate structures with respect to the relative cost to serve distinct customer classes within the City, utilizing the cost of service analysis. Staff also discussed with the UAC and the Finance Committee certain rate making objectives. Staff recommended, in concurrence with these discussions and in addition to the 12.5% revenue increase, a redesign of the residential and commercial rate structures and a re- allocation of revenue collection by rate class. Under the proposed changes residential rates would increase from two to three tiers, and tiered rates (two tiers) would be introduced for commercial rates. Tiered rates meet the objective of providing effective price signals to promote water conservation and are in line with the California Constitution Article X, Section 2 that requires that water resources of California “be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable, and that the waste and unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented”. California’s Water Code, Section 375 also explicitly allows water conservation measures to be adopted, including water “rate structure designs” that meet certain conditions. Although Palo Alto has sufficient water supplies from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) in normal water years, new water supplies for the state are very expensive to develop. Many agencies, including the SFPUC, are considering new projects to increase water supplies such as desalination, recycled water, and new water storage reservoirs. These new water supply resources can cost from $5 per ccf to over $20 per ccf. Tiered rates that encourage water conservation create an incentive to use water efficiently, and help prevent unreasonable use and waste of water, and the need for these high cost supplies. Discussion Table 2 and Table 3 show the rates in effect as of June 27, 2011 and staff’s proposed water rates modifications for FY 2012 for the W1, W3, W4 and W7 rate schedules. Table 2 shows the June 27, 2011 Page 4 of 8 (ID # 1857) volumetric rate changes and Table 3shows the changes to the fixed charge components of the rates by meter size. If the Council approves these current proposed rates, they will go into effect on July 1, 2011 because the City has already completed the Proposition 218 notice and public hearing procedures. With only 128 protests against the proposed rates, City Council can choose to impose these rate changes. Table 2: Staff’s Proposed Volumetric Rates for FY 2012 Current Rates Current Proposed Rates ChangeRate Schedule Applicable Volume Rates (per ccf) Applicable Volume Rates (per ccf) Applicable Volume Rates (per ccf) First 7 ccf $3.949 0-6 ccf $3.600 ($0.349)-8.8% Over 7 ccf $5.624 7-29 ccf $6.080 $0.456 8.1% W1 –Residential Over 29 ccf $7.640 $2.016 35.8% All ccf $4.946 First 14 ccf $4.486 ($0.460)-9.3%W4 –Commercial Over 14 ccf $4.946 $0.000 0.0% W7 –Irrigation All ccf $4.946 All ccf $6.325 $1.379 27.9% Table 3: Staff’s Proposed Fixed Monthly Charges for FY 2012 by Meter Size Rate Schedule Meter Size Current Monthly Charge Proposed Monthly Charge Change ($)Change (%) Residential / Commercial 5/8 ”$5.00 $10.00 $5.00 100.0% Residential / Commercial 3/4 ”$5.00 $10.00 $5.00 100.0% Residential / Commercial 1”$6.50 $13.00 $6.50 100.0% Residential / Commercial 1 1/2 ”$12.27 $27.00 $14.73 120.0% Residential / Commercial 2”$19.37 $43.00 $23.63 122.0% Commercial 3”$77.65 $114.00 $36.35 46.8% Commercial 4”$130.60 $195.00 $64.40 49.3% Commercial 6”$260.43 $406.00 $145.57 55.9% Commercial 8” $383.67 $644.00 $260.33 67.9% Commercial 10”$383.67 $644.00 $260.33 67.9% Private Fire Service 4”$4.20 $7.27 $3.07 73.1% Private Fire Service 6”$7.00 $16.13 $9.13 130.4% Private Fire Service 8”$10.75 $28.53 $17.78 165.4% Private Fire Service 10”$15.75 $44.48 $28.73 182.4% Table 4 and Table 5 show the volumetric rates in effect as of June 27, 2011 and the two alternative volumetric water rate modifications for FY 2012 for the W1, W4 and W7 rate schedules. The changes to the fixed monthly charges will be the same as shown in Table 3. If City Council directs staff to return on August 1, 2011 with one of these alternative rate designs, the City will be required to conduct the Proposition 218 notice and protest hearing procedures again. Alternative rates will go into effect in October 2011 if there is not a majority protest against the new rate changes. Any delay in taking a final rate recommendation to the City Council beyond August 1, 2011 will further delay the effective increase of water rates. June 27, 2011 Page 5 of 8 (ID # 1857) Table 4: Alternative 1 -2-tiered residential rates with Tier 1 breakpoint and rate set same as in current proposal, and one tier for commercial rates Current Rates Current Proposed Rates ChangeRate Schedule Applicable Volume Rates (per ccf) Applicable Volume Rates (per ccf) Applicable Volume Rates (per ccf) First 7 ccf $3.949 0-6 ccf $3.60 ($0.349)-8.8%W1 –Residential Over 7 ccf $5.624 Over 6 ccf $7.34 $1.716 30.5% W4 –Commercial All ccf $4.946 All ccf $4.93 ($0.016)-0.3% W7 –Irrigation All ccf $4.946 All ccf $7.80 $2.854 57.7% Table 5: Alternative 2 -2-tiered residential rates with Tier 1 breakpoint and rate set same as rates in effect today, and one tier for commercial rates Current Rates Current Proposed Rates ChangeRate Schedule Applicable Volume Rates (per ccf) Applicable Volume Rates (per ccf) Applicable Volume Rates (per ccf) First 7 ccf $3.949 0-7 ccf $3.95 $0.001 0.0%W1 –Residential Over 7 ccf $5.624 Over 7 ccf $8.10 $2.476 44.0% W4 –Commercial All ccf $4.946 All ccf $4.93 ($0.016)-0.3% W7 –Irrigation All ccf $4.946 All ccf $7.80 $2.854 57.7% Table 6 shows the monthly bills and bill changes compared to today’s rates for residential customers with a 5/8’’ meter under the current staff proposed rates and the two alternatives To give an indication of the number of customers that fall into the residential usage levels shown in the table below, the table is highlighted as follows: AA Is the annual average residential usage (14 ccf for all residential customers and 13 ccf for residential customers with a 5/8’’ meter) SA Is the summer usage average for residential customers WA Is the winter usage average for residential customers The tables also indicate the number of customers at or below each usage level: A3 Annually 30% of residential customers use 6 ccf or less A5 Annually 50% of residential customers use 10 ccf or less A9 Annually 97% of residential customers use 40 ccf or less W5 In the winter 50% of residential customers use 6 ccf or less S85 In the summer 85% of residential customers use 29 ccf or less June 27, 2011 Page 6 of 8 (ID # 1857) Table 6: Monthly bills and percentage increase in monthly bills under the different rate options for a selection of residential customers W1 Rat e for 5/8" Current Meter Size 3/4"5.00$ 10.00$ 10.00$ 10.00$ 5/8"5.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Tier 1 7 6 6 7 Tier 2 Over 29 Over Over Tier 3 Over Tier 1 3.949 3.600 3.600 3.950 Tier 2 5.624 6.080 7.340 8.100 Tier 3 7.640 All W1 Monthly Usage Bill Change Bill Change Bill Change 0 5.00 10.00 100%10.00 100%10.00 100% 1 8.95 13.60 52%13.60 52%13.95 56% 2 12.90 17.20 33%17.20 33%17.90 39% 3 16.85 20.80 23%20.80 23%21.85 30% 4 20.80 24.40 17%24.40 17%25.80 24% 5 24.75 28.00 13%28.00 13%29.75 20% A3,W5 A3 6 28.69 31.60 10%31.60 10%33.70 17% 7 32.64 37.68 15%38.94 19%37.65 15% 8 38.27 43.76 14%46.28 21%45.75 20% WA WA, A5 9 43.89 49.84 14%53.62 22%53.85 23% A5 10 49.52 55.92 13%60.96 23%61.95 25% 11 55.14 62.00 12%68.30 24%70.05 27% 12 60.76 68.08 12%75.64 24%78.15 29% AA 13 66.39 74.16 12%82.98 25%86.25 30% AA 14 72.01 80.24 11%90.32 25%94.35 31% 15 77.64 86.32 11%97.66 26%102.45 32% 16 83.26 92.40 11%105.00 26%110.55 33% SA 17 88.88 98.48 11%112.34 26%118.65 33% 18 94.51 104.56 11%119.68 27%126.75 34% SA 19 100.13 110.64 10%127.02 27%134.85 35% 20 105.76 116.72 10%134.36 27%142.95 35% 21 111.38 122.80 10%141.70 27%151.05 36% 22 117.00 128.88 10%149.04 27%159.15 36% 23 122.63 134.96 10%156.38 28%167.25 36% 24 128.25 141.04 10%163.72 28%175.35 37% 25 133.88 147.12 10%171.06 28%183.45 37% 26 139.50 153.20 10%178.40 28%191.55 37% 27 145.12 159.28 10%185.74 28%199.65 38% 28 150.75 165.36 10%193.08 28%207.75 38% S85 29 156.37 171.44 10%200.42 28%215.85 38% 30 162.00 179.08 11%207.76 28%223.95 38% 35 190.12 217.28 14%244.46 29%264.45 39% A9 40 218.24 255.48 17%281.16 29%304.95 40% 45 246.36 293.68 19%317.86 29%345.45 40% 50 274.48 331.88 21%354.56 29%385.95 41% 55 302.60 370.08 22%391.26 29%426.45 41% 60 330.72 408.28 23%427.96 29%466.95 41% 65 358.84 446.48 24%464.66 29%507.45 41% 70 386.96 484.68 25%501.36 30%547.95 42% Start October Delay scenarios Proposed Two tiers Two tiers Alt 1 Alt 2 June 27, 2011 Page 7 of 8 (ID # 1857) Timeline If City Council approves the current proposed water rates, they will go into effect on July 1, 2011 because the City has already completed the Proposition 218 notice and public hearing procedures. If City Council directs staff to return on August 1, 2011 with one of the alternative water rate designs, the City must complete another Proposition 218 procedural process, and absent a majority protest alternative rates will go into effect in October 2011. Any delay in taking a final rate recommendation to the City Council beyond August 1, 2011 will further delay the effective increase of water rates. Assuming: ·Council directs staff to return on August 1, 2011 with an alternative rate design; ·The revised water rates do not need to be reviewed by the Utilities Advisory Commission or the Finance Committee; ·A transfer of $2.8 million from the Water Rate Stabilization Reserves (as currently proposed); and ·No further updates to the financial forecast. The following schedule could be achieved if there are no other delays: August 1 ... New rates for Council review at regularly scheduled Council meeting August 14 ... Prop 218 notices sent to customers (in coordination with refuse rates increases) October 3 ... Public Hearing October 4 ... New rates in effect if less than 50% +1 "no" votes Resource Impact If the City Council imposes the current proposed rate changes, the new rates will increase the water fund revenues by approximately $3.4 million for FY 2012. A rate increase will have a positive net impact to the General Fund of $20,000 with the Utilities User Tax collections exceeding increased water costs for the General Fund by approximately $20,000. The alternative water rates could also increase the water fund revenues by approximately $3.4 million for FY 2012 if there is not a majority protest against the new rate changes.If there was a majority protest then the water fund revenue shortfall would increase by $3.4 million in FY 2012 beyond the projections in the approved FY 2012 budget. If a rate increase is not approved, there would also be a negative net impact to the General Fund of approximately $20,000. Environmental Review The restructuring of water rates to meet operating expenses and financial reserve needs is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a)(1) and (3). June 27, 2011 Page 8 of 8 (ID # 1857) Attachments: ·A Resolution for Water July 1 2011 (PDF) ·B W-1 effective 7-1-2011 (PDF) ·C W-3 effective 7-1-2011 (PDF) ·D W-4 effective 7-1-2011 (PDF) ·E W-7 effective 7-1-2011 (PDF) ·F Final Staff Report ID 1628_Water Util Rate Incr FY 2012 (PDF) ·Public Letters to Council (PDF) Prepared By:Debra Lloyd, Manager Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager ATTACHMENT G CITY COUNCIL MEETING EXCERPT DRAFT MINUTES OF JUNE 20, 2011 ACTION ITEMS 11. PUBLIC HEARING: Approval of an Ordinance 5121 Adopting the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget, including the Fiscal Year 2012 Capital Improvement Program, and Changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule; Adoption of Five Resolutions: (1) Resolution 9177 Amending Utility Rate Schedules for a Storm Drain Rate Increase; (2) Resolution 9178 Amending Utility Rate Schedules for Fiber Optic Rate Increases; (3) Resolution 9179 Amending Utility Rate Schedules for Wastewater Rate Increases pursuant to Proposition 218; (4) Amending Utility Rate Schedules for Water Rate Increases; (5) Amending the 2010-2011 Compensation Plan for the Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees; and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.08 to Create a New Department of Information Technology (Continued from June 13, 2011). Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services, introduced the Item as the second part of the City’s budget approval process. He stated that Staff would not be making a formal presentation of the Item, but did acknowledge Council Member Holman’s request that Staff provide additional information regarding a resolution to change management and professional compensation by providing a table of all eleven proposed salary changes. Mr. Bobel, Acting Assistant Director of Public Works, stated that Staff intended to bring a Budget Amendment Ordinance for the Arts Center Project before Council in July. He explained that the Budget Amendment Ordinance would include approximately $600,000 worth of additions to the Arts Center Project. He stated that although the project is currently out to bid, Staff was considering a Budget Amendment Ordinance in order to take advantage of the current economic climate in which bid prices have been significantly lowered and to minimize disruptions to the Arts Center Staff and Patrons as much as possible. He noted that there would not be a need for a Budget Amendment Ordinance if the returning bids were low enough, but wanted Council to be aware of the possibility. James Keene, City Manager, assured Council that if the need arose for a Budget Amendment Ordinance, the Item would be returned at a later date for consideration. He stated that this was being discussed now only for the purpose of advising Council that the Item may appear at a future meeting. Mr. Perez asked that, if they were amenable to the proposed changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule, Council vote to approve an amended version of Ordinance 5121. Council Member Holman asked for an explanation of proposed increases to several positions in the Municipal Fee Schedule. Mr. Perez stated that Staff was changing the structure of the Office of Management and Budget Division within Administrative Services and moving towards a more analytical program. He explained that these changes were needed, and that the Finance Committee had communicated a desire to see Staff reorganize operations and capital budgeting and provide a more indepth analysis of services and programs. He anticipated that the next few years would be financially challenging and that, in response to growing budget difficulties, both the State of California and Council were requiring more detailed information than Staff had historically provided. He informed Council that Administrative Services’ restructuring efforts were an attempt to meet the growing demand for information. Council Member Holman asked what factors were considered in determining pay increases. Mr. Keene explained that the increases were motivated in part because of the City’s inability to attract the candidates needed to fill the positions in question. He added that the Director of Information Technology/Chief Information Officer position was created to oversee the Information Technology Department, a newly independent Department, no longer a division of Administrative Services. He noted that the salary for this position reflected Staff’s intention that the position serve as an autonomous member of the Executive Leadership Team, and stated that Staff had conducted research to determine the salaries paid by other agencies for similar positions. Public Hearing opened and closed without public comment at 8:35 P.M. Mayor Espinosa stated that there were 20,126 property owners and water customers subject to the proposed water rate increase, and that 10, 064 protests were needed to create a majority. He asked the City Clerk to provide the number of written protests received against the proposed water rate increase. Donna Grider, City Clerk, reported that there were 128 protests received for the water rate increase. Mayor Espinosa stated that 128 protests did not constitute a majority protest, and that the water rate changes would be made as part of the Ordinance adopting the budget for Fiscal Year 2012. He stated that there were 22,232 property owners and wastewater customers subject to the proposed wastewater rate increase, and that 11,117 protests were needed to create a majority. He asked the City Clerk to provide the number of written protests received against the proposed wastewater rate increase. Ms. Grider reported that there were 94 protests received for the wastewater rate increase. Mayor Espinosa stated that 94 protests did not constitute a majority protest, and that the wastewater rate changes would be made as part of the Ordinance adopting the budget for Fiscal Year 2012. Molly Stump, City Attorney, reported that Council Member Klein would recuse himself for Item Number One, which comprised those portions of the budget relating to Stanford University. Council Member Klein advised that he would not be participating in deliberations for this Item, as the Item pertained to Stanford University, where his wife was currently employed. He left the meeting at 8:38 P.M. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh to approve the Staff and Finance Committee recommendation that the City Council adopt the portions of the Police and Fire Department Budgets and Capital Improvement Projects relating to Stanford University for the Fiscal Year 2012 and the Ordinance portions related thereto. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Klein abstaining, Shepherd absent Council Member Klein returned at 8:40 P.M. Council Member Scharff stated that in his opinion the water rates as currently proposed, with a tier 3 for residential and a tier 2 for commercial, violated Proposition 218. He stated that Council should not approve the rates, and observed that Staff had not completed a Cost-of-Services Study to demonstrate that the amounts charged to parcels would not exceed the Proposition 218 limitations. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Klein to: 1) not approve water rate increases and Staff is to return to Council on June 27, 2011 with new rates that do not include Tier 3 rates for residential usage or Tier 2 rates for commercial usage; 2) and revised water rates do not need to be reviewed by Utilities Advisory Commission or the Finance Committee; 3) a transfer of $2.8m from the Water Rate Stabilization Reserve Fund would continue as currently proposed; and 4) no further updates to the financial forecast. Council Member Scharff stated that some of the rates proposed by the Utilities Advisory Commission did not comply with Proposition 218, and emphasized that it was very important for Council to proceed in the right direction with regards to this matter. Council Member Price remarked that she felt as though she did not have enough information to make a clear decision regarding this matter, and requested a legal opinion regarding the proposed rates. Ms. Stump replied that jurisdictions around the State have struggled to address the structure of utility rates with respect to the procedural requirements of Proposition 218 and the policy interests of conservation, both of which were state mandated. She stated that Council had the authority to adopt the rates as proposed. Valerie Fong, Director of Utilities, informed Council that if a decision were made at this meeting, than Staff would be able to return the item by August 1, 2011. However, if the decision were not made until the following meeting, than Staff would likely not be able to return the proposed amendments until Sept 12, 2001, in which case the rates would not take affect until November 2011. Mr. Keene disagreed with the timeline presented by Ms. Fong, and stated that he believed that Staff could begin the work necessary to meet the August 1, 2011 deadline regardless of whether the Item were returned to Council before then. He stated that given that the Motion represents a new direction for Staff, he would feel more comfortable if Staff had some time to review the proposal before a vote of Council. Council Member Scharff responded to Mr. Keene’s concerns, and commented that he believed the matter was legal in nature and not an issue of review. Ms. Stump stated that it may be helpful to take another week to allow Council to obtain Council Member Scharff’s proposal in written form, along with any possible operational, legal, and policy implications, and compare it alongside the current Staff proposal. Council Member Scharff agreed with Ms. Stump’s suggestion, but asked for an assurance from Ms. Fong that Staff would be able to commit to an August 1, 2011 deadline if Council were to agree to postpone a vote on the Motion. Ms. Fong stated that two of the key Staff Members who would normally work on the project would be out of the country during the time in question. Mr. Keene stated that he believed that Staff could meet the August 1, 2011 deadline if given a week to prepare a written report for a vote on the Item. Mayor Espinosa acknowledged the commitment from Mr. Keene. Council Schmid stated that he understood the confusion caused by introducing fundamental change to a process that had been in place for the previous three months and was aware of the consideration that must be given to a proposal that could potentially postpone a rate increase for up to four months. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh to: 1) approve Staff recommendation to increase the water rates for 6 months, 2) direct Staff to complete a Cost-of- Services Study for the basis of new rates for April 2012. Council Member Schmid commented that it was important to comply with Proposition 218 and to ensure that customers were not paying to subsidize other users. He stated that in a non-tiered rate structure, those living in a small rental apartment would pay the same as those with large scale landscaping. As a consequence of this structure, those renters who comprise 55% of the community would be made to subsidize larger users. He acknowledged that Council had already unanimously approved the Water Management Plan, as required by the State, and stated that by doing so Council had agreed to a five-year Water Conservation Program which would include a rate mechanism to encourage conservation. He urged Council to approve the rates proposed by Staff, in order to avoid the need to draw from Budget Stabilization Reserves to augment revenue until which time as a new rate structure could be put into effect. Vice Mayor Yeh stated that he agreed with Council Member Schmid’s approach, and stated that during Finance Committee discussions there was acknowledgement that a Cost-of-Services Study was essential to gain an understanding of the complexity of restructuring the City’s water rates. He maintained that direct intervention with large landscape users did not appear to be the best approach, and that tiered water rates created the best incentive for users to conserve water. He stated that he felt that a delay in approving the new water rates would be risky, but that there was still a need to investigate subsidization across user groups and gather more information. He commented that Council Member Schmid’s proposal would allow the Utilities Department time to prepare the necessary Cost-of-Services Study and would provide the opportunity to revisit the rates in six months. Council Member Burt asked Council Member Schmid why he considered the six month time period necessary. Council Member Schmid responded that from what he understood, a one week delay in consideration would prevent Staff from providing an adjusted rate structure until sometime in early November. He stated that he felt that a six month period would allow Staff the time necessary to prepare the requested information. Council Member Burt asked Ms. Fong to clarify her timeline. Ms. Fong stated that if Council were vote on this issue at the next scheduled meeting in one week, the Cost-of-Services Requests for Proposals would go out in mid July and would close in mid-August. The Study would likely start in September and be completed and returned to Council in November. She reported that Staff could return with new rates in mid-January, at which time they would begin the Proposition 218 process. The results of that process could be returned to Council in March and could potentially produce rates effective April 1, 2012. Ms. Fong stated that the wording of the original Motion was clear, in that the Residential Tier 3 rate and the Commercial Tier 2 rate would be eliminated. She requested clarification regarding Council Member Scharff’s desire to maintain compliance with Proposition 218 through eliminating the previously mentioned tiers. She stated that she was unclear as to whether the intent was to eliminate all tiers or only those specifically named. Council Member Scharff replied that in his understanding, the City had the burden of proof regarding maintaining compliance with Proposition 218. He stated that, if challenged, the City needed to be able to provide evidence that one rate payer class was not subsidizing another. He remarked that in his opinion, the Residential Tier 3 rate and the Commercial Tier 2 rate constituted a violation of the Proposition 218 prohibition on crosssubsidization and that the proposed rate structure was a liability without a Cost-of-Services Study to support it. Council Member Burt asked for clarification regarding which rates Council Member Scharff was specifically opposed to. Council Member Scharff replied that there was currently no Residential Tier 3 rate or Commercial Tier 2 rate, but that the new rate structure would create them. He was opposed to these additions, stating that they were a violation of Proposition 218. Council Member Burt asked for an explanation of the Utilities Staff’s justification for the tiered rate increases. Ms. Fong explained that Staff provided the Utilities Advisory Commission with the financial forecast and the Cost-of-Services Study, as well as some possible scenarios for review. She stated that the Cost-of-Services Study examined the cost of services between commercial and residential users and between different classes of commercial and residential users, and after review of these materials the Utilities Advisory Commission selected the three tiered system. Council Member Burt asked Ms. Fong how Staff had established the various rate structure scenarios presented to the Commission, and what consideration was given to Proposition 218 requirements. Ms. Fong explained that Staff had provided possible rate structuring scenarios to the Commission, and that the Commission evaluated those scenarios based on policy considerations provided by Council, such as conservation. Council Member Burt stated that he didn’t understand how Staff could present scenarios to an advisory commission without providing legal considerations. He acknowledged that he was torn on the issue and that he was disappointed to be hearing about the possible negative legal ramifications of the Item at this late date. He stated that Council was now faced with a dilemma; they must attempt to meet the goals of the water management plan while ensuring the City’s compliance with Proposition 218. He noted that although the public had raised many objections to the water rate increases, the issue of whether to undertake a new Cost-of-Services Study would not eliminate that increase. He emphasized the importance of alerting the public to the fact that the Study would not only fail to prevent a rate increase, but that it could potentially result in higher user rates down the road. He asked that, for the benefit of the public, Staff provide a brief review of the motivating factors behind the rate increase. Ms. Fong stated that in considering the Tier 3 Rate, the Utilities Advisory Commission did consider the cost of an alternative water supply. She explained that these alternatives, such as desalination or recycled water, are typically very expensive. She communicated that the main motivations for the rate increases were San Francisco Public Utilities Commission water supply costs, seismic safety improvement costs, Capital Improvement Program costs, and a decrease in water demand. Council Member Burt stated that he understood that there were certain fixed costs associated with the distribution of water and that as fewer units were sold the price per gallon must increase to compensate, but observed that many water customers felt penalized because although they had conserved water, their rates continued to increase. He explained that users must be made to clearly understand that they were not being penalized for conserving and that what they were experiencing was not a net increase in their bill, but an increase in their price per gallon. He urged Staff to engage the community on this issue and to clearly articulate the factors behind the changes that they were seeing in their bill. Mr. Keene stated that this was going to be an ongoing issue and stated that Council Member Klein had asked Staff to agendize a study session with information on the SFPUC water project, which has been scheduled for the July 25, 2011 meeting. He explained that Staff has arranged for some SFPUC representatives to attend and provide information regarding some of the motivating factors behind water rate increases. Council Member Klein spoke in opposition to Council Member Schmid’s Substitute Motion, and in favor of Council Member Scharff’s Original Motion. He asserted that Council Member Schmid had incorrectly stated that the Original Motion would require the City to draw on the Budget Stabilization Reserve Fund, when in fact the Motion included a provision to pro-rate the rates to compensate for the delay. He agreed with Council Member Burt that the community needed to be aware of the fact that the rates would increase regardless of Council’s decision regarding the Cost-of-Services Study. He commented that the one week delay would provide Council with an opportunity to review the facts and determine how to proceed. Council Member Price stated that she would support the Substitute Motion because of the number of unanswered questions regarding the issue and her objection to making a change in direction at this point in the process, after the item had already been reviewed by several committees. She agreed that there should be a concerted effort on the part of the Utilities Staff to inform the public regarding the reasons behind the rate increases, and suggested a statement be included in the utility bills. Council Member Scharff stated that the real problem was that, to his knowledge, the issue of Proposition 218 compliance had not been vetted by either the Finance Committee or the Utilities Advisory Commission. He explained that his Motion was intended to allow Staff the opportunity to provide Council with the information necessary to remedy that oversight. Council Member Schmid stated that the proposed rates addressed the customer class issue clearly, and that they represented an active attempt from Council to move towards compliance with Proposition 218. He acknowledged that the question of how to differentiate between users in a given class was a more complex question, deserving of another Cost-of-Services Study. He suggested that Council move forward with the preparation of the Study before adjusting the rates. Vice Mayor Yeh stated that while some further analysis appeared to be required on the issue of Proposition 218 compliance, the existing Cost- of-Services Study indicated that the City needed to restructure their water rates. He explained that the Original Motion would delay the implementation of the rates, which had been developed based on information already provided, and allow a further continuation of the cross-subsidization that was already occurring. He noted that Council Member Schmid was correct in acknowledging that another study was warranted, and stated that he would continue to support the Substitute Motion. Mayor Espinosa stated that he would not support the Substitute Motion because of his concern regarding the fact that a week long continuance of the Item would place it on an agenda that is already anticipated to be extremely long. He explained that the concerns over Proposition 218 compliance compelled him to agree with the original Motion. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 3-5 Price, Schmid, Yeh yes, Shepherd absent Vice Mayor Yeh requested that City Attorney explain the legal implications of the vote, which would ensure that the new rates would not be implemented until August 1, 2011 at the earliest. Ms. Stump responded that she would advise Council regarding the relative risk of the options before them during a closed session. MOTION PASSED: 7-1 Price no, Shepherd absent MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh to: 1) Staff and the Finance Committee recommend that Council approve the following: 1. The Budget Adoption Ordinance, which includes: a. the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget b. amendments to the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget c. revised pages to the Table of Organization d. amendments to the Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule 2. Resolution amending Utility Rate Schedules for a Storm Drain Rate Increase 3. Resolution amending Utility Rate Schedules for a Fiber Optic Rate Increase 4. Resolution amending Utility Rates Schedule for a Wastewater Rate Increase 5. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto amending the 2010-2011 Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel adopted by Resolution No. 9156 to add three new positions, change the titles of six positions and update the compensation for five positions 6. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto amending Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to add Section 2.08.240 creating a new Department of Information Technology Vice Mayor Yeh noted that the now adopted budget highlighted the anticipated movement within the City’s public safety negotiations, the importance of achieving equity across the City’s labor units, and of finding economically sustainable solutions. Council Member Schmid expressed strong support for the budget, and while acknowledging some remaining uncertainties, stated that Staff’s willingness to return in 90 days to check-in with Council had a great deal to do with his acceptance of the document. Mayor Espinosa expressed confidence in Staff’s ability to closely monitor any areas of uncertainty within the budget, and to meet expected targets. He conceded that the next few years would likely produce equally difficult budgeting constraints, but that Staff’s hard work has kept Palo Alto financially sound in comparison to many other cities. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Shepherd absent CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING EXCERPT DRAFT MINUTES OF JUNE 27, 2011 5. Resolution 9183 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Water Utility Rate Schedules W-1, W-3, W-4 and W-7 or Selection of an Alternative Water Utility Rate Structure”. (continued from June 20, 2011). City Manager, James Keene, referring to Council’s discussion regarding postponing this item, stated that it would be difficult to have this conversation in a future meeting. Utilities Director, Val Fong noted that bringing the information back with changed rate schedules and updated numbers would push it back to September. Council Member Price left the meeting at 12:24 am. Mayor Espinosa said Staff’s request was to discuss the item and provide feedback. He noted it had been discussed previously and might take less time than other items. Council Member Scharff noted that adding Tier 3 would not be in conformance with Proposition 218, so the choice was between Alternative 1 and 2. He stated it did not matter, but he would prefer Alternative 1. He noted the rates were both lower on Alternative 1. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Klein to direct Staff to move forward with Alternative 1 which includes: 2 tiered residential rates with the Tier 1 breakpoint at 6 ccf, priced at $3.60, and one tier for commercial rates. Herb Borock noted that there were two California Constitutional goals being implemented. One goal was from Proposition 218 and related to charging users for a good and service based upon what each was using. Another goal was conservation, which was setting up a rate structure to benefit the entire class of users. In balancing the two goals the rates were established. He noted that the proposed alternatives were unclear in that they were getting the same amount of money as in the original proposal, but in a shorter amount of time. He thought the original proposal was better than the alternatives, and suggested including the amount of rate differences. He noted the tiers force conservation and as established in the Cost of Services Study, they satisfy Proposition 218. Council Member Scharff stated that he believed Alternative One to be in line with Proposition 218. Council Member Shepherd stated she strongly supported Alternative Two. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh to move Staff recommendation to: 1. Increase overall retail water rates and annual revenues for the Water Fund by 12.5 percent or $3.4 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2012; and 2. Amend Utility Water Rate Schedules W-1, W-3, W-4, and W-7, as attached. Council Member Shepherd stated that during the Finance Committee discussions on this subject Staff provided an explanation about the analysis of the interest that Palo Alto residents had in conservation and moving forward with Proposition 218 compliance with fixed rates increasing by 100% both this and next year. She stated that would be more appropriate for the Palo Alto community. Council Member Burt stated it should be clear to the public that under Tier 1 there was a reduction, absent the increase in fixed rates. He noted it was adding 100% this year, and only 50% next year. Council Member Shepherd disagreed. Council Member Burt asked for clarification on the increase. Ms. Fong stated Council Member Burt was correct. Council Member Schmid noted that there was a Cost of Services Study that focused on customer classes. He stated that the requirements on the residential side had not been addressed. He stated that moving forward, even if the rates were approved, there would be a Cost of Services study for any rate increase that might be appropriate next year. He asked if that was correct. Ms. Fong replied yes. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 3-5 Schmid, Shepherd, Yeh yes AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member XXXX for Staff to draft a letter to State Legislators requesting legislation to address conservation pricing for water utilities. Council Member Scharff noted it was a constitutional requirement trumping any legislation. Mr. Keene noted there was some legislation related to conservation pricing. City Attorney, Molly Stump noted they could come back with a strategy to address the underlying interest. AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO LACK OF SECOND MOTION PASSED: 7-1 Yeh no, Price absent Ms. Fong stated that the first tier went to 6ccf in Alternative 1. Vice Mayor Yeh stated that he did not know if there was a Motion for legislation regarding conservation pricing or if that was what the City Attorney was already tasked with bringing back to Council. Ms. Stump suggested working on it offline and coming back with something. 1855 Bret Harte Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 August 8, 2011 City Clerk 250 Hamilton'Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear City Clerk, Please count our protests against the proposed rate and/or fee increases for water volumetric and fixed service charges for"RBsidential W1 users. Please also count our protests against the proposed refuse rate increase, both fixed and variable, for residential users. Sincerely, -&~~~~~~~ ~ Cornelia K. Turkington q,.= Our parcel number is:' 003-56-016-00 ~ Our utilities account number is: 30023439 I / August 20. 2011 City of Palo Alto City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 GlJ:Y Of PALO ALTO ~ll. lttlTY CLERK'S fJFFfbl;" "AUG 23 PH 4: I I RE: Protest of proposed water rate changes Dear Cit): Clerk: , • For serious consideration, I am protesting the proposed utility rate adjustment as it relates to the water rate increase stated in the July 29, 2011, notification. For whatever reason, too little water or too much water, equally, seem to encourage the City to arbitrarily arrive at the very same conclusion. My account number is 30005028 and my address is 515 Chaucer Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Sincerely, ~~~()cue Sheila Hoar •. MRS •. SHEILA HOAR 515.,CHAUCER STREET PALO AliO, CA 94301 C~C6~ aJtrJ cL~~~ .;( SO Hafrl<.J.. ~ a.<.J-<ert.<.t...~ ~ at.~ ... c.fi ~dOI ,.',e' I CITY OF OA. ." \J ~iciaBuchanan SHY Cl'E,M.RKl9sI},LTQ ..• OA .' "'~c3E1 Centro St ~F'F11lE i ido Alto, CA 94306 " AUG 15 /J~~A 10 .i .' .. ., PI! 2'511' ", ~ . J "ZAJFf . ~ ~ .. at6 .... '. '. '. ~~?J€\.cem:ro~. ;& ~~~~:F~'~ " . I August 8, 2011 2563 Greer Rd. <J'i30 3 To: Palo Alto City Council City Clerk, 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear People, C1TY OF PALO ALI·· •.. un Y CLERK'S aFF~'e~A " AUG 12 PH 3: 3. I ~rite you to let you know that I strongly object to the proposed increase in the water rate. I am a retired person living on an income just over $32,000 a year. I receive Rate Assistance from the City, which I greatly appreciate. Does it make sense to further increase the cost of a service for which you help me to pay? Sincerely yours ~~~OA Account No. 30010480 Assessed Parcel No. 127-02-065 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City Clerk 775 Northampton Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 Aug. 8, 2011 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 To whom it may concern:· e CITY OF PALO ALTO.CA CITY CLERK'S OPFICE II AUG 22 PH 3: 52 Account #30029774 The purpose of this communication is to protest the raising of water rates and refuse rates for residential customers. The City should reduce spending where it its outlay is excessive. Arbitrarily raising fees for residents is not good management. Yours truly, . ~~c~ ~~ VI i QQ Kay Bushnell / ·3073 Price Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 City Cler~ 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 --CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA en Y CLERK'S OFFICE f.f AUG-9 PM 2:14 Reference: Assessor's Parcel Number 127-52-010-00 Gentlemen, Thursday, August 04, 2011 The purpose of this letter is to protest the water rate changes to both "volumetric and monthly service charges. Also I would like to protest the proposed refuse rate increases. I believe a fare increase should be proportional to the size of each household's refuse can / "\ ! Very truly yours, ~o~~ • August 4,2011 City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Richard and Joan Raiter 211 Seale Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: Proposed Rate Increase/wgtef raw clJpge ~LlY OF PALO ALT CITY CL ltRX'S Ilfrt O. CA t. u,-PICE I, AUG ~9 PH 2: 14 Dear City Clerk: .. We are taking this' opportunity to write this letter of protest against the proposed increase in the Water Utility water rates change. The proposed change is a very significant one and is much higher than necessary in our opinion. We fmd the 20.9% rate increase to be a very steep increase at one time. We are long term. owners and occupants of our property in Palo Alto, since 1976. Please take into consideration the older people who reside in Palo Alto and may be on a fixed income or very close to it. Thank you for taking this into your consideration. Sincerely, } Richard and Joan Raitet 211 Seale Avenue: Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-326-0232 Pareel Number 124-18-029-00 Palo Alto Utilities Account # 30025635 CITY OF PALO ALTQ.CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE IIAUG 22 PM 3: 53 City Clerk 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 235 Seale Ave Palo Alto, C1\ 94301 Aug 17, 2011 Re: Protest against Volumetric and fixed service charges for Water To Whom It May Concern: i . I write to protest the changes in general residential water rates over 7 cef and the increase in the monthly fixed service charge. I consider my water use to be efficient and moderate yet I am usually over the 7 cc. The current water rates are already excessive. My water plus the associated sewer charge to process waste water can together be as much as a third of my total utility bill. I strongly oppose the proposed changes in rates. Sincerely, L:,. I \ -;~ .IlI)' !/0\J~ L./~- Susan C. Neville Account: 30032500 City of Palo Alto (ID # 1937) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 9/19/2011 September 19, 2011 Page 1 of 5 (ID # 1937) Summary Title: Public Hearing: Refuse Rate Increases -FY 2012 Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Pursuant to Proposition 218 -Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Utility Rate Schedules R-1, R-2, and R-3 for a Refuse Rate Increase; Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2012 to Adjust Projected Revenues and Expenses in Refuse Fund and Authorize Short Term Loan from General Fund to Refuse Fund From:City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff requests that the City Council: 1.Adopt a resolution to amend Utility Rate Schedules R-1, R-2, and R-3, as attached (Attachment A); and 2.Adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2012 to adjust budgeted revenues and expenditures within the Refuse Fund and authorize a short term loan from the General Fund to the Refuse Fund (Attachment B). The recommended rate increase triggered the notice and protest hearing procedures under Proposition 218. Executive Summary On July 25, 2011, City Council directed staff to proceed with the Proposition 218 notification process for the refuse rate increases recommended by staff and Finance Committee to close the $3.7 million Refuse Fund operating deficit for FY 2012. The proposed rate increases consist of retaining the 6% and 9% rate increases from FY 2011 for residential and commercial customers, respectively, and establishing an additional fixed monthly fee of $4.62 for residential customers to be effective on October 1, 2011. The FY 2011 rate increases are scheduled to expire on September 30, 2011. To minimize immediate impact to ratepayers, City Council also directed staff to establish a short term $1.25 million loan from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve to the Refuse Fund that will be repaid in FY 2013 from projected savings resulting from closure of the landfill. Implementation of the proposed rates is subject to a public hearing process provided for under Proposition 218, and may only be September 19, 2011 Page 2 of 5 (ID # 1937) available for approval by City Council should written protests against the rates be received from less than 50% of affected property owners. Background In September 2010, City Council adopted refuse rate increases for FY 2011 that became effective on October 1, 2010 and are due to expire on September 30, 2011. At the April 5, 2011 Finance Committee meeting, staff was directed to propose an initial FY 2012 Refuse Fund budget for adoption by City Council that assumed expiration of the FY 2011 rate increases, and to return to the Finance Committee in July 2011 with recommendations for rate increases and additional expense reductions for FY 2012. The FY 2012 budget, adopted by City Council on June 20, 2011, contains an operating deficit of $3.7 million for the Refuse Fund. Approximately $1.2 million of that deficit is due to the expiration of the FY 2011 rate increases that is scheduled to occur on September 30, 2011. Staff is proceeding with a detailed Cost of Service Study that will likely result in a new rate structure beyond the interim adjustment represented by the proposed rate increases in this Action Item. The preliminary results of the study show that residential rates are not covering their proportional expenses. Conversely, while the commercial sector is much more volatile than residential, the preliminary results indicate commercial rates appear to be exceeding expenses. While the Cost of Service Study is not yet complete, the proposed rate increases in this report are based on the need to bring the residential rates up to a fuller cost recovery level while attempting to correct the existing inequities between residential and commercial sectors. The goal of this interim adjustment is to begin implementing fuller cost recovery for residential immediately, in order to avoid a larger deficit problem going forward. At the July 5, 2011 Finance Committee meeting, staff was directed to prepare options for refuse rate increases which would express a portion (or all) of the residential rate increase as a fixed cost, applicable to all residential users. The Finance Committee also directed staff to prepare a plan for eliminating the Recycling Center and retaining the Household Hazardous Waste Drop-off Area at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. Staff is scheduled to return to Finance Committee in October 2011 to present the plan, and will subsequently present the plan to the full City Council. Based on Finance Committee’s direction, staff used its cost saving estimate for the elimination of the Recycling Center during FY 2012 (six-month savings) in the refuse rate calculations. The current Recycling Center must be removed following the closure of the landfill, resulting in the six-month savings regardless of whether the Recycling Center is fully eliminated. The refuse rate calculations also include savings from deferring the hiring of a vacant Zero Waste Coordinator position for an additional year. Discussion September 19, 2011 Page 3 of 5 (ID # 1937) At the July 5, 2011 Finance Committee meeting, staff recommended that a residential rate increase be adopted for FY 2012, 100% of which would vary by the size of the garbage can.This recommendation was in addition to retaining the FY 2011 6% rate increase that is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2011. Staff recommended that commercial rates have no increase for FY 2012 beyond retaining the FY 2011 9% rate increase. This approach would begin to address the apparent inequities of the current rate structure between residential and commercial sectors initially identified by the ongoing Cost of Service Study without subjecting residential customers to a rate increase that is significantly higher than other rate increases in the past. On July 19, 2011, staff returned to the Finance Committee with additional options involving the use of fixed amounts for some (or all) of the increase for residential customers. Under these options, residential customers would continue to pay the current rate (which varies by can size), and an amount would be added to the current rate with an element of fixed cost. Finance Committee unanimously recommended the 100% fixed cost approach, in which residential customers would pay a fixed rate of $4.62 per month in addition to the current rates. On July 25, 2011, City Council unanimously directed staff to proceed with the Proposition 218 notification and public hearing process for the 100% fixed cost approach. Table 1 (below) provides the existing FY 2011 rates, proposed fixed rate, proposed total monthly rate, and resulting percent increase over FY 2011 rates for residential service levels. Although Table 1 provides the combined variable and fixed rates,the variable and fixed rates would be shown separately on customer bills. The rate increases presented in Table 1 are in addition to retaining the 6% residential and 9% commercial rate increases that were adopted in FY 2011. Table 1:Options for fixed and variable residential rate increases and resulting residential rates. FY 2011 Variable Rates Proposed Fixed Rate Proposed Total Monthly Rate Percent Increase Over FY 2011 Rates Mini $15.90 $4.62 $20.52 29.0% 32 gallon $32.86 $4.62 $37.48 14.0% 64 gallon $67.84 $4.62 $72.46 6.8% 96 gallon $101.76 $4.62 $106.38 4.5% Figure 1 (below) depicts the residential rates over the past several years, including the proposed FY 2012 rates, for a representative customer that switched from 32 gallon to mini-can service in 2009. Figure 1 demonstrates the substantial savings available to customers who switch to smaller garbage can sizes. September 19, 2011 Page 4 of 5 (ID # 1937) Figure 1: Residential refuse rates from 7/1/2008 through proposed 10/1/2011 rates for customer switching from 32 gallon service to Mini-can service in July 2009 $26.58 $15.00 $15.90 $20.52 $0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00 $30.00 $35.00 7/1/2008 7/1/2009 10/1/2010 10/1/2011 Mini-can rates 32-gallon rates Staff and Finance Committee recommend the 100% fixed cost approach proposed in Table 1 to address rate inequities at this time. The Finance Committee expressed a strong preference for a 100% fixed cost increase in order to better assure the revenue pending completion of the cost of service study. Reduced expenses in FY 2013, because of the closure of the landfill, allow the Refuse Fund to receive a $1.25 million loan from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) in FY 2012 that will be repaid in FY 2013. The loan from the BSR minimizes the rate increases for FY 2012. Once the Cost of Service Study is completed this fall, future rate increases (as needed) will be based on Cost of Service data. Staff will return to the Finance Committee in approximately four months with fixed costs data based on the Study upon which to base future changes to the rate structure, as planned. Proposition 218 amended the California Constitution and set forth procedural requirements that public agencies must follow in order to enact or increase a property- related fee. Since Proposition 218 applies to the refuse rate increases described in this report, the City must provide written notice by mail to refuse customers subject to the proposed fees (notices were mailed August 5, 2011), followed by a public hearing held not less than 45 days after notice is mailed (the September 19, 2011 Council meeting). Per the requirements, the notice included the amount of the fee, the basis upon which the fee is calculated, the reason for the fee, and the date, time and location of the public hearing. If a majority of customers submit written protests against the proposed fees, the City may not impose the fee. September 19, 2011 Page 5 of 5 (ID # 1937) Resource Impact The proposed rate increases are estimated to erase the $3.7 million deficit and result in a balanced Budget for FY 2012 and FY 2013. The proposed rate increases include a loan of $1.25 million in FY 2012 from the General Fund BSR to be repaid in FY 2013. Interest on the loan would be paid based on the average yield on the City’s investment portfolio for the loan period. The BSR balance would be reduced to $25.8 million or 17.6% of expenditures, which is above the 15% minimum balance approved by Council. Timeline Following City Council adoption, the new rates will become effective on October 1, 2011. Policy Implications The proposed Refuse Rate increase is consistent with current City Policies. Environmental Review The proposed actions do not constitute a project pursuant to CEQA. Attachments: ·Attachment A: Resolution (PDF) ·Attachment B: Budget Amendment Ordinance (PDF) ·Prop 218 Protests Refuse Rate Increase (PDF) Prepared By:Brad Eggleston, Manager Solid Waste Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager Not Yet Approved 1 110912 jb 0130838 Resolution No. _______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Utility Rate Schedules R-1, R-2, and R-3 for a Refuse Rate Increase WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the City Council may by resolution adopt rules and regulations governing utility services and the fees and charges therefore; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered the need for an adjustment in refuse collection rates to avoid a decrease in the Refuse Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve levels; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIIID Sec. 6 of the California Constitution, on September 19, 2011 the Council of the City of Palo Alto held a public hearing to consider all protests against the proposed refuse rate fee increases; and WHEREAS, the total number of written protests presented by the close of the public hearing was less than fifty percent (50%) of the total number of customers subject to the proposed refuse rate fee increases. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule R-1 (Domestic Refuse Collection) is hereby amended to read in accordance with Sheets R-1-1, R-1-2 and R-1-3, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The foregoing Utility Rate Schedules, as amended, shall become effective on October 1, 2011. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule R-2 (Commercial Refuse Collection) is hereby amended to read in accordance with Sheets R-2-1, R-2-2 and R-2-3, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The foregoing Utility Rate Schedules, as amended, shall become effective on October 1, 2011. SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule R-3 (Commercial Refuse Collection) is hereby amended to read in accordance with Sheets R-3-1, R-3-2, R-3-3, R-3-4, R-3-5, and R-3-6, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The foregoing Utility Rate Schedules, as amended, shall become effective on October 1, 2011. SECTION 4: The rates contained in the attached Rate Schedules shall be in effect until Council adopts a new rate structure. SECTION 5. The Council finds that the revenue derived from the authorized adjustments of the refuse collection rates shall be used only for the purposes set forth in Article VII, Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto. Not Yet Approved 2 110912 jb 0130838 SECTION 6. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code section 21080, subdivision (b)(8). INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ _____________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Public Works ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services DOMESTIC REFUSE COLLECTION UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE R-1 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Effective 10-01-11 Supersedes Sheet No.R-1-1 dated 10-01-10 through 9-30-11 Sheet No. R-1-1 A. APPLICABILITY: This schedule applies to each occupied domestic dwelling as required by City ordinance, including separate single-family domestic dwelling and multi-unit dwellings (4 units or less). An occupied dwelling unit is defined as any home, apartment unit, cottage, flat or duplex unit, having kitchen, bath, and sleeping facilities, and to which gas or electric service is being rendered. B. TERRITORY: Within the incorporated limits of the City of Palo Alto and on land owned or leased by the City. C. RATES: The refuse rates below provide collection, processing and disposal of materials properly deposited in the number of refuse containers indicated below, as well as collection and processing of recyclables and yard trimmings from special blue or green carts. The refuse rates below also provide household hazardous waste programs, waste diversion services, and street sweeping programs. (Please note that the highlighted rates below were not subject to Proposition 218 noticing because they were not increased or are otherwise exempt from Proposition 218. The highlighted rates are included for the sole purpose of providing a complete rate schedule.) Curbside Monthly Collection Cost Fixed Rate Component Each residential customer $4.62 per month Variable Rate Component Number of Collection Frequency Per Week Cans/Carts One Two Three Mini-can/20-gallon cart * 15.90 1 32-gal. can or 32-gal. cart** 32.86 2 32-gal. cans or 1 64-gal. cart 67.84 151.58 235.32 3 32-gal. cans or 1 96-gal. cart 101.76 219.42 337.08 DOMESTIC REFUSE COLLECTION UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE R-1 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Effective 10-01-11 Supersedes Sheet No.R-1-2 dated 10-01-10 through 9-30-11 Sheet No. R-1-2 4 32-gal. cans or 2 64-gal. carts 135.68 287.26 438.84 5 32-gal. cans or 1 64 + 1 96-gal. cart 169.60 355.10 540.60 6 32-gal. cans or 2 96-gal. carts 203.52 422.94 642.36 * Mini-can service cannot be combined with any other can service. ** Standard can service is one 32-gallon can or a 32-gallon cart. E. SPECIAL ITEM CHARGES: 1. Stove/washer/dryer/water heater pick up *...................................................................... 25.00 2. Freezer/refrigerator/air conditioner/garbage compactor pick up *.................................. 35.00 3. Upholstered furniture pick up (per unit) *....................................................................... 15.00 4. Mattress pick up *............................................................................................................ 15.00 5. Tire pick up (per tire, limit of 4 tires) *........................................................................... 20.00 6. Pallet pick up * ................................................................................................................ 5.00 7. Microwave Oven pick up*............................................................................................... 5.00 * “Surcharge special” fee (see F5. below) applies when special item is not collected under the Annual On-Call Community Clean-up Program guidelines. F. SPECIAL LABOR CHARGES: 1. Return trip (next day service)…………………………………………………….......... 24.00 2. Return trip (same day service) ……………………………………………………........ 36.00 3. Urgent special (for service outside standard weekly collection; charged per cubic yard) 55.00 4. Miscellaneous 2 person service rate (waiting time) .................................................. 3.20/min 5. Surcharge special (one time pick up of large or non-standard items; or delivery of containers for special events) …………..................................................................................... 77.00 6. Repair rate................................................................................................ 2.20/min + material 7. Extra can…………………………………………………................................................ 10.60 8. Back/side yard collection of garbage (monthly charge per residence) ………………... 3.35 9. Hard to service area (monthly charge per premise)………………………………......... 0.00 A ‘Hard to Service’ area is one that has limited access, such as an area of hilly terrain, private streets with restricted access, or alleys. These areas require special equipment to service. A map of Hard to Service areas can be found on the City of Palo Alto website at www.cityofpaloalto.org or by contacting the Public Works Department. G. SPECIAL CART CHARGES: 1. 20-gallon cart rental (monthly) ………………………………………………………... 3.00 2. 32-gallon cart rental (monthly)……………………………………………………….... 3.00 3. 64-gallon cart rental (monthly)……………………………………………………….... 3.00 4. 96-gallon cart rental (monthly)……………………………………………………….... 3.00 5. 32-gallon cart purchase with 20-gallon insert ……………………….………………… 60.00 6. 32-gallon cart purchase……………………………………………………………........ 51.00 DOMESTIC REFUSE COLLECTION UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE R-1 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Effective 10-01-11 Supersedes Sheet No.R-1-3 10-01-10 through 9-30-11 Sheet No. R-1-3 7. 64-gallon cart purchase……………………………………………………………. ...... 57.00 8. 96-gallon cart purchase……………………………………………………………........ 62.00 9. Cart wash ………………………………………………………………………….. ...... 25.00 10. Cart clean out (by hand)……………………………………………………………....... 15.00 11. Recycling cart contamination (entire cart dumped)………………………………......... 30.00 12. Cart exchange (one exchange allowed per cart each calendar year at no cost) ……...... 20.00 13. Monthly key service (customer provided lock) ……………………………………….. 15.00 14. Lock (Collector provided) ………………………………………………………….. .... 25.00 15. Cart lock installation………………………………………………………………........ 40.00 {End} COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTION UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE R-2 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Effective 10-01-11 Supersedes Sheet No.R-2-1 dated 10-01-10 through 9-30-11 Sheet No. R-2-1 A. APPLICABILITY: This schedule applies to all occupied establishments other than domestic dwellings as required by City ordinance. B. TERRITORY: Within the incorporated limits of the City of Palo Alto and on land owned or leased by the City. C. RATES: The refuse rates below provide collection, processing and disposal of materials properly deposited in the number of refuse containers indicated below, as well as collection and processing of recyclables from special blue carts. The refuse rates below also provide household hazardous waste programs, waste diversion services, and street sweeping programs. (Please note that the highlighted rates below were not subject to Proposition 218 noticing because they were not increased or are otherwise exempt from Proposition 218. The highlighted rates are included for the sole purpose of providing a complete rate schedule.) (1) Monthly Refuse Collection Cost Collection Frequency per Week Number of Cans/Carts One Two Three Four Five Six 1 32-gal. can or 32-gal. cart $33.79 2 32-gal. cans or 1 64-gal. cart* 69.76 155.87 241.98 328.09 414.20 500.31 3 32-gal. cans or 1 96-gal. cart 104.64 225.63 346.62 467.61 588.60 709.59 4 32-gal. cans or 2 64-gal. carts 139.52 295.39 451.26 607.13 763.00 918.87 5 32-gal. cans or 1 64 + 1 96-gal. cart 174.40 365.15 555.90 746.65 937.40 1,128.15 6 32-gal. cans or 2 96-gal. carts 209.28 434.91 660.54 886.17 1,111.80 1,337.43 * Standard service is two 32-gallon cans or one 64-gallon cart. COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTION UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE R-2 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Effective 10-01-11 Supersedes Sheet No.R-2-2 dated 10-01-10 through 9-30-11 Sheet No. R-2-2 (2) Monthly Compostables Collection Cost* Collection Frequency per Week Number of Carts One Two Three Four Five Six 1 32-gallon cart $30.41** 1 64-gallon cart 62.78** 140.28 217.78 295.28 372.78 450.28 1 96-gallon cart 94.18** 203.07 311.96 420.85 529.74 638.63 2 64-gallon carts 125.57 265.85 406.13 546.42 686.70 826.98 1 64-gallon + 1 96-gallon cart 156.96 328.64 500.31 671.99 843.66 1,015.34 2 96-gallon carts 188.35 391.42 594.49 797.55 1,000.62 1,203.69 *The monthly charge for compostables service is 10% less than the charge for equivalent refuse service. Compostable materials include yard trimmings, food waste, compostable paper, compostable plastics and untreated wood. **Multi-unit dwellings with five (5) to ten (10) units may receive up to one 96-gallon compostables cart collected once per week at no charge. Service over 96 gallons will be charged as described in G14 below. E. SPECIAL ITEM CHARGES: 1. Stove/washer/dryer/heater pick up *................................................................................ 25.00 2. Freezer/refrigerator/air conditioner/garbage compactor pick up *.................................. 35.00 3. Upholstered furniture pick up *....................................................................................... 15.00 4. Mattress pick up *............................................................................................................ 15.00 5. Tire pick up (per tire, limit of 4 tires) *........................................................................... 20.00 6. Pallet pick up *................................................................................................................. 5.00 7. Microwave Oven*....…………………………………………………………………… 5.00 * “Surcharge special” fee (see F6 below) applies when special item is not collected under the Annual On-Call Community Clean-up Program guidelines. Garbage compactor refers to under- the-counter type typically found in kitchens. F. SPECIAL LABOR CHARGES: 1. Return trip (same day service)……………..................................................................... 36.00 2. Return trip (next day service) ……………. .................................................................... 24.00 3. Urgent special (for service outside standard weekly collection; charged per cubic yard) 55.00 COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTION UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE R-2 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Effective 10-01-11 Supersedes Sheet No.R-2-3 dated 10-01-10 through 9-30-11 Sheet No. R-2-3 4. Monthly miscellaneous 1 person service (recurring manual pull out of containers to be serviced; waiting time)............................................................................................... 2.20/min 5. Miscellaneous 1 person service rate (one-time manual pull out of containers to be serviced)………………………………………......................................................... 2.20/min 6. Surcharge special (one-time pick up of large or non-standard items, or bins needing pull out service with separate vehicle, or delivery of containers to special events)………... 77.00 7. Repair rate …………………………………………...................................2.20/min + material 8. Extra can …….………………………………………………………………………….. 12.00 G. SPECIAL CART CHARGES: 1. 32-gallon cart rental (monthly) …………………………………………………………… 3.00 2. 64-gallon cart rental (monthly)…………………………………………………………… 3.00 3. 96-gallon cart rental (monthly)………………………………………………………… 3.00 4. 32-gallon cart purchase ……………………………………………………………....... 51.00 5. 64-gallon cart purchase ……………………………………………………………....... 57.00 6. 96-gallon cart purchase ……………………………………………………………....... 62.00 7. Cart wash …………………………………………………………………………. ....... 25.00 8. Cart clean out (by hand)………………………………………………………….. ....... 15.00 9. Recycling cart contamination (entire cart dumped)……………………………….. ...... 30.00 10. Cart exchange (one exchange allowed per cart each calendar year at no cost) ….......... 20.00 11. Monthly key service (customer provided lock) ……………………………………….. 15.00 12. Lock (Contractor provided)…………………………………………………………..... 25.00 13. Cart lock installation………………………………………………………………........ 40.00 14. Each additional 32-gallon increment of weekly compostables cart service (in excess of 96 gallons per week) for multi-unit dwellings with five (5) to ten (10) units (monthly charge).............................................................................................................................. 20.00 {End} COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTION UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE R-3 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Effective 10-01-11 Supersedes Sheet No. R-3-1 dated 10-01-10 through 9-30-11 Sheet No. R-3-1 A. APPLICABILITY: This schedule only applies to bins, compactors and debris boxes serviced by the City’s designated collector. B. TERRITORY: Within the incorporated limits of the City of Palo Alto and on land owned or leased by the City. C. RATES: The refuse rates below provide collection, processing and disposal of materials properly deposited in the number of refuse containers indicated below. Refuse rates for bin service also include collection and processing of recyclables from special blue bins. The refuse rates below also provide household hazardous waste programs, waste diversion services, and street sweeping programs. (Please note that the highlighted rates below were not subject to Proposition 218 noticing because they were not increased or are otherwise exempt from Proposition 218. The highlighted rates are included for the sole purpose of providing a complete rate schedule.) (1) BINS Monthly Refuse Collection Cost Collection Frequency Size (cubic yards) 1x/week 2x/week 3x/week 4x/week 5x/week 6x/week Monthly Bin Rental 1 $170.04 $346.62 $523.20 $698.69 $875.27 $1,050.76 $39.00 1.5 232.17 477.42 723.76 969.01 1,214.26 1,459.51 39.00 2 294.30 608.22 924.32 1,239.33 1,553.25 1,868.26 50.00 3 416.38 869.82 1,322.17 1,775.61 2,230.14 2,683.58 64.00 4 553.72 1,118.34 1,738.55 2,331.51 2,922.29 3,514.16 64.00 5 675.80 1,407.19 2,136.40 2,867.79 3,599.18 4,329.48 78.00 6 813.14 1,684.05 2,551.69 3,421.51 4,291.33 5,160.06 78.00 8 1,060.57 2,205.07 3,351.75 4,499.52 5,646.20 6,792.88 102.00 COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTION UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE R-3 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Effective 10-01-11 Supersedes Sheet No. R-3-2 dated 10-01-10 through 9-30-11 Sheet No. R-3-2 Monthly Compostables Collection Cost* Collection Frequency Size (cubic yards) 1x/week 2x/week 3x/week 4x/week 5x/week 6x/week Monthly Bin Rental 1 $153.04 $311.96 $470.88 $628.82 $787.74 $945.68 $39.00 1.5 208.95 429.68 651.38 872.11 1,092.83 1,313.56 39.00 2 264.87 547.40 831.89 1,115.40 1,397.93 1,681.43 50.00 3 374.74 782.84 1,189.95 1,598.05 2,007.13 2,415.22 64.00 4 498.35 1,006.51 1,564.70 2,098.36 2,630.06 3,162.74 64.00 5 608.22 1,266.47 1,922.76 2,581.01 3,239.26 3,896.53 78.00 6 731.83 1,515.65 2,296.52 3,079.36 3,862.20 4,644.05 78.00 8 954.51 1,984.56 3,016.58 4,049.57 5,081.58 6,113.59 102.00 * The monthly charge for compostables service is 10% less than the charge for equivalent refuse service. Compostable materials include yard trimmings, food waste, compostable paper, compostable plastics and untreated wood. (2) DEBRIS BOXES a. Garbage and Construction & Demolition (C&D) Materials* On-Call Service 7 CY 15 CY 20 CY 30 CY 40 CY Delivery $148.24 $148.24 $148.24 $148.24 $148.24 Service 644.19 644.19 747.74 957.02 1,043.13 Total 792.43 792.43 895.98 1,105.26 1,191.37 Non-use ** $76.00 $76.00 $76.00 $76.00 $76.00 Minimum Overfull 52.00 52.00 69.00 86.00 104.00 * Additional contaminated charge of $185.30 may apply on debris boxes used for construction and demolition materials. **Within a fourteen (14) day period. COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTION UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE R-3 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Effective 10-01-11 Supersedes Sheet No. R-3-3 dated 10-01-10 through 9-30-11 Sheet No. R-3-3 Permanent Service Collection Frequency Size 1x/week 2x/week 3x/week Monthly Box Rental 15 CY $ 2,512.45 $ 5,024.90 $ 7,538.44 $ 140.00 20 CY 3,056.36 6,112.72 9,167.99 186.00 30 CY 3,925.09 7,849.09 11,774.18 279.00 b. Source Separated Recyclable Materials* On-Call Service 7 CY 15 CY 20 CY 30 CY 40 CY Delivery** $ 126.00 $ 126.00 $ 126.00 $ 126.00 $ 126.00 Service 328.00 328.00 380.80 488.00 532.00 Non-use *** $76.00 $76.00 $76.00 $76.00 $76.00 Minimum Overfull 52.00 52.00 69.00 86.00 104.00 Permanent Service Collection Frequency Size 1x/month 2x/month 3x/month Monthly Box Rental 15 CY $ 312.00 $ 624.00 $ 936.00 $ 140.00 20 CY 364.00 728.00 1,092.00 186.00 30 CY 390.40 780.80 1,172.00 279.00 * “Source separated recyclable materials” means recyclable materials, which are separated from solid waste by the generator at the location where it was created, not mixed with or containing more than incidental solid waste, as determined by the Director. Source separated single recyclable materials are source separated recyclable materials that can be directly marketed as a distinct single commodity, as determined by the Director. ** A delivery fee or a monthly box rental fee may be assessed depending on customer’s service needs. *** Within a fourteen (14) day period. COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTION UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE R-3 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Effective 10-01-11 Supersedes Sheet No. R-3-4 dated 10-01-10 through 9-30-11 Sheet No. R-3-4 (3) DETACHABLE CONTAINER RENTAL: Cubic Yard Per Month 1 ..................................................................................................................... $ 39.00 1.5 ..................................................................................................................... 39.00 2 ..................................................................................................................... 50.00 3-4 ..................................................................................................................... 64.00 5-6 ..................................................................................................................... 78.00 8-10 ..................................................................................................................... 102.00 15 ..................................................................................................................... 140.00 20 ..................................................................................................................... 186.00 30 ..................................................................................................................... 279.00 40 ..................................................................................................................... 279.00 SPECIAL PROVISION: The monthly charge to multi-unit apartment dwellings will be billed to the owner. E. SPECIAL ITEM CHARGES: 1. Stove/washer/dryer/water heater pick up *...................................................................... 25.00 2. Freezer/refrigerator/air conditioner/garbage compactor pick up *.................................. 35.00 3. Upholstered furniture pick up *....................................................................................... 15.00 4. Mattress pick up *............................................................................................................ 15.00 5. Tire pick up (per tire, limit of 4 tires) *........................................................................... 20.00 6. Pallet pick up * ................................................................................................................ 5.00 7. Microwave Oven*……………………………………………………………………… 5.00 * “Surcharge special” rate (see F4. below) applies when special items are not collected under the Annual On-Call Community Clean-up Program guidelines. Garbage compactor refers to under-the- counter type typically found in kitchens. F. SPECIAL LABOR CHARGES: 1. Urgent special (for service outside standard weekly collection; charged per cubic yard)….55.00 2. Monthly miscellaneous 1 person service (recurring manual pull out of containers to be serviced)..................................................................................................................... 2.20/min 3. Miscellaneous 1 person service rate (one time manual pull out of containers to be serviced; waiting time).............................................................................................................. 2.20/min COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTION UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE R-3 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Effective 10-01-11 Supersedes Sheet No. R-3-5 dated 10-01-10 through 9-30-11 Sheet No. R-3-5 4. Surcharge special (one time pick up of large or non-standard items, or bins needing pull out service with separate vehicle, or delivery of containers to special events) ………… 77.00 5. Repair rate …………………………………………………………....... 2.20/min + material G. SPECIAL BIN CHARGES: 1. Temporary bin-delivery (1)………………………………………………………… ..... 80.00 2. Temporary bin-delivery (2) ……………………………………………………… ........ 110.00 3. Temporary bin-delivery (3) ……………………………………………………… ........ 141.00 4. Temporary bin-delivery (4) ……………………………………………………… ........ 220.00 5. Temporary bin-weekly fee …………………………………………………………...... 25.00 6. Bin wash ……………………………………………………………………………...... 40.00 7. Monthly key service (customer provided lock) ……………………………………….. 15.00 8. Lock (Contractor provided) ………………………………………………………….... 25.00 9. Auto-bar lock installation ………………………………………………………........... 200.00 H. SPECIAL DEBRIS BOX CHARGES: 1. Debris box delivery (garbage and C&D material)……………………………………... 148.24 2. Debris box delivery (source separated recyclables)………………………………….. .. 126.00 2. Additional fee for delivery to Service Area 2* ……………………………………....... 62.00 3. Debris box non-use (within a fourteen (14) day period)…………………………….. .. 76.00 4. 15 yd box-overfull ………………………………………………………………….. .... 52.00 5. 20 yd box-overfull ………………………………………………………………… ...... 69.00 6. 30 yd box-overfull …………………………………………………………………. ..... 86.00 7. 40 yd box-overfull………………………………………………………………… ....... 104.00 8. Special debris box service between 12 PM to 6 PM ………………………………....... 77.00 9. Special debris box service between 6 PM to 12 AM ……………………………. ........ 155.00 10. Special debris box service on Saturday before 12 PM ……………………………....... 77.00 11. Special debris box service on Sunday before 6 PM ……………………………............ 233.00 12. Special debris box service on Sunday, 6 PM to 12 AM ………………………............. 310.00 13. Contaminated loads of construction and demolition recycling materials………............ 185.30 14. On-call compactor………………………………………………………………… ....... 63.22 15. Compactor/ drop box wash……………………………………………………….. ....... 82.00 16. Compacted garbage (per compacted cubic yard) …………………………………….... 69.76 17. Compacted compostables (per compacted cubic yard) ………………………………... 62.78 18. Compacted recyclables (transportation) ……………………………….........................2.20/min *A map of Service Area 2 can be found on the City of Palo Alto website at www.cityofpaloalto.org or by contacting the Public Works Department. COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTION UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE R-3 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Effective 10-01-11 Supersedes Sheet No. R-3-6 dated 10-01-10 through 9-30-11 Sheet No. R-3-6 {End} Page 1 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. XXXX ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 TO ADJUST BUDGETED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES WITHIN THE REFUSE FUND INCLUDING REFUSE RATE CHANGES AND A SHORT-TERM LOAN FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE REFUSE FUND The City Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 20, 2011 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2012; and B. The Refuse Fund adopted budget for fiscal year 2012 reflects an operating deficit of $3,693,725 and a Rate Stabilization Reserve deficit balance of ($8,979,000); and C. A combination of revenue increases and expenditure decreases is needed to address the operating deficit in the Refuse Fund; and D. A nine percent rate increase for commercial customers, a six percent rate increase for residential customers, and an additional fixed monthly fee of $4.62 for residential customers are expected to generate an additional $2,187,548 in revenue; and E. To minimize immediate impact to ratepayers, City Council also directed staff to establish a short-term loan of $1,250,000 from the General Fund to the Refuse Fund that will be repaid in fiscal year 2013 from projected savings resulting from closure of the landfill; and F. The freezing of the Zero Waste Coordinator position for fiscal year 2012 is expected to reduce expenditures by $122,624; and G. Closure of the recycling center to allow for closure of the Palo Alto landfill is expected to reduce expenditures by $193,553; and H. City Council authorization is needed to amend the fiscal year 2012 budget as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2. The General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve is hereby decreased by the sum of One Million Two Hundred Fifty Attachment B Page 2 of 2 Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000). As a result of this change, the Budget Stabilization Reserve will decrease to $25,807,000. SECTION 3. The Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Refuse Fund is hereby increased by the sum of Three Million Seven Hundred Fifty-Three Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($3,753,725). As a result of this change, the Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Refuse Fund will increase to a deficit of ($5,225,275), and the operating deficit for fiscal year 2012 is eliminated. SECTION 4. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance. SECTION 5. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. SECTION 6. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this Ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Sr. Asst. City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Admin. Services Attachment B I~ CDI()r~cLo "11 0 "IT\ U (J l;, I( or P,I! ('/7'( CLEh~I;P IlLro, CA ,Ii S OFFICE Ii AUG IS To: City of Palo Alto P!1 2: 51 Re: Protest to proposed Increases to ALL Utilities and Services To whom it concerns, August 10,2011 I am disgusted by all the increases you have been imposing on us, the residents, Ocver ~e . past 4 years for our utility services. It just keeps going up and up, with no end in sight My family lias lived here for 46 years, and never has it been a bad town to live, as it has been in recent years. Every time management can't balance the City budget, or says its come up short, the attitude appears that the residents can fix it, in the fonn of another hike for our services. Not just one of them, but all of them. Speaking for myself, I put a lot of effort into recycling all that I can. So now your going to hold that against me, by penalizing me for my efforts? It's a big job for us too! Sorting it, storing it, then pushing it out to the street every week. From what I've seen over the years, the services have always been the same quality, so where does all that money go? Also, I read in the local paper, that the garbage service has been operating at a loss (in the red) for a long time now. Do we have to close the gap on that too? If that is true, why was it operating that way for years? Who was minding the store when "operating in the negative" was put in place? Who runs a business that way? As for my 2 large gJen clipping bins. I fill one an a half of them every week easy, with city leaves from the Magnolia tree in front of my house. Sometimes there's not enough room for my own garden clippings. I do all the work! Then I pay the city garbage service to haul them away? May be I should send you my bill! I for one don't have a bottomless bank account. Every increase puts a hardship on my family and myself. I have work for P AUSD for the past16 years. I don't get a 40 hour work week. It's not even a 12 month job due to summer breaks. I'm already having to pay back a large sum of , 1795 Guinda Street . Palo Alto, CA 94303 August 8, 2011 City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue' Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear City Clerk, CITY OF PALO ALTO. (JA CiTY CLERtrS OFfICE " AUG J 2 AM 8: to Please count our protests against the proposed rate and/or fee increases for water volumetric and fixed service charges for Residential WI users. Please also count our protests against the proposed refuse rate increase, both fixed and variable, for residential users. Sincerely, ~.~~JL Dr. BarclayJ. Tullis and Mrs. Barclay J. Tullis 1 Our parcel number is: 356074 Our utilities acfount number is: 30022636 August 17,2011 City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 • We would like to add our protest against the proposed rate and/or fee increases for water anci fixed service charges for Residential WI users. which is to come up again for a vote in the next few weeks. Please also count our protests against this latest proposed refuse rate increase, both fixed and variable, for residential users. It seems we have had several recent increases in our Utility costs as currently billed, and had considered a similar increase in June, which was not approved. Thank you for your consideration of this letter in regard to this proposal. We hope this perceived need for rate increases can be handled by cutting back on expenditures in the Utilities Department. Sincerely, (Resident at above address for over 55 years) / I eq} UF PALO AlJO,CA CI! Y CLERK'S OFFICE If SEP -I Ati 10: I 2 Karolyn Brosz ~,,3605 Park Blvd. Palo Alto, CA Home ZIP City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear City Clerk, Please count my protest against the proposed rate and/or fee increases for water volumetric and fixed service charges for Residential W1 user. Please also count my protest against the proposedrefuse rate increase, both fixed and variable, for residential users. Sin~e~:/ ·'X/"-·~;;;."'~< I ~ . . /' t Y ,//:p-~ _ ....... ' / Karolyn ~-- Utility Account # 30033799 Parcel # 132 3405000 . T CITY OF PALO ALTO.CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City Clerk 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 I J AUG 22 PH 3: St.. 235 Seale Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Aug 17, 2011 Re: Protest against proposed changes to Residential Refuse Rates To Whom It May Concern: , I write to protest the increase in Refuse Rates. I oppose the flat monthly charge of $4.62 and if future increases in variable rates are proposed I will protest that as well. Palo Alto residents are doing a good job of reducing waste and should pay less, not more, for this increase in efficiency. I strongly oppose the proposed changes in rates. Sincerely, \ /---;, \" ,1J17._ LZ:;U~L~~' Susan C. Neville Account: 30032500 Dear Sir/Madam: Proposed Refuse Fixed Rate Component CfTY OF PALO AUa~c,A arTY CLERK'S 0"''6£ 11 AUG 23 PH 1,: 10 Palo Alto Utilities account number: 30031160 Sanjay S Patel 1142 Stanislaus lane Palo Alto, CA 94303 With respect to the recent notification of the implementation of fixed rate component for refuse collection, I write to protest this implementation. This is nothing short of sheer bullying: the city had its opportunity to save for the rainy day during the pre-200S heyday of partying when the utilities were flush with money. And now, the same utilities -who forgot to SAVE MONEY (hello?) -are sticking it to the small guy who did not even get to party with fat- cats during the heyday. What gives? Yours very disgustedly fed up with the intended extortion of the small guy, ~~~ \ I Sanjay Patel / 650 Tennyson Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 August 8, 201 1 City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear City Clerk, Please count our protests against the proposed rate and/or fee increases for water volumetric and fixed service charges for Residential W 1 users. Please also count our protests against the proposed refuse rate increase, both fixed and variable, for residential users. Sincerely, / City of Palo Alto (ID # 1985) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 9/12/2011 September 12, 2011 Page 1 of 8 (ID # 1985) Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning Summary Title: Response to SCS (SB375) Alternatives Title: Council Direction in Response to Sustainable Communities Strategy (SB375) Alternative Scenarios and Update of Regional Housing Needs Assessement (RHNA) Process From:City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction regarding the City’s next steps to respond to the SB375 Alternative Scenarios, including authorizing the City Manager to retain consultant assistance to coordinate review of demographic and economic projections. Executive Summary On March 14, 2011, staff updated the City Council regarding the status of the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). On May 4, 2011, staff updated the Planning and Transportation Commission regarding the SCS and the Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) proposed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for the Bay Area was intended to accommodate an additional 903,000 housing units and 1.2 million jobs from 2010 to 2035. The goal of the IVS, formulated by staff of ABAG and MTC, was to create development patterns and a transportation network that would result in reductions of per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 7% by 2020 and 15% by 2035. The IVS would anticipate a total of 12,000 new households and almost 5,000 new jobs being created in Palo Alto over that time period. On May 27, 2011, staff sent a letter to the regional agencies, following review and input from the Planning and Transportation Commission, questioning the approach and outlining many concerns of the City of Palo Alto, including the need to address job growth near transit to achieve GHG emission reductions, as well as highly unrealistic housing assumptions, the lack of consideration of numerous constraints to growth, and the lack of supportive infrastructure, particularly including transit, to accommodate such extensive levels of development. On July 18, 2011, staff briefed the Council regarding the letter to the agencies and next steps, September 12, 2011 Page 2 of 8 (ID # 1985) including the upcoming release of alternative scenarios by ABAG and MTC.Council asked staff to work with some Councilmembers over the Council’s August recess and present an approach to Council for proceeding to respond to this planning effort. The three alternative land use scenarios were released by ABAG and MTC on August 26, 2011. A preferred alternative is expected to be drafted and released in early 2012 and the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area region is to be finalized by early 2013. Staff met with Councilmembers Scharff, Schmid, Holman and Burt twice in August and has developed an approach that includes: 1) recommending a third party peer review of the State and regional population and employment projections; 2) reaching out to State legislators to pursue this issue at the State and regional level, 3) identifying and coordinating with cities who share Palo Alto’s concerns; 4) directing staff to prepare summaries of key issues for presentation to State legislators, other cities, and the regional agencies; and 5) extending outreach to the community for better understanding of the implications of these scenarios. Staff has also requested that Council authorize the City Manager to engage consultant assistance to support coordination, particularly relative to the demographic and economic analysis. Background On March 14, 2011, staff updated the City Council regarding the status of the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). On May 4, 2011, staff updated the Planning and Transportation Commission regarding the SCS and the Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) proposed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for the Bay Area was intended to accommodate an additional 903,000 housing units and 1.2 million jobs from 2010 to 2035. The goal of the IVS, formulated by staff of ABAG and MTC, was to create development patterns and a transportation network that would result in reductions of per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 7% by 2020 and 15% by 2035. The IVS would anticipate a total of 12,000 new households and almost 5,000 new jobs being created in Palo Alto over that time period. On May 27, 2011, staff sent a letter to the regional agencies, following review and input from the Planning and Transportation Commission, questioning the approach and outlining many concerns of the City of Palo Alto, including the need to address job growth near transit to achieve GHG emission reductions, as well as highly unrealistic housing assumptions, the lack of consideration of numerous constraints to growth, and the lack of supportive infrastructure, particularly including transit, to accommodate such extensive levels of development. On July 18, 2011, staff briefed the Council regarding the letter to the agencies and next steps, including the upcoming release of alternative scenarios by ABAG and MTC. Council asked staff to work with some Councilmembers over the Council’s August recess and to then present an approach to Council for proceeding to respond to this planning effort. The three alternative land use scenarios were released by ABAG and MTC on August 26th. (Attachment D). A preferred alternative is expected to be drafted and released in early 2012 and the Sustainable September 12, 2011 Page 3 of 8 (ID # 1985) Communities Strategy for the Bay Area region is to be finalized by early 2013. The related Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Methodology Committee, of which Councilmember Scharff is a member, has met several times, and the Committee’s progress is outlined below in the Discussion section. More background information is provided in the July 18, 2011 Council staff report (Attachment G). Attachment H provides a Glossary of Acronyms and Terms related to the regional planning (SB 375) process. Discussion Alternative Land Use Scenarios The Alternative Land Use Scenarios were released by ABAG and MTC on August 26, 2011, and identify three (3) primary options: Core Concentration Growth Scenario: Concentrates housing and job growth at selected Planned Development Areas (PDAs) and Growth Opportunity Areas (GOAs) in the Inner Bay Area along the region’s core transit network. Focused Growth Scenario:Recognizes the potential of Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Growth Opportunity Areas (GOAs) across the region with an emphasis on housing and job growth along major transit corridors. Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario: Addresses higher levels of growth in the Outer Bay Area and is closer to previous development trends than the other two scenarios. A summary of the scenarios and potential housing and employment projections are included in the August 26th memo from the agencies (Attachment E) and online at: http://www.onebayarea.org/plan_bay_area/. The objective of each of these scenarios is to accommodate population growth of approximately 770,000 persons and almost 1 million new jobs in the Bay Area by the year 2040. (Note that this 30-year planning horizon is considerably longer than ABAG’s normal 5-7 year planning period.) This is a reduction from the Initial Vision Scenario’s estimated increases of 900,000 persons and 1.2 million jobs. The tables at the back of the memo outline estimated increases for each jurisdiction in the Bay Area, including breaking down how much of the total growth would be located in either PDAs (California Avenue area in Palo Alto) or GOAs (El Camino Real corridor and/or Downtown in Palo Alto). There is no indication of where the agencies expect the remainder of the growth to be located. In summary, the total growth in housing and employment for the City from 2010-2040 breaks down as follows: Core Focused Outer Bay Concentration Growth Area Households 12,250 12,250 6,110 September 12, 2011 Page 4 of 8 (ID # 1985) Jobs 26,630 27,820 19,360 The “Core Concentration” and “Focused Growth” scenarios vary in that more of the projected growth would occur in the PDAs and GOAs in the “Core Concentration” scenario. Staff will need to obtain and analyze data based on traffic analysis zones (TAZs) to determine where the remaining development would potentially be located. Statewide and Regional Projections Staff met with Councilmembers Scharff, Schmid, Holman and Burt twice in August, and one of the primary topics of discussion was the underlying assumptions for population and employment estimates not only for Palo Alto but, more significantly, for the region and the State as a whole. Councilmember Schmid provided two memos (Attachment B) that outline some of the key discrepancies between the projections and the reality represented by the 2010 Census and past trends. In particular, the growth of 995,000 jobs in the next 30 years represents an average of 33,000 new jobs per year, whereas the average has been 10,000 jobs annually the past two decades. While higher job growth occurred in the 60’s and 70’s in the Bay Area, the estimate appears to ignore the basic nature of the technology industry, which is the driver of the Bay Area economic engine, where enhanced value is not equivalent to increased jobs. The projected housing growth in the region amounts to an average of 27,000 new units per year for 30 years and is derived from a 1.3 job to household ratio applied to the jobs projection. Housing growth from 1990-2010, however, was about 20,000 units per year, and considerably less in recent years. The OneBayArea effort assumes that housing production will make up for the loss of production in those years and will more closely approximate production in the 70’s and 80’s, when much “greenfield” development occurred, which would now be contrary to the goals of SB375. Similarly, these projections run counter to recent Census trends and population studies for the State. Those analyses (see Councilmember Schmid’s e-mails) indicate that natural population increase in the state is minimal, with a gradually aging population and a long-term decline in fertility rates. The other component of population increase is migration, the increase of which appears to have declined substantially in the past decade. Since these statewide and regional projections underlie the entire distribution of housing and population for the Sustainable Communities Strategy planning, the Councilmembers and staff expressed a strong desire to request that a peer review, perhaps by University of California or Stanford demographic and econometric analysts, be conducted to verify or dispute the estimates. Such a review, however, should be accomplished at the initiation of State and regional officials, however,rather than by local agencies. Coordination with State Legislators September 12, 2011 Page 5 of 8 (ID # 1985) The Councilmember subgroup also expressed interest in coordinating efforts through the area’s State delegation, including Assembly members Rich Gordon and Jerry Hill, and Senator Joe Simitian. Assemblyman Gordon is meeting with the City Council on September 12th to discuss issues of common concern, and staff has prepared Attachment A to distribute ahead of the meeting to outline some of the key issues Council may want to convey. The Councilmember subgroup suggested requesting that these legislators carry this issue back to the State and regional agencies to authorize an independent review of the assumptions for the projections, as well as other issues of concern. Coordination with Other Cities Staff and the Councilmember subgroup also discussed contacting other cities that may have similar concerns as Palo Alto’s, to encourage further support with State legislators and a stronger voice at ABAG and MTC as the alternatives move forward. Staff will reach out to others as regional and countywide meetings proceed in the coming week and may have more information to report at the Council meeting. Staff believes that Mountain View, Campbell, Milpitas, and even San Jose have voiced some of the same objections to the growth estimates as Palo Alto. Preliminary Action Plan Staff, after meeting twice with the Councilmember subgroup, has developed an approach to addressing the Sustainable Community Strategy Alternative Scenarios that includes: 1)recommending an independent third party review of the State and regional population and employment projections; 2)reaching out to State legislators to pursue these issues at the State and regional level; 3)identifying and coordinating with cities who share Palo Alto’s concerns; 4)directing staff to prepare summaries of key issues for presentation to State legislators, other cities, and the regional agencies; and 5)extending outreach to the community for better understanding of the implications of these scenarios. Attachment A provides a draft of an initial summary of Sustainable Communities Strategy issues and concerns, to be distributed to legislators, other cities, and the broader community. Some of the highlighted concerns would include: ·Employment projections appear to be substantially overstated and do not recognize the evolving economic model in the Bay Area, particularly in Silicon Valley; ·Housing projections are driven by unrealistic employment projections and are substantially higher than recent trends in natural increase and migration, as reflected in the 2010 Census; ·The basic goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is not well served by overstating projections, which then require even more extensive resources and more dramatic land use and transportation changes than would be required with more realistic estimates; and September 12, 2011 Page 6 of 8 (ID # 1985) ·Alternatives to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions should be provided to allow cities to propose ways they may otherwise accomplish similar reductions that would exceed those proposed by the Alternative Land Use Scenarios; and The summary is a “generic” discussion of a few key issues for conversation with legislators, other cities, or the public. It is hoped that a more detailed demographic and econometric analysis would occur at a regional or statewide level. Staff expects to also quickly develop a summary for issues specific to Palo Alto, such as the limited availability and cost of land, a variety of constraints to housing expansion, and the city’s growth rate relative to others in the county and region. Community Outreach Staff suggests that the Council direct staff to provide this information to the Planning and Transportation Commission, neighborhood and other community groups, and other cities. Further community outreach should also be requested of the regional agencies, to assure that all affected communities may have a common understanding of the implications of the analysis and proposed Alternative Scenarios. Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Methodology Committee The RHNA Methodology Committee has met several times through July and has determined that there should be a close link between the housing criteria and the Sustainable Communities Strategy. The current methodology under review would require each city and county to provide for 1/3 of the 2035 total in each of the three 8-year planning periods during that timeframe. The two primary topics of discussion have been: 1.How to split the total allocations between PDAs/Growth Opportunity Areas and other areas within cities or counties. The methodology generally assumes that 70% of the housing is provided in the PDAs and growth opportunity areas, and then the remaining 30% is to be allocated based on overall housing growth projections for each city or county;and 2.Whether to provide for “equity” factors that would affect the remaining 30% of the RHNA. Factors that are under consideration include: a city’s performance meeting prior RHNA affordable housing goals, transit accessibility, and/or some other “quality of life” factors (though school performance seems to be off the table). The latest memo from ABAG (Attachment C) on the subject provides for each community to accommodate a “minimum housing floor” (e.g., 40% of housing projections) as a proxy for the “equity” issues. The 40% threshold is not a problem for Palo Alto but generally affects smaller communities like Woodside or Los Altos Hills. The Committee’s next meeting is on September 8th (after the distribution of this report) so Councilmember Scharff can report the latest at the Council meeting. Due to the desire to tie the RHNA more closely to the SCS, the timeframe for the Committee’s work has been extended to October or November. September 12, 2011 Page 7 of 8 (ID # 1985) Resource Impacts Review of the Sustainable Community Strategy and Regional Housing Needs Assessment process involves considerable time of the Director of Planning and Community (estimated 20- 40 hours per month) and lesser time for other department staff. There are, however, no direct costs associated with the staff review. As part of this report, staff has suggested retaining a consultant to review and coordinate the effort to address the demographic and economic assumptions of the Alternative Land Use Scenarios. Staff estimates that the cost of such assistance would not exceed $25,000 and could be absorbed within the current budget of the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Next Steps 1.Set up meetings with State legislators and interested cities to outline the need for independent analysis of the projections and econometrics underlying the Alternative Land Use Scenarios and to inform them of other critical issues. 2.Retain consultant assistance to outline parameters for studying the projections and econometrics of the regional agencies and to coordinate work with the other cities. 3.Refer the issue to the Planning and Transportation Commission for review and to provide outreach to the community. Staff will continue to participate in regional and countywide meetings and report back to PTC and Council. Attachments: ·Attachment A: SB375 Issues Summary_09.12.11 (DOC) ·Attachment B1: Schmid_Projections (PDF) ·Attachment B2: Schmid_Subregional (PDF) ·Attachment C: July 25, 2011 Minimum Housing Floor Analysis Memo from ABAG (PDF) ·Attachment D: August 26, 2011 OneBayArea Report: "Alternative Land Use Scenarios" (PDF) ·Attachment E: May 27, 2011 City Staff Response to ABAG re: Initial Vision Scenario (PDF) ·Attachment F: August 15, 2011 ABAG Response to City of Palo Alto Letter (PDF) ·Attachment G: July 18, 2011 Council Staff Report re: Response to Initial Vision Scenario w/o Attachments (PDF) ·Attachment H: SB375 Glossary (PDF) Prepared By:Curtis Williams, Director September 12, 2011 Page 8 of 8 (ID # 1985) Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager City of Palo Alto Sustainable Communities Strategy (SB 375) Key Issues for Alternative Land Use Scenarios September 12, 2011 The Sustainable Communities Strategy (SB 375) is based on the premise that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions may be reduced significantly by land use patterns and transportation facilities and programs to reduce vehicle-miles traveled. The potential for GHG reductions relates to the extent to which land uses and transportation systems accommodate an unknown future of population increase, economic growth, market forces, and public funding availability and pricing approaches. As such, realistic basic demographic and growth assumptions for such a strategy are imperative to derive the appropriate strategies and to assure that cities and counties in the Bay Area region (and other regions) plan accordingly. Similarly, all alternatives to provide for GHG reduction strategies must be considered to provide the appropriate mix of programs to cost-effectively meet regional and statewide goals. To ensure these issues are adequately addressed, the City of Palo Alto believes that further independent analysis of many of the assumed demographic and economic projections and GHG benefits must be provided at the State and regional level, and the following key questions must be answered: Demographic and Economic Projections Are the assumptions for the demographic and economic projections realistic? Or are they overstated and reflective of a different time period when the economy of the region was manufacturing-heavy and migration to California and the Bay Area was rapid and substantial? 1.The State’s Department of Finance is working with a forecast model that projected a population growth of 9.9% for 2000-2010, whereas the Census showed a growth rate of 5.4% over that period.A similar overestimate occurred for statewide population. 2. Natural population increase (births –deaths) is now minimal, with a gradually aging population and a long-term decline in fertility rates. Migration to the state has slowed substantially in the past decade and is not expected to rise dramatically in the future. 3.The proposed Alternative Land Use Scenarios anticipate an increase of 33,000 jobs annually in the region, as compared to 10,000 jobs annually in the past two decades. This is a dramatic increase as Silicon Valley and many other technology centers continue to find ways to provide value with fewer jobs, not more. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Will greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions be achievable under an unrealistically high population and employment scenario, given the amount of infrastructure (and land use change) necessary to support that growth? Are there viable alternatives to allow cities to propose means to achieve reductions at the local level to supplement the assumed savings for the region? SB375 Key Issues for Alternative Land Use Scenarios Page 2 2 1.The Sustainable Communities Strategy is expected to provide for about 9% of the GHG reductions to satisfy statewide AB32 climate change objectives. These objectives are to be achieved by gaining a 15% per capita reduction in the Bay Area. 2.Overestimating population and employment would mandate a level of infrastructure (particularly for transportation), new programs, and land use change that may not be warranted and almost certainly won’t be affordable. 3.Many cities have adopted or are considering climate change, land use, and transportation programs to reduce GHG emissions. Examples of efforts that relate to SB375 objectives include: compact development policies and plans, protected open space buffers, bicycle and pedestrian programs and facilities to decrease vehicle ridership, and promotion of electric vehicle infrastructure and programs. Could the SCS allow cities to provide programs and facilities that may more effectively (less costly) achieve the needed GHG reductions? From: gregschmid@sbcglobal.net Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 11:46 AM To: Williams, Curtis Cc: pat burt; Holman, Karen; Scharff, Greg Subject: Demographics--Subregional Curtis, A few thoughts on the upcoming discussion of the sub-regional allocation of housing units. A sub- regional agreement would allow the spreading out of RHNA housing allocation numbers across communities that cluster around job centers or commute corridors. There are at least ten communities that seem to share with Palo Alto easy commuting distance from the Stanford job centers--the campus, the Hospital and the Business Park. They would include: Sunnyvale, Mt View, Menlo Park, Redwood City, EPA, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Woodside, Atherton and Portola Valley. Among this group of ten there are five that share the targeted growth corridor of El Camino/CalTrain (Sunnyvale, Mt View, Menlo Park, Atherton, Redwood City). A close look at population growth figures from the last decade seems to indicate that there is no incentive whatsoever for these surrounding communities to join with rapidly growing Palo Alto in a housing allocation partnership. It is interesting to compare Palo Alto's population growth over the last decade with two different sets of numbers--the projected population growth made by the California Department of Finance (who allocates RHNA growth goals through the Dept of Housing and ABAG) with the actual Census numbers for 2010 just released by the Census Bureau. For the nine county Bay Area the Department of Finance's (DoF) is working with a forecast model that projected a population growth of 9.9% for 2000-2010; the actual growth over the decade from the recently released Census numbers was a much smaller 5.4%. For the three West Bay counties (San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara), the DoF projection was 10.2%; the actual Census number was 4.3%. For comparison, Palo Alto's actual Census based population growth was 9.9%. In the ten nearby cities that surround Palo Alto (Sunnyvale, Mt View, Menlo Park, Redwood City, EPA, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Woodside, Atherton and Portola Valley), DoF projected a total population growth for the decade of 6.5%; actual Census reported growth was about half that at 3.4%. Palo Alto's actual growth was 9.9%. For the five local cities that share both the Caltrain rail corridor and the El Camino corridor with Palo Alto (Sunnyvale, Mt View, Menlo Park, Atherton, Redwood City), the DoF projected growth was 6.0% over the decade; the actual Census growth was 4.4%. Palo Alto's population growth over the period was 9.9%. The numbers seem to show two things: --For their RHNA allocation formula, the Department of Finance seriously overestimated California's growth rate and that of communities throughout the Bay Area, including the West Bay; --Our neighbors--those gradually growing communities that are within easy commuting range of Stanford or who share the El Camino/Caltrain corridor--have no incentive whatsoever to join a sub- regional grouping that includes rapidly growing Palo Alto. Greg Schmid Page 1 of 1 9/4/2011file://C:\Documents and Settings\cwillia\Desktop\Initial Vision Scenario\Alternative Scenar...     Date: July 25, 2011  To: SCS Housing Methodology Committee  From: Ken Kirkey, ABAG Planning Director  Subject: Minimum Housing Floor Analysis    Overview   ABAG and MTC staff are proposing a minimum housing floor as part of the “fair share” component of  the 2015–2022 RHNA methodology. The minimum housing floor intends to ensure that each jurisdiction  is planning to accommodate at least a portion of the housing need generated by the population growth  within that jurisdiction. The floor would be set at a percentage of the jurisdiction’s forecasted household  formation growth. The household formation for each community is calculated from natural increases  (births minus deaths) along with migration. If a jurisdiction’s total RHNA does not reach the floor, the  minimum is applied, and the units allocated to other jurisdictions are reduced proportionally.    This memo presents an analysis comparing the application of a 40% minimum housing floor with a  number of “quality of life” factors that are under consideration as part of the RHNA methodology.    “Quality of Life” Factors Comparison   The attached table shows all of the region’s jurisdictions, and lists their scores for some of the “quality  of life” factors that the HMC has considered. These factors include: median household income as an  indication of the jurisdiction’s desirability, median home value as an indication of the jurisdiction’s  housing affordability, and average 2009 API score as an indication of the quality of schools in the  jurisdiction. Higher “quality of life” indicators signify higher levels of opportunity in jurisdictions in the  region.    Those jurisdictions highlighted in red do not meet a 40% minimum housing floor in all scenarios, and  those highlighted in orange do not meet a 40% minimum floor in at least one scenario. Thus use of a  minimum housing floor in the methodology increases the housing allocation in those jurisdictions to  40% of their household formation growth, and proportionally reduces the allocation to other  jurisdictions.    The table shows close parallels between those jurisdictions that have higher “quality of life” scores and  those jurisdictions where a 40% minimum housing floor would be applied. A total of 36 jurisdictions  (both cities and unincorporated county areas) would have a 40% minimum floor applied in at least one  scenario. Of the fifteen jurisdictions with the highest median incomes, all but three would have the  minimum floor applied in determining their housing allocation. The same is true in comparing the  minimum floor application with the jurisdictions with the highest average API scores. Of the fifteen  jurisdictions with the highest median home values, all but five would have the minimum floor applied.  The inapplicability of the minimum floor to a few of these jurisdictions with the highest “quality of life”  indicators means that, based on the other components of the RHNA methodology, these jurisdictions  would already be allocated more than 40% of their household formation growth.    Recommendation  Based on this analysis, it appears that use of a 40% minimum household floor achieves many of the  objectives that have prompted consideration of the use of “quality of life” factors, and produces a  methodology that accomplishes fair‐share goals while remaining clear and understandable.  County City Median Household Income Median Home Value Average 2009 API Score Alameda Alameda $73,503 $664,200 858 Alameda Albany $72,516 $625,400 898 Alameda Berkeley $59,097 $724,100 806 Alameda Dublin $108,711 $682,600 869 Alameda Emeryville $57,211 $435,100 739 Alameda Fremont $95,028 $650,100 872 Alameda Hayward $61,001 $483,300 716 Alameda Livermore $94,530 $626,700 840 Alameda Newark $82,782 $575,400 768 Alameda Oakland $49,695 $537,800 753 Alameda Piedmont $167,014 $1,000,001 942 Alameda Pleasanton $113,582 $799,200 920 Alameda San Leandro $61,824 $529,500 757 Alameda Union City $86,761 $593,500 807 Alameda Unincorporated $67,500 807 Contra Costa Antioch $68,934 $449,800 742 Contra Costa Brentwood $90,036 $534,200 809 Contra Costa Clayton $130,083 $705,500 885 Contra Costa Concord $64,954 $514,100 753 Contra Costa Danville $128,810 $929,000 932 Contra Costa El Cerrito $76,656 $603,500 784 Contra Costa Hercules $88,179 $535,900 793 Contra Costa Lafayette $125,519 $1,000,001 925 Contra Costa Martinez $76,703 $566,800 839 Contra Costa Moraga $125,978 $967,400 952 Contra Costa Oakley $76,130 $426,300 780 Contra Costa Orinda $160,867 $1,000,001 962 Contra Costa Pinole $78,835 $516,800 738 Contra Costa Pittsburg $57,661 $408,900 728 Contra Costa Pleasant Hill $79,597 $633,500 849 Contra Costa Richmond $55,146 $436,900 722 Contra Costa San Pablo $46,007 $375,200 704 Contra Costa San Ramon $119,297 $779,600 929 Contra Costa Walnut Creek $79,629 $642,200 905 Contra Costa Unincorporated $87,500 801 Marin Belvedere $117,778 $1,000,001 937 Marin Corte Madera $97,608 $883,500 918 Marin Fairfax $87,639 $723,900 895 Marin Larkspur $84,411 $944,800 915 Marin Mill Valley $106,017 $1,000,001 932 Marin Novato $80,923 $705,700 844 Marin Ross $145,208 $1,000,001 938 Marin San Anselmo $90,600 $877,700 907 Marin San Rafael $71,339 $827,500 811 Marin Sausalito $107,438 $982,800 788 Marin Tiburon $146,917 $1,000,001 942 Marin Unincorporated $87,500 852 Napa American Canyon $78,718 $467,000 796 Napa Calistoga $52,393 $318,800 752 Napa Napa $64,180 $565,200 788 Napa St. Helena $70,900 $959,700 795 Napa Yountville $69,028 $588,800 866 Napa Unincorporated $87,500 823 San Francisco San Francisco $70,040 $781,500 777 RED BOLD = Did not make the 40% minimum threshold in all scenarios ORANGE = Did not make the 40% minimum threshold in at least one scenario Note: $1,000,001 is the maximum amount shown on the ACS even though home prices may be higher            Median home value for the unincorporated portion of each county was unavailable Sources: US Census, 2005‐2009 American Community Survey (ACS) for incomes and and home values                 Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco for 2009 API school scores County City Median Household Income Median Home Value Average 2009 API Score San Mateo Atherton $185,000 $1,000,001 854 San Mateo Belmont $98,598 $895,700 885 San Mateo Brisbane $95,972 $709,800 806 San Mateo Burlingame $82,295 $1,000,001 888 San Mateo Colma $77,596 $591,100 755 San Mateo Daly City $72,214 $618,200 755 San Mateo East Palo Alto $47,964 $575,000 708 San Mateo Foster City $109,437 $824,700 903 San Mateo Half Moon Bay $90,104 $774,400 825 San Mateo Hillsborough $202,292 $1,000,001 967 San Mateo Menlo Park $107,261 $1,000,001 774 San Mateo Millbrae $81,742 $929,100 863 San Mateo Pacifica $88,768 $683,700 812 San Mateo Portola Valley $168,750 $1,000,001 946 San Mateo Redwood City $76,183 $818,800 794 San Mateo San Bruno $74,375 $652,100 813 San Mateo San Carlos $105,042 $925,000 898 San Mateo San Mateo $81,831 $766,700 802 San Mateo South San Francisco $72,203 $662,500 782 San Mateo Woodside $214,310 $1,000,001 932 San Mateo Unincorporated $112,500 773 Santa Clara Campbell $77,371 $697,100 821 Santa Clara Cupertino $119,398 $976,900 953 Santa Clara Gilroy $67,317 $620,500 778 Santa Clara Los Altos $155,466 $1,000,001 962 Santa Clara Los Altos Hills $218,922 $1,000,001 968 Santa Clara Los Gatos $118,158 $1,000,001 919 Santa Clara Milpitas $92,205 $619,600 829 Santa Clara Monte Sereno $167,417 $1,000,001 919 Santa Clara Morgan Hill $96,367 $706,800 792 Santa Clara Mountain View $86,616 $758,800 835 Santa Clara Palo Alto $119,483 $1,000,001 928 Santa Clara San Jose $78,660 $645,700 802 Santa Clara Santa Clara $83,139 $647,500 818 Santa Clara Saratoga $140,866 $1,000,001 960 Santa Clara Sunnyvale $87,263 $704,300 829 Santa Clara Unincorporated $87,500 896 Solano Benicia $84,665 $566,700 858 Solano Dixon $69,500 $434,100 762 Solano Fairfield $69,001 $432,400 784 Solano Rio Vista $50,319 $355,600 758 Solano Suisun City $70,958 $387,000 745 Solano Vacaville $69,658 $420,300 798 Solano Vallejo $61,343 $403,400 747 Solano Unincorporated $67,500 852 Sonoma Cloverdale $57,500 $460,900 746 Sonoma Cotati $66,667 $479,900 782 Sonoma Healdsburg $65,811 $627,000 735 Sonoma Petaluma $72,881 $572,600 828 Sonoma Rohnert Park $57,413 $439,300 782 Sonoma Santa Rosa $58,899 $505,000 810 Sonoma Sebastopol $61,753 $614,000 809 Sonoma Sonoma $60,613 $640,400 789 Sonoma Windsor $75,673 $530,200 799 Sonoma Unincorporated $67,500 815 RED BOLD = Did not make the 40% minimum threshold in all scenarios ORANGE = Did not make the 40% minimum threshold in at least one scenario Note: $1,000,001 is the maximum amount shown on the ACS even though home prices may be higher            Median home value for the unincorporated portion of each county was unavailable Sources: US Census, 2005‐2009 American Community Survey (ACS) for incomes and and home values                 Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco for 2009 API school scores     Sustainable Communities Strategy ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS Core Concentration, Focused Growth, and Outer Bay Area Growth August 26, 2011 In July, ABAG’s Executive Board and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission approved a framework for Five Alternative Scenarios, which will be used to inform the development of the Preferred Scenario of the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Scenario 1 and 2 are based on unconstrained growth, assume very strong employment growth, and unprecedented funding to support housing affordability. Scenario 1, the Initial Vision Scenario was released in March 2011. Scenario 2, Core Concentration will be developed to provide a more concentrated development pattern along transit corridors. These two scenarios are essential to identify the challenges and policies for an ideal sustainable development path. This report presents the land use patterns for scenarios 3, 4, and 5 based on an assessment of economic growth, financial feasibility, and reasonable planning strategies. They provide a range of housing and employment distribution across places and cities that support equitable and sustainable development. The three scenarios are as follows:  Core Concentration Growth Scenario: Concentrates housing and job growth at selected PDAs in the Inner Bay Area along the region’s core transit network.  Focused Growth Scenario: Recognizes the potential of Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas across the region with an emphasis on housing and job growth along major transit corridors.  Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario: Addresses higher levels of growth in the Outer Bay Area and is closer to previous development trends than the other two scenarios. These three scenarios assume a strong economy supported by the appropriate affordable housing production. They also assume targeted local and regional strategies and additional funding to support employment and housing growth for sustainable and equitable growth. They are designed primarily around Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas, as places for growth identified by local jurisdictions. (PDAs will refer to both areas in this report) The level of growth for PDAs is defined based on the Place Type established by the local jurisdiction (i.e., regional center, transit neighborhood, rural town), which provides a regional language to recognize the character, scale, density and expected growth for the wide range of places in the Bay Area. Beyond the PDAs, household growth is distributed based on employment, transit access, household formation, and housing production. Employment distribution is based upon the existing employment pattern, reversing the previous dispersal trends throughout the region. 1 Regional dialogue on land use scenarios The purpose of the land use alternative scenarios is to expand the regional dialogue on the type of development, planning strategies, and investments to define the SCS. We are seeking input from local jurisdictions, community organizations, business organizations, and general public on the following themes: Distribution of growth  Shifting from previous trends of dispersed growth, do these three land use scenarios provide an appropriate spectrum for sustainable and equitable development trends? Is growth concentrated at the appropriate places? Development of vital and healthy places  Are housing and jobs converging at the appropriate places? Can this convergence support greater access to jobs and housing, particularly for the low and moderate income populations?  What elements of the scenarios would support the development of complete communities?  Do the scenarios address the local expectations and necessary adjustments for regional equity and sustainability? Planning strategies and investments  How can local jurisdictions, community organizations, and business organizations converge into a coherent regional strategy?  What policies and investments should be prioritized to support the SCS? This memo includes five sections and three appendices. The first section is a brief summary of the input received from local jurisdictions and stakeholders on local development and equity. The second section is an overview of regional employment and household growth between 2010 and 2040. The third section describes employment trends and distribution, including some details of the recent regional employment analysis undertaken by ABAG and MTC to inform the land use patterns. The fourth section provides an overview of the housing distribution, which relies on the housing analysis presented in previous reports. The fifth section covers the next steps towards the development of the Preferred Scenario. The appendices include, first, details on the methodology for growth distribution; second, tables of growth by PDA and local jurisdiction; and third, a set of regional maps. 1. INPUT ON SCS SCENARIOS The development of the SCS Core, Focused, and Outer Bay Area Scenarios are informed by a wealth of input we received on the Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) from local elected officials, planning directors, and Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs) as well as from the Regional Advisory Working Group, Equity Group, and stakeholders groups. County-level Basecamp sites have been well noticed and public workshops were held throughout our nine-county region. 2 As indicated in previous reports, land use decisions are a local responsibility governed by local jurisdictions. The land use scenarios presented here are based upon local input and strong coordination among local and regional agencies. Regional agencies have incorporated local input into three coherent land use development patterns. Local jurisdictions should be able to identify their specific input on household growth in at least one of the scenarios. The only exception would be if the local input proposes a level of growth below the minimum 40 percent of household formation for a city. Input on local development The input received reflects the unique characteristics of the region’s communities. Some communities described the level of housing growth depicted in the IVS as too high, while other jurisdictions responded that IVS housing growth levels would be appropriate if funding for redevelopment, public schools, transit and other community infrastructure were available. Still, a number of common themes have emerged.  Addressing the Bay Area economic challenges: The Bay Area’s first Sustainable Communities Strategy should advance a vibrant economy and strong growth for the region. Employment growth should be aligned with existing and planned transit. Employment totals are too high given past performance and the depth of the recession.  Sustainable and equitable housing production: Growth levels in the Initial Vision Scenario are not feasible given current market constraints and funding availability. Infill development challenges require capital investments and supportive policies. The SCS should reward communities that advance sustainable growth at transit nodes.  Transit service: Cuts in transit service will impede sustainable growth. Transit-served, infill areas that have not been nominated by local communities as PDAs should take on comparable levels of growth.  Coordination of regional efforts: Loss of redevelopment agencies will limit infill development. The SCS should provide CEQA benefits for projects in PDAs. Air District and BCDC requirements should be aligned with the SCS. Input on equity Regional agency staff has worked with the Regional Equity Working Group and MTC’s Policy Advisory Council to develop inputs to the Alternative Scenarios that will increase access to opportunities and an improved quality of life for residents from all income categories in communities throughout the region. Social equity as well as economic growth and environmental sustainability are promoted through the emphasis on encouraging growth in complete communities served by transit. In addition, each of the alternative scenarios will also distribute growth in a way that ensures each jurisdiction is planning to accommodate a minimum percent of its expected household growth. Factors related to transit service, employment, and net low- income commuters to a jurisdiction will also inform the alternative scenario housing distributions. 2. REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSEHOLD GROWTH 2010 – 2040 The recent national economic recession triggered a major employment decline. Recent data and research indicates that the nation is facing a slower recovery than expected over the next few years, which will in turn impact the recovery of the Bay Area. Beyond this short term recovery, 3 the rates of employment growth for the Bay Area and California have become closer to or lower than the national rates since the 1980s. They were higher than the nation from the 1960s to the 1980s, but as the region and the state matured in its economic composition, growth rates became closer to the national average. Due to lowered forecasts of national economic and job growth, along with dramatic decreases in state and national immigration levels (even prior to the recession), the Bay Area job forecast for 2040 would be revised downward by an estimated 100,000 jobs than the forecast employment for the Initial Vision Scenario. The total jobs for 2040 would drop by another 200,000 jobs by switching to a forecast where the Bay Area maintains its current share of national employment. Even under those considerations, the SCS can reasonably assume a healthy economy for the Bay Area by 2040. High expectations are based on the strength of our knowledge-based economy, the development of new high technology sectors as well as the diverse economy to support these leading sectors. In addition, the Bay Area has a highly qualified labor force when compared to other regions and a high quality of life based on access to urban amenities, natural resources, and a Mediterranean climate. The region also provides businesses with a wealth of research and development resources and a strong network of international exchange. Given these resources, regional and economic experts working with ABAG and MTC suggest the Bay Area could add almost a million jobs up to 4.26 million jobs by 2040. This is an average of 33,000 per year over the next 30 years, which assumes a healthy and strong economy. This is more than three times the 10,000 average annual job growth of the previous two decades. It is close to the 40,000 average annual job growth of the last 50 years when the region experienced the development of the high technology industry and the finance sector. This employment growth will be supported by strong housing production of about 770,000 units by 2040. This would represent an annual production of 27,000 units per year. The slow recovery of job growth and housing prices are expected to limit housing production in the near- term. This period should be addressed independently from the housing production of the later years. Assuming a suppressed housing production rate of 15,000 units from 2010-2015, this level of growth would increase to almost 30,000 units per year over the 2015-2040 timeframe. In comparison, historical rates were 20,000 per year from 1990-2010 and 36,000 averaging 1970, 1975, 1980, and 1985 rates, periods of much greenfield housing production. The expected growth of 770,000 housing units by 2040 in the scenarios under discussion is lower than the equivalent one million units in Initial Vision Scenario. The former is the expected housing production while the latter reflects the housing need. The expected housing production addresses lower 2010 household and population counts (Census 2010), lower employment growth than previous forecasts, and reasonable assumptions on market trends, local and regional policies, and infrastructure. This level of housing reflects a reasonable job to household ratio for the Bay Area and would consider a reasonable pace of recovery of the housing market. For these scenarios we are assuming a job to household ratio of 1.3 by 2040. This ratio is based on the regional average over the past six decades and is also similar to the present-day ratio. It could be expected that 4 demographic shifts would lower this ratio over the next fifteen years as the baby boomer generation retires, but that it would rise again in the later years of the planning horizon. Regional Growth: Households, Population, Employed Residents, Jobs, 2010 - 2040 Core, Focused, and Outer Bay Area Growth Scenarios Initial Vision Scenario 2010 2040 Growth 2010-40 Growth 2010-40 Households 2,608,000 3,378,000 770,000 1,031,000 Population 7,151,000 9,236,000 2,085,000 2,432,000 Employed residents 3,153,000 3,974,000 821,000 1,338,000 Jobs 3,271,000 4,266,000 995,000 1,463,000 These scenario land development patterns will be supported by transportation scenarios that will vary the level of funding for “fix-it-first” maintenance, transit capacity improvements, roadway improvements, and bike/pedestrian funding. 3. REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION The region is experiencing a transformation in its economic activities and in its population composition, both of which have major land use implications. The very strong growth of knowledge-based activities at the intersection with urban amenities brings new strength to employment centers. These economic trends are parallel to some key emerging demographic changes: young professionals’ preferences for vital urban places instead of office parks, an increase in the ethnic diversity of the labor force and residents, and a major wave of retirement and increase in the senior population. Providing that the region can develop and implement a solid SCS, these changes provide an opportunity to strengthen the economic health, social equity, and sustainability of the Bay Area. SCS tasks to support a healthy economy include:  Provide the appropriate transit, affordable housing, and urban amenities to support the new wave of industries at urban locations and densified office parks.  Support a diverse economy through public investments that support strategic sectors, and the retention and expansion of affordable housing close to major employment centers.  Regain the economic vitality of regional centers, which lost employment over the past decades. Support increased densities and a mix of uses at suburban office parks, which have been major employment growth areas.  Concentrate urban amenities and affordable housing in downtown areas and along transit corridors across the region.  Maintain and increase the viability and productivity of industrial lands and agricultural resource areas. 5 For the purpose of the SCS Alternative Scenarios we are revising the total employment growth by 2040, the growth by industry, and the distribution by PDA and city. We have defined a preliminary regional employment growth level of almost one million additional jobs for a total of 4.2 million jobs by 2040. The rationale for this healthy economic growth in relation to population and housing growth will be discussed in a separate memo. This memo primarily focuses on growth by industry and distribution patterns based on the employment analysis developed by ABAG and MTC in collaboration with Strategic Economics. Changes in the regional industrial composition The Bay Area is experiencing a change in the composition of its economic sectors with major implications for its land development patterns. Starting in the 1970s the region experienced major employment growth in San Francisco’s financial district and the emergence of Silicon Valley as the global center of high technology. In contrast to many other metropolitan regions for the next few decades, the Bay Area’s economic sectors developed through very distinct specialized clusters. At the turn of the millennium the region is facing a more mature economic base with an economic sector composition that is closer to the national average. Professional and business services and information jobs have become the major leading sectors in the regional economy. Over the last decades they have experienced sharp growth but they have also been the most impacted during periods of economic decline. These regional leading sectors have increased the demand for highly educated labor and provided high wage jobs. Educational and health services have displayed more moderate but steady growth than professional services. They have surpassed manufacturing, government administration, and retail employment. Over the next 30 years, educational and health services sectors are expected to continue their rate of growth. Professional and business services are expected to generate more than one third of the total regional growth by 2040. Over several decades, these growing sectors have more than compensated the loss in manufacturing and finance jobs. During this period, much of the region’s traditional manufacturing employment has relocated to low cost labor regions in Asia and Latin America. More recently despite steady growth in professional and business service jobs related to emerging technology industries, high tech manufacturing has also relocated out of Silicon Valley to lower cost locations. Changes in technology have also reduced labor requirements and increased productivity for the remaining manufacturing businesses. On the opposite spectrum of the economic sector location patterns, while the region continues to be an important financial center, finance employment jobs have been eliminated or have relocated from the Bay Area. The decline of these two sectors has resulted in a loss of middle-income jobs for the region. Looking forward to 2040, manufacturing and finance are not expected to significantly expand. However, they will remain essential and stable sectors in the regional economy and are expected to retain approximately the same employment size over the next 30 years. The Bay Area is a major international destination for business and leisure travel. Leisure, hospitality and retail are growing employment sectors. In particular, leisure and hospitality employment has grown at a faster pace than retail, following the pattern of professional and 6 business services. Both industry groups are expected to retain a steady growth over the next 30 years. Changes in the regional spatial patterns Over the past decades the Bay Area experienced a decline of employment at its major regional economic centers while suburban employment centers and office parks emerged and grew throughout the region. These spatial patterns were conditioned by the decline of the finance sector in San Francisco, the growth of the high technology sectors in Silicon Valley, the formation of the Tri-Valley business cluster supported by labor from lower housing cost communities in the eastern part of the Bay Area and the central valley, and the strengthening of medium size downtowns such as Walnut Creek, Santa Rosa and Berkeley. Recent changes in the economic sector composition of the region discussed above, in particular the growth of professional services in close proximity to urban amenities, point toward some changes in the current spatial pattern. These trends suggest a new wave of growth that could be accommodated at major economic centers and a demand for urban amenities, mixed-uses and higher densities at suburban employment locations. Analysis of employment and demographic trends indicates that the SCS can serve to support these emerging trends by increasing access to transit, affordable housing, and urban amenities at employment centers. The SCS would recognize the economic function of each place in the region and the potential they offer for the growth of selected industry groups, jobs and businesses. This recognition is also informed by the community choices on the function and qualities of their places. Some of the expected trends are described below.  Renewed regional centers Regional centers have reduced their office jobs as a share of the region from 49 percent in 1990 to 41 percent in 2010. San Francisco and Oakland also reduced their absolute employment levels. San Jose had a small increase. In the SCS Scenarios we expect a reversal of this trend. This is based on the rate and scale of growth of professional services and its close link to urban entertainment, which brings a new economic vitality to the regional centers. Similar to the growth of the financial district in the 1970s, the Bay Area is attracting new businesses and workers that want to locate in close proximity to related firms, services and amenities. The new wave of businesses and young professionals’ demand for building space prioritizes flexibility to adjust spaces to multiple functions and requires less office space per worker relative to the early growth of traditional downtown office space. The growth of health and educational services would also support the growth of regional centers.  Office parks: Office parks have been a dominant building pattern in the two suburban areas that experienced major growth in the Bay Area over the past several decades: Silicon Valley and the Tri-Valley. In the SCS Alternative Scenarios office park employment will continue to grow but at a slower pace than in recent decades. The emerging private shuttle services run by businesses, particularly in San Mateo and Santa Clara County are expected to grow and improve transit access while lessening, but not fully mitigating increased freeway traffic congestion related to 7 employment growth. Growth in office park employment is limited in part by the capacity of the region’s congested freeway network. Office parks in the Tri-Valley area would house more workers within their own jurisdictions, but will continue to draw from lower cost labor in the Central Valley. Some office parks would be transformed with additional office buildings and a mix of uses including housing.  Downtown areas and transit corridors The increasing need and desire for local services in close proximity to residential locations has led to a clustering of services along corridors and in small downtown areas over the past decades. The increasing size of the region’s senior population will likely reinforce this trend over the next decades. The SCS Alternative Scenarios assume an increase in local serving jobs in Priority Development Areas proportional to housing growth in PDAs.  Industrial land The decline of the manufacturing and wholesale employment due to business relocation and changes in technology has resulted in a major contraction of those businesses in industrial areas. In many areas this has not resulted in vacant industrial land, but a different mix of businesses that are necessary to support the local and regional economies. In addition to basic services such as refuse collection or supply distribution, industrial lands are now occupied by a wide range of businesses from food processing to green industry manufacturing to auto repair to high tech product development drawing employment from many sectors into traditional industrial land. The SCS Scenarios assume limited but stable job growth in manufacturing, given retention of industrial land at core locations and an expanding array of production, distribution and repair activities.  Agricultural land The Bay Area has a wealth of agricultural land unparalleled among our nation’s largest metropolitan regions that provides high quality agricultural products including diverse high- value crop production and its world-renowned wine industry. For the most part the region’s remaining farmland is policy-protected from urban expansion. All of the counties outside of San Francisco have a growth management framework (e.g. urban growth boundaries, agricultural zoning, etc.) in place. The SCS Alternative Scenarios assume the retention of most agricultural land with some increase in productivity yielding modest employment growth. Core Concentration, Focused, and Outer Bay Area Growth Scenarios Given the expected levels of regional growth, changes in the economic sector composition, and changes in the spatial patterns of employment location, the three alternative scenarios provide alternative land use development patterns based on various degrees of employment concentration. All scenarios assume one million additional jobs in the region through 2040. They also assume the same growth rates by industry. The three scenarios assume slowing or reversal in the declining share of employment in Priority Development Areas experienced in previous decades. The three scenarios also assume some growth in local serving jobs proportional to the housing growth by PDAs. 8 The three employment scenarios are CONCEPTUAL scenarios to understand and assess distinct land use patterns in relation to housing and transit. Starting from the current distribution of employment and growth trends over previous decades, the scenarios add three factors: the concentration of jobs in PDAs, the concentration of knowledge-based jobs (Information, Finance, Professional & Business Services), and the link of local serving jobs (primarily Retail, some Health, Educational, and Recreational Services) to housing growth. They do not yet include input from local jurisdictions or analysis of land constraints, industrial cluster support, or public and private investments. This input and analysis will be essential to develop the employment distribution for the Preferred Scenario. Overview of job growth by scenario Core Concentration Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Growth Land use trends Higher growth in major employment centers close to transit Higher concentration of employment in PDAs than 2010 Continued trends of more growth in Outer Bay Area and more growth outside of PDAs PDA job growth Small increase of PDAs share of regional jobs over Focused Growth Scenario Small increase of PDAs share of regional jobs over 2010 Decline of PDAs share of regional jobs over 2010 Knowledge- base jobs Additional 15% in inner bay PDAs Additional 10% across all PDAs Decline in share of PDAs following previous trends Local serving jobs Follows housing growth, more jobs in inner bay area PDAs Follows housing growth, distributed across all PDAs and jurisdictions Follows housing growth, more jobs in outer bay area Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario: This scenario follows the growth trends from the previous 30 years but with lower rates of job dispersal. Regional Centers and large City Centers grow but slower than other Place Types, while Suburban Centers and office parks outside of PDAs continue to grow at higher rates than the regional average. Focused Growth Scenario: This scenario assumes that the concentration of employment in PDAs across most economic sectors will remain as in 2010. Knowledge-based and local serving jobs will be more concentrated in PDAs by 2040 than in 2010. Core Concentration Growth Scenario: This scenario assumes that the concentration of employment in PDAs across most economic sectors will remain as in 2010. Knowledge-based jobs will be more concentrated in regional centers, city centers, urban neighborhoods, and mixed-use neighborhoods in the Inner Bay Area places where jobs are concentrated today. Local 9 serving jobs will follow housing in PDAs, which will be more concentrated in the Inner Bay Area. Employment by economic sector The employment growth by economic sector is based on the forecast prepared by Caltrans and adjusted to the total regional growth established by ABAG and MTC. While the same level of growth by industry is assume in the three scenarios, the distribution by city and PDA varies across scenarios. Employment growth by economic sector 2010 - 2040 Jobs 2010 Jobs 2040 Job growth 2010 – 2040 Annual Growth Rate 2010- 2040 Total Jobs 3,270,906 4,265,736 994,831 1.01% Agriculture and Natural Resources 22,142 22,286 144 0.02% Manufacturing Wholesale and Transportation 543,974 659,580 115,606 0.71% Retail 325,168 402,036 76,868 0.79% Professional and Business Services / Finance 774,502 1,153,879 379,378 1.63% Health, Education, Recreation Services 853,755 1,106,095 252,340 0.99% Other: Information, Government, Construction 751,365 921,860 170,495 0.76% Distribution of Employment The employment distribution for 2010 is based on NETS data. This data provides employment information by location of a business establishment. This is a high level of geographical resolution, which allows us to capture the employment by PDA more accurately than previous zip code data. In 2010, the total jobs in PDAs was an estimated 1,586,000 or 48 percent of jobs regionwide. This is 5 percent lower than the PDA share in 1990 according to ABAG analysis of the NETS data. The three scenarios assume different shares of jobs in PDAs as indicated below. Following previous trends but at a slower pace, the Outer Bay Area Scenario assumes a lower PDA share of total jobs in 2040 than in 2010. The Focused Growth and Core Concentration Scenarios both assume a higher concentration of jobs in PDAs in 2040 than in 2010. 10 Job Share in PDAs by Scenario: Past and Future Trends 1990 – 2010 – 2040 Core Growth Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Growth PDA Job Share 1990 53% 53% 53% PDA Job Share 2010 48% 48% 48% PDA Job Share 2040 51% 50% 48% PDA Job Growth Share 2010-2040 58 % 55 % 47 % Within PDAs, the distribution of jobs varies according to sector and Place Type. The Outer Bay Area Scenario retains a similar distribution in 2010 and 2040 except for the local serving jobs, which shifts according to housing growth. The Focused Growth Scenario increases knowledge- based jobs across all PDAs. The Core Concentration Scenario increases knowledge-based jobs in regional centers, city centers, urban neighborhoods, and mixed-use corridors in the inner Bay Area. Share of Regional Job Growth in PDA by Industry Group by Scenario 2010 – 2040 Core Growth Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Growth Total region 58% 55% 47% Agriculture and Natural Resources 27% 27% 27% Manufacturing Wholesale and Transportation 43% 43% 39% Retail 61% 58% 55% Professional services/Finance 65% 60% 45% Health, Education, Recreation Services 48% 48% 47% Other: Information, Government, Construction 67% 63% 51% 11 Share of Regional Job Growth in PDA by Place Type by Scenario 2010 – 2040 Core Growth Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Growth Total PDA/GOA Jobs 58.3% 55.3% 46.9% Inner Bay Regional Center 21.4% 19.0% 12.5% City Center 4.4% 3.9% 4.0% Suburban Center 1.0% 1.1% 1.0% Transit Town Center 2.6% 2.7% 2.9% Urban Neighborhood 5.1% 4.6% 3.5% Transit Neighborhood 2.3% 2.5% 1.8% Mixed-Use Corridor 13.3% 12.1% 11.1% Employment Center 1.4% 1.5% 1.2% Outer Bay Regional Center 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% City Center 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% Suburban Center 2.0% 2.2% 2.5% Transit Town Center 1.7% 1.9% 1.8% Transit Neighborhood 0.8% 0.9% 1.3% Mixed-Use Corridor 1.4% 1.6% 1.9% Employment Center 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% Rural Town Center 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% Rural Mixed-Use Corridor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12 Share of Regional Professional and Business Services / Finance Job Growth in PDA by Place Type by Scenario 2010 – 2040 Core Growth Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Growth Total PDA/GOA Jobs 65.1% 60.0% 45.4% Inner Bay Regional Center 29.5% 25.3% 12.8% City Center 4.7% 4.0% 5.1% Suburban Center 0.7% 0.9% 1.4% Transit Town Center 2.0% 2.4% 2.9% Urban Neighborhood 4.7% 4.0% 2.8% Transit Neighborhood 1.9% 2.3% 0.7% Mixed-Use Corridor 14.3% 12.3% 11.5% Employment Center 1.2% 1.5% 0.9% Outer Bay Regional Center 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% City Center 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% Suburban Center 1.9% 2.2% 1.9% Transit Town Center 1.5% 1.8% 1.1% Transit Neighborhood 0.6% 0.7% 1.4% Mixed-Use Corridor 1.1% 1.4% 1.5% Employment Center 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% Rural Town Center 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% Rural Mixed-Use Corridor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13 Share of Regional Retail Job Growth in PDA by Place Type by Scenario 2010 – 2040 Core Growth Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Growth Total PDA/GOA Jobs 61.3% 57.9% 55.0% Inner Bay Regional Center 10.2% 9.2% 9.5% City Center 4.7% 4.4% 4.2% Suburban Center 3.2% 3.0% 3.2% Transit Town Center 5.3% 4.8% 3.6% Urban Neighborhood 5.1% 4.4% 3.6% Transit Neighborhood 4.5% 4.0% 3.3% Mixed-Use Corridor 16.2% 14.7% 12.1% Employment Center 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% Outer Bay Regional Center 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% City Center 0.9% 1.2% 1.2% Suburban Center 4.1% 4.3% 6.3% Transit Town Center 2.2% 2.2% 1.9% Transit Neighborhood 1.7% 1.9% 2.0% Mixed-Use Corridor 2.3% 2.7% 2.8% Employment Center 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Rural Town Center 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Rural Mixed-Use Corridor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Job Growth by County and PDA by Scenario 2010 – 2040 PDA Jobs County Jobs Core Growth Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Growth Core Growth Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Growth Alameda 106,300 104,000 93,500 203,800 203,700 216,300 Contra Costa 38,000 41,300 46,500 96,400 104,900 126,300 Marin 6,000 6,800 7,900 31,700 34,600 35,900 Napa 300 300 300 14,600 15,600 22,000 San Francisco 206,500 178,000 127,000 206,900 179,100 127,000 San Mateo 41,900 40,300 35,200 99,600 104,000 112,700 Santa Clara 159,300 154,000 129,300 254,200 257,400 247,400 Solano 6,600 7,300 7,500 42,000 46,200 50,200 Sonoma 15,600 17,600 19,700 45,500 49,200 57,100 TOTAL 580,400 549,700 467,000 994,800 994,800 994,800 14 4. REGIONAL HOUSING DISTRIBUTION The three scenarios, Core Concentration, Focused and Outer Bay Area Growth, address the distribution of 771,000 households by 2040 through alternative land use patterns. Each of these scenarios relates to the employment growth and the three distribution patterns described in the previous section. Levels of household growth are specifically linked to the concentration of knowledge–based and local serving jobs. The three scenarios support healthy economic growth by 2040. Shifting from the dominant development trend of single-family homes in greenfield areas over the last three decades, the three scenarios assume a higher concentration of households within multi-family housing at transit nodes and corridors with appropriate services and stores. Most of the growth is expected to be accommodated through 3 to 6 story wood-frame buildings, with the exception of major downtown areas where steel-frame buildings of more than 10 stories would be constructed. The scenarios vary in the overall share of households in PDAs as well as by Place Type and city. The distribution of household growth is based on local input and regional criteria established through the densities and scale of Place Types, transit service, employment, and net low-income commuters. In addition, in the three scenarios each city is expected to reach a minimum household growth equivalent to 40 percent of its household formation. This last factor comes from the Regional Housing Need Allocation methodology for 2014-2022, which identifies the housing needs by city to be addressed through local plans and zoning controls. Local plans and their proposed housing growth are an important component in the distribution of household growth. Local input on household growth from each jurisdiction was utilized in at least one of the three scenarios. The PDAs and the growth factors directly addressed equity in the SCS. This final approach to the alternative scenarios is the result of in-depth interactions with equity groups. PDAs cover a wide range of neighborhoods with diverse income levels, infrastructure needs, and transit service. Regional staff worked closely with local jurisdictions to identify potential PDAs in areas that need public investment for current and future populations as well as in areas that are ready to accommodate additional housing. Two growth factors are directly linked to equity. The low-income net in-commuters’ factor recognizes the potential of cities with high employment and limited affordable housing to accommodate future household growth. Similarly, the minimum growth floor of 40 percent of jurisdictions’ household formation level allows cities with good services to accommodate a portion of their own population growth. In order to appropriately address equity in the SCS, ABAG and MTC will conduct a thorough assessment of regional income levels and distribution. This report only includes some minor revisions to the income distribution factors used in Projections 2009. Current regional economic changes in the type of businesses, jobs, and labor indicate some regional income polarization. This task requires detailed attention and would be a priority over the next weeks. 15 Overview of household growth by scenario Core Concentration Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Growth Land use trends More growth in PDAs, particularly in Inner Bay Area’s major employment centers and transit nodes Growth throughout regional transit corridors and job centers Less growth in PDAs, more growth in Outer Bay Area along transit corridors. Growth factors Transit service Employment Net low-income commuters Minimum level of growth 40% of the expected household formation rate for each jurisdiction PDA household growth Based on Focused Growth Scenario, increase household growth by 20% in Inner Bay Area, plus or minus housing value factor Growth within PDAs based on minimum level of growth by Place Type. Based on Focused Growth Scenario, increase household growth by 5 to 30% in Outer Bay Area depending on job growth Core Concentration Growth Scenario: This scenario assumes a concentration of households in PDAs/GOAs and jurisdictions in the Inner Bay Area to take advantage of the core transit network. Focused Growth Scenario: This scenario assumes focused household growth in PDAs/GOAs throughout the region’s transit corridors. Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario: Closer to recent development trends than the other two scenarios, this scenario assumes more growth of households in the Outer Bay Area in relation to the employment growth by jurisdiction. The three scenarios vary in their share of PDA household growth from 67 to 79 percent of all regional growth. PDAs currently account for 24 percent of all households in the region. The PDA share of households increases to between 34 and 37 percent of all households in the three scenarios. 16 Households in PDAs by Scenario: Current and Future Trends 2010 – 2040 Core Growth Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Growth PDA households 2010 634,730 634,730 634,730 PDA households 2040 1,239,900 1,187,740 1,154,970 PDA households growth 2010-2040 605,170 553,010 520,270 PDA share of total households 2040 37% 35% 34% PDA share of growth 2010-2040 79% 72% 67% In the Core Concentration-Constrained Scenario, Inner Bay Area jurisdictions for the most part experience a greater concentration of growth within their PDAs than in the Focused Growth Scenario, whereas in the Outer Bay Area Scenario growth is less concentrated in the PDAs. In each of the scenarios, the 40 percent housing growth threshold has a considerable affect on some of the smaller residential communities throughout the region. The concentration of households varies by Place Type. In each scenario, the greatest share of regional growth is within the Mixed-Use Corridors, followed by Regional Centers. The Core Growth Scenario brings a higher concentration of households at Regional Centers, City Centers, Urban Neighborhoods, and Mixed-Use Corridors. This includes San Jose, Oakland and San Francisco downtown areas and San Pablo, Mission, and El Camino transit corridors. The Transit Town Centers and Transit Neighborhoods also play an important role in the Core Scenario, as many of the PDAs along the core transit network in the Inner Bay Area are these Place Types. In the Focused Growth and Outer Bay Area scenario, growth is more evenly distributed across all Place Types. The Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario shows higher growth in suburban centers such as the Dublin, Livermore, and San Ramon PDAs 17 Share of Regional Household Growth in PDA by Place Type by Scenario 2010 – 2040 Core Growth Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Growth Total PDA/GOA Share of Households 37% 35% 34% Regional Center 12.6% 11.2% 10.3% City Center 8.4% 8.3% 7.7% Suburban Center 8.3% 8.3% 8.5% Urban Neighborhood 7.3% 6.1% 5.1% Transit Town Center 11.2% 9.9% 9.8% Transit Neighborhood 10.2% 9.3% 9.2% Mixed-Use Corridor 20.2% 18.3% 16.6% Employment Center 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% Rural Town Center 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Rural Mixed-Use Corridor 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% The distribution of growth by county varies according to their transit access and relationship of the county to the Inner and Outer Bay Area. Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara, counties with high transit service and primarily within the Inner Bay show more growth in Core Growth Scenario. North Bay Counties—Marin, Napa, Solano and Sonoma— and Contra Costa are part of the Outer Bay Area and many of their cities have limited transit access. Thus they display higher growth in the Outer Bay Area Scenario. Household Growth by County and PDA by Scenario 2010 – 2040 PDA Households County Households Core Growth Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Growth Core Growth Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Growth Alameda 132,610 121,050 111,740 167,750 172,990 164,300 Contra Costa 66,790 67,510 72,650 96,880 110,930 136,550 Marin 4,100 6,380 6,690 10,100 11,260 13,250 Napa 1,660 1,660 1,740 5,520 6,290 7,170 San Francisco 105,110 85,940 71,900 110,640 90,470 76,430 San Mateo 54,820 44,130 40,810 72,110 68,570 61,700 Santa Clara 205,960 182,220 167,280 245,990 242,060 227,120 Solano 15,440 16,390 17,230 28,740 30,860 38,690 Sonoma 18,680 27,730 30,230 33,080 37,380 45,620 TOTAL 605,170 553,010 520,270 770,810 770,810 770,830 18 5. NEXT STEPS The three land use scenarios presented in this report provide the preliminary analysis for the development of the SCS Preferred Scenario. Additional tasks are pending to inform the Preferred Scenario. 1. Land use analysis o Further analysis of regional employment and population growth o Further analysis of income forecast and distribution 2. Policy Development to support the Preferred Scenario o Housing production o Infill development investments o Transit access o Complete Communities 3. Transportation network analysis 4. Performance targets results for the three Alternative Land Use Scenarios 5. Gather input from local jurisdictions and stakeholders to inform development of the Preferred Scenario 19 APPENDIX I 1. EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION DATA AND METHODOLOGY Data Sources California Department of Transportation Sector Forecast (Caltrans) Caltrans uses an econometric model to project employment by industry out to 2040 for each county in California. The agency’s model uses variables and assumptions taken from the UCLA Anderson Forecast and historic employment data from EDD. The most recent projections were released in March 2010. In comparison, the most recent EDD and BLS projections available date from 2008 and 2009. A complete description of the 2010 Caltrans projection methodology and data out to 2035 (2040 data was provided upon request) is available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ote/socio_economic.html. Walls & Associates / Dun and Bradstreet (NETS) Walls & Associates converts Dun and Bradstreet archival establishment data into a time-series database of establishment information called the National Establishment Times-Series (NETS) Database. ABAG has analyzed the NETS data to provide information on the spatial distribution of jobs at the jurisdiction and PDA level by employment sector, as well as changes in spatial distribution at these geographies from 1989-2009. More information on the NETS data is available at: http://www.youreconomy.org/nets/?region=Walls Methodology 2010 Employment Current employment is based on total jobs established for the Current Regional Plans and Initial Vision Scenario and the Caltrans breakdown by employment sector for the region for 2010. NETS 2009 data is used to distribute jobs by geography for each sector. Scenario Employment Distribution The Caltrans forecast – scaled to match the regional constrained employment total established for the three alternative scenarios – was used for the regional growth by employment sector for all three scenarios. Each scenario follows two basic steps for then distributing employment growth by geography for each sector. 1. As a baseline, Focused Growth and Core-Constrained Growth Scenarios maintain 2010 employment distribution by Place Type and county into the future and Outer Bay Area Growth Scenarios slows down the 1989-2009 trends in distribution of jobs by Place Type and county. 2. A portion of local-serving jobs and knowledge-based jobs are then distributed to follow the investments and growth pattern for each scenario. 20 Core-Constrained Scenario The core-constrained scenario starts with a baseline of maintaining 2010 employment distribution by sector by geography. 50% of new Retail jobs and 10% of new Health, Educational, and Recreational Services jobs were then allocated by PDA and by jurisdiction in conjunction with the housing growth distribution, reflecting a share of local-serving jobs that follows the housing growth in the core-constrained scenario. An additional 15% of new Information, Professional & Business Services, and Government jobs were located in Inner Bay PDA locations that were Regional Center, Mixed-Use Corridor, City Center, and Urban Neighborhood Place Types. This reflects a further concentration in these sectors into the transit- served locations where they are already concentrated, corresponding to a stronger agglomeration of the knowledge-based and other vertical-office-user jobs into these core areas. These additional office jobs were also allocated to the corresponding jurisdiction. Focused Growth Scenario The focused growth scenario also starts with a baseline of maintaining 2010 employment distribution by sector by geography. 50% of new Retail jobs and 10% of new Health, Educational, and Recreational Services jobs were again allocated by PDA and by jurisdiction in conjunction with the housing growth distribution in the focused growth scenario. The focused growth scenario also includes an additional 10% of new Information, Professional & Business Services, and Government jobs locating in PDA locations, reflecting a further consolidation of office uses in PDAs. These additional office jobs were distributed to PDAs throughout the region in proportion to their existing share of these sectors. Outer Growth Scenario The outer growth scenario starts with a baseline that slows the 1989-2009 trend in job distribution by PDA Place Type (for the PDA distribution) and by County (for the jurisdiction distribution). In general this exhibits higher growth in the outer bay counties and slower growth in PDAs overall and a shift in share from inner bay PDAs to outer bay PDAs. As in the other two scenarios, 50% of new Retail jobs and 10% of new Health, Education, and Recreation jobs were allocated by PDA and by jurisdiction to match the housing growth distribution in the outer growth scenario. In this scenario, no additional office jobs were added to PDA locations. However, for the counties with both inner and outer bay designations (Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara counties), a share of Professional & Business Services jobs were reallocated from the inner bay to outer bay jurisdictions to reflect the trend in greater dispersal of jobs within these counties. 21 2. HOUSING DISTRIBUTION METHODOLOGY AND DATA Data Sources U. S. Census Bureau – 2010 Census U. S. Census Bureau – Longitudinal Employment and Household Dynamics (LEHD) MTC Transit Coverage and Frequency by City Methodology Scenario Housing Distribution Each scenario was developed based on the three key components. 1. Growth in Priority Development Areas: PDAs define a sustainable and equitable development framework for the SCS. Local and regional efforts support the development of PDAs as complete communities with the appropriate level of services and urban amenities for the current and future residents and workers. The minimum level of growth for each Place Type and local input were used as a basis for the level of growth in the PDAs. 2. Growth by local jurisdiction: At the city level, jurisdictions’ housing levels were based on Projections 2009, with adjustments based on the 2010 Census and local feedback. Household growth by city was determined based on job concentration, transit service, and existing population and jobs. In addition, a factor based on low-wage commuters was applied to the distribution of housing in order to improve access to employment centers served by transit for low-wage workers. 3. Growth pattern informed by the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA): The scenarios utilized the proposed RHNA approach1 for setting a minimum level of growth in the jurisdictions to ensure each jurisdiction is doing a reasonable amount of fair share housing to meet the region’s housing need. A minimum housing growth threshold for each jurisdiction was set at 40 percent of its household formation growth. The scenarios assume that RHNA, as a short term housing strategy through local general plans, will shape the long term development pattern through a minimum housing floor (jurisdictions would accommodate at least 40 percent of their future household formation). The income distribution component of the proposed RHNA methodology, which is intended to address housing affordability (whereby jurisdictions would move towards the regional distribution of income groups), was not applied for the scenarios. Analysis of regional income levels and distribution is pending. 1 The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is a state mandated process for determining how many housing units, including affordable units, each community must plan to accommodate. See http://www.onebayarea.org/plan_bay_area/housing.htm for more information on RHNA. 22 Transit and Employment Criteria for Housing Distribution TRANSIT TYPE EXISTING JOB CENTER (10,000+ JOBS) FOCUSED GROWTH 2035 HOUSING BART, Muni Metro, VTA Light Rail Yes Increase to low-range Place Type density plus 25% BART, Muni Metro, VTA Light Rail No Increase to low-range Place Type density plus 20% Caltrain Yes Increase to low-range Place Type density plus 25% Caltrain No Increase to low-range Place Type density plus 20% ACE, Capitol Corridor, SMART, eBART, Dumbarton Rail Yes Increase to low-range Place Type density plus 10% ACE, Capitol Corridor, SMART, eBART, Dumbarton Rail No Increase to low-range Place Type density plus 5% BRT Corridors: El Camino Real, San Pablo Avenue, E.14th Street/Mission Bvd Yes Increase to low-range Place Type density plus 5% BRT Corridors: El Camino Real, San Pablo Avenue, E.14th Street/Mission Bvd No Increase to low-range Place Type density PDAs not on major corridors Yes Increase to low-range Place Type density plus 10% PDAs not on major corridors No Increase to min Place Type density minus 10% Focused Growth Scenario For the Focused Growth Scenario, the level of growth in a PDA was taken as the higher of: a. the planned level of growth in the PDA, based on jurisdictional feedback on the Initial Vision Scenario, and b. the minimum level of growth based on the PDA's Place Type. The minimum level of growth for a PDA was calculated by multiplying the minimum density for the PDA's Place Type by the redevelopable acreage in the PDA, which was assumed to be 10% of net acreage. The minimum density for each PDA was scaled up or down based on transit tiers and whether the PDA is an existing job center containing 10,000+ jobs. The table below shows the distribution rules for each transit tier/job center combination. If the planned level of growth 23 in a PDA was lower than the minimum calculated for its Place Type, the growth for that PDA was increased to the calculated minimum. At the city level, the share of growth within each jurisdictions’ PDAs was capped at 95 percent of the jurisdiction’s total growth. Core Concentration-Constrained Scenario For the Core-Concentration-Constrained Scenario, growth was shifted to PDAs in the Inner Bay Area. First, housing growth was increased by 20 percent above Focused Growth Scenario levels for these PDAs. Next, housing levels were adjusted up or down based on a housing value factor for each jurisdiction. The housing value adjustment ranged from +15 to -15 percent, based on median home value. ABAG reduced growth in Outer Bay Area PDAs to the desired levels stated by local jurisdictions in their Initial Vision Scenario feedback. At the city level, housing growth within the Outer Bay Area jurisdictions was reduced to account for the re-distribution of housing to Inner Bay Area PDAs. Housing levels in Inner Bay Area jurisdictions were kept at their Focused Growth Scenario levels or were increased slightly to account for an increase in their PDAs’ housing levels, with the share of growth within each jurisdictions’ PDAs capped at 95 percent of the jurisdiction’s total growth. Outer Bay Area Scenario To create the Outer Bay Area Scenario, ABAG first estimated the potential job increase to each jurisdiction. ABAG continued the trend of jobs shifting from inner to outer counties and from PDAs to outer areas. Within Alameda, Santa Clara and Contra Costa Counties, a share of professional and business growth was also shifted from the Inner Bay Area to Outer Bay Area jurisdictions. ABAG increased housing growth in those Outer Bay Area jurisdictions that saw significant job growth. Outer Bay Area jurisdictions that had more than 3,000 new jobs received a 30% increase in housing growth in their PDAs over the Focused Growth Scenario, those that grew by 1,000 to 3,000 jobs received a 10% increase in their PDAs, and those that grew by less than 1,000 jobs received a 5% increase. ABAG reduced growth in Inner Bay Area PDAs to the desired levels stated by local jurisdictions in their Initial Vision Scenario feedback. However, since the City and County of San Francisco did not request a reduction from the Initial Vision Scenario, ABAG reduced each San Francisco PDA's housing growth by 20%. At the city level, Inner Bay Area jurisdictions’ housing units were reduced to desired levels. These housing units were re-distributed to the Outer Bay Area jurisdictions based on each jurisdiction’s share of regional growth. Outer Bay Area jurisdiction growth levels may also have increased to account for an increase in units within their PDAs. The share of jurisdictional growth in PDAs within the Outer Bay Area jurisdictions was capped at 85 percent. 24 25 Transportation Assumptions The following transportation network assumptions were used to develop the three scenarios: Core Growth Focused Growth Outer Growth Increased service levels on all existing transit systems (including frequency and capacity) X X X including increased local bus service Bus Rapid Transit service on major corridors El Camino Real and E.14th Street/ Mission Blvd El Camino Real, San Pablo Ave, and E.14th Street/ Mission Blvd Full operation of SMART X X Full operation of eBART, including at Pittsburg Railroad Ave station X X Dumbarton Rail service X X Future Irvington BART station X X Future Warm Springs BART station X X Restoration of AC Transit service to levels before recession X X APPENDIX II: TABLES  Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction  Household Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction KEY Jurisdiction (Bold Italic) Priority Development Area Growth Opportunity Area (italics) Alameda County 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth Alameda 26,480 7,570 8,220 7,870 Naval Air Station Transit Town Center 1,310 770 770 830 Northern Waterfront Transit Neighborhood 1,290 460 470 260 Albany 5,070 1,410 1,350 1,000 San Pablo Avenue & Solano Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor 2,880 920 830 560 Berkeley 73,780 22,300 22,100 21,430 Adeline Street Mixed-Use Corridor 940 310 280 250 Downtown City Center 14,220 6,750 5,970 6,240 San Pablo Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor 2,430 730 690 670 South Shattuck Mixed-Use Corridor 1,000 280 250 160 Telegraph Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor 1,700 570 530 500 University Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor 1,680 520 480 450 Dublin 17,490 4,950 5,520 9,890 Downtown Specific Plan Area Suburban Center 4,620 1,030 1,130 1,400 Town Center Suburban Center 320 220 220 270 Transit Center Suburban Center 0 160 170 200 Emeryville 16,350 6,010 5,660 5,290 Mixed-Use Core City Center 11,490 4,630 4,190 4,650 Fremont 89,280 26,360 26,320 27,770 Centerville Transit Neighborhood 2,980 1,140 1,230 670 City Center City Center 16,300 7,070 6,330 6,630 Irvington District Transit Town Center 2,670 890 930 1,020 Ardenwood Business Park Employment Center 1,970 610 680 530 Fremont Boulevard & Warm Springs Boulevard Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 9,710 3,350 3,050 2,910 Fremont Boulevard Decoto Road Crossing Mixed-Use Corridor 270 90 90 80 South Fremont/Warm Springs Suburban Center 7,940 1,990 2,060 1,940 Hayward 63,960 16,050 16,650 17,440 Downtown City Center 6,200 1,950 1,790 1,820 South Hayward BART Mixed-Use Corridor 330 140 140 120 South Hayward BART Urban Neighborhood 480 320 300 280 The Cannery Transit Neighborhood 1,190 360 400 320 Carlos Bee Quarry Mixed-Use Corridor 0404040 Mission Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 1,450 470 440 410 Livermore 47,200 13,540 15,090 20,130 Downtown Suburban Center 2,870 910 960 1,180 Vasco Road TOD Suburban Center 5,910 1,220 1,410 1,790 Newark 16,820 4,170 4,440 4,420 Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development Transit Town Center 1,200 370 370 380 Old Town Mixed Use Area Transit Neighborhood 180 70 70 50 Cedar Boulevard Transit Transit Neighborhood 170 100 90 70 Civic Center Re-Use Transit Transit Neighborhood 510 150 160 200 Oakland 196,600 64,390 58,930 57,160 Coliseum BART Station Area Transit Town Center 5,450 1,520 1,610 1,680 Downtown & Jack London Square Regional Center 92,180 34,070 35,210 26,080 Eastmont Town Center Urban Neighborhood 3,570 1,270 1,130 790 Fruitvale & Dimond Areas Urban Neighborhood 8,490 2,920 2,690 2,190 MacArthur Transit Village Urban Neighborhood 10,460 3,270 3,110 2,570 Transit Oriented Development Corridors Mixed-Use Corridor 33,650 12,620 11,540 10,960 West Oakland Transit Town Center 7,570 2,370 2,390 2,660 Piedmont 2,100 610 690 330 Pleasanton 52,510 14,580 16,150 21,510 Hacienda Suburban Center 9,870 3,720 4,290 4,400 San Leandro 39,350 10,750 10,800 11,300 Bay Fair BART Transit Village Transit Town Center 1,470 340 360 350 Downtown Transit Oriented Development City Center 7,910 3,220 2,890 2,960 East 14th Street Mixed-Use Corridor 7,500 2,660 2,390 2,300 Union City 19,260 4,650 4,790 4,620 Intermodal Station District City Center 340 160 150 160 Mission Boulevard Mixed-Use Corridor 20 20 20 20 Old Alvarado Mixed-Use Corridor 470 210 190 180 Alameda County Unincorporated 23,480 6,420 6,960 6,170 Castro Valley BART Transit Neighborhood 2,030 530 560 330 East 14th Street and Mission Boulevard Mixed Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 2,390 770 710 670 Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Contra Costa County 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth Antioch 19,910 5,140 5,560 6,900 Hillcrest eBART Station Suburban Center 20 150 170 170 Rivertown Waterfront Transit Town Center 3,910 1,060 1,190 1,200 Brentwood 8,370 2,470 2,750 3,480 Clayton 2,280 610 670 1,000 Concord 50,570 13,890 15,070 18,900 Community Reuse Area Regional Center 170 220 230 300 Community Reuse Area Transit Neighborhood 0 550 600 710 Downtown BART Station Planning Area City Center 6,910 2,160 2,400 2,550 North Concord BART Adjacent Employment Center Employment Center 5,940 1,590 1,770 2,680 West Downtown Planning Area Mixed-Use Corridor 3,300 1,010 1,140 1,380 Danville 12,750 3,490 3,780 4,850 El Cerrito 6,550 1,880 1,870 1,680 San Pablo Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 3,480 920 850 680 Hercules 4,390 1,400 1,500 1,970 Central Hercules Transit Neighborhood 900 400 450 590 Waterfront District Transit Town Center 1,280 400 430 450 Lafayette 10,330 2,990 3,280 4,200 Downtown Transit Town Center 6,180 1,770 1,930 1,740 Martinez 32,020 6,960 7,860 8,860 Downtown Transit Neighborhood 6,820 1,660 1,910 2,730 Moraga 4,180 1,270 1,380 1,890 Moraga Center Transit Town Center 1,200 460 520 400 Oakley 3,760 1,130 1,210 2,110 Downtown Transit Town Center 580 210 230 210 Employment Area Suburban Center 730 220 230 270 Potential Planning Area Transit Neighborhood 300 180 190 250 Orinda 5,200 1,560 1,730 2,350 Downtown Transit Town Center 2,750 840 950 790 Pinole 6,600 1,740 1,870 2,490 Appian Way Corridor Suburban Center 2,460 660 690 840 Old Town Transit Town Center 1,410 360 390 400 Pittsburg 16,710 4,510 4,820 5,960 Downtown Transit Neighborhood 1,560 620 650 1,010 Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Transit Town Center 150 200 220 200 Railroad Avenue eBART Station Transit Town Center 6,500 1,670 1,820 1,860 Pleasant Hill 19,490 6,080 6,760 8,440 Buskirk Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 3,510 1,170 1,360 1,680 Diablo Valley College Transit Neighborhood 2,950 1,610 1,910 3,550 Richmond 34,290 10,130 10,220 8,720 Central Richmond City Center 6,250 2,540 2,310 2,280 South Richmond Transit Neighborhood 6,600 1,880 2,060 1,420 23rd Street Mixed-Use Corridor 320 140 140 130 San Pablo Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 1,910 900 810 780 San Pablo 8,000 2,050 2,150 2,700 San Ramon 42,110 10,930 12,130 14,820 City Center Suburban Center 11,290 1,980 2,190 2,830 North Camino Ramon Transit Town Center 10,720 3,490 3,870 3,670 Walnut Creek 50,600 13,690 15,290 18,610 West Downtown Suburban Center 7,410 2,670 3,060 3,050 Contra Costa County Unincorporated 14,740 4,500 4,930 6,380 Contra Costa Centre Mixed-Use Corridor 3,470 890 1,050 1,200 Downtown El Sobrante Mixed-Use Corridor 970 280 290 370 North Richmond Transit Neighborhood 1,850 520 540 760 Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Transit Neighborhood 400 340 360 420 West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee: San Pablo Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 9,490 2,660 2,770 3,320 Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Marin County 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth Belvedere 460 130 140 150 Corte Madera 6,840 1,760 1,880 2,000 Fairfax 2,430 650 700 760 Larkspur 8,250 2,270 2,460 2,590 Mill Valley 6,330 1,900 2,080 2,180 Novato 22,600 5,820 6,370 6,640 Ross 510 150 160 160 San Anselmo 4,160 1,210 1,320 1,380 San Rafael 42,000 11,040 12,030 12,310 Civic Center/North Rafael Town Center Transit Town Center 5,800 1,730 1,940 1,770 Downtown City Center 8,830 2,590 2,930 3,060 Sausalito 7,460 2,520 2,820 2,860 Tiburon 2,960 930 1,030 1,090 Marin County Unincorporated 10,860 3,320 3,620 3,740 Urbanized 101 Corridor Transit Neighborhood 2,630 820 1,010 1,560 San Quentin Transit Neighborhood 3,100 870 940 1,520 Napa County 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth American Canyon 2,480 610 630 920 Highway 29 Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 1,040 280 290 340 Calistoga 2,300 570 600 790 Napa 28,740 7,270 7,730 10,950 St. Helena 4,390 970 1,040 1,570 Yountville 1,440 400 430 610 Napa County Unincorporated 22,390 4,830 5,170 7,130 San Francisco County 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth San Francisco 550,340 206,920 179,140 126,990 19th Avenue Transit Town Center 10,490 2,850 2,880 3,350 Balboa Park Transit Neighborhood 2,540 810 870 910 Bayview/Hunters Point Shipyard/Candlestick Point Urban Neighborhood 20,270 7,970 7,170 5,900 Downtown-Van Ness-Geary Regional Center 300,220 114,920 94,080 57,350 Eastern Neighborhoods Urban Neighborhood 60,230 22,950 20,680 16,040 Market & Octavia Urban Neighborhood 29,780 8,760 7,900 4,810 Mission Bay Urban Neighborhood 2,900 1,380 1,230 980 Mission-San Jose Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 12,030 4,740 4,300 4,050 Port of San Francisco Mixed-Use Corridor 5,280 2,010 1,850 1,710 San Francisco/San Mateo Bi-County Area (with City of BrisbanTransit Neighborhood 1,830 1,230 1,240 460 Transbay Terminal Regional Center 7,680 4,480 3,870 2,340 Treasure Island Transit Town Center 250 650 570 450 Citywide 96,840 33,720 31,390 28,630 Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction San Mateo County 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth Atherton 2,280 710 780 780 Belmont 7,400 2,520 2,470 2,560 Brisbane 6,270 1,780 1,910 2,160 San Francisco/San Mateo Bi-County Area (with San FranciscoSuburban Center 440 190 190 110 Burlingame 25,880 7,440 8,060 8,610 Burlingame El Camino Real Transit Town Center 10,520 2,940 3,090 3,330 Colma 2,540 510 490 430 Daly City 19,370 5,840 5,930 5,810 Bayshore Transit Town Center 980 430 440 450 Mission Boulevard Mixed-Use Corridor 3,520 1,110 1,030 980 Citywide 12,670 3,430 3,730 3,410 East Palo Alto 2,670 880 920 920 Ravenswood Transit Town Center 900 290 310 300 Woodland/Willow Neighborhood Urban Neighborhood 170 130 100 110 Foster City 13,380 3,900 4,360 4,730 Half Moon Bay 4,940 1,260 1,370 1,410 Hillsborough 2,110 660 740 740 Menlo Park 41,320 11,090 12,080 12,370 El Camino Real Corridor and Downtown Transit Town Center 5,200 1,520 1,650 1,780 Millbrae 6,910 2,140 2,000 1,990 Transit Station Area Mixed-Use Corridor 1,280 450 410 390 Pacifica 5,690 1,550 1,680 1,680 Portola Valley 1,780 500 560 580 Redwood City 58,370 17,820 18,250 21,190 Downtown City Center 7,920 3,100 2,740 2,640 Broadway Mixed-Use Corridor 5,010 1,490 1,380 1,170 Middlefield Mixed-Use Corridor 2,380 830 760 700 Mixed Use Waterfront Mixed-Use Corridor 610 360 320 300 Veterans Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 3,880 1,220 1,120 1,010 San Bruno 12,110 3,960 3,720 3,850 Transit Corridors Mixed-Use Corridor 6,390 2,170 1,990 1,700 San Carlos 16,050 4,990 4,890 5,170 Railroad Corridor Transit Town Center 1,820 420 450 470 San Mateo 50,640 16,320 17,210 18,580 Downtown City Center 3,900 1,420 1,310 1,520 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Corridor 2,110 580 540 450 Rail Corridor Transit Neighborhood 8,780 2,060 2,210 1,280 South San Francisco 38,490 11,410 12,030 13,490 Downtown Transit Town Center 2,200 880 900 930 Lindenville Transit Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood 2,530 1,180 1,330 310 Woodside 2,630 570 640 660 San Mateo County Unincorporated 11,110 3,810 3,950 4,970 City County Association of Governments of San Mateo CountyMixed-Use Corridor 68,720 22,870 21,200 18,430 Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Santa Clara County 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth Campbell 23,950 6,300 6,700 6,590 Central Redevelopment Area Transit Neighborhood 5,850 1,640 1,820 1,380 Winchester Boulevard Master Plan Transit Neighborhood 1,110 280 310 200 Cupertino 20,990 6,660 6,630 6,360 Gilroy 17,730 4,200 4,490 8,420 Downtown Transit Town Center 2,030 640 700 660 Los Altos 13,290 4,870 4,810 4,810 El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 2,710 1,200 1,080 1,020 Los Altos Hills 2,960 1,140 1,220 1,400 Los Gatos 18,900 5,250 5,570 5,370 Milpitas 38,820 10,610 11,360 10,720 Transit Area Suburban Center 3,760 1,790 1,920 2,370 Hammond Transit Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood 710 160 160 40 McCandless Transit Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood 920 400 460 150 McCarthy Ranch Employment Center Employment Center 1,440 340 370 270 Midtown Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 720 310 290 270 Serra Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 570 130 130 120 Tasman Employment Center Employment Center 7,560 1,740 1,870 1,050 Town Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 530 170 160 150 Yosemite Employment Center Employment Center 7,000 1,730 1,890 1,340 Monte Sereno 530 200 220 220 Morgan Hill 16,370 4,090 4,450 7,160 Downtown Transit Town Center 1,370 480 530 530 Mountain View 45,690 14,180 15,280 14,630 Whisman Station Transit Neighborhood 710 310 340 310 Downtown Transit Town Center 5,810 2,170 2,470 2,670 East Whisman Employment Center 4,220 1,670 1,920 1,670 El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 3,950 1,460 1,330 1,240 Moffett Field/NASA Ames Suburban Center 410 270 260 360 North Bayshore Suburban Center 6,420 2,080 2,270 230 San Antonio Center Transit Town Center 2,530 850 890 880 Palo Alto 75,380 26,630 27,820 19,360 California Avenue Transit Neighborhood 2,770 1,260 1,390 680 El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 10,230 5,990 5,190 4,990 University Avenue/Downtown Transit Town Center 12,830 4,080 4,530 4,840 San Jose 363,730 116,760 112,610 109,040 Berryessa Station Transit Neighborhood 5,910 1,530 1,630 1,060 Communications Hill Transit Town Center 3,440 1,010 1,050 1,060 Cottle Transit Village Suburban Center 2,110 610 610 820 Downtown "Frame" City Center 25,780 10,390 9,420 9,560 East Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 10,970 2,910 3,250 3,930 Greater Downtown Regional Center 27,820 21,250 23,630 13,650 North San Jose Regional Center 78,840 37,840 31,970 24,660 West San Carlos and Southwest Expressway Corridors Mixed-Use Corridor 8,260 3,860 3,250 3,390 Bascom TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 1,220 480 450 390 Bascom Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 1,830 710 640 590 Blossom Hill/Snell Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 910 350 330 300 Camden Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 5,120 1,500 1,480 1,420 Capitol Corridor Urban Villages Mixed-Use Corridor 2,600 1,170 1,120 1,000 Capitol/Tully/King Urban Villages Suburban Center 3,150 1,240 1,400 1,890 Oakridge/Almaden Plaza Urban Village Suburban Center 4,860 1,380 1,400 1,650 Saratoga TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 3,700 1,490 1,360 1,290 Stevens Creek TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 4,550 1,500 1,410 1,280 Westgate/El Paseo Urban Village Suburban Center 3,010 800 840 1,030 Winchester Boulevard TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 4,350 2,000 1,800 1,680 Santa Clara 96,340 30,080 31,370 29,820 Central Expressway Focus Area City Center 2,550 1,030 930 950 El Camino Real Focus Area Mixed-Use Corridor 4,060 1,150 1,080 1,020 Great America Parkway Focus Area Urban Neighborhood 2,030 1,300 1,150 880 Lawrence Station Focus Area Transit Neighborhood 3,200 1,260 1,300 520 Santa Clara Station Focus Area City Center 3,430 1,040 960 830 Tasman East Focus Area Transit Neighborhood 560 310 320 180 Saratoga 9,850 3,580 3,920 3,890 Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Santa Clara County (continued) 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth Sunnyvale 63,860 18,270 19,330 17,930 Downtown & Caltrain Station Transit Town Center 3,310 1,550 1,380 1,320 El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 9,910 2,680 2,870 2,790 Lawrence Station Transit Village Transit Neighborhood 3,800 1,410 1,540 1,700 East Sunnyvale ITR Mixed-Use Corridor 2,510 760 710 690 Moffett Park Employment Center 9,610 2,550 2,870 2,310 Peery Park Employment Center 5,180 1,510 1,680 1,250 Reamwood Light Rail Station Employment Center 960 230 250 190 Tasman Station ITR Mixed-Use Corridor 1,290 510 470 440 Santa Clara County Unincorporated 3,510 1,360 1,640 1,720 Valley Transportation Authority: Cores, Corridors, and Station Mixed-Use Corridor 172,750 77,640 74,000 60,440 Solano County 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth Benicia 14,160 3,630 3,950 4,990 Downtown Transit Neighborhood 2,570 720 800 900 Northern Gateway Suburban Center 1,830 490 540 600 Dixon 4,490 1,070 1,160 1,310 Fairfield 82,840 18,060 20,310 21,420 Downtown South (Jefferson Street) Suburban Center 4,100 1,270 1,450 1,410 Fairfield-Vacaville Train Station Transit Town Center 330 460 470 490 North Texas Street Core Mixed-Use Corridor 1,410 440 450 530 West Texas Street Gateway Mixed-Use Corridor 1,640 490 530 640 Rio Vista 2,010 470 540 610 Suisun City 3,510 1,010 1,110 1,280 Downtown & Waterfront Transit Town Center 1,670 500 560 520 Vacaville 32,290 7,600 8,230 8,740 Allison Area Suburban Center 1,040 150 180 240 Downtown Transit Town Center 2,860 700 750 880 Vallejo 34,790 8,810 9,530 10,190 Waterfront & Downtown Suburban Center 4,660 1,350 1,540 1,340 Solano County Unincorporated 5,840 1,320 1,420 1,640 Sonoma County 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth Cloverdale 1,840 470 510 560 Downtown/SMART Transit Area Transit Town Center 980 300 330 330 Cotati 3,170 680 710 830 Downtown and Cotati Depot Transit Town Center 560 170 180 -190 Healdsburg 6,330 1,660 1,790 2,070 Petaluma 27,880 7,920 8,660 10,300 Central, Turning Basin/Lower Reach Suburban Center 2,710 750 810 970 Rohnert Park 12,600 3,200 3,400 3,770 Sonoma Mountain Village Suburban Center 130 160 170 160 Santa Rosa 70,670 18,160 19,640 22,740 Downtown Station Area City Center 8,390 2,370 3,160 3,390 Mendocino Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 27,500 7,070 8,050 9,700 Sebastopol Road Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 7,990 2,270 2,680 3,070 North Santa Rosa Station Suburban Center 6,150 1,830 2,000 2,280 Sebastopol 4,980 1,270 1,340 1,470 Nexus Area Transit Town Center 3,830 1,000 1,090 1,130 Sonoma 6,090 1,590 1,700 1,880 Windsor 5,630 1,410 1,530 1,920 Redevelopment Area Suburban Center 1,180 450 500 530 Sonoma County Unincorporated 0 9,180 9,950 11,530 8th Street East Industrial Area Employment Center 660 150 160 220 Airport/Larkfield Urban Service Area Suburban Center 5,480 1,440 1,580 1,030 Penngrove Urban Service Area Rural Town Center 320 120 120 170 The Springs Rural Mixed-Use Corridor 3,220 1,020 1,090 1,260 Household Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction KEY Jurisdiction (Bold Italic) Priority Development Area Growth Opportunity Area (italics) Alameda County Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth Alameda 30,120 6,800 5,810 5,720 Naval Air Station Transit Town Center 1,090 5,250 4,420 4,420 Northern Waterfront Transit Neighborhood 390 1,210 1,010 1,010 Albany 7,400 960 960 960 San Pablo Avenue & Solano Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor 1,600 820 700 700 Berkeley 46,030 8,370 8,370 8,370 Adeline Street Mixed-Use Corridor 620 310 260 260 Downtown City Center 2,570 4,900 3,980 3,980 San Pablo Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor 1,440 1,150 960 960 South Shattuck Mixed-Use Corridor 310 130 110 110 Telegraph Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor 990 510 430 430 University Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor 1,560 710 580 580 Dublin 14,910 10,900 13,810 15,780 Downtown Specific Plan Area Suburban Center 790 470 1,030 1,330 Town Center Suburban Center 3,750 2,150 2,150 2,710 Transit Center Suburban Center 620 2,580 2,580 3,350 Emeryville 5,690 5,660 5,230 5,240 Mixed-Use Core City Center 3,530 5,370 5,010 5,010 Fremont 71,000 19,090 17,380 15,500 Centerville Transit Neighborhood 5,570 1,880 1,600 1,030 City Center City Center 6,870 6,580 5,540 2,490 Irvington District Transit Town Center 4,390 2,380 2,020 2,020 Ardenwood Business Park Employment Center 0000 Fremont Boulevard & Warm Springs Boulevard Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 8,540 2,640 2,230 2,180 Fremont Boulevard Decoto Road Crossing Mixed-Use Corridor 650 510 430 430 South Fremont/Warm Springs Suburban Center 20 4,140 3,460 3,000 Hayward 45,370 15,480 15,480 15,480 Downtown City Center 2,540 3,390 3,070 3,070 South Hayward BART Mixed-Use Corridor 170 1,300 1,170 1,170 South Hayward BART Urban Neighborhood 1,660 2,670 2,420 2,420 The Cannery Transit Neighborhood 410 830 750 750 Carlos Bee Quarry Mixed-Use Corridor 30 610 550 550 Mission Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 910 2,410 2,200 2,200 Livermore 29,130 9,120 11,210 12,550 Downtown Suburban Center 920 2,860 2,860 3,700 Vasco Road TOD Suburban Center 330 670 2,500 3,250 Newark 12,970 5,800 5,800 5,800 Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development Transit Town Center 140 2,800 2,430 2,430 Old Town Mixed Use Area Transit Neighborhood 580 440 380 380 Cedar Boulevard Transit Transit Neighborhood 0 980 850 850 Civic Center Re-Use Transit Transit Neighborhood 200 400 340 340 Oakland 153,790 58,720 57,720 46,210 Coliseum BART Station Area Transit Town Center 3,440 2,510 2,250 2,130 Downtown & Jack London Square Regional Center 10,630 10,650 9,490 9,490 Eastmont Town Center Urban Neighborhood 5,960 2,460 2,250 1,100 Fruitvale & Dimond Areas Urban Neighborhood 12,840 7,080 6,350 4,930 MacArthur Transit Village Urban Neighborhood 8,030 4,140 3,710 3,370 Transit Oriented Development Corridors Mixed-Use Corridor 60,970 22,640 20,470 14,620 West Oakland Transit Town Center 9,030 6,300 5,720 5,720 Piedmont 3,800 630 630 630 Pleasanton 25,250 6,300 7,380 8,340 Hacienda Suburban Center 1,270 2,820 3,120 4,050 San Leandro 30,720 7,120 7,120 7,120 Bay Fair BART Transit Village Transit Town Center 630 820 730 730 Downtown Transit Oriented Development City Center 3,930 3,930 3,490 3,490 East 14th Street Mixed-Use Corridor 4,490 1,510 1,370 1,370 Union City 20,430 4,550 4,550 4,160 Intermodal Station District City Center 1,030 880 750 650 Mission Boulevard Mixed-Use Corridor 0 180 150 150 Old Alvarado Mixed-Use Corridor 290 180 160 160 Alameda County Unincorporated 48,520 8,270 11,540 12,440 Castro Valley BART Transit Neighborhood 1,400 570 500 160 East 14th Street and Mission Boulevard Mixed Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 6,740 2,060 1,820 1,790 Household Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Contra Costa County Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth Antioch 32,250 6,350 6,890 9,740 Hillcrest eBART Station Suburban Center 150 2,430 2,430 2,680 Rivertown Waterfront Transit Town Center 1,430 2,060 2,060 2,250 Brentwood 16,490 6,500 8,160 9,620 Clayton 4,010 530 530 530 Concord 44,280 16,740 17,280 24,620 Community Reuse Area Regional Center 70 2,890 2,890 3,730 Community Reuse Area Transit Neighborhood 0 9,030 9,030 11,740 Downtown BART Station Planning Area City Center 2,080 3,910 3,910 5,030 North Concord BART Adjacent Employment Center Employment Center 10000 West Downtown Planning Area Mixed-Use Corridor 0 600 600 770 Danville 15,420 2,630 2,880 3,100 El Cerrito 10,140 2,130 1,840 1,840 San Pablo Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 1,200 1,680 1,460 1,460 Hercules 8,120 4,650 4,650 4,880 Central Hercules Transit Neighborhood 400 2,570 2,570 2,700 Waterfront District Transit Town Center 640 1,090 1,090 1,150 Lafayette 9,220 1,500 1,650 1,780 Downtown Transit Town Center 1,890 810 810 850 Martinez 14,290 2,300 2,550 2,760 Downtown Transit Neighborhood 750 1,310 1,310 1,370 Moraga 5,570 1,010 1,100 1,190 Moraga Center Transit Town Center 430 630 630 660 Oakley 10,730 3,750 3,870 11,980 Downtown Transit Town Center 520 1,290 1,290 1,360 Employment Area Suburban Center 560 980 980 1,030 Potential Planning Area Transit Neighborhood 980 1,400 1,400 1,470 Orinda 6,550 940 980 1,010 Downtown Transit Town Center 330 370 370 390 Pinole 6,780 2,130 2,630 3,760 Appian Way Corridor Suburban Center 510 630 630 700 Old Town Transit Town Center 680 230 390 430 Pittsburg 19,530 9,340 10,200 10,850 Downtown Transit Neighborhood 1,600 2,180 2,180 2,270 Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Transit Town Center 0 2,430 2,430 2,560 Railroad Avenue eBART Station Transit Town Center 3,600 3,370 3,370 3,530 Pleasant Hill 13,710 4,490 5,770 6,900 Buskirk Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 1,670 170 700 760 Diablo Valley College Transit Neighborhood 730 320 320 350 Richmond 36,090 12,250 12,250 12,140 Central Richmond City Center 4,700 4,050 3,780 880 South Richmond Transit Neighborhood 3,250 2,310 2,150 1,690 23rd Street Mixed-Use Corridor 640 970 900 900 San Pablo Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 1,710 1,620 1,510 1,510 San Pablo 8,760 2,350 2,350 1,860 San Ramon 25,280 4,190 8,090 9,080 City Center Suburban Center 480 630 1,410 1,830 North Camino Ramon Transit Town Center 40 2,400 2,400 3,090 Walnut Creek 30,440 3,760 7,330 8,460 West Downtown Suburban Center 1,270 1,960 1,960 2,480 Contra Costa County Unincorporated 57,710 9,320 9,920 10,450 Contra Costa Centre Mixed-Use Corridor 1,780 450 450 470 Downtown El Sobrante Mixed-Use Corridor 1,670 560 560 580 North Richmond Transit Neighborhood 1,030 2,460 2,460 2,570 Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Transit Neighborhood 1,020 3,940 3,940 4,130 West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee: San Pablo Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 5,950 3,070 3,180 3,320 Household Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Marin County Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth Belvedere 930 60 60 60 Corte Madera 3,790 370 560 640 Fairfax 3,380 240 240 240 Larkspur 5,910 530 530 610 Mill Valley 6,080 500 500 500 Novato 20,280 1,570 1,600 1,610 Ross 800 70 70 70 San Anselmo 5,240 410 410 410 San Rafael 22,760 2,500 2,790 4,000 Civic Center/North Rafael Town Center Transit Town Center 1,900 820 820 860 Downtown City Center 2,420 1,170 1,840 1,930 Sausalito 4,110 260 280 300 Tiburon 3,730 300 300 300 Marin County Unincorporated 26,190 3,290 3,920 4,510 Urbanized 101 Corridor Transit Neighborhood 4,290 580 2,190 2,290 San Quentin Transit Neighborhood 110 1,530 1,530 1,610 Napa County Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth American Canyon 5,660 1,690 1,750 2,010 Highway 29 Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 400 1,660 1,660 1,740 Calistoga 2,020 120 120 130 Napa 28,170 2,660 3,160 3,600 St. Helena 2,400 120 120 120 Yountville 1,050 100 150 170 Napa County Unincorporated 9,580 830 990 1,140 San Francisco County Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth San Francisco 345,810 110,640 90,470 76,430 19th Avenue Transit Town Center 4,790 3,080 2,490 2,490 Balboa Park Transit Neighborhood 1,190 2,350 1,870 1,500 Bayview/Hunters Point Shipyard/Candlestick Point Urban Neighborhood 10,470 15,000 12,030 9,790 Downtown-Van Ness-Geary Regional Center 89,850 32,810 27,770 23,950 Eastern Neighborhoods Urban Neighborhood 31,650 8,720 7,230 6,110 Market & Octavia Urban Neighborhood 11,130 7,650 6,150 5,010 Mission Bay Urban Neighborhood 3,200 3,280 2,630 2,140 Mission-San Jose Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 29,360 6,220 5,120 4,290 Port of San Francisco Mixed-Use Corridor 110 2,900 2,300 1,840 San Francisco/San Mateo Bi-County Area (with City of BrisbanTransit Neighborhood 1,510 8,370 6,630 5,320 Transbay Terminal Regional Center 190 5,500 4,410 3,580 Treasure Island Transit Town Center 590 9,240 7,320 5,880 Citywide 161,770 5,520 4,520 4,530 Household Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction San Mateo County Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth Atherton 2,330 400 400 400 Belmont 10,580 1,390 1,390 1,390 Brisbane 1,820 1,580 1,580 300 San Francisco/San Mateo Bi-County Area (with San FranciscoSuburban Center 0 1,420 1,160 20 Burlingame 12,360 3,930 3,930 3,930 Burlingame El Camino Real Transit Town Center 7,170 3,540 2,630 2,630 Colma 560 610 520 210 Daly City 31,090 7,470 7,470 5,700 Bayshore Transit Town Center 1,550 2,420 2,060 2,060 Mission Boulevard Mixed-Use Corridor 2,070 1,360 1,180 1,180 Citywide 27,470 3,690 4,230 2,460 East Palo Alto 6,940 3,050 3,050 3,050 Ravenswood Transit Town Center 970 1,070 930 930 Woodland/Willow Neighborhood Urban Neighborhood 1,290 1,230 1,110 1,110 Foster City 12,020 1,670 1,670 1,670 Half Moon Bay 4,150 700 700 700 Hillsborough 3,690 820 820 600 Menlo Park 12,350 3,050 3,050 2,450 El Camino Real Corridor and Downtown Transit Town Center 1,010 1,030 770 770 Millbrae 7,990 2,890 2,180 2,180 Transit Station Area Mixed-Use Corridor 270 1,960 1,460 1,460 Pacifica 13,970 1,110 1,110 1,110 Portola Valley 1,750 240 240 240 Redwood City 27,960 10,510 9,070 8,280 Downtown City Center 990 5,320 4,150 4,150 Broadway Mixed-Use Corridor 1,710 770 600 380 Middlefield Mixed-Use Corridor 2,170 640 500 410 Mixed Use Waterfront Mixed-Use Corridor 210 1,350 1,050 1,050 Veterans Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 150 990 770 770 San Bruno 14,700 4,670 4,670 4,220 Transit Corridors Mixed-Use Corridor 4,140 3,330 2,800 2,800 San Carlos 11,520 2,400 2,400 2,340 Railroad Corridor Transit Town Center 440 650 650 650 San Mateo 38,230 11,810 11,810 10,130 Downtown City Center 500 650 520 520 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Corridor 840 1,210 970 970 Rail Corridor Transit Neighborhood 140 6,580 5,310 5,310 South San Francisco 20,940 7,610 6,300 7,430 Downtown Transit Town Center 1,510 3,640 3,030 3,030 Lindenville Transit Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood 0 860 710 710 Woodside 1,980 310 310 310 San Mateo County Unincorporated 20,910 5,910 5,910 5,090 City County Association of Governments of San Mateo CountyMixed-Use Corridor 38,460 15,470 12,420 10,560 Household Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Santa Clara County Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth Campbell 16,160 2,940 2,940 2,880 Central Redevelopment Area Transit Neighborhood 1,140 1,430 1,180 1,180 Winchester Boulevard Master Plan Transit Neighborhood 580 160 130 130 Cupertino 20,180 3,960 3,960 3,960 Gilroy 14,180 5,710 6,440 7,090 Downtown Transit Town Center 880 1,600 1,600 2,060 Los Altos 10,750 2,160 2,160 2,160 El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 610 470 350 350 Los Altos Hills 2,830 730 730 730 Los Gatos 12,360 2,330 2,330 2,330 Milpitas 19,180 12,810 12,810 12,810 Transit Area Suburban Center 750 8,140 6,910 6,910 Hammond Transit Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood 300 690 580 580 McCandless Transit Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood 0 410 340 340 McCarthy Ranch Employment Center Employment Center 0000 Midtown Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 340 770 660 660 Serra Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 210 40 40 10 Tasman Employment Center Employment Center 0000 Town Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 0 860 730 730 Yosemite Employment Center Employment Center 30000 Monte Sereno 1,210 300 300 300 Morgan Hill 12,330 3,820 4,150 8,760 Downtown Transit Town Center 510 1,200 1,200 1,550 Mountain View 31,960 15,120 12,460 11,020 Whisman Station Transit Neighborhood 650 1,200 950 950 Downtown Transit Town Center 1,170 1,200 960 960 East Whisman Employment Center 250 290 230 230 El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 3,330 2,690 2,170 2,170 Moffett Field/NASA Ames Suburban Center 180 2,770 2,210 1,940 North Bayshore Suburban Center 350 2,640 2,110 1,330 San Antonio Center Transit Town Center 1,480 3,580 2,870 2,870 Palo Alto 26,490 12,250 12,250 6,110 California Avenue Transit Neighborhood 750 2,360 1,720 800 El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 4,090 5,380 3,930 1,570 University Avenue/Downtown Transit Town Center 1,820 3,590 2,630 1,250 San Jose 301,370 133,030 130,890 116,500 Berryessa Station Transit Neighborhood 1,850 5,540 5,100 4,640 Communications Hill Transit Town Center 6,540 3,670 3,390 2,780 Cottle Transit Village Suburban Center 0 3,390 3,120 2,840 Downtown "Frame" City Center 16,980 12,660 11,710 10,720 East Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 6,750 4,850 4,480 4,100 Greater Downtown Regional Center 3,670 8,320 7,720 7,100 North San Jose Regional Center 10,420 37,200 34,260 31,220 West San Carlos and Southwest Expressway Corridors Mixed-Use Corridor 4,730 15,820 15,040 14,230 Bascom TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 260 1,630 1,500 1,360 Bascom Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 1,810 990 910 840 Blossom Hill/Snell Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 700 1,280 1,180 1,070 Camden Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 920 1,150 1,060 960 Capitol Corridor Urban Villages Mixed-Use Corridor 4,210 7,270 6,700 6,110 Capitol/Tully/King Urban Villages Suburban Center 1,410 2,610 2,400 2,190 Oakridge/Almaden Plaza Urban Village Suburban Center 2,650 8,760 8,070 7,360 Saratoga TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 2,710 1,310 1,200 1,100 Stevens Creek TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 2,210 4,580 4,230 3,850 Westgate/El Paseo Urban Village Suburban Center 1,010 2,920 2,690 2,450 Winchester Boulevard TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 4,150 2,430 2,250 2,060 Santa Clara 43,020 24,260 21,130 20,350 Central Expressway Focus Area City Center 0 4,640 3,880 3,880 El Camino Real Focus Area Mixed-Use Corridor 1,650 1,300 1,110 1,110 Great America Parkway Focus Area Urban Neighborhood 0 3,940 3,300 3,300 Lawrence Station Focus Area Transit Neighborhood 0 7,190 6,020 6,020 Santa Clara Station Focus Area City Center 450 3,890 3,260 3,260 Tasman East Focus Area Transit Neighborhood 0 2,090 1,750 1,750 Saratoga 10,730 2,250 2,250 2,250 Household Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Santa Clara County (continued) Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth Sunnyvale 53,380 16,780 16,780 16,780 Downtown & Caltrain Station Transit Town Center 1,730 1,840 1,510 1,510 El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 10,350 5,310 4,400 4,400 Lawrence Station Transit Village Transit Neighborhood 1,560 2,900 2,380 2,380 East Sunnyvale ITR Mixed-Use Corridor 0 3,340 2,730 2,730 Moffett Park Employment Center 20000 Peery Park Employment Center 110 10 10 10 Reamwood Light Rail Station Employment Center 0000 Tasman Station ITR Mixed-Use Corridor 850 1,660 1,350 1,350 Santa Clara County Unincorporated 28,080 7,540 10,480 13,090 Valley Transportation Authority: Cores, Corridors, and Station Mixed-Use Corridor 68,650 43,880 42,860 38,920 Solano County Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth Benicia 10,690 1,190 1,190 1,440 Downtown Transit Neighborhood 530 1,010 1,010 1,100 Northern Gateway Suburban Center 0 120 120 140 Dixon 5,860 1,390 1,680 1,940 Fairfield 34,480 11,960 12,520 14,420 Downtown South (Jefferson Street) Suburban Center 600 380 910 950 Fairfield-Vacaville Train Station Transit Town Center 90 6,510 6,510 6,820 North Texas Street Core Mixed-Use Corridor 1,600 1,880 1,880 1,970 West Texas Street Gateway Mixed-Use Corridor 1,020 2,590 2,590 2,720 Rio Vista 3,450 1,420 1,900 2,330 Suisun City 8,920 1,360 1,180 1,500 Downtown & Waterfront Transit Town Center 1,090 1,190 1,190 1,240 Vacaville 31,090 4,940 1,430 9,950 Allison Area Suburban Center 550 140 570 590 Downtown Transit Town Center 220 750 750 780 Vallejo 40,560 5,490 5,320 5,780 Waterfront & Downtown Suburban Center 980 870 870 910 Solano County Unincorporated 6,710 990 5,640 1,340 Sonoma County Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth Cloverdale 3,180 960 1,040 1,090 Downtown/SMART Transit Area Transit Town Center 1,040 810 900 940 Cotati 2,980 460 470 540 Downtown and Cotati Depot Transit Town Center 830 450 450 470 Healdsburg 4,380 860 980 1,080 Petaluma 21,740 2,800 2,800 2,800 Central, Turning Basin/Lower Reach Suburban Center 750 1,610 1,610 1,760 Rohnert Park 15,810 2,870 3,210 3,490 Sonoma Mountain Village Suburban Center 200 2,140 2,140 2,350 Santa Rosa 63,590 15,170 18,150 22,620 Downtown Station Area City Center 2,080 1,220 6,860 7,540 Mendocino Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 6,910 1,590 4,280 4,670 Sebastopol Road Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 2,750 3,250 3,250 3,560 North Santa Rosa Station Suburban Center 3,940 3,350 3,350 3,660 Sebastopol 3,280 480 520 600 Nexus Area Transit Town Center 1,150 200 500 520 Sonoma 4,960 520 520 520 Windsor 8,970 1,330 1,360 3,930 Redevelopment Area Suburban Center 2,040 1,290 1,290 1,350 Sonoma County Unincorporated 56,950 7,640 8,330 8,940 8th Street East Industrial Area Employment Center 80 20 20 20 Airport/Larkfield Urban Service Area Suburban Center 2,850 1,110 1,250 1,380 Penngrove Urban Service Area Rural Town Center 630 670 670 730 The Springs Rural Mixed-Use Corridor 6,580 1,680 1,680 1,810 May 27,2011 Ezra Rapport, Executive Director Association of Bay Area Oovelllments P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, CA 94604-2050 ~~ity" of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Re: Initial Vision Scenario for Sustainable Communities Strategy Dear Mr. Rapport: On behalf of the City Manager and City of Palo staff, we appreciate the opportunity to respond to One Bay Area's Initial Vision Scenario, released on March I 1,2011. City staff has reviewed the document with the City Council and with the Planning and Transportation Commission, and has prepared the preliminary responses below. We expect to visit with the Council again on June 27, 2011, and will then forward an updated letter from the Mayor and Council. The City of Palo Alto generally SUppOltS the intent and concepts of concentrating development (employment and housing) near transit stations or along transit corridors throughout the Bay Area, including around Caltrain stations and along El Camino Real on the Peninsula, qualified by the provision of adequate and enhanced transit service in those conidors. The City also SUppOltS the provision of affordable housing in the region, and has been a leader in that realm, despite the high cost of hOllsing in the region, particularly in Santa Clara County and Palo Alto. The City further recognizes that it plays a role in assisting the region in meeting greenhouse gas (OHO) emission reduction goals, as well as many other fiscal and social benefits of compact development. The City believes that it has modeled many of these principles in the past and continues to do so. The Initial Vision Scenario (IVS), however, offers a plan that is highly unrealistic and in some ways contrary to many of those goals. The City of Palo Alto has several key concellls with the IVS and requests that the regional planning group substantially modify the plan in its subsequent iterations to address these issues: I. The Sustainable Communities Strategy and future aitelllative scenarios should recognize that Palo Alto is a key employment center on the Peninsula and in the Bay Area. Employment analyses should consider: a) the nature and extent of jobs in Palo Alto (high percentage of technology professionals), b) the desire of technology firms to locate in and near Palo Alto (proximity to Stanford, Palo Alto amenities, Caltrain stops, the synergy of industry innovators, and high quality schools), and c) the benefits of jobs being located close to transit. According to Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) studies, jobs close to transit generate at least twice the rate of transit use than housing near transit (see attached chart). A greater focus on locating jobs near transit is likely to produce significant benefits for OHO reduction. Planning 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 Printed with soy-b~scd inks on 100% recycled paper pruc€~sed without chlorine Transportation 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2520 650.617.3108 Building 285 Hamilton Avenue PO. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2496 650.329.2240 2. The Initial Vision Scenario is expected to result in only a 2% decrease per capita in GHG emissions for the region by 2035 (l0% under the "Current Regional Plans" scenario v. 12% under the IVS). The public is likely to ask "why is the IVS preferred over the existing planning scenario and is it worth the extent of change to accommodate such a minor reduction in GHG?" The Sustainable Communities Strategy must more directly address the location of employment near transit, move away from a jurisdiction-specific approach, and should also focus on other strategies, such as pricing, to achieve more meaningful GHG benefits. 3, The Initial Vision Scenario (and therefore ultimately the Sustainabk Communities Strategy) is based on housing increases and employment projections largely derived from the State of California and modified by ABAG and MTC, The models for projecting these fundamental housing and jobs figures should be thoroughly vetted by third parties to reflect many of the realities of tile present and future, including economic trends and limiting constraints such as land cost and availability, needed infrastructure, and diminishing capacity for schools and other public services. 4. The Initial Vision Scenario docs not provide a realistic evaluation of future employment increases in Palo Alto. The IVS shows an increase of slightly less than 5,000 new jobs in Palo Alto, when the City already has plans in the process or approved (Stanford Medical Center, downtown offices, remaining capacity in the Stanford Research Park, pending occupancy of I million square feet of vacant space in the Research Park, etc,) that would account for nearly that many jobs by 2020, 5. The construction of housing in Palo Alto is highly constrained by multiple factors, including but not limited to: a) the high cost and limited availability of l.and, b) traffic congestion, c) capacity of the Palo Alto Unified School District, and d) community services, Attached is a January 9, 2008 letter from Mayor Klein to ABAG objecting to the City's most recent Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which letter outlined many of those concems and others. 6. The IVS and SCS and the upcoming RHNA methodology also rely heavily on ABAG's 2009 projections, which already overstate the potential housing growth in Palo Alto, as outlined in the attached 20081ctter. The SCS should provide an opportunity to move away from a city- specific approach (based on household formation) to regional and subregional growth patlerns that better distinguish between employment centers and housing nodes and the means to connect the two with transit, bicycling, walking andfor shOlier vehicle tlips. The employment and housing linkage should be evalualCd more dynamically, as appropriate locations for each are not limited by jurisdictional boundaries. 7, The housing growth estimates are highly overestimated and unrealistic. The potential increase of 11,990 households (HH) over the 20]0-2035 timeframe represents an average increase of 4S0 Hll per year, whereas the City has produced approximately 200 housing units per year over the past 14 years, during a "boom" housing market. And as housing has grown, land resources, school capacity and other services have decreased, so that it is extremely difficult to imagine even that level of growth continuing through 2035. The City believes that the Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) analysis (below) indicates that the IVS overestimates the potential household growth by at least 100%. Page 2 Letter to Ezra RapP0l1: May 25, 2011 8. At least half of the potential housing increases in Palo Alto are shown in areas that are now populated primarily with single-family land uses and zoning, lands which are not available or appropliate for intensification. The Sustainable Communities Strategy should be designed to strengthen existing communities, but implementation of the IVS would be contrary to that purpose. Any increases in housing growth should be limited to the City's identified Priority Development Area (PDA) and Growth Opportunity Areas (OOAs). 9. Any expectations of growth foJ' the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) must be Lied to the provision of adequate transp0l1ation, and particularly transit, infrastructure. Policies of the SCS should emphasize this connection. 10. Any estimates of future growth in housing and jobs must clearly delineate what is generated on the Stanford University campus (apalt from the medical center and research park). These areas are wholly within the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County. According to a tri-party agreement between the City, Stanford and the County, no part of the campus may be annexed to the City of Palo Alto, unlike many areas adjacent to other cities, where the County encourages annexations. The housing needs of the Stanford campus should not be assigned to the City of Palo Alto. I!. The City's T AZ analysis indicates several errors, omissions, and understatements of employment potential. Additionally, several of the TAZs encompass areas pattly in other jurisdictions, so it is difficult to gauge precisely how much the Palo Alto jobs numbers are understated. Some of the City's specific concerns include the following: a. The employment growth totals conflict with (nre considerably less than) the sum of growth in the TAZs. The total employment growth for the TAZs wholly in Palo Alto amounts to 5,916 jobs, which exceeds the 4,860 jobs listed in the IVS. This docs not include any Palo Alto jobs in the 12 TAZs shared with other jutisdictions. b. TAZ 355 includes the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) and Stanford Shopping Center, but shows only an increase of 1,290 jobs. The cun'ent SUMC expansion, near approval by the City Council, entails over 2,000 additional jobs in itself, and future growth of the Shopping Center is expected as well. c. T AZs 348 and 349 include the Stanford Research Park, and show an increase of 764 employees through 2035. With buildout of anything near the 700,000 square feet of additional space in the Resenrch Pnrk, however, employment increases would be ex.pected closer to 2,500 jobs for this area. d. TAZ 365 is a smaJi area shared by Palo AllO and Mountain View, but shows 859 employees in areas that are generally zoned for single-family residential. e. T AZ 360 shows employment growth of 579 employees, which again appears overstllted, since the aren is zoned for and occupied by single-family homes. 12. The City's TAZ analysis indicates several errors, omissions, and overstatements of housing potential. Additionally, several of the TAZs encompass areas pattly in other jurisdictions, so it is difficult to gauge precisely how much the Palo Alto housing numbers are overstated. Some of the City's specific concerns include the following: a. Housing in TAZs 351, 359, 360 and 363 is highly overstated, with a total of 5,720 new households (almost half of the total for Palo Alto) in areas that are almost entirely single-family residential neighborhoods and zoned accordingly. Page 3 .J anuary 9, 2008 ABAG Executive Board Cio Henry Gardner, Secretary -Treasurer Association of Bay Area Governments PO. Box 2050 Oakland, CA 94604-2050 Dear Mr. Gardner: ~!tySl(l?91~A!~~ Department of Planning and Communjty Environment The City of Palo Alto thanks you for providing us with the opportunity to review and comment on the revised Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which was adopted by the ABAG Executive Board on November 15, 2007. The City acknowledges ABAG's modification to Palo Alto's RHNA to address the City's Sphere of Iniluence circwnstance with the County.of Santa Clara and Stanford University. However, our City Council, the Planning and Transportation Commission and staff have all detennined that the RHNA of 2,860, even after the reduction of 645 units, is completely unachievable in Palo Alto given the lack of available land, the high cost of land acquisition, and the impacts of that amount of growth on the City's neighborhoods and infrastructure. setting these requirements that cannot be achieved threatens the credibility and viability of important public institutions and becomes simply an exercise'in futility. . Palo Alto has an extensive and long history of leading and implementing affordable housing in an area highly impacted by the high cost of housing. We. were the first to implement inc1usionary zoning in this region and Palo Alto Housing Corporation was established back in 1970 as a non-profIt affordable housing provider. Although the ,Ciiyof Palo Alto has adopted zoning and programs supporting core concepts behind the al1ocation method such as smart growth, infill development, protection of open space and rura) areas,restricting urban sprawl, and transit oriented development, there should be a reasonable eiqiectatioil of success in meeting goals when assigning allocations to cities. .. .... . Factors such as essential irifi;aslruCture needs nnd service rcquit~fi1~Jij!".a)sol)e~d to be taken into consideration. Many components of the City's infrastructure ,ate'cah~~dy at capacity and another critical factor is the capacity limitations of the Palo Alto UIlified School Di.,tric!. The current school population has already pushed the present facilities beyond capacity so that every elementary school now has multiple portables. Students from an additional 2,860 housing Units simply cannot be accommodated with'the existiijg<faciHties ~hd budget. Given that the'school . district is at capacity, and there isnbavailable funding to· accommodate the increased student . population from the allocation, these requirements would amount to an unfimded mandate for Palo Alto, Planning 25U Hamilton Avenue P.O, B DX to25() Palo Alto, CA 94303 6..'0.329.2441 65i),329.2154 Transportation 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 943()3 650.329.2520 650,617,3108 Building 285 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329,2496 650,329,2240 Mr. Henry Gardner Page 20f4 January 9, 2008 As staff has indicated previously in transmittals to ABAG, the population and household growth projections for Palo Alto will not be realized and should be adjusted to reflect a population growth rate of approximately 3.0 % over the next RHNA period within our jurisdictional boundary. ABAG's Projections 2007 assumes a population growth rate of approximately 7% during the next 7 years in our jurisdictional boundary. Historically, the City of Palo Alto's population has grown only by approximately 4.7% over the last thirty years. We understand that the methodology uses Sphere of Influence population projections but we believe that the population trend within our Sphere of Influence is proportional to the historic jurisdictional boundary population trends. Although the City has experienced a growth rate of approximately 8% during the last seven years, this has been a period when Palo Alto has constructed significant new housing development well in excess of historic averages and that rate cannot be sustained given Palo Alto's limited land availability and redevelopment potential. Therefore, iI's very likely that the City's population growth will remain far below ABAG's projections since it will be very difficult for Palo Alto to continue the housing development it has experienced in the last seven years. During the last RHNA period, the City's population growth was largely attributable to a single development of approximately 1,000 units on the City's only remaining vacant large residential site. This City'S housing growth occurred during a temporary period of substantial declin~ in the market for commercial development and increasing demand for housing. Taking this anomaly and extrapolating this into the future is not appropriate. By using its own overestimated Projections 2007 population numbers, the RHNA methodology compounds this error by assigning a 45% weight to the population projections that ABAG itself created. This logic appears circular in that the driver behind this growth appears to be the mandate from ABAG. Additionally, the City should receive credit in this RHNA cycle for the 1,036 units that were built during that last RHNA period that exceeded the City's assigned allocation. The City exceeded its above moderate allocation by 1,282 units and its low allocation by 14 units with a deficit of 51 units in the very low category and 208 in the moderate category, Palo Alto has also protected and retained existing units that arc more affordable and should receive further credit to offset the City's RHNA requirements. The City also continues to oppose the inclusion of an additional Transit Oliented Development (TOO) factor in the allocation methodology to the extent that it would disproportionately assign housing to cities like Palo Alto that have shown a commitment to TOD, in effect penalizing cities that have developed smart growth policies. Additional growth requirements for built out cities like Palo Alto should be predominantly TOD housing, not the core ABAG allocation plus TOD housing. The emphasis of transit use in the methodology is unrealistic at least for Palo Alto. Transit at the University and California Avenue stations is used more emciently by commuters and not Mr. Henry Gardner Page 3 of 4 January 9, 2008 so ef[lcienlly by residents; many more people take transit TO Palo Alto than FROM Palo Alto. A greatcr concentration of jobs in the vicinity of transit will promote mass transit in Palo Alto mO]'e effectively than the concentration of housing. FurthemlOrc, Palo Alto has been assigned additional units based on transit access from the San Antonio Avenue station. However, this station is located in and serves primarily Mountain View, not Palo Alto. Also, Caltrain only services the San Antonio Caltrain station once per hour during rush hours further reducing its TOO effectiveness. Palo Alto has promoted smart growth in its Comprehensive Plan policies and its Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (P1'OD) zoning all in the midst of VTA reducing bus services to Palo Alto neighborhoods and with little or' no proj ected additional funding for transit to support the TOO aspects ofRHNA. However, Palo Alto's diligence and success in implementing smart growth policies appear to have led ABAG to assume that the City has no limit to further intensifying with infill development. Given the RHNA mandate to provide housing for all income levels, it is impossible for the City to provide the 1,875 nnits assigned for below market rate income levels. Palo Alto prioritized affordable housing as one of the City'S top five goals and built over 90 percent of the City's very low and low income housing allocation for the last RHNA cycle. However, the current RHNA methodology uses 2000 Census income distribution data for allocating housing based on afford ability, and does not reflect the City's success in building affordable housing over the last seven years. Instead, the current methodology allocated more affordable housing to Palo Alto compared to the region as a whole. Additionally, due to the extraordinary cost of land in Palo Alto, all very low and low income rental housing that has been developed recently bas required signi1icant City subsidy. The cost of low and very low income projects in Palo Alto are averaging $400,000 to $500,000 per unit. Recently the City has had to subsidize approximately 50% of the project cost for most low income and very low income projects .. This is in large part due to the exorbitant land costs in Palo Alto which average $10 million an acre but have been as high as $16 million an acre. In order to develop the assigned 1,234 units of low and very low income housing under current funding conditions, the City would be expected to provide a subsidy of approximately $245 to $310 million, which is clearly unrealistic and unattainable as the City struggles to maintain revenues adequate to support basic services to its residents and businesses. Given state subsidy restrictions, and because of the high land costs in Palo Alto, moderate income units are achieved only through the City's inc1usionary zoning program, which requires 15 -20% afford ability. As a result, approximately 70% of the ABAG allocation would need to be subsidized by Palo Alto. In order to provide the assigned 641 moderate income level units, the City would have to develop 3,205 -4,272 market rate units. The high cost to the City of providing this housing as well as supporting services and facilities, schools, transit and parks, is an unfunded state mandate. There may also be insufficient water resources available to serve this additional popUlation. Until there is state Mr. HeillY Gardner Page4of4 January 9, 2008 subsidy available for affordable units, identifying adequate sites to meet proposed RHNA housing for lower income levels in communities like Palo Alto win be a paper exercise. The City requests that you confirm that the job growth anticipated with the proposed Stanford Shopping Center and Medical Facility expansions are included in ABAG's projections for the City's job b'l"Owth for the 2007-2014 period, and the City will not be assigned these jobs a second time in a future RHNA regardless of those projects' occupancy dates. Finally, much discussion has occurred about the impact of commute emiSSIOns on climate change. Palo Alto has just concluded a comprehensive climate change impact analysis. A significant finding of that report is that 11 % of Palo Alto's C02 emissions are attributable to trips into Palo Alto. Consequently, the report indicates that even an additional 2,860 units with similar commuting characteristics would impact Palo Alto C02 emissions by less that 0.1 % or l/lOOO'h Palo Alto's total C02 In closing, the City requests that ABAG revise Palo Alto's RHNA to reflect a 3% population growth over the seven-year RHNA period, exclude the San Antonio station from our transit factor, adjust the transit factor to eliminate any "double counting" aml credit the City ",-jth the 1, 036 units the City built in excess of our last RHNA assignment The City also urges ABAG to consider factors such as land costs and availability as well as community needs to provide adequate open space and essential services in developing a realistic RHNA. Given that there was no representative from the 250,000 residents of North Santa Clara County on the Housing Methodology Committee, we were not adequately represented and, therefore, unique factors prevalent in our area were not sufIiciently considered in the ABAG allocations. If ABAG adopts more realistic and achievable RHNA allocation goals, this will enable cities to focus on actually providing adequate housing for a diverse population, a goal strongly supported by the City Council and the Palo Alto community. The City of Palo Alto appreciates your consideration of our appeal of the assigned allocation. Sincerely, -~--z, -_._* . Larry Klein Mayor cc: Paul Fassinger, ABAG Research Director OneBayArea August 15, 2011 Curtis Williams, Dir., PlngJCom. Bnv. Civic Center 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto CA 94301-2503 Re: Sustainable Communities Strategy Process -Initial Vision Scenario Input Dear Mr. Williams: Thank you for your letter regarding the Initial Vision Scenario (NS), and for your ongoing engagement to create the Bay Area's tlrst Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). The Initial Vision Scenario is a starting point in the development of the SCS and MTCI ABAG greatly appreciate your community's involvement in the development of the SCS. The SCS is a long- range strategy for sustainable growth that will be adopted as part of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), also known as Plan Bay Area, in spring 2013. During the past two months the regional agencies have reeeived substantial input from local jurisdictions that will infonn the development of the Bay Area's first SCS. Jurisdictional feedhack and public comment is a primary input into the development of four additional Alternative Scenarios. The Alternative Scenarios will provide MTCI ABAG with varied land development patterns and supportive transportation packages that will lead to the development of a Preferred Scenario slated for adoption in spring 2012. We arc providing you below an overview of the ongoing tasks related to the SCS scenarios as well as the related efforts: the Regional Housing Need Allocation and the One Bay Area Grant. I. From the Initial Vision Scenario to the Alternative Scenarios Initial V'lSwn Scenario On March II, 2011 MTC/ABAG released the Initial Vision Scenario to open the dialogue on the Sustainable Communities Strategy. This was an unconstrained, long-range land development and transportation scenario that assumed strong regional economic growth and resources for housing production, expanded transit service, and tlnancing for neighborhood development and infrastructure. This scenario proposeda future land use pattem driven by Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Growth Opportunity Areas and their locally designsted place types. This land use pattern resulted in some success relative to adopted perfonnance targets but additional work on employment distribution and transportation strategies and funding remained to be done. Regional agencies presented the Initial Vision Scenario before local eleeted officials, planning directors, and Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs). Similarly, local planning directors have presented this scenario to their respective boards and councils. We have been gathering input through those presentations, meetings with the Regional Advisory Working Group and stakeholders groups, county-level Basecamp sites where local staff can share ideas about the SCS, as well as through letters, additional meetings, and phone calls. Public workshops were held throughout our nine-county region. Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter 101 Eighth Street Oakland. C.4 94607-4700 The Bay Area is a large, complex region with diverse communities and sub-regions. Jurisdictional responses to the Initial Vision Scenario in many ways reflect the unique characteristics of the region's communities. Nonetheless, a number of common themes have emerged. Some communities described the level of housing growth depicted in the IVS as too high, while other jurisdictions responded that IVS housing growth levels would be appropriate if funding for redevelopment, public schools, transit and other community infrastructure were available. Some communities provided specific information about growth in a particular area of their community. Many communities indicated that the Bay Area's first Sustainable Communities Strategy should advance a vibrant economy and strong growth for the region. IVS responses from multiple jurisdictions included the following; • Housing growth levels are not feasible given current market constraints and funding availability • Infill development challenges require capital investments and supportive policies • The SCS should reward cOmn:lunities that advance focused growth • Transit service cuts and the loss of redevelopment agencies will impede focused growth • Employment totals are too high given past performance and the depth of the recession • The SCS should provide CEQA benefits for projects in PDAs • Air District and BCDC requirements should be aligned with the SCS • Employment growth should be aligned with existing and planned transit • Transit-served, infill areas that have not been nominated by local communities as PDAs should take on comparable levels of growth • The SCS should support and enhance the Bay Area's economic growth and vitality Alternative Scenarios In July, ABAG's Executive Board and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission approved a framework for four Alternative Scenarios that along with the IVS will be used to inform the development of a Preferred Scenario. The Preferred Scenario will serve as the basis for a draft Sustainable Communities Strategy. Under SB375, the adopted SCS must be a based on a forecasted land use pattern that utilizes reasonable planning assumptions. In addition to the Initial Vision Scenario, a second "unconstrained" scenario, Core Concentration will be developed that identifies areas within the region that could potentially meet the region's total housing need through 2040 while meeting other performance measures related to the economy and sustainable growthfor our region's communities. Regional agency staff has not yet completed sufficient analysis to identify the level of pubiic resources require<l'to implement such a strategy, but our preliminary assessment indicates that it may exceed a reasonable forecast. The remaining three scenarios-Focused Growth, Core Concentration-Constrained, and Outer Bay Area-are based on an assessment of economic growth, financial feasibility, and reasonable planning strategies. These assumptions rnay result in lower regional future housing and employment growth through 2040 compared to the IVS. These scenarios will be developed to get as close to the region's total housing need as possible. They are informed by the input provided by local jurisdictions and the regional criteria established by place type. The scenarios will consider various options for the distribution of employment in the region, particularly relative to housing and transit. Alternative Scenario Land Use Patterns Focused Growth Scenario 2 This scenario will maximize the potential ofPriorily Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas across the region with an emphasis on growth along major transit corridors and near employment centers, Core Concentration-Constrained Scenario This scenario builds upon the pattern ·of growth outlined in the Focused Growth Scenario, but shifts additional growth toward PDAs in the Inner Bay Area, to take advantage of the region's core transit network Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario This scenario will also build upon the Focused Growth Scenario, but will incorporate a regional employment analysis to address higher levels of growth in the Outer Bay Area than in the Focused Growth Scenario or Core Concentration -Constrained Scenario. Transportation assumptions The Alternative Scenario land development patterns will be supported by transportation scenarios that will vary the level of funding for "fix-it-first" maintenance, transit capacity improvements, rOadway improvements, and bike/pedestrian funding. fuJ.\!in' Regional agency staff has worked with the Regional Equity Working Group and MTC's Policy Advisory Council to develop inputs to the Alternative Scenarios that will increase access to opportunities and an improved quality of life for residents from all income categories in communities throughout the region. Social equity as well as economic growth and environmental sustainability are promoted through the emphasis on encouraging growth in complete communities served by transit. In addition, each of the alternative scenarios will also distribute growth in a way that ensures each jurisdiction is planning to accommodate a minimum percent of its expected household growth. Factors related to transit service, employment, and net low- income commuters to a jurisdiction will also inform the alternative scenario housing distributions. II. From the Alternative Scenarios to the Preferred Scenario Regional Agency Staff are currently developing the Alternative Scenarios described above. The draft Alternative Scenario land development patterns will include housing and employment distributions at the county, jurisdictional, PDA/Growth Opportunity Area and Travel Analysis Zone levels. Localjurisdictional staff participating in ceunty-Ievel online Basecamps established for the SCS process will have the opportunity to access and comment on the draft Alternative Scenario land development patterns, The dnlft land-use scenarios are slated for release on August 26,2011. . During September 2011 MIC will be developing and refining transportation scenarios to support the draft land-use scenarios and will subsequently assess the performance of each Alternative Scenario relative to the regionally adopted performance targets. The Alternative Scenarios will be released with narrative information, maps, and the performance analysis in October 20]1. The Alternative Scenarios and related performance analysis will be discussed among local jurisdictions and regional agencies to select the draft Preferred Scenario. This draft Preferred Scenario then will be revised for fmaladoption by February 2012. We expect input from local jurisdictions' elected officials and planning staff on this process, We will request that to the extent possible planning directors present the Alternative and Preferred Scenarios before their councils to gather their input. These are the two upcoming input periods to define the Preferred Scenario: 3 • Review of Alternative Scenarios and Selection of the Preferred Scenario: Septemher- November 2011 • Review of Preferred Scenario before adoption: Novemher 2011 -February 2012 A conwrehensive PlanBayArea timeline may be found at: http://www.onebayare!\.grg/planhayarea/process.htm m. Consistency between the SCS and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is a state mandate .that requires each community to plan for its share of the state's housing need, for people at all income levels. The most recent R1lNA covers the seven·yearperiod from 2007-2014. It is ABAG's responsibility to distribute this need to local governments in the Bay Area. SB375 requires that the short-term housing allocation plan for R1lNA is consistent with the long- term land development pattern encompassed in the SCS. To promote this consistency, the methodology for the 2015-2022 R1lNA period will be based on the growth pattern in the Preferred Scenario of the SCS. Since January 2011, members of the SCS HouSing Methodology Committee (HMC), comprised oflocal staff, poJicyrnakers and stakeholder group representatives, . has been discussing and refining the conceptual framework for allocating a portion of the region's total housing need to each jurisdiction in the region. Proposed Methodology ConceptuaIFrmnework The R1lNA methodology consists of several major steps, including detennining a jurisdiction's total R1lNA, identifying the share of the jurisdiction's total RHNA in each income category, and adjusting ajurisdiction's total R1lNA for areas included in its Sphere of influence. In developing the R1lNA methodology, staff and the HMC have identified two components that would be us.ed together to assign total housing need to local jurisdictions. The first is the "Sustainability Component" that incorporates the PDAs and Growth Opportunity Areas. The second is the "Fair Share Component" that seeks to ensure that each jurisdiction in the region shares responsibility for accommodating the region's housing need. Detailed information on the R1lNA Methodology Conceptual Framework may be found by locating the 7/21/11 agenda, Item #10 at: www.abag.ca.gov/meetings/exec.board.html. IV. One Bay Area Grant For the past several years, MTC and ABAG have worked in collaboration with our local agency partners, congestion management agencies, transit agencies, foundations, development professionals, and equity and environmental stakeholders to advance the development of the region's varied and unique neighborhoods as complete communities. One key message that we have heard, particularly from local jurisdictions in response to the Initial Vision Scenario, is that communities taking on focused growth need support. In July, 201 J MTC released the OneBayArea grant proposal for public review and discussion. Regional agency staff is proposing an alternative to the current framework for distributing Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds effective l\1arch, 2012. The proposed framework would better integrate the region's federal transportation program with land-use and housing policies by providing incentives for new housing starts and supportive transportation investments in Bay Area Communities. Funding for the OneBay Area grant program is the result of merging many existing programs into a single flexible grant program and represents a roughly 70 percent increase in the funding distributed to the counties. The OneBay Area Grant supports Priority Development Area and Growth 4 Opportunity Areas while also offering flexibility to fund tl'lUlllportation needs in other areas. Detailed infonnation on the OneBayArea grant may be found at: http://www.mte.ca.gov/funding/onebayareaJ Again, thank you very much for your feedback on theInitial Vision Scenario. We appreciate your engagement in the development of this first Sustainable Communities Strategy in the Bay Area. These are challenging times. However, working together we believe our region will continue to elevate its role as a global center of inoovation, economic vitality and environmental stewardship. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Sailaja Kurella, ABAG RegionalPlanner, at 510.464.7597 or sailaiak@abag.ca.gov. Regards, Doug Kimsey Ken Kirkey MTC Planning Director ABAG Executive Director 00: Palo Alto City Clerk 5 City of Palo Alto (ID # 1741) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 7/11/2011 July 11, 2011 Page 1 of 9 (ID # 1741) Council Priority: {ResProject:ClearLine} Summary Title: Response to Initial Vision Scenario Title: Update of SB 375/Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and Direction on City’s Preliminary Response to Regional Agencies, and Update of Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Process From:City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council provide input regarding the Initial Vision Scenario and revisions to staff’s letter response to the regional agencies. Executive Summary On March 14, 2011, staff updated the City Council regarding the status of the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). On May 4, 2011, staff updated the Planning and Transportation Commission regarding the SCS and the Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) proposed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for the SCS for the Bay Area is intended to accommodate an additional 903,000 housing units and 1.2 million jobs from 2010 to 2035. The goal of the IVS, formulated by staff of ABAG and MTC, is to create development patterns and a transportation network that would result in reductions of per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 7% by 2020 and 15% by 2035. The IVS would anticipate a total of 12,000 new households and almost 5,000 new jobs being created over that time period. Staff has developed a letter outlining the City’s serious concerns about the IVS, including the need to address job growth near transit to achieve GHG emission reductions, as well as highly unrealistic housing assumptions, the lack of consideration of numerous constraints to growth, and the lack of supportive infrastructure, particularly including transit, to accommodate such extensive levels of development. The Council will provide input to the letter to provide the City’s official comments on the IVS. The regional agencies expect to prepare 3-5 alternative scenarios for analysis in the next month, and then to release those for review by cities and July 11, 2011 Page 2 of 9 (ID # 1741) counties in the region. A preferred alternative is expected for release in early 2012 and the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area region is to be finalized by early 2013. Background On March 14, 2011, staff updated the City Council regarding the status of the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The staff report providing that information is included as Attachment H to this staff report. At the same meeting, staff provided an overview of the Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for the SCS, which had been released on the prior Friday (March 11). The document was prepared jointly by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The supplemental information for the IVS was outlined in a memo to Council on the day of the meeting and is included as Attachment G to this staff report. The Council’s immediate reaction to the Initial Vision Scenario was that it clearly does not recognize the constraints on Palo Alto in providing for new housing, and was equally inadequate at representing the accurate potential for employment growth. Council indicated that the City’s initial reaction should be at a “big picture” level, and that tweaking the details of the plan would not be a meaningful change. On April 14th, the regional agencies and several environmental groups sponsored a forum to discuss the IVS, at which approximately a dozen (of about 100 total) attendees were from Palo Alto. In reality, however, the discussion entailed only a very general look at preferences in urban form and transportation for the region, and did not help illuminate issues of specific concerns to cities and counties. Staff understands that there will be additional forums for more specific input, and will let the Council and community know when those are scheduled. The regional agencies have been receiving preliminary responses from cities and counties in late May and into June. The agencies have also received input at a number of meetings with planning and transportation officials and with other stakeholders, providing input to the development of alternative scenarios to be considered in the process. On May 4th, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) considered this background and update and provided suggestions for topics to address in a letter response from the City to ABAG and MTC. These suggestions were incorporated into a letter (Attachment A) sent on May 25, 2011, and copied to the City Council. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Methodology Committee, of which Councilmember Scharff is a member, has met several times now as well,and the Committee’s progress is outlined below in the Discussion section. Please also note that Attachment N provides a Glossary of Acronyms and Terms related to the regional planning process. Discussion July 11, 2011 Page 3 of 9 (ID # 1741) Initial Vision Scenario The Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) for the Bay Area is intended to accommodate an additional 903,000 housing units and 1.2 million jobs from 2010 to 2035. The goal of the IVS, formulated by staff of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), is to create development patterns and a transportation network that would result in reductions of per capita GHG emissions by 7% by 2020 and 15% by 2035. The IVS attempts to do so by assigning “place types” (“transit town center,” “mixed use corridor,” etc.), that reflect Priority Development Areas (PDAs) nominated by cities and counties, plus “growth opportunity areas” (GOAs) identified but not quantified by local jurisdictions. ABAG and MTC indicate that the growth included in the PDAs and GOAs accounts for approximately 70% of regional growth through 2035. The remaining 30% of the growth was allocated to cities relative to each city’s household growth anticipated in ABAG’s Projections 2009. ABAG and MTC indicate that they believe the housing projections from the State are high, given historical trends and the recent economy, and that those numbers will be adjusted downward, perhaps substantially (though they do not indicate when). ABAG and MTC also acknowledge that the IVS does not adequately address the distribution of jobs, so that there is not a similar relationship for employment to either PDAs or to transit access. Attachment B is a summary table of the household and job totals and growth for Santa Clara County and each city within the county. An overview of the IVS is included as an attachment to the March 14, 2011 supplement (Attachment G) and the entire document is available for viewing at: http://www.onebayarea.org/plan_bay_area/. Adequacy of Place Types “Place types” are outlined on pages 13-18 in the Initial Vision Scenario (and are shown in the presentation materials in Attachment G). For Palo Alto, staff identified the California Avenue PDA as a “Transit Neighborhood,” identified downtown as a “Transit Town Center” growth opportunity area, and identified the El Camino corridor as a “Mixed Use Corridor.” Staff considered identifying downtown as an “Employment Center,” but did not since that place type seemed to exclude residential development entirely, and would seem more appropriate for a research park type of area. The maps included as Attachment E identify growth scenarios for “Transportation Analysis Zones” (TAZs) in Palo Alto and, in some cases, overlapping with other jurisdictions. These TAZs are used by the City, VTA, ABAG and others to analyze land use and transportation distributions for mapping and modeling purposes. It is fairly clear from these maps that the California Avenue PDA, downtown and the El Camino Corridor are locations noted for some substantive growth over the next 25 years. Staff has concluded that the place types identified for Palo Alto are probably okay, but they reflect increased growth over the density estimates that the City provided. ABAG has acknowledged that, to meet the overall growth targets, estimates from staff in most cities were increased. July 11, 2011 Page 4 of 9 (ID # 1741) The growth in the PDAs and GOAs shown in the Initial Vision Scenario amount to about 70% of the total Bay Area growth through 2035. Additional housing was then dispersed among the cities outside of place types to achieve the desired totals. Of concern to staff is that, for most cities, the growth in PDAs and GOAs ranges from 60-80% of the city’s total growth estimates. In Palo Alto, however, the PDA and GOAs account for only 45% of the total growth, which means that extensive housing growth (55% of the total) was identified for areas outside those designated areas. Attachment B indicates that total housing growth increases in Palo Alto are similar to those in several other Santa Clara County cities. But Attachment F compares Palo Alto growth estimates outside the PDAs and GOAs to other cities, showing a significant burden on Palo Alto to provide more housing in areas without sufficient available land and in conflict with goals to provide housing close to transit and services. The subsequent analyses indicate that many of these growth areas are within existing single-family neighborhoods. ABAG has since indicated that the growth was not intended to be specific to residential TAZs, but should be located wherever it is best accommodated, such as in the PDAs or GOAs (though those are already beyond their capacity). Housing and Employment Trends Analysis Attachment C includes tables that compare ABAG’s 2007 and 2009 jobs, housing, and population projections with those outlined in the Initial Vision Scenario. The first table shows a significant decrease in jobs over time, reflecting the general decline in employment in the region since 2001 and the severe economic decline in recent years. The IVS expects a growth of 5,000 jobs in Palo Alto from 2010-2035. There is, however, a substantial increase in housing shown over that same period, a total of 11,990 households. This would comprise an average increase of 480 households per year, whereas the City has produced approximately 200 housing units per year over the past 14 years, during a “boom” housing market. Staff believes this is an unrealistic rate of growth,particularly given the limited land resources and multiple other constraints. Analysis by Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Staff has analyzed the data from the Initial Vision Scenario by TAZ (Attachment E shows the TAZs). There are 25 TAZs that encompass the IVS for Palo Alto. Thirteen (13) of those are entirely within the city limits, and another 12 are shared with other jurisdictions. The fact that a number of the TAZs are shared makes it difficult to be conclusive about any analysis, but there are several observations that are of concern to staff and that were conveyed to the regional agencies: ·Housing Ø Housing in TAZs 351, 359, 360, and 363 are highly overstated, with a total of 5,720 new households (almost half of the total for the City) in areas that are almost entirely single-family residential neighborhoods and zoned accordingly. Ø TAZ 365 is shared with Mountain View, but housing appears to be overstated, with 981 households, though the portion in Palo Alto is again a single-family zoned area. July 11, 2011 Page 5 of 9 (ID # 1741) Ø TAZ 401 includes lands east of Hwy. 101 in Palo Alto and Mountain View, including the Moffett/NASA Ames property. This TAZ includes growth of over 4,000 households, with 2,118 specifically noted in the Moffett area PDA. Thus, it appears that almost 2,000 households would be planned in the E. Bayshore and Baylands area of Palo Alto, clearly an unrealistic figure. Ø TAZ 349 household growth is shown at only 13 households, which is understated, since this area includes Stanford properties subject to the “Mayfield Agreement,” with a minimum of 180 units required of Stanford. ·Employment Ø The total employment growth for the 13 TAZs wholly in Palo Alto amounts to job growth of 5,916 jobs, which exceeds the 4,860 jobs listed for the city in the IVS. This does not include any jobs in the 12 TAZs shared with other jurisdictions. Ø TAZ 355 includes the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) and Stanford Shopping Center, but shows only an increase of 1,290 jobs. The SUMC expansion entails 2,000 additional jobs in itself, so the jobs are substantially understated. Ø TAZs 348 and 349 include the Stanford Research Park, and show an increase of 764 employees through 2035. With buildout of anything near the allowable 700,000 square feet of additional space in the Research Park, however, employment increases would be expected closer to 2,500 jobs for these areas. Ø TAZ 365 is a small area shared by Palo Alto and Mountain View, but shows 859 employees in areas that are generally zoned for single-family residential. Ø TAZ 360 shows employment growth of 579 employees, which again appears overstated, since the area is single-family residential. In summary, staff believes that the TAZ analysis substantially overstates the potential household growth by at least 100%, and that the employment numbers understate the job growth by at least 50%, and perhaps more once a realistic economic projection is produced. Preliminary Response to Regional Agencies Staff has developed and sent a preliminary letter (Attachment A) to ABAG and MTC, outlining the City’s first response to the Initial Vision Scenario. The letter included the following key points, developed by staff after input from the PTC and considering the initial comments of the Council on March 14th: ·The City of Palo Alto in general supports the concepts of concentrating development (employment and housing) near transit stations or along El Camino Real, qualified by the provision of adequate and enhanced transit service in those corridors. The City also supports the provision of affordable housing, and has been a leader in that realm, despite the high cost of housing in the region, the county, and the city. The City further recognizes that it plays a role in assisting the region in meeting GHG emission goals, as well as many other fiscal and social benefits of compact development. ·The City of Palo Alto should be considered a key employment center in Santa Clara County and the Bay Area, and the analysis should consider the type of jobs, the desire of July 11, 2011 Page 6 of 9 (ID # 1741) technology firms to locate here, and the GHG reduction benefits of locating jobs near transit (with reference to MTC and other studies). ·The IVS results in only a minimal decrease (2%) in GHG reductions. More extensive impacts are likely from focusing on jobs near transit or other mechanisms to reduce GHG. (PTC addition) ·The basic growth estimates based on State projections and regional assumptions need to be analyzed by independent experts to produce credible projections or ranges of projections. (PTC addition) ·The Initial Vision Scenario does not provide a reasonable evaluation of future employment increases. The IVS should recognize the City of Palo Alto as a key employment center on the Peninsula and in the Bay Area, and employment analyses should consider a) the nature and extent of jobs in Palo Alto, b) the desire of technology firms to locate in and near Palo Alto (the proximity to Stanford, Palo Alto amenities, Caltrain, industry innovators, and high quality schools), and c) the benefits of jobs being located close to transit (jobs close to transit generate higher transit use than housing near transit). References are provided to a chart from MTC supporting that relationship ·The Sustainable Communities Strategy should be based on a concept of identifying transit commute sheds, such as within the Caltrain corridor and the El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Corridor, in a way that establishes, for example, 30-45 minute thresholds for locating housing and employment centers linked by transit. This would help to move the concept away from a city-by-city scenario to a more subregional approach, allowing job growth where it is most attractive for employers and housing located where available land and costs are more affordable, but allowing for ready transit, bicycle or pedestrian access from housing nodes to employment centers. ·The construction of housing in Palo Alto is highly constrained by multiple factors, including but not limited to the cost of land, traffic, school capacity, and community services. Staff attached the January 9, 2008 letter (Attachment I) from Mayor Klein to ABAG appealing the city’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which outlined many of those concerns. ·The housing growth estimates are severely overestimated and unrealistic, using the overstated 2009 Projections as a starting point. At least half of the potential increases in the IVS are shown in areas that are now populated primarily with single-family land uses and zoning, which are not appropriate for intensification. Any increases in housing should be limited to the identified Planned Development Area and Growth Opportunity Areas. ·Any expectations of growth for the Sustainable Communities Strategy must be tied to provision of adequate transportation, and particularly transit, infrastructure. ·Any scenario for future development should separate Stanford University’s housing impact from that of the City. Those demands for housing should not be assigned as the responsibility of Palo Alto. ·The employment growth totals conflict with (are considerably less than) the sum of growth in the Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs). ·Staff identified the specific TAZ deficiencies discussed above. July 11, 2011 Page 7 of 9 (ID # 1741) The responses reflect comments added by the PTC, particularly for items #2 and 3 in the letter. Staff also suggests reference to the publication “Transit and Jobs in Metropolitan America” in the response item #1 in the letter. Staff requests that the Council provide input and comment to help finalize the City’s response to ABAG and MTC, which would be transmitted over the Mayor’s signature. Planning and Transportation Commission Review The PTC reviewed the Initial Vision Scenario and staff’s suggested responses on May 4, 2011. The PTC generally supported and reiterated staff’s key points. In addition, the PTC recommended that the letter include points to 1) note the minimal decrease in GHG resulting from this scenario, reinforcing the need to look at employment centers near transit and other strategies to achieve greater GHG benefits, and 2) request independent reviews of the demographic, economic, and growth assumptions underlying the preparation of the Initial Vision Scenario (and presumably the alternatives to be evaluated as well). These points were incorporated as items #2 and 3 in the letter. Responses of SCCAPO and Other Local Agencies The Santa Clara County Association of Planning Officials (SCCAPO) has met regularly during the SCS process and has formulated some initial suggestions to the regional agencies (Attachment K). SCCAPO has also compiled a survey of responses from Santa Clara County cities, which has been provided to ABAG and MTC (Attachment L). The County and the cities of Mountain View and Campbell have sent additional responses specific to their communities. Many of the themes were similar to those expressed in the Palo Alto letter, such as the need to better address job growth, the extensive constraints to housing (school capacity, infrastructure needs, traffic, etc.), and the lack of a supportive transportation network to accommodate projected development levels. Not all of the cities are aligned, however, as about half (generally those without transit stations and without extensive new housing expected) did not object to the Initial Vision Scenario. Staff notes that San Jose has, unlike prior projections, objected to the extent of housing envisioned for that city, suggesting a greater jobs allocation to balance its current housing inventory. Alternative Scenarios ABAG and MTC are expected to prepare and release 3-5 “alternative scenarios” for review, likely in July. The alternatives are expected to include variations that: 1) focus more growth in San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose; 2) focus more on job centers near transit and housing with reasonable “commute sheds”; 3) attempt to locate more than 70% of new housing in PDAs or growth opportunity areas; and/or 4) locate more growth in areas not proximate to transit. These concepts may be presented to the ABAG and MTC executive boards in the next couple of weeks for direction. Staff will report to Council and the PTC when something is released. Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Methodology Committee The RHNA Methodology Committee has met several times and has determined that there should be a close link between the housing criteria and the Sustainable Communities Strategy. July 11, 2011 Page 8 of 9 (ID # 1741) The current methodology under review would require each city and county to provide for 1/3 of the 2035 total in each of the three 8-year planning periods during that timeframe. There has also been discussion of “backloading” (given the current economy) to allocate less units in the 2014-2022 period and more in later years. The two primary topics of discussion have been: 1.The examples portrayed begin with the numbers used in the Initial Vision Scenario, which virtually no one buys into; and 2.The methodology generally relies on assuming 70% of the housing is provided in the PDAs and growth opportunity areas, and then various formulas may be used for the remaining 30%, with factors to be considered including prior affordable housing success, access to transit, quality of schools (not quantity), and/or others. Most of those, of course, are not favorable to Palo Alto. The attached memo from ABAG (Attachment M) was discussed at the March 26th meeting and describes some of the various options and implications. There was considerable objection and no consensus among the group. The Committee’s next meeting is on June 24th so staff and Councilmember Scharff can report the latest at the Council meeting. Due to the desire to tie the RHNA more closely to the SCS, the timeframe for the Committee’s work has been extended to September or October, at least. Resource Impacts Review of the Sustainable Community Strategy and Regional Housing Needs Assessment process involves considerable time of the Director of Planning and Community (estimated 20- 40 hours per month) and lesser time for other department staff. There are, however, no direct costs associated with the staff review. Next Steps 1.The Council letter will be forwarded to ABAG and MTC. 2.Staff will return to PTC and Council with updates and recommended actions, if timely, once the Alternative Scenarios are released (expected in July). 3.Staff and Councilmember Scharff will report to Council in September regarding status and progress regarding the RHNA Methodology Committee’s progress. 4.Staff will continue to participate in regional and countywide meetings and report back to PTC and Council. ATTACHMENTS: ·Attachment A: May 25, 2011 Letter to Ezra Rapport (ABAG) Re Initial Vision Scenario(PDF) ·Attachment B: Table 2.4 -Initial Vision Scenario: Household and Job Totals and Growth (PDF) ·Attachment C: ABAG Projections 2007, 2009 and Initial Vision Scenario Comparison (PDF) ·Attachment D: SCS Initial Vision Scenario Household and Employment Analysis per TAZ (PDF) July 11, 2011 Page 9 of 9 (ID # 1741) ·Attachment E: Maps of Initial Vision Scenario Growth (Households and Employment) by TAZ (PDF) ·Attachment F: Graph and Tables 3.2-3.10c -PDA and GOA Growth Re Total Growth (PDF) ·Attachment G: March 14, 2011 Supplemental Staff Memo Re Initial Vision Scenario (PDF) ·Attachment H: March 14, 2011 Staff Report to Council Re Sustainable Communities Strategy Update (PDF) ·Attachment I: January 9, 2008 Letter from Mayor to ABAG Re Appeal of RHNA Determination (PDF) ·Attachment J: Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Excerpt Minutes of May 4, 2011 (PDF) ·Attachment K: June 8, 2011 Letter from Santa Clara County Planning Officials to One Bay Area (PDF) ·Attachment L: Santa Clara County Planning Officials Survey of Responses to Initial Vision Scenario (PDF) ·Attachment M: May 26, 2011 Memo from RHNA Committee (PDF) ·Attachment N: Glossary of Acronyms and Terms (PDF) ·Attachment O: Initial Vision Scenario available at: http://www.onebayarea.org/plan_bay_area/(TXT) Prepared By:Curtis Williams, Director Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY (SB375) GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS AB 32 Assembly Bill 32: The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006; state legislation requiring a statewide reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels or lower by the year 2020. ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments: A voluntary association of counties and cities in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. ABAG provides demographic, financial, administrative, training and conference services to local governments and businesses. A member sits on MTC. ABAG Regional Planning Committee This committee studies and submits matters to the ABAG Executive Board regarding: Plan Bay Area; environmental management, housing, and infrastructure planning; special plans and reports from planning task forces or other regional agencies; comprehensive planning policies and procedures; and such other matters as may be assigned by the Executive Board. Members include a minimum of 18 elected officials, including at least one supervisor from each member county and a city representative from each county, as well as not less than 10 citizens representing business, minority, economic development, recreation/open space, environment, public interest, housing, special districts and labor interests. BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Also known as the Air District, since the acronym seems to take longer to say than the full name): Regulates industry and employers to keep air pollution in check and sponsors programs to clean the air. The Air District also works with MTC, ABAG and BCDC on issues that affect transportation, land use and air quality. Bay Area Partnership Often referred to simply as “The Partnership,” this is a confederation of the top staff of various transportation agencies in the region, including MTC, public transit operators, county congestion management agencies (CMAs), city and county public works departments, ports, Caltrans and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) as well as environmental protection agencies. The Partnership works by consensus to improve the overall efficiency and operation of the Bay Area’s transportation network, including developing strategies for financing transportation improvements. Bay Plan The San Francisco Bay Plan guides policies for future uses of the Bay and its shoreline. The first San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968, and it is periodically updated. The two main objectives are: 1) Protect the Bay as a great natural resource for the benefit of present and future generations, and 2) Develop the Bay and its shoreline to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay filling. BCDC will be releasing a revised recommendation on amendments to the Bay Plan to Sustainable Communities: Glossary   Page  2  prepare for inevitable sea-level rise and storm surges affecting areas on and near the Bay shoreline due to climate change. BCDC San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission: A state-established agency with jurisdiction over dredging and filling of San Francisco Bay and limited jurisdiction over development within 100 feet of the Bay. Call for Projects Regional agencies use this procedure to solicit competing bids from counties, cities, transit agencies, community-based organizations and other stakeholders for projects to be funded as part of long-range plans, such as Transportation 2035 or Plan Bay Area. Caltrans California Department of Transportation: The state agency that maintains and operates California’s highway system. Capital Funds Moneys to cover one-time costs for construction of new projects — such as roads, bridges, bicycle/pedestrian paths, transit lines and transit facilities — to expand the capacity of the transportation system, or to cover the purchase of buses and rail cars. CEQA California Environmental Quality Act: This statute requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. CEQA Guidelines The Air District’s CEQA Guidelines are developed to assist local jurisdictions and lead agencies in complying with the requirements of CEQA regarding potentially adverse impacts to air quality. The primary purpose is to provide a means to identify proposed local plans and development projects that may have a significant adverse effect on air quality and public health. The Air District’s CEQA Guidelines, updated in June 2010, recommend air quality significance thresholds, analytical methodologies and mitigation measures for local agencies to use when preparing air quality impact analyses under CEQA. The updated CEQA Guidelines seek to better protect the health and well-being of Bay Area residents by addressing new health protective air quality standards, exposure to toxic air contaminants, and adverse effects from global climate change. Clean Air Plan At a public hearing on September 15, 2010, the Air District Board of Directors adopted the final Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP), and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report on the CAP. The 2010 CAP serves to update the Bay Area ozone plan in compliance with the requirements of the Chapter 10 of the California Health & Safety Code. In addition, the 2010 Sustainable Communities: Glossary   Page  3  CAP provides an integrated, multi-pollutant strategy to improve air quality, protect public health, and protect the climate. Climate Change Climate change refers to changes in the Earth’s weather patterns, including the rise in the Earth’s average temperature due to an increase in heat-trapping or “greenhouse gases” (GHGs) in the atmosphere. Climate scientists agree that climate change is a man-made problem caused by the burning of fossil fuels like petroleum and coal. Transportation accounts for about 40 percent of the Bay Area’s GHG emissions. Climate change is expected to significantly affect the Bay Area’s public health, air quality and transportation infrastructure through sea level rise and extreme weather. CMAs Congestion Management Agencies: Countywide agencies responsible for preparing and implementing a county’s Congestion Management Program. CMAs came into existence as a result of state legislation and voter approval of Proposition 111 in 1990. Subsequent legislation made them optional. Most Bay Area counties still have them. Many CMAs double as a county’s sales tax authority. CO2 Carbon dioxide: A gas that is emitted naturally through the carbon cycle or through human activities. The largest source of CO2 globally is the combustion of fossil fuels (such as coal, oil and gas) in power plants, automobiles, industrial facilities and other sources. In the Bay Area, the single largest source of CO2 emissions, some 41 percent, comes from transportation sources. Committed Revenues Funds that are directed to a specific entity or for a specific purpose as mandated by statute or by the administering agency. Conformity A process in which transportation plans and spending programs are reviewed to ensure they are consistent with federal clean air requirements; transportation projects collectively must not worsen air quality. Congestion Pricing A policy designed to allocate roadway space more efficiently by charging drivers a fee that varies with the level of traffic on a congested roadway. (See also Value Pricing.) CTC California Transportation Commission: A state-level commission, consisting of nine members appointed by the governor, which establishes priorities and allocates funds for highway, passenger rail and transit investments throughout California. The CTC adopts the State Transportation Improvement Program, or STIP, and implements state transportation policy. Detailed Scenarios Following development of the Initial Vision Scenario, detailed scenarios that account for Sustainable Communities: Glossary   Page  4  available revenues will be developed, analyzed and discussed as part of the Plan Bay Area process. (See also Initial Vision Scenario and Preferred Scenario.) EIR Environmental Impact Report: State law requires that an EIR shall be prepared if there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. A draft EIR shall be included as part of the review and approval process whenever a public hearing is held on the project. Following adoption of a final EIR by the lead agency makes a decision whether to proceed with the project. Environmental Justice This term stems from a Presidential Executive Order to promote equity for disadvantaged communities and promote the inclusion of racial and ethnic populations and low-income communities in decision-making. Local and regional transportation agencies must ensure that services and benefits, as well as burdens, are fairly distributed to avoid discrimination. Equity Analysis Consistent with federal requirements for environmental justice, MTC and ABAG will conduct an equity analysis covering Plan Bay Area to determine how the benefits and burdens of the plan’s investment strategy affect minority and low-income communities. Equity Working Group This Equity Working Group was set up to advise MTC and ABAG staff in developing of an equity analysis related to low income and minority communities of concern for Plan Bay Area. It consists of representatives from MTC’s Policy Advisory Council (PAC) and the Regional Advisory Working Group (RAWG) The group is identifying some of the key issues and challenges for the region to grow equitably to help meet the sustainability goals as Plan Bay Area is developed. (See also Equity Analysis.) Executive Working Group The Executive Working Group — including city managers, congestion management agency directors, regional agency executives, transit officials and others — was formed to provide a forum for input on technical and policy issues surrounding development of Plan Bay Area. The Executive Working Group met on June 7, 2010. Additional meeting times/locations as well as meeting materials will be posted on the OneBayArea website. FHWA Federal Highway Administration: U.S. Department of Transportation agency responsible for administering the federal highway aid program to individual states, and helping to plan, develop and coordinate construction of federally funded highway projects. FHWA also governs the safety of hazardous cargo on the nation’s highways. Financial Constraint A federal requirement that long-range transportation plans include only projects that have a reasonable expectation of being funded, based upon anticipated revenues. In other words, long- range transportation plans cannot be pie-in-the-sky wish lists of projects. They must reflect Sustainable Communities: Glossary   Page  5  realistic assumptions about revenues that will likely be available during the 25 years covered in the plan. Flexible Funding Unlike funding that flows only to highways or only to transit by a rigid formula, this is money that can be invested in a range of transportation projects. Examples of flexible funding categories include the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program. FOCUS A regional planning initiative spearheaded by ABAG in cooperation with MTC, and in coordination with the Air District and BCDC. FOCUS seeks to protect open space and natural resources while encouraging infill development in existing communities (See also PCA and PDA). FPI Freeway Performance Initiative: MTC’s effort to improve the operations, safety and management of the Bay Area’s freeway network via deploying system management strategies, completing the HOV lane system, addressing regional freight issues and closing key freeway infrastructure gaps. FTA Federal Transit Administration: U.S. Department of Transportation agency that provides financial and planning assistance to help plan, build and operate rail, bus and paratransit systems. The agency also assists in the development of local and regional traffic reduction programs. Global Warming See Climate Change. Greenhouse Gases Any of the gases – including carbon dioxide, methane and ozone – whose absorption of solar radiation is responsible for the greenhouse effect, in which the atmosphere allows incoming sunlight to pass through but absorbs heat radiated back from the earth’s surface. Greenhouse gases act like a heat-trapping blanket in the atmosphere, causing climate change. HOV Lane High-Occupancy-Vehicle Lane: The technical term for a carpool lane, commuter lane or diamond lane. Initial Vision Scenario As part of Plan Bay Area, the Initial Vision Scenario articulates the Bay Area’s vision of future land uses and assesses its performance relative to statutory greenhouse gas and housing targets as well as other voluntary performance targets. The Initial Vision Scenario serves as a starting point for the development, analysis and discussion of detailed scenario alternatives that will lead to a preferred scenario by early 2012. Another reason the Initial Vision Scenario is just a starting point is because it is unconstrained by available revenues. (See also Detailed Scenarios and Preferred Scenario.) Sustainable Communities: Glossary   Page  6  JPC Joint Policy Committee: This consortium coordinates the regional planning efforts of ABAG, the Air District, BCDC and MTC. Land Use Model Used by researchers and planners to identify expected population, jobs and housing growth and to understand the interactions between land use, transportation, and the economy. Models help planners analyze and test various spatial distributions of jobs, population and land uses and describe to policy-makers and the public about the relationship between land use and transportation. MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization: A federally required planning body responsible for the transportation planning and project selection in its region; the governor designates an MPO in every urbanized area with a population of over 50,000. MTC is the Bay Area’s MPO. MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission: The transportation planning, financing and coordinating agency for the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay Area. One Bay Area One Bay Area is a new initiative meant to coordinate efforts of the Bay Area’s regional government agencies — the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) — in partnership with the region’s 101 towns and cities to create a more sustainable future. One major effort now underway is the development of Plan Bay Area, the region’s long-range plan for sustainable land use, transportation and housing. Paratransit Door-to-door bus, van and taxi services used to transport elderly and disabled riders. Paratransit is sometimes referred to as dial-a-ride service, since trips are made according to demand instead of along a fixed route or according to a fixed schedule. PM Particulate Matter: A mixture of tiny solid and liquid particles – such as those from dust, dirt, soot or smoke – that are found in the air. When inhaled, these particles can settle deep in the lungs and cause serious health problems. PCA Priority Conservation Area: Regionally significant open spaces for which there exists a broad consensus for long-term protection and for which public funds may be invested to promote their protection. These areas must be identified through the FOCUS program. PDA Priority Development Area: Locations within existing communities that present infill Sustainable Communities: Glossary   Page  7  development opportunities, and are easily accessible to transit, jobs, shopping and services. Local jurisdictions identified these locations voluntarily through the FOCUS program. Performance Measures Indicators of how well the transportation system or specific transportation projects will improve transportation conditions. Place Types A place type groups neighborhoods or centers with similar sustainability characteristics and physical and social qualities, such as the scale of housing buildings, frequency and type of transit, quality of the streets, concentration of jobs, and range of services. For Plan Bay Area, Place Types are a tool of local-regional exchange to identify places and policies for sustainable development. Bay Area jurisdictions can select a place type to indicate their desired level of growth in the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Plan Bay Area Plan Bay Area is one of our region’s most comprehensive planning efforts to date. It is a joint effort led by ABAG and MTC in partnership with BAAQMD and BCDC. All four agencies are collaborating at an unprecedented level to produce a more integrated land use-transportation plan. Planning Directors Forums These are regularly scheduled meetings of local planning directors and staff in each county. Local and countywide issues of concern are discussed, and the forums act as a platform for information sharing. Other participants include congestion management agencies (CMAs) and staff from local community and economic development and public works departments. Potential New Revenues Funds that may be available for transportation investment in the future if proposed new revenue sources are approved. These potential revenues are not included in the financially constrained portion of long-term transportation plans and Plan Bay Area. Preferred Scenario Consideration of the detailed scenario alternatives will lead to a preferred scenario by early 2012. (See also Detailed Scenarios and Initial Vision Scenario.) Program (1) verb, to assign funds to a project that has been approved by MTC, the state or another agency, and (2) noun, a system of funding for implementing transportation projects or policies. Resolution 3434 MTC adopted Resolution 3434 in December 2001 to establish clear priorities for the investment of transit expansion funds over the next decade. It focused on identifying high-priority rail and express/rapid bus improvements to serve the Bay Area’s most congested corridors. Sustainable Communities: Glossary   Page  8  RAWG Regional Advisory Working Group: An advisory group set up to advise staff of ABAG, MTC, BAAQMD and BCDC on development of Plan Bay Area. Its membership includes staff representatives of local jurisdictions (CMAs, planning directors, transit operators, public works agencies) as well as representatives from the business, housing, environmental and social-justice communities. RHNA Regional Housing Need Assessment: The Regional Housing Need Assessment process is a state mandate regarding planning for housing in California. ABAG is responsible for allocating this state-determined regional housing need among all of the Bay Area’s nine counties and 101 cities. Factors used by ABAG in its allocation process include projected household growth, existing employment and projected employment growth, and projected household and employment growth near transit. RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program: A listing of highway, local road, transit and bicycle projects that the region hopes to fund; compiled by MTC every two years from priority lists submitted by local jurisdictions. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) must either approve or reject the RTIP in its entirety. Once the CTC approves an RTIP, it is combined with those from other regions to comprise 75 percent of the funds in the State Transportation Improvement Program or STIP. (Also see “STIP.”) RTP Regional Transportation Plan: A master plan to guide the region’s transportation investments for a 25-year period. Updated every three years, it is based on projections of growth in population and jobs and the ensuing travel demand. Required by state and federal law, it includes programs to better maintain, operate and expand transportation. The Bay Area’s most recent update of its long-range transportation plan, is known as Transportation 2035. The next RTP will be included as part of Plan Bay Area. Sales Tax Authority An agency that administers a voter-approved county transportation sales tax program; in most Bay Area counties, the congestion management agency (CMA) also serves as the sales tax authority. SB 375 Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg): SB 375 became law in 2008. It includes two main statutory requirements and a host of voluntary measures. It is designed to complement AB 32, which requires the state to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The first requirement is to reduce per-capita carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from cars and light duty trucks, primarily by building more compact communities with better access to mass transit and other amenities, so people have more transportation choices and do not have to drive as much. The second requirement is to house 100 percent of the region’s projected 25-year population growth, regardless of income level. Sustainable Communities: Glossary   Page  9  Smart Growth A set of policies and programs designed to protect, preserve and economically stimulate established communities, while protecting valuable natural and cultural resources and limiting sprawl. STIP State Transportation Improvement Program: What the California Transportation Commission (CTC) ends up with after combining various RTIPs, as well as a list of specific projects proposed by Caltrans. Covering a five-year span and updated every two years, the STIP determines when and if transportation projects will be funded by the state. Projects included in the STIP must be consistent with the long-range transportation plan. Sustainability Sustainability means doing things and using resources in ways that protect them so they will be available for current and future generations. The “Three E” goals of sustainability are Economy, Environment and Equity. Sustainability is all about helping support a prosperous and globally competitive economy, providing for a healthy and safe environment, and producing equitable opportunities for all Bay Area residents. Sustainable Communities Strategy The Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) is an integrated land use and transportation plan that all metropolitan regions in California must complete under Senate Bill 375. In the San Francisco Bay Area this integration includes ABAG’s Projections and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and MTC’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Title VI Refers to Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, and requires that transportation planning and programming be nondiscriminatory on the basis of race, color and national origin. Integral to Title VI is the concept of environmental justice. TLC Transportation for Livable Communities: Program created by MTC in 1998 to fund small-scale, community- and transit-oriented projects that improve neighborhood vitality. TOD Transit-Oriented Development: A type of development that links land use and transit facilities to support the transit system and help reduce sprawl, traffic congestion and air pollution. It includes housing, along with complementary public uses (jobs, retail and services), located at a strategic point along a regional transit system, such as a rail hub. TOD Policy To promote cost-effective transit, ease regional housing shortages, create vibrant communities and preserve open space, MTC adopted a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Policy in 2005 that applies to transit extension projects in the Bay Area. Research shows that residents living within half a mile of transit are much more likely to use it, and that large job centers within a quarter mile of transit draw more workers on transit. Sustainable Communities: Glossary   Page  10  Travel Model Used by researchers and planners for simulating current travel conditions and for forecasting future travel patterns and conditions. Models help planners and policy-makers analyze the effectiveness and efficiency of alternative transportation investments in terms of performance, such as mobility, accessibility, environmental and equity impacts. Value Pricing The concept of assessing higher prices for using certain transportation facilities during the most congested times of the day, in the same way that airlines offer off-peak discounts and hotel rooms cost more during prime tourist seasons. Also known as congestion pricing and peak- period pricing, examples of this concept include higher bridge tolls during peak periods or charging single-occupant vehicles that want to use carpool lanes. (See also Congestion Pricing.) VMT One vehicle (whether a car carrying one passenger or a bus carrying 30 people) traveling one mile constitutes a vehicle mile. VMT is one measure of the use of Bay Area freeways and roads.   City of Palo Alto (ID # 1982) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 10/3/2011 October 03, 2011 Page 1 of 13 (ID # 1982) Summary Title: Park Plaza Architectural Review and Tentative Map Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of an Appeal of an Architectural Review Approval, a Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes, and a Record of Land Use Action (1) Approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration, (2) Upholding the Director's Architectural Review Approval of a Three Story Development Consisting of 84 Residential Units within the Upper Floors, 50,467 s.f.Ground Floor Research and Development area, Subterranean and Surface Parking Facilities, and Offsite Improvements, with Two Concessions Requested under State Government Code 65915 and (3) Approving a Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes on a 2.5 Acre Parcel at 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard (Continued from September 19, 2011) From:City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation 1. Staff and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Architectural Review (AR) application for the project. 2. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommends denial of the Tentative Map for 84 residential condominiums and Research and Development (R&D) purposes and denial of the MND. 3.Staff recommends approval of the Tentative Map. The Council is requested to act on (1) the environmental document (Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration), (2) the Architectural Review application, and (3) the Tentative Map. The motion for a decision should include the totality of the project. Supplemental Information This item was continued from the September 19, 2011 Council agenda. Some attachments to the September 19 CMR were replaced with corrected attachments, and other attachments were added for this CMR, as follows: ·The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) minutes are provided as Attachment E ; October 03, 2011 Page 2 of 13 (ID # 1982) ·The Tentative Map image (Attachment R) is now a complete image and a larger paper copy of the map is included in the Council plan sets; ·The Architectural Review Board minutes (Attachment G) are the correct version that had been provided to the PTC; ·Councilmember questions and staff responses are provided as Attachment N; ·Attachments O through R are supplemental documents referred to in Attachment N. Councilmember Scharff had requested an excerpt of the Lapkoff PAUSD study (Attachment O), the Parking Study (Attachment P), and the Transportation Demand Management program (Attachment Q); ·Appellant comments and Residents' Comments received on or following September 19 are addressed by staff responses in Attachments S and T, respectively; ·Documents referred to in Attachments S and T are provided as Attachment U (along with any additional public comments received between the September 19, 2011 Council packet and the October 3, 2011 Council packet). Alternatives The following alternatives are outlined for Council consideration, given the mixed recommendations from PTC, ARB and staff: A.Approve the project with additional conditions of approval related to hazardous materials and monitoring. Approval Findings and Conditions are contained within the Record of Land Use Action (ROLUA, Attachment A). The ROLUA has been updated and clarified in response to comments by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and minor clerical errors have been corrected in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. B.Deny the project, based on findings supported in the record before the Architectural Review Board, Planning and Transportation Commission and/or the City Council, and direct staff to prepare changes to the ROLUA for denial to return for Council adoption at a future meeting. C.Direct the applicant to pursue the project as a Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) rezoning and return to the PTC for review of the rezone, prior to final Council action. In the event that the City Council decides to deny the applications, staff recommends that the Council explain the general basis for such denial and then continue the hearing, in order to allow staff to prepare detailed proposed supporting findings which the Council could consider at a subsequent meeting. Executive Summary The Park Plaza project is a three story, mixed-use building on a vacant 2.5 acre site approved through the Architectural Review process and appealed for Council review. Reasons for the appeal are summarized in this report and the appeal letter is attached. The requested project entitlements also include a Tentative Map for condominium purposes to create 84 condominium units including 17 below market rate units on two upper floors and October 03, 2011 Page 3 of 13 (ID # 1982) 50,467 square feet of ground floor Research and Development space, with subterranean and surface parking facilities. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared and circulated and responses to comments were included in an updated MND (Attachment C) that was provided for the final ARB review. The project site is (1) within the General Manufacturing Zone District and the Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development area, (2) listed as a housing opportunity site in the City’s Housing Element of the 1998 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, (3) within walking distance of the California Avenue Train Station, (4) next to the CalTrain/Joint Powers Board right of way, and (5) situated above the Hewlett-Packard/Varian Plume (within the COE groundwater plume). The history of the applicant’s efforts to development the site with a mixed use building extends back more than seven years and includes five separate applications for planning entitlements, and two lawsuits. The history is further detailed in this report and in Attachment H, which provides a project timeline. The ARB and staff have recommended approval of the Architectural Review application and MND, and the Planning and Transportation Commission has recommended denial of both the MND and Tentative Map, based on potential for contamination from vapor intrusion, the use of housing density bonus law concessions, and incompatibility of the residential use. The Regional Water Quality Control Board, the agency with oversight of environmental protection measures for any development above the COE plume, has approved the approach to ameliorate potential vapor intrusion. The approved approach includes the placement of a full vapor barrier with active ventilation, as well as air monitoring in the garage. Following the PTC meeting, the applicant has also offered to provide indoor air monitoring in the residential units. The City Council options include approval (recommended by staff and the ARB), denial (recommended by the PTC), or directing revisions to the project or to require a zone change to PTOD. Background Project History This project has an extensive history. The applicant has proposed housing, including Below Market Rate (BMR) units and R&D use, on the site for many years. Prior Council action included: 1.Rejection of a 2004 Planned Community application for a larger project on the site; 2.Initiation of PTOD rezoning on the site in September 2006; however, the PTOD rezoning was set aside following item 3; 3.Approval of an almost identical project on the site in 2006, conditioned upon provision of 20% BMR units. The Council’s final approval of the previous project was, however, overturned as a result of a lawsuit filed by the appellant in this case. October 03, 2011 Page 4 of 13 (ID # 1982) This project and entitlement process for this project is particularly complex due to: ·the site’s designation as a housing site in the City’s Comprehensive Plan Housing element, which appears in conflict with the underlying zoning of General Manufacturing (GM), which does not allow residential use, ·the site’s location directly adjacent to Caltrain and within the Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) area, which encourages primarily residential development, ·the site’s proximity above a toxic groundwater plume, ·the use of State Housing Density Bonus Law (Government Code 65915-65918) to obtain two ministerial “concessions” for residential use and a 1.5:1 floor area ratio, based on the provision of 20% BMR units, and ·a history of changes to the zoning on the site and uses allowed in the GM zone. Further site history is provided in Attachment H, and brief summaries of ARB and PTC actions on past and current applications are also provided therein. A later section of this report conveys the ARB and PTC recommendations and key issues of concern with respect to the current applications. Grounds for the appeal of the Director’s Architectural Review (AR) approval and more detail about the AR and Tentative Map applications are summarized later in this report and in attached documents. Project Description The Park Plaza project is a three-story, mixed-use building proposed to be located on a single parcel within the General Manufacturing (GM) Zone District and Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Area, abutting the Caltrain/JPB right of way and within 2,000 feet (walking distance) of the Cal Ave. Caltrain station. The site is adjacent to another GM zoned site which is occupied at present by the Akins auto body shop and office. The 84 residential units would be located on two upper floors within 104,971 square feet, and include 17 below market rate housing units distributed in a configuration as noted in the attached PTC staff report. The applicant had initially intended to rent all of the residential units, but provide for eventual future conversion to ownership units. Most recently, however, the applicant has stated his intention to sell all of the residential units initially rather than renting the units. The draft Below Market Rate Housing Agreement requires below market rates for the 17 residential BMR units for a period of 59 years from initial occupancy. A subterranean parking garage and courtyard parking lot would provide a total of 302 parking spaces; nine of the courtyard spaces would be placed within “landscape reserve”. The project includes a 22% reduction in parking requirements, since the project site is near the California Avenue CalTrain station and the parking facilities would be shared by the occupants of the residential units and R&D space. Off-site improvements include a 139 foot long left turn stacking lane on Park Boulevard onto Page Mill Road, sidewalk “bulb-outs” and street trees. Corridors are provided on upper floors next to the CalTrain corridor to mitigate train noise for upper floor residential occupants. The October 03, 2011 Page 5 of 13 (ID # 1982) building is designed around a central courtyard, which allows for light and air for the occupants facing the courtyard. The proposed building height is 40 feet, with a tower at the corner of Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard that would exceed 40 feet. The applicant’s proposal includes R&D use within 50,467 square feet of space on the ground floor, intended for minor incidental research and using only limited quantities of chemicals regulated by building and fire codes. MND mitigation measures ensure the ground floor R&D use would not result in unmitigated health hazards for the residential occupants. The applicant has not stated any intention to lease the R&D space to bio-medical research use, which is not regulated by building and fire codes; however, this was not explicitly stated in the project description. The applicant has recently stated that he would like an allowance for use of the Levels 1 and 2 (but not levels 3 and 4) of biological materials, though staff has included a condition of approval to restrict biological materials to the Level 1 only (level one biological materials include minor non-infectious viruses such as non-human viruses and the common cold). Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Staff believes the revised MND is fully compliant with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure the project will address the PTC’s identified safety concerns, and to provide additional clarification and approval conditions -but no additional mitigation measures -in the MND and Record of Land Use Action (ROLUA). Architectural Review (AR) Application The Director of Planning and Community Environment approved the AR application July 12, 2011, following ARB reviews and recommendation. Additional background information related to the AR application is included in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A), attached staff reports (PTC report as Attachment D and ARB report as Attachment F), and meeting minutes (PTC meeting minutes as Attachment E and ARB meeting minutes as Attachment G). Tentative Map The proposed Tentative Map is to subdivide one existing parcel to establish 84 residential condominium units on the two upper floors and Research and Development use on the ground floor. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s) for maintenance and general upkeep of this development are required to be submitted and reviewed prior to submittal of a Final Map. The Tentative Map includes information on the existing parcels and onsite conditions. City staff has determined that the Tentative Map application is in compliance with zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances. The map contains all information and notations required to be shown on a Tentative Map. The required findings, adjusted following the PTC review, are included in the Record of Land Use Action. Pursuant to the State Subdivision Map Act, the required findings are stated in the negative such that if any of the findings are made the map shall be denied. Staff believes none of the findings can be made to require denial of the map, so it must be approved if the AR October 03, 2011 Page 6 of 13 (ID # 1982) application is also approved. The AR application was submitted first, in September, 2008, and the Tentative Map application was submitted in October, 2010 following the initial ARB hearing for this application. The condominium map is, in staff’s opinion, consistent with the AR project and with all applicable regulations for subdivisions per the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Board and Commission Review and Recommendation Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) Review The PTC has authority to review the Tentative Map and the associated MND. The Commission voted 4-2-1 to deny the map and the MND. The August 24, 2011 PTC staff report and minutes are attached for Council consideration, as Attachments D and E, respectively. The PTC members voting against the project expressed concern about the public process with regard to Government Code 65915-65918 concessions, the location of R&D below residential uses and potential health problems for building occupants, the adjacency of the site to Caltrain and the auto body shop, and the MND findings related to unknown long-term impacts of the toxic plume on project residents. The dissenting PTC members proposed a substitute motion (that failed) supporting the staff recommendation including minor modifications to the ROLUA and MND as well as a prohibition on biohazards in the R&D space. These members noted that it was not fair to change the “goal posts” (review process) for the project, that the area was experiencing rapid change in land use, that the project aligns with PTC goals for the area, and that the development site was in a pivotal position to link Fry’s to the California Avenue area. Tentative Map Findings #3 and #6 have been adjusted by staff following the PTC review to address some of their comments, and corrections were made to the ROLUA and MND regarding the housing inventory yield and PAUSD estimated student generation. No new mitigation measures or adjustments to mitigation measures are required. At the hearing, the only public testimony was provided by the appellant for the Architectural Review approval, Robert Moss. Mr. Moss’ letter to the PTC is attached to this report (within Attachment U). Mr. Moss stated there was no reason for housing adjacent to Caltrain in the GM zone, no reason for mixed use with R&D use, and asserted that he is seeking Senator Simitian’s support for replacement of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the oversight agency on groundwater issues for development within the City of Palo Alto. Mr. Moss stated his belief that the RWQCB is out of compliance with general practices for health and safety, and referred to the MEW superfund site in Mountain View, which is subject to review by the EPA as the oversight agency on groundwater issues. The PTC members questioned the City’s environmental consultant, George Burwasser, who October 03, 2011 Page 7 of 13 (ID # 1982) noted that the MND was subject to the same analysis as would be required for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Mr. Burwasser explained that the mitigation measures are considered quite conservative, that the RWQCB is the agency with jurisdiction over this site, and that indoor air quality monitoring was not the most effective means of assessing impacts. ARB Review and Appeal On July 7, 2011, the ARB reviewed the development plans and recommended approval on a 3-2 vote. The two previous ARB public hearings on this application are described in attached staff reports. The appellant cites various reasons for the appeal in his letter (Attachment B): ·Concern about the project’s appearance, including the color scheme, and belief the project would not be pedestrian friendly; o Response: The ARB recommended the project following detailed review of the color scheme and pedestrian amenities along the two street frontages. ·Concern with overflow parking and cumulative traffic impacts; o Response: A parking study was prepared to demonstrate time-of-day parking for the different land uses, and document that the reduced parking request is justified and that shared spaces will be available to accommodate the parking demand. A Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) program indicating measures to be implemented and enforced to encourage use of transit or other non-vehicular transportation modes for residents and employees of the site was also required to obtain the Director’s approval of the reduction. A TDM program was prepared by Fehr and Peers and submitted to the City. ·Concern that the applicant was “given a building permit” before the first ARB hearing on the project. o Response: This is not accurate. The applicant submitted an application for a building permit for plan check for the 2006 approval and an outside plan checker (Veritas) reviewed for building code compliance -but due to the lawsuit, no further action was taken by the City. ·Concern that a 10 foot rear setback should be provided next to Caltrain right of way to allow landscaping on the property rather than within the Caltrain right of way, and further modification of the building’s rear wall to enhance mitigation for Caltrain noise and vibration impacts. o Response: Precedents for residential units and mixed use projects along Caltrain right of way exist up and down the San Francisco Peninsula as well as in Palo Alto. Palo Alto Central is one such mixed use development (though there is a “frontage road” along the tracks). A noise study was prepared for the Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan EIR for the PTOD area rezoning presented to the PTC and approved by Council in 2006. The study provided techniques for buildings October 03, 2011 Page 8 of 13 (ID # 1982) along Caltrain right of way to reduce noise reflection. The techniques included use of absorptive materials, articulation and avoidance of sustained flat surfaces over 100 feet. The project employs these techniques. ·Concern about operation of the ventilation system during a power failure, the need for city emergency services and a belief that additional mitigation measures are needed at the level required by the EPA in other jurisdictions, to ensure residents are protected from vapor intrusion from the groundwater plume. o Response: This issue is addressed extensively in the “key issues” report section. ·Belief that the R&D is not needed to make the housing on the site economically viable. o Response: The applicant supplied a letter in the fall of 2006 noting that R&D space reduces the cost of the housing development since (a) it would cost less to build than residential space and (b) would generate more income per square foot (at an estimated 14.5% return) than the residential (at an estimated 1.4% return). ·Concern that Fire Department will not provide the necessary oversight over the use of hazardous materials in the space. o Response: The City’s Fire staff provided comment during the project review and MND process with respect to their anticipated oversight of the low level of hazardous materials potentially to be used in the proposed R&D space. During the PTC meeting, a concern regarding oversight of the use of biological materials was raised. Staff suggests a condition of approval requiring the applicant to exclude from leases the use of Levels 2, 3, or 4 biological materials in the R&D space. The condition of approval has been added to the ROLUA in the event the Council wishes to limit the R&D tenancy in this manner. ·Belief that the project violates Comprehensive Plan Policies and will exacerbate the jobs-housing imbalance and will not be compatible with the neighborhood. o Response: The project has been reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and CEQA and related findings are set forth in the ROLUA. ·Concern about school impacts. o Response: As noted in the MND and in this staff report, the Lapkoff study estimates a yield of 29 students from the project. Staff notes that some of Mr. Moss’s objections are not related to architectural review criteria. Key Issues a.Groundwater Contamination The toxic groundwater “plume” under the project site extends from the Stanford Research Park October 03, 2011 Page 9 of 13 (ID # 1982) across Caltrain and Alma Street, and is known as the California-Olive-Emerson (COE) plume (map provided in Attachment U). Mitigation measures in the MND are designed to address potential impacts from “vapor intrusion” and include a full vapor barrier and active ventilation system, as well as other protocol measures. These provisions were approved by the agency responsible for oversight of this issue in Palo Alto, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A majority of PTC members, however, did not consider the measures to be adequate or felt that considerable risk remained. The PTC also appeared to be concerned about the lack of indoor air monitoring in the residential units. Following the PTC meeting, in response to concerns about vapor intrusion, the applicant has offered to collect baseline samples on a one-time basis in all four floors of the structure (upper floors and ground floor in addition to the already stipulated air monitoring by RWQCB in the garage and riser ports). Staff has added such a condition to the ROLUA (though not as an additional mitigation measure for the MND, as the technical analysis did not find a significant impact). Staff notes that many existing housing developments have been constructed above the California Olive Emerson (COE) plume, which has been known since 1981. Two examples are the applicant’s projects at 200 Sheridan Avenue (Sheridan Plaza, 30 units plus a cafe) and 345 Sheridan Avenue (Mayfield, 83 units), both of which are served by below grade parking garages. A copy of the City’s plume map is provided as an attachment to the MND. The MEW (Middlefield, Ellis, Whisman) Study Area in Mountain View was cited by Mr. Moss as having higher level of vapor intrusion protection. It is staff’s understanding that the MEW area projects are often approved by the EPA with the full vapor barrier and passive or active ventilation systems designed very similar to the system proposed at 195 Page Mill Road. The applicant has provided a report (Attachment K) detailing his environmental consultant’s contact with an EPA representative confirming current building standards and testing protocol regarding the MEW area. There is recent precedent in Palo Alto for construction of residential units above a toxic groundwater plume. The Campus for Jewish Life (CJL) project in Palo Alto included senior housing on a podium above a more recently discovered toxic groundwater plume, the source of which had yet to be determined at the time that project was going through entitlements. In the CJL project, the groundwater “table” was much closer to the surface, such that any below grade parking would have intruded into the groundwater table. The solution in that case was to construct parking facilities above grade and thereby minimize the risk associated with construction of residential units above that toxic plume. b.Housing Density Bonus Law The City may not compel below market rate units for rental housing projects due to recent case law (Palmer v. Los Angeles). The applicant has now decided to sell the units as condominiums, however, which would require that 12.6 BMR units (15%) be provided. The applicant proposes that 20% (17 units) of the residential units to be sold at below market rates. The 20% BMR unit October 03, 2011 Page 10 of 13 (ID # 1982) proposal allows for two “concessions” via State Housing Density Bonus Law (GC 65915-65918), and the concessions are viewed as essentially ministerial. The first concession is the residential use itself, which is not otherwise allowed in the GM zone, although the site is identified for housing in the City’s Housing Element. The second concession is a floor area ratio of 1.5, which is 1.0 greater than the GM zone allows, and is comprised of 1.02 residential floor area and 0.48 commercial floor area. Were the site zoned PTOD, a 1.25 floor area ratio would be permitted, with 1.0 for residential and .25 for commercial use including R&D use. The additional residential area is requested to be granted for housing units allowed per the Housing Element, and the applicant has stated that the R&D floor area is needed to reduce the cost of the housing component. The applicant supplied staff with a statement to this effect. The City Council approved this project in 2006 with similar concessions, in fact requiring the 20% BMR set-aside to justify the concessions, though the prior approval was for an all-rental residential project. Staff believes that, based on that action and the minimum deviation from PTOD limitations, the same application to this project is warranted. A draft ordinance regarding State housing law concessions for Palo Alto has been prepared but has been on hold while staff recruited a new senior housing planner. This position was filled in early August, and a study session regarding the ordinance and issue is being scheduled for the PTC in October. c.Zoning and Land Use of Project Site In September 2005, Council eliminated the “B” overlay on General Manufacturing (GM) zoned sites, thereby eliminating residential use of GM zoned sites with the exception of those, including the project site, identified as housing sites in the City’s Housing Element. The City’s Housing Site Inventory included this site for housing at up to 40 units per acre (as is proposed). State housing law requires that the City approve housing on the site or else identify alternative housing sites to provide sufficient units to remain in compliance with the Housing Element. On September 11, 2006, Council initiated a rezoning of the project site to PTOD, though an application for a similar project on the site had just been recommended by the ARB for approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director). On November 20, 2006, the City Council approved the project. However, following a writ of mandate filed by the appellant in 2007, the Council approval was nullified because a revised CEQA document prepared by staff to address Council revisions in that case was not re-circulated. The writ required a new application to be submitted. The judgment, however, supported the City’s approval of the use of housing density bonus law “concessions” and did not concur with the appellant’s objections regarding groundwater mitigations. The RM-40 standards had formerly been applied to the residential portion of the 2006 project because the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element proposed an RM-40 zoning for the site (and the adjacent sites which together formed a 3.92 acre potential housing site (“Site 8-11”) as listed on the inventory). In 2010, the RM-40 standards for height, setbacks, lot coverage, and October 03, 2011 Page 11 of 13 (ID # 1982) daylight plane were, however, deemed as not applicable to the project by the City’s outside counsel, given the “new” application. One option for the Council (Alternative C) would be to direct the applicant to proceed back to the PTC with the same project, but under a request for Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) zoning. This would help at least clarify the land use confusion by allowing mixed use development at a similar density and floor area ratio and minimizing deviations requiring housing law “concessions”. Timeline Item Date Action AR Application Submittal September 22, 2008 Environmental Review Tentative Map Submittal October 5, 2010 Environmental Review ARB Review 12/09, 5/11, 7/11 Recommended, 3-2 PCE Director Action July 12, 2011 Approval of MND and AR Appeal July, 25, 2011 Set Council date 9/19/11 PTC Review August 24, 2011 Not recommended, 4-2-1 Council Review September 19,2011 Resource Impacts The proposed project will generate additional General Fund revenues in the form of development impact fees and additional property taxes, sales taxes, and utility user taxes. One-time development impact fees are estimated at $3,513,669. This includes parkland dedication fees estimated at $2,934,231 due to the condominium proposal, plus library and community facility fees, and the Citywide transportation impact fee. Additional annual revenues would include property taxes, sales taxes, and utility user taxes. The owner estimates that after the improvements are complete, the property will be valued at $50 million, which is $40 million more than its current assessed value. This represents a $37,000 increase in annual City property tax revenues. Furthermore, the residents of the property, along with the employees in the Research and Development portions of the building, are expected to make purchases that will add an estimated $16,000 in annual sales tax revenues, as well as approximately $15,000 in additional utility user tax revenues to City coffers. That brings the total estimated annual revenue impact to $68,000. On the expenditure side, the project would add 84 new residential units -with a combined total of 152 bedrooms -to the City housing stock. This will create new demands for City services such as community services, planning, police and fire. While quantification of the expenses for an individual project is difficult to project due to the incremental nature of service delivery costs, staff notes that development impact fees for Community Services and the Library Departments are designed to cover the incremental facility needs of the new residents. Similarly, service fees in Utilities, Community Services and Planning are designed to recoup October 03, 2011 Page 12 of 13 (ID # 1982) operating expenses associated with, for example, the delivery of utility services, classes, sports programs, plan reviews, and project permits. Police and Fire services to the Palo Alto community, however, are paid by the General Fund, as are Public Works (roadway and drainage improvements) and general government services. Although the incremental impacts of this project alone are not expected to require additional General Fund staffing, when all recently approved projects come on line, the cumulative impact may require additional staffing for services. Policy Implications Staff believes that the proposed project and subdivision are consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The residential and “Research and Development” use of the development are consistent with the associated land use designation of General Manufacturing with the Housing Element opportunity site designation, with the Transit Oriented Residential designation for the area, and with the PTOD overlay. More information about Comprehensive Plan compliance is included in the August 24, 2011 PTC staff report and compliance with specific Comprehensive Plan policies is outlined in the ROLUA. Environmental Review The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was tentatively approved prior to the Architectural Review (AR) approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment for this project. It was determined that the project could have potentially significant aesthetic, noise, traffic, and hazardous materials impacts. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is included as Attachment C. The document was available for public review and comment during a 30-day inspection period beginning May to June 2011 and clarifications were made prior to the final ARB review and Director’s action on the MND. The groundwater contamination issue is outlined in greater detail above under the PTC review and the “Key Issues” discussion. Attachments: ·Attachment A: Record of Land Use (DOC) ·Attachment B: Architectural Review Appeal by Robert Moss (PDF) ·Attachment C: Mitigated Negative Declaration (DOC) ·Attachment D: P&TC Staff Report August 24, 2011 (DOC) ·Attachment E: PTC meeting minutes August 24, 2011 (DOC) ·Attachment F: ARB Staff Report July 7, 2011 (DOC) ·Attachment G: ARB Meeting Minutes July 7, 2011 (DOC) ·Attachment H: Background Information/History (DOC) ·Attachment I: PCE Director Approval letter July 12, 2011 (DOC) ·Attachment J: Park Plaza Mitigation Monitoring Program (DOC) October 03, 2011 Page 13 of 13 (ID # 1982) ·Attachment K: Applicant's supplemental information regarding Vapor Intrusion (PDF) ·Attachment L: Applicant's response to Robert Moss Appeal Letter (PDF) ·Attachment M: Correspondence (PDF) ·Attachment N: Responses to Council Questions (PDF) ·Attachment O: Lapkoff and Gobalet Palo Alto Unified School District Study (PDF) ·Attachment P: Fehr and Peers parking studies (Excerpts of Appendices L and J of MND Reference Studies and Documents (PDF) ·Attachment Q: Transportation Demand Management Program(PDF) ·Attachment R: Tentative Map (PDF) ·Attachment S: Appellant's Recent Email and Staff Reponses (DOC) ·Attachment T: Residents' Pre-9/19 Emails and Staff Reponses (DOC) ·Attachmen U: COE Plume Map and Letters to PTC and ARB (PDF) Prepared By:Amy French, Current Planning Manager Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager 1 Action No. 2011-xx RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 195 PAGE MILL ROAD/2865 PARK BOULEVARD (PARK PLAZA): APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, TENTATIVE MAP [10PLN-00344] AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW [08PLN-00295](HOHBACH REALTY COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, APPLICANT) On October 3, 2011, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration and ‘Tentative Map for Park Plaza for 50,467 square feet of R&D Space and 84 Residential Condominium Units’ on a single parcel (approximately 2.5 acres) and affirmed the July 12, 2011 Architectural Review approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment to allow: (1) 84 residential condominium units on the 2nd and 3rd floor of a new 3-story mixed use building (Park Plaza) with subterranean and surface parking facilities, including 17 below market rate residential condominium units, and indoor residential common areas on the two upper floors including structural elements of the second and third floors, all utility lines serving the second and third floors, the elevators, stairways comprising 106,320 square feet of interior floor area; and common areas within the residential entry level lobbies, residential outdoor deck and pool area, roof area and trash chutes and trash areas; and (2) the land area underneath and surrounding the new three story mixed use building (Park Plaza) including landscaping and interior courtyard with surface parking for 17 vehicles and 9 vehicles in “landscape reserve” for future use as needed, first floor building area comprising 50,467 square feet for research and development use and allowing for residential use via easements of elevators and stairs, trash chute, utilities and structural elements; one level of below grade parking accessed from Park Boulevard for 276 vehicles and 87 class I bicycle storage lockers with easements allowing for residential use of associated vehicle and bicycle parking spaces, stairs, elevators and trash areas and utilities; and (3) the new 3-story mixed use building and associated on-site and off- site improvements as recommended by the Architectural Review Board and approved on July 12, 2011 by the Director of Planning and Community Environment; and making the following findings, determinations and declarations: SECTION 1. Background.The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A.On September 22, 2008, Harold Hohbach of Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership (Applicant) submitted an application [08PLN-00296] for Environmental Review, Architectural Review (AR) with State mandated housing density development concessions for additional floor area (1.0:1) and residential use within the GM zone, based upon 2 inclusion of below market rate housing pursuant to state affordable housing incentive law (CGC 65915-65918), for a new mixed use, 3 story building and associated on-site and off-site improvements, replacing a one story building of 50,468 square feet on a 2.52 acre (2.4 net acre) site at 195 Page Mill Road fronting Park Boulevard and Page Mill Road. B.The application for Architectural Review [08PLN-00296] was analyzed pursuant to requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared by the City’s environmental consultant (Atkins, the firm formerly known as PBS&J, Inc) and circulated for public comment between April 24, 2009 and May 25, 2009, including distribution through the State Clearinghouse. Public comments were received from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the IS/MND was revised and circulated in November 2009. Mr. Robert Moss commented on the document, particularly objecting to the analysis and mitigations dealing with groundwater contamination. C.On December 3, 2009, the ARB considered the AR application and public comments and continued its review to a date uncertain to allow the applicant to modify the plans. D.On October 5, 2010, the Applicant submitted the Tentative Map application [10PLN-00344] for condominium purposes but not involving the merger of parcels. The merging of the parcels had been approved previously via the City’s Certificate of Compliance process. The Tentative Map application was submitted prior to the preparation of environmental review documents and subsequent public hearings on the AR application. E.On February 22, 2011, the applicant submitted a letter to address storage and hazardous materials use by possible R&D tenants in the Park Plaza project, requesting City approval of such storage and use in limited quantities, identifying safeguards related to storage, rated walls, protected openings and ventilation systems. The IS/MND was revised and circulated on May 5, 2011, including distribution by the State Clearinghouse, for a public comment period ending June 7, 2011. F.On May 19, 2011, prior to the end of the comment period, the ARB held a public hearing and continued their review to a date uncertain to allow for the completion of the public comment period and to allow the applicant to address their comments. Three sets of public comments on the revised IS/MND were received, from Robert Moss, Roger Papler of the RWQCB, and Herb Borock. A City Public Works staff member also provided additional verbiage for the document to reflect updated regulations. The City’s consultant (Atkins) prepared responses addressing the comments by Mr. Moss and Mr. Papler and, along with Public Works staff edits, these were incorporated into the annotated IS/MND dated June 29, 2011 and uploaded to the City’s website in materials for the third ARB hearing on July 7, 2011. The third set of public comments (Borock) pertained to the Below Market Rate housing 3 with respect to CEQA review and the Tentative Map, and were provided to the ARB at places, acknowledged in staff’s oral presentation to the ARB, and provided to the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission). G.On July 7, 2011, the ARB recommended, on a 3-2 vote, approval of the project plans, subject to staff conditions of approval and additional conditions of approval contained in this Record of Land Use Action. H.On July 12, 2011, the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) received the ARB recommendation, tentatively approved the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and approved the AR application. Findings and conditions of approval recommended by the ARB were incorporated into the AR approval (and have been incorporated into this ROLUA). Notices of the Director’s decision were mailed, but a Notice of Determination was not filed with the County of Santa Clara, because a timely appeal of the Director’s decision was received. I.Following AR approval of the Park Plaza development project by the Director, the Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes [application 10PLN-00344] was advertised for public hearing and consideration by the Planning and Transportation Commission. J.On July 25, 2011, the Director’s decision on the AR application (application 08PLN-00295) was appealed. K.On August 9, 2011, the Applicant submitted a revised Tentative Map with only the title changed, to “Tentative Map for ‘Park Plaza’ for 50,467 square feet of R&D Space and 84 Residential Condominium Units” (formerly titled “Tentative Map for ‘Park Plaza’ for R&D purposes and Residential Condominium Purposes”). The title change is considered a legal clarification of the purposes of the Tentative Map rather than a substantive change to the project. L.On August 24, 2011, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended, on a 4-2-1 vote, that the City Council deny the Tentative Map application based upon Findings #3 and #6, and noting the MND findings to be inadequate in that the location of housing in the GM zone would be injurious to public health, the unknown impacts from the spread of the toxic plume would be detrimental to health and safety, concern over the adjacency of the R&D to residential use, and the lack of monitoring of long-term health in occupied spaces. SECTION 2.Environmental Review.The background regarding the Environmental review is provided in Section 1. The City Council has approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Tentative Map, and has upheld the Director’s decision on the AR application. a Notice of Determination will be filed with the County of Santa Clara. 4 SECTION 3.Project Approval Findings The approval findings for the project are set forth below: 3A. Tentative Map Findings. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Vesting Tentative Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474): 1.That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451: This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The site does not lie within a specific plan area and is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. The land use designation in the area of the subdivision is Light Industrial and the zoning designation is GM. The proposed mixed use development is consistent with the land use and zoning designations of the site, since the site is designated for housing in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan Housing Element contains a Housing Sites Inventory (Appendix A) which references the project site (2.5 Acres) as among the parcels comprising the 3.92 Acre Housing Site #8-11) as likely to provide housing units at the RM-40 zoning density (40 units/acre) with a “minimum dwelling unit yield” of 120 housing units for the entire Site #8-11. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Definitions provides for use of a Transit Oriented Residential land use designation that considers sites within 2,000 feet of the California Avenue multi-modal transit station as able to accommodate densities up to 50 units per acre. The project site is within the boundaries of the City’s Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District area, which enables property owners to request a PTOD zoning designation on to allow for higher density residential housing on industrial parcel within a walk-able distance of the California Avenue Caltrain station. Though the applicant has not requested PTOD project zoning for the parcel, the proposed uses are consistent with the permitted land uses in a PTOD zone. 2.That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans: This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The Tentative Map is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies and programs for land use/housing (Policies L-7, L-31, Programs L-31, H-3 and H-5), Below Market Rate housing (Policy H-2 and programs H-1, H-3 and H-38), sustainable design (Goal H-5, Policies H-25, N-47 N-48 and Program H- 69), transit-orientation (Policy and Program T-1), open space/amenities (Policies N-15 and N-22), and noise (Policies N-39, N-40, N-42). The AR findings cited in Subsection 3B of this ROLUA include additional comprehensive plan policies B-2, L-5, L-48, L-49, L-75 and T-19 as applicable to the approval of the mixed use building. 5 In addition, Tentative Map (10PLN-00344) is not inconsistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: (1) Policy L-1: Limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area; (2) Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities; (3) Policy H-4: Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality; (4) Policy H-12: Encourage, foster and preserve diverse housing opportunities for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households; (5) Policy N-41: When a proposed project is subject to CEQA, the noise and impact of the project on existing residential land uses should be evaluated in terms of the increase in existing noise levels and potential for adverse community impact, regardless of existing background noise levels. This mixed-use project is an in-fill development that will provide housing diversity and encourage neighborhood vitality. The site’s location is not adjacent to low density residential uses and multi- story office buildings are located within the immediate vicinity of the subject site. The project does not constitute an abrupt change in scale and density from adjacent uses. Since the residential condominiums will be located adjacent to CalTrain right of way and two public streets, above Research and Development land use,and adjacent to land zoned for light industrial uses, the environment experiences moderate to high levels of noise. However, the building design was subject to environmental review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan noise policies and the attenuation of noise is required per Mitigation Measure #7 (contained within the AR approval conditions in this ROLUA), which specifically cites Comprehensive Plan policy N-39 compliance for the building interiors. The exterior area within the courtyard will be buffered from Caltrain and street noise by the building walls, which would also serve as noise-attenuating walls to control parking noise generated within the courtyard. The project includes soundproofing materials and STC rated windows to address the JPB/Caltrain proximity. Deliveries and trash pickup would be limited by the City’s regulations designed to minimize noise impacts. 3.That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development: This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The site is suitable for subdivision into condominiums for both the market rate and below market rate housing units approved via the AR process and can accommodate the proposed mixed-use, infill development. The site is adjacent to established commercial development, and the entire area is within the Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) area, which allows mixed use with predominantly residential us. Adjacent sites include: (1) the Akins auto body shop and an office on the adjacent GM (AD) zoned parcel, (2) the office building on the 8.5 Acre ROLM zoned parcel at 395 Page Mill Road across Park Boulevard (where Research and Development is a permitted use and where a Conditional Use Permit is required for either a mixed use project with multiple family residential units), (3) the office building on the opposite 6 corner, a GM zoned parcel between Page Mill and Oregon Expressway, and (4) the GM zoned property across Page Mill Road from the site and formerly considered by the City of Palo Alto for an emergency services building and considered for multiple family residential development in prior years. The site is relatively flat and regular in shape. The site is close to the California Caltrain station and is currently served by water, gas, wastewater, electric, and communication services. The site also has standard access for emergency service delivery. 4.That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The purpose of the Tentative Map is to create 50,467 square feet of Research and Development space and 84 residential units. The density reflected in the subdivision is consistent with the Housing Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density and with State density bonus law, is allowed additional floor area above the development standard for the GM zone as a concession. The site’s location within walking distance of a transit station and proposed shared parking facilities will allow the proposed density, subject to Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) implementation per Mitigation Measure #9 (TDM is required prior to building permit issuance and subject to review after occupancy). The development would be accessed from a public street and the warning system required to be implemented per Mitigation Measure #8 will eliminate potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists at the entrance to the underground garage. 5.That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat: This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The project is an infill site surrounded by development and in a light industrial district. The new development would occur within the footprint of the pre-existing development, which previously consisted of light industrial buildings and surface parking areas. The project’s Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration state that there are no significant impacts to existing sensitive wildlife and plants. 6.That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems:This finding can not be made in the affirmative. With implementation of Mitigation Measures #4 and #6, addressing groundwater contamination and proximity of the research and development use to the residential use, the subdivision would not be likely to cause serious public health problems. These mitigation measures, prepared by the City’s environmental consultants and reviewed multiple times, were ultimately approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the agency having jurisdiction over measures addressing development above toxic groundwater. The project is designed to provide access for emergency 7 services, will supply necessary utility services, such as sanitation, and is designed per City and State standards to ensure public safety. The applicant’s proposal does not include R&D condominiums so the owner is retaining control over the entire R&D space with tenant leases. The use and storage of other nominal hazardous materials (typically including but not limited to print shops, boutique dry cleaners, dental offices and labs, small fabrication shops (like IDEO) for prototype products, including small scale machine shops, or medical prosthetics) would be subject to standard protocols and safety measures of the Building and Fire Code Regulations. Pursuant to Conditions of Approval herein, the R&D tenant leases will include stipulation that biological materials levels 2 through 4 will be excluded from the ground floor R&D space. 7.That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The subdivision of the existing parcel will not conflict with easements of any type, in that the subdivision is compatible with the emergency vehicle access and any utility easements that would be required to serve the proposed developments. 3B. Architectural Review Findings: The project is consistent with all relevant Architectural Review findings in PAMC Section 18.76.020(d) including the following: 1. The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project would satisfy specific Comprehensive Plan programs, policies and goals, including: ·Policy B-2:Support a strong interdependence between existing commercial centers and the surrounding neighborhoods as a way of encouraging economic vitality; ·Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale; ·Policy L-31: Develop the Cal-Ventura area as a well-designed mixed used district with diverse land uses with two-to three- story buildings; ·Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces; 8 ·Policy L-49:Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing; ·Policy L-75: Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate parking lots behind buildings or underground wherever possible; ·Policy T-1:Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use; and ·Policy T-19: Improve and add attractive, secure bicycle parking at both public and private facilities, including multi-modal transit stations, on transit vehicles, in City Parks, in private developments, and at other community destinations. The project is a mixed-use development in the Cal-Ventura area, including for sale housing and research and development uses. The conditions of approval contained within Section 7 of this Record of Land Use Action reflect the conditions that were attached as Attachment C to ARB staff report dated July 7, 2011, modified in accordance with Architectural Review Board recommendations on July 7, 2011, for the Director’s action on July 12, 2011, will ensure a high quality design and compatibility with adjacent and nearby uses. 2.The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. The three-story building will be located in a General Manufacturing zone district where a variety of architectural styles and masses are found. The proposed building would add mass and establish a new architectural presence on a visible site at the corner of Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard. The new building would be taller and longer than the buildings on adjacent sites, but will nevertheless be compatible with these buildings. 3.The design is appropriate to the function of the project. Research and development and residential uses, are located on separate floors, which provides a needed separation from both uses. Both elevators and stairs provide access to each floor. A central courtyard would provide at grade parking as well as landscaped open space and private balconies for the dwelling units (with the exception of two units that would not have balconies) for the occupants of the building. 5.The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different land uses; The project would be physically separated from the residential zones located on the opposite side of Alma Street by a four-lane street and the Joint 9 Powers Board (Caltrain) right-of-way. Aside from this physical separation, the proposed project would be located in an area, which has buildings in various architectural styles and masses. The project would serve as a focal point when one approaches Park Boulevard from Page Mill Road. 6.The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site; The project has been be reviewed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department and the Public Works Department to ensure compatibility with improvements. The proposed project would include street improvements to be funded and implemented by the applicant. The proposed street improvements would not interfere with proposed plans to establish Park Boulevard as a ‘bike boulevard.’ 7. The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order an provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community. The proposed project has clearly defined area of residential and R&D uses.The main approach to the building would be from Park Boulevard and would lead into an open landscaped courtyard that is mostly surrounded by the building. The site has sufficient bike secured and public bicycle parking facilities for residents, employees and visitors. The upper two floors, consisting of residential units and includes amenities such as a swimming pool and a meeting room, and show facilities for the R&D use at the first floor level. The units that would be most impacted by passing trains on the adjacent JPB railway property would be buffered by a hallway access to the units so that balconies for these units would face the central courtyard. 8.The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures. A minimum of 20% (20,994 square feet) of the lot area must be developed as permanently maintained usable open space, measured on the ground floor only. The proposed project would include approximately 23.5% (26,556 square feet) of the site as usable open space. Each unit would (with the exception of two units) have a private balcony of at least 50 square feet. Although PAMC Section 18.13.040 generally requires at least 50 sq. ft. of private open space per unit, PAMC Section 18.13.040(e)(2)(B) allows the 50 sq. ft. per unit to be added to the common usable open space. Proposed at 16,636 sq. ft., the amount of common usable open space is well above the minimum required 4,200 sq. ft. of common usable open for all 84 dwelling units. The central courtyard would include landscaping and amenities such as benches for use by both visitors and occupants of the project. 9.Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with the project’s design concept. This finding can be made in the affirmative 10 in that sufficient well-designed amenities are proposed in the project that would be compatible with the project design as described herein. 10.Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. Vehicles will enter the site from Park Boulevard to access both the at-grade and below grade parking facilities. The project would include a warning device to alert pedestrians of cars exiting the parking garage. Bicyclists will have access to bicycle parking (both rack and lockers) in the courtyard. Each unit will have private storage in the below grade parking garage that also can be used for bike parking. Pedestrians may enter the site from the courtyard entrance on Park Boulevard or from the parking lot. Access is available to all floors via a staircase or elevators in the buildings interior. 12.The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are an appropriate expression of the design and function and are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions. The building materials would include stucco and metal panels for the exterior walls. The interior of the courtyard would have decorative landscaping, interlocking pavers, decorative paving, and a fountain. A landscaped strip adjacent to the building would be located behind the sidewalk along both Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard. 13.The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable functional environment and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site. The proposed landscaping for the project would bring plants, shrubs, and trees to a relatively barren site, and the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the building on the site in that the amount or types of planting do not overwhelm, but support the building design as conditioned. 14.Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety, which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. The Planning Arborist has reviewed all plant materials, with final approval of street trees in the purview of the Public Works Department. The proposed water- conserving irrigation system and any final list of plant materials would be evaluated in conjunction with the building permit. 15.The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy elements including but not limited to: The project is required to meet the City’s Green Building requirements. The project’s 11 sustainable design strategies include energy-efficient building systems and drought-tolerant plants. (ARB findings #4 and #11 would not apply to this project.) In conclusion, all of the applicable Architectural Review findings for Application 08PLN-00000-00295 can be made in the affirmative, subject to meeting the conditions of approval as modified by the ARB on July 7, 2011, and approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. SECTION 4.Tentative Map Approval Conditions.Tentative Map application 10PLN-00344 is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Sections 21.12 and 21.20 and the California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of approval herein, to allow for 84 residential condominiums on the second and third floor of the three story mixed use building, with associated common areas for residential use, and easements allowing for residential site access, utilities and structure within the ground floor, subterranean garage, and use of the interior courtyard and parking area. A copy of this Tentative Map is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Conditions of Tentative Map approval are as follows: PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING SERVICES CONDITIONS 1.The applicant shall remove and replace the sidewalk, curb, and gutter along the project’s frontages.In addition, the applicant shall resurface the street frontages of the project, full-width, 2- inch grind and overlay.These improvements shall be shown on the off- site improvement plans and reviewed and approved prior to the approval of the final map. 2.No grading or building permits shall be issued prior to the recordation of the final map and subdivision agreement. 3.A Grading and Excavation Permit issued by the CPA Building Inspection Division is required for the proposed project.Any grading permit issued in conjunction with a phased project implementation plan will only authorize grading and storm drain improvements.Other site utilities may be shown on the grading plan for reference only, and should be so noted.No utility infrastructure should be shown inside the building footprint.Installation of these other utilities will be approved as part of a subsequent Building Permit application. 4.The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property.The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application.A Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the applicant’s monthly City utility bill will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building 12 Inspection Division.The impervious area calculation sheets and instructions are available from Public Works Engineering. 5.Any and all easements required for utility or other purposes shall be shown on the tentative map. 6.The applicant is required to paint the “No Dumping/Flows to Matadero Creek” logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all storm drain inlets.Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598.A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil.Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. Include maintenance of these logos in the Hazardous Materials Management Plan,if such a plan is part of this project. 7.A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site.All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. A handout describing these and other requirements for a construction logistics plan is available from Public Works Engineering. 8.The applicant shall obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering for pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk and or construction proposed in the City right-of-way.Sec. 12.08.010.A detailed site-specific soil report prepared by a licensed soils or geo-technical engineer must be submitted which includes information on water table and basement construction issues.This report shall identify the current groundwater level, if encountered, and by using this and other available information, as well as professional experience, the engineer shall estimate the highest projected ground- water level likely to be encountered in the future.Measures must be undertaken to render the basement waterproof and able to withstand all projected hydrostatic and soil pressures.No pumping of ground water is allowed.In general, however, Public Works Engineering recommends that structures be constructed in such a way that they do not penetrate existing or projected ground water levels. 9.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 10.The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP's) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the project. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, 13 paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains.(PAMC Chapter 16.09). 11.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. 12.The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit.All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off.Similarly, all as-builts, on-site grading, drainage and post-developments BMP’s shall be completed prior to sign-off. 13.A curb ramp for the disabled will be required at each project corner. 14.A Subdivision Agreement is required to secure compliance with condition of approval and security of improvements onsite and offsite.No grading or building permits will be issued until Final or Parcel Map is recorded with County Recorder. 15.The subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording of the final parcel or subdivision map to guarantee the completion of the “on” and “off” site condition(s) of approval. The amount of the bond shall be determined by staff of the Planning, Utilities and Public Works Departments. 16.The project subdivision includes significant complexity involving, final map and coordination of infrastructure design and construction.Developer shall appoint a Project Manager to coordinate with City, Public Works and Utility, engineering staff.Public Works will conduct daily and longer-term communication with appointed project manager in order to facilitate timely review and approval of design and construction matters. 17.DEWATERING: Basement excavations may require dewatering during construction.Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering.Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system.The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level.We recommend a piezometer to be installed in the soil boring. The contractor must determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using the piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole if the deepest excavation will be within 3 feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level.If groundwater is within 3 feet of the deepest excavation, a drawdown well dewatering system must be used, or alternatively, the contractor can excavate for the basement and hope not to hit groundwater, but if he does, he must immediately stop all work and install a drawdown well system before he continues to excavate.Public Works may require the water to be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals 14 during dewatering.If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for the contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Permit for Construction in the Public Street (“street work permit”).The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a street work permit prior to dewatering.Public Works has a standard dewatering plan sheet that can be used for this purpose and dewatering guidelines are available on Public Works’ website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=272 6. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CONDITIONS. 18.The applicant has requested two concessions from the City under the State Density Bonus Law. Prior to approval of the Final Map, Applicant must comply with State Density Bonus Law and the City’s Below Market Rate Housing Ordinance, as applicable, by deed restricting 20%, or 17, of the approved housing units to be affordable in accordance with City regulations and GC 65915-918. This deed restriction shall be in a form acceptable to the City and an agreement to that effect shall be recorded in conjunction with recording of the Final Map. 19.The applicant shall fund and implement a 139’ left turn stacking lane as shown and approved in conjunction with the Architectural Review project plans. SECTION 5.Final Map Approval. The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto shall be in substantial conformance with the Tentative Map prepared by Mission Engineers, Inc. titled “Tentative Map for Park Plaza for 50,467 square feet of Research & Development Space and 84 Residential Condominium Units” consisting of one page, dated August _, 2011 and received on August __, 2011 (title recently changed from “Tentative Map for Park Plaza for R&D Purposes and Residential Condominium Purposes” dated 9-27-10 map received October 5, 2010), except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 4. Within two years of the approval date of the Tentative Map, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and a Final Map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Tentative Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Section 21.16 and submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]). 15 SECTION 6.Architectural Review Approval.The Architectural Review application for a new 3-story mixed-use building (Park Plaza) and associated on-site and off-site improvements, as recommended by the Architectural Review Board and approved on July 12, 2011 by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, includes the granting of two concessions pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915-65918: (1) to allow residential use in GM ‘General Manufacturing’ zone, and (2) to exceed the allowable FAR.The Architectural Review project is 84 residential units in 106,320 square feet of floor area on the 2nd and 3rd floors, including 17 below market rate residential units, plus lobbies, an outdoor deck and a pool area; parking facilities located within a subterranean garage providing 276 automobile spaces and 87 class I bicycle storage lockers, and uncovered parking spaces at the first floor level providing 17 vehicles and 9 vehicles in “landscape reserve” for future use as needed and bicycle parking (# class I lockers and # racks); and 50,467 square feet of first floor area for research and development use. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Hoover Associates titled “Park Plaza 2865 Park Blvd. 195 Page Mill Road”, dated June 28, 2011, reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in this Record of Land Use Action. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development. The conditions of approval in Section 7 shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. SECTION 7.Architectural Review Approval Conditions. PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CONDITIONS Planning Division 1.The plans submitted for building permit shall reflect changes to the plans dated June 28, 2011, presented to the ARB on July 7, 2011 and further conditioned with ARB approval as follows: (A)The ALT drawings in the plan set reviewed by the ARB on July 7, 2011 (reflecting the alternate tower design) shall be removed from plans submitted for building permit. (B)As shown in the June 28, 2011 plan set conditionally approved by ARB on July 7, 2011, colors shall be mocked up (brush-out sample areas) on the building following construction for ARB subcommittee review (arranged by the ARB liaison following contact by the applicant that the mockup is in place). (C)The accent wall parapets shall have 24” returns. (D)Sun shades shall be provided on upper floor residential windows on three sides (Park Blvd, Page Mill Road, and side facing the adjacent parcel (Akins). (E)The Planting Plan (Plan Sheet L2.1) shall indicate V-1 vine species as ‘Pink Jasmine’ per applicant’s July 6, 2011 letter 16 reviewed by the ARB. (F)Prior to building permit submittal, the applicant shall submit the following details for ARB subcommittee review: i.The upper floor window sunshade details; ii.The light fixture cut sheets and locations; iii.Fence details; iv.Perspective views of the tower from both street frontages with tower lid details to ensure design integrity on all four sides of the tower 2.Additional Conditions regarding R&D space and air quality testing: a. Biological materials within the R&D space shall be restricted to Biological Level One (non-infectious) materials; no Biological Level Two through Four biological materials shall be permitted within the R&D space and tenant lease(s) shall reflect this prohibition; b. Applicant or applicant’s successor shall implement the proposed collection of baseline samples of air quality on a one-time basis on all four floors (basement and above grade floors) of the project, not later than 90 days following final inspection approval for the project, to the Planning Director, along with a report from a qualified environmental consultant comparing the results with required State or Federal standards, whichever is applicable. If any sample indicates violation of applicable air quality standards, remedial measures must be taken to correct the violation accordingly prior to occupancy of any residential unit. 3.The project is required to comply with PAMC 16.14 for green building. Building permit plans shall include compliance with the Multifamily Greenpoint Rated Checklist for the residential portion of the project and the California Green Building Code Checklist –as locally amended to require Tier 2 –for the R&D portion of the project. 4.The project is required to comply with PAMC 16.12.030 for recycled water infrastructure. Building permit plans shall include the on-site infrastructure necessary to connect the site’s irrigation system to the city’s recycled water supply when it becomes available. Plans shall demonstrate that recycled water will be used when available, and include consideration for plants that are recycled water tolerant. 5.The project at 195 Page Mill Road has over 100 toilets, which triggers the City’s requirement to install dual-plumbing for toilet flushing, in addition to the use of recycled water in the landscape. Please visit the following link for more information on the recycled water ordinance. www.cityofpaloalto.org/les 6.Conditions related to the pending application for Tentative Map may be added to this development project in conjunction with Council action on the Tentative Map. Generally, Final Map approval 17 and recordation must be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. 7.If during excavation and construction activities, any archaeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall cease and the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. 8.To the extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees, consultants and agents (the “indemnified parties) from against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 9.Development Impact Fees in the estimated amount of $3,513,669.00 (includes parkland dedication in-lieu fee associated with condominiums contingent upon Council approval of proposed Tentative Map) shall be paid prior to building permit issuance. This amount includes $2,934,231.07 for parkland dedication in-lieu fee (given the condominium proposal rather than rental units –this fee is paid instead of the parks fee), $142,864.93 for community center fees, $45,276.00 for library fees and $391,297 for the Citywide transportation impact fee (TIF). The fee estimates were based on an assumption of an existing commercial building at 50,467 square feet which had existed on the property until 2007, resulting in no requirement for housing fees and no additional associated parks, community center, library fees, nor Citywide TIF for the commercial portion of the project. The final fee amount will be determined based upon impact fee rates in place at the time of building permit issuance. 10.The following mitigation measures specified in the adopte Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be followed: MM-1:Implementation of ARB Recommendations Any Architectural Review conditions of approval, with respect to the design of the proposed project, shall be incorporated into the final design by the applicant. 18 MM-2:Indoor Air Filtration A central HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) shall be installed that includes high efficiency filters for particulates (MERV-13 or higher). The system should operate to maintain positive pressure within the building interior to prevent infiltration of outdoor air indoors. MM-3:Protection of Nesting Birds The applicant shall abide by all provisions of Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code and Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) as published in the Federal Register (Vol. 70, No. 49; March 15, 2005). Although there is no vegetation on the project site that may contain nesting birds, there may be nesting birds in existing vegetation abutting the proposed project site (e.g., in the Caltrain property). To protect any nesting birds, the proposed project may avoid construction during the nesting period. Alternatively, a qualified wildlife biologist (to be hired by the applicant) shall conduct a survey for nesting birds that are covered by the MBTA and/or Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code in the vicinity of the project site. This survey shall cover all areas that would be disturbed as a result of construction related activities during the nesting period, and shall include a “buffer zone” (an area of potential sensitivity, beyond the bounds of the proposed project construction area) which shall be determined by the biologist based on his or her professional judgment and experience. This buffer zone may include off-site habitat. This biological survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the commencement of construction activities. The wildlife biologist shall provide a report to the City promptly, detailing the findings of the survey. No construction shall be conducted until this report has been provided to the City and the City has authorized in writing the commencement of construction activities in accord with the biologist’s findings. If nesting birds that are covered by the MBTA and/or Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code are discovered within the buffer zone, the report shall specify the locations of the nests and shall establish an appropriate construction buffer zone around the nest location(s). Nests containing birds that are covered by the MBTA and/or Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code discovered on site or at off-site locations shall not be disturbed, and construction shall not occur within the appropriate construction buffer zone until a qualified wildlife biologist determines that the young have fledged and left the nest. 19 MM-4:Protocol for Management of On-site Contamination a)A formal dewatering plan (Construction Dewatering Contingency Plan) shall be prepared, consistent with Mitigation Measure MM-6 in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality of this Initial Study and consistent with the City’s Construction Dewatering System Plan Preparation Guidelines and Dewatering from Construction Sites and In-ground Utilities Maintenance Manual. This plan shall be prepared and submitted for final approval by the City’s Public Works Department prior to issuance of City permits. The applicant shall provide information in the plan regarding the lateral and vertical distances to existing groundwater contamination plumes and an analysis of the potential impacts to those plumes caused by construction activity on the project property, including the use of dewatering sumps or wells under the proposed underground parking structure. Prior to submission to the City, this information shall be submitted to the RWQCB for approval that the proposed work on the subject property, including any use of dewatering sumps or dewatering wells would not have an adverse impact on the current and future cleanup effort of the HP-Varian or COE plumes. The approval shall be submitted to the City’s Public Works Department with the plan and shall verify that dewatering sumps or dewatering wells, if proposed, would not alter the path of the groundwater contamination plume(s) and could not result in 1)bringing groundwater contamination to the project site or 2)a possible future exposure of the public on the project site to groundwater contaminants. The plan shall identify testing and analysis methods, and treatment, if necessary, for disposal into the storm drain system to ensure compliance with the City’s Municipal NPDES permit. Sufficient personnel and material shall be provided by the applicant to implement the plan, should groundwater be encountered by the excavation. b)The applicant shall provide ready access to the project site for the City Building Official, or a third party hired by the Building Official, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of activities related to excavation and design features during project construction at sites with contaminated soil and groundwater, to inspect and enforce implementation of the Soil Management Plan prepared by Tucker Engineering addressing the procedures and precautions to be used for the proper containment, profiling, movement, exportation of soil, etc. during the excavation and construction period. 20 c)The applicant shall provide ready access to the project site for the third party inspection service, which would report to the City and be financed by the applicant to inspect and enforce implementation of the Remedial Risk Management Plan (RRMP), including implementation of the Site Health and Safety Plan; contaminated soil sampling, excavation, and management; the dewatering contingency plan; reporting requirements; land use covenant and environmental restrictions; long term monitoring, inspections, contingencies, and enforcement. d)The applicant shall file documentation with the RWQCB, the third party inspection service reporting to the City and financed by the applicant, and the City for final approval of the completion of the excavation, including soil sampling results within 60 days following the completion of excavation. e)Prior to issuance of the occupancy permit the applicant shall file documentation from an independent consultant specializing in vapor mitigation system design and installation for final approval by the third party inspection service reporting to the City and financed by the applicant confirming that each component (collection pipes, transmission pipes, inlets, risers, vents, etc.) of the vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS) has been installed in accordance with the recommendations of the Vapor Mitigation System and Monitoring Plan, and includes the installation of a full vapor barrier, which shall be a 60-mil thick, spray-applied membrane below the elevator shafts, stairwells, pipe chases, and entire floor-slab, as part of the active vapor collection and venting system (i.e., driven by electric fans at the effluent end of the VIMS riser pipes and enhanced by outside air entering through inlet vents) to be installed in the building to mitigate potential soil vapor intrusion. f)The applicant shall file documentation with the RWQCB and the City for final approval by the third party inspection service reporting to the City and financed by the applicant of installation of the VIMS, initial garage air sampling results, and the startup sub-slab vapor-riser monitoring results, with vapor-riser monitoring reports submitted as required by the RRMP, within 60 days following the completion of building construction. g)The applicant shall comply with contingencies regarding vapor monitoring to protect against potential vapor 21 intrusion which would involve additional remediation if the results of the first six (monthly) monitoring events indicate any cause for concern. If the VIMS is operating correctly, monitoring would continue quarterly until vapor concentrations were reduced to 50 percent of the RWQCB ESLs and annually thereafter. If the third party inspection service determines that the VIMS is not functioning adequately, the system is required to be redesigned (under the supervision of the third party inspection service) for more effective removal of VOCs. Monitoring would continue until VOC concentrations were demonstrated to be maintained below the commercial ESLs, as recommended by the RWQCB. h)The applicant shall condition the lease agreements with each R&D tenant proposing to use hazardous materials to stipulate that the storage and use of hazardous materials within their space would not exceed the limits set by Tables 2703.1.1(1), (2), and (3) Maximum Allowable Quantity Per Control Area of Hazardous Materials Posing a Physical Hazard, 2010 California Fire Code, Title 24, Part 9, Chapter 27, Section 2703.1.1. The space for each R&D tenant proposing to use hazardous materials shall be constructed as a separate compartment with one-hour rated walls, protected common openings, and separate ventilation systems. i)The applicant shall condition the lease agreements with each R&D tenant proposing to use hazardous materials to stipulate that the tenant shall comply with the City’s Hazardous Materials Reporting Requirements and shall prepare and file with the Fire Department, as appropriate, a Hazardous Materials Management Plan or a Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement providing sufficient information on how and where hazardous materials are handled by the business to allow fire, safety, health, and other appropriate personnel to prepare adequate emergency responses to potential releases of the hazardous materials. j)Monitoring wells encountered during site preparation or excavation shall be reported immediately to the RWQCB for its decision regarding proper abandonment or abandonment and replacement by the applicant. Work shall stop in proximity to the well(s) until the decision of the RWQCB is implemented. The applicant shall file documentation with the RWQCB and the City for final approval by the City Building Official, or a third party hired by the Building Official, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of activities related to excavation and design features 22 during project construction at sites with contaminated soil and groundwater,of proper abandonment or abandonment and replacement of any affected wells. MM-5: Grading and Drainage Plan The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan for the proposed project, for City approval prior to the issuance of a grading, excavation, or building permit. This grading and drainage plan shall comply with Engineering Design Standards for storm drain facilities, shall be designed to convey the 10-year storm flow, and shall reflect the recommendations of the Joe Crosby and Associates Geotechnical Report, dated May 10, 2004. MM-6:Construction Dewatering Plan A construction dewatering plan shall be prepared consistent with Chapter 33 of the 2007 California Building Code, and shall be submitted to the City in association with all proposed sub-grade garage excavation activities prior to issuance of a grading, excavation or building permit. The applicant shall include the dewatering plan in the permit plan set submitted for approvals for any excavation activities on the project site. The plan shall provide a system that would remove silt and other pollutants from this water and place clean water into the City storm drain system. The applicant shall secure current data on the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using piezometers, or by drilling exploratory holes, if the deepest excavation would be less than four feet above the highest anticipated groundwater level. Should dewatering be necessary (i.e., if excavation would occur within four feet above the highest anticipated groundwater level and the piezometer investigation revealed the presence of free groundwater within four feet above that highest anticipated groundwater level), the applicant shall secure City permits associated with the placement of dewatering equipment or actual dewatering and excavation activities on the project site or the abutting public right- of-way prior to beginning excavation. Upon installation, the dewatering system shall reflect BMPs that ensure the water discharged would be of appropriate quality. The installation shall be approved by a City field inspector prior to the commencement of construction water discharge to the storm drain. Extracted groundwater shall be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. Testing shall be performed by an independent testing firm hired by the Building Official, at the owner's expense. Any dewatering to occur in the public right-of-way shall be 23 subject to review and approval by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department. MM-7:Indoor Noise Minimization The project shall include design features as specified in the project noise assessment to reduce the indoor noise levels to meet the interior noise standards prescribed by the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policy N-39. MM-8:Pedestrian Warning System A vehicle exiting/pedestrian warning system shall be installed for the underground parking garage driveway to eliminate potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists. MM-9:Transportation Demand Management Plan A Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) program shall be implemented as approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The TDM shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits and shall include a shared parking analysis based on the number of assigned parking spaces, and may incorporate (but shall not be limited to) such features as: developer-sponsored subsidized transit passes for residents and employees, a transportation coordinator, convenient displays of alternative travel options, and unbundling of parking, if such features are determined to be adequately effective by the Director of Planning and Community Environment in reducing parking demand. The TDM program shall be subject to further review after building occupancy pursuant to PAMC 18.52.050(d)(3) and (4). Housing Condition 11.Applicant has requested two concessions from the City under the State Density Bonus Law. Prior to approval of the Tentative Map, Applicant must comply with State Density Bonus Law and the City’s Below Market Rate Housing Ordinance, as applicable, by deed restricting 20%, or 17, of the approved housing units to be affordable pursuant to State law and City below-market rate policy. This deed restriction shall be in a form acceptable to the City and an agreement to that effect shall be recorded in conjunction with recording of the Final Map. Transportation Division 12.The plans, ‘Exhibit A,’ include public street improvement plans which are to be funded and implemented by the owner in conjunction with this project, and shall be completed prior to final occupancy approval. 24 13.The short term (plaza level) bicycle racks should be inverted-U type racks, or other approved by transportation staff. 14.The new curb shown would be acceptable.(Maintain 5 foot bike lane and 10.5 foot travel lanes throughout frontage). 15.Accessible parking spaces shall be 18 feet long. 16.Parking spaces that are adjacent to walls have a minimum width requirement of 9’-0”.A substandard stall, especially without the additional backup space would not be acceptable toward the parking requirement.The City of Palo Alto no longer allows new spaces to be designated for compact cars. 17.The following measures shall be incorporated during construction: ·All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily. ·All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at least two feet of freeboard. ·All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be swept and watered daily. ·A plan shall be submitted for the recovery/recycling of demolition waste and debris before the issuance of a demolition permit. ·Streets shall be swept daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. ·The approved Logistics Plan for work in the right-of-way shall be strictly followed. ·Qualified contractors should be used to identify and properly dispose ACM and lead-based paint materials if encountered. Planning Arborist Landscape Plans 18.The building permit plan set shall include a detailed landscape and irrigation plan encompassing on-and off-site plantable areas out to the curb as approved by the Architectural Review Board.A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for the project.A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant will prepare these plans, to include: (a) All existing trees (if applicable) identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. (b) Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. (c)Irrigation schedule and plan. (d)Fence locations. (e) Lighting plan with photometric data. (f) Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. (g) All new trees planted within 25 the public right-of-way shall be installed per Public Works (PW) Standard Planting Diagram #603 or 604 (include on plans), and shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. (h) Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. (i) Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees.For trees, PW Detail #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball.Bubblers shall not be mounted inside an aeration tube.The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards. (j) The Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow device is adequately obscured with the appropriate screening to minimize visibility (planted shrubbery is preferred, painted dark green, decorative boulder covering acceptable; wire cages are discouraged). 19.Mandatory Landscape Architect (LA) Inspection Verification to the City: The LA of record shall verify the performance measurements are achieved with a separate letter of verification to City Planning staff, in addition to owner’s representative for the following: Tree and Shrub Planting Specifications, including delivered stock, meets Standards in the CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.30-3.50. Girdling roots and previously topped trees are subject to rejection. 20.The groundcover species in the planter strips, where star jasmines and geranium varieties are proposed shall be replaced with a variety of carpet rose plants. During Construction 21.TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 22.GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 26 Prior to Occupancy 23.LANDSCAPE INSPECTION. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of written verification that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. 24.PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner (650-329-2441) to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. Post Construction 25.MAINTENANCE.All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2001 or current version).Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. PUBLIC WORKS -OPERATIONS TREES 26.Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard: Utilize city-approved Silva Cell soil planter (approx. 30-inch depth) beneath the new sidewalk from corner to corner. Utilities shall be allowed to pass thru the planters. Provide automatic irrigation using a solar smart controller with two bubblers per tree. Utilize Public Works Planting Detail #604. Beneath each tree planting site, auger two 4-6” diameter drain holes 3 ft deep below the bottom of the planter basin soil and backfill with medium sand (0.25 to 0.5 mm) or fine gravel. 27.For the Park Boulevard frontage, the proposed landscape plan shall be revised to show: (1) five 24-inch box Hornbeam trees in place of the five Australian Willow trees, and (2) the planting locations of the proposed two London Plane (‘Columbia’ variety rather than ‘Yarwood’) street trees closest to the adjacent property at 3845 Park Boulevard shall be shifted one foot further back from the curb (this may require a slight modification to the sidewalk design to accommodate sufficient planting areas for the ne street trees). 28.Provide automatic irrigation using a solar smart controller with two bubblers per tree. Utilize Public Works Planting Detail #604. Beneath each tree planting site, auger two 4-6” diameter drain holes 3ft deep below the bottom of the planter basin soil and backfill with medium sand (0.25 to 0.5 mm) or fine gravel. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all street trees utilizing PW Detail #513. 27 29.The final landscape and irrigation shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Operation Division prior to issuance of building permits. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING SERVICES 30.OFFSITE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The City will determine which offsite public improvements will be required for this project, potentially including, but not limited to: new utility services; new sidewalk, curb, gutter, planter strip and street trees; grinding, repaving, reconfiguring and restriping the full width of the City streets adjacent to the site; and street signage. Special sidewalk treatments must be approved by Public Works. The offsite improvement plans must be submitted to Public Works for review. Construction of the offsite public improvements will be authorized by a Street Work Permit. 31.BONDS: The developer shall post performance and payment bonds prior to the issuance of the Street Work Permit for the offsite public improvements. The developer shall submit a cost estimate of the offsite improvements, which the City will review and use to determine the acceptable dollar amount of the bonds. 32.BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 33.BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. Public Works will not allow any of the shoring system to remain in the public right-of-way after construction is complete except tiebacks. 34.DEWATERING: Basement excavations may require dewatering during construction.Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering.Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed.Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level.We recommend a piezometer to be installed in the soil boring. The contractor must determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using the piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole if the 28 deepest excavation will be within 3 feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level. If groundwater is within 3 feet of the deepest excavation, a drawdown well dewatering system must be used, or alternatively, the contractor can excavate for the basement and hope not to hit groundwater, but if he does, he must immediately stop all work and install a drawdown well system before he continues to excavate.Public Works may require the water to be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering.If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for the contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. (A)Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Permit for Construction in the Public Street (“street work permit”).The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a street work permit prior to dewatering.Public Works has a standard dewatering plan sheet that can be used for this purpose and dewatering guidelines are available on Public Works’ website.Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. 35.GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that demonstrates proper drainage of the site. Additionally, if the applicant will be connecting onsite storm drains to the city’s storm drain system, he must provide calculations demonstrating that post-development discharge of run-off will be no more than pre-development runoff, otherwise, he may be required to provide onsite detention. 36.GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include a table providing the cubic yardage of dirt being cut and filled outside of the building footprint. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 37.SWPPP:The proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant will be required to comply with the State of California’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, preparing and implementing a site specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses construction- stage BMP’s for storm water quality protection, and conducting 29 monitoring and sampling of storm water and non-storm water discharges from the site during construction per the requirements of the General Permit. Effective, September 2, 2011, the SWPPP shall be implemented by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) retained by the applicant. The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. Also, include the City's standard "Pollution Prevention -It's Part of the Plan" sheet in the building permit plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at the Development Center. 38.IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 39.C.3: This project will trigger the California Regional Water Quality Control Board’s revised provision C.3 for storm water regulations (incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 16.11) that apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. The City’s regulations require that the project incorporate a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality. The applicant will be required to identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as biotreatment planters, bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavers rather than mechanical devices that require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a specified “water quality storm” prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system. If the project does not receive its final discretionary approval from the City prior to December 1, 2011, the applicant must also comply with the Low Impact Development (LID) requirements for storm water treatment, as specified in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.11.030(c). Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a certification by a qualified third party reviewer acceptable to the City that the design of the project complies with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. Within 45 days of installation of the required storm water treatment measures, a qualified third party reviewer acceptable to the City shall provide written certification that the treatment measures are constructed or installed in accordance with the approved plans. The applicant must designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City. No final occupancy permit shall be 30 issued until such third party certification and maintenance agreement are provided to Public Works Engineering. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. There is currently a $350 C.3 plan check fee that will be collected upon submittal for a grading or building permit. 40.AS-BUILTS: At the conclusion of the project, applicant shall provide digital as-built plans of all improvements constructed in the public right-of-way or easements in which the City owns an interest. A digital copy of the subdivision map shall also be provided. All files should be delivered in AutoCad drawing format. For each CD delivery, a simple digital text file will need to accompany the files. This is called a Metadata file and will include the date of the file, the coordinates used, the source of the data, the company name and contact information, along with the technician who prepared them. 41.BUILDING PERMIT SIGN-OFF: The Public Works Inspector shall sign-off the building permit. Activities that must be completed prior to this sign-off include: 1) all off-site improvements, 2) all on-site grading and storm drain improvements, 3) all post-construction storm water pollution control measures (including third-party certification [within 45 days of installation] that the measures are installed in accordance with the approved plans), 4) entering into and recording a maintenance agreement for the C.3 measures, and 5) submittal of as-built record drawings for improvements in the public right-of-way. PUBLIC WORKS WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE 42.(PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater). The project is located in an area of suspected or known groundwater contamination with Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). If groundwater is encountered then the plans must include the following procedure for construction dewatering: Prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering, the water shall be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using EPA Method 601/602 or Method 624. The analytical results of the VOC testing shall be transmitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) 650-329-2598. Contaminated ground water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain system or creeks.If the concentrations of pollutants exceed the applicable limits for discharge to the storm drain system then an Exceptional Discharge Permit must be obtained from the RWQCP prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. If the VOC concentrations exceed the toxic organics discharge limits contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) a 31 treatment system for removal of VOCs will also be required prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. Additionally, any water discharged to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system must be free of sediment. 43.(PAMC 16.09.180(b)(11) Carwash Required). New Multi-family residential units and residential development projects with 25 or more units shall provide a covered area for occupants to wash their vehicles. A drain shall be installed to capture all vehicle wash waters and shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. The oil/water separator shall be cleaned at a frequency of at least once every six months or more frequently if recommended by the manufacturer or the Superintendent. Oil/water separators shall have a minimum capacity of 100 gallons. The area shall be graded or bermed in such a manner as to prevent the discharge of storm water to the sanitary sewer system. 44.(PAMC 16.09.080 Industrial Waste Discharge Permit). Industrial dischargers must submit an application for an industrial waste discharge permit no later than sixty days in advance of commencing discharge. 45.(PAMC 16.09.180(b)(9) Covered Parking). Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system 46.(PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities). New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection, except for single-family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water runon and runoff from the area. 47.(PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper). On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory. 32 48.(PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2) Loading Docks). (i)Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. (ii) Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled or used within the loading dock area, a drain to the storm drain system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. The area in which the drain is located shall be covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading. Appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided for all rainwater contacting the loading dock site. 49.(PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC). Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 50.(PAMC 16.09.205 Cooling Towers). No person shall discharge or add to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system, or add to a cooling system, pool, spa, fountain, boiler or heat exchanger, any substance that contains any of the following: (1)Copper in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; (2)Any tri-butyl tin compound in excess of 0.10 mg/liter; (3)Chromium in excess of 2.0 mg/liter. (4)Zinc in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; or (5)Molybdenum in excess of 2.0 mg/liter. The above limits shall apply to any of the above-listed substances prior to dilution with the cooling system, pool, spa or fountain water. A flow meter shall be installed to measure the volume of blowdown water from the new cooling tower. Cooling systems discharging greater than 2,000 gallons per day are required to meet a copper discharge limit of 0.25 milligrams per liter. 51.(PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping). Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical.The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing. 33 52.(PAMC 16.09.175(j) Traps Below Laboratory Sinks). Sewer traps below laboratory sinks shall be made of glass or other approved transparent materials to allow inspection and to determine frequency of cleaning. Alternatively, a removable plug for cleaning the trap may be provided, in which case a cleaning frequency shall be established by the Superintendent. In establishing the cleaning frequency, the Superintendent shall consider the recommendations of the facility. The Superintendent will grant an exception to this requirement for areas where mercury will not be used; provided, that in the event such an exception is granted and mercury is subsequently used in the area, the sink trap shall be retrofitted to meet this requirement prior to use of the mercury. 53.(PAMC 16.09.175(a) Floor Drains).Interior (indoor) floor drains to the sanitary sewer system may not be placed in areas where hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, industrial wastes, industrial process water, lubricating fluids, vehicle fluids or vehicle equipment cleaning wastewater are used or stored, unless secondary containment is provided for all such materials and equipment 54.(PAMC 16.09.175(i) Laboratory Sinks).Laboratory countertops and laboratory sinks shall be separated by a berm which prevents hazardous materials spilled on the countertop from draining to the sink. 55.(PAMC 16.09.180(b)(1) and 16.09.105 Segregated Plumbing and Sampling Locations). The owner of every new commercial and industrial building or portion thereof shall cause the building to be constructed so that industrial waste is segregated, by means of separate plumbing, from domestic waste prior to converging with other waste streams in the sanitary sewer system. For the purposes of this section only, the term "new" shall also include change to a use that requires plumbing for industrial waste. Establishments from which industrial wastes are discharged to the sanitary sewer system shall provide and maintain one or more sampling locations or metering devices or volume and flow measuring methodologies or other sampling and measuring points approved by the Superintendent which will allow the separate measuring and sampling of industrial and domestic wastes. Unless otherwise approved by the Superintendent, domestic and industrial waste shall be kept completely separated upstream of such sampling locations and/or measuring points. Establishments that are billed for sewer service on the basis of sewage effluent constituents shall provide a suitable means for sampling and/or measurement of flow to determine billing constituents in accordance with the utilities rules and requirements. Sampling locations shall be so located that they are safe and accessible to the Superintendent at any reasonable time during which discharge is occurring. 34 56.(16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches). Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps. 57.(PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains, Boilers and Heat Exchangers). It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm drain system. 58.(PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling). Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping -Flows to Bay," or equivalent. 59.Undesignated Retail Space: (PAMC 16.09) Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of the space with undesignated tenants or future use will need to meet all requirements that would have been applicable during design and construction. If such undesignated retail space becomes a food service facility the following requirements must be met: Food Service Establishment (FSE) Project: A. Grease Control Device (GCD) Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes 1.The plans shall specify the manufacturer details and installation details of all proposed GCDs. (CBC 1009.2) 2.GCD(s) shall be sized in accordance with the 2007 California Plumbing Code. 3.GCD(s) shall be installed with a minimum capacity of 500 gallons. 4.GCD sizing calculations shall be included on the plans. See a sizing calculation example below. 5.The size of all GCDs installed shall be equal to or larger than what is specified on the plans. 6.GCDs larger than 50 gallons (100 pounds) shall not be installed in food preparation and storage areas. Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health prefers GCDs to be installed outside. GCDs shall be installed such that all access points or manholes are readily accessible for inspection, cleaning and removal of all contents. GCDs located outdoors shall be installed in such a manner so as to exclude the entrance of surface and stormwater. (CPC 1009.5) 7.All large, in-ground interceptors shall have a minimum of three manholes to allow visibility of each inlet piping, baffle (divider) wall, baffle piping and outlet piping. The plans shall clearly indicate the number of proposed manholes on the GCD. The Environmental Compliance Division of Public Works Department may authorize variances which allow GCDs with less than three manholes due to manufacture available options or adequate visibility. 8.Sample boxes shall be installed downstream of all GCDs. 9.All GCDs shall be fitted with relief vent(s). (CPC 1002.2 & 1004) 35 10.GCD(s) installed in vehicle traffic areas shall be rated and indicated on plans. B. Drainage Fixture Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes 11.To ensure all FSE drainage fixtures are connected to the correct drain lines, each drainage fixture shall be clearly labeled on the plans. A list of all fixtures and their discharge connection, i.e. sanitary sewer or grease waste line, shall be included on the plans. 12.A list indicating all connections to each proposed GCD shall be included on the plans. This can be incorporated into the sizing calculation. 13.All grease generating drainage fixtures shall connect to a GCD. These include but are not limited to: a.Pre-rinse (scullery) sinks b.Three compartment sinks (pot sinks) c.Drainage fixtures in dishwashing room except for dishwashers shall connect to a GCD d.Examples: trough drains (small drains prior to entering a dishwasher), small drains on busing counters adjacent to pre-rinse sinks or silverware soaking sinks e.Floor drains in dishwashing area and kitchens f.Prep sinks g.Mop (janitor) sinks h.Outside areas designated for equipment washing shall be covered and any drains contained therein shall connect to a GCD. i.Drains in trash/recycling enclosures j.Wok stoves, rotisserie ovens/broilers or other grease generating cooking equipment with drip lines k.Kettles and tilt/braising pans and associated floor drains/sinks 14.The connection of any high temperature discharge lines and non-grease generating drainage fixtures to a GCD is prohibited. The following shall not be connected to a GCD: a.Dishwashers b.Steamers c.Pasta cookers d.Hot lines from buffet counters and kitchens e.Hand sinks f.Ice machine drip lines g.Soda machine drip lines h.Drainage lines in bar areas 15.No garbage disposers (grinders) shall be installed in a FSE. (PAMC 16.09.075(d)). 16.Plumbing lines shall not be installed above any cooking, food preparation and storage areas. 17.Each drainage fixture discharging into a GCD shall be individually trapped and vented. (CPC 1014.5) 36 C. Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas PAMC, 16.09.075(q)(2) 18.New buildings constructed to house FSEs shall include a covered area for all dumpsters, bins, carts or container used for the collection of trash, recycling, food scraps and waste cooking fats, oils and grease (FOG) or tallow. 19.The area shall be designed and shown on plans to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. 20.Drains that are installed within the enclosure for recycle and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins serving FSEs are optional. Any such drain installed shall be connected to a GCD. 21.If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in the covered area. D. Large Item Cleaning Sink, PAMC 16.09.075(m)(2)(B) 22.FSEs shall have a sink or other area drain which is connected to a GCD and large enough for cleaning the largest kitchen equipment such as floor mats, containers, carts, etc. Recommendation: Generally, sinks or cleaning areas larger than a typical mop/janitor sink are more useful. E. GCD sizing criteria and an example of a GCD sizing calculation (2007 CPC) Sizing Criteria:GCD Sizing:Drain Fixtures DFUs Total DFUs GCD Volume (gallons)Pre-rinse sink 4 8 5003 compartment sink 3 21 7502 compartment sink 3 35 1,000Prep sink 3 90 1,250Mop/Janitorial sink 3 172 1,500Floor drain 2 216 2,000Floor sink 2 Example GCD Sizing Calculation Note:·All resubmitted plans to Building Department which include FSE projects shall be resubmitted to Water Quality. ·It is frequently to the FSE’s advantage to install the next size larger GCD to allow for more efficient grease discharge prevention and may allow for longer times between Quantity Drainage Fixture & Item Number DFUs Total 1 Pre-rinse sink, Item 1 4 4 1 3 compartment sink, Item 2 3 3 2 Prep sinks, Item 3 & Floor sink, Item 4 3 6 1 Mop sink, Item 5 3 3 1 Floor trough, Item 6 & tilt skillet, Item 7 2 2 1 Floor trough, Item 6 & steam kettle, Item 8 2 2 1 Floor sink, Item 4 & wok stove, Item 9 2 2 4 Floor drains 2 8 1,000 gallon GCD minimum sized Total:30 37 cleaning. There are many manufacturers of GCDs which are available in different shapes, sizes and materials (plastic, reinforced fiberglass, reinforced concrete and metal) ·The requirements will assist FSEs with FOG discharge prevention to the sanitary sewer and storm drain pollution prevention. The FSE at all times shall comply with the Sewer Use Ordinance of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The ordinances include requirements for GCDs, GCD maintenance, drainage fixtures, record keeping and construction projects. UTILITIES ENGINEERING –WATER GAS WASTEWATER 60.Master metering of water or gas is subject to the approval of the city of Palo Alto utilities Assistant Director of Customer Service. Gas master metering is subject to the following conditions of the Palo Alto Utilities Rules and Regulation 15: MASTER METERING: Separate premises, even though owned by the same Customer, will not be supplied water, gas, and/or electric through the same meter (i.e. master meter), except as provided herein. i.RESIDENTIAL Customers for which water, gas, and electric master-metering was installed prior to December 31, 1982, may continue to obtain service at a single Point of Delivery through a single metering installation for two or more single-family dwelling units in the same building or for two or more multi- family dwelling buildings, provided such buildings are adjacent to each other on an integral parcel of land undivided by a public highway, street, or railway. Requests for master-metered multi-family residential service subsequent to December 31, 1982, will be evaluated and approved if central space conditioning is acceptable to CPAU. Developments with such central systems will continue to qualify for master metering. (B)NONRESIDENTIAL (C)CPAU need not serve premises directly, but shall provide master-metered gas service, where any of the following conditions are met: (D)The building will contain central heating, air conditioning, or central domestic hot water and can be shown (using accepted methods of calculation) to be more energy efficient and at a more favorable cost-benefit ratio than would be the case if individual metering were installed. 38 i.(B) The building is designed to be subdivided or modified after construction to meet changing space needs of a number of tenants. 61.Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures. 62.The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect the gas service and meter including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after the gas service and meters have been disconnected and removed. 63.The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application -load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). Utility applications/Load sheets or preliminary loads need to be submitted early in the process so utilities can review the impact on existing WGW mains. 64.The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. 65.The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. 66.The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 67.Sewer drainage piping serving fixtures located below the next upstream sewer main manhole cover shall be protected by an approved backwater valve per California Plumbing Code 710.0. The upstream sewer main manhole rim elevation shall be shown on the plans. 68.Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 39 69.Flushing of the fire system to sanitary sewer shall not exceed 30 GPM. Higher flushing rates shall be diverted to a detention tank to achieve the 30 GPM flow to sewer. 70.Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions: (1) The pump(s) be limited to a total 100 GPM capacity or less; (2) The sewage line changes to a gravity flow line at least 20’ upstream of the City clean out. (3) The tank and float is set up such that the pump run time not exceed 20 seconds each cycle. 71.The applicant's engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing will be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant will be required to perform, at his expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer mains to determine the remaining capacity.The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. 72.For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department two copies of the installation of water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. 73.The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with the installation of the new utility service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The approved relocation of services, meters, 40 hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 74.Each unit, parcel or place of business shall have its own water service, gas meter and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 75.A separate water meter and backflow preventer shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account and no other water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards. 76.An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) shall be installed for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 77.An approved RP detector valve shall be installed for the existing or new water connections for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (if the applicant intends to have an alternate source of water available for irrigation or toilet flushing, i.e. reclaimed water or gray water, an approved reduced pressure detector assembly will be required for the fire service). Double check detector check valves shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line. Show the location of the double detector check assembly on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the City connection and the assembly. 78.All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 79.All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilties procedures. UTILITIES ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL DEPARTMENT 41 80.New sanitary sewer line on Page Mill Road shall not be placed under the proposed transformers. The applicant shall resubmit the site plan with either a new location for the pad-mounted transformers, or reroute the new sanitary sewer line such that there is proper clearance between the sanitary sewer line and the electric facilities. Locations for pad-mounted transformers shall be submitted to the Utilities Department for approval. WGW Utilities requires a minimum of 5 feet radial separation between electric conduits and WGW conduits. 81.A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all building permit applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal. 82.The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property as required by the City. 83.Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 84.All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 85.Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. Additional fees may be assessed for the reinforcement of offsite electric facilities. 86.Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. 42 87.All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at a depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 88.The Applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 89.The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no ½-inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. 90.All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 91.The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. 92.These are only preliminary comments and should not be considered as final review or approval for the project. Utilities Engineering will provide detailed comments as well as cost estimate when plans are submitted to the Building Department for review and approval. The City recommends customers/developers to contact Utilities Engineering (650- 566-4533/4516) and obtain Utilities Standards and Requirements prior to finalizing plans. 43 93.For any questions regarding the above project, feel free to contact me at ext.4533. BUILDING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO PERMIT APPLICATION 94.Any tenant space used for storage, use or handling of hazardous materials shall be designed as a separate control area in accordance with the Building Code, including one- hour fire separation, independent ventilation, and any fume hood or process exhaust shall be independently ducted in accordance with the Mechanical Code to the roof. 95.No Group H occupancies will be allowed on site. 96.The proposed new building shall be assigned a single Park Boulevard address. 2901 Park Blvd. shall be used since it coincides with the location of the proposed main entrance. 97.The plans submitted for the building permit shall include the full scope of the construction including all site development, utility installations, architectural, structural, electrical, plumbing and mechanical work associated with the proposed project. 98.The entire project is to be included under a single building permit and shall not be phased under multiple permits except that interior improvements of the commercial tenant spaces may be built under separate permits. 99.The design of building components that are not included in the plans submitted for building permit and are to be “deferred” shall be limited to as few items as possible. The list of deferred items shall be reviewed and approved prior to permit application. 100.The commercial tenant spaces located below the second floor 3 hour occupancy separation shall be limited to S3, A3, B, and M occupancies per UBC Section 311.2.2.1. Other occupancies, such as, F, H, A2.1, R1 and E, shall not be permitted. 101.A maximum of 4 control areas are permitted in the entire building. The quantities of hazardous materials stored and used by all the future tenants of the B occupancy R&D areas shall be maintained below maximum allowable. 102.The plans submitted for the building permit shall include an allowable floor area calculation that relates the mixed occupancies to type or types of construction. 44 103.The portion of the building where the pool is located shall be provided with an exit stair enclosure. Horizontal exits may only be used for 50% of the required exits. 104.The location of the building’s electrical service shall require prior approval by the Building Division and shall be located at an exterior location or in a room or enclosure accessible directly form the exterior. 105.All sleeping rooms in the apartment units below the fourth floor shall be provided with egress windows. The windows shall open into a public street, public alley, yard or exit court (these terms are defined in the 1997 Uniform Building Code). 106.Exit discharge from the stair enclosures to the public way shall be configured so that the path is entirely outside the building through courts or yards that are open to the sky. The plan submitted with the Planning applications indicates the exit path to the public way leading below the bridges created by the upper floors. 107.The plans submitted with the permit application shall include the complete design for disabled access and exiting for the entire site, building entrances and basement parking garage. Disabled access features and exiting within the unimproved commercial areas may be deferred to future tenant improvement permits. 108.The parking garage is proposed to contain 275 total parking spaces. For that number of total spaces, CBC Table 11B-6 requires that at least 7 handicap parking spaces. 109.An acoustical analysis shall be submitted and the plans shall incorporate the report’s recommendations needed to comply with the sound transmissions requirements in CBC Appendix Chapter 12. FIRE DEPARTMENT 110.Install a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler, NFPA 14 standpipe (below grade parking through roof levels) and NFPA 72 fire alarm system. Separate permit is required for the fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems. The underground fire service line requires separate applications to the Fire Prevention Bureau, the Public Works Department and the Water/Gas/Wastewater Section of the Utilities Department. Fire sprinkler control valves and water flow switches are required per building level. 45 111.Elevator car shall be sized for Fire Department gurney access requirements based on gurney dimensions of 24 in. x 84 in. plus a minimum of two emergency response personnel. 112.When the Main Electrical Shutoff is located in the interior of the building, an exterior shunt trip or other approved means of emergency shutoff shall be provided. Please contact the Building Div. For details. 113.All sprinkler drains, including those for floor control valves and inspector’s test valves, as well as the main drain, shall not discharge within the building. Water discharged from these points shall be directed to an approved landscape location or to the sanitary sewer system. (2002NFPA13, Sec. 8.15.2.4.4) NOTE: Please check with Roland Ekstrand in Utilities for maximum flow capacity of sanitary sewer in the area. 114.An approved access walkway shall be provided to each egress/rescue window. 115.The Applicant shall provide Opticom traffic signal preemption equipment and reimbursement for cost of installation for the Page Mill Road/El Camino Real intersection. 116.Site address to be posted at the main access to the property. 8. Provide at least 1 stairway to roof. Provide fixed ladder/roof hatch at top of other stairwell enclosures. PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS -RECYCLING 117.Owner shall comply with all City recycling and garbage collection requirements. Please contact Andrew Shelton, of Greenwaste Recovery Inc. at 650-799-8720 for further information on these requirements. SECTION 9: Terms of Approval.If the Architectural Review Approval granted herein is not used within one year of the date of City Council approval, or within two years of this approval upon Director’s extension of the AR, the approval shall become null and void, pursuant to PAMC Section 18.77.090. SECTION 10.Indemnity Clause.To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the 46 litigation.The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: ______________________________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM _______________________________________ City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Project plans prepared by Hoover Associates dated June 28, 2011 and Tentative Map prepared by Mission Engineers, Inc titled “Tentative Map for ‘Park Plaza’ for 50,467 square feet of R&D space and 84 Residential Condominium Units” dated August __, 2011 (title revised from plans dated September 27, 2010, no other changes). 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -1 - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 1.Project Title:Park Plaza 2.Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Palo Alto –Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 3.Contact Person and Phone Number: Lata Vasudevan Contract Planner (650) 329-2630 4.Project Location:195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, California 5.Application Number(s):08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00344 6.Project Sponsor (Applicant):Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership 29 Lowery Drive Atherton, CA 94027 7.Property Owner:Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership 29 Lowery Drive Atherton, CA 94027 8.General Plan Designation: Light Industrial 9.Zoning: GM –General Manufacturing 10.Description of the Project: Project Site The proposed Park Plaza project (“proposed project”) site is at 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, in the "General Manufacturing" (GM) zoning district. The project site is bounded by Park Boulevard, Page Mill Road, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) propertyand 3405 Park Boulevard. The project site consists of one parcel (APN 132-32-054), which is approximately 2.52 acres (gross) and 2.41 acres (net). An 11-foot street easement extends along the southwest property line adjacent to Park Boulevard. The Caltrain railway property defines the northeast project site propertyline. Alma Street parallels the Caltrain right-of-way, and multiple family residences face Alma Street along the northeast side. Page Mill Road defines the northwest boundary of the project site and a vacant Formatted:Not Highlight 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -2 - lot is across Page Mill Road. Adjacent uses include railroad tracks, automobile body shop, automobile sales and service, offices occupied by AOL and subtenants, and law offices. The project site currently is vacant. Previous development at the site included buildings which were demolished on, or about, August 2007. The project site presently is leased by K.J.Woods Construction Company, Inc. for use as a construction materials staging and operations area for a sewer line replacement project for the City of Palo Alto. Proposed Land Uses The proposed project would include research and development (R&D) and residential uses. The total building size would be 157,387 square feet, including 50,467 square feet of R&D space on the ground floor, and 106,920 square feet of residential space on the second and third floors. The residential space would contain 84 dwelling units: 20 one- bedroom units, 60 two-bedroom units, and 4 three-bedroom units. Seventeen of the units (20 percent) would be designated as Below Market Rate (BMR) dwelling units. The applicant has requested that the Cityapply ‘concessions’ (to grant two exceptions from development standards) in exchange for providing 20 percent BMR units, pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65915 et seq. (explained in the Land Use and Housing section of this Initial Study). A subterranean parking garage would provide 274 vehicle parking spaces. Surface parking would add 19 spaces and an additional 9 parking spaces would be available in a landscape reserve. Site improvements related to the R&D and residential uses, such as site landscaping, would be constructed as part of the proposed project. The proposed project site is identified on the Housing Sites Inventory in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan as a potential housing site to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Although housing is not generally allowed in the GM zone in which the proposed project would be constructed, housing is allowed by right because the site is on the Housing Sites Inventory. State Housing Element law prohibits a city from reducing or barring housing on an inventory site unless compensating sites are designated or all housing needs are met. Parking Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC)Section 15.42.040, a total of 388 parking spaces would be required for the proposed project. PAMC 18.52.050 allows an applicant to request parking reductions for various circumstances; combined parking adjustments amounting to no more than 30 percent of the total parking demand otherwise required are permitted subject to approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The applicant is requesting a reduction for joint use (shared) parking facilities and a reduction for proximity housing near transit facilities such as the Caltrain and bus lines. After applying these two reductions, the applicant’s required parking for the proposed uses would be 265 spaces. The proposed project would provide 302 spaces on the site, including 274 spaces in a subterranean parking garage, 19 at-grade spaces, and 9 in landscape reserve. Entrance to the underground parking facility would be from Park Boulevard at about the midpoint of the building. The proposed project would be consistent with parking standards upon approval of the parking adjustments provided for joint-use facilities and proximity to transit. Bicycle parking facilities would be provided as part of each dwelling unit’s private storage area in the parking garage. Public bicycle parking would be provided at ground level adjacent to the courtyard. Landscaping 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -3 - The proposed landscaping plan would include a fountain near the “at-grade” vehicle entrance to the courtyard, a landscaped interior courtyard with decorative paving, and new landscaping on both Park Boulevard and Page Mill Road. A combination of coast redwoods and Canary Island pines are proposed to be planted adjacent to the rear of the building in the Caltrain/Joint Powers Board (JPB) property to soften the appearance of the rear façade. However, the applicant only has a month-to-month lease for a 10 foot wide strip of JPB land along the rear property line; therefore tree planting and maintenance cannot be guaranteed in the event the JPB needs the 10 foot wide strip for other purposes related to rail corridor improvements. Street Improvements The Transportation Impact Analysis completed in 20091 found that vehicle queues on northbound Park Boulevard, resulting from project traffic, could cause minor increases in average delay at the Park Boulevard/Page Mill Road intersection. Although these delays would not constitute a significant impact, the applicant has proposed to fund and implement a 130-foot left turn pocket lane at the intersection of Park Boulevard/Page Mill Road to facilitate left turns. Following installation of this improvement, the intersection would function at a Level of Service (LOS)A, without the need for a signal. The intersection would continue to be controlled with a two-way stop sign along Page Mill Road. Additionally, the updated Transportation Impact Analysis completed in 20102found that the proposed project would contribute to delay at the of El Camino Real/Page Mill Expressway intersection in the PM Peak Hour. However, the delay is just under the level that would constitute a significant impact. Furthermore, it will probably be alleviated by future mitigation measures that will be implemented as part of other nearbyprojects, such as the installation of traffic adaptive signal technology at all intersections in the El Camino Real corridor as part of the Stanford SUMC project. Please refer to Section XV, Transportation/Traffic. Approvals Required Approval of the proposed project would consist of the following entitlements: (1) Architectural Review approval following hearing(s) bythe Architectural Review Board (ARB) pursuant to the requirements of PAMC 18.76.020, (2) two concessions pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65915 et seq.and, (3)a tentative and final subdivision map to create residential condominium units. With 20 percent of the residential units designated as BMR units, the applicant has submitted a proposal requesting two concessions pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65915 et seq. One requested concession is to allow the proposed project to provide housing in the GM zone as a mixed-use development. The other requested concession is to allow a total proposed project floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.5 where the GM zoning (and Industrial land use designation) only permits an FAR of 0.5. Approval of these two concessions is integral to the proposed project. Apart from the requested concessions, all zoning requirements are met. For the purposes of this environmental analysis, approval of the proposed project is presumed to include approval of the two requested concessions. 1 Fehr & Peers. Final Supplemental Report, Park Plaza Transportation Impact Analysis, April 2009. 2 Fehr & Peers. Final Supplemental Report, Park Plaza Transportation Impact Analysis,October 2010. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -4 - 11.Cumulative Scenario: There are three foreseeable projects that have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the proposed project. These are: ·High Speed Rail. The High Speed Rail Authority is proposing a High Speed Train (HST) extending from San Jose to San Francisco. As proposed, the HST project would add electrified high speed trains along the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board’s (JPB) property adjacent to the 195 Page Mill Road project site. The exact HST design and alignment of the segment that would run adjacent to the propose project has not been finalized. However, to date, possible alternatives include the HST project running at-grade, where the trains run at street level, or in a trench. ·Birch Plaza. This project is a new, three-story building at the Birch Plaza, located on the corner of Birch Street and Grant Avenue (approximately 0.25 miles from 195 Page Mill Road). This project has been approved in concept along with a Mitigated Negative Declaration and rezoning of the site bythe City Council. The proposed development, now scheduled for ARB review, includes underground parking, commercial space at ground floor level and eight residential units on level two and three. The developer is Hohbach RealtyCompany Limited Partnership. ·385 Sherman Avenue Mixed-Use Project. This project would include a new, three-story building over 55,000 square feet at 385 Sherman Avenue (approximately 0.3 miles from 195 Page Mill Road). The first and second floors would be allocated for office and commercial uses, while the third and fourth floors would be for residential uses. There would be two levels of underground parking. This project has an incomplete project application, which has been delayed from further processing for over a year now. The developer is MF Sherman LLC. 12.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Location Zone District Existing Use North PF –Public Facility Railroad Tracks East GM (AD) General Manufacturing –Automobile Dealership Combining District Auto sales and service South GM General Manufacturing Offices (AOL and sub tenants) Southwest GM General Manufacturing Law Offices West GM General Manufacturing Vacant 12.Other public agencies whose approval is required: Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) because of possible presence of contaminated groundwater below the site. 13.Date Prepared: May 5, 2011 (Clarifications shown annotated herein were added on June 29, 2011 in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality; and, the June 29, 2011 responses prepared by the City’s environmental consultant (Atkins) to comments made by Robert Moss and Roger Papler are noted as Reference Document P, available for review on the City’s website and provided in the ARB packet). 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -5 - Additional clarifications added August 26, 2011 in response to Planning and Transportation Commission statements and on September 27, 2011 to note the correct file number. 14. Environmental Document Preparers: Atkins (formerly PBS&J) 475 Sansome Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, California 94111 (415) 362-1500 Carolina Morgan, MS –Project Manager George Burwasser, PG –Senior Scientist Rodney Jeung, AICP, Senior Group Manager Alice Tackett, Senior Scientist, (Hydrologist) Geoffrey Hornek, Senior Scientist (Air Quality) Jackie Ha, Word Processing and Graphics Anthony Ha, Word Processing and Graphics Brad Lane, AICP, Senior Transportation Planner 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -6 - ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentiallyaffected by this project as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: X Aesthetics X Hydrology/Water Quality X Transportation/Traffic Agriculture Resources X Land Use/Planning Utilities/Service Systems X Air Quality Mineral Resources X Mandatory Findings of Significance X Biological Resources X Noise Cultural Resources Population/Housing Geology/Soils Public Services X Hazards & Hazardous Materials Recreation DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATIONpursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ____________________________________________________________ Curtis Williams Date Director of Planning and Community Environment 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -7 - EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2)All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3)Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4)“Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5)Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration [Section 15063 (3) (D)]. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b)Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7)Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a projects environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a)the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b)the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -8 - CHECKLIST SOURCE REFERENCES: 1.Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Adopted July 20, 1998 2.Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) 3.Communication with Project Planner, Lata Vasudevan, and reliance on her general knowledge of the project and area of proposed development 4.Park Plaza Plans, Hoover Associates Architects, August 2009 5.BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, April 1996 (updated 12/99) 6.Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, Palo Alto Quadrangle, Effective July 1,1974 7.State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List 8.Park Plaza Apartments TIA, Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., June 2004 9.City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Division 10.City of Palo Alto Transportation Division 11.City of Palo Alto Fire Department, December 12, 2008 12.City of Palo Alto Utilities Department 13.Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 16 (Building Regulations) 14.Hart, E.W., and W.A. Bryant, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, Interim Revision, 2007 15.2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2, United States Geological Survey, Open File Report 2007-1437, April 2008, pages 66 and 74, http://www.scec.org/ucerf/, Online Version updated April 15,2008 16.Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Liquefaction Hazard Map for Palo Alto/Stanford -Scenario: 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, http://www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/pickmapliq.pl, last modified March2,2005 17.California Geological Survey, Seismic Hazard Zones Palo Alto Quadrangle Official Map, released October 18, 2006 18.Jo Crosby and Associates, Report of the Geotechnical Investigation for the planned Park Plaza Apartment Complex with a Multipurpose R/D Building, Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, California, May 10, 2004 19.Stellar Environmental Solutions, Inc. (SES, Inc.), Site Investigation and Remedy Report, Proposed Development, 195 Page Mill Road & 2865 Park Boulevard, Park Plaza Project, Palo Alto, California, July 2,2008 20.Geologist’s knowledge of project area topography and soils from previous work on more than 40 local projects within 5 miles of proposed development site 21.State of California Department of Conservation “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program” on-line at http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Documents/fmmp2006_11_17.pdf (accessed December 12, 2008) 22.Environmental Scientist’s evaluation of site-specific technical reports, review of published reports and local agency websites, and familiarity with investigation and cleanup of contaminated sites in San Francisco Bay Area and Central Valley. 23.Critical Coastal Areas Program, California’s Critical Coastal Areas State of the CCAs Report, Matadero Creek CCA #88, June 2006. website: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/nps/Web/cca_pdf/sfbaypdf/CCA88MataderoCreek.pdf (accessed on December 10, 2008) 24.Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Plan, Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Program, Monitoring and Assessment Summary Report, Santa Clara Basin Creeks 2002-2007, September 2007, pp.iv, 26-29, and 34. website: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/records/region_2/2008/ref2414.pdf (accessed December 10, 2008) 25.Santa Clara Valley Water District, Groundwater Conditions 2001, Figure 2-4 District In-Stream and Off-Street Recharge Facilities, July 2002, p.15. website: http://www.valleywater.org/media/pdf/GWCondtions2001.pdf (accessed December 10, 2008) 26.Municipal NPDES Permit Provision C.3.c.i.3, “Significant Redevelopment Projects” 27.Association of Bay Area Governments, ABAG Geographic Information Systems: Earthquake Preparedness; Interactive ABAG (GIS) Maps Showing Dam Failure Inundation;Hazard Maps, DamFailure Inundation Areas, June 2004. website: http://gis.abag.ca.gov (accessed December 8, 2008) 28.Treadwell & Rollo, Vapor Mitigation System –Monitoring Plan (Revision 1) Park Plaza Development 195 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California, June 2,2008 Formatted:Portuguese (Brazil) 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -9 - 29.Hoover Associates, ArchitectureŸPlanningŸInteriors, Park Plaza, 2865 Park Boulevard, 195 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA, Architectural Review Board Resubmittal, March 29,2011 30.California Department of Fish and Game., Natural Diversity Database –RareFind: Version 3.1.0. Data updated November 30, 2008. 31.A list of common “Heritage Trees” can be found on the City’s website: http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/ environment/news/details.asp?NewsID=179&TargetID=64. 32.City of Palo Alto,2005 Urban Water Management Plan, December, 2005. 33.California Integrated Waste Management Board, Jurisdiction Profile for City of Palo Alto, available at: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Juris/JurProfile1.asp?RG=C&JURID=362&JUR=Palo+Alto, accessed on: December 14, 2008. 34.California Integrated Waste Management Board, Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates for Industrial Establishments, available at: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/WASTECHAR/WasteGenRates/Industrial.htm, accessed on: December 14, 2008. 35.Russell Reiserer, Solid Waste Manager, City of Palo Alto Solid Waste Manager, electronic communication with PBS&J, March 12, 2008. 36.Other checklist items, as referenced. 37.City of Palo Alto, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-2007, Annual Report on City Government Performance, Chapter 3 –Fire, January 2008. 38.State of California Department of Conservation “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program” on-line at http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Documents/fmmp2006_11_17.pdf (accessed December 12, 2008) 39.City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.23.090 Performance Criteria for Multiple Family, Commercial, Manufacturing and Planned Community Districts: Air Quality on-line at http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/?f=templates&fn=default.htm (accessed December 12, 2008) 40.Environmental Protection Agency “Design Solutions for Vapor Intrusion and Indoor Air Quality,” on-line at http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/facts/vapor_intrusion.pdf (accessed December 12, 2008) 41.California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 2008. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15064.5 42.California Public Resources Code, Chapter 2.6, Section 21084.1 43.U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR 60 44.U.S. National Park Service, 2008. National Register Information System (federal database of historic properties). Accessed online December 12, 2008 at: http://www.nr.nps.gov/; Office of Historic Preservation, California State Parks, 2008. California Register of Historic Places. Accessed online December 12, 2008 at: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ default.asp?page_id=21387; City of Palo Alto, 2008. Palo Alto Historic Inventory. Accessed online December 12, 2008 at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3504 45.California Geological Survey, 2006. Geologic Map of California, 1:250,000 scale 46.City of Palo Alto. Section 3.8, Cultural Resources, SUMC Facilities Replacement and Renewal and Stanford Shopping Center Expansion Draft EIR. Publication Date: May 20, 2010. 47.California Government Code, Section 65915, Density Bonuses. No update information available. 48.Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., Acoustical Study, Park Plaza: 101 Page Mill Road/2865 Park Boulevard Proposed Mixed-Use. June 2004. 49.Rosen, Goldber, Der & Lewitz, Inc. Draft Noise and Vibration Analysis of California High-Speed Rail at 195 Page Mill Road Mixed-Use Project, Palo Alto, CA. RGDL Project# 10-067. January 2011. 50.Palo Alto Fire Department, http://www.pafd.org/profile/index.html, accessed December 12, 2008. 51.City of Palo Alto, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-2007, Annual Report on City Government Performance, Chapter 3 –Fire, January 2008. 52.Dan Firth, Fire Marshal, Palo Alto Fire Department, electronic communication April 13, 2008. 53.Agreement between the County of Santa Clara and American Medical Response –West for Pre-hospital Emergency Medical Care and Transport Services, http://www.sccemsagency.org/SCC/docs/Emergency%20Medical%20Services %20(DEP)/attachments/5.11%20AMR%20Agreement%20-%20Complete.pdf, page 10, accessed May 8, 2008. 54.Palo Alto Architectural Review Board, 2006. Action No.2006-10 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -10 - 55.Treadwell & Rollo,Vapor Mitigation System –Monitoring Plan (Revision 1), Park Plaza Development, 195 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California, June 2,2008. Revised October 27,2009 as Vapor Mitigation System –Monitoring Plan (Revision 2), Park Plaza Development, 195 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California REFERENCE PLANS –APPENDICES A.Project Location B.Proposed Floor Plans (all levels) C.Proposed Elevations REFERENCE STUDIES AND DOCUMENTS –AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW, UPON REQUEST These reference studies and documents are on file for public review, upon request, at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment, 250 Hamilton Avenue, as part of the 195 Page Mill Road project files. These documents also are available for review on the City’s website, at http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/depts/pln/default.asp D.Design and Narrative for the Passive Soil Venting System, Treadwell & Rollo, July 2, 2008 E.Site Health and Safety Plan, Tucker Engineering, May 27, 2008 F.Soil Management Plan, Tucker Engineering, May 29, 2008 G.Remedial Risk Management Plan, Stellar Environment Solutions, Inc. (SES, Inc.), July 2, 2008 H.Geotechnical Report, Jo Crosby and Associates, May 10, 2004 I.Site Investigation and Remedy Report, Stellar Environmental Solutions, Inc. (SES, Inc.), July 2, 2008 J.Transportation Impact Assessment, Fehr & Peers, May 2006. K.Final Supplemental Report, Park Plaza Transportation Impact Analysis, Fehr & Peers April 2009. L.ParkPlaza Mixed-Use Project Trip Generation and Off-Street Parking Analysis, Fehr & Peers. October 16, 2009. M.ParkPlaza Transportation Impact Analysis, Final Supplemental Report, Fehr & Peers, Rosen, October 2010. N.Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., Acoustical Study, Park Plaza: 101 Page Mill Road/2865 Park Boulevard Proposed Mixed-Use, May 26, 2004, June 28, 2004, and September 26, 2005. O.Noise and Vibration Analysis of California High-Speed Rail at 195 Page Mill Road Mixed-Use Project, Palo Alto, CA, Rosen, Goldber, Der & Lewitz, Inc. RGDL Project# 10-067. January 2011. P.Responses to Comments from Mr. Bob Moss and Mr. Roger Papler Q.Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc. District-wide Enrollment Forecasts PAUSD, December 8, 2010 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -11 - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I.AESTHETICS. Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?1, 3, 4 X b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 1, 3 X c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?1, 3, 4 X d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?1, 3, 4 X a)Single family residential uses are on Olive Avenue, approximately 300 feet south of the project site, and multiple family residential uses are on Park Boulevard, approximately 200 feet southeast of the project site. No scenic resources are featured in views from these locations. Other multiple-family residential uses are approximately 200 feet northeast of the project site on the northeastern side of Alma Street. On clear days, the Santa Cruz Mountains are faintly visible to the west from Alma Street.Under existing conditions, these views are partially obstructed by intervening structures and by vegetation along the Caltrain/JPB propertyon the southwest side of Alma Street. Views from this residential area are considered moderately sensitive to alteration or obstruction because views are a component of the existing neighborhood character. Trees proposed by the applicant of 195 Page Mill Road to be planted in the JPB right of way are desired to remain with implementation of the HST project, to provide partial screening of 195 Page Mill from Alma Street. However, the applicant’s agreement with the JPB for planting of trees is on a month-to-month lease. It is not assured that this existing vegetation will remain following development along the rail corridor related to the High Speed Train project. Construction of the proposed project would increase massing in the foreground of views from Alma Street. To break up the massing of the building along the Caltrain propertyand reduce view obstruction from Alma Street, particularly since vegetation on the westerly edge of the JPB property is not assured, City staff suggested massing guidelines and landscape design for the eastern (rear) frontage which have been incorporated in the design of the proposed project. The second and third floor levels have facades at varying setbacks from the rear property line to minimize the perception of massing. The first floor R&D level, which would not be as visible as the second and third floor as viewed from Alma Street, would nonetheless be partially covered with the proposed vines on trellises along the rear façade. In the event that the trees proposed by the applicant in the JPB right –of-way are removed, the rear façade would still have trellised vines to soften its appearance. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -12 - There are no other views from residential areas, public open spaces, or other sensitive vantage points that could be altered or obstructed as a result of the proposed project. Consequently, with application of Mitigation Measure MM-1, the proposed project would haveless-than-significant impacts on scenic vistas. b)The project site does not contain distinctive architectural elements, topographical features, or other scenic resources. Consequently, the proposed project would have no impact on scenic resources. c)The visual character surrounding the project site is generally suburban, characterized by moderate development density. An overpass for Oregon Expressway is approximately 300 feet north of the project site. Office and commercial uses to the south and west of the project site are characterized by solid massing surrounded by surface parking lots and landscaping. Residential uses to the east and southwest of the project site are low to moderate density, characterized by one-to three-story buildings with open space setbacks along front and side facades. Vegetation in the vicinity of the project site is formal and includes landscaped beds and street trees. At a height of approximately39 feet, with architectural elements at a maximum height of approximately 43 feet and an approximately 60 foot tall corner tower element, the proposed design would generallyconform to the massing and setback pattern established by surrounding uses. Building massing, fenestration, rooftop mechanical systems, and architectural details of a proposed building should be designed within the context of the immediate office/industrial neighborhood while respecting the nearby residential neighborhoods. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policy L-48 states:3 Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. To ensure that the proposed project would comply with this policyand fit the surrounding visual setting, the City requires project review by the City’s Architectural Review Board (ARB),4 which may make recommendations for revisions to a proposed project design. The ARB is an advisory board to the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) who considers the ARB’s recommendations and bases his decision to grant Architectural Review approval on the findings stated in PAMC 18.76.050(d). If the Director’s decision is appealed, the City Council reviews the project and decides whether to grant Architectural Review approval. The proposed project plans are substantially the same as an earlier project that was reviewed and recommended for approval by the ARB in July 2007, and although new design revisions may be required as conditions of Architectural Review Approval for this project, the substantial similarities between the two projects generally indicates that the proposed project would result in less-than- significant impacts on visual character. With application of Mitigation Measure MM-1, the proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts on visual character. d)The primary sources of light and glare in the daytime are reflections from glass facades and light colored surfaces. Although a small amount of glare could be expected during the daytime, it would be similar to that created byother nearby buildings. No unusual sources of daytime glare from the project would be expected. 3 City of Palo Alto, 1998. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element. 4 City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, 2004. Architectural Review, Section 18.76.020 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -13 - Residences along Alma Street are considered to be sensitive to nighttime light and glare. Architectural drawings do not indicate a large number of windows or lighting sources on the rear elevation facing Alma Street; at the time of the ARB’s prior approval of the proposed project, the ARB required that the applicant submit a photometric plan to ensure that lighting levels are appropriate for the site and not detrimental to the surrounding land uses. The photometric plan was reviewed and approved at the ARB hearings held in 2007. The same photometric drawing is presented in conjunction with this proposed project design. Consequently, the proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts on light and glare. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -14 - Residual Impact:Less than significant with mitigation Mitigation Measures: MM-1:Implementation of ARB Recommendations AnyArchitectural Review conditions of approval, with respect to the design of the proposedproject, shall be incorporated into the final design by the applicant. Cumulative Analysis Cumulative projects in the vicinity of the proposed project involve the construction of the HST project. As proposed, the HST project would add electrified high speed trains along the Peninsula Corridor JPB property adjacent to the 195 Page Mill Road project site. Changes to, or intensification of, rail activity along the right-of-way are not anticipated to affect the 195 Page Mill Road project in any way. The exact HST design and alignment of the segment that would run adjacent to the propose project has not been finalized. However, to date, possible alternatives include the HST project running at-grade, where the trains run at street level, or in a trench. The HST project would primarily result in physical changes to the public right-of-way, consistent with existing transportation infrastructure. The improvements would have minimal effects on the visual character as viewed from the proposed project because either possible alternative (at grade or trench) would not introduce new vertical elements. As such, the continuity of existing streetscapes would be maintained. Though the trees proposed bythe applicant of 195 Page Mill Road to be planted in the JPB right-of-wayare desired to remain with implementation of the HST project, to provide partial screening of 195 Page Mill from Alma Street, the applicant’s agreement with the JPB for planting of trees is on a month-to-month lease. As such, the applicant is proposing trellised vines on the façade so that if the proposed trees in the JPB right- of-way were to be removed, there would still be vegetation to soften the appearance of the first floor rear façade. The two other multi-family residential developments proposed in the vicinity of the 195 Page Mill Road project site would introduce mixed-used development, so 195 Page Mill would not be the only such development type. The proposed project would be subject to MM-1 described above. MM-1 calls for the incorporation of potential conditions of approval with respect to the design of the proposed project, Overall, both the HST and the mixed-used development projects are not expected to adversely affect the visual character of the area of the proposed project,or result in a substantial change in the area’s land use character, substantially damage scenic resources, or create a new source of substantial light or glare. Cumulative impacts to visual character would therefore be less than significant. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -15 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? 3, 21 X b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?1, 3 X c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. 3 X a-c)The proposed project site is in a developed urban area and not in an area of “Prime Farmland,” “Unique Farmland,” or “Farmland of Statewide Importance” as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency.5 The site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not regulated by the Williamson Act. Consequently, the proposed project would have no impact on agricultural resources. Residual Impact:No impact Mitigation Measures:None required Cumulative Analysis The proposed project would not be located in an area defined as “Prime Farmland”“Unique Farmland,” or “Farmland of Statewide Importance” as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency.6 Therefore, it would not contribute to cumulative impacts on agricultural resources. No other foreseeable projects, including the HST and the two mixed-used residential projects, would have impacts on agricultural resources. Consequently, the proposed project, in addition to other foreseeable projects, would have no cumulative impacts. 5 State of California Department of Conservation “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program” on-line at http://www.conservation.ca.gov/ dlrp/fmmp/Documents/fmmp2004_11_17.pdf (accessed December 12, 2008) 6 State of California Department of Conservation “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program” on-line at http://www.conservation.ca.gov/ dlrp/fmmp/Documents/fmmp2004_11_17.pdf (accessed December 12, 2008) 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -16 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact III.AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.Would the project: a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?3, 5 X b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?3, 5 X c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 5 X d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?1, 3 X e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1, 3 X a-c)Air quality is monitored, evaluated, and regulated by federal, state, and regional regulatory agencies, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The EPA, CARB, and the BAAQMD develop rules and/or regulations to attain the goals or directives imposed by legislation. Both state and regional regulations may be more, but not less, stringent than federal regulations. The CARB establishes state ambient air quality standards and motor vehicle emission standards, conducts research, and oversees the activities of regional Air Pollution Control Districts and Air Quality Management Districts. Ambient air qualitystandards are established for criteria pollutants, which include ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter, and lead. Reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) are regulated as criteria air pollutants because they are precursors to ozone formation. With regard to particulate matter, air quality standards have been adopted for suspended particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) as well as for smaller respirable particles that are 2.5 microns in diameter or less (PM2.5). Under existing conditions, the San Francisco Bay Area air basin, which includes the Cityof Palo Alto, is designated as non-attainment for ozone under both state and federal standards and non-attainment for PM10 under state standards, meaning that the Bay Area does not meet the air quality standards for these air pollutants. The City of Palo Alto uses the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for air quality impacts. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -17 - Construction Impacts The proposed project would involve grading, paving, and landscaping which would have the potential to cause localized dust-related impacts resulting in increases in airborne particulate matter (PM10). Dust-related impacts are considered potentially significant but according to the BAAQMD can be mitigated with the application of standard dust control measures. Although there are no sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project site (closest residences are 200 feet away), the project would be subject to City Building Department regulations that require approval of adequate dust abatement plans for construction activities prior to the issuance of a building permit.7 The dust abatement plan requirements would be required to comply with the BAAQMD guidance regarding dust control measures, thereby reducing the potential for significant air quality impacts relating to demolition and construction of the project to less than significant. Emissions of NOX and ROG would be generated from operation of construction equipment. Construction projects using typical construction equipment which temporarily emit ozone precursors are alreadyincluded in the emission inventories of state-and federally-required air plans. Consequently, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on attainment and maintenance of air quality standards. Operational Impacts Operational emissions would stem primarily from motor vehicle trips associated with the proposed project. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide suggestions for screening potential air quality impacts for different land uses. The BAAQMD considers residential projects greater than 510 apartment units, office projects greater than 280,000 gross square feet, retail development greater than 87,000 gross square feet, and other projects which would generate 2,000 or more daily vehicle trips to result in potentially significant vehicular emissions. Vehicular emissions are the primary source of air qualityimpacts associated with these developments. As described in the Transportation/Traffic section of this Initial Study, the project would result in approximately 1,143 net new daily vehicle trips. Because the proposed project would generate less than 2,000 new daily vehicle trips, it does not exceed the BAAQMD’s screening or threshold levels for development that could result in adverse air qualityimpacts. Consequently, the proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts on vehicular emissions. ·Sensitive receptors are defined as children, elderly, or ill people who can be affected adversely by air pollutants. The proposed project includes construction of residential uses, which are considered a sensitive receptor. Project impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors could include on-site and off-site effects as described below. On-site Impacts As described in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section, a Site Investigation and Remedy Report was prepared which indicates that the project site is in an area where there is known contamination of the soil and groundwater with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and petroleum hydrocarbon. Because of this contamination, the proposed project, which includes residential uses, would be at potential risk for vapor intrusion to the building. The Regional Water QualityControl Board (RWQCB) has confirmed that because the measured soil gas concentrations exceed the RWQCB’s Environmental Screening Level (ESL), without mitigation, the project would be at risk for potential vapor intrusion into indoor air. 7 City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.23.090 Performance Criteria for Multiple Family, Commercial, Manufacturing and Planned Community Districts: Air Quality on-line at http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/?f=templates&fn=default.htm (accessed December 12, 2008) 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -18 - Vapor intrusion is the entry of VOCs to indoor air from underlying contamination, such as may be present in the soil and/or groundwater at the project site. VOCs can disperse easily into small air spaces in soil and underneath structures, such as through foundation cracks, holes in concrete floors, and small gaps around pipes and utility lines. Some vapors, such as VOCs, may enter structures at low contamination levels, and building ventilation systems are used to prevent harmful vapor buildup. VOCs may or may not have a noticeable odor and may be present at levels posing acute or chronic health risks. According to the EPA, steps can be taken before site redevelopment to prevent vapor intrusion.8 Some examples of prevention include ensuring that VOC contamination is removed from the site (and sent to a proper treatment and disposal facility); preventing upward contaminant migration with an impermeable barrier such as a clay cap; and venting soil gas to outdoor air before it can reach indoor spaces. At sites where the source of contamination cannot be completely eliminated through removal, other solutions to vapor intrusion problems can be implemented. Building techniques that serve to provide a vapor barrier between interior spaces and soil (or groundwater) can be combined with structures that provide an escape route for soil vapor to vent to the atmosphere rather than into indoor air. Some ventilation systems operate effectively without the use of energy (passive systems), while others may need connection to a power supply (active systems). It should be noted for indoor air quality monitoring that thepresence of VOCs in indoor air may not necessarily be a result of vapor intrusion because there often is a background or pre-existing level of VOC contamination present from chemical use in the building or from ambient air. As such, it is often difficult to distinguish between contamination attributable to vapor intrusion and contamination from background levels. As noted in Section VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Initial Study, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure MM-4, which would require the inclusion of a full vapor barrier and the installation of an active vapor collection and venting system underneath the building to mitigate potential soil vapor intrusion, and a monitoring plan to verify positive air flow and monitor for VOCs.9 Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-4 would reduce the potential for on-site impacts from VOCs to on-site residential and commercial uses to less than significant. Off-site Impacts The project is adjacent to a rail line and to commercial and automotive service uses, and not immediately adjacent to housing or other sensitive receptors. The proposed R&D and residential land uses would not create substantial toxic air contaminant (TAC) concentrations in the area. City development standardsand specific conditions required by the PAMC for project operations would reduce potential negative air quality impacts of the project to nearby sensitive receptors to less than significant. Increases in traffic from the proposed project would contribute to localized CO emissions. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommends that CO emissions should be estimated when vehicle emissions of CO would exceed 550 pounds or when project traffic would impact intersections operating at Level of Service (LOS)D or worse.As shown in Section XV, Transportation/Traffic, of this Initial Study, the proposed project would 8 Environmental Protection Agency “Design Solutions for Vapor Intrusion and Indoor Air Quality,” on-line at http://www.epa.gov/ swerosps/bf/facts/vapor_intrusion.pdf (accessed December 12, 2008) 9 Treadwell and Rollo, Design and Narrative for the Passive Soil Venting System, June 2, 2008 (available for review on the City’s website as Appendix D of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment) 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -19 - generate approximately 116 net new AM peak hour trips and 131 net new PM peak hour trips each day. Using the intersection with the highest traffic volume, the Foothill Expressway/Page Mill Expressway intersection, a simplified CALINE4 screening model developed by the BAAQMD was used to calculate CO concentrations with implementation of the proposed project. The resulting concentrations were below the federal and state 1-hour standards of 35 ppm and 20 ppm, respectively, and the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm for both state and federal. Because the proposed project would not exceed CO standards, it is considered to have a less-than-significant impact on localized CO emissions at intersections affected by project traffic. Consequently, the proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts on long-term CO emissions. ·The proposed project would consist of commercial and residential uses and an underground parking garage. These uses do not typically create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The proposed project is not expected to create objectionable odors when the project is complete. Consequently, the proposed project would have no impact related to the creation of objectionable odors. Residual Impact:Less than significant with mitigation Mitigation Measures:See MM-4 under Section VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Cumulative Analysis A cumulative TAC screening analysis was performed to evaluate cumulative TAC exposures to future residents of the proposed project. The analysis is in accord with the screening methodology specified in California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality (CEQA) Guidelines.10 The TAC modeling included all substantial roadways and permitted stationary TAC sources within a 1000-foot zone of influence around the project site, specified by the guidelines. Roadway sources included Alma Street and the Oregon Expressway, which qualify as substantial sources in that theycarry 10,000 or more vehicles per day. A list of permitted stationary sources and their TAC emissions in Santa Clara County was provided by the BAAQMD and a subset of permitted sources within 1000 feet of the project site was identified using this list. Table 1, below, shows the estimated cancer risks, chronic non-cancer hazard indices, and PM2.5 concentrations on the project site for each source, the cumulative effects from all sources, and comparisons with the BAAQMD cumulative TAC significance thresholds. Since by far the largest portion of the cumulative TAC cancer risk is due to particulate TAC emissions from the traffic on Alma Street and the Oregon expressway, Mitigation Measure MM-2 below would reduce cumulative TAC health impacts to the future residents of the proposed project to less than significant through inclusion in the proposed design features of the project’s ventilation system. Residual Impact:Less than significant with mitigation 10 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. June 2010. website: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA- GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx, Accessed February 8, 2011. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -20 - Mitigation Measure: MM-2:Indoor Air Filtration A central HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) shall be installed that includes high efficiency filters for particulates (MERV-13 or higher). The system should operate to maintain positive pressure within the building interior to prevent infiltration of outdoor air indoors. Table 1 Cumulative Screening Analysis Results of TAC Emissions within 1000 Feet of the Project Site TAC Source Cancer Risk (Chance per Million) Non-Cancer Hazard Index PM2.5 Concentration (•g/m3) Roadways Oregon Expressway 69.0 0.050 0.23 lma Street 57.0 0.040 0.19 Permitted Stationary Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Dept. (13265) 2.98 0.006 0 SPRINT, Environ. Health & Safety (16847)a 1.6b 0.001b 0.003b Akins Body Shop, Inc (17770)0 0 0 VikingMotor Body (12140)0 0 0 Google, Inc (19056)0 0 0 Courthouse (19698)a 3.5c 0.001c 0.006c Total Cumulative 134 0.01 0.43 BAAQMD Threshold 100 10.0 0.8 Significant?Yes No No Source:PBS&J, 2011 Notes: a.BAAQMD records indicate that these TAC sources are emergency diesel-powered generators. b.An adjustment factor of 0.12 has been applied to the BAAQMD baseline values to account for TAC dispersion over the 500-foot distance separating this source and the project site. c.An adjustment factor of 0.04 has been applied to the BAAQMD baseline values to account for TAC dispersion over the 1000-foot distance separating this source and the project site 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -21 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Have substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 30 X b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 1 X c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 1 X d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1 X e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 30, 31 X f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? 1 X a)The project site is in an area that includes an automobile body shop and repair, automobile sales and service, office buildings and vacant land zoned as General Manufacturing (GM). Residential uses are north, east, and southwest of the project site. Virtually all of the natural vegetation at the project site (and surrounding properties) has been replaced by development and ornamental landscaping. Connectivityto natural areas is non-existent, as the project site is surrounded byother urban development and roadways. There is no natural surface water on or adjacent to the project site. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -22 - A query of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) RareFind Report revealed historic occurrences of four special-status species within the immediate vicinity (one mile) of the project site. ·Alameda song sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula) –State Species of Special Concern ·California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) –Federally Threatened, State Species of Special Concern ·Santa Cruz kangaroo rat (Dipodomys venustus venustus) –CNDDB Ranking of G4S1 ·Franciscan onion (Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum) –CNPS List 1B.2 Although these historic occurrences are within one mile of the project site, all natural vegetation at the project site and surrounding properties has been replaced by urban development and ornamental landscaping.Connectivity to natural areas is non-existent, and there is no natural surface water on or adjacent to the project site. There is no viable habitat on or adjacent to the project site to support any of these identified sensitive species. Consequently, the proposed project would have no impact related to special-status species. b, c)Virtually all of the natural vegetation at the project site and surrounding properties has been replaced by urban development and ornamental landscaping. Connectivity to natural areas is non-existent; the project site is surrounded by other development and roadways. There is no natural surface water on or adjacent to the project site, nor are there federally protected wetlands or riparian habitat on or adjacent to the project site.Consequently, the proposed project would have no impactrelated to a sensitive natural community or federally protected wetlands. d)The pre-existing structures on the project site were demolished and all vegetation was removed in August 2007, prior to submittal of the application for the proposed project. The site was used as a construction materials staging and operations area for a nearby Caltrain project at the California Avenue train station and is leased by K.J.Woods Construction Company, Inc. for use as a construction staging area for a sewer line replacement project for the City of Palo Alto. There are two trees adjacent to the rear of the property on a site leased by Sprint Corporation, on the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board property. These trees are not proposed for removal and are not protected trees pursuant to the City of Palo Alto Tree Ordinance (PAMC 8.10). Nonetheless, the proposed project could result in disturbances to nesting birds in these trees. Nesting birds, their nests, and eggs are fully protected by the State Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5) and the Migratory Bird TreatyAct of 1918 (MBTA). Destruction of a nest would be a violation of these regulations, and would be a significant impact. The magnitude of impact would depend on the species affected. Mitigation Measure MM-3, detailed below, would reduce impacts to nesting birds to a less-than-significant level through avoidance of construction activities during the nesting period, or though the completion of focused surveys for nesting birds if construction cannot be avoided during the nesting period. e)The proposed project would not result in the removal of trees and landscaping vegetation. As described in Section IV d), above, all landscaping and trees at the project site have been removed. None of the trees previously on the site included those protected under PAMC 8.10 (Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -23 - Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), and “Heritage Trees”).11 Consequently, the proposed project would have no impact related to conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. f)There are no natural communities and no natural habitats located on the project site that would be protected byan approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan; virtually all of the natural vegetation on the project site and surrounding properties has been replaced by urban development and ornamental landscaping. Connectivity to natural areas is non-existent; the project site is surrounded by other development and roadways. There is no natural surface water on or adjacent to the project site. Consequently, the proposed project would have no impact related to conflicts with the provisions of an approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Residual Impact:Less than significant with mitigation Mitigation Measures: MM-3:Protection of Nesting Birds The applicant shall abide by all provisions of Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code and Migratory Bird TreatyAct of 1918 (MBTA) as published in the Federal Register (Vol.70, No.49; March 15, 2005). Although there is no vegetation on the project site that may contain nesting birds, there may be nesting birds in existing vegetation abutting the proposed project site (e.g., in the Caltrain property). To protect any nesting birds, the proposed project may avoid construction during the nesting period. Alternatively, a qualified wildlife biologist (to be hired by the applicant) shall conduct a survey for nesting birds that are covered by the MBTA and/or Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code in the vicinity of the project site. This survey shall cover all areas that would be disturbed as a result of construction-related activities during the nesting period, and shall include a “buffer zone” (an area of potential sensitivity, beyond the bounds of the proposed project construction area) which shall be determined by the biologist based on his or her professional judgment and experience. This buffer zone may include off-site habitat. This biological survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the commencement of construction activities. The wildlife biologist shall provide a report to the City promptly detailing the findings of the survey. No construction shall be conducted until this report has been provided to the City and the Cityhas authorized in writing the commencement of construction activities in accord with the biologist’s findings. Cumulative Analysis The proposed project would have minimal impacts on biological resources found in the area. The foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the proposed project, including the HST and the two mixed-used projects, in addition to the proposed project, would also have minimal effects on the biological resources because they 11 A list of common “Heritage Trees” can be found on the City’s website: http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/environment/news/details.asp? NewsID=179&TargetID=64 (accessed December 14, 2008) 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -24 - would not impact special-status species, sensitive natural community or federally protected wetlands, conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and/or conservation plans. In the event that vegetation contains nesting birds is found on the project site, MM-3, as described above, would reduce the incremental biological impact to less than significant levels. MM-3 calls for the protection of nesting birds during construction by avoiding construction during the nesting season and by conducting a biological survey. Consequently, cumulative impacts to biological resources would be less than significant. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -25 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact V.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5?1 X b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?1 X c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?1 X d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?1 X a)The project site is not included on the City of Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory, the California Register of Historic Landmarks, or the National Register of Historic Places.12 There are no existing structures at the project site, although this site was formerly developed. The site is not associated with anysignificant events in history, broad patterns of events, or people. Consequently, the proposed project would have no impact on historic resources according to the standards of the CEQA Guidelines and applicable laws and regulations. b, d)The Palo Alto area was inhabited by indigenous people for many centuries prior to the arrival of the first Europeans. Archaeological resources and/or human remains have been found on occasion within the City. Discoveries of the “Stanford Man” skeleton near San Francisquito Creek indicate a human presence in Palo Alto as early as 7,600 years ago.13 Over 50 archaeological surveys have been conducted in Palo Alto in association with specific projects, but no systematic citywide survey aimed at locating all sites has been undertaken. There may still be undiscovered archaeological resources in many parts of the City. Such resources are most likely to occur near the original locations of streams and springs and northeast of El Camino Real near old tidelands.14 Nonetheless, it should not be assumed that sites of archaeological resources are limited to these areas. The archaeological sensitivity map in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan identifies the project site as an area of “moderate sensitivity” for archeological resources because of the site’s proximityto the San Francisco Baylands and nearby creeks.15 The 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update EIR16 specified mitigation states: 12 U.S. National Park Service, 2008. National Register Information System (federal database of historic properties). Accessed online December12,2008 at: http://www.nr.nps.gov/; Office of Historic Preservation, California State Parks, 2008. California Register of Historic Places. Accessed online December 12, 2008 at: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=21387; City of Palo Alto, 2008. Palo Alto Historic Inventory. Accessed online December 12, 2008 at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3504 13 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998. Land Use Element, p. L-39 14 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998. Land Use Element, p. L-39 15 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998. Land Use Element, Map L-8 16 City of Palo Alto, 1998. 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update EIR, p. 352 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -26 - The areas shall be subject to surface survey and/or subsurface probing if (a) the area is unimproved land, (b) the project will entail excavation more than five feet below the existing grade on unimproved land, or (c) mass grading is anticipated for large commercial, transportation, or utility projects. The project would entail excavation of one level of underground parking to a depth of 15.4 feet. The project site was developed previously and subsurface disturbance probably extended to a depth of at least 5 feet. Consequently, subsurface probing for archeological artifacts probably would be ineffective and is not considered necessary prior to construction of the proposed project. If approved, the project would contain conditions of approval in the form of instructions in the case of the discovery of any cultural resources during construction. The following standard condition would reduce potential impacts to a less-than- significant level. If any archaeological or human remains are encountered during grading and construction activities, construction shall cease and the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed bythe Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. The Director of Planning and Community Environment will decide the significance of an archaeological discovery and necessary mitigation measures. With application of this standard condition, impacts associated with the residual potential that Native American artifacts could be uncovered and destroyed during construction of the proposed project would be less than significant. No humanremains have been encountered at the project site, and it is unlikelythat human remains would be encountered during ground-disturbing activities. Human burials, apart from being potential archaeological resources, have specific provisions for treatment in Section 5097 of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054 of the California Health and Safety Code. If unanticipated human remains are discovered during construction, the applicant would be required to comply with those regulations. With application of the standard condition indicated above, impacts associated with the disturbance of human remains would be less than significant. c)The entire Bay Area is considered to be rich in paleontological resources, and there have been significant finds in Palo Alto. Paleontological resources found in the City include a large mastodon tusk in the bank of San Francisquito Creek, the upper limb of a giant bison, and individual skeletal elements. Although a review of the Geologic Map of California suggests that there is limited potential for the occurrence of fossils at the project site,17subsurface prehistoric creek beds containing paleontological resources have been found within a one-mile radius.18 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update EIR do not address paleontological resources specifically, but the mitigation specified in the Comprehensive Plan Update EIR for moderatelysensitive archeological resource areas also can be applied to 17 California Geological Survey, 2006. Geologic Map of California, 1:250,000 scale 18 City of Palo Alto. Section 3.8, Cultural Resources, SUMC Facilities Replacement and Renewal and Stanford Shopping Center Expansion Draft EIR. Unpublished as of date of Notice of Completion for the proposed project 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -27 - paleontological resource areas. As with archeological resources, subsurface probing for fossils in previously disturbed ground probablywould be ineffective and is not considered necessaryprior to construction of the proposed project. If approved, the project would contain conditions of approval in the form of instructions in the case of the discovery of any paleontological resources during construction. The following standard condition would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. If any paleontological resources are encountered during grading and construction activities, construction shall cease and the Director of Planning and CommunityEnvironment’s office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. The Director of Planning and Community Environment will decide the significance of any paleontological discovery and necessary mitigation measures, using City staff or outside consultants paid for by the applicant. With application of this standard condition, impacts on paleontological resources would be less than significant. Residual Impact:Less than significant Mitigation Measures:None required Cumulative Analysis Because the Palo Alto area was inhabited by indigenous people for many centuries prior to the arrival of the first Europeans, archaeological resources and/or human remains have the potential to be present in the vicinity of the proposed project. Archaeological resources are unique and non-renewable members of finite classes, and all adverse effects or negative impacts erode a dwindling resource base. Federal, State, and local laws protect archaeological resources in most instances. The following standard condition would reduce potential impacts of the proposed project to a less-than-significant level. If any archaeological or human remains are encountered during grading and construction activities, construction shall cease and the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. The Director of Planning and CommunityEnvironment will decide the significance of an archaeological discovery and necessary mitigation measures using Citystaff or outside consultants paid for bythe applicant. With implementation of this standard condition, cumulative impacts on cultural resources as a result of the proposed project, in addition to other foreseeable projects, would be less than significant. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -28 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VI.GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to California Geological Survey Special Publication 42. 1, 6, 13, 14 X ii)Strong seismic groundshaking?1, 6, 13, 15 X iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?1, 6, 13, 16, 17 X iv)Landslides? 1, 13, 19, 20 X b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?1, 13 X c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 1, 13, 18, 19 X d)Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the 2007 California Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? 1, 13, 18, 19 X a)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 19, 20 X A geotechnical report, dated May 10, 2004, was prepared by Jo Crosby and Associates. A copy of the geotechnical report is available for review on the City’s website as Appendix H of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. A site investigation and remedy report dated July2, 2008 was prepared by SES,Inc. and included a vapor mitigation system and monitoring plan prepared by Treadwell & Rollo, dated June 2, 2008. A copy of the site investigation report and the Treadwell & Rollo report are available for review on the City’s website as Appendix I and Appendix D, respectively, of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -29 - a)i.The entire state of California is geologically active. The City of Palo Alto is in the San Andreas Fault System, which is approximately 44 miles wide in the Bay Area -an area that is very seismically active. The San Andreas Fault, long considered one of the major seismic risks in California, passes though the City approximately 5.5 miles southwest of the project site. The project site is not in a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known faults trend toward or cross the project site. Consequently, the proposed project is not expected to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects caused by the rupture of a known fault. Although fault rupture is very unlikely, it is theoretically possible, given the large number of fault traces in the San Andreas Fault System. No structure for human occupancymay knowingly be built across the trace of an active or potentiallyactive fault and the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 provides for special seismic design considerations if developments are planned in areas adjacent to active or potentially active faults.19 All new construction, including the proposed project, must comply with the provisions of Title 16 (Building Regulations) of the PAMC, which is based on the most current (2010) California Building Code (CBC). The CBC regulations account for the proximityof projects to earthquake faults. The Municipal Building Regulations are directed at reducing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. Consequently, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to potential fault rupture. ii.The Comprehensive Plan states that the San Andreas Fault is capable of producing a Magnitude 8.4 earthquake that would cause very violent groundshaking in much of Palo Alto. Historically, the Bay Area has experienced large, destructive earthquakes in 1838, 1868, 1906, and 1989. The faults considered most likely to produce large earthquakes in the area include the San Andreas, San Gregorio, Hayward, and Calaveras faults. The San Gregorio fault is approximately 18 miles southwest of the site. The Hayward and Calaveras faults are approximately 12 and 16 miles northeast of the site, respectively. In the future, the subject property will experience groundshaking during moderate and large magnitude earthquakes along the San Andreas or other active Bay Area fault zones. The Working Group On California Earthquake Probabilities, a panel of experts convened periodicallyto estimate the likelihood of future earthquakes based on the latest science and information, concluded there is about a 63 percent mean probability for at least one earthquake of Magnitude 6.7 or larger in the Bay Area before 2032.20 The San Andreas Fault has the second highest likelihood of generating a large earthquake in the Bay Area, estimated as a 21 percent mean probability of a Magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake by 2032; the Hayward fault has the highest likelihood of generating a similar event (31 percent). Development of the proposed project would be required to comply with construction standards and seismic design criteria contained in the 2010 CBC. Chapter 16 of the Building Code deals with Structural Design requirements governing seismically resistant construction, including (but not limited to) factors and coefficients used to establish seismic site class and seismic occupancy category for the soil/rock at the building location and the proposed building design. Chapter 18 of the Building Code includes (but is not limited to) requirements for foundation and soil investigations (Section 1802); excavation, grading, and fill (Section 1803); allowable load-bearing values of soils (Sections 1804); and the design of footings, foundations, and slope clearances (Section 1805), retaining walls (Section 1806), and pier, pile, driven, and cast-in-place foundation support systems (Sections 1808, 1809 &1810). Chapter 33 of the Building Code includes (but is not limited to) requirements for safeguards at work sites 19 Hart and Bryant,2007 20 2007 Working Group,2008 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -30 - to ensure stable excavations and cut or fill slopes (Section 3304). Appendix J of the Building Code includes (but is not limited to) grading requirements for the design of excavations and fills (Sections J106 &J107) and for erosion control (Section J110). Although the potential for seismic groundshaking to occur at the project site is unavoidable, the risk of excessive, permanent damage to the buildings is anticipated to be relativelyminor because the structural design would be required to adhere to 2010 CBC standards. Consequently, groundshaking hazards are considered a less-than-significant impact. iii.The goal of Policy N-51 of the Comprehensive Plan is to “Minimize exposure to geologic hazard, including slope stability, subsidence, and expansive soils, and seismic hazards including ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and land sliding.” Because the project site is in a seismicallyactive region, there is a potential for seismic-related ground failure at the site. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Earthquake Liquefaction Hazard Map shows that the potential for liquefaction at the project site is moderate to high and the California Geological Survey (CGS) Seismic Hazard Zone Map indicates the site is in an area where liquefaction investigation would be required.21,22 Chapter 18 of the Building Code requires that before construction of a proposed project, a site-specific soils report must be prepared that identifies any potentially unsuitable soil conditions (such as expansive, liquefiable, or compressible soils) and contains appropriate recommendations for foundation type and design criteria, including provisions to reduce the effects of expansive soils. The recommendations made in the soils report for ground preparation and earthwork are required by the BuildingCode to be incorporated in the construction design. The soils evaluations must be conducted by registered soil professionals, and the measures to eliminate inappropriate soil necessaryconditions must be applied. The City requires the excavation plans and specifications be reviewed for approval by the City Engineer (which may include further review and approval of a licensed geotechnical engineer) prior to issuance of an excavation and grading permit. The City requires the construction plans and specifications be reviewed for approval by the Building Division prior to issuance of a building permit. Overseeing compliance with the approved permit is the responsibility of the City’s Building Division and is conducted through site visits and contractor reports. The May 10,2004 Jo Crosbyand Associates geotechnical report documents the investigations performed and presents the required information and recommendations in the sections entitled, ‘Underground Parking Excavation, Foundations, Retaining Walls, and Slab-on-Grade’. The Cityinspectors would verify implementation consistent with the Crosby report or consistent with updated recommendations of a licensed geotechnical engineer, based on conditions found at the time of excavation or construction. Through application of these recommendations and compliance with the Building Code, risk from seismic events, including liquefaction, would be reduced to an acceptable level for a seismically active area. Consequently, seismic-related ground failure hazards are considered a less-than-significant impact. iv.The project site is about 27 feet above mean sea level and has no discernible slope. Because the project site is not a steep or unstable slope and does not have an irregular surface, natural slope instability is not a concern. Construction of the proposed project would involve removal of existing surface material and underlying fill and soil materials for the excavation of one level of underground parking to the depth of 21 ABAG, 2005 22 California Geological Survey, 2006 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -31 - 15.4 feet below ground surface (bgs). Excavation wall stability would be regulated by Chapter 33 of the CBC, as adopted into the PAMC. Consequently, because of the required code compliance of the grading activities, there would be no impact from landslide hazard. b)No other changes to the site topography would occur as a result of the proposed project. Grading activity would be limited to the soil removal for the construction of the underground-parking garage. Nonetheless, earth-disturbing activities associated with project construction have the potential to increase erosion if proper sedimentation and erosion control methods are not in place during construction. Section J110 of Appendix J of the 2010 CBC, as adopted by the City, contains requirements for the design of erosion control systems. Because one of the major effects of loss of topsoil is sedimentation in receiving waters, erosion control standards are set by the RWQCB through administration of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process for storm drainage and construction site discharge. The NPDES permit requires implementation of nonpoint source control of runoff through the application of a number of Best Management Practices (BMPs). These BMPs are designed to reduce the amount of constituents, including eroded sediment, that enter streams and other water bodies. The City has incorporated the Municipal NPDES Permit conditions into its Urban Runoff Management Plan and Municipal Code, including numeric sizing criteria for pollutant removal treatment systems. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for individual projects greater than one acre, as required bythe RWQCB, must describe the stormwater BMPs (structural and operational measures) that would control the quality (and quantity) of stormwater runoff. The City’s Public Works Department is responsible for reviewing the SWPPP and the NPDES-required BMPs and notifying the applicant of omissions prior to issuance of a grading permit. A project-specific Soil Management Plan (SMP) has been developed for the excavation and construction phases of project implementation (see Appendix G of the SES, Inc.2008 report; the SMP also is available for review on the City’s website as Appendix F of this Initial Study or upon request at the Cityof Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment). The City requires the SMP be reviewed for approval by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. Overseeing compliance with the approved permit is the responsibilityof the City’s Division of Building Inspection and is conducted through site visits and contractor reports. Soil erosion potential after construction would be controlled by implementation of approved landscape and irrigation plans. Although some potential forerosion exists, the risk of uncontrolled erosion and sedimentation is anticipated to be relatively minor because the SWPPP and BMPs would be required to adhere to the standards set by the NPDES Permit and Appendix J, Grading, 2010 CBC standards. A final grading and drainage plan for the project would be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. The combined application of standard grading, drainage, and erosion control measures, as part of the approved grading and drainage plan, and the recommendations from the Geotechnical Report is expected to maintain anygrading-related impacts at a less–than-significant level. Consequently, erosion hazard is considered a less-than-significant impact. Erosion and sedimentation issues are addressed more fully in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study. c, d)At the south corner of the site, the ground surface is a thin veneer of topsoil underlain by dark brown to black silty clay extended to a depth of 10 feet below the ground surface (bgs). The claygrades downward 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -32 - into a 2-foot-thick layer of clayey sand, below which is 9 feet of light brown silty clay extending from 13 to 22 feet bgs. At least 2 feet of water-bearing sandy gravel is below the light brown silty clay.23 On the southeast side of the site, gravelly clay (probably fill) extends to a depth of 5 feet bgs. The fill is underlain by clayey fine sand to 14 feet bgs. Below the clayey fine sand is clayey silty gravel extending to 24 feet bgs. The gravel unit contains a blue-green discoloration and fuel odor at the groundwater interface between 21 and 22 feet bgs.24 At the north corner of the site the ground surface is about 2 feet of gravel base course (structural fill placed on areas to be paved) underlain by2.5 feet of dark brown silty clay. The clay is underlain byat least 7.5 feet of light brown silty gravel containing brick fragments, indicating the entire sequence is fill.25 The clays are soft and plastic; the sand is firm except where the clay content is high; and the gravel compact with clasts less than an inch in diameter.26 Expansion potential is expected to be quite variable from one of these geologic units to another, but plastic clays tend to be more expansive than sand or gravel. The geotechnical investigation recommended removal and recompaction or replacement of existing fills unsuitable for foundation support. Building on unsuitable soils would have the potential to create future liquefaction, subsidence, or collapse problems leading to building settlement and/or utility line disruption. When weak soils are replaced or re-engineered specifically for stability prior to use, these potential effects can be reduced to an acceptable level or eliminated. An acceptable degree of soil stability can be achieved for expansive or compressible soils by incorporation of soil treatment programs (replacement, grouting, compaction, drainage control, etc.) in the excavation and construction plans to address site-specific soil conditions. The City requires the excavation plans and specifications be reviewed by the Public Works Department (which may include further review and approval by a licensed geotechnical engineer, hired by the City at the applicant’s expense) prior to issuance of an excavation and grading permit. Overseeing compliance with the approved permit is the responsibility of the City’s Building Division and Public Works Department and is conducted through site visits and contractor reports. The identification and treatment of expansive soils would be required to comply with the provisions of Chapter 18 of the CBC, which specifies the requirements for foundation and soil investigations; excavation, grading, and fill; and the design of footings and foundations.Consequently, the potential effects of expansive soils on the foundation of the proposed project would be a less-than-significant impact. At the time of drilling by SES, Inc. (December 2007), groundwater was encountered in the three previously described areas of the site between 20 and 24 feet bgs. Along the southwest side of the site groundwater was encountered between 24 and 32 feet bgs. Groundwater flow direction as indicated byprevious investigations is north-northeast, toward the Oregon Expressway-Page Mill Road underpass pumping station, which is discharged into Matadero Creek. Water table contours provided bySecor for Hewlett-Packard-Varian (HP- Varian) in June 2006 (reproduced in SES,Inc., 2008) indicated the water table in the south corner of the site was about 12 to 13 feet above sea level (about 16 to 15 feet bgs), dropping to about 9 to 10 feet above sea 23 SES, Inc., 2008, p. 6 24 SES, Inc., 2008, p. 6 25 SES, Inc., 2008, p. 6 26 SES, Inc., 2008, p. 6 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -33 - level (about 18 to 17 feet bgs) in the north corner of the site.27 As described in Section VII.a,b), Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Initial Study, groundwater at the project site is in a partially confined condition because the deep claylayer acts as an aquitard (material that substantially reduces the transmission of water). This is a factor in explaining the various groundwater levels encountered at the project site and a cause of water rising in the boreholes. Damaging liquefaction can occur at depth if the water table is within about 50 feet bgs in pockets of fine- grained, uniformly sized sand, such as can exist in the alluvial deposits underlying the project site: conditions such as depth to water table, uniformityof grain size, and mix of grain size can varydramatically within alluvium. The combination of saturation and grain-size conditions conducive to liquefaction do not appear to exist in the near surface materials investigated at the project site. The City requires the excavation plans and specifications be reviewed for approval by the City’s Public Works Department (which may include further review and approval of a licensed geotechnical engineer hired by the City at the applicant’s expense) prior to issuance of an excavation and grading permit. Overseeing compliance with the approved permit is the responsibilityof the City’s Public Works Department and Building Division and is conducted through site visits and contractor reports. The identification and treatment of potentially liquefiable soils would be required to comply with the provisions of Chapter 18 of the CBC. Consequently, the potential effect of soils that could liquefy and/or spread laterally would be a less-than -significant impact. The depth of excavation for the removal of existing fill and soil materials and the construction of the underground parking level are projected to extend to 15.4 feet bgs. During the past two years of site investigation by Secor and SES,Inc., the water table has been below this level, but it is subject to fluctuation with rainfall, landscaping, and drainage.28 As such, there is a possibility the excavation could encounter groundwater. If groundwater were encountered during project excavation, dewatering of the pit might be necessary. The dewatering would be required to comply with Chapter 33 of the CBC, which specifies the safety requirements to be fulfilled for sitework, including the protection of adjacent structures from damage during excavation. This protection includes the prevention of subsidence of pavement or foundations caused by dewatering. As a condition of project approval, the City may require a dewatering plan that would be reviewed for approval by the City’s Public Works Department (which may include further review and approval of a licensed geotechnical engineer hired by the City at the applicant’s expense) prior to issuance of an excavation and grading permit (see Mitigation Measure MM-3 in Section VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Mitigation Measure MM-5 in Section VIII,Hydrology and Water Quality of this Initial Study). Overseeing compliance with the approved permit is the responsibility of the City’s Public Works Department and the Building Division and is conducted through site visits and contractor reports. Compliance with these requirements would ensure the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact associated with soil or slope instability related to subsidence, liquefaction, or collapsible soils. e)The project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative waste-water disposal systems. Sewer mains are available to the site and would be used for wastewater disposal. Consequently, there would be no impact related to the capability of the soil to support septic tanks or alternative disposal systems. Residual Impact:Less than significant. Implementation of the construction techniques and recommendations contained in (a) the Geotechnical Report by Jo Crosby & Associates, dated May10, 2004, (b) 27 SES, Inc., 2008, p.8 28 SES, Inc., 2008, p. 1 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -34 - the Site Investigation and RemedyReport bySES,Inc., dated July2,2008 (including the Soil Management Plan by Tucker Engineering, dated May 29,2008, (c) the Health and SafetyPlan by Tucker Engineering, dated May 29,2008, and (d) the Vapor Mitigation System – Monitoring Plan (Revision 1) byTreadwell & Rollo, dated June 2, 2008) would be required by the City’s Municipal Code, the RWQCB, the Air Resources Board, and/or the Santa Clara ValleyWater District. The City’s Public Works Department and Building Division would review the project applications and supporting documentation for compliance with the Municipal Code prior to issuing permits for excavation or construction. Overseeing compliance with the approved permits with respect to special issues described herein related to hazards would be the responsibility of a qualified consultant (a third party inspection service) retained by the City at the applicant’s expense. Overseeing compliance with approved permits in other respects is the responsibility of the City’s Building Official or a third party hired by the Building Official, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of activities related to excavation and design features during project construction at sites with contaminated soil and groundwater. Implementation of the recommendations contained in these reports and the review bythe City of Palo Alto would maintain geological impacts at a less-than-significant level. As a condition of project approval, the Citywould require a dewatering plan prior to issuance of an excavation permit (see Mitigation Measure MM-4 in Section VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Mitigation Measure MM-6 in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality), which would ensure that geological impacts remain at a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measures: None required. As explained in the preceding paragraph, the project’s inclusion of the geotechnical, site remediation, soil management, health and safety, and vapor intrusion mitigation and monitoring recommendations is required bythe City, the RWQCB, and/or the SCVWD. As a consequence of these legal requirements being part of the project design, the respective geology and soils impacts would be rendered less than significant. As a condition of project approval, the City would require a dewatering plan prior to issuance of an excavation permit (see Mitigation Measure MM-4 in Section VII,Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Mitigation Measure MM-6 in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality). Cumulative Analysis The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts resulting from geologic hazards is generally site-specific, because each project site has a different set of geologic considerations that would be subject to specific site-development and construction standards. As such, the potential for cumulative impacts to occur is geographically limited for most geology and soils impact analyses. Locally, the two mixed-used development projects would be in the same geologic unit (Holocene floodplain deposits) as the 195 Page Mill Road project, although not on adjacent parcels. Floodplain deposits are unconsolidated and highly variable over short distances, making each parcel a site-specific case. The HST project would occupy the Caltrain corridor adjacent to the 195 Page Mill Road project site. Irrespective of the vertical profile of the HST project (tunnel, trench, and/or embankment), it would be physically and structurally isolated from surrounding development. It also would be founded in the same geologic unit as the 195 Page Mill Road project. In general, similar nearby projects on floodplain deposits would react similarly to geologic forces 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -35 - and they would be expected to have similar impacts on the geologic unit, but the reaction and impacts at one site would not contribute to, or multiply, the effects at the other sites. The safety of the adjacent HST project construction and operation would be regulated by the State of California through the Authority and by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the federal agency responsible for the safetyof construction and operation of all rail systems in the country. The Authority and the FRA would require the HST project to adhere to the regulations set bythe FRA’s Track SafetyStandards (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 213) and the construction standards and material specifications recommended in the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association’s Manual for Railway Engineering, therebyensuring that the structural stability of the HST project would not affect or be effected by adjacent or nearby development (i.e., would not cumulate with other projects). In common with the rest of California, Palo Alto is in a seismically active area and is subject to risk of damage to persons and property as a result of seismic groundshaking. Building in California is strictly regulated by the CBC, as adopted and enforces by each jurisdiction, to reduce risks from seismic events to the maximum extent possible. New buildings and facilities in the City are required to be sited and designed in accordance with the most current geotechnical and seismic guidelines and recommendations to reduce the risk of fault rupture. With adherence to the Building Code and related plans, regulations, and design and engineering guidelines and practices, the project would not make a cumulativelyconsiderable contribution to any potential cumulative impact arising from fault rupture. Therefore, the project’s cumulative impact would be less than significant. Impacts associated with potential geologic hazards related to groundshaking and seismic-related ground failure also could occur at individual building sites, but these effects would be site-specific, and impacts would not be compounded by additional development. Individual projects must complywith the provisions of all applicable codes and regulations and building plans must conform to the most current seismic safety design guidelines set forth in the CBC. Therefore, each project, including the proposed project, would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any potential cumulative impacts of strong seismic groundshaking. Therefore, the project’s cumulative impact would be less than significant. Additionally, development of other cumulative projects in the vicinity of the proposed project site could similarly expose soil surfaces and further alter soil conditions. However, the proposed project and other cumulative projects must be in compliance with applicable Building Code and NPDES permit requirements. As part of the NPDES permit requirements, it would implement and maintain the BMPs required by individual project SWPPPs. As such, the project’s contribution to any potential cumulative impact related to soil erosion would have a less than cumulatively considerable. As with seismic groundshaking impacts, the geographic context for analysis of impacts on development from unstable soil conditions, including landslides, liquefaction, subsidence, collapse, expansive or corrosive soils, or soils incapable of supporting alternative wastewater disposal systems, is site-specific. Because all development projects would be required to implement appropriate design and construction measures, each project, including the proposed project, would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any potential soil instability. The project’s cumulative impact would be less than significant. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -36 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 18, 19, 28, 29 X b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 18, 19, 28, 29 X c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 1 X d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 18, 19, 28, 29 X e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1 X f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? 1 X g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 11 X h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 11 X A geotechnical report, dated May 10, 2004, was prepared by Jo Crosby and Associates. A copy of the geotechnical report is available for review on the City’s website as Appendix H of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. A site investigation and remedy report dated July2, 2008 was prepared by SES,Inc. and included a vapor mitigation system and monitoring plan prepared by Treadwell & Rollo, dated June 2, 2008. A copy of the site investigation report and the Treadwell & Rollo report are available for review on the City’s website as Appendix I and Appendix D, respectively, of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -37 - a, b) As explained in the Project Description, the proposed project would include the construction of a three story building containing R&D space on the ground floor, two upper levels of residential units, and one level of underground parking. Construction Excavation for the subterranean level would reach a depth no more than 15.4 feet below the ground surface (bgs).29 A groundwater plume containing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) was detected at the project site in the first water-bearing unit (a partially confined aquifer) at least 20 feet bgs.30 Residual VOCs were detected in the soil vapor31 between 15 and 16 feet bgs.32 Levels of trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), cis-1,2-dichlorethylene (cis-1,2-DCE), and total extractable hydrocarbons-diesel to gasoline range (TEHd, TEHg) in the groundwater exceeded the regulatory Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for a Drinking Water Resource, but onlyTEHg exceeded the ESL for a Non-drinking Water Resource.33 Of the VOCs detected in the soil-vapor, TCE, PCE, and 1,1-dichlorethylene (1,1-DCE) exceeded their respective ESLs.34 According to the site investigation and remedyreport, the VOCs originate from an off-site upgradient source known as the Hewlett-Packard-Varian (HP-Varian) plume. The chlorinated VOCs detected in the plume beneath the project site are the same compounds associated with the HP-Varian plume, which is known to extend as far as the Caltrain easement, adjacent to the project site on the northeast, and beyond Page Mill Road, adjacent to the project site on the northwest.35 Groundwater remediation and monitoring systems are in operation at several sites associated with the sources contributing to the HP-Varian plume including 611 Hansen Way (overseen by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control), 1501 Page Mill Road, and the California-Olive-Emerson (COE) plume at 640 and 395 Page Mill Road and 601 South California Street (all overseen by the RWQCB).36 The closest of the upgradient remediation sites is 395 Page Mill Road about 500 feet south-southeast of the project site. In June 2009, Hewlett-Packard’s groundwater remediation consultant field checked the location of HP- Varian monitoring wells relative to the staked location of the proposed excavation at the project site to verify that the wells would not be affected by the excavation. No wells are on the propertyof the proposed project. One well is 2.5 feet outside the property line of the project site and another well is16 feet outside the property line. The wells would be protected from damage during excavation by the shoring to be used at the perimeter of the site to protect the Sprint building adjacent to the project site. All earth-moving equipment would be confined to the project site.37 29 a) Hoover, 2008, ss. C2, A3.3 b) SES, Inc., 2008, p. 1 30 SES, Inc., 2008, pp. 4, 6, 10, 17, 18 31 Soil vapor is the gas that is held in pore spaces between soil particles. It can originate from volatilizing hydrocarbon seeping into the soil from a contaminated groundwater plume. 32 SES, Inc., 2008, p. 22 33 SES, Inc., 2008, pp. 10, 11 34 SES, Inc., 2008, pp. 14, 16 35 SES, Inc. 2008, pp. 17-19, 23, 29 36 Electronic mail post –From: Janet Naito (California Department of Toxic Substances Control) Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 9:20 AM To: Lata Vasudevan (City of Palo Alto) Cc: Laura Kaweski (Department of Toxic Substances Control); Michelle Puljiz (Department of Toxic Substances Control); Roger Papler (Regional Water Quality Control Board) Subject: Park Plaza Project (SCH# 2009042104) 37 James R. Janz, Sideman & Bancroft, LLP, letter to Lata Vasudevan, Contract Planner, City of Palo Alto, June 5, 2009 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -38 - The SES, Inc., 2008 site investigation associated the hydrocarbon contamination with former on-site sources: an underground fuel storage tank that was closed formallywith regulatory approval; and the former subsurface drain area near borehole B-06, between 2891 Park Boulevard and the Caltrain easement because most of those residual hydrocarbons are in the form of low concentrations of the longer chain diesel-type extractable (versus volatile) grade and are not considered to be of environmental concerns from a health risk perspective.38 The chlorinated VOCs from the HP-Varian plume are the risk drivers for vapor intrusion. Because of the distribution of VOCs in the site soils, the RWQCB indicated there was no basis to conclude whether there was or was not residual soil contamination at the site and approved the site investigation and remedy report based on the inclusion of soil-qualityscreening during site investigation in lieu of further pre-excavation soil investigation.39 The RWQCB considers the existence of elevated levels of VOCs to indicate the probable presence of VOC soil sources under the northeast half of the site.40 Because the data show that residual petroleum hydrocarbons in the project site soils samples were below current regulatory ESLs, SES,Inc. did not expect hydrocarbons to interfere with future site development in terms of associated risk or exposure. Nonetheless, contaminated groundwater from the underlying plume probably will persist for years, although it will diminish gradually with continued remediation. Because the base of the foundation for the proposed project would be about 5 feet above the confined aquifer affected by the plume, there would be no direct contact with contaminated groundwater, but vapor disseminating through the soil could enter the building. Because there remains some possibility that groundwater could be encountered during the excavation, the City may require, as a condition of project approval, a dewatering plan that would be reviewed for approval bythe City’s Public Works Department (which may include further review and approval by a licensed geotechnical engineer, hired by the City at the applicant’s expense) prior to issuance of an excavation and grading permit (see Mitigation Measure MM-4 in Section VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Mitigation Measure MM-6 in Section VIII, Hydrologyand Water Quality, of this Initial Study). Overseeing compliance with the approved permit is the responsibility of the City’s Public Works Department and Building Division, either directly through site visits and contractor reports, or through licensed third-party investigators hired by the City at the applicant’s expense. Excavated soil contamination in the vicinity of the subsurface drain, former underground fuel storage tank (UFST), and possible sources above the water table would be examined to the depth of 15.4 feet bgs (the base of the proposed excavation) during excavation activities. If hydrocarbon contamination were indicated, these soils would be segregated for potential further testing and remediation, as needed.41 Although the site investigation and remedy report concluded there was no known onsite source area generating VOC contamination, the soil-vapor samples analyzed by SES,Inc. indicated some VOCs 38 SES, Inc., 2008, p. 1 39 San Francisco Bay Region, California Regional WaterQuality Control Board, Approval of Site Investigation and Remedy Report, and Requirements for Reports for Park Plaza Mixed Use Development at 195Page Mill Road and 2685 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, July 3, 2008, File No.43S1107 (RWP), pp. 1 & 2. This Approval remains current per telephone communication from Roger W.Papler, PG7741, SFBRWQCB Engineering Geologist to GeorgeJ.Burwasser, PG 7151, ATKINS Senior Geologist, January 21, 2011. 40 Electronic mail post –From: Roger Papler (Regional Water Quality Control Board) Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:04 PM To: Lata Vasudevan (City of Palo Alto) Cc: Harold Hohbach (Hohbach Enterprises); Cecil Felix; (Regional Water Quality Control Board) John Wolfenden; (Regional Water Quality Control Board) Stephen Hill (Regional Water Quality Control Board) Subject: Park Plaza / PA: Comments -MND (21April09) 41 SES, Inc., 2008, p. 20 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -39 - appeared to be contaminating the soil through sorption onto low-permeable clay particles when the VOCs volatized upward from the underlying plume.42 The distribution of VOC contamination in the groundwater did not vary significantly across the project site, but the VOC distribution in the soil vapor showed a two- fold magnitude variation across the site, being higher under the northeast half of the site and lower under the southwest half.43 Because of this distribution, the RWQCB indicated there was no basis to conclude whether there was or was not residual soil contamination at the site. The groundwater under the site of the proposed project flows north-northeast toward the Oregon Expressway-Page Mill Road underpass. Groundwater was encountered on the project site between 20 and 24 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) in Boreholes GW-01 and GW-06, at 22 feet bgs in Borehole GW-04, between 24 and 28 feet bgs in Borehole GW-05, and between 28 and 32 feet bgs in Borehole GW-07. (For groundwater information, see Figure 2 on page 3 of the SES,Inc. 2008 report, available for review on the City’s website as Appendix I of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment.) Partially confined aquifer conditions appear to exist under the southeast portion of the project site, as indicated by groundwater rising in Borehole GW-04 to 14 feet bgs and in Borehole GW-07 to 12 feet bgs.44 Unless penetrated by excavation or boreholes, the confining clay layer extending down to 22 feet bgs in Borehole GW-04 and 28 feet bgs in Borehole GW-07 prevents water in the underlying portion of the aquifer from rising toward the ground surface. To prevent the excavation from extending into the contaminated groundwater, lateral soil nailing or shallow bracing would be used to stabilize the excavation walls and would not extend below 20 feet bgs. For soil nailing, the excavation walls, which would be no more than 15.4 feet deep, would be stabilized using wire mesh facing covered with gunnite and welded or plated to soil nails drilled and grouted at least 20 feet laterally (i.e., approximately parallel to the ground surface) into the excavation walls. For excavation bracing, a soldier pier and timber shoring system placed no deeper than 20 feet bgs and probably involving tiebacks drilled and grouted laterally into the excavation walls would be used to support the excavation walls, which would be no more than 15.4 feet deep.45 During the past two years of site investigation by Secor (at the upgradient HP-Varian VOC plume) and SES,Inc. (at the project site), the water table generally has been 20 feet bgs or lower, under partially confined aquifer conditions. There is a steep hydraulic gradient toward the northwest, in the directionof the Oregon Expressway-Page Mill Road underpass pump station. In 2007, during the installation of groundwater and soil vapor investigation borings at the project site, groundwater encountered at 22 feet bgs rapidly rose to approximately 14 feet bgs in one boring, and to 12 feet bgs in another.46 This indicates that confined aquifer conditions are present, at least in certain portions of the site, and that groundwater is under hydrostatic pressure. As such, it is possible that excavation could not only intercept groundwater, but that the removal of clay materials during excavation could cause groundwater levels to rise to levels that would begin to fill the excavation area. Four potential effects could result from contaminated groundwater being 42 SES, Inc. 2008, pp. 22 & 23 43 SES, Inc. 2008, pp. 17 & 18 44 SES, Inc., 2008, pp.6 &23 45 Crosby, 2004, p. 7 46 SES, Inc., 2008, p. 17. This report is available for review on the City’s website as Appendix I of this Initial Study or upon request at the Cityof Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -40 - unexpectedly drawn toward or into the excavated area. If contaminated groundwater were to rise into the excavation area, this could present (1) a health hazard for construction workers on site, through direct contact or inhalation of VOCs and hydrocarbons (especially worker inhalation hazard related to excavation of soils containing trapped VOCs); (2) an inhalation health hazard for other people near the site. In addition, (3)excavation that intercepts groundwater or causes groundwater to rise could affect the effectiveness of the VOC plume remediation system by altering flow characteristics, or (4) it could cause soil vapors to migrate. From a geotechnical perspective, groundwater entering the excavation could affect the stability of the side walls of the excavation. Excavation of the soil on the northeast half of the site where site investigation revealed higher levels of VOCs could pose inhalation hazards to construction workers and other people near the project site. During soil removal, airborne contaminants in the form of residual VOCs trapped in the soil could be released. The use of respiratoryprotection byconstruction workers, as described in the Health and Safety Plan, could be necessary if air monitoring indicated contaminant concentrations had reached the action level and would reduce the potential exposure to an acceptable level. Compliance with the requirements of OSHA's Respiratory Protection Standard whenever respirators were used would be mandatory. This means the use of protective outerwear and air-purifying respirators with appropriate cartridges (i.e., wearing Tyvek suits and half mask respirators equipped with N-95 cartridges) until testing results showed airborne VOC concentrations were consistently below the California permissible exposure limit. A Jobsite Safety Coordinator (hired by the applicant) would be responsible for monitoring the proper implementation of respiratory protection and ensuring appropriate cartridges, filters, outerwear, etc. were used. All employees working onsite would be trained and informed about safe practices for working around VOC-contaminated ground.47 To prevent or reduce exposure of unauthorized personnel (i.e., the public and workers not specifically assigned to tasks on a restricted portion of the project site) to safety and chemical hazards during excavation and grading, site control would be enforced strictly for this project. During periods of excavation and general grading in the northeast half of the site, an exclusion zone would be set using fencing and signs (or equivalent physical indicators) that indicate only authorized personnel were permitted to enter. Necessary traffic controls (e.g., perimeter fence, signs, barriers, and street closures) would be established periodicallyas necessary keep the public (pedestrians and traffic) away from the job site.48 Dust and VOC vapor controls, construction and transportation equipment decontamination, stormwater pollution controls, and dewatering treatment (if necessary) would be implemented to prevent exposure of workers at the site, the public, and receiving waters to VOCs in soil or groundwater.49 To prevent worker-exposure to contaminated soil, procedures and precautions to be used in the proper profiling, movement, and exportation of the soil are outlined in the Soil Management Plan, prepared by Tucker Engineering. Excavation procedures would include soil testing for the presence of hydrocarbons and 47 Tucker Engineering, May 28, 2008, Site-Specific Health &Safety Plan, pp. 32 & 33, Section 10 Respiratory Protection Program. This report is available for review on the City’s website on the City’s website as Appendix E of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 48 Tucker Engineering, May 28, 2008, Site-Specific Health &Safety Plan, p. 13, 3.1 Site Controls. This report is available for review on the City’s website on the City’s website as Appendix E of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 49 SES, Inc., 2008, pp. 32 –35 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -41 - contacting trained personnel to determine the need for additional testing and remediation if items out of the ordinarywere identified. As described in the Health and SafetyPlan, prepared byTucker Engineering, if soil were encountered that was judged to be out of the ordinary, odorous, or to contain subterranean debris, the area of discovery would be quarantined and all excavation activities would be stopped until soil and/or vapor analysis could be completed and the City approved the continuation of excavation activities.50 Operation To prevent VOC soil-vapor intrusion from the contaminated aquifer or the site of the former UFST, an active soil venting system and a full vapor barrier would be installed beneath the underground parking level. The vapor collection system would consist of perimeter inlet vents below the parking level feeding a horizontal network of solid and perforated pipes installed in a layer of sharp gravel or crushed rock. The horizontal grid would connect to vertical risers (solid pipes) extending the full height of the building and properly vented above the roofline.51 The active vaporintrusion mitigation system (VIMS) would be driven byelectric fans at the effluent end of the VIMS riser pipes and enhanced byoutside air entering through ten inlet vents. To ensure the system functioned as intended, its performance would be monitored by a third party inspection service (a licensed HVAC engineer specializing in VIMS) at the applicant’s expense and reporting to the RWQCB and the City.52,53 . Based on modeling performed byTreadwell & Rollo in June, 2008, the under-slab VOC concentrations were calculated to be reducible bythree to five orders of magnitude (factors of 10) through the diluting effect of fresh air entering the under-slab layer by way of perimeter inlet vents. The diluted VOC vapors would pass through the horizontal network of collection pipes and be released safely through the riser pipes. The maximum TCE and PCE concentrations detected in soil-vapor at this site were 150,000 micrograms per cubic meter (•g/m3) and 40,000 •g/m3, respectively. The ESLs for TCE and PCE in commercial or industrial land uses are 4,100 •g/m3 and 1,400 •g/m3, respectively. Consequently, a three-fold reduction in under-slab VOC concentrations provided by the passive venting system would reduce the VOC concentrations below the ESLs.54 The full vapor barrier would be a 60-mil-thick, spray-applied membrane below the elevator shafts, stairwells, pipe chases, and entire floor-slab. The efficacy of partial and full vapor barrier systems against potential vapor intrusion is addressed in project-related correspondence with the RWQCB55(the agency of jurisdiction 50 Tucker Engineering, May 29,2008, Soil Management Plan for Park Plaza, (SES, Inc., 2008, Appendix G –Excavation-Related Workplans: Health & Safety Plan, and Soil Management Plan), pp. 4, 5. The SES, Inc. report is available for reviewon the City’s website as AppendixI of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 51 Treadwell & Rollo, 2009, Vapor Mitigation System –Monitoring Plan (Revision 2), Park Plaza Development, 195 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California, available for review on the City’s website as Appendix D of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 52 Treadwell & Rollo, 2008 (SES, Inc., 2008, Appendix E), pp. 2, 3. The SES, Inc. report is available for reviewon the City’s website as Appendix I of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 53 Treadwell & Rollo, 2008 (SES, Inc., 2008, Appendix E), pp. 2, 3. The SES, Inc. report is available for reviewon the City’s website as Appendix I of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 54 Treadwell & Rollo, 2009, Vapor Mitigation System –Monitoring Plan (Revision 2), Park Plaza Development, 195 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California, available for review on the City’s website as Appendix D of this Initial Study or upon request at the City ofPalo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 55 Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region. Approval Letter of Site Investigation and Remedy Report, and Requirement for Reports for Park Plaza Use Development at 195 Page Mill Road and 2685 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -42 - over vapor intrusion remediation systems on the proposed project site).56 In April 2008 the RWQCB expressed doubts about the efficacy of partial barriers (under vertical components of the building, but not under the entire floor-slab). In July 2008 the RWQCB determined that the passive VIMS previously described appeared to address soil vapor issues below the proposed new development adequately, noted no need for the addition of mechanical ventilation (HVAC) systems to the VIMS, but was silent on the issue of the partial barrier. Subsequent correspondence continued the debate without resolution. In October 2009 the applicant proposed a full vapor barrier beneath the building, with an active venting system.57 Project-related correspondence with RWQCB addresses the level of enforceabilityof the Risk Management Plan requirements for operation and maintenance of the VIMS. As the RWQCB determined, the applicant has committed financial resources to employing a third party inspection service to be responsible for inspecting the site and submitting the required information to the RWQCB. As indicated in the Enforcement of Remedial Risk Management Measures section of Appendix H of the SES,Inc. 2008 report (available for review on the City’s website as Appendix G of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment), enforcement would be implemented by annual inspections of the VIMS by the third party inspection service to assure that the VIMS continued to operate as designed until sub-slab soil gas levels were below RWQCB ESLs bya factor of two. Building permit review bythe City of Palo Alto would ensure future building permits do not compromise the stipulations specified in MM-4. Section 3401.2 of the CBC requires that all devices required by the CBC be maintained in conformance with the CBC, and allows the building inspector to re-inspect buildings to determine compliance. As presented in Appendix E,58 contingencies include vapor monitoring to protect against potential vapor intrusion and evaluation of additional mitigation if the results of the first six (monthly) monitoring events indicate any cause for concern. If the VIMS is operating correctly, monitoring would continue quarterly until vapor concentrations were reduced to 50 percent of the RWQCB Commercial ESLs and annually thereafter.59 If testing indicated the VIMS was not reducing VOC concentrations to levels below the thresholds set by the RWQCB, the system would need to be redesigned (under the supervision of the third party inspection service) for more effective removal of VOCs. Monitoring would continue until VOC concentrations were demonstrated to be maintained below the commercial ESLs, as recommended by the RWQCB. Appendix I of the SES,Inc. 2008 report consists of a Financial Assurance Letter that specifically documents committed financial resources for maintaining the VIMS and repairing the VIMS elements in case of damage from vandalism or the slab cracking because of ground settlement and other unanticipated events.60 This Financial Assurance has been reconfirmed and updated by the applicant as of February 10, 2011.61 56 Project-related correspondence with the RWQCB is included in the City of Palo Alto’s proposed project files, maintained by the Planning and Community Environment Department. Copies of these documents are available, upon request, for public review. 57 Treadwell & Rollo, Vapor Mitigation System –Monitoring Plan (Revision 1), Park Plaza Development, 195 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California, June 2,2008. Revised October 27,2009 as Vapor Mitigation System –Monitoring Plan (Revision2), Park Plaza Development, 195 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California 58 Trucker Engineering, Site Health and Safety Plan, May 27, 2008. 59 Electronic mail post -From: Roger W. Papler, PG7741 (Regional Water Quality Board) Sent: Tuesday, February3, 2009 3:56 PM To: Bob G. Moss (Barron Park Association Foundation); John Wolfenden (Regional Water Quality Board) Subject: Re: Park Plaza -195 PMR: Comments on BPAF RTCs. 60 Electronic mail post -From: Roger W. Papler, PG7741 (Regional Water Quality Board) Sent: Tuesday, February3, 2009 3:56 PM To: Bob G. Moss (Barron Park Association Foundation); John Wolfenden (Regional Water Quality Board) Subject: Re: Park Plaza -195 PMR: Comments on BPAF RTCs 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -43 - Assuming construction period protection from contaminated soil and groundwater beneath the project site would be implemented as part of the proposed project, the possible exposure of the public or the environment to the routing, transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials related to construction is considered a less-than-significant impact. Nonetheless, the possibility exists that contaminated groundwater or soil could be encountered during the construction period, so reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials is considered a potentially significant impact. However, Mitigation Measures MM-4 and MM-6, in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality, would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. The project could involve the use or storage of hazardous materials in connection with the R&D uses proposed at the site.62 The lease agreement with each R&D tenant would stipulate that the storage and use of hazardous materials within their space would not exceed the limits set by Table 3-D, Exempt Amounts of Hazardous Materials Representing a Physical Hazard, 2010 CBC.63 (This table has been superseded by Tables 2703.1.1(1), (2), and (3) Maximum Allowable Quantity Per Control Area of Hazardous Materials Posing a Physical Hazard, 2010 California Fire Code, Title 24, Part 9, Chapter 27, Section 2703.1.1. The 264 hazardous materials listed on the old Table 3-D fall into one or more of the categories on the current Tables 2703.1.1(1), (2), or (3).64) Additionally, each R&D tenant space would be constructed as a separate compartment with one-hour rated walls, protected common openings, and separate ventilation systems.65 The City has Hazardous Materials Reporting Requirements (posted on the City’s website) based on the model Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance (HMSO) developed in 1982 and adopted byall cities and the county in Santa Clara County in 1983. The HMSO established the quantities of 55 gallons (liquids), 500 pounds (solids), or 200 cubic feet (compressed gases) for a specific hazardous material as the threshold for filing a Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP) and Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement (HMIS). Below the threshold, a facility could file a Short Form HMMP (now called a Registration Form). For new construction, the City’s Fire Department (the regulatory entity for the use and handling of hazardous materials) uses the general quantities of 10 gallons, 100 pounds, or 200 cubic feet as thresholds of nominal use, below which no specific permits or special construction would be required; above these levels, the thresholds in Chapter 27 of the California Fire Code would be applied on a site-specific case-by-case basis, with permits and special construction required for use levels above those specified in the model HMSO.66 (Certain exceptions include any quantity of gases regulated under the Toxic Gas Ordinance, which must be reported on the HMIS. Other hazardous materials below the reporting threshold may be required to be 61 Financial Assurance Letter from Harold C. Hohbach, President, Hohbach Reality Company Limited Partnership, to California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Attention Roger Papler, re Park Plaza Project (Water Board Case # 43S1107/CA), February 10,2011. 62 Richard B. Campbell, AIA, Hoover Associates Architecture. Letter to Gordon Simpkinson, Acting Fire Marshall, City of Palo Alto. February 22, 2011. 63 Richard B. Campbell, AIA,Hoover Associates Architecture. Letter to Gordon Simpkinson, Acting Fire Marshall, City of Palo Alto. February 22, 2011. 64 International Code Council. http://publicecodes.citation.com/st/ca/st/b300v10/st_ca_st_b300v10_27_sec003_par001.htm. Website accessed by GeorgeJ.Burwasser, PG 7151, ATKINS Senior Geologist. April 13, 2011. 65 Richard B. Campbell, AIA, Hoover Associates Architecture. Letter to Gordon Simpkinson, Acting Fire Marshall, City of Palo Alto. February 22, 2011. 66 Gordon Simpkinson, Acting Fire Marshall, City of Palo Alto. Telephone communication with George J. Burwasser, PG 7151, PBS&J Senior Geologist. April 13, 2011. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -44 - reported if they present an unusual hazard, such as water reactive materials, or materials that are highlytoxic, radioactive, carcinogenic or explosive.67) Assuming operational period protection from contaminated soil and groundwater beneath the project site would be implemented as part of the proposed project, the possible exposure of the public or the environment to the soil-and groundwater-related contamination is considered a less-than-significant impact. Compliance on the part of future tenants with the Fire Department’s requirements related to the handling of hazardous materials in connection with R&D at the site is intended to reduce the possible exposure of the public or the environment to the routing, transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials to a less-than- significant level. Nonetheless, the possibility that reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials could occur is considered a potentially significant impact. However, Mitigation Measures MM-4 would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. c)There are no existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the project site.68 Consequently, there would be no impact related to the project’s potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. d)The 2004 geotechnical report prepared by Jo Crosbyand Associates did not identify toxic materials on the property; however, the report states that a toxic plume of contaminated groundwater underlies the site. A Site Investigation and RemedyReport prepared bySES, Inc, dated July 2, 2008, which included continuous sampling of the boreholes for geologic logging, but not for laboratory analysis, indicates a groundwater plume containing VOCs was detected at the project site in the first water-bearing unit (a partiallyconfined aquifer) at least 20 feet bgs.69 This groundwater contamination was considered to be caused by historic discharges from nearby electronic manufacturing plants. The toxic plume has been known to exist since at least 1981 and is commonly referred to as the HP-Varian plume and the COE plume. The extent of the plume and its contaminants are well known and documented, and a number of developments have been built in the area, including residential uses, over this plume.70 The Fire Department’s Environmental Protection Coordinator reviewed the 2004 Crosbygeotechnical report and concluded the project could proceed without anysignificant negative impacts from the toxic plume. The Fire Department would require that any groundwater encountered during construction be sampled and analyzed for contaminants and properly disposed. Before any further work could proceed, the applicant would be required to obtain confirmation from the RWQCB that the construction and site activity would not result in exposure of construction workers or the public to those contaminants.71 That confirmation was issued on July 3,2008, on the assumption the SES, Inc. report was correct that the contaminated groundwater plume would not be intersected by the project excavation, but contained the reservation that there was no basis to conclude that there was or was not residual soil contamination at the site based on the 67 Hazardous Materials Reporting Requirements, March 2003. City of Palo Alto website accessed by George J.Burwasser, PG7151, PBS&J Senior Geologist. April 13, 2011. 68 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Adopted July 20, 1998, Land Use and Circulation Map, revised December, 2003 69 SES, Inc., 2008, pp. 4, 6, 10, 17, and 18 70 Steve Emslie, Former Director of Planning and Community Environment, Emily Harrison, Assistant City Manager, September 27, 2004, Memo to City Council from City Manager, Department of Planning & Community Environment, Recommendation for Denial of Request by Court House Plaza Company for Development of a Property at 195Page Mill Road and 2825, 2865, 2873, 2891, and 2901 Park Boulevard 71 Emslie and Harrison, 2004 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -45 - lack of laboratory analysis of the continuous soil cores of the boreholes.72 The RWQCB concluded the existence of elevated levels of VOCs under the northeast half indicated the probable presence of VOC soil sources at the site.73 The 2008 site investigation and remedy report bySES,Inc. examined the soil and groundwater conditions at the project site and, in collaboration with Treadwell &Rollo and Tucker Engineering, developed construction and operational period protections to accommodate the existence of plume and soil-vapor safely. The SES,Inc. 2008 report contained a dewatering contingencyplan. In the event the excavation encountered groundwater the Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health and the RWQCB would be contacted immediately by the applicant. Any purged groundwater would be containerized onsite, sampled for profiling, and disposed of offsite at a certified recycling facility. In the case that groundwater should need to be dewatered, the groundwater would be containerized on site, and an appropriate National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit obtained prior to treatment and discharge.74 Nonetheless, because the possibility exists that contaminated groundwater or soil could be encountered during the construction period, the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation.Mitigation Measures MM-4, below, and MM-6, in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality, would be made conditions of project approval, thereby reducing the impact to a less-than-significant level. e, f)The project site is not within two miles of either a public or private use airport. No impact would occur. g)The project would not adversely affect pedestrian, vehicular, or rail circulation patterns in the vicinityof the project. As described in Section XV.d), Transportation/Traffic, of this Initial Study, the project has been reviewed by the City’s Fire Department and Transportation Division to determine whether it would substantially increase hazards or result in inadequate emergency access. An unsignalized, 130-foot left turn pocket lane on Park Boulevard at the Page Mill Road intersection and a 24-foot roadwaywidth on the Page Mill Road extension would be provided by the applicant to facilitate two-way traffic and emergency response vehicle access. Mitigation Measure MM-8, in Section XV, Transportation/Traffic, would provide a pedestrian/vehicles warning system for the underground garage entrance/exit. There would be no access to the Caltrain property from the project site and Caltrain maintains a locked gate to close off the driveway provided for access to its propertyfrom the street. Consequently, there would be no impact on emergency response access, evacuation operations, or pedestrian/vehicle safety. h)The project is in a developed area and would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur. 72 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Bruce H. Wolfe, Executive Officer, July3,2008, letter to Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership, Approval of Site Investigation and Remedy Report, and Requirement for Reports for Park Plaza Mixed Use Development at 195 Page Mill Road and 2685 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County. This Approval remains current per telephone communication from Roger W.Papler, PG7741, SFBRWQCB Engineering Geologist to George J.Burwasser, PG 7151, PBS&J/ATKINS Senior Geologist, January 21, 2011. 73 Electronic mail post –From: Roger Papler, May 21, 2009 1:04 PM. 74 SES,Inc., 2008, Appendix H –Remedial Risk Management Plan, p. 4. The SES, Inc. report is available for review on the City’s website as Appendix I of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -46 - Residual Impact:Less than significant with mitigation Mitigation Measures: MM-4:Protocol for Management of On-site Contamination a) A formal dewatering plan (Construction Dewatering ContingencyPlan) shall be prepared, consistent with Mitigation Measure MM-6 in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality of this Initial Study and consistent with the City’s Construction Dewatering System Plan Preparation Guidelines and Dewatering from Construction Sites and In-ground Utilities Maintenance Manual. This plan shall be prepared and submitted for final approval by the City’s Public Works Department prior to issuance of Citypermits. The applicant shall provide information in the plan regarding the lateral and vertical distances to existing groundwater contamination plumes and an analysis of the potential impacts to those plumes caused by construction activity on the project property, including the use of dewatering sumps or wells under the proposed underground parking structure. Prior to submission to the City, this information shall be submitted to the RWQCB for approval that the proposed work on the subject property, including any use of dewatering sumps or dewatering wells would not have an adverse impact on the current and future cleanup effort of the HP-Varian or COE plumes. The approval shall be submitted to the City’s Public Works Department with the plan and shall verify that dewatering sumps or dewatering wells, if proposed, would not alter the path of the groundwater contamination plume(s) and could not result in 1)bringing groundwater contamination to the project site or 2)a possible future exposure of the public on the project site to groundwater contaminants. The plan shall identify testing and analysis methods, and treatment, if necessary, for disposal into the storm drain system to ensure compliance with the City’s Municipal NPDES permit. Sufficient personnel and material shall be provided by the applicant to implement the plan, should groundwater be encountered by the excavation. b) The applicant shall provide readyaccess to the project site for the CityBuilding Official, or a third party hired by the Building Official, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of activities related to excavation and design features during project construction at sites with contaminated soil and groundwater, to inspect and enforce implementation of the Soil Management Plan prepared by Tucker Engineering addressing the procedures and precautions to be used for the proper containment, profiling, movement, exportation of soil, etc. during the excavation and construction period. c) The applicant shall provide ready access to the project site for the third party inspection service, which would report to the City and be financed by the applicant to inspect and enforce implementation of the Remedial Risk Management Plan (RRMP), including implementation of the Site Health and Safety Plan; contaminated soil sampling, excavation, and management; the dewatering contingency plan; reporting requirements; land use covenant and environmental restrictions; long term monitoring, inspections, contingencies, and enforcement. d) The applicant shall file documentation with the RWQCB, the third partyinspection service reporting to the City and financed by the applicant, and the City for final approval of the completion of the excavation, including soil sampling results within 60 days following the completion of excavation. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -47 - e)Prior to issuance of the occupancypermit the applicant shall file documentation from an independent consultant specializing in vapor mitigation system design and installation for final approval bythe third party inspection service reporting to the Cityand financed bythe applicant confirming that each component (collection pipes, transmission pipes, inlets, risers, vents, etc.) of the vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS) has been installed in accordance with the recommendations of the Vapor Mitigation System and Monitoring Plan, and includes the installation of a full vapor barrier, which shall be a 60-mil thick, spray-applied membrane below the elevator shafts, stairwells, pipe chases, and entire floor-slab, as part of the active vapor collection and venting system (i.e., driven by electric fans at the effluent end of the VIMS riser pipes and enhanced by outside air entering through inlet vents) to be installed in the building to mitigate potential soil vapor intrusion. f)The applicant shall file documentation with the RWQCB and the City for final approval bythe third party inspection service reporting to the City and financed by the applicant of installation of the VIMS, initial garage air sampling results, and the startup sub-slab vapor-riser monitoring results, with vapor-riser monitoring reports submitted as required by the RRMP, within 60 days following the completion of building construction. g)The applicant shall comply with contingencies regarding vapor monitoring to protect against potential vapor intrusion which would involve additional remediation if the results of the first six (monthly) monitoring events indicate any cause for concern. If the VIMS is operating correctly, monitoring would continue quarterly until vapor concentrations were reduced to 50 percent of the RWQCB ESLs and annually thereafter. If the third party inspection service determines that the VIMS is not functioning adequately, the system is required to be redesigned (under the supervision of the third party inspection service) for more effective removal of VOCs. Monitoring would continue until VOC concentrations were demonstrated to be maintained below the commercial ESLs, as recommended by the RWQCB. h)The applicant shall condition the lease agreements with each R&D tenant proposing to use hazardous materials to stipulate that the storage and use of hazardous materials within their space would not exceed the limits set by Tables 2703.1.1(1), (2), and (3) Maximum Allowable Quantity Per Control Area of Hazardous Materials Posing a Physical Hazard, 2010 California Fire Code, Title 24, Part 9, Chapter 27, Section 2703.1.1. The space for each R&D tenant proposing to use hazardous materials shall be constructed as a separate compartment with one-hour rated walls, protected common openings, and separate ventilation systems. i)The applicant shall condition the lease agreements with each R&D tenant proposing to use hazardous materials to stipulate that the tenant shall comply with the City’s Hazardous Materials Reporting Requirements and shall prepare and file with the Fire Department, as appropriate, a Hazardous Materials Management Plan or a Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement providing sufficient information on how and where hazardous materials are handled by the business to allow fire, safety, health, and other appropriate personnel to prepare adequate emergency responses to potential releases of the hazardous materials. j)Monitoring wells encountered during site preparation or excavation shall be reported immediately to the RWQCB for its decision regarding proper abandonment or abandonment and replacement by the 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -48 - applicant. Work shall stop in proximity to the well(s) until the decision of the RWQCB is implemented. The applicant shall file documentation with the RWQCB and the City for final approval bythe CityBuilding Official, or a third party hired by the Building Official, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of activities related to excavation and design features during project construction at sites with contaminated soil and groundwater, of proper abandonment or abandonment and replacement of any affected wells. Cumulative Analysis The geographic context for the analysis of risks associated with hazardous materials impacts generally are localized and site-specific, with the exception of those resulting from transportation of hazardous materials. Because these risks generally are site-specific, the cumulative context for the analysis varies, depending on the threshold being analyzed. For example, cumulative impacts associated with the transportation of hazardous materials would be analyzed for development along the transportation route, whereas the context for the use of hazardous materials would be limited to the area immediately surrounding a project site. Cumulative impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment also would be limited to a specific project site and the immediately surrounding properties. Cumulative impacts associated with emergency response would be limited to development in the vicinity of emergency access routes. The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to the routine transport of hazardous materials during construction of the 195 Page Mill Road project is the major access routes for the project vicinity, which would include El Camino Real, Page Mill Road, Alma Street, and Oregon Expressway. Cumulative development along these routes in the vicinity of the project would include all past and present development, representing the baseline conditions for evaluation of cumulative impacts, including the two mixed-use development projects and the HST. Construction of cumulative projects could result in generation and transport of hazardous wastes such as asbestos from friable building materials, lead-based paint on building surfaces, chemicals in lighting fixtures, chemicals dissolved in groundwater, and hazardous materials such as fuel, solvents, and lubricants. In addition, previously unknown contamination, possibly the result of improper disposal or housekeeping activities, may be discovered when structures are demolished. Cumulative development could expose construction workers to health or safety risks through exposure to hazardous materials, although the individual workers potentially affected would vary from project to project. At the state level, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) administers laws and regulations related to hazardous waste and hazardous substances. The RWQCB enforces laws and regulations governing releases of hazardous substances and petroleum pursuant. In particular, the RWQCB focuses on all petroleum releases and those hazardous substance releases that may impact groundwater or surface water. Consequently, many past projects would have complied with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Compliance with applicable regulations and guidelines pertaining to hazardous materials would ensure that cumulative impacts from construction activities would be less than significant. Cumulative development in the area could handle or dispose of hazardous materials in such a way as to pose a risk from upset or accident. It is possible that cumulative development could expose residents and construction workers to contaminated soil or groundwater, even if required investigations are performed. Compliance with the regulations pertaining to construction monitoring would reduce the 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -49 - likelihood of such incidents. Consequently,cumulative impacts from upset or accident caused by construction activities at would be less than significant. Cumulative projects may find it necessary to dewater some sites to facilitate construction. Groundwater from dewatering and/or cleanup activities must meet specific treatment standards before being discharged to the storm drainage system. Any groundwater proposed for discharge from a project site into the San Francisco Bay watershed must meet strict water quality standards established by the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan as defined by the RWQCB, and may have to be treated before discharge into the Bay to avoid potential degradation of the Bay’s water quality. Furthermore, dischargers are required to meet stringent monitoring standards established by the RWQCB to assure compliance under this permitting system. Compliance with these regulations pertaining to dewatering discharge would ensure that cumulative impacts from construction activities would be less than significant. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -50 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 2, 9, 18, 19, 22-27 X b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 9, 18, 19, 22- 27 X c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 2, 9, 18, 19, 22-27 X d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 2, 9, 18, 19, 22-27 X e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 2, 9, 18, 19, 22-27 X f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?2, 9, 12, 18, 19, 22- 27 X g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 4, 18, 19, 23- 27 X h)Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 18, 19, 23-27 X i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 18, 19, 23-27 X j)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?1, 2, 18, 19, 23-27 X 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -51 - A geotechnical report, dated May 10, 2004, was prepared by Jo Crosby and Associates. A copy of the geotechnical report is available for review on the City’s website as Appendix H of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. A site investigation and remedy report dated July2, 2008 was prepared by SES, Inc. and included a vapor mitigation system and monitoring plan prepared by Treadwell & Rollo, dated July 2, 2008 and revised October 27,2009. A copy of the site investigation report and the Treadwell & Rollo report are available for review on the City’s website as Appendix I and Appendix D, respectively, of this Initial Study or upon request at the Cityof Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. a, e)The 2.5-acre project site is in the Matadero Creek watershed, which comprises approximately 14 square miles. Matadero Creek originates near the town of Los Altos Hills and flows northeast through the City of Palo Alto and unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. Downstream of U.S. Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway), the creek discharges into the Palo Alto Flood Basin, which flows to San Francisco Bay.75 Water quality in Matadero Creek is monitored at four locations; the monitoring location closest to the proposed project site is at Park Boulevard. For the most recent sampling period, water quality sampling results for Matadero Creek sites generally met applicable water quality criteria.76 Water quality standards and waste discharge requirements that are applicable to the proposed project are established in the Water QualityControl Plan for San Francisco Bay(Basin Plan)77prepared by the RWQCB in compliance with the federal CWA and the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the NPDES permits issued by the RWQCB in accordance with the Clean Water Act, which incorporates Basin Plan objectives. All point and non-point discharges (including urban runoff) must comply with the identified water quality objectives and the concentrations of contaminants in the discharges must be controlled, either through NPDES permits or waste discharge requirements. Two components of the proposed project are subject to separate NPDES requirements: construction and operation. Although the RWQCB is ultimately responsible for ensuring discharges from development in the City comply with conditions in the permits, which are summarized below, the Cityof Palo Alto is required by the terms of its NPDES Municipal Permit to review and regulate stormwater discharges from development sites. The City requires the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required by the NPDES Construction General Permit be reviewed by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. Overseeing conformance to the SWPPP is the responsibilityof the Public Works Department, or a third party hired by the Public works Department, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of activities related to water quality and water discharge requirements. Construction Land development activity in the City is regulated under a NPDES General Permit for stormwater discharge associated with construction activity.Stormwater runoff from construction sites that disturb one acre or more must be covered under the State’s General Permit and must be managed by a Storm Water Pollution 75 Critical Coastal Areas Program, California’s Critical Coastal Areas State of the CCAs Report, Matadero Creek CCA #88, June 2006. website: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/nps/Web/cca_pdf/sfbaypdf/CCA88MataderoCreek.pdf (accessed December 10, 2008) 76 Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Plan, Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Program, Monitoring and Assessment Summary Report, Santa Clara Basin Creeks 2002-2007, September 2007, pp. iv, 26-29, 34 website: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ water_issues/programs/tmdl/records/region_2/2008/ref2414.pdf (accessed December 10, 2008) 77 Beneficial uses for Matadero Creek identified in the Basin Plan are cold fresh water habitat, fish migration, recreation (water contact and non-water contact), fish spawning, warm fresh water habitat, and wildlife habitat. Matadero Creek is included on the EPA-approved 2006 federal EPA’s Section 303(b) Clean Water Act List of Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed by USEPA Approved Total Maximum Daily Loads. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -52 - Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A SWPPP describes measures to control or minimize pollutants from entering stormwater during the construction stage. Developers of projects that disturb one acre or more must file a Notice of Intent with RWQCB Region 2 to obtain coverage under the General Permit. The General Permit requires the applicant to develop a SWPPP that addresses both grading/erosion impacts and non-point source pollution impacts of the development project and sampling/monitoring requirements. Because the proposed project site exceeds one acre, an appropriate SWPPP would be required prior to the start of construction of the proposed project. Operation 77 local agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area, referred to as Dischargers, share a common NPDES Municipal Permit, known locally as the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). To reduce pollution in urban runoff to the maximum extent practicable, the Dischargers have incorporated regulatory, monitoring, and outreach measures aimed at improving the water quality of San Francisco Bay and local streams into their local land use policies and ordinances. The MRP includes provisions for New and Redevelopment Performance Standards in Permit Provision C.3. This provision requires that each Discharger adopt a permit-associated Urban Runoff Management Plan that contains performance standards and supporting documents to address the post-construction and construction phase impacts of new and redevelopment projects on stormwater quality. The City has incorporated the MRP’s Provision C.3 requirements into its Urban Runoff Management Plan and Municipal Code Chapter 16.11, including numeric sizing criteria for pollutant removal treatment systems and others. Construction Impacts Construction of the proposed project would involve soil-disturbance such as excavation, trenching, grading, and compacting. Stockpiled soils could be stored at the site temporarily. One of the major effects of soil disturbance at construction sites is sedimentation in receiving waters from stormwater runoff, which can be caused by erosion of exposed soils. Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.28, as adopted by the City, contains requirements for the design of erosion control systems. These requirements implement NPDES permit process for storm drainage and construction site discharge. The NPDES permit requires implementation of nonpoint source control of runoff through the application of a number of Best Management Practices (BMPs). These BMPs are designed to reduce the amount of constituents, including eroded sediment, that enter streams and other water bodies. A SWPPP must be prepared that describes the stormwater BMPs (structural and operational measures) that would control the quality (and quantity) of stormwater runoff. The City is responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the SWPPP and BMPs. There are known VOC contaminants in groundwater and soil vapor at the site, and possibly VOCs and hydrocarbons in the soil. Excavation and stockpiling of soils could generate dust or eroded materials containing VOCs or hydrocarbons which could result in adverse environmental effects during construction. For example, contaminated soils could be directly carried in stormwater runoff and discharged to Matadero Creek, or soil containing contaminants could be tracked off-site with construction or transportation equipment onto public roadways, from which stormwater containing contaminants could enter storm drain systems/creeks elsewhere in the watershed. If dewatering were necessary, the Citytypicallywould require discharge to the storm drain system, and soil/sediment in extracted water could contain contaminants. This latter issue is evaluated in greater detail in Item f), below. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -53 - To address the potential for these activities to adversely affect water quality or violate water quality standards, a project-specific Soil Management Plan (SMP) has been developed for the excavation and construction phases of project implementation. The Soil Management Plan was submitted to the RWQCB in July 2008 as part of the SES,Inc. Site Investigation and RemedyReport (available for review on the City’s website as Appendix I of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment) and has been approved.78 The SMP provides the procedures and protocols for handling and disposal of soil excavated during construction activities. A Remedial Risk Management Plan (RRMP) has been prepared that establishes procedures and protocols for managing soil and groundwater contaminants during construction. The RRMP is included in Appendix H of the SES,Inc.2008 report and is available for review on the City’s website as Appendix G of this Initial Studyor upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. As identified in the SMP, dust control measures would be used to prevent nuisance dust and dust containing VOCs or hydrocarbons from migrating offsite. Although the primary purpose of dust control is to protect human health and comply with air district requirements, dust control measures also would reduce the potential for dust to settle in areas where materials could be captured in stormwater runoff and discharged to the drain system and Matadero Creek. The SMP requires implementation of stormwater pollution controls such as berms, silt fences, and straw bale barriers around catch basins and storm drain inlets, which are consistent with NPDES BMPs. The City requires that the SMP be reviewed by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. Overseeing compliance of the SMP is the responsibilityof the Public Works Department, or a third party hired by the Public Works Department, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of activities related to excavation and design features during project construction at sites with contaminated soil and groundwater. If contaminated soils were found, the soils would be managed appropriately by segregating them into separate piles in a designated area onsite and covering the piles with plastic sheeting until additional testing was completed. The stockpiles would be managed in accordance with the SWPPP and the SMP. This would reduce the potential for soils (regardless of whether contaminants are present or not) to be washed into storm drains and enter the creek. To prevent cross-contamination, construction equipment and transportation vehicles that contact exposed native soils would be decontaminated prior to leaving the site. Wash water from decontamination would be collected and managed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and monitored by trained personnel. According to the Site Health and SafetyPlan (which is a part of the Site Investigation and Remedy Report prepared by SES,Inc.), decontamination water would be required to be placed in drums or holding tanks. The stored water would be sampled for chemicals, the results of which would determine how the water should be disposed. The water used for on-site dust control would have to meet NPDES permit requirements for such use and for any subsequent discharge to the storm drain. If the water were found not to meet the permit requirements, it would either be treated on-site or removed. In either case, no discharges to the storm drain exceeding adopted standards would be permitted. This measure would reduce the potential for contaminants to be transported off-site and possiblyenter runoff from roadways, and would ensure proper disposal. 78 “Approval of Site Investigation and Remedy Report, and Requirement for Reports for Park Plaza Mixed Use Development at 195 Page Mill Road and 2685 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County,” letter from Bruce H. Wolfe, Executive Officer, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region to Harold Hohbach, Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership, Atherton, CA, July 3, 2008. This Approval remains current per telephone communication from Roger W.Papler, PG7741, SFBRWQCB Engineering Geologist to GeorgeJ.Burwasser, PG 7151, PBS&J/ATKINS Senior Geologist, January 21, 2011. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -54 - Under existing regulation, (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.28), the City requires the submittal of a final grading and drainage plan for the proposed project, for City approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The application of standard grading, drainage, and erosion control measures as part of the approved grading and drainage plan, and implementation of the recommendations from the Geotechnical Report prepared by Jo Crosby and Associates (available for review on the City’s website as Appendix H of this Initial Studyor upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and CommunityEnvironment), would reduce the potential for construction site runoff to cause erosion or siltation that could degrade water quality. These erosion control measures are incorporated into this document as Mitigation Measure MM-4. Implementation of the required NPDES SWPPP and the Soil Management Plan and Remedial Risk Management Plan, as monitored and enforced during construction by the City of Palo Alto, would ensure compliance with stormwater quality standards. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-4 would ensure compliance with the measures in the plans, thus reducing impacts to a less-than-significant level. Operational Impacts After completion of the construction, soils exposed during construction would be covered by buildings, pavement, hardscape, and City-approved landscape and irrigation plans. Implementation of the post- construction BMPs required by the City would reduce the potential for eroded materials to be conveyed to the drainage system and Matadero Creek; however, stormwater runoff from new impervious surfaces could contain other pollutants. Pollutants associated with the operational phase of the proposed project could include nutrients, oil and grease, metals, organics, pesticides, and gross pollutants (including bacteria) in stormwater runoff. Nutrients that may be present in post-construction stormwater include nitrogen and phosphorous resulting from fertilizers applied to landscaping, degradation of organic material (e.g., leaves on pavement and sidewalks), and atmospheric deposition. Excess nutrients can reduce water quality by promoting excessive and/or a rapid growth of aquatic vegetation, which reduces water clarity and causes oxygen depletion. Oil and grease can enter stormwater from vehicle leaks, traffic, and maintenance activities. Metals can collect on impervious surfaces through atmospheric deposition and machine (e.g., cars) wear, which are then washed off to the storm drain system during storm events. Metals also can enter stormwater runoff if there is a direct interaction between bare metal surfaces and stormwater (e.g., bare metal roofs, gutters, downspouts, and other structures, if used). Several existing regulations and design conditions would limit the proposed project’s potential effects on degradation of surface water quality from post-construction stormwater runoff. The proposed project would be subject to Provision C.3 of the MRP, the City of Palo Alto Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) and City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11, which require incorporation of permanent stormwater quality BMPs, to the maximum extent practicable. The proposed project is categorized as a Significant Redevelopment Project per PAMC Chapter 16.11.79 Significant Redevelopment Projects are required to implement appropriate source control and site design measures and to design and implement stormwater treatment measures, to reduce the discharge of stormwater pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.11.030 requires permanent stormwater pollution prevention measures that reduce the water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project. Furthermore, stormwater treatment measures proposed as part of a project's permanent stormwater pollution prevention measures must be designed inaccordance with the hydraulic sizing criteria detailed in 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -55 - Municipal Code Section 16.11.030. This ensures that such devices are designed to adequately treat stormwater runoff and to sufficiently remove pollutants from stormwater runoff. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or other discretionary permit for a Significant Redevelopment Project, the project applicant is required to submit a certification by a qualified third party reviewer acceptable to the Citythat the design of the project complies with the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. Permanent stormwater qualityBMPs would reduce the potential for introduction of pollutants in stormwater runoff, as well as treat stormwater runoff to remove pollutants. Typical operational BMPs in the SWPPP would include, but are not necessarily limited to, controlling roadwayand parking lot contaminants, cleaning parking lots on a regular basis, rainwater harvesting, use of pervious pavement materials or green roofs, use of landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff, promotes surface infiltration, and minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers, incorporating peak-flow reduction and infiltration features (such as biotreatment systems, grass swales, infiltration trenches, and grass filter strips) into landscaping, and implementing educational programs. These practices would reduce or remove pollutants sources from the proposed project and reduce the potential for off-site transport to Matadero Creek. Site design measures to minimize impervious land coverage, maximize infiltration (where appropriate and protective of groundwater), and provide detention or retention as part of landscaping, where feasible, are required by MRP Permit Provision C.3.b.Source controls are required to limit pollution generation, discharge, and runoff as appropriate (MRP Provision C.3.c.), including measures to discourage pesticide use (MRP Provision C.9). Municipal Code Section 16.09.106 prohibits the discharge of any domestic, industrial, or hazardous waste into storm drains, gutters, creeks, or the San Francisco Bayand requires a spill response plan to clean up materials that may be deposited on surfaces exposed to rainfall and stormwater runoff. These requirements reduce the potential for direct discharge of waste and hazardous materials into the storm drain system and Matadero Creek. Furthermore, all refuse areas are required to be covered and designed to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. These practices prevent stormwater runoff contact with areas that are likelyto contain pollutants and off-site transport of polluted runoff water. Limiting the amount of pollutants generated, discharged, and susceptible to contact with stormwater runoff reduces the amount of pollutants that can be transported to receiving waters and cause or contribute to water quality degradation. All plans and construction are subject to inspection and approval bythe City’s Public Works Department, which ensures that selected BMPs are adequate for the expected pollutants in stormwater runoff from the proposed project. Architectural Review and Building Permit review and conditions of approval would ensure that the proposed project incorporates sufficient stormwater qualityBMPs. Because no final building or occupancy permit would be issued without the written certification of the City Engineer or designee that the requirements of Chapter 16.11 have been satisfied, planned BMPs would be implemented effectively. Long-term operations and maintenance of BMPs is required by the MRP and Municipal Code (Section 16.11.040). As a condition of approval, the City’s Public Works Department may require the applicant establish a self-monitoring and reporting program to ensure all permanent stormwater pollution prevention measures are in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 16.11 (Section 16.11.050). This is intended to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the measures implemented. Prior to issuance of grading permits and building permits, the City would ensure that the proposed project met all construction and post-construction NPDES permit requirements. This would ensure the proposed 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -56 - project would not violate water quality objectives or waste discharges requirements. In turn, this would reduce the potential for the proposed project to discharge pollutants in stormwater. Consequently, impacts would be less than significant. b)The project area is not in an in-stream or off-stream groundwater recharge area or near any artificial recharge areas.79 The proposed project site contains a thin veneer of topsoil over a silty clay and clayey sand to a depth of approximately 20 feet bgs or greater. Water-bearing sandy gravel is at least 20 feet bgs. Results of soil investigations show a confined aquifer with a confining clay layer. Because of the confining layer, the site does not present substantial groundwater recharge potential under existing conditions. The site originally contained several buildings and paved surfaces; the buildings have been removed as an earlier part of the proposed project. Although the proposed project would redevelop the site and increase the amount of impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions, this would not affect recharge potential adversely because there is no significant recharge potential at the site. There would be no impact. Water for the project site would be supplied from existing resources, as described in Section XVI.c), Utilities and Service Systems, of this Initial Study. Groundwater resources would not need to be developed to serve the proposed project. Consequently, the proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table; there would be no impact. c)There is no natural surface water on or adjacent to the project site, and there is no discernible slope. The project site was previously developed with buildings and pavement, from which stormwater runoff was conveyed by curbed street gutters to paved parking areas, which ultimately discharge to San Francisco Bay through Matadero Creek. Stormwater from the proposed project site is currently conveyed through a City pipeline to Matadero Creek. The segment of Matadero Creek between Alma Street/Oregon Expressway and two pumping stations near the Bay is a concrete-lined channel that can convey 100-year flood flows (a flood that has a one percent chance of happening in a year). The SCVWD operates and maintains the drainage channel. The proposed project would not modify an existing natural or engineered drainage channel that could be a source of erosion or siltation in local waterways and, consequently, there would be no impact. See Section VIII.a, e), above, for additional analysis of potential erosion and siltation effects during construction and operation of the project and for description of the measures that would be implemented by the proposed project to reduce erosion and siltation. d)Stormwater from the project site is conveyed through a pipeline to Matadero Creek, which drains to San Francisco Bay. The segment of Matadero Creek between Alma Street/Oregon Expresswayand two pumping stations near the Bay is a concrete-lined channel that can convey100-year flood flows (a flood that has a one percent chance of happening in a year). If the proposed project were approved and developed, stormwater would continue to be conveyed through the storm drainage system to Matadero Creek. The existing partially developed condition of the approximately 2.5-acre site consists of roughly85 percent impervious surface, as a result of the continued presence of preexisting building slabs, compaction of the 79 Santa Clara Valley Water District, Groundwater Conditions 2001, Figure 2-4 District In-Stream and Off-Stream Recharge Facilities, July 2002, p.15, website: http://www.valleywater.org/media/pdf/GWCondtions2001.pdf. (accessed December 10, 2008) 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -57 - surface soils, slowly draining soils, and water returned to the atmosphere by evaporation. The proposed project would cover the entire project site and would be contain an underground parking level. Approximately 11.6 percent of the site would be landscaped, rendering the surface of the site about 90 percent impervious. This increase in the impervious area, from 85 percent to 90 percent, would potentially increase the flow rate of runoff that would occur under small, frequent flood events. The City of Palo Alto is responsible for the maintenance of, and improvements to, the storm drainage system serving the project area. This includes the review and approval of drainage plans for projects that would connect to the City’s storm drain system. The applicant has prepared a preliminary grading and drainage plan for the proposed project. A final grading and drainage plan would be required before building permits would be issued. This final plan would be required to show the existing and proposed spot elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, would be required to be maintained. Downspouts and site drainage features would be required to be shown on this plan. As a general practice in the City of Palo Alto, the Public Works Department encourages developers to keep stormwater on site, as much as feasible, bydirecting runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas on the site. This standard practice would be expected to applyto the proposed project. The preliminary drainage plans indicate that 11.6 percent of the site (11,906 square feet) would be landscaped using planting areas, and the remainder of the site would be hardscape drained to the City’s storm drainage system. Prior to being issued a grading permit, the applicant must submit a final drainage plan to the City of Palo Alto, for approval, to ensure compliance with Engineering Design Standards for storm drain facilities, which requires that all new facilities be designed to convey the 10-year storm flow. Under the proposed project design, there would be a potential increase in the runoff rate for small-to medium-sized storm events (a less than 2-year through 10-year storm event) that occur with greater frequency. The increase in flow rates for less than 10-year storm events would not increase the 100-year flood-flow rates or alter flood-flow conveyance capacity. During the larger events, rainfall saturates even natural soils, rendering them effectively impervious, so increased imperviousness often has little effect on flows during extreme events.80,81 Recent improvements to the reach of Matadero Creek to which the project site drains through the City storm drain system, would ensure 100-year flood flow capacity. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-4, the proposed project would not exceed the capacityof drainage systems or increase flooding potential on-site or off-site. Consequently, impacts would be less than significant. f)Groundwater under the proposed project site flows north-northeast toward the Oregon Expressway-Page Mill Road underpass. Groundwater was encountered on the project site between 20 and 24 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) in Boreholes GW-01 and GW-06, at 22 feet bgs in Borehole GW-04, between 24 and 28 feet bgs in Borehole GW-05, and between 28 and 32 feet bgs in Borehole GW-07. (For groundwater information, see Figure 2 on page 3 of the SES, Inc., 2008 report, available for review on the 80 Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative, Watershed Management Plan: Volume I: Watershed Characteristics Report Unabridged 2003 Revision, Chapter 4 Land Use in the Santa Clara Basin, Revised August 2003, p. 4-10, www.valleywater.org/_wmi/related_report/wcr2003r.cfm 81 San Francisquito Creek Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Flood and Erosion Control Task Force, Reconnaissance Investigation Report of San Francisquito Creek, December 1997, p. 17 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -58 - City’s website as Appendix I of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment). Partially confined aquifer conditions appear to exist under the southeast portion of the project site, as indicated by groundwater rising in Borehole GW-04 to 14 feet bgs and in Borehole GW-07 to 12 feet bgs.82 Unless penetrated byexcavation or boreholes, the confining clay layer extending down to 22 feet bgs in Borehole GW-04 and 28 feet bgs in Borehole GW-07 prevents water in the underlying portion of the aquifer from raising toward the ground surface. No groundwater was encountered at the project site shallower than 20 feet bgs. A groundwater plume containing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is present in the first water-bearing unit (the confined aquifer). According to the site investigation and remedy report, the VOCs originate from off-site upgradient sources known as the HP- Varian plume and the COE plume (see Section VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, ofthis Initial Study). Groundwater remediation and monitoring systems are in operation at several sites associated with the sources contributing to the plume including 611 Hansen Way, 1501, 640, and 395 Page Mill Road, and 601 South California Street.83 The site investigation and remedy report concluded the VOC contamination at the project site was not generated from an onsite source, but from the volatilization of VOCs from the underlying plume.84 The VOC distribution in the soil vapor is two orders of magnitude higher under the northeast half of the site and much lower under the southwest half.85 Nonetheless, the RWQCB considers the distribution of elevated levels of VOCs to indicate the probable presence of VOC soil sources under the northeast half of the site (see Section VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Initial Study, and the SES,Inc, 2008 report, which is available for review on the City’s website as Appendix I of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment).86 The depth of excavation for the removal of existing fill and soil materials, and the depth to which construction of the underground parking level is projected to extend, is 15.4 feet bgs. As previously described, a groundwater plume containing VOCs is present in the first water-bearing unit (the confined aquifer) at least 20 feet bgs, and soil vapors are present in soils at shallower depths. Residual VOCs and hydrocarbons may occur in low-permeability claysoils. As described above (Section VIII.a,e, Hydrology and Water Quality) a Soil Management Plan and Risk Management Plan have been prepared for the proposed project. These Plans identify specific precautions and actions that must be implemented to ensure proper testing, removal, stockpiling, on-site use, and/or transport of contaminated soils. As described in Section VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Initial Study, a project-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and project-specific Soil Management Plan (SMP) have been developed for the excavation and construction phases of project implementation (see Appendix G of the SES,Inc.,2008 report; the HASP and SMP are available for review on the City’s website as Appendix E and Appendix F, respectively, or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment).The Cityrequires the HASP and SMP be reviewed by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. Overseeing compliance of the SMP is the responsibility of the Building Official, or a third party hired by the Building Official, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of activities related to excavation and design features during project construction at sites with contaminated soil and groundwater. 82 SES, Inc., 2008, pp. 6 and23 83 Electronic mail post –From: Janet Naito, June 01, 2009 9:20 AM. 84 SES, Inc. 2008, pp. 22 and 23 85 SES, Inc. 2008, pp. 17 and 18 86 Electronic mail post –From: Roger Papler, May 21, 2009 1:04 PM. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -59 - Part of the approval process also includes approval of the plans by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the SCVWD. Adherence to the procedures detailed in these plans, during excavation and construction activities, would provide the required protection for workers at the site as well as for residents and visitors in the vicinity of the site. Consequently, the existence of contaminated soil and groundwater beneath the project site is considered a less-than-significant impact. During the past two years of site investigation by Secor (at the upgradient HP-Varian VOC plume) and SES,Inc. (at the project site), the water table generally has been 20 feet bgs or lower, under partially confined aquifer conditions. There is a steep hydraulic gradient toward the northwest, in the direction of the Oregon Expressway-Page Mill Road underpass pump station. In 2007, during the installation of groundwater and soil vapor investigation borings at the project site, groundwater encountered at 22 feet bgs rapidly rose to approximately 14 feet bgs in one boring, and to 12 feet bgs in another.87 This indicates that confined aquifer conditions are present, at least in certain portions of the site, and that groundwater is under hydrostatic pressure. As such, it is possible that excavation could not only intercept groundwater, but that the removal of clay materials during excavation could cause groundwater levels to rise into the excavation area. Four potential effects could result from contaminated groundwater being unexpectedly drawn toward or into the excavated area. If contaminated groundwater were to rise into the excavation area, this could present: (1) a health hazard for construction workers on site, through direct contact or inhalation of VOCs and hydrocarbons (see Section VII.a,b, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of this Initial Study for an explanation of worker inhalation hazard related to excavation of soils containing trapped VOCs); (2) an inhalation health hazard for other people near the site; (3) an impact on the effectiveness of the VOC plume remediation system by altering flow characteristics; and/or (4) it could cause soil vapors to migrate. Dewatering of the excavation, with treated discharge to the portion of the City’s storm drain system that discharges to Matadero Creek, could be necessary. Open pit groundwater dewatering is not allowed by the City, and dewatering is only permitted from April through October because there is inadequate capacityin the City storm drain system to convey water in excess of stormwater runoff during the wet season (November through March). The City’s Public Works Department onlyallows drawdown well groundwater dewatering. If groundwater is less than four feet below the deepest expected excavation, which is a possibility at the project site, a drawdown well dewatering system must be used. The disposal of extracted groundwater contaminated with VOCs, if not properly tested and managed, could degrade water quality, along with possibly causing violations of water quality standards. The aforementioned water quality impact would be addressed, in part, through existing regulatory mechanisms administered bythe City. These standard regulatory mechanisms establish procedures that must be followed for construction dewatering. The timing of these standard requirements –which specifythat the depth to groundwater must be determined immediately prior to excavation if the deepest excavation will be within four feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level –maynot provide sufficient data in advance to address issues at the project site. Specifically, the standard requirements would not address (a) the variations in subsurface hydrogeological conditions across the site, (b) how the groundwater plume could be affected by dewatering, and (c) the approach to testing and removing contaminated groundwater in the event groundwater is unexpectedly encountered or drawn towards the excavation. Consequently, under standard 87 SES, Inc., 2008, p. 17 and Appendix D. The SES, Inc. report is available for review on the City’s website as Appendix I of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -60 - regulatory conditions, the proposed project could affect groundwater and possibly surface water quality. Therefore, the proposed project could have an adverse water quality effect, if additional measures were not implemented. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-5, a Construction Dewatering ContingencyPlan, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by ensuring that contaminated groundwater is properly identified and managed, and that the proposed project would thereby achieve compliance with NPDES permit requirements and adopted water quality standards. g, h)The project site is not in a 100-year flood hazard area, so housing would not be affected, and the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows.88 There would be no impact. i)The project site is not in an area identified bythe Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) as subject to potential dam failure inundation.89 There would be no impact. j)The project site is not in an area that would be subject to tsunami or seiche. The site has no discernible slope, and there are no hillsides that could be a source of mudflows. There would be no impact. Residual Impact:Less than significant with mitigation Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure MM-4, in Section VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Initial study shall be implemented to limit hydrological impacts related to the underlying contaminated groundwater plume, and potential groundwater mingling with hazardous materials or adverse impacts to existing monitoring wells on site. MM-5: Grading and Drainage Plan The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan for the proposed project, for City approval prior to the issuance of a grading, excavation, or building permit. This grading and drainage plan shall comply with Engineering Design Standards for storm drain facilities, shall be designed to conveythe 10-year storm flow, and shall reflect the recommendations of the Joe Crosby and Associates Geotechnical Report, dated May10, 2004. This report is available for review on the City’s website as Appendix H of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. MM-6:Construction Dewatering Plan A construction dewatering plan shall be prepared consistent with Chapter 33 of the 2010 California Building Code, and shall be submitted to the Cityin association with all proposed sub-grade garage excavation activities prior to issuance of a grading, excavation or building permit. The applicant shall include the dewatering plan in the permit plan set submitted for approvals for anyexcavation activities on the project site. The plan shall provide a system that would remove silt and other pollutants from this water and place clean water into the City storm drain system. 88 Project site is located in Zone X –Area of 500-year flood. FEMA FIRM Panel 0603480005E, June 2, 1999 89 Association of BayArea Governments, ABAG Geographic Information Systems: Earthquake Preparedness; Interactive ABAG (GIS) Maps Showing Dam Failure Inundation; Hazard Maps, Dam Failure Inundation Areas, June 2004. website: http://gis.abag.ca.gov. Accessed December 8, 2008 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -61 - The applicant shall secure current data on the depth to groundwater immediatelyprior to excavation by using piezometers, or bydrilling exploratoryholes, if the deepest excavation would be less than four feet above the highest anticipated groundwater level. Should dewatering be necessary (i.e., if excavation would occur within four feet above the highest anticipated groundwater level and the piezometer investigation revealed the presence of free groundwater within four feet above that highest anticipated groundwater level), the applicant shall secure City permits associated with the placement of dewatering equipment or actual dewatering and excavation activities on the project site or the abutting public right-of-way prior to beginning excavation. Upon installation, the dewatering system shall reflect BMPs that ensure the water discharged would be of appropriate quality. The installation shall be approved by a City field inspector prior to the commencement of construction water discharge to the storm drain. Extracted groundwater shall be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. Testing shall be performed by a third party hired bythe Building Official, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of activities related to excavation and design features during project construction at sites with contaminated soil and groundwater. Any dewatering to occur in the public right-of-way shall be subject to review and approval bythe City of Palo Alto Public Works Department. Cumulative Analysis The geographic context for the analysis of hydrology and water quality cumulative impacts often is site- specific because each project site has a different set of physical considerations limiting development and construction. Locally, nearby projects would include the two mixed-use developments and the HST. Even when the pollutants and sediments generated by each individual project are minor, the additive effect of cumulative development in a watershed could have an adverse impact on the receiving water bodies, in this case, Matadero Creek and San Francisco Bay. Because the extent of hydrology effects can vary, the geographic context for each impact criterion is identified separatelyfor each cumulative impact explanation. With respect to cumulative effects on water quality associated with construction, all future development in the City (which is in the San Francisco BayBasin and contains a portion of the Matadero Creek Watershed) would be required to conform to applicable NPDES permits’ waste discharge requirements (WDRs) issued by the RWQCB. This includes requirements set forth by the Construction General Permits, Wastewater Discharge Permits, and General Permits (for certain types of construction dewatering), including Provision C.3 of the Municipal NPDES Permit, and the City Municipal Code, which require incorporation of permanent stormwater quality BMPs, to the maximum extent practicable. To obtain coverage under these permits, cumulative development projects would be required to implement construction BMPs similar to those recommended for the proposed project. Thereby, construction impacts of each project on water quality would be rendered less than significantand there would be no combining of effects to produce cumulative impacts. Construction activities could alter the drainage pattern of the individual development sites, but off-site, each drains to the municipal storm drainage system and this would not be altered. Cumulative alteration of the drainage patterns of the watersheds in the Basin would therefore be considered significant and adverse; however, each local project’s contribution to this cumulative impact would not be considerable, because 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -62 - overall, the each would retain the existing drainage pattern at the project site and would not alter the location or flow rate at the discharge point from the project site. This impact would be less than significant. Construction and operation of cumulative development projects has the potential to exceed the capacity of storm drain systems if maintenance and improvement are not ongoing. As local development has increased, the 100-year flood flow conveyance capacityof the Matadero Creek system has been increased. If necessary, individual projects may be required to provide on-site treatment and retention capacity to alleviate cumulative effects. As a result of this maintenance and planning, the cumulative impact on the capacityof storm drain systems would be less than significant. Cumulative development in the watershed, including the two mixed-use development and the HST, has the potential to contribute to violations of water quality standards or WDRs. Lower San Francisco BayBasin, the receiving water body, has noted impairments for chlordane, dichlro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), dieldrin, dioxin compounds, exotic species, furan (specific organic) compounds, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).90 Additional development could exacerbate existing pollutant concentrations, resulting in a potentially significant impact. However, future development in the City (which is in the San Francisco Bay Basin and contains a portion of the Matadero Creek Watershed) would be required to use the storm drainage system infrastructure and conform to Provision C.3 of the Municipal NPDES Permit, the Cityof Palo Alto URMP, and the City Municipal Code, which require incorporation of permanent stormwater quality BMPs, to the maximum extent practicable. Consequently, the overall effect on water quality would be less than significant. 90 US EPA, 2007. 2006 CWA Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments, June 28, 2007. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -63 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a)Physically divide an established community?3 X b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1, 2, 3 X c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?1 X a) The project site is in an area that includes railroad tracks, automobile bodyshop and repair, automobile sales and service, offices occupied by AOL and sub-tenants, law offices, and vacant land zoned as General Manufacturing (GM). Residential uses are north, east, and southwest of the project site. Park Boulevard forms the southwest property line; the Caltrain property defines the northeast property line; and Page Mill Road defines the northwest boundary. The project would not involve the creation of physical barriers, such as walls or new roadways,which could result in a physical division of this existing land use pattern. Existing land use connectivity and circulation routes between the project site and its environs would be maintained. Consequently, the proposed project would have no impact related to physical division of an established community. b) The proposed project would be subject to the requirements of several plans and policies, including the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element, and the Municipal Code (especially the Zoning Ordinance). A description of the proposed project’s compliance with applicable land use and planning policies is provided below. Comprehensive Plan Policies91 Seven planning policies in the Comprehensive Plan would be applicable to the proposed project. Policy L-5:Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Policy L-49:Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. 91 Relevant policies fromCity of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998, Land Use and Transportation Elements 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -64 - Policy L-50:Encourage high quality signage that is attractive, appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs. Policy T-1:Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. Policy T-19:Improve and add attractive, secure bicycle parking at both public and private facilities, including multi-modal transit stations, on transit vehicles, in City parks, in private developments, and at other community destinations. Policy T-22:Improve amenities such as seating, lighting, bicycle, parking, street trees, and interpretive stations along bicycle and pedestrian paths and in City parks to encourage walking and cycling and enhance the feeling of safety. To ensure that the proposed project would complywith Comprehensive Plan design and planning policies, the City requires review of the proposed project by the ARB. The ARB is an advisory board to the Director of Planning and Community Environment who considers the ARB’s recommendations and bases his decision to grant Architectural Review approval on the Architectural Review findings stated in PAMC 18.76.050(d), which implement the Comprehensive Plan design and planning policies. With application of Mitigation Measure MM-1, which involves mandatory incorporation of the conditions of Architectural Review approval in the final project design (see Section I,Aesthetics,of this Initial Study), the project would be consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies. Consequently, the proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts related to conflicts with Comprehensive Plan policies. Land Use and Zoning Designations The project site is designated for Light Industrial land uses in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.92 The Light Industrial land use designation allows wholesale and storage warehouses and the manufacturing, processing, repairing, and packaging of goods. Compatible residential and mixed-use projects, with an FAR up to 0.5 may be developed in Light Industrial areas.93 At the project site, this allowable FAR equates to a maximum floor area of 52,485 square feet. The project site is in the General Manufacturing (GM) zoning district in the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance.94 The GM district provides for light manufacturing, research, and commercial service uses. Office uses are limited in order to maintain the district as a desirable location for manufacturing uses. GM zoning does not allow residential uses. Nonetheless, the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the project site for residential uses and recommends that High-Density Multiple-Family Residential District (RM-40) zoning be applied to the project site.95 Although the Comprehensive Plan allows residential uses at the project site and the Housing Element designates the site for housing, the RM-40 zoning recommended by the Housing Element has not been adopted for the project site as of the date of publication of this Initial Study and therefore, the City is applying the designated GM zoning standard. Table 2 shows applicable development regulations for the GM district. 92 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998. Land Use and Circulation Map 93 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998. Land Use Element, p. L-12 94 City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 18.20, Office, Research and Manufacturing Districts, last updated 2005 95 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998. Housing Element, p. 15-16 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -65 - As shown in Table 2, the proposed project would comply with all development requirements for the GM district except for the following items: (1) the maximum FAR requirement and (2) the proposed residential use comprised of 84 dwelling units. State housing law provides incentives and exemptions that promote the development of housing on sites not currently zoned for residential uses, assuming that residential uses would be appropriate for the land use setting. The applicant has requested concessions from the City under California Government Code Section 65915-65918,96 which amended the State density bonus program and became effective on January 1,2005. The law requires cities to offer incentives or concessions to encourage the construction of affordable housing (allowances for mixed use, increased FAR or height, reductions in parking, setbacks, open space, etc.) based on the percentage of affordable units in a development. ·One incentive or concession is to be granted for projects with at least 10 percent of the total units for lower income households; ·Two incentives or concessions are to be granted for projects that include at least 20 percent of the total units for lower income households; ·Three incentives or concessions are to be granted for projects that include at least 30 percent of the total units for lower income households. With 20 percent of the units (17 units) designated as BMR units, the applicant has requested two concessions as part of the proposed project, as indicated in the project description. ·One concession is to allow the proposed project to provide housing in the GM zone as a mixed-use development. Approval of mixed-use in connection with the housing project is specifically identified as a permissible concession under Government Code Section 65915(1) if the non-residential use will reduce the cost of the housing development. In this case, the non-residential use, as previously established at the project site, reduces the cost of the housing. ·The additional concession is to allow for an overall FAR of 1.5. whereas the GM district onlypermits an FAR of 0.5. The additional FAR is necessary to retain the previously-existing non-residential uses without decreasing the number of residential units, thus keeping within the purpose and intent of the State statute and the City’s desire to retain light industrial uses in the GM zoning district. 96 California Government Code, Section 65915, Density Bonuses 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -66 - Table 2 GM Zoning District Development Regulations Development Regulations Feature Proposed Project GM District Conforms? Minimum Site Area 104,971 sq. ft. NR1 N/A Minimum Site Width 451.67 ft.NR N/A Minimum Site Depth 212.67 ft.NR N/A Front Setback: (Park Boulevard) 8.67 ft. (1st floor) 7.33 ft. 2nd /3rd floors)NR N/A Street Side Setback (Page Mill Road) 6.67 ft. (1st floor) 5.33 ft. (2nd/3rd floors)NR N/A Side Interior Setback 10 ft. (1st floor) 5 ft. (2nd/3rd floors)NR N/A Rear Setback 0 ft.NR N/A Floor Area Ratio 1.5 0.5 No; concessions requested2 Maximum density 84 units3 NR N/A Site Coverage Building Overhangs 50,467 sq. ft. (48 %) 11,493 sq. ft. (11 %)NR N/A Building Height (maximum)4 59.25 ft. (65 ft. max. at architectural element/mechanical feature) 50 ft.Yes Parking Spaces5 302 388 Yes Accessible Parking 9 spaces 8 spaces Yes Bicycle Parking6 112 112 Yes Source:City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 18.20, Office, Research and Manufacturing Districts. Last updated 2005; and Chapter 18.13, Multiple Family Residential Districts. Last updated 2007. Project design provided by Court House Plaza Limited Partnership, 2011. Notes: 1.NR = No requirement2.FAR would be 0.48 for R&D component and 1.02 for residential component. 3.The applicant has requested concessions from the City for the proposed FAR and for the proposed mixed-used development which includes dwelling units in the GM zone pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915-65918. 4.An additional 15 ft is allowed for mechanical equipment and architectural features pursuant to PAMC Section 18.40.090. 5.Assumes a maximum 20 percent reduction for joint use (shared) facilities and a maximum 20 percent reduction for housing near transit, with a combined parking reduction not to exceed 30 percent. This reduction is granted at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The 302 proposed parking spaces include spaces proposed in the landscape reserve. 6.It is assumed that the project sponsor would be responsible for meeting the requirements for bicycle parking for residential as well as R&D uses. Total required bicycle parking would be 112 spaces. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -67 - The proposed project could not be approved as designed without the stated concessions; therefore, the concessions are a prerequisite to the approval of the project. There would be no remaining conflicts with applicable zoning or land use designations following approval of the concessions. Consequently, the proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts with respect to land use and zoning designations. c) There are no applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans that pertain to the project site. Consequently, the proposed project would have no impact with respect to any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Residual Impact:Less than significant with mitigation Mitigation Measures:See MM-1, under Section I, Aesthetics (above). Cumulative Analysis The foreseeable future projects in the vicinity of the proposed project include the HST and two mixed-use developments. These projects, as well as the proposed project, would be subject to applicable City plans and policies set forth by the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.97 Such cumulative development would not be expected to result in a substantial adverse change in the area’s land use character or divide an established community. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse changes in the area’s land use character or divide an established communityand would not contribute to significant cumulative land use impacts. Consequently, the proposed project would have no cumulative impact related to land uses and land use planning. 97 Relevant policies from City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998, Land Use and Transportation Elements. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -68 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1, 3 X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 1, 3 X a, b)The project site is not in a designated mineral resource recovery sector. Consequently, the proposed project would have no impact with respect to access to known mineral resources. Residual Impact:No impact Mitigation Measures:None required Cumulative Analysis The proposed project would not impact mineral resources, directly or indirectly. Therefore, would not contribute to cumulative mineral resource impacts. Consequently, the proposed project, in addition to other foreseeable projects, would have no impact with respect to access to known mineral resources. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -69 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 1, 2 X b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?1, 2 X c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1, 2 X d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1, 3 X e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1, 3 X f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1, 3 X Sound is created when objects vibrate, resulting in air pressure variations characterized by their amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude is the decibel (dB), which describes the mechanical energy contained in the pressure variations. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure variation. The human ear’s sensitivity to sound is frequency- dependent. A sound level meter (SLM) is used to measure sound amplitude. To correlate such measurement data with sound amplitude as the human ear perceives it, an A-weighting filter is used by the SLM. A-weighting de-emphasizes low-frequencyand very high-frequency sound in a manner similar to the human ear. If A-weighting has been applied by an SLM, the abbreviation dBA is used when the sound level is reported. The use of A-weighting is required by most local General Plans, as well as federal and state regulatory agencies (e.g. Caltrans, EPA, OSHA and HUD). Most commonly, noise is defined as “unwanted” sound. All quantitative descriptors used to report environmental sound levels recognize the strong correlation between the high acoustical energycontent of a sound (i.e., its loudness and duration) and the disruptive effect it is likely to have when experienced bya listener. Because environmental sound levels fluctuate over time, most such descriptors average the sound levels over the time of exposure, and some add “penalties” during the times of day when intrusive sound would be considered more disruptive by those exposed to it. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -70 - The most commonly used descriptors are: ·Equivalent EnergyLevel (Leq) is the constant noise level that would deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear of a listener as the actual time-varying noise would deliver over the same exposure time. No “penalties” are added to any noise levels during the exposure time; Leq would be the same regardless of the time of day during which the noise occurred. ·Day-Night Average Level (Ldn) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA “penalty” added to noise levels during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for increased sensitivity that people tend to have to nighttime noise. Because of this penalty, the Ldn would always be higher than its corresponding 24- hour Leq (e.g., a constant 60 dBA noise over 24 hours would have a 60 dBA Leq, but a 66.4 dBA Ldn). Vibration is mechanical energy radiated through the ground by a vibrating object. The amplitude of the ground motion caused by vibrating source is specified in vibration decibels (VdB). Ground borne vibration background levels are typicallynear 50 VdB or below, which are not perceptible by humans. In contrast, at 100 VdB, structural damage can occur in susceptible buildings. The Comprehensive Plan provides the following criteria for determining whether noise levels would cause a significant environmental impact. Policy N-39:Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments. Use the guidelines in the table “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment” to determine compatibility. ·The guideline for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn of 60 dB. This level is a guideline for the design and location of future development and a goal for the reduction of noise in existing development. However, 60 Ldn is a guideline, which cannot necessarily be reached in all residential areas within the constraint of economic or aesthetic feasibility. This guideline will be primarily applied where outdoor use is a major consideration (e.g., backyards in single familyhousing developments and recreational areas in multiple family housing projects). Where the City determines that providing an Ldn of 60 dB or lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use should be reduced to as close as the standard as feasible through project design. ·The indoor noise level as required by the State of California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 25) must not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB in multiple family dwellings. This indoor criterion shall also apply to new single family homes in Palo Alto. ·Interior noise levels in new single familyand multiple familyresidential units exposed to an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater should be limited to a maximum instantaneous noise level of 50 dB in the bedrooms. Maximum instantaneous noise levels in other rooms should not exceed 55 dB. The Cityof Palo Alto provides protection from “excessive, unnecessary, and unreasonable noises” through the Noise Ordinance, Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC)9.10. PAMC 9.10.060 identifies an exception to the City’s noise limits for construction on residential properties that occurs between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Monday through Friday, and from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturday, provided that no individual piece of equipment produces a noise level exceeding 110 dBA at a distance of 25 feet and that the 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -71 - noise level at any point outside of the property line would not exceed 110 dBA. Construction is prohibited completely on Sundays and holidays. Control of noise generated from construction truck traffic is provided in PAMC 10.48 that details truck routes and requires that projects follow standard construction techniques and best management practices, including the development of a Construction Management Plan, which would identify measures to reduce construction noise. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has noise and vibration impact criteria for assessing conventional transit systems such as Caltrain. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has similar noise and vibration criteria for assessing the impact of the high-speed train (HST) systems, including the one currentlyproposed in California. Since the project under consideration is mixed-use commercial/residential building, not a new transit system, Cityand State standards for noise and vibration would normally be used to assess its impacts instead of the FTA or FRA criteria. However, neither the City’s Comprehensive Plan nor the State’s Title 25 Standards set thresholds for acceptable vibration levels in residences. Thus, for this project, the vibration impact criteria of the FRA (which are essentially the same as those of the FTA) were used to assess the vibration impacts of Caltrain on the project, and the cumulative vibration impacts of combined operation of Caltrain and HST on the project. a, c) Noise sensitive receptors are those areas that are more sensitive to ambient noise levels than other areas, such as residences, schools, and hospitals. The proposed project, with 84 residential units, would be considered a sensitive receptor. The two major sources of noise in the vicinity of the project site are motor vehicle traffic (primarilyon Alma Street to the north of the site) and railroad operations (Caltrain commuter trains and freight trains on the adjacent tracks). Other noise is produced bythe dailyactivities that take place in the area. The Noise Element of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a maximum of 60 dBA Ldn for exterior residential uses (or, where 60 dBA Ldn or lower is not feasible, as close to this standard as feasible in outdoor areas intended for recreational use), and the State of California mandates a maximum of 45 dBA Ldn for residential interior living spaces in multi-family buildings. The California Building Code requires that mechanical ventilation be provided for every room exposed to an exterior noise level of 60 dBA Ldn. According to the project noise assessment conducted by Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. (June 2004), existing noise levels on-site are due primarily to vehicular traffic and railroad operations. The daily average noise levels on site ranged from 74 dBA Ldn at the portion of the site closest to the Caltrain line to 65 dBA Ldn near Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard, where the influence of motor vehicle traffic is dominant. The average on-site maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax) from train pass-bys is 95 dBA.98 With on-site noise levels ranging from 65 dBA Ldn to 74 dBA Ldn, the proposed project would be located on a site exceeding the ideal maximum outdoor noise level of 60 dBA Ldn recommended in the General Plan for residential uses. However, current project plans call for a rectangular building having an interior courtyard with a solid outer wall and an interior hallway facing the Caltrain right-of-way. Thus, none of the 98 Rosen, Goldber, Der & Lewitz, Inc. Draft Noise and Vibration Analysis of California High-Speed Rail at 195 Page Mill Road Mixed-Use Project, Palo Alto, CA. RGDL Project# 10-067. January 2011. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -72 - residential units would have windows facing Caltrain and the windows of all the units would be acoustically rated to assure that interior levels attain the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the State’s Title 25 standards.99 The City’s Comprehensive Plan indicates that if the exterior noise level is greater than 60 dBA Ldn, then Lmax generated by repetitive, commonly occurring events should be maintained at 50 dBA in bedrooms and 55 dBA in other rooms. The project noise assessment determined that the average on-site Lmax from train pass-bys is 95 dBA. It also stated that the project structure’s exterior wall facing Caltrain would have a minimum STC-50 rating (i.e., that noise from exterior sources penetrating this wall would be reduced byat least 50 dBA). Thus, Lmax would not exceed 50 dBA in bedrooms and 55 dBA in other rooms. Mitigation Measure MM-7, below, would reduce project long-term (Ldn) and short-term (Lmax) interior noise impacts to a less-than-significant level through inclusion in the proposed project of design features specified in the project noise assessment. The project’s three-story building façade would block the propagation of Caltrain noise into its exterior courtyard, which would very likely be used for recreational purposes by the future residents. The project noise assessment estimates that noise levels within the courtyard would be below 60 dBA Ldn and, therefore, be in compliance with the City’s Policy N-39. Impacts would be less than significant. The project building facade could also reflect some of the train noise, potentiallyincreasing noise levels in the residential neighborhood east of the Caltrain tracks. This potential was evaluated by using the findings of a noise study done for the Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development Combining District (PTOD) overlay.100 That studyindicated that in order to reflect a substantial fraction of noise from a nearbysource, a building would have to be high and long with a continuous, flat surface of acoustically non-absorbent material; when all these conditions occur, the maximum effect expected would be a 3 dBA increase from the noise level produced by that source alone in the absence of the reflecting surface.101 The proposed project would be slightly larger than the two-story buildings that previously occupied the project site (which were demolished in August 2007) and would include articulations in the façade so as not to present a continuous, flat surface to Caltrain. Also, the proposed building would be 60 feet from the nearest Caltrain track, thereby decreasing the effective surface area that train noise could reflect from, and increasing the distance the reflected noise would travel to reach the eastern neighborhood; both factors would decrease the intensity of such reflected noise. Finally, the PTOD noise study found that motor vehicle traffic on Alma Street was the dominant noise source affecting the eastern neighborhood, not Caltrain. Thus, the noise level increase in the eastern neighborhood from the reflected train noise in the presence of substantial traffic background noise would be less than it would be if noise from Caltrain alone was affecting the neighborhood. All these facts support the conclusion that train noise reflected from the project structures would have a less-than– significant impact in the eastern neighborhood. 99 Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., Park Plaza, Palo Alto CA, Acoustical Review of Project Revisions, September 26, 2005. This report is available for review on the City’s website as Appendix M of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 100 EIP Associates, Evaluation of the Potential for Train Noise Reflection near the California Avenue Caltrain Station in Palo Alto, April 2006 101 EIP Associates, April 2006, p. 8 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -73 - The proposed project would generate traffic that would increase noise levels along area roadways.As noted in the traffic study, the proposed project would generate approximately 577 net new daily trips, with 40 net new AM peak hour trips and 56 net new PM peak hour trips.102 All these motor vehicle trips would disperse among the streets affording access to the project site. Thus, the number of project-related vehicles on any street would be minimal compared to its existing traffic volume. The proposed project would not generate noise in excess of standards established in the Comprehensive Plan and Noise Ordinance, a less-than- significant impact. b, d)Construction of the project would temporarily increase current noise and vibration levels in the vicinity of the project site. Typical noise and vibration sources would include mechanical equipment associated with excavation, removal of pavement, and construction vehicles. Operation of construction equipment could generate noise exceeding the Citynoise standards. According to the City’s Noise Ordinance, construction activities are exempt from City noise standards during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday, provided that noise levels do not exceed 110 dBA at 25 feet. The proposed project would be required to comply with the construction requirements of the Noise Ordinance. All construction truck traffic would be required to conform to the City of Palo Alto Trucks and Traffic Ordinance (10.48) that details truck routes; this would help reduce noise impacts to off-site residential neighborhoods. Because construction activities would be restricted to the daytime hours and required to complywith the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, the proposed project would have less-than- significant impacts related to construction noise. Because construction activities would not include pile driving and would be several hundred feet distant from the nearest vibration-sensitive receptors, the proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts related to construction vibration. Existing vibration levels produced by Caltrain operations were measured as part of the study conducted by Charles M. Salter Associates at the project site. The measured levels indicate that vibration from train pass- bys range from about 65 VdB to 71 VdB.103 According to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), vibration levels at residential uses should not exceed 75 VdB for occasional events (defined as between 30 to 70 vibration events per day, which best fits the frequency of Caltrain’s current train operations) to avoid vibration impacts. The project site has a maximum vibration level of 71 VdB, which is less than the FTA standard. Consequently, vibration impacts to the proposed residential uses would be less than significant. e, f)The project site is not in an airport land use plan or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Consequently, no impact related to exposure to excessive airport or airstrip noise would occur. 102 a) Fehr and Peers, 2006. Park Plaza Transportation Impact Assessment, p. 19 b) Fehr and Peers, 2009. Park Plaza Mixed Use Project Trip Generation and Off-Street Parking Analysis, p. 1. October 16, 2009 These reports are available for review on the City’s website as Appendices J, K, and L of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 103 Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz, Inc, Noise and Vibration Analysis of California High-Speed Rail at 195 Page Mill Road Mixed-Use Project Palo Alto, CA (Administrative Draft), January 14, 2011. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -74 - Residual Impact:Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure: MM-7:Indoor Noise Minimization The project shall include design features as specified in the project noise assessment to reduce the indoor noise levels to meet the interior noise standards prescribed by the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policy N-39. Cumulative Analysis An assessment of HST noise and vibration impacts on the proposed project was conducted by Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz, Inc.104 Using the FRA methodology, the estimated Ldn at the setback of the proposed building from the HST alone would be 74 dBA Ldn, assuming that the tracks will be at-grade. If the tracks were in a deep trench then there would be additional acoustical shielding from the edge of the trench, which could reduce the HST noise levels by about 15 dBA to 59 dBA Ldn. To estimate the cumulative noise level of both the HST and Caltrain operations in the corridor, the Caltrain noise level determined in the project noise assessment (i.e., 74 dBA Ldn at the setback of the project buildings) was combined with the HST noise level. Thus, the total noise level from the two sources would be 77 dBA Ldn. The Lmax from HST pass-bys with the track at-grade is expected to be 90 dBA.105 A residential noise exposure of 77 dBA Ldn would be “Unacceptable” under the City’s Comprehensive Plan Noise Compatibility Guidelines, which state that residential development should generally not be undertaken because “mitigation is usually not feasible to comply with noise element policies.” However, the project includes an acoustically rated (STC-50) exterior wall and an interior corridor along the railroad side of the building to buffer residential units from direct exposure to train noise. Although the exterior noise level is considered “Unacceptable” according to the Comprehensive Plan, with the proposed design it wouldachieve the City and State’s 45 dBA Ldn indoor noise standard and the Citystandard limiting Lmax to 50/55 dBA in residential bed/other rooms with sound-rated construction and mechanical ventilation. Thus, cumulative interior noise impacts on the project would be less than significant. The primaryoutdoor use area for the project is its central courtyard. Since this area would be protected from Caltrain and HST railroad noise bythe acoustical shielding provided bythe building itself, it would meet the City’s “Normally Acceptable” exterior noise level of 60 dBA Ldn. Thus, cumulative exterior noise impacts on the project would be less than significant. Using FRA methodology, the estimated vibration level would be 78 VdB at the second floor of the building where residences would be located. At the first floor commercial uses, the vibration level would be about 80 VdB. This 78 dBA vibration level at the nearest residential units would exceed the FRA impact threshold of 72 VdB for frequent train pass-bys; the vibrations would be distinctly perceptible by the residents. Thus, a reduction of 8 VdB at ground level would be necessary to reach the FRA threshold. 104 Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz, Inc. Draft Noise and Vibration Analysis of California High-Speed Rail at 195 Page Mill Road Mixed-Use Project, Palo Alto, CA. RGDL Project# 10-067. January 2011 105 Email communication from Harold Goldberg, Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz, Inc, February 4, 2011. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -75 - Vibration reduction techniques of known effectiveness are much more easilyimplemented by new rail transit facilities than bynew residential buildings. The FRA endorses three different track construction techniques (i.e., floating-slab track bed, ballast mats and resilientlysupported ties) for reducing ground borne vibration by10 to 15 dB, while providing no information on measures that can be used in specified building types. The proposed building reduces vibration levels to the 72 VdB threshold because it uses a heavy concrete underground parking structure floor with concrete spread footings and a concrete podium for the ceiling of the first floor R&D level with a metal stud construction for the second and third floor residential units.. Mitigation Measure MM-7, above, would reduce the cumulative vibration impacts of Caltrain and HST operations to a less-than-significant level through inclusion in the proposed project of design features specified in a vibration assessment that would guarantee attainment of FRA criteria. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -76 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XII. POPULATION ANDHOUSING. Would the project: a)Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1 X b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?1 X c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?1 X a)The project site is identified on the Housing Sites Inventory in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan as a potential housing site to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Although housing is not generally allowed in the GM zone in which the project site is situated, housing is allowed by right because the site is on the Housing Sites Inventory. The State Housing Element law prohibits a city from reducing its housing potential on a site unless compensating sites are designated or all housing needs are met. Approximately 20 percent of the units of the proposed project would be designated as BMR units, helping meet the City’s responsibility of adding 610 very low to moderate income residential units to its housing stock. According to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, the population of Palo Alto was 58,598 in 2000 and is projected to increase to 62,880 by 2010. By adding 84 units to the housing stock, the proposed project would contribute to population growth in the area. With an average household size of 2.24 persons, the proposed project would generate a population increase of approximately 188 people; however, the project site is included as a Housing OpportunitySite in the Housing Element, and the population increase has been anticipated. This incremental increase in population generated bythe proposed project would be less than significant. b)The project site previously contained structures consisting of 50,468 square feet of commercial and R&D space. The proposed project consists of a new three-story building that includes 50,467 square feet of R&D space on the ground floor, and two levels of residential apartments, totaling 84 units (106,920 square feet) on the second and third story. Because there was no housing (residential uses) on the site, the proposed project would result in no impact related to displacing existing housing units. c)The proposed project would included the conversion of a vacant 50,468-square-foot commercial and R&D space into a three-story building that includes 50,467 square feet of R&D space on the ground floor, and two levels of residential apartments, totaling 84 units (106,920 square feet) on the second-and third-story. Because the project site is vacant, the proposed project would create no impact related to displacing people. Residual Impact:Less than significant Mitigation Measure:None 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -77 - Cumulative Analysis The proposed project would increase housing in the City of Palo Alto. However, this increase is considered to be minimal, and therefore, negligible. Additionally, because there was no housing on the proposed site, the proposed project would result in no impacts to existing housing. Lastly, the proposed project would have no impact related to displacement of people because the proposed project would construct a new building on a site that is currently vacent. Therefore, the proposed project, in combination with other foreseeable projects, would not contribute to cumulative impacts associated with population increase, displacement of existing housing units and displacement of people. As such, cumulative impacts are less than significant. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -78 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: ·Fire protection?·Police protection? ·Schools?·Parks? ·Other public facilities? 3, 37 X a)Public service impacts are assessed in the context of the 1995 appellate court decision Goleta Union School District v. The Regents of the University of California. The decision held that an increase in demand for public services, such as additional staff or lengthier response times, could lead to potentially significant environmental impacts only if constructing or expanding a new facilitywas required and the construction or operation of the facility might adversely affect the air, water, noise, or other aspects of the physical environment. Consequently, increases in public service demand alone do not constitute a significant environmental effect. If significant effects are identified, the affected service provider would determine appropriate mitigation. Fire Protection and Emergency Services The Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) provides fire and emergency services to the City of Palo Alto and Stanford Universityyear-round and serves Los Altos Hills during summer months when the risk of wildfire is greater. Between 2006 and 2007, eight PAFD stations served about 75,000 residents in a service area of approximately 50 square miles.106 The PAFD serves a daytime population of over 125,000 people, which includes a large number of employees from high-technology businesses and Stanford University.107 Between 2006 and 2007, the PAFD had a total of 103 full-time firefighters: a staffing ratio of 1.21 firefighters per 1,000 residents served.108 The PAPD’s ratio of daytime population to firefighters is approximately 0.73 firefighters per 1,000 people. Each fire station provides services to approximately 9,375 City residents. According to the PAFD, “the number of residents served per fire station has increased by two percent over five years, but is still substantially below the number served per fire station in some other local jurisdictions.”109 PAFD personnel are organized into four functional areas: (1)EmergencyResponse; (2)Environmental and SafetyManagement; (3)Training and Personnel 106 Palo Alto Fire Department, http://www.pafd.org/profile/index.html, accessed December 12, 2008 107 Palo Alto Fire Department, http://www.pafd.org/profile/index.html, accessed December 12, 2008 108 City of Palo Alto, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-2007, Annual Report on City Government Performance, Chapter 3 –Fire, January 2008 109 City of Palo Alto, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-2007, Chapter 3, 2008 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -79 - Management; and (4)Records and Information Management.110 The PAFD does not evaluate its level of service by staffing ratio goals; instead, service goals are set bythe percent of calls that are responded to under a specified response time goal.111 The Department’s average response time goal is to respond to 90 percent of fire emergencies and emergencymedical requests for service within 8 minutes and to respond to 90 percent of paramedic calls for service within 12 minutes. Emergency medical requests are more life-threatening calls that necessitate ambulance life support (ALS) transportation. Paramedic calls are calls that are less serious and that include basic life support (BLS) transportation. During the 2006-2007 fiscal year, the PAFD responded to 87 percent of fire emergency calls within its response time goal, 92 percent of emergency medical calls within its response time goal, and 97 percent of paramedic calls within the response time goals.112 Consequently, the PAFD met its percentage goal for responding to calls under its response time goal for emergency medical and paramedic calls, but not for fire emergency calls. From 2006 to 2007, the PAFD responded to 7,236 calls for service, of which 55 percent were medical related; 18 percent were false alarms; 5 percent were service calls; 3 percent were fire related; 3 percent were hazardous conditions related; and 17 percent were other types of emergencies.113 The average response time of the PAFD was 5 minutes 48 seconds for fire calls and 5 minutes 17 seconds for emergency medical calls.114 The PAFD is the primary 911 ambulance service provider to the City of Palo Alto, Stanford Campus, and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC). American Medical Response (AMR) is the 911 ambulance system provider in Santa Clara County. AMR provides back up ambulance service to the PAFD’s ambulance system and responds into the PAFD service area when all of the City of Palo Alto’s ambulance resources are committed to other emergency calls. Although the PAFD met their percentage goal for responding to medical emergency and paramedic calls within their percentage of calls responded to under their specified response time, the PAFD reported that they receive a number of medical response calls per year to which they cannot respond.115 All of these calls are handled by AMR. The contract between AMR and the County of Santa Clara does not legally require AMR to respond to ambulance calls within the City of Palo Alto.116 Also, AMR response times in Palo Alto tend to be longer than that of PAFD’s response times.117 Consequently, there is a deficiency in the medical response services provided to the City of Palo Alto. This deficiency would not be substantially exacerbated by the proposed project because, even when fullyoccupied, the project site would represent only a small portion of the total demand for emergency response services. 110 Palo Alto Fire Department, http://www.pafd.org/profile/index.html, accessed December 12, 2008 111 City of Palo Alto, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-2007, Chapter 3, 2008 112 City ofPalo Alto, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-2007, Chapter 3, 2008 113 City of Palo Alto, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-2007, Chapter 3, 2008 114 City of Palo Alto, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-2007, Chapter 3, 2008 115 Dan Firth, Fire Marshal, Palo Alto Fire Department, electronic communication April 13, 2008 116 Agreement between the County of Santa Clara and American Medical Response –West for Pre-hospital Emergency Medical Care and Transport Services, http://www.sccemsagency.org/SCC/docs/Emergency%20Medical%20Services%20(DEP)/attachments/5.11%20AMR% 20Agreement%20- %20Complete.pdf, page 10, accessed May 8, 2008 117 Dan Firth, Fire Marshal, Palo Alto Fire Department, electronic communication, April 13, 2008 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -80 - As a part of the PAFD’s budgetary and review processes, the PAFD evaluates the realignment of response districts to determine whether they can increase their response time capabilities, which could allow the PAFD to respond to more calls and do so in less time. The district boundaries determine the areas in which a particular station responds to calls. The project site is in a developed urban area that is already served by fire stations, ambulance service, and infrastructure. The demand for fire protection and emergency response services from the R&D component of the project would not exceed demand from previous office/R&D facilities (now demolished). The demand for fire protection services generated by the residential component of the project would represent a small portion of the City of Palo Alto’s total fire protection demand. Therefore, the proposed project would not necessitate the construction of new fire protection facilities or infrastructure. If deemed necessary by the City of Palo Alto, development fees could be required pursuant to approval of the development permit to offset the project’s contribution to cumulative demand for fire protection facilities. Consequently, all fire protection impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. Police Protection The Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD) provides law enforcement services to the Cityof Palo Alto. As of the 2006-2007 fiscal year, PAPD staff included a total of 164 full-time employees, with 93 sworn officers, including 1 chief, 2 captains, 6 lieutenants, 14 sergeants, 19 agents, and 51 officers.118 The PAPD has 30 marked vehicles and 9 motorcycles.119 The PAPD has one central station at 275 Forest Avenue, which serves the entire City of Palo Alto; however, the PAPD is planning to move into a new Public Safety Building in 2011, which would be across the street from the project site. This new building would have capacity for approximately the same number of officers as the current station and increased capacity for 52 patrol vehicles.120 Because the daytime population in Palo Alto increases from approximately 61,200 to 125,000, the current staffing ratio of police officers per 1,000 people fluctuates between 0.66 during daytime hours and 1.34 during nighttime hours.121 Population numbers differ from those in the previous Fire Protection and Emergency Services discussion because the PAPD and PAFD have different service areas. The PAPD does not measure its service goals with staffing ratios; instead, service goals are determined through the percentage of emergency calls that are responded to within a target time and the average response time for urgent calls. PAPD categorizes calls requiring police response as “emergency”, “urgent”, and “non-emergency”.122 Emergencycalls include crimes in progress that are life-threatening or that may involve substantial loss of property. These calls include major injury accident calls and medical calls, such as for heart attacks. Urgent calls include suspicious activityin progress or requests to respond to emergencies that occurred within the last hour, but that are not currently in progress. Non- emergency calls include noise complaints and other non-crime related issues. 118 City of Palo Alto 2006-07 Adopted Budget 119 City of Palo Alto, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-2007, Annual Report on City Government Performance, Chapter 6 –Police, January 2008 120 City of Palo Alto, Palo Alto Public Safety Building Project Final EIR, July 11, 2007 121 City of Palo Alto, Police, http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/depts/pol/default.asp, accessed December 12, 2008. 122 City of Palo Alto, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-2007, Chapter 6, 2008 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -81 - The PAPD received 60,079 calls in the 2006-2007 fiscal year. The average response time for emergency calls was 5 minutes 8 seconds, the average response time for urgent calls was 7 minutes 24 seconds, and the average response time for non-emergency calls was 19 minutes 26 seconds.123 These response times include dispatch times.The PAPD estimates that 96 percent of the emergency calls were dispatched within 60 seconds of receipt of the call: the target is 95 percent within 60 seconds.124 The PAPD goal for response to an emergency call is to respond to 90 percent of emergency calls within 6 minutes. In the 2006-2007 fiscal year, the PAPD responded to 73 percent of emergency calls within 6 minutes and, therefore, did not meet the goal. The PAPD measures goals for responding to urgent calls by average response times and not percentage of calls responded to within a response time goal. The average response time goal for urgent calls is 10 minutes.125 The PAFD met the average response time goal for urgent calls with an average response time of 7 minutes 24 seconds. During the same time period 95 percent of non-emergency calls were responded to within 60 minutes. According to the PAPD, non- emergencycalls generallyare routine or report-type calls that can be handled as time permits. As such, during the 2006-2007 fiscal year, PAPD’s average response time goals were met for urgent calls; however, the goal for emergency calls was not met. The project site is in a developed urban area adjacent to the future Public Safety Building. The demand for police protection from the R&D component of the project would not exceed demand from previous office/R&D facilities (now demolished). The demand for police protection services generated by the residential component of the project would represent a small portion of the City of Palo Alto’s total police protection demand. Facilities are being updated to address future service demand projections and improve service ratios. Consequently, all police protection impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. Schools The Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) serves the Cityof Palo Alto and portions of the Cityof Los Altos Hills. PAUSD includes 12 elementary schools (kindergarten through grade five), 3 intermediate schools (grades six through eight), and 2 high schools (grades nine through twelve). Other schools and programs in the PAUSD include a pre-school program, a self-supporting adult school, a school for the hearing impaired, the Children’s Hospital School at the Lucille Packard Children’s Hospital, and a summer school.126 In 2006, PAUSD employed approximately 646 teachers, providing a ratio of one teacher for every 17.5 students.127 Enrollment in the PAUSD is approaching capacity. According to the City of Palo Alto’s Board of Education, in the 2008-2009 school year, elementaryschools have room for an additional 123 students, middle schools have room for 95 students, and high schools have room for 239 students. Therefore, PAUSD schools’ classroom capacitycan accommodate approximately 457 additional students. Based on the PAUSD student generation rates(Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc. (Lapkoff Forecast) 123 City of Palo Alto, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-2007, Chapter 6, 2008 124 City of Palo Alto, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-2007, Chapter 6, 2008 125 City of Palo Alto, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-2007, Chapter 6, 2008 126 Palo Alto Unified School District, http://pausd.org/parents/schools_sites/index.shtml, accessed December 12, 2008 127 The staffing ratio is calculated based on 2006 student enrollment of 11,329 as reported by the Palo Alto Unified School District, Agenda,Regular Meeting, September 23, 2008 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -82 - page 20), an apartment unit yields 0.15 student, a stacked condominium yields 0.25 student,and a BMR multifamily residential unit yields 0.7 student. With 67 stacked condominiums at a 0.25 yield factor yielding 16.6 students, and 17 BMR MFUs at a 0.7 yield factor yielding 11.9 units, a total of 28.57 students are estimated to be generated from the development. The Initial Study/MND acted upon by the Director of Planning and Community Environment on July 12, 2011 contained estimates of 0.276 elementary students per residential unit, 0.088 middle school students, and 0.095 high school students, with an estimate that the proposed project would generate 23 elementary students, 7 middle school students, and 8 high school students (38 students, whereby the Lapkoff Forecast estimates 29 students). Student enrollment associated with the proposed project would be within existing capacity. Consequently, the impact of the proposed project on schools would be less than significant. Other Public Facilities Impact fees to address effects on community centers, parks and libraries were adopted bythe Palo Alto City Council in March of 2002. Prior to receiving a building permit, the project applicant would be required to pay a one-time development impact fee for communitycenters and libraries. The fee would be used to offset impacts on community centers, parks and library facilities as a result of this project. Subdivision of the property for ownership of the residential units would require parkland dedication/in lieu fees to be paid by the applicant for such subdivision. With payment of fees,the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on other public facilities. Residual Impact:Less than significant Mitigation Measures:None required Cumulative Analysis Each public service provider must plan to accommodate growth within its service area under cumulative conditions. The proposed project, in addition to other foreseeable projects, would not exceed growth projections for the area. As such, the proposed project, in addition to other foreseeable projects, would result in a less-than-significant impact on public services as they would be accommodated in the cumulative demand for services. Deleted: (Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects EIR, page 4.12-26) 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -83 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIV. RECREATION. a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 1, 3, 4 X b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1, 3, 4 X a, b)The City of Palo Alto follows the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) Standards as guidelines for determining parkland needs. These standards recommend that a city of the size and densityof Palo Alto should provide 2 acres of parkland for every1,000 residents. The proposed project would generate 188 additional residents at the project site, but would not be expected to generate additional workers at the project site (as compared with the preexisting R & D use, and as described previously in Section XII, Population and Housing, of this Initial Study). Based on the NRPA Standards, the addition of 188 residents to the project site would generate a demand for 0.19 acres of parkland. The impact fees adopted by the City of Palo Alto would address development effects on parks. The increased demand on parkland, resulting from the proposed project, would be addressed bythe project applicant’s payment of a one-time development impact fee prior to issuance of a building permit. As determined by the Palo Alto City Council in March, 2002, the fee would offset impacts on park facilities as a result of this project and would reduce the proposed project’s parkland impacts to less than significant. Residual Impact:Less than significant Mitigation Measures:None required Cumulative Analysis As described above, the proposed project would generate 188 additional residents at the project site. The addition of 188 residents to the project site would generate a demand for 0.19 acres of parkland. The increased demand on parkland, resulting from the proposed project, would be addressed by the project applicant’s payment of a one-time development impact fee prior to issuance of a building permit. As determined by the Palo Alto City Council in March, 2002, the fee would offset impacts on park facilities as a result of this project, and would reduce the proposed project’s parkland contribution impacts to less than cumulative considerable. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -84 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC.128 Would the project: a)Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 1, 8, 10 X b)Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 1, 8, 10 X c)Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 3 X d)Substantially increase hazards caused by a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 3, 4, 8,10 X e)Result in inadequate emergency access? 11 X f)Result in inadequate parking capacity?3, 8, 10 X g)Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 1, 3, 8,10 X a, b)A transportation impact analysis for the proposed project was prepared by Fehr & Peers in May 2006, updated in October 2009, and updated again in October 2010 using the guidelines of the City of Palo Alto and the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), which is the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County. Although five additional projects have been proposed since the application for the proposed project was submitted and the original IS/MND was published,129 the traffic model accounts for the growth proposed under these projects, so none of the new projects, alone or in combination, would exceed the growth projections of the traffic model. Intersection Level of Service Standards Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative description of an intersection’s performance based on the average delay per vehicle. LOS is classified into six grades, ranging from A, which indicates free-flow or excellent conditions with short delays, to F, which indicates congested or overloaded conditions with extremely long delays. LOS A, B, and C are considered excellent to satisfactory service levels for most signalized and unsignalized intersections. The City of Palo Alto considers LOS D to be the lowest acceptable LOS at 128 Unless otherwise cited, information in this section is from Fehr and Peers, 2006. Park Plaza Transportation Impact Assessment. This report is available for review on the City’s website as Appendix J of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 129 Electronic mail from Palo Alto City Planner, Lata Vasudevan, to PBS&J, November 13, 2008. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -85 - intersections in the City, except for those intersections designated as regional Congestion Management Plan (CMP) intersections regularlymonitored bythe City and the VTA. The lowest acceptable LOS for regional CMP intersections is LOS E. Table 3 Level of Service Descriptions LOS Description Average Control Delay (in seconds) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle lengths. < 10.0 B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths.> 10.0 to 20.0 C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. > 20.0 to 35.0 D Operations with longer delays caused by a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. This is the City’s baseline LOS standard. > 35.0 to 55.0 E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay for regional CMP intersections. > 55.0 to 80.0 F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80.0 Source: VTA, CMP Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines, 2003; and Transportation Research Board, HighwayCapacity Manual, 2000. The project analysis assumed that the proposed project would have a significant impact on intersection LOS if it would: ·Cause a local intersection to deteriorate below LOS D; ·Cause a local intersection alreadyoperating at LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average control delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more, and the critical volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase by 0.01 or more; ·Cause a regional CMP intersection to deteriorate from an LOS E or better to LOS F; ·Cause a regional CMP intersection already operating at LOS F to deteriorate in the average control delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more, and the critical volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase by 0.01 or more; 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -86 - Intersection Level of Service –Existing and Baseline Conditions130 Existing peak-hour volumes, lane configurations, and signal phasing/timing plans according to the City of Palo Alto Annual Traffic Monitoring Report were used to calculate the service levels for the following study intersections: ·Foothill Expressway/ Page Mill Road ·Hanover Street/ Page Mill Road ·El Camino Real/ Page Mill Road ·Oregon Expressway/ Middlefield Road ·El Camino Real/Charleston Road The new traffic counts at Page Mill Road/Park Boulevard were used to calculate the levels at this unsignalized intersection. The Foothill Expressway/Page Mill Road intersection operates at a marginal LOS E during the PM peak hour, with traffic volumes nearing the capacity of the signalized intersection. The Oregon Expressway/Middlefield Road intersection also operates at marginal LOS E during the PM peak hour. The remaining study intersections operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours. Background traffic volumes were estimated by determining the projected growth in turning movement volumes for AM and PM peak hour conditions from the Citywide Traffic Model. The Citywide Traffic Model reflects reasonable buildout conditions of the City of Palo Alto and incorporates all future approved projects and regional background traffic growth (growth unrelated to the proposed project). Background traffic growth will result in the Foothill Expressway/Page Mill Road intersection degrading from LOS D to LOS E conditions during the AM peak hour. The intersection of El Camino Real/Page Mill Road is projected to degrade from LOS D to LOS F during both AM and PM peak hour conditions. The Oregon Expressway/Middlefield Road intersection is projected to degrade from LOS D to F during the AM peak hour, and from LOS E to F during the PM peak hour. Intersection Levels of Service –With Project Conditions The amount of traffic that would be generated by the proposed project in the AM and PM peak hours was estimated based on trip rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE’s) Trip Generation, Seventh Edition, 2003. The LOS analysis incorporated a trip reduction factor based on the fact that the project would include mixed residential and non-residential uses. According to the City’s standards, the 130 The revised IS/MND incorporates the findings of a TIA preparedin July 2007 for the proposed Palo Alto Public Safety Building, a project that would be constructed on the parcel immediately north of the project site, if approved. The LOS conditions reported in the project TIA were compared to LOS conditions reported in the Public Safety Building TIA by Fehr and Peers Associates pursuant to preparation of this revised IS/MND. The Fehr & Peers April 2009 Supplemental Report details the findings of this comparison. (This report is available for review of the City’s website as Appendix K of this Initial Study or upon request at the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment.) It was determined that, based on the City of Palo Alto significance criteria, the proposed project would not significantly impact any of the six study intersections (Foothill Expressway/page Mill Expressway; Hanover Street/Page Mill Expressway; El Camino Real/Page Mill Expressway; Oregon Expressway/Middlefield Road; Park Boulevard/Page Mill Road; El Camino Real/Charleston Road/Arastradero Road) under year 2010 or 2015 AM and PM Peak Hour conditions. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -87 - project mayassume a three percent reduction in the total estimated number of apartment-generated trips for such projects. Because the proposed project contains residential and employment facilities within 2,000 feet of a Caltrain Station, reductions of nine percent and three percent are allowed, respectively, for these uses. For the purpose of the proposed project,no trip reduction was used for proposed project residents that would work in the R&D space. The use of the above trip reduction factors would reduce the daily and peak hour project trip generation by approximately 6.5 percent. The proposed project would generate 1,143 net new weekday daily trips, 116 net new AM peak-hour trips (72 inbound/44 outbound) and 131 net new PM peak- hour trips (48 inbound/83 outbound). The distribution of new project trips was estimated based on existing travel patterns in the vicinity of the project site and the relative locations of complementary land uses in the area (such as employment areas, shopping and educational facilities). Trips generated bythe proposed project were assigned to the roadway system and added to baseline traffic volumes to estimate AM and PM peak hour volumes. The results of the LOS analysis for the project indicate that project-generated traffic would result in the degradation of operations from LOS E to F at the intersection of Foothill Expressway and Page Mill Expressway in the PM peak hour. LOS for all other intersections would remain the same. Data and calculations are provided in Tables 2 and 3 of the project transportation impact analysis (see Appendix M of this Initial Study). Impacts at all intersections would be less than significant. Residential Street Segment Analysis The proposed project’s impacts on the local residential streets Olive Avenue and Sheridan Avenue were evaluated based on significance criteria developed by the City of PaloAlto. These criteria state that a project would have a significant impact on a residential street if the project would cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion of Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more on a local or collector residential street. Based on the Cityof Palo Alto significance criteria used in the 2007 through 2009 TIAs for the Public Safety Building and the proposed project, the proposed project would not cause the TIRE index to increase by0.1 or more on Olive Avenue or Sheridan Avenue. Therefore, the project would have no impact on the nearby relevant local or collector streets. Freeway Level of Service Existing freeway LOS conditions were estimated for the project based on VTA’s 2002 Monitoring and Conformance Report. Based on the monitored freeway segment densities, all mixed-flow lanes and HOV lanes operate at acceptable LOS during the AM peak hour. During PM peak hour conditions, the mixed- flow lanes of southbound US 101 are near capacity and result in LOS F conditions from Embarcadero Road to San Antonio Road. According to CMP guidelines, freeway segments to which a proposed development is projected to add trips equal to one percent or more of the freeway segment’s existing capacity must be evaluated. Segments of US 101 were reviewed to determine if a substantial amount of project traffic would be added to these freeway segments. The project would add traffic equivalent to less than one percent of each freeway segment’s capacity. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on any of the freeway segments. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -88 - c)The project will not result in a change to air traffic patterns. No impact would occur. d, e) The project design features have been reviewed by the City Fire Department and Transportation Division to determine whether the proposed project would substantially increase hazards or result in inadequate emergency access. To reduce vehicle queues on northbound Park Boulevard, the proposed project would fund and implement an unsignalized, 130-foot left turn pocket lane on Park Boulevard at the Page Mill Road intersection. The existing circulation on the Page Mill Road extension would be maintained by providing a 24-foot roadway width that would facilitate bothtwo-way traffic and emergencyresponse vehicles. The two project driveways on Park Boulevard would operate at acceptable conditions during both the AM and PM peak hour conditions. Vehicles entering and exiting the site could pose hazards to pedestrians walking along sidewalks on the periphery of the site. Mitigation Measure MM-8, below, would reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles to a less than significant level. f)Pursuant to PAMC 15.42.040, the proposed project would require a total of 379 parking spaces. The proposed project would provide 302 parking spaces onsite, including 19 at-grade spaces, 274 spaces in a subterranean parking garage, and 9 spaces in a landscape reserve. Entrance to the underground facility would be from Park Boulevard at about the midpoint of the building. PAMC Section 18.52.050 allows a project applicant to request parking reductions for various circumstances; combined parking adjustments amounting to no more than 30 percent of the total parking demand otherwiserequired are permitted, subject to approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The applicant is requesting a reduction for joint use (shared) parking facilities and a reduction for housing near transit facilities such as Caltrain and bus lines. After applying these two deductions, the applicant’s required parking for the proposed uses would be 265 spaces. The project would provide 302 spaces, including the spaces in landscape reserve and has requested a reduction of 86 spaces (approximately 22 percent) with respect to the baseline parking threshold of 388 parking spaces. If the applicant’s request were approved, the project would be in conformance with applicable parking requirements. Pursuant to PAMC Section 18.52.050(d), approval of the parking reductions would be subject to review and approval of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program as required under Mitigation Measure MM-9. The TDM Program addressing the provisions of PAMC Section 18.52.050(d)(2)–(4) would be reviewed by the Director of Planning and Community Environment for completeness. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-9, parking impacts would be less than significant. g)The proposed project would comply with all applicable plans and policies pertaining to alternative transportation. The project would not generate ridership that would exceed the capacityof nearby VTA bus services or the Caltrain. The project would not obstruct existing bike lanes, and the number of bicycle parking spaces that would be supplied at the project site would be in conformance with zoning code requirements. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact with respect to alternative transportation plans and policies. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -89 - Residual Impact:Less than significant with mitigation Mitigation Measures: MM-8:Pedestrian Warning System A vehicle exiting/pedestrian warning system shall be installed for the underground parking garage driveway to eliminate potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists. MM-9:Transportation Demand Management Plan A Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) program shall be implemented as approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The TDM shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits and shall include a shared parking analysis based on the number of assigned parking spaces, and may incorporate (but shall not be limited to) such features as: developer-sponsored subsidized transit passes for residents and employees, a transportation coordinator, convenient displays of alternative travel options, and unbundling of parking, if such features are determined to be adequately effective by the Director of Planning and CommunityEnvironment in reducing parking demand. The TDM program shall be subject to further review after building occupancy pursuant to PAMC 18.52.050(d)(3) and (4). Cumulative Analysis The projected increases in traffic volumes between 2012 and 2015 will result in the intersection of Foothill Expressway and Page MillExpressway degrading from LOS E to F during both the AM and PM peak hours, the intersection of Hanover Street and Page Mill Expressway degrading from LOS D to E during both the AM and PM peak hours, and the intersection of El Camino Real, Charleston Road,and Arastradero Road degrading from LOS D to E in the PM peak hour. Also, for the intersection of El Camino Real and Page Mill Expressway, the LOS would remain at F but the critical volume to capacityratio will increase by 0.009 and the critical seconds of delay will increase by 3.9 seconds during the PM peak hour. Based on the City of Palo Alto significance criteria used in the 2007 through 2009 for the Public Safety Building and the proposed project, the project’s contribution to this impact wouldbe less than cumulatively considerable. The proposed project is subject to a Citywide Transportation Impact Fee. The project applicant would pay Traffic Impact Fees to the City of Palo Alto, based on the increased land use and adopted fee structure to improve mobility for all travel modes throughout the City. Also, several future improvements are planned for study intersections as part of mitigation measures identified for other projects in the vicinityof 195 Page Mill Road. These future improvements will result in improved traffic operations at several study intersections. In particular, as part of the traffic mitigation for the Stanford University Medical Center project,131 traffic adaptive signal technology is planned to be implemented at several of the intersections in the El Camino Real corridor, including the intersection of El Camino Real and Page Mill Expressway. 131 City of Palo Alto, Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement, Final Environmental Impact Report –Volume 1, January 2011. Table3.3-4 SUMC Project Contribution for All Study Intersections, page 3-174. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -90 - The current transportation analysis assumes a 12 percent reduction in vehicle trips generated by the project, due to its proximityto the Palo Alto Caltrain station. The HST project has a “potential” stop at the Palo Alto Caltrain station. If HST were to be developed, and if it were to stop in Palo Alto, then this would result in shorter transit travel times from Palo Alto to San Francisco, and San Jose. Shorter transit travel times could, in turn, translate into an even higher percentage of project trips being made bytransit, and a greater reduction in vehicle trips (it would also depend on many other factors, for example the relative cost to make a trip by HST). Therefore, based on the current information available, it is anticipated that the cumulative transportation impacts attributable to the project might be even less with the implementation of HST. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -91 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?32 X b)Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 32 X c)Require or result in the construction of new storm-water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 32 X d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 32 X e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 32 X f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 33,34, 35 X g)Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?33 X a)See Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study, regarding wastewater treatment requirements of the SF Bay Area RWQCB. This impact would be less than significant. b, d)The City is a part of a “Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract (Master Contract)” executed in 1984, with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), which provides 184 million gallon per day (MGD) to the SFPUC's wholesale customers (subject to reduction in the event of drought, water shortage, earthquake, other acts of nature, or rehabilitation and maintenance of the system). The City’s total water supply was 15,676 acre-feet (AF) in 2005, while its demand was 13,714 AF. The plant is projected to demand 13,477 AF in 2030, with a supply of 15,456 AF. The City currently uses less than its allocated amount of water from the SFPUC, and is not expected to exceed its water allocation through 2030,taking into account increases in City population through build-out consistent with its comprehensive plan. The water supply is sufficient for current demand, and for future demand projections. The water supply of the City is sufficient to serve the proposed project; this impact would be less than significant. b, e)The proposed project would be served by the Palo Alto Water Quality Control Plant (PARWQCP). The PARWQCP has a treatment capacity of up to 39 MGD. In 2005, wastewater flows were approximately 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -92 - 25 MGD. The plant is projected to treat 30 MGD in 2030, taking into account increases in City population through build-out consistent with its comprehensive plan. The plant capacity is sufficient for current loads and for future load projections; there are no plans for expansion. The wastewater treatment provider has capacity to serve the proposed project; this impact would be less than significant. c)See Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study regarding the potential for expansion of existing storm-water drainage facilities. This impact would be less than significant. f)According the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), each resident in the City generates approximately one pound of waste per day. Based on this figure, and the estimate the proposed project would generate approximately 188 persons, the residential portion of the proposed project would generate approximately 188 pounds of waste per day, or 68,620 pounds (34 tons) of waste per year; however, this number would be expected to slightlyless, because the residential portion of the proposed project would be multi-family residential, which typically produces less waste than single-family residential units. According the CIWMB, the waste generation rate for industrial uses is approximately62.5 pounds per 1,000 square feet of floor area, per day. As the industrial portion of the proposed project would include 50,467 sf of industrial use, the industrial portion of the proposed project would generate approximately3,154 pounds of waste per day, or 1,151,278 pounds (576 tons) of waste per year. The proposed project is estimated to create approximately 610 tons of solid waste a year; however, Public Resources Code Section 41780 (California Integrated Waste Management Act) requires that at least 50 percent of this waste be diverted from landfills. If the proposed project were to divert the minimum required amount of its solid waste (50 percent), the increase of 305 tons per year from the proposed project would be about 0.2 percent of the 195,273 tons of solid waste generated bythe City in 2006. KirbyCanyon Landfill (the City’s landfill -closing in 2011) and Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer (SMART) recycling center currently have enough capacityto accommodate this increase in solid waste. From 2006 to 2007, the SMART Station had, on average, 21 percent of its permitted dailycapacity remaining. The SMART Station received an average dailytonnage of 1,188 tons, or about 79 percent of its 1,500-ton permitted daily capacity from 2006 to 2007. Impacts as a result of the proposed project on landfill capacity would be less than significant. g)The proposed project would be required to comply with the following State and local regulations governing solid waste: California Integrated Waste Management Act State and local agencies are required to implement a waste management program in their jurisdiction. In particular, Public Resources Code Section 41780 mandates that 50 percent of solid waste be diverted from landfills by encouraging reuse, reduction, and recycling. Zero Waste Strategic Plan On November 15, 2004, the City Council directed Citystaff to prepare a Zero Waste Strategic Plan for the community. The goal of the plan is to reduce the amount of waste going to landfills by90 percent or more. The plan, adopted in October 2005, identifies the key objectives and strategies needed to reach zero waste including both reducing the creation of waste through policies and incentives designed to eliminate waste at 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -93 - the source and maximizing recycling through expanded collection programs, processing facilities, education, outreach, and technical assistance. According to the CIWMB, the City of Palo Alto currently has: 1) Residential Curbside Recyclable Collection, 2) Residential Curbside Greenwaste Collection, and 3) Residential Curbside Household Hazardous Waste Collection. Participation in the City’s Zero Waste Strategic Plan would ensure compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act. Because the City has a sufficient diversion capacity to ensure compliance with State and local statutes, regulations, and plans related to solid waste, the proposed project would have no impact. Residual Impact:Less than significant Mitigation Measures:None required Cumulative Analysis Because the proposed project would not adversely impact storm water conditions, it would not contribute to cumulative storm water impacts.Further, the proposed project would not substantiallyimpact water supply. Existing service provision plans in the City of Palo Alto address anticipated growth in the region and therefore would not have a significant cumulative effect on water.The proposed project would not substantially impact wastewater services in the project area because existing service plans address anticipated growth in the region.Therefore, the proposed projects, in addition to other foreseeable projects (such as the two mixed-use developments and the HST), would not have a significant cumulative effect on wastewater facilities.Finally, proposed project would not substantially impact solid waste services in the project area. The existing service provision plans address service provision for anticipated growth in the region. Therefore, the proposed project, in addition to other foreseeable projects, would not have a significant cumulative effect on solid waste facilities.Overall, the proposed project would not contribute cumulatively to utility and service system impacts, and impacts would be less than significant. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -94 - Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated* Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 36 X b)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable) means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 36 X c)Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 36 X a)Air, soil, and water pollution, wasteful consumption of resources, alteration of hydro-geological cycles, and/or substantial noise generation have the potential to degrade environmental quality. As explained throughout this document, the proposed project would not have significant impacts with respect to these issues: ·The proposed project would not generate substantial emissions or noise during construction or operation.Refer to Air Quality and Noise sections for further discussion. ·The proposed land uses would not use substantial quantities of hazardous materials, and activities associated with the project would comply with regulatory policies pertaining to the handling and transport of hazardous materials, minimizing the risk of release. Refer to Hazards and Hazardous Materials section for further discussion. ·Stormwater runoff from the project site, and the non-point source pollution associated with it, would be controlled through best management practices. Refer to Hydrologyand Water Quality section for more detailed explanation. ·The proposed project would not result in the wasteful consumption of resources, such as water and energy. Refer to Utilities section for more detailed explanation. The proposed project would not substantially reduce habitat or contribute to the decline of species populations. As a previously developed site with minimal vegetative cover, the project site does not support sensitive habitat. Connectivity to intact natural habitat is poor, because the project site is surrounded by other existing development and roadways. There is no natural surface water on or adjacent to the project 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -95 - site, nor are there federally protected wetlands or riparian habitat. Impacts to nesting birds, which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty, would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. As explained in the Cultural Resources section, there are no historic buildings or structures on the project site. There is limited potential that archaeological or paleontological resources could be buried beneath the surface; because the site was previously developed, it is unlikely that such resources would be encountered during construction. Mitigation is provided to ensure that impacts on such resources would be less than significant. b)Impacts associated with cumulative development are described in applicable topic sections, as summarized below: ·Cumulative development is likely to result in an increase in population and demand for school capacity. Refer to Public Services section for more detailed explanation. ·The projected increases in traffic volumes between 2012 and 2015 will result in the Foothill Expressway/Page Mill Expressway intersection degrading from LOS E to F during both the AM and PM peak hours, the intersection of Hanover Street and Page Mill Expressway degrading from LOS D to E during both the AM and PM peak hours, and the intersection of El Camino Real, Charleston Road, and Arastradero Road degrading from LOS D to E in the PM peak hour. Although these cumulative impacts would be significant, the project’s contributions to both cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. c)Certain types of physical and environmental effects have the potential to adversely affect human health, safety, and/or qualityof life. Although several topics analyzed in the IS/MND describe the potential for the proposed project to expose humans to such effects, all impacts would be less than significant (mitigation is noted where applicable): ·The proposed project would not expose residents, employees, and visitors to significant hazards, such as geologic hazards, flooding, hazards associated with proximity to an airport, or wildland fires. Refer to Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Hazards and Hazardous Materials sections for more detailed explanation. ·The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial air and noise emissions. Interior noise levels would be reduced through mitigation. Refer to Air Quality and Noise sections for more detailed explanation. ·The proposed project would not expose residents, employees, and visitors to soil or water pollution. Although residual petroleum hydrocarbons have been detected in soil samples at the project site, contamination is below current regulatory ESLs. Vapors from a contaminated groundwater plume known to be below the project site could enter the proposed building; however, a vapor barrier would be installed and a subsurface vapor collection and venting system would be constructed and monitored to prevent soil-vapor intrusion. Soils removed during construction would be segregated for further testing and remediation, as needed. Refer to Hazards and Hazardous Materials section for more detailed explanation. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -96 - ·The proposed project would not adversely impact the City’s ability to provide adequate utilities, public services or recreational facilities. Refer to Utilities and Service Systems, Public Services, and Recreation sections for more detailed explanation. Therefore, the proposed project would not have environmental effects, which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Impacts would be less than significant. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -97 - Global Climate Change Impacts Global climate change is the alteration of the Earth’s weather including its temperature, precipitation, and wind patterns. Global temperatures are affected by naturally occurring atmospheric and anthropogenic gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These gases allow sunlight into the Earth’s atmosphere, but prevent radiant heat from escaping from the atmosphere, which is known as the “greenhouse” effect. The world’s leading climate scientists have reached consensus that global climate change is underway and that human activity is a contributing factor. Twenty agencies at the international, national, state, and local levels are considering strategies to control emissions of gases that contribute to global warming. There is no comprehensive strategy that is being implemented on a global scale that addresses climate change; however, in California a multiagency“Climate Action Team”, has identified a range of strategies and the Air Resources Board, under Assembly Bill (AB)32, has been designated to adopt the main plan for reducing California's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by January 1, 2009, and regulations and other initiatives for reducing GHG emissions by January1, 2011. AB 32 requires achievement by2020 of a statewide GHG emissions limit equivalent to 1990 emissions, and the adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emissions reductions. By 2050, the state plans to reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. Although the State of California has established programs to reduce GHG emissions, there are no established standards for gauging the significance of GHG emissions.Neither CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines provide any methodology for analysis of GHGs. Given the “global” scope of global climate change, the challenge under CEQA is for a Lead Agency to translate the issue down to the level of a CEQA document for a specific project in a way that is meaningful to the decision making process. Under CEQA, the essential questions are whether a project creates or contributes to an environmental impact or is subject to impacts from the environment in which it would occur, and what mitigation measures are available to avoid or reduce the impacts. The proposed project would generate GHGs primarily through electricity generation and use and the creation of vehicle trips. Efforts to reduce the project’s GHG emissions by reducing electricitydemand and reducing vehicle trips and miles, therefore, should be implemented. The proposed project would conform to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and other policies to reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled. Given the overwhelming scope of global climate change, it is not anticipated that a single development project would have an individually discernable effect on global climate change (e.g., that any change in global temperature or sea level could be attributed to the GHG emissions resulting from one single development project). Rather, it is more appropriate to conclude that the GHG emissions generated by the proposed project would combine with emissions across the state, nation, and globe to cumulatively contribute to global climate change. Declaring whether a GHG emission impact is significant implies some knowledge of incremental effects that is several years away, at best. To determine whether the proposed project would have a significant impact on global climate change is speculative,particularly given the fact that there are no existing numerical thresholds against which to measure an impact. To make a good faith effort at disclosing environmental impacts and to conform with the CEQA Guidelines [Section 16064(b)], it is the City’s position that, based on the nature and size of this development project; its location in an established urban area served by existing infrastructure (rather than a greenfield site); and the transit oriented nature of the project’s nominal percentage increase in GHG emissions, the proposed project would not impede the State of California’s ability to reach the emission reduction limits and standards set forth by the by Executive Order S-3-05 and AB 32. Over the long term, regional planning agencies expect that intensifying land uses near transit would lead to reduced dependence on the automobile and increased 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -98 - transit ridership, thereby reducing vehicular emissions. If this reasoning is borne out, this project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change associated with GHG emissions. The project is required to follow the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen) as amended locally to require Tier 2 items as mandatory for the non-residential component of the building. The Build It Green Green Point Rated checklist may be used for the residential component of the building.132 Implementation of these green building strategies is considered a good faith effort to reduce the proposed project’s impact on climate change. Consequently, to the best of our knowledge, the proposed project would result in less- than-significant global climate change and cumulative impacts. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS INITIAL EVALUATION/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED MAY 6, 2011, PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS PARK PLAZA (08PLN-00000- 00281 AND 10PLN-00000-00344), PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. ___________________________________________________ Applicant's Signature Date 132 California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -99 - Summary of Mitigation Measures MM-1:Implementation of ARB Recommendations AnyArchitectural Review conditions of approval, with respect to the design of the proposed project, shall be incorporated into the final design by the applicant. MM-2:Indoor Air Filtration A central HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) shall be installed that includes high efficiency filters for particulates (MERV-13 or higher). The system should operate to maintain positive pressure within the building interior to prevent infiltration of outdoor air indoors. MM-3:Protection of Nesting Birds The applicant shall abide by all provisions of Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code and Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) as published in the Federal Register (Vol.70, No.49; March 15, 2005). Although there is no vegetation on the project site that may contain nesting birds, there may be nesting birds in existing vegetation abutting the proposed project site (e.g., in the Caltrain property). To protect any nesting birds, the proposed project may avoid construction during the nesting period. Alternatively, a qualified wildlife biologist (to be hired by the applicant) shall conduct a survey for nesting birds that are covered by the MBTA and/or Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code in the vicinity of the project site. This survey shall cover all areas that would be disturbed as a result of construction related activities during the nesting period, and shall include a “buffer zone” (an area of potential sensitivity, beyond the bounds of the proposed project construction area) which shall be determined by the biologist based on his or her professional judgment and experience. This buffer zone may include off-site habitat. This biological survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the commencement of construction activities. The wildlife biologist shall provide a report to the City promptly, detailing the findings of the survey. No construction shall be conducted until this report has been provided to the City and the City has authorized in writing the commencement of construction activities in accord with the biologist’s findings. If nesting birds that are covered by the MBTA and/or Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code are discovered within the buffer zone, the report shall specifythe locations of the nests and shall establish an appropriate construction buffer zone around the nest location(s). Nests containing birds that are covered by the MBTA and/or Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code discovered on site or at off-site locations shall not be disturbed, and construction shall not occur within the appropriate construction buffer zone until a qualified wildlife biologist determines that the young have fledged and left the nest. MM-4:Protocol for Management of On-site Contamination a)A formal dewatering plan (Construction Dewatering ContingencyPlan) shall be prepared, consistent with Mitigation Measure MM-6 in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality of this Initial Study and consistent with the City’s Construction Dewatering System Plan Preparation Guidelines and 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -100 - Dewatering from Construction Sites and In-ground Utilities Maintenance Manual. This plan shall be prepared and submitted for final approval by the City’s Public Works Department prior to issuance of Citypermits. The applicant shall provide information in the plan regarding the lateral and vertical distances to existing groundwater contamination plumes and an analysis of the potential impacts to those plumes caused by construction activity on the project property, including the use of dewatering sumps or wells under the proposed underground parking structure. Prior to submission to the City, this information shall be submitted to the RWQCB for approval that the proposed work on the subject property, including any use of dewatering sumps or dewatering wells would not have an adverse impact on the current and future cleanup effort of the HP-Varian or COE plumes. The approval shall be submitted to the City’s Public Works Department with the plan and shall verify that dewatering sumps or dewatering wells, if proposed, would not alter the path of the groundwater contamination plume(s) and could not result in 1)bringing groundwater contamination to the project site or 2)a possible future exposure of the public on the project site to groundwater contaminants. The plan shall identify testing and analysis methods, and treatment, if necessary, for disposal into the storm drain system to ensure compliance with the City’s Municipal NPDES permit. Sufficient personnel and material shall be provided by the applicant to implement the plan, should groundwater be encountered by the excavation. b)The applicant shall provide readyaccess to the project site for the CityBuilding Official, or a third party hired by the Building Official, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of activities related to excavation and design features during project construction at sites with contaminated soil and groundwater, to inspect and enforce implementation of the Soil Management Plan prepared by Tucker Engineering addressing the procedures and precautions to be used for the proper containment, profiling, movement, exportation of soil, etc. during the excavation and construction period. c)The applicant shall provide ready access to the project site for the third party inspection service, which would report to the City and be financed by the applicant to inspect and enforce implementation of the Remedial Risk Management Plan (RRMP), including implementation of the Site Health and Safety Plan; contaminated soil sampling, excavation, and management; the dewatering contingency plan; reporting requirements; land use covenant and environmental restrictions; long term monitoring, inspections, contingencies, and enforcement. d)The applicant shall file documentation with the RWQCB, the third partyinspection service reporting to the City and financed by the applicant, and the City for final approval of the completion of the excavation, including soil sampling results within 60 days following the completion of excavation. e)Prior to issuance of the occupancypermit the applicant shall file documentation from an independent consultant specializing in vapor mitigation system design and installation for final approval bythe third party inspection service reporting to the Cityand financed bythe applicant confirming that each component (collection pipes, transmission pipes, inlets, risers, vents, etc.) of the vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS) has been installed in accordance with the recommendations of the Vapor Mitigation System and Monitoring Plan, and includes the installation of a full vapor barrier, which shall be a 60-mil thick, spray-applied membrane below the elevator shafts, stairwells, pipe chases, and entire floor-slab, as part of the active vapor collection and venting system (i.e., driven by electric 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -101 - fans at the effluent end of the VIMS riser pipes and enhanced by outside air entering through inlet vents) to be installed in the building to mitigate potential soil vapor intrusion. f)The applicant shall file documentation with the RWQCB and the City for final approval by the third party inspection service reporting to the City and financed by the applicant of installation of the VIMS, initial garage air sampling results, and the startup sub-slab vapor-riser monitoring results, with vapor-riser monitoring reports submitted as required by the RRMP, within 60 days following the completion of building construction. g)The applicant shall comply with contingencies regarding vapor monitoring to protect against potential vapor intrusion which would involve additional remediation if the results of the first six (monthly) monitoring events indicate any cause for concern. If the VIMS is operating correctly, monitoring would continue quarterly until vapor concentrations were reduced to 50 percent of the RWQCB ESLs and annually thereafter. If the third party inspection service determines that the VIMS is not functioning adequately, the system is required to be redesigned (under the supervision of the third party inspection service) for more effective removal of VOCs. Monitoring would continue until VOC concentrations were demonstrated to be maintained below the commercial ESLs, as recommended by the RWQCB. h)The applicant shall condition the lease agreements with each R&D tenant proposing to use hazardous materials to stipulate that the storage and use of hazardous materials within their space would not exceed the limits set by Tables 2703.1.1(1), (2), and (3) Maximum Allowable Quantity Per Control Area of Hazardous Materials Posing a Physical Hazard, 2010 California Fire Code, Title 24, Part 9, Chapter 27, Section 2703.1.1. The space for each R&D tenant proposing to use hazardous materials shall be constructed as a separate compartment with one-hour rated walls, protected common openings, and separate ventilation systems. i)The applicant shall condition the lease agreements with each R&D tenant proposing to use hazardous materials to stipulate that the tenant shall comply with the City’s Hazardous Materials Reporting Requirements and shall prepare and file with the Fire Department, as appropriate, a Hazardous Materials Management Plan or a Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement providing sufficient information on how and where hazardous materials are handled by the business to allow fire, safety, health, and other appropriate personnel to prepare adequate emergency responses to potential releases of the hazardous materials. j)Monitoring wells encountered during site preparation or excavation shall be reported immediately to the RWQCB for its decision regarding proper abandonment or abandonment and replacement by the applicant. Work shall stop in proximity to the well(s) until the decision of the RWQCB is implemented. The applicant shall file documentation with the RWQCB and the City for final approval bythe CityBuilding Official, or a third party hired by the Building Official, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of activities related to excavation and design features during project construction at sites with contaminated soil and groundwater, of proper abandonment or abandonment and replacement of any affected wells. MM-5: Grading and Drainage Plan 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -102 - The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan for the proposed project, for City approval prior to the issuance of a grading, excavation, or building permit. This grading and drainage plan shall comply with Engineering Design Standards for storm drain facilities, shall be designed to conveythe 10-year storm flow, and shall reflect the recommendations of the Joe Crosby and Associates Geotechnical Report, dated May 10, 2004. MM-6:Construction Dewatering Plan A construction dewatering plan shall be prepared consistent with Chapter 33 of the 2007 California Building Code, and shall be submitted to the Cityin association with all proposed sub-grade garage excavation activities prior to issuance of a grading, excavation or building permit. The applicant shall include the dewatering plan in the permit plan set submitted for approvals for anyexcavation activities on the project site. The plan shall provide a system that would remove silt and other pollutants from this water and place clean water into the City storm drain system. The applicant shall secure current data on the depth to groundwater immediatelyprior to excavation by using piezometers, or bydrilling exploratoryholes, if the deepest excavation would be less than four feet above the highest anticipated groundwater level. Should dewatering be necessary (i.e., if excavation would occur within four feet above the highest anticipated groundwater level and the piezometer investigation revealed the presence of free groundwater within four feet above that highest anticipated groundwater level), the applicant shall secure City permits associated with the placement of dewatering equipment or actual dewatering and excavation activities on the project site or the abutting public right-of-way prior to beginning excavation. Upon installation, the dewatering system shall reflect BMPs that ensure the water discharged would be of appropriate quality. The installation shall be approved by a City field inspector prior to the commencement of construction water discharge to the storm drain. Extracted groundwater shall be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. Testing shall be performed by an independent testing firm hired bythe Building Official, at the owner's expense. Any dewatering to occur in the public right-of-way shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department. MM-7:Indoor Noise Minimization The project shall include design features as specified in the project noise assessment to reduce the indoor noise levels to meet the interior noise standards prescribed by the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policy N-39. MM-8:Pedestrian Warning System A vehicle exiting/pedestrian warning system shall be installed for the underground parking garage driveway to eliminate potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists. MM-9:Transportation Demand Management Plan A Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) program shall be implemented as approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The TDM shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits and shall include a shared parking analysis based on the number of assigned parking spaces, and may incorporate (but shall not be limited to) such 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard, File Nos. 08PLN-00000-00295 and 10PLN-00000-00281 -103 - features as: developer-sponsored subsidized transit passes for residents and employees, a transportation coordinator, convenient displays of alternative travel options, and unbundling of parking, if such features are determined to be adequately effective by the Director of Planning and CommunityEnvironment in reducing parking demand. The TDM program shall be subject to further review after building occupancy pursuant to PAMC 18.52.050(d)(3) and (4). City of Palo Alto Page 1 PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Amy French DEPARTMENT:Planning and Acting Chief Planning Official Community Environment DATE:August 24, 2011 SUBJECT:195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard [10-PLN-00344]: Request by Hohbach Realty Company for approval of a Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes to create: (1) 84 residential units on the two upper floors (106,320 sq.ft.) including 17 below market rate housing units;(2) common areas associated with these residential units and (3) ground floor (50,467 sq.ft.) Research and Development use and subterranean garage to remain owned by the developer, subject to easements for utilities, support and access for the benefit of the residential condominium portion of the building. Zone: GM. Environmental Assessment:An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared and was tentatively approved by the Director on July 12, 2011 in conjunction with the application for Architectural Review (AR), in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Record of Land Use Action (ROLUA), enclosed as Attachment A and proposed Tentative Map (Attachment I) for condominium purposes, to create 84 residential condominium units and common areas within the upper floors at 195 Page Mill Road/2865 Park Boulevard. The Commission’s recommendations should be specific to the highlighted findings and actions related to the map and Mitigated Negative Declaration shown in Attachment A, Section 3A (map findings on pages 3-6) and Section 4 (map approval conditions on pages 9-13). BACKGROUND The action requested of the Commission is to provide a recommendation to approve the Tentative Map (Attachment I). Background information related to the Park Plaza development project’s details and history has been included within the draft Record of Land Use Action, which contains findings and conditions of approval for Council action on the Tentative Map as City of Palo Alto Page 2 well as on the Architectural Review (AR) application, since a timely appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision by Mr. Robert Moss was received on July 25, 2011. The attached Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment D) addresses both the proposed development project and the tentative map. Scope of Commission Review The scope of the Commission’s review for the purposes of this Tentative Map application is limited to the “design” and “improvement” of the proposed subdivision. In this context, the terms “design” and “improvement” are defined in the Subdivision Map Act as follows: "Design" means: (1) street alignments, grades and widths; (2) drainage and sanitary facilities and utilities, including alignments and grades thereof; (3) location and size of all required easements and rights-of-way; (4) fire roads and firebreaks; (5) lot size and configuration; (6) traffic access; (7) grading; (8) land to be dedicated for park or recreational purposes; and (9) other specific physical requirements in the plan and configuration of the entire subdivision that are necessary to ensure consistency with, or implementation of, the general plan or any applicable specific plan as required pursuant to Section 66473.5 (Government Code, section 66418). (a) "Improvement" refers to any street work and utilities to be installed, or agreed to be installed, by the subdivider on the land to be used for public or private streets, highways, ways, and easements, as are necessary for the general use of the lot owners in the subdivision and local neighborhood traffic and drainage needs as a condition precedent to the approval and acceptance of the final map thereof. (b) "Improvement"also refers to any other specific improvements or types of improvements, the installation of which, either by the subdivider, by public agencies, by private utilities, by any other entity approved by the local agency, or by a combination thereof, is necessary to ensure consistency with, or implementation of, the general plan or any applicable specific plan. (Government Code, section 66419) The design and improvement of the subdivision should be distinguished from the design of the approved structures to be located within the subdivision. The AR site and floor plans and elevations (Attachment J) are provided to the Commission for information. The conceptual street improvement plans that accompanied the AR application are provided for Commission review, since the public right-of-way designs are also a part of the map process. Public right-of- way improvement plans are required to be submitted to Public Works Engineering Services staff following Tentative Map approvals and prior to Final Map review and approval by Council. The required improvement plans would need to be consistent with the right of way improvements that were shown in the AR plan set approved in concept by the Director but now subject to Council action on appeal. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Architectural Review On July 7, 2011, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended approval, on a 3-2 vote, of the Park Plaza development project following the ARB’s third public hearing. Comments on the Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were received during the hearing and verbatim minutes are being prepared because of the appeal. Previous ARB hearings on this application were held on May 19, 2011, and December 3, 2009. The ARB’s recommended conditions included a requirement for the applicant to present several design details to a two member subcommittee of the ARB. On July 12, 2011, the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) with Initial Study, Attachment D, prior to approving the Architectural Review application. The site plan and elevations (Attachment J) are provided to allow the Commission to understand how the overall project now going to City Council for action relates to the Tentative Map application. Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.070 (d)(3), the Director’s July 12, 2011 AR decision (Attachment C) would have become effective on July 27, 2011. Since an appeal of the AR was received, however, the Council will now be presented with the AR appeal in conjunction with the Tentative Map. The Initial Study (IS) /MND is subject to review by the City Council along with the Director’s AR approval and Tentative Map. Additional background information providing further project description and detailing the ARB consideration of the project is available in the ARB staff reports, which are provided to the Commissioners and can be found on the City’s website at www.cityofpaloalto.org/know zone/ARB/agendas (by meeting date). Verbatim minutes of the July 7, 2011 ARB hearing were prepared for the Council hearing and are also provided to Commissioners (Attachment G). The November 3, 2009 ARB report provides background on the previous AR application recommended by the ARB and acted upon by City Council in 2006. The previous Park Plaza project also included 84 residential units but had fewer bedrooms (134 bedrooms compared to the 152 bedrooms of the current project) with a different distribution (38 one-bedroom units, 42 2-bedroom units, and 4 3-bedroom units for a total of 134 bedrooms). Tentative Map The Discussion section below contains the project description and other specifics with regard to the current Tentative Map application. A Tentative Map for condominium purposes for the 2006 Park Plaza development project was brought forward to the Commission on June 13, 2007 and a hearing was conducted. Due to a tie vote (3-3-1), no recommendation was made to Council. Minutes of the Commission hearing are attached to this report (Attachment F). The previous map reviewed by the Commission (but never by City Council) was also for 84 residential condominiums, but the research and development space was to be subdivided into 11 commercial condominiums (whereas the current map retains the entire ground floor as a single property owner with no subdivision thereof proposed). The map was never considered by the Council due to the litigation, which invalidated the project approval. City of Palo Alto Page 4 The previous map was viewed by the Commission as being inconsistent with the Park Plaza “rental” project approved by City Council in 2006. The applicant has, since that time, obtained a Certificate of Compliance to merge the three parcels (approved February 8, 2010 and recorded July 1, 2010). Therefore, the map now before the Commission does not include the merging of underlying parcels, only the condominium configuration. The current map for condominium purposes is also consistent with the scope of the AR application and IS/MND reviewed by the ARB and approved by the Director, now subject to Council action on appeal. A related challenge for the Commission was that separate environmental reviews were prepared for the sequential applications, due to the timing of the subsequent tentative map submittal. There was confusion regarding how the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s ongoing review of the mitigation for the development project was related to the second environmental document prepared for the map. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration prepared for the map application referred to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that had been adopted in 2006 by Council for the appealed development project. In 2007, Robert Moss brought a writ of mandate action in Superior Court, challenging the MND and Council decision for the 2006 Architectural Review approval. While the court upheld the City’s decisions regarding Architectural Review and the application of the Density Bonus Law, the court found that the MND should have been re-circulated because the City adjusted a mitigation measure in the MND following the initial Council meeting (November 20) but prior to the final Council meeting (December 11). The result was that the Council’s decision on the project was nullified and the map application was then no longer applicable. DISCUSSION Project Description The proposed Tentative Map is for Research and Development and condominium purposes for the Park Plaza development. The parcel’s gross area is 109,941 square feet (2.52 acres), while the net area is 104,972 square feet (2.4 acres) excluding the street easement area. The Tentative Map drawings are in conformance with the requirements set forth in Title 21 (Subdivisions), Chapter 21.12 (Tentative Maps), and Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). The Tentative Map is consistent with the approved Architectural Review application, and includes information on the existing parcel and onsite conditions. Improvement plans for the sidewalk, street trees, and other public right of way improvements would be reviewed by the City’s Public Works Engineer and other staff prior to submittal of a Final Map. The approved ARB plan set includes a 139’ left turn stacking lane on Park Boulevard to facilitate left turns onto Park Boulevard. This will be funded and implemented by the applicant; a condition of approval to this effect has been added to the Tentative Map approval conditions (Condition 19). The developer intends to rent the 84 residential units as apartments, but wants to provide for the possible future conversion of the residential units to condominiums. This Tentative Map, along with a Final Map and recording thereof with the County of Santa Clara, would allow for the City of Palo Alto Page 5 future conversion of the rental units to condominium units. A description of how the residential units could be structured as condominiums is set forth in the letter prepared by the applicant’s attorney (Attachment B). Condominium Configuration The 84 residential units (initially rental but potential condominium) would be located on the two upper floors, which would have a total floor area of 106,320 square feet. The 84 units would include 17 Below Market Rate (BMR) units, further described later in this report. The 84 residential units would include 20 one-bedroom/one bath units, 60 two-bedroom/two bath units, and four three bedroom/two bath units for a total of 152 bedrooms. The three bedroom units are shown located at the building corners facing Park Boulevard on the floor plans. There are 30 two-bedroom units and 10 one-bedroom units on each floor, facing the courtyard and outer building faces. The units on the east side of the project, the side facing the Caltrain/JPB right of way,. are buffered from train noise by a corridor. The windows and private balconies of those units face the interior courtyard. All but two of the residential units would have private balconies and all residents would also have use of the building amenities (pool, gym, etc.). There are four elevators and four stairwells (near each building corner) to provide access to the ground floor and the subterranean parking garage. The ground floor commercial space would contain 50,467 sq. ft. of floor area for Research and Development use, and would remain owned by the developer –a condominium unit would not be created for the ground floor space by itself. The subterranean garage and land, along with the ground floor space, would remain under the developer’s ownership. In the event of conversion, the future residential condominium owners would have an undivided interest (legal, fee title) in the “common areas” of the entire building –including features within the first floor area and basement –namely, the elevators, stairways, first floor entry level lobbies, and easements for utilities and structural elements, trash chutes and associated trash areas –and the upper floor common areas such as the pool. The applicant intends to maintain the residential units as rental units as long as he owns the property. The areas remaining within ownership of the developer at grade and below grade needed for use by the residential occupants would have easements recorded to facilitate future residential condominium owner use. This would include the parking garage and driveways, ground floor plaza and surface parking area, landscaped areas, trash collection areas, elevators and stair areas, utility facilities and structural elements. The surface parking area within the interior courtyard area would provide 17 improved vehicle parking spaces and 9 “landscape reserve” spaces (for potential future conversion to vehicle parking spaces). The below grade parking garage would provide a total of 276 vehicle spaces. Access to both surface and below grade parking facilities would be via driveways from Park Boulevard. Bicycle lockers for each residential unit are shown in the below grade parking facility. Bicycle lockers for use by the R&D building tenants are shown adjacent to the R&D building, near the at-grade driveway entrance to the visitor parking located at the surface level and would be screened from direct view from the Park Boulevard public right of way. City of Palo Alto Page 6 BMR Units and Housing Concessions The 17 Below Market Rate (BMR) housing units are required to meet the City’s requirement to be of similar size and quality as the market rate units. The two concessions pursuant to housing density bonus law (Govt. Code Section 65915-65918) granted as a part of the AR approval were based upon the provision of 20% of the overall number of units as Below Market Rate units for low and very-low income tenants. The two housing concessions were related to a) allowing mixed use in the GM zone, and b) allowing an FAR to exceed 0.5 in the GM zone. The proposed BMR units include four one-bedroom units, three of which would be designated for very low-income occupants, and one of which would be designated for low-income occupants. The proposal includes 13 two-bedroom BMR units, five of which would be designated for very low-income occupants and eight of which would be designated for low- income occupants. The BMR agreement will be finalized prior to the approval of the Final Map. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES City staff has determined that the Tentative Map application is in compliance with zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances.The map contains all information and notations required to be shown on a Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12.040).The findings allowing for Council approval of the map are included in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). Pursuant to the State subdivision Map Act, the required findings are stated in the negative such that if any of the findings are made the map shall be denied. Staff believes none of the findings can be made to require denial of the map, so it must be approved. The subdivision findings and action on the map and MND are highlighted for Commission action in Attachment A. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed subdivision is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The “Research and Development” commercial use of the development is consistent with the associated land use designation of Light Industrial use. The residential use of the site is consistent with the City’s Housing Element which includes this parcel on the Housing Sites Inventory as a site for high density residential housing. The mixed use and residential emphasis is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of “Transit Oriented Residential” land use in proximity to the California Avenue Caltrain station. TIMELINE Upon recommendation by the PTC, the project application will be forwarded to City Council for final action on the Tentative Map, tentatively scheduled for September 19, 2011. The City Council would consider the ARB appeal in conjunction with the Tentative Map on that date. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Initial Study/Draft MND for the Park Plaza project was circulated prior to the ARB recommendation and the Director’s tentative decision and included the proposal for the Tentative Map for condominium purposes. The document was circulated for 30 days for public review and comment. The end of public comment period was June 7, 2011. Comments were received from City of Palo Alto Page 7 three interested parties (Mr. Robert Moss, Mr. Herb Borock, and Mr. Roger Papler of the Regional Water Quality Control Board). The IS/MND (Attachment D) was clarified by the City’s environmental consultants to address the comments made by Mr. Moss and Mr. Papler, regarding groundwater contamination issues. No additional impacts were identified, nor were additional mitigation measures proposed; therefore, the document was not required to be re- circulated. Mr. Borock’s letters are included within Public Correspondence attached to this report (Attachment H). The primary issue of concern was the mitigation of potential groundwater contamination underlying the site, particularly with respect to the residential use. Mitigation proposed included both a vapor barrier underlying the entire building garage footprint and “active” ventilation to assure any such vapors are dissipated away from the building. Monitoring is also required to determine if any future additional actions might be appropriate. Of greatest significance, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has approved the mitigation, and the Board staff as well as the City’s environmental consultants find the adopted mitigation to be a conservative approach. A secondary issue raised was the use of hazardous materials allowed on the first floor, below residential units. The levels of materials allowed would be stipulated in the R&D tenant lease agreement and would be minimal, in nominal quantities that would not exceed limits cited in the MND nor require the Fire Department to label or inspect the facilities, though reporting per the City’s Hazardous Materials Reporting Requirements may be required for certain substances even if quantities are below the reporting threshold. The tenant would have to file a registration form (aka Short Form Hazardous Materials Management Plan) but no specific permits would be required below nominal use thresholds (10 gallons liquid, 100 pounds solids or 200 cubic feet compressed gas) per the City’s Fire Department staff. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A:Draft Record of Land Use Action including Conditions of Approval Attachment B:Applicant’s Letter dated August 10, 2011 on Condominium Strategy* Attachment C:Director’s Architectural Review Approval Letter dated July 12, 2011 Attachment D:Initial Study/MND (Commissioners and Libraries only and available online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/planning.asp Attachment E:ARB Reports without Attachments (Commissioners and Libraries only and available online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/planning.asp Attachment F:June 13, 2007 PTC Meeting Minutes (Commissioners and Libraries only) Attachment G:July 7, 2011 ARB Meeting Minutes (Commissioners and Libraries only) Attachment H:Public Correspondence Attachment I:Tentative Map (Commissioners and Libraries only)* Attachment J:ARB Approved Site and Floor Plans/Elevations (Commissioners and Libraries only)* *Prepared by Applicant City of Palo Alto Page 8 COURTESY COPIES: Harold Hohbach Jim Janz Bob Moss Herb Borock PREPARED BY: Amy French, Acting Chief Planning Official DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: ______________ Curtis Williams, Director City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 1 of 28 Wednesday, August 24, 20111 6:00 PM, El Camino Real Design Room2 Downtown Library3 270 Forest Avenue4 Palo Alto, California 943015 6 ROLL CALL:6:05 pm7 8 PTC Commissioners:Staff:9 Samir Tuma –Chair Curtis Williams, Planning Director10 Lee Lippert –V-Chair (absent)Donald Larkin, Sr. Assist. City Attorney11 Daniel Garber Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official12 Susan Fineberg Gil Candelaria, Parking Consultant13 Eduardo Martinez Amy French, Current Planning Manager14 Arthur Keller Zariah Betten, Admin. Assoc. III15 Greg Tanaka16 17 AGENDIZED ITEMS:18 19 1.Selection of Chair and Vice Chair20 2. Parking Program Study Session 21 3.195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard22 4.Topics of Discussion for the Joint Council/PTC Meeting of September 19, 201123 ______________________________________________________________________________24 3.195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard*: Request by Hohbach Realty Company 25 for approval of a Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes to create: 1) 84 residential 26 units on the two upper floors (106,320 sq.ft.) including 17 below market rate housing 27 units; 2) common areas associated with these residential units and; 3) ground floor 28 (50,467 sq.ft.) Research and Development use and subterranean garage to remain owned 29 by the developer,subject to easements for utilities, support and access for the benefit of 30 the residential condominium portion of the building. Zone: GM. Environmental 31 Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been 32 prepared and was tentatively approved by the Director on July 12, 2011 in conjunction 33 with the application for Architectural Review (AR), in accordance with the California 34 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The PTC is requested to review and recommend the 35 Mitigated Negative Declaration with respect to the Tentative Map.36 37 Chair Tuma: We will have a presentation from the applicant for 15 minutes and then we will go 38 to public comment and closing comments and then we will come back to the commission. 39 Welcome.40 41 Amy French, Current Planning Manager: Thank you. The Park Plaza project is a three story 42 mixed use building to be located on a single parcel comprised of 2.52 acres in gross lot area at 43 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard. On September 19th the City Council will be 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 2 of 28 requested to review the Mitigated Negative Declaration, prepared with the help of a consultant 1 who is here in the audience tonight, the Architectural Review Application which has been 2 appealed by a member of the audience as well, and the tentative map before you tonight, which 3 is for 84 residential condominium units on the upper floors of the building, the lower or ground 4 floor being the research and development space and that would be retained by the owner. The 5 tentative map would allow for future potential conversation of what is initially intended to be 6 residential rental units to ownership units.7 8 The R&D space is 50,467 square feet on the ground floor and the residential area is 104,971 9 square feet in the upper floors. 17 below market rate housing units are among the units. The 10 configuration of the condominium units is noted on page 5 of the staff report. There is a 11 subterranean parking garage as well as a surface parking lot, and the offsite improvements 12 include street trees, bulb-outs and a left turn stacking lane on Park Blvd. to take you left onto 13 Page Mill. 14 15 The project includes concessions granted under state Density Bonus Law (Government Code 16 65915, Senate Bill 1818) because 20% of the residential units would be affordable to low and 17 very low income residents. The two concessions requested under Senate Bill 1818 in this case 18 are an allowance of the mixed use where residential is not permitted otherwise within the GM 19 zone district and additional floor area beyond that allowed in the GM zone district. The FAR of 20 the residential component is a 1.02 whereas the research and development component is a 0.5 or 21 a 0.48. The Architectural Review Approval by the director was following the Architectural 22 Review Board public hearing. That was the third public hearing and there was a 3-2 vote. As I 23 noted it has been appealed. The appellant had forwarded a letter this weekend to the 24 Commission, so I imagine you all received that.25 26 Boardmembers Young and Lew are attending the meeting tonight to represent the ARB’s views 27 on the project. The Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for this 28 project and went to the ARB and did include the tentative map as a part of the project. So, the 29 last time this Commission reviewed a tentative map on this site, it had been in 2007 following 30 the Architectural Review Board and then council approval of a project. There were two separate 31 environmental documents for that project and there were also for that project merging of separate 32 parcels into the one site. This time you have one parcel that had been merged through a 33 certificate of compliance project. So this time you have one parcel being subdivided for the 34 purpose of condominiums and there is just one ground floor space rather than 11 condominium 35 R&D spaces as you had seen last time in 2007 for the previous project.36 37 The MND does address the potential impacts of vapor intrusion from the toxic groundwater 38 plume to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Quality Review Board which is the agency 39 having jurisdiction over this non-federal project in Palo Alto. There is also a nominal level of 40 materials to be stored in association with R&D use. Our MND also addresses the mitigation of 41 those potential health hazards for the residential tenants. 42 43 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 3 of 28 The Planning Commission is asked to consider the initial study Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 for the project because of the associated Tentative Map, which is within your review purview. 2 The city’s process does require Architectural Review of development projects prior to 3 Commission review of associated vesting tentative maps and that’s for good reason. Non-4 vesting tentative maps are not required to go through ARB before Planning Commission but in 5 this case the Architectural Review application was submitted first in 2008. It was followed in 6 2010 with the Tentative Map, so we had gone with ARB and here we are following ARB at the 7 Planning Commission.8 9 The applicant does intend to fully initially rent all of the 84 residential units and that intention 10 has been clear throughout this application process. The city staff has determined of course that 11 this Tentative Map is compliant with the AR plan, zoning and subdivision and other codes and 12 ordinances. All notations and information required to be on the map is provided and the findings 13 and conditions are highlighted on the Record of Land Use Action for ease of finding for the 14 Planning and Transportation Commissioners. Because the Record of Land Use Action is going 15 to council, it does include findings and conditions for the Architectural Review component of the 16 application.17 18 The Commission’s purview is identified in the staff report. Attorney Larkin may have 19 something to add to that in that regard. Another thing I thought we might find ourselves 20 discussing is: the projects that include the request for concessions under this SB1818 are not 21 automatically deferred to the Planning Commission. In this case it is an Architectural Review 22 application. The concessions were requested and reviewed and granted by the Director 23 following ARB and they aren’t considered Variances so they don’t have a track that goes to the 24 Planning and Transportation Commission. The city’s ordinances don’t provide guidelines on the 25 processing of concessions. I think basically we would just support that the findings can’t be 26 made for the map in the negative to require denial of the map, so it must be approved. Do you 27 have anything to add on there?28 29 Donald Larkin, Senior Asst. City Attorney: I think you covered it adequately.30 31 Commissioner Garber: There is information in the staff report that we don’t have any detail on 32 the history of this project and we’ll try to handle this as well but as you can tell there is an 33 extensive history on this project.34 35 Ms. French:The application team is here for any questions. 36 37 Chair Tuma: Before we go to the applicant I would ask members of the ARB if they had 38 anything they would like to add or whether their here to answer any questions. If you would like 39 to give your thoughts we’d welcome it. 40 41 Ms. Heather Young, ARB Rep.: We are here to answer questions. We are more than happy to 42 do a brief overview if that would help in addition to the presentation.43 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 4 of 28 Chair Tuma: I think briefly that would be helpful if you don’t mind. 1 2 Heather Young, Vice Chair of ARB: Hi I’m Heather Young and I am Vice Chair of the 3 Architectural Review Board. Also here is Boardmember Alex Lew. As Amy mentioned in her 4 report this proposal has come to the ARB for 3 formal presentations in the last 2 years. The last 5 was this past July 7th and at that point it was passed 3 to 2. I was one of the 3 and Alex is one of 6 the 2 just to give you a heads up. When it came back on the 7th there were a number of items 7 that had been brought up in the previous presentation that we asked the applicant to further 8 investigate and to bring back to us. Some of them were fairly minor and rather easily addressed. 9 The ones that evolved into a larger discussion were a potential setback for the residential units 10 along Akins and if I could just point to the plans here, this is part and Page Mill and there is a 11 proposal for the 2nd and 3rd floors to have residential units along the Akins property line. There 12 was a fairly long discussion and because of the zoning under which the residential units were 13 allowed, it appeared that the 5 foot setback which is pursued in these drawings was compliant 14 with the zoning. However, some of the board members felt that that may not have been the best 15 offset proposition for residential units, to have a 5 foot setback from a property line. 16 17 There was a fairly animated discussion as to how to best address this. The board could not come 18 to a majority consensus and we looked at it in a number of different ways and at the end I believe 19 our determination and Alex should jump in here, but our determination was that we could not 20 come to a consensus to mandate anything other than what was required in the zoning and that 21 any additional setback would be addressed if an applicant were to develop the Akins property 22 adjacent such that that property would be required to provide setbacks when you were adjacent 23 to a residential property. 24 25 Another issue that had a great deal of discussion was the design of a corner tower at the corner of 26 Page Mill and Park. That item had some evolution during the presentations and actually I 27 believe that is coming back to subcommittee as a condition of approval for some final tweaks. 28 The issue there is that the tower element was not just seen from Park and from Page Mill but also 29 from the train line and from Page Mill coming this way so it really was a 3 dimensional element 30 and not just a corner element. We were requesting that all 4 elevations be developed. 31 32 An additional issue that was continued over many presentations was a color palette. There are 33 some fairly primary colors that are presented as accents in some of the setback locations along 34 Park, Page Mill and along the train line corridor. The conclusion there was that the final 35 selection would be tweaked a little bit and again brought back to subcommittee. I think those 36 were sort of the primary architectural outstanding issues. You should also know Alex and I are 37 the subcommittee so if you have any questions for either of us we would be happy to respond.38 39 Chair Tuma: Does the applicant have a presentation? 40 41 Harold C. Hohbach, Hohbach Realty Company: I’m Harold C. Hohbach of Hobach Realty 42 Company, limited partnership. I really don’t have a lot to add. Amy French did an excellent job 43 understanding what’s all gone on. You may ask why are you here. We did a certificate of 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 5 of 28 compliance because the staff recommended that and we did that. So why are we here? The Palo 1 Alto code requires if you have any parcel, even a single parcel with 2 acres, you have to go the 2 tentative map route through the Planning Commission and City Council so that’s why we’re 3 here. We have Jim Jantz who is a real estate attorney and Richard Campbell, the architect to 4 answer any questions you may have.5 6 Mr. Richard Campbell, Hoover Associates: Richard Campbell, with Hoover Associates, the 7 architect for the project. This project has gone through an extremely long review process with 8 the city. I don’t have all the dates but it went through 3 ARB hearings several years ago and was 9 approved and then because of a lawsuit all the approvals were set aside and we started through 10 the process again and we’ve had 3 more meetings so altogether 6 times before the ARB. If I had 11 about 3 hours I would go through that whole process with you.12 13 Several things about this project, I think Heather mentioned, there are still some issues we are 14 going to take up with the ARB subcommittee. Some of the detail design of the tower, some 15 color issues and adding some sunscreens to the building. One thing that has been very unusual 16 about this project is it is a corner site. It fronts on Page Mill and Park Blvd. The other side 17 fronts against private property. The foreside fronts onto Cal Train and that really presented some 18 kind of special problems for us. There is a code issue that says that noise levels in sleeping areas 19 can’t be over 40 decibels. We’ve had studies about the bullet train that is going to generate 20 about 105 decibels of sound right next to this building within maybe 100 feet and there was no 21 way we could find any kind of glazing system that could reduce the decibels by 65, especially 22 considering the fact that some of these rooms are sleeping rooms and are on the window side. 23 That’s why the rear elevation side of this project appears to be blank. There are no windows in 24 it. There are some windows on walls that are right angles but because of this noise issue we had 25 to avoid putting windows on the back individual. That’s one thing that makes this design 26 different from other projects that are looked at here in the city.27 28 Other than that what I’d like to do is make myself available if anyone has any questions or 29 comments.30 31 Chair Tuma: With that we will go to the public. I have only one card at this point and that is 32 from Mr. Moss and you will have 3 minutes.33 34 Mr. Robert Moss, Palo Alto:Thank you. I am going to elaborate a little bit on the various letters 35 I have sent. First of all, the staff report that says that it complies with the competency plan is 36 incorrect. It does not. It allows housing in the GM zone and the City Council explicitly said we 37 don’t want housing in the GM zone. It’s a violation of the competency plan and it’s a violation 38 of common sense. What this does is it applies the GM zoning envelope to residential use which 39 is not only absolutely unprecedented, it’s absolutely idiotic. It’s not the way you build housing 40 units. Putting the housing directly on the railroad track right of way is not good policy. 41 42 Secondly, there is no reason to have mixed use in this project. The staff says it was identified for 43 housing so you have to put housing on the site but you do not have to put both housing and 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 6 of 28 R&D, especially R&D that has hazardous materials. That is unnecessary and it is dangerous. 1 So if you want to allow housing on this site, it’s real simple. Rezone RM30 or RM40 and then 2 you put housing on it and you’ve complied with the intent of the housing element and you don’t 3 have the risks and the hazards. 4 5 As for the compliance with MND, when the court issued his ruling, Judge Nichols said by 6 August of 2008 I want the city to come back to me and tell me officially how you are going to 7 comply with CEQA and I will hold this case in my hands until the city has complied with CEQA 8 and told us how they are doing it. It hasn’t happened. So the MND cannot be approved because 9 it has to go to the court and the court has to agree it has been complied with and it has not been. 10 As I pointed out repeatedly, the fact that the Water Board has approved this ridiculous approach 11 of never testing the indoor air in the residential area does not make it valid as I have pointed out 12 repeatedly, Senator Simitian and the City Council and to the Water Board and to EPA, the Water 13 Board is not complying with general practice for public health and safety. EPA met with the 14 Water Board in June to try to get them compliant with EPA requirements and they failed. So 15 their comment to me was when the Water Board is okay with water. If this project is approved 16 as proposed, I would suggest you have a city name for it. Let’s call it Casa de Muerte. 17 18 Commissioner Keller: Mr. Moss, I understand that you have been spending a lot of time 19 studying this and I understand that there is a potential for dewatering the site when excavating 20 for the basement. Let me ask my question. I’m wondering if you are aware of a study that 21 indicates if the watering is done what effect it might have in the movement of the toxic flow.22 23 Mr. Moss: I’ve been working on this site for 22 years. BPA has had 2 EPA grants for both 640 24 and 1501 Page Mill which are the two superfund sites in Palo Alto and 640 and 601 California 25 are the sources of most of the ground water contamination which is under the site co-area. To 26 give you an example, I’ll give you several examples. The contamination in the ground water 27 directly below 640 in 1985 or 1988 was 60,000. After 20 years of pumping it has gone down to 28 6,000 and has since basically stabilized. I wrote to Papler and the Water Board and gave them 29 examples of 6 wells of COE, 2 of which are very close to 195 Page Mill where the ground water 30 contamination level had stabilized and been stable for the last 15 years even though pump and 31 treatment has been going on for 20 years. So basically what’s happened is it’s become 32 asmatotic. This is not just 195 Page Mill. This is something that happens more than a lot. As 33 you know I’m involved with the Information Advisory Board at Moffet Field and we’ve talked 34 to people all over the world about how to treat and how it works and the Navy and EPA have 35 both said that if it were up to them today they would not approve pump and treat as a way of 36 mitigating groundwater contamination. There are other systems which we could get into.37 38 So there’s almost no chance that over the next 50 years the concentration of the ground water 39 TCE is going to get significantly lower.40 41 Chair Tuma: Mr. Garber I think has a question for you.42 43 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 7 of 28 Commissioner Garber: Actually, two questions. The first is a general one so the more succinct 1 your answer the better but how does this particular project differ from the Campus for Jewish 2 walk where we also had issues of toxic material under that site?3 4 Mr. Moss: Okay, the contamination levels of what’s in the ground water and so on in Mountain 5 View is essentially identical to what it is in Palo Alto. The difference is who oversees it. In the 6 case of Mountain View its EPA and they have come out with some very strong recommendations 7 and requirements for what you do. To give you an example, MEW site is almost entirely 8 commercial. They have insisted on having those buildings tested for indoor air contamination, 9 commercial buildings. They have also had a number of residential buildings on MEW testing for 10 indoor air contamination. Some of them have been contaminated even though they were on the 11 outside of the rate. In a COE area, even though there are a number of apartment buildings 12 already there, the Water Board have still not said they are going to test. What they are doing is 13 they are saying we are looking at the ground water contamination levels and we think it’s going 14 to be safe.15 16 The soil gas contamination levels in this site as I pointed out are 23,500 to 150,000 with the 17 action of 4,000 and the highest level I’ve seen reported in the MEW site is under 10,000 and yet 18 at MEW they are making far more requirements and far more restrictions of construction. 19 Another thing you should be aware of, when you build a building over a contaminated site, this 20 is not obvious to you. What happens is the mass of the building forces the contamination up so if 21 you have contaminated ground water at lets say 15 or 20 feet the mass of the building will 22 actually raise that up so it comes closer to the subsurface of the building. That’s been repeatedly 23 proven. 24 25 Commissioner Garber: With the Chair’s permission, one other question and I apologize for the 26 pointedness of this. You are clearly far more expert on these topics than certainly I am, 27 potentially more expert than some of the others on the commission here and we rely on other 28 experts for their opinions as well and the city has not only had their own expert witness who 29 presumably has similar education on this topic as you do in addition to the Water Board which 30 presumably not only has expertise but responsibility, how do you reconcile their 31 recommendations versus yours.32 33 Mr. Moss: Well, first of all, I’m also a graduate of Napier University which Water Board people 34 are not. One of the EPA took the class with me so she’s also a graduate of Napier University and 35 I really can’t tell you why the Water Board has been so obtuse but they really have been and 36 we’ve been fighting with them for 7 years to try to get them to do a sampling. There is an old 37 saying, Tinius Olsen who was the first inventor of the modern test machine, his saying was, one 38 test is worth a thousand expert opinions. He was right. EPA has said test. They’ve tested over 39 100 buildings in MEW, the fringe of MEW and Moffett Field in the last 4 years. Not a single 40 building has been tested in Palo Alto, not one. Why? Because the Water Board isn’t paying 41 attention. Why? Your guess is as good as mine but I’m trying as hard as I can to get them off 42 Palo Alto to get the EPA or DTSE to replace them because I’ve given up on them quite frankly.43 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 8 of 28 Commissioner Tanaka: Commissioner Garber, I’m not really an expert in this area with all the1 toxics but can you tell us, it looks like some of these will be for families with multiple kids. 2 What is the effect of this level of TCE? Can you give a quantifiable answer?3 4 Mr. Moss: It can be deadly. I sent in my letter 2 examples of people, cancer patients in 5 particular and TCE is a known carcinogen and the younger the age of exposure, the more rapid 6 that the cancer hits and there have been small areas where there have been 2 or 3 children with 7 brain cancer which is almost certainly caused by TCE. There is a town in Illinois, total 8 population is maybe 30,000 or so and in one relatively short period of time they had 11 cases of 9 brain cancer. The normal occurrence of brain cancer is 3 in 100,000. The basic concentration, 10 actually some of those sites the ground water contamination level is slightly lower than it is in 11 COE. 12 13 Commissioner Martinez: Mr. Moss, I read your letter before I read the staff report and then I 14 went back and read your letter again. I think there are some things that really are far off in terms 15 of recognition of toxic issues that may be present. I know you have also pointed to the problems 16 with the housing authority site the way that’s been handled and the issues with concessions, the 17 way in which the comp plan and zoning has been interpreted. And then some issues with the 18 Mitigated Negative Declaration. First, I just want to say that I think that all of us recognize and 19 appreciate your vigilance of these issues in this area and Palo Alto over the last 20 years. If 20 nothing else, it has kept the discussion going and kept our minds focused on the issue here and 21 moved the community to see this but having said that there is a likelihood that this project may 22 go forward and I would like to ask you if that’s a possibility what are some of the things you 23 recommend to go with to make it safer and better based on your experience in viewing this 24 problem over the last 8 years?25 26 Mr. Moss: First of all, in mitigations the only place they are planning on doing sampling is the 27 garage. If you talk to EPA people I’ve mentioned that to them and they say, oh god, what are 28 they thinking of because no one lives in the garage. In fact, I have an email from Papler at the 29 Water Board today and he mentions specifically sampling an industrial building but that was 30 inside and it was marginal for passing industrial levels which is more than 4 times worse if it had 31 been residential so the first thing you want to do is make sure they test the indoor air first in a 32 residential area where people live and second if there is a commercial R&D area you test that 33 also because right now what they can do is test in the garage and they will get 4 parts per billion 34 of TCE and say it passes but the garage is funneling the air right up into the occupied space and 4 35 is almost 5 times higher than would be allowed in a residential area and over a period of time as 36 I’ve pointed out it can be deadly. You can get cancer from that.37 38 Second, if there is an R&D space you don’t want toxic materials there. I’ve explained the issues 39 of maintaining any kind of control over it. There is no way the city is going to go in periodically 40 and see if they’ve met the requirements for what’s in there or how much. They don’t have the 41 inspectors or the time.42 43 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 9 of 28 The last thing you want, you probably got the letter from my neighbor, Richard Placone. We’ve 1 already had problems with CPI having not just people who live above it but people who live 100 2 or 200 feet away and are being exposed to toxic materials at an industrial site. That’s the second 3 thing. 4 5 The third thing moving forward is to have it not be mixed use if the idea is to have residential 6 and you’re using 65915 as an excuse for allowing things you would not normally allow and 7 residential is the only thing you have to allow you have R&D and just go to residential. If you 8 go with residential you would be recommending that it is residential use and make it a residential 9 zone. You would also accept PTOD and we both agreed that it would be a fine site for PTOD 10 but if you allow it you would have to be careful of the numbers and actual uses are. I get very 11 nervous about toxic materials especially directly below housing so if you are going to go 12 forward, require indoor air sampling in the residential space first, and this is going to be ongoing, 13 EPA says for at least 5 years because the vapor barriers fail. I gave you an example of one in 14 Whisman Park where it failed after a couple of years and the indoor air sample went from 0 to 5 15 in a matter of just days when they actually sampled so you don’t want to just sample it once, you 16 want to continue to do it for years. 17 18 Second, if there is a commercial space you do it for that space too and ideally you wouldn’t have 19 any hazardous materials onsite. Don’t allow it and hope you can keep track of it. I hope you just 20 say you’re not going to go with mixed use. One of the things I should mention is in 65915 it 21 says the applicant has to specifically say that the concessions are required in order to get BMR 22 units and the city of Palo Alto has been getting BMR units of 10, 15, up to 40% at one point for 23 35 years with no concessions. So the city can demonstrate that you don’t have to have 24 concessions to get BMR units.25 26 Chair Tuma: Thank you. So seeing no other members of the public we can move forward and 27 we will close the public comment and applicant has 2 or 3 minutes for additional comments.28 29 Mr. Hohbach: Well I do want to say we’ve gone overboard in trying to appease Mr. Moss and 30 Curtis Williams who is on the Water Board and approved a partial membrane and passing 31 ventilation for the site. I agree to do full vapor barrier and active ventilation and do what he still 32 wants, indoor air sampling. If you dry clean your clothes and bring it in you can get a sample at 33 that site. I think it’s unwarranted. What we’ve proposed is adequate and protects the public and 34 we need to go ahead. Thank you.35 36 Mr. Williams: I’d like to also add a few other comments about the project particularly in 37 response to some of Mr. Moss’s comments. From staff perspective, first of all regarding the 38 comprehensive plan, this project is within the transit oriented residential designation area and the 39 plan does indicate this is an appropriate area for residential. It is designated as a housing site on 40 the housing element. It is within, not the comp plan, but the PTOD area boundary on our zoning 41 map which implements the transit oriented residential zoning. The mixed use component of it is, 42 mixed use specifically spelled out in the housing bonus law as one area that the city needs to 43 approve if that is represented as helping support the provision of below market rate units. 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 10 of 28 1 Mixed use also is allowed in PTOD zone so is recognized within Transit Oriented residential 2 designation and the PTOD zoning area as allowable use. Hazardous materials that we are talking 3 about are absolutely nothing nowhere like the research park or facilities in fact, restrictions that 4 are in here are in there specifically to essentially keep the level of hazardous materials down to 5 something that a typical office would have. It’s not something we will have signs up there 6 labeling as hazardous materials for the fire department to come and be inspecting, its very 7 minimum levels of supportive material so it’s not that type of uses that we’re talking about at all. 8 The Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding a contamination issue we believe is on the 9 conservative side as defined by the standards and requirements that the Regional Water Quality 10 Control Board which is the implementing and approving body, regional body sets forth. 11 12 We can’t get into a debate about whether EPA would if they looked at the site handle it 13 differently, whether the Mountain View site is roughly similar to this or not. I think that’s a very 14 separate analysis and comment in response to Commissioner Tanaka’s question about some other 15 location and TCE impacts. You’d have to do a very extensive study to start looking at what kind 16 of mitigation did they have on that site, maybe none, I don’t know but as far as this site goes, the 17 initial response from both the regional board and from our consultants was that it did not 18 necessarily require a full vapor barrier which is essentially prohibiting vapors from intruding up 19 into the garage space and active ventilation to vent the vapors away from the building. We 20 didn’t need to go to that extent however we told Mr. Hohbach that we believe that that was 21 something that he could do that would be, in our opinion, unfaultable as far as the environmental 22 protection end of it goes and so they have agreed to go to that point. 23 24 There is some sampling required in the garage. I don’t know and I did want to point out George 25 Burwasser from Atkin is here. He is our environmental consultant and he can answer these 26 various questions. I don’t know what burden it is to monitor any residential units but we do have 27 the monitoring in the garage. We do feel that that’s meaningful and the Water Board supports 28 that. We are reliant on the Water Board if there’s something wrong with the way the Water 29 Board addresses these, by their standards we are certainly not qualified to comment on that. Mr. 30 Burwasser may be but that’s what we have to go on. They are a body agency that regulates these 31 issues for us with that, again, Mr. Burlasser is here if you have questions of him.32 33 Mr. Larkin: And I would just add one more thing on the Density Bonus Loss. After the case of 34 Palmer versus the City of Los Angeles we can’t compel the arguments for a rental project to the 35 extent that this project remains a rental project we wouldn’t be able to compel any of the 36 arguments. Because this is a condo project as some point they would be sold and to be sold a 37 certain percentage of units would have to be sold below market rate and until that point as long 38 as they are a rental they would not be on the market.39 40 Commissioner Keller: So a question about if they’re condos and rentals how does it differ from 41 condos that aren’t rentals? Does making them condos change the legality of it because they are 42 turned into rentals or for sale at any time?43 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 11 of 28 Mr. Larkin: In terms of below market rate, at the time they are sold there would be a covenant 1 that says certain units would be set aside and when they are sold it would be a below market rate 2 if they are sold but until that time we compel them because the rationale in the Palmer case was 3 that under California State Law local governments can’t set rents on local property.4 5 Commissioner Keller: In terms of the BMR that’s proposed are they rentals or will they convert 6 into for sale units if the entire complex or parts of it are sold.7 8 Mr. Larkin: In order to receive a density bonus they would have to remain below market rental 9 for 30 years. 10 11 Commissioner Keller: So is the BMR agreement if this goes through going to say that the 17 12 units are all going to be rental units. 13 14 Mr. Larkin: They would not say rental. They would be below market in certitude. They would 15 be below market for 30 years after which they could be converted to below market for sale units.16 17 Chair Tuma: And that’s what the actual BMR agreement will say?18 19 Mr. Larkin: That’s what we envision the BMR agreement to say. That would be a condition of 20 approval for the tentative map, we still haven’t written that agreement.21 22 Commissioner Garber: A couple of questions. First of all, the statement comparing the PTOD 23 which the site is within versus it being GM, that’s not really the issue, right? Because there is no 24 change of zoning being asked for here.25 26 Mr. Williams: This has not been rezoned. 27 28 Commissioner Garber: So the underlying issues are the uses allowable within GM and the uses 29 that are there now are allowable within GM. 30 31 Mr. Williams: They are given the specific circumstances of this site being on the housing side 32 which is associated… I’d rather just stay away from it. But the reason is when there is a conflict 33 in the general plan between the housing site and the zoning designation which doesn’t allow 34 housing, then the housing element designation which allows housing is going to trump that.35 36 Commissioner Garber: Which brings me to my next question: he housing designation is the 37 trump regardless of City Council policy, regardless of zoning and unless we amend the housing 38 element we will remove this.39 40 My memory is there is active venting and vapor barriers underneath the Campus for Jewish Life 41 and that was criteria there to deal with those issues. Also although concessions have been a topic 42 of conversation, I’m not seeing where they would, and please correct me here because I may not 43 be recognizing it. Are there direct impacts on those concessions relative to the findings that need 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 12 of 28 to be made? We are not seeing where implementing concessions impacts a finding being made. 1 There isn’t a conflict being created there. So in our purview are the findings. So we may have 2 issues about the concessions but relative to our work this evening we are really focusing on 3 findings.4 5 Ms. French: And the conditions as well which does include Condition 18. The Tentative Map 6 condition in particular, number 18, it does talk about concessions and the requirement of 7 restricting 20% of the 17 units. This is on page 13 of the record of action, section 4.8 9 Commissioner Garber: So the record is there and it is finding the requirements of the project. 10 11 Commissioner Martinez: Mr. City Attorney, can you give us the ground rules of what we can 12 talk about tonight and what not like is there some litigation that we should stay clear of in our 13 discussion?14 15 Mr. Larkin: No. I think that in the purview of the Commission at this meeting is to review the 16 findings for the approval of the Tentative Map and make a recommendation on Mitigated 17 Negative Declaration within that purview I don’t think there are any limitations. The only 18 currently pending litigation is the litigation Mr. Moss mentioned which was somewhat accurately 19 stated but not completely. We have to go back to court on return on red to show that we’ve 20 complied by completing a new Mitigated Negative Declaration and that’s not completed until 21 City Council reviews and approves it so that’s the only issue that remains in litigation. 22 23 Commissioner Martinez: And then, because we are reviewing the Mitigated Negative 24 Declaration we can talk about just about anything. Is that right? Except maybe Architectural 25 Review which we don’t want to talk about anyway.26 27 Ms. French: Certainly the land use section and the aesthetics section are well within the purview 28 of the ARB in this application. Did you have something to add? 29 30 Mr. Larkin: I think anything might be a bit too broad but anything fits in the MND even if it 31 falls outside the purview its okay to ask about it and comment on it but I think the 32 recommendation ought to be focused on Planning Commission issues. Parking, the concessions. 33 The concessions are ministerial so I think you are free to comment on them but in terms of 34 making a recommendation, those are ministerial concessions that are granted provided that there 35 is some underlying basis for granting them and then its really not a Planning Commission issue 36 to discuss the concessions unless there is a concern with the concessions go way beyond what is 37 required to provide further housing so even then its still outside of what the commission has a 38 need to recommend to council. It’s outside council’s purview as well but it will have to be 39 addressed anyway.40 41 Commissioner Martinez: We have no guidelines on concessions correct?42 43 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 13 of 28 Mr. Larkin: We have state law and in state law they have to be related to affordable housing that 1 is being provided. They also specifically call out mixed use to make a housing development 2 more feasible for a developer and specifically calls out any other sort of thing that makes the 3 housing more feasible so in this case the concessions that are being requested are not that far out 4 and not out of bounds for what would be required to provide under Density Bonus Law.5 6 Commissioner Martinez: Including an FAR that’s 3 times what we would otherwise permit?7 8 Mr. Larkin: Yes, it is increased to accommodate the housing. 9 10 Commissioner Martinez: And that’s not sort of establishing a precedent for other arguments that 11 will defend their zoning laws against that? 12 13 Mr. Larkin: We acknowledge that we should and we have talked about developing a local 14 ordinance that better defines how that is handled but ultimately the state law is very clearly 15 designed to encourage more affordable housing and we’re up against that so whatever 16 regulations that we develop can’t be so restrictive that we are creating impediments to develop 17 the housing.18 19 Commissioner Martinez: Does that include the parking allowances and parking providers?20 21 Mr. Hohbach: Those are zoning determinations that we’ve made as part of the Architectural 22 Review Project. The only way you could address them is to find that there is a significant impact 23 from parking that wasn’t addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 24 25 I do want to go back to the FAR and the dense concessions so you said something about 26 defending the zoning issue and we already have that in the lawsuit that was the plaintiff did 27 allege that we overstepped our bounds on the concessions and these are exactly the same as what 28 was approved before and court did not find the city overstepped.29 30 Mr. Larkin: I should add subsequent to the prior lawsuit on this project there have been a 31 number of appellate decisions that have come out and mostly from the City of Berkeley that have 32 upheld decisions of their City Council to approve projects with concessions that are much more 33 dramatic then what we’ve been requested to approve.34 35 I did want to mention also on the parking the Density Bonus Law does create a maximum 36 parking allowance that we are able to require consistent with what our ordinance is which is 30% 37 growth. 38 39 Ms. French: This is at 22% reduction and there is not a concession requesting for the parking. It 40 is through the Director’s Adjustment process which is companion to the ARB process. 41 42 Commissioner Martinez: I am still lingering on our last item about situations where we are 43 approving projects with less than desired parking. It seems to me that we are doing it because of 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 14 of 28 the shared parking and mixed uses and because we are providing housing near transit. Those 1 things aren’t exactly compatible because if somebody who is taking transit and leaving their car 2 at home, there is no place for shared parking for the workers or builders. It’s a crazy way of 3 thinking about it but we are allowing sort of a higher amount of reduction parking but using 4 arguments that sort of counter that. That’s my concern because of what we just talked about in 5 terms of undertaking projects. I want to see that this project, when you look at this project’s 6 scale, it doesn’t seem overwhelming so it’s almost surprising that the FAR is so high. I sort of 7 accept it. Three story buildings are not pushing our height limit or anything like that. I’m not 8 supposed to say this but architecturally I wish it were better looking but I’m not supposed to go 9 there. 10 11 One thing Planning Director, a very quick question. You mentioned that the level of toxic 12 materials that would be allowed is like household cleansers and things like that but what if an 13 R&D company has an IPS (Interrupted Power Supply) system that is considered hazardous by 14 the fire department. Is that in our consideration? 15 16 Mr. Williams: I don’t know whether that reaches the thresholds that are outlined here or not and 17 we’ve asked for participation from the fire department to be here but they have not. 18 19 Ms. French: Just briefly, I had spoken with Mr. Simpkinson during the preparation of this report 20 to question some of these things as I inherited writing this report from the planner so basically as 21 in the report the fire department has inspections, you’ll see it on page 7 of the staff report as far 22 as what I talked to him about. They have to file a registration form. If its below 10 gallons of 23 liquid or 100 lbs., those are considered normal use thresholds so that is where the applicant is 24 looking to go with what’s going to go in there. If for some reason it’s above that then there is 25 more that would have to happen but there is definitely yearly inspections and other precautions 26 that the fire department takes and has a relationship with businesses as standard practice. It’s 27 noting special with this type of proposal.28 29 Commissioner Martinez: With that we were discussing IPS which is fairly common procedure in 30 businesses. You have to have a separate building permit for it. So this is something that goes 31 beyond because of the nature of our engaging and the typical office building. I’m just wondering 32 whether we’re allowing some of these exceptions to inaudible (1 hour into 3rd topic).33 34 Commissioner Fineberg: I have questions first for the city attorney. If I’m correct that this is 35 GM zoned, and in looking in our municipal code, not the comprehensive plan, but the municipal 36 code in Section 1820040 Section C4 it says mixed use in development is prohibited in GM 37 zoning districts. I understand you said the housing element trumps underlying land use 38 designations in the comp plan but if we have something in municipal code and then in municipal 39 code it says in the first section of it 1801030 compliance with regulations no land shall be used 40 and no facility or structure building shall be erected, constructed, enlarged or used in any district 41 except in a court with regulations established by this title.42 43 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 15 of 28 On the next page, 1801080 violations and penalties, any person, firm or corporation violating 1 any provisions of this title is guilty of a misdemeanor. So how do we have a process that our 2 planning director gets to approve exceptions based on concessions from SB 1818. I don’t 3 understand that.4 5 Mr. Larkin: The government code section 61915 supersedes our local ordinance and they 6 require below market units then we have to allow mixed use provided mixed use supports the 7 development of the housing.8 9 Commissioner Fineberg: So that code trumps our municipal code not just our comprehensive 10 plan.11 12 Mr. Larkin: Right. The housing element trumps the rest of our general plan, all of it.13 14 Commissioner Fineberg: Does it require us to create land use conflicts, health hazards, or other 15 issues that potentially threaten life and safety?16 17 Mr. Larkin: No, it doesn’t trump CEQA so the housing element law and the Density Bonus Law 18 don’t trump CEQA so we still have to do an analysis and if CEQA says they are creating a 19 significant environmental impact then that would be reason to deny the application.20 21 Commissioner Fineberg: Do we know the answers to those questions you just posed from a 22 Mitigated Neg Dec if there has been no analysis. If it’s simply a checklist which is a relatively 23 low threshold of analysis?24 25 Mr. Larkin: I would defer to Mr. Burwasser. I’m not an environmental scientist, and he is. 26 27 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. 28 29 Mr. George Burwasser: My name is George Burwasser. I am with Atkins North America. We 30 were PBS&J at the time that we started this process and we’ve since merged with Atkins which 31 is why nobody recognizes our name anymore. The environmental checklist to which we refer is 32 Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines. In the past that’s been just that, a guideline, and it was 33 used initially to indicate where further investigation was needed. Through a variety of court 34 cases over the last 30 years we have come to the point where we have something we call a 35 Mitigated Negative Declaration which doesn’t actually exist under CEQA, its actually Negative 36 Declaration, mitigated was just thrown into it. 37 38 We still refer to it as an MND for just ease of identification. The analysis that goes into the 39 Mitigated Negative Declaration is pretty much the same analysis that goes into an Environmental 40 Impact Report. It is presented in a more condensed form, a much more formalized set of 41 questions and responses. I’m sure you’ve all read the Environmental Impact Reports. They 42 make very good bedtime reading sometimes. They can go into an excruciating amount of detail 43 that may or may not relate specifically to the project at hand. What’s attempted to be done with 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 16 of 28 the Mitigated Negative Declaration is to compress all that background into half a dozen or so 1 questions for each topic and keep the expository writing to a minimum but the analysis is 2 essentially the same. We’ve had to go through months of analysis on this project. We’ve gone 3 through any number of meetings, I literally cannot guess how much email has gone back and 4 forth among the people involved, the city, the Water Board, the public, the meetings of the 5 Planning Commission. I would say the Planning Department, the ARB and so on. It’s been a 6 very long and drawn out process. I believe we are on the 4th revision of this Mitigated Negative 7 Declaration so it’s not something that was just kind of ticked off as we went down a one page 8 checklist. 9 10 If you dig into it you’d find the footnoting alone would fill a small notebook because we’ve been 11 in touch with just about everybody you can think of so all I can say is the analysis has been 12 pretty extensive.13 14 Commissioner Fineberg: Is it all paperwork and hypothetical analysis or is there any testing or 15 measurement that goes to support… For instance the soil test that no toxins were found. Was 16 there any actual testing?17 18 Mr. Burwasser; Yes. There is a great deal of testing that goes on. And we’ll stick specifically 19 with the soil and water stuff but there were four other firms involved in soil testing and water 20 testing in putting together soil mitigation plans, water monitoring plans, there were holes drilled, 21 laboratory tests were made. That is all cited in the document itself I think on the pages just 22 following the introductory material of Attachment B I believe is the initial study. 23 24 There is a list of sources of information. If you look through that list of sources of information 25 you’ll find things like Crosby and Jacobs get technical, SES which I think stands now for Stellar 26 Environmental, SECOR Environmental was involved in that, we were involved in it. The 27 Regional Water Quality Control Board was contacted any number of times with hazardous 28 materials we talked of course to the fire department, to the health officials in the county so there 29 has been both communications among those agencies plus hard testing. The plans that were 30 developed by Stellar are about that thick. For looking after the soils and the water in the 31 environment at the site we went back and forth with the consultant on the vapor barrier and the 32 venting system. We started with one that even our people were scratching their heads about it a 33 little bit until we had dug into it a bit but what was finally agreed to by the developer was a full 34 vapor barrier that is essentially a 60 mil sheet that covers the entire site underneath the garage 35 and below that is a collection system with perforated pipes set in gravel and sand that collects 36 vapor as it comes out of the ground, runs laterally and takes it up vertical pipes so its is vented 37 through pipes in the roof. There are fans on those pipes to help move these vapors out.38 39 Initially it was thought that they could simply be moved out by their own volatility but this 40 would be a much better system in that you know whether it’s running or not. There is no 41 question whether the thing is operative. I can’t go inside the Water Board’s head. I don’t know 42 why they haven’t been tested but what they are proposing here is testing at the point they feel 43 there is most likely to be an intrusion which is the base of a garage where the vapor barriers are 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 17 of 28 closed. If the vapor barriers break or the venting system malfunctions in any way, that’s where 1 they are going to find them first, right at the source.2 3 Their logic in the past for using that approach is I think, actually perhaps I better not speculate on 4 their logic in the past. Among the statements that they’ve made is that they feel it is much more 5 important to monitor this stuff as close as they can to the possible intrusion source rather than 6 going into people’s apartments and perhaps having to deal with other issues of other toxins that 7 are coming out of the formaldehyde in the carpets and furniture, whatever. So I’ve seen that 8 statement. We can’t go any farther than that. I hope that responds a little bit to your concern and 9 if you want to read those documents they will put you to sleep.10 11 Commissioner Fineberg: I have one more quick question. 12 13 Chair Tuma: I have a follow up question. Do you have a professional opinion of whether or not 14 indoor air sampling should be done in the residential portion?15 16 Mr. Burwasser: The Water Board has decided that it is really not appropriate because as I 17 mentioned… I really would be very concerned about doing that kind of testing because there is 18 so much even in the paint on our walls that can affect this over which nobody has any control 19 except the owners of the unit. If you decide to paint your walls Paris Green there will be a fairly 20 toxic effect to it but no one can stop you from doing it. Unless there is a history available for 21 each one of those units, exactly what has gone on, the reliability of the testing would be a 22 problem. If it were done on a broad scale, as soon as the building is finished for example, once 23 it’s completed before anybody moves in, before any contractors have gone in and done anything 24 to the individual units that would be different. At that point you could do some testing but that 25 doesn’t tell you anything over time so that’s why the program is there to test on a regular basis 26 more frequently in the first few years to make certain that the system is operating and if its 27 functioning correctly then the testing continues for several years but less frequently. But I would 28 be very concerned about doing individual apartment tests without having a really solid history of 29 what went on in that unit prior to getting in there.30 31 Commissioner Tanaka; So I have a couple of questions lending to what Chair Tuma just asked 32 and also what Mr. Moss addressed. The difference between the EPA and the Water Board. Does 33 the EPA really require indoor testing? EPA in general. Do they require indoor testing versus at 34 the source testing?35 36 Mr. Burwasser: Not here. They are not working in Palo Alto. Indoor testing versus at the 37 source testing, it is all indoor testing. You mean individual units. They have a program that is 38 doing that, yes. They are interested in what is going on in those units. They are very concerned 39 about it. Again, I can’t go inside their heads but they’re approach…40 41 Commissioner Tanaka: Is it because people are living there?42 43 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 18 of 28 Mr. Burwasser: People are living in all these units. The point of testing an individual apartment 1 unit or condo really is up to the discretion of the regulatory agency and the EPA obviously feels 2 that this is an important thing to do.3 4 Commissioner Tanaka: So Mr. Moss was right then. If the EPA did regulate here there 5 wouldn’t be indoor testing of the…6 7 Mr. Burwasser: We don’t know that. We don’t know what they would require.8 9 Commissioner Tanaka: I’m just trying to understand. Mr. Moss made a statement and I don’t 10 know if it is true that EPA for similar sites to Palo Alto required indoor testing of residential 11 units and the Water Board doesn’t. Is what he said true or is it not?12 13 Mr. Burwasser: They require testing on a site by site basis. What they do at MEW is not 14 necessarily what they are going to do in Illinois or any place else?15 16 Commissioner Tanaka: So if EPA did have coverage here you are saying they wouldn’t?17 18 Mr. Burwasser: I don’t know. We can’t tell. They don’t have jurisdiction here and we can’t 19 second guess what they would do, it would be at their discretion.20 21 Commissioner Tanaka: But they don’t always require the default for this kind of thing. No. The 22 second thing you mentioned was a toxic source or venting and I guess the question is for other 23 people living around, is that an environmental impact to the surrounding area and people.24 25 Mr. Burwasser: Dilution is the solution to pollution has been the background on this. The idea 26 is that by the time they are vented there is sufficiently mixed with the atmosphere above the 27 building because these pipes stick well above the roof and the fans are on top of these things and 28 there is a sufficient dispersal and at a sufficient height so the surrounding neighborhoods will not 29 be affected by that, no more so than the stuff that is filtering out of the ground.30 31 Commissioner Keller: Just a quick follow up. In terms of the concentrations of a chemical like 32 TCE in a garage versus in an enclosed flowing unit, I’m wondering if there is a difference in the 33 garage in terms of potential air exchanges or is the potential for TCE dissipating for a particular 34 site of intrusion as contrasted with a dwelling unit where there might be fewer air changes and 35 the potential for greater accumulation. Is that possible?36 37 Mr. Burwasser: That would depend on the ventilation system in the garage and unit. 38 Presumably the garage is vented through its doorways but the accumulation would depend 39 entirely on the interior ventilation system as to whether you had a higher or lower accumulation 40 at this point. It would be significantly different depending on the air changes per hour and stuff 41 like that. It would make a difference.42 43 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 19 of 28 Commissioner Keller: So there is going to be a basement under the garage? It is below ground 1 level right? Removal of a lot of dirt is needed to build this garage. Do special precautions have 2 to be made when there is a lot of dirt removed? 3 4 Mr. Burwasser: Absolutely. That is part of the site excavation plan which is overseen by the 5 city and is to look after all of the soil that is removed, to look after the integrity of the walls. We 6 don’t know whether there is going to be dewatering necessary but the watering plant has to be 7 put in place in this project because of dust control, anything that has to do with soil, has to be 8 controlled. There are some very extensive conditions of approval from the Water Board and also 9 they are protecting the workers. 10 11 Chair Tuma: We’re just about out of time here. So we are going to take a break and come back. 12 Commissioner Fineberg will have one question and I will get my chance to make my comments 13 and then we can take final comments and some kind of action. Commissioner Fineberg has one 14 question left. Commissioner Keller has two minutes left of his time and I have my three minutes 15 left and then we will get to comments and hopefully a motion. Commissioner Fineberg.16 17 Commissioner Fineberg: Director Williams, can you help me reconcile a concept in my head 18 that I don’t know how I should frame what I’m thinking. The zoning under property is a GM. 19 Because of the concessions for mixed use and residential, the project is two-thirds residential, 20 just over 100,000 square feet and 50,000 square feet, so one-third of the project is R&D. In 21 order to minimize health hazards, land use conflicts, etc. the project is being conditioned so the 22 general manufacturing usage will be lightweight uses prohibiting what would normally go on in 23 general manufacturing. So what we’re ending up building isn’t general manufacturing in a 24 general manufacturing zone. Is that consistent with municipal code, comp plan, lest we do it? 25 Why are we doing this? Is this something we should be doing?26 27 Mr. Williams: I think what the alternative and Mr. Moss brought this up, is and we were starting 28 fresh today without the history to it, we would probably say zone it PTOD and they’d be in here 29 and mixed use allows a 1.0 FAR for residential which is what they have. It allows .25 for office 30 R&D type uses so they’d need density bonus for the concessions for an additional .25 of floor 31 area for that and otherwise they’d pretty much be there as far as complying with all our criteria. 32 However, it does have 6 years of history to it. It began under a GM zone with a GM called 33 GMD that did allow for mixed use. The D was taken away and changed. They were allowed to 34 continue through using under the way they submitted the application and then it got caught in 35 litigation and its starting over so we didn’t shift gears to PTOD zoning and seemed to be 36 somewhat pointless but that’s how I think we can justify it and that is if this were in the GM zone 37 down in South Charleston in San Antonio in that area I think that would be a very relevant point. 38 It would be difficult to justify that kind of thing happening.39 40 We are in an area where this is not a manufacturing area and as it transitions its going to get less 41 and less so. It’s got the PTOD overlay on it so given this project I think it is consistent with that. 42 It is consistent with transoriented residential, language and code in the general comp plan. 43 That’s how we feel. It does reconcile. Again, if a project came in tomorrow in this area we 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 20 of 28 wouldn’t say do it this way, we’d say go start out with the PTOD zoning and come in and they’d 1 be very close to it then we could talk about what concessions are needed but that would be the 2 approach.3 4 Chair Tuma: I have some follow up to that. If they came in and asked for that it would not be a 5 director’s level decision. That would be rezoning. 6 7 Mr. Williams: They’d have to start through the initial Commission, Council and ARB. 8 9 Commissioner Keller: So let me make sure I understand a few things. If we had gone the PTOD 10 route because it is discretionary we can attempt to bring PTOD if not asking for concessions. I 11 think that was a question I asked once, that you can say only on a PTOD simply to say we only 12 give you PC if you don’t ask for concessions. 13 14 Mr. Williams: Rezoning is entirely discretionary.15 16 Commissioner Keller: The second question I have is, in the housing inventory according to page 17 4 of the record it says that the minimum yield for this site inventory is 120 units. I remember 18 when we were dealing with the housing inventory several months ago is that we can deny a 19 project that is a housing project on a site where they don’t provide the house units for the 20 housing inventory so if they provide 120 units we can’t deny on the basis of being in the housing 21 inventory. That’s reason to deny it because we have to provide these sites elsewhere and that’s 22 what I understand you’ve been told.23 24 Mr. Williams: 120 units includes the other Park Blvd. sites where the police building site was 25 going to be. This property itself does not have 120 units designated for it because the 120 units 26 was calculated based on 40 units per acre which is essentially what this site is providing. So if 27 that’s in there it’s more than just site. 28 29 Commissioner Keller:I’m on page 4, 3rd full paragraph. 30 31 Mr. Williams: We can amend that because it’s more than just sites among others. These 32 building sites basically were in that too.33 34 Commissioner Keller: If this was 2.5 acres it would be 100 units not 120. 35 36 Quick question, are biohazardous materials allowed on site?37 38 Mr. Williams: I don’t know.39 40 Mr. Burwasser: From my limited understanding of business codes…41 42 Commissioner Keller: That could be a good thing. The next thing is there any issues about since 43 it is adjacent to a potential identified high speed rail whether it happens or not, 105 decibels I’m 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 21 of 28 wondering how usable the space is with the courtyard and the noise. Has anybody done any 1 calculations about how usable it is?2 3 Ms. French: We do have a noise study. Mr. Burwasser might know more on the technical4 aspects.5 6 Mr. Burwasser: In the Mitigated Negative Dec. in Section B there is a discussion there that 7 addresses what goes on in the courtyard. The courtyard is protected. There is going to be about 8 60 and that’s significant. It had to be built into the plan because when that train goes by you are 9 going to hear it. 10 11 Commissioner Keller: The last question I have is there is a mention about the Palo Alto Unified 12 School District yield and the data that is used is the Sand Hill EIR which seems to be way 13 outdated. In particular I’m wondering why the data for units, for example the arbor real, would 14 that yield light be more comfortable or the yield on the two complexes on eastern circle might be 15 used? Why are we using data from EIR? We could use the same data. Using the same data 16 from EIR seems…17 18 Mr. Burwasser: We are carrying the data from originally 2006 and it could be that that rate did 19 not change. 20 21 Commissioner Keller: It doesn’t change any mitigation or impact determination of mitigation or 22 anything associated with that but we can make that clarification and use. There are updated 23 numbers placed in the studies. 24 25 Mr. Burwasser: The reason I think that would be important to do is because people will look at 26 this for precedent in that regard going forth.27 28 Commissioner Fineberg: Lathrop Overlay does the demographic studies for the school district. 29 They calculate the student every September then every December of early January there are new 30 demographic yield forecasts based on different housing types and different projects so I can’t see 31 why we can’t take the newest projects from December and January this year and the comps are 32 much better and much more comparable understanding that it wouldn’t change the mitigation.33 34 Chair Tuma: A couple of questions. For GM zone, am I remembering correctly that normally 35 that would require a conditional use permit for housing? 36 37 Mr. Burwasser: Not housing at all. A research park zone was LA and now is LAM.38 39 Chair Tuma: I’m going to go straight to a couple of comments. I think what’s causing me some 40 consternation here and I think maybe others is that essentially under normal circumstances other 41 than 1818 this would never happen without it going through the Planning Commission, without it 42 going through full public hearings without a public level decision without 1818. For 1818 we as 43 a community and commission, council, planning department. We haven’t come up with what we 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 22 of 28 think is useful so we’re stuck with a situation where there is a project before us that doesn’t feel 1 like its been fully vetted in the public process and that there is this, quite frankly, loophole that 2 this project is being driven through and we are to get it approved without a public process.3 4 Would the public process result in a different outcome? I don’t know but I think that’s certainly 5 what’s bugging me about it and its not we the Planning Commission but the whole public 6 process hasn’t happened on what is a considerable size project in an important location that 7 would add significant housing and so one of the things that this project highlights for me is in the 8 2 move very far up the agenda a discussion and conclusion for setting guidelines around this 9 because with all due respect and you know Mr. Williams I have a tremendous amount of respect 10 for you, I don’t think this is a decision you should be making, I really don’t. Its not a decision 11 any one person should make but that’s not the process the renters of the city are used to on a 12 project of this magnitude. I think our process isn’t working and it needs to be fixed. 13 14 Where does that leave us with respect to this project? We keep hearing how we are boxed out 15 from doing anything other than approving the tentative map and maybe there is some way 16 around that by having problems with MND but I get the sense we’re heading toward a decision 17 that you could justify either way. There is going to be a lot of discussion in the next half hour or 18 45 minutes about different points of view but it hasn’t really come to resolutions because we 19 haven’t decided on a process that’s appropriate. 20 21 I’m certainly not ready to make a motion at this point but that’s the struggle I’m going through. 22 Commissioners? Comments, and anyone who is ready to make a motion. 23 24 Commissioner Keller: I hate to ask just one more quick question before I go on and that is I 25 realized by looking at the December 3rd, 2009 ARB which is attachment A to something on page 26 3 it says that this is being considered and therefore staff has applied the regulations of RM40 to 27 this project and I believe this is before the lawsuit. If that was 2009, why today 2 years later are 28 we not applying the RM40 standard to this project.29 30 Mr. Williams: Our CEQA onsite counselor advised that now was not appropriate and we did 31 change that and not use the RM40 and this helped to some extend justify the residential but his 32 feeling was that this was the GM zone and the GM zone standard should be the basis for that and 33 that was not as defensible to all supplied RM40 standards which used to be way back when34 standards that we would use for mixed use in there so with the first application that might have 35 been appropriate but given that this was a new application it should just be fine. It didn’t alter 36 the fact that concessions could be requested. That’s basically it.37 38 Commissioner Keller: RM40 was a carryover from GMD and is not longer appropriate because 39 it is not a GM site.40 41 Mr. Williams: Thank you. We will put this on our next report on this.42 43 MOTION44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 23 of 28 1 Commissioner Keller: I agree entirely with Chair Tuma’s heartburn on this issue and I think that 2 the issue for me is that there are some nice things about the project being that we are trying to 3 encourage housing and other uses like this for near a train station but on the other hand the high 4 amount of toxins on the site, the adjacency to other uses, I think I mentioned earlier that 5 automobile uses are something we don’t want to build housing near. So it’s kind of weird 6 because we have the automobile site right next door which is an adjacency issue we are 7 introducing. I would actually like to move that we deny the projects on the basis that finding 8 number 6 is not met. And that is design or type of improvements likely to cause serious health 9 problems and I believe that the adjacency to automobile usage where these chemicals are used 10 and the issue of the high amount of toxins in the cleaning is such that… And the juxtaposition of 11 R&D uses underneath a residential use where at least some quantities of hazardous materials can 12 be used is potentially likely to cause serious public health problems for the residents of those 13 condos. 14 15 SECOND16 17 Chair Tuma: There is a motion on the floor is there a second. Motion by Commissioner Keller, 18 seconded by Commissioner Tanaka. Commissioner Keller.19 20 Commissioner Keller: I think that this site needs a little more analysis and I think the issues are 21 not well understood and I think we’ve gone long enough so I’ll let Commissioner Tanaka give 22 his comments.23 24 Commissioner Tanaka: I agree with Chair Tuma’s comments that this hasn’t gone through the 25 correct process. I believe it’s unfortunate because it’s been 6 years and I also see the applicant’s 26 perspective but it seems that there are a lot of environmental issues. They’ve been mentioned 27 but beyond that, it was kind of interesting the comment, there are no windows on the back sides 28 because of train tracks. It is kind of enforcing something that is really more appropriate for the 29 area. Anyway, the environment has never been talked about so I wanted to repeat that.30 31 AMENDMENT TO MOTION32 33 Commissioner Fineberg: I’d like to offer a friendly amendment. Also in our packet attachment 34 A page 5 finding 3. Findings not present that the site is not physically suitable for this type of 35 development because it is in a GM zone and yet what we’re building isn’t a GM building and it 36 is creating land use conflicts with adjacent and existing, not present. 37 38 Do you want to decide one at a time or I’ll give you both of them. I’m going to need some help 39 from our city attorney on the exact wording but the findings and the adequacy of the negative 40 declaration are not there. How do we word it so it specifically relates to the adequacy of the neg. 41 dec.42 43 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 24 of 28 Mr. Larkin: I think you can make that recommendation Council. You may want to support that 1 with a fair argument that the findings are inadequate but you can make that recommendation.2 3 Commissioner Fineberg: So what he just said and we’ll have to fill in the details.4 5 Commissioner Keller: I’m inclined to be supportive of that but it would be helpful to have 6 specific reasons that you don’t want to accept a Negative Declaration.7 8 Commissioner Fineberg: The findings for the Mitigated Neg. Dec. are not present because its 9 location of housing in the GM zone is injurious to the public health which echoes what you said 10 but references the Mitigated Neg Dec. It is detrimental to health and public safety because of 11 potential toxic releases, adjacency issues, unknown impacts on the spread of the underground 12 toxic plume and without conditions relating to monitoring potentially unknown future injurious 13 health hazards on occupants in the long term. 14 15 Commissioner Keller: So you’re saying there are no conditions for monitoring. For the long 16 term within occupied spaces. Second.17 18 Chair Tuma: Any additional thoughts?19 20 SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT21 22 Commissioner Garber: Thank you. I would like to make a substitute motion and see if it has any 23 traction and before I make it let me talk a little bit about why. I was tending to favor the staff’s 24 recommendations. Although I share Commissioner Tuma’s and observation about process, my 25 sense is that is equivalent to changing the goal posts for the applicant in that there is a path, as 26 rigorous as it has been which has let them to this point and I think that they in good faith had 27 been pursuing it to the best of their abilities and the best of staff’s abilities. I do not deny that I 28 believe the project should have had greater public opportunity but the public to weigh in and 29 greater opportunities for the Commission to weigh in.I was initially going to not support the 30 initial motion because we were citing specifically item number 6 but finding number 6 and not 31 number 3 is actually if you were to base it in opposition to the project I think is more powerful 32 but my substitute motion would be to support the staff’s recommendation with the corrections 33 that Commissioner Keller cited earlier on page 4, that we reword the last sentence of the third 34 paragraph to clarify this site is not housing all 120 housing units.35 36 On page 2 the Mitigated Negative Declaration that we update the school yields to the most recent 37 data. I will offer that and see if I get a second. 38 39 Chair Tuma: Okay motion by Commissioner Garber and seconded. 40 41 Commissioner Garber: I add the additional comments. This portion of town is changing rapidly 42 over the next 5 to 10 years. The uses in general are appropriate to what I would like to see in this 43 part of town and they align with the particular discussions I have had about this part of town over 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 25 of 28 the last 5 years. Although I dislike the Wednesday night architecting of projects, I understand 1 from a planning project that the uses are appropriate and the project will operate as an extremely 2 helpful bridge between the activity that goes on on California Avenue and the activity that will 3 be going on so it occupies a very pivotal position and will help give that street identity and 4 connect those portions of the city. I have nothing further to add at this time.5 6 Chair Martinez: Yeah, you know, I started off the evening being very dubious about the project. 7 Worried about what we don’t know about the toxics that lay beneath. Reading part of the staff 8 report because the possibility exists that contaminated groundwater or soil could be encountered 9 during the construction period the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation. I 10 don’t know how you can say those things together in one sentence but you look at the mitigation 11 section that it refers to MM4 and it is the requiring of one inspection after another and it leads 12 you to believe that there is something there. There is something there that we all should be 13 concerned about. Nevertheless I believe there has been a process, not the process that we know 14 and love but a public process of reviewing this project of creating this Mitigated Negative 15 Declaration of countless ARB reviews, of a valiant effort by the planning director to hold it 16 together and a respect for the rights and efforts of the property owner to continue with the 17 project.18 19 I agree with Commissioner Garber that the project itself is not the problem, it has been the 20 process. I think with the mitigations proposed we should support the project.21 22 Chair Tuma: I agree with Commissioner Garber that changing the rules at this point would be 23 changing the goal posts and I’ve been very clear in the past that I don’t think that’s fair. I also 24 agree with Commissioner Garber that hanging your hat on Section 3, dealing with the design is 25 likely to cause serious public health problems, probably isn’t the strongest of arguments but 26 where I really struggle is with Section 3 and that is that the site is not physically suitable for this 27 type of development. I don’t think that the site is suitable for this type of development. I know 28 it may be on our housing inventory list and SB1818 allows a way around the public process. 29 30 While that is some of the stuff that gives me heartburn, what really gives me heartburn is 31 mitigation measures fail. Scrubbers fail. Toxic releases happen. I really don’t think that it’s 32 appropriate to put a bunch of housing and to create a situation where we were releasing these 33 toxins into the air although if the mitigation measures work properly they are supposed to diffuse 34 what comes out. We know that doesn’t always happen. We’ve had situations where toxins have 35 come out of sites, where scrubbers have failed and people have been ill. The same sites had 36 inspections by agencies who were supposed to do certain things. They didn’t do them. And I 37 think that by putting a bunch of housing on this site given the problems that this would be 38 unearthing and bringing to the surface is not appropriate therefore I cannot support the substitute 39 motion and if the substitute motion does not pass then I would be supporting the original motion. 40 Any additional discussion on the substitute motion?41 42 Commissioner Keller: I think we are supposed to be voting on the tentative map. I don’t see any 43 discussion about that in what I’ve heard proposing what is before us tonight.44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 26 of 28 1 Chair Tuma: If I could, this section of the record land use action that I was referring to is 2 Section 3A tentative map finding and Section 3 was the one I was just talking about.3 4 Commissioner Fineberg: In reference to Chair Martinez’s question, it is my understanding, and 5 if staff could cut me off and correct me if I state this wrong, but the tentative map is a physical 6 representation of drawing and the implementation of the project as it is consistent with the 7 Comp. Plan. Is that kind of a good way to think about it?8 9 Commissioner Garber: In this case the tentative map is simply allowing the site to be divided 10 into airspace units at some point in the future. So it’s the design of the project which means, in 11 this case the public improvements that go along with the project, the boundary lines of the lot. 12 Because it is a condo airspace they don’t have to give those details until they are ready to file. In 13 a project like this it is very simple like black lines on paper.14 15 Commissioner Fineberg: So it’s the drawing of the box regardless of the uses in the box, 16 regardless of the toxins underneath or the adjacency discussed. 17 18 Mr. Williams: That is correct and those other issues are all issues within review but in terms of 19 the actual design as it is laid out in the staff report it talks about what is meant by design and the 20 design is essentially the black lines on paper. In this case it’s not even the religious as a whole 21 because they are not delineating work toward the goal at this time.22 23 Commissioner Martinez: If I could just add, if they chose not to divide the ownership that way, 24 commission wouldn’t be reviewing that. That is what is basically before you and it is why this 25 has come to you because they chose to break this up from an ownership standpoint into 26 something that requires a map and you insert it. Our feeling was the commission was involved 27 and I think you’ve seen tonight as unlike some other cases you’ve seen with maps. We have not 28 tried to restrain your discussion on the land use and environmental issues because it is before you 29 so we want you to feel the whole packages before you. We’ll have some indication of the 30 architectural and design type of situation.31 32 Commissioner Martinez: So again, the objections I hear to the land use not the tentative one. I 33 don’t think we were here to judge the land use tonight. 34 35 Commissioner Tanaka: I do have one other comment about the actual map. So it’s been forced 36 because it is rental versus ownership versus a condo it can be sold. In general, rentals have the 37 tenants stay less time than owners although I don’t know if that’s the whole case.38 39 If it’s an ownership I could imagine if there are issues of the TCE you will be exposed for a 40 longer period of time and then it was a rental. The rental may be there for a few years, maybe 10 41 years but expels to these cumulative effects could be… I don’t know if a family with their own 42 kids knew that then they would want to live here for a long period of time. It sounds precarious. 43 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 27 of 28 Mr. Williams: Commenting on the comments of CEQA it’s a little bit speculative because I 1 don’t know what’s going on. We are not required to speculate as to how long people might live 2 in a particular building. But, not to say something we can point, it’s just not something we 3 normally analyze in a CEQA contest.4 5 Commissioner Garber: One of the distinction between rental properties and for sale properties is 6 that rental properties. The owner of the property takes the risk of contamination. If the site 7 becomes unusable because of contamination then presumably the developer would take that risk. 8 9 On the other hand, to the extent that the properties or individual units are sold that risk then 10 transfers to the purchasers in common ways. If it turns out that there are significant health 11 hazards at the site, those purchasers at the condos would then be unable to sell their condo 12 ownership to somebody else and so the risk transfers. 13 14 To me the issue is that a key part of this risk mitigation is in some sense the condo or the fact that 15 a condo wouldn’t be appropriate and the fact that this is a site that has its materials, there is a site 16 that has adjacency issues to a lot of things, potential high speed rail and there is a Cal Train. Cal 17 Train has issues to the adjacent car, service, and location. And if its slow people may buy it and 18 be stuck so from the point of view of the remarks of Commissioner Tanaka, it is that a person 19 renting is free to leave. A person buying may be stuck. From that point of view the ownership is 20 going to be longer particularly if they are unable to sell it to someone else so to me the 21 condominium is the crux of the issue and makes this much more operative as a problem. 22 23 Notwithstanding the issues and findings that we’ve found is our tentative map findings and in 24 addition the cover of the staff report says request by Hohbach Realty Company for approval of a 25 tentative map. A tentative map for condomium purchases, 10 84 residential units and the two 26 upper floors, common area, etc. etc., ground floor research and development use so at least the 27 way it was written in the staff report, the motion that was suggested to us, does he incorporate all 28 of these things? That’s how I interpret it.29 30 SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED31 32 Chair Tuma: So we have on the floor right now a substitute motion. All those in favor of the 33 substitute motion which was in a sense to move the staff report as a recommendation with some 34 additional conditions that was presented by Commissioner Garber. Motion fails on a vote of 2 –35 4. Commissioners Garber and Martinez voting in the affirmative. Tanaka, Keller, Tuma and 36 Fineberg voting negative. Mr. Lippert is absent. So this brings us back to the underlying 37 motion. Is there any additional discussion on the underlying motion? Seeing no indication the 38 underlying motion was to deny the application for the tentative map and the Mitigated Negative 39 Declaration for the reasons stated by Commissioner Keller in this motion and as amended by 40 Vice Chair Fineberg. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. All those opposed.41 42 INITIAL MOTION PASSED43 44 City of Palo Alto August 24, 2011 Page 28 of 28 Motion passes on a vote of 4 to 2, Commissioners Fineberg, Tuma, Keller and Tanaka voting in 1 the affirmative and Commissioner Garber and Chair Martinez voting no.2 3 With that we will close this item. 4 Architectural Review Board Staff Report Agenda Date:July 7, 2011 To:Architectural Review Board From:Amy French, Manager of Current Planning Department:Planning and Community Environment Subject: 195 Page Mill Road [08PLN-00295]:Request by Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership for Architectural Review of a three storybuilding on a 2.41-acre (net) site for ground floor research and development use (50,467 sq. ft.) and 84 residential units (106,920 sq. ft.). Zone District: General Manufacturing (GM). Environmental Assessment: A revised draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review beginning Friday May6, 2011 through Tuesday June 7, 2011. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conduct the third and final formal hearing on this project and make a recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based plans revised to address the May 19, 2011 ARB comments and upon draft approval findings (Attachment A) and conditions (Attachment C). The two options are to recommend the Director approve the application with conditions or deny the application. The Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment B) is also to be acted upon by the Director following ARB recommendation on the Architectural Review application. The approval or denial of the Architectural Review application by the Director may be appealed to City Council. Draft conditions have been prepared to address the ARB’s most recent comments on seven items, as the applicant has not fully addressed these comments. The conditions may be modified by the ARB following the applicant’s presentation regarding these items. A separate condition regarding the setback along 3045 Park Boulevard and related findings is outlined below. BACKGROUND The ARB application is for a new three story building having 157,387 square feet of floor area with a total of 293 paved parking spaces (274 below grade spaces, 19 surface spaces) accessible from Park Boulevard with 9 landscaped spaces reserved for future conversion to parking spaces. The tentative map for condominium purposes (84 residential units plus commercial unit(s)), submitted on October 5, 2010, will be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission (date uncertain) with final action by the City 195 Page Mill Road [11PLN-00295]Page 2 Council. Background information was provided in the May 19, 2011 and December 3, 2009 staff reports found on the City’s website.The May 19, 2011 ARB report provided a summary of the ARB comments from the December 3, 2009 meeting. Public comments on the revised draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment B) received prior to the end of comment period June 7, 2011 have been addressed by the City’s consultant in the attached letter (Attachment D). The environmental review process and summary of the revised, final document are described further later in this report. On December 3, 2009, the ARB conducted its first formal review of this project application and continued their review to a date uncertain; the second ARB formal review was held on May 19, 2011, and again continued the item. This is the third formal review and the ARB recommendation must be forwarded to the Director of Planning and Community Environment following the third ARB review of a major item. The ARB’s most recent comments on May 19, 2011 included the following items: 1)For the Akins-property-facing residential units only: Provide either a 10 foot back setback at the upper floor levels (as required per RM-40 zoning standards), or obtain an easement agreement on the Akins’ property bordering the subject property; 2)The tower at the corner “lid” needs to go all the way around the tower on all four sides. The Park Boulevard side needs more articulation. The pale section of wall next to the tower doesn’t do the tower “any justice”. The stucco portion next to the tower needs to be re-thought in terms of design; 3)Planting: Specify the vine species for rear façade trellises; Call out street tree species and relationship to Park Boulevard Tree Planting Plan; 4)Colors: Yellow on the tower is way too bright. Colors seem “spotty” and chaotic. Bring back two options for colors. Boardmember Lew suggested having a “color rule” (i.e. pattern of colors along Park versus pattern along Page Mill, courtyard, etc.); 5)Explore screening for bike lockers and either move the lockers or screen them; 6)Upper part of the accent wall parapets need returns on them to provide thickness; 7)Provide more perspectives from different views. Especially provide a perspective from the Park/Olive side. The applicant submitted revised plans (Attachment G) on June 28, 2011 for ARB consideration. Letters dated June 29, 2011 and June 13, 2011 prepared by the applicant and signed by his architect were submitted on June 29, 2011. A letter dated June 13, 2011 regarding the issue of increased setback facing the Akins Body Shop side of the project is also attached. These three letters are provided as Attachment E. Other plans were submitted June 2, 2011, which differ from the plans submitted on June 28, 2011, in that sheets were added to the applicant-preferred May 5, 2011 ARB review sets; these sheets are labeled “ALT” (indicating alternative proposal rather than the applicant preferred proposal) whereas the June 2, 2011 plan set substituted the former sheets reviewed by the ARB with a revised design to actually address ARB comments. Project sheets in the June 2, 2011 revisions are now labeled as “ALT” in the most recent plan set (sheets ALT-A2.4, ALT-A2.4AALT-A3.1, ALT-A3.2, ALT-A3.6, ALT-A3.6A). The most recent plan set also provides an alternative color scheme of orange, green, yellow and violet not shown in the same intensity as the June 2, 2011 submittal (which was muted shades of blue, yellow, orange and green and discussed with the applicant on June 23, 2011). Staff will post the muted color scheme discussed with the applicant on June 23, 2011 on the wall of the chambers. 195 Page Mill Road [11PLN-00295]Page 3 Other applicant letters were submitted June 2, 2011 and June 15, 2011 and are in the project file. While the June 15, 2011 letter is the same letter as the one submitted June 29, 2011 (except it did not include the attached San Francisco Chronicle article), the June 2, 2011 letter indicates: (a) a willingness to modify the tower appearance, (b) the wall return would be extended from 16 inches to 48 inches, and (c) the perspective drawing requested by the ARB would be submitted separately. In the end, the applicant did not support this version of the letter. The tower modification (item a) is shown on the ALT sheets in the most recent plan sets. Items b and c are not reflected in the plan set. Also, it should be noted the color schemes shown in the plan sets are using the applicant-preferred tower design rather than the ALT tower design. DISCUSSION May 19, 2011 ARB Comments This discussion relates to the seven numbered items summarized above from the May 19, 2011 ARB meeting, and the written response by the applicant’s architect to these items and other items. The applicant does not wish to implement the changes reflected in the ALT sheets, since he prefers the May 19, 2011 plan set. 1)10’ Setback at Akins:No changes have been made in plans, as explained in the applicant’s June 13, 2011 letter addressing this matter. The applicant’s focus is on the fact that the city can’t require the setback as a zoning requirement. However, the ARB may make appropriate Architectural Review findings that the setback is necessary for design reasons. Draft findings (and alternative findings in the event the ARB finds the applicant’s proposal to be unacceptable for design reasons, with regard to the building setback) are included (with the alternative language related to a design need to provide a 10 foot setback at the upper floors underlined) in Attachment A to this report. An additional condition of approval would be required to impose the additional five foot setback at the second and third floors of the project facing the Akins site. If the ARB supports the setback finding and recommends an approval condition, the applicant may either appeal this approval condition, or record a five foot easement on the Akins property in favor of 195 Page Mill Road to achieve a 10 foot building separation at the upper floors. The project plans continue to show is a zero setback at the basement parking level, a 10 foot setback at the first floor level, and a five foot setback at the second and third floor level (with periodic 6’4” setbacks along that side). If a five foot wide easement were proposed and recorded on the Akins property to benefit the 195 Page Mill Road development, a 10 building separation at the upper floors would be provided and thereby meet the intent of the RM-40 zoning standards, even though the zoning standards are no longer required per the City Attorney (as only the GM zoning regulations are applied to the project and no Variance is required from the RM-40 10 foot interior side yard building setback). The alternative condition language, if approved by ARB, would read as follows: “The proposed design of the second and third floor level facades facing the interior side property line abutting 3045 Park Boulevard shall be revised to show a 10-foot side yard consistent with ARB approval findings for this project. This may also be satisfied if the applicant obtains a 5-foot easement in perpetuity from the neighboring property owner.” 2)Corner Tower:As described in the background section, the plans submitted on June 2, 2011 (sheet A3.1) indicate modifications to the tower elevations, which are then noted as 195 Page Mill Road [11PLN-00295]Page 4 alternative plans in the June 28, 2011 plans. Staff believes the below changes now shown as ALT may address the ARB concerns so a condition of approval (also in Condition 1) notes the ALT tower design as the version recommended to address ARB concerns: a.The metal component is slimmer on the Park Boulevard side and now similarly proportioned as the metal component on the Page Mill Road side; b.The adjacent balconies are wider on Park Boulevard side, similar to Page Mill side; c.The yellow corner component is now its own entity -no longer partially hidden behind the metal component and has greater length (the bottom edge extends lower to the line of the top of the windows on the adjacent metal component) to help with the illusion of “corner tower”; it protrudes (in vertical plane) beyond the metal components at the corner and is cantilevered over the third floor wall plane; it is also scored asymmetrically including a vertical score line that was not there previously; d.The windows on the “lid” of the yellow component (serving as a mechanical screen) are not shown going all the way around the tower on all four sides as requested for technical reasons set forth in the architect’s letter; however, the “lid” windows are no longer reflecting an indent detail below the cap and above the yellow corner component, so the illusion of windows turning the corner (and then not turning) is no longer presented. 3)Planting:(A) Vines: Since vine species for rear façade trellises have not yet been identified, a condition of approval requires such specification and staff review prior to submittal of building permit application. (B) Street Trees: The species along Park Boulevard are noted London Plane Trees, which the Planning Arborist is satisfied with as a street tree species. The Public Works Arborist attended the May 19, 2011 meeting to explain the reasons for selecting the alternate tree species. The Planning Arborist will again attend the ARB hearing to answer questions regarding the Park Boulevard Tree Planting Plan and the final selection. 4)Colors:The applicant pleads that the ARB support the applicant’s color consultant’s scheme presented to the ARB on May 19, 2011, offers an explanation and news article by John King about color on a recent San Francisco development. To address the ARB’s request, the June 29, 2011 letter describes the mustard color “Gambel Gold” noted on sheet A3.1 and an option for ARB to approve a lighter gold or yellow on the same Sherwin Williams color strip, including “Overjoy” and “Solaria”, or the “Bee’s Wax” color the color consultant had originally selected. The June 28, 2011 plan set, an alternative color scheme is provided is shown on four elevations noting where the color would be provided (yellow on the tower only, muted orange-red in three locations, muted lime green in three locations, muted violet blue in four locations on the long elevations and three locations on the short elevations). The architect notes that if neither of the schemes is found acceptable, the applicant proposes using a single color, the background beige color. In any case, staff has included in Condition 1 a requirement for brush out of sample area of paint colors on the building per the approved color scheme for ARB subcommittee final review. 5)Bike Lockers:Bicycle parking facilities would be provided as part of each dwelling unit’s private storage area in the parking garage and bicycle parking would be provided at ground level adjacent to the courtyard, which the applicant has stated cannot be screened because of constraints that were not more fully described but were perhaps discussed previously. 6)Accent Wall Parapet Returns: The final applicant letter did not address this concern; 195 Page Mill Road [11PLN-00295]Page 5 therefore condition of approval #1 includes a requirement for thicker returns on the accent wall parapets (48 inches in thickness per the applicant’s earlier letter). 7)Perspective Drawings: Not provided in the most recent plans or other plans, but no condition of approval has been added regarding this issue. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Compliance The zoning table describing how the project meets the development standards and the analysis of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policies applicable to the project were included in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment B) that was circulated May 6, 2011 through June 7, 2011. Earlier ARB reports for this application included description of concessions requested and Zoning comparison and Comprehensive Plan tables. Green Building Requirements The applicant had previously submitted a LEED Silver proposal. The requirements as of January2011 are that the applicant must submit a Multifamily Greenpoint Rated Checklist for the residential portion of the project and the California Green Building Code form –as locally amended to require Tier 2 –for the R&D portion of the project. These forms were supposed to be included with this staff report but have not been provided to date. The City also has a LEED ND pilot program requiring submittal of checklists for information purposes only. A condition of approval #2 has been included to require submittal of green building checklists per current requirements and requesting the LEED ND checklist for data gathering purposes. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The attached draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment B) includes clarifications made to address comments made prior to June 7, 2011, the end of the circulation period for public comments, which began Friday May 6, 2011. The draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) published May 6, 2011 was the third revision and included, but was not limited to, discussion on the potential impacts of the proposed High Speed Rail project, transportation impacts assuming a vacant lot as the baseline reference, additional mitigation measures related to the proposed use of limited amounts and types of hazardous materials in the first floor R&D use, as well as the inclusion of revised and new mitigation measures related to soil and groundwater issues. Staff received public comments and forwarded them to the City’s consultant (Atkins). The response is contained as Attachment D, which has also been referenced in the IS/MND, and annotated clarifications added to the IS/MND do not need to be re- circulated since no new impacts nor mitigation measures have been introduced. TIMELINE Submittal of application:September 22, 2008 Application deemed complete:March 15, 2009 First Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration review period:April 24, 2009 –May 25, 2009 Second Revised Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration review period:November 2, 2009 –December 1, 2009 First ARB Hearing:December 3, 2009 Third Revised Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration review period:May 6, 2011 –June 7, 2011 Second ARB Hearing:May 19, 2011 195 Page Mill Road [11PLN-00295]Page 6 Third ARB Hearing:July 7, 20111 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A:Findings for ARB approval Attachment B: Revised Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment C: Draft Conditions of ARB approval Attachment D:Atkins Response to Comments by RWQCP and Mr. Moss on May 6 IS/MND Attachment E:Applicant’s responses to ARB’s comments dated June 13, 2011 (received June 13, 2011), June 13, 2011 (received June 29, 2011) and June 29, 2011 Attachment F:Development Plans, received 6/28/11 (Board Members Only) Prepared By:Amy French, AICP, Manager Current Planning/Interim Chief Planning Official Manager Review:Curtis Williams, AICP, Director of Planning and Community Environment COURTESY COPIES Harold Hohbach Hoover Associates Rod Jeung, Atkins (formerly PBS&J, Inc.) Roger Papler, RWQCB Bob Moss Don Larkin City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 1 of 26 Thursday, July 7, 20111 REGULAR MEETING –8:30 A.M.2 City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor3 250 Hamilton Avenue4 Palo Alto, California 943015 6 ROLL CALL:7 Board members:Staff Liaison:8 Clare Malone Prichard (Chair)Russ Reich, Senior Planner9 Heather Young (Vice Chair)10 Alexander Lew Staff:11 Grace Lee Diana Tamale, Administrative Associate12 Judith Wasserman Amy French, Manager of Current Planning13 Elena Lee, Senior Planner14 Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and 15 Community Environment16 17 AGENDIZED ITEMS:18 1.195 Page Mill Road [08PLN-00281]:Request by Hohbach Realty Company Limited 19 Partnership for Architectural Review of a 157,387 sq. ft. building on a 2.41-acre (net) site 20 for ground floor research and development use (50,467 sq. ft.) and 84 residential units 21 (106,920 sq. ft.). Two concessions are requested (per California Govt. Code 65915-65918) 22 to allow residential use and additional floor area to accommodate this use. Zone District: 23 General Manufacturing (GM). Environmental Assessment: A revised draft Initial 24 Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review beginning Friday 25 May 6, 2011 through Tuesday June 7, 2011.26 27 APPROVAL OF MINUTES:Meeting of June 16, 201128 29 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda 30 with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a 31 speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and 32 Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 33 minutes.34 35 Amy French, Manager of Current Planning:Yes, I am the recently-assigned-to-myself project 36 manager since Lata left a week and a half or so ago. So I ask your patience. The first item of 37 business I would say is the paperwork management problem we have today so I am going to go 38 through that first. At places, and some of this by email several days ago, most of this yesterday 39 and today, we have items submitted by the applicant: A letter dated July 6th which starts,“Dear 40 Members”, with suggestions for amendments, architectural review, draft conditions of approval 41 and attachments by paragraph. So I would just make a comment first that I confirmed with the 42 applicant that he meant to say Drawing A3.1 for the first item one and two. It says assume facts 43 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 2 of 26 not yet decided by ARB. A mock up is provided for. A mock up note is Note 1 on Sheet A3.1. 1 It notes “provide color mock up as shown”. As you can see there are three little areas on the 2 south elevation shown as Note 1 accent color blue, Note 1 accent color red, Note 1 accent color 3 yellow. So those are the three mock ups facing Park Boulevard; staff’s condition of approval is 4 to have, once those brush outs are there, to have subcommittee review of those three brush outs. 5 That is consistent with the approval condition.6 7 Further, on this submittal that came today to you, there is a note on number 3, conditions should 8 be removed and the applicants don’t know there is any requirement that a final map has to be 9 approved before application for building permit. That is a standard condition that the city 10 enforces in all projects when there is an ARB approval. Then it gets the tentative map and then a 11 final map which has to be filed and recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. That is 12 something we do and that is the right for the applicant to protest that condition by appealing that 13 condition to council but that is the condition that is going along to this recommendation from 14 staff. It is a standard condition. 15 16 The development impact fees are being questioned. I can tell you that the fees were calculated 17 and we haven’t had a discussion with the applicant on this matter but certainly that can happen 18 prior to the director’s action on this project. I haven’t had time to digest the others on this 19 particular submittal.20 21 Next we have, from the applicant as well at places we have the green building checklists. There 22 is one for multifamily green point rated for the upper portions or the residential portion of the 23 project.You have a LEED for neighborhood development which is part of our pilot program 24 requirement and requests in this case the application came in before that requirement was made 25 but thankfully they have provided us for our information and data processing. Then we have the 26 non-residential checklist which is the Cal Green Tier 2 checklist. This came in yesterday. I have 27 not had a chance to analyze or process this with our staff for sustainability but that will happen.28 29 Along with those there was discussion in several applicant submittals about the 10 foot setback. 30 The applicant continues to maintain, as does staff, that the 10 foot setback at the upper floors 31 which is not provided is not a zoning requirement. It is simply something that the ARB is 32 discussing and evaluating whether it is needed for design reasons to have the upper floor set back 33 10 feet. It is not a zoning requirement. It was originally part of an RM40 zoning requirement 34 but we’ve ruled that out as no longer a requirement, so just to be clear on that and we do have 35 alternate findings and you would have to add a condition to require that 10 foot setback at the 36 upper floors; otherwise they do provide a 10 foot setback at the first floor and zero setback at the 37 basement level.38 39 The corner tower -it’s noted, they want to go with what was provided to you on May 19th for the 40 reasons as cited in their various letters. In the alt drawings there is showing a revised tower 41 design, so if that is the pleasure of the board to make that alt set of drawings for the tower, then 42 you would want to make that part of your motion otherwise they are requesting to stay with the 43 May 19th version of the tower. The letter also identifies that vines are jasmine, Polyanthemum 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 3 of 26 which is the pink jasmine, as I see the drawing L2.1 and I see the V1 but it doesn’t have a 1 species next to it -but now we know what that is. It is pink jasmine for the twelve vines along 2 the rear property line where the trellis is, facing Caltrain. The colors -as I said, they would do 3 the brush outs. I don’t know what they mean about the dri-vit but basically again that is sheet 4 A3.1, not A3.5.5 6 The bike lockers, there is a CMU wall screen of those bike lockers. There are no associated vine 7 plantings on those walls, or that one wall, facing Park Blvd. That is not something we put as a 8 condition but that might be something to explore if there is a desire to put some kind of vine on 9 that CMU wall that is intended to screen the bike lockers from the Park Boulevard view. The 10 returns -it says in this letter, that they are willing to increase the wall thickness to 24 inches. 11 Staff put an approval condition that it should be increased to 48 inches because that was an 12 earlier communication from the architect but the team wishes to keep the 18 inch return but they 13 are willing to go to 24. That condition would have to be modified per whatever the ARB is 14 thinking there.15 16 Perspective drawing -we gave up on that, gave it to you without that, but in that letter it says 17 they are willing to come back with that if the ARB insists. This is the third and final ARB 18 formal hearing on this item. You are requested to provide a recommendation today. If not, the 19 Director may act upon the project without your recommendation, so I just thought I’d throw that 20 in there. That doesn’t preclude you from taking action one way or the other with a condition to 21 come back on, like we had in the conditions of approval, draft condition which said come back 22 on consent and come back for subcommittee review for brush outs, etc.23 24 Other documents, and then I’ll try to wrap this up, other documents we had at places, also from 25 the applicant. They don’t want to see those additional findings placed and again this is about the 26 10 foot setback of the upper floors so again that is the James Janz letter from Sideman and 27 Bancroft dated July 5th. Again those were add-on findings if the ARB felt that was appropriate 28 related to design concerns. Then there is, June 15th came in about Stellar Environmental, I 29 believe this is the consultant retained by the applicant team regarding Mr. Moss’ comments and 30 perhaps Mr. Papler’s comments. In any case, the city retained the city’s consultant, who I 31 believe is present in the room waving his hand, to respond to Mr. Moss’ and Mr. Papler’s 32 comments on the environmental document. So for the record, those that were included as a 33 source document or a reference document in the revised environmental document dated June 34 29th, there are some annotations there clarifying as well something we got back from Joe Teresi 35 of the Public Works Department regarding wording. Again, it’s not introducing an impact or 36 mitigation measure, just some clarifications for the record in that particular category for the 37 environmental document. So that is why we did some annotations.38 39 Chair Malone Prichard: Can I interrupt you? That one I don’t have here. Does anybody else on 40 the board have that one?41 42 Ms. French:This is June 15th response so maybe can you take that out there and… So the EIR, I 43 mean to say MND, Mitigated Negative Declaration, in there I put a note there, responses to Bob 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 4 of 26 Moss and Roger Papler. It is a source document or a document listed as Document P but it is 1 also Attachment D to the ARB staff report so go to the back of all those attachments and you will 2 find Attachment D, it says Atkins at the top. Attachment D, Atkins in bold letter and that is 3 dated June 29th and is addressed to A. French. It is responding to Mr. Papler and Mr. Moss’ 4 comments on the revised MND. If you do not have the Stellar document which was the 5 applicant prepared responses to Mr. Moss’ comments, we can make a copy for you. The 6 applicant may want to go over that. Regarding Mr. Moss’ comments which you have at places 7 dated July 5th, he basically brings up colors, comprehensive plan policies, parking, the various 8 other items, that’s at places. This was following the responses to comments made by the city 9 consultant. I would just reassert that Mitigation Measure 1 involves aesthetics and that is what 10 you are doing here, is to implement whatever you think is needed for aesthetics to mitigate any 11 concerns or impacts there. The parking assertions, we are comfortable and that is in the 12 environmental document as well. You know that 379 spaces are required; the 30% reduction is 13 allowed because of joint use residential-commercial, it is near transit, and they would have a 14 TDM program, so they would be allowed to provide 265 with a 30% reduction -however they 15 are providing 302, including the 9 spaces in landscape reserve, so their request is a 22% request 16 at this time.17 18 Finally the other at-places documents you have are from Mr. Borock -there are two dated July 19 7th that we received yesterday. He does note there was a document provided on June 7th he 20 wishes would have been addressed by the city’s consultants on the environmental. It’s basically 21 about the below market rate concerns that he has with respect to CEQA review and the tentative 22 map. I should say I’ve hung the draft tentative map on the wall below the alternate color scheme 23 so that if anybody in the public wants to go see that map that is on file with the city and would be 24 brought to the Planning and Transportation Committee along with a resolved below market rate 25 agreement that is in process. I think that concludes all of the at-places memos. Again, with the 26 statement that the vines are now identified, we then can modify conditions. Now we know what 27 that is. The condition #26 notes that Hornbeam should be substituted for the Australian Willows 28 shown there, there are about five of them. That stands. It is resolved as far as the London Plane 29 trees along Park, that’s fine. The Shumar Oak, as proposed in the landscape drawing on sheet 30 L2.1, is fine with the Public Works staff and Planning Arborist. So let’s see, I think I’m going to 31 be deleting number 25 for the Director’s Action. I believe I’ve covered pretty much the items. 32 Again, all of the documentation and background on the details of the project has been contained 33 in the multiple staff reports on this item and available online. I know we have several folks in 34 the audience following the applicant’s presentation.35 36 Chair Malone Prichard: Okay, the applicant: if you would like to come up you have 10 minutes 37 to make a presentation.38 39 Harold C. Hohbach, Hohbach Realty Company: Hi, I’m Harold C. Hohbach from Hohbach 40 Realty Company, a limited partnership. I am going to ask Jim Janz, a real estate attorney, to first 41 come in on the project and that will be followed by Richard Campbell and then Lyn 42 Winterbotham is here to answer any questions you have on landscaping. Thank you.43 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 5 of 26 1 Jim Janz:Thank you very much. My name is James Jans and first I want to mention that you 2 have a letter from me that was mailed on July 5th and apparently didn’t make it here on time so it 3 was distributed this morning as part of your packet. I am not going to go into the letter. I have 4 represented Mr. Hohbach on the land use issues of this project since 2006 when it was first 5 approved by the city. I want today to address just the issue of the possible imposition of an 6 additional 5 foot setback on the Akins and shop side of the project. This issue seems to have 7 taken on a life of its own and so you may know the story but let me briefly give you a little of the 8 history.9 10 Initially the city tried to impose GM zoning on the ground floor and RM zoning on the second 11 and third residential floors. The city took the position that Design Enhancement Exceptions 12 could be used to avoid the RM40 zone 10 foot side yard setback which would otherwise be 13 required for the residential levels. Ironically at the first floor level, where there is a setback 14 requirement, there is a setback. The project was approved but delayed by a lawsuit. A couple of 15 years later the city says, change of policy. We can no longer use DEEs quite so easily. You’ll 16 need a variance for the second and third floor setbacks. The city staff agreed to support the 17 project and told us that the variance wouldn’t be a problem, except that then, and this was in 18 2009, the city decides it can’t think of a reason to support the variance so another year goes by 19 and the city decides, on the advice of counsel, that they can’t apply two zoning classifications to 20 the same parcel. That should be good news. GM applies throughout and no DEE or variance is 21 required however, there is this lingering little thought about a setback so at the last meeting here 22 the staff says, if you want a setback, make it a requirement. The city, unfortunately, has put the 23 applicant in a real catch 22 by eliminating the requirements of RM40 zoning, eliminating DEEs 24 and eliminating a variance requirement but then sneaking the setback in as an ARB requirement.25 26 As has been explained in previous correspondence, there are approximately 100 feet between the 27 apartments and the Akins building with only landscape parking intervening and remember that 28 Mr. Hohbach is required to pursue an agreement with the owners of the Akins parcel to provide a 29 five foot landscape screen strip along the property line on the Akins parcel. We maintain then 30 that an additional 5 foot setback would not provide any noticeable difference to the residents of 31 the apartment. In addition, which I’m sure you are very familiar with, there is no practical way 32 to provide a building setback on the property line at the 2nd and 3rd floor levels without going 33 through a whole lot of machinations, reducing the size of individual units on those levels, 34 reducing the size of balconies, moving the south wing forward or north perhaps and thereby 35 reducing the size of other wings in the building, reducing the courtyards, maybe attempting to 36 purchase some rights from the Akins side. All of these architectural efforts have substantial 37 impact on design, structural support, location of utilities, cold compliance issues, all the things 38 that you would understand. These things are time consuming and costly. Sure they can be done, 39 but none of them would be easily achievable and would it be worth it? It’s difficult to believe 40 that a resident of one of these apartments would even notice an additional 5 foot setback. Of 41 course, the concern is not the existing Akins building which is 100 feet away, but rather the 42 possibility that the owner of the Akins site could one day construct a building at the property line 43 just a little over 5 feet away from these apartment units. This is the key to what I want to address 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 6 of 26 today. Is that likely to happen? For all the work we would have to go through, what are we 1 trying to avoid? The Akins lot is zoned GM-AD for Auto Dealership and there is no auto 2 dealership there now. GM allows a 0.5 to 1 FAR. Assuming that if an auto showroom is built 3 you get up to 0.6 FAR but auto showroom on this site appears unlikely for the future. So let’s 4 look at the GM. What’s the likelihood that an owner would build something right on the north 5 property line of the Akins property?A one story building would take up the whole lot so the 6 largest lot coverage building would only be one story and not pose a problem for the second and 7 third floor residents. A two story building of course would take up a quarter of the lot, a three 8 story a sixth of the lot, etc. You understand that and you can build higher and take up less of the 9 lot but there is no reason to assume that any developer that would do that, no matter what he 10 would build,would built it right at the north property line leaving himself with no setback and 11 leaving the rest of the lot clear. Most likely the building would be closer to the center of the 12 property of the parcel so it seems reasonable to conclude that the worst situation is very unlikely 13 to happen.14 15 In addition, I should note that the code provides a height and setback requirement for any 16 commercially zoned site within 150 feet of residential uses or adjacent to a residential zone as 17 well as a 10 foot height limit at the property line and a 50% daylight plane. It is unclear whether 18 a development on the Akins property would be subject to that requirement because this site is not 19 technically a residentially zoned site but it does establish a precedent which could be used. The 20 city could use it, the existence of the limitations and the code, could be used by the city at the 21 time of some future development on the Akins parcel, to establish a requirement for a setback on 22 that development at the time that that site is developed. So I’ve tried to address the practicalities 23 and I must point out that I have a couple of legal problems which I am obliged to point out as 24 well.25 26 First I’ve explained the catch 22 and I don’t want to go into that again. I think that is a problem 27 for the city. But secondly I don’t believe any attempts to impose setbacks not required by the 28 GM zone could be supported by legally sufficient findings of fact and evidence of that is the 29 requirement of additional 5 foot setback as added to the draft architectural review findings in 30 front of you was put in by simply plugging into four previously prepared findings and setback 31 requirement which clearly indicates the staff did not think the setback was necessary to make the 32 findings at the last go round. So in conclusion I would ask the city to accept the setbacks 33 provided in the project which is in compliance with the GM zoning. Thank you.34 35 Richard Campbell:My name is Richard Campbell. I am an architect with Hoover and 36 Associates. Good morning everyone. I would like to address the seven comments in the staff 37 report. I will take them in the same order. I will try to be brief and then make myself available 38 for questions or comments. 39 40 The first item was the setback which Mr. Janz has already addressed. The second item is the 41 tower and to explain our position on the tower I would like to ask you to turn to the first color 42 perspective. It’s way at the back of the set. This shows the tower as it has been designed from a 43 number of years ago, this project had the tower designed this way. The shape of the tower, the 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 7 of 26 configuration, is actually set or based on the equipment which is screening and the lower part of 1 the tower, the flanking elements, the height of those is determined by what it is screening and 2 that goes around on all four sides. What extends above that, where you see the upper part of the 3 tower -that was for aesthetics only and based on a suggestion some time ago, that we wanted 4 something stronger on the corner. The way we designed it, was integrated on the side panels. 5 That was the intent, we thought it was appropriate, and it is still what we would like to do but 6 based on comments we received at the last meeting we have done an alternate design for the 7 tower to try to make it more prominent and stronger looking. If you turn to the next page, that’s 8 the alternate for the tower. What we’ve done is we’ve brought the plane of the tower out beyond 9 the plane of the flanking elements, the flanking element beside it so it’s more prominent. The 10 middle elements on either side of that are thinner than they were, the tower is deeper. That’s the 11 alternate tower design that we have prepared at the request of the ARB. 12 13 The bike screening, we have added a screen wall in front of the bike lockers. It is a 6 foot high 14 CMU wall to screen the lockers. For the returns on the roof, the best place to see that is on either 15 one of these perspectives. You can see the higher elements return back about 16 inches and the 16 suggestion was to return those 48 inches. We are suggesting 24. We think that with a short 17 return like that you won’t be able to see a return beyond that from the ground anyway. 18 19 The colors on this go way back to one of the earliest meetings we had with ARB where there was 20 a real concern about the way we were treating the back of the building, the very blank wall 21 against the Cal Train tracks. At that time the color consultant was involved. We thought we 22 would use a Mondrian art sort of motif back there and we picked a particular painting that was 23 basically black and white squares with very bright primary colors. I’m sure some of you have 24 seen that Mondrian painting. At that point, we tried to carry those primary colors on through the 25 project, red, blue and yellow. We made a number of different changes on those as we appeared 26 before the ARB on a number of occasions and at the last meeting my sense was that there was 27 not too much objection to the red and blue color but there was an objection to the yellow color. 28 So we have proposed an alternate to the yellow color. It should be in your packet, or is it being 29 passed around? That’s an alternate to the yellow color. We also went back to the office and met 30 with three of our designers and said, let’s just forget the primary colors that we worked with for a 31 number of years on this project and what would we do if we were coming with an alternate other 32 than primary colors. Those are the colors that you see on the color board. The colors we are 33 recommending are the ones to your right and to the left are the three alternate colors for the 34 accent colors. That is shown also on the color drawings, color renderings in the back of the set. 35 The brighter colors that we initially chose, we were looking for something on this project that 36 would be quite playful. Those would be used in very small areas. I remember something an 37 instructor told my class one of my first years in architectural school. He said, when you are 38 picking colors, remember one thing from nature and that is canaries are yellow and elephants are 39 grey. So we are using these accent colors in very small areas and we think the bright colors in 40 those limited areas are appropriate. We would not use those colors throughout the project. We 41 have a field color that is a pretty neutral color.I’ve gone over my time so I think I’ll conclude 42 with that and make myself available for questions.43 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 8 of 26 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. I have one card for a member of the public. Is there anyone 1 else who wanted to speak? Okay so we have Mr. Robert Moss and you’ll have three minutes.2 3 Robert Moss: Thank you. A couple of comments, first of all from Hohbach, July 6th, you 4 absolutely must bear in mind that when this project was first approved in January of 2007 a 5 condition of the City Council was there must be complete approval of the ARB before a project 6 construction permit is granted. Mr. Hohbach went in across the street and applied for a 7 construction permit the day before the ARB reviewed it. Don’t allow that to happen again.8 9 Second, when this project was rejected by the court, there was a requirement that the city had to 10 respond by August 2008 how they were going to address the problems with CEQA. The city has 11 never done so and is in violation of a court order.12 13 I want to talk about this garbage letter that you got from Stellar. The first problem is that they 14 ignore the fact that 395 Page Mill is part of the official 640 Page Mill Superfund Site. Second 15 they ignore the fact that the coding area which includes this site is shown very clearly on all of 16 the drawings as being an adjacent and influenced portion of the official Superfund Site and third, 17 Moffett Field, which is across 101 from the MEW site which is a Superfund Site is being treated 18 by the EPA precisely the same way even though it is not a Superfund Site because it is owned by 19 the government. The level of toxicity in the way we mitigate it is not determined whether it is a 20 Superfund Site or just a clean up site. It is determined by the level of danger of contamination in 21 the soil, groundwater and in future buildings. EPA is requiring and the City of Mountain View 22 has required since 2003 that all buildings built in that area have barriers and active mitigation 23 and monitoring. If Mountain View can do it, why can’t Palo Alto? This project fails to comply 24 with CEQA. It fails to comply with normal procedures. It fails to protect the health and safety 25 of future residents and the request that you also be allowing them to put hazardous materials in 26 the R and D space down below will further endanger and eventually I’m sure sicken if not kill 27 some of the occupants. That certainly should be rejected. 28 29 This project should be rejected. They have repeatedly refused to comply with ARB 30 requirements. They refuse to comply with City Council requirements. They refuse to comply 31 with normal procedures required by EPA and by DTSC and they fail to comply with CEQA. If it 32 does not comply with CEQA, I shall sue. 33 34 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you for your comments and next we have Herb Borock. 35 36 Herb Borock: Good morning and thank you staff for distributing my letters including the letter 37 that I submitted before the deadline on comments mitigating negative declaration regarding the 38 BMR agreement. I am recommending to you that at a minimum, you recommend to the director 39 that he require an environmental impact report for this project. I have said in my letter to have 40 just a revised mitigated negative declaration and have that re-circulated. The reason he would 41 need to do that is so that the entire project is reviewed for its environmental effect and that 42 includes a signed BMR agreement so that the public can see whether or not the BMR agreement 43 actually implements requirements of government code section 65915 that is required for the 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 9 of 26 project to receive the concessions it has requested because if the applicant is unwilling to sign an 1 agreement that implements those concession standards then the project would need to be 2 rejected.3 4 However, after listening to Mr. Moss and reading the documents from the applicant’s consultants 5 and also both today and what is also in the staff report, I have to agree with him that an 6 environmental impact report is required because of the potentially significant and unmitigated 7 impacts Mr. Moss cited regarding toxics. When an environmental impact report is done, at that 8 time the Council can look at the arguments from different sides on an issue and decide which is 9 the correct one to adopt. It can even adopt the one that is worse, by making statements of 10 overriding considerations. However, at the level of the mitigated negative declaration, if as it 11 happens by Mr. Moss, a fair argument is raised that is different than the one that the applicant is 12 relying upon and it contradicts it and shows that there are potentially significant effects, must be 13 an environmental impact report. Having the consultant have ten times or a hundred times as 14 many for the applicant come in and make new arguments, that doesn’t make a difference because 15 somebody from the public has come and made a fair argument on the other side and that requires 16 an EIR. Thank you.17 18 Chair Malone Prichard:Thank you for your comments. Okay, we’ll go to board member 19 questions and comments. Heather, you start please.20 21 Vice Chair Young: Thank you for your presentation and the submittal of documents for us to 22 review. I noticed that Curtis Williams is with us this morning and I wondered if you had any 23 comments that you wanted to share with us in addition to those already presented by Ms. French.24 25 Curtis Williams, Planning Director: Thank you. I would like to make a couple of comments. 26 First of all, going to the applicant’s statement about the 10 foot setback and then a couple of 27 comments on the environmental review; so the 10 foot issue again in our mind is perfectly within 28 ARB and the planning director’s authority to apply assuming there is an architectural review 29 finding that supports doing that. It is not being applied because there is a code requirement that 30 is being applied but there is discretion to make a determination that given that the second and 31 third floors are residential, that there needs to be more separation than if this were a fully 32 commercial or industrial type of project on the adjacent side so that is certainly a 33 recommendation to us. We will take that very seriously and it is legally within your authority to 34 do that without being challenged that you’ve applied a setback so that doesn’t apply in this.35 36 As far as the environmental, a couple of issues. The first; as far as the contamination issue goes, 37 and we do have Rod Jeung of our environmental consultants here, we are relying not on the 38 number of consultant letters that the applicant has provided, we are relying on our consultant at 39 Atkins in this case who has folks working for them who are experts in this area. They’ve looked 40 at this. They are also relying on the Regional Water Quality Control Board which has authority 41 to review these types of projects and approve them. In both cases they have found that the 42 mitigation that has been proposed is adequate to address the contamination issues and the 43 potential vapor intrusion to this building. In fact, I would go so far as to say they have been very 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 10 of 26 conservative on that issue, both our consultant and the regional board have told us that they did 1 not think that it may not be absolutely necessary to do the full vapor barrier and the active 2 ventilation system that provides continuous ventilation rather than a passive system that monitors 3 and checks to see whether additional ventilation is needed. So the applicant can originally come 4 in with something less than that. We have felt that from an administrative standpoint, at the staff 5 level, and in order so that we would address this as fully as can be at this point, that we would 6 request that the applicant agree to the full vapor barrier and the active ventilation for that system 7 and they have agreed to do that with the additional cost to them. But we think it’s appropriate 8 given the uncertainty around some of the issues and also so that staff doesn’t have to be in a 9 continual monitoring state to determine when ventilation is appropriate. 10 11 We are comfortable that this is the case and the Regional Water Quality Board which, in this 12 case is the body that rules on these and has to approve this system, said this works and that this is 13 adequate mitigation. The issue with Mountain View, I understand there is a different approach 14 there. That is a different site. All of these sites are different. I think Mr. Moss is correct when 15 he says it doesn’t matter if it is a Superfund Site or not. What matters is the contamination level 16 and how you mitigate that to meet the appropriate standards that are in place and they have done 17 that at this site, whether how that compares to the Mountain View site, I don’t know, but that’s 18 different and EPA is in charge of that, not Water Quality Control Board. I think we’re working 19 on solid basis with our consultant and the regional board. 20 21 And last about Mr. Borock’s concern about the below market rate, that is a condition of approval 22 that is not a project component that has a physical impact on the environment that would be 23 addressed as a part of a mitigated negative declaration or an environmental impact report, if one 24 were done. It is condition number 8 and requires that the BMR agreement be provided and 25 provide 20% as required by state law to support the conditions of the state law that allow for two 26 concessions and it specifically says affordable to very low income houses which the state law 27 requires. So the condition is in there. It is consistent. We have lots of projects that come 28 through and have below market rate agreements. We don’t analyze them as part of the 29 environmental review, they are condition of approval in terms of affordability levels in this case 30 and some others justifying concessions but they have to comply with that before building permits 31 are issued and construction occurs on site. I can answer anything else you have. 32 33 Vice Chair Young:Thank you very much. I’d also like to thank Mr. Moss and Mr. Borock. Our 34 city would be a different place if there were not engaged and active community members, such 35 as yourselves who took it upon yourselves to research and investigate and track and follow over 36 long periods of times these different types of issues. I’m certainly not an expert in any of these 37 and I rely heavily on the advice of the city and the city’s attorneys. That said, I again do need to 38 rely on their advice and recommendations which is probably not what you want to hear. 39 40 This is a large, complicated project. It has a large, complicated history and a large quantity of 41 paperwork to support and document its path along this process. I’ll try and be brief. I’m in 42 support of this project but I am not in support of it outright. I think there are some conditions 43 that should be applied to the project and there should be some continued involvement by staff 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 11 of 26 and subcommittee as it continues. Regarding the environmental issue and the below grade 1 garage, as I said, I am not an expert and the recommendation from the city’s consultant that a full 2 vapor barrier and active ventilation be provided in the garage seems a reasonable approach to 3 me. I’m sure there are financial ramifications to it and I’m sure it’s not the full level of 4 protection or mitigation that might be requested by some other people but it does seem like a 5 reasonable approach that the developer and owner of this type of commercial and residential 6 project would want to provide for both his residential and commercial tenants.7 8 Regarding the setback on the southern side, it is not a zoning requirement. It is a design desire. I 9 personally think that 5 feet is too little of a setback from a property line from a residential unit 10 and the staff has crafted a response to this which says that there could either be a 10 foot setback 11 at the second and third floors or a 5 foot easement approach that was taken on the other side of 12 the property. The statement I’m sorry from Mr. Janz is correct, we don’t know what the 13 development of the site adjacent is going to be. We don’t know if it is going to be developed 14 now or a hundred years from now. We don’t know if the parcel will stay intact or that parcel 15 will be subdivided which could increase the pressure to locate a new construction adjacent to that 16 property line. We don’t know if it could be rezoned before it is developed in the future. We 17 don’t know. What we do know is this project is proposed, this project has a property line and it 18 is proposed that this project be proactive for the benefit of its occupants to have either a 10 foot 19 setback for the second and third floor or applies to the other side. Other members of the board 20 may have a different opinion.21 22 Regarding the colors, my opinion is that the proposed mock ups on Park Avenue are a very good 23 idea. I think we could stick with the red, yellow, blue palette and select from something in here. 24 I don’t know that it needs all of us trying to do that right now. That could be something that is 25 worked through in subcommittee. We could stick with that main palette, we just need to work 26 through it.27 28 Regarding the tower design, I think that the alternate proposal has some merit but I will stick 29 with the owner’s request that the original May 19th proposal be the one that is put forward with 30 the project. I believe that the address of the planting has been taken care of with the jasmine vine 31 and that there is a proposed screening for the bikes at the entry which seems like a good 32 compromise. The return walls, 24 inches again seems like a reasonable compromise and I look 33 forward to completing our discussion and moving forward with the project. Thank you very 34 much.35 36 Chair Malone Prichard: Judith.37 38 Judith Wasserman:Good day. Thank you for your presentation and this pile of paper that we’ve 39 been swimming through. Thank you also for sending the pictures. They were very instructive. I 40 have been working on this for years and I cannot make the findings. We had seven comments on 41 the last review and of the seven we got jasmine vines and six excuses. Of the findings I cannot 42 make are elements of the comprehensive plan, policy L5 it says maintain the character of the 43 city, avoid land uses that are overwhelming. I believe that this project is very large and when I 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 12 of 26 get down to the second finding I will explain that. Policy L48 says promote high quality creative 1 design that is compatible with surrounding developments and I don’t think we’ve reached that. 2 The policy T19 says improve and add attractive secure bicycle parking. I don’t think this is 3 attractive bicycle parking. When we started this project it was rental housing. It is now for sale 4 housing. I am getting the bait and switch feeling.5 6 The finding number two that this design is compatible with the immediate environment of the 7 site is not met. I think when you have this kind of massing and height in a relatively mixed 8 neighborhood that your architectural design needs to be exceptional and I think Mr. Legorreta 9 shows us what we could have gotten and what we do not have.10 11 I don’t have an opinion about the setback except to say that if the board feels that this setback is 12 important because of the possibility of future development, that is called planning and that is the 13 name of what we do here. To say that you can’t plan because of the zoning that exists is not 14 correct. Finding number 10 says that the access to the property and circulation are safe. I have 15 long maintained that entering the site from Park Blvd. is not as safe as it would have been from 16 Page Mill and I still believe that is true. It is not clear to me that the materials, textures and 17 colors are an appropriate expression to the design. That’s it.18 19 Chair Malone Prichard: Let’s move to Grace. Thank you.20 21 Grace Lee:I want to thank the applicant for their presentation and yes, we do have a lot of 22 paper, it’s a very complex project and I may be somewhere in between just in terms of my 23 reaction. I appreciate the comment letter to address the comments that came from the last 24 gentleman. I appreciate Curtis’ staff’s comments about the community issues that have been 25 brought up. I do rely on Curtis’ explanation on that side and I understand that conversation will 26 be continued.27 28 On the setback issue I appreciate, I think it was board member Lew who brought it up last 29 meeting. I’ve actually been on this project for quite a while and did not see the potential for 30 future development and I do think it is within our purview to speak to the comfort of the users of 31 those units with the 200 foot façade basically in one plane, twelve units five feet from the 32 property line and so on my part I do have an opinion there. I think the ten foot setback is a much 33 more favorable situation. On the other side as a designer I do get how difficult that will be to 34 achieve.35 36 Corner tower -you know, I think what would have been helpful is to get a section of just how 37 much screening you really need for that mechanical equipment. In my view, I appreciate the 38 effort in the alternate tower and it’s not so dramatic. There isn’t really a new option here. It’s 39 very subtle. The bulk of my comments have been on the tower in this project in terms of its 40 scale and top heaviness. I saw something about the intention of it not being a tower however I 41 think a lot of the board’s comments over the years has been the need for a marker on this corner 42 and something that distinguishes it especially since the massing of the building is a large block 43 and also that it’s a residence, a home. So something to mark the neighborhood and also for the 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 13 of 26 program but unfortunately I just don’t think the tower achieves it. I don’t see a solution here, an 1 adequate response to the board’s comments from last time. So from my view the corner tower 2 does not improve, it is hard for me to accept this and I think if the applicant had provided some 3 kind of section to really explain how much screening is needed for that mass to change and those 4 flanking walls adjacent to the tower, how those could be modified and a little bit of effort to how 5 the tower could be improved, so I am a little bit disappointed.6 7 The green checklist needs to come in an adequate time for the staff to approve it. This is such a 8 large building and a big proposal for the city, that it is green and in which aspects it is green, and 9 that it fulfills the requirements seems important. I think we can work with the colors. I’ve 10 always been a proponent of the original solution with the Mondrian colors. I don’t see that as a 11 deal breaker in terms of denying or moving this project along. The 24 inch returns and the same 12 thing with the bike lockers, I feel that all of this could be worked out especially with the staff and 13 the board. 14 15 I do think the issues are the 10 foot setback, how we can make that work for residents with its 16 scale and its future and the corner tower in terms of a real architectural feature that makes the 17 building, improves the pedestrian scale or just marks that corner on an urban design level. It’s 18 just always been a question mark and I feel there is no resolution at this point so I will go ahead 19 and pass it on.20 21 Chair Malone Prichard: Okay, Alex.22 23 Alexander Lew: So I am in agreement with board member Wasserman on this project. The 24 issue in this project for me is that it’s an entire city block, about 250 feet by 450 feet. The design 25 is not up to that scale. If the project were a quarter of the size or half the size I would say, fine, 26 we can get there, but it is a whole city block. I think about 800 High Street, very controversial 27 project, and that is just half a city block. That project, even though to me it has some flaws, it 28 does have sunshades and very highly developed planters and pedestrian amenities right at the 29 sidewalk. It doesn’t have a continuous façade along High Street, there is, for lack of better 30 words, a mini-courtyard that breaks up the long length of the façade that this project does not 31 have. 32 33 The other thing on this project is the blank wall along the corridor, a 450 foot long, 3 story blank 34 wall. I looked all over the aerial photos for Palo Alto and I don’t see anything in this town 35 anywhere near that. I don’t see how we can make a finding that this is compatible with the 36 neighborhood environment if there is nothing else like it. I do understand we have unusual 37 circumstances here with the high speed rail but even then, if the massing were broken down into 38 smaller buildings like Palo Alto Central on California Avenue, that does not have a lot of 39 windows on the back facing Cal Train but the massing is broken down so you actually do see 40 windows on the sides. It’s not just the straight, blank wall. It’s broken up to match the scale of 41 the town. 42 43 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 14 of 26 I think I also have issues with the sight planning. I think Judith mentioned the entrance on Park 1 Avenue. I do think we are saying that it is considered safe to make a turn into the project but yet 2 we are increasing all the left turn lanes and then the applicant is adding a big left turn lane onto 3 Page Mill Road. That seems to me fairly hazardous. There is a new project in Mountain View 4 which is about the same size project but they divided the project into two buildings but the 5 garage extends below both buildings and then there is a walkway in between and the garage goes 6 all the way underneath that and the garage entrance is on one of the side streets, not the 7 equivalent of Park Blvd. or Alma. It is on a side street so we don’t have any traffic conflicts with 8 bike lanes and stuff.9 10 To me, if you have a long left turn lane of cars trying to turn onto Page Mill Road and then you 11 have people in your proposed project trying to turn and cut into the left turn lane, they are just 12 going to dive in. They are not going to look for bicyclists or pedestrians. To me, that is a very 13 dangerous situation.14 15 In addition to that, I’ve been a critic of the sidewalk although I think I’m the only person on the 16 board who feels strongly about that one.17 18 On the issue of the setback, I think I misunderstood what the staff was getting at at the last 19 meeting. Is the applicant saying that they are required to do a 5 foot planting strip along the 20 Akins property and either I’ve forgotten or I don’t really quite understand what triggered that 21 requirement and if that’s in the conditions of approval. I read the regular condition of approval 22 but I don’t remember what trigger meant. They had that at the last meeting, the landscape plan 23 for the Akins parking lot, they showed it. We didn’t have them in our packets. I don’t 24 understand how that ties into this project legally or what the mechanism was where that 25 happened.26 27 Ms. French: I’ll try to respond to that, though I was not at the May 19th hearing so I wasn’t 28 aware that was shown at the meeting as a solution. My understanding from Lata and the notes 29 that the ARB for design reasons was believing that the second and third floor residential should 30 be approximately 10 feet back from the property line or if need be, a building separation of 10 31 feet, to where they could build on the Akins property, the next door commercial property, where 32 in the future they may build to, somehow with an easement limit, development to at least 5 feet 33 back if they are not going to provide a setback at the upper levels on the 195 Page Mill Road site. 34 That’s my understanding of it and it is rather limited.35 36 Mr. Lew: I guess I thought there was something that predated that.37 38 Ms. French: In the past we had that thinking that was the intent of the RM40 zone which had 39 previously been applicable but no longer was. It’s no longer zoning -simply a design concern.40 41 Mr. Lew: Okay, and then also one more question for staff. On the green checklists, if the staff 42 hasn’t reviewed it can we actually make a recommendation at this time because I have not 43 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 15 of 26 reviewed them either and it seems troubling that if we have to make a decision today, I would 1 say I can’t.2 3 Ms. French: The city’s green building recommendations have changed over the years and as you 4 know the California green building code is now in effect and the city has the optional Tier 2 as a 5 requirement so for the commercial portion, in order to get a building permit, must meet Cal 6 Green Tier 2. It would have been nice to have the ARB have a chance to comment on but it is a 7 regulation of the state that the city is locally recommended to require. So you don’t have to. It’s 8 more for your interest but we do have a finding that says its green, what have you. 9 10 Mr.Lew: So I guess I’ll put this on applicant. What green measures are being proposed for the 11 project?12 13 Mr. Hohbach: Ask me that again. You’re talking about the Cal Green building code?14 15 Ms. French: Basically for the residential portion, the city can either do Cal Green Tier 2 or Build 16 It Green for the residential portion, or they could do the whole thing as a LEED silver level with 17 some other things. It is really their option, we work with people on that and LEED ND is just for 18 our research.19 20 Mr. Lew: Okay, so in our findings that we have to meet and review is item 15, the design is 21 energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy elements including but not limited to the 22 city’s regulations. I was wondering what elements are proposed for this project?23 24 Mr. Hohbach: I don’t have the document in front of me but there are three documents, Build It 25 Green which is for the residential portion. A lot of that has to do with the fact that the site is near 26 transit facilities, near public facilities, the streets surrounding the project are walkable, there are 27 bike lanes, those kinds of issues. 28 29 Mr. Lew:Those are very important.30 31 Mr. Hohbach: For the green point rated checklist I think we are required either 30 or 50 points 32 we need to come up with. We have a point total of 115, having to do with services of within half 33 a mile. It’s a mixed use development, building placement, walking and bicycling facilities near 34 the project and then it gets into using the star appliance and so on which we’ve said we will so 35 it’s a three page document. 36 37 Mr. Lew:It seems to me the site issues and having a mixed use building in a pedestrian 38 downtown area, that’s the big thing so that’s fine.39 40 Mr. Hohbach: A lot of this has to do with energy star appliances, water efficient fixtures, light 41 pollution reduction, I won’t go through all of it but we’re well within compliance with this Cal 42 Green point rated checklist. That’s one of the items we were asked to provide and we did 43 provide it on May 10th. I think somewhere it got lost but it was sent in on the 10th and then sent 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 16 of 26 in again when we got the staff report and realized it wasn’t in the file. The Cal Green checklist is 1 about 21 or 22 pages. It is an incredible document and we have filled that out as a request. That 2 is a new requirement adopted January 1st of this year.3 4 The other things we were asked to do is the LEED ND which is the neighborhood development 5 and that was required as well and we just became aware of it recently. So that’s the situation on 6 what we provided. 7 8 Mr. Lew: Thank you. So let me get back to the issues that I have with the findings. So again, I 9 think that really my main issue with the compatibility is just the length, the unbroken length of 10 the façade. I think the staff maintains that some of the recesses and trellises that you’ve done 11 mitigate that but to my eye they don’t just because of the extreme length of the building that it is 12 not enough. If it were a smaller building I would say the things that you’ve proposed are fine. In 13 my mind, if I took your building and put it on one of the downtown blocks, like on Alma, there is 14 a disconnect there, and I don’t see how that would be an approvable project. It’s just so big and 15 it’s so much of the same module. It’s going to be repeated over the outside of the building as 16 well as the courtyard.17 18 And then on finding number 5 on the design permits, transitions, scale and character in areas 19 between different land uses, and again, with regard to that additional 5 foot setback along the 20 Akins property, to me that’s key in making a transition but to me you’re proposing not to make a 21 transition between these two uses. The Akins property could easily be redeveloped into 22 something else. We have no idea what it would be in the future. We do have applicants who 23 would like to build at zero setbacks without any windows or landscape amenities so I would say 24 we should treat the Akins property as if this applicant bought that property and wanted to build 25 things at zero lot lines or just minimal setbacks or minimal landscaping. Assume that a similar 26 property owner could redevelop that as you are proposing for this site.27 28 On item number seven, planning and citing of the various functions of buildings on the site 29 create an internal sense of order and create a desirable environment for the occupants, visitors 30 and the general community. I would say that the project is starting to look really nice. There are 31 elements of this project that I do like but to me some of the confusion is like having the 32 automobile entrance to the courtyard very close to the garage entrance and so if I’m a visitor, 33 how do I know where to go? If I go into the courtyard it’s a dead end parking lot and it’s hard to 34 turn around. If I’m a visitor where am I supposed to park? The colors you are proposing, a lot 35 of times architects will use colors to inform you where you are supposed to go but in here all the 36 colors are up on those high recesses, there is nothing to orient me about which entrance I am 37 supposed to go to.38 39 We are here in City Hall and this whole city block, and it’s pretty easy where the front door is, 40 where I’m supposed to go, but in your project I really don’t know where to go. You have four 41 different stair towers and if I don’t know the site I really don’t know if I have to go to some back 42 corner staircase. There isn’t, from my eye, you are missing some sort of orientation way finding 43 in the design and I think that’s a lost opportunity and Legorreta is really a master of that. If you 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 17 of 26 look at his Schwab Center at Stanford, the housing there, the outside of the building is all muted 1 colors but he has really bright colors in the courtyards and he uses the colors to draw you through 2 the building to different spaces. He doesn’t use it everywhere as you’re doing it and he is very 3 particular where he uses it, corridors, entrances, what not. And I think that that is missing in the 4 design. I think the design would be better for it. It seems like you are close but just not willing 5 to take it to the next level. 6 7 Again, item number eight, the amount and arrangement of open space appropriate to the design 8 and function of the structures, and again I agree with the 10 foot setback and issue on the upper 9 floors. I think another secondary concern I have is along Park Blvd. is, I mean this is a lesser 10 concern but its right along and closer to Page Mill Road, only has Crate and Myrtle trees and 11 really no street trees and to me that’s sort of an eye sore for this project. It is unfortunate 12 circumstance with the left hand turn lane but to me that’s not enough landscaping for such a 13 large building and then it begs the question of whether an additional setback or something is 14 needed to get more planting areas. 15 16 Finding number thirteen, the landscape design for the site as shown by the relationship of plant 17 masses, open space scale, plant forms, foliage textures and colors create a desirable and 18 functional environment, and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the 19 various buildings on the site. At the last meeting I was a little bit critical of the courtyard 20 landscaping. I appreciate all the changes that have been made with some larger and a few 21 evergreen trees but still in my mind it is really not enough landscaping. To me, in these 22 multifamily projects, if you are in an apartment, your windows only look out one way and to me 23 in these courtyard kinds of projects they really need the trees to have privacy otherwise you are 24 in a fishbowl. It’s just not enough to provide a desirable place to live. 25 26 Again, on the planting, I do like the redwood trees that are being proposed along the backside of 27 the building along the Cal Train tracks. I am a little concerned about some staff findings saying 28 that if the lease is terminated and for whatever reason the trees are cut down then we can rely on 29 the vines but I’m a little worried. Most vines require sun. That’s just part, there are a couple that 30 grow well in shade, but we are proposing redwood trees. The combination of being on the north 31 side of the wall and redwood trees there will be full shade and the vines won’t grow. If that ever 32 happens we are left with this 450 foot long, 3 story high blank wall. 33 34 Ms. French:Can I ask again because just found out what type of vines are proposed yesterday. 35 I’m wondering if the landscape architect has comment on the species selected, perhaps it’s a 36 shade species, I don’t know.37 38 Lyn Winterbotham, Landscape Architect: That was the reason I selected the pink jasmine 39 because it will do well in fairly low light. Yes, overtime the redwood trees will become 40 extremely dense and that would make it harder to thrive but hopefully the vines can keep up with 41 the growth of the trees and always be reaching for the light.42 43 Mr. Lew:Does this require a trellis to grow on it?44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 18 of 26 1 Mr. Winterbotham: Or guide wires or something like that.2 3 Mr. Lew:The trellises that are being proposed are only shown one story high or eight feet high. 4 In my mind I was thinking of, there is a building, an old digital office building there. That was 5 nice when it was planted but I do recall the day that the whole thing fell down over the parking 6 lot so I’m really sort of worried about that situation, that you have enough support and that it is 7 long term and permanent support and that the vines somehow can get ahead of the redwood 8 trees. Because the redwood tree, that’s going to be a lot of shade so I’m going under the 9 assumption that someday something is going to happen on the Cal Train tracks and we’re not 10 going to have any trees. I don’t have a lot of faith in the 30 day lease termination aspect of the 11 landscaping.12 13 If you think the vines are suitable for that location I’m fine but I would want to see the support 14 details.15 16 Mr. Winterbotham: I think the vines are appropriate for that location.17 18 Mr. Lew:How high would they grow? Is there any indication?19 20 Mr. Winterbotham:They would get 30 feet tall.21 22 Mr. Lew: Okay, that would be good. Some of the other items that I think the applicant 23 mentioned was the lighting, that could come back, I don’t have too much of an issue with that. I 24 think at the last meeting we were talking about sunshades along the Park Blvd. façade, you and 25 Grace had mentioned that and I don’t know whatever happened to that. I think it was maybe a 26 suggestion because the building is such a long façade. That’s it. But I think if push comes to 27 shove and we have to make a decision today my recommendation would be to not recommend it.28 29 Chair Malone Prichard:Okay so I’ll just limit myself to the seven items from last time. The first 30 one is setback. I think everybody has spoken about that. I want to make it clear to the applicant 31 and future applicants that even though zoning allows a zero foot setback you are not entitled to a 32 zero foot setback. There may be other circumstances that require a larger setback than that 33 including item number 7 which speaks about the appropriateness and the experiences of people 34 who will be in the building.35 36 Having said that, however, I would actually be okay with the setback as it is shown on the 37 drawings. The reason for that is that yes, another building may be developed on the site next 38 door but it is not there yet. When it does get developed it will come to ARB for review. They do 39 try to put something right on the property line I hope ARB in the future would say wait a minute, 40 you’ve got residences right there and its not appropriate. That is what the protection is for the 41 residents of this project.42 43 The tower I don’t have a strong opinion on the original tower versus the alternate. 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 19 of 26 1 The vines and trees look good. For color I prefer the primaries that were originally proposed 2 with a subcommittee coming out and taking a look at the brush outs. That’s the best way to get 3 those colors worked out.4 5 Bike locker screening is good. Thank you for doing that. The wall returns I would like to see 24 6 inches and the perspectives I think were beyond that point. We looked at this project enough that 7 we pretty much all understand what it is going to look like so although this is not my favorite 8 project by any means I think it is an acceptable project and I will be supporting it. 9 10 Ms.Wasserman: Could I bring up the question of the lid on the tower which has been ignored? 11 We asked that it be extended the same on all four sides and it has not been and I think it looks 12 weird. I know that making these changes we’ve asked for at this stage of the game is difficult 13 but I think the applicant dug himself this hole. I don’t think we are responsible for the fact that 14 the building goes out to the property lines on all sides and left himself no room for landscaping 15 on the street and has to rely on the joint powers to plant trees or five feet on the neighbor’s 16 property to get an acceptable screening. I don’t think we are responsible for that.17 18 Chair Malone Prichard:Does anyone want to take a try at a motion?19 20 Ms. Lee: I have a question for the applicant about extending the lid on the tower and adding 21 sunshades to the building since those things weren’t addressed in this application are they willing 22 to make those changes? I was wondering about the residential south facing?23 24 Chair Malone Prichard:Will you come up and address those questions please?25 26 Mr. Hohbach: We didn’t do it on the upper portions of Page Mill because we haven’t done it on 27 the upper portions anywhere else. I think Grace you were the only one that commented on it.28 29 Ms. Lee: What about the lids on the tower? I just want to get some consensus to move this 30 forward. 31 32 Mr. Hohbach:Extending the lid on the tower creates a practical problem for us and that is 33 because the tower has a smaller footprint than the rest of the screen it will put something above 34 the units so in terms of servicing the mechanical units, replacing them, or just servicing the units 35 in that space, its going to be more difficult if we have something above those units. Certainly it 36 can be done but it does create a problem in servicing the units. 37 38 Ms. Lee:I’m sorry Clare, were your comments that you accept the tower design as previous or 39 as revised?40 41 Chair Malone Prichard:The May design although I don’t have a strong opinion.42 43 Ms. French: The portions of the tower extension could be removable.44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 20 of 26 1 Mr. Hohbach:If you are referring to the part of the tower that just sticks up itself then yes we 2 can change proportions of that.3 4 Ms. French: No removable portions. You are saying the extension on the two rear sides makes 5 it difficult to service.6 7 Mr. Hohbach:You can’t lift equipment out. In fact, if you look at one of the drawings it is an 8 alternate roof plan shown on A2.4, it’s the alternate plan. In A2.4a you can see the plan as it’s 9 now proposed where it is completely open above the equipment and if you turn one page to the 10 alternate to show how a four sided tower would be located above the equipment that needs to be 11 serviced. Does everyone have that? A2.4a and then the drawing after that. As you can see, the 12 tower has a substantially smaller footprint than the screen that is required for the equipment and 13 the screening required for the equipment is based on the size of the units we are proposing and 14 clearance required around the units to service the units. So the main equipment screen is the 15 minimum size we need to screen that equipment.16 17 Ms. Lee: But that lid, if you look on sheet 2.4a the lid comes up the page from gridline 1 to 18 gridline 2 it could continue up the page a little bit and return back to where it is returning. It 19 would not be in the way of the equipment and it would look more balanced for example.20 21 Ms. Wasserman: I believe that’s why we asked for the perspective from the other side so we 22 could see how much of the lid was visible. This is a prominent part of the architecture and the 23 design is being driven by the HVAC. I don’t think that’s an appropriate way to approach it.24 25 Chair Malone Prichard:I am in agreement that we do need a perspective of that in order to 26 understand it. 27 28 Ms. Wasserman: We need a sideline view from the street of the tower from the south side of the 29 building, as you are walking north on Park Blvd. the tower should be visible at some point and 30 the question is whether that lid return is visible or not. 31 32 Mr. Hohbach:It will be.33 34 Ms. Wasserman:So it needs to return otherwise the tower looks silly.35 36 Mr. Hohbach:It is possible for us to make the tower four sided. It creates some problems 37 servicing the equipment but I do understand your point. I do. We can make it four sided. 38 39 Ms. French: That’s an example that potentially as we start to set it in motion could turn to a 40 subcommittee.41 42 Ms. Lee: Do you all feel that at this late date adding some type of screens to the south facing 43 windows the elevation would improve the project and it would be worth it? 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 21 of 26 1 Chair Malone Prichard: I agree it would break up the façade and add more interest to the façade 2 and shadow and comfort to the inhabitants. However, relocating the driveway entrance at this 3 point in the game is not a reasonable subcommittee request. It has been turned down before. 4 The building was designed in this way from the beginning and no matter what anybody said it 5 has not changed and I think Alex’s description of how it works with the left turn lane is very 6 accurate. It was bad enough having the driveway into the courtyard but to have this additional 7 driveway on the busy street did not make sense to me. Do the things I am hearing the board in 8 agreement on so far in terms of moving the project forward have been we need to see sideline 9 view of the tower from the street because we have concerns about its visibility and its overhangs. 10 We need to have some kind of sun shading on the upper floor windows. The accent wall returns 11 at 24 inches. 12 13 Was there anything else we seem to be agreement on?14 15 Vice Chair Young: We all agreed that the final colors could be mocked up on site for a sub 16 committee viewing and I think we could agree that the selection of yellow to go with the primary 17 palette could be addressed in subcommittee and the alternate palette was not something we 18 wanted to proceed with.19 20 I have one follow up comment to a point you had made about the 10 foot setback. I agree in the 21 future the ARB will take into consideration the conditions of the adjacent buildings but I think it 22 is this ARBs responsibility to work with this particular or any applicant to work toward the 23 betterment of the existing project and not put an undue burden on future neighbors and 24 applicants. I think this is a responsibility they should own on their own and whether it be a 10 25 foot setback on their side of the property line or reinforcing the five foot planting area with a five 26 foot easement so that is a protected area as opposed to a nice area I think is a stronger approach. 27 28 Chair Malone Prichard:I agree it’s a stronger approach however we need to look at the 29 conditions as they currently are, there are no applications on the adjacent side. Lots of open 30 space available. As far as making any hardship to the adjacent property owner realizing a 31 building could have been built with a blank wall right on the property so this building is actually 32 providing more space for the adjacent owners than they might otherwise have chosen to do so I 33 don’t feel we are impacting the adjacent owner. Just an opinion. 34 35 Ms. Lee: How would board members draft some kind of condition of approval to address the 10 36 foot setback? Is there any way to do this?37 38 Chair Malone Prichard:It is written into the conditions as they stand. 39 40 Vice Chair Young:I think the other three members were in support of either a 10 foot setback or 41 a five foot easement. Please step in if I misspeak. 42 43 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 22 of 26 Ms. Lee: I’m just wondering how this works with a motion. Is it possible for you two to agree 1 for a motion? It sounds like the other two board members are not willing to go. Am I 2 misreading the situation?3 4 Chair Malone Prichard: The conditions as written include the 10 foot setback.5 6 Ms. Lee: I know and I’m wondering how you would change them.7 8 Ms. French: I know the shadings have that shaded area that would say upon conditioned but the 9 condition itself to require that, I don’t believe I put it in there because it was pending ARB 10 discussion.11 12 Vice Chair Young:There was a proposed piece of language.13 14 Ms. French:That would be in the findings and it says as conditioned but I didn’t actually write 15 the condition to put into the conditions of approval so if that is something the ARB wants to do, 16 make those findings, or otherwise reword those findings we do need to craft an actual condition 17 that goes along with those findings if that is the pleasure of the board.18 19 Chair Malone Prichard:Why don’t we do this? Let’s have a mini-vote on whether or not we are 20 going to impose a condition of a 10 foot setback. I want a straw pull. I will start by saying I 21 would not impose the setback.22 23 Mr. Lew: Is it either or the 5 foot or just the 10 foot?24 25 Chair Malone Prichard:Okay, two straw pulls. So the first one is how many people would 26 require a five foot easement on the Akins property in order to approve this project? I am a no. 27 Anybody else? Okay, so that is a no. The second one would be, how many people would 28 require a 10 foot setback on the applicant’s property of the upper floors as a condition of 29 approval of the project?30 31 Mr. Lew: I would say yes to that.32 33 Chair Prichard: Okay, one. Two. 34 35 Vice Chair Young: This is where I get confused because I like the either/or because it gives the 36 applicant to approach it from a design standpoint or proactively from a neighbor’s standpoint.37 38 Chair Malone Prichard:I have a hard time imposing mitigations on someone’s property. I 39 wouldn’t do the “or”. I’m unhappy with the JPB solution also for that reason. Are you a yes or 40 no on that?41 42 Vice Chair Young: I still like the either/or but I understand your point. My problem is I know of 43 other projects we have done things like that. On El Camino, I don’t remember the applicant’s 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 23 of 26 name, but it was the two condominium units over the 5,000 square feet and the pet hospital next 1 door where they had a shared parking lot agreement and it was all part and parcel of they had to 2 have that agreement about sharing that parking lot.3 4 Ms. French:There was a historic agreement and use of that parking lot by the vet hospital. It 5 was prescriptive easement.6 7 Vice Chair Young: Don’t we have a historic open space here?8 9 Ms. French: Prescriptive easements relate to vehicular use whereas, I don’t know about a 10 prescriptive easement for light and air. 11 12 Ms. Wasserman:Prescriptive easement applies to the long term use of someone else’s property. 13 If I use your property for 10 to 15 years you can’t tell me I can’t use it but in this case nobody is 14 using this property. Its Akins property and they use it. This applicant doesn’t use it so there is 15 no easement now at all so it couldn’t be a prescriptive easement.16 17 Vice Chair Young:What was staff’s thought in presenting it as an either/or?18 19 Ms. French: My spotty recollection was there was a lot line adjustment between Akins property 20 and this property. I am not remembering it correctly at this point but there may have been an 21 agreement they came up with in some way. I wasn’t at the last hearing to hear if an agreement 22 was written. It gives the applicant the opportunity to come forward now and tell you what is a 23 possibility if there is a former or existing agreement in someway. They’ve worked something 24 out, they are paying them, I don’t know how it is with that applicant. This is kind of a vestige 25 from a former report.26 27 Chair Malone Prichard:Mr. Hohbach can you elaborate on what is going on with that five feet?28 29 Mr. Hohbach:Yes. This was entered into long ago with the Akins property. I agreed to 30 reconfigure their lots a long time ago to get this rectangle lot. In connection with that agreement 31 I agreed to provide a 5 foot landscaping strip on the Akins property line adjacent to our property 32 line. That is in writing.33 34 Vice Chair Young: Can you elaborate on that? Is it effectively an easement?35 36 Mr. Hohbach: I don’t have an easement, no. If they absolutely assist I could try and get one but 37 it is like asking a land owner in the future to give up something they might use. I don’t have to 38 use it for landscaping but…39 40 Vice Chair Young: I’m just trying to understand what the nature of this five foot planting strip 41 agreement is.42 43 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 24 of 26 Mr. Lew: Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe in exchange for realigning the lot lines it was 1 required that this applicant provide this kind of landscape buffer for future development that he 2 may do on his property to benefit the Akins property so it’s not an easement its just that he was 3 required to fund it. 4 5 Mr. Hohbach:Mr. Winterbotham is here and he did the landscape plans, he can recall too 6 probably what it shows.7 8 Mr. Winterbotham: It is a five foot strip that has trees in it and light. To understand what 9 happened here, to get the right to plant trees I had to agree to give the joint powers board a 10 10 foot right of access back to their property on our property as they have a driveway through there. 11 That’s why we have a 10 foot setback at the office level. They are very unlikely to give that up 12 because they want access to their property and if they give that up, if they take the trees away 13 they’ll have to give up access which I’m sure they will not do. 14 15 Mr. Hohbach: I don’t think anything is going to happen within 5 feet of the property. There is 16 nobody going to build right next to our property. This is an issue that we shouldn’t have to 17 address.18 19 Chair Malone Prichard:With that we will close the public hearing. I want to take a brief break 20 because there are some issues with getting cars moved before they get tickets. 10 foot setback, 21 how many people would require it? We had two who would, two who would not and one with 22 no opinion.23 24 Vice Chair Young: My opinion was to defer to the applicant. 25 26 Chair Malone Prichard:I need a yes or a no. Okay no, I have three nos and two yeses. I say we 27 craft a motion that does not include a 10 foot setback requirement. Third one would be an 28 either/or. Would anyone here support giving the applicant an option of a 10 foot setback or 29 coming to some agreement with the adjacent property owner. So we’ve got one yes, one no.30 31 Mr. Lew: Conceptually I would be agreeable to that although I don’t really understand how it 32 would happen. When would we see the drawings and how would we connect that ARB 33 applicant with this project? It seems complicated to me.34 35 Chair Malone Prichard: It is complicated but let’s assume we can make that work. 36 37 Mr. Lew:I would approve that in the conditions of approval.38 39 MOTION40 41 Chair Malone Prichard:I am a no on that and Grace is a no. So I’ve got no on the 5 foot 42 easement, 10 foot setback and no on the giving a choice.With that, I will make a motion that we 43 approve the project. We do not make any requirements regarding easements or setbacks. We 44 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 25 of 26 bring back to subcommittee a view to understand the site lines of the towers from the street, both 1 streets. That shades are added at all the upper floor windows on both sides. That the accent 2 walls should be 24 inches deep and the final colors will be in the primary palette and will be 3 reviewed by the subcommittee on site. 4 5 Ms. Wasserman: The railroad side has no windows.So you are requiring sunshades on Park and 6 Page Hill. What about south side where it might be sunny? 7 8 Chair Malone Prichard:Good point. Three sides. 9 10 Ms. Lee: What about lighting? There was a request to come back with that as well. I just 11 wanted to point out this motion is basically going back to Clare’s compelling argument that in 12 the future ARB would address the setback issue on the property. 13 14 Vice Chair Young: What about the tower lid or the tower design?15 16 Chair Malone Prichard:That should be folded into the approved perspective so for review of 17 options.18 19 Ms. Wasserman:Considering the history of this project, considering options is not sufficient. 20 You need to instruct the applicant to put a lid on that thing on four sides.21 22 Chair Malone Prichard:Good point, I’ll accept that. Okay, all four sides, yes.23 24 Vice Chair Young: Again this might not be part of our purview but the whole discussion that 25 Curtis brought up about the vapor barrier and the active ventilation in the garage is not us? Very 26 good.27 28 SECOND29 30 Chair Malone Prichard:Okay, will somebody second that motion?31 32 Ms. Lee: I will.33 34 Chair Malone Prichard: All in favor? Opposed? We have a recommendation for approval from 35 the ARB. And we are adjourned.36 37 MOTION PASSED (Young,Malone Prichard, Lee voting yes; Lew and Wasserman opposed)38 39 40 41 City of Palo Alto July 13, 2011 Page 26 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ______________________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENT H: Background Information -Timeline Timeline for 195 Page Mill Road/2865 Park Boulevard Projects 2011 Revision to Initial Study/MND to note Lapkoff Study as source and revision PTC review August 24, 2011 Revisions to Initial Study/MND not requiring new mitigation June 28, 2011 Revisions to Initial Study/MND and recirculation May 5-June 7, 2011 ARB reviews May 19, 2011 and July 7, 2011 Director’s Decision July 12, 2011 Appeal filed July 25, 2011 2010 February 8, 2010 Certificate of Compliance to merge parcels October 5, 2010 Tentative Map submittal (application 10-PLN-344) Revisions to Initial Study/MND to address High Speed Rail and Tentative Map City’s internal Counsel determined RM-40 zone development standard not applicable 2009 Initial Study/MND prepared and circulated April –May Initial Study/MND revised to address RWQCB comments and re-circulated in November December 3, 2009 ARB review 2008 September 22, 2008 new ARB application submitted (application 09-PLN-295) 2007 PTC June 13, 2007 3-3 vote on Tentative Map (noted in PTC report of August 24, 2011). Writ of Mandate Filed By Robert Moss 2006 May: On May 10, 2006, the PTC analyzed the implementation of the PTOD overlay envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The staff report referenced a noise report prepared in April 2006 that included findings regarding techniques to ensure noise reflection is not an issue including the use of absorptive materials, articulation and avoiding sustained flat surfaces over 100 feet. The environmental review for the PTOD area was handled via an Addendum to Comp Plan EIR. The PTC report is available at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/planning-transportation- meetings/documents/PTODSRthruAttD.pdf September: On September 7, 2006, the ARB recommended conditional approval of the project after two public hearings, with regard only to project design, not zoning compliance (pursuant to GM zoning, as requested by the applicant). The project was nearly identical to the 2011 proposal -the construction of a three story mixed-use ______________________________________________________________________________________ building to include 50,467 square feet for research and development and 104,971 square feet for two floors of residential with 84 units. The difference was that a building existed on the site at the time, and the residential units were requested to be rental units with no request for condominiums at the time of Council approval. The applicant had requested one development concession under Senate Bill 1818, with 17% of the units as below market rate (BMR) units; the applicant had considered mixed-use and additional floor area as combined into one concession, whereas staff considered them as two concessions. In addition to the previous Director’s concern over concessions in his denial (then appealed to Council by the applicant), additional concerns included: (1) insufficient justification for parking reduction, and (2) unsupportable findings for Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEEs) for height, setback, daylight plane, and lot coverage). The Director had concern regarding the 451-foot long, 3-story wall facing Alma, where vertical relief and horizontal height variations were needed, as well as the lack of pedestrian-orientation along Park Boulevard. October: Council adopted the PTOD Combining District, and the PTOD regulations became effective on October 10, 2006. The PCE Director denied the mixed-use project based on noncompliance with zoning criteria and the applicant appealed the decision. Following removal from consent on October 6, 2006, the Council scheduled a public hearing for November. On October 11, 2006, the PTC reviewed the Council’s September 2006 initiation of PTOD rezoning of the project site (CMR 328:06), along with a new mixed use Comp Plan designation allowing for an FAR of up to 2.0 on the project site. The report noted that the Director had not concurred with the applicant that SB1818 concessions would allow 1.5 FAR on the project site,and that he had recently denied the AR application for the project. The report also noted that Council had removed the B district in October 2005, and that the PTOD overlay for the area was to take effect on October 11, 2006. For the project site, the staff recommended a 40 foot height limit, 40 units per acre, and 1.25 FAR but allowing for up to 1.5 FAR given a 1.0 for residential and 0.5 for commercial as long as justification per SB1818 were provided that the additional commercial space was needed to support the BMR units. The staff recommendation was for a 20% parking reduction. The report noted that 42-62 housing units would have been the minimum density under RM-40 zone development standards for the project site. The PTC report is found as follows: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/planning- transportation-meetings/documents/195PMRRezone.pdf Four members of current PTC were on PTC for the October 2006 meeting (Lippert, Keller, Tuma, Garber) as well as two Council members (Holman, Burt). Minutes note that Council had initiated rezoning of the site on September 11, 2006 to PTOD and sent it to the PTC; the PTC continued their review to a date uncertain but never resumed their hearing of the matter because the Council overturned the Director’s denial the project. ______________________________________________________________________________________ The PTC minutes of 10/11/06 are at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/planning-transportation- meetings/documents/Oct11Mins.pdf November/December: Council voted to overturn the Director’s denial on November 20, 2006. The PTC received an update on the Council’s action, reflected in the November 29, 2006 PTC meeting minutes, and no further hearing was conducted regarding PTOD rezoning that Council had initiated. An Initial Study/MND was prepared following the Council’s overturn of the Director’s decision, and circulated for Council review. On December 11, 2006, Council approved the application. The Council’s 2006 approval required the BMR units to be increased to 20%, improvement of the aesthetics and articulation of the rear wall of the building to decrease its visibility, and green building features (the approval predated green building requirements). The Council also approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) following adjustment of one of the mitigation measures; however, the adjusted MND had not been re-circulated for public comment prior to Council approval. Litigation filed by Robert Moss followed the approval and resulted in set aside the Council’s decision due to the lack of recirculation of the MND after a new mitigation measure was added. Before 2006 Background on the years leading up to the 2006 Council approval are provided in CMR 418:06. On September 27, 2004, Council denied a Planned Community (PC) application for a four-story, research and development and residential mixed use building, including 45,115 square feet of research and development space and 2,000 square feet of retail on the ground floor, three levels of residential apartments totaling 177 units, and subterranean parking (CMR 422:04). On August 11, 2004, the PTC had unanimously recommended denial of the PC, concerned the project did not comply with Comprehensive Plan Policies and that the public benefit package was not adequate. In 2005, the site was zoned GM(B) and the applicant filed a formal application in August 2005 and in October 2005, the Council approved removal of the “B” overlay from the General Manufacturing (GM) zone district and thereby prohibited all housing and mixed-use (residential and nonresidential) developments in the GM zone; however,the Council allowed this project to proceed under the GM(B) zoning since it was submitted prior to the zone change, and the site was on the Comprehensive Plan housing site inventory. In 2006, the Council initiated the rezone of the site to PTOD. July 12, 2011 Harold Hohbach Hohbach Realty Company 29 Lowery Drive Atherton, CA 94027 Subject:195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard [08-PLN-00295]: Architectural Review Application Dear Mr. Hohbach: On July 7, 2011 the Architectural Review Board recommended approval of the application referenced above and as described further below, and the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) subsequently approved the Architectural Review application on July 12, 2011. The Director’s Architectural Review approval will become effective 14 days from the postmark date of this letter, unless an appeal is filed in accordance with Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The approval was based on the Architectural Review findings in Attachment A and is subject to mitigation reporting as noted in the Mitigation Measures included with the Conditions of Approval in Attachment C and presented in the Mitigation Monitoring Program document (Attachment B). In accordance with California Government Code Section 66020, this letter includes notice of the amount of development fees and a description of the dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed by the City of Palo Alto in connection with the project, described as follows: 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard [08PLN-00295]:Request by Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership for Architectural Review of a three storybuilding on a 2.41-acre (net) site for ground floor research and development use (50,467 sq. ft.) and 84 residential units (106,920 sq. ft.). Zone District: General Manufacturing (GM). Environmental Assessment: A revised draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review beginning Friday May 6, 2011 through Tuesday June 7, 2011. The fees, dedications, reservations or other exactions imposed bythe City in connection with your development project are described in your conditions of approval and previously agreed upon mitigation measures attached to this letter, including by reference the approved development plans. Government Code Section 66020 provides that project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the project. Any protest regarding the amount of the development fees or the nature of the dedications, reservations or exactions imposed in connection with your project must be initiated not later than ninety (90) calendar days following July 12, 2011. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR TO FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS DESCRIBED ABOVE. If you have any questions regarding the amount of the development fees or the nature of the dedications, reservations or exactions imposed in connection with your project, please call me at (650) 329-2336. Unless an appeal is filed, this project approval shall be effective for one year following the effective approval date, within which time construction of the project shall have commenced. An application for an extension may be made prior to the expiration date. The effective approval date is fourteen (14) days from the postmark date of this letter. The time period for a project may be extended once for an additional year by the Director of Planning and shall be open to appeal at that time. In the event the building permit is not secured for the project within the time limits specified above, the Architectural Review approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Should you have any questions regarding this action, please do not hesitate to call Planning Manager Amy French at (650) 329-2336. Sincerely, Curtis Williams Director of Planning and Community Environment Attachments: A: ARB Findings B. Mitigation Monitoring Program Document C: Conditions of Approval Cc:Dick Campbell Jim Janz Robert Moss Herb Borock ATTACHMENT B: MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Park Plaza (195 Page Mill Road/2865 Park Boulevard) July 12, 2011 Section 21081.6(a)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a Lead Agency to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program whenever it approves a project for which measures have been required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The purpose of the monitoring and reporting program is to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. On July 12, 2011, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was approved for the Park Plaza project. The MND concluded that the implementation of the project could result in significant effects on the environment unless mitigated, and mitigation measures were incorporated into the project or are required as conditions of project approval. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program addresses these measures in terms of how and when they will be implemented. MM-1:Implementation of ARB Recommendations Any Architectural Review conditions of approval, with respect to the design of the proposed project, shall be incorporated into the final design by the applicant. Responsible Agency for mitigation MM-1monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Time frame for mitigation MM-1 monitoring: The Planning Department is responsible for ensuring that the applicant’s building permit drawings address ARB approval conditions and that the ARB subcommittee reviews final details as stated in the ARB approval conditions prior to issuance of a building permit. MM-2:Indoor Air Filtration A central HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) shall be installed that includes high efficiency filters for particulates (MERV-13 or higher). The system should operate to maintain positive pressure within the building interior to prevent infiltration of outdoor air indoors. Responsible Agency for mitigation MM-2 monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Time frame for mitigation MM-2 monitoring: The Planning Department is responsible for ensuring that this measure is met prior to issuance of final occupancy permit. MM-3:Protection of Nesting Birds The applicant shall abide by all provisions of Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code and Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) as published in the Federal Register (Vol.70, No.49; March 15, 2005). Although there is no vegetation on the project site that may contain nesting birds, there may be nesting birds in existing vegetation abutting the proposed project site (e.g., in the Caltrain property). To protect any nesting birds, the proposed project may avoid construction during the nesting period. Alternatively, a qualified wildlife biologist (to be hired by the applicant) shall conduct a survey for nesting birds that are covered by the MBTA and/or Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code in the vicinity of the project site. This survey shall cover all areas that would be disturbed as a result of construction related activities during the nesting period, and shall include a “buffer zone” (an area of potential sensitivity, beyond the bounds of the proposed project construction area) which shall be determined by the biologist based on his or her professional judgment and experience. This buffer zone may include off-site habitat. This biological survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the commencement of construction activities. The wildlife biologist shall provide a report to the City promptly, detailing the findings of the survey. No construction shall be conducted until this report has been provided to the City and the City has authorized in writing the commencement of construction activities in accord with the biologist’s findings. If nesting birds that are covered by the MBTA and/or Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code are discovered within the buffer zone, the report shall specify the locations of the nests and shall establish an appropriate construction buffer zone around the nest location(s). Nests containing birds that are covered by the MBTA and/or Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code discovered on site or at off- site locations shall not be disturbed, and construction shall not occur within the appropriate construction buffer zone until a qualified wildlife biologist determines that the young have fledged and left the nest. Responsible Agency for mitigation MM-3 monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Time frame for mitigation MM-3 monitoring: The Planning Department is responsible for ensuring that this measure is met prior to issuance of the building permit. MM-4:Protocol for Management of On-site Contamination a)A formal dewatering plan (Construction Dewatering Contingency Plan) shall be prepared, consistent with Mitigation Measure MM-6 in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality of this Initial Study and consistent with the City’s Construction Dewatering System Plan Preparation Guidelines and Dewatering from Construction Sites and In-ground Utilities Maintenance Manual. This plan shall be prepared and submitted for final approval by the City’s Public Works Department prior to issuance of City permits. The applicant shall provide information in the plan regarding the lateral and vertical distances to existing groundwater contamination plumes and an analysis of the potential impacts to those plumes caused by construction activity on the project property, including the use of dewatering sumps or wells under the proposed underground parking structure. Prior to submission to the City, this information shall be submitted to the RWQCB for approval that the proposed work on the subject property, including any use of dewatering sumps or dewatering wells would not have an adverse impact on the current and future cleanup effort of the HP-Varian or COE plumes. The approval shall be submitted to the City’s Public Works Department with the plan and shall verify that dewatering sumps or dewatering wells, if proposed, would not alter the path of the groundwater contamination plume(s) and could not result in 1)bringing groundwater contamination to the project site or 2)a possible future exposure of the public on the project site to groundwater contaminants. The plan shall identify testing and analysis methods, and treatment, if necessary, for disposal into the storm drain system to ensure compliance with the City’s Municipal NPDES permit. Sufficient personnel and material shall be provided by the applicant to implement the plan, should groundwater be encountered by the excavation. b)The applicant shall provide ready access to the project site for the City Building Official, or a third party hired by the Building Official, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of activities related to excavation and design features during project construction at sites with contaminated soil and groundwater, to inspect and enforce implementation of the Soil Management Plan prepared by Tucker Engineering addressing the procedures and precautions to be used for the proper containment, profiling, movement, exportation of soil, etc. during the excavation and construction period. c)The applicant shall provide ready access to the project site for the third party inspection service, which would report to the City and be financed by the applicant to inspect and enforce implementation of the Remedial Risk Management Plan (RRMP), including implementation of the Site Health and Safety Plan; contaminated soil sampling, excavation, and management; the dewatering contingency plan; reporting requirements; land use covenant and environmental restrictions; long term monitoring, inspections, contingencies, and enforcement. d)The applicant shall file documentation with the RWQCB, the third party inspection service reporting to the City and financed by the applicant, and the City for final approval of the completion of the excavation, including soil sampling results within 60 days following the completion of excavation. e)Prior to issuance of the occupancy permit the applicant shall file documentation from an independent consultant specializing in vapor mitigation system design and installation for final approval by the third party inspection service reporting to the City and financed by the applicant confirming that each component (collection pipes, transmission pipes, inlets, risers, vents, etc.) of the vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS) has been installed in accordance with the recommendations of the Vapor Mitigation System and Monitoring Plan, and includes the installation of a full vapor barrier, which shall be a 60-mil thick, spray-applied membrane below the elevator shafts, stairwells, pipe chases, and entire floor-slab, as part of the active vapor collection and venting system (i.e., driven by electric fans at the effluent end of the VIMS riser pipes and enhanced by outside air entering through inlet vents) to be installed in the building to mitigate potential soil vapor intrusion. f)The applicant shall file documentation with the RWQCB and the City for final approval by the third party inspection service reporting to the City and financed by the applicant of installation of the VIMS, initial garage air sampling results, and the startup sub-slab vapor-riser monitoring results, with vapor-riser monitoring reports submitted as required by the RRMP, within 60 days following the completion of building construction. g)The applicant shall comply with contingencies regarding vapor monitoring to protect against potential vapor intrusion which would involve additional remediation if the results of the first six (monthly) monitoring events indicate any cause for concern. If the VIMS is operating correctly, monitoring would continue quarterly until vapor concentrations were reduced to 50 percent of the RWQCB ESLs and annually thereafter. If the third party inspection service determines that the VIMS is not functioning adequately, the system is required to be redesigned (under the supervision of the third party inspection service) for more effective removal of VOCs. Monitoring would continue until VOC concentrations were demonstrated to be maintained below the commercial ESLs, as recommended by the RWQCB. h)The applicant shall condition the lease agreements with each R&D tenant proposing to use hazardous materials to stipulate that the storage and use of hazardous materials within their space would not exceed the limits set by Tables 2703.1.1(1), (2), and (3) Maximum Allowable Quantity Per Control Area of Hazardous Materials Posing a Physical Hazard, 2010 California Fire Code, Title 24, Part 9, Chapter 27, Section 2703.1.1. The space for each R&D tenant proposing to use hazardous materials shall be constructed as a separate compartment with one-hour rated walls, protected common openings, and separate ventilation systems. i)The applicant shall condition the lease agreements with each R&D tenant proposing to use hazardous materials to stipulate that the tenant shall comply with the City’s Hazardous Materials Reporting Requirements and shall prepare and file with the Fire Department, as appropriate, a Hazardous Materials Management Plan or a Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement providing sufficient information on how and where hazardous materials are handled by the business to allow fire, safety, health, and other appropriate personnel to prepare adequate emergency responses to potential releases of the hazardous materials. j)Monitoring wells encountered during site preparation or excavation shall be reported immediately to the RWQCB for its decision regarding proper abandonment or abandonment and replacement by the applicant. Work shall stop in proximity to the well(s) until the decision of the RWQCB is implemented. The applicant shall file documentation with the RWQCB and the City for final approval by the City Building Official, or a third party hired by the Building Official, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of activities related to excavation and design features during project construction at sites with contaminated soil and groundwater, of proper abandonment or abandonment and replacement of any affected wells. Responsible Agency for mitigation MM-4 monitoring: City of Palo Alto Departments of Planning and Community Environment, Fire and Public Works Department Time frame for mitigation MM-4 monitoring: The Planning Department is responsible for ensuring that this measure is met as noted in each of the alphabetized items in MM-4, Management of On-Site Contamination. MM-5: Grading and Drainage Plan The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan for the proposed project, for City approval prior to the issuance of a grading, excavation, or building permit. This grading and drainage plan shall comply with Engineering Design Standards for storm drain facilities, shall be designed to convey the 10-year storm flow, and shall reflect the recommendations of the Joe Crosby and Associates Geotechnical Report, dated May 10, 2004. Responsible Agency for mitigation MM-5 monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works Time frame for mitigation MM-5 monitoring: The Public Works Department is responsible for issuing grading and excavation permits, and responsible for ensuring that this measure is met prior to their Department approval of building permit plans, grading and excavation permits. Planning Department staff is responsible for ensuring Public Works has signed off on this measure prior to signing off on the Building Permit application. MM-6:Construction Dewatering Plan A construction dewatering plan shall be prepared consistent with Chapter 33 of the 2007 California Building Code, and shall be submitted to the City in association with all proposed sub-grade garage excavation activities prior to issuance of a grading, excavation or building permit. The applicant shall include the dewatering plan in the permit plan set submitted for approvals for any excavation activities on the project site. The plan shall provide a system that would remove silt and other pollutants from this water and place clean water into the City storm drain system. The applicant shall secure current data on the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using piezometers, or by drilling exploratory holes, if the deepest excavation would be less than four feet above the highest anticipated groundwater level. Should dewatering be necessary (i.e., if excavation would occur within four feet above the highest anticipated groundwater level and the piezometer investigation revealed the presence of free groundwater within four feet above that highest anticipated groundwater level), the applicant shall secure City permits associated with the placement of dewatering equipment or actual dewatering and excavation activities on the project site or the abutting public right-of-way prior to beginning excavation. Upon installation, the dewatering system shall reflect BMPs that ensure the water discharged would be of appropriate quality. The installation shall be approved by a City field inspector prior to the commencement of construction water discharge to the storm drain. Extracted groundwater shall be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. Testing shall be performed by an independent testing firm hired by the Building Official, at the owner's expense. Any dewatering to occur in the public right-of-way shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department. Responsible Agency for mitigation MM-6 monitoring: City of Palo Alto Departments of Planning and Community Environment and Public Works Time frame for mitigation MM-6 monitoring: The Planning and Public Works Departments are responsible for ensuring that this measure is met prior to issuance of building and excavation permits, and for ensuring the installation is inspected and testing of groundwater has occurred prior to initial discharge and at intervals during construction-water discharge (aka dewatering). MM-7:Indoor Noise Minimization The project shall include design features as specified in the project noise assessment to reduce the indoor noise levels to meet the interior noise standards prescribed by the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policy N-39. Responsible Agency for mitigation MM-7 monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Time frame for mitigation MM-7 monitoring: The Planning Department is responsible for ensuring that this measure is met prior to issuance of final occupancy permit. MM-8:Pedestrian Warning System A vehicle exiting/pedestrian warning system shall be installed for the underground parking garage driveway to eliminate potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists. Responsible Agency for mitigation MM-8 monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Time frame for mitigation MM-8 monitoring: The Planning Department is responsible for ensuring that this measure is met prior to issuance of final occupancy permit. MM-9:Transportation Demand Management Plan A Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) program shall be implemented as approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The TDM shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits and shall include a shared parking analysis based on the number of assigned parking spaces, and may incorporate (but shall not be limited to) such features as: developer-sponsored subsidized transit passes for residents and employees, a transportation coordinator, convenient displays of alternative travel options, and unbundling of parking, if such features are determined to be adequately effective by the Director of Planning and Community Environment in reducing parking demand. The TDM program shall be subject to further review after building occupancy pursuant to PAMC 18.52.050(d)(3) and (4). Responsible Agency for mitigation MM-9 monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Time frame for mitigation MM-9 monitoring: The Planning Department is responsible for review and approval of the TDM program prior to issuance of building permits, and review following building occupancy. OCTOBER 3 CMR ATTACHMENT N: COUNCILMEMBER QUESTIONS AND STAFF RESPONSES A. Councilmember Scharff 9/19/11 E-mail Questions: 1. How many parking spaces would be required for a 50,467 R&D building without any reduction for any factors? Staff Response: Without any reductions, 202 parking spaces would be required for a stand-alone R&D building in the GM zone (at a ratio of 1 space per 250 square feet of R&D space). 2. How many parking spaces would be required for an 84 unit building without any reduction for any factors, assuming 60 two bedroom units, 20 one bedroom units and 4 three bedroom units? Staff Response: Without any reductions, 167 spaces would be required for a residential only product with unit breakdown as noted, comprised of 158 resident spaces (at a ratio of 1.5 parking spaces each for the 20 one bedroom units = 30 spaces, and 2 parking spaces for the 64 2 and 3 bedroom units = 128 spaces, for a total of 158 spaces for residents) and 9 guest parking spaces (one space plus 10% of total number of residential units is required). Staff note: State Housing Law provides a different parking ratio for one bedroom units in applicable project than do City parking requirements. Government Code 65915 requires not more than one parking space per each one-bedroom residential unit, whereas the City’s regulations require 1.5 parking spaces per each one-bedroom residential unit. Since there are 20 one-bedroom units proposed at 195 Page Mill, that would result in 10 fewer parking spaces required (148 total for the residential). This is not shown in the parking analyses, however. 3. The staff report refers to the Lapkoff study estimates a yield of 29 students from the project. Can we get a copy of the Lapkoff study? Staff Response: An excerpt of the Lapkoff study is attached to the CMR (Attachment O). The full study is available from the Palo Alto Unified School District. 4. The staff report also refers to a parking study that was prepared. Can we get a copy of the parking study? Is there an executive summary if it is lengthy? Staff Response: The most recent parking study is contained in a letter prepared by Fehr & Peers in 2009 entitled ‘Park Plaza Mixed-Use Project Trip Generation and Off-Street Parking Analysis’ referenced as Appendix L in the ‘Reference Studies and Documents Available for Public Review Upon Request’ on page 10 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). It is the first 12 pages of Attachment P to the October 3, 2011 City Manager’s Report (CMR). The latter portion of Attachment P is a five page document entitled “Site Access and Parking” excerpted from the 2006 Fehr and Peers Transportation Impact Assessment (Appendix J) of the MND. The reference studies and documents referred to on page 10 of the Initial Study/MND are all contained within the project files, available for public review upon request. 5. Is there an executive summary of the TDM measures to be implemented and enforced? Is a copy of the TDM program available? Staff Response: The TDM program is attached to the CMR (Attachment Q). B. Councilmember Holman’s 9/19/11 and 9/26/11 E-Mail Questions: 1. One of the ARB findings is that the project be compatible with the existing built environment. Did the ARB make that finding as it does not appear in the minutes of the ARB nor are the other findings referenced in the motion? Staff Response: The Record of Land Use Action (ROLUA), provided as Attachment A, outlines the Architectural Review Board’s (ARB’s) approval findings. These ARB approval findings were also included as an attachment to the ARB staff report provided to the ARB and are available on the City’s website. Finding #2 (page 8 of the ROLUA) addresses the issue of compatibility with the existing built environment. The findings and approval conditions (which were modified following the ARB hearing to incorporate changes) were attached to the Director’s approval. 2. Are there context drawings for the project as they are not in our packet? Staff Response: The applicant has provided a complete plan set and Tentative Map for Council consideration, which have been distributed with the October 3rd Council packet. 3. The PTC minutes are missing. Staff Response: The PTC minutes referenced in the staff report were emailed to the Council on Friday 9/16/11 and are attached to this report (Attachment E). 4. The tentative map appears to be incomplete. Staff Response: The PDF attached to the September 19, 2011 CMR printed only partially due to the agenda software limitations. The applicant has included a hard copy of the map in each Councilmember plan set. The PDF was emailed to Councilmembers on September 19, 2011, and is attached to this CMR (Attachment R). The aerial and public improvement plans that were provided to the ARB and PTC are also provided in the plan set for Council. 5. Is the City required to provide 2 zoning concessions for provision of 4.4 additional affordable housing units? Staff Response: The request for two concessions is due to the provision of 20% of the overall number of units (17 of 84 units) as below market rate units. Government Code Section 65915-18 states that condominium units must be sold (and remain subject to resale) at not-to-exceed moderate income levels to be eligible for concessions. The 20% is applied regardless of whether a City has an inclusionary zoning requirement, and courts have verified that interpretation. . 6. Where are the BMR units located in the project? Are they comparable units to the market rate units per our code? Staff Response: Yes, all 17 BMR units would be interspersed on the second and third floors, some facing the courtyard and some facing the exterior, and are required to be comparable in quality and layout to the other units. The BMR units are one and two bedroom units (there are only four three-bedroom units – none of those units will be BMR units). 7. Has the Housing Corp been involved in the creation of the BMR program and in agreement with it? Staff Response: The Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) has been a partner with the City (since the mid-1970’s) in the creation and management of the BMR program and units. The PAHC received a courtesy copy of the most recent BMR letter (dated September 6, 2011) and had been in accord with the prior (2007) similar BMR agreement with the applicant. This courtesy is to alert the PAHC that BMR units will be coming into the program so they can plan for the future sales and management of those units. 8. As the City has implemented numerous sustainable policies, what sustainability options are provided for housing units without especially on the tracks side of the project? AKA cross ventilation. Staff Response: All housing units have operable windows that are also acoustically rated to ensure Title 25 and City standards for interior noise levels are met. The front doors of the residential units on the side facing the tracks are served and buffered by an interior, community hallway adjacent to the exterior wall parallel to the JPB/Caltrain ROW, and those units have operable windows into the courtyard. There are only four fixed windows facing the JPB ROW, at the ends of the hallways, and fixed windows at 90 degrees to the JPB ROW providing additional light into the hallways. The units facing the sides of the building that are aligned at 90 degrees to the tracks also have operable windows. The design will need to demonstrate compliance with ventilation requirements of the Building Code prior to issuance of building permits. 9. Caltrain ROW questions: a. What is the precedence for no setback and landscaping provided for on the CalTrains right of way? Staff Response: Staff is not aware of the relationship of other buildings relative to the right-of- way, but it appears that most, if not all, have some buffer. b. What is the access to plant, retain, maintain plantings in this location? Staff Response: The Joint Powers Board (JPB) has an easement across the Park Plaza site parallel and adjacent to the property line adjoining the Akins site at 3045 Park Boulevard. There is a mutual agreement between the applicant and the JPB for maintenance. c. Does this require a side agreement with CalTrain? Does such exist or what communications have there been with CalTrain re this proposal? Staff Response: Yes, this requires an easement and maintenance agreement with the Joint Powers Board (CalTrain). 10. What is the purview of the Council on this item? Are we limited to the matters raised in the ARB appeal? Or can our review be broader, as there are regular constraints of ARB and particular constraints on PTC in this case for a major project? Staff Response: The Council may act fairly broadly on the Architectural Review, the Tentative Map, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, so long as the relevant findings are made and substantiated. Those findings, as currently recommended by staff, are outlined in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). 11. Air quality: what peer review will be provided for the one-time sampling in the housing floors? Have air quality and plume technology/analysis changed since the approval and construction of the projects listed on page 8 of the staff report? Staff Response: The details of the most recently proposed condition (not considered a required Mitigation Measure) for one-time sampling have not yet been worked out, but staff expects that we would seek advice to the Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding expectations for sampling and would then provide the sampling data to the Board staff for their review and input. The analysis of mitigation appropriate to prevent vapor intrusion has become considerably more rigorous since the other residential projects have been constructed (though there is no indication that there have been problems at those sites in the absence of stricter controls). 12. As this is an item of over 300 pages sans the PTC minutes, why was it not provided earlier consistent with the new provision for 2 week prior for larger projects? Staff Response: The project was appealed in July and in accordance with PAMC Chapter 18.77, the appeal report was to have appeared on Council’s agenda within 30 days of the appeal. As the Council had no meetings in August, the first meeting at which the item could appear was September 6, 2011. The applicant agreed to postpone the timeline to allow for a joint hearing on the Tentative Map, which the PTC considered on August 24, 2011. A postponement to September 19, 2011 was agreed to, but this still did not allow enough time for an early packet due to the staff report review process. Due to the postponement to October 3, 2011, the Council will now have had three weeks for review of the project. 13. Can staff please provide a comparison chart of zoning to the proposed project as is typically provided to PTC? Staff Response: Table 2 ‘GM Zoning District Development Regulations’ was provided on page 67 of the Initial Study/MND. 14. What concessions are required based on SB375? In other words, are concessions warranted when we already require by code affordable units? Does the applicant have to provide any given number of units to qualify for exceptions? Staff Response: SB375 is not a factor in the request for concessions. If the intended reference is to SB1818 (the bill introduced by Hollingsworth, now known as Government Code 65915- 65918): two concessions are requested and warranted for the provision of 20% Below Market Rate Housing units in accordance with GC 65915. The developer is entitled to two concessions if 10% of the units are very low, or 20% of the units are lower or moderate income units. In the project before Council, now an all condominium unit project, 20% of the total units (17 of the 84 units) are proposed as units affordable to moderate income buyers. Zoning Exceptions such as Design Enhancement Exceptions are not requested for this project. 15. What relevance is financial viability to this project? Additionally, the 2006 letter referenced in response to Bob Moss questions....was that not a different project? Staff Response: GC65915 states that in addition to requesting incentives and concessions, applicants may request the waiver of an unlimited number of development standards by showing the waivers are needed to make the project economically feasible. The bill defines development standards as “site or construction conditions.” The applicant had provided a statement in 2006 regarding how the R&D component would help with the financial feasibility of providing affordable housing in 2006, prior to the prior PCE Director’s decision on the application. At that time, the number of affordable units proposed was 17% of the units, warranting only one concession, the project was cited to be a rental housing and R&D project, and the number of zoning development standards not met could not be supported by the percentage of affordable housing proposed, so the applicant was requested to provide the statement. CMR 10-3 ATTACHMENT S: Response to Appellant’s Recent Email Communications Appellant Robert Moss’s 9/16/11 Email: Appellant was referring to the 9/19/11 City Manager’s Report (CMR) in the below comments; staff responses follow each comment: Moss: “Of interest is that many pertinent facts are omitted from the report. For example, the ARB minutes report the project was approved. What they fail to note is the actual vote which was 3-2. In addition a number of comments by commissioners are omitted. For example at one point when approval of the project was being discussed commissioner Wasserman referred to it as a bait and switch job. That was omitted.” Staff Response: Complete verbatim minutes of the ARB meeting of July 7, 2011 were provided as an attachment to the PTC report; an earlier unedited version was inadvertently attached to the CMR, but the updated version was emailed to Councilmembers on Friday September 16, 2011 and is included with this report. The comment made by Boardmember Wasserman was included, in context: “When we started this project it was rental housing. It is now for sale housing. I am getting the bait and switch feeling.” These comments are reflected in both the unedited and edited versions of the ARB verbatim minutes. Moss: “Neither the Planning Commission minutes nor my letter to the Planning Commission are attached to the report despite the statements on (CMR) p. 5 and p. 6.” Staff Response: The PTC minutes of August 24, 2011 and Mr. Moss’s email letter of August 21, 2011 referred to in the report were inadvertently omitted from the attachments. These were emailed to the Councilmembers on September 16, 2011 and are attached to this updated CMR. Moss: “CMR P. 6, the consultant’s view that indoor air monitoring is not the most effective means to assess impacts is at variance with EPA and members of the Moffett Field RAB and general practices.” Staff Response: Indoor air monitoring within the basement is proposed and supported by the City’s consultant and the Regional Water Quality Control Board as a part of the project. In addition, the applicant has now proposed one-time testing within the three above ground floors of the building, not required by the Regional Board. EPA does not have jurisdiction over this project and an assumption that they would require indoor air monitoring is highly speculative. Finally, Mitigation Measure MM-4 sets forth protocol for management of the on-site contamination, including third party inspections of the full vapor barrier and vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS). Moss: “CMR P. 6, 1st item. Although the ARB approved the overall design and appearance several ARB members expressed concern about such a massive structure and the negative impact it would have if the trees in the railroad right of way were removed. The vines on the rear wall would not cover the entire structure and in no way would soften the massive appearance from Alma and to riders on the tracks behind the building. Planning commissioners and past councilmembers strongly objected to the scale and mass of the building. Before the project was begun Mr. Hohbach asked a number of community representatives to view 4 models proposed for the site. I was one of them. All community members strongly rejected the design before you tonight and preferred 2 separate buildings with a courtyard between. The community was asked to participate and their preferences were then ignored. It is time for the Council to recapture the need for scale, quality, and compatibility in developments and reject this proposal.” Staff Response: The GM zone permits buildings 50 feet in height, whereas the Park Plaza Building is primarily 40 feet in height, with only the corner tower (an equipment screen) is greater than 40 feet tall. The applicant did modify the current project’s building facade that fronts Caltrain right of way for the current application, with additional vertical relief and horizontal height variations, in addition to the vegetation referenced by Mr. Moss (the vines were reported to grow 30 feet tall by the applicant’s landscape architect). The project’s redesigned façade was reviewed by the ARB, with 3 of the 5 members recommending approval of the redesign, and approved by the Director as having met the ARB approval findings. One of the two members recommending against project approval still noted concern about the vines. The Applicant has stated that it is very unlikely that the Joint Powers Board (JPB) would ask for removal of the trees, noting that Sprint maintains a building (valued at over 1 million dollars) in the ten-foot wide strip, from which the JPB receives substantial income. In addition, the applicant has noted the JPB would lose its access to its property through the ten-foot wide access route on Park Plaza property being provided adjacent to the Akins Body Shop site. Nevertheless, the architectural features of the project are within the purview of the Council to modify if the appropriate architectural review findings are made. Moss: “CMR P. 6 2nd item. Dependence on a TDM program to reduce parking needs assumes that residents and many of the workers will use the train. In fact less than 10% of the residents at Palo Alto Central use the train, and the total number of riders using the train at the California Ave station was 941 in 2008. If 450 of them are workers (to and from California Ave = 900 worker trips/day) that is less than 2% of the workers in Stanford Research Park. There are no penalties or corrective action if the offer of TDM passes is ineffective and few workers use them. Therefore the assumption that parking is adequate rests on fond hopes not reality.” Staff Response: The project includes a request for a 22% reduction (approximately 86 spaces) in the number of on site parking spaces. With its TDM program, shared (office and residential) uses, and location near transit, the project would be eligible for a maximum 30% reduction. Staff does not have data regarding train usage by Palo Alto Central or other nearby developments, but does note that the vehicle per household ratio in Census tracts close to the City’s two Caltrain stations are considerably less than in the City as a whole (generally without any TDM program or transit incentives). The TDM program is attached to the CMR (Attachment Q). Moss: “CMR P. 6 3rd item. The comments at the ARB meeting by staff and ARB members implied that the building permit had been both requested and issued, but then retracted when staff realized the error. Glad that actual issuance was not done, but just asking for the building permit before the ARB hearing, let alone approval, violated the explicit Council directive. As noted the chair of the ARB chastised Mr. Hohbach.” Staff Response: There is no active building permit application. Moss: “CMR P. 7 1st item. There are no other projects in Palo Alto where a residential building is directly adjacent to the railroad right of way. As noted Palo Alto Central has an open space between the building and the railroad property. Homes and apartments along Park have setbacks from the rear property line.” Staff Response: The City’s 1998 Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Housing Sites Inventory identified potential housing sites most suitable and likely to be developed for residential purposes. Included on this list is a 3.92 Acre site associated with a 120 unit minimum yield, and the site includes a 1.56 Acre portion of the Park Plaza site. Staff is not aware, however, of the proximity of all existing sites to the rail right-of-way, though it appears that most projects have some kind of buffer. Moss: “CMR P. 7 3rd item. Non-residential uses are not and never have been required to make housing a viable use of land in Palo Alto. Claiming that it reduces housing costs does not make it so. It certainly does increase traffic, parking needs, and worsens the jobs/housing imbalance. Regardless of whether the R&D exists, housing on the site will sell for market rate + 10%. Having R&D will not reduce the cost of housing to buyers by a penny. It can increase profits.” Staff Response: The applicant provided a statement to the previous Planning Director noting his need to have the requested commercial use at the ground floor to support the proposal for housing on the site. Staff believes the primary policy consideration, however, is not whether the office/R&D use is necessary financially, but whether the housing is appropriate. Moss: “CMR P. 7 item 4. Limiting the types of biological agents is better than the previous lack of limits, but allowing any hazardous materials in R&D space below housing is a very bad idea. Did anyone learn anything from the fatal explosion from a single gas cylinder in Menlo Park on Sept. 2?” Staff Response: A condition of approval was added that would allow for only Level 1 biological materials, which generally include non-contagious viruses only. If desired, Council could add a condition to restrict the R&D space to preclude any biological materials. Moss: “CMR P. 7 Item 5. The project does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Land Use Map, and established policies. ARB approval specifically excluded Comprehensive Plan and Zoning compatibility review. However the Planning Commission agrees that this proposal violates the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Land Use Map and they rejected it 4-2. I cited a number of Plan policies and Programs that the project violates. I am sure that Councilmembers Holman and Burt can use their experience on the Planning Commission to find even more violations of planning and zoning.” Staff Response: The ROLUA and ARB staff report reference eight Comprehensive Plan policies supporting ARB Approval Finding #1 (these policies are also noted in the Initial Study/MND). Following comments made by PTC members regarding the Tentative Map findings, staff modified findings #3 and #6 to better support the two findings the PTC majority noted they could not support. Moss: “The offer to test indoor air in the residential area after construction is complete is better than the past conditions, but is inadequate as continuing monitoring is required, not just a single test after construction. That is particularly necessary for this project sitting next to the railroad tracks. Over time the vibrations from 70 to140 trains/day could damage the vapor barrier and sub-slab system so ongoing testing is required.” Staff Response: The proposal includes ongoing monitoring of indoor air in the underground garage, as described in the MND. If this monitoring discloses the presence of VOCs at any time, the Water Board can then decide what, if any, additional air monitoring steps or mitigation measures are required. If proximity to the railroad tracks creates any problems this would first be noticed in the air sampling in the underground garage. The applicant’s proposal for one-time sampling of indoor air on all floors, including the two residential floors, does not appear to be beneficial, as the City’s consultant has noted that other environmental factors in a residence may affect the monitoring. Council could, however, extend the condition on an ongoing basis if desired. Moss: “CMR P. 8-9. The example of housing over a toxic plume at Campus for Jewish Life is exactly what EPA and many experts prefer for housing developments in Superfund sites. Ground floor parking with housing in a podium resolves the problems of vapor intrusion. That would be a good design for 195 Page Mill.” Staff Response: Staff believes that design with an entire-block, first level parking structure with no commercial-pedestrian activity at street level is not considered to be good pedestrian-oriented design within a PTOD area. The ARB worked toward ensuring the provision of pedestrian amenities and ground floor fenestration, particularly along Park Boulevard, to meet PTOD context based standards. Moss: “EPA has tried to get the Water Board to make its policies, positions, and corrective actions more consistent with those of EPA with very limited success. In June EPA representatives met with the Water Board in an effort to get more consistency between the two groups in addressing vapor intrusion. No agreements were reached. EPA personnel observed that apparently the Water Board does a good job with water. At the RAB meeting September 8, EPA personnel noted that the Water Board continues to act independently and not always consistent with EPA policies. Therefore the requirements and restrictions at 195 Page Mill imposed by the Water Board are not best practices nor adequately protective of occupants health. Staff has taken the approach that since the Water Board is the agency overseeing Superfund activities in Palo Alto, if they are satisfied with what is proposed, then everything must be OK, or if not OK, it’s the fault of the Water Board, not anyone on staff. Bad approach to the issues. If the government agency outside of Palo Alto that is directly responsible for protecting public health and safety is not doing an adequate job, and be assured the Water Board is not, then it falls on all of you to exercise proper controls and requirements so that future inhabitants in Palo Alto will not be at needless risk of cancer and other diseases caused by TCE. The potential for TCE vapor intrusion and the probability that public health and safety of residents will be compromised from the proposed development also is justification to deny the project.” Staff Response: There is no evidence that the EPA would require additional mitigation for this project, were the project within its jurisdiction. EPA is now working more closely with the Water Board to review Palo Alto projects, but has not indicated any additional measures necessary for this project. Staff believes that the mitigation required is more stringent than the Regional Board would have required, and that it is basically the most extensive protection available, other than simply not building the project. Moss: “I must admire the careful way staff, Mr. Hohbach, and the consultants are avoiding the Elephant in the Room –the high levels of TCE in soil gas. A consultant overseeing the toxics issues at the Grant, Sheridan and Birch project advised against building any occupied building over an area where the soil gas level for TCE was 6400 grams/cubic meter. Accordingly only the garage extends over this high TCE area. Of course with no vapor barriers TCE will go into the garage and from there unimpeded into the occupied spaces. The rear third of 195 Page Mill has soil gas test results for TCE of 23,500, 25,000 and 150,000 grams/cubic meter or 3.7 to 23.4 times the level at Birch and Grant that was considered too high to allow occupied buildings above. Every time I mention this sad fact there are evasive replies, for example the restriction at Birch Plaza doesn’t apply to 195 Page Mill because they are different locations and the Water Board had no complaints about the high level of TCE in soil gas. On the other hand EPA was surprised to hear of such high levels of TCE in the soil gas. Apparently 150,000 grams/cubic meter exceeds any levels found at MEW. The prudent approach to mitigating these high levels of soil gas TCE is to prohibit both occupied buildings and underground garages at the rear of the site so that vapor intrusion is avoided. The area can be used for landscaping and surface parking.” Staff Response: The Birch Street site does not require nearly the same level of mitigation, i.e., full vapor barrier and active ventilation, as is proposed at 195 Page Mill Road. The Regional Board has approved the different approaches to the two sites, as EPA has made site specific determinations at the Mountain View site. Moss: “CMR P. 9, Housing Density concessions will open the way to destruction of zoning and land use controls in Palo Alto and eventually the elimination of many R-1 neighborhoods, to be replaced by high density housing if the current staff interpretation of GC65915 is applied. It is not necessary to grant any concessions in order to get 20% of the units dedicated to BMR housing. For over 35 years Palo Alto has required a new housing development to include BMR units. Currently the required level is 15% BMRs. Thousands of housing units have been built here with the required percentage of BMR units, or payment in lieu of units, resulting in almost 1500 BMR units. None of these developments required a concession to provide BMRs. An increase from 15% BMRs to 20% BMRs can be obtained by applying existing Palo Alto regulations plus density bonuses without granting any concessions. Using GC 65915 to obtain BMR units can reduce, not increase the number of BMR units. For example, a concession to allow multifamily units where they normally are prohibited can be imposed by offering 10% BMRs and insisting on a concession, where under city law there is already a requirement for 15% BMRs when built in a zone that allows housing without concessions. Follow the logic of granting concessions for 20% BMRs. A developer, Howard Hightower (call him Mr. HH) decides to build a 5 unit condo project in the 800 block of Seale. One of the units will be a BMR, so Mr. HH provides 20% BMR units and insists on 2 concessions –allowing RM-30 equivalent in R-1, and increasing FAR to 1.25 from 0.43. Of course staff agrees that this is a valid request and application of GC65915. Seeing the success of HH, developer Mr. II asks for approval of his 5 unit condo with a BMR unit in the 1500 block of Madrono, followed by Mr. JJ who wants to build his 5-unit condo with a BMR unit in the 1200 block of Harriet, and MR. MM who asks for approval of a modest 5-unit condo with a BMR unit in the 4000 block of Orme, followed by Mrs. NN with plans for a 5-unit condo with a BMR unit in the 700 block of Homer and Mr. OO who proposes a 5 unit condo with a BMR in the 3400 block of Janice. Mrs. PP then requests concessions for her 5 unit condo in the 2200 block of Park. What an interesting way to meet the ABAG housing requirements. In fact concessions can be denied if they are not needed to provide for affordable housing costs per GC 65915 (d)(1)(A) since 15% BMR units already are required without concessions per PAMC. In addition the concessions can be denied if they will result in safety problems or if they do not contribute significantly to the feasibility of lower income housing per GC65917. Granting a concession for 10% BMR units undermines long-standing requirements for developers to provide 15% BMR units, so using GC 65915 to get a concession for providing 10% BMRs actually reduces BMRs because applying long-standing city laws the developer is required to provide 15% BMRs with no incentive, not 10%.” Staff Response: The claims made regarding the application of Government Code 65915 are not correct. Mr. Moss made the claim, in his 2007 lawsuit, that the City exceeded its authority in granting concessions on this project in exchange for 20% BMR units. The court specifically rejected this claim, however. Staff acknowledges that this project is not a good example of the use of the housing density law for concessions, but it has been upheld legally and, given the complexities of the changing zoning regulations for this site, appears to be an equitable approach. There are no other sites in the City that have similar circumstances regarding changes in zoning and allowable uses, that might then take advantage of these provisions. Moss: “Herb Borock pointed out that not all of the site was identified as a potential housing location. Therefore 2901 Park can and should be excluded from housing and retained in GM. That reduces the project area to 1.6 acres from 2.5 acres and reduces the number of allowable housing units accordingly.” Staff Response: The 3.92 acre Housing Sites Inventory diagram included the portion of Page Mill Road north of Park Boulevard, the parcel formerly considered for a public safety building, a portion of Caltrain right of way (ROW) adjacent to the former public safety building site, and a 1.56 Acre portion (net lot area) of the subject property. Attachment M includes a map showing this site. With development of the Park Plaza project, the Page Mill Road ROW adjacent to the site would be retained as a public street rather than converted to a housing site. The Housing Sites Inventory, however, specified an RM-40 zoning density for the site, which yields more than 84 units. Moss: As both I and Herb Borock have stated repeatedly, this project violates CEQA and cannot proceed without a full EIR. The MND is inadequate and unacceptable. Staff Response: The prior mitigated negative declaration (MND) was found by the court to be adequate, other than the procedural requirement to re-circulate the document prior to project approval. All impacts are still found to be reduced to a level of “less than significant” following implementation of the mitigation measures. The level of analysis in the EIR, particularly for the groundwater contamination and noise issues, would not have been greater than that provided in the MND. Staff also assured that the more stringent approach to groundwater contamination was required (full vapor barrier with active ventilation) for the project to reduce the potential for argument that additional measures should be required. Moss: The best approach to development of this site is to reject the current application and the ARB approval of this project. Rezone the entire site to RM-30, and require that any and all developments comply with standard zoning parameters, with the exception that no underground garage or residential space shall be placed over the 1/3 of the site that runs along the railroad right-of-way and exhibited high levels of TCE. It also is possible to rezone the site PTOD with or without restrictions on whatever is developed there. Staff Response: Comments noted. CMR 10-3 ATTACHMENT T –RESPONSES TO RESIDENTS’ PRE-9-19-11 EMAILS A.Art Liberman (751 Chimalus Drive) 9/16/11 Email Excerpt: “You should learn from the accidents at Menlo Technologies and CPI and insist that any building projects where hazardous or biohazardous materials in Palo Alto are used will be confined to buildings that are adequately separated from residential structures.Please make your decision to reject this proposal now, before the structure is built, residents move in and an accident occurs.” Staff Response:The City’s Fire Marshal Gordon Simpkinson states “the accident in Menlo Park was due to introducing gas at 2000 psi into a container designed for no more than 300 psi. There was no risk to anyone further than a few feet from the vessel.There was no release of toxic or harmful fumes mists or vapors in any significant quantity. Such an accident could have happened with nitrogen or compressed air, such as a scuba tank stored in a residential unit by a hobby scuba diver or an oxygen tank for a resident with emphysema. The pressure was too much for the container it was placed in. The violation that occurred was of OSHA’s requirement not to over-pressurize a container, not of any local restrictions on hazardous materials. Only people in direct proximity to (a few feet from) the device that failed would suffer injury or death –the victim died from impact of the object hitting him, not as a result of toxic fumes or combustion.” The CPI site in Palo Alto involves bulk storage of materials and quantities which do not correlate to the 195 Page Mill Road proposal. Additionally, as mentioned previously, staff has suggested limitations on biohazards to Level One, generally non-infectious viruses (see ROLUA Section 7, condition 2a). B.Herb Borock 9/19/11 Email Excerpt: Mr. Borock’s email’s letter and attachments submitted September 14, 2011 were contained in the September 19, 2011 packet within Attachment M. Below is an excerpt of the email sent to Council following the packet distribution. Borock: “A continuation will also give the applicant the opportunity to sign a revised Mitigated Negative Declaration that contains the correct application number, and to provide a written agreement that he will abide by the requirements of Government Code section 65915 for affordable for-sale housing units for moderate income residents.You need to find out from staff whether there are any permit streamlining deadlines that require you to act by a date certain.For example, on what date were the applications deemed complete, and on what date must the Council take action?” Staff Response: The MND (Attachment C), which clearly refers to the project in all other ways, now contains the correct application number shown in underlined text. The application meets permit streamlining requirements, since the project was modified a few times along the way, initiating new review timeframes. The City’s zoning code requires, however, that the appeal and tentative map be reviewed by Council not later than 30 days after action by staff and the PTC, respectively. Staff has, with the applicant’s concurrence, grouped the two applications so that Council could consider the totality of the project. Borock: The Environmental Assessment (9/19 Packet Page 460), the place for the applicant's acceptance of the revised mitigation measures (9/19 Packet Page 558), and the applicant's acceptance of the mitigation measures (August 24, 2011, staff report to the Planning and Transportation Commission, Attachment D, page 99) show the Architectural Review application number as 08PLN-00000-00281.08PLN- 0000-00281 is the application number for two new wall signs at 145 Addison Avenue submitted on September 8, 2008.The applicant's previous application had the application number 05PLN-00000-00281, but that doesn't mean that the current application number also ends in the number 281. Staff Response: The ROLUA has the correct application number at the top in bold; the planner had inadvertently used a different application number on the Project Title cover page of the Initial Study and on the footers. This will be corrected on the copy for filing at the County of Santa Clara. The project description and Initial Study clearly described the current application and conditions. Borock: The Record of Land Use Action on at least the first two pages (Section 1.A at the bottom of 9/19 Packet Page 406 and Section 1.B at the top of Packet Page 407) shows the application number as 08PLN-[00000]-00296.08PLN-0000000296 is the application number for a new 2,032 square foot community center at 574 Arastradero Road submitted on September 18, 2008. The correct application number for the current Architectural Review application is 08PLN-00000-00295.The Tentative Map application is correctly shown as 10PLN- 00000-00344. Staff Response: The ROLUA has been updated to ensure the correct file numbers are used throughout. Borock: I was able to use the City website search feature to readily find the entries in the Accela reports system for the two incorrect application numbers, but was unable to find either of the correct numbers in the Accela reports system using the same search feature.Maybe you will have better luck. Staff Response: Accela (the City’s permit software system) does include both the ARB application (08PLN-00295) and the Tentative Map application (10PLN-00344) when one types “195 Page Mill” without typing “Road”. Borock: The staff report is missing a copy of the page 4 of the Appellant's letter. Packet Page 455 is page 3 of the letter, and Packet Page 456 is page 5 of the letter. The missing page occurs in the middle of the Appellant's argument about the financial feasibility of the proposed residential use. Staff Response: Page 4 of the Appeal was emailed to Council on Friday, September 16, 2011 and Attachment B has now been made whole. Borock: The top of page 6 of the staff report (ID #1982) says that Attachment J is a letter to the Planning and Transportation Commission from Robert Moss. Attachment J is the Park Plaza Mitigation Monitoring Program. Staff Response: The Moss letter to the PTC is now correctly noted as within Attachment U. Borock: Attachment M includes a different letter from Robert Moss,but his letter to the Planning and Transportation Commission is not attached to the staff report. Staff Response: Appellant Moss’s letter to the Commission is now attached (included in Attachment U). Borock: Other letters to the Commission from Richard Placone and Herb Borock are also not attached to the staff report, nor are public letters to the Architectural Review Board. Staff Response: All of the letters to the Commission are now included in Attachment U. Borock: The top of page 4 of the staff report (Packet Page 307) refers to a draft Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Agreement that is not attached to the staff report, and that would not constitute substantial evidence if it were attached, because it is a draft that has not been agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: The prior agreement was not attached to the CMR by staff. However, it was attached within Attachment M for September 19, 2011 and remains there. This was the agreement the Applicant had signed for the previous (2007) project. Borock: Instead of a reference to a staff work product, the staff report should have attached the actual BMR Housing Agreement signed by the applicant to provide the Council and the public an opportunity to comment on whether the BMR Agreement uses the language in Government Code section 65915(c) for maintaining the for-sale residential units affordable for moderate income residents, and satisfies the requirement of section 65915 that all 84 units be provided for sale to the public and not kept as rentals either by the applicant or by someone who buys some or all of the units to provide financing to the applicant. Staff Response: The practice is not to attach the BMR Agreement letter to CMRs. Condition #18 requires deed restrictions of the 17 units as affordable in accordance with Government Code Section 65915 to be recorded in conjunction with the recording of the Final Map. Borock: The verbatim minutes of the August 24, 2011, Planning and Transportation Commission meeting that are referred to on Packet Page 398 are not attached to the staff report. Staff Response: The minutes were provided to the Council on Friday, September 16 and are attached to the CMR (Attachment E). Borock: The hazardous waste plume map referred to in the staff report on Packet Page 401 is not attached to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Attachment C to the staff report. The hazardous waste plume map for the MEW plume that is referred to on Packet Page 644 is not attached to Attachment K, the applicant's supplemental information regarding vapor intrusion. Staff Response: A map of the COE plume in provided within Attachment U to the CMR. Borock:A written version of the outside counsel's opinion about RM-40 zoning standards referred to on Packet Page 40 is not attached to the staff report. Staff Response: Staff did not find the reference mentioned and there was no outside Counsel’s written opinion regarding the RM-40 zoning standards. Borock: Recent case law in Palmer v. Los Angeles says that the City can compel Below Market Rate units for rental housing projects when the applicant seeks the concessions provided by Government Code 65915. The City's list of Housing Inventory Sites includes only about 1.56 acres of the project site and requires a minimum dwelling yield of 30 units per acre for the site (Housing Opportunity Site #8-11).Therefore, the Council is required to approve only 46 units to comply with State housing law as it affects the site's inclusion on the list of Housing Opportunity Sites. The Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development zone district overlay contains language that implements Government Code section 65915 by providing bonus floor area and bonus market rate housing units for a specified percentage of Below Market Rate units. Staff Response: The request for concessions under State law is only allowed because the applicant offers 20% of the units as affordable housing, whether rental or for-sale. The Housing Sites Inventory outlines the minimum number of units expected on a site, using an average density of 30 units per acre. The Inventory also notes that such sites should be zoned 40 units per acre. Thus, a greater number of units may be provided, compliant with other requirements. While the PTOD does provide greater floor area, staff understands that a local agency’s regulation may not override the Government Code in this respect. In fact, however, the achievable density and intensity for this site under PTOD zoning would allow for a total FAR of 1.2 for residential + .25 for R&D = 1.45, as compared to the 1.5 requested by the applicant. 3700 3800 300 3100 3300 4000 200 3500 100 3300 2700 3100 200 3000 400 2800 2900 2600 100 2500 500 3200 300 4 00 3000 3100 6 00 3100 3000 3200 2900 330 4 0 0 1500 1600 1600 1500 0 1800 1800 200 1800 300 1700 1900 8 00 8 0 0 2800 7 0 0 2700 2800 2900 700 800 2600 2300 1200 2200 1400 2000 2000 2200 2000 2200 2200 0 1400 1600 2000 2600 900 600 600 3200 3300 3600 3700 200 3400 1200 600 800 1900 1800 400 600 2000 2100 2000 2200 2000 2100 2000 800 2200 2000 1000 2300 2000 2000 1700 2500 400 2400 2700 500 200 2800 3400 3500 300 400 2900 3000 2800 100 3000 200 3300 3000 400 300 2400 2300 300 2200 2200 100 2300 200 2000 100 1800 2000 1900 2100 2000 200 300 1900 2600 1 0 02400 300 200 2700 100 2500 2500 2100 2100 200 2300 300 200 400 4 00 500 2 0 0 400 300 2400 2600 2400 300 500 2400 2300 500 2300 2200 600 700 28 1400 100 1700 1800 600 3400 3200 2200 500 2000 600 2500 2700 2600 2600 2700 2800 3100 3200 2200 2200 2000 2200 2000 2200 200 400 600 2900 2900 1200 2400 2200 3100 800 900 700 3000 800 1300 600 800 700 100 200 600 600 6 00 700 Curtner Avenue Ventura Avenue ne Emerson Street Ventura Court Park Boulevard Cypress Maclane E Emerson Street Loma Verde Avenue Brys o n A v e n u e Midtown Court Cowper St Gary Ct Waverley Street South Court Bryant Street Ramona Street Alma Street Coastland Dr Byron Street Middlefield Road Gaspar Ct Moreno Avenue El Carmelo Avenue Campesino Avenue Dymond Ct Martinsen Ct Ram ona Street Bryant Street Towle Way Towle Pl Wellsbury Ct Flowers Lane Mackall Way Cowper Street South Court W a v e rle y Stre et El Verano Avenue Wellsbury Way L a Middlefield Road Sa yn e Court Ellsworth PlSan Carlos Ct Wi Sutter Avenue Price Ct Stern Aven C olora d o A ve n u e Randers Ct Ross Rd. S yca m o re Driv e Sevyson Ct Ross Road Stanford Avenue Amherst Street Columbia Street Bowdoin Street Dartmouth Street Hanover Street College Avenue California Avenue Hanover Street Ramos Way (Private) Hansen Way Tippawing Whitsell Stre enue Fernando Avenue Matadero Avenue Lambert Avenue Hansen Way Margarita Avenue Matadero Avenue Wilton Avenue Oxford Avenue Harvard Street California Ave Wellesley Street Princeton Street Oberlin Street Cornell Street Cambridge Ave College AvenueWilliams Street Yale St Staunton Ct Oxford Avenue El C a mino R eal Churchill Avenue Pa r k Bo ulev a r d Park Avenue Escobita A venue Churchill Avenue S e q u oia A v e n u e Mariposa Avenue Castilleja Avenue Mira m o nte A ve nue M adro n o Avenue P ortola A venue Manzanita Avenue Coleridge Avenue Leland Avenue Stanford Avenue Birch Street Ash Street Lowell Avenue Alma Street Tennyson Avenue Grant Avenue Sheridan Ave Jacaranda Ln El Camino Real Sherman Avenue Ash St Page Mill Road Mimosa Ln Chestnut Avenue Portage Avenue Pepper Avenue Olive Avenue Acacia Avenue Emerson Street Park Boulevard Orinda Street Birch St Ash Street Page Mill Road Ash Street Park Blvd College Avenue Cambridge Ave New Mayfield Ln Birch Street California Ave Park Blvd Nogal Lane Rinconada Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Park Boulevard Seale Avenue Washington Ave Santa Rita Avenue Bryant Street High Street E merson Street C olora d o A v e S treet Ramona Street Bryant Street South Court El Dorado AvenueAlma Street Alma Street High Stre et Emerson Waverley Oaks (Private) Washington Avenue Brya nt Street South Court Waverley Street Emerson St Nevada Ave N Calif Ave Ramona St High Street North California Avenue Oregon Expwy Marion Avenue Ramona Street C olora d o A v e n u e Waverley Street Kipling Street South Court Cowper Street Anton Ct Nevada Avenue Tasso Street Tasso Street Oregon Avenue Marion Place W e b ster St Middlefield Road ad Drive C olora d o A v e n u eTennyson Avenue Street Emerson Street Alma Street Byron Street Webster Street Marion Avenue Sedro Ln Peral Lane Madeline Court Green Court Oregon Expressway Sheridan Ave CalTrain RO W CalTrain RO W Lane 66 Lane 66 Stanford AvenueEscondido Road Comstock Circle A ngell CourtCourt kins Cour t McFarland Court Olmstead Road S erra Stre et H o skins Court Thoburn Court H u l me Court Barnes C o u r t Olmstea d R o ad Ol m ste ad R o a d Olms t e a d Road Abrams Ct Dud ley Lane El Dorado Avenue Clara Drive Alma Street Webster Street d Dr Sutter Avenue Rosewood Dr Rosewood Dr S utter A v e n ue Kipling St Avalon Court Kipling Street Margarita Avenue Lambert Avenue Matadero Avenue Wilton Avenue El Camino Real Page Mill Road Alma Street Sherman Avenue Grant Avenue Sheridan Ave This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend 1320ft buffer (SCVWD) city pa (SCVWD) Plumes (SCVWD) Channel Centerline (CPA) Creeks (SCVWD) Road centerline (CPA) convertsms83 pa (SCVWD) Dc past (SCVWD) Dry cleaners (SCVWD) Wells (SCVWD) Fuelleakpa (SCVWD) 0' 720' CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2008 City of Palo Alto ktorke, 2008-02-25 08:48:25SCVWD Groundwater View 12 Apr 2004 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\EnvComp.mdb) From: Richard Placone [mailto:rcplacone@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 6:31 PM To: Planning Commission Cc: Emslie, Steve Subject: 195 Page Mill Project Dear Commission members, I am writing to you to register my opposition to the currently proposed housing/R&D project at 195 Page Mill Road. In doing so, I have read the complete report submitted to the commission by my neighbor, Bob Moss. I find Bob's analysis of the dangers that could result from this project to be compelling, and therefore the project should be rejected by the commission. I live on Chimalus Drive in Palo Alto, and am one of the neighbors of the CPI installation referred to in Bob's report. As you may or may not know, the entire Chimalus Drive neighborhood, with somewhat reluctant cooperation from the Planning Department, is fighting the CPI operations involving the storage and use of extremely toxic materials within 50 to 150 feet of our residences. I have personally experienced one of the toxic spills, which drove my close neighbor from the roof of his house where he was cleaning gutters, to seek refuge inside just before he nearly succumbed to the toxic vapors from a CPI spill. The city council is responsible for allowing CPI to move its toxic operations from a San Carlos industrial park several years ago, so that it could take advantage of lower rents in the former Varian buildings. So for the sake of money for a commercial operation, our council allowed this toxic operation to become established in our neighborhood. In spite of strong resident protest, the council then allowed CPI to increase the volume of its operations, although to a level less than CPI wanted, but totally against the residents who pleaded for no increase. The battle goes on and the final word from the city, CPI or the neighborhood has yet to be heard. Do not make the same mistake at 195 Page Mill Road. It is time the city think more seriously about the safety and well being of its residents, and this will be a good place to start. My many many thanks to Bob Moss for watching out so effectively for the city's residents. Sincerely, Richard C. Placone 601 Chimalus Drive Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Aug. 20, 2011 Subject: Meeting August 24, 195 Page Mill Rd This project and the developer, Harold Hohbach, have a very long history that some of you may not be familiar with. The site also is not like almost all others in Palo Alto and needs special attention and mitigations that are not adequately addressed in the MND. The staff report has some oddities and several errors and omissions that also need to be addressed. Therefore I am sending you my comments in advance of your meeting next Wednesday. If anyone needs clarifications or discussions of anything I will be glad to try to answer them, and provide the replies to all Commissioners and interested staff. The fact that the ARB has already reviewed and approved the project does not in any way limit or restrict your actions on the proposal. It is unreasonable to limit your review to design and improvements. This is another case where a project that should have gone to the Planning and Transportation Commission first, and to the ARB only if and when you approve the concept of the project. Now staff says you can’t perform your normal review and oversight of this project. The ARB carefully avoids consideration of consistency and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and stated policies on development. They did not delve into the MND, nor consider with any rigor potential exposure of future site to toxics at the site. You should take all of these items and issues into account when reviewing the proposed development at 195 Page Mill, and be free to reject the subdivision requested or any part of the project for whatever valid reasons you wish to cite. For example, you could say that the design does not properly take into account the dangers of placing an underground garage in an area with extremely high concentrations of TCE. Or you could say that the design will cause negative impacts on nearby buildings by blocking sunlight and views and thus is rejected. Of course you can say that mixing R&D and housing in the same site, especially when the R&D would be allowed to store and use hazardous materials directly beneath housing is an unacceptable improvement. There are some oddities in the staff report. It implies that your review of the project and proposal is limited to specific issues such as street access and …. In fact you are free to evaluate all aspects of the proposal, including consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, adequacy of the MND, traffic impacts on a future public safety building across Page Mil Rd., and area compatibility. Some statements in the Issues table are incorrect. It is stated that since the site is identified as a potential housing site, housing must be allowed even though the site is zoned GM which expressly forbids housing. In fact any housing project in the GM zone violates the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and specific policies adopted formally by the City Council. While housing can be allowed on the site under certain conditions, it must be done in compliance with actual zoning. Initiating formal rezoning of the site to PTOD or RM-30 or RM- 40 will allow housing while retaining consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Therefore rejection of this proposal is allowed and does not prevent housing from being built on the site. There is no need or reason to allow both housing and R&D facilities. Remove the R&D, eliminate the dangers of allowing hazardous materials in R&D spaces, ;limit development to housing, and inclusion of the site in the Housing Inventory is fully met. GC65915-65918 is being used to justify concessions or incentives when BMR units are offered. Hohbach Realty cites this as justification for receiving two concessions, allowing residential in a zone that explicitly prohibits residential, and a significant increase in FAR. GC65915 states the concessions need not be granted if the concession requested is not required in order to obtain BMR units. Palo Alto has a history of more than 35 years of obtaining at least 10% BMR units and normally 15% to 20% BMR units for residential developments with no need for concessions or incentives. Housing can be built on the site under normal zoning regulations if a zone change from GM to RM is applied to the site. Therefore NO concessions are required in order to obtain BMR units on this site. Density bonuses for additional BMR units have been in city codes for years, so if rezoning to RM is applied to the site, Hohbach Realty can apply for more than the normal maximum density by offering more than the required minimum number of BMR units. Again, GC65915-65918 is unnecessary to obtain BMR units for any residential development in Palo Alto that complies with long-0standing Palo Alto laws and regulations. Inclusion of R&D in the project violates the Comprehensive Plan and housing policy H-3. Over 50,400 square feet of R&D will generate at least 250 jobs. City policy is to reduce the jobs- housing imbalance. Over the past 10 years significant areas of industrial and commercial land was converted to housing, causing significant loss of tax revenues, and increasing general fund expenses, but reducing the jobs-housing imbalance. Including R&D space in a housing development at this site will encourage ABAG and MTC to require even more new housing units in their misguided efforts to force Palo Alto to make massive increases in housing. Claims that R&D is needed to make the housing affordable are demonstrably false. The only multifamily housing developments that included non-residential development have been in commercial zones where the first floor is offices or stores. There has never been a mixed use development with R&D and housing in one structure. For 35 years multifamily developments in Palo Alto have been required to provide from 10% to 40% BMR units. The current requirement under PAMC Program H-35 is 15% BMR units. Since 1975 almost 1500 BMRs were added per this requirement. Despite this firm, enforced BMR requirement, since 1980 over 4500 housing units were added in Palo Alto. This was an increase of some 19% in an already well developed city. Since 1997 3800 new housing units have been built or approved, far exceeding the 2400 goal in the Comprehensive Plan. Almost all were multifamily condos, like those proposed for 195 Page Mill Road. No concessions or incentives were required to obtain the BMR units. Housing values in Palo Alto are among the top 10 nationally for cities with both housing and commercial developments. Home sales in Palo Alto for the first 6 months of 2011 increased 25% and prices increased 8% compared to 2010. Price per square foot of homes in Palo Alto zip codes is consistently among the 5 highest in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. The past 2 months homes values per square foot in 94301 and 94306 zip codes have been no lower than 4th highest sales price per square foot. When zip code 94303 home sales are reported for Palo Alto sales, not East Palo Alto, it also is in the top 4 or 5 for value per square foot. No incentives or concessions are required to encourage housing in Palo Alto, and that housing must include BMR units as required by long-standing ordinances. It is stated that only 38 students would result from the project so impacts on schools are less than significant. The model for estimating students generated was the Sand Hill Corridor study. This old document incorrectly estimates students generated by new housing. Two years ago PAUSD formally stated that past projections of numbers of students generated by new housing radically unpredicted the actual numbers. On several occasions PAUSD has formally stated that additional housing developments will strain the capacity of existing school sites and classroom capacity. Last school year there was exactly one vacant elementary school classroom in the entire district. The low estimate of 23 elementary students from this project would fill that classroom – if it still is available. MM-4, on-site contamination mitigation is both inadequate and a violation of a court order by Judge Nichols which requires that no construction or demolition be done at the site until a full plan for CEQA compliance has been filed per the Court’s Peremptory Writ of Mandate which states “this Court will retain jurisdiction over the CITY’S proceedings by way of a return to this peremptory writ of mandate until the court has determined that the CITY has complied with the provisions of CEQA.” The City was supposed to file a statement with the Court describing how it planned to comply with CEQA by August 2008. That has never been done. The staff report claims that the court ruled that CEQA was complied with. That is incorrect. The court ruled that I did not make specific, detailed claims regarding technical adequacy of the MRD. That is correct, but in the case of this new application, I have made many detailed objections to the MND, supported by EPA policies and actions taken at the Mountain MEW Superfund and Superfund- impacted site and at Moffett Field. The only indoor air sampling required per MM-4-(g) is in the garage, not in residential areas as required by EPA and other jurisdictions such as the City of Mountain View. This is extremely important because the identified safe level for TCE in commercial spaces is 4.1 to 6 micrograms/cubic meter, while in residential spaces the limit is 1 microgram/cubic meter. EPA proposed reducing the safe level of TCE to 0.7 micrograms/cubic meter, with a decision expected this year. The indoor air sampling is inadequate and does not protect public health and safety, it severely risks it because residential areas are not tested, and testing will not be continued over an extended period. Long-time indoor air sampling in residential spaces is essential. Vapor barriers can fail. One such case was a home in the Whisman area of Mountain View built over a site previously occupied by GTE where the aquifer and soil are known to be contaminated with TCE. All homes built at this site have vapor barriers, but when several of them were tested for TCE in indoor air one home showed over 4 micrograms/cubic meter. The vapor barrier underground had failed. The MND acknowledges the high levels of TCE in soil gas but says there is no known source of such levels of TCE on the site. That only means that the site-based source is unknown, it does not mean that the source is from off-site such as the known HP or Varian TCE sources. Such high levels of TCE are certain evidence that spills occurred on site at some time. This issue has been raised before. The Orion Park area of Moffett Field has several local high concentrations of TCE. The Navy insisted that all TCE contamination at Orion Park came from migration of the MEW plume since there was no known use of TCE at Orion Park while it was under Navy control. EPA and NASA disagreed and insisted the Navy is responsible for TCE contamination and mitigation at Orion Park, and they prevailed. The fact that RWQCB (Water Board) approved the overall approach does not mean that it is adequate. We have been trying unsuccessfully for more than 7 years to get the Water Board to adopt normal testing and mitigation against TCE vapor intrusion risks. In June the EPA met with the Water Board trying to get a consistent approach to mitigation of toxics and vapor intrusion both for existing and new buildings at contaminated sites such as this. EPA was unsuccessful in getting Water Board to become more consistent with EPA mitigation requirements. An EPA comment after the meeting was maybe the Water Board does well with water issues. I have been trying to get the Water Board replaced as the oversight agency for all the toxic sites in Palo Alto and am working with Senator Simitian on this effort. Several years ago the Water Board was replaced by EPA at a contaminated site in Mountain View with lower levels of TCE in the water and soil than are present at 195 Page Mill Road. If it happened in Mountain View it can happen in Palo Alto. EPA action level for TCE in soil gas is 4,000 micrograms/cubic meter. The rear third of the site has TCE soil gas concentrations of 23,500 micrograms/cubic meter, 25,000 micrograms/cubic meter and 150,000 micrograms/cubic meter. Samples were taken at 16’, less than 9” under the bottom of the planned basement. Normally EPA discourages basements at such high concentrations of TCE. None of the commercial buildings constructed in the MEW toxic site in Mountain View in the past 10 years have basements. None of the buildings recently built or planned at Moffett Field at the contaminated sites have basements. The MND for the Birch Plaza site 2 blocks from 195 Page Mill Road recommended that no occupied structure be built over the area where TCE soil gas concentration is 6,400 micrograms/cubic meter, 4% of the highest TCE soil gas concentration at 195 Page Mill Road. EPA expressed concerns about putting a basement in an area with such high concentrations of TCE. TCE is a known carcinogen and suspected cause of several other diseases, particularly Parkinson’s. Here are some examples of the impacts of TCE exposure on health: In the Shannon class action which trial has been going on since January 10th 2011 in the superior Court of the District of Quebec, Canada, we have proven through the defendants’ admissions 489 cases of cancer fully documented as of October 31st 2010. The link between these cases of cancer and the TCE exposure was not part of these judicial admissions. We has a large scale postal strike in Canada though the month of June and at that the end of May 2011, the number of cancer cases had increased to 620 but all of those cases from 489 to 620 have not been fully documented yet. This is without talking about the noncancerous health problems suffered by citizens and former citizens of this small community. You may look at our WEB site Veilleux-juris.com which is bilingual (French and English) and which contains links to a CBC Fifth Estate program aired in February 2004 and to a program from the Radio-Canada network called Enquete which is also in both languages. Note that to access our English version of our WEB page, you need to go to the top right side of the MENU and click on ENGLISH. The delay that the EPA takes to finalize its chemical hazard assessments on TCE since its November2009 draft (and of course its 2001 draft) can only play negatively against the victims. Charles A. Veilleux, attorney at law My name is Debbie Vitez. We discovered in August 2005 that our home was contaminated with TCE . My husband passed in November 2010, prior to his passing he had been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, reynolds phenomena and peripheral neuropathy, and then cancer. I too had peripheral neuropathy and respiratory problems. I found 2 immediate neighbours who also passed from respiratory problems. The lady who discovered the tumor on her thymus has started her own health study for this neighborhood. You can link to it here.. http://www.bishopstreetregistry.net/ Permitting hazardous materials in the R&D space under the residential spaces per MM-4 (h) and (i) is a prescription for disaster. No locations in Palo Alto have commercial or industrial spaces with hazardous materials on the same site as residential units. The Fire Department is grossly understaffed for hazardous materials oversight. There used to be 4 people on that staff, but when 2 of them retired several years ago they were not replaced. The remaining staff is stretched very thin just reviewing new applications for hazardous materials and use of hazardous materials in industrial and commercial sites. They will not be able to track and inspect actual hazardous material storage and use at the R&D sites at 195 Page Mill Road. Depending on site occupants to control types and quantities of hazardous materials on-site is a recipe for disaster. We have had nasty experiences with storage of hazardous and toxic materials at CPI next to Barron Park. On several occasions there have been spills and escape of harmful vapors, directly impacting neighbors who live 50 to 150 feet away. If use of hazardous materials is allowed on site, and if the inadequate indoor air sampling and excavation of a basement over high concentrations of TCE is allowed, this project clearly violates CEQA, protection of public health and safety, and common sense. The Barron Park Association Foundation, of which I am a Board member, has been working on and overseeing the Superfund sites at 640 Page Mil and 1501 Page Mill and the directly impacted area at COE for more than 20 years. We received 2 EPA Technical Assistance Grants to aid in active review of contamination, mitigations, and status of these contaminated areas. We are very familiar with both the site and the issues of toxicity, health and safety. This proposal violates established protocols for mitigation and monitoring at Superfund and Superfund-impacted sites. It also violates CEQA since the MND is inadequate and erroneous and no EIR has been required. This lack of an EIR is particularly odd since there has never before been an application for mixed use with R&D facilities allowed to store and use hazardous materials directly below residential units. This application should be rejected as inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and public health and safety. Any future development on this site should prohibit basements under the rear third of the property, and keep occupied buildings away from this contaminated area unless they are on open podiums so that TCE vapors can be dispersed. The rear of the site can be used for parking and landscaping. Indoor air monitoring of residential spaces must be mandatory and on-going. Yours sincerely, Bob Moss