Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-19 City CouncilCity of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: FEBRUARY 19, 2002 CMR:133:02 2475 HANOVER STREET: CITY COUNCIL REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF REVISED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVAL OF CONDITIONS FOR THE DEMOLITION OF TWO BUILDINGS ON A 4.7-ACRE SITE IN THE LM ZONING DISTRICT AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING COMPRISING 81,928 SQUARE FEET. PARKING FACILITIES INCLUDE 146 UNDERGROUND PARKING SPACES AND 127 SURFACE PARKING SPACES. [FILES: 01-ARB-100, 01-EIA-15] REPORT IN BRIEF This report responds to Council direction at the close of the public hearing on January 14, 2002 and discusses (1) the tree retention issue, (2) the shuttle issue, and (3) revisions made to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditions of project approval. The attachments include the ARB findings, Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration, revised conditions of project approval, additional/amended alternate conditions of approval, and the applicant’ s arborist’ s report. This report does not present the estimated resource impacts of the Council’s direction for staff to return to Council with a supplemental Environmental Impact Report for future Stanford Research Park development. This report does not discuss thresholds of significance for determining potential environmental impacts of development projects. Those items will be addressed in other reports to be presented to the City Council on a future action agenda. CMR:133:02 Page 1 of 8 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council adopt the revised Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment C) and approve the project application [file 01-ARB-100] based upon the ARB Findings (Attachment A) subject to "meeting final conditions of approval (Attachment B), reflecting modified versions of the Council’s general conditions as stated at the January 14, 2002 Council meeting. BACKGROUND On January 14, 2002, the City Council conducted and closed the public hearing of the appeal filed by Joy Ogawa [file 01-AP-5] of the Director’s decision to approve redevelopment of the site known as 2475 Hanover Avenue. On a vote of 5-1-2-1 (5 yes, 1 no, 2 abstain and 1 absent), the City Council denied the appeal and directed staff to return with a revised Mitigated Negative Declaration [file 01-EIA-15] and revised conditions of approval reflecting Council discussion and direction. In a separate motion, the Council unanimously voted (7 yes, 0 no, 2 abstain and 1 absent) to direct staff to return to the City Council with (1) estimated impacts to the City’s resources to prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Report prior to approval of future development in the Stanford Research Park, and with (2) a report on the thresholds of significance for potential environmental impacts used by the City staff in evaluating development projects for Council review. That information will be provided at a fi~ture date. DISCUSSION The Council’s proposed additional conditions of approval were, generally: (1) to require extension of Stanford’s shuttle service to Hanover Street, (2) to require retention of the mature trees on the Hanover Street frontage, (3) to require payment of development impact fees for housing, parks and community facilities on the net new square footage (30,428) square feet at the fee level to be set by the City Council for development of this type, (4) to delete the provision of Condition of Approval 11.4 allowing Stanford to offset its contribution to traffic calming by the cost of any EIR, and (5) to modify the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration to address the project’s potential, but mitigated, impacts on housing and parks and community facilities. The Mayor requested that staff provide clarification regarding the tree retention issue and the shuttle condition. Each of these five issues is discussed below. Extension of shuttle to Hanover Street The City Council expressed concern that the payment of traffic impact fees and contribution towards traffic calming would not adequately address traffic concerns. Among the points made was that there will be a gap between the expected time of occupancy of the building and the time that the planned intersection improvements to Hanover Street (at Page Mill Road) are made. There was also discussion of the general increase in traffic in the area over the past several years. Council directed addition of a CMR: 133:02 Page 2 of 8 condition requiring that Stanford extend the operations of its Marguerite Shuttle to the Hanover site. Staff has reviewed both the relationship of this condition to this project’s traffic impact and how most effectively to implement a shuttle expansion. This project’s floor area represents only four percent of the floor area on the "superblock" that would be served by the shuttle. Using the City’s existing traffic analysis standards, the deterioration in traffic flow would only occur at peak-traffic hours and only in the "gap" period between building occupancy and improvements at the intersection of Hanover Street and Page Mill Road. The City’s five year proposed Capital Improvements Projects places the design and construction of these improvements in fiscal years 2003/04 and 2004/05, respectively. The City’s Comprehensive Plan makes clear that encouraging alternative transportation is preferred to street widenings. However, extending the route of the existing shuttle program (the "A" line) to the Hanover block would increase the "A"-line’s interval between shuttles arriving at CalTrain and decrease overall ridership. Staff has met with Stanford since the January 14 Council meeting to determine the best solution to meet Council’s expectations. Stanford proposed to operate a dedicated peak- hour only shuttle as a pilot project, to run between the site and the California Avenue CalTrain station and around the "superblock" bounded by E1 Camino Real, California Avenue, Hanover Street and Page Mill Road. The intent of the shuttle would be to mitigate traffic during the "gap" between the issuance of occupancy permit and the completion~ of the Hanover Street improvements, approximately three to four years. Stanford has estimated it could operate the shuttle for about $70,000 per year of operation, and data regarding shuttle ridership in that time period would be shared with City staff. Stanford would also promote the peak-hour shuttle service to other "super- block" tenants, (where peak hours would be a minimum of 2.5 hours each in the morning and afternoon.) Approximately six months after intersection improvements have been completed at Hanover Street, Stanford and the City staff would evaluate the project’s operational experience and determine whether the shuttle route should be terminated, modified or continued. New funding sources and necessary adjustments would be identified and implemented in the event the shuttle service is modified or continued. Condition No. 9.1 in Attachment B has been amended to include this proposal. The City’s Transportation Division staff proposed, as an alternative, that the City establish a shuttle paid for by Stanford but operated by the City. The City staff would design the route to include an additional stop on California Avenue to serve College Terrace residents. The new shuttle route would be operated under contract with a private sector bus company, similar to the current arrangement for both the Stanford Marguerite and the City shuttle service. Incorporating this route into the City’s shuttle would CMR:133:02 Page 3 of 8 implement a key recommendation of the Shuttle Feasibility Study: to extend City shuttle bus services to the Stanford Research Park. Stanford has noted that a City operated shuttle would be acceptable under certain conditions: (2) (3) (4) Stanford would agree to fund the shuttle at $70,000 per year for the time period between building occupancy and six months after the installation of intersection improvements at Hanover Street; If the City wants to augment the program beyond the peak hours proposed by Stanford the City will need to seek additional funding; Stanford needs flexibility to allow other Stanford Research Park tenants to use and perhaps electively contribute to-the shuttle. While the pilot project is running, Stanford would work with the City to explo.re funding sources for the shuttle beyond the ’igap" period; If intersection improvements are not completed by the end of calendar year 2007, Stanford may discontinue its funding to the City at that time. Since this alternative, City operated shuttle program would require City resources (see Resource Impact), staff has placed the condition reflecting this proposal in Attachment D (Condition No. 9.1), should the City Council prefer this program. Retention of mature trees along Hanover Street The Council’s motion called for an amendment to the project approval requiring the retention of the trees along the Hanover frontage of the site. There are presently eight ash trees along Hanover Street. As noted in the arborist’s report (page 3, Attachment E), they are in "poor" to "very poor" condition. The ash trees are at the end of their useful lifespan and their canopies no longer provide the shade and streetscape functions that were originally intended. Palo Alto Street Tree Management Program policy is to replace old trees nearing the end of their lifespan with new trees, consistent with the concept of managing a sustainable urban forest. The ash trees’ state of decline is a result of several factors. The trees were dependent upon irrigation that was discontinued during the drought years. This water cutback resulted in significant die-back of the branches and roots. Several dead sections of the trees have been removed which explains their unbalanced, lop-sided appearance. Removal of the dead sections has also resulted in sun scald, bark damage, and decay in most of these trees. Further, several of these trees require extreme crown restoration pruning, which would significantly reduce the size and mass of the trees. For these reasons, staff recommends all of these trees be removed and replaced. The ARB approval included a condition (condition 7.4) requiring the sixteen proposed replacement trees to be 24-inch box ash trees of a different species than shown on the approved landscape plan. CMR:133:02 Page 4 of 8 All but a few of the existing 122 inventoried trees on site have low to moderate suitability for preservation, including the Hanover Street trees (all street trees are included in the inventory count). The trees to be saved include an existing oak, which will be transplanted on site to a more prominent location at the entry plaza and three olive trees at the southeast corner of the site. Nine of the 11 gingko trees along California Avenue are in fair condition, while the other two are in "poor" condition. After considerable discussion, and with the support of the College Terrace Residents Association, Stanford will replace the gingkos with an allee (double row) of ash trees, 24 in total. Stanford proposes to extract and move these nine trees to designated locations to be approved by the City’s Parks Division staff. A suitable location for at least some of the trees has been identified at Robles Park on Park Avenue between Charleston Drive and East Meadow Drive. Additional locations will be identified in the coming weeks. Stanford has recently agreed to two additional conditions of approval (Conditions 7.7 and 7.8) to ensure a successful relocation project. These conditions are included in Attachment B, Revised Conditions of Approval. Staff recommends that Council adopt these additional conditions instead of one calling for the preservation of the Hanover frontage street trees. There is one additional street tree, holly oak no. l, on California Avenue at Hanover Street, that could be considered for retention. However, retention of this tree would mean that two of the allee ash trees could not be planted at the intersection. Holly oak no. 1 is a 40-foot-tall evergreen tree in fair condition that provides moderate screening during all seasons and would survive construction impacts. Should Council wish to require retention of this tree, an additional condition (Condition No. 7.9) in Attachment D can be adopted. If Council still prefers to require retention of the ash trees on Hanover Street, an alternate Condition 7.4 is included in Attachment D, in lieu of Condition 7.4 as stated in Attachment B. Payment of development impact fees The Council has not yet completed its deliberations on the adoption of development impact fees for. parks, libraries and community services and revising the level of housing impact fees. It received a report on October 16, 2001 which recommended setting fees at less {han full-cost recovery. Council’s motion directed that this project, on its new square footage, include the payment of these fees at the level set by the Council when it completes its review this year. With respect to the housing fee, staff has modified condition 8.1 to reference new mitigation measure no. 6 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, to address the development impact fees for parks, libraries and community services, has added Condition of Approval No 11.5 (see Attachment B). CMR: 133:02 Page 5 of 8 Note that previous ARB condition 11.5 requiring return to ARB has been met and therefore was deleted from final conditions. Firm commitment of $150,000 for traffic calming improvements Staffhas replaced Condition No. 11.4 with the following, which Stanford has accepted: "The applicant shall pay to the City the sum of $150,000 before commencement of new construction at 2475 Hanover Street to be used by the City to assist with traffic calming improvements in the College Terrace neighborhood." Revisions to Mitigated Negative Declaration Staff has prepared and circulated a revised Mitigated Negative Declaration, which is attached to this report as Attachment C. The revisions are underlined in the ddcument. In summary: (1) The list of sources for checklist responses now includes the September 18, 2001 DMG-Maximus report and accompanying City Manager’s Report (CMR:381:01) that were reviewed by the City Council after the first initial study was prepared for this project; and the January 24, 2002 Aquifer Sciences report providing the latest update on progress of the ongoing soil and groundwater pollution remediation; (2) The checklist was modified in the housing/population, public services and recreation sections to indicate "significant impacts unless mitigated" instead of no impact and three mitigation measures were added to address those impacts; (3) Revised text was added in the explanation of checklist responses for those sections; and (4) Text was added to the section on aesthetics regarding existing and replacement trees, and to the section on hazards to include recent information on the progress of the groundwater and soil pollution remediation program. These are the additional mitigation measures the applicant agreed to: Mitigation Measure No. 6: The property owner shall pay housing impact fees of general application at th~ fee level adopted by the City Council in the year 2002. Mitigation Measure No. 7: The property owner shall pay park impact fees of general application at the fee level adopted by the City Council in the year 2002. Mitigation Measure No. 8: The property owner shall pay libraries and community facilities impact fees of general application at the fee level adopted by the City Council in the year 2002. As previously stated, the proposed revision to Condition of Approval 8.1 references Mitigation Measure 6. The City’s regulations currently allow half of the total housing CMR: 133:02 Page 6 of 8 impact fees to be paid before building permit and the remaining half at occupancy permit. New condition of approval 11.5 provides additional detail to specify payment timing issues beyond those set forth in Mitigation Measures 7 and 8. RESOURCE IMPACT The City resources estimated to be used in operating a Stanford-funded, pilot program shuttle route would include staff time to design and market the new route, evaluate the shuttle contractor’s performance during the pilot program, evaluate the shuttle’s success at the end of the pilot program time period, and seek funding sources for the shuttle (such as VTA, CalTrain, Hewlett Packard or other Research Park tenants.) POLICY IMPLICATIONS The benefits of the City’s operating the shuttle include meeting Comprehensive Plan Goals T-1 and T-2 by reducing trips and increasing services to commuters, as well as providing a public service, to residents in College Terrace. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The revised Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 20-day public review period beginning January 30 and ending February 19, including the one-day extension due to the holiday on February 18. The notice for this review period included a statement that only written comments would be accepted in accordance with CEQA guidelines. Any written comments received prior to the end of the review period will be forwarded to the City Council members. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Findings for Approval Revised/Final conditions of approval and mitigation measures Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration Additional/Amended alternate conditionsof approval Arborist’s report PREPARED BY: AMY FRENCH Senior Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: LISA GROTE Chief Planning Official CMR: 133:02 Page 7 of 8 EMILY HARRISON/ ~Assistant City Mana"ger COURTESY COPIES Joel Karr, 185 Berry Street, Suite 5700, San Francisco, CA 94107 Jean Snyder, Stanford Management Company, 2770 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, 94025 Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 13 speakers at City Council meeting on January 14, 2002 CA CMR: 133:02 Page 8 of 8 ATTACHMENT A FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STANDARDS FOR REVIEW SMC Project (Redevelopment of ALZA site) 2475 Hanover Street / File No. 01-ARB-100, 01-EIA-15 The proposed project, as conditioned, furthers the goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance (Chapter 16.48 of the PAMC) as it complies with that ordinance’s Standards for Review as follows: The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city ’~ comprehensive plan. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Research!Office Park, in that the use would be compatible with the surrounding land uses. The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. The proposed project, as conditioned, is compatible with the immediate environment of the site with respect to the architectural character, scale and design of the nearby structures, will fit well onto its comer setting by the provision of a large number of trees, especially along California Avenue. The design is appropriate to the function of the project. The proposed project, as conditioned, is appropriately designed to the function of an administrative office building in the Stanford Research Park. The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses in that buildings, seating areas, landscaping and parking areas are integrated in a unified design that allows for harmonious transitions. The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site in that the modified driveways at the project site will not result in traffic conflicts between vehicular movements from the project site and from the surrounding sites, and the driveways will not conflict with improvements to bicycle lanes and sidewalks. 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 in that suitable amenities and vehicular circulation and parking are provided for employees and visitors, in an ordered and harmonious layout. The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures in that the main parking area is located underneath and behind the building and the prominent open areas and visitor parking facilities in front of the building would receive plantings and special hardscaping. o Sufficient ancillary functions are provided ~o support the main functions of the project and these functions are compatible with the project’s design concept in that the building Findings for Approval Architectural Review Board would have an employee amenity area and outdoor seating area that would support the primary use of the building. 10.Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in that the two-way driveways on Hanover Street will be provide safe and convenient site access and the on site circulation will be safe due to pedestrian pathways and lighting. 12.The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expressions to the design and function and are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions in that the materials and details will be compatible. 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 the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site. 14.The plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety that would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. 15.The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy design elements including, but not limited to: (A) Exterior energy design elements, recycling of demolished buildings, sun shading and recessed windows, spectrally sensitive glazing, dual pane glazing with low-E and additional insulation on the roof, (B) Internal lighting service and climatic control systems, which shall be shown in tenant improvement plans and (C) Building siting and landscape elements, such as the provision of bio-swales and use of recycled materials in the landscape. ARB standards/findings #4 and #11 are not applicable to the project. Findings for Approval Architectural Review Board 2 ATTACHMENT B *Revised Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures SMC Project, 2475 Hanover Street / File No. 01-ARB-100, 01-EIA-15 * (revised conditions and mitigation measures are underlined) The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans dated July 26, 2001, with additional plan sheets dated November 2001 as reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. These mitigation measures and conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. Mitigation Measure #1" Interior lighting systems shall by described in tenant improvement plans for staff architectural review, and shall address timing and shading issues, and include measures necessary to meet City requirements. Mitigation Measure #2: If cultural, paleontological, or historical resources are found during construction, all construction activities shall cease and the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall be notified and mitigation measures pursuant to Public Resources Code, Section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines shall be followed. Mitigation Measure #3: All proposed buildings and structures shall conform to Uniform Building Code, Zone 4 guidelines. New buildings and structures shall be designed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation report dated January 2, 2001. Mitigation Measure #4: The building permit plans shall include a sheet showing the location of all remediation wells on the site of the existing ALZA building D (2575 Hanover Street). Mitigation Measure #5: The project shall include the installation and operation of equipment in accordance with noise analyses and recommendations prepared by Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Inc. Mitigation Measure #6: The property owner shall pay housing impact fees of general application at the fee level adopted b,g the Cit,g Council in the "gear 2002. Mitigation Measure #7: The propert,g owner shall pay park impact fees of general application at the fee level adopted by the City Council in the ,gear 2002.. Mitigation Measure #8: The property owner shall pay libraries and communit,g facilities impact fees of general application at the fee level adopted b,g the Cit,g Council in the year 2002. Revised Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures 1 PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS 1. WATER QUALITY 1.1 1.2 1.3 Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 16.09.032(b)(9) prohibits the use of copper or copper alloys in piping coming into contact with sewage, except for sink traps and associated connecting pipes. Project building plans must specify that non-copper wastewater piping will be used. Any drain plumbing for the t~nderground parking garage must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system (PAMC 16.09.032(B)(17)). Any hard-plumbed water discharge to the sanitary sewer from the elevator sump pit must pass by gravity flow through an oil/water separator. If a sump pump is to be utilized, the pumped discharge must be contained in a tank, or the sump pump must be equipped with an oil sensor system to prevent hydraulic oil spills from being pumped to the sanitary sewer. 2.ENGINEERING Prior to Submittal for Building Permit: 2.1 Plan Revisions - The submitted Preliminary Grading Plan and the "Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan" (SWPPP) require further revision to meet Public Works Engineering (PWE) grading, drainage and SWPPP requirements. The Applicant shall meet with PWE staff to obtain these additional SWPPP requirements. The revised plans shall incorporate these additional SWPPP requirements and shall be submitted for review by PWE within 10 days after final ARB approval. Approval of the revised preliminary plans by PWE must be obtained prior to commencing final design of the building permit ’plans or grading permit plans. 2.2 General SWPPP Requirements - In order to address potential storm water quality impacts, the project plans shall identify the both the temporary and permanent Best Management Practices (BMP’s) that will be incorporated into the SWPPP for this project. The SWPPP temporary measurers are those implemented during construction to protect storm water quality. (Extraordinary SWPPP temporary measurers will apply tQ grading work performed during the wet season.) The SWPPP permanent measures are those BMP’s to be incorporated into the project improvements for long term protection of storm water quality. The elements of the PWE-approved Preliminary Grading Plan and SWPPP plan shall be incorporated into the building and grading permit plans. The graded area of the project will be less than 5 acres therefore, a formal Notice of Intent (NOI) filing with the State will not be required for this project. Prior to Submittal for Building Permit: 2.3 Grading Permit - A Grading and Excavation Permit issued by the CPA Building Inspection Division is required for the proposed project. The grading permit submittal shall at minimum address the issues of parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. Any grading permit issued in conjunction with a phased project implementation plan will only authorize grading and storm drain improvements. Other site utilities may be shown on the grading plan for reference only, and should be so noted. No Revised Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures 2 utility infrastructure should be shown inside the building footprint. Installation of these other utilities will be approved as part of a subsequent Building Permit application. 2.4 City Storm Drain System - The existing municipal storm drainage system in the area is unable to convey the peak runoff from the project site. A hew storm drain line shall be installed in Hanover Street as part of this project. The new line shall provide drainage for this development and shall connect to the nearest adequate City storm drain system. The new line and connections shall be constructed to City Public Works Standards. 2.5 Impervious Area - The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the applicant’s monthly City utility bill will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets and instructions are available from Public Works Engineeri.n.g. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit: 2.6 Street Work Permit - The applicant shall obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering for pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk and or construction proposed in the City right-of-way. Sec. 12.08.010. 2.7 Lease Line - An underlying lease line exists on the property. The developer/applicant shall take steps to remove the lease line to the satisfaction of Planning and Public Works. The Building Permit associated with the application will not be issued until the required lease documents are recorded with the County Recorder’s office. 2.8 Soils Report - A detailed site-specific soil report prepared by a licensed soils or geo- technical engineer must be submitted which includes information on water table and basement construction issues. This report shall identify the current groundwater level, if encountered, and by using this and other available information, as well as professional experience, the engineer shall estimate the highest projected ground-water level likely to be encountered in the future. If the proposed basement is reasonably above the projected highest water level, then the basement can be constructed in a conventional mariner with a subsurface perimeter drainage system to relieve hydrostatic pressure. If not, measures must be undertaken to render the basement waterproof and able to withstand all projected hydrostatic and soil pressures. No external drawdown pumping of ground water is allowed. In general, however, Public Works Engineering recommends that structures be constructed in such a way that they do not penetrate existing or proj ected ground water levels. 2.9 The soils report shall also include a discussion regarding possible hazardous material spills in the area of the site, the extent of any known or discovered haz-mat plumes and remedies that must be undertaken as part of this project. Future submittals of these project plans will be subject to the review of the City Environmental Quality division of Public Works. 2.10 Dewatering Plan - Building permit applicants are required to prepare and submit a basement excavation dewatering plan whenever the project soils report indicates that Revised Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures 3 groundwater will be encountered during excavation. The plan should be reviewed and approved by Public Works engineering prior to the issuance of the building permit. Building permits that include a basement where groundwater is not expected to be encountered will be subject to a condition that a dewatering plan shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering for review and approval if groundwater is encountered during excavation. 2.11 Final Grading Plan - The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering. The final grading plan shall incorporate all required features of the PWE approved preliminary grading, drainage and SWPPP plan. This plan shall show spot elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, shall be maintained. 2.t2 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) - Although this proposed development will disturb less than five acres of land, it is ’located in an environmentally sensitive area and/or has potential for storm water pollution due to steep grades, paved parking areas or other site conditions. The applicant must prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The applicant is required to submit two copies of the final draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The SWPPP should include permanent, post development project design features as well as temporary measures employed during construction to control storm water pollution. Specific Best Management Practices (BMP’s) which apply to the work should be incorporated into the design. 2.13 SWPPP Format -The SWPPP shall be in the form of separate plan sheets titled as follows: 1) SWPPP Permanent Measures, 2) SWPPP Temporary Measures & Erosion Control, and 3) SWPPP Details. The SWPPP Details sheets should carry copies of standard BMP details and other custom designed BMP details that will be implemented on the project. If work is to occur in the wet season (from October 1 to April 15 of the following year) then the Temporary SWPPP & Erosion Control plan shall also include specific notes regarding winterization requirements for the site. Sec. 16.28.280. 2.14 Schedule - The applicant shall submit a master work schedule showing the proposed grading schedule, the proposed condition of the site on each July 15, August 15, September 15, October 1, and October 15 during which the permit is in effect. The master schedule shall also show the schedule for installation of all interim and permanent erosion and sediment control measures, and other project improvements. Sec. 16.28.160. 2.15 Mechanical systems for equipment such as elevators, HVAC systems, etc which are located in the underground garage should have their hydraulic and electrical equipment set above the basement floor some reasonable freeboard distance. This will prevent damage to the equipment from ponded water entering the garage from vehicle ramps during a power outage. 2.16 Storm Drain Logo - The applicant is required to paint the "No Dumping/Flow~ to (insert name of creek) Creek" logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Revised Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures 4 Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. Include maintenance of these logos in the Hazardous Materials Management Plan, if such a plan is part of this project. 2.17 Vehicle Ramp - The vehicle ramp should be designed to minimize the amount of drainage water directed toward the underground garage. The length of the ramp should be minimized. The top of the ramp should have a well-defined grade break to prevent entry of water from the outside parking lot. A slotted drain should be placed across the ramp to direct runoff water to the storm drain system. A roof should cover the unprotected portion of the ramp (below the slotted drain). The slotted drain near the base of the vehicle ramp must be connected to the storm drain system. If adverse grades exist then a sump and pump must be provided. This sump must be located inside the basement. 2.18 Vehicle Garage Drainage - The underground garage should have a drain, which is connected to the sanitary system. The drain must be protected by and approved interceptor device that filters the water prior to entry into the sanitary system. 2.19 Loading Docks - The plans include provision for future loading dock at two locations. Storm runoff from a loading dock where chemicals or hazardous materials may be handled shall not drain to a street gutter, or storm drain. Sec. 16.09.032(b)(4)(D). It is recommended that the loading dock be covered to preclude the need for a drain, If the loading docks will not be covered then a drain connected to the sanitary system will be necessary. In this event, the drainage area in front of the loading dock will be limited in size to minimize the entry of storm water into the sanitary system. A valve that is normally closed and requires attendance to be held in the open position shall protect the retention basin drain. A sign shall be posted near the valve with instructions regarding valve operation and the need for inspection of collected water for spilled materials prior to release. Required wording for the sign will be provided during the building permit review of the loading dock design. During Construction: 2.20 SWPPP Monitoring - Daily monitoring of all extraordinary winter SWPPP measures shall be performed by an independent inspector throughout the wet season. Written monitoring repots shall be delivered weekly to PWE. The inspector shall advise the construction contractor of any measures BMPs found in noncompliance with tlie SWPPP. The construction contractor shall provide immediate corrective action to any after being so advised. The inspector and the monitoring report format shall be subject to approval by PWE. 2.21 Dust Control - To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces be watered as necessary. Spillage resulting from hauling operation along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the contractor’s operations, either inside or outside the right-of- way shall be controlled at the contractor’s expense. Revised Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures 5 2.22 The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (415) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. 2.23 No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 2.24 All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. Prior to Finalization: 2.25 Sidewalks, curbs and gutters bordering the project shall be repaired and!or removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. Sec. 12.08.010. 2.26 2.27 The unused driveway located on California Avenue shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. Sec. 12.08.090. A curb ramp for the disabled will be required at all driveway entrances to the property and at any street crosswalk entrances. 2.28 Public Works Inspector shall sign-off on the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. Construction activities’that must be completed prior to this sign-off include: 1) all off-site improvements, 2) all on-site grading and storm drain improvements, 3) all post- construction storm water pollution control measures and 4) submittal of as-built record drawings for improvements in the public right-of-way. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 3.1 Hydrants shall be spaced at intervals not to exceed 300 feet in both directions of travel around the buildings, following the route of travel of a fire engine. (PAMC 15.04.140) 3.2 A fire sprinkler system shall be provided throughout the building, which meets the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 13-1996 Edition. Fire sprinkler system installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC15.04.083). Note: Building plans will not be approved unless complete sprinkler coverage is provided. 3.3 An approved underground fire supply shall be provided for the sprinkler system(s), and shall meet the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 24 - 1996_Edition. Fire supply system installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC15.04.083) NOTE: Fire Department approval will be withheld until Utilities Department and Public Works Department requirements have been met. 3.4 An approved audible sprinkler flow alarm to alert the occupant shall be provided in the interior of the building in an approved location. (98CBC904.3.2) Fire Alarm system installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC 15.04.083) Revised Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures 6 3.5 Approved 2½-inch hose valves shall be provided at each underground floor level landing in every stairwell for the underground parking structure. (PAMC 15.04.178) 3.6 3.7 Elevator cars shall be sized for Fire Department gumey access requirements based on gumey dimensions of 24" x 82" plus a minimum of two emergency response personnel. (PAMC 15.04.120) Clarify the source of water for the street hydrant in f{ont of the current building at 2575 Hanover Street. Drawing C-1 currently shows the hydrant supplied by the underground line for the sprinkler risers (unacceptable). 3.8 Underground supply for the automatic sprinkler risers shall be configu8red such that there is no PIV or other shutoff valve downstream of the Fire Department Connection. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 4.UTILITIES ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.7 The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. The Applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all building permit applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. This project requires a padmount transformer unless otherwise approved in writing by the Electric Utility Engineering Department. The location of the padmount transformer shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & # 16. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property as required by the City. Revised Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures 7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no ½-inch size conduits are permitted.. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. The design and installation shall also be according to the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. No more than four 750MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of transition cabinet will not be required. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. If the customer’s total load exceeds 2500kVA, service shall be provided at the primary voltage of 12,470 volts and the customer shall provide the high voltage switchgear and transformers. Utilities Rule & Regulation #3. For primary services, the standard service protection is a padmount fault interrupter owned and maintained by the City, installed at the customer’s expense. The customer must provide and install the pad and associated substructure required for the fault interrupter. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. Additional fees may be assessed for the reinforcement of offsite electric facilities. 4.17 Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. 4.18 The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. Revised Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures 8 4.19 Contractors and developers shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 4.20 At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructure (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to .National Electric Code requirements and no ½-inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. Utilities Rule & regulation #16. 4.21 All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at a depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends ate allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 4.22 All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspectedby the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. Rule & Regulation # 16. 4.23 The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. 4.24 Prior to fabrication of electric switchboards and metering enclosures, the customer must submit switchboard drawings to the Electric Metering Department at 3201 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto 94303 for approval. The City requires compliance with all applicable EUSERC standards for metering and switchgear. --- 4.25 All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. Utilities Rule & regulation # 18. 4.26 The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads. 4.27 The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16. 4.28 All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 4.29 All fees must be paid. Revised Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures 4.30 All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. 4.31 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Developer / Customer shall provide space and public utilities easements (PUE) for any substructure as required by the city. The city will provide detailed comments when plans along with load calculations are submitted to the building department for review and approval. Ref. DM#04 5.UTILITIES MARKETING Prior to issuance of either a Building Permit or Grading Permit, all common area landscaping shall be approved by the Utilities Marketing Services division of the Utilities Department. The landscape shall conform to the Landscape Water Efficiency Standards of the City of Palo Alto. A water budget shall be assigned to the project and a dedicated irrigation water meter shall be required. If each of the two buildings on this site is to have an individual domestic water meter, then each building shall be required to have an irrigation water meter. Call the Landscape Plan Review Specialist at 650.329.2549 for additional information. 6.UTILITIES WATER, GAS & WASTEWATER ENGINEERING 6.1 The applicant shall submit improvement plans for all utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer cleanouts, and any other required utilities. 6.2 Each unit or parcel shall have its own water, gas meters and sewer lateral connection. 6.3 The applicant shall submit a completed WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER SERVICE CONNECTION APPLICATION - LOAD SHEET for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in G.P.M., gas in B.T.U.P.H, and sewer in G.P.D.), 6.4 The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. 6.5 The approved relocation and abandonment of water and sewer facilities including services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the applicant or developer. 6.6 The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated for the installation of the new services to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. Revised Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures 10 PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CONDITIONS 7.MANAGING ARBORIST 7.1 In conjunction with submittal of building permit plans, a detailed landscape plan without omissions and including an adjacent plant list on the same page shall be submitted. 7.2 The annual color beds on each side of the entry drive shall each be enlarged to a quarter circle. A range of texture plants should be installed. 7.3 Additional plantings shall be added to the entrance and lobby area. Small planter areas, lobby/entry shade plants and large potted plants shall be included in plans. 7.4 The street trees along California and Hanover shall be Purple Autumn American Ash (Fraxinus americana ’Purple Autumn’) of 24-inch box size, planted per PW Detail #504 (please use the updated diagram). 7.5 To prevent long term damage to hardscape by tree roots and promote vigorous tree canopy, the sidewalk and paving on any side of a planter island shall be engineered structural soil base course material approved by the Planning Arborist. Specifications can be provided. 7.6 Tree protection and planting shall be consistent with the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.00 and 3.30 in all ways. The Manual shall prevail in the event a conflict in. specification arises. 7.7 The relocation must be coordinated with Parks Department, Kate Roone¥ at 463-4977 or the above e-mail address. Stanford shall provide to the Parks Department written instructions for care during the post-transplanting and recommended watering for the trees. This should be prepared by the contractor or the project arborist. 7.8 Before February 2002, the trees must be extracted professionally (a smaller tree spade ’ should be sufficient) and moved to the new locations by Stanford. Receiving holes should have already been prepared by Stanford’s contractor. Parks Department should be geared up to provide the initial watering and care for the new trees. 8.HO USING 8.1 Approximately 30,428 sq fl of net new space will be subject to the housing fee (81,928 non-exempt area minus 51,500 to be torn down). At the current rate of $4.21, the housing fee would be 128,101.88. Additional housing impact fees of general application adopted in 2002 shall be paid by the property owner pursuant to mitigation measure #6. ’9.TRANSPORTATION 9.1 A traffic impact analysis is not required for the City or for the Congestion Management Program. The existing building square footage that was occupied at the time of the most recent traffic monitoring counts (April 2000) was 31,000 square feet according to Revised Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures 11 9.2 Stanford Management Company. Thus, for determining the number of peak hour trips for CMP threshold purposes, the new square footage is 82,000 less the occupied area of 31,000 sf, or 51,000 sf. Using the Single Tenant Office land use category, the number of AM peak hour trips would be 91, not exceeding the 100-trip threshold, and thus not triggering a traffic study. This site is included in the Comprehensive Plan EIR analysis, so no further traffic study for the City is required at this time. Mitigation is provided through the traffic impact fee. In addition to impact fees, Stanford shall provide a dedicated peak-hour shuttle between the project site and the California Avenue CalTrain upon issuance of the occupancy permit. The shuttle service shall be in effect until the earlier of six months beyond the completion of intersection improvements at Hanover Street (at Page Mill Road) (estimated in City’s fiscal year 2004/2005) or 2007. If, at any time following implementation of the service, it is determined by the Cit7 and Stanford that the routing of the shuttle service to the proiect site is no longer desirable or required, the joint oversight shuttle committee may allow the service to be discontinued. A traffic impact fee is due for new square footage above the full square footage of the current buildings, .at a rate of $3.03 per square foot (effective 7/1/01-6/30/02), payable before the building permit can be issued. Based on an approximate increase of 30,428 square feet, the fee would be $92,196.84. 9.3 Unless there are other mitigating circumstances, we require that the sidewalk remain at sidewalk grade across project driveways, thus requiring driveway construction per Public Works Department standard drawing #120. 9.4 Bicycle parking comments: A. Bicycle racks are not located acceptably because they are too far from the main public entrance. PAMC 18.83 requires bike parking to be located as conveniently as the most convenient auto parking (including handicapped stalls). There appears to be ample space to place the bike racks in/on the plaza area surrounding the main entrance. B. The make and model of U-rack are acceptable. Since each "U" constitutes two bike parking spaces (one on each side), only three racks need to installed to meet the six-space requirement. However, it is desirable and acceptable to provide the extra racks if the applicant so desires. C. Approximately half of the lockers must be on ground level, somewhere near an employee entrance. The other half can remain in the garage. Dimensions are required for bike lockers showing that the required access aisles and clearances are provided for both sides of dual-sided lockers. Based on the garage layout, it appears that bicyclists will not be able to access all the lockers. In addition, lockers must be protected from being hit by automobiles, such as by placing lockers on raised islands and/or providing bollards to prevent vehicle encroachment. Details are provided in PAMC 18.83. D. The make and model of bicycle lockers do not appear on the plans as near as we can determine. This is required. 9.5 No fixed objects over three feet high, nor landscaping (except trees) over 2-1/2 feet high, all measured with respect to the driveway elevation, will be permitted in the vicinity of Revised Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures 12 driveways-located on Hanover Street to avoid limiting the sight distance for exiting drivers. Refer to PAMC 18.83.110. 9.6 The preferred type of driveway curb cut is shown in the Department of Public Works standard drawing #120. This type of driveway crosses the sidewalk at the sidewalk grade, which is preferable .from a pedestrian viewpoint. This is not the type of driveway that appears to be shown on the proposed plans. Consult Public Works for the correct type of driveway curb cut that is to be provided. 9.7 Staff supports the proposed location of a possible future mid-block access in the Northeast Corner of the site. This access could be used in the future if ever a new roadway were developed between Page Mill Road and California Avenue. 10.BUILDING DIVISION THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY PRIOR TO BUILDING AND GRADING PERMIT APPLICATION. 10.1 Address of the proposed new building shall be 2475 Hanover Street and the permit applications and plans shall reference this address. The address stated on the ARB application is 2575 Hanover Street, however, the majority of the site is currently addressed as 2475, which coincides better with the other properties and buildings along the street. 10.2 The plans submitted with the ARB application show the proposed building as a single large structure, not two buildings as described in the ARB application. As such, the building shall be constructed under a single comprehensive building permit. 10.3 10.4 The building shall be served by a single electrical service in accordance with National Electric Code Art. 230-2 (not two services as shown on the submitted preliminary plans). The electrical service location shall require prior approval by the Inspection Services Division and shall be located at an exterior location or in a room or enclosure accessible directly form the exterior. 10.5 The building Shall be served by a single natural gas service. If multiple meters are required due to a future multi-tenant configuration, all gas meters shall be located at a single location on the site. 10.6 The plans submitted for the building permit shall include allowable floor area calculations that relate the proposed occupancies to type of construction. This includes possible future installation of assembly occupancies such as large conference rooms or cafeterias, for example. 10.7 Design of building components that are not included in the plans submitted for building permit and are to be "deferred" shall be limited to as few items as possible. The list of deferred items shall be reviewed and approved prior to permit application. Revised Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures 13 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS 10.8 The project is currently comprised of two lots. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits the lots shall be merged to create a single parcel. 10.9 Demolition permits shall be required for the .removal of the two existing buildings on the site. Issuance of the demolition permits is not dependent on completion of the lot merger required in condition 1 above. 11. PLANNING DIVISION/ARB 11.1 Timing devices and sensor lights shall be used wherever feasible, taking safety needs into consideration, for both interior and exterior lights so that there is no unnecessary continued illumination on the site. 11.2 In conjunction with Building Permit plans and/or tenant improvement plans, as may be applicable., information regarding any proposed exterior building lighting fixtures, interior lighting systems and interior shading systems shall be submitted. 11.3 The shell building permit application plans must include detailed plans for the employee amenity area and proposed use(s) for planning staff evaluation, to determine whether the extra 2,005 square feet would be exempt. Otherwise, the building must not exceed the allowable floor area, pursuant to LM District regulations. 11.4 11.5 11.6 The applicant shall pay to the City the sum of $150,000.00 before commencement of new construction at 2475 Hanover Street to be used by the City to assist with traffic calmin~ improvements in the College Terrace neighborhood. The applicant shall pay fees to mitigate park, community center and library impacts. Such fees shall be paid before a building permit is issued at the rate recommended in CMR:381:01. If, prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for this project, the City Council adopts a parks, community center and library impact fee of general application for similar projects, at a higher rate, Stanford shall make an additional payment to increase its total payment to the new rate. No further Council action is required for imposition and collection of the fees at the rates specified in CMR:381:01 at building permit, or for collection of higher council-adopted fees before issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Prior to occupancy, the HVAC units must be t+sted by a qualified acoustical consultant to verify compliance with the Noise Ordinance, and results of the test must be provided to City Planning and Police staff. Revised Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures 14 Attachment C *RE VISED ENVIRONMENTAL CHE CKLIS T AND MITIGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION City of Palo Alto De_partment o.f._.Planning and Communi~ Environment 1.Project Title: 2.Lead Agency Name and Address: 3.Contact Person and Phone Number: 4.Project Location: 5.Application .Numbers: 6.Project Sponsors’ Names and Addresses: 7.General Plan Designation: 8.Zoning District(s): 9.Description of the Project: Redevelopment of the ALZA Site City of Palo Alto, Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Amy French, Senior Planner (650) 329-2336 2475 Hanover Street (comprised of parcels 142-20-004.and -005, formerly 2575 Hanover Street and 1275 California Avenue) 01-ARB-100; 01-EIA-15 MBT Architecture 185 Berry Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94107 Stanford Management.Company 2770 Sand Hill Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Research/Office Park Limited Industrial/Research Park (LM) Demolition of 51,500 square feet (2575 Hanover Street, ALZA Buildhag D, and 1275 California Avenue, ALZA Building E and outbuilding) and construction of a two-story office building comprising 81,928 square feet (plus 2,005 square feet of area that is exempt fi’om the FAR, parking, traffic fee and housing fee calculations). An underground parking facility comprising 59,133 square feet will provide 146 parking spaces, and 127 parking spaces will be provided at ~ade. The existing vegetation on the site will be removed and the site will be re-landscaped. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The rectangular, 4.7 acre project site is within the LM District and is located in tile Stanford Research Park. Development immediately to the north, south and east of the project site is characterized by office and industrial uses, which are also located on Stanford-owned land. Immediately to the west, across California Avenue, is the College Terrace single family residential district. The project site has relatively level topography (the grade level varies by 5 feet). The existing development on the site includes two office/research and development buildings, an outbuilding, a surface parking lot and landscaping which is mostly in poor condition. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement), none *Revisions appear in underlined text. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X X Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources X Cultural Resources X Geology/Soils X Hazards & Hazardous X Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 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 ease because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 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 purs~uant 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 onlythe 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. X Da ~ 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 ELR is required. 4)"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how theyreduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5)Earlier analysis, may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an’ earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 © (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c)Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previvus!y prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8)This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a)The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b)The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Less Than NoSignificantSignificantImpact Unless Impact Mitigated I.AESTHETICS. Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista?1, 2, 3 X b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not 1, 2.3 X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 1 X quality of the site and its surroundings? d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare which 1, 2 X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) b) c) III. 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? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their_location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (map L-9), 4 N/A X X X AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) b) c) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 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)? 1,3 1,3 1,3 X X X d) e) IV. b) c) d) e) f) b) e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?1,6 X BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 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? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state conservation plan? 1,3 1,3 X X 1,3 1,3 1, 3, 5 1,3 X X X X CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource pursuant to 15064.5? Cause a substantial advei’se change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 1,3 (map L-7) 1,3 (map L-S), 6 1,3 (L-4, L-8), 6 X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources d) VI. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1,3 (map L-8), 6 Potentially Significant Issues P6tentially Significant Unless Mitigated X GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineatedon 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. see below ii)Strong seismic ground shaking?3 (map X N-10) Xiii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 3 (map N-S) iv) Landslides? X b) c) d) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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? 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? 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? e) 3 (map N-S) 3 (map N-5), 8 3 (map N-5), 8 X X vii. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project? a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the rooting transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1, 8 Less Than Significant Impact NoImpact X X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources c) d) e) h) 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? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 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? 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? 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? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 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 wiidlands? Sollrees 1,8 2, 8, 9 N/A N/A 1,3 (map r -7) 1,3 (map N-7), 9 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigate.d Less Than Significant Impact X Impact X X X X X X VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the pro a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b)X c) 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)? 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? ect: 1,3, 8, 10 3 (map N-2) 1,2 X Issues and Supporting Information Sources d) e) 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 amoun~ of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 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?. Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?1, 2, 10 X g)N/A X 3 (map N-6) 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? Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? h) 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? 3(maps N-8, N-8) X X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?3(maps X N-6, N- 8) IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community?N/A X 1,3 X 1,3 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? e) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1,3 X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources 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? Sources 1,3 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact Impact X XI. NOISE. Would the project resu!t in: a) b) e) d) e) Exposure of persons to or generat.ion of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? A substantial temporary or periodic incPease in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project e, xpose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 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? 3,8 3, 8 3, 8 1,8 N/A N/A X X XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) b) e) 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)? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1, 2, 3 N/A N/A X X X X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sotll’Ces Potentially Significant Isstles Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? Police protection? Schools7 Parks? Other Public facilities? see below 9 1 1 13 13 XIV.RECREATION a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 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, 13 N/A X XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) b) c) 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)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 3 (maps T-7, T-8) 12 N/A Less Than Significant Impact X X Impact X X X X X 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources d) e) g) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in inadequate parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? SOUVeeS 1,9 1, 2, 4 1,3 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 1, 3, 10 X applicable :Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)1, 3, 10 X e) 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? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1, 10, 11 10 3, 11 11 d) e) f) g) X X X X X 11 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 1,3,5 Xa)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? 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)? c)Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1,3 1-12 X X SOURCE REFERENCES (Memoranda, analyses, reports, and assessments, noted below, pertain to project site): 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Project Planner’s knowledge of the site and the propo~sed project. Project Plans, entitled "SMC PROJECT" prepared by MBT Architecture, dated July 26, 2001. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010. Parenthetical references indicate maps found in the Comprehensive Plan. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance). Certified Arborist’s Tree Inventory with Tree Appraisal, prepared by Ray Morneau, Arborist, dated August 16, 2001. City of Palo Alto, Planning Arborist memorandum Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. Project Description (8/16/01), Environmental Assessment Worksheet and project-specific documentation (Acoustical Study dated 8/13/01, Geotechnical Investigation dated 1/2/01, Installation of Wells and Remediation System prepared by Aquifer Sciences, Inc. dated 9/12/01, and Tree Inventory/Appraisal dated 8/16/01 submitted by applicant.) City of Palo Alto, Fire Department memorandum. City of Palo Alto, Utilities Engineering Division memorandum. City of Palo Alto, Public Works Department memorandum. City of Palo Alto, Transportation Division memorandum. Parks and Community Facilities Impact Fee Study by DMG-Maximus, dated September 18,2001 Aquifer Sciences Monitoring Report for Fourth Quarter 2001 EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: I. Aesthetics The site is developed with two two-and one-stoW industrial buildings. As designed, the new building will be two stories, which will have greater mass than the existing development, as seen from the residential neighborhood. The’mass will be visually reduced since (1) a large setback (105 feet) will be provided on the residential facing side, (2) an earth berrn will be created along California Avenue and landscaped with redwood trees in a dense grove, (3) 24" box size trees (Catalina Ironwood) will be planted adjacent to the building, and (4) a double row of trees will be planted at the sidewalk on California Avenue. Of the 122 trees on the site. very_ few are in ~ood condition on the site and no trees in excellent condition, according to the arborist’s report. A mature oak (tree 89) will be transplanted to a more prominent location at the entry plaza. According to the arborist’s report, the "ash trees facing Hanover are all in poor to very poor condition and would not be expected to survive or recover under any prozram" and 12 would be removed and replaced with ash trees. Plans show 15 ~allon size Moraine Ash trees in a double row (allee) alon~g California Avenue and a single row along Hanover Street, a condition of approval requires the new street trees along both California and Hanover to be Purple Autumn American Ash (Fraxinus americana ’Purple Autumn’) of 24-inch box size. The building permit plans will include the correction. The transformers and trash enclosures will be screened as indicated in landscape plans. The project is subject to review by the Architectural Review Board, to ensure the building design will be aesthetically appropriate and compatible with the site and surrounding d.evelopment, and the site improvements will be harmonious and appropriate to the building. The nearest exterior pole light fixtures to the residential neighborhood will be located approximately 60 feet from the westerly property line. These lights are low (proposed at 13 feet in height) and the substantial redwood tree plantings on the west side of the lights will mitigate the potential glare offsite. Other lights on the site include 15-foot tall pole lights to illuminate the parking lot, areas, and bollard lights in pedestrian walkway areas. The current proposal does not include lighting fixtures on the exterior of the building, but there will be a substantial amount of glass on the building, which may result in increased light from inside the offices at night, and glare reflected from the sun from outside during the day. The project is required to meet the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.64, Additional Site Development and Design Regulations for Commercial and Industrial Districts. Section 18.64.030 (a)(2)(A) requires the elimination of glare and light spillover beyond the perimeter of the development. Mitigation measure #1 requires submittal information regarding interior lighting systems and interior shading systems in conjunction with tenant improvement plans, to ensure any light and glare impacts of the project will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Mitigation Measure #1: Interior lighting systems shall by described in tenant improvement plans for staff architectural review, and shall address timing and shading issues, and include measures necessary to meet City requirements. II.Agriculture Resources The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland," "Unique Farmland," or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by the Williamson Act. Mitigation Measures: None required. III. Air Quality The redevelopment proposal will not have a significant effect on air quality. Even though more vehicle trips will be generated by the proposal than at present, the project will not, either individually or cumulatively, be of a scale to effect any regional air quality plan or standards. Moreover, the project is proposing development consistent with the intensity (0..4:1.0 floor-area-ratio) contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan, for which an Environmental Impact Rep6rt (EIR) was adopted in 1998~ A temporary increase in dust during demolition and construction, however, is likely but will be minimized through conditions of approval, including the implementation of construction practices in accordance with BAAQMD regulations. Mitigation Measures: None required. IV. Biological Resources No endangered, threatened, or special status animal or plant species have been identified at this site. The project includes the removal of existing on-site landscaping, including native species. The Planning Arborist has reviewed the proposal and determined that the proposed removal of landscaping is offset by the overall increase in landscape specimens. Mitigation Measures: None required. V. Cultural Resources The site is currently developed with two office buildings, parking facilities and landscaping. The site has been disturbed as a part of the existing development. No additional area will be disturbed and there are no "known cultural resources on the site. The I3 Comprehensive Plan indicates that the project site is located within an Archaeological Resource Area of moderate sensitivity,. Mitigation Measure #2: If cultural, paleontological, or historical resources are found during construction, all construction activities shall cease and the Director of Planning and Community Eiavironment shall be notified and mitigation measures pursuant to Public Resources Code, Section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines shall be followed. VI. Geology and Soils The entire state of California is in a seismically active area and the site located in a seismic risk area, subject to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Strong ground shaking can be expected at the site during moderate to severe earthquakes. No known faults cross the project site. Map N-5 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan indicate the site has expansive soils and is located within an area having high potential for surface rupture along fault traces and potent!al for earthquake induced l~indslides where sloped (although the site is not sloped). A geotechnical investigation report prepared by Lowney Associates (dated January 2, 200l) has been submitted to the City for review. All new construction will be required to comply with to the provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. The City’s required standard conditions of approval ensure that potential impacts on erosion and soil will not be significant. Site soil modifications are not expected to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. The volume of soil to be removed has not been stated, but the depth of the cut would be approximately 10 to 14 feet for the underground parking area. Project conditions of approval will 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. Mitigation 1Measure #3: All proposed buildings and structures shall conform to Uniform Building Code, Zone 4 guidelines. New buildings and structures shall be designed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation report dated January 2, 2001. VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The site at 1275 California Avenue (BuildingE) was the location of a 1,500 gallon underground storage tank and industrial waste- water sump at 1275 California Avenue. The Palo Alto Fire Department Hazardous Materials Facility Closure requirements have been met (per March 23, 2000 letter on file). Final clean-up action was completed in January 2000. Hazardous materials (chloroform) were also stored at 2575 Hanover Street. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) approved a work plan (dated April 26, 2001) for environmental investigation and remediation. The plan includes the implementation of monitoring wells, vapor extraction wells and air sparging. Permits have been obtained from SCVWD and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for well installation and system operations. A total of 21 monitoring wells, vapor extraction wells, and air sparging wells were installed and operations of these wells began in June, 2001. Other remediation measures recently taken are described on pages 2 and 12 of the report prepared by Aquifer Sciences, Inc. The operation of the remediation sysiem is ongoing, to further reduce chloroform levels in soil and groundwater. The chloroform impacted area of concern is localized and confined near the north east corner of building D. Based on data in the January_ 2002 Aquifer Sciences report, the soil remediaton goal has been reached in this area and the soil is considered clean. The .zroundwater chloroform concentrations are down to a maximum of 160 ppb and the cleanup goal is 80ppb. Groundwater at the site is at 25 feet below ground surface atthe site. Overall_site .~radin~ will be to a depth of 2 to 3 feet except for the un.der.z.round garage which will not do deeper than 16 feet below grade. The area where ~oundwater is impacted is not in the building or. g.ar.age foot-print. Therefore, no additional safets, measures are needeck Mitigation Measure #4: The building permit plans shall include a sheet showing the location of all remediation wells on the site of the existing ALZA building D (2575 Hanover Street). VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality The proposed redevelopment project will comply with City, State and Federal standards pertaining to water quality and waste discharge, and storm water run-off. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies, nor will it substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. 14 Mitigation Measures: None required. IX., Land Use and Planning The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is Research/Office Park. Immediately ’surrounding land uses are office/research buildings and a low-density residential neighborhood. Given the proposed design of the project, which minimizes potential effects to the most sensitive surrounding uses (residential), it is compatible with all adjacent development. The City’s zoning regulations do not specify law firms as being in a different category of use than professional offices, which are allowed in the Stanford Research Park as a permitted use. The replacement of toxicologists with lawyers is not an environmental impact. The City’s environmental analysis of the use only deals with the potential physical impacts. The proposed law office use is at lea.~t as compatible with the nearby residential neighborhood as the previous R&D finn (ALZA), which generated groundwater pollution on the site. The project is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policies and land use designation of Research/Office Park. The applicant has met with the College Terrace Residence Association several times and has modified their project plans to address their concerns. The new building’s setback from the California Avenue property line will be a significantly larger setback than that of the existing building. In addition to the proposed building setback, a landscaped berm and significant tree plantings are proposed between the building and California Avenue. This represents a substantial buffer from the neighborhood, and is an adequate method of achieving a gradual transition in the scale of development between residential and non-residential areas. Mitigation Measures: None required. X. Mineral Resources The project will not impact known mineral or locally-important mineral resources. Mitigation M~asures: None required. X[. Noise Rooftop HVAC units are proposed. The applicant is required to comply with the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC. Additionally, project-specific noise analyses and recommendations were completed by Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Inc. in a report dated August 13,2001. All recommendations identified in the report regarding use of systems designed to minimize noise of roof-mounted equipment to meet City requirements shall be followed. Mitigation Measure #5: The project shall include the installation and operation of equipment in accordance with noise analyses and recommendations prepared by Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Inc. XII. Population and Housing The net new office area will be 30,428 square feet. This represents a potential increase of 121.6 jobs, or 1/10~ of 1% (.001) of the total number of jobs in Palo Alto. This expansion is consistent with the Land Use Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations which anticipate some moderate job growth in Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto has, on a regional basis, met our market-rate housing goals however it is deficient in below-market rate housing. The City’s below market rate housing impact fees are currently under Council review. In addition to paving $128,101.88 in housin~ impact fees as currently required for the net new floor area, the applicant will pay any increased housing fee of ~eneral application adopted b~ the Cit~ Council in the ~/ear 2002. See Cits, Manager’s Report-dated October 16, 2001 (referencing the September 18,2001 DMG-Maximus study) for range of possible fees. Mitigation in the form of increased fees is set forth in mitigation measure #6. Mitigation Measure #6: The property owner shall pay housin~ impact fees of general application at the fee level adopted by the City Council in the year 2002. XII1. Public Services Fire The proposed project would not impact fire service to the existing office/research park. The site is not located in a high fire hazard area. 15 Police ’The site is located within the jurisdiction of the Polo Alto Police Department. The facility would not by itself result in the need for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities. Schools The project is subject to standard school impact fees, so that the project will have a less than significant impact upon schools. Parks Recent studies have shown that office development does have an impact on park usage. Impact fees to address this impact are currently being studied by the City Council. The applicant will pay any park impact fees of general application adopted by the City Council in the x/ear 2002. See City Man_ager’s Report dated October 16, 2001 (referencing the September 18, 2001 DMG- Maximus study) for range of possible fees. Mitigation in the form of increased fees is set forth in mitigation measure #7. Mitigation Measure #7: The property owner shall pay park impact fees of general application at the fee level adopted b~ the City Council in the year 2002. Other Public Facilitie~ Recent studies have shown that office development does have an impact on libraries and communit~ facilities usage. Impact fees to address this impact are currently being’ studied by the City Council. The applicant will pay any park impact fees of genera 1 application adopted by the City Council in the year 2002. See Cits’ Manager’s Report dated October 16, 2001 (referencing the September I 8, 2001 DMG-Maximus study) for range of possible fees. Mitigation in the form of increased fees is set forth in mitigation measure #8. Mitigation Measure #8: The property owner shall pay library and community facilities impact fees of general application at the fee level adopted by the City Council in the year 2002. XIV. Recreation Recent studies have shown that office development does have an impact on parks, libraries-and community facilities usage. Impact fees to address this impact are current!y being studied by the CiW Council. The applicant will pay any park impact fees of general application adopted by the City Council in the year 2002. See City Manager’s Report dated October 16, 2001 (referencing the September 18, 2001 DMG-Maximus study) for range ~f possible fees. Mitigation in the form of increased fees is set forth in mitigation measures #7 and #8. XV. Transportation/Traffic There are minor non-compliance issues related to placement and dimensions of bicycle parking spaces and vehicle garage parking spaces, which will be addressed via conditions of project approval. City traffic counts of April 2000 occurred when oniy 31,000 square feet of the existing 51,500 square foot ALZA building was occupied. The City’s Transportation Planner assumed an addition of 51,000 square feet in the category of 8ingle Tenant Office land use, with a corresponding increase of 91 AM peak hour trips, which does not exceed the 100-trip threshold. In addition, the build-out of this site was included in the Comprehensive Plan EIR analysis. Therefore a traffic study was not required. Nevertheless, the applicant has prepared and submitted a traffic study. The report conforms with the Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) requirements. The report’s assumptions include an increase of 30, 500 square feet, whereas the City a~sumed an increase of5I, 000 square feet for the purpose of calculating potential trip increases. The City studied the project as an office use, which is the long-term use of the site. The City’s analysis was based on the square footage increase and appropriate engineering studies (ITE) of uses. Improvements atthe intersection of Page Mill Road and Hanover Street are currently budgeted and next in line for improvement by the City. A traffic impact fee based upon rates in effect at the time of submittal will be collected from the building permit applicant. The project is subject to the City’s traffic mitigation fees, and the applicant will pay $92,196.84 for the project. The project also includes $I 50,000 payment to the City toward implementation of traffic calmin~ improvements in the College Terrace neighborhood. Mitigation Measures: None required. XVI. Utilities and Service Systems The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems or use resources in a 16 wasteful or inefficient manner. Mitigation Measures: None required. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed redevelopment of the project site is large-scale in nature, but will not substantially degrade the surrounding environment, impact wildlife species or their habitat, or eliminate important examples of cultural history or pre-history. Additionally, the project will not create considerable cumulative impacts since it is located in an area that is largely developed, affording only a limited degree of additional redevelopment possibilities. Additionally, the project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS REVISED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED JANUARY 30, 2002, PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 2575 HANOVER STREET AND 1275 CALIFORNIA AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. Date 17 ATTACHMENT D Additional/Alternate/Amended Conditions of Approval SMC Project, 2475 Hanover Street / File No. 01-ARB-100, 01-EIA-15 Additional Condition 7.9 Holly oak no. 1 shall be retained and protected through the course of construction in accordance with the City’s Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.00. The applicant’s landscape architect shall include this tree on the final landscape plan to be submitted for building permits. Alternate Amended Condition 7.4 (Unchanged portion): The street trees along California Avenue shall be Purple Autumn American Ash (Fraxinus americana ’Purple Autumn’) of 24-inch box size, planted per PW Detail NO. 504 (please use the updated diagram). (Changed portion follows): The ash trees along Hanover Street shall be further evaluated by the project arborist, City arborists, and landscape architect to determine which trees must be removed, which trees can be reasonably retained, and the number and location of new street trees that could be added to be consistent with the Hanover street concept, The project arborist would need to recommend measures to improve the health, and repair trunk damage and rotting root systems of any trees to be retained. These measures must include crown restoration and selective removal of damaged and rotting roots. Alternate Amended Condition 9.1 (Unchanged portion): A traffic impact analysis is not required for the City or for the Congestion Management Program. The existing building square footage that was occupied at the time of the most recent traffic monitoring counts (April 2000) was 31,000 square feet according to Stanford Management Company. Thus, for determining the number of peak hour trips for CMP threshold purposes, the new square footage is 82,000 less the occupied area of 31,000 sf, or 51,000 sf. Using the Single Tenant Office land use category, the number of AM peak hour trips would be 91, not exceeding the 100-trip threshold, and thus not triggering a traffic study. This site is included in the Comprehensive Plan EIR analysis, so no further traffic study for the City is required at this time. Mitigation is provided through the traffic impact fee. (Changed portion follows): In addition to impact fees, Stanford shall pay $70,000 per year to fund a shuttle to be operated by the City for the time period between building occupancy and six months after the installation of intersection improvements at Hanover Street (at Page Mill Road) (estimated in City’s fiscal year 2004/2005). Stanford will not be financially responsible for the additional hours of operation if the City wants to augment the program beyond the peak hours proposed by Stanford. Stanford may allow other Stanford Research Additional/Alternate/Amended Conditions of Approval 1 Park tenants to use and perhaps electively contribute to the shuttle. While the pilot project is running, Stanford shall work with the City to explore funding sources for the shuttle beyond the "gap" period. If intersection improvements are not completed by the end of calendar year 2007, Stanford may discontinue its funding to the City at that time. If, at any time following implementation of the service, it is determined by the City and Stanford that the routing of the shuttle service to the project site is no longer desirable or required, the joint oversight shuttle committee may allow the service to be discontinued. Additional/Alternate/Amended Conditions of Approval 2 RAY MORNEAU ¯ARBORIST ¯ 1354 Dale Ave. #8, Mountain V~ew, CA 94040 ¯ Telephone: 6.50-964-7664 eMail: rmarbonst@aohcomo http://members.aol.com/RMArbonst Attachment E Certified Arborist’s Tree Inventory with Tree Appraisal PROJECT LOCATION Stanford Commercial Site 2575 Hanover Avenue Palo Alto, California REPORT: Pre-constmction Tree Inventory with Tree Appraisal Values. REPORT FOR: Stanford Management Company Ramsey Shuayto 2770 Sand Hill Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 DATE OF REPORT: August 16, 2001 CONSULTATION & REPORT BY: Ray Morneau, Arborist ISA Certified Arborist #WC-0132 1354 Dale Avenue #8 Mountain View, CA 94040 (415-) 964-7664 Ray Morneau,Arborist ISA Certif. #WC-0132 6501964.7664 Table of Contents 1.0 Scope andPurpose ............................................. 1. 2.0 Site Description. 2.1 General .............................................1. 2.2 Summaries ........................................2 - 3. 2.3 Outstanding Trees ............................3 - 4. 3.0 Tree Inventory Methods .....................................4 [ 5 [ 4.0 Tree Appraisal Methods ....................................6. 5.0 Introduction to Tree Protection Measures ...........6 - 7. 6.0 Site-Specific Tree Protection Measures ..............7 - 12. 7.0 Appendices. 7.1 Assumptions & Limiting Conditions.. 13. 7.2 Literature and Authorities ................14. 7.3 Inventory Data ..................................14 - 27. 7.4 Appraisal Data (with Legend) ..........28 - 30. 7.5 Site Drawing (with tree numbers) ....31. 1.0 Scope and Purpose This pre-construction certified arborist’s tree inventory results from my observation and inspection of the identified trees on the site around 2575 Harlover Street, Palo Alto, California. I have reviewed a copy of the Kier & Wright drawing titled "Topographic Survey", Sheet 1 of 1, dated October, 2000. This report provides data for this site’s 122 existing significant trees as identified by Palo Alto Municipal Code, §8.10 as data was gathered during August, 2001. 2.0 Site Description 2.1 General This is a commercial site in the area of Palo Alto known as the Stanford Industrial Park. The existing older buildings will be replaced. The project will include relandscaping. The current plant material on site is mostly over-mature, declining specimens. It would be a substantial benefit for the community’s urban forest to replant new trees and shrubs here. This site’s climate is in USDA plant hardiness zone 9 (USDA, 1949, p. 817). The micro-climate conforms to the Sunset (1995, p. 28) zone 15. August 16, 2001 Pre-Construction: 2575 Hanover Street, Palo Alto.Page #1 of 31. Ray Morneau, Arbori~t IS~ Certif. #WC-0132 650.964.766~ 2.2 Summaries As detailed in the "Tree Data" section of this report, the condition of this site’s 122 maj or identified trees can be summarized per the following table: CONDITION O .VERALL Excellent 90- 100%0 Good 70 - 89%5 Fair 50 - 69%42 Poor 26 - 49%42 Very Poor 25 - 2%26 Dead or Stumps 1 - 0%7 TOTAL 122 Pine, Monterey 19 River Red Gum 15 Sweetgum 12 Maidenhair Tree 11 Ash, Moraine 8 Olive, Common 7 Pittosporum 6 Plum, Common 5 Birch, European White 4 Bottlebrush 4 Fern Pine 4 Eucalypt (???) 3 Cedar, Deodar 2 Coffeeberry 2 Hawthorn, English’ 2 Mimosa; SilkTree 2 Acacia, BlackwOOdl 1 Camphor 1 Cedar, Atlas! 1 Cherry-laurel~ 1 Cotoneaster, Parney’si 1 Crabapple 1 Elm, Chinese 1 Horsechestnut, Rec 1 Juniper, Hollywooc 1 Magnolia, Southerr 1 Mul,berry, Fruitless 1 Oak, Coast Live 1 Oak, Holly 1 Olive, Common 1 Pine, Austrian Black]1 Privet, Japanesel 1 )122 Sort Pinus radiata Eucalyptus camaldulensis Liquidambar styraciflua Ginkgo biloba Fraxinus ’Moraine’ Olea europa Pittosporum tenuifolia Prunus species Betula pendula Callistemon citrinus Podocarpus gracilior Eucalyptus species Cedrus deodara Rhamnus californica Crataeg.us laevigata Albizzia julibrissin Acacia melanoxylon Cinnamomum camphora Cedrus atlantica Prunus laurocerasus Cotoneaster lacteus Malus floribunda Ulmus pavifolia ~esculus carnea Juniperus chinensis ’tortuosa’ Magnolia grandiflora Morus alba Quercus agrifolia Qu, ercus ilex 0lea europa iPinus nigra ILigustrum lucidum August 16, 2001 Pre-Construction: 2575 Hanover Street, Palo Alto.Page #2 of 31. Ray Morneau,Arborist ISA Certif. #WC-0132 650.964.7664 Common Name Sort Botanical Name Sort Acacia, Blackwood 1 1 Acacia melanoxylon Ash, Moraine 8 1 Aesculus carnea Birch, European White. 4 2 Albizz.iajulibrissin Bottlebrusl* 4 4 Betula pendula Camphor 1 4 Callistemon citrinus Cedar, Atlas 1 1 Cedrus atlantica Cedar, Deodar 2 2 Cedrus deodara Cherry-laurel 1 1 Cinnamomum camphQra Coffeeberr~ 2 1 Cotoneaster lacteus Cotoneaster, Pamey’s 1 2 Crataegus laevigata Crabapple 1 15 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Elm, Chinese 1 3 iEucalyptus species Eucalypt (???) 3 8 ,Fraxinus’Moraine’ Fern Pine 4 11 Ginkgo biloba 1.Hawthorn, English 2 1 Juniperus chinensis’tortuosa’ Horsechestnut, Red 1 1 Ligustrum lucidum Juniper, Hollywood 1 12 Liquidambar styraciflua Magnolia, Southern 1 1 Magnolia grandiflora Maidenhair Tree 11 1 Malus floribunda Mimosa; Silk Tree 2 1 Morus alba Mulberry, Fruitless 1 7 Olea europa Oak, Coast Live 1 1 Olea europa Oak, Holly, 1 1 Pinus nigra Olive, Commor 7 19 Pinus radiata Olive, Commor 1 6 Pittosporum tenuifolia Pine, Austrian Blacl~ 1 4 Podocarpus gracilior Pine, Montere~y 19 1 Prunus laurocerasus Pittosporurr 6 5 Prunus species Plum, commor, 5 1 Quercus agrifolia Privet, Japanese 1 1 Quercus ilex River Red Gum 15 2 IRhamnus californica Sweetgum 12 1 IUImus pavifolia 122 122 2.3 Outstanding Trees Atlas Cedar (Cedrus atlantica) is a dead monstrosity at the front entrance to the existing building (California Avenue side). The only discernible causal agent is root rot. Died before project. Moraine.Ash (Fraxinus ’Moraine’) facing Hanover are all in "’Poor" to "Very Poor" condition and have been declining for some time. They would not be expected to survive (or recover) under any program. Monterey pines (Pmus radiata) are very stressed, Most are substantially declining, Age and climate are probably the major factors. Fresh red turpentine beetle pitch tubes were found at the bases of most of these pines, indicating an active and major infestation.. August 16, 2001 Pre-Construction: 2575 Hanover Street, Palo Alto.Page #3 of 3 !. Ray Morneau, Arborist ~~SA Certif. #WC-0132 650.964.7664 ~River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), and other less-known Euealypts, have been introduced from the Australian continent. An insect infestation has sprung up here -- a leaf-sucking bug named the lerp-f0rming psyllid which protects itself with a tiny sugary cone (lerp). And, effective controls have not yet been established. However, UC is working with a possible future control, importing another Australian native as a predator, but full-scale releases . are not being made yet. Sweetgum trees (Liquidambar styraciflua), though often planted for the fast growth and notable autumn color, here have the typical problems to the species, from surface roots to weak structure, from bleeding canker to dieback. 3.0 Tree Inventory Methods All significant trees on site were numbered, tagged, and inspectedl Significant trees are those planted on site as part of a previous project and any self-seeded with a diameter of 4" or more. Observations were made and data gathered during my Autumn 2000 and August 2001 on-site inspections. Further conclusions and protection measures were refined from office research, seminar information, and past experience based on those observations and data. The gathered data was entered into a Microsoft® Works Database®. The data is encapsulized into the "Tree Data" section below. The categories are self-evident with only the following notes. # (Tree Number): I sequentially assigned tree numbers, commencing at the holly oak at the corner of California Avenue & Hanover Street. A 1" by 3" aluminum tag was stapled to each tree at about eye level. I add a prefix "2K" (for the year 2000) to identify each as linked with this inventory, thus differentiating it from any other numbering system. Names: We employ the initial common names froln McMinn, if listed, otherwise from Sunset. Scientific/botanical names are included to minimize confusion. As applicable, we used McMinn’s key and/or Sunset’s descriptions. Diameter(s) (dbh): This standard measurement is the mink "diameter breast high (4.5 feet above grade)", taken with a surveyor’s diameter-tape, recorded in inches and tenths. Alternatively, the measurement was taken beneath the lowest branch when the first branching or crotch swelling occurs at or below 4.5 feet. Span: Averaged canopy spread is measured in feet. lit 0teight): Estimated distance foliage crown extends above grade, recorded in feet, August 16, 2001 Pre-Construction: 2575 Hanover Street, Palo Alto.Page #4 of 31. Crown Class: This helps visualize and assess tree form in the event stand might be altered. Both aesthetics and stability can be changed when adjacent trees are pruned or removed. Classifications: Dominant: tree canopy standing alone or over companions. Codominant: tree canopy blends with, but is crowded by, companions. Intermediate: crowded canopy receiving some light from above but little, if any, from sides. Suppressed: tree’s foliage below surrounding trees’. % Vigor: Rating for tree’s growth and vitality as a blend of elements like leaf or bud size and color, twig growth (elongation), accumulation of deadwood, cavities, woundwood development, trunk expansion (growth "cracks"), etc. % Form: Rating for tree’s architecture as a composite of factors like branch attachment, lean and balance, effects of prior breakage, crossing-tangled-twisted limbs, codominant trunks and/or branches, decay and cavities, anchorage (roots), etc. Overall Condition: Percentage rating assessing the tree’s overall vigor, recent growth, insects/diseases, and structural defects. Relative text rating included in the same cell as: Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, Very Poor. This corresponds to the "Condition Percentage" factor in tree valuations per the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA) system used by the International Society of Arboriculture. (CTLA, 1992.) It combines foliage, branches, limbs, trunk, and root ratings into a composite condition score. Suitability for Preservation: Considers tree’s condition (vigor and structure), longevity/age, adaptability, and aesthetics. This rating takes into account any announced intentions of changes in area/lot use. Degrees: High, Moderate, Low, Very Low. High: Tree in great condition and any existing defects or stresses are minor or can be easily mitigated. Moderate: Notable vigor and!or stability problems but which can be moderated with treatment and/or increased tree protection zone. Low: Significant problems, including shorter life expectancy. Difficult to retain but potential with much larger tree protection zone. Very Low: Substantial existing problems, defects, stresses. Unlikely to survive impact of any project. Comment: Notes; most obvious defects, insects, diseases or unique characteristics. August 16, 2001 Pre-Construction: 2575 Hanover Street, Palo Alto.Page #5 of 31. Ray Morneau, Arborist ~~SA Certif. #WC-0132 650.964,7664 4.0 Tree Appraisal Methods Per the City of Palo Alto Planning Arborist’s requirements, this report develops appraisal data and values for the existing trees on the project. The Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers ~ (CTLA, 1992,) and methods were" followed. The Eighth Edition is current. It is complemented by three companion publications (CTLA, 1986, Manual for Plant Appraisers; I.S.A., 1993, ..Workbook, Guide for Plant Appraisal, 8th Edition; Harris, R.W., 1992, Species Classification and Group Assignment). Each of the 122 trees are listed and calculated individually, one per spreadsheet line. A legend follows the spreadsheet data. The trunk formula method is practicable, fair, and appropriate for most of this site’s trees. The basis for the spreadsheet calculations are the mink formula worksheets published in the Guide (CTLA, 1992, p. 63) and the Workbook (ISA., 1993, pp. 10, 11). The spreadsheet cells contain the formulae as set out to work through those worksheets. My "Line #" headings corresponding to the line numbers of the items on those worksheets. 5.0 Introduction to Tree Protection Measures "All trees, regardless of where they are growing, are genetically ’forest’ trees. can keep trees’ environment to that of a forest, the healthier the trees will be." 4.) ,.. The closer you (Marx, 1995, p. No two trees react the same way to construction stress. Trees which are significantly impacted ,but appear to continue to survive, maybe even thrive, are exceptions to the rule. Changes in the below ground environment are the most catastrophic for trees. (Koehler, 1988, p. 3.) Decline and!or death of trees might not become evident until many years later. Some authorities allow as short a time as one to three years (Britton, 1992, p. 10). Many are less specific (Dreistadt, 1994, p. 41; Harris, 1992, p. 467; Schoenweiss, 1982, p. 169). Shigo (1986, p. 553) extends it to ten to twelve years after construction injury. Coate (1983, p.26) notes that it may be fifteen years or more following changes beneath patriarch oaks. Construction projects in the vicinity of existing trees inevitably alter their environments. Some details of a project more or less directly than others. Examples of more directly is cutting the tree back so the project can have the space or severing roots with a trench for utility undergrounding. Less direct alterations, although no less important, include constructing surfaces which absorb heat or reflect heat back as well as unintentional soil compaction by traffic over the root zone. (Shigo, 1986, p. 552; Harris, 1992, p. 163) The more roots which can be left undisturbed, the greater a tree’s chances of survival five or ten years beyond project completion. Most authorities emphasize that the root zones may well be August 16, 2001 Pre-Construction: 2575 Hanover Street, Palo Alto.Page #6 of 3 I. Ray Morneau,Arborist ~~SA Certif, #WC~0132 650.964.7664 the most important part of our trees on construction sites. The root zones of most trees extend well beyond the spread of the branches, and 80% to 90% of their absorbing root systems are in the top 6" to 12" of soil, maybe having some of the larger laterals down to a depth of 3’ (Hagen, 1991, p. 3; Harris, 1992, p. 309; Shigo, 1986, p. 197; Watson, Dec. 1985, p. 39; Willeke, 1992, p. 54). This is in contrast to the standard 6th-grade science book which has shown a 40’ tall tree with a mirror-image, 40’ deep, root system. In reality, root systems are much more pancake-shaped, and we must take this into consideration. Where measures cannot be taken to care for a tree, planning for its early removal and replacement might be more prudent than needing unanticipated removal after its subsequent demise. In the interest of mitigating the impact of construction stresses to trees to remain after this project’s completion, the following Site-Specifi~ Tree Protection Measures.are. proposed. These complement any tree-specific recommendations in the Data section (see appendix). As details of the project change or are refined, more individual measures can be drawn up to address those variations with particularity. 6.0 Site-Specific Tree Protection Measures 2575 Hanover Street, Palo Alto. (corner of California Av.) With the City ofPalo Alto’s publication of its Planning Arborist’s Tree Technical Manual, June 2001, many tree protection measures have been standardized. That 120+ page document governs tree care in Palo Alto. Salient parts are recapped and/or interpreted below. 6.1 Pre-Construction 6.1.1 FENCE: A tree protection zone is the area around the tree in which no grading or construction activity is to occur (HortScience, 1999, p. 5). Beforeother phases of the construction project begin, a continuous protective fence must usually be ~installed surrounding the trees to be saved. An ideal configurationpositions the fence to maximize the exclusion of traffic over the root zones, preferably at the drip lines. Where the construction extends under a tree’s canopy, define as much of that root zone as possible with the protective fence. Modification of the fence line to the building eaves lines or project curb lines might be allowable, if other methods are employed to buffer the roots to be saved. Where modification is permitted, driven fence posts will not be acceptable within four feet (4’) of any trunk which has attained a diameter of at least six inches (6"); alternative supports might include pylons or concrete post bases set on grade. Acceptable fence material is 6’ high chain link fencing, framed or rolled, or approved equivalent. Typical fence support options for galvanized-frame fencing could include galvanized fence-frame pedestals or concrete pylons. Driven 2-inch diameter galvanized fence posts placed on 6’ to 10’ centers could be used for rolled fencing, all August 16, 2001 Pre-Construction: 2575 Hanover Street, Palo Alto.Page #7 of 3 l. Ray Morneau, Arborist ~~SA Certif. #WC-0132 650.964.7664 posts must be positioned to miss obvious major roots. When near tree trunks, spans are often centered on the tree’s trunk to maintain maximum distance between the posts and the larger roots. The fence shall be continuous with the exception of either a 18- to 24-inch opening or a gate for inspection purposes. A warning sign shall be prominently displayed on each TP fence section at intervals no " greater than every 25’. The sign shall be a minimum of 18" square andshall state: I"WARNING: This fence shall not be removed or relocated without prior written authorization from the City of Palo Alto Planning Arborist. Violators ,, will be prosecuted and are subject to fine pursuant to § 8.10.110 of the PAMC.. 6.1.2 The fence shall remain in place, taut, standing, and continuous, until the final grading stage of the project. BUFFER: When areas under trees’ foliage canopies cannot be fenced, yet access is necessary on top of their root zones during the project, to avoid extra stress to tree roots, the contractor must notify the Planning Arborist in writing to obtain prior permission. Then one typically installs and maintains a temporary buffer to absorb the load and reduce soil compaction in the root zones. The buffer shall cover and remain in place over any traffic area within tree protection zones. Acceptable alternatives usually include: ¯ 5" wood chips covered with 1/2" plywood sheets, . 8" of wood chips, ¯6" crushed rock, or ¯1" plywood sheets nailed together. The buffer shall remain in place and be continuously maintained at the above specified thickness until the final grading stage of the project. If wood chips are used, it could ultimately be possible to incorporate them into the site soil as an organic amendment, since they will have begun to break down. Other buffer materials might need to be removed from the site after this time. 6,1,3 MOISTURE in ROOT ZONE: Root zone moisture for these trees is important. Even though seasonal precipitation is about normal, supplemental watering by soaker hose, watering wand, hose bubbler, or hydraulic tree rig could make appropriate applications. Quantity of water applied should be 10 to 20 gallons per trunk diameter inch per month. Additional supplemental water applications could be required as the soil becomes dry, as should be determined by periodic root-zone-soils inspections by the Project Arborist. The contractor shall maintain a written watering log on site to be presented to the City of Palo Alto Planning Arborist as needed and/or at the close of the project. August 16, 2001 Pre-Construction: 2575 Hanover Street, Palo Alto.Page #8 of 31. Ray 6.1.4 6.1.5 6.1.6 6.1.7 6.1.8 6.1.9 Morneau, Arborist ~sA Certif,#WC-O132 650.964.7664 PRUNING: Pre-construction trimming is often suggested to reduce requirements of extra care in vicinity of (or risk of damage to) new construction features as well as to improve tree vigor, vitality, and viability. Per ISA and ANSI published pruning standards, "Crown cleaning" as well as °’Crown Raising" to accommodate the proposed work may be appropriate. The Project Arborist can provide pruning specifications and shall determine what pruning is necessary and/or allowable. UTJLITJ~ES, TEMP.: Any temporary construction site utilities (electric, water, communication, etc.) shall be placed so as not to affect foliage crowns or roots of trees to be retained. Infringement on any tree’s space requires Project Arborist consultation. CLEAN-UP AREA: If on-site cleaning of equipment is required for cement forms and trucks, paint brushes, plastering tools, and such, then a location must first be specified, posted with a sign, and noticed to all (sub)contractors. This area cannot be situated beneath any tree’s canopy nor in any (proposed) planting area. Runoff from a designated clean-up area can be avoided by providing a temporary base of wood chips or other absorbent material to be disposed of off site at the close of the project. PRE-PLAN: To pre-plan minimizing impact on the trees by factors not addressed above, the following areas need to be identified before construction begins: a. construction traffic: entrance, exit, on-site flow, b. staging sites for construction supplies, services, trailers, etc., c. construction equipment parking, d. construction worker parking, and e. any other potentially problem area (considering frequent use area and/or tree-stress activity). INSPECTION & SIGN-OFF, PRE-CONSTRUCTION: The Project Arborist shall verify that the above sections have been complied with by signing off after inspection (see {}6.2.10 below). PROJECT ARBORIST: The Project Arborist must be qualified arborist (§6.1. i0) who has sufficient access to reports, drawings/plans, and staff!team contacts such that he has developed a thorough understanding of the project. This requires a long-term relationship with the project in order to avoid the need to periodically re-train new arborists. Any necessary trimming, tree repair, and/or root pruning should be done to published ’standards under the supervision of the Project Arborist. August 16, 2001 Pre-Construction: 2575 Hanover Street, Palo Alto.Page #9 of 31. Ray Morneau, ArborJst ~~SA Certif.#WC-0132 650.964.7664 6.1.10 6.1.11 6.2.2 ARBORIST, QUALWIED: Locally, a "qualified arborist" is either a Certified Arborist (by International Society of Arboriculture), or amember of the California Arborists’ Association, or a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists. Of course the presumption stands that to be "qualified" any chosen arborist would have appropriate experience with comparable projects performing similar duties. STANDARDS: U.S.A. "published standards" include: 1. Tree Pruning Guidelines (ISA, 1995), 2. American National Standard for Tree Care Operations -- Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Maintenance -- Standard Practices (a.k.a.: ANSI A300-1995) (ANSI, 1995), and 3. American National Standard for Tree Care Operations -- Pruning, Trimming.~ Repairing, Maintaining, and Removing Trees, and Cutting Brush -- Safety Requirements (a.k.a.: ANSI Z133.1-1994) (ANSI, 1994). Workers may be unfamiliar with these standards, and the concepts contained there, or unwilling to abide by them. By definition, this would be sub-.standard tree work and would put your trees at risk for untimely decline and death. Such workers must not be allowed to practice in the vicinity of trees important enough to be retained. During Construction: P.RE-REQUIREMENTS: Applicable requirements from "Pre-Construction" Section above shall have been implemented and remain in place. DEMOLITION: To preserve the important absorbing roots of trees to remain after construction, no unexpected cuts or fills should be allowed beneath their canopies. The method for site preparation of scraping the surface soil with a blade must not be allowed within the drip lines. Hand grubbing with a pick-mattocks ~an be sufficiently effective while saving tree roots. During any demolition stage of this project, care must be taken when portions of a discontinued utility system are near any tree to be retained, including, but not limited to, systems for irrigation, gas, electric, water. Rather than disturbing the root system, consider stubbing offthe pipe at the tree’s drip line and leaving it in place in the soil. Here, demolition requires the razing and hauling of existing hardscape. Equipment operators must remain aware of nearby trees to be preserved and avoid contacting them or their roots. Aswith other excavations, if/when exposed, roots should be protected from desiccation (see item §6.2.6, below). Stump removal can be a sensitive issue where a stump’s roots overlap with root systems from adjacent trees. Such stumps must not be extracted with tractors, bulldozers, or August 16, 2001 Pre-Construction: 2575 Hanover Street, Palo Alto.Page #10 of 31. Ray Morneau,Arborist ~s~ cePtifl ~J~wc-013~650,964.7664 such power equipment lest intertwined roots tear up other roots to be retained. One option is to grind up the stump in place. 6.2.3 TRENCHING: Intrusion beneath any tree’s canopy must be minimized for all trenches, including; electric, sewer, water, gas, decorative/security lighting, or irrigation. Where practicable (and approved), use common trenches for multiple utilities. Trenches must be routed to sever only a minimum of tree roots. Positioning trenches in driveways is often least intrusive. Trench plans within any existing dripline must be reviewed and approved by the Project Arborist before being implemented. 6.2.4 TUNNELING: Tunneling under roots is preferable to severing, especially for larger roots. Note "{}6.2.5 Excavation", below. 6.2.5 EXCAVATION: Manual excavation and pruning methods will be u~sed when encountering roots with a diameter exceeding 1.5" to avoid the extensive damage which heavy equipment does to roots. Roots which must be severed and measure over one and one-half inches (1.5") in diameter should be cut cleanly, smoothly without crushing, shattering, or tearing. If roughly cut by heavy equipment, re-cut to sound wood. Cuts should be made to lateral roots where possible. Cut & Fill Not¢: Avoid setting up a tractor, or other digging equipment, on soil to remain undisturbed, uncompacted. Similarly, sideways sheering of roots shatters many of them back into tissue hoped to be saved. Alternatively, situate the tractor in the (to be) disturbed area and pull soil to be removed away from the tree. Another option could be to initially sever the roots at the line to be cut by using a stump grinder or root pruning wheel. Note "{}6.2.6 Exposed Roots", below. 6.2.6 EXPOSED ROOTS: Curtail drying out of small roots. Within two hours of cut or opening, cover all exposed cuts in soil containing both root hairs and newly severed or exposed roots. To retain moisture, dampened wood chip mulch (4" deep), moist soil (3"), or wetted burlap (4 layers) placed against freshly cut and exposed soil are some choices; all must remain moist. When more than 10% of a tree’s absorbing root system is exposed or otherwise stressed (as here for oak #1), the application of an organic bio-stimulant, comparable tO RootsTM, can reduce shock. Remedial Care must be assessed and prescribed by the Project Arborist during his (weekly) inspections. Such treatment might include, but not be limited to, aeration, soil amendment, mycorrhizal inoculation, and/or irrigation. 6.2.7 POWER EQUIPMENT: Equipment operators should be informed that machinery can cause great injury to standing trees. They must take unique care to operate with as August 16, 2001 Pre-Construction: 2575 Hanover Street, Palo Alto.Page #11 of 31. Ray Morneau, Arborist ~~SA Certif.~WC-0132 650.96~.7664 6.2.8 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.3.4 6.3.5 much distance as possible between machines and trees -- branches, trunks, and roots. Any accidental damage must be promptly repaired by a qualified arborist. CHEMICALS: No storage, pouring, or leaking of any fuel, oil, or chemical may be allowed beneath a tree’s canopy. Time is of the essence in the event of any size spill; prompt containment and proper clean-up is necessary. USE: No signs, wires, or other construction apparatus may be attached to any tree. .INSPECTIONS & SIGN-OFFS: The Project Arborist shall be retained on-call to clarify tree issues and answer questions. The Arborist shall confirm project compliance with tree protection measures, including protection fencing, demolition, any root cutting or exposure, trenching or grading in root zones, and follow-up. Otherwise, the Project Arborist will verify observance of tree protection with weekly site inspections summarized in a monthly status report. Follow-up: MONITOR for I~ALTH & VIGOR: These trees should be inspected upon project completion as well as at appropriate intervals to note changes and developing situations which could require action: foliage crown density, weight distribution, and/or breakage; pests; diseases; cables and supports; root zone moisture and oxygen; et alii. MONITOR MOISTURE in ROOT ZONE: In conjunction with {}6.3.1, above, if the root zone soil is not moist at a depth of 6" below existing grade, then consider an application of supplemental watering similar to §6.1.3, above. Irrigation water should never be applied in a way which allows it to wet the base of any tree’s trunk at the soil line. Adjust any sprinkler head, bubbler, or hose to keep water at least 3’ from the base of trees. FERTILIZER: Upon inspection, after new growth has been put out by the trees following the close of the project, the qualified arborist inspecting can assess the advisability of making an application of fertilizer. NEW PLANTINGS: No planting or other intrusion shall be installedwithin 10 feet of the thinks of this site’s mature oak trees or within 5 feet of other species’ mature trunks. No irrigation water should fall within 3 feet of mature root flares. NEW OWNER: The extent of care taken to minimize impact to these trees should be brought to the attention of any new owner/tenant early in any negotiation process. August 16, 2001 Pre-Construction: 2575 Hanover Street, Palo Alto.Page #12 of 31. Ray Morneau, Arborist ~~s~ Certif.~WC-0132 650.~64.7664 7.0 Appendices 7.1 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 7.1.1 The scope of this assignment includes no plant material other than the trees on this site. And, concerning these trees, any inspection was limited only to the cursory examination necessary to obtain the data for the pre-construction tree inventory. No climbing inspection, root crown excavation/examination, tissue testing, soil sampling/evaluation, nor drilling-type testing was performed at this time. 7.1.2 This report is specific to this unique site, these individual trees, and this particular situation. Although some of the principles herein discussed might appear to be applicable to another site, tree, or situation, it is not possible to effectively carry any of these ideas across to a different scenario. Uncategorically, further investigation of the different scene is required. 7.1.3 Due to the fact that trees are living organisms, the individual variability of each specimen in each situation renders guarantees and/or warranties for my services impracticable. However, following the codes of ethics endorsed by my peers and the professional organizations to which I belong, I offer nay opinions relying on my best professional judgment and suggesting best management practices for my clients’ trees. 7.1.4 This report is not written, offered, or intended as a legal opinion. Any and all references to ordinances, statutes, laws, legal words of art, and the province of jurisprudence are secondary to this work, Unequivocally, before they are to be interpreted or applied, any issues of law which might thus be mentioned herein must be researched and addressed by appropriate legal counsel. 7.1.5 If the circumstances surrounding this situation turn to a legal forum, then this report’s consultant-author could be brought into legal testimony or court appearances only with a new assignment covered by additional consultant fees. 7.1.6 Alteration of this report, intentionally or unintentionally, voids the entire report. 7.1.7 Sketches, photographs, and any other graphics used in this report are intended solely as visual aids. Every attempt is made to limit distortions and to provide graphics realistic enough for the purposes of this report. Nevertheless, if engineering-accuracy is important to any user of this report, then other professionals must be retained to provide that level of detail. For instance, it may be necessary to survey actual tree trunk locations in order to be able to critically assess the specific impacts of construction activity in the vicinity of trees near proposed buildings, trenches, sidewalks, streets/curbs, and such. August 16, 2001 Pre-Construction: 2575 Hanover Street, P01o Alto.Page #13 of 31. .Ray Morneau, Arborist ISA Certif. #WC-0132 650.964.7664 7.2 Literature & Authorities ANSI. 1995. American National Standard for Tree Care Operations -- Tree, Shrub, cmd Other groo~ Plcmt Maintenanee -Standard Practices (a.k a.: ANSI A300-1995) American National Standards Institute, 11 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036. ANSI 1994. American National Standard for Tree Care Operations -- Pruning, Trimmmg, Repatring, Maintainmg, and Removing Trees, and Cutting Brush -- Safety Requirements (a.k.a.: ANSI Z 133,1 - 1994) Am. Nat’l Standards Inst., 11 West 42rid Street, NY, NY 10036. Britton, Demce F. and Gene P. Snyder. December, 1992. "Construction Damage: Correction Begins With Prevention" ArborAge. 68-8960 Perez Road, Suite J, Cathedral City, CA 92234. CTLA 1992. Guide for Plant Appraisal. (Sth. ed.) Prepared under contract by The Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. Published by International Society ofArborieulture, P.O. Box GG, Savoy, IL 61874-9902 CTLA 1986. Manual forPlant Appraisers Council of Tree andLandseape Appraisers, 1250 I Street, NW, Suite 504, Washington, DC 20005. DooMer, Dave. 2001. City of Palo Alto Tree TechnicalManual - Standards co~d Specifications. City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning and Commumty Development, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 650.329.2441 Hagen, Bruce W, Barrie D. Coate, andKeith Oldham. 1991. Compatible Plants Under andAroundOaks. California Oak Foundation, 909 Twelfth Street, Suite 125, Sacramento, CA 95814. Hams, R.W. wath James R Clark and Nelda P. Matheny. 1999. Arboriculture: integrated management of landscape trees, shrubs and vines. (3rd. ed) Prent~ee-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458. Harris, R.W. 1992. Arboriculture: mtegrated management of landscape trees, shrubs and vines. (2nd ed.) Prentice-Hall, In~. Englewood Cltffs, NJ 07632. Harris, R W. (Convener of the Northern Califorma Regional Tree Appraisal Group) 1992. Species Classification and Group Assignment. International Society of Arborieulture, Western Chapter, P.O. Box 255155, Sacramento, CA 95865. Hortzoianee. 1999. Trees and Development (Semina~ Handout Notes). ISA Regional Meeting, January 15, 1999, Santa Rosa, California. ©Hortseienee, Inc. POB 754, Pleasanton, CA 94566 (Seminar presenters: Nelda Matheny and Jim Clark) 925.484.0211 I S.A. 1995. Tree-Pruning Guidehnes. International Society of Arborioulture, P.O. Box GG, Savoy, IL 61874-9902. I.S.A. 1993. Workbook Guide for Plant Appraisal, 8th Edition, International Society of Arborieniture, P.O. Box GG, Savoy, IL 61874-9902 Koeh!er, C. S, and R. H. Hunt, D. Froehlieh, and J. Geiger. 1988. flrotectmg Trees when Building on Forested Land. Leaflet//21348 Cooperative Extension, University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Berkeley, CA 94720. Marx, Donald May, 1995. "Roots and Mycerrhizae." Tree Care Industry. Nataenal Arborist Asso~iataon, P.O. Box 1094, Amherst, NJ 03031-1094. Matthew, Nelda and James R. ~lark. 1998. Trees and Development: a Techmcal Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. International Society of Arbori~ulture, P. O. Box 3129, Champaign, IL 61826-3129. MeMinn, Howard E., and Evelyn Mamo. 1974. An IllustratedManual of Pacific Coast Trees. (2rid. Edition) University of California Press, Berkeley, CA 94720. Sehoenweiss, Donald F. July, !982. "Prevention and Treatment of Construction Damage to Shade Trees." Journal of Arboriculture. Volume 8; Number 7. Intematmnal Sooiet3, of Arbon~ulture, P.O. Box GG, Savoy, [L 61874-9902. x L1Oydl 1986. A New Tree Biology. Facts, Photos, andPhilasophies on trees a~d thetrproblems andproper care. 8higo and Trees, Associates, Durham, NI-! 03824. Sunset. 1995. Sunset Western Garden Book. Sunset Publishing Company, Menlo Park, CA 94025. U.S.D.A. 1949. Trees: The Yearbook of Agriculture, 1949. Superintendent of Documents, U S Gov~t Printing Office, Washington, DC 20025. Willeke, Donald C. April, 1992. "What Every Builder Should Know." Western Chapter News. Volume 18; Number 4. International Society of Arboriculture, Western Chapter, P.O. !3ox 255155, Sacramento, CA 95865. 7.3 Inventory Data (printed to next 13 pages) August 16, 2001 Pre-Construction: 2575 Hanover Street, Palo Alto.Page #14 of 31. Ray Morneau, Arborist ~~SA Certif. #WC-0132 650.964.7664 !Common Name ;meter~: Condition Preservation ;Comment 1 iQuercus ilex .................T~i";li’~ ..............~ .............; .........................""".............................................................................33 =. 40 Dom.-~~’£ ........~(~;~;~ .............~~;~ .........} ........~i~~&~:~{~ .........’ ¯’All branches originating at about the 6’ height; ]rowing in curbside 4’ planter strip. !All branches originating at about the 6’ height; growing 3’ from sidewalk; extensive surface roots :.....,!,.n....t.,.u..rf......d.e..c.a.y....a..t...o..!..d....p...r,.u.n.!..n..g.. ,.w...o...u..q..d...s.....,e..~..e. ,n...s.!.v..e... ,e.p.i..c. 0..r..m..!.~.: ...................................................................................................... ;Ash Moraine i ! ~. i i Poor All branches originating at about the 6’ height; surface roots in turf; extensive tip dieback. 124.6 45’ i 50’ : Dom. : 30% ~ 30% i 30% ........ ..V....e..~.,..L.o....w........i Poor iAII branches originating at about the 6’ height; tip dieback; severe decline. ~Fraxinus’Moraine’;23,1 i 42’~-- 481i Dom. 25% 40%1 33% :,Ve..ry. Low :.Ash, Moraine ~;;=; Poor ~ ¯ip dieback; severe decline; extensive surface roots. !All branches originating at about the 6’ height; tip dieback; sunscald (with decay behind).. ..:-rip dieback; sunscald (with decay behind).. .Ash, Moraine ................................................................................................................................................................................... i ..................i ...............i ......................................t .............i i Very Poor:’. ~Extensive dieback; sunscald (with decay beneath it). i ’.Ash Moraine iExtensive dieback; maior deadwood to 8" diameter. iSweetg.um : ~ ~ ’ : ~ Poor ; ~...Major deadwood; declining; extensive surface roots with decay; misshapen; embedded bark i....c..~t .cb..a. ,t..~’..~.b...O..Y..e....~r.°..u.n....d... ................................................................................................................................................... August 16, 2001 Pre-Construction: 2575 Hanover Street, Palo Alto.Page #15 of 31. Ray Morneau, Arborist ~ ~s~ Certlf. ~WC-O132 850.964.7664 ’Tree # ~$cientic Name" ...................................................................................... FiSi;;2 ’iSpani"~i" id}~~dlli’"~ii’~i~: 7 i~ff~: "i~~;~~:~ii" s ;Common Name ~meter::’.i Condition Preservation ’:Comment iSweetgum ................................. ~ ................................... ’~ ...................... ’, .................. --i. ......... .P....o...o...r...................................................:iMajor deadwood; declining; -7’ diameter root plate; embedded bark crotches at 5’. iMajor deadwood; poor structure; extensive root plate; breakage of secondary trunk at 3’ with~......d...e..~Y.....s.t...a..r!..n.,g...~..v.!.t.Z: ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... !Sweetg.um i i i ~ =~ Poor iDieback; declining; thin fo/age crown; extensive root plate (scraped, with decay)..: Sweetg.um ; ~ : ~ i Ve,ot. Poor iDieback; poor structure; embedded bark crotches; extensive root plate with scrapes/decay; ...... 0,..o. ,z..!~.l....an...d...,f...u_n..~..u..s....°...d..°..r. .f..r..o...m......S. ,w...e.,.e..tg..u....m.,....C.,.a..n,..k...e..r.~ .............................................................................................................................. :-All branches originating at about the 5’ height; extensive surface roots in tuff. iM nor deadwood accumulated; endweights. ~ !Cedar Deod r ~ i . i i i .............. ,.F..,a..!.r. .......... i ......................................... ~hin foliage crown; surface roots. i......!..8..........:~.M..a.g.n...o..!!.a....g.r.a..n..d,.!f.!..o..r..a. ..................!12.6 25’i 40’ iCodom.~ 40% 60% 50% iMa.g.nolia, Southern i ..........................i ..............i ...................[ ....................................Fair ;-15’ diameter root plate; extensive decay; thin foliage crown. ..........................................................................................iFern Pine.~i ...............;. ......................~. .........................................Fair iFive stems averaging 5" diameter. Crowded; lop-sided; declining; thin foliage crown; extensive surface roots; fresh Red Turpentine .... ~..e..,e.!,e t~.t..c.h....t..u..b.._e..s....a..t....b_.a.s..e.... ............................................................................................................................................... August 16, 2001 Pre-Construction: 2575 Hanover Street, Palo Alto.Page #16 of 31. Ray Morneau, Arborist ~~ Certif. #WC-0:~32 650,964.7664 ::Common. Name : meter!~:i Condition ~ Preservation !Comment ~. 21 iPinus radiata " 17.8 25’65 ~Codom.i 20% ! 30%25%Ve~ Low ~iP ne~ Monterey.~~!~Ve..~. Poor. ’,Crowded; lop-sided; declining, thinning foliage crown; trunk lean 25° to east; fresh Red !Crowded; lop-sided; declining, thinning foliage crown; trunk lean 20° to south; fresh Redi.....T...u..r..p...e...n...t.t..n..g..p..!.Lc...h....f..u....b...e...s....a..t....b...a....s...e..: .......................................................................................................................................................................... "..............................................................................................23 iPinus radiata ’~";iY:~["~" ........i :~6~ ................................................i~8~J8~}~ :~)£"’!~’~’~ } ~ i ~i~ t ~:P..!.n..e.,....M..°...n..t.e.[e.Y.. ...................................! ...................! ....................................................~, ....................i ..................! .........P....°.,0...r. ................................................i ;Crowded; lop-sided; declining; moderate deadwood; no Red Turpentine Beetle evidence (yet!). ~ .........2..4. ........~.P..!.0...u...s...r...a.d.!.a..t..a. .......................................i27.5 35’ 75’ ~lnterm. 25% ~,25% i 25% ..........V....e..~...L..o..w ......i !.P...!..n...e..,.....M...°....n..!..e..r...e..z ...................................i ...................................................i ......................~ .....................i ..................!.....v....e..~....P....o....o...r. ...........................................iCrowded; lop-sided; declining; moderate deadwood; fresh Red Turpentine Beetle pitch tubes. ~ !.P..j...n...e..,...~..o..n..t...e..r...e.y. ........................... i ................................. ~ ........................................................... ..v.....e..~....P....o....o.r. ....................... iCrowded; lop-sided; minor deadwood; fresh Red Turpentine Beetle pitch tubes at base. L.... ..2. 6. ........ !..P...!.n.u..s.....r...a..d..!a..t.a" ........................................ 112.2 15’ 55’ Interm. i 25% :25% 25% ......... ..V...e..~...L...o..w.’ ......... ,Pine Monterey.~~!Ve~ Poor Crowded; lop-sided; minor deadwood; trunk lean 20° to northeast; fresh Red Turpentine Beetle ...... p.!.t...c...h....!..u....b...e...s.....a..t.....b...a...s..e... .................................................................................................................................................................................................. !Pine Monterev :. ! . ~ !Very Poor =,Crowded; lop-sided; moderate deadwood to 3" diameter; fresh Red Turpentine Beetle sites. [p...!..n...e..,...~..o....n..t...e...r...ey. ....................................................................................................................................! ................:.....v..e..~....P....o.,..o..r. ............................................; :Crowded; lop-sided; major deadwood to 3"; fresh Red Turpentine Beetle sites.~ iDieback; poor structure; embedded bark crotches; scraped root plate. ~0 0 0i:~~).......il"i~[Ji~J~r~6~~:"~ii~.~:~i’~l[J~ ............:’"i~.i~ 30’ ~~[~Sa~~]gbg"i4(:J~"; .........~,g~; .........i #~~J;~~:~i~"! ...... ................... -: .....................................................................i ........................................................~ ...............-."= .......................................!Sweetgum ~ : ~ - ; Poor i . iDieback; poor structure; endweights. .: August 16, 2001 Pre-Construction: 2575 Hanover Street, Palo Alto.Page #17 of 31. Ray Morneau, Arborist zs,~ Certif.#WC-0132 650.964.7664 ~Common Name ~meter :~:Condition Preservation : :Comment ~River Red Gum :Fair :............................................................................. ; ...................................................", .....................~, ..................... !Crowded; lop-sided; trunk lean 10° to east.: iRiver Red Gum ~ Good iReasonable structure for a eucalyptus; typical twisted grain. !River Red Gum :Good iSweetg.um i ; ’. ’. ~ ~ Poor !Crowded; lop-sided; trunk lean 15° to south; dieback; declining; decay in cavity at 1’ level. !Sweetg.um !Poor iDieback; decline; endweights. iFour stems averaging 6" diameter..; ~Botflebrush ~ ~ Poor ~wo stems averaging 7" diameter. i..C.., .h.e.r...r~. 2.t..8..,u...r. ,e..I .............................................................................................~: ......................~: ......................t .................,i. Y..e...r~....P. 0..°..r. .............................................~ ~Five stems averaging 3" diameter; poor vascular system.:~ iCedar Atlas ."-- { i : i ! Dead IDEAD long before commencement of proiect. !Junip.er Holl~ood : ~ : .. Fair !Crowded; lop-sided by building; typical Hollywood Juniper attitude. August 16, 2001 Pre-Construction: 2~75 Hanover Street, Palo Alto.Page #] 8 of 31. Ray Morneau, Arborist ~~SA Certif.#WC-0132 650.964.766~ iComrnon Name ;meter;. .................i Condition Preservation i iComment iHawthorn~ En,g.lish ~ ~: :. ; ; Fair !Has been nicely pruned and maintained -- not the tangle typical of E. Hawthorns. iTypically lanky; low vigor. !Birch Europ..ean White i ’2 !i Fair .-Typically lanky; low vigor. iMeasured at 12" height due to codominant trunks. :..... 45 ~Betula p.endula 8.2 24’44’ : Dom.~)£ ............~S~"i ............~;J~ ...........i ................~ ............... ’.Birch Europ..ean White i i Dead iDead before commencement of project; two codominant trunks at 4’. iDead before commencement of project.:. ~. 47 iGinkgobiloba 1.0 i 2’ ’, 7’ ~ Dom.. 60% 66%63%Moderate........................................................................................~ ................., ......................~ ....................................................................................~Maidenhair Tree --Fair ~ iDeclining. !Maidenhair Tree . i ~ : i Poor ~ery stressed-looking foliage crown. ........................................................................................ i .........................................................i .................~ Fair .......................................L M...a.. !,d....e..,n...h...a.. !..r.. ~.r.e.. ,.e. .............................~ ...................................~ ...............: ....................~ ................................................................................................................. August 16, 200!Pre-Construction: 2575 Hanover Street, Palo Mto.Page #19 of 31. Ray Morneau, Arborist ~~s~ Certif. #WC-0132 650.964,,7664 ..................................Name ....... !Common Name ;meter:;: ..............! .................i ..................! ............i Condition ~Comment Maidenhair Tree ~i i Fair iStressed-looking foliage. iMaidenhair Tree i ,:i Fair iMaidenhair Tree +Fair ’= 57 ;Gink£~o biloba 2.5 :~ "g~~"}SS’~."[gg~ ""i’ g~~£"~ .........~~’ .................~S~~:~ ........................................................................................................~ ...................................... ...................+.. ..................,: .........................................~::Maidenhair Tree :~Fair iOlive~ Common .,.i .:’.Fair iOlive,Common ...................... i ...................... i ............................... i Poor ! ......................................... ~Four stems averaging 6" diameter; declining foliage crown with extensive twiggy deadwood. ::"...................................................................................................................................................................60 iPinus radiata =25.2 ~ 45’ i Y(~;~~~~:i ~i~o" .................. ...............i .......................................................................’Declining; moderate deadwood; Ips beetles in foliage crown. August 16, 2001 ~Pre-Construction: 2575 Hanover Street, Palo Alto.Page #20 of 31. Ray Morneau, Arbori~t ~~ Certif.#WC-0132 650196~,7664 ~Common Name - meter-"~: Condition ; Preservation ;Comment iDeclining; moderate deadwood; Ips beetles in foliage crown. iMajor deadwood; Ips beetles in foliage crown. ;.P...!..q..e..,.....M..o....n..t...e...r...e.z ......................................... i ............................... ~,Major deadwood; Ips beetles in foliage crown. !Sweet£!um ............................................. i .................. :~ ............... i ............... i ............................................. i .................. !.....V....e.~....P....o...o...r. ............................................iCrowded; lop-sided; embedded bark crotch at 6’; oozing from Sweetgum canker. !Crowded; lop-sided; major deadwood. ;Mimosa; Silk Tree ’ ; i Fair ~Three codominant trunks at 6’. ~Mimosa; Silk Tree :’’Poor............................................................................................................. ~ ....................................~ ......................................................................................................... iDeclining; three codominant trunks at 6’; root scrapes. ;Bottlebrush i ;i : Poor [~;~T~i~.~.;..~.~.~.~.i~.~...~;..;ji~.~.;~?.i ............................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................... : ~I 0 0 0’:it~ ......i~,,&i~i,,~~~~i~~i~r~~r~~ ........~;iSi~75~~;r~g~;~ig~i .........~i~~ .................~i~i;~ ....... ~River Red Gum ... "~ ...................... ; ...................... ; ................ i Poor iEmbedded bark crotches (three in lower 6’) (producing codominant stems prone to breakage). August 16, 2001 Pre-Construction: 2575 Hanover Street, Palo Alto.Page #21 of 31. Ray Morneau, Arborist ~sA Cerl-if. #WC-0132 650.964.7664 Condition Prese~ation ~ ~Comment ~ ~oung; with typical lankiness. :"....................72 ":~Plnus ....................radlata: .................................................!" ...................18.1 i~ ..........28;’"’: ...............55 iCodom.~ ......................:’ ............40~il ........:f ........40~"7: ................40~6 ............~ .........................................Ve~ Low .. ...................... [151 ~’~;"1~~{~]:~} ...................................~ i i ...............~ .....................~ .....................i ...............;Poor i .........................................;.~ Crowded; lop-sided; declining; trunk leans 30° to northeast.: iGood pruning! (Not tangled as would be typical for E. Hawthorns.) iPine Montere)~!:: Poor iMaior deadwood; declining; thinnini foliage crown. : !Olive, Common i Fair Common :i :iOlive,~-:~Poor ~Crowded; lop-sided. : !Major deadwood; double leader. August 16, 2001 Pre-Construction: 2575 Hanover Street, Palo Alto.Page #22 of 31. Ray Morneau, Arborist ~~SA Cert,f.#WC-0132 650.964.7664 iCommon Name .:meter!::.: Condition Preservation iComment i iPittosp.orum ’!,n/a i ~ ~OId, broken, stump.:_ iPittosporum ".:~:: Fair ::Three stems averaging 5" diameter. .............................................................................................n/ai 83 iPittosp.orum tenuifolia ¯n/a n/a ......n../...a. ...........n.../.~......~......q./.a,.......:,.....n.!..a.....,i n/a -- .......................................iPittosporum !-i ~n/a ; ,Old, broken stump,... }Two stems averaging 3" diameter; crooked, leaning trunk. [..c...o..ff..e...e...b...e..r.~ ......................................................................................................................i ........................................i....V...e..~....P....°....°..r.. ...........................................!Root flare defect; decay at old pruning wounds. iPlum Common " ~ ~ VeX Poor i ..q-wo stems from ground level (4.8", 7.9"); crowded; top-sided; severely declining, thinning foliage .....c.r,..o, .w.,n... b...o.t...h ..s..f.e..m.s....v..e..~...s..P.!..a...y...e..q‘..~..u..t....a.t....a...n.....e..x1...r.e.m...e..!.y.~.w..~d...e an...g.!e.. .................. !Crowded; lop-sided; trunk leans 50° to north. -.g~.......i6~~;r~[i;~i~i;i~;ii~ ...........................}~~.6 .........!~gi~,g;6;~~.~d6~:;gg~;! .........~i~~ .......-. .....................~ ......................................................................:~. .................:. ..... ;Codominant trunks at 20’ above ground. ~~0 0 0 ....................... ~ ........................................................................".. ................; ...................~ ......................~ ....................- ................................. ¯ Plum Common ;:i !i i Ve~ Poor !Two stems from ground level (5.2", 5.4"); crowded; lop-sided; misshapen; severely declining, August 16, 200]Pre-Construction: 2575 Hanover Street, Palo Alto.Page #23 of 31. Ray Morneau, ArborJst ~~SA Cer~if.#WC-0132 650.96~t 7664 iCommon Name : meter~ .......~ .....~Condition: Preservation " !Comment iOId, broken stump. !Privet Jap..anese ~ ~ : Very Poor iBranches to multi-stemmed specimen at 1’ above ground, as typical for species; declining. :River Red Gum ................:~ ......................................................................................................... ~ i Fair iThinning foliage crown; first ncidence on this site of lerp-forming psyllid insect stressing leaves; ..... ..a!!..t,r.~..k..s.../.s.!.,e...m..S....u..p..r.!.~...h...ts...a. !.. ,6.,’....(..c. ,o...d..,o...m..!~,~N.~ ......................................................................................................................... i ............... iAcacia, Blackwood ~~Good :- ~Dense.~ iFour stems averaging 4" diameter; severely declining; internal decay; termite galleries noted. ~P net Monterey :. : Poor ~Extensive major deadwood; Ips beetles in branch wood branches low to three trunks at 3’. iPine, Monterey i :. ~ :. ~ Very Poor Extensive major deadwood; Ips beetles in branch wood; branches low at 2’. ..,Thinning foliage canopy; lerp psyllid. August I6, 2001 Pre-Construction: 2575 Hanover Street, Palo Alto.Page #24 of 31. Ray Morneau, Arbori t ~ Certif,#WC-O132 650.964.766 ............................... ...... ~Common Name ...meter ~~; Condition Preservation .: ~Oomment .:-Thinning foliage canopy; extensive lerp psyllid. ...........................................................................iRiver Red Gum ~ ............................................................................~Poor i .......................................~ iMeasured at 4’ due to branching to two codominant trunks at 4’.~ ~River Red Gum ’ Poor........................................................................... ! ......................................................................: ....................:. ............................................................................................ iPreviously topped; lanky regrowth; endweights. 103 !Eucaly..p.tus camaldulensis i 8.2 n/a i n/a ; n/a i n/a n/a n/a n/a iBroken 10-foot-tall stump; formerly topped there (with decayed stub). ~River Red Gum ~: Poor ,..,Very thin foliage crown; psyllid pressure. -..Measured at 1’ due to codominant trunks at 2’. iMajor deadwood; central leader dead as if frost damage, plus sunscald, with decay. iR ver Red Gum -:!-:Poor Tlhin foliage crown; psyllid pressure. ... ~River Red Gum ~ , i Very Poor ~ .................................... Measured at 1 due to codominant trunks at 2, very thin foliage canopy with psyllid pressure. August 16, 2001 Pre-Construction: 2575 Hanover Street, Palo Alto.Page #25 of 31. Ray lMoPlleau, Arborist ~~SA Certif.~WC-0132 650.964.7664 ........................................................................................~Common Name. meter;= ..............: ................~ ................................~~ Condition ~ Prese~ation ~Comment iN ne trunks from ground level averaging 3" diameter. iOlive~ Common { i i ~ ! i , Fair iFour trunks from ground level averaging 6" diameter. !Eight trunks from ground level averaging 4" diameter. ! 114 iLig.uidambar st~aciflua ! 6.2 14’ 27’ Dom. 66% 55% " 60% i Moderate! ........................................... ;Measured at 4’ due to branching at 4.5’ to codominant trunks. Lq..e...d.,..a..r..,p,,,,e.,?..d,.a.r. ....................................................................................................................................................~ ............F...a.!r. .....................................................~ iLop-sided (a bit).} ::~1~.1‘~6~[~C.‘~!~n~n‘~.a~m~.~‘m~u~.‘m~..‘c~..~..m‘~h~...~.~r~a~. ...........7.7 ’ 12’i 25’ :Sup.p..r. i 55% : 40%. 47% ~ Low : !Crowded; lop-sided; trunk arches/sweeps to east over parking/driveway. ~ .., !Crowded; lop-sided. iFern Pine ~ ! .............. ~ .................. ~ .................. i ............ : Fair iModerate deadwood; endweights. August 16, 2001 Pre-Construction: 2575 Hanover Street, Palo Alto.Page #26 of 31. Ray Morneau, Arborist ~~sA Certif.#WC-0132 650.964.7664 !Common Name ~ meter : Condition ~ Prese~ation ~Comment iFern Pine : i ; ~ Ve~ Poor ~s typical for this species, has sometimes been sheared as a shrub. iMeasured at 2.5’ ,due to branching to five codomina{ stems at 3,5’; major deadwood; severely ~.....d..9..c..!!.n..!..n...g..(.,e...s.p...e..c.!a!l~...a.s.e..v.!..d .e.n.c.e...d....by....f..o..lia...g..e.....ca..n,.o..p..y..). .............................................................. August 16, 2001 Pre-Construction: 2575 Hanover Street, Palo Alto.Page #27 of 31.