Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7376 City of Palo Alto (ID # 7376) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/6/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 429 University Avenue: Appeal of Mixed Use Project Title: PUBLIC HEARING: 429 University Avenue [14PLN-00222]: To Consider a Continued Appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s Architectural Review Approval of a 31,407 Square-foot, Four Story, Mixed use Building With Parking Facilities on two Subterranean Levels on an 11,000 Square-foot Site. Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated on November 17, 2014 to December 12, 2014. Zoning District: CD-C (GF)(P). The Council Previously Considered this Appeal on November 30, 2015 and Remanded it to the Architectural Review Board for Redesign and Further Review Based on Council’s Direction From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council direct staff to prepare a Record of Land Use Action to either: 1) deny the appeal, approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachments F-H) and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (Attachment I) and approve a modified project (Option 1, 2, or 3) with or without conditions, directing staff to return with written findings for adoption; Or 2) uphold the appeal and deny a modified project (Option 1, 2, and 3) based on the Architectural Review Board’s recommendation of October 20, 2016 and a finding that proposed project modifications have not addressed the Council’s previous concerns, directing staff to return with written findings for adoption. [Note: Option 1 is similar to that reviewed by the Architectural Review Board on September 1, City of Palo Alto Page 2 2016 and was revised and resubmitted by the Applicant on October 26, 2016 to address the Board’s comments. Staff believes that with the adjustments discussed below Option 1 best addresses the Council’s previous concerns. Option 2 was reviewed by the Architectural Review Board on October 20, 2016 and recommended for denial. Option 3 is a middle option submitted by the Applicant on December 8, 2016. All of these options can be considered for approval (with or without additional conditions) or denial based on required architectural review findings.] Executive Summary: The applicant is proposing redevelopment of three properties at the southwest corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street. The director’s decision on the project was appealed and the Council remanded the project to the Historic Resources and Architectural Review Boards to address several specific design issues. It has been 18 months since the Council’s initial appeal hearing and 12 months since the Council’s second appeal hearing. In the elapsed time, the applicant has changed architects – and designs – several times, submitting revised project plans and extending the review time required to address Council direction and comments from the HRB and ARB. Most recently, the ARB reviewed the iteration of the project referred to here as Option 2 (Attachment M) on October 20, 2016, and recommended the Council uphold the appeal and deny the project due to an inability to make the required findings. Prior to this recommendation, the ARB had reviewed a set of schematic drawings that reduced the proposed building mass at the fourth floor and resulted in about 3,000 square feet in less building area at a study session on September 1, 2016. Staff believes these plans (referenced in this report as Option 1 and available as Attachment L) were more responsive to Council and Board member comments. However, the applicant did not develop this schematic drawing further until after the ARB’s October 20, 2016 meeting and recommendation. Following ARB’s recommendation, the applicant elected to submit additional information about Option 1, including some of the changes requested by the ARB at their study session. Rather than send the matter back to ARB, staff previously made this supplemental information available to the appellant and, through this report, to the public with the calendaring of this public hearing in front of the Council. Staff continues to have concerns with some elements of the design, which it believes can be remedied through the conditions discussed below, but on balance, the design presented here as Option 1 appears most responsive, compared to all other iterations, to earlier Council comments. Attachment D contains a link to these comments from the City Council meeting on November 30, 2015. A third option (Option 3) was submitted by the applicant in December. According to the applicant, this design is essentially the September 1, 2016 study session proposal with the fourth floor from an earlier submission (discussed by the ARB on August 4, 2016). A summary of the square footages of the three options is provided below: Table 1. Summary of Current Design Options - 429 University Ave. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Option Non Res. Square Footage Res. Square Footage Total Square Footage Res. Dwelling Units Parking Spaces On Site Notes Option 1 20,407 8,140 28,547 3 34 Discussed at ARB Study Session 9/1/16 and subsequently modified to address comments. Option 2 20,407 11,000 31,407 5 38 Recommended for denial by the ARB 10/20/16. Option 3 20,407 10,750 31,157 4 34 Further modification submitted by the applicant 12/8/16 to address ARB and Council concerns. Note: See Attachment E for a more detailed comparison of all three options with code requirements. Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, January 2017 Background: The subject project has been an active application since its filing in June 2014. The project as approved by the Director in February 2015 complied with the development standards of the code, but was appealed based on compliance with required findings. On November 30, 2015 the Council on 9-0 vote agreed that further refinement was needed to address a variety of concerns related to the project’s mass and scale, transition to other buildings (contextual setting) and nearby historic properties, parking and loading, and other issues. The project takes advantage of provisions in the code that allow a transfer of floor area, or development rights, to this building. Additionally, the project is located in the parking district and relies on parking in downtown garages due to the property owner’s contributions to the parking district. Another concern raised with this project is the lack of an on-site loading space. Consistent with prior downtown approvals, including Council approved projects on appeal, the loading space is not provided on site and relies instead on other loading zone opportunities downtown and the alley immediately behind the building. Council has since directed staff to make changes to the code to clarify conditions when on-site loading is required; the Planning and Transportation Commission recently completed its review of a draft ordinance and the matter will be presented to the City Council in February. Attached to this report (Attachment D) is a chronology of the project from the filing of the application to this appeal hearing. There are links provided within the chronology to all prior staff reports, minutes and videos available. City of Palo Alto Page 4 The architectural review findings and context-based criteria that apply to this project are included for the Council’s reference as Attachments A and B, respectively.1 The city’s downtown urban design guidelines are available online at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6514; these guidelines may be informative to the Council’s review. A compliance review of the project (Options 1 and 2 and 3) to code development standards is also provided (Attachment E). Finally, to re-familiarize the Council with the project, a detailed project description is included that also reflects the project revisions and various interactions over time (Attachment C). It should be noted that there have been 14 hearings before the ARB, HRB and Council, including the subject hearing, on this project. The applicant has also engaged four architects over the last 18 months, which has complicated reviews and extended the application processing timelines. Additionally, despite the various plan modifications over time, on balance, the project designs have not significantly deviated from the overall mass and size as first reviewed by the City Council in May 2015. Changes have been incremental and not responsive to the volume of information provided in the administrative record. Notwithstanding the above, staff believes there is one conceptual plan concept (Option 1) that was presented to the ARB in September 2016 that, among the various iterations, best responds to Council concerns. Discussion: The City Council last reviewed the project on November 30, 2015. At that time, the Council requested the applicant explore project revisions with the ARB to advance the specific findings and criteria listed below. While the applicant’s proposal has generally been consistent with the Code’s objective development standards, the appellant’s objections have focused on the equally applicable subjective design standards contained in the Code. Due to the applicant’s proposed lot consolidation of two parcels, the University Avenue facing side of the lot serves as a gateway to a vibrant downtown consisting of modestly scaled, but architecturally and historically significant buildings. On the other hand, the Kipling facing side of the building anchors an eclectic grouping of Victorian homes, at least one of which is still in residential use. The Council’s earlier focus on the architectural findings and context-based design criteria summarized below provided guidance on how the proposal could be modified to address this design challenge. Architectural Review Findings: Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.76.020(d) 1 Please note that on December 12, 2016, the City Council adopted an ordinance which consolidated and clarified the City’s Architectural Review findings without making major, substantive changes. This ordinance became effective on January 12, 2017. While the revised findings will be applicable to the project at 429 University and will be cited in the final Record of Land Use Action, the findings in place at the time of the prior City Council and ARB reviews of this project have been used in this report. Both versions of the findings are included in Attachment A for the Council’s reference. City of Palo Alto Page 5  Finding 4: Architectural Review Findings in relation to design’s compatibility with areas as having a unified design character or historic character  Finding 12: Architectural Review Findings in relation to compatibility and appropriateness in materials, textures, colors, details of construction and plant materials to the project’s function and to adjacent structures, landscape elements and functions Context-Based Design Criteria to Consider: PAMC Chapter 18.18.110  (a)(1)(B): Contextual and Compatibility Criteria – Context: to provide appropriate transitions to those surroundings. "Context" is also not specific to architectural style or design, though in some instances relationships may be reinforced by an architectural response.  (a)(2)(B)(i): Contextual and Compatibility Criteria – Compatibility goal in relation to siting, scale, massing and materials  (a)(2)(B)(iii): Contextual and Compatibility Criteria – Compatibility goal in relation to pattern of roof lines and projections  (b)(2)(B): Context-based Design Considerations and Findings – Street building facades in relation to eaves, overhang, porches and other architectural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass Option 1 has been the most responsive to concerns about the overall building mass and provides better transitions to neighboring properties than others. Nearly all commercial buildings in the immediate area have flat roof designs with false mansards/parapets facing the street, including the commercial property across Lane 30 on Kipling Street. Most of the commercial buildings have two story volumes or greater in height; the building across the alley being a notable exception. The character for the balance of properties north on Kipling Street has decidedly different architectural styles and building volumes that represent the residential origins of these structures. The pattern of the commercial areas on University Avenue at times and within this area, have a rhythmic 25 foot (approximately) storefront design that contributes to a positive pedestrian experience. However, there are exceptions to this design feature as well. The Option 1 plans attempt to reflect this pattern of development with doorway and glazing spaced roughly 25 feet in width. It has a two-story volume adjacent to both streets and sets back the third floor five feet from both streets. One exception to this statement, however, is the stairway and elevator area adjacent to Kipling Street, which is at the property line. The stairway/elevator has been a repeated concern from Council from the outset and there has been limited adjustment of this design feature, except at the fourth floor. Regarding the fourth floor, the Option 1 plan shows the fourth floor office area as setback between 37 and 40 feet from Kipling Street and University Avenue, respectively. There is the City of Palo Alto Page 6 elevator shaft setback eleven feet from Kipling Street; bathrooms six feet from the adjacent building at University Avenue (but all approximately 55 feet from University Avenue); and, the rear setback at this floor level is close to nineteen feet from the alley. A refinement between the Option 1 plan submitted to the ARB and now presented to the City Council is the addition of a library at the third floor street corner. This is further addressed below along with other recommended conditions of approval for Council consideration, if there is interest in approving this design solution. A challenge for this project is the massing dictated by its modern architectural style and development program. Unlike other older buildings in the area, which have more traditional design features, ornamentation and detailing, the proposal relies on a more modern expression. There has been a lot change on University Avenue and many buildings reflect the historic character of the street, but not all, including some in close proximity to the project site. As previously noted by Council, compliance with the architectural finding regarding the project’s design compatibility with areas having a unified design character remains a discussion point. Approval or denial of the project may suggest there is or is not a unified design character along this portion of University Avenue. Consideration should also be given to the unified design and historic character of Kipling Street and to the extent that character should influence building design on University Avenue. The Historical Resources Board reviewed the project on September 10, 2015, and found that there are no offsite historical resources that would be affected by the project. Additional information, including the staff report and minutes, are linked in Attachment D. Recommended Conditions of Approval Should the Council’s deliberation on this matter conclude that Option 1 warrants approval, staff recommends, in addition to typical conditions of approval, that the following conditions be added:  Applicant shall submit detailed plans that demonstrate compliance with floor area and other applicable development standards The purpose for this condition is to ensure project compliance with development standards. This design solution evolved recently and staff has not had sufficient time to conduct a comprehensive review.  The fourth floor guardrails and planters shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the edge of the third floor roofline (all elevations), as modified by these conditions. The purpose for this condition is to reduce the building mass at that fourth floor. City of Palo Alto Page 7  The ‘library’ shown on the third floor, floor plans, at the street corner, shall be removed. The purpose for this condition is to reduce building mass at the street corner and third floor, provide building articulation and be consistent with the conceptual plans reviewed by the ARB and staff in September 2016.  The third floor roofline above the removed ‘library’ area shall be setback to follow the third floor building footprint; reducing the building mass at the street corner. The purpose for this condition is to reduce building mass at the street corner and third floor, provide building articulation.  A decorative wall design treatment, feature or element, shall be applied to the exterior walls immediately adjacent to the southern property line (project’s south elevation) starting at an elevation equivalent to the building height of the adjacent structure and extending to the roofline of the proposed building, subject to review by the Architectural Review Board. The purpose for this condition is to address the blank wall that will be visible when approaching the site from University Avenue. The intent of this condition is to provide visual interest and minimize the appearance of mass with the understanding that a future development on the adjacent property may someday obscure this design feature. One way to comply with this provision may be to set the building back a couple of inches to create visual relief. Staff proposes that any lost floor area specifically related to this condition, up to 100 square feet, be relocated to the fourth floor to maximize a creative solution without reducing the proposed square footage.  The elevator adjacent to Kipling Street, inclusive of any associated mechanical equipment, shall not exceed fifty feet (50') in height. The purpose for this condition is to reduce building mass and provide a better transition to properties along Kipling Street.  The applicant shall return to the Architectural Review Board for review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for landscape details and plans for all proposed planting, including individual planters, the greenwall, and landscaping near the rooftop elevator. City of Palo Alto Page 8 The project uses landscaping to provide visual interest; however, these have been conceptually discussed and a more focused discussion and review is needed to ensure these concepts can be successfully implemented.  The applicant shall return to the Architectural Review Board for review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment of exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship-related detailing associated with the project. The ARB reviewed only a schematic drawing of Option 1. The intent of this condition is to ensure the ARB reviews the exterior materials and colors and architectural details to improve design linkages, while still preserving the applicant’s intent to construct a contemporary building. The above are staff recommended conditions should the Council find the project (Option 1) compliant with applicable findings, guidelines and other criteria. The City Council may augment or modify the above list as appropriate. One additional condition the Council may want to consider has to do with recessed pedestrian entries. The ARB has consistently sought to improve the pedestrian experience of this building, but there has been little refinement of this feature over the different iterations. In addition, it should be noted that all of the options discussed in this report will be subject to more detailed review for code compliance at the building permit stage, if/when a single design option has been advanced. Options 2 & 3 For the purpose of this appeal hearing, staff agrees with the ARB that the project plans, identified in this report as Option 2, do not meet the required findings, based on the previously stated Council concerns. This plan set is provided to the Council for review and consideration in case there is a different perspective from staff and the ARB. As noted earlier, Option 3 was submitted by the applicant on December 8, 2016 with the intention of reflecting the September 1, 2016 study session version (similar to Option 1), with a fourth floor similar to an earlier design reviewed by the ARB on August 4, 2106. Option 3 plans are included in Attachment N, and links to meeting minutes from the respective hearings are provided in Attachment D. Due to the lateness of the submittal the ARB has not reviewed the plans, nor has staff performed a detailed analysis other than to evaluate the project for code compliance. However, it is noted that the most substantive change between the staff supported Option 1 and Option 3 appears to be the addition of 2,610 square feet of floor area primarily at the upper floor level to accommodate an additional housing unit. The mass and scale of this option is similar to (and 250 square feet less than) Option 2, which was previously reviewed by the ARB. If the City Council is interested in exploring Option 3 further, staff City of Palo Alto Page 9 recommends the Council evaluate the proposal without referring the matter back to the ARB due to the limited progress made and extensive amount of staff time required to process this application. Moreover, this project has experienced an unusually protracted appeal hearing process due in large part to the incremental modifications and applicant-caused delays. Next Steps: Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to prepare a record of land use action to either approve or deny the project. Further remanding the project to the ARB, which has only three board members to deliberate on this matter due to two recusals, is not viewed by staff to be particularly constructive at this time, particularly in light of the progress made over the last eighteen months. Moreover, staff does not anticipate further continuances to generate a significant project design changes. Accordingly, staff anticipates returning to the City Council in March with a document to memorialize the Council’s action this evening. Environmental Review: The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Pursuant to Section 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects for which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Therefore, no CEQA action may be required if the Council denies the project. However, if the Council elects to approve the project, the Council will have to approve the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, which has previously been prepared for the project and is attached to this report. Pursuant to the requirements of the CEQA, a Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated along with the required 20-day public review. The public comment period for this project was from November 17, 2014 to December 12, 2014. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been updated to include the findings of additional analyses, including the historic resources memorandum, shadow study and the traffic operations study (Attachments F through K). The plan revisions did not result in any additional impacts nor require additional mitigation measures. The original mitigation monitoring program remains the same (Attachment I). Attachments: Attachment A - Architectural Review Findings (DOCX) Attachment B - Context-Based Design Criteria (DOCX) Attachment C - Project Descriptions and Plan Modifications Overtime (PDF) Attachment D - Public Hearing Chronology (DOCX) Attachment E - Development Standards Preliminary Compliance Matrix (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 10 Attachment F - CEQA 1 Updated - 429 University Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration - 8-15-16 (PDF) Attachment G - CEQA 2 429 University appendicies A-E (PDF) Attachment H - CEQA 3 429 University appendicies F-I (PDF) Attachment I - CEQA 4 Mitigation Monitoring Program (PDF) Attachment J - Landscape Report (PDF) Attachment K - Shadow Study (PDF) Attachment L - Architectural Drawings: Option 1 (DOCX) Attachment M - Architectural Drawings: Option 2 (DOCX) Attachment N - Architectural Drawings: Option 3 (DOCX) ATTACHMENT A ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FINDINGS Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review approval, unless it is found that: (1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site; (3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project; (4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character; (5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses; (6) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site; (7) The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community; (8) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures; (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; (10) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles; (11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project; (12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function and whether the same are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions; (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 and functional environment and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site; (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; (15) The project exhibits green building and sustainable design that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be utilized in determining sustainable site and building design: (A) Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation; (B) Design of landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects; (C) Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access; (D) Maximize on site stormwater management through landscaping and permeable paving; (E) Use sustainable building materials; (F) Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy and water use; (G) Create healthy indoor environments; and (H) Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. (16) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review as set forth in subsection (a). Updated Architectural Review Findings – Adopted December 12, 2016 Effective January 12, 2017 Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review approval, unless it is found that each of the following applicable findings is met: 1. The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. 2. The project has a unified and coherent design, that a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. 3. The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. 4. The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). 5. The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. 6. The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. ATTACHMENT B PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 18.18.110 CONTEXT-BASED DESIGN CRITERIA (a) Contextual and Compatibility Criteria Development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. (1) Context (A) Context as used in this section is intended to indicate relationships between the site's development to adjacent street types, surrounding land uses, and on-site or nearby natural features, such as creeks or trees. Effective transitions to these adjacent uses and features are strongly reinforced by Comprehensive Plan policies. (B) The word "context" should not be construed as a desire to replicate existing surroundings, but rather to provide appropriate transitions to those surroundings. "Context" is also not specific to architectural style or design, though in some instances relationships may be reinforced by an architectural response. (2) Compatibility (A) Compatibility is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new buildings is consistent with the pattern of achieving a pedestrian oriented design, and when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained. (B) Compatibility goals may be accomplished through various means, including but not limited to: (i) the siting, scale, massing, and materials; (ii) the rhythmic pattern of the street established by the general width of the buildings and the spacing between them; (iii) the pattern of roof lines and projections; (iv) the sizes, proportions, and orientations of windows, bays and doorways; (v) the location and treatment of entryways; (vi) the shadow patterns from massing and decorative features; (vii) the siting and treatment of parking; and (viii) the treatment of landscaping. (b) Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings In addition to the findings for Architectural Review contained in Section 18.76.020(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, the following additional findings are applicable in the CD district and subdistricts: (1) Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements such as: A. Ground floor uses that are appealing to pedestrians through well-designed visibility and access; B. On primary pedestrian routes, climate and weather protection where possible, such as covered waiting areas, building projections and colonnades, and awnings; C. Streetscape or pedestrian amenities that contribute to the area's streetscape environment such as street trees, bulbouts, benches, landscape elements, and public art; D. Bicycle amenities that contribute to the area's bicycle environment and safety needs, such as bike racks, storage or parking, or dedicated bike lanes or paths; and E. Vehicle access from alleys or sidestreets where they exist, with pedestrian access from the public street. (2) Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements such as: A. Placement and orientation of doorways, windows, and landscape elements to create strong, direct relationships with the street; B. Facades that include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other architectural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass; C. Entries that are clearly defined features of front facades, and that have a scale that is in proportion to the size and type of the building and number of units being accessed; larger buildings should have a more prominent building entrance, while maintaining a pedestrian scale; D. Residential units and storefronts that have a presence on the street and are not walled-off or oriented exclusively inward; E. Elements that signal habitation such as entrances, stairs, porches, bays and balconies that are visible to people on the street; F. All exposed sides of a building designed with the same level of care and integrity; G. Reinforcing the definition and importance of the street with building mass; and H. Upper floors set back to fit in with the context of the neighborhood. (3) Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks through elements such as: A. Rooflines that emphasize and accentuate significant elements of the building such as entries, bays, and balconies; B. Design with articulation, setbacks, and materials that minimize massing, break down the scale of buildings, and provide visual interest; C. Corner buildings that incorporate special features to reinforce important intersections and create buildings of unique architectural merit and varied styles; D. Building facades articulated with a building base, body and roof or parapet edge; E. Buildings set back from the property line to create an effective 12' sidewalk on El Camino Real, 8' elsewhere; F. A majority of the building frontage located at the setback line; and G. No side setback for midblock properties, allowing for a continuous street facade, except when abutting low density residential. (4) Low-Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower-scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties through: A. Transitions of development intensity from higher density development building types to building types that are compatible with the lower intensity surrounding uses; B. Massing and orientation of buildings that respect and mirror the massing of neighboring structures by stepping back upper stories to transition to smaller scale buildings, including setbacks and daylight planes that match abutting R-1 and R-2 zone requirements; C. Respecting privacy of neighboring structures, with windows and upper floor balconies positioned so they minimize views into neighboring properties; D. Minimizing sight lines into and from neighboring properties; E. Limiting sun and shade impacts on abutting properties; and F. Providing pedestrian paseos and mews to create separation between uses. (5) Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents, visitors, and/or employees of a site. A. The type and design of the usable private open space shall be appropriate to the character of the building(s), and shall consider dimensions, solar access, wind protection, views, and privacy; B. Open space should be sited and designed to accommodate different activities, groups, active and passive uses, and should be located convenient to the users (e.g., residents, employees, or public) C. Common open spaces should connect to the pedestrian pathways and existing natural amenities of the site and its surroundings; D. Usable open space may be any combination of private and common spaces; E. Usable open space does not need to be located on the ground and may be located in porches, decks, balconies and/or podiums (but not on rooftops); F. Open space should be located to activate the street façade and increase "eyes on the street" when possible; G. Both private and common open space areas should be buffered from noise where feasible through landscaping and building placement; H. Open space situated over a structural slab/podium or on a rooftop shall have a combination of landscaping and high quality paving materials, including elements such as planters, mature trees, and use of textured and/or colored paved surfaces; and I. Parking may not be counted as open space. (6) Parking Design Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment, such that: A. Parking is located behind buildings, below grade or, where those options are not feasible, screened by landscaping, low walls, etc.; B. Structured parking is fronted or wrapped with habitable uses when possible; C. Parking that is semi-depressed is screened with architectural elements that enhance the streetscape such as stoops, balcony overhangs, and/or art; D. Landscaping such as trees, shrubs, vines, or groundcover is incorporated into surface parking lots; E. For properties with parking access from the rear of the site (such as a rear alley or driveway) landscaping shall provide a visual buffer between vehicle circulation areas and abutting properties; F. Street parking is utilized for visitor or customer parking and is designed in a manner to enhance traffic calming; G. For properties with parking accessed from the front, minimize the amount of frontage used for parking access, no more than 25% of the site frontage facing a street should be devoted to garage openings, carports, or open/surface parking (on sites with less than 100 feet of frontage, no more than 25 feet); H. Where two parking lots abut and it is possible for a curb cut and driveway to serve several properties, owners are strongly encouraged to enter in to shared access agreements; and I. Parking is accessed from side streets or alleys when possible. (7) Large (Multi-Acre) Sites Large (in excess of one acre) sites shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood, and such that: A. New development of large sites maintains and enhances connectivity with a hierarchy of public streets, private streets, walks and bike paths (integrated with Palo Alto's Bicycle Master Plan, when applicable); B. The diversity of building types increases with increased lot size (e.g., <1 acre = minimum 1 building type; 1-2 acres = minimum 2 housing types; greater than 2 acres = minimum 3 housing types); and C. Where a site includes more than one housing type, each building type should respond to its immediate context in terms of scale, massing, and design (e.g., Village Residential building types facing or abutting existing single-family residences). (8) Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. Green building design considers the environment during design and construction. Green building design aims for compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it. In general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be included in site and building design: A. Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation. B. Design landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects. C. Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access. D. Maximize onsite stormwater management through landscaping and permeable pavement. E. Use sustainable building materials. F. Design lighting, plumbing, and equipment for efficient energy and water use. G. Create healthy indoor environments. H. Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. One example is establishing gardens with edible fruits, vegetables or other plants to satisfy a portion of project open space requirements. I. Provide protection for creeks and riparian vegetation and integrate stormwater management measures and open space to minimize water quality and erosion impacts to the creek environment. J. Encourage installation of photovoltaic panels. 102 University Ave., Suite C• Palo Alto, CA 94301 • tel 650 326 0374 • bellomoarchitects.com Date: December 6, 2016 Updated: December 9, 2016 To: City of Palo Alto Planning Department Attn: Adam Petersen Senior Planner Project: 429 University Avenue Subject: City Council January 23, 2017, Submittal We, together with our client Kipling Post LP, present for your review a mixed use building—one with retail, office and residential spaces. The project encourages a walkable, livable and sustainable urban lifestyle. The building unifies commercial and residential life, and celebrates the City of Palo Alto’s tradition and innovation. The building will also provide retail and commercial tenants with cutting-edge spaces for their businesses. This proposed design revision is compatible with the diverse and eclectic buildings in Palo Alto’s vibrant downtown area. These buildings span several generations of development, and with no particular style or building type prevalent. Our goal is to create a building that respects the Downtown Commercial District and the adjacent neighborhood. Program: 1. Basement level 2: Parking for 17 cars 2. Basement Level 1: Parking for 17 cars 3. First Floor: Retail Space 4. Second Floor: Office Space 5. Third Floor: Three Residential Units 6. Fourth Floor: Office Space and One Residence Design responses for the 429 University Avenue Project: 1.Building Square Footage Reduction: • A reduction of 250 square feet of residential area for a total of 10,750 SF where 11,000 square is permitted, while providing four residential units to the Palo Alto housing stock. • The square footage for the proposed building is 31,157 SF where 33,000 SF is permitted; this is a reduction of 1,843 SF less than permitted. 102 University Ave., Suite C• Palo Alto, CA 94301 • tel 650 326 0374 • bellomoarchitects.com 2. Building Massing: The proposed building incorporates upper level setbacks to provide a transition in scale to adjacent buildings and to reduce perceived massing. Increased Building setbacks from property line are as follows: • University Ave: Third Floor: 7’ -8” Fourth Floor: 19’-6” • Kipling St: Third Floor: 7’-8” Fourth Floor: 37’-0” • The Alley: Second and Third Floor: 10’-0” Fourth Floor: 10’-0” to 29’-8” • The West Wall: Third and Fourth walls set back 6’-0” in the center area. Floor Setback: • University Avenue and Kipling Street: Fourth Floor setback 2’-8” • The Alley: Second, Third and Fourth Floor setback 4’-0” Railing Set-back: • On University Avenue and Kipling Street: Third floor: 2’-8” Fourth floor: 3’-5” 3. Staircases: • Staircases are an integrated and celebrated part of this design. • Stairs from the third floor to the fourth floor have been set back 20’-0” from Kipling Street to reduce the building’s “massing effect”. • Elevator tower sets back 11’-0” from Kipling Street for the same reduction to the “massing effect”. 4. Building Corners: • Corner at Kipling and the Alley: Set backs at all three-floor levels. • Corner at University and Kipling: Floor to floor glass walls create visual transparencies. 5. Roof Overhangs: • The roof overhand at the Third Floor is recessed from 7’-0” to 5’-0” at University Avenue and Kipling Street. 102 University Ave., Suite C• Palo Alto, CA 94301 • tel 650 326 0374 • bellomoarchitects.com 6. Storefronts and Pedestrian Enhancement: • The proposed storefront glazing, recessed entrances and canopies, provide for pedestrian friendly streetscape. The amenities such as street trees and ample sidewalk widths, would contribute to the goal of creating an exciting and diverse pedestrian environment. • The University Avenue facade would preserve and follow the existing University Avenue storefront rhythm. 7. HVAC Systems (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems): • “State of the art” HVAC equipment will provide substantial reduction in noise for the neighboring building users. • HVAC equipment for third and fourth floor is located in the underground parking area providing additional noise reduction for neighbors plus providing additional energy efficiency. • Design efforts are to locate substantial mechanical equipment in the subterranean parking structure as feasible. 8. Alley: • Beautification of the alley with accentuated garden wall. 9. Sustainable Building materials: • Concrete: 70% replacement of cement with slag (a byproduct of iron extraction process) into concrete mixture for additional concrete strength. Note: cement is a significant emission polluter during refinement. • Cambridge Architectural Stainless Steel exterior screens provide 40% shading coefficient for interior spaces. • Thermo exterior glazing (double insulated low e glazing) • Fleetwood operable doors and windows promote natural light, ventilation as well as excellent acoustical values. • 3 Form exterior cladding on Third and Forth floor walls. 3 Form is a renewable, recyclable manmade material and reduces the building exterior maintenance. 10: West Wall (zero lot line): • A building setback of 6’-0” on the third and fourth floors create relief on the zero lot line building wall. It also allows and provides natural light and ventilation for the residential units. END 102 University Avenue, Unit 3C, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Date: November 8, 2016 To: City of Palo Alto Planning Department Attn: Adam Petersen Senior Planner Project: 429 University Avenue Subject: September 1st ARB Study Session Design Responses. We, together with our client Kipling Post LP, present for your review a mixed use building—one with retail, office and residential spaces. The project encourages a walkable, livable and sustainable urban lifestyle. The building unifies commercial and residential life, and celebrates the City of Palo Alto’s tradition and innovation. The building will also provide retail and commercial tenants with cutting-edge spaces for their businesses. We trust this proposed design revision is compatible with the diverse and eclectic buildings in Palo Alto’s vibrant downtown area. The University Downtown District is comprised of buildings varying in heights from 20’-0” to 50’-0”. These buildings span several generations of development, and with no particular style or building type is prevalent. Our goal is to create a building that respects the Downtown Commercial District and the adjacent neighborhood. Program: 1. Basement level 2: Parking for 17 cars 2. Basement Level 1: Parking for 17 cars 3. First Floor: Retail Space 4. Second Floor: Office Space 5. Third Floor: Three Residential Units 6. Fourth Floor: Office Space Currant design responses for the 429 University Avenue Project: 1.Building Square Footage Reduction: • Total reduction of 2860 square foot of “permitted” residential area by “eliminating all” residential square footage on 4th floor. • The reduction of fourth floor residential area reduces massing and the building’s perception as a three-story building from the pedestrian street level. • Additionally the recessed fourth floor at University Avenue and Kipling Street by 5’-10” reduces the terrace area by 1200 square foot. 102 University Avenue, Unit 3C, Palo Alto, CA 94301 2. Building Massing: The proposed building incorporates upper level setbacks to provide a transition in scale to adjacent buildings and to reduce perceived massing. Increased building setbacks from property line are as follows: • University Ave: 3rd Floor: 7’ -8” 4th Floor: 39’-9” • Kipling St: 3rd Floor: 7’-8” 4th Floor” 37’-0” • The Alley: Walls: 2nd, 3rd: 10’-0”, 4th Floor: 18’-8” Terraces: 4’-0” • The West Wall: 3rd and 4th walls set back 6’-0” in the center area. Increased floor setback: Fourth Floor: At University Avenue and Kipling Street: 5’-10” Increased railing setback on the third and fourth floor • Third floor railing setback: 2’-8” • Fourth floor railing setback: 0’-9” 3. Staircases: • Staircases are an integrated and celebrated part of this design. • Stairs from the third floor to the fourth floor have been set back 20’-0” from Kipling Street to reduce the building’s “massing effect”. • Elevator tower sets back 11’-0” from Kipling Street for the same reduction to the “massing effect”. 4. Building Corners: • Corner at Kipling and the Alley: Set backs at all three-floor levels. • Corner at University and Kipling: Floor to floor glass walls create visual transparencies. 5. Roof Overhangs: • The roof overhand at the Third Floor is recessed from 7’-0” to 2’-0” at University Avenue and Kipling Street. The overhang is kept to minimum required for its function of weather protection. 102 University Avenue, Unit 3C, Palo Alto, CA 94301 6. Storefronts and Pedestrian Enhancement: • The proposed storefront glazing, recessed entrances and canopies, provide for pedestrian friendly streetscape. The amenities such as street trees and ample sidewalk widths, would contribute to the goal of creating an exciting and diverse pedestrian environment. • The University Avenue facade would preserve and follow the existing University Avenue storefront rhythm. 7. HVAC Systems (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems): • “State of the art” HVAC equipment will provide substantial reduction in noise for the neighboring building users. • HVAC equipment for third and fourth floor is located in the underground parking area providing additional noise reduction for neighbors plus providing additional energy efficiency. • Design efforts are to locate substantial mechanical equipment in the subterranean parking structure as feasible. 8. Alley: • Beautification of the alley with accentuated garden wall and overlooking garden terraces. 9. Sustainable Building materials: • Concrete: 70% replacement of cement with slag (a byproduct of iron extraction process) into concrete mixture for additional concrete strength. Note: cement is a significant emission polluter during refinement. • Cambridge Architectural Stainless Steel exterior screens provide 40% shading coefficient for interior spaces. • Thermo exterior glazing (double insulated low e glazing) • Fleetwood operable doors and windows promote natural light, ventilation as well as excellent acoustical values. • 3 Form exterior cladding on Third and Forth floor walls. 3 Form is a renewable, recyclable manmade material and reduces the building exterior maintenance. 10: West Wall (zero lot line): • A building setback of 6’-0” on the third and fourth floors create relief on the zero lot line building wall. It also allows and provides natural light and ventilation for the residential units. END 102 University Ave., Suite C• Palo Alto, CA 94301 • tel 650 326 0374 • bellomoarchitects.com Date: September, 21st 20,16 Updated: September 29th, 2016 To: City of Palo Alto Planning Department Attn: Adam Petersen Re: 429 University Avenue We, together with our client Kipling Post LP, present for your review a mixed use building—one with retail, office and residential space—that encourages a walkable, livable and sustainable urban lifestyle. The building unifies commercial and residential life, and celebrates the City of Palo Alto’s traditions and values. The building will also provide its retail and commercial tenants with long-lasting, cutting-edge spaces for their businesses. And finally, the proposed revision is compatible with the diverse and eclectic buildings in Palo Alto’s vibrant downtown area. Program: 1: Basement level 2: Parking for 21 cars 2: Basement Level 1: Parking for 17 cars 3: First Floor: Retail Space 4: Second Floor: Office Space 5: Third Floor: Office space and Two Residential Units 6: Fourth Floor: Three residential units Design Responses: 1. Building Square Footage: Total allowable square footage for the building’s retail and office space is 22,000, but the proposed design has square footage of only 20,407 sq ft—which is 1,593 sq ft less than permitted. 2. Residential Units: Earlier design proposal had four residential units; in contrast, this design proposes five residential units—in the same square footage—better promoting the City’s development goals of more housing. 3. Massing: ARB suggested that there is no need to reduce the square footage provided that 3rd and 4 th floor is set back from the property line to reduce perceived massing of the building. 102 University Ave., Suite C• Palo Alto, CA 94301 • tel 650 326 0374 • bellomoarchitects.com In response, the proposed building’s setbacks are not only compatible with code requirements but certain setbacks are substantially greater than required: The setbacks are as follows: • University Ave: 3rd and 4th Floor: 19’-9” • Kipling: 3rd Floor: 10’-5”; 4th Floor: 10’-5” • Alley: Walls: 2nd, 3rd and 4th Floor: 10’-0” Terraces: 4’-0” • West Wall: 3rd and 4th walls set back 6’-0” in the center area. 4. Roof Overhangs: • As per ARB members’ suggestion, the roof overhangs are eliminated. The proposed revision retains the following features: 5. Staircases: • Staircases are an integrated and celebrated part of this design. • The glass enclosure allows natural light while increasing energy efficiency simultaneously promoting surveillance and safety. • Stairs from the third floor to the fourth floor have been set back 20’-0” from Kipling Street to reduce perceived “massing effect”. • Elevator tower sets back 11’-0” from Kipling Street to further reduce any “massing effect”. 6. Building Corners: • Corner at Kipling and the Alley: Set backs at all floor levels. • Corner at University Ave and Kipling: Floor to floor glass walls create visual transparencies. 7. Concrete Entry Porticos: • Portico on Kipling and University Avenue scaled down to reduce perceived massing effect. 8. Pedestrian Enhancement: • Increased pedestrian overlay (widening the sidewalks) at Kipling Street enhances pedestrian friendly urban environment. 9. HVAC Systems (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems): • “State of the art” HVAC equipment will provide substantial reduction in noise for the neighboring building users. • HVAC equipment for third and fourth floor is located in the underground parking area providing additional noise reduction for neighbors plus providing additional energy efficiency. 102 University Ave., Suite C• Palo Alto, CA 94301 • tel 650 326 0374 • bellomoarchitects.com • Design efforts are to locate as much mechanical equipment in the subterranean parking structure as feasible. 10. Alley: • Beautification of the alley with an accentuated garden wall and overlooking terraces. • One retail space opens on alley with outdoor seating area. 11. Sustainable Building Materials: The building will be composed of sustainable building materials with exposed structural composition. • Concrete: 70% replacement of cement with slag (a byproduct of iron extraction process) into concrete mixture making it stronger and environmentally friendly (cement is a significant emission polluter during its refinement process). Slag also makes concrete more impermeable to water. • Cambridge Architectural Stainless Steel exterior screens provide 40% shading coefficient for interior spaces. • Thermo exterior glazing (double insulated low e-glazing) for energy efficiency. • Fleetwood operable doors and windows promote natural light, ventilation as well as excellent acoustical values. 12. West Wall (zero lot line): • A building setback of 6’-0” on the third and fourth floor creates relief on the zero lot line building wall. It also allows and provides natural light and ventilation for the residential units. 13. Glass Façade: • Reduced floor-to-floor glass facades by adding walls, wainscoting and operable windows. 14. Compatibility: • The building facade has a 20’-0” storefront grid pattern in rhythm with the storefronts on University Avenue. • Second and third floor plates follow horizontality of other storefronts on University Avenue. For example, second floor plate follows second story roof line of adjacent property at 423 University Avenue and also the roofline of the second story at the old Apple store at 451 University Avenue. 15. Floor to Floor Height at First Floor: • The design proposal maintains the 15’-0” floor plate height of the existing building. • The earlier proposal, which was recommended by ARB and subsequently approved by Planning Department in Feb 2015 proposed the same height. -- END – 102 University Ave., Suite C• Palo Alto, CA 94301 • tel 650 326 0374 • bellomoarchitects.com Architect Key Dates Retail Office Ret and Off Subtotal Residential Total Area 10/20/16 ARB (S. 9/20/16)7,518 12,889 20,407 11,000 31,407 9/1/16 ARB - Study Session 7,393 13,013 20,406 8,098 28,504 8/4/16 ARB (S. 7/22/16)7,393 13,014 20,407 10,750 31,157 6/16/16 ARB (S. 5/9/16) 7,478 12,929 20,407 11,000 31,407 3/17/16 ARB (S. 2/8/16) vA 7,966 12,441 20,407 11,000 31,407 3/17/16 ARB (S. 2/8/16) vB 8,079 12,328 20,407 11,000 31,407 11/30/15 CC 7,922 12,485 20,407 11,000 31,407 9/17/15 ARB (S. 8/27/15) 9/10/15 HRB S.8/3/15 (no hearing)7,922 12,485 20,407 11,000 31,407 S. 1/26/15 7,935 12,472 20,407 11,000 31,407 2/19/15 ARB 2/25/15 Dir Approval 4/6/16 CC 5/4/15 CC 1/15/15 ARB (S. 12/15/14)7,938 12,469 20,407 11,000 31,407 11/20/14 ARB (S. 11/3/14)7,804 12,603 20,407 11,000 31,407 S. 10/20/14 7,804 12,603 20,407 11,000 31,407 S. 10/9/14 7,804 12,603 20,407 11,000 31,407 S. 8/26/14 11,000 33,000 S. 6/19/14 11,000 33,000 22,000 22,000 Hayes Group Topos Unknown J. Bellomo Project Uses - in Square Feet Attachment K Site Area 11,000 Residential Sq. Ft.Retail and Office Sq. Ft.Total Sq. Ft. PAMC Max SF Allowed 11,000 11,000 22,000 TDR Sq. Ft.9,207 Density Bonus 200 Total Allowed Sq. Ft.11,000 20,407 31,407 Project Sq. Ft.11,000 20,407 31,407 PAMC Permitted FAR*1 to 1 1 to 1 2 to 1* Project FAR 1 to1 1.85 to 1 2.85 to 1 Square Footage and FAR Summary * PAMC permits a max FAR up to 3 to 1 with TDRs and density bonuses ATTACHMENT D PUBLIC HEARING CHRONOLOGY 429 University Avenue / File No. 14PLN-00222 Date and Hearing Architectural Review Board (ARB) October 20, 2016 Report Link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54326 Minute Link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54712 Video Link http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-50/ Date and Hearing ARB September 1, 2016 study session Report Link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53659 Minute Link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54329 Video Link http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-48/ Date and Hearing ARB August 4, 2016 Report Link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53304 Minute Link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53664 Video Link http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-47/ Date and Hearing ARB March 17, 2016 Report Link https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51514 Minute Link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51757 Video Link http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-40/ Date and Hearing City Council November 30, 2015 Report Link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49953 Action Minute Link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/50105 Video Link http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-62/ Date and Hearing ARB September 17, 2015 Report Link https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49028 Minute Link Video Link http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-29/ Date and Hearing Historic Resources Board (HRB) September 10, 2015 Report Link https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/48887 Minute Link Video Link http://midpenmedia.org/historic-resources-board-16/ Date and Hearing City Council May 4, 2015 Report Link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47015 Action Minute Link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47340 Video Link http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-35/ Date and Hearing City Council April 6, 2015 Report Link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/46619 Action Minute Link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/46871 Video Link http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-31/ Date and Hearing ARB February 19, 2015 Report Link https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/45974 Minute Link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/46922 Video Link http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-15/ Date and Hearing ARB January 15, 2015 Report Link https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/45512 Minute Link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/46921 Video Link http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-13/ Date and Hearing ARB December 18, 2014 Report Link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/45220 Minute Link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/46950 Video Link http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-11/ Date and Hearing ARB November 20, 2014 Report Link https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44755 Minute Link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/46948 Video Link http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-9/ Date and Hearing ARB November 7, 2013 Preliminary Review Report Link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/37588 Minute Link Video Link Page 1 of 7 ATTACHMENT E ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 429 University Avenue, 14PLN-00222 Option 1 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.18 (CD-C(GF)(P) DISTRICT) Mixed-Use Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Conforms Minimum Building Setback Front Yard None Required 0 ft. 0 ft. Yes Rear Yard 10’ for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion Not applicable 10’ for residential portion; balconies extend up to 6’ Yes Interior Side Yard None Required 0 ft. 0 ft. Yes Street Side Yard No requirement 0 ft. 0 ft. Yes Maximum Site Coverage (building footprint) None Required 11,633 sf 9,063 sf Yes Landscape Open Space Coverage 20% 2,200 sf 0 sf 61% 6,736 sf Yes Private Open Space 200 sf per unit Total 600 sf 0 sf 2,514 sf Yes Maximum Height 50 ft. 425 University – 23.5 ft. 429 University – 18.5 ft. 50 ft. Yes Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zoning districts or a residential PC district Daylight plane height and slope identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the lot line 0 0 N/A Residential Density (net) 40 0 11.8 du/ac Yes Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1 FAR 0:1 FAR 0 sf 0.74:1 FAR 8,140 sf Yes Maximum Nonesidential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1 FAR 11,000 sf 1.06:1 FAR 11,633 sf 1.86:1 FAR 20,407 sf Yes* Project conforms with use of Transferrable Page 2 of 7 2.0:1 Max FAR with TDRs 22,000 sf Retail – ~8,800 sf Office – ~2,800 sf Retail – 7,518 sf Office – 12,889 sf Development Rights Total Floor Area Ratio 2.0:1 FAR 22,000 sf 3.0:1 Max FAR with TDRs 33,000 sf 1:1 FAR 11,000 sf 2.59:1 FAR 28,547 sf. Yes* Project conforms with use of Transferrable Development Rights 18.18.100 Performance Standards. In addition to the standards for development prescribed above, all development shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. All mixed use development shall also comply with the provisions of Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. 18.18.110 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. See Attachment B Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Mixed-Use Projects Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking (within the Downtown Parking Assessment District) 87 spaces 10 onsite 37 parking assessment district 34 spaces Bicycle Parking 8 spaces 3 – short-term 5 – long-term 0 Long Term: 0 Short Term: 6 Loading Space One 12-foot wide by 42-foot long loading zone.* 0 0 The project provides 34 spaces in two subterranean garages. The total number of spaces normally required based on the mix of land uses and floor area is 87 spaces. Accordingly, the project provides four additional spaces beyond code requirements: 87 (required) – 37 (parking assessment) – 20 (parking-exempt TDR) – 34 (provided onsite) = 4 extra parking spaces. Ingress and egress to parking is from Lane 30, which is a one-way alley exiting on Kipling Street. *Loading Area Requirements The project is subject to the loading area requirements in the City’s Zoning Code because it is a mixed-use project with commercial, office and residential uses. The project would need to include one 12-foot wide by 45-foot long loading zone to service the commercial and office Page 3 of 7 related uses. The project provides a loading space off of the alley, but it does not satisfy the entire size requirements. Staff has worked with the transportation division, and it has been determined that the alley provides sufficient loading space for the project. Previous projects in the City have not provided dedicated loading areas onsite. Further, previous iterations of the project provided the same loading space as is currently proposed. Therefore, using the alley is consistent with prior projects reviewed by the City and with previous iterations of the project. Option 2 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.18 (CD-C(GF)(P) DISTRICT) Mixed-Use Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Conforms Minimum Building Setback Front Yard None Required 0 ft. 0 ft. Yes Rear Yard 10’ for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion Not applicable 10’ for residential portion; balconies extend up to 6’ Yes Interior Side Yard None Required 0 ft. 0 ft. Yes Street Side Yard No requirement 0 ft. 0 ft. Yes Maximum Site Coverage (building footprint) None Required 11,633 sf 9,063 sf Yes Landscape Open Space Coverage 20% 2,200 sf 0 sf 24% 2,706 sf Yes Private Open Space 200 sf per unit Total 1,000 sf 0 sf 2,581 sf Yes Maximum Height 50 ft. 425 University – 23.5 ft. 429 University – 18.5 ft. 50 ft. Yes Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zoning districts or a residential PC district Daylight plane height and slope identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the lot line 0 0 N/A Residential Density (net) 40 0 19.8 du/ac Yes Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1 FAR 0:1 FAR 0 sf 1:1 FAR 11,000 sf Yes Page 4 of 7 Maximum Nonresidential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1 FAR 11,000 sf 2.0:1 Max FAR with TDRs 22,000 sf 1.06:1 FAR 11,633 sf Retail – ~8,800 sf Office – ~2,800 sf 1.86:1 FAR 20,407 sf Retail – 7,518 sf Office – 12,889 sf Yes* Project conforms with use of Transferrable Development Rights Total Floor Area Ratio 2.0:1 FAR 22,000 sf 3.0:1 Max FAR with TDRs 33,000 sf 1.06:1 FAR 11,633 sf 2.86:1 FAR 31,407 sf. Yes* Project conforms with use of Transferrable Development Rights 18.18.100 Performance Standards. In addition to the standards for development prescribed above, all development shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. All mixed use development shall also comply with the provisions of Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. 18.18.110 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. See Attachment B Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Mixed-Use Projects Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking (within the Downtown Parking Assessment District) 92 spaces 10 onsite 37 parking assessment district 37 spaces Bicycle Parking 8 spaces 3 – short-term 5 – long-term 0 Long Term: 16 Short Term: 6 Loading Space One 12-foot wide by 42-foot long loading zone.* 0 0 The project provides 37 spaces in two subterranean garages. The total number of spaces normally required based on the mix of land uses and floor area is 92 spaces. Accordingly, the project provides two additional spaces beyond code requirements: 92 (required) – 37 (parking assessment) – 20 (parking-exempt TDR) – 37 (provided onsite) = 2 extra parking spaces. Ingress and egress to parking is from Lane 30, which is a one-way alley exiting on Kipling Street. Page 5 of 7 *Loading Area Requirements The project is subject to the loading area requirements in the City’s Zoning Code because it is a mixed-use project with commercial, office and residential uses. The project would need to include one 12-foot wide by 45-foot long loading zone to service the commercial and office related uses. The project provides a loading space off of the alley, but it does not satisfy the entire size requirements. Staff has worked with the transportation division, and it has been determined that the alley provides sufficient loading space for the project. Previous projects in the City have not provided dedicated loading areas onsite. Further, previous iterations of the project provided the same loading space as is currently proposed. Therefore, using the alley is consistent with prior projects reviewed by the City and with previous iterations of the project. Option 3 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.18 (CD-C(GF)(P) DISTRICT) Mixed-Use Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Conforms Minimum Building Setback Front Yard None Required 0 ft. 0 ft. Yes Rear Yard 10’ for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion Not applicable 10’ for residential portion; balconies extend up to 6’ Yes Interior Side Yard None Required 0 ft. 0 ft. Yes Street Side Yard No requirement 0 ft. 0 ft. Yes Maximum Site Coverage (building footprint) None Required 11,633 sf 9,063 sf Yes Landscape Open Space Coverage 20% 2,200 sf 0 sf 37% 4,142 sf Yes Private Open Space 200 sf per unit Total 800 sf 0 sf 3,235 sf Yes Maximum Height 50 ft. 425 University – 23.5 ft. 429 University – 18.5 ft. 50 ft. Yes Page 6 of 7 Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zoning districts or a residential PC district Daylight plane height and slope identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the lot line 0 0 N/A Residential Density (net) 40 0 15.8 du/ac Yes Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1 FAR 0:1 FAR 0 sf 0.97:1 FAR 10,750 sf Yes Maximum Nonresidential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1 FAR 11,000 sf 2.0:1 Max FAR with TDRs 22,000 sf 1.06:1 FAR 11,633 sf Retail – ~8,800 sf Office – ~2,800 sf 1.86:1 FAR 20,407 sf Retail – 7,518 sf Office – 12,889 sf Yes* Project conforms with use of Transferrable Development Rights Total Floor Area Ratio 2.0:1 FAR 22,000 sf 3.0:1 Max FAR with TDRs 33,000 sf 1.06:1 FAR 11,633 sf 2.83:1 FAR 31,157 sf. Yes* Project conforms with use of Transferrable Development Rights 18.18.100 Performance Standards. In addition to the standards for development prescribed above, all development shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. All mixed use development shall also comply with the provisions of Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. 18.18.110 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. See Attachment B Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Mixed-Use Projects Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking (within the Downtown Parking Assessment District) 91 spaces 10 onsite 37 parking assessment district 34 spaces Bicycle Parking Commercial: 8 spaces 3 – short-term 5 – long-term 0 Long Term: 7 Short Term: 6 Page 7 of 7 Residential: 5 spaces 1 – short-term 4 – long-term Loading Space One 12-foot wide by 42-foot long loading zone.* 0 0 The project provides 37 spaces in two subterranean garages. The total number of spaces normally required based on the mix of land uses and floor area is 91 spaces. Accordingly, the project provides two additional spaces beyond code requirements: 91 (required) – 37 (parking assessment) – 20 (parking-exempt TDR) – 34 (provided onsite) = 0 extra parking spaces. Ingress and egress to parking is from Lane 30, which is a one-way alley exiting on Kipling Street. *Loading Area Requirements The project is subject to the loading area requirements in the City’s Zoning Code because it is a mixed-use project with commercial, office and residential uses. The project would need to include one 12-foot wide by 45-foot long loading zone to service the commercial and office related uses. The project provides a loading space off of the alley, but it does not satisfy the entire size requirements. Staff has worked with the transportation division, and it has been determined that the alley provides sufficient loading space for the project. Previous projects in the City have not provided dedicated loading areas onsite. Further, previous iterations of the project provided the same loading space as is currently proposed. Therefore, using the alley is consistent with prior projects reviewed by the City and with previous iterations of the project. Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. 429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE PROJECT Initial Study DRAFT RELEASED NOVEMBER 2014 UPDATED JANUARYAUGUST 2015 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 1 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE TO THE INITIAL STUDY I. PROJECT SUMMARY.....................................................................................................2 II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS .................76 A. AESTHETICS ..................................................................................................... 87 B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................ 1210 C. AIR QUALITY................................................................................................ 1311 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................... 1614 E CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................... 1816 F. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY .................................................... 2218 G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .............................................................. 2420 H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.......................................... 2621 I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .................................................. 2924 J. LAND USE AND PLANNING ...................................................................... 3126 K. MINERAL RESOURCES .............................................................................. 3328 L. NOISE .............................................................................................................. 3329 M. POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................. 3732 N. PUBLIC SERVICES ...................................................................................... 3833 O. RECREATION ............................................................................................... 3934 P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ........................................................ 3934 Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ...................................................... 4540 R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ...................................... 4641 III SOURCE REFERENCES ...........................................................................................4842 SOURCES (CHECKLIST KEY)............................................................................... 4842 REFERENCES CITED .............................................................................................. 4842 IV DETERMINATION ....................................................................................................5044 FIGURES 1 Regional Map 2 Vicinity Map 3 Aerial Map 4 Site Plan 5 Elevations 6 Perspective Renderings Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 2 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 PREFACE TO THE INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study is an informational document intended to disclose the environmental consequences of approving and implementing the proposed 429 University Avenue Project. The draft Initial Study was circulated for public review beginning on November 17, 2015 and ending on December 12, 2014. The draft Initial Study was considered at a public hearing by the Architectural Review Board on November 2014 to solicit public comments during the public review period. The Architectural Review Board and the public provided input on the proposed project and the project applicant subsequently made revisions to the project plans to address comments received. The Initial Study was also updated to reflect the revised project plans and was brought back to the Architectural Review Board on January 15, 2015. The Architectural Review Board recommended approval of the project and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration on February 19, 2015. The project was tentatively approved on February 25, 2015; however, it was appealed to the City Council prior to formal approval and filing of the Notice of Determination. The project was presented at the May 4, 2015 City Council hearing and the City Council requested additional changes to the project plans, as well as clarification to be added to the Initial Study. This Initial Study includes revisions to the text based on comments received from City Council on May 4, 2015. These changes are identified in strikethrough (indicating a deletion) or underlined text (indicating an addition). The City of Palo Alto determined that based on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15073.5, that the Initial Study need not be recirculated for public review because no substantial revisions were made to the Initial Study. This conclusion is based on the fact that no new, avoidable significant effects have been identified as a result of the text and project changes, no new mitigation measures were added, and revisions to the Initial Study do not raise important new issues about significant effects on the environment. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 3 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 I. PROJECT SUMMARY 1. PROJECT TITLE 429 University Avenue 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94303 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Christy Fong, Planner City of Palo Alto 650.838.2996 4. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS Kipling Post LP Contact: Elizabeth Wong PO Box 204 Palo Alto, California 94302 650.323.5295 5. APPLICATION NUMBER 14PLN-00222 6. PROJECT LOCATION 429 University Avenue Palo Alto, California Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 120-15-029 and 120-15-028 The 0.25-acre project site is located in the northern section of the City of Palo Alto (City), in the northern part of Santa Clara County, east of State Route 82 (El Camino Real) and west of U.S. Highway 101 (Figure 1, Regional Map). The project site is located on the northwestern corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street, as shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map, and Figure 3, Aerial Map. All figures are provided at the end of this document. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 4 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan designation of the project site is Regional/Community Commercial, per the Palo Alto 1998–2010 Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan; City of Palo Alto 2007). This land use designation includes larger shopping centers and districts that have a wider variety of goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. They rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores, furniture stores, toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theaters, and non- retail services such as offices and banks. Non-residential floor area ratios (FAR) range from 0.35 to 2.0. The project site is part of a Regional/Community Commercial district that extends from Alma Avenue on the south to Webster Street on the north and between Lytton Avenue on the west and Hamilton and Forest Avenues on the east. 8. ZONING The Zoning designation of the project site is Downtown Commercial (CD-C(P)(GF)). This zone’s regulations are set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.18. The CD district provides for a wide range of commercial uses serving city-wide and regional business and service needs, as well as residential uses and neighborhood service needs. The CD-C (community) subdistrict is intended to modify the site development regulations to allow specific variations to the uses and development requirements of the CD district. The project site is also within the pedestrian shopping (P) and ground floor (GF) combining districts. The pedestrian shopping combining district is intended to modify the regulations of the CD in locations where it is deemed essential to foster the continuity of retail stores and display windows and to avoid a monotonous pedestrian environment in order to establish and maintain an economically healthy retail district. The ground floor combining district is intended to modify the uses allowed in the CD district to allow only retail, eating and drinking, and other service-oriented commercial development uses on the ground floor. 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This Initial Study has been modified subsequent to public review of the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration to reflect revisions made to the project plans in January 2015 in response to issues raised by Architectural Review Board and again in August 2015 in response to issues raised by the City Council at the May 4, 2015 City Council meeting. These revisions provide clarifying information regarding the proposed project but none of the revisions to the Initial Study or project plans result in any new or increased environmental effects. The revisions to this Initial Study do not constitute “significant new information” that would require recirculation of the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project involves demolition of two one-story retail buildings located at 425 University Avenue (APN 120-15-029) and 429 University Avenue (APN 120-15-028) totaling 11,633 square feet (4,425 square feet and 7,208 square feet, respectively) on separate parcels, and construction of a new four-story mixed-use building with two levels of underground parking (Figure 4, Site Plan). The two parcels would be combined to create a single 11,000-square-foot parcel. The new building is proposed to be 31,407 square feet in gross floor area and would cover 9,4789,581 square feet of the site in approximately the same location as the existing buildings. The total increase in gross floor area would be 19,774 square feet. The proposed building would provide 20,407 square feet of commercial space (an increase of 8,774 square feet) and 11,000 square feet of residential land uses. A total of four residential apartment units would be provided, for a residential density of 16 units per acre. In addition, the design of the building’s Kipling Street façade would reflect the smaller scale of the existing development along Kipling Street. The third floor of the building would be set back 10 feet from the alley property line, 7 feet, 6 inches from Kipling Street, and 9 feet from University Avenue, resulting in a scale more visually compatible with surrounding buildings. The fourth floor of the building would be set back 10 feet from Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 5 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 the alley property line, 12 feet, 9 inches from the Kipling Street property line, and 39 feet, 7 inches from the University Avenue property line, resulting in a street façade that would appear as a three-story building. The proposed building plans are provided in Appendix A. The maximum proposed building height is 50 feet and the FAR would be 2.86 (Figure 5, Elevations). The base FAR in the CD-C district is 1.0; however, the FAR may be increased with transfers of development rights (TDRs) and/or bonuses for seismic and historic rehabilitation upgrades, not to exceed a total site FAR of 3.0. The proposed project FAR will be achieved through the transfer of 9,207 square feet of development rights from separate properties, of which 4,207 square feet require parking and 5,000 square feet are exempt from parking requirements. The project is also eligible for a one-time 200-square-foot bonus, which is subject to the City’s parking requirements. Together, these TDRs and bonuses would allow the project to achieve the proposed 2.86 FAR. Building design would include stone, cast concrete, and crystalized glass panels around the University Avenue/Kipling Street corner. The stone framework would be divided into segments that reflect the pattern of facades along the street. The third and fourth floors would be stepped back from the façade to create depth and visual interest, while also providing terraces for residents and guests of the building. The project proposes retail entrances along University Avenue and Kipling Street. The entry lobby for the residential and office uses would be located on Kipling Street. The building would be set back approximately 4 to 6 feet from Lane 30 to allow for pedestrian accessibility in the rear of the building and a raised planter would be located at the corner of the alley to provide a transition to the landscaped frontages along Kipling Street. The proposed project would require 82 81.6 parking spaces for 20,407 square feet of commercial use and 10 9.4 parking spaces for 4 residential units, for a total of 92 91 parking spaces. However, the property was previously assessed and paid in lieu fees for 37 parking spaces in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District and is eligible to receive 5,000 square feet of TDRs exempted from parking (equivalent to 20 parking spaces). Based on these adjustments, the project is required to provide a total of 35 34 vehicle parking spaces. The project proposes to include a total of 40 parking spaces, exceeding the parking requirement by five six spaces. The 40 parking spaces would be provided in the two-level underground parking garage. Seven long-term bicycle parking spaces would also be provided within the underground parking garage, and six short-term bicycle parking spaces would be located near the building entrances on University Avenue and Kipling Street, for a total of 13 bicycle parking spaces. The proposed project is designed in accordance with the City’s Green Building Ordinance, which requires compliance with California Green Building Code Tier 1 and Green Point rater (for the residential portion) with Local Amendments. The project would use both conventional and sustainable building materials, including a concrete frame, high-efficiency glazing systems, cut stone, glass tile, plaster finishes, abundant day-lighting and sun-shading systems, and an energy-efficient cool roof. The project would also include facilities for carpool/clean air vehicles and electric vehicle charging stations. The proposed project would involve the removal of four existing street trees on Kipling Street, and the replacement of these trees with four new street trees on Kipling Street. Both of the two existing street trees on University Avenue would be retained. 10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING As shown on Figures 2 and 3, the project site is located on University Avenue in Downtown Palo Alto. The project site is surrounded by primarily two-story buildings with ground floor retail and restaurant spaces on University Avenue and a mix of small-scale commercial/office as well as residential uses on Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 6 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Kipling Street. Located directly across University Avenue from the site is a modern four-story mixed-use office and retail building, with ground floor retail and upper story offices. Larger mixed-use and office buildings are located farther east along University Avenue, including a six-story building and a three-story building on the corner of University Avenue and Cowper Street. The surrounding uses on Kipling Street serve as a transition between the primarily commercial University Avenue and the primarily residential neighborhoods to the north. Lower-intensity commercial/office uses and single-family residential line both sides of Kipling Street. A yoga studio is located behind the project site, accessed from an alley off Kipling Street (the alley is referred to as Lane 30 E). A public surface parking lot is located on Kipling Street, less than a block north of University Avenue, which provides parking for nearby uses. Another public surface parking lot is located on Cowper Street, between University and Hamilton Avenues. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 7 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS 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) “(Mitigated) 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 (C)(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) 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. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The second column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 8 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 A. AESTHETICS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1, 2, 3 X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a public view or view corridor? 1, 3 (Map L4) X c) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 1, 3 (Map L4) X d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan policies regarding visual resources? 1, 2, 3 X e) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1, 2 X f) Substantially shadow public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The proposed project includes replacing two existing one-story retail buildings with a new four-story mixed-use building. While the proposed project would result in a change in the existing visual character of the site, the project design will be reviewed by the City’s Architectural Review Board to ensure that compatibility concerns are addressed and it does not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The project site is surrounded by primarily mixed-use and commercial buildings along University Avenue, ranging in height from one to six stories. As shown on Figure 5, Elevations, and Figure 6, Perspective Renderings, the proposed building would be larger in scale and mass than some of the adjacent buildings; however, the project would be similar in scale and mass to other buildings in the vicinity along University Avenue in the Downtown area. The use of lighter stone and cast concrete in the building façade and substantial setbacks on the third and fourth floors would help to reduce the apparent massing of the building and improve compatibility with neighboring structures. In addition, the project would not exceed the allowable height (50 feet) for the site. The design of the building’s Kipling Street façade would reflect the smaller scale of the existing development along Kipling Street. The façade would be divided into 25-foot sections consisting of the solid stair element, and the glass entry element with recessed residential terrace, and the secondary grid inside the main building form. The third and fourth floors of the building would set back from the alley property line and the Kipling Street property line resulting in a street façade that would appear as a two- to three-story building. The proposed stair element would be located east of the alley and would be buffered from the alley by a landscaped area near the ground-floor entrance adjacent to the alley. The University Avenue façade is designed to respond not only to the buildings immediately adjacent and west of the subject property but to the taller, higher density development of the University Avenue Commercial District, including the four-story Lululemon Athletica/Accel Partners building located directly across University Avenue. The University Avenue façade would appear to be three stories tall. The fourth floor would be set back 3039 feet, 7 inches from the Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 9 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 front of the building creating a terrace for use by building occupants and guests. The fourth-floor terracemain three- story building block would extend along the length of the building as would the main three-story building block, giving definition to the street edge and presence to the building when seen in the context of the street. The fourth floor terrace would extend just short of the length of the building, but would be set back in order to reduce visibility from the street. The main rectangular mass of the building would be elevated so the bottom aligns with the first floor openings of the adjacent buildings along University Avenue. Frameless glass would create display windows and entries that would activate the sidewalk through visual and physical connections. Retention of existing trees along the project site’s University Avenue frontage and the planting of new trees along the Kipling Street frontage would soften the views of the new building from public roadways and adjacent uses. The building would be built within the buildable area of the property and no public views or view corridors would be affected by the proposed building. The project site is located in a developed area of the City, is not within a state scenic highway; therefore, it would not damage any scenic resources within a state scenic highway. The Land Use and Community Design Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan includes several policies related to visual resources, including the following:  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-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible.  Policy L-20: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners with buildings that come up to the sidewalk or that form corner plazas.  Policy L-23: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character.  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. As described above, the proposed project would comply with the height and setback requirements for the project site. In addition, the project has been designed to blend into the existing development on both Kipling Street and University Avenue. The proposed building design recognizes that the uses along Kipling Street are smaller in scale and lower in intensity than those on University Avenue, and the project design responds to the adjacent uses by minimizing the appearance of an abrupt change in scale between the two areas. The University Avenue frontage would create an inviting retail environment and provide a pleasant pedestrian experience, thereby enhancing the University Avenue/Downtown area as the City’s central business district. In addition, as described above, the proposed building design would activate the sidewalk through the use of human-scale architectural details and frameless glass windows on the ground floor. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 10 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 The project site is currently developed with retail uses, which include sources of light and glare. Uses associated with the proposed structure would not create a substantial amount of additional lighting and glare. Glare is defined as a light source in the field of vision that is brighter than the eye can comfortably accept. Squinting or turning away from a light source is an indication of glare. Glare can result from sunlight or from artificial light reflecting off building exteriors, such as glass windows or other highly reflective surface materials. Glare is particularly associated with high light intensity. It can be reduced by design features that block direct line of sight to the light source and that direct light downward, with little or no light emitted at high (near horizontal) angles, since this light would travel long distances. Cutoff-type light fixtures minimize glare because they emit relatively low-intensity light at these angles. Glare resulting from sunlight reflecting off building exteriors can be reduced with design features that use low-reflective glass and exterior materials and colors that absorb rather than reflect light. The proposed building would increase the number and surface area of windows compared to the existing building. The Kipling Street frontage faces northeast and has limited direct sunlight exposure, while the University Avenue frontage faces southeast and receives more sunlight exposure. At the street level along these frontages, the project proposes a series of storefront system windows with canopies over the entrances. On the second floor, windows would also be provided on these frontages and would be shaded by canopies to reduce glare. The third floor would be set back from the building façade on the University Avenue frontage and Lane 30 E, creating a large overhang that would shade windows along this side. The fourth floor would be set back even farther along University Avenue, such that glare from windows would not be visible from the street. The Kipling Street frontage would receive less sunlight exposure and the windows on this side of the building are not anticipated to create substantial glare. The primary use of exterior building lighting would be to ensure safety at building entrances. Exterior building lighting is proposed at the rear entrance of the building on Lane 30, as well as within the ramp to the underground parking level. This lighting would be controlled to minimize spillover beyond the project site property lines. The project is also required to meet the City’s lighting standards, including PAMC Section 18.23.030, which establishes that “Exterior lighting in parking areas, pathways and common open space shall be designed to achieve the following: (1) provide for safe and secure access on the site, (2) achieve maximum energy efficiency, and (3) reduce impacts or visual intrusions on abutting or nearby properties from spillover and architectural lighting that projects upward.” PAMC Section 18.23.030 also requires that “lighting of the building exterior, parking areas and pedestrian ways should be of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose, and be designed to focus illumination downward to avoid excessive illumination above the light fixture.” Although the project would result in increased building height compared to the existing buildings, which could increase shading, there are no adjacent public spaces other than streets and sidewalks that would be affected by additional shadows. Specifically, the proposed building would increase shading on Kipling Street and Lane 30 E, which are public streets. A shadow study was prepared for the proposed project by jt Architecture + Design in order to evaluate the projected changes in shadow lines relative to existing conditions (see Appendix J). Shadow profiles were determined for the four critical dates of the year: March 21, June 21, September 21, and December 21. As shown in the shadow study, the shadows at winter solstice (worst-case shadow) would cover a similar range under existing and proposed conditions when accounting for the shadows cast by existing trees along Kipling Street, which the project would replace. The shadows would be cast mostly on the alley, parking stalls at the alley, buildings abutting the alley, streets, and rooftops. All of these areas are mostly utility areas, such as trash enclosures or loading zones, as opposed to gardens or residential rooms. In addition, most buildings on the alley do not have windows to the alley that would be impacted by these shadows. Under no scenario would residential buildings be adversely impacted by shadows from the proposed project. Due to the similarity of shadows from the existing building and the proposed building, shading from the project would differ minimally from existing conditions. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 11 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 The project is subject to design review and approval by the City through the Architectural Review process, which ensures compliance with City standards to promote visual environments that are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other. Therefore, for the reasons described above, aesthetic impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 12 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 B. AGRICULTURAL 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. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? 1, 3 X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 1, 3 (Map L9), 4 X c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)1) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 45262)? 1, 4 X d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1 X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1 X X DISCUSSION As reflected in the Comprehensive Plan, the project site is located in a developed urban area in Downtown Palo Alto and does not contain and land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the Santa Clara County Important Farmland map prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Department of Conservation (2011). The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not subject to any Williamson Act contracts. The project site is within a fully developed urban area and does not support forest or timberland. No impacts to agricultural and forestry resources would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. 1 California Public Resources Code 12220(g): “Forest land” is land that can support 10% native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. 2 California Public Resources Code 4526: “Timberland” means land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis after consultation with the district committees and others. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 13 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 C. AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 1, 2, 6 X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation indicated by the following: i. Direct and/or indirect operational emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides (NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and fine particulate matter of less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10)? 1, 2, 6 X ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling, which would be performed when a. project CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day or 100 tons per year; or b. project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service (LOS) D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F; or c. project would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more)? 1, 2, 6, 17 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)? 1, 2, 6 X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants? 1, 2 X i. Probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) exceeds 10 in one million? 1, 2 X ii. Ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic TACs would result in a hazard index greater than one (1) for the MEI? 1, 2 X Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 14 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1, 2 X f) Not implement all applicable construction emission control measures recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley, which is part of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has the primary responsibility for ensuring that the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin attains and maintains compliance with federal and state ambient air quality standards. The BAAQMD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emissions sources and through its planning and review process. The California ambient air quality standards are generally more stringent than federal standards. The federal and state Clean Air Acts define allowable concentrations of six air pollutants, which are referred to as “criteria air pollutants.” When monitoring indicates that a region regularly experiences air pollutant concentrations that exceed those limits, the region is designated as nonattainment and is required to develop an air quality plan that describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented to reduce air pollutant emissions and concentrations. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is designated nonattainment for the federal 8-hour ozone (O3) standard. The area is in attainment or unclassified for all other federal standards. The area is designated nonattainment for state standards for 1-hour and 8-hour O3, 24-hour coarse particulate matter (PM10), annual PM10, and annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5). To address the region’s nonattainment status, the BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (BAAQMD 2006) and the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2010a), which is an update to the 2005 document and provides “an integrated, multi-pollutant strategy to improve air quality, protect public health, and protect the climate.” The 2010 plan addresses O3, PM2.5 and PM10, air toxics, and greenhouse gases (GHGs). The 2010 plan identifies a number of control measures to be adopted or implemented to reduce emissions of these pollutants. As the proposed project is consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the project site, it is consistent with the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. The BAAQMD has adopted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) air quality guidelines (2010 BAAQMD Guidelines; BAAQMD 2010b) that establish air pollutant emission thresholds that identify whether a project would violate any applicable air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Compared with the previous set of guidelines adopted in 1999, the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines lower the level of pollutant emissions and health risk impacts that are considered a significant environmental impact. The BAAQMD’s adoption of the thresholds has been challenged in court. However, the litigation is procedural in nature and does not assert that the BAAQMD failed to provide substantial evidence to support its adoption of these thresholds. Because the 2010 thresholds are more conservative than the BAAQMD’s prior thresholds, this impact analysis is based on the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines. The 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines also establish screening criteria based on the size of a project to determine whether detailed modeling to estimate air pollutant emissions is necessary. Table 1 lists several examples of screening levels set by the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 15 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Table 1 BAAQMD Screening Criteria Land Use Type Construction Related Screening Size Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Screening Size* General office building 277,000 sf (ROG) 346,000 sf (NOx) Office park 277,000 sf (ROG) 323,000 sf (NOx) Regional shopping center or strip mall 277,000 sf (ROG) 99,000 sf (NOx) Quality restaurant 277,000 sf (ROG) 47,000 sf (NOx) Single-family residential 114 du (ROG) 325 du (ROG) Apartment, low-rise, or condo/townhouse, general 240 du (ROG) 451 du (ROG) City park 67 acres (PM10) 2,613 acres (ROG) Daycare center 277,000 sf (ROG) 53,000 sf (NOx) Source: BAAQMD 2010b, Table 3-1. Notes: sf = square feet; ROG = reactive organic gas; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; du = dwelling units. * If the project size is less than the screening size, the project would have less than significant impacts. If the project size is greater than the screening size, detailed project-specific modeling is required. Construction Emissions The project would result in a net increase of 8,774 square feet of commercial and office space and four new dwelling units; this is substantially below the screening thresholds of 277,000 square feet (office or regional shopping center/strip mall space) and 240 dwelling units (apartment, low-rise or condo/townhouse, general) for construction emissions. While the project size is less than the screening criteria size for construction, the project would require demolition of existing buildings. The BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines recommend that the screening criteria should not be applied to projects that include demolition. Therefore, project-specific modeling of construction emissions has been completed using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2013.2.2. Table 2 presents the estimated air pollutant emissions for each construction phase; the CalEEMod output results are included as Appendix B. As shown in Table 2, emissions during each construction phase would remain below the BAAQMD threshold, which is 54 pounds per day. Further, the project would implement all of the construction emission control measures as identified in Table 8-2 of the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines recommended for all proposed projects, as required by the City of Palo Alto standard conditions of approval. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Table 2 Proposed Project Construction Emissions by Phase Phase ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 (maximum pounds per day) Demolition 1.62 14.21 10.98 2.56 1.94 Excavation 2.95 35.30 23.50 3.15 1.86 Building construction 1.62 15.25 10.26 1.22 0.99 Parking structure paving 1.29 11.64 8.50 0.90 0.72 Architectural coatings 28.48 2.59 2.11 0.25 0.22 Source: Air Quality Modeling Results (see Appendix B). Notes: ROG = reactive organic gas; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 16 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Operational Emissions The project would result in a total of 20,407 square feet of retail and office space, which is a net increase of 8,774 square feet compared to the existing conditions. In addition, four new dwelling units would be constructed. This total increase in development is substantially below the screening thresholds of 346,000 square feet (office space), 99,000 square feet (regional shopping center or strip mall), and 451 dwelling units (apartment, low rise or condo/townhouse, general) for operational emissions (see Table 1). As the project is substantially smaller than the screening criteria size, emissions of criteria air pollutants associated with operation of the proposed project would remain below the BAAQMD thresholds. Project operation would not result in emissions that violate any applicable air quality standards, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or conflict with the air quality plan; impacts would remain less than significant. Cumulative Impacts As discussed above, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national O3 standards and state PM10 and PM2.5 ambient air quality standards. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. As described in the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines, “by its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant” (BAAQMD 2010b). Because operation of the proposed project would not result in emissions that violate any applicable air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, the project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact. Mitigation Measures None required. D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1, 2, 3 (Map N1), 11 X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, including federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 1, 2, 3 (Map N1) X c) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or 1, 2 X Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 17 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? 1, 2, 3, 5 X e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1 X DISCUSSION The proposed project is located on a parcel that is almost entirely developed with existing buildings and paved parking, which would be removed to accommodate the project. Due to its developed nature, the site does not support sensitive habitats and has a very low potential to support candidate, sensitive, and special-status species. The site is not subject to any habitat conservation plans. The project site supports trees protected by Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation and Management Regulations. The PAMC regulates specific types of trees on public and private property for the purpose of avoiding their removal or disfigurement without first being reviewed and permitted by the City. Three categories within the status of regulated trees include protected trees, street trees, and designated trees. As documented in the Tree Survey Report prepared for the site by Davey Resource Group (provided in Appendix A), the site includes six street trees, two in bulb-outs into the parking area along University Avenue and four in the sidewalk along Kipling Street. These trees were determined to be in poor to fair condition. The proposed project includes the retention of the two existing street trees on University Avenue (London plane trees (Platanus x acerifolia)), removal of four existing street trees on Kipling Street (two ornamental pears (Pyrus calleryana) and two carob trees (Ceratonia siliqua)), and the replacement of these trees with four new street trees. Construction of the project could impact the two trees to be retained on University Avenue if the trees are not properly protected. In addition, removal of the four street trees on Kipling Street would result in a significant impact if not completed in accordance with requirements for tree removal and replacement; therefore, mitigation is provided to ensure that these potential impacts remain below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The following measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to protected trees:  City of Palo Alto (City)-approved Modified Type III fencing shall be installed for the two street trees to be retained along University Avenue. City-approved tree protection signs shall be posted on all fencing.  Soil conditions for the four new trees to be planted along Kipling Street shall be improved by preparing a planting area at least 6 feet square for each tree and installing Silva Cells to reduce compaction. The Silva Cells shall be filled with proper soil amendments and growing medium as determined by the City Arborist.  Unless otherwise approved, each new tree shall be provided with 1,200 cubic feet of rootable soil area, utilizing Standard Drawing #604/513. Rootable soil is defined as compaction less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 18 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015  Two bubbler drip irrigation units shall be installed for each new tree to adequately water the new planting area.  New sidewalk shall be installed such that the final planting space opening is at least 5 feet by 5 feet for each new tree.  Kiva tree grates shall be used around each new tree.  Replacement tree size shall be a 36-inch box, properly structured nursery stock.  Based on growth habit and proven performance, Ginkgo biloba “Autumn Gold” is highly recommended for the replacement trees. Other tree species may be approved by the City Arborist.  All work within the Tree Protection Zone, including canopy pruning of protected trees, shall be supervised by a Certified Arborist approved by the City. Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. E. CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? 1, 7 X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? 1, 3 (Map L8), 7 X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 1, 3 (Map L8) X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1, 3 (Map L8), 7 X e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory? 1, 3 (Map L7), 8 X X f) Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? 1, 7, 8 X DISCUSSION The proposed project involves excavation and construction activities within a fully developed and previously disturbed site. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan map of archaeologically sensitive areas (Figure L-8, Archaeological Resource Areas) indicates that the project site falls within an area of "Moderate Sensitivity" based on topographic setting, including proximity to major drainages, and potential to encounter undocumented subsurface archaeological deposits. A Northwest Information Center (NWIC) records search records search was conducted by Dudek on September 25, 2014 and found that no cultural resources have been recorded in the project site (see Appendix C). The only archaeological site identified within the 0.5-mile radius of the project site as a result of the records search is CA-SCL-598. This site was first identified in 1922 and was described as a Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 19 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 “mine” of bones encountered 10 feet below the surface, including the skeleton of one adult human. Because no associated artifacts were reported and no additional details about the find were reported, the context of the find is not clear. An extended history of past disturbance suggests that there is a very low potential for encountering intact subsurface cultural deposits. Based on these findings, potential for the inadvertent discovery of subsurface archaeological or historical resources at the project site is very low. However, there is the potential to discover unknown cultural resources during site excavation. In the event any archaeological or human remains are discovered on the site, impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure that impacts remain less than significant by ensuring appropriate evaluation, recordation, and protection procedures are undertaken. Historical architectural evaluations were prepared by Preservation Architecture for the existing buildings located on the project site to determine the potential for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (see Appendix D). The existing building at 429 University Avenue, which was built in 1927, has not been identified as a potential historical resource by the City or the state, nor is the building included in a historic district. Moreover, no architect, engineer, designer or builder of the original building has been identified. The exterior of the building has been extensively altered over time, such that the original façade and storefronts are entirely lost, and the architectural building form has lost its characteristic design and material integrity. The historical evaluation determined that the building does not have historical architectural or historical resource potential and is therefore not eligible for listing on the CRHR. The existing building at 425 University Avenue was constructed circa 1937 and has since been used for office and commercial uses. The original architects of the building at 425 University Avenue, Birge M. Clark and David B. Clark of Palo Alto, are recognized as local masters. However, the exterior of the building has been extensively altered over time, including the complete loss of the original façade and storefront. The building was evaluated for historical resource eligibility and although the building has the potential for significance under the CRHR, the loss of integrity of the structure renders it ineligible for listing on the CRHR. In addition to the historical architectural evaluations prepared by Preservation Architecture, a supplemental review of historic resources was completed by Carey & Co. Inc. Architecture (Appendix D). Carey & Co. responded to the City Council motion from May 4, 2015, which included several clarifying questions regarding historic resources and the proposed project’s potential effects on historic resources. On July 10, 2015, Carey & Co. conducted a walking tour of University Avenue between Cowper Street and Waverley Street, and Kipling Street between University Avenue and Lytton Avenue. During the walking tour, Carey & Co. observed the project site, its relationship to surrounding properties, noted the types of buildings and their architecture, and verified the integrity of historic resources on University Avenue and Kipling Street. Carey & Co. confirmed that the proposed project is not located in a designated historic district recognized by local, state or national historic registers. This statement is supported by the City Council Staff Report (dated April 6, 2015) and the City of Palo Alto’s historic inventory (which only includes National Register-listed Professorville Historic District and Ramona Street Architectural District). Carey and Co. found that a study area larger than the project site may be analyzed in order to evaluate potential direct and indirect impacts to nearby historic resources that are not part of the project site. A total of eight properties are included in the study area. Three historical resources were analyzed by Carey & Co. for potential impacts as a result of the proposed project: 423 University Avenue, 436-452 University Avenue and 443 Kipling Street. 423 University Avenue (Palo Alto Inventory, Category 3) is adjacent to the project site and 436-452 University Avenue (Palo Alto Inventory, Category 2) is located across University Avenue from the project site. 443 Kipling Street (Palo Alto Inventory, Category 3) is located across Kipling Street diagonally from the project site. Carey & Co. found that the proposed project would not have any impacts on 423 University Avenue with the application of standard code regulations for construction activities. Carey & Co. also found that the proposed project would not have any direct impacts on 436-452 University Avenue and 443 Kipling Street since the construction site is separated by streets and all construction activity would take place on the north and west side of the streets, away from these buildings. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 20 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 The proposed project’s design, mass, scale, and use of materials could have an indirect impact on the integrity of historic resources. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its historic significance through the retention of physical characteristics that justify its inclusion in local, state or national registers. There are seven aspects of integrity discussed in detail below: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Location Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The relationship between the property and its location is often important to understanding why the property was created or why something happened. The actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. 423 University Avenue, 436-452 University Avenue and 443 Kipling Street would remain in their current locations. The proposed project would not have an impact on the location of these properties. Design Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. It results from conscious decisions made during the original conception and planning of a property (or its significant alteration) and applies to activities as diverse as community planning, engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials. The design of each property would not be affected by the proposed project. Setting Setting is defined as the physical environment of a historic property. The 400 block of University Avenue has changed over time, including previous demolitions and alterations to older buildings, such that the demolition of the subject properties and addition of the proposed project would not change the existing character of the block. University Avenue between Alma Street and Cowper Street is the center and retail core of downtown Palo Alto. Although a number of individual historical resources are located on the avenue, they do not form a historic district. Similar to Kipling Street, the proposed project would not substantially alter the physical environment of the individual historic resources on University Avenue such that their integrity would be compromised to the degree that they would lose their historic significance. Kipling Street serves as a transition between commercial University Avenue and northern residential neighborhoods of Palo Alto. The proposed project would not impact historic resources on Kipling Street directly since they are not immediately adjacent to the project site. However, potential indirect impacts to the setting of the historic properties on Kipling Street are discussed below. The overall setting of Kipling Street is defined by the properties on both sides of the street from the rear of the commercial buildings on University Avenue to Lytton Avenue. The setting of the historic properties has already been compromised in several ways. First, assuming that the street was once lined with residential structures on both the east and west sides of the street, only one altered structure with residential appearance (430 Kipling Street) remains on the west side. Second, the existing parking lot is a major intrusion on the setting of the block having removed buildings and eliminated relationships that buildings on one side of the street had to others on the opposite side. Therefore, the larger setting of the Kipling Street properties has been previously compromised. Third, while the group of buildings on Kipling Street may impart character to the street, as described in the Downtown Urban Design Plan, they do not appear to constitute a potential historic district whose resource setting may be affected by the proposed project. The proposed project would replace an existing commercial building and although larger in scale and height, it would not adversely impact the setting of the existing individual resources on Kipling, including 443 Kipling Street. Additionally, the proposed project would maintain the relationship between the commercial uses on University Avenue and the transitional state of Kipling Street. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 21 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Materials Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. The choice and combination of materials reveal the preferences of those who created the property and indicate the availability of particular types of materials and technologies. Indigenous materials are often the focus of regional building traditions and thereby help define an area's sense of time and place. A property must retain the key exterior materials dating from the period of its historic significance. The materials associated with each property would not change or be affected by the proposed project. Workmanship Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site. Workmanship can apply to the property as a whole or to its individual components. It can be expressed in vernacular methods of construction and plain finishes or in highly sophisticated configurations and ornamental detailing. It can be based on common traditions or innovative period techniques. Workmanship is important because it can furnish evidence of the technology of a craft, illustrate the aesthetic principles of a historic or prehistoric period, and reveal individual, local, regional, or national applications of both technological practices and aesthetic principles. The workmanship evidenced in the buildings at 423 University Avenue, 436-452 University Avenue and 443 Kipling Street would remain embodied in the architectural elements and features of these buildings. The proposed project would not have an impact on the workmanship of the buildings. Feeling Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. The proposed project would not affect the physical features that convey the historic character of 423 University Avenue and 436-452 University Avenue. The same can be said of 443 Kipling Street. In both cases, the properties would continue to express their “aesthetic and historic sense.” Association Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character. The historic significance of 423 University Avenue and 436-452 University Avenue is related to the commercial development of downtown Palo Alto, especially along University Avenue. The proposed project will not affect this relationship. 443 Kipling Street maintains a different relationship – that to the development of a residential neighborhood backing up to the commercial properties on University. Although the setting of Kipling Street has changed over time with fewer residential buildings on the street, 443 Kipling Street would continue to retain its residential character and relationship to the earlier residential development that took place on Kipling Street. Since the project site does not include any eligible historical resources or examples of major periods of California history or prehistory, no impacts to historical resources would be less than significantoccur. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 22 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Prior to commencement of site clearing and project grading, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to train construction personnel regarding how to recognize cultural resources (such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains) that could be encountered during construction activities. If artifacts or unusual amounts of shell or bone or other items indicative of buried archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during earth disturbance associated with the proposed project, the on-site contractor shall immediately notify the City of Palo Alto (City) and the Native American Heritage Commission as appropriate. All soil-disturbing work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and the City, completes a significance evaluation of the finds pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Any human remains unearthed shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, and California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99, which include requirements to notify the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office and consult with Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants, as appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on State Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523 (archaeological sites). Mitigation measures prescribed by the Native American Heritage Commission, the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office, and any Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants and required by the City shall be undertaken before construction activities are resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in the City’s Cultural Resources Management Program and in compliance with Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. F. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? 9 X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 3 (Map N-10), 9 X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 3 (Map N5), 12 X iv) Landslides? 3 (Map N5) X Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 23 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1, 9 X c) Result in substantial siltation? 1 X d) 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? 3 (Map N5), 9 X e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 3 (Map N5), 9 X f) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 1 X g) Expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? 2, 9 X DISCUSSION Murray Engineers Inc. (Murray Engineers) prepared a geotechnical investigation report for the project site in September 2013 (see Appendix E). The geotechnical report identifies potential geologic hazards that may affect the project site and presents recommendations for design and construction of the project. Given the project site’s location in a seismically active area, there is potential for severe ground shaking during an earthquake. High levels of ground shaking during potential future earthquakes and soil conditions that may be unsuitable to support construction-related excavations and site improvements are typical issues of concern related to development in seismically active areas. These issues are routinely encountered in California, and there is no evidence that unique or unusual geologic hazards are present on site (e.g., mapped landslide, collapsible soils, lateral spread) that would require additional mitigation beyond what is already required as part of the City’s standard development approval processes. Seismic ground shaking and the presence of adverse soil conditions would be addressed through required compliance with the California Building Code (and local amendments) as well as incorporation of geotechnical recommendations into the project’s construction and design plans. The geotechnical report indicates the project site is located in an area where there have been historical occurrences of earthquake-induced liquefaction and there is the potential for “permanent earthquake-induced ground displacement.” The Association of Bay Area Governments indicates the site is in an area with a moderate chance of liquefaction. However, there are no active or potentially active faults that cross the project site, and the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone (USGS 2013). The closest active fault is the San Andreas Fault, which is located approximately 5.7 miles southwest of the site. It is the opinion of Murray Engineers that the potential for fault rupture at the site is very low. The project site is flat and is not located in an area susceptible to landslides. The Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 24 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 geotechnical report did not indicate that there are expansive soils, corrosive soils, and/or soils subject to settlement present. Soils found on the project site consist of layers of fine- and coarse-grained alluvium to a depth of 45 feet. The upper approximately 5 to 8 feet consist of very stiff to hard surficial silty clay, underlain by 4 to 6 feet of medium dense to very dense gravelly to silty sand, and then underlain by 20 to 25 feet of very stiff silty clay. The clay is underlain by medium dense to very dense clayey to silty sand to a depth of 45 feet. Murray Engineers conducted additional soil testing to determine the likelihood of liquefaction occurring. Based on their analysis, the silty sand was determined to be very dense and therefore likely too dense to be considered liquefiable. In addition, the report concluded the “site should have a sufficiently thick and relatively dense, non-liquefiable layer above the groundwater table capping the potentially liquefiable layers at greater depths to mitigate the potential for sand boils or surface venting during an earthquake.” All new construction is subject to the earthquake design parameters contained in Chapter 16, Section 1613, of the 2013 California Building Code, directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. In addition, the City’s standard conditions of approval will ensure that potential impacts on erosion and soil remain less than significant. These conditions require the applicant to submit a final grading and drainage plan subject to review by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading and building permits. Requirements and standards of adequacy for the grading and drainage plans are contained in the PAMC. The project site would be connected to the City’s sewer system and would not involve use of septic tanks. Impacts to geologic resources and soils and impacts associated with geologic hazards would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impacts Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 2, 6 X b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 2, 6 X DISCUSSION In 2006, the State of California enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 requires reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The state’s plan for meeting the reduction target is outlined in the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Climate Change Scoping Plan (2008 Scoping Plan; CARB 2008). CARB’s 2008 Scoping Plan fact sheet states, “This plan calls for an ambitious but achievable reduction in California’s carbon footprint—toward a clean energy future. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels means cutting approximately 30% from business-as-usual emissions levels projected for 2020, or about 15% from today’s levels. On a per-capita basis, that means reducing annual emissions of 14 tons of carbon dioxide for every man, woman and child in California down to about 10 tons per person by 2020.” CARB’s GHG emissions Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 25 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 inventory report found the total statewide GHG emissions in 2011 were equivalent to 448.1 million tons of CO2 (CARB 2013). Compared with the emissions in 2001, this is a 6% decrease. As described in Section C, Air Quality, the BAAQMD adopted the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines, which establish screening criteria based on the size of a project to determine whether detailed modeling to estimate GHG emissions is necessary (BAAQMD 2010b). Projects that are smaller than the GHG screening criteria size are considered to have less than significant GHG emissions and would not conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions. Table 3 presents GHG screening level examples taken from the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines. Table 3 BAAQMD Operational GHG Screening Criteria Land Use Type Operational GHG Screening Size* Single-family residential 56 du Apartment, low-rise or condo/townhouse, general 78 du Apartment, mid-rise 87 du Condo/townhouse, general 78 du Regional shopping center 19 ksf Strip mall 19 ksf Hardware/paint store 16 ksf Daycare center 11,000 sf General office building 53,000 sf Medical office building 22,000 sf Office park 50,000 sf Quality restaurant 9,000 sf Source: BAAQMD 2010b, Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes. Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; du = dwelling unit; sf = square feet. * If the project size is less than the screening size, the project would have less than significant impacts. If the project is greater than the screening size, detailed project-specific modeling is required. The project would result in a net increase of 8,774 square feet of commercial and office space along with four new dwelling units; this is substantially below the BAAQMD screening thresholds of 53,000 square feet (office space), 19,000 square feet (commercial space) and 78 dwelling units (condo/townhouse) for operational GHG emissions. As the project is substantially smaller than the screening criteria size, GHG emissions associated with operation of the proposed project would remain below the BAAQMD thresholds. In addition, the project would comply with the green building requirements identified in Chapter 16.14 of the PAMC, including attainment of a minimum Build It Green score of 70 for the residential portion of the project. Project operation would not result in GHG emissions that would significantly affect the environment or conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The project would have less than significant impacts related to GHG emissions. Mitigation Measures None required. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 26 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health and Safety if the primary issues are related to a subject other than hazardous material use. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 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? 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 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, 2 X d) Construct a school on a property that is subject to hazards from hazardous materials contamination, emissions or accidental release? 1 X e) 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? 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 X f) 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 g) 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 h) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1, 3 (Map N7) X i) 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? 3 (Map N7) X Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 27 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact j) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from existing hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users of the site to contamination in excess of soil and ground water cleanup goals developed for the site? 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 X DISCUSSION Phase I environmental site assessments (ESAs) were prepared for the project site and include a general assessment of the nature and extent of past activities, if any, on the site that could have used hazardous materials, and whether the site appears to have evidence of soils or groundwater contamination. A Phase I ESA was prepared for the commercial buildings located at 429, 435, 441, and 447 University Avenue by Professional Service Industries Inc. in August 1999. In June 2010 an environmental transaction screen (ETS) for buildings located at 429–447 University Avenue was prepared by AEI to identify any potential environmental issues associated with past and present activities in the handling, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials. In addition, a follow-up Phase I ESA was prepared for 425 University Avenue and 450 Kipling Street3 by Transaction Management Corporation (TMC) in April 2014. The Phase I ESAs and ETS are included in Appendix F. Both of the Phase I ESAs and the ETS report indicate that due to the age of the buildings there is the potential for asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint to be present. TMC recommends preparation of an operations and maintenance plan for ACMs given the potential for occurrence in the 425 University Avenue building. The 2014 Phase I ESA indicates that the property at 425 University Avenue is not on any state or federal list of potentially hazardous sites. In addition, the 2010 ETS and the 1999 Phase I ESA indicate that the project site does not contain a recognized environmental condition, as defined by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Both reports conclude there also is no evidence of a recognized environmental condition off site that could impact the project site. In addition, the project site is not listed on the Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups database and there was no evidence of soil or groundwater contamination. The project involves the demolition of two buildings and construction of a new building. Demolition activities could release hazardous building materials into the air. Construction equipment accessing the site would use hazardous and/or flammable materials including diesel fuel, gasoline, and other oils and lubricants. During project construction, there is the potential for the short-term use of hazardous materials/fuels; however, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of these materials would be required to comply with all existing local, state, and federal regulations. Operation of the proposed project would not include any uses that would require the transport, handling, or disposal of hazardous materials, other than typical household and landscaping materials. The types and quantities of these common household chemicals would not be substantial and would not pose a health risk to residents of the project or any adjacent uses. Groundwater was identified in the geotechnical investigation at depth of approximately 33.5 to 35 feet below existing grade level. It is not anticipated that construction of the subsurface garage would require dewatering due to the depth of groundwater; however, if required, the project applicant would comply with standard conditions of the City’s architectural review process, which require special procedures for dewatering. Specifically, the City’s Public Works Department, Water Quality Control Plan section, would require that prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering, the water be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs; including ROGs) using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 601/602. The analytical results of the VOC testing shall be transmitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). If the concentration of any VOC exceeds 5 micrograms per liter (5 parts per billion), the water may not be discharged to the storm drain system and an 3 450 Kipling Street is not part of the project. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 28 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Exceptional Discharge Permit for discharge to the sanitary sewer must be obtained from the RWQCB prior to discharge. Additionally, any water discharged to the storm drain system is required to be free of sediment. Based on the construction date of the existing buildings (1927), it appears that the buildings may contain ACMs and may contain lead-based paints. Lead-based paints could also be present and the light ballasts may be a source of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Therefore, demolition of the existing buildings could result in hazards related to the release or disposal of these hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would require surveys and proper disposal methods to ensure that impacts remain less than significant. There are no existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the project site. The nearest school, Addison Elementary School, is located approximately 0.7 mile southwest of the project site. Therefore, no impacts to schools associated with hazardous materials at the project site would occur. There are no airports within 2 miles of the project site. The nearest airport is the Palo Alto Airport, which is located approximately 3.3 miles northeast of the site. Therefore, no impact related to safety hazards associated with aircraft would occur. The proposed project would not impair or interfere with the City’s Emergency Operations Plan. The nearest evacuation route to the project site is University Avenue. The project would not result in any changes to this evacuation route, would not substantially increase traffic or roadway congestion such that use of the evacuation route would be hindered, and would not otherwise impair implementation of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan. Therefore, no impact related to emergency response or evacuation would occur. The project site is located in a developed urban area that is not identified as a high or medium fire hazard area in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, no impact related to fire risks would occur. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to building demolition, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto that a survey of the existing buildings has been conducted by a qualified environmental specialist who meets the requirements of the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations for suspected lead-containing materials (LCMs), including lead-based paint/coatings; asbestos containing materials (ACMs); and the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Any demolition activities likely to disturb LCMs or ACMs shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead- or asbestos-related construction work. If found, LCMs and ACMs shall be disposed of in accordance with state and federal regulations, including the EPA’s Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the Cal-OSHA Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1), and California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA requirements for disposal of hazardous waste. If PCBs are found, these materials shall be managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act of 1991 (California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160–42185) and other state and federal guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards Act, particularly Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling, for the removal of mercury switches, PCB- containing ballasts, and refrigerants. Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 29 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1, 2, 3, 13, 14 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)? 1, 2, 3 (Map N2), 13, 14 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? 1, 2, 13, 14 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? 1, 2, 13, 14 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? 1, 2, 13, 14 X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1, 2, 13, 14 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? 1, 3 (Map N6) X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 1, 3 (Map N6) 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 or being located within a 100- year flood hazard area? 1, 3 (Map N8) X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1, 3 (Map N6) X k) Result in stream bank instability? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The project site is fully developed, and the proposed project would not substantially change the amount of impervious surface area on the project site, nor would the project rely on groundwater for its water supply. With Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 30 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 the exception of some street trees on University Avenue and Kipling Street, the existing site is composed of buildings and paved surface parking lots and thus is largely impervious. According to the Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments (included as Appendix G to this document) prepared for the project, the project site currently contains 11,000 square feet of impervious surface with the existing buildings and parking lot area. The project is proposing to maintain the same development footprint (0.252 acre). The project would not alter existing grades in the area and would not change drainage patterns or lead to increased erosion or sedimentation of nearby waterways. Groundwater was identified at a depth of approximately 33.5 to 35 feet below existing grade level. In addition, stormwater runoff water quality is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program to control and reduce pollutants to water bodies from surface water discharge. Locally, the NPDES project is administered by the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB worked with cities and counties throughout the region to prepare and adopt a Regional Municipal Stormwater Permit. This Regional Permit identifies minimum standards and provisions that the City of Palo Alto, as a permitee, must require of new development and redevelopment projects within the city limits. Compliance with the NPDES Permit is mandated by state and federal statutes. The proposed project would be required to comply with all city, state, and federal standards pertaining to stormwater run-off and water quality. Under the Regional Municipal Stormwater Permit, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB generally requires new development projects to implement Low Impact Design (LID) techniques to treat stormwater runoff. However, the regional permit also allows LID treatment reduction credits for three categories of “smart growth” projects – urban infill, high-density, and transit oriented development projects. These are called “Special Projects” in the regional permit, and are approved for reductions in the requirements for LID treatment in recognition of the fact that smart growth development projects can either reduce existing impervious surfaces or create less “accessory” impervious areas and automobile-related pollutant impacts. The RWCQB recognizes that these types of projects have inherent water quality and other environmental benefits. The project applicant has applied for and obtained a C.3 Special Project Category A determination based on the following: the project would preserve or enhance a pedestrian-oriented type of urban design, would be located in a Commercial downtown zone, would replace less than 0.5 acre of impervious surface area, would have minimal surface parking, and more than 85% of the site would be covered by the proposed building. Due to the small project site and its location in a developed urban commercial corridor, it would not be feasible to construct grassy swales or other LID features to treat stormwater. There is not sufficient space to accommodate biotreatment facilities or to route runoff to an appropriate discharge point. Since the project meets the criteria listed above, the project would receive 100% LID treatment reduction credit and be allowed to treat 100% of the amount of storm water runoff with non-LID treatment measures. Stormwater runoff from the site would be collected and piped to a mechanical device (manufactured by Contech Stormwater Solutions) which is an accepted storm filter treatment facility. The mechanical device would be located onsite and stormwater runoff would be treated prior to flowing by gravity into the street and ultimately into the City’s storm drain system. The applicant would also be required to enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee that the project provide the required maintenance and/or replacement of the device for the life of the project. By providing approved and appropriate stormwater runoff collection and conveyance, and ensuring long-term maintenance of the collection and conveyance infrastructure, the project would have less than significant impacts related to violating water quality standards or contributing substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The proposed project includes a subsurface garage with a maximum depth of 27 feet below grade. Reducing the number of exposed parking spaces also reduces the potential for stormwater to carry pollutants such as litter and/or leaking motor fluids. Due to the depth of groundwater, dewatering is not anticipated; however, due to fluctuations in groundwater it is possible that construction activities could encounter groundwater. Since the garage would be designed to be watertight and no permanent dewatering system would be required, it is expected that the impact to groundwater flow would be less than significant. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 31 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 The nearest surface water in the vicinity of the project site is San Francisquito Creek, located approximately 0.5 mile west of the site. Stormwater runoff is directed toward storm drain grates located in one covered parking space and in the adjacent alleyway that parallels the northwest boundary of the project site. The project site is located within Zone X on the Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No. 06085C0010H (FEMA 2009). This indicates that the project site is not in a zone expected to be subject to inundation in a 100-year flood event. Additionally, the project site is not located within an area identified as a dam failure inundation area as shown on maps available from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG 2003). The project site is not subject to flooding or inundation and construction of the project would result in no impacts associated with exposure of people to flood-related hazards. The project site is located in Downtown Palo Alto on relatively flat ground and is not near an open body of water or near a hillside; therefore, there is no risk for seiche, tsunami, or mudflow hazards. No impacts related to these hazards would result from implementation of the proposed project. Additionally, there are no streams within or adjacent to the site, and the project would have no impacts related to streambank stability. Mitigation Measures None required. J. LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 2 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, 4 X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1, 2 X d) Substantially adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use in the area? 1, 2, 3, 4 X e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the surrounding area, including density and building height? 1, 2 X f) Conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area? 1, 2 X g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to non-agricultural use? 1, 3 X DISCUSSION The proposed project, a 31,407-square-foot, four-story commercial, office, and residential building, is an allowed use as regulated by the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan (PAMC; City of Palo Alto 2007). The Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 32 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 project would replace two single-story buildings currently used for retail with the proposed mixed-use building. The increase from one story to four stories on the site would change the existing scale; however, buildings in the surrounding area include a modern four-story mixed-use office and retail building across the street, with ground floor retail and upper story offices. Larger mixed-use and office buildings are located farther east along University Avenue, including a six-story building and a three-story building on the corner of University Avenue and Cowper Street. The project would increase the existing retail, office, and residential land uses in the immediate vicinity and would not introduce any incompatible land uses. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation of the project site is Regional/Community Commercial, per the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages mixed-use development in the project area through the following policies:  Policy L-4: Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable qualities.  Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development.  Policy L-19: Encourage a mix of land uses in all Centers, including housing and an appropriate mix of small-scale local businesses.  Policy L-23: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. Since the project proposes a mixed-use development in an area where mixed-uses are encouraged and the project design reflects a pedestrian scale, the project would be consistent with the policies listed above. The zoning designation is Downtown Commercial with Pedestrian and Ground Floor Combining Districts (CD- C(P)(GF)). This zone’s regulations are set forth in PAMC Chapters 18.18 and 18.30. The CD district provides for a wide range of commercial uses serving City-wide and regional business and service needs, as well as residential uses and neighborhood service needs. The project would also include construction of two levels of underground parking and installation of new landscaping. The project is in compliance with the applicable CD-C (community) subdistrict zoning and parking regulations. The maximum proposed building height is 50 feet and the FAR would be 2.86. The maximum building height in this district is 50 feet. The base FAR in the CD-C district is 1.0; however, the FAR may be increased with TDRs and/or bonuses for seismic and historical rehabilitation upgrades, not to exceed a total site FAR of 3.0. The proposed project includes TDRs and bonuses to achieve the maximum allowable FAR of 2.86. The project would not conflict with existing zoning. In addition, the Pedestrian Shopping (P) and Ground Floor (GF) combining district regulations that apply to this site are intended to enhance the pedestrian environment through the continuity of retail stores and design windows in retail districts and allow only service-oriented commercial uses on the ground floor. The proposed project is designed to comply with the combining district regulations with ground-floor retail and façade details to enhance the pedestrian experience. In addition, the project would be consistent with the Context-Based Design Criteria for development in a commercial district, which promotes pedestrian oriented design that is compatible with adjacent development. The project site is surrounded by primarily mixed-use and commercial buildings along University Avenue, ranging in height from one to six stories. As described in Section A., Aesthetics, the proposed building would be larger in scale and mass than some of the adjacent buildings along Kipling Street; however, the project would be similar in scale and mass to other buildings in the vicinity along University Avenue in the Downtown area. In addition, the design of the building’s Kipling Street façade would reflect the smaller scale of the existing development along Kipling Street. The third floor of the building would be set back 10 feet from the alley property line, 7 feet, 6 inches from Kipling Street and 9 feet from University Avenue resulting in a scale more Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 33 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 visually compatible with surrounding buildings. The fourth floor of the building would be set back 10 feet from the alley property line, and 7 feet,12 feet, 9 inches from the Kipling Street property line, and 39 feet, 7 inches from the University Avenue property line, resulting in a street façade that would appear as a three-story building. The University Avenue façade is designed to respond not only to the buildings immediately adjacent and west of the subject property but to the taller, higher density development of the University Avenue Commercial District. The design of the proposed building is intended to minimize the potential for incompatibility with surrounding uses. In addition, as described in Section A., Aesthetics, the project design will be reviewed by the City’s Architectural Review Board to ensure that compatibility concerns are addressed and it does not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The project would comply with all plans for conservation of biological resources, and would not impact farmland. See Sections B and D for further discussion of these topics. Mitigation Measures None required. K. MINERAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 DISCUSSION The City has been classified by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1). This designation signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The Division of Mines and Geology has not classified the City for other resources. There is no indication in the Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed mixed-use building on the currently developed project site would result in no impacts related to mineral resources. Mitigation Measures None required. L. NOISE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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, 3, 15 X Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 34 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibrations or ground-borne noise levels? 1, 2, 15 X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1, 2, 15 X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1, 15 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, 2 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, 2 X g) Cause the average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB? 1, 2, 15 X h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB? 1, 2, 15 X i) Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB? 1, 2, 15 X j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? 1, 2, 15 X k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater? 1, 2, 15 X l) Generate construction noise exceeding the daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors by 10 dBA or more? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION Noise would be generated during the proposed demolition of the existing building and construction of the proposed mixed-use project. The magnitude of the construction noise would depend on the type of construction activity, the noise level generated by various pieces of construction equipment, site geometry (i.e., shielding from intervening structures), and the distance between the noise source and receiver. Construction noise levels are based on a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study (EPA 1971), which measured average noise levels during construction stages for a variety of typical projects. Sound is measured in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing and 60 dB corresponding roughly to the noise level of a typical conversation. Typically, a weighting system is applied to sound levels to more closely correlate sound levels with human perception, recognizing that humans are less Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 35 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 sensitive to sounds in frequency ranges below 1,000 hertz (Hz) and above 5,000 Hz. This system is called the A- weighted sound level, and is abbreviated as dBA. As shown in Table 4, average noise levels generated on a construction site could be as high as 89 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet during the loudest phases of construction. Typically, construction noise is cyclical in nature and noise levels vary throughout the day. All development in the City, including the proposed construction activities, must comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction activity. Short-term temporary construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in less-than- significant impacts to nearby land uses and sensitive receptors. The project is located in a busy commercial district with an active train station in the vicinity. Although there are residential uses in the project vicinity, the existing noise conditions are not quiet and the temporary construction activities will not create any new significant noise impacts. Table 4 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Activities Construction Activity Average Sound Level at 50 feet (dBA Leq) 1 Standard Deviation (dB) Ground Clearing 84 7 Excavation 89 6 Foundations 78 3 Erection 87 6 Finishing 89 7 Source: EPA 1971 1 Sound level with all pertinent equipment operating. The proposed project would be located on a site that is currently developed with two one-story retail buildings and is surrounded by primarily two-story buildings with ground floor retail and restaurant spaces on University Avenue and a mix of small-scale commercial/office as well as residential uses on Kipling Street. Residential land uses are located approximately 60 feet to the north and northwest. The proposed office building is not anticipated to result in significant levels of on-site noise or traffic noise because of the nature of the proposed land use and the relatively small size (which would generate a less than significant increase in traffic as discussed in Section P., below). The Environmental Noise Study for the project was prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates Inc. (Appendix H). This assessment found that existing noise levels in the project area range from 64 dB to 70 dB during the peak traffic hours and between 63 dB and 73 dB when measured as a day-night-level (DNL), which assigns a penalty to noises generated during nighttime hours to reflect heightened sensitivity to noise in those hours. Policy N-39 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan requires that the average interior noise level in multi-family dwellings be limited to DNL 45 dB. However, the City also states that residences exposed to a DNL of 60 dB or greater should limit maximum instantaneous noise levels to 50 dB in bedrooms and 55 dB in other rooms. Since the existing noise levels in the project area exceed 60 dB, architectural upgrades (as detailed in Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2) would be required to meet interior noise standards. Additionally, rooftop mechanical equipment noise from exhaust fans was analyzed, as shown in Table 5, to assess whether the equipment noise would comply with Section 9.19.040 of the City’s Noise Ordinance, which states: Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 36 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 “No person shall produce, suffer, or allow to be produced by any machine or device, or any combination of same, on commercial or industrial property, a noise level more than eight decibels above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane.” Table 5 Predicted Mechanical Equipment Noise Levels Property Line Predicted Noise Level (dB) Criteria (dB) At Nearest Receiver At Property Plane North 49 65 57 East 47 58 56 South 48 69 54 West 49 68 54 Currently there are no adjacent receivers at or near the property plane that are 50 feet in height; therefore, adjacent receivers would not be exposed to noise levels in excess of the City’s standard due to rooftop mechanical equipment noise, as shown in Table 5. However, as shown in Table 5, noise levels at the property plane would be above the criteria; therefore, Mitigation Measure NOI-3 is required to reduce this potential impact to below a level of significance. Potential project-related noise effects from traffic were analyzed by comparing existing, future (existing plus cumulative growth), and estimated project-related traffic volumes, as provided by the traffic impact analysis prepared for the project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (Appendix I). It was determined that the “future with project” traffic noise levels would increase by approximately 1 dBA along University Avenue and 2 dBA along Kipling Street. Based on the Federal Transit Administration noise impact criteria, a 2 dB increase in noise levels due to a project would result in a significant noise impact where the ambient noise levels without the project are in excess of 76 dB. Where noise levels are less than 76 dB, a project-generated noise level increase of more than 2 dB is required for a finding of significant noise impact. Since the ambient noise levels in the project area are less than 76 dB without the project, the maximum noise increase of 2 dBA would result in a less-than-significant impact to noise levels as a result of project generated traffic. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. The closest airport is the Palo Alto Airport, which is located approximately 3.3 miles northeast of the site. There would be no impact associated with noise from planes. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Residential Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies with Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating up to 45 and upgraded exterior walls shall be used in the residential portion of the proposed building to achieve the City’s maximum instantaneous noise guideline for residential uses. The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met through review of building plans as a condition of project approval. Commercial Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies for the commercial portions of the building shall have a minimum STC rating of 32 at the corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street, and a minimum STC of 28 at all other commercial locations within the proposed building to comply with the State of California CalGreen noise standards (maximum interior noise level of 50 dB during the peak hour of traffic). The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met through review of building plans as a condition of project approval. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The residential portion of the proposed building shall have a ventilation or air- conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment when windows are closed. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 37 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Noise levels from rooftop equipment shall be reduced to meet the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance requirements. An enclosure or other sound-attenuation measures at the exhaust fans shall be provided to reduce rooftop equipment noise is no greater than 8 dB above the existing ambient level at potential future neighboring buildings to meet the property plane noise limit. Use of quieter equipment than assumed in this analysis may support reduced mitigation, which shall be evaluated by a qualified acoustical consultant. Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. M. POPULATION AND HOUSING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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, 2, 3 X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1, 2 X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1, 2 X d) Create a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs? 1, 2 X e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local population projections? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The project would replace two existing one-story retail buildings with a four-story mixed-use building that would include a net increase of 8,774 square feet of commercial and office space and four residential dwelling units. The increase of four residential units would not add substantial population, nor is the increased commercial or office space expected to induce substantial population growth. The addition of four dwelling units in the University Avenue/Downtown area would provide a small amount of housing in the Downtown area, thereby improving the jobs-housing balance in this employment center. The project would not displace any housing or people. Standard conditions of approval require fees to cover any increased need for housing. The City addresses the community’s cumulative affordable housing needs through the Affordable Housing Fund, which is a local housing trust fund that provides financial assistance for the development of housing affordable to very low, low, and moderate-income households within the City. The Affordable Housing Fund is made up primarily of two sub-funds composed of local sources of housing monies: the Commercial Housing Fund and the Residential Housing Fund. The Commercial Housing Fund is funded through fees paid under the requirements of Chapter 16.47 of the PAMC. Under this requirement, the project applicant would be required to pay into the City’s Affordable Housing Fund at the time that building permits are issued. This fee is currently set at $18.44 per square foot for nonresidential development and would be applied only to the new gross square footage of commercial space proposed to be constructed at the site. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 38 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 The Residential Housing Fund is funded through the City’s Below-Market-Rate (BMR) Program, as expressed in Policy H-36 of the Housing Element and Chapter 18.14 of the PAMC. The BMR Program is intended to meet the City’s goal of retaining an economically balanced community. Specifically, residential projects with four or fewer dwelling units are exempt from the City’s BMR Program ordinance based on the City’s determination that construction of four or fewer units would not have a significant effect on affordable housing in the City, even in a cumulative context. As the project proposes construction of four residential units, it is exempt from the BMR program. With compliance with the PAMC and standard conditions of approval regarding payment of the Affordable Housing Fee, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None required. N. PUBLIC SERVICES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 X X X X X DISCUSSION The proposed project is located in an urban area that is currently served by the City Police and Fire Departments and the four proposed residential units would not cause a substantial increase in population that would demand additional services. In addition, the conditions of approval for the project contain requirements to address all fire prevention measures. Standard conditions of approval require fees to address any increased need for community facilities, schools, and housing. With payment of development impact fees for community facilities, schools, libraries, and parks, the project’s impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None required. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 39 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 O. RECREATION Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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, 2 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, 2 X DISCUSSION The proposed project would construct a new mixed-use building with commercial and office space and four residential units replacing two existing retail buildings. The 8,774-square-foot increase in commercial and office space and the addition of four residential units are not expected to have a significant effect on existing recreational facilities. Development impact fees for parks and community facilities for the increase in floor area and residential units are required per City ordinance. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None required. P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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, 2, 17 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, 2, 17 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? 1, 2 X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 1, 2 X Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 40 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1, 2 X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1, 2 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & bicycle facilities)? 1, 2, 3 X h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) D and cause an increase in the average stopped 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? 1, 2, 17 X i) Cause a local intersection already operating at LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more? 1, 2, 17 X j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause critical movement delay at such an intersection already operating at LOS F to increase by four seconds or more and the critical V/C value to increase by 0.01 or more? 1, 2, 17 X k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F or contribute traffic in excess of 1% of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F? 1, 2, 17 X l) Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more? 1, 2, 17 X m) Cause queuing impacts based on a comparative analysis between the design queue length and the available queue storage capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations; queues at turn lanes at intersections that block through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spillback queues on ramps. 1, 2, 17 X n) Impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? 1, 2, 3 X o) Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion? 1, 2, 17 X p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 41 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. prepared the Transportation Impact Analysis for 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use (Transportation Impact Analysis; Hexagon 2014, included in Appendix I). The analysis was completed in a manner consistent with other transportation impact studies in the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines. This includes use of the level of service (LOS) methodology described in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (2000 HCM; TRB 2000) for signalized intersections, use of the LOS methodology described in Chapter 17 of the 2000 HCM for unsignalized intersections, and use of the methodologies and standards described in the VTA 2013 Congestion Management Plan (CMP) for intersections included in the CMP (VTA 2013). The magnitude of traffic generated by the proposed project was estimated by Hexagon by applying applicable trip generation rates to the existing and proposed building. These calculations (see Table 6) are based on the trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, ninth edition (ITE 2012). The project would replace existing retail/restaurant space of the same size; therefore, trip generation from the first floor retail/restaurant space is excluded from the analysis. In addition, the rooftop office/lunchroom is intended for use by office employees and it therefore included in the office space calculation for trip generation purposes only. The trip generation estimates do not reflect potential reductions from the robust transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access at the project location. In this respect, the project trip generation estimates are conservative. Table 6 Project Trip Generation Land Use Type Size Daily Rate Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate1 In Out Total Rate1 In Out Total General Office 12.603 ksf 6.65 139 1.56 17 2 20 1.49 3 16 19 Apartment 4 du 11.03 27 0.51 0 2 2 0.62 1 1 2 Net Project Trips 166 17 4 22 4 17 21 Source: Hexagon 2014. 1 Trip rates based on ITE 2012, Office (710), Apartment (230). ksf = 1,000 square feet; du = dwelling units The proposed project is calculated to cause 22 new AM peak hour trips and 21 new PM peak hour trips. Hexagon applied the project’s trip generation and trip distribution estimates to each of the study intersections to determine whether the project would result in a significant change in LOS at any location. The Transportation Impact Analysis evaluated the following five intersections: 1. University Avenue and Kipling Street 2. Lytton Avenue and Kipling Street 3. University Avenue and Middlefield Road 4. Lytton Avenue and Middlefield Road 5. Lytton Avenue and Alma Street The project would create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection in the City of Palo Alto if for either peak hour: 1. The level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable LOS D or better under no project conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or F under project conditions, or Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 42 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 2. The level of service at the intersection is an unacceptable LOS E or F under no project conditions and the addition of project trips causes both the critical-movement delay at the intersection to increase by 4 seconds or more and the critical-movement volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) to increase by .01 or more. An exception to this rule applies when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of average delay for critical movements (i.e. the change in average delay for critical movements is negative). In this case, the threshold of significance is an increase in the critical V/C value by .01 or more. The results of the LOS analysis are shown in Table 7. Table 7 Project Effects on LOS and Delay Intersection (control) Peak Hour Average Delay (in seconds) and LOS Existing Existing Plus Project ∆ Critical Delay ∆ Critical V/C Cumulative No Project Cumulative Plus Project ∆ Critical Delay ∆ Critical V/C 1. University Avenue and Kipling Street (Signal) AM 9.5 A 9.7 A 0.1 0.003 10.6 B 10.7 B 0.2 0.004 PM 9.9 A 10.6 B 0.1 0.006 10.7 B 11.4 B 0.2 0.008 2. Lytton Avenue and Kipling Street (TWSC) AM 17.6 C 17.7 C -- -- 22.9 C 23.0 C -- -- PM 15.0 B 15.1 C -- -- 18.6 C 19.1 C -- -- 3. University Avenue and Middlefield Road (Signal) AM 28.2 C 28.2 C 0.0 0.001 28.6 C 28.6 C 0.0 0.001 PM 31.3 C 31.3 C 0.0 0.000 260.5 F 260.3 F 0.0 0.000 4. Lytton Avenue and Middlefield Road (Signal) AM 30.6 C 30.6 C 0.0 0.001 36.1 D 36.1 D 0.1 0.001 PM 37.0 D 37.0 D 0.0 0.001 158.5 F 158.8 F 0.1 0.001 5. Lytton Avenue and Alma Street (Signal) AM 18.0 B 18.1 B 0.2 0.002 18.6 B 18.7 B 0.2 0.003 PM 20.9 C 21.0 C 0.2 0.002 23.6 C 23.8 C 0.2 0.002 TWSC = two-way stop control Bold indicates a substandard level of service. The results in Table 7 show that all of the intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic under existing plus project conditions. The results in Table 7 also show that two of the signalized study intersections (University Avenue & Kipling Street and Lytton Avenue & Alma Street) would continue to operate adequately (LOS D or better) under cumulative plus project conditions. Two other signalized intersections (University Avenue & Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue & Middlefield Road) are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS F) under cumulative conditions both with and without the project. The project traffic would not cause a significant impact on the operation of these intersections, based on the significance criteria described above. As shown in Table 7, project traffic would only increase the critical delay by 0.1 second and the critical V/C value by 0.001, which are less than the significance thresholds of 4 seconds and 0.01, respectively. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 43 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities The Transportation Impact Analysis conducted by Hexagon also considered impacts to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The project location is approximately 0.5 miles from the Caltrain station and transit center and in a pedestrian and bicycle friendly downtown area, and the underground parking garage is proposed to include bike lockers and a shower room for employees. It is reasonable to assume that some employees would utilize transit or bicycles. Due to the project size, it is unlikely to produce significant bicycle trips or pedestrian trips or impact the nearby trains and buses. It is expected that these additional trips could easily be accommodated by the existing bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. Site Access and Onsite Circulation Access to the alley adjacent to the site (Lane 30) would be assisted by breaks in traffic on Waverly Street created by the nearby traffic signals at Lytton Avenue and University Avenue. In the event that a vehicle making a right turn out of the alley onto Kipling Street encountered a significant queue, the driver might choose to make a left turn onto Kipling Street and then onto Lytton Avenue to circle around the block. Such maneuvers are common in downtown settings during commute periods. Based on the estimated traffic generated during the peak periods, it is anticipated that the project’s garage access to and from Lane 30 at Waverly and Kipling Streets, respectively, would operate acceptably and would be typical of a development in an urban setting with underground parking. To ensure safety for vehicles using the parking garage, Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 requires that mirrors and/or a warning light be installed at garage entrance/exit. Truck access and loading would be provided adjacent to the project site via the alley (Lane 30). The alley is 20 feet in width and truck loading requires a width of 10 feet, which leaves the remaining 10 feet available for vehicles to pass in this one-way alley. The alley currently provides adequate truck access for other adjacent businesses, and it is expected that it would provide adequate access for the proposed project as well since the width of the alley would remain the same. Adequate corner sight distance is required at the exit of the alley to ensure that drivers can see approaching vehicles on Kipling Street. Sight distance is typically measured approximately 10 feet back from the traveled way. The proposed project would provide a 4-foot setback from the edge of the alley. The project would also replace the large street tree nearest this corner which would improve the visibility of the roadway. The combination of the setback and the tree removal is expected to provide adequate visibility of other vehicles and pedestrians. Hexagon also prepared a review of traffic operations into and out of the alley adjacent to the site (Lane 30), which is included in Appendix I. Lane 30 runs between Waverley Street and Kipling Street and is designed for one-way traffic, with vehicles entering from Waverley Street and driving eastbound to exit onto Kipling Street. There is a loading zone along a portion of the northern side of the alley near Waverley Street and 18 total parking spaces along the southern side. The available parking is used primarily by employees at the businesses with doors onto the alley. The northern side of the alley has a few dumpsters for the adjacent businesses; these dumpsters still leave at least 15 feet for a traveled way. The total clearspace in the alley varies in width from 20 feet building-to- building near Waverley, to approximately 40 feet along 415-423 University Avenue. Observations of traffic activity in the alley were conducted by Hexagon on Thursday, June 11, 2015 and traffic counts were conducted on Thursday, June 18, 2015. The counts showed that the alley carried 68 cars and light trucks, 7 heavy trucks, 16 bicycles, and 108 pedestrian trips between the hours of 6 AM and 8 PM (daylight hours). Observations showed that between the hours of 9 AM and 4 PM, pedestrians accounted for 56% of trips into and out of the alley, passenger vehicles accounted for 31%, and delivery vehicles accounted for 10%. Both pedestrians and vehicles used the alley as a shortcut (i.e., traveled from one end to the other) as well as to access businesses located off of the alley. While some delivery trucks were observed using the loading zone, several Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 44 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 double parked to make their deliveries or stopped in the No Parking zone near Kipling Street. Vehicles parked in the No Parking zone generally cut the available width of the alley in half, from 20 feet to 10 feet. While most of the vehicles using the parking spaces along the southern side of the alley entered from Waverley Street and left via Kipling Street, most of the vehicles parking behind the 429-447 University Avenue building entered the alley from Kipling Street, against a One Way sign. Most of the vehicles entering the wrong direction approached the alley from southbound Kipling Street. Coming from that direction, the signage indicating that the alley is one way is not prominent. The entrance to the alley at Waverley Street has good visibility for vehicles turning off of Waverley. Parked cars along the southbound side of Kipling Street were the main factor limiting the visibility of vehicles exiting the alley. Two large street trees adjacent to the curb cut further obstructed drivers’ views onto Kipling Street. The proposed project would include removal of the southern tree, to be replaced by a narrower tree approximately 15 feet back from the property line and curb cut, eliminating the visual obstruction for drivers looking to their right as they exit the alley. The corner of the proposed building would improve the sight lines onto Kipling Street, as the building would obstruct less than the existing street parking and street trees, and visibility of approaching vehicles would be very similar on both the driver’s left and right. Drivers exiting the alley would be likely to be driving down the center of the alley, which gives them about 7 feet of clearance on each side. This clear space allows view of pedestrians on the sidewalk. Despite the sight distance challenges, under existing conditions, drivers appeared to have no difficulty safely turning out of the alley onto Kipling Street. Vehicles entering right-angled parking spaces along the alley have ample space to turn, even with the dumpsters lining some portions of the alley. The proposed project would similarly have ample space for drivers to enter and exit the underground parking garage. The alley would be used by future building tenants accessing the underground parking garage in the same way that it is currently used. There is no potential impact from the proposed building on the operation of the alley, as it would continue to operate as it does currently. The onsite circulation was reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards. Generally, the proposed plan would provide one main drive aisle that would lead to an underground parking structure. Parking is shown at 90 degrees to the main drive aisle. This drive aisle makes several 90 degree turns to spiral down to the farthest parking spaces. The City parking facility design standards specify a minimum width of 16 feet for two-way underground ramps; 25 feet for two-way drive aisles lined with 8.5 foot wide, 90 degree spaces; and maximum slope of 2% adjacent to accessible parking spaces. Additionally, bike lockers require a five foot aisle in front of the door openings. The proposed parking plan meets these minimum specifications, as well as providing the minimum dimensions for standard, accessible, and van-accessible spaces. However, due to the limited footprint of the underground parking, vehicles are required to navigate tight 90 degree turns near the ends of both ramps and the middle of the lower ramp, where sight lines may be restricted. To ensure safety for vehicles using the parking garage, Mitigation Measure TRANS-2 requires that mirrors be installed in the parking garage to provide adequate site distance. Parking The project was also found to meet the applicable parking requirements of the PAMC. Specifically, the PAMC requires that the project provide one parking space for every 250 square feet of new commercial space and two spaces for each of the residential units plus guest spaces (one space plus 10%). The proposed project would require 82 81.6 parking spaces for 20,407 square feet of commercial use and 10 9.4 parking spaces for four residential units, for a total of 92 91 parking spaces. However, the property was previously assessed and paid in- lieu fees for 37 parking spaces in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District and is eligible to receive 5,000 square feet of TDRs exempted from parking (equivalent to 20 parking spaces). Based on these adjustments, the project is required to provide a total of 35 34 vehicle parking spaces. The project proposes to include a total of Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 45 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 40 parking spaces, exceeding the parking requirement by five six spaces. The 40 parking spaces would be provided in the two-level underground parking garage. The project would also meet the applicable bicycle parking requirements. PAMC Section 18.52.040 requires 1 bicycle space per 2,500 square feet of gross floor area, with a mix of 80% for long-term parking and 20% for short-term parking. In addition, 4 long-term bicycle spaces (1 per unit) are required for the residential units. The project is required to provide 13 total bicycle parking spaces. As reflected in the site plans, the project proposes to provide 7 long-term bicycle parking spaces within the underground parking garage and 6 short-term bicycle parking spaces near the entrances of the building on University Avenue and Kipling Street. The bicycle parking spaces provided on the project site meet the requirements of Ordinance 18.52.040 and follow layout requirements of PAMC Section 18.54.060. While this project does not include an explicit transportation demand management (TDM) plan, several elements common to TDM are present. Most importantly, the project is located in a transit-rich and pedestrian friendly location. Second, the project proposes to include both bicycle lockers and a restroom with a shower. Both of these features should result in some reduction in automobile trips generated by the project and reduce the amount of parking needed by employees. In addition, the project is in a good location for transit-related TDM strategies that may be implemented by future tenants, such as Caltrain and VTA Go Passes or reimbursement of transit fares. However, due to the small project trip generation, a TDM plan is not necessary to reduce peak hour trips. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure-TRANS-1: Mirrors shall be installed at the parking garage driveway to allow drivers to see when a pedestrian or vehicle is approaching in Lane 30. Mitigation Measure-TRANS-2: Mirrors shall be installed at each turn within the parking garage to provide adequate sight distance. Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1, 2 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? 1, 2 X c) Require or result in the construction of new 1, 2 X Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 46 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 1, 2 X e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 1, 2 X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 1, 2 X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1, 2 X h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration of a public facility due to increased use as a result of the project? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems, or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Standard conditions of approval require the applicant to submit calculations by a registered civil engineer to show that the on-site and off-site water, sewer, and fire systems are capable of serving the needs of the development and adjacent properties during peak flow demands. The project would tie into the City’s existing water, wastewater, and storm drain infrastructure and would not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. In addition, the project would comply with the green building requirements set forth in the California Green Building Code and the City’s Build It Green program. This would ensure that water conservation and solid waste reduction measures are included in the project to reduce demands for utility services. The project’s impacts on utility services would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None required. R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 47 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? 1, 2 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)? 1, 2 X c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The proposed project would not have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or historic resources with mitigation as described in Sections D and E. As described in Section A, Aesthetics, the proposed use is appropriate for the site and although the project would alter the visual character of the site, the building has been designed to ensure that it does not result in an adverse visual impact. The project’s impacts would all be reduced to below a level of significance through implementation of the mitigation measures described in the previous sections. The project would therefore not result in any cumulatively considerable impacts. There is nothing in the nature of the proposed development and property improvements that would have a substantial adverse effect on human beings, or other life or environmental impacts once mitigation is implemented to reduce potential impacts from hazardous materials and noise as described in Sections H and L. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 48 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 III SOURCE REFERENCES SOURCES (CHECKLIST KEY) 1. Project Planner’s knowledge of the site and the proposed project. 2. Project Plans, updated 2015 (Appendix A) 3. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998–2010 (City of Palo Alto 2007) 4. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18, Zoning Ordinance 5. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 8.10.030, Tree Technical Manual 6. Air Quality Modeling Results, 2014 (Appendix B) 7. Cultural Resources Memorandum (Appendix C) 8. Historic Architectural Evaluations, 2014, updated 2015 (Appendix D) 9. Geotechnical Investigation, 2013 (Appendix E) 10. Phase I ESA 425 University Avenue and 450 Kipling Street, 2014 (Appendix F) 11. Phase I ESA for the Commercial Buildings, 1999 (Appendix F) 12. Environmental Transaction Screen, 429–447 University Avenue, 2010 (Appendix F) 13. Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments, 2014 (Appendix G) 14. Special Projects Worksheet, 2014 (Appendix G) 15. Environmental Noise Study, 2014 (Appendix H) 16. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 9.10, Noise Ordinance 17. Traffic Impact Analysis, 2014, updated 2015 (Appendix I) 17.18. Shadow Study, 2015 (Appendix J) REFERENCES CITED 14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A–L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments). 2003. “Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Map for Palo Alto/Stanford.” http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/dfpickc.html. BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2006. Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. Adopted January 4, 2006. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20 Research/Plans/2005%20Ozone%20Strategy/adoptedfinal_vol1.ashx. BAAQMD. 2010a. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September 15, 2010. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Plans/2010%20Clean%20Air%20P lan/CAP%20Volume%20I%20%20Appendices.ashx. BAAQMD. 2010b. Bay Area Air Quality Management District California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2010. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/Draft_BAAQMD_CEQA_ Guidelines_May_2010_Final.ashx?la=en. California Department of Conservation. 2011. Santa Clara County Important Farmland Map 2010. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. June 2011. California Public Resources Code, Chapter 8, Z’Berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973, Article 2, Definitions, Section 4526, “Timberland.” California Public Resources Code, Article 3, Definitions, Section 12220(g), “Forest land.” California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160–42185. Metallic Discards Act of 1991. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 49 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. December 2008. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm. CARB. 2013. “California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2011 – Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators.” October 2, 2013. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. City of Palo Alto. 2007. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. July 17, 2007. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances. Prepared by Bolt, et.al., Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Boston, MA. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Santa Clara County, California. Map Number 06085C0010H. May 18, 2009. PAMC (Palo Alto Municipal Code). http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/clk/municode.asp. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2013. USGS Geologic Hazards Science Center – U.S. Seismic Design Maps webpage with seismic design value application. Accessed September 25, 2013. http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php. REPORT PREPARERS DUDEK 465 Magnolia Avenue Larkspur, California 94939 Heather Martinelli, AICP Katherine Waugh, AICP Christine Kronenberg, AICP Christine Wolfe Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 50 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 IV 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 DECLARATION pursuant 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. ___________________________________ _________________________ Project Planner Date Milpitas SanJose Mountain View PaloAlto Gilroy Campbell SanRamon BlackhawkDanville Moraga Town Alamo Discovery Bay Orinda Lafayette Walnut Creek Clayton Brentwood Pleasant Hill OakleyConcord PrunedaleElkhorn Ho Aptos Hills-Larkin Valley Interlaken Santa Cruz Soquel Aptos Corralitos Felton Day Valley ScottsValley Ben Lomond Boulder Creek Morgan Hill Lexington Hills SanJose Los Gatos Saratoga Cupertino LosAltosHills Los Altos Santa ClaraSunnyvale Portola Valley Woodside Atherton SanCarlosHalfMoon Bay Menlo Park BelmontEl Granada RedwoodCity Montara Hillsborough SanMateo Foster City Burlingame San Bruno Pacifica South SanFrancisco San Francisco Newark Fremont Union City Hayward PleasantonFairview Livermore DublinSanLeandroCastro Valley Alameda Oakland Berkeley Antioch VineHill Richmond BethelIsland Martinez Pittsburg WestPittsburg Pinole Rodeo Hercules Tracy Mill Valley San Rafael Lagunitas-Forest Knolls Lucas Valley- Marinwood Inverness Novato Benicia Vallejo American Canyon Santa C r u z County San MateoCounty San Francisco County Marin County Co n t r a C o s t a Co u n t y S t a n i s l a u s C o Contra Costa C o u n t y nty Marin Count y Sonoma Co u n t y Sacramento County Monter e y County Santa C l a r a C o u n t y S a n t a C l a r a C o u n t y oun t y Santa C r u z C o u n t y Santa Clara County Sa n J o a q u i n C o u n t y Santa Cruz County San Mateo County Alameda Co u n t y Alameda County Al a m e d a C o u n t y Sa n J o a q u i n C o u n t y 35 82 113 24 131 121 29 123 13 61 185 156 25 237 37 17 129 152 12 130 9 160 84 92 4 1 101 101 780 80 205 238 680 280 580 880 FIGURE 1 Regional Map 8576 429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE INITIAL STUDY Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 5 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ F i g u r e 1 _ R e g i o n a l . m x d 0115.5 Miles Project Site 82 101 FIGURE 2 Vicinity Map 8576 429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE INITIAL STUDY SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Palo Alto Quadrangle. Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 5 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ F i g u r e 2 _ V i c i n t y . m x d 02,0001,000 Feet Project Site FIGURE 3 Aerial Map 8576 429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE INITIAL STUDY SOURCE: BING 2014 Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 1 9 4 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ M A P S \ I S \ F i g u r e 3 _ A e r i a l _ M a p . m x d 0 200100Feet Project Boundary Site Plan 429 University Avenue Initial Study SOURCE: Kipling Post LP 2015 Da t e : 8 / 5 / 2 0 1 5 - L a s t s a v e d b y : c b a t t l e - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 5 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ F i g u r e 4 _ S i t e P l a n . m x d FIGURE 4 Elevations 429 University Avenue Initial Study SOURCE: Kipling Post LP 2015 Da t e : 8 / 5 / 2 0 1 5 - L a s t s a v e d b y : c b a t t l e - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 5 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ F i g u r e 5 _ E l e v a t i o n s . m x d FIGURE 5 Perspective Renderings 429 University Avenue Initial Study SOURCE: Kipling Post LP 2015 Da t e : 8 / 5 / 2 0 1 5 - L a s t s a v e d b y : c b a t t l e - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 5 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ F i g u r e 6 _ P e r s p e c t i v e _ R e n d e r i n g s . m x d FIGURE 6 APPENDIX A Project Plans D MH: 8.977 D MH: 8.977 D MH: 8.977 D MH: 8.977 D MH: 8.977 D MH: 8.977 D MH: 8.977 D MH: 8.977 D MH: 8.977 D MH: 8.977 C MH: 9 C MH: 9 C MH: 9 C MH: 9 C MH: 9 C MH: 9 C MH: 9 C MH: 9 C MH: 9 C MH: 9 C MH: 9 C MH: 9 B MH: 8 B MH: 8 1.47 2.92 3.28 2.83 3.07 3.26 2.11 0.71 4.89 8.38 9.46 9.56 9.54 9.14 6.52 2.68 8.39 13.13 15.21 16.33 15.89 14.06 10.80 4.92 9.09 13.90 16.16 17.79 17.15 14.71 11.70 6.98 12.25 13.96 13.74 13.98 13.43 9.53 6.48 11.60 13.01 12.66 12.82 12.79 8.94 8.38 13.31 15.48 16.38 16.05 14.49 11.02 9.35 14.18 16.41 18.30 17.54 14.95 12.03 7.31 12.58 14.42 14.37 14.57 13.75 9.91 6.44 11.61 12.94 12.62 12.80 12.76 8.94 8.12 13.17 15.33 15.84 15.69 14.27 10.69 9.55 14.42 16.60 18.31 17.51 14.73 11.91 8.38 14.20 16.04 15.39 14.04 12.34 9.28 8.02 13.91 14.91 11.76 9.09 14.15 14.86 10.37 9.21 13.72 14.05 10.40 6.04 9.93 10.34 6.93 AREA 1 429 UNIVERSITY - PALO ALTO Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Average = 11.52Average = 11.52Average = 11.52Average = 11.52Average = 11.52Average = 11.52Average = 11.52Average = 11.52Average = 11.52Maximum = 18.31Maximum = 18.31Maximum = 18.31Maximum = 18.31Maximum = 18.31Maximum = 18.31Maximum = 18.31Maximum = 18.31Maximum = 18.31Minimum = 0.71Minimum = 0.71Minimum = 0.71Minimum = 0.71Minimum = 0.71Minimum = 0.71Minimum = 0.71Minimum = 0.71Minimum = 0.71Avg/Min Ratio = 16.23Avg/Min Ratio = 16.23Avg/Min Ratio = 16.23Avg/Min Ratio = 16.23Avg/Min Ratio = 16.23Avg/Min Ratio = 16.23Avg/Min Ratio = 16.23Avg/Min Ratio = 16.23Avg/Min Ratio = 16.23Max/Min Ratio = 25.79Max/Min Ratio = 25.79Max/Min Ratio = 25.79Max/Min Ratio = 25.79Max/Min Ratio = 25.79Max/Min Ratio = 25.79Max/Min Ratio = 25.79Max/Min Ratio = 25.79Max/Min Ratio = 25.79Z = 0 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.15 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.22 0.29 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.09 0.13 0.17 0.26 0.22 0.29 0.42 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.30 0.51 0.92 0.69 0.76 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.11 0.17 0.25 0.39 0.65 1.16 1.99 1.39 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.12 0.17 0.26 0.42 0.73 1.33 2.57 4.97 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.12 0.18 0.28 0.44 0.78 1.44 2.83 5.80 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.12 0.18 0.29 0.46 0.80 1.48 2.98 6.15 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.12 0.18 0.28 0.45 0.80 1.47 2.91 6.01 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.12 0.18 0.27 0.43 0.75 1.39 2.70 5.41 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.12 0.17 0.26 0.41 0.70 1.27 2.33 4.04 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.11 0.16 0.24 0.32 0.55 0.99 0.82 1.14 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.13 0.19 0.28 0.25 0.41 0.53 0.77 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.14 0.21 0.27 0.38 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.14 0.20 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.14 0.05 0.10 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.13 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 9.30 10.53 12.94 13.97 12.51 13.72 8.13 9.27 DOOR 1 429 UNIVERSITY - PALO ALTO Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Average = 11.30Average = 11.30Average = 11.30Average = 11.30Average = 11.30Average = 11.30Average = 11.30Average = 11.30Average = 11.30Maximum = 13.97Maximum = 13.97Maximum = 13.97Maximum = 13.97Maximum = 13.97Maximum = 13.97Maximum = 13.97Maximum = 13.97Maximum = 13.97Minimum = 8.13Minimum = 8.13Minimum = 8.13Minimum = 8.13Minimum = 8.13Minimum = 8.13Minimum = 8.13Minimum = 8.13Minimum = 8.13Avg/Min Ratio = 1.39Avg/Min Ratio = 1.39Avg/Min Ratio = 1.39Avg/Min Ratio = 1.39Avg/Min Ratio = 1.39Avg/Min Ratio = 1.39Avg/Min Ratio = 1.39Avg/Min Ratio = 1.39Avg/Min Ratio = 1.39Max/Min Ratio = 1.72Max/Min Ratio = 1.72Max/Min Ratio = 1.72Max/Min Ratio = 1.72Max/Min Ratio = 1.72Max/Min Ratio = 1.72Max/Min Ratio = 1.72Max/Min Ratio = 1.72Max/Min Ratio = 1.72Z = 0 2.18 7.40 12.85 13.97 11.69 1.91 6.64 11.84 13.35 10.72 DOOR 2 429 UNIVERSITY - PALO ALTO Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Average = 9.26Average = 9.26Average = 9.26Average = 9.26Average = 9.26Average = 9.26Average = 9.26Average = 9.26Average = 9.26Maximum = 13.97Maximum = 13.97Maximum = 13.97Maximum = 13.97Maximum = 13.97Maximum = 13.97Maximum = 13.97Maximum = 13.97Maximum = 13.97Minimum = 1.91Minimum = 1.91Minimum = 1.91Minimum = 1.91Minimum = 1.91Minimum = 1.91Minimum = 1.91Minimum = 1.91Minimum = 1.91Avg/Min Ratio = 4.85Avg/Min Ratio = 4.85Avg/Min Ratio = 4.85Avg/Min Ratio = 4.85Avg/Min Ratio = 4.85Avg/Min Ratio = 4.85Avg/Min Ratio = 4.85Avg/Min Ratio = 4.85Avg/Min Ratio = 4.85Max/Min Ratio = 7.31Max/Min Ratio = 7.31Max/Min Ratio = 7.31Max/Min Ratio = 7.31Max/Min Ratio = 7.31Max/Min Ratio = 7.31Max/Min Ratio = 7.31Max/Min Ratio = 7.31Max/Min Ratio = 7.31Z = 0 10.15 14.37 14.39 10.18 3.97 9.76 14.24 14.27 9.88 3.76 0.62 DOOR 3 429 UNIVERSITY - PALO ALTO Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Average = 9.60Average = 9.60Average = 9.60Average = 9.60Average = 9.60Average = 9.60Average = 9.60Average = 9.60Average = 9.60Maximum = 14.39Maximum = 14.39Maximum = 14.39Maximum = 14.39Maximum = 14.39Maximum = 14.39Maximum = 14.39Maximum = 14.39Maximum = 14.39Minimum = 0.62Minimum = 0.62Minimum = 0.62Minimum = 0.62Minimum = 0.62Minimum = 0.62Minimum = 0.62Minimum = 0.62Minimum = 0.62Avg/Min Ratio = 15.48Avg/Min Ratio = 15.48Avg/Min Ratio = 15.48Avg/Min Ratio = 15.48Avg/Min Ratio = 15.48Avg/Min Ratio = 15.48Avg/Min Ratio = 15.48Avg/Min Ratio = 15.48Avg/Min Ratio = 15.48Max/Min Ratio = 23.21Max/Min Ratio = 23.21Max/Min Ratio = 23.21Max/Min Ratio = 23.21Max/Min Ratio = 23.21Max/Min Ratio = 23.21Max/Min Ratio = 23.21Max/Min Ratio = 23.21Max/Min Ratio = 23.21Z = 0 12.41 11.51 14.12 13.58 12.44 11.56 DOOR 4 TYPICAL 429 UNIVERSITY - PALO ALTO Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Average = 12.60Average = 12.60Average = 12.60Average = 12.60Average = 12.60Average = 12.60Average = 12.60Average = 12.60Average = 12.60Maximum = 14.12Maximum = 14.12Maximum = 14.12Maximum = 14.12Maximum = 14.12Maximum = 14.12Maximum = 14.12Maximum = 14.12Maximum = 14.12Minimum = 11.51Minimum = 11.51Minimum = 11.51Minimum = 11.51Minimum = 11.51Minimum = 11.51Minimum = 11.51Minimum = 11.51Minimum = 11.51Avg/Min Ratio = 1.09Avg/Min Ratio = 1.09Avg/Min Ratio = 1.09Avg/Min Ratio = 1.09Avg/Min Ratio = 1.09Avg/Min Ratio = 1.09Avg/Min Ratio = 1.09Avg/Min Ratio = 1.09Avg/Min Ratio = 1.09Max/Min Ratio = 1.23Max/Min Ratio = 1.23Max/Min Ratio = 1.23Max/Min Ratio = 1.23Max/Min Ratio = 1.23Max/Min Ratio = 1.23Max/Min Ratio = 1.23Max/Min Ratio = 1.23Max/Min Ratio = 1.23Z = 0 9.2 8 9 . 6 9 1 0 . 1 7 1 0 . 5 5 1 0 . 7 9 1 0 . 8 3 1 0 . 7 2 1 0 . 4 0 9 . 9 7 9 . 6 5 10 . 1 9 1 0 . 6 8 1 1 . 2 9 1 1 . 7 6 1 2 . 0 0 1 2 . 0 7 1 1 . 9 2 1 1 . 5 5 1 1 . 0 4 1 0 . 6 3 11 . 3 6 1 1 . 9 2 1 2 . 6 2 1 3 . 2 0 1 3 . 5 0 1 3 . 6 0 1 3 . 3 9 1 2 . 9 4 1 2 . 3 8 1 1 . 8 6 12 . 6 1 1 3 . 2 4 1 4 . 0 4 1 4 . 6 7 1 4 . 9 9 15 . 0 9 1 4 . 8 5 1 4 . 3 7 1 3 . 7 3 1 3 . 1 4 13 . 8 9 1 4 . 5 9 1 5 . 4 8 1 6 . 1 7 1 6 . 5 4 1 6 . 6 0 1 6 . 3 9 1 5 . 8 9 1 5 . 1 1 1 4 . 4 6 15 . 1 1 1 5 . 9 0 1 6 . 8 9 1 7 . 6 9 1 8 . 1 2 1 8 . 2 3 1 8 . 0 0 1 7 . 4 1 1 6 . 5 2 1 5 . 8 1 16 . 3 5 1 7 . 2 9 1 8 . 3 6 1 9 . 2 3 1 9 . 7 0 1 9 . 8 5 1 9 . 5 9 1 8 . 9 3 1 7 . 9 7 1 7 . 1 5 17 . 6 0 1 8 . 6 9 1 9 . 8 8 2 0 . 7 6 2 1 . 2 7 2 1 . 4 4 2 1 . 1 6 2 0 . 4 6 1 9 . 4 7 1 8 . 5 5 18 . 8 2 2 0 . 0 1 2 1 . 3 6 2 2 . 3 2 22 . 8 1 2 2 . 9 7 2 2 . 6 9 2 1 . 9 2 2 0 . 8 3 1 9 . 8 5 19 . 8 8 2 1 . 1 0 2 2 . 5 6 2 3 . 6 7 2 4 . 2 8 2 4 . 4 2 2 4 . 0 6 2 3 . 2 5 2 2 . 0 7 2 1 . 0 1 20 . 9 0 2 2 . 2 0 2 3 . 7 1 2 4 . 8 6 2 5 . 5 6 2 5 . 7 4 2 5 . 3 8 2 4 . 5 2 2 3 . 2 6 2 2 . 1 0 21 . 9 4 2 3 . 3 6 2 5 . 0 1 2 6 . 1 9 2 6 . 8 7 2 7 . 0 4 2 6 . 6 8 2 5 . 8 5 2 4 . 4 7 2 3 . 1 9 23 . 0 6 2 4 . 6 0 2 6 . 4 1 2 7 . 6 5 2 8 . 3 1 2 8 . 4 5 2 8 . 0 4 2 7 . 1 6 2 5 . 7 5 2 4 . 3 5 23 . 7 4 2 5 . 4 4 2 7 . 3 5 2 8 . 6 6 2 9 . 4 0 2 9 . 5 5 29 . 1 5 2 8 . 2 1 2 6 . 6 4 2 5 . 2 0 24 . 1 0 2 5 . 9 0 2 7 . 8 6 2 9 . 1 7 2 9 . 9 3 3 0 . 1 4 2 9 . 7 1 2 8 . 8 1 2 7 . 2 0 2 5 . 6 5 24 . 4 6 2 6 . 2 8 2 8 . 3 3 2 9 . 6 4 3 0 . 3 8 3 0 . 6 5 3 0 . 2 1 2 9 . 2 3 2 7 . 6 4 2 6 . 0 7 25 . 0 0 2 6 . 9 2 2 9 . 1 4 3 0 . 5 2 3 1 . 2 0 3 1 . 4 3 3 1 . 0 8 3 0 . 0 8 2 8 . 3 6 2 6 . 7 1 25 . 6 0 2 7 . 7 4 3 0 . 1 2 3 1 . 5 9 3 2 . 2 9 3 2 . 4 3 3 2 . 0 9 3 1 . 1 5 2 9 . 3 4 2 7 . 5 2 25 . 7 2 2 7 . 9 5 3 0 . 4 0 3 1 . 8 6 3 2 . 5 7 32 . 7 6 3 2 . 3 8 3 1 . 3 9 2 9 . 6 1 2 7 . 7 5 25 . 2 4 2 7 . 4 5 2 9 . 8 7 3 1 . 3 1 3 2 . 0 2 3 2 . 2 6 3 1 . 9 1 3 0 . 8 9 2 9 . 1 1 2 7 . 2 9 24 . 7 6 2 6 . 9 3 2 9 . 3 1 3 0 . 7 4 3 1 . 4 7 3 1 . 6 7 3 1 . 3 4 3 0 . 3 6 2 8 . 5 4 2 6 . 7 1 24 . 4 3 2 6 . 7 2 2 9 . 1 4 3 0 . 5 5 3 1 . 3 0 3 1 . 5 1 3 1 . 1 5 3 0 . 2 2 2 8 . 3 8 2 6 . 4 4 23 . 8 4 2 6 . 2 9 2 8 . 8 2 3 0 . 1 9 3 0 . 7 7 3 0 . 9 6 3 0 . 7 1 2 9 . 8 7 2 8 . 0 6 2 6 . 0 5 22 . 6 9 2 5 . 0 0 2 7 . 4 5 2 8 . 8 1 2 9 . 2 8 2 9 . 4 0 2 9 . 2 4 28 . 5 1 2 6 . 7 7 2 4 . 8 3 21 . 0 1 2 3 . 1 1 2 5 . 3 1 2 6 . 5 6 2 7 . 1 0 2 7 . 2 2 2 7 . 0 2 2 6 . 3 3 2 4 . 7 5 2 2 . 9 9 19 . 3 2 21 . 1 3 2 3 . 0 9 2 4 . 3 2 2 4 . 9 3 2 5 . 0 9 2 4 . 7 7 2 3 . 9 7 2 2 . 5 8 2 1 . 0 3 16 . 9 9 1 8 . 9 7 2 0 . 6 9 2 1 . 8 2 2 2 . 4 9 2 2 . 6 6 2 2 . 3 7 2 1 . 5 4 2 0 . 2 3 1 8 . 9 2 13 . 7 1 1 6 . 3 9 1 8 . 2 7 1 9 . 2 2 1 9 . 7 7 1 9 . 9 0 1 9 . 6 8 1 9 . 0 2 1 7 . 8 5 1 6 . 7 1 6.03 2.05 7.91 10.31 8.88 11.63 9.51 12.46 9.85 12.91 9.98 13.06 9.95 13.04 9.74 12.78 9.30 12.19 8.74 11.18 7.96 11.59 3.64 5.72 3.76 8.04 2.77 7.83 1.88 5.20 1.44 2.88 1.06 1.46 0.66 0.80 0.10 0.19 0.08 0.08 0.25 0.59 0.76 1.05 1.09 1.77 1.19 2.21 1.01 2.51 5.65 0.51 2.81 7.74 0.41 2.06 6.79 0.42 1.21 5.12 0.40 1.67 5.88 0.41 2.37 7.80 0.40 2.16 7.13 0.41 1.31 5.31 0.41 1.56 5.73 0.41 2.36 7.75 0.36 2.32 7.56 0.26 1.04 6.54 0.14 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 SIDEWALK 429 UNIVERSITY - PALO ALTO Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Average = 4.28Average = 4.28Average = 4.28Average = 4.28Average = 4.28Average = 4.28Average = 4.28Average = 4.28Average = 4.28Maximum = 13.06Maximum = 13.06Maximum = 13.06Maximum = 13.06Maximum = 13.06Maximum = 13.06Maximum = 13.06Maximum = 13.06Maximum = 13.06Minimum = 0.01Minimum = 0.01Minimum = 0.01Minimum = 0.01Minimum = 0.01Minimum = 0.01Minimum = 0.01Minimum = 0.01Minimum = 0.01Avg/Min Ratio = 428Avg/Min Ratio = 428Avg/Min Ratio = 428Avg/Min Ratio = 428Avg/Min Ratio = 428Avg/Min Ratio = 428Avg/Min Ratio = 428Avg/Min Ratio = 428Avg/Min Ratio = 428Max/Min Ratio = 1306Max/Min Ratio = 1306Max/Min Ratio = 1306Max/Min Ratio = 1306Max/Min Ratio = 1306Max/Min Ratio = 1306Max/Min Ratio = 1306Max/Min Ratio = 1306Max/Min Ratio = 1306Z = 0 15782346 UP DN DN UP DOOR 2 C MH: 9 C MH: 9 C MH: 9 C MH: 9 C MH: 9 C MH: 9 12.69 14.63 13.49 10.81 13.26 11.69 5.68 7.41 6.19 1.53 2.15 1.65 0.36 0.42 0.36 0.12 0.14 0.12 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.10 0.11 0.08 0.31 0.36 0.30 1.39 1.96 1.48 5.42 7.06 5.87 10.41 12.84 11.28 12.23 14.23 13.24 9.93 12.33 10.76 4.86 6.36 5.24 1.32 1.82 1.37 1.01 1.35 1.01 3.95 5.22 4.15 9.08 11.40 9.70 12.16 14.20 13.06 11.15 13.53 11.96 6.45 8.34 6.86 1.96 2.69 2.05 0.37 0.44 0.36 0.11 0.13 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.14 0.19 0.19 0.42 0.70 0.72 2.31 4.12 4.23 6.19 9.92 10.13 9.21 13.43 13.60 8.88 13.20 13.41 5.85 9.84 10.04 5.27 8.99 9.15 8.12 12.23 12.36 9.83 13.77 13.82 7.83 11.79 11.91 3.71 6.15 6.50 0.79 1.74 2.26 3.97 6.47 7.78 5.85 2.50 0.27 0.57 1.93 6.35 11.32 12.96 10.46 5.02 0.05 0.11 0.37 2.04 7.06 12.54 13.74 11.66 5.80 0.04 0.07 0.28 1.26 5.05 9.65 11.27 8.82 4.09 0.03 0.04 0.17 0.45 1.96 4.33 5.27 3.88 1.52 AREA 2 429 UNIVERSITY - PALO ALTO Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Illuminance (Fc)Average = 5.11Average = 5.11Average = 5.11Average = 5.11Average = 5.11Average = 5.11Average = 5.11Average = 5.11Average = 5.11Maximum = 14.63Maximum = 14.63Maximum = 14.63Maximum = 14.63Maximum = 14.63Maximum = 14.63Maximum = 14.63Maximum = 14.63Maximum = 14.63Minimum = 0.03Minimum = 0.03Minimum = 0.03Minimum = 0.03Minimum = 0.03Minimum = 0.03Minimum = 0.03Minimum = 0.03Minimum = 0.03Avg/Min Ratio = 170Avg/Min Ratio = 170Avg/Min Ratio = 170Avg/Min Ratio = 170Avg/Min Ratio = 170Avg/Min Ratio = 170Avg/Min Ratio = 170Avg/Min Ratio = 170Avg/Min Ratio = 170Max/Min Ratio = 488Max/Min Ratio = 488Max/Min Ratio = 488Max/Min Ratio = 488Max/Min Ratio = 488Max/Min Ratio = 488Max/Min Ratio = 488Max/Min Ratio = 488Max/Min Ratio = 488Z = 0 78 6 UP DN DN UP Luminaire Schedule LED Project: 429 UNIVERSITY - PALO ALTO Symbol Qty Label Arrangement Lum. Watts Lum. Lumens LLF LDD LLD BF Description Filename 2 B SINGLE 8.271 229 0.850 0.900 0.944 1.000 BEGA-3590LED-6.4W 3590LED.ies 10 D SINGLE 103.2 7753 0.850 0.900 0.944 1.000 PHILIPS GARDCO-SFC-5R-105LA-NW SFC-5R-105LA-NW.ies 19 C SINGLE 15.913 972 0.850 0.900 0.944 1.000 ZUMTOBEL BR4DLED16WK35MS4D1 @ 9' AFF BR4DLED-16W-K35-MS45-CS.ies Calculation Summary Project: 429 UNIVERSITY - PALO ALTO Description CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min # Pts AREA 1 Illuminance Fc 11.52 18.31 0.71 16.23 25.79 110 AREA 2 Illuminance Fc 5.11 14.63 0.03 170.33 487.67 172 DOOR 1 Illuminance Fc 11.30 13.97 8.13 1.39 1.72 8 DOOR 2 Illuminance Fc 9.26 13.97 1.91 4.85 7.31 10 DOOR 3 Illuminance Fc 9.60 14.39 0.62 15.48 23.21 11 DOOR 4 TYPICAL Illuminance Fc 12.60 14.12 11.51 1.09 1.23 6 ALL POINTS ON RAMP Illuminance Fc 22.92 32.76 9.28 2.47 3.53 280 SIDEWALK Illuminance Fc 4.28 13.06 0.01 428.00 1306 90 AGI32 VERSION 15.1 AGI (C) 1999-2014 LIGHTING ANALYSTS, INC. 10440 BRADFORD ROAD - UNIT A LITTLETON, CO 80127 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SALES REPRESENTATIVE: ALR; CATHY JOHNSON differences will occur between measured values and calculated values. lighting calculations. If the real environment conditions do not match the input data, dimensions, reflectances, furniture and architectural elements significantly affect the variations. Input data used to generate the attached calculations such as room measurement techniques and field conditions such as voltage and temperature tolerances in calculation methods, testing procedures, component performance, Some differences between measured values and calculated results may occur due to Calculations have been performed according to IES standards and good practice. BY: APPLICATIONS ENGINEERING; RAMON ZAPATA PHONE: (510) 638-0158 - FAX (510) 638-2908 OAKLAND, CA 94621 P.O. BOX 2265 7777 PARDEE LANE ASSOCIATED LIGHTING REPRESENTATIVES, INC ALL VALUES SHOWN ARE MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES AT GRADE LAMP, BALLAST, ELECTRICAL, AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS. LAMP, RATINGS, FIELD PERFORMANCE WILL DEPEND ON ACTUAL IS BASED ON ESTABLISHED IES PROCEDURES AND PUBLISHED PHOTOMETRIC DATA USED AS INPUT FOR THESE CALCULATIONS DATE 07.27.20151" = 8'1 OF 1 3 REVSHEETSCALE PROJECT DESCRIPTION DRAWING NO. / INPUT FILE 429 UNIVERISTY PALO ALTO 11808GOT-1ST FLOOR-R2.DWG / XX.A32 A2.8 City of Palo Alto Tree Protection - It’s Part of the Plan! Make sure your crews and subs do the job right! Fenced enclosures around trees are essential to protect them by keeping the foliage canopy and branching structure clear from contact by equipment, materials and activities, preserving roots and soil conditions in an intact and non-compacted state, and identifying the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) in which no soil disturbance is permitted and activities are restricted, unless otherwise approved.An appoved tree protection report must be added to this sheet when project activity occurs within the TPZ of a regulated tree. For detailed information on Palo Alto's regulated trees and protection during development, review the City Tree Technical Manual (TTM) found at www.cityofpaloalto.org/trees/. T-1Special Tree Protection Instruction Sheet City of Palo Alto All other tree-related reports shall be added to the space provided on this sheet (adding as needed) Include this sheet(s) on Project Sheet Index or Legend Page. A copy of T-1 can be downloaded at www.cityofpaloalto.org/arb/forms 42 9 U N I V E R S I T Y A V E . PA L O A L T O , C A L I F O R N I A T-1 «« 5300 Wellington Branch Drive, Suite 100Gainesville, Virginia 21055 Office 410.774.0024 ● National 800.828.8312 STREET TREE PROTECTION SPECIFICATIONS - SECTION 31 - 31-1 General - Tree protection has three primary functions, 1) to keep the foliage canopy and branching structure clear from contact by equipment, materials and activities; 2) to preserve roots and soil conditions in an intact and non-compacted state and 3) to identify the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) in which no soil disturbance is permitted and activities are restricted, unless otherwise approved. 31-2 Reference Documents a. Detail 505 - Illustration of situations described below. b. Tree Technical Manual (www.cityofpaloalto.org/trees/) 1.Trenching Restriction Zone s (Section 2.20(C)) 2.Arborist Reporting Protocol (Section 6.30) 3.Site Plan Requirements (Section 6.35) 31-3 Materials a. The Tree Protection Zone (TPZ): A restricted area around the base of the tree with a radius of 10 times the diameter of the tree's trunk or ten feet, whichever is greater, enclosed by fencing. b. Type I Tree Protection: The fence shall enclose the entire area under the canopy dripline or TPZ(whichever is greater) of the tree(s) to be protected throughout the life of the construction project. In someparking areas, if fencing is located on paving or concrete that will not be demolished, then the posts maybe supported by an appropriate grade level concrete base, if approved. c. Type II Tree Protection: For trees situated within a planting strip, only the planting strip and yard sideof the TPZ shall be enclosed with the required chain link protective fencing in order to keep the sidewalk and street open for public use. d. Type III Tree Protection: Trees situated in a tree well or sidewalk planter pit, shall be wrapped with2-inches of orange plastic fencing from the ground to the first branch and overlaid with 2-inch thickwooden slats bound securely (slats shall not be allowed to dig into the bark). During installation of theplastic fencing, caution shall be used to avoid damaging any branches. Major scaffold limbs may alsorequire plastic fencing as directed by the City Arborist. e. Size, type and area to be fenced: All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six (6') foot high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the groundto a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. f. 'Warning' signs: A warning sign shall be prominently displayed on each fence at 20-foot intervals. Thesign shall be minimum 8.5-inches x 11-inches and clearly state: “WARNING - Tree Protection Zone - This fence shall not be removed and is subject to a fine according to PAMC Section 8.10.110.” 31-4 Execution a. Duration: Tree fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction begins and remain in place until final inspection of the project, except for work specifically allowed in the TPZ. Work or soildisturbance in the TPZ requires approval by the project arborist or City Arborist (in the case of workaround Street Trees). Excavations within the public ROW require a Street Work Permit from PublicWorks. b. During construction 1.All neighbors' trees that overhang the project site shall be protected from impact of any kind. 2.The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement plus penalty of any publicly ownedtrees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the PaloAlto Municipal Code. 3.The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: a.No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the TPZ. b.The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. c.Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. END OF SECTION S: \ N R C C l i e n t s \ W o n g , E l i z a b e t h \ 4 2 9 U n i v e r s i t y , P a l o A l t o , C A \ M a p s \ D a v e y \ D W G s \ D R G _ 4 2 9 U n i v e r s i t y _ P A L O A L T O _ 2 0 1 4 . 0 6 . 1 6 . d w g , T - 1 , 6 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 4 3 : 1 5 : 2 3 P M , H u l s e C , D W G T o P D F . p c 3 , A R C H f u l l b l e e d D ( 2 4 . 0 0 x 3 6 . 0 0 I n c h e s ) , 1 : 1 , D a v e y R e s o u r c e G r o u p four T-5Special Tree Protection Instruction Sheet City of Palo Alto All other tree-related reports shall be added to the space provided on this sheet (adding as needed) Include this sheet(s) on Project Sheet Index or Legend Page. A copy of T-1 can be downloaded at www.cityofpaloalto.org/arb/forms 42 9 U N I V E R S I T Y A V E . PA L O A L T O , C A L I F O R N I A T-5 «« 5300 Wellington Branch Drive, Suite 100Gainesville, Virginia 21055 Office 410.774.0024 ● National 800.828.8312 S: \ N R C C l i e n t s \ W o n g , E l i z a b e t h \ 4 2 9 U n i v e r s i t y , P a l o A l t o , C A \ M a p s \ D a v e y \ D W G s \ D R G _ 4 2 9 U n i v e r s i t y _ P A L O A L T O _ 2 0 1 4 . 0 6 . 1 6 . d w g , T - 5 , 6 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 4 3 : 1 6 : 0 2 P M , H u l s e C , D W G T o P D F . p c 3 , A R C H f u l l b l e e d D ( 2 4 . 0 0 x 3 6 . 0 0 I n c h e s ) , 1 : 1 , D a v e y R e s o u r c e G r o u p APPENDIX B Air Quality Analysis Off-road Equipment - approx construction equip usage Off-road Equipment - approx equip usage Off-road Equipment - Demolition - 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics - Land Use - project site is 11,000 square feet. project would construct 4-story building with 22,000 sq ft office, 4 dwelling units on 11,000 sq ft and underground parkingConstruction Phase - approx construction schedule Off-road Equipment - Off-road Equipment - approx equip usage CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 641.35 CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.029 N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006 64 Climate Zone 4 Operational Year 2015 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) Condo/Townhouse 4.00 Dwelling Unit 0.07 4,000.00 11 Enclosed Parking Structure 45.00 Space 0.07 18,000.00 0 Population General Office Building 22.00 1000sqft 0.11 22,000.00 0 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 1 Date: 9/22/2014 10:12 AM 429 University San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics CH4 N2O CO2eFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2015 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.41 0.07 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.25 0.07 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 18,000.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.51 0.11 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 3/5/2015 3/17/2015 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/18/2015 7/20/2015 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/7/2015 7/17/2015 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/1/2015 8/3/2015 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 37.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 10.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 89.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 8.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 250.00 100.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 15.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 250.00 100.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 250.00 100.00 Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 250.00 100.00 Grading - site size, excavation volume Architectural Coating - LEED Silver and Build It Green requirements, paint VOC no greater than 100 g/L 107.5647 54.9618 162.5265 0.4087 2.8100e- 003 171.97880.8038 0.8038 0.8037 0.8037Area 3.0255 0.0787 5.4826 0.0118 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 0.0000 5,958.874 8 5,958.8748 0.3666 0.0000 5,966.57331.9615 1.1897 3.1513 0.7372 1.1255 1.8627Total 28.4773 32.3550 23.5006 0.0590 0.0000 5,958.874 8 5,958.8748 0.3666 0.0000 5,966.57331.9615 1.1897 3.1513 0.7372 1.1255 1.86272015 28.4773 32.3550 23.5006 0.0590 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 5,958.874 8 5,958.8748 0.3666 0.0000 5,966.57331.9615 1.1897 3.1513 0.7372 1.1255 1.8627Total 28.4773 32.3550 23.5006 0.0590 0.0000 5,958.874 8 5,958.8748 0.3666 0.0000 5,966.57331.9615 1.1897 3.1513 0.7372 1.1255 1.86272015 28.4773 32.3550 23.5006 0.0590 Year lb/day lb/day 89 4 Paving Paving 7/20/2015 7/31/2015 5 10 3 Building Construction Building Construction 3/17/2015 7/17/2015 5 8 2 Excavation Grading 1/13/2015 3/4/2015 5 37 End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2015 1/12/2015 5 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 107.5647 1,990.379 2 2,097.9439 0.4906 5.5100e- 003 2,109.95241.3648 0.8473 2.2120 0.3651 0.8444 1.2095Total 4.1395 2.6124 16.3824 0.0324 1,788.201 2 1,788.2012 0.0791 1,789.86151.3648 0.0342 1.3989 0.3651 0.0314 0.3964Mobile 1.1005 2.4123 10.8059 0.0199 147.2163 147.2163 2.8200e- 003 2.7000e- 003 148.11229.3200e- 003 9.3200e- 003 9.3200e- 003 9.3200e- 003 Energy 0.0135 0.1214 0.0939 7.4000e- 004 107.5647 54.9618 162.5265 0.4087 2.8100e- 003 171.97880.8038 0.8038 0.8037 0.8037Area 3.0255 0.0787 5.4826 0.0118 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 107.5647 1,990.379 2 2,097.9439 0.4906 5.5100e- 003 2,109.95241.3648 0.8473 2.2120 0.3651 0.8444 1.2095Total 4.1395 2.6124 16.3824 0.0324 1,788.201 2 1,788.2012 0.0791 1,789.86151.3648 0.0342 1.3989 0.3651 0.0314 0.3964Mobile 1.1005 2.4123 10.8059 0.0199 147.2163 147.2163 2.8200e- 003 2.7000e- 003 148.11229.3200e- 003 9.3200e- 003 9.3200e- 003 9.3200e- 003 Energy 0.0135 0.1214 0.0939 7.4000e- 004 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTBuilding Construction 5 17.00 7.00 0.00 12.40 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Excavation 4 10.00 0.00 2,250.00 Demolition 4 10.00 0.00 53.00 12.40 Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38 Paving Pavers 1 7.00 125 0.42 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6.00 9 0.56 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Forklifts 2 6.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Cranes 1 4.00 226 0.29 Excavation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37 Excavation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 255 0.40 Excavation Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 255 0.40 Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power 15 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 8,100; Residential Outdoor: 2,700; Non-Residential Indoor: 60,000; Non-Residential Outdoor: 20,000 (Architectural 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/3/2015 8/21/2015 5 608.3072 608.3072 9.7300e- 003 608.51150.2097 0.0350 0.2448 0.0566 0.0322 0.0888Total 0.2073 2.2723 2.1640 6.1500e- 003 100.9183 100.9183 5.4800e- 003 101.03340.0943 8.0000e- 004 0.0951 0.0250 7.4000e- 004 0.0258Worker 0.0451 0.0542 0.6329 1.1600e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 507.3889 507.3889 4.2500e- 003 507.47810.1154 0.0342 0.1496 0.0316 0.0315 0.0631Hauling 0.1622 2.2181 1.5311 4.9900e- 003 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 1,200.638 6 1,200.6386 0.2451 1,205.78611.4396 0.8748 2.3144 0.2180 0.8359 1.0538Total 1.4120 11.9409 8.8138 0.0120 1,200.638 6 1,200.6386 0.2451 1,205.78610.8748 0.8748 0.8359 0.8359Off-Road 1.4120 11.9409 8.8138 0.0120 0.0000 0.00001.4396 0.0000 1.4396 0.2180 0.0000 0.2180Fugitive Dust Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.2 Demolition - 2015 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Architectural Coating 1 3.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTPaving 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.3 Excavation - 2015 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 608.3072 608.3072 9.7300e- 003 608.51150.2097 0.0350 0.2448 0.0566 0.0322 0.0888Total 0.2073 2.2723 2.1640 6.1500e- 003 100.9183 100.9183 5.4800e- 003 101.03340.0943 8.0000e- 004 0.0951 0.0250 7.4000e- 004 0.0258Worker 0.0451 0.0542 0.6329 1.1600e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 507.3889 507.3889 4.2500e- 003 507.47810.1154 0.0342 0.1496 0.0316 0.0315 0.0631Hauling 0.1622 2.2181 1.5311 4.9900e- 003 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 1,200.638 6 1,200.6386 0.2451 1,205.78611.4396 0.8748 2.3144 0.2180 0.8359 1.0538Total 1.4120 11.9409 8.8138 0.0120 0.0000 1,200.638 6 1,200.6386 0.2451 1,205.78610.8748 0.8748 0.8359 0.8359Off-Road 1.4120 11.9409 8.8138 0.0120 0.0000 0.00001.4396 0.0000 1.4396 0.2180 0.0000 0.2180Fugitive Dust Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 1,200.638 6 1,200.6386 0.2451 1,205.78610.8748 0.8748 0.8359 0.8359Off-Road 1.4120 11.9409 8.8138 0.0120 0.0000 0.00000.8078 0.0000 0.8078 0.4221 0.0000 0.4221Fugitive Dust Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 4,758.236 2 4,758.2362 0.0445 4,759.17011.1538 0.3149 1.4687 0.3151 0.2896 0.6047Total 1.5339 20.4141 14.6868 0.0469 100.9183 100.9183 5.4800e- 003 101.03340.0943 8.0000e- 004 0.0951 0.0250 7.4000e- 004 0.0258Worker 0.0451 0.0542 0.6329 1.1600e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4,657.317 9 4,657.3179 0.0390 4,658.13671.0595 0.3141 1.3736 0.2901 0.2889 0.5789Hauling 1.4887 20.3599 14.0539 0.0458 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 1,200.638 6 1,200.6386 0.2451 1,205.78610.8078 0.8748 1.6826 0.4221 0.8359 1.2580Total 1.4120 11.9409 8.8138 0.0120 1,200.638 6 1,200.6386 0.2451 1,205.78610.8748 0.8748 0.8359 0.8359Off-Road 1.4120 11.9409 8.8138 0.0120 0.0000 0.00000.8078 0.0000 0.8078 0.4221 0.0000 0.4221Fugitive Dust Category lb/day lb/day Unmitigated Construction Off-Site 1,191.702 1 1,191.7021 0.3558 1,199.17330.9995 0.9995 0.9195 0.9195Total 1.4538 14.3777 8.2983 0.0113 1,191.702 1 1,191.7021 0.3558 1,199.17330.9995 0.9995 0.9195 0.9195Off-Road 1.4538 14.3777 8.2983 0.0113 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.4 Building Construction - 2015 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 4,758.236 2 4,758.2362 0.0445 4,759.17011.1538 0.3149 1.4687 0.3151 0.2896 0.6047Total 1.5339 20.4141 14.6868 0.0469 100.9183 100.9183 5.4800e- 003 101.03340.0943 8.0000e- 004 0.0951 0.0250 7.4000e- 004 0.0258Worker 0.0451 0.0542 0.6329 1.1600e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4,657.317 9 4,657.3179 0.0390 4,658.13671.0595 0.3141 1.3736 0.2901 0.2889 0.5789Hauling 1.4887 20.3599 14.0539 0.0458 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 1,200.638 6 1,200.6386 0.2451 1,205.78610.8078 0.8748 1.6826 0.4221 0.8359 1.2580Total 1.4120 11.9409 8.8138 0.0120 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 1,191.702 1 1,191.7021 0.3558 1,199.17330.9995 0.9995 0.9195 0.9195Total 1.4538 14.3777 8.2983 0.0113 0.0000 1,191.702 1 1,191.7021 0.3558 1,199.17330.9995 0.9995 0.9195 0.9195Off-Road 1.4538 14.3777 8.2983 0.0113 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 340.9333 340.9333 0.0108 341.16070.2069 0.0144 0.2212 0.0558 0.0132 0.0690Total 0.1656 0.8720 1.9569 3.6400e- 003 171.5611 171.5611 9.3200e- 003 171.75680.1603 1.3700e- 003 0.1617 0.0425 1.2500e- 003 0.0438Worker 0.0767 0.0922 1.0759 1.9700e- 003 169.3723 169.3723 1.5000e- 003 169.40380.0465 0.0130 0.0595 0.0133 0.0120 0.0253Vendor 0.0888 0.7798 0.8810 1.6700e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 181.6529 181.6529 9.8700e- 003 181.86020.1698 1.4500e- 003 0.1712 0.0450 1.3200e- 003 0.0463Total 0.0812 0.0976 1.1392 2.0900e- 003 181.6529 181.6529 9.8700e- 003 181.86020.1698 1.4500e- 003 0.1712 0.0450 1.3200e- 003 0.0463Worker 0.0812 0.0976 1.1392 2.0900e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 1,093.543 3 1,093.5433 0.2970 1,099.77940.7247 0.7247 0.6703 0.6703Total 1.2092 11.5427 7.3586 0.0111 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving 0.0000 1,093.543 3 1,093.5433 0.2970 1,099.77940.7247 0.7247 0.6703 0.6703Off-Road 1.2092 11.5427 7.3586 0.0111 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.5 Paving - 2015 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 340.9333 340.9333 0.0108 341.16070.2069 0.0144 0.2212 0.0558 0.0132 0.0690Total 0.1656 0.8720 1.9569 3.6400e- 003 171.5611 171.5611 9.3200e- 003 171.75680.1603 1.3700e- 003 0.1617 0.0425 1.2500e- 003 0.0438Worker 0.0767 0.0922 1.0759 1.9700e- 003 169.3723 169.3723 1.5000e- 003 169.40380.0465 0.0130 0.0595 0.0133 0.0120 0.0253Vendor 0.0888 0.7798 0.8810 1.6700e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2015 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 181.6529 181.6529 9.8700e- 003 181.86020.1698 1.4500e- 003 0.1712 0.0450 1.3200e- 003 0.0463Total 0.0812 0.0976 1.1392 2.0900e- 003 181.6529 181.6529 9.8700e- 003 181.86020.1698 1.4500e- 003 0.1712 0.0450 1.3200e- 003 0.0463Worker 0.0812 0.0976 1.1392 2.0900e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 1,093.543 3 1,093.5433 0.2970 1,099.77940.7247 0.7247 0.6703 0.6703Total 1.2092 11.5427 7.3586 0.0111 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving 0.0000 0.0000 1,093.543 3 1,093.5433 0.2970 1,099.77940.7247 0.7247 0.6703 0.6703Off-Road 1.2092 11.5427 7.3586 0.0111 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 28.0572 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 30.2755 30.2755 1.6500e- 003 30.31000.0283 2.4000e- 004 0.0285 7.5000e- 003 2.2000e- 004 7.7200e- 003 Total 0.0135 0.0163 0.1899 3.5000e- 004 30.2755 30.2755 1.6500e- 003 30.31000.0283 2.4000e- 004 0.0285 7.5000e- 003 2.2000e- 004 7.7200e- 003 Worker 0.0135 0.0163 0.1899 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 281.4481 281.4481 0.0367 282.21770.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209Total 28.4638 2.5703 1.9018 2.9700e- 003 281.4481 281.4481 0.0367 282.21770.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209Off-Road 0.4066 2.5703 1.9018 2.9700e- 003 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 28.0572 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 1,788.201 2 1,788.2012 0.0791 1,789.86151.3648 0.0342 1.3989 0.3651 0.0314 0.3964Unmitigated 1.1005 2.4123 10.8059 0.0199 1,788.201 2 1,788.2012 0.0791 1,789.86151.3648 0.0342 1.3989 0.3651 0.0314 0.3964Mitigated 1.1005 2.4123 10.8059 0.0199 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 30.2755 30.2755 1.6500e- 003 30.31000.0283 2.4000e- 004 0.0285 7.5000e- 003 2.2000e- 004 7.7200e- 003 Total 0.0135 0.0163 0.1899 3.5000e- 004 30.2755 30.2755 1.6500e- 003 30.31000.0283 2.4000e- 004 0.0285 7.5000e- 003 2.2000e- 004 7.7200e- 003 Worker 0.0135 0.0163 0.1899 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0367 282.21770.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209Total 28.4638 2.5703 1.9018 2.9700e- 003 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0367 282.21770.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209Off-Road 0.4066 2.5703 1.9018 2.9700e- 003 147.2163 147.2163 2.8200e- 003 2.7000e- 003 148.11229.3200e- 003 9.3200e- 003 9.3200e- 003 9.3200e- 003 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0135 0.1214 0.0939 7.4000e- 004 147.2163 147.2163 2.8200e- 003 2.7000e- 003 148.11229.3200e- 003 9.3200e- 003 9.3200e- 003 9.3200e- 003 NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0135 0.1214 0.0939 7.4000e- 004 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 4.4 Fleet Mix Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 0.002060 0.003298 0.006596 0.000695 0.001668 5.0 Energy Detail SBUS MH 0.546619 0.062800 0.174631 0.124220 0.034286 0.004915 0.015254 0.022958 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 General Office Building 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 29.10 44.80 86 11 3 Enclosed Parking Structure 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Condo/Townhouse 12.40 4.30 5.40 26.10 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C- W Total 268.58 80.78 45.84 497,531 497,531 General Office Building 242.22 52.14 21.56 438,622 438,622 Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual VMT Condo/Townhouse 26.36 28.64 24.28 58,909 58,909 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 147.2163 147.2163 2.8200e- 003 2.7000e- 003 148.11229.3200e- 003 9.3200e- 003 9.3200e- 003 9.3200e- 003 Total 0.0135 0.1214 0.0939 7.4000e- 004 25.1083 25.1083 4.8000e- 004 4.6000e- 004 25.26111.5900e- 003 1.5900e- 003 1.5900e- 003 1.5900e- 003 Condo/Townhouse 0.21342 2.3000e- 003 0.0197 8.3700e- 003 1.3000e- 004 122.1080 122.1080 2.3400e- 003 2.2400e- 003 122.85117.7300e- 003 7.7300e- 003 7.7300e- 003 7.7300e- 003 General Office Building 1.03792 0.0112 0.1018 0.0855 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking Structure 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 147.2163 147.2163 2.8200e- 003 2.7000e- 003 148.11229.3200e- 003 9.3200e- 003 9.3200e- 003 9.3200e- 003 Total 0.0135 0.1214 0.0939 7.4000e- 004 122.1080 122.1080 2.3400e- 003 2.2400e- 003 122.85117.7300e- 003 7.7300e- 003 7.7300e- 003 7.7300e- 003 General Office Building 1037.92 0.0112 0.1018 0.0855 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking Structure 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 25.1083 25.1083 4.8000e- 004 4.6000e- 004 25.26111.5900e- 003 1.5900e- 003 1.5900e- 003 1.5900e- 003 Condo/Townhouse 213.42 2.3000e- 003 0.0197 8.3700e- 003 1.3000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Mitigated 107.5647 54.9618 162.5265 0.4087 2.8100e- 003 171.97880.8038 0.8038 0.8037 0.8037Total 3.0255 0.0787 5.4826 0.0118 0.6089 0.6089 6.6000e- 004 0.62271.8300e- 003 1.8300e- 003 1.8300e- 003 1.8300e- 003 Landscaping 0.0115 4.0300e- 003 0.3433 2.0000e- 005 107.5647 54.3529 161.9176 0.4080 2.8100e- 003 171.35600.8019 0.8019 0.8019 0.8019Hearth 1.7842 0.0747 5.1394 0.0118 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products 0.9416 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating 0.2883 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 107.5647 54.9618 162.5265 0.4087 2.8100e- 003 171.97880.8038 0.8038 0.8037 0.8037Unmitigated 3.0255 0.0787 5.4826 0.0118 107.5647 54.9618 162.5265 0.4087 2.8100e- 003 171.97880.8038 0.8038 0.8037 0.8037Mitigated 3.0255 0.0787 5.4826 0.0118 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Vegetation 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number 107.5647 54.9618 162.5265 0.4087 2.8100e- 003 171.97880.8038 0.8038 0.8037 0.8037Total 3.0255 0.0787 5.4826 0.0118 0.6089 0.6089 6.6000e- 004 0.62271.8300e- 003 1.8300e- 003 1.8300e- 003 1.8300e- 003 Landscaping 0.0115 4.0300e- 003 0.3433 2.0000e- 005 107.5647 54.3529 161.9176 0.4080 2.8100e- 003 171.35600.8019 0.8019 0.8019 0.8019Hearth 1.7842 0.0747 5.1394 0.0118 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products 0.9416 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating 0.2883 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 APPENDIX C Cultural Resources Memo September 30, 2014 Christy Fong, Planner City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Subject: Phase I Archaeological Inventory for the 429 University Avenue Project, City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, CA Dear Ms. Fong: This letter documents the Phase I archaeological resources inventory conducted by Dudek for the 429 University Avenue Project (Project), located in the City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County (Figure 1). The project proposes demolition of two existing commercial buildings on University Avenue totaling 11,633 square feet and construction of a new 33,000 square-foot four-story mixed-use building. A Northwest Information Center (NWIC) records search indicates that no cultural resources have been recorded in the proposed project area. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan map of archaeologically sensitive areas (General Plan Figure L-8, Archaeological Resource Areas) indicates that the project site falls within an area of “Moderate Sensitivity.” Inspection of current site photographs and current aerial imagery shows the area to have been fully developed, and has little potential to contain undocumented intact archaeological deposits. A complete historic evaluation of the buildings affected by the proposed project has been provided under a separate cover (Appendix D of the Draft MND). Based on these findings, potential for the inadvertent discovery of subsurface archaeological or historical resources at the project site is very low. No additional archaeological effort is recommended to be necessary beyond standard mitigation measures to address unanticipated discoveries. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The project site is located at 429 University Avenue in the City of Palo Alto (Figure 2), and is bounded by Kipling Street to the northeast, Lane 30 East (a service alley) to the northwest, and Waverly Street to the southwest. The proposed project would involve demolition of two existing one-story commercial buildings totaling 11,633 square feet on two separate parcels (425 University Avenue and 429 University Avenue), and construction of a new four-story, 33,000 square foot mixed-use building. The Phase I Archaeological Inventory for the 429 University Avenue Project 2 September 2014 proposed building would include ground floor retail, second floor office, three residential units on the third floor, and one residential unit and commercial uses on the fourth floor. REGULATORY SETTING State CEQA requires that all private and public activities not specifically exempted be evaluated for the potential to impact the environment, including effects to historical resources. Historical resources are recognized as part of the environment under CEQA. It defines historical resources as “any object, building, structure, site, area, or place, which is historically significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California” (Division I, Public Resources Code, Section 5021.1(b)). Lead agencies have a responsibility to evaluate existing buildings against the California Register criteria prior to making a finding as to a proposed project’s impacts to historical resources. Mitigation of adverse impacts is required if the proposed project will cause substantial adverse change. Substantial adverse change includes demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of an eligible historical resource would be impaired. While demolition and destruction are fairly obvious significant impacts, it is more difficult to assess when change, alteration, or relocation crosses the threshold of substantial adverse change. The CEQA Guidelines provide that a project that demolishes or alters those physical characteristics of an eligible historical resource that convey its historical significance (i.e., its character-defining features) can be considered to materially impair the resource’s significance. The California Register is used in the consideration of historic resources relative to significance for purposes of CEQA. The California Register includes resources listed in, or formally determined eligible for some California State Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest. Properties of local significance that have been designated under a local preservation ordinance (local landmarks or landmark districts), or that have been identified in a local historical resources inventory may be eligible for listing in the California Register and are presumed to be significant resources for purposes of CEQA unless a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) consisting of the following: 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or Phase I Archaeological Inventory for the 429 University Avenue Project 3 September 2014 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or 4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Local City of Palo Alto The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan provides specific policies for preserving historic and archaeological resources. The Land Use and Community Design Element emphasizes the value and importance of the sustainable management of archaeological resources, historic buildings and places (City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan). The City of Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory lists noteworthy examples of the work of important individual designers and architectural eras and traditions, as well as those structures whose background is associated with important events in the history of the city, state, or nation. A complete historic evaluation of the buildings affected by the current project has been provided as a separate study (Appendix D of the Draft MND). A number of archaeological surveys have been conducted within Palo Alto in association with specific projects, but no systematic city-wide 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. The Land Use and Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan provides general guidelines for the treatment of archaeological resources. In general, these guidelines correspond with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation [48 FR 44720–44726]) and the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Instructions for Recording Historical Resources (1995). In addition to these standards and guidelines, the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element specifies, “using the archaeological sensitivity map [Figure L-8] in the Comprehensive Plan as a guide, continue to assess the need for archaeological surveys and mitigation plans on a project basis, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Historic Preservation Act” (City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan). Phase I Archaeological Inventory for the 429 University Avenue Project 4 September 2014 NWIC RECORDS SEARCH A records search for the proposed project area and a half-mile radius was completed by Dudek archaeologist Nicholas Hanten at the NWIC on September 25, 2014 (Confidential Appendix A). This search included their collection of mapped prehistoric, historical and built-environment resources, Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Site Records, technical reports, archival resources, and ethnographic references. Additional sources consulted included the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Inventory of Historical Resources/CRHR and listed OHP Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, California Points of Historical Interest, California Historical Landmarks, and Caltrans Bridge Survey information. Previously Conducted Studies NWIC records indicate that 34 previous cultural resources investigations have been conducted within a half-mile of the proposed project area (Table 1). None of these previous investigations overlap the proposed project area. The closest study (S-035932) occurred across the street from the proposed project area at the Hotel President (488 University Avenue) in regards to the proposed installation of an AT&T wireless antenna on a hotel balcony. Table 1 Previously Conducted Studies within 0.5-mile of the Project Area NWIC Report ID Author(s) Year Title Proximity to Project Area S-004511 Cindy Desgrandchamp 1978 Cultural Resources Survey, 04-SCL-82, Proposed Lane Widening at Quarry Road and Route 82, P.M. 26.2 04220- 402291 Outside S-004626 Dorothy F. Regnery 1975 National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, Hostess House (Community House, now Veterans Building), Palo Alto, California Outside S-004627 Fern B. Hunt 1971 National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, John Adam Squire House, Palo Alto, California Palo Alto, California Outside S-004633 Gay Woolley 1973 National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, T.B. Downing House, Palo Alto, California Outside S-008396 Paula Boghosian and John Beach 1979 Professorville Historic District (National Register Nomination Form) Outside S-008647 William Roop 1979 Reconnaissance of the grounds surrounding the Palo Alto Southern Pacific Depot, Red Cross and Veterans buildings (letter report). Outside S-011396 Biosystems Analysis, Inc. 1989 Technical Report of Cultural Resources Studies for the Proposed WTG- WEST, Inc., Los Angeles to San Francisco and Sacramento, California: Fiber Optic Cable Project Outside S-017993 Brian Hatoff et al. 1995 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project Outside S-020523 Barry A. Price 1998 Cultural Resources Assessment, Pacific Bell Mobile Services Facility SF- 533-07, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California (letter report) Outside S-021146 Basin Research Associates, Inc. 1997 Findings of Effect (No Effect), Palo Alto Transit Center Improvements, City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County Outside Phase I Archaeological Inventory for the 429 University Avenue Project 5 September 2014 NWIC Report ID Author(s) Year Title Proximity to Project Area S-022157 Archaeological Resource Management 1999 Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Property at 955 Alma Street in the City of Palo Alto, California (letter report) Outside S-022183 Archaeological Resource Management 1999 Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Property at 200 Hamilton Avenue in the City of Palo Alto, California Outside S-022359 Hannah Ballard 2000 Archaeological Monitoring at 168 University Avenue, Palo Alto, California (letter report) Outside S-022649 Archaeological Resource Management 2000 Archaeological Testing Program for the Property at 200 Hamilton Avenue in the City of Palo Alto, California Outside S-022670 John Holson 2000 Point to Point, Stanford Utility Boxes (letter report) Outside S-022978 Mike Avina 2000 Final Cultural Resources Inventory Report for Williams Communications, Inc. Fiber Optic Cable System Installation Project, San Francisco to Santa Clara, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties: Addendum 1 Outside S-025174 John Holson et al. 2002 Cultural Resources Report for San Bruno to Mountain View lnternodal Level 3 Fiber Optics Project in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, California Outside S-029573 Jonathan Goodrich 2000 Final Report, Archaeological Survey and Record Search for the Six Fluor Global Fiber Optic Segments, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San Mateo County, California. Outside S-029657 Wendy J. Nelson, et al. 2002 Archaeological Inventory for the Caltrain Electrification Program Alternative in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, California Outside S-032169 Leigh A. Martin 2006 Cultural Resource Assessment Report, Palo Alto lntermodal Transit Center Project (PAITC), Santa Clara County, California Outside S-033061 Nancy Sikes et al. 2006 Cultural Resources Final Report of Monitoring and Findings for the Qwest Network Construction Project, State of California Outside S-033475 Jason D. Jones 2006 Verizon Cellular Communications Tower Site--Palo Alto Retail, 219 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA Outside S-033545 National Park Service 1994 Draft Comprehensive Management and Use Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail, Arizona and California Outside S-035835 HNTB Corps 2007 Finding of Effect (No Adverse Effect), Proposed Modifications to the Palo Alto Southern Pacific Railroad Depot in Palo Alto, California, FTA070326A Outside S-035932 Carolyn Losee 2009 Records Search Results for AT&T Mobility Audit Site CNU0770/13313/1- A, 488 University Avenue, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California 94301 (letter report) Outside S-035997 Curt Duke and Korene Russell 2003 Cultural Resource Assessment, Palo Alto Caltrain Transit Center Project, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California Outside S-038063 Neal Kaptain 2009 Smart Corridors Geoarchaeological Sensitivity Research (letter report) Outside S-039048 Basin Research Associates and Ward Hill 2008 Historic Property Survey Report, Finding of Effect, 801-875 Alma Street Mixed Use Projects, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California Outside Phase I Archaeological Inventory for the 429 University Avenue Project 6 September 2014 NWIC Report ID Author(s) Year Title Proximity to Project Area S-039469 Neal Kaptain 2012 Historical Resources Compliance Report for the San Mateo County SMART Corridors Project, Segment Ill, Redwood City, Atherton, Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, and Palo Alto, San Mateo County & Santa Clara County, California; EA #4A9201 ; EFIS #0400001169, Caltrans District 4; SR 82 PM SM 0/4.8, SCL 24.1 /26.4; SR 84 PM 24.6/28. 7; US 101 PM 0.7/5.5; SR 109PM1 .10/1.87; SR 114 PM 5.0/5.93 Outside S-039643 Jessica Tudor and Kathleen A. Crawford 2012 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile West, LLC, Candidate SF15104A (Channing House), 850 Webster Street, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California (letter report) Outside S-039704 Wayne H. Bonner and Kathleen A. Crawford 2012 Direct APE Historic Architectural Assessment for T-Mobile West, LLC Candidate SF15104A (Channing House), 850 Webster Street, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California (letter report) Outside S-040641 Cher L. Peterson and Kathleen A. Crawford 2012 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile West, LLC, Candidate SF04340A (BA340 101 Alma Building), 101 Alma Street, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California (letter report) Outside S-041536 Michael Corbett and Denise Bradley 2001 Final Survey Report, Palo Alto Historical Survey Update, August 1997- August 2000 Outside S-043468 Rand Herbert and Christopher McMorris 2006 Finding of No Adverse Effect: San Francisquito Creek Bridge (MP 29.70) Knee Braces Modification in the City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California Outside Previously Identified Cultural Resources NWIC records indicate that no cultural resources have been previously identified within the proposed project area. A total of 16 cultural resources have been recorded within 0.5-mile of the proposed project area (Table 2). These consist of 15 historic built environment resources (i.e., buildings and structures) and one possible prehistoric archaeological site (CA-SCL-598). The site was first identified in 1922 and was described as a “mine” of bones encountered 10 feet below the surface, including the skeleton of one adult human. However, no associated artifacts or additional details about the find were reported, so the age and disposition of the remains are entirely unclear. The area has since been fully developed and it is unlikely that any intact cultural deposits (if there in fact ever were any) are still intact. Table 2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.5-Mile of the Project Area Primary Number Trinomial Resource Description Recorded By/Year CRHR Status Proximity to Project Area 43-000388 CA-SCL-382H Historic: Hostess House J. Cooper 1979 NRHP Listed 0.4-mile southwest 43-000389 CA-SCL-383H Historic: John Adams Squire House J. Cooper 1979 Unknown 0.5-mile northeast 43-000397 CA-SCL-391H Historic: T.B. Downing House J. Cooper 1979 NRHP Listed 0.2-mile southeast 43-000463 CA-SCL-462H Historic: U.S. Post Office T. McGregor 1981 NRHP Listed 200 meters south 43-000551 CA-SCL-556H Historic: Professorville Historic District T. McGregor 1980 NRHP Listed 0.5-mile southeast Phase I Archaeological Inventory for the 429 University Avenue Project 7 September 2014 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Description Recorded By/Year CRHR Status Proximity to Project Area 43-000593 CA-SCL-598 Prehistoric: human remains W. Caldwell 1949; B. Bocek 1986 Unknown 220 meters southwest 43-001138 — Historic: Old Delta Tau Delta Fraternity House K. Cameron (n.d.) Unknown 0.2-mile southwest 43-001845 — Historic: 219 University Avenue J. Jones 2006 Not evaluated 0.2-mile southwest 43-002204 — Historic: 801 Alma Street W. Hastie 2001; W. Hill 2008 6Z (not eligible) 0.4-mile south 43-002205 — Historic: 853 Alma Street W. Hill 2008 6Z (not eligible) 0.5-mile south 43-002206 — Historic: 875 Alma Street W. Hill 2008 6Z (not eligible) 0.5-mile south 43-002261 — Historic: Hotel President D. Supernowicz 2009 3S (eligible for NRHP) 50 meters east 43-002808 — Historic: Channing House K. Crawford 2012 Not eligible for NRHP (not evaluated at state or local level) 0.3-mile east 43-002867 — Historic: Southern Pacific Railroad Bridge M. Corbett 2000 2S2 (determined eligible for NRHP) 0.5-mile west 43-002868 — Historic: University Avenue Underpass M. Corbett 2001 3S (eligible for NRHP) 0.3-mile southwest 43-002869 — Historic: Palo Alto Southern Pacific Railroad Depot J. McFall and V. Warheit 1995 1D (listed in the NRHP) 0.3-mile southwest Previously identified resources located closest to the proposed project area include the Hotel President (located 50 meters to the east) which was determined eligible for the NRHP; the U.S. Post Office (located 200 meters to the south) which is listed in the NRHP; and the archaeological site containing human remains (CA-SCL-598, located 220 meters to the southwest). The records search results indicate that there are numerous historic built environment resources surrounding the proposed project area, many of which are listed in the NRHP. SURVEY METHODS Because the proposed project area has been fully developed and contains no exposed sediment, an intensive-level archaeological survey would have provided no additional information relating to archaeological sensitivity of the proposed project area, and was therefore not conducted. Project area photographs and aerial imagery were inspected of the entire project area. These further confirmed the fully obscured nature of the ground surface as evidenced by the presence of buildings and fully paved areas. No artifacts or archaeological features are present on the ground surface within the project area. Further, the past construction of existing buildings and parking areas, as well as associated grading activities, have likely severely disturbed/impacted Phase I Archaeological Inventory for the 429 University Avenue Project 8 September 2014 subsurface soils. This degree of disturbance suggests that there is a very low likelihood for encountering intact subsurface cultural deposits. SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS Archaeological Sensitivity and Mitigation Measures Dudek’s Phase I cultural resources inventory of the project area suggests that there is a very low potential for the inadvertent discovery of intact archaeological deposits during ground breaking activities related to the proposed project. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan map of archaeologically sensitive areas (General Plan Figure L-8, Archaeological Resource Areas) indicates that the project site falls within an area of "Moderate Sensitivity" based on topographic setting, including proximity to major drainages, and potential to encounter undocumented subsurface archaeological deposits. The NWIC records suggest that there are no previously recorded archaeological resources within the project area. The only archaeological site identified within the 0.5-mile radius as a result of the records search is CA-SCL-598. This site was first identified in 1922 and was described as a “mine” of bones encountered 10 feet below the surface, including the skeleton of one adult human. Because no associated artifacts were reported and no additional details about the find were reported, the context of the find is not at all clear. An extended history of past disturbance suggests that there is a very low potential for encountering intact subsurface cultural deposits. Recommendations relating to the buildings within the project area have been provided within a separate study (Appendix D of the Draft MND). Based on these findings, potential for the inadvertent discovery of subsurface archaeological or historical resources at the project site is very low. No additional archaeological effort is recommended at this time. In the event that subsurface cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate vicinity shall be stopped and the City of Palo Alto contacted. A qualified archaeologist must be retained, as defined by CEQA and the City of Palo Alto, to evaluate the archaeological discovery for its eligibility for Local and State listing. The discovery or disturbance of any identified cultural resource shall be reported as appropriate to the City of Palo Alto. Identified cultural resources should be recorded on State Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) form 523 (archaeological sites). Mitigation measures prescribed by these groups and required by the City shall be undertaken before construction activities are resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in the City's Cultural Resources Management Program and in compliance with sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. In the event that Native American human remains or related cultural material are encountered, Phase I Archaeological Inventory for the 429 University Avenue Project 9 September 2014 Section 15064.5(e) of CEQA defines the appropriate procedures, to be initiated with the requirement that work to be stopped and the County Coroner notified. Should you have any questions relating to this report and its findings please contact me. Respectfully Submitted, __________________________ Samantha Murray, MA, RPA Archaeologist DUDEK Office: (626) 204-9826 Email: smurray@dudek.com cc: Heather Martinelli, Dudek Attachments: Figure 1. Regional Location Map Figure 2. Project Location Map Confidential Appendix A: NWIC Records Search Information Milpitas SanJose Mountain View PaloAlto Gilroy Campbell SanRamon BlackhawkDanville Moraga Town Alamo Discovery Bay Orinda Lafayette Walnut Creek Clayton Brentwood Pleasant Hill OakleyConcord PrunedaleElkhorn Ho Aptos Hills-Larkin Valley Interlaken Santa Cruz Soquel Aptos Corralitos Felton Day Valley ScottsValley Ben Lomond Boulder Creek Morgan Hill Lexington Hills SanJose Los Gatos Saratoga Cupertino LosAltosHills Los Altos Santa ClaraSunnyvale Portola Valley Woodside Atherton SanCarlosHalfMoon Bay Menlo Park BelmontEl Granada RedwoodCity Montara Hillsborough SanMateo Foster City Burlingame San Bruno Pacifica South SanFrancisco San Francisco Newark Fremont Union City Hayward PleasantonFairview Livermore DublinSanLeandroCastro Valley Alameda Oakland Berkeley Antioch VineHill Richmond BethelIsland Martinez Pittsburg WestPittsburg Pinole Rodeo Hercules Tracy Mill Valley San Rafael Lagunitas-Forest Knolls Lucas Valley- Marinwood Inverness Novato Benicia Vallejo American Canyon Santa C r u z County San MateoCounty San Francisco County Marin County Co n t r a C o s t a Co u n t y S t a n i s l a u s C o Contra Costa C o u n t y nty Marin Count y Sonoma Co u n t y Sacramento County Monter e y County Santa C l a r a C o u n t y S a n t a C l a r a C o u n t y oun t y Santa C r u z C o u n t y Santa Clara County Sa n J o a q u i n C o u n t y Santa Cruz County San Mateo County Alameda Co u n t y Alameda County Al a m e d a C o u n t y Sa n J o a q u i n C o u n t y 35 82 113 24 131 121 29 123 13 61 185 156 25 237 37 17 129 152 12 130 9 160 84 92 4 1 101 101 780 80 205 238 680 280 580 880 FIGURE 1 Regional Map 8576 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project 0115.5 Miles Project Area 82 101 FIGURE 2 Project Location Map 8576 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use ProjectJUNE 2011 SOURCE: USGS Topo 7.5 Minute Series - Palo Alto Quadrangle Township 5S, 6S / Range 3W / Section 01, 02, 35, 36 Project Area 0 1,200 2,400 3,600 4,800600Feet 0 340 680 1,020 1,360170Meters Phase I Archaeological Inventory for the 429 University Avenue Project September 2014 APPENDIX A (CONFIDENTIAL): NWIC Records Search Results APPENDIX D Historic Architectural Evaluations 446 17th Street #302 Oakland CA 94612 510.418.0285 mhulbert@earthlink.net June 18, 2014 - rev.September 22, 2014 425 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, PALO ALTO Historic Architectural Evaluation Introduction The property at 425 University Ave. houses a tall 1-1/2 story commercial building facing southeast towards University Ave. (figs.1-2). The structure fills the 25 foot wide and 110 feet deep lot. The rear faces and is accessed via a service alley crossing the block between Kipling and Waverley streets (fig.3). A set of original drawings for this commercial building are dated 1937.1 No other original records or documentation for this property have been located. The purpose of this report is to summarize the history of the subject property and to complete an evaluation to determine if the structure thereon has any potential historical or historic architectural significance based on pertinent evaluation criteria. This effort was undertaken in late-May to mid-June 2014, including a site visit, a research visit to the Special Collections at the Stanford University Libraries, and another research visit to the City of Palo Alto Development Center, all on June 12, 2014. Selected online research was also undertaken. This effort is also based, in part, on previous research and documentation by this author for the adjoining property at 429-447 University Avenue.2 Architectural Description A commercial building type, 425 University Ave. is a 1-1/2 story structure with one storefront facing the main street (University Ave.). Its storefront today consists of a central, framed, clipped-arch door opening with separate, framed clipped-arch window openings at each side. The window and door units are metal and glass. The bulk and remainder of the façade is orange-red facing brick, including the door and window piers and surrounds, and excepting a metal fascia that spans the top of the facade in the form of a flat, contemporary cornice (figs.2,4). No records have been located with which to directly identify the origin of the present façade. It appears to be from the 1970s. In several earlier images (from the Palo Alto Historical Association photographic collection), a portion of the building’s front can be seen c1940 (PAHA image #079-043, fig.5). At that time, the store was Kenyon’s Beauty Salon and Drugs. Its façade then did not appear as it does now. Then, it was a Moderne style façade with prominent Moderne sign lettering (including both a monumentally scaled K and an apostrophe) applied to an upper façade that appears to be plain white stucco. The façade is framed with narrow column-like elements in a dark color, possibly tile, at each side, though ending shy of the top, where the white wall surface spanned the upper wall and returned for a short section along each side. A framing band also spanned the mid- façade and from which a fabric awning projected. One other sign is visible – one projecting from the upper east face of wall and for “Kenyon’s Drugs.” Due to deep shadows, nothing below the awning is visible in early image. 1 From the Birge M. Clark Architectural Drawing Collection, Stanford University Libraries. 2 429-447 University Avenue, Palo Alto, Historic Architectural Evaluation. Preservation Architecture, December 27, 2012. 425 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–061814-rev.092214–P2 The c1940 façade was then evidently new, the building having been designed in 1937. That original design, by the architects Birge M. Clark & David B. Clark, is documented in a set of 5 drawing sheets dated June 11, 1937 (revised June 15) and labeled “Store Building for Mrs. Mattie McDougall, 427 University Avenue, Palo Alto”.3 Those original plans did not indicate an occupant or include signage, and there is no evidence that the Clarks designed the Kenyon’s shop front or interior. The current building generally corresponds to the originally designed structure in its general plan and sectional layout, with the mezzanine floor at the upper rear half of the structure and with one enclosed parking space at the rear – though there are presently two garage spaces. The building was and is concrete construction, its roof low-slope with a number of skylights. Per original drawings, the front (southeast) façade as designed incorporated glass brick at the base, a central door, tile frames up each side, a shallow ornamental fascia/awning band, and a stucco upper façade (fig.6). None of those original design elements are present. The original rear walls (the building is some 25 feet deeper than both its neighbors so has three small rear elevations) exposed concrete, 2 stories in height, with punched openings with doors below and steel windows above (fig.7). Original concrete and openings at the rear walls are intact, though one new opening has been created for a second garage, and all doors and windows have been replaced (fig.8). Property History Per Sanborn maps, in the early-20th century the subject property was part of a parcel that housed a large, two-family residential structure. In the 1924 Sanborn, that structure is identified as 425-431 University Avenue. A note card in the files of the Palo Alto Historical Association (PAHA) references a residence – the “residence for Mrs. Frances Patterson” – at 431 University, and records the date of that house to an 1898 permit record. In 1925, a final listing for 431 University Avenue identifies the occupants as “Torrence & Robbins” and a “DeTuncy, Dr. G.P.” (1925 Palo Alto City Directory). As noted above, the subject commercial building is dated by an original 1937 set of drawings. It occupies approximately one-fifth of the earlier residential lot, leaving a separate property to the east (427-449 University) and west (423 University). City and phone directories were not searched in detail as part of this effort. Based on photographic evidence, the original and early occupant was Kenyon’s Beauty Shop & Drugs, who were still in this space in the 1950s. Per permit records, later occupants of the store were The Morris Plan Co. (1966-c1983), Remedy Temp. (1989-c1994), and Cambridge Sound Works (1995-?). The mezzanine office space was separately improved in 1989 and remains in use as office space independent of the commercial unit. Permit records held by the City of Palo Alto extend back no earlier than the 1960s, and most records are from the 1980s on. The earliest alteration record is a 1966 permit application to “Remodel int. as per plan” (no plans were located) as a “loan office” for the Morris Plan Co. The architect was San Francisco’s Wurster Bernardi & Emmons and the builder the Arthur Bros. No evidence was found of that 3 Original plans for this and adjacent buildings used different street numbers. In addition to 425 University, labeled 427 in original drawings, plans for the west adjoiner (#423) – also the work of architect Birge Clark – was originally labeled 423-425, and plans for its west adjoiner was labeled 429-433. 425 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–061814-rev.092214–P3 design or whether any portion of it exists today. Since the work was identified as interior, it is assumed that the current façade does not date to then, nor does it appear to. The next subsequent permit-related record is a sketch elevation, dated 1/15/75, showing a range of signage on windows and doors, the layout which looks like the current one of a simple rectangular wall plane with three semi-arched openings, the central one a door, and signage above, yet no architectural materials are identified. A range of other subsequent permit applications are available (on database and microfiche at CPA Development Center), including: reroofing in 1981; additional tenant improvements (for Morris Plan Co.) in 1982; alteration of the mezzanine to office space (for Charles Holman Design) in 1989, which included the additional garage and replacement of rear doors and windows; tenant improvements and signage (for Remedy Temp) in 1990; additional tenant improvements and signage (for Cambridge Sound Works) in 1994 and 1995; and rooftop AC equipment (for Holman) in 1995. No permit was seen for the current tenant. In summary, the exterior of the building at 425 University Avenue has been extensively altered, including the complete loss of the original/early façade and storefront. Consequently, and based on empirical evidence, the original 1930s commercial building character is no longer in existence. Associated Persons Per the original drawings, the originator of the subject commercial building was Mrs. Mattie L. McDougall (c1885-1969). Based on permit records, her son, Kenneth R. McDougall (1904- 1982), retained ownership of the property until 1981, and one further permit-related record identifies a Greg McDougall as owner in 1989. So the McDougall family retained ownership at least into the 1990s (no deed searches were undertaken as part of this effort). In permit records during the 1990s, a Jan Christiansen of Los Gatos is listed as owner. Per census records, in 1940, Mattie and Kenneth McDougall resided at 1290 University Avenue in Palo Alto. No specific historical information about the McDougalls has been uncovered. It does not appear that the McDougalls are of any local historical interest or importance. Other identifiable persons associated with this property include a number of professionals engaged on tenant improvements: • John Bergeson I.B.D. (Morris Plan Co., 1982) • James N. Thorne, A.I.A., Architect (Remedy Temp, 1989) • Frank Rupert Bryant, Architect (Cambridge Sound Works, 1994) No other primary individuals or firms have been identified as having been directly associated with the subject property. Architects The original architects of the building at 425 University Ave. were Birge M. Clark (c1893-1989) and David B. Clark (c?-1944) of Palo Alto. Birge M. Clark and David B. Clark The Clark brothers presided over an influential and highly successful architectural practice in Palo Alto. Though brother and architect David shares attribution for many of their early works, including the subject commercial building and the many completed projects during the latter half 425 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–061814-rev.092214–P4 of the 1930s, David passed away in 1944, so it is Birge whose reputation carried the practice forward as far as the 1970s and who carries it still. In the following, writer Peter Gauvin summarizes the professional life of Birge Clark [from www.paloaltoonline.com; dated Wednesday May 25, 1994): “Many of Palo Alto's most treasured architectural landmarks were designed by native son Birge Clark, a 1910 graduate of Palo Alto High School. In a prolific career spanning five decades, the architect designed more than 200 commercial and residential buildings in Palo Alto and on the Stanford campus. Clark was an exponent of Spanish Colonial Revival design, a distinctive style which he called "Early California." The son of Arthur B. Clark, Stanford professor of art and architecture and Mayfield's first mayor, Birge Clark assisted his father as "clerk of the works" for the Lou Henry Hoover house at Stanford. President Herbert Hoover gave the home to Stanford after his wife's death for use as the university president's residence. Between 1922 and 1930, Clark was the only architect with an office in Palo Alto. He designed a total of 98 Palo Alto residences, including all of the homes on Coleridge Avenue between Cowper and Webster streets, and 39 Stanford campus homes. Three homes of which he was proudest were the Dunker House at 420 Maple St., the Charles and Kathleen Norris House at 1247 Cowper St. and the Lucie Stern residence at 1990 Cowper. His close association with the charitable Mrs. Stern led him to design several buildings of the Community Center at 1305 Middlefield Road as well as the Children's Library nearby and the Sea Scout base at the harbor. Other well-known buildings by Clark include the former police-fire station at 450 Bryant St., now the Palo Alto Senior Center, and the Hamilton Avenue branch of the post office. He and his brother David also designed Palo Alto's first junior high school, David Starr Jordan Middle School, which opened in 1937.” While most of Clark’s work tend towards the traditional and colonial varieties, the work of their practice from the late 1930s on focused on the modern. In addition to their Streamlined Moderne buildings, many of their largest and most published projects were strikingly modern. Other associated architects include Wurster, Bernardi & Emmons, who in 1966 were engaged in interior alterations on the subject building. Wurster Bernardi & Emmons The following is a biographical summary of the Wurster Bernardi and Emmons partnership.4 William Wilson Wurster, born in California in 1895, earned his degree in architecture from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1919. After obtaining his license in 1922, he worked briefly in firms in Sacramento and New York, then opened the firm William W. Wurster in 1924. He gained national recognition early in his career with an award-winning design for the Gregory farmhouse (Scotts Valley, 1927), and became the most well-known modernist architect in the Bay Area. In 1944, Wurster formed a partnership with former employee Theodore Bernardi, and with the 4 Inventory of the William W. Wurster/Wurster, Bernardi & Emmons Collection, 1922-1974. Collection number: 1976- 2. Environmental Design Archives, University of California, Berkeley @http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf8k40079x/entire_text/ 425 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–061814-rev.092214–P5 addition of Donn Emmons, also a former employee, in 1945, the firm became Wurster, Bernardi, and Emmons (WBE). Bernardi earned his architecture degree at University of California, Berkeley in 1924, and obtained his license in 1933 after completing post-graduate work. He joined Wurster's firm in 1934, and within a few years became one of two chief draftsmen. He spent two years in independent practice before accepting Wurster's offer of partnership. Between 1954 and 1971 he served as a lecturer in the Department of Architecture at U.C. Berkeley. Emmons joined Wurster's firm in 1938. Educated at Cornell University and the University of Southern California, Emmons spent four years in various architectural firms in Los Angeles before moving north to work with Wurster. He spent four years as a draftsman in Wurster's office before joining the Naval Reserves during World War II. Upon his release in 1945, he joined Wurster and Bernardi as a partner in the firm. Wurster returned to the Bay Area in 1950 to become Dean of Architecture at the University of California, Berkeley, a position he held until his retirement in 1963. In 1959 he brought the departments of architecture, landscape architecture, and city and regional planning together to become the College of Environmental Design. WBE incorporated in 1963 and continued to produce award-winning designs, receiving the American Institute of Architects' Architectural Firm Award in 1965. All three partners had been named Fellows of the AIA by this time, and Wurster was later honored with the AIA Gold Medal Award for lifetime achievement in 1969. After Wurster's death in 1973, the two younger partners continued running the firm until the mid- 1980s. As of 1999, WBE continues to exist without the original partners. Historic Context The subject property’s historic context is that of the commercial development of the City of Palo Alto, and specifically of the City’s downtown, which is centered at University Avenue and Alma Street, where it originated in the mid-1890s, coincident to the City’s incorporation in 1894 and directly adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad’s train stop. At that time, based on turn-of-the-20th century Sanborn Maps, it was a very small downtown, emanating from the Alma and University Avenue circle to the northeast for just a couple of blocks before giving way to residential uses. That linear, eastward pattern of commercial development continued throughout the 1900s. By the mid-1920s, University Avenue commercial development extended to the corner of Waverley, which defines the western boundary of the subject block. In 1927, the directly adjoining structures on the subject block were constructed. With the Great Depression, little development likely occurred in the early 1930s. Then, in 1937, the subject building at 425 University was built. By 1950, commercial development along University Avenue reached as far east as Cowper. In the mid-to-late 20th century, the downtown expanded further east to Middlefield Road, some 12 blocks from its origins at the Alma and University circle. Buildings in the downtown range from the early-20th century to the present, with a concomitant range of architectural forms, styles and materials. The downtown is predominately yet not strictly low – i.e., single to 1-1/2 stories. The subject building is representative of many throughout the downtown that have been altered beyond recognition of their original and early designs. Earlier structures on many other University Avenue parcels have been replaced with new buildings, which is a pattern that has episodically continued since the mid-1900s. At this juncture, surviving older structures are few relative to the overall downtown and are therefore scattered throughout the downtown. In this downtown commercial setting, there is no identified historical or cultural district, and no 425 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–061814-rev.092214–P6 apparent collection of resources, thematically or architecturally, that may constitute an identifiable, future historic district or area. Evaluation The property and structure at 425 University Ave. have not previously been evaluated for historic resource eligibility. In order to address the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) specific to historic resources, the current effort has been requested and is intended to provide such historic resource evaluation. California Register of Historical Resources: The following evaluates the subject resource using the California Register (CR) criteria, listing each criterion followed by a statement based on the details reported herein. To be eligible for listing on the CR, a resource must be historically significant at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria: 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; There are no identified events of importance to local, regional or state history associated with 425 University Avenue. In the early-mid 20th century, this property was part and parcel with general commercial development patterns in downtown Palo Alto. As 425 University Avenue has no associations to events that have contributed to local, regional or state history, the property does not meet CR Criterion 1. 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; No persons of importance to local, regional, state or national history have been identified as having been associated with this commercial property and its building. The identified original and longtime owners (McDougall) are not identifiable persons of historic importance, and no early or subsequent occupants are of identifiable interest or importance. Consequently, the property and structure at 425 University Ave. have no potential historical significance based on any association to persons of potentially historic importance, so the resource does not meet CR criterion 2. 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method or construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; The extant building at 425 University Ave. was constructed c1937. It had a façade and storefront in the Moderne architectural style. It was a commercial design generally typical of its period, yet the subject building was of a spare and less distinctive design than others on this and adjacent downtown blocks, a range of which yet survive, including the adjacent structures to the west. The original architects of the subject building, Birge M. and David B. Clark, are recognized as local masters. In particular, the architect Birge M. Clark was locally important in his time, and remains so in our time. Another architectural firm – Wurster, Bernardi and Emmons – was engaged in the interior design for a new commercial tenant in 1966. While that firm and its individual architects – William Wurster in particular – are noteworthy, there is no specific evidence of who was 425 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–061814-rev.092214–P7 associated with this project, and the project itself is understood to have been a tenant improvement. While the original building was the work of master architects Birge M. Clark and David B. Clark, the character that the original building façade and storefront lent this structure has been entirely lost. The current façade cannot be accurately dated but is relatively recent and not potentially before c1970. The current façade is a bland and stoic contemporary design without stylistic interest or importance. Therefore, the commercial structure at 425 University Avenue has no potential historic architectural significance. Though the structure does not embody distinctive stylistic or architectural characteristics or methodologies, or possess artistic value, because its original design was the work of master architects, on that singular basis 425 University Avenue meets CR Criterion 3. However, it is not eligible for inclusion on the CR because its integrity has been compromised as described under Summary below. 4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. 425 University Avenue has not yielded and does not appear to have the potential to yield any important historic information. Therefore, the property does not meet CR Criterion 4. CR Evaluation Summary Per the above evaluation record, 425 University Avenue meets CR criterion 3, in part, as its original design was the work of master architects Birge M. Clark and David B. Clark. Consequently, since the resource meets at least one criterion, then it may be eligible for inclusion on the CR. However, to be eligible for the CR, a resource must meet at least one eligibility criterion and its integrity must be intact and directly relative to its identified basis of significance. In this case, integrity must be demonstrable relative to the property’s original architectural design, as that design would represent the original architects in the present. Per CR evaluation criteria, the following addresses each of seven aspects of integrity (from NR Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation; Section VIII, How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property). Location: The subject structure remains in its original and early location, so its integrity of location is intact. Setting: The commercial setting of the subject structure from the period of the development of the subject resource is largely intact. Thus, the structure’s integrity of setting is largely intact. Association: There are no specific associations of importance relative to the subject property. However, it has and retains general associations to patterns of commercial development in downtown Palo Alto. Therefore, its general integrity of association is intact. Feeling: The feeling of this property has changed from what it would have felt like at the time of its potential significance. To the extent that, even knowing its original Moderne design character, it is not possible to recognize or conjure that original and early character. Consequently, the integrity of feeling has been lost. Design: The original and early architectural design character is no longer present in the extant structure, as its principal architectural design has been entirely removed. Therefore, the integrity of design is lost. 425 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–061814-rev.092214–P8 Materials: As with the design, while its basic structural materials remain, the architectural features and materials of the original building have been lost. Consequently, the structure’s material integrity has been substantially lost. Workmanship: As is the case with its design and materials, examples of original and early workmanship are no longer in evidence. Thus, the integrity of workmanship has also been lost. Conclusion: This analysis of integrity illustrates that the extant structure and property have lost four of the seven aspects of integrity – those of feeling, design, materials and workmanship – the latter of which are the three most important given that the basis of significance is about the original architects and their architectural design. As also documented above, while three aspects of integrity are intact, that of location, setting and association, these are the least important relative to the building’s original architects and their design. The fact is that the most salient aspects of integrity relative to the resource’s potential basis for significance have been lost, and the three least important aspects of integrity are an inadequate basis for a finding of integrity relative to its potential significance as a representation of the work of masterful architects. Therefore, the structure at 425 University Avenue has conclusively lost its integrity and, with it, the ability of the structure to convey its potential significance in the present and its potential for inclusion on the CR. City of Palo Alto (CPA): The following additionally evaluates the subject structure based on the City of Palo Alto’s criteria for designation of historic structures/sites or districts to the City of Palo Alto’s historic inventory (from PAMC Section 16.49.040[b]), again citing each criterion with a statement based on the details reported herein and followed by an evaluation summary. (1) The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in the city, state or nation; No persons of importance to local, regional, state or national history have been identified as having been associated with this commercial property and its building. The identified original and longtime owners (McDougall) are not identifiable persons of historic importance, and no early or subsequent occupants are of identifiable interest or importance. Consequently, the property and structure at 425 University Ave. have no potential historical significance based on any association to persons of potentially historic importance, so the resource does not meet CPA criterion 1. (2) The structure or site is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city, state or nation; As summarized above (under CR criterion 3), the character that the original building façade and storefront lent this structure have been entirely lost. The current façade cannot be accurately dated but is relatively recent and not potentially before c1970. The current façade is a bland and stoic contemporary design without stylistic interest or importance. Additionally, the commercial use and character of the property and its structure are not representative of any important way of life. Therefore, the property and building at 425 University Ave. do not meet CPA criterion 2. (3) The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common, but is now 425 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–061814-rev.092214–P9 rare; The commercial site and its structure are common, so the property and building at 425 University Ave. do not meet CPA criterion 3. (4) The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now rare; Again, the commercial uses of the subject site and its structure are common, so the property and building at 425 University Ave. do not meet CPA criterion 4. (5) The architect or builder was important; The original architects of the subject building, Birge M. and David B. Clark, are recognized as local masters. In particular, the architect Birge M. Clark was locally important in his time, and remains so in our time. Thus, its original design was the work of master architects, so on that basis 425 University Avenue meets CPA Criterion 5. (6) The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship. As summarized, the current building exterior is a bland and unadorned contemporary design without stylistic interest or importance. As the structure does not embody distinctive stylistic or architectural characteristics or methodologies, 425 University does not meet CPA criterion 6. Summary of Findings As detailed above, with respect to the structure located at 425 University Avenue in Palo Alto, while there is a potential and partial basis for a finding of significance under the CR, its unequivocal loss of integrity relative to its area of potential significance renders the existing structure ineligible for listing on the CR. Additionally, the property and structure are not located in or near an identified historic district, and the making of any such district does not appear to have any even distant potential. Moreover, while the subject structure meets a single CPA criterion, as summarized, its original architectural design has been entirely lost, and its present character is without stylistic interest or importance. Consequently, 425 University Avenue is neither meritorious of the work of the architects Birge M. and David B. Clark, nor is it a good example of any architectural style and therefore it is unworthy of designation as a historic structure under the City of Palo Alto’s historic inventory (from PAMC Section 16.49.040[b]). Signed: Mark Hulbert Preservation Architect 425 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–061814-rev.092214–P10 Fig.1 – 425 University Avenue – Aerial View showing location (north at upper right corner) Fig.2 – 425 University Avenue – Front View Detail of front façade 425 University University Ave. Ki p l i n g A v e . Wa v e r l y A v e . 425 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–061814-rev.092214–P11 Fig.3 – 425 University Avenue – Detail of storefront Fig.4 – 425 University Avenue – Rear View (from east) Fig.5 – 425 University Avenue – Rear View (from west) 425 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–061814-rev.092214–P12 Fig.6 – 425 University Avenue – c1940 – at left (courtesy Palo Alto Historical Association) 425 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–061814-rev.092214–P13 Fig.7 – 425 University Avenue – Original front elevation drawing Fig.8 – 425 University Avenue – Original rear elevation drawing 446 17th Street #302 Oakland CA 94612 510.418.0285 mhulbert@earthlink.net December 27, 2012 – rev.September 22, 2014 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, PALO ALTO Historic Architectural Evaluation Introduction The property at 429-447 University Ave. houses a corner building of four (nos. 429, 435, 441, 447) contiguous, 1-1/2 story commercial shops, each facing southeast towards University Ave., including the corner shop, no. 447, the side wall of which faces northeast towards Kipling Street (fig.1). The structure fills the 75 foot wide lot and extends 87.5 feet into its 110 foot depth. The remaining depth is a perpendicular parking strip that spans the rear of the lot, and which is accessed via a service alley crossing the block between Kipling and Waverley streets. A small, attached structure stands above the parking area behind the shop at no. 435 (fig.3). No original records have been located for this commercial building. The City of Palo Alto’s property database lists the year built as 1927. The property has not been identified as a potential historic resource by the City or by the State (no listing on State Historic Resources Inventory). It is not included in an historic district. The purpose of this report is to summarize the history of the subject property and to complete an evaluation to determine if the structure thereon has any potential historical or historic architectural significance based on pertinent evaluation criteria. This effort was undertaken in late-2012, including a site visit, a research visit to the Palo Alto Historical Association (for historical photos and documentation) and the Palo Alto Main Library (for city directories), and a permit research visit to the City of Palo Alto Development Center, all on Dec. 20, 2012. Selected online research was also undertaken at that time. Subsequently, in the process of researching and documenting the adjacent commercial building at 425 University Ave., additional information about directly adjoining buildings was collected.1 Architectural Description As a commercial building type, this is a low structure in one part with four enframed storefronts facing the main street (University Ave.). Its storefronts extend high up the otherwise relatively low front wall. Thus, the wall area is minimal, with a narrow, solid band, perhaps five feet tall, spanning the structure, and with narrow piers at each corner as well as separating the storefronts. A storefront window returns along the front-fifth of the corner-side wall, which is otherwise essentially solid, though there are a trio of small windows spaced along that wall. Most wall surfaces, flat and moulded areas alike, are uniformly finished in what appears to be an evenly stippled stucco (cement plaster, or similar). The lintel – the planar, vertical wall segment spanning directly above the storefront openings – is flat, as are the narrow piers. The base of each pier is clad to about a thirty-inch height with stone tiles. Atop each pier is a moulded plaster capital in the form of a simplified and large flora. Each of the storefronts, the 1 Original architectural documents for three of the adjoining buildings on the subject block were located in the Birge M. Clark Architectural Drawings Collection of the Stanford University Libraries. Therein are a set of 1926 plans for a building identified as 429-433 University Ave., and another set of 1937 plans for a building identified as 427 University Ave. Neither set of plans were for the subject building – the latter set is of the extant building at 425 University, the former set is of the extant building at 415-419 University Ave., and a third set is of the extant building at 423 University Ave. 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–122712-rev.092214–P2 tops of which align, is terminated with a row of widely-spaced dentils. In the lintel above no. 447, a pair of cast medallions is recessed into the face of wall on each side of a contemporary sign. Spanning the lintel is a continuous, concatenated frieze consisting of roughly-square recessed panels separated by miniature pilasters, and with a moulded round plaque set in each panel. Altogether, there are some forty-eight panels and plaques across the front. Above the frieze, the wall is capped by a moulded projecting cornice. These top-of-wall features also extend the length of the side-street wall, though with a simple frieze band along the side. One further feature at the front is that the wall segment corresponding to the corner store (no.447) stands slightly proud, with a shallowly returning west edge. This same shallow projection occurs at the corner-side wall, where the store window bay is slightly proud with a return. The existing storefront windows and doors vary in their wall, window and door patterns and materials, as well as signage. No storefronts appear to have any original elements. No original or early mezzanine level windows are present. The oldest storefront looks to be no. 441, which may date to the 1960s. Several early images (from the Palo Alto Historical Association photographic collection) show a portion of the building’s front, essentially in the background, as the images are of parading Palo Altans c1940 (PAHA image #079-043, fig.5). Nonetheless, the architectural characteristics of the street wall and storefronts are discernible. Variations between the existing building and early building fronts are clearly apparent. In the early building front, several rows of what appear to be red clay, mission-type roof tiles overhang the cornice, giving the top of wall a serrated edge. The vertical piers aren’t flush to the upper wall, but are inset, and with a cap moulding that appears partially dentiled with hanging tassels or glyphs. These caps are integrated into the rows of dentils that span across the storefront openings. Directly above each storefront, the wall – the lintel – is kerfed along the bottom edge. A floral ornament sits above each capital, yet is clearly a part of the upper wall and separate from the top of pier. Storefronts aren’t visible, as they are hidden by canvas awnings individual to each shop, and the corner shop is not visible. Above, the mezzanine windows match and are of a form of decorative leaded glass or grillwork. By comparison, and based on direct observation, in the current building: • The storefronts are all changed in their entirety, including the corner and separating piers and their edge ornamentation • The wall is flat and the piers are flush, with contemporary stone tile bases • The original floral emblems that comprise capitals are not original. • The decorative tile roof edge is absent. In this ensemble of elements, the only features of the existing façade that may possibly correspond to the early façade are pieces of the ornamental frieze, the two wall medallions at no. 447 and, perhaps, some dentils. Prior to initiating research about this property, this writer made a visit to the site and its structure. Immediate observations were that there are no old materials on this façade. The surfaces are too smooth and uniform, unmarred, uncracked and undented to be aged material. Exterior cornices and ornamentation that are greater than fifty years of age (these would be eighty-five years of age if original) show evidence of age. The exterior surfaces and ornamentation on this façade show little evidence of age. They are smooth, uniform and seemingly synthetic. Permit records held by the City of Palo Alto extend back no earlier than the 1960s, and most 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–122712-rev.092214–P3 records are from the 1980s on. Evidence for several earlier alterations are included in an assessment record covering the 1950s to the early 1960s (attached, from the CPA permit records database). Therein, the rear structure above parking at shop no. 435 is identified as a 1952 alteration. And two interior alterations, dated to 1951 and 1963, are also noted. During that time, the owner was first listed as Josiah H. Kirk, then as Angeline B. Kirk. A plan diagram shows the rear structure and that the building housed three shops, Cafeteria, Timm’s Radio, and Firestone, with the latter tenant occupying shop nos. 441 and 447. The earliest permit record, from 1963, included schematic elevations of the front façade generally showing new brick piers and infill (possibly the same brickwork that selectively remains at nos. 441 and 447), horizontal blade-like canopies, a boxed cornice, and a façade that is without ornamental features, along with a note to “furr and stucco” the upper wall. Various permit applications and drawings (though limited in number as well as in content) from then through 1991 continue to depict a building without the stylistic character of the original. In the fall of 1995, a permit application identifying the subject structure as The Craig Building (Leonard Craig, owner) proposed “uncovering the building front” and “cosmetic face lift.” A letter with this application called to “restore the building front from above the canopy to the top of the parapet wall…,” as well as to “build back and improve the columns and capitals…”. A subsequent staff report under this application to the City’s Architectural Review Board (Nov. 2, 1995, 95-ARB-190) stated that “the existing flat upper building wall will be articulated through the use of a new crown [cornice], decorative band [frieze], exposed lintel, and details. Many of these elements are repeated from those currently found on the façade of the Reprint Mint space (447)… The existing brick-faced columns [piers] will be resurfaced in stucco and decorated with capitals and a sandstone base. Also, new pilasters are to be added to the Kipling Street elevation.” This 1996 record confirms that the original building had in fact been previously altered to the extent that very little original material remained. Under this same application, a letter from the architect (Binkley Design Group to CPA, Dec. 6, 1995) stated that further exploration had confirmed that the medallions showing above the Reprint Mint store… do not appear to repeat along the balance of the upper wall.” This letter also confirms the study and modification of the design for the new pilaster [pier] capitals. While the term “restoration” is repeated in these documents, there is minimal evidence of bona- fide restoration of this façade. Based on these records and personal observations, there is the possibility that one element may remain from the early or original façade – a pair of medallions in the face of lintel above shop no. 447. There is also the possibility that the portion of the frieze above that shop may be also early or original. However, it is not possible to tell if either element is original based on personal observation and documentation, and physical conditions suggest that these may not be older elements (or that they have been overcoated). In any event, even if some of the original frieze remains, the facts are that all that possibly remains of an original or early façade are minor decorative elements. Moreover, many elements that were replaced are new features that do not match the original. In summary, the exterior of the building at 429-447 University Avenue has been extensively altered, first sometime in the mid-20th century and again in the mid-1990s. The original storefronts that constitute the bulk of this building exterior are entirely lost. Its decorative roof edge has been lost, its cornice apparently replaced, the frieze reconstructed, and the other 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–122712-rev.092214–P4 ornamental features replaced with conjectural elements, all excepting an indeterminate number of pieces of the frieze and the medallions at no. 447. Consequently, the original building façade is no longer in existence, and the architectural building form has lost its characteristic design and material integrity. Property History Evidence for the history of this commercial property is limited. No original or early permit or drawing documentation has been found. Per Sanborn maps, in the early-20th century the existing property was part of a parcel that housed a large, two-family residential structure. In the 1924 Sanborn, that structure is identified as 425-431 University Avenue. A note card in the files of the Palo Alto Historical Association (PAHA) references a residence – the “residence for Mrs. Frances Patterson” – at 431 University, and records the date of that house to an 1898 permit record. In 1925, a final listing for 431 University Avenue identifies the occupants as “Torrence & Robbins” and a “DeTuncy, Dr. G.P.” (1925 Palo Alto City Directory). As noted above, the subject commercial building is dated by an assessor’s record to 1927. It occupies about two-thirds of the earlier residential lot, leaving a separate swath of property to the west and north. (The former was thereafter developed into the current store building at 425 University, and the latter was then developed into the rear service alley.) This commercial building and its recently urbanized setting were first depicted in the 1949 Sanborn Map (fig.4). Though 1927 is given as the date built, the city directory does not include any listing for the span of addresses 427-449 until 1930. That first listings are for the California State Automobile Association at no. 429, and Piggly Wiggly gro[cery] at no. 447. Early information about the conversion of the property from residential to commercial is limited to several news clippings (PAHA, file folder for Piggly Wiggly/Safeway). The earliest though unfortunately undated article states that “Piggly Wiggly will operate two stores in Palo Alto as soon as the new building at Kipling street and University avenue is completed, which will be early in June.” (“Piggly Wiggly Will Operate 2 Store Here,” PA Times, no date – see fig.6) A second clipping from 1934 reports the sale “of the relatively new, reinforced concrete business block at the southwest corner of University avenue and Kipling street to an Oakland investor…” (“Avenue Site Here Bought for $65,000,” Palo Alto Times, Jul. 25, 1934, fig.6). This report identifies the new owners as Mr. and Mrs. M.B. Skaggs of Oakland, and the former owners as Mr. and Mrs. A. Williams of Palo Alto. This article also mentions that Piggly Wiggly has secured a five-year lease on the vacant store adjacent (no. 441). With respect to original and early ownership, these are the extent of records and information located to date. (No search of deeds has been undertaken as part of this work.) In conclusion, the original owners and developers may have been Mr. and Mrs. A. Williams. The original and primary tenant was the grocery merchants Piggly Wiggly, whose name remained until 1934-1935 when they became Safeway Stores. Safeway remained at this location into the 1940s. The other shops have been occupied by a wide variety of commercial offices and stores. Historic Context The subject property’s historic context is that of the commercial development of the City of Palo Alto, and specifically of the City’s downtown, which is centered at University Avenue and Alma 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–122712-rev.092214–P5 Street, where it originated in the mid-1890s, coincident to the City’s incorporation in 1894 and directly adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad’s train stop. At that time, based on turn-of-the-20th century Sanborn Maps, it was a very small downtown, emanating from the Alma and University Avenue circle to the northeast for just a couple of blocks before giving way to residential uses. That linear, eastward pattern of commercial development continued throughout the 1900s. By the mid-1920s, University Avenue commercial development extended to the corner of Waverley, which defines the western boundary of the subject block. In 1927, along with several other structures on its block, the subject building at 429-447 University was built. By 1950, commercial development along University Avenue reached as far east as Cowper. In the mid-to-late 20th century, the downtown expanded further east to Middlefield Road, some 12 blocks from its origins at the Alma and University circle. Buildings in the downtown range from the early-20th century to the present, with a concomitant range of architectural forms, styles and materials. The downtown is predominately yet not strictly low – i.e., single to 1-1/2 stories. The subject building is representative of many throughout the downtown that have been altered beyond recognition of their original and early designs. Earlier structures on many other University Avenue parcels have been replaced with new buildings, which is a pattern that has episodically continued since the mid-1900s. At this juncture, surviving older structures are few relative to the overall downtown and are therefore scattered throughout the downtown. In this downtown commercial setting, there is no identified historical or cultural district, and no apparent collection of resources, thematically or architecturally, that may constitute an identifiable, future historic district or area. Evaluation The property and structure at 429-447 University Ave. have not previously been evaluated for historic resource eligibility. In order to address the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) specific to historic resources, the current effort has been requested and is intended to provide such historic resource evaluation. California Register of Historical Resources: The following evaluates the subject resource using the California Register (CR) criteria, listing each criterion followed by a statement based on the details reported herein. To be eligible for listing on the CR, a resource must be historically significant at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria: 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; There are no identified events of importance to local, regional or state history associated with 429-447 University Avenue. In the early 20th century, this property was part and parcel with general commercial development patterns in downtown Palo Alto, and specifically with the expansion of the downtown southeastward. Thus, 429-447 University Avenue has no associations to events that have contributed to local, regional or state history, so the property does not meet CR Criterion 1. 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; No persons of importance to local, regional, state or national history have been identified to have been associated with this commercial property and its building. The identified original 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–122712-rev.092214–P6 and early owners (Williams, Skaggs, Kirk) are not identifiable persons of historic importance. Consequently, the property and structure at 429-447 University Ave. have no potential historical significance based on any association to persons of potentially historic importance. 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method or construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; The extant building at 429-447 University Ave. was constructed c1927. Based on early images, it had a façade with composite ornamentation – including Mediterranean/Colonial style features (cast ornamentation and roof edge) plus some apparently Art Moderne elements (upper storefront windows). It was a commercial design generally typical of its period, as can be evidenced by neighboring structures seen in early photos, whereby each of their façade designs were somewhat unique in order to attract individual attention, yet where the block front had a measure of unity. The subject building was less distinctive than others on this and adjacent downtown blocks, a range of which yet survive. Moreover, the original building façade has been substantially lost. The current façade can be dated to 1996. While the existing upper façade is generally representative of the original design, the original was largely removed and altered in the mid-20th century. Important features of the original/early design are no longer extant, in particular the shop fronts, which make up a large portion of the façade yet have been entirely removed, along with the original capitals/piers as well as the decorative tile roof edge. And other decorative elements have been conjecturally added. While there may be several original ornamental elements at the existing façade, the extent is difficult to ascertain. Such extent of retention does not constitute an original or historic façade. Without its original façade, the remaining building structure/shell does not constitute a work of distinctive architecture. Even were the entire upper wall intact, it would be inappropriate to conclude such as a meaningfully sufficient extent of retention of distinctive characteristics. Plus, there is no detailed evidence of what did exist originally. Therefore, the commercial structure at 429-447 University Avenue has no potential historic architectural significance. Moreover, no architect, engineer, designer or builder of the original building has been identified. As the structure does not embody distinctive stylistic or architectural characteristics or methodologies, or represent the work of a master, or possess artistic value; then 429- 447 University Avenue does not meet CR Criterion 3. 4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. 429-447 University Avenue has not yielded and does not appear to have the potential to yield any important historic information. Therefore, the property does not meet CR Criterion 4. CR Evaluation Summary: Per the above evaluation record and findings, the commercial property and building at 429-447 University Avenue does not meet any CR criterion and, therefore, is not eligible for inclusion on the CR. Further, inclusion on the CR requires that a given property must meet at least one CR criterion and retain its historical integrity. However, as 429-447 University Ave. does not meet any CR criterion and is therefore not CR eligible, an analysis of the building’s integrity is not required. 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–122712-rev.092214–P7 City of Palo Alto (CPA): The following additionally evaluates the subject structure based on the City of Palo Alto’s criteria for designation of historic structures/sites or districts to the City of Palo Alto’s historic inventory (from PAMC Section 16.49.040[b]), again citing each criterion with a statement based on the details reported herein and followed by an evaluation summary. (1) The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in the city, state or nation; No persons of importance to local, regional, state or national history have been identified as having been associated with this commercial property and its building. Consequently, the property and structure at 429-447 University Ave. has no potential historical significance based on any association to persons of potentially historic importance, so the resource does not meet CPA criterion 1. (2) The structure or site is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city, state or nation; As summarized above (under CR criterion 3), the character that the original building façade and storefront lent this structure has been substantially altered and lost. The current façade can be dated to 1996. While the existing upper façade is generally representative of the original design, the original was largely removed and altered in the mid-20th century. Important features of the original/early design are no longer extant. Additionally, the commercial use and character of the property and its structure are not representative of any important way of life. Therefore, the property and building at 429-447 University Ave. does not meet CPA criterion 2. (3) The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common, but is now rare; The commercial site and its structure are common, so the property and building at 429-447 University Ave. does not meet CPA criterion 3. (4) The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now rare; Again, the commercial uses of the subject site and its structure are common, so the property and building at 429-447 University Ave. does not meet CPA criterion 4. (5) The architect or builder was important; No original architect, engineer, designer or builder of the original building has been identified. Thus, the property has no identifiable association to an important architect or builder. (6) The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship. As summarized, the current facades date to 1996, and are a contemporary design with minor stylistic interest. As the structure does not embody distinctive stylistic or architectural 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–122712-rev.092214–P8 characteristics or methodologies, 429-447 University does not meet CPA criterion 6. Summary of Findings As detailed above, the structure located at 429-447 University Avenue in Palo Alto is ineligible for listing on the CR. Additionally, the property and structure are not located in or near an identified historic district, and the making of any such district does not appear to have any even distant potential. Moreover, as summarized, its original architectural design has been lost, and its present character is without historic architectural interest or importance. Consequently, 429-447 University Ave. is unworthy of designation as a historic structure under the City of Palo Alto’s historic inventory (from PAMC Section 16.49.040[b]). Signed: Mark Hulbert Preservation Architect Fig.1 – 429-447 University Avenue – View of front and side 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–122712-rev.092214–P9 Fig.2 – 429-447 University Avenue – Detail of front façade Fig.3 – 429-447 University Avenue - Rear 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–122712-rev.092214–P10 Fig.4 – 429-447 University Avenue, 1945 Sanborn Map 429-447 University 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–122712-rev.092214–P11 Fig.5 – 429-447 University Avenue – c1940 (Palo Alto Historical Association) 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–122712-rev.092214–P12 Fig.6 – 429-447 University Avenue – Newspaper clippings (Palo Alto Historical Association) August 14, 2015 Historic Resource Analysis 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project Palo Alto, California HISTORIC RESOURCES MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY The City Council introduced the five items below for the historic resources analysis as part of the CEQA environmental review of a proposed project at the northwest corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street. Carey & Co. has reviewed the Initial Study for the project and the historic resources evaluation reports for 425 University Avenue and 429-447 University Avenue prepared by Preservation Architecture. We also reviewed the Evaluation Table associated with a historic resources survey undertaken by Dames & Moore, Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory1 and Downtown Urban Design guidelines. We also reviewed a plan set for the project.2 On July 10, 2015, Carey & Co. conducted a walking tour of University Avenue between Cowper Street and Waverley Street, and Kipling Street between University Avenue and Lytton Avenue. During the walking tour, Carey & Co. observed the project site, its relationship to surrounding properties, noted the types of buildings and their architecture, and verified the integrity of historic resources on University Avenue and Kipling Street. Please note that the walking tour took in an area greater than the proposed Area of Potential Effects (see Item B below). The following memorandum addresses the Historic Resources Board (HRB) action items presented in the final City Council motion. Those five items are listed below. A. The Preservation Architecture report focuses on whether there are criteria for a historic district. There is no need for existence of a district for there to be historic considerations. The HRB should determine whether there are other factors that should be considered. B. What is the applicable “area of potential effect” under CEQA analysis? C. There are a number of historic structures near (e.g. on Kipling), one next to the proposed project and several across the street. How will the project impact these structures? 1 The inventory also identifies properties that are California Registered Historical Landmarks and those listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 2 The plan set is dated August 3, 2015. Carey & Co., Inc. 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project August 14, 2015 Historic Resources Memorandum P2 D. Whether the mass, scale, and compatibility of the proposed project has an impact on the existing historic properties should be analyzed. E. Whether the proposed building would change the setting under CEQA has an impact on the historic properties on Kipling or University. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  Carey and Co. agrees with the Initial Study prepared by the City of Palo Alto (January 2015) which analyzed the proposed project’s potential impacts on 425 and 429-447 University Avenue and concluded that no impacts to historic resources would occur since both properties were not eligible for listing on local, state or national registers.  Carey and Co. recommends that a study area larger than the project site may be analyzed in order to evaluate potential direct and indirect impacts to nearby historic resources that are not part of the project site. A total of eight properties are included in the study area.  Carey & Co. agrees that the proposed project would not have any direct impacts on three historic resources within the study area with the application of standard code regulations. The properties are 423 University Avenue, 436-452 University Avenue and 443 Kipling Street.  Carey & Co. finds that through an evaluation of six of the seven aspects of integrity, the proposed project’s design, mass, scale, and use of materials could not have an indirect impact on the integrity of historic resources. The seventh aspect, setting, is evaluated separately.  Carey & Co. finds that the proposed project would not change the setting of historic properties on Kipling Street or University Avenue. ITEM A. THE PRESERVATION ARCHITECTURE REPORT FOCUSES ON WHETHER THERE ARE CRITERIA FOR A HISTORIC DISTRICT. THERE IS NO NEED FOR EXISTENCE OF A DISTRICT FOR THERE TO BE HISTORIC CONSIDERATIONS. THE HRB SHOULD DETERMINE WHETHER THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. University Avenue between Alma Street and Cowper Street is the center and retail core of downtown Palo Alto. Although a number of individual historical resources are located on the avenue, they do not form a historic district.3 Buildings are typically two- to four-story high and have a 25-50 foot wide pattern of storefronts or similar sized structural bays. Most buildings do not have setbacks and rise to a parapet wall without a distinct roof. The architectural style of the buildings and retail fronts are mixed but recessed doors, window displays, and outdoor seating is typical of the Avenue. Presumably to accommodate outdoor seating, some storefronts have been recessed. This more recent feature contrasts with the smaller, 3 Preservation Architecture, 425 University Avenue, Palo Alto, Historic Architectural Evaluation, September 22, 2014, 5-6 and 429-447 University Avenue, Palo Alto, Historic Architectural Evaluation, September 22, 2014, 5-6. Carey & Co., Inc. 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project August 14, 2015 Historic Resources Memorandum P3 recessed entries typically found on historic buildings. The Palo Alto Office Center, the Varsity Theater and the Stanford Theater are among the local landmarks.4 The blocks around the proposed project at 425 and 429-447 University Avenue have similar features as described above. Across University Avenue from the project site, the southern two-thirds of University Avenue between Cowper and Waverly Streets have Spanish Revival style buildings with ground floor retail uses. These buildings, including the Varsity Theater, are listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory.5 The remaining one-third of the south side has two contemporary buildings: the four-story 428-432 University Avenue and the one-story 400 University Avenue, neither of which complements the architectural style and/or material use of the adjacent buildings. Most of the buildings on the northern 400 block of University Avenue (including the project site) are one or two stories high and have stucco cladding. On the north side, only 415-419 University Avenue and 423 University Avenue are listed on the Palo Alto Inventory as “contributing resources.” Although the buildings on the north side share some features, they are not exemplary of an architectural style and do not relate to the character of the historic buildings in the area. We feel that the overall historic character of these two blocks has been compromised by intrusions including incompatible materials, height, massing, and architectural features. Kipling Street between University Avenue and Lytton Avenue is a more of a transitional area between the commercial downtown and the residential neighborhoods north of it. Directly east of the proposed building at the corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street is a two-story commercial building with no distinguishing style. Further north, the block has six single family houses, five of which are used for office and retail. These detached one and two-story buildings are set back from the street and have landscaped front yards. Five are listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory as “contributing buildings.”6 The western side of the street is a mix of architectural styles and uses: a one-story contemporary commercial building (440 and 444 Kipling), a two-story vernacular building (430 Kipling, listed in the Inventory and converted to offices) and a parking lot at the western corner. Kipling Street was defined as one of the “secondary districts” in the Palo Alto Downtown Urban Design document for having its own distinct characteristics: the development of the block was suggested to be promoted by retaining the single family houses and the architectural character they provide.7 The redevelopment of the parking lot at the corner of Kipling and Lytton was also encouraged in the 1993 document, but has not happened at this time. 4 This paragraph was summarized from City of Palo Alto, “Historic Inventory Category Information,” last updated June 16, 2007, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=539&TargetID=127 (accessed on July 13, 2015). 5 Buildings on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory are 436- 452 University Avenue (Category 2), Varsity Theater at 456 University Avenue (Category 1), 460,-476 University Avenue (Category 2), and 480-498 University Avenue (Category 2). 6 405 Kipling Street, 411 Kipling Street, 421-423 Kipling Street, 430 Kipling Street, 431-433 Kipling Street, and 443 Kipling Street (City of Palo Alto, Master List of Structures on the Historic Inventory, 2012). 437 Kipling is listed on the Dames and Moore Survey as “NRHP eligible under criteria A and C” (City of Palo Alto, email correspondence, July 16, 2015). 7 City of Palo Alto, Downtown Urban Design, October 1993, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6514 (accessed on July 14, 2015). Carey & Co., Inc. 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project August 14, 2015 Historic Resources Memorandum P4 Lane 30E, the service alley that runs Kipling to Waverly Street, is used for parking and serves the buildings that front onto it. The Urban Design Guide defines these alleys as “shortcut alleys which should be encouraged to use by pedestrians on a regular basis while maintaining their service functions.”8 We see this block of Kipling Street as a transitional area with mixed uses, building types, and different architectural styles. It does not have the density or total commercial character of University Avenue, but neither does it present itself as an intact residential street. ITEM B. WHAT IS THE APPLICABLE “AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT” UNDER CEQA ANALYSIS? Item B calls for defining an “area of potential effect.” An Area of Potential Effects (APE) is a term used in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to define a geographic area within which a proposed project may cause changes to the character of historic properties9. For purposes of this memorandum, we will use the term “study area” instead of APE to avoid confusion between the two historic resource review processes. The CEQA analysis prepared for the Initial Study considered the study area to be the site of the proposed project. Preservation Architecture evaluated the potential historic significance of the two properties that form the site of the proposed project and concluded that the properties did not possess historic significance. The Initial Study used those conclusions to determine that the project had a less than significant impact on the environment. The City Council has asked what an appropriate study area would be for CEQA purposes. The study area is influenced by the scale and nature of a proposed project and its surroundings. In our opinion, an area larger than the project site may be analyzed in order to analyze potential direct and indirect impacts to nearby historic resources that are not part of the project site. Although a study area can be just the site of a project, say a farm property in a rural area, the proposed project is in a dense urban area with immediately adjacent buildings that could be affected by the proposed project. In this case, there are several historical resources adjacent to the proposed project, but no historic districts. We recommend that the study area may consist of the proposed project site and immediately adjacent properties which are 423 University Avenue, 428-432 University Avenue, 436-452 University Avenue, 451 University Avenue, 443 Kipling Street and 440-444 Kipling Street (See Figure 1). Only one of these properties is immediately adjacent to the proposed project, 423 University Avenue, and could be directly affected by the proposed project. The others are across University Avenue, Kipling Street and Lane 30E. These latter properties are included due the potential of indirect impacts. Since a study area is defined early in the CEQA review process, potential impacts are only speculative as no impact analysis has been undertaken at that point. Therefore properties are included that may or may not be affected by the proposed project. 8 City of Palo Alto, Downtown Urban Design, October 1993, page 16, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6514 (accessed on July 14, 2015). 9 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of projects they carry out, approve or fund on historic properties. Since there is no federal involvement in the proposed project, a Section 106 review is not required. Carey & Co., Inc. 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project August 14, 2015 Historic Resources Memorandum P5 Figure 1. The recommended study area; the project site is outlined in yellow. ITEM C. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES NEAR (E.G. ON KIPLING), ONE NEXT TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND SEVERAL ACROSS THE STREET. HOW WILL THE PROJECT IMPACT THESE STRUCTURES? Item C refers to historic resources on Kipling Street and University Avenue. Using the study area recommended in Item B, the previously identified historic resources within the boundaries of the study area include the following:  423 University Avenue: Palo Alto Inventory, Category 3 (contributing building); State Historic Preservation Office, Category 5S2 (individual property that is eligible for local listing or designation),  436-452 University Avenue: Palo Alto Inventory, Category 2 (major building); State Historic Preservation Office, Category 3S (appears eligible for the National Register as an individual property through survey evaluation),  443 Kipling Street: Palo Alto Inventory, Category 3 (contributing building); State Historic Preservation Office, Category 5S2 (individual property that is eligible for local listing or designation).10 10 City of Palo Alto, Master List of Structures on the Historic Inventory, revised July 24, 2012, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/3504 (accessed on July 13, 2015); Office of Historic Preservation, Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for Santa Clara County, August 15, 2011; California State of Historic Preservation, “California Historical Resource Status Codes,” updated December 8, 2003, http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/chrstatus%20codes.pdf (accessed on July 15, 2015). Carey & Co., Inc. 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project August 14, 2015 Historic Resources Memorandum P6 None of these properties are listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources. The evaluation of historical resources prepared for the Initial Study by Preservation Architecture found “no identified historical or cultural district, and no apparent collection of resources, thematically or architecturally, that may constitute an identifiable, future historic district or area.” 11 The proposed project is not located in a designated historic district recognized by local, state or national historic registers. Based on our survey of the study area and beyond, Carey & Co. agrees with the Preservation Architecture’s conclusion above. This statement is also supported by the City Council Staff Report (dated April 6, 2015) and the City of Palo Alto’s historic inventory (which only includes National Register-listed Professorville Historic District and Ramona Street Architectural District).12 Potential Impacts of the Proposed Project The Initial Study found a Less than Significant Impact to local cultural resources that are recognized by City Council resolution. However, Item C asks for an analysis of the proposed project and its potential impact on historic resources.13 The Initial Study by the City of Palo Alto (January 2015) analyzed the proposed project’s potential impacts on 425 and 429-447 University Avenue and concluded that no impacts to historic resources would occur since both properties were not eligible for listing on local, state or national registers.14 Carey & Co. agrees with this conclusion. We considered a total of eight properties located within the study area. Three are historical resources and were analyzed for potential impacts: 423 University Avenue, 436-452 University Avenue and 443 Kipling Street. 423 University Avenue (Palo Alto Inventory, Category 3) is adjacent to the project site and 436-452 University Avenue (Palo Alto Inventory, Category 2) is located across University Avenue. 443 Kipling Street (Palo Alto Inventory, Category 3) is located across Kipling diagonally from the proposed project site. The City Council Staff Report, dated April 6, 2015, states that: “The proposed work, which is limited to the project site, would not have any physical or material effect on nearby individual historic structures, including the adjacent Category 3 structure. Standard conditions for construction activities would be applied to help ensure the project would not adversely affect the historical and architectural integrity of existing individual historic structures in the vicinity of the project site.” 11 Preservation Architecture, 425 University Avenue, Palo Alto, Historic Architectural Evaluation, September 22, 2014, 5-6 and 429-447 University Avenue, Palo Alto, Historic Architectural Evaluation, September 22, 2014, 5-6. 12 City of Palo Alto, Master List of Structures on the Historic Inventory, revised July 24, 2012, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/3504 (accessed on July 13, 2015). 13 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1) states: “Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.” A project that demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register is one that may have a significant effect of the environment. 14 City of Palo Alto, 429University Avenue Project, Initial Study, draft released November 2014, updated January 2015, 17. Carey & Co., Inc. 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project August 14, 2015 Historic Resources Memorandum P7 Carey & Co. agrees that the proposed project would not have any impacts on 423 University Avenue with the application of standard code regulations. We also believe that the proposed project would not have any direct impacts on 436-452 University Avenue and 443 Kipling Street since the construction site is separated by the streets and all construction activity would take place on the north and west side of the streets. Indirect impacts could affect these three properties. Although the method of construction is not identified in the project plans, we assume that vibration will not be an environmental impact such that it could affect the stability of either property. ITEM D. WHETHER THE MASS, SCALE, AND COMPATIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS AN IMPACT ON THE EXISTING HISTORIC PROPERTIES SHOULD BE ANALYZED. The proposed project’s design, mass, scale, and use of materials could have an indirect impact on the integrity of historic resources. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its historic significance through the retention of physical characteristics that justify its inclusion in local, state or national registers. There are seven aspects of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Location Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The relationship between the property and its location is often important to understanding why the property was created or why something happened. The actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. 423 University Avenue, 436-452 University Avenue and 443 Kipling Street would remain where they are. The proposed project would not have an impact on the location of these properties. Design Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. It results from conscious decisions made during the original conception and planning of a property (or its significant alteration) and applies to activities as diverse as community planning, engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials. The design of each property would remain and not be affected by the proposed project. Setting See Item E. Materials Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. The choice and combination of Carey & Co., Inc. 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project August 14, 2015 Historic Resources Memorandum P8 materials reveal the preferences of those who created the property and indicate the availability of particular types of materials and technologies. Indigenous materials are often the focus of regional building traditions and thereby help define an area's sense of time and place. A property must retain the key exterior materials dating from the period of its historic significance. The materials associated with each property would not change or be affected by the proposed project. Workmanship Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site. Workmanship can apply to the property as a whole or to its individual components. It can be expressed in vernacular methods of construction and plain finishes or in highly sophisticated configurations and ornamental detailing. It can be based on common traditions or innovative period techniques. Workmanship is important because it can furnish evidence of the technology of a craft, illustrate the aesthetic principles of a historic or prehistoric period, and reveal individual, local, regional, or national applications of both technological practices and aesthetic principles. The workmanship evidenced in the buildings at 423 University Avenue, 436-452 University Avenue and 443 Kipling Street would remain embodied in the architectural elements and features of these buildings. The proposed project would not have an impact on the workmanship of the buildings. Feeling Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. The proposed project would not affect the physical features that convey the historic character of 423 University Avenue and 436-452 University Avenue. The same can be said of 443 Kipling Street. In both cases, the properties would continue to express their “aesthetic and historic sense.” Association Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character. The historic significance of 423 University Avenue and 436-452 University Avenue is related to the commercial development of downtown Palo Alto, especially along University Avenue. The proposed project will not affect this relationship. 443 Kipling Street maintains a different relationship – that to the development of a residential neighborhood backing up to the commercial properties on University. Although the setting of Kipling Street (see Item E) has changed over time with fewer residential buildings on the street, 443 Kipling Street would continue to retain its residential character and relationship to the earlier residential development that took place on Kipling Street. Carey & Co., Inc. 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project August 14, 2015 Historic Resources Memorandum P9 ITEM E. WHETHER THE PROPOSED BUILDING WOULD CHANGE THE SETTING UNDER CEQA HAS AN IMPACT ON THE HISTORIC PROPERTIES ON KIPLING OR UNIVERSITY. Item E asks whether the proposed building would change the setting of historic properties on Kipling Street and University Avenue under CEQA. Setting is one of the seven aspects of integrity (see above). In the evaluating the historic significance of a property, the property must retain enough integrity in order for it to convey its historic significance. Setting is defined as the physical environment of a historic property: “Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historical role. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to surrounding features and open space. Setting often reflects the basic physical conditions under which a property was built and the functions it was intended to serve. (…) The physical features that constitute the setting of a historic property can be either natural or manmade, including such elements as:  Topographic features;  Vegetation;  Simple manmade features; and  Relationships between buildings and other features or open space.”15 Several historic resources are located in and around the study area. These resources are listed in the City’s Inventory and some of them appear eligible for the National Register. However, there are not any previously designated or identified historic districts or there is no apparent collection of resources that may constitute an identifiable historic district. The 400 block of University Avenue has changed over time, including previous demolitions and alterations to older buildings, such that the demolition of the subject properties and addition of the proposed project would not change the existing character of the block. Kipling Street serves as a transition between commercial University Avenue and northern residential neighborhoods of Palo Alto. The proposed project would not impact historic resources on Kipling Street directly since they are not immediately adjacent to the project site. However, potential indirect impacts to the setting of the historic properties on Kipling Street may be considered. The overall setting of Kipling Street is defined by the properties on both sides of the street from the rear of the commercial buildings on University Avenue to Lytton Avenue. The setting of the historic properties has already been compromised in several ways. First, assuming that the street was once lined with residential structures on both the east and west sides of the street, only one altered residential structure remains on the west side.16 Second, the existing parking lot is a major intrusion on the setting of the block having removed buildings and eliminated relationships that buildings on one side of the street 15 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_8.htm (accessed on July 15, 2015). 16 Carey & Co. was not tasked with conducting research on the history of Kipling Street. Carey & Co., Inc. 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project August 14, 2015 Historic Resources Memorandum P10 had to others on the opposite side. Therefore, the larger setting of the Kipling Street properties has been previously compromised. Third, while the group of buildings on Kipling Street may impart character to the street, as described in the Downtown Urban Design Plan, they do not appear to constitute a potential historic district whose resource setting may be affected. The proposed project will replace a commercial building and although larger in scale and height, it will not adversely impact the setting of the existing individual resources on Kipling, including 443 Kipling Street. Additionally, the proposed project will maintain the relationship between the commercial uses on University Avenue and the transitional state of Kipling Street. As previously discussed in Item A University Avenue between Alma Street and Cowper Street is the center and retail core of downtown Palo Alto. Although a number of individual historical resources are located on the avenue, they do not form a historic district. Similar to Kipling Street, the proposed project will not substantially alter the physical environment of the individual historic resources on University such that their integrity would be compromised to the degree that they would lose their historic significance. APPENDIX E Geotechnical Investigation GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION NEW MIXED-USE BUILDING 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVENUE PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA THIS REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR: KIPLING POST LP/WHARTON PROPERTIES, LLC P.O. BOX 204 PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94302 SEPTEMBER 2013 935 Fremont Avenue, Los Altos, California 94024 Phone: 650.559.9980 Fax: 650.559.9985 September 26, 2013 Project No. 1755-1R1 Kipling Post LP/ Wharton Properties, LLC P.O. Box 204 Palo Alto, CA 94302 RE: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, NEW MIXED-USE BUILDING, 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA Ladies and Gentlemen: We are pleased to present the results of our geotechnical investigation relating to design and construction of a new building on the property at 429-447 University Avenue in Palo Alto, California. This report summarizes the results of our field, laboratory, and engineering work, and presents geotechnical recommendations and design criteria for the project. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of the project plans and our observation and testing of the geotechnical aspects of the construction. If you have any questions concerning our investigation, please call. Very truly yours, MURRAY ENGINEERS, INC. William P. Carter, P.E. Senior Engineer John A. Stillman, G.E., C.E.G. 1868 Principal Geotechnical Engineer JK:WPC:JAS Copies: Addressee (6) TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover Page Page No. Letter of Transmittal TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 1  Project Description ............................................................................................................. 1  Scope of Services ................................................................................................................. 1  GEOLOGIC & SEISMIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................. 2  Geologic Overview.............................................................................................................. 2  Seismicity .............................................................................................................................. 2  SITE EXPLORATION & RECONNAISSANCE ................................................................ 3  Exploration Program .......................................................................................................... 3  Site Description ................................................................................................................... 3  Subsurface ............................................................................................................................. 4  Laboratory Test Results ...................................................................................................... 4  Groundwater ........................................................................................................................ 4  LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 5  Computer-Aided Analysis .................................................................................................. 5  Liquefaction Settlement Findings ..................................................................................... 6  CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................... 7  Highest Projected Groundwater Level ............................................................................. 7  Geologic Hazards ................................................................................................................ 8  RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 9  2013 CBC EARTHQUAKE DESIGN PARAMETERS ............................................. 9  BASEMENT MAT FOUNDATION ........................................................................... 10  BASEMENT RETAINING WALLS ............................................................................ 11  Retaining Wall Drainage ......................................................................................... 12  Lateral Earth Pressures ........................................................................................... 12  Retaining Wall Backfill ............................................................................................ 13  SLABS-ON-GRADE ....................................................................................................... 13  Vapor Retarder Considerations ............................................................................. 13  EARTHWORK ................................................................................................................. 14  Clearing & Site Preparation .................................................................................... 14  Material for Fill ......................................................................................................... 14  Compaction ............................................................................................................... 15  Location & Backfill of Temporary Basement Access Ramp ............................. 15  Temporary Slopes & Trench Excavations ........................................................... 16  SURFACE DRAINAGE ................................................................................................. 16  REQUIRED FUTURE SERVICES ....................................................................................... 17  Plan Review ........................................................................................................................ 17  Construction Observation Services ................................................................................ 17  LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 17  REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 19  TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) APPENDIX A – SITE FIGURES Figure A-1 – Vicinity Map Figure A-2 – Site Plan Figure A-3 – Vicinity Geologic Map Figure A-4 – State Seismic Hazard Zones Map APPENDIX B – SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION – SOIL PROBE Figure B-1 – Log of Boring B-1 Figure B-2 – Log of Boring B-2 Figure B-3 – Key to Boring Logs Figure B-4 – Unified Soil Classification System APPENDIX C – SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTS Figure C-1 – Direct Shear Test Data, Boring B-1, 24.5 to 25 Feet Figure C-2 – Direct Shear Test Data, Boring B-2, 11 to 11.5 Feet APPENDIX D – SUMMARY OF LIQUEFACTION SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS Figure D-1 – Liquefaction Settlement Analysis B-1 Figure D-2 – Liquefaction Settlement Analysis B-2 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION NEW MIXED-USE BUILDING 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVENUE PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation relating to design and construction of a new mixed-use building on the property at 429-447 University Avenue in Palo Alto. The project location is indicated on Figure A-1, Vicinity Map. The purpose of our investigation was to explore the subsurface soil and geologic conditions on the site in the area of the proposed improvements and to provide geotechnical conclusions and recommendations relating to the foundation and earthwork components of the project. Project Description Although plans are tentative, the project will include construction of a new 3.5-story mixed- use building with two levels of subterranean parking. The lower level parking will extend roughly 27 feet deep below existing grade. The project may include a ramp to access the subterranean parking or a car lift system. We anticipate that structural loads will be typical of construction of this magnitude. The layout of the existing improvements is shown on the Site Plan, Figure A-2. Scope of Services We performed the following services in accordance with our agreement with you dated July 22, 2013 (executed August 9, 2013): Reviewed geologic and seismic conditions in the area and evaluated geologic hazards that could potentially impact the site and the proposed improvements Performed a reconnaissance of the site in the area of the proposed improvements Explored the site subsurface conditions by advancing, sampling, and logging two exploratory borings in the area of the proposed building improvements Performed laboratory testing on selected soil samples for soil classification and to evaluate engineering properties of the subsurface materials Performed geotechnical engineering analyses to evaluate the seismic-induced liquefaction settlement potential at the site and to develop geotechnical engineering design criteria for the proposed improvements Prepared this report presenting a summary of our investigation and our geotechnical conclusions, recommendations, and design criteria New Building – 429-447 University Avenue, Palo Alto Geotechnical Investigation Page 2 GEOLOGIC & SEISMIC CONDITIONS Geologic Overview The subject property is located in the Santa Clara Valley, a broad, sediment-filled basin bounded on the southwest by the Santa Cruz Mountains and on the northeast by the Diablo Mountain range. According to the USGS topographic map of the Palo Alto Quadrangle (see Figure A-1), the site is situated at an approximate elevation of 50 feet above mean sea level. According to the Geologic Map of the Palo Alto and Part of the Redwood Point 7-1/2’ Quadrangles (Pampeyan, 1993), the site is located in an area underlain by Pleistocene age (approximately 10,000 to 2 million years old) older alluvium (Qoa). These materials are generally described as weathered, unconsolidated to moderately consolidated gravel, sand, and silt grading coarser headward and interfingers with stream terrace deposits in narrow drainage channels. According to the State of California Official Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Palo Alto Quadrangle (California Geological Survey, 2006), the site is located in an area where historical occurrences of earthquake-induced liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for permanent earthquake-induced ground displacements. A copy of the relevant portion of this map is presented on the State Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Figure A-4. Additionally, the Association of Bay Area Governments liquefaction potential mapping of the area (ABAG, 2006) indicates that the site is located in an area considered to have moderate liquefaction susceptibility. We note that the Historical Ground Failures map included as Plate 1.2 in the State Seismic Hazard report does not include any recorded historical ground failures (including ground cracks and lateral spreading) on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Seismicity The San Francisco Bay Area, which is affected by the San Andreas Fault system, is recognized by geologists and seismologists as one of the most active seismic regions in the United States. In the Bay Area there are three major faults trending in a northwest direction within the San Andreas Fault system, which have generated about 12 earthquakes per century large enough to cause significant structural damage. These faults include the San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras faults. The San Andreas Fault is located approximately 5.7 miles southwest of the site. The Hayward and Calaveras faults are located approximately 13 and 18 miles northeast of the site, respectively. Additionally, the potentially active Monte Vista-Shannon Fault is located approximately 3.9 miles southwest of the site. Seismologic and geologic experts convened by the United States Geological Survey, California Geological Survey, and the Southern California Earthquake Center conclude that there is a 63 percent probability for at least one "large" earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or larger in the Bay Area before the year 2038. The northern portion of the San Andreas fault is New Building – 429-447 University Avenue, Palo Alto Geotechnical Investigation Page 3 estimated to have a 21 percent probability of producing a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake by the year 2038 (2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2008). SITE EXPLORATION & RECONNAISSANCE Exploration Program Our field investigation was performed on September 3, 2013; and included a site reconnaissance and the excavation and logging of two exploratory borings to depths of approximately 45 feet at the locations shown on Figure A-2. The boring locations were approximately determined by measuring distance from building corners and should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the mapping technique used. Our exploratory borings were advanced using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with hollow-stem augers. Soil samples were collected with split-spoon samplers driven with a 140-pound hammer repeatedly dropped from a height of 30 inches with a wire line sampling system. The samplers included the 2-inch outside diameter (OD) Standard Penetration Test sampler, as well as 2.5- and 3-inch OD split-spoon samplers. The sampler types used are indicated on the boring logs at the appropriate depths. The number of hammer blows required to drive the samplers were recorded in 6-inch increments for the length of the 18- inch long sampler barrels. The associated blow count data, which is the sum of the second and third 6-inch increment, is presented on the boring logs as sampling resistance in blows per foot. The field blow counts for the 2.5-inch and 3-inch OD samplers have been standardized to Standard Penetration Test blow counts for sampler size; however, the blow count data has not been adjusted for other factors such as hammer efficiency. The logs of our borings are presented in Appendix B as Figures B-1 and B-2. Also included in Appendix B is Figure B-3, Key to Boring Logs; and Figure B-4, Unified Soil Classification System. Our staff geologist logged the borings in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The boring logs show our interpretation of the subsurface conditions at the locations and on the date indicated and it is not warranted that these conditions are representative of the subsurface conditions at other locations and times. In addition, the stratification lines shown on the logs represent approximate boundaries between the soil materials; however, the transitions may be gradual. Site Description The flat property is located along the northwest side of University Avenue in downtown Palo Alto. The property measures roughly 75 feet wide and 110 feet long and is bounded by University Avenue to the southeast, Kipling Street to the northeast, an alleyway to the northwest, and commercial properties to the southwest. The site is accessed from the University Avenue sidewalk at the front and an alleyway and parking lot off Kipling Street New Building – 429-447 University Avenue, Palo Alto Geotechnical Investigation Page 4 from the rear. The site is currently occupied by a single-story, four-unit retail building with storefronts along University Avenue (at 429, 435, 441, and 447 University Avenue) and one, second-story office unit above a parking area in the rear. The asphalt parking lot accessed from the back alley includes about six parking spaces. Subsurface Two exploratory borings were excavated in the area of the proposed building, in the existing asphalt parking area. In general, below the asphalt pavement section, our exploratory borings B-1 and B-2 encountered alternating layers of fine- and coarse-grained alluvium to the full depth explored of 45 feet. More specifically, the borings encountered approximately 5 to 8 feet of very stiff to hard surficial silty clay, underlain by 4 to 6 feet of medium dense to very dense gravelly to silty sand, and then underlain by 20 to 25 feet of very stiff silty clay. At depths of roughly 35 feet, the clay is underlain by medium dense to very dense clayey to silty sand to the bottom of the borings at depths of 45 feet. The location of each boring is presented on Figure A-2, Site Plan and detailed logs of the borings are presented in Appendix B. Laboratory Test Results Consolidated-undrained direct shear strength tests were performed by Cooper Testing Laboratory on two samples of the alluvial soils underlying the site. Direct shear testing of the silty clay alluvium encountered in Boring B-1 at depths of 24.5 to 25 feet yielded an internal friction (Phi) angle of 25 degrees and a cohesion value (c) of 1670 pounds per square foot (see Figure C-1, Direct Shear Test Data). Direct shear testing of the silty clay alluvium encountered in Boring B-2 at depths of 11 to 11.5 feet yielded an internal friction (Phi) angle of 20 degrees and a cohesion value (c) of 1500 pounds per square foot (see Figure C-2, Direct Shear Test Data). Groundwater Our borings encountered groundwater at depths of approximately 33.5 to 35 feet below existing grade during drilling. Groundwater was re-measured approximately 30 minutes after drilling at depths of approximately 31.5 to 32 feet. The borings were backfilled with grout prior to leaving the site on the day of drilling. According to Plate 1.2 of the Official State Seismic Hazard Zone report for the Palo Alto Quadrangle (California Geological Survey, 2006), the site is located in an area with a historical depth to groundwater of approximately 20 to 30 feet below ground surface. In addition, we recently installed three 32-foot deep piezometers for a property roughly 750 feet to the east at 611 Cowper Street. We measured the groundwater level several times between July and August 2013 to be between approximately 23 and 28 feet below grade. New Building – 429-447 University Avenue, Palo Alto Geotechnical Investigation Page 5 We note that fluctuations in the level of groundwater can occur due to variations in rainfall, landscaping, and other factors that may not have been evident at the time our measurements were made. Therefore, immediately prior to the start of construction, the depth to groundwater should be verified to allow for modification in structural design, if required. LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS As noted above, the building site is located within a zone designated as potentially susceptible to earthquake-induced liquefaction. Liquefaction is a soil softening response, by which an increase in the excess pore water pressure results in partial to full loss of soil shear strength. In order for liquefaction to occur, the following four factors are required: 1) saturated soil or soil situated below the groundwater table; 2) undrained loading (strong ground shaking), such as by earthquake; 3) contractive soil response during shear loading, which is often the case for a soil which is initially in a loose or uncompacted state; and 4) susceptible soil type; such as clean, uniformly graded sands, non-plastic silts, or gravels. Structures situated above temporarily liquefied soils may sink or tilt, potentially resulting in significant structural damage. To address the potential for liquefaction at the site and its impact on the planned improvements, we performed analyses using our subsurface information combined with site- specific design level earthquake values to develop an estimate of the potential magnitude of liquefaction-induced total and differential settlements. Within Borings B-1 and B-2, we identified the soil layers with sufficiently low clay content to be potentially liquefiable. The layers included the silty sand encountered below approximately 35 feet. However, we note that the silty sand was observed to be predominantly dense to very dense and consequently is likely too dense to be considered liquefiable. The majority of the finer-grained soils encountered in Borings B-1 and B-2 were eliminated from the analysis based on engineering judgment and by recent screening criteria presented by Seed, et al., which identifies silts and clays with liquid limits less than 37%, plasticity indices less than 12%, and moisture contents greater than 80% of their liquid limits as potentially liquefiable. Computer-Aided Analysis Our analyses were performed using the computer program LiquefyPro (Version 5.3c), which calculates a factor of safety (FS) against soil liquefaction by comparing the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR), the ratio of the resistance of the soil to liquefaction during cyclic shaking, to the cyclic stress ratio (CSR), the seismic loading that would be likely to result from a design level earthquake at the study location. If the factor of safety for a soil layer is less than 1.0, it is more likely that the soil layer may liquefy during a moderate to large seismic event. The New Building – 429-447 University Avenue, Palo Alto Geotechnical Investigation Page 6 methods outlined in the above publications were also used to evaluate magnitude of anticipated soil settlement, calculated as the volumetric strain (qualified by the CSR) times the thickness of the liquefiable soil layer. The CRR during a design-level earthquake is a function of groundwater level, earthquake magnitude, soil density, and the depth of the layer being evaluated. Based on the CDC Seismic Hazard Zone report for the Palo Alto Quadrangle (Plate 1.2) and our subsurface investigation, our liquefaction analyses considered a design groundwater level at a depth of 26 feet below the existing ground surface. According to Earthquake Hazards Program (USGS, 2008), the estimated peak ground acceleration in the site vicinity is approximately 0.44g for a 10% exceedance in 50 years based on a predominant earthquake magnitude of 7.9 Mw. The soil density values were estimated based on site-specific data collected during exploratory drilling and sampling and laboratory data. Our CRR calculations are based on normalized standard penetration blow counts corrected for field-testing procedures, such as hammer efficiency, borehole diameter, rod length, and overburden pressures. LiquefyPro calculates liquefaction-induced settlement by dividing the data into thin layers and calculating settlement for each layer. The settlement in each layer was calculated by multiplying the volumetric strain by the thickness of each layer. Volumetric strain was calculated using the factor of safety against liquefaction against corrected SPT data. Liquefaction Settlement Findings Our analysis based on Borings B-1 and B-2 identified relatively thin layers of material with a low to moderate probability of liquefaction as a result of a design-level earthquake, generally below approximately 35 feet. Consequently, we estimated (using the LiquefyPro program) a negligible amount of total and differential seismic-induced settlement may be expected at the site, based on the subsurface data inputted. We note that the methods of analysis used to estimate total and differential settlements do not take into account the possibility of surface ground rupture, but consider the capping layer effects of the relatively stiff and dense, non-liquefiable soils overlying the potentially liquefiable soil layers. For liquefaction-induced sand boils or fissures to occur, the pore water pressures induced within the liquefied strata must exert enough force to break through these overlying layers. Based on work by Youd and Garris (1995), a capping layer of non- liquefiable material on the order of 4.5 to 5 feet thick may be adequate enough to prevent the occurrence of ground surface rupture for a liquefiable layer on the order of 2 to 3 feet in thickness. Based on our subsurface information, the subject site should have a sufficiently thick and relatively dense, non-liquefiable layer above the groundwater table capping the potentially liquefiable layers at greater depths to mitigate the potential for sand boils or surface venting during an earthquake. New Building – 429-447 University Avenue, Palo Alto Geotechnical Investigation Page 7 CONCLUSIONS From a geotechnical perspective, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development provided that the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. In our opinion, the primary geotechnical constraints to the proposed construction are the site’s seismic setting, and the City’s guidelines eliminating the use of subsurface drainage in relation to all new basement construction (see below). In addition, we anticipate that the excavation for the below-grade garage will likely extend to depths on the order of roughly 27 feet below existing site grades, in some cases near or immediately adjacent to existing buildings and public streets and sidewalks. Therefore, to mitigate the issue of differential settlement and potential impact on these structures, the basement excavation will necessitate a well-designed temporary shoring system to be designed by others. As noted above, the groundwater level is expected to typically be on the order of approximately 31 to 32 feet below existing grades. Due to fluctuations in ground water level, it is possible that portions of the basement excavation will encounter ground water. Dewatering should be the responsibility of the contractor if ground water is encountered during construction. Based on our investigation, the site appears to be underlain by alternating layers of fine- and coarse-grained alluvium to the maximum depth explored of 45 feet. In our opinion, the underlying competent alluvial deposits should provide adequate foundation support for the proposed improvements. Highest Projected Groundwater Level In accordance with the requirements of the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department, we have included the following statement: Based on our subsurface investigation and the available historic groundwater data, in our professional judgment, the groundwater at the project site is unlikely to rise above a depth of 26 feet (5-feet above the measured ground water level) as measured from existing site grades. Therefore, from a geotechnical perspective, if all or portions of the basement finished floor elevation will be situated below a depth of 26 feet, in our opinion, the basement slab foundation would be required to resist uplift pressures from regional groundwater buoyancy effects. Waterproofing of the basement is critical and should be designed and installed by an experienced consultant/contractor. Please note that the City of Palo Alto prohibits new basements east of Foothill Expressway from being constructed with subsurface drainage. Therefore, as noted in the Retaining Wall New Building – 429-447 University Avenue, Palo Alto Geotechnical Investigation Page 8 section that follows, basement retaining walls should be designed for the undrained condition and waterproofing (designed by others) should be incorporated in the design. Geologic Hazards As part of our evaluation, we assessed the potential for geologic hazards to impact the site and the proposed improvements. The results of our review are presented below: Fault Rupture – Based on our review of published maps, it is our opinion that no active or potentially active faults cross the subject property. Therefore, in our opinion the potential for fault rupture at the site is very low. Ground Shaking – As noted in the Seismicity section above, moderate to large earthquakes are probable along several active faults in the greater Bay Area. Therefore, strong to violent ground shaking should be expected one or more times during the design-life of the proposed improvements. The improvements should be designed in accordance with current earthquake resistant standards, including the 2013 CBC guidelines and the design parameters presented in this report. It should be clearly understood that these guidelines and parameters will not prevent damage to structures; rather they are intended to prevent catastrophic collapse. Differential Compaction – During moderate and large earthquakes, soft or loose, natural or fill soils can settle and consolidate, often unevenly across a site. In general, the alluvial soils encountered at the site are very stiff to hard or medium dense to very dense and, in our opinion, are not susceptible to differential compaction. Therefore, differential compaction should not constitute a significant hazard to the proposed improvements provided that they are supported on foundations designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. Liquefaction – Please refer to the Liquefaction Analysis section of our report for more detailed information concerning this geologic hazard. In summary, based on the findings presented in the above sections, in our opinion the probability of liquefaction, ground displacement, ground lurching, differential settlement or lateral spreading during major seismic events at the site is low. Potential differential ground settlement resulting from earthquake-induced liquefaction in the area of the proposed building footprint, if it were to occur, has been estimated to be a negligible amount (see discussion above and Appendix D, Summary of Liquefaction Settlement Analysis). Therefore, in our opinion, the potential for liquefaction to occur and adversely affect the building improvements should be very low provided the recommendations contained in this report are implemented in design and construction. New Building – 429-447 University Avenue, Palo Alto Geotechnical Investigation Page 9 RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the proposed below-grade parking garage, its retaining walls, and all building loads overlying the basement be supported on a mat foundation bearing in the underlying alluvial deposits. Based on the information found during our subsurface investigation, if the finished floor of the basement will extend below a depth of approximately 26 feet, in our opinion, the basement slab foundation will be required to resist uplift pressures from groundwater buoyancy effects. Due to City guidelines prohibiting subsurface drainage associated with new basement construction, basement retaining walls should be designed for the undrained hydrostatic condition. In addition, there is a potential for encountering isolated zones of relatively clean granular deposits of variable density and consistency during excavations for the proposed basement structure. As a result, in our opinion the foundation and earthwork contractors should be cautioned that vertical and near vertical cuts in the more granular materials may be prone to raveling and potentially more significant caving failure. The building contractor should take appropriate precautions to shore the proposed basement excavation, as necessary. The design and construction of any temporary shoring or dewatering is the responsibility of the building contractor and is beyond the scope of this investigation. In addition, we strongly encourage the use of a waterproofing consultant and/or waterproofing subcontractor to assure adequate protection from surface water that will accumulate adjacent to the basement wall and bottom of mat slab. At-grade concrete slabs-on-grade should be constructed over a section of select granular fill. Any slabs-on-grade planned adjacent to the basement walls should be designed to span the area underlain by any planned basement retaining wall backfill (if present) to mitigate the concerns for backfill settlement. Detailed foundation, grading, and drainage recommendations and geotechnical design criteria are presented below. We should review the proposed layout and design, prior to completion of the final plans, to verify that the following recommendations are appropriate. 2013 CBC EARTHQUAKE DESIGN PARAMETERS We have developed site-specific earthquake design parameters based on the procedures described in Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the 2013 California Building Code (California Building Standards Commission, 2013). These procedures utilize State standardized spectral acceleration values for maximum considered earthquake ground motion taking into account historical seismicity, available paleoseismic data, and activity rates along known fault traces, as well as site-specified soil and bedrock response characteristics. Contour maps of Class B bedrock horizontal spectral acceleration values for the State of California are included as figures in Chapter 16 of the 2013 CBC, representing both short (0.2 seconds) and long (1.0 New Building – 429-447 University Avenue, Palo Alto Geotechnical Investigation Page 10 second) periods of spectral response and taking into account 5 percent of critical damping. The U.S. Geological Survey (2013) has prepared an online seismic design value application tool, based on the 2010 ASCE with a July 2013 CBC errata, for public use, that allows for site-specific adjustments of these acceleration values for different subsurface conditions, which are defined by site classes. Given representative latitude of 37.448 and longitude of -122.160 in accordance with guidelines presented in the 2013 CBC, the following seismic design parameters will apply for this site: Site Class D – Soil Profile Name: Stiff Soil (Table 1613.5.2) Mapped Spectral Accelerations for 0.2-second Period: SS= 1.511 (Site Class B) Mapped Spectral Accelerations for a 1-second Period: S1= 0.692 (Site Class B) Design Spectral Accelerations for 0.2 second Period: SDS= 1.008 (Site Class D) Design Spectral Accelerations for a 1-second Period: SD1= 0.692 (Site Class D) BASEMENT MAT FOUNDATION We recommend that the basement and any loads overlying the basement be supported on a reinforced concrete mat slab foundation bearing on the underlying alluvium. The mat may be designed for allowable bearing pressures of 2,000 pounds per square foot for combined dead plus live loads, with a one-third increase allowed for transient loads, including wind or seismic forces. If the structural engineer will utilize a modulus of subgrade reaction in the mat design, we estimate that the modulus of vertical subgrade reaction for a 1-foot square plate (based on Terzaghi’s method - Figure 6 of the Navy Design Manual, Chapter 5, NAVFAC DM 7.1; and engineering judgment) for the very stiff alluvium to be approximately 80 pounds per cubic inch (pounds per square inch per inch). We caution that the structural engineer should consider the dimensions of the loaded area and the various column and line loading/spacing in evaluating the modulus of subgrade reaction in accordance with the guidance presented in the Navy Design Manual, Section 9.6 of Foundation Analysis and Design (Bowles, 1996), or in accordance with some other suitable reference. If the finished floor of the basement will extend below a depth of 26 feet, the basement slab foundation should be designed to resist uplift pressures from buoyancy effects, assuming a water level at 26 feet below existing grade. Uplift pressures from buoyancy can be resisted by the weight of the structure, including the concrete mat foundation and retaining walls. If necessary, uplift pressures can be resisted by thickening the mat slab, or by using drilled piers or helical anchors. If drilled piers or helical anchors are considered, we should be contacted to provide appropriate design recommendations. New Building – 429-447 University Avenue, Palo Alto Geotechnical Investigation Page 11 Lateral loads may be resisted by friction between the mat and the supporting subgrade. A frictional resistance of 0.30 can be used. In addition to the above, lateral resistance may be provided by passive pressures acting against the lower two-thirds of the basement retaining walls using an equivalent fluid pressure of 350 pounds per cubic foot. The mat foundation should be reinforced with a grid of steel reinforcing bars. The project structural engineer should establish mat thickness and reinforcing based on anticipated loading and the design criteria presented in this report. Our representative should observe the basement excavation upon its completion and prior to placement of the recommended water proofing to evaluate the condition of the subgrade material and to make sure that the conditions are consistent with those anticipated from our subsurface exploration. It may be necessary to compact the subgrade material in the basement excavation, if loose or disturbed areas are created or encountered during construction. We recommend that a qualified waterproofing consultant be retained to provide appropriate recommendations and construction specifications. Murray Engineers, Inc. does not provide waterproofing design or consultation services. Based on our engineering judgment, thirty-year differential movement due to static loads is not expected to exceed approximately ¾-inch across any 20-foot span of the mat-supported improvements. BASEMENT RETAINING WALLS Basement retaining walls should be supported on foundations designed in accordance with the recommendations provided above. The general contractor shall be responsible for all shoring and bracing required to adequately stabilize the basement excavation for the safety of construction workers and protection of any adjacent structures or property lines. Waterproofing or damp-proofing of retaining walls should be included in areas where wall moisture would be undesirable, such as at living space or where wall finishes could be impacted by moisture. The project architect or a waterproofing consultant should provide detailed recommendations for waterproofing or damp proofing, as necessary. Basement mat slab waterproofing should be designed and constructed to be integral with the basement wall waterproofing. New Building – 429-447 University Avenue, Palo Alto Geotechnical Investigation Page 12 Retaining Wall Drainage Please note that the geotechnical standard of care for basement retaining walls is to incorporate a subsurface drainage system behind basement retaining walls (integral with the basement mat foundation drainage system) to mitigate buildup of water pressure from surface water infiltration and/or other possible sources of water. However, in accordance with requirements of the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department, we understand that basement retaining wall and sub-slab drainage systems will no longer be allowed for any new construction within the City of Palo Alto. In our opinion, this poses a significant concern in relation to the potential issues of water permeation through slab surfaces and into the interior basement portions of the structure, which, if it were to occur, could create maintenance issues in the subterranean parking area. Therefore, we recommend the basement and mat slab be appropriately waterproofed. The mat slab floor and the retaining wall waterproofing systems should be designed as an integral system. We recommend that a waterproofing consultant and/or experienced waterproofing contractor be retained to provide appropriate recommendations and construction specifications. Lateral Earth Pressures Because City guidelines prohibit the use of subsurface drainage, we recommend that basement retaining walls be designed for undrained lateral soil loading conditions acting over the entire height of the wall. All portions of unrestrained retaining walls should be designed to resist an equivalent fluid pressure of 85 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) plus one-third of any anticipated surcharge loads. Undrained walls restrained from movement at the top should be designed to resist an equivalent fluid pressure of 85 pcf plus a uniform pressure of 8H pounds per square foot (psf), where H is the height in feet of the retained soil. Restrained walls should also be designed to resist an additional uniform pressure equal to one-half of any surcharge loads applied at the surface. In accordance with the 2013 CBC, where applicable, new retaining walls, such as walls that are incorporated into the building foundation, should also be designed to resist lateral earth pressure from seismic loading. We suggest that the seismic loading be based on a uniform pressure of 10H pounds per square foot (psf)/foot of wall height, where H is the height in feet of the retained soil. We also note that the allowable passive pressures provided for retaining wall foundations may be increased by one-third for short-term seismic forces. Where backfill behind the wall will be sloping upward from the wall (if at all), we recommend that the equivalent fluid pressures given above be increased by 3 pcf for each 4- degree increase in slope inclination. New Building – 429-447 University Avenue, Palo Alto Geotechnical Investigation Page 13 Retaining Wall Backfill Backfill placed behind retaining walls should be compacted in accordance with the recommendations provided in the Compaction section of this report, using light compaction equipment. If heavy compaction equipment is used, the walls should be temporarily braced. Please refer also to the Earthwork section of this report for important recommendations regarding basement backfill. SLABS-ON-GRADE We anticipate concrete slabs-on-grade may be used for access driveway/ramp entries, patios and miscellaneous walkways. We recommend that exterior concrete slabs-on-grade be underlain by at least 8 inches of select granular fill, such as Class 2 aggregate baserock, compacted in accordance with the recommendations provided in the Compaction section of this report. Prior to placement of the select granular fill, the subgrade soils should be scarified and moisture conditioned, as necessary, to a depth of approximately 6 inches and recompacted in accordance with the Compaction section of this report. In general, exterior slabs-on-grade should be designed as “free-floating” slabs, structurally isolated from adjacent foundations. Slabs should be provided with control joints at spacing of not more than about 10 feet. The project structural engineer should determine slab reinforcing based on anticipated use and loading. In addition, any slab-on-grade sections planned adjacent to the basement walls should be designed to span the area underlain by the planned basement retaining wall backfill (approximately 10 feet) to mitigate the concerns for backfill settlement. Select granular fill should be compacted in accordance with the Compaction section of this report. Where slab surface moisture would be a significant concern we recommend that the slabs be underlain by a vapor retarder consisting of a highly durable membrane not less than 10 mils thick (such as Stego Wrap Vapor Barrier by Stego Industries, LLC or equivalent), underlain by a capillary break consisting of 4 inches of ½- to ¾-inch crushed rock. The capillary break may be considered the equivalent thickness as the upper 4 inches of select granular fill recommended above. Please also refer to the Vapor Retarder Considerations section below for additional information. Please note that these recommendations do not comprise a specification for “waterproofing.” For greater protection against concrete dampness, we recommend that a waterproofing consultant be retained. Vapor Retarder Considerations Based on our understanding, two opposing schools of thought currently prevail concerning protection of the vapor retarder during construction. Some believe that 2 inches of sand should be placed above the vapor retarder to protect it from damage during construction and also to provide a small reservoir of moisture (when slightly wetted just prior to concrete New Building – 429-447 University Avenue, Palo Alto Geotechnical Investigation Page 14 placement) to benefit the concrete curing process. Still others believe that protection of the vapor retarder and/or curing of concrete are not as critical design considerations when compared to the possibility of entrapment of moisture in the sand above the vapor retarder and below the slab. The presence of moisture in the sand could lead to post-construction absorption of the trapped moisture through the slab and result in mold or mildew forming at the upper surface of the slab. We understand that recent trends are to use a highly durable vapor retarder membrane (at least 10 mils thick) without the protective sand covering for interior slabs surfaced with floor coverings including, but not limited to, carpet, wood, or glued tiles and linoleum. However, it is also noted that several special considerations are required to reduce the potential for concrete edge curling if sand will not be used, including slightly higher placement of reinforcement steel and a water-cement ratio not exceeding 0.5 (Holland and Walker, 1998). We recommend that you consult with other members of your design team, such as your structural engineer, architect, and waterproofing consultant for further guidance on this matter. EARTHWORK A substantial amount of earthwork is anticipated as part of the proposed construction, including excavation of the below-ground parking levels, subgrade preparation beneath hardscape, placement and compaction of engineered fill beneath hardscape, possible backfill behind basement retaining walls, and backfill in utility trenches. Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the following recommendations. Clearing & Site Preparation All deleterious materials, topsoil, roots, vegetation, and designated utility lines, should be cleared from the areas to receive the planned improvements. Excavations that extend below finished grade should be backfilled with engineered fill placed and compacted as discussed below. Material for Fill On-site soils having an organic content of less than 3 percent organic material by volume (ASTM D 2974) may be suitable for use as engineered fill. In general, fill material should not contain rocks or pieces larger than 6 inches in greatest dimension, and should contain no more than 15 percent larger than 2.5 inches. Any required imported fill should be predominantly granular material or low plasticity material with a plasticity index of less than approximately 15 percent. Any proposed fill for import should be approved by Murray Engineers, Inc. prior to importing to the site. Our approval process may require index testing to establish the expansive potential of the soil; therefore, it is important that we receive samples of any proposed import material at least 3 days prior to planned importing. New Building – 429-447 University Avenue, Palo Alto Geotechnical Investigation Page 15 Class 2 aggregate baserock should meet the specifications outlined in the Caltrans Standard Specifications, latest edition. Compaction Prior to placing engineered fill, the subgrade soil should be scarified, moisture-conditioned, and compacted, as necessary. Material used for fill should be placed in uniform lifts, no more than 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. The fill material should be moisture conditioned, as necessary, and compacted in accordance with the specifications listed in Table 2 below. The relative compaction and moisture content specified in Table 2 are relative to ASTM D 1557, latest edition. Compacted lifts should be firm and non-yielding under the weight of compaction equipment prior to the placement of successive lifts. Table 2. Compaction Specifications Fill Element Relative Compaction* Moisture Content* General fill for raising of site grades, driveway, parking lots, and patio areas (for fills up to 4 feet thick) 90 percent Near optimum For fills greater than 4 feet thick 93 percent (entire fill) Near optimum Upper 6 inches of subgrade beneath slabs-on-grade 90 percent Near optimum Aggregate baserock under slabs-on-grade 95 percent Near optimum ½- to ¾-inch Crushed Rock - Compact with at least 3 passes of a vibratory plate with lift-thickness < 12 inches. see note at left Not critical Backfill of utility trenches using on-site soil 90 percent Near optimum Backfill of utility trenches using imported sand 90 percent Near Optimum *Relative to ASTM D 1557 (latest edition) Location & Backfill of Temporary Basement Access Ramp In planning the location for any temporary basement access ramp, the contractor should consider the future location of any at-grade hardscape. If possible, we recommend that the ramp excavation be kept approximately 5 feet away from proposed hardscape. If placement of the ramp within this zone is unavoidable, it is imperative that the backfilled soils be compacted in accordance with the specifications outlined in Table 2 of the Compaction section of this report. We should observe and test the compaction of the ramp backfill. In addition, we recommend that a note be included on the structural plans referencing these recommendations. New Building – 429-447 University Avenue, Palo Alto Geotechnical Investigation Page 16 Temporary Slopes & Trench Excavations The contractor should be responsible for all temporary slopes and trenches excavated at the site and design and construction of any required shoring. Shoring and bracing should be provided in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. Those excavations 4 feet high or lower may be cut vertical. Because of the potential for variable soil conditions, field modifications of temporary cut slopes may be required. Unstable materials encountered on the slopes during the excavation should be trimmed off even if this requires cutting the slope back at flatter inclinations. In addition, we recommend that the contractor provide thorough documentation of the condition of nearby buildings, streets, and utilities by video or other means prior to the commencement of the site basement excavation. We also suggest consideration be given to performing regular surveys during excavation and construction to monitor and document any observed settlement of nearby streets and structures. However, the above recommendations should be considered general in form. It should be noted that the general contractor shall be responsible for all shoring and bracing required to adequately stabilize the basement excavation for the safety of construction workers and protection of any adjacent structures or property lines. SURFACE DRAINAGE We recommend that the roof of the new building be sloped to area drains and/or provided with roof gutters; and provided with downspouts. Water collected in the area drainage, gutters and downspouts should not be allowed to discharge freely onto the ground surface adjacent to the building and should be prevented from ponding adjacent to the building. To mitigate ponding water, we recommend that all hardscape surfaces immediately adjacent to the building, if constructed, be provided with a positive gradient away from the structure. Where such surface gradients are difficult to achieve, we recommend that area drains and/or surface drainage swales be installed to direct surface water to a suitable discharge location away from the structure. We recommend that annual maintenance of the surface drainage systems be performed. This maintenance should include inspection and testing to make sure that roof gutters, downspouts, and area drains are in good working order and do not leak; flushing of the drainage systems to make sure that they are free of debris; and inspection of surface drainage outfall locations to verify that introduced water flows freely through the discharge pipes. New Building – 429-447 University Avenue, Palo Alto Geotechnical Investigation Page 17 REQUIRED FUTURE SERVICES Plan Review To better assure conformance of the final design documents with the recommendations contained in this report, and to better comply with the building department’s requirements, Murray Engineers, Inc. must review the completed project plans prior to construction. The plans should be made available for our review as soon as possible after completion so that we can better assist in keeping your project schedule on track. We recommend that the following note be added to the architectural, structural, and civil plans: The geotechnical aspects of the project, including site grading, basement and foundation excavations, retaining wall backfill, subgrade preparation beneath hardscape, placement and compaction of engineered fill, and installation of site drainage should be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report prepared by Murray Engineers, Inc., dated September 26, 2013. Murray Engineers, Inc. should be provided at least 48 hours advance notification (650-599-9980) of any geotechnical aspects of the construction and should be present to observe and test the earthwork, foundation, and drainage installation phases of the project. Construction Observation Services Murray Engineers, Inc. should observe and test (as necessary) the earthwork and foundation phases of construction in order to a) confirm that subsurface conditions exposed during construction are substantially the same as those interpolated from our limited subsurface exploration, on which the analysis and design were based; b) evaluate compliance with the geotechnical design concepts, specifications, and recommendations; and c) allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated. The recommendations in this report are based on limited subsurface information. The nature and extent of variation across the site may not become evident until construction. If variations are exposed during construction, it may be necessary to re-evaluate our recommendations. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for Kipling Post LP/Wharton Properties, LLC, specifically for developing geotechnical design criteria relating to design and construction of a new building and associated improvements at 429-447 University Avenue in Palo Alto, California. In the event that any changes in the nature or locations of the proposed improvements are planned, the conclusions and recommendations of this report shall not be considered valid unless such changes are reviewed, and the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are modified or verified in writing by this firm. New Building – 429-447 University Avenue, Palo Alto Geotechnical Investigation Page 18 The opinions presented in this report are based upon information obtained from exploratory borings at widely separated locations, site reconnaissance, and upon local experience and engineering judgment, and have been formulated in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices that exist in the San Francisco Bay Area at the time this report was prepared. Further, our recommendations are based on the assumption that soil and geologic conditions at or between the borings do not deviate substantially from those encountered. In addition, geotechnical issues may arise during the course of construction that were not apparent at the time this report was prepared. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made or should be inferred. In addition, we are not responsible for data presented by others. The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that we will be retained to provide the Future Services described above in order to evaluate compliance with our recommendations. If we are not retained for these services, Murray Engineers, Inc. cannot assume any responsibility for any potential claims that may arise during or after construction, as a result of misuse or misinterpretation of Murray Engineers, Inc.’s report by others. Furthermore, if another geotechnical consultant is retained for follow-up service to this report, Murray Engineers, Inc. will at that time cease to be the Engineer-of-Record. The opinions presented in this report are valid as of the present date for the property evaluated. Changes in the condition of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes or the works of man, on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable standards of practice can occur, whether from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the opinions presented in this report may be invalidated, wholly or partially, by changes outside of our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. In addition, this report should not be used and is not applicable for any property other than that evaluated. New Building – 429-447 University Avenue, Palo Alto Geotechnical Investigation Page 19 REFERENCES 2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2008, The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1437; California Geological Survey Special Report 203214; Southern California Earthquake Center Contribution #1138. Association of Bay Area Governments (2006), Earthquake and Hazards Program – Earthquake Liuefaction Susceptibility Web Site (retrieved September 24, 2013): http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/liquefactionsusceptibility/index.html ASTM International, 2012, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 2012, Section Four, Construction, Volume 04.08, Soil and Rock (I): D 420-D 5876: ASTM International, Baltimore, MD, 1809 p. Bowles, Joseph, E., 1996, Foundation Analysis and Design, Fifth Edition: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York, 1175 p. California Building Standards Commission, 2013, 2013 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2: California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA. California Geological Survey, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California: California Geological Survey, Special Publication 117A. California Geological Survey, 2006, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Palo Alto 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, San Mateo and Santa Clara County, California City of Palo Alto, 2006, Basement Exterior Drainage Policy, Department of Public Works. CivilTech Software, Copyright 2006, Liquefy Pro Version 5.3c Department of the Navy, Facilities Engineering Command, 1982, NAVFAC DM-7.1, Soil Mechanics, Design Manual 7.1: U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 348 p. Department of the Navy, Facilities Engineering Command, 1982, NAVFAC DM-7.2, Foundations and Earth Structures, Design Manual 7.2: U.S. Government Print Office, Washington, D.C., 244 p. Holland, J.A., and Walker, W., 1998, Controlling Curling and Cracking in Floors to Receive Coverings: The Aberdeen Group Leyendecker, E.V. Arthur Frankel, Kenneth Rukstales, Eric Martinez, Nicolas Luco, Jeremy Fee, Ned Field, Nitin Gupta, Vipin Gupta, 2011, Ground Motion Parameter Calculator, v. 5.1.0 - 2/10/2011 Pampeyan, E.H., 1993, Geologic Map of the Palo Alto and Part of the Redwood Point 7 1/2’ Quadrangles, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, California, U.S. Geological Survey Map I-2371 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, 2001, Geology Field Manual, Chapter 22, Second Edition, Volume 2. U.S.G.S. (2008), Earthquake Hazards Program – US Seismic Hazard 2008 Web Site: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/apps/map/ USGS Geologic Hazards Science Center - U.S. Seismic Design Maps webpage with seismic design value application (retrieved September 25, 2013): http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php. Youd, L.T., and Garris, C.T., 1995, Liquefaction-Induced Ground-Surface Disruption, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 11, pp. 805-809. Base: USGS Topographic Map Palo Alto Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series, 1997. Scale: 1 inch = 2,000 feet SEPTEMBER 2013 VICINITY MAP PROJECT NO. 1755-1R1 N FIGURE A-1 NEW MIXED-USE BUILDING 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVENUE PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA SITE feet meters 100 40 UN I V E R S I T Y A V E N U E KI P L I N G S T R E E T B-3 B-2B-2B-2 KEY NOTES (E) Footprint of 1-Story Residence (Hachured) (N) Footprint of Main Floor (Dashed) (N) Area of Second Floor (Shaded) B-1B-1B-1 NEW MIXED-USE BUILDING429-447 UNIVERSITY AVENUEPALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 1755-1R1 SEPTEMBER 2013 FIGURE A-2 SITE PLAN LEGEND Approximate Location of Boring by Murray Engineers, Inc., September 3, 2013 Base: Google Inc. Pro, 2013, Version 7.0.1.8244 (beta), Latitude 37.447731 and Longitude -122.160193 Approximate Scale: 1 inch = 30 feet B-1 N Approximate Area of Existing Building (Shaded) VICINITY GEOLOGIC MAP PROJECT NO. 1755-1R1 FIGURE A-3 NEW MIXED-USE BUILDING 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVENUE PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA Base: Geologic Map of the Palo Alto 7.5” Quadrangles, Santa Clara Counties, Earl H. Pampeyan, 1993 Scale: 1 inch = 2,000 feet SEPTEMBER 2013 N Artificial Fill Medium-grained Alluvium Older Alluvium Qf Fine-grained Alluvium Coarse-grained Alluvium Qoa Qaf Legend & Selected Map Symbols Qam SITE Qac Areas where historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local, geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for earthquake-induced liquefaction. Legend SITE Base: State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Map, Palo Alto Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series, 2006 Scale: 1 inch = 2,000 feet STATE SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES MAP N FIGURE A-4SEPTEMBER 2013 NEW MIXED-USE BUILDING 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVENUE PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 1755-1R1 P:\ A A B o r i n G S F i l e s \ P r o j e c t s \ W o n g - 1 7 5 5 - 1 . b g s [ M u r r a y N e w 4 5 - W C , T V , P P , D D C o r r e c t . t p l ] FIGURE B-1 LOG OF SEPTEMBER 2013 Date(s) Drilled September 3, 2013 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig Type Truck Mounted Groundwater Level and Date Measured 33.5 ft ATD, 32 ft after 30 minutes Borehole Backfill Grout Logged By KP Drill Bit Size/Type 8" OD HSA Drilling Contractor Exploration Geoservices Inc. Sampling Method(s) 3" OD, 2.5" OD, & 2" OD SPT Split Spoon Samplers Location Northeast corner of back parking lot Checked By JK/WPC Total Depth of Borehole 45 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation 50 feet above MSL Hammer Data 140 lb, 30 in drop, wireline NEW MIXED-USE BUILDING 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVENUE PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 1755-1R1 BORING B-1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 El e v a t i o n , f e e t 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 De p t h , f e e t Sa m p l e T y p e Sa m p l i n g Re s i s t a n c e , bl o w s / f o o t Re l a t i v e Co n s i s t e n c y US C S S y m b o l MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Wa t e r C o n t e n t , %To r v a n e S h e a r St r e n g t h ( T S F ) Po c k e t P e n Co m p . S t r e n g t h (T S F ) Dr y D e n s i t y (P C F ) Very Stiff to Hard CL SANDY CLAY, dark yellowish brown, homogeneous, medium plasticity fines, fine sand, minor fine to medium subrounded gravels, slightly moist (Alluvium) color change to yellowish brown @ 2.5' Very Dense SP GRAVELLY SAND, yellowish brown, homogeneous, fine sand, fine to coarse subrounded gravel, slightly moist (Alluvium) Very Stiff CL SILTY CLAY, yellowish brown, homogeneous, medium plasticity, minor fine to very fine sand, slight iron oxide staining, moist to very moist (Alluvium) Phi=25 degrees; c=1,670 psf (CU direct shear test 24.5' - 25' bgs) very moist, moderate iron oxide staining @ 28.5' Dense SC CLAYEY SAND, yellowish brown, homogeneous, fine to coarse sand, medium plasticity fines, minor fine to medium subrounded gravels, very moist to wet (Alluvium) Very Dense SM SILTY SAND, yellowish brown, poorly graded sand, homogeneous, low plasticity fines, minor fine to medium subrounded gravel, very moist to wet (Alluvium) Bottom of Boring at 45 feet bgs 10 7 6 5 16 17 113 22 104 23 103 19 14 17 27 58 20 52 46 0.5 1.3 28 0.5 1.5 73 Hard 0.6 2.0 16 Stiff to Very Stiff 0.3 1.0 40 51 45 (ATD) (after 30 minutes) P:\ A A B o r i n G S F i l e s \ P r o j e c t s \ W o n g - 1 7 5 5 - 1 . b g s [ M u r r a y N e w 4 5 - W C , T V , P P , D D C o r r e c t . t p l ] FIGURE B-2 LOG OF SEPTEMBER 2013 Date(s) Drilled September 3, 2013 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig Type Truck Mounted Groundwater Level and Date Measured 35 ft ATD; 31.5 ft after 30 minutes Borehole Backfill Grout Logged By KP Drill Bit Size/Type 8" OD HSA Drilling Contractor Exploration Geoservices Inc. Sampling Method(s) 3" OD, 2.5" OD, & 2" OD SPT Split Spoon Samplers Location Southeast corner of back parking lot Checked By JK/WPC Total Depth of Borehole 45 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation 50 feet above MSL Hammer Data 140 lb, 30 in drop, wireline NEW MIXED-USE BUILDING 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVENUE PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 1755-1R1 BORING B-2 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 El e v a t i o n , f e e t 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 De p t h , f e e t Sa m p l e T y p e Sa m p l i n g Re s i s t a n c e , bl o w s / f o o t Re l a t i v e Co n s i s t e n c y US C S S y m b o l MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Wa t e r C o n t e n t , %To r v a n e S h e a r St r e n g t h ( T S F ) Po c k e t P e n Co m p . S t r e n g t h (T S F ) Dr y D e n s i t y (P C F ) Hard to Very Stiff CL SANDY CLAY, dark yellowish brown to yellowish brown, homogeneous, medium plasticity fines, fine sand, minor fine to medium subrounded to subangular gravels, slightly moist (Alluvium) Medium Dense SM SILTY SAND, dark yellowish brown, homogeneous, fine to medium sand, medium plasticity fines, minor fine to medium subrounded gravel, slightly moist (Alluvium)Hard CL SILTY CLAY, yellowish brown, homogeneous, medium plasticity, trace to minor fine sand, slight to moderate iron oxide staining, moist to very moist(Alluvium) Phi=20 degrees; c=1,500 psf (CU direct shear test 11' - 11.5' bgs) Very Dense SM SILTY SAND, yellowish brown, poorly graded, homogeneous, low plasticity fines, trace fine subrounded gravels, very moist to wet (Alluvium) Bottom of Boring at 45 feet bgs 33 28 0.9 2.5 20 28 73 0.6 2.3 25 0.3 1.0 16 0.5 2.5 45 0.6 2.8 17 Very Stiff 0.3 1.0 56 50/5" 35 Dense 11 107 11 126 9 5 23 101 Very Stiff 20 118 19 Hard 24 101 22 102 16 17 16 (ATD) (after 30 minutes) P:\ A A B o r i n G S F i l e s \ P r o j e c t s \ W o n g - 1 7 5 5 - 1 . b g s [ M u r r a y N e w 4 5 - W C , T V , P P , D D C o r r e c t . t p l ] FIGURE B-3 KEY TO BORING LOGS SEPTEMBER 2013 NEW MIXED-USE BUILDING 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVENUE PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 1755-1R1 COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS 1 Elevation, feet: Elevation (MSL, feet) 2 Depth, feet: Depth in feet below the ground surface. 3 Sample Type: Type of soil sample collected at the depth interval shown. 4 Sampling Resistance, blows/foot: Number of blows to advance driven sampler per foot (or distance shown) beyond seating interval. Blow counts for coarse-grained soils have been standardized to Standard Penetration Test (SPT) counts by factors of 0.8 and 0.7 for the 2.5-inch OD and 3.0-inch OD samplers, respectively. These factors were derived using the Geology Field Manual (2001), published by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 5 Relative Consistency: Relative consistency of the subsurface material. 6 USCS Symbol: USCS symbol of the subsurface material. 7 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION: Description of material encountered. May include consistency, moisture, color, and other descriptive text. 8 Water Content, %: Water content of the soil sample, expressed as percentage of dry weight of sample. 9 Torvane Shear Strength (TSF): Approximate shear strength in tons per square foot. 10 Pocket Pen Comp. Strength (TSF): Approximate unconfined compressive strength in tons per square foot. 11 Dry Density (PCF): Dry weight per unit volume of soil sample measured in laboratory in pounds per cubic foot. FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST ABBREVIATIONS CHEM: Chemical tests to assess corrosivity COMP: Compaction test CONS: One-dimensional consolidation test LL: Liquid Limit, percent PI: Plasticity Index, percent SA: Sieve analysis (percent passing No. 200 Sieve) UC: Unconfined compressive strength test, Qu, in ksfWA: Wash sieve (percent passing No. 200 Sieve) TYPICAL MATERIAL GRAPHIC SYMBOLS Sandstone Well graded GRAVEL (GW) Poorly graded GRAVEL (GP) Well graded GRAVEL with Silt (GW-GM) Well graded GRAVEL with Clay (GW-GC) Poorly graded GRAVEL with Silt (GP-GM) Poorly graded GRAVEL with Clay (GP-GC) Silty GRAVEL (GM) Clayey GRAVEL (GC) Well graded SAND (SW) Poorly graded SAND (SP) Well graded SAND with Silt (SW-SM) Well graded SAND with Clay (SW-SC) Poorly graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) Poorly graded SAND with Clay (SP-SC) Silty SAND (SM) Clayey SAND (SC) SILT, SILT w/SAND, SANDY SILT (ML) Lean CLAY, CLAY w/SAND, SANDY CLAY (CL) SILT, SILT w/SAND, SANDY SILT (MH) Fat CLAY, CLAY w/SAND, SANDY CLAY (CH) SILT, SILT with SAND, SANDY SILT (ML-MH) Lean-Fat CLAY, CLAY w/SAND, SANDY CLAY (CL-CH) SILTY CLAY (CL-ML) Lean CLAY/PEAT (CL-OL) Fat CLAY/SILT (CH-MH) Fat CLAY/PEAT (CH-OH) Silty SAND to Sandy SILT (SM-ML) Silty SAND to Sandy SILT (SM-MH) Clayey SAND to Sandy CLAY (SC-CL) Clayey SAND to Sandy CLAY (SC-CH) SILT to CLAY (CL/ML) Silty to Clayey SAND (SC/SM) TYPICAL SAMPLER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS 2 inch-OD Unlined Split Spoon (SPT) 2.5 inch-OD Unlined Split Spoon 3 inch-OD Unlined Split Spoon Shelby Tube (thin-walled, fixed head) Grab Sample Bulk Sample Pitcher Sample Other Sampler OTHER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS Water level (at time of drilling, ATD) Water level (after waiting a given time) Minor change in material properties within a stratum Inferred or gradational contact between strata ?Queried contact between strata GENERAL NOTES 1. Soil classifications are based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive, and actual lithologic changes may be gradual. Field descriptions may have been modified to reflect results of lab tests. 2. Descriptions on these logs apply only at the specific boring locations and at the time the borings were advanced. They are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. El e v a t i o n , f e e t 1 De p t h , f e e t 2 Sa m p l e T y p e 3 Sa m p l i n g Re s i s t a n c e , bl o w s / f o o t 4 Re l a t i v e Co n s i s t e n c y 5 US C S S y m b o l 6 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 7 Wa t e r C o n t e n t , % 8 To r v a n e S h e a r St r e n g t h ( T S F ) 9 Po c k e t P e n Co m p . S t r e n g t h (T S F ) 10 Dr y D e n s i t y (P C F ) 11 NEW MIXED-USE BUILDING 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVENUE PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA COARSE COARSE STIFF MEDIUM STIFF UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM PROJECT NO. 1755-1R1 FIGURE B-4 COARSE * ^ Classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System; fines refer to soil passing a No. 200 sieve. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance, using a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 inch OD split spoon sampler;Blow counts for coarse-grained soils have been standardized to SPT counts by factors of 0.8 and 0.7 for the 2.5-inch OD and3.0-inch OD samplers, respectively. Shear strength in tons/sq. ft. as estimated by SPT resistance, field and laboratory tests, and/or visual observation. SEPTEMBER 2013 APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTS Samples from the subsurface exploration were selected for tests to establish the physical and engineering properties of the soils. The tests performed are briefly described below. The natural moisture content and dry density was determined on most samples recovered from the soil probe. The samples were initially weighed and subsequently dried in accordance with ASTM D2216. After drying, the weight of each sample was obtained to determine the moisture content representative of field conditions and time the samples were collected. The results are presented on the soil probe log, at the appropriate sample depths. Direct shear strength testing was performed by Cooper Testing Laboratory on a two samples in accordance with ASTM D3080m. This test measures the angle of internal friction (phi) and cohesion (c) of the soil. The results of this test are presented in Figures C-1 and C-2 and on the boring logs, at the appropriate sample depths. DM:yB:# tcejorP:# boJ LTC JP:dekcehC:etaD:tneilC Project Name:Remolding Info: Phi (deg) 24.7 Ult. Phi (deg) 1 2 3 4 Boring: B-1 B-1 B-1 Sample: Depth (ft): 24.5-25 24.5-25 24.5-25 Normal Load (psf)1100 2200 4400 Dry Mass of Specimen (g)133.4 134.9 136.3 Initial Height (in) 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Diameter (in)2.42 2.42 2.42 Initial Void Ratio 0.552 0.532 0.523 Initial Moisture (%)18.7 18.3 18.2 Initial Wet Density (pcf)128.9 130.2 130.8 Initial Dry Density (pcf)108.6 110.1 110.6 Initial Saturation (%)91.5 92.8 94.1 Height Consol (in)0.0132 0.0174 0.0175 At Test Void Ratio 0.532 0.505 0.497 At Test Moisture (%)19.0 18.6 18.3 At Test Wet Density (pcf)131.0 132.9 133.3 At Test Dry Density (pcf)110.1 112.1 112.7 At Test Saturation (%)96.4 99.6 99.4 Strain Rate (%/min)1.1 1.0 1.1 Strengths Picked at Peak Peak Peak Shear Stress (psf)2173 2658 3585 Height (in) at Peak Ultimate Stress (psf) © 1755-1 9/19/2013 *DS-CU* A fully undrained condition may not be attained in this test.H is not measured during undrained direct shear tests. Olive Brown Sandy CLAYVisual Description: Olive Brown Sandy CLAY Olive Brown Sandy CLAY Remarks: 1670 Specimen Data )fsp( noisehoC .tlU)fsp( noisehoC Consolidated Undrained Direct Shear (ASTM D3080M) Murray Engineers Wong 560-122 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( p s f ) Deformation (%) Shear Stress vs. Deformation Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 00080006000400020 Sh e a r S t r e s s , p s f Normal Load, psf Shear Stress vs. Normal Load Peak Shear Stress Ult. Stress Ultimate 0.0000 0.2000 0.4000 0.6000 0.8000 1.0000 1.2000 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 De l t a h ( i n ) Deformation (%)Change in Height Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 SEPTEMBER 2013 DIRECT SHEAR TESTCHART FOR BORING B-124.5-25 FEET BGS PROJECT NO. 1755-1R1 FIGURE C-1 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVENUEPALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA NEW MIXED-USE BUILDING DM:yB:# tcejorP:# boJ LTC JP:dekcehC:etaD:tneilC Project Name:Remolding Info: Phi (deg) 20.3 Ult. Phi (deg)24.7 1 2 3 4 Boring: B-2 B-2 B-2 Sample: Depth (ft): 11-11.5 11-11.5 11-11.5 Normal Load (psf)1000 2000 4000 Dry Mass of Specimen (g)126.4 121.7 125.6 Initial Height (in) 1.03 1.02 1.03 Initial Diameter (in)2.42 2.40 2.42 Initial Void Ratio 0.681 0.708 0.700 Initial Moisture (%)22.4 20.9 23.0 Initial Wet Density (pcf)125.0 121.5 124.2 Initial Dry Density (pcf)102.1 100.5 101.0 Initial Saturation (%)90.4 81.3 90.2 Height Consol (in)-0.0029 0.0144 0.0222 At Test Void Ratio 0.686 0.684 0.664 At Test Moisture (%)24.2 23.7 23.9 At Test Wet Density (pcf)126.6 126.1 128.0 At Test Dry Density (pcf)101.9 102.0 103.3 At Test Saturation (%)97.1 95.0 99.1 Strain Rate (%/min)1.1 1.1 1.1 Strengths Picked at 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% Shear Stress (psf)1888 2270 2987 Height (in) at 2.5% Ultimate Stress (psf)1089 1853 2386 © 1755-1 9/19/2013 *DS-CU* A fully undrained condition may not be attained in this test.H is not measured during undrained direct shear tests. Olive Sandy CLAYVisual Description: Olive Sandy CLAY Olive Sandy CLAY Remarks: 0070051 Specimen Data )fsp( noisehoC .tlU)fsp( noisehoC Consolidated Undrained Direct Shear (ASTM D3080M) Murray Engineers Wong 560-122 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( p s f ) Deformation (%) Shear Stress vs. Deformation Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 0 2000 4000 6000 0 2000 4000 6000 Sh e a r S t r e s s , p s f Normal Load, psf Shear Stress vs. Normal Load Peak Stress Ult. Stress 0.0000 0.2000 0.4000 0.6000 0.8000 1.0000 1.2000 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 De l t a h ( i n ) Deformation (%)Change in Height Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 SEPTEMBER 2013 DIRECT SHEAR TESTCHART FOR BORING B-211-11.5 FEET BGS PROJECT NO. 1755-1R1 FIGURE C-2 NEW MIXED-USE BUILDING429-447 UNIVERSITY AVENUEPALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF LIQUEFACTION SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS LIQUEFACTION HAZARD ANALYSIS B-1 FIGURE D-1SEPTEMBER 2013 NEW MIXED-USE BUILDING 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVENUEPALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 1755-1R1 LIQUEFACTION HAZARD ANALYSIS B-2 FIGURE D-2SEPTEMBER 2013 NEW MIXED-USE BUILDING 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVENUEPALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 1755-1R1 Attachment H 429 University Avenue CEQA 3 Appendices F-I (Hard copies have been provided to City Council) http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49911 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 429 University Avenue Project Page 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program January 2015 INTRODUCTION Section 15097 of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that, whenever a public agency approves a project based on a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the public agency shall establish a mitigation monitoring or reporting program to ensure that all adopted mitigation measures are implemented. This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is intended to satisfy this requirement of the CEQA Guidelines as it relates to the 429 University Avenue project. This MMP would be used by City staff and mitigation monitoring personnel to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. Mitigation measures identified in this MMP were developed in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project. As noted above, the intent of the MMP is to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of all adopted mitigation measures. The MMP will provide for monitoring of construction activities, as necessary, and in the field identification and resolution of environmental concerns. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The City of Palo Alto will coordinate monitoring activities and ensure appropriate documentation of mitigation measure implementation. The table below identifies each mitigation measure for the 429 University Avenue Project and the associated implementation, monitoring, timing and performance requirements. The MMP table presented on the following pages identifies: 1. the full text of each applicable mitigation measure; 2. the party or parties responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure; 3. the timing of implementation of each mitigation measure including any ongoing monitoring requirements; and 4. performance criteria by which to ensure mitigation requirements have been met. Following completion of the monitoring and documentation process, the final monitoring results will recorded and incorporated into the project file maintained by the City’s Department of Planning and Community Environment. It is noted that the mitigation measure numbering reflects the numbering used in the Initial Study prepared for the 429 University Avenue Project (Dudek 2014). 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 429 University Avenue Project Page 2 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program January 2015 No mitigation measures are required for the following resources:  Aesthetics  Agricultural Resources  Air Quality  Geology, Soils, and Seismicity  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hydrology and Water Quality  Land Use and Planning  Mineral Resources  Population and Housing  Public Services  Recreation  Utilities and Service Systems Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The following measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to protected trees: • City of Palo Alto (City)-approved Modified Type III fencing shall be installed for the two street trees to be retained along University Avenue. City-approved tree protection signs shall be posted on all fencing. • Soil conditions for the four new trees to be planted along Kipling Street shall be improved by preparing a planting area at least 6 feet square for each tree and installing Silva Cells to reduce compaction. The Silva Cells shall be filled with proper soil amendments and growing medium as determined by the City Arborist. • Unless otherwise approved, each new tree shall be provided with 1,200 cubic feet of rootable soil area, utilizing Standard Drawing #604/513. Rootable soil is defined as compaction less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas. • Two bubbler drip irrigation units shall be installed for each new tree to adequately water the new planting area. • New sidewalk shall be installed such that the final planting space opening is at least 5 feet by 5 feet for each new tree. Applicant City of Palo Alto Urban Forestry Group/Planning Division Arborist  Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and building permits  During demolition, excavation, and construction  Approved site plans reflect applicable conditions  Field inspections conducted to verify adherence to conditions 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 429 University Avenue Project Page 3 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program January 2015 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria • Kiva tree grates shall be used around each new tree. • Replacement tree size shall be a 36-inch box, properly structured nursery stock. • Based on growth habit and proven performance, Ginkgo biloba “Autumn Gold” is highly recommended for the replacement trees. Other tree species may be approved by the City Arborist. • All work within the Tree Protection Zone, including canopy pruning of protected trees, shall be supervised by a Certified Arborist approved by the City. CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Prior to commencement of site clearing and project grading, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to train construction personnel regarding how to recognize cultural resources (such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains) that could be encountered during construction activities. If artifacts or unusual amounts of shell or bone or other items indicative of buried archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during earth disturbance associated with the proposed project, the on-site contractor shall immediately notify the City of Palo Alto (City) and the Native American Heritage Commission as appropriate. All soil-disturbing work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and the City, completes a significance evaluation of the finds pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Any human remains unearthed shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, and California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99, which include requirements to Applicant City of Palo Alto Prior to and during earth disturbance  Training materials provided to construction contractors  Field inspections conducted to verify compliance 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 429 University Avenue Project Page 4 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program January 2015 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria notify the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office and consult with Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants, as appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on State Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523 (archaeological sites). Mitigation measures prescribed by the Native American Heritage Commission, the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office, and any Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants and required by the City shall be undertaken before construction activities are resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in the City’s Cultural Resources Management Program and in compliance with Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to building demolition, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto that a survey of the existing buildings has been conducted by a qualified environmental specialist who meets the requirements of the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations for suspected lead-containing materials (LCMs), including lead-based paint/coatings; asbestos containing materials (ACMs); and the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Any demolition activities likely to disturb LCMs or ACMs shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead- or asbestos- related construction work. If found, LCMs and ACMs shall be disposed of in accordance with state and federal regulations, including the EPA’s Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the Cal-OSHA Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1), and California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of demolition permit and during demolition Building survey report submitted LCMs and ACMs handled by qualified contractor and disposed of in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the California Occupational Health and Safety’s 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 429 University Avenue Project Page 5 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program January 2015 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria requirements for disposal of hazardous waste. If PCBs are found, these materials shall be managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act of 1991 (California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160–42185) and other state and federal guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards Act, particularly Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling, for the removal of mercury switches, PCB-containing ballasts, and refrigerants. Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1), and California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA requirements for disposal of hazardous waste. PCBs, mercury and other hazardous building materials handled by qualified contractor and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations as identified. NOISE Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Residential Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies with Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating up to 45 and upgraded exterior walls shall be used in the residential portion of the proposed building to achieve the City’s maximum instantaneous noise guideline for residential uses. The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met through review of building plans as a condition of project approval. Commercial Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies for the commercial portions of the building shall have a minimum STC rating of 32 at the corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street, and a minimum STC of 28 at all other commercial Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include window sound transmission ratings and interior noise levels verification from a qualified acoustical consultant. 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 429 University Avenue Project Page 6 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program January 2015 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria locations within the proposed building to comply with the State of California CalGreen noise standards (maximum interior noise level of 50 dB during the peak hour of traffic). The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met through review of building plans as a condition of project approval. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The residential portion of the proposed building shall have a ventilation or air-conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment when windows are closed. Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include details of the residential ventilation system. Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Noise levels from rooftop equipment shall be reduced to meet the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance requirements. An enclosure or other sound-attenuation measures at the exhaust fans shall be provided to reduce rooftop equipment noise is no greater than 8 dB above the existing ambient level at potential future neighboring buildings to meet the property plane noise limit. Use of quieter equipment than assumed in this analysis may support reduced mitigation, which shall be evaluated by a qualified acoustical consultant. Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include garage exhaust fan manufacturer’s information regarding equipment noise levels and noise attenuation details TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: Mirrors shall be installed at the parking garage driveway to allow drivers to see when a pedestrian or vehicle is approaching in Lane 30. Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include parking garage mirrors Mitigation Measure-TRANS-2: Mirrors shall be installed at each turn within the parking garage to provide adequate sight distance. Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include parking garage mirrors 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 429 University Avenue Project Page 7 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program January 2015 Corporate Headquarters 1500 North Mantua Street P.O. Box 5193 Kent, OH 44240-5193 330-673-5685 Toll Free 1-800-828-8312 Fax: 330-673-0860 Western Region Office 6005 Capistrano Suite A Atascadero, CA 93422 805-461-7500 Fax: 805-461-8501 Direct 805-286-0181 Michael.bova@davey.com 6HSWHPEHU201 Elizabeth Wong Kipling Post LLC PO Box 204 Palo Alto, CA 94302 RE: Landscape Plan for the 429 University Avenue Dear Ms. Wong: Thank you for contracting with Davey Resource Group regarding the above Landscape project. Davey Resource Group (DRG) is pleased to provide you with the attached Landscape assessment for the site development at 429 University Avenue. A DRG California licensed Landscape Architect conducted a review of the design concept for the above address in Palo Alto, California. The design was assessed for aesthetics, style, plant growth habit, and irrigation needs. This report will cover the following: (5) Alley Planters (15) Planters on the Third Floor The Street trees are not included in this review as they were covered on the Arborist report. Please feel free to contact me at 281.850.6688 or daniel.howse@davey.com if you would like more information or have any questions. Sincerely, Daniel A. Howse, Davey Resource Gro California Landscape Architect 6010 Attachment I Landscape Plan Review 429 University Avenue Palo Alto, CA Prepared for Elizabeth Wong Kipling Post LLC PO Box 204 Palo Alto, CA 94302 September 2016 Prepared by Davey Resource Group A Division of The Davey Tree Expert Company 1500 North Mantua Street Kent, OH 44240 Contact: Daniel A. Howse Western Region Office 6005 Capistrano Suite A Atascadero, CA 93422 Phone: (281) 850-6688 Toll-Free: (800) 966-2021 E-mail: daniel.howse@davey.com www.daveyresourcegroup.com Notice of Disclaimer Inventory data provided by Davey Resource Group is based on visual recording at the time of inspection. Visual records do not include testing or analysis and do not include aerial or subterranean inspection. Davey Resource group is not responsible for discovery or identification of hidden or otherwise non- observable risks. Records may not remain accurate after inspection due to variable deterioration of inventoried material or site development. Davey Resource Group provides no warranty with respect to the fitness of the inspected trees or future performance for any use or purpose whatsoever. 429 University Avenue Palo Alto, CA 3 Summary In 6HSWHPEHU, Davey Resource Group (DRG), a division of The Davey Tree Expert Company, was contracted by Elizabeth Wong to provide a Conceptual Landscape Design for the property at 429 University Avenue in Palo Alto, California. Due to the constraints of the site it was determined that potted planters, were best suited for this project. Two planting locations were chosen for the containers. The first location is to have pre-fabricated planter boxes in the alley along Lane 30. The second location is on the 3 rd floor terrace, where pre-fabricated pots will again be used. Introduction Background Elizabeth Wong contracted with Davey Resource Group to help with the Landscape Concept at 429 University Avenue. Ms. Wong requested that Davey Resource Group provide a Landscape report for the two identified planting locations on the property. DRG also has provided recommended plant species for the Potted Plants.  Conceptual Design  Alley Plantings Five (5) planters will be used in this location. All Planters are to be sealed, self-irrigating containers, utilizing drip irrigation. Proposed containers to be supplied by Atelier Verikant model # BR80, or approved similar, see (figure 2) and Appendix 1. The planters will be equally spaced along the along the property line. See enlarged Site Plan on Architectural Sheet A1.1 for layout. Irrigation and drainage lines will be designed into each of the containers. Proposed plantings will be (2) 5 gallon Equisetum hyemale (Figure 3) or Horsetail spaced equally across the planter. The containers will require regular watering throughout the year. The Planting medium will be a standard potting soil, with gravel drainage layer at the bottom. 429 University Avenue Palo Alto, CA 4 Figure 2 BR Style Pot Figure 3 Equisetum hyemale in a raised container 7KLUGFloor 7HUUDFH Plantings: Fifteen (15) planters will be used in this location. All Planters are to be sealed, self-irrigating containers, utilizing drip irrigation. Proposed containers to be supplied by Atelier Verikant model # MH80, or approved similar (figure 4) and Appendix 2, and will be equally spaced along University Ave and Kipling Street. See Architectural Sheet A2.6 for layout and locations. Irrigation and drainage lines will be designed into each of the containers. 429 University Avenue Palo Alto, CA 5 Proposed plantings will be (1) 5 gallon Buxus microphylla ‘japonica’ or Boxwood (figure 5) per planter. The containers will require moderate watering throughout the year. The Planting medium will be a standard potting soil, with gravel drainage layer at the bottom. Figure 4 MH Style Pot Figure 5 Buxus sempervirons Conclusion All plant material shown is subject to change as the design progresses. Plant material in the decorative pots may also be substituted or replaced at various times during the growing season. The decorative pots may also be subject to change based on availability at the time of completion of the project. All efforts will be made to use the types and models shown. Efficient use of irrigation and proper drainage will also be a key component of the design process. 429 University Avenue Palo Alto, CA 6 Appendix 1 jt ARCHITECTURE+DESIGN  1366 MISSION ST, STUDIO 2  SF 94103  PHONE/FAX: 415.934.1955/1958  E-MAIL: JTROTTER@JTAD.NET C:\Users\James\Dropbox\429 University\429 University (Shadow Study)\Rev092215\1506-02m(ShadowStudy-429Univ).docx 1 Last printed 9/24/2015 12:58:00 PM S H A D O W S T U D Y : 4 2 9 U n i v e r s i t y A v e , P a l o A l t o , C A Updated September 23, 2015 (see the additional italicized comments after the summary) Ms. Hillary Gitelman Director of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 The purpose of this shadow study is to take the data of the proposed building and the surrounding existing physical conditions and provide comparison of the projected changes in shadow lines throughout the course of the year with the existing shadow lines produced by the current conditions. As has been well documented, the proposed mixed-use building at 429 University was originally approved (revision 5) but is now being reevaluated with this latest set of revisions (recorded as revision 6) being used for this shadow study. We have decided not to show the previous versions of the proposed building because the shadow lines produced were found to be virtually the same. The SketchUp model being used includes the proposed building in the immediate neighborhood, fronting University at the corner of University and Kipling. The alleyway at the rear of the property connects the streets Waverley and Kipling while also providing an open space buffer between the commercial properties facing University and the properties facing Waverley and Kipling. The proposed building is also setback 4 feet from the property line at the alley. While the existing buildings at 429 University have trees lining both University and Kipling, the proposed building will be replacing the existing trees on Kipling Street with new trees as shown in the model. The following summary of findings refers to the attached data taken from using the models for the proposed building and the current conditions. The data shows the shadow profiles for all four critical dates of the year, Mar 21st, June 21s, Sept. 21st & Dec 21st. Both the spring (Mar. 21st) and fall (Sept. 21st) equinoxes are included separately even though they essentially show the same results. We have also created a separate set of shadow profiles that show the shadows exclusively for the project site and the current conditions with existing trees. In this way, both the overall shadow lines and the shadows produced by the site exclusively can be properly evaluated. Please note the shadows for this study are the dark monotone gray overlay in the images and the background image of the neighborhood has shadows which are faded and not part of the study. We have not added anymore dates than the four listed because the winter solstice on Dec. 21st is understood to produce the longest shadows of the year while the longest day of the year on the summer solstice, June 21st, has some of the shortest shadows. The shadow profiles are shown in the attached document. Here are our conclusions based on our findings: 1. The shadows at spring/fall and summer are smaller relative to the winter solstice and cause no significant impact. 2. As with any shadow study, the winter solstice cast the longest shadows. However, these shadows are long even for the existing building. The incremental shadows at winter solstice are not significant when comparing the existing building to the proposed building. Also note that with the existing trees on Kipling, the combined shadow with the existing building covers a similar range to the proposed building over Kipling in the afternoon hours. 3. The shadows are cast mostly on the alley, parking stalls at the alley, buildings abutting the alley, streets and rooftops. All these areas are mostly utility areas as opposed to gardens or residential rooms. Furthermore, the buildings at the alley have their main ingress/egress at Waverley and Kipling streets and most do not have windows to the alley. jt ARCHITECTURE+DESIGN  1366 MISSION ST, STUDIO 2  SF 94103  PHONE/FAX: 415.934.1955/1958  E-MAIL: JTROTTER@JTAD.NET C:\Users\James\Dropbox\429 University\429 University (Shadow Study)\Rev092215\1506-02m(ShadowStudy-429Univ).docx 2 Last printed 9/24/2015 12:58:00 PM S H A D O W S T U D Y : 4 2 9 U n i v e r s i t y A v e , P a l o A l t o , C A 4. In none of the scenarios do the shadows have significant impact on the residential-type buildings on both the east and west sides of Kipling Street. The greatest impact is on the winter solstice which is also the shortest day of the year. Also, note that on the winter solstice and on the equinox dates, there is an equal or greater impact on the residential-type buildings by the neighboring properties opposite Kipling and facing University as well as the existing trees lining Kipling that remain. 5. The worst case shadow day, the day on which the net new shadow is longest is estimated to be between on Dec. 21st & Dec. 28th and therefore, the winter solstice can be noted as the worst case shadow day. The net shadow is bigger for the proposed building than it is for the existing building but all the extended shadows are cast over the neighboring commercial properties to the rear of 429 University and across Kipling to the front yards of the residential-type buildings. The existing building’s shadows along with the existing trees lining the existing building cast a shadow over the same walkable areas adjacent to the property. Therefore, the impact of the net shadow is minimal because the extended shadows do not adversely affect the walkable adjacent areas any more than the existing building on the worst case shadow day. 6. Although this is mentioned earlier, it is worth noting separately that the existing building is surrounded by large trees that themselves cast shadows on the alley, parking stalls at the alley, buildings abutting the alley, streets, and rooftops. With the new trees proposed, these shadows will not be as significant nor have an adverse net effect on the neighboring properties. In summary, the architectural drawings & analysis using the SketchUp models of the proposed and existing buildings indicate that the proposed building's shadows do not have a significant shadow impact to the immediate vicinity of the subject site relative to the shadow impact of the current conditions. REVISION COMMENTS (09-23-15): The shadow study was updated with the actual shadows at ground level darkened to monochrome black. The earlier picture appeared a little confusing because the shadows from the base map used in the pictures blended with the study shadows when the pictures were printed in black and white. (If printed in color, the shadows in the base map image would not be blended with the study shadows.) The faded shadows in the base map could not be removed without compromising the base map image so the study shadows were darkened and sharpened to avoid confusion with the base map image that is still needed to identify the existing street conditions. There are no other changes. This shadow study remains the same and its conclusions have not changed. If you have any further questions regarding this shadow study analysis, please contact my office at 415-934-1955 and we will gladly clarify and answer additional questions. Sincerely, Jim Trotter, AIA, NCARB jt Architecture+Design Principal/Owner CA Lic. #C26179 9 AM 12 N 3 PM March 21 Spring Equinox EXISTING BUILDINGS 9 AM 12 N 3 PM March 21 Spring Equinox PROPOSED BUILDING 9 AM 12 N 3 PM March 21 Spring Equinox EXISTING BUILDINGS (Site Only) 9 AM 12 N 3 PM March 21 Spring Equinox PROPOSED BUILDING (Site Only) 9 AM 12 N 3 PM June 21 Summer Solstice EXISTING BUILDINGS 9 AM 12 N 3 PM June 21 Summer Solstice PROPOSED BUILDING 9 AM 12 N 3 PM June 21 Summer Solstice EXISTING BUILDINGS (Site Only) 9 AM 12 N 3 PM June 21 Summer Solstice PROPOSED BUILDING (Site Only) 9 AM 12 N 3 PM Sept 21 Fall Equinox EXISTING BUILDINGS 9 AM 12 N 3 PM Sept 21 Fall Equinox PROPOSED BUILDING 9 AM 12 N 3 PM Sept 21 Fall Equinox EXISTING BUILDINGS (Site Only) 9 AM 12 N 3 PM Sept 21 Fall Equinox PROPOSED BUILDING (Site Only) 9 AM 12 N 3 PM Dec 21 Winter Solstice EXISTING BUILDINGS 9 AM 12 N 3 PM Dec 21 Winter Solstice PROPOSED BUILDING 9 AM 12 N 3 PM Dec 21 Winter Solstice EXISTING BUILDINGS (Site Only) 9 AM 12 N 3 PM Dec 21 Winter Solstice PROPOSED BUILDING (Site Only) Attachment L Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to the Planning and Community Environment Director. These plans are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “429 University Avenue” and open the record by clicking on the Blue dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option under the second heading for 429 University Avenue 14PLN-00222 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “Option 1 - Project Plans 429 University Avenue 1026201” Attachment M Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to the Planning and Community Environment Director. These plans are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “429 University Avenue” and open the record by clicking on the Blue dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option under the second heading for 429 University Avenue 14PLN-00222 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “Option 2 - Project Plans 429 University Avenue 10172016” Attachment N Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to the Planning and Community Environment Director. These plans are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “429 University Avenue” and open the record by clicking on the Blue dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option under the second heading for 429 University Avenue 14PLN-00222 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “Option 3 - Proj Plans – 12-8-16 429 University Avenue.pdf”