Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-05-23 City Council Agenda Packet City Council 1 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. May 23, 2016 Special Meeting Council Chambers 5:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 10 days preceding the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Closed Session 5:00-6:00 PM Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his Designees Pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Molly Stump, Suzanne Mason, Rumi Portillo, Dania Torres Wong, Allyson Hauk) Employee Organizations: Palo Alto Police Managers’ Association (PAPMA); Palo Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association (FCA); and Utilities Management and Professional Association of Palo Alto (UMPAPA); Management, Professional and Confidential Employees Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a); Special Orders of the Day 6:00-6:10 PM 2. Presentation of the Winners in the Emergency Services/FEMA Art Poster Contest 2 May 23, 2016 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 6:10-6:20 PM Oral Communications 6:20-6:35 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Consent Calendar 6:35-6:40 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 3. Adoption of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo Collections Policy 4. SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing and Restating Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, California Energy Code, 2016 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings (FIRST READING: May 2, 2016 PASSED: 9-0) Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 6:40-8:15 PM 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Approval of a Site and Design and Architectural Review Application and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project Located at 2515-2585 El Camino Real to Allow a new 39,858 Square Foot, 3-Story Mixed-use Building Including Retail, Office, 13 Residential Condominium Units and one Level of Underground Parking on a 39,638 Square Foot Lot to Replace a 9,694 Square Foot Existing Restaurant (Olive Garden). Approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to Exceed the 5,000 Square Foot Office for the Site by Approximately 4,835 Square Feet. Zoning Districts: CC(2) and CN. The Planning and Transportation Commission Recommended Approval 8:15-9:30 PM 6. Approval of a Contract With Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. in the Amount of $1,474,297 to Provide Design and Environmental Assessment Services for the Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Pedestrian Overcrossing, Capital Improvements Program Project PE-11011 9:30-10:30 PM 7. Review and Discussion Regarding the Urban Forest Master Plan Draft Revisions to Goals, Policies, and Programs and Alternate Vision Statement 3 May 23, 2016 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. 4 May 23, 2016 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Public Letters to Council Set 1 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Week of May 23, 2016 Council Rail Committee Meeting May 25, 2016 City/School Committee Meeting May 26, 2016 Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Public Letters to Council SET 1 SET 2 SET 3 SET 4 SET 5 Finance Committee Meeting May 23, 2016 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6628) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/23/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: JMZ Collections Policy Title: Adoption of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo Collections Policy From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo Non-living Collections Plan, Policies, and Procedures. Executive Summary By adopting these Palo Alto Junior Musuem & Zoo Non-living Collections Plan, Policies, and Procedures (the "Policy"), Council provides a plan and policy framework to guide the Junior Musuem and Zoo’s (the “JMZ”) development and stewardship of its non-living collections, and delegates responsibility to implement the Policy to museum staff. The Policy, included as Attachment A, is consistent with the mission of the JMZ and is aligned with professional museum standards embraced by the American Alliance of Museums. Background The JMZ has approximately 3,400 objects and specimens in its non-living collections. A summary description of the collections is included in Attachment B. The JMZ is planning to move its collections to an off-site location while the facility is being rebuilt in 2017- 18. With the Council’s adoption of the Policy, staff will have clear direction with which to manage objects and make decisions regarding objects that do not support the mission of the JMZ. The JMZ has not had a formal policy for its collecting activities even though it has accessioned objects since 1934. As part of the JMZ preparation for accreditation with the American Alliance of Museums (the “AAM”) the institution has undertaken two Museum Assessment Programs (2014 and 2015) offered by the AAM. Each of these programs issued reports recommending that the JMZ develop a collections plan and policies to be adopted by Council so as to provide JMZ staff with the plan, policy and procedural tools to help staff manage the collections and to guide collecting by the City of Palo Alto Page 2 institution in support of the mission of the JMZ: to engage a child’s curiosity in science and nature. Discussion The Policy was developed with guidance of the AAM to ensure that the City of Palo Alto has the plan, policies, and procedures in place that meet the characteristics of excellence for US museums. Museums are expected to follow standards and best practices appropriate to their respective discipline and/or museum type. The standards require that a current, approved, comprehensive collections management policy is in effect and actively used to guide the museum’s stewardship of its collections, and that the museum’s staff are delegated responsibility to carry out the collections management policy. To the extent possible, staff aligned the Policy with those of Palo Alto’s Public Art Program. The policies for managing public art and the museum share considerations of appropriateness and the application of ethical standards. The Policy was also alligned with the Gifts to the City Policy. Resource Impact and Timeline The JMZ is preparing to move its collections in 2017-18, and during fiscal years 2016, 2017 and 2018 JMZ staff will determine which objects will be sent to other musuems and cultural insitutions as an alternative to long-term storage. JMZ staff anticipates that objects would be loaned, traded, or gifted to other museums and cultural institutions. The policy directs that proceeds (if any) from the disposal of any specimens or objects would be used solely for acquiring new artifacts for the JMZ’s non-living collections. Per the Gifts to the City Policy, aquistions that require additional city resources to care for will be reviewed by the budget office. Valuation of the Collections The only portion of the collections that have been appraised is the American Indian Art Collection. The evaluation occured in 2004 when the JMZ was undergoing procedures related to the Federal and State Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGRPA). Benjamin F. Benson and Associates was contracted to prepare a museum catalog and formal appraisal of 584 units of the JMZ’s American Indian Art Collection and valued the collection at $364,145 effective April 1, 2004. No other appraisals or evaluations of the JMZ’s collections have been conducted. Appraisals and valuations are costly and provide a market value only for the time of the assessment. Appraisers tend to be specialists thereby limiting valuation reports to specific areas of the collections such as dolls, toys, American Indian Art, other ethnographic art, natural history, etc. With these limitations in mind, the Policy specifies appraisals or valuations only when an item is being prepared for a sale or in circumstances where staff deem the valuation necessary. The JMZ will follow good museum practice by documenting each step used in determining how an object from City of Palo Alto Page 3 the collection was chosen for deaccession, how the value of the object or like objects was determined, and why the method (gift, loan, sale or other) of disposition was chosen. Plan and Policy Implications The collections of the JMZ are an important means for advancing the museum and zoo’s mission and to serve the public. Consequently, because these collections are held in trust for the public and made accessible for the public’s benefit over time, the museum incurs legal, social and ethical obligations to provide proper stewardship in the form of physical storage, management and care for the collections and associated documentation. Effective collections stewardship ensures that the objects the museum owns, borrows, and holds in its custody and/or uses are available and accessible today and for future generations. On occasion, JMZ acquires a living or inanimate addition to the collection as a gift, adhering to City policy. As per Policy and Procedures 1-18, Gifts and Donations to the City of Palo Alto, gifts accepted by the City become the property of the City of Palo Alto and are to be used for public benefit. Unless a special agreement concerning the ultimate disposition of the gift is entered into at the time the gift is accepted, it is understood that the City has sole authority to determine the use, transfer, handling, or disposition of the gift. If item has a value of $5,000 or more, also provide ASD Director with documentation regarding value of gift for fixed assets accounting. Environmental Review A policy proposal is not considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments:  Attachment A: Non-Living Collections Policy-1 FIN (DOC)  Attachment B: Collections at the JMZ (DOCX)  Attachment C: Accession Report FORM_rev2015 (PDF)  Attachment D: Deaccession Report FORM_rev2015 (PDF)  Attachment E: Outgoing Loan Agreement - Exhibits (PDF)  Temporary Deposit Receipt Form_rev2015 (PDF) - 1 - Revised 4/2016 PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM & ZOO NON-LIVING COLLECTIONS PLAN, POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES Table of Contents 1. MISSION ............................................................................................................................. 2 2. SCOPE OF COLLECTIONS ............................................................................................... 3 3. COLLECTIONS PLAN ....................................................................................................... 5 4. GENERAL DOCUMENTATION PROCEDURE .............................................................. 8 5. FOUND IN COLLECTIONS POLICY ............................................................................... 9 6. TEMPORARY DEPOSIT RECEIPT PROCEDURE ....................................................... 10 7. ACQUISITION/ ACCESSION PROCEDURE ................................................................. 11 8. DEACCESSION PROCEDURE ....................................................................................... 13 9. LOANS POLICY ............................................................................................................... 15 10. ACCESS POLICY ............................................................................................................. 17 11. COLLECTIONS CARE POLICY ..................................................................................... 19 12. INSURANCE POLICY ..................................................................................................... 22 13. ETHICS POLICY .............................................................................................................. 23 14. FORMS .............................................................................................................................. 24 - 2 - Revised 4/2016 1. MISSION The Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo’s (JMZ) Mission is: To engage a child’s curiosity in science and nature. Our core audience is comprised of children, ages 0-9, and their caregivers at the JMZ and in our programs. Elementary School teachers and Principals are another core audience due the large number of contracts we have to teach science education in local elementary schools. Volunteers, ranging in age from 14 years to seniors, are another audience served. The JMZ is owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto and the objects and specimens (Non-living Collections) and animals (Living Collections), be they owned by or on loan to the City, are held in the communities’ trust by the JMZ on behalf of the City. The policies and procedures documented herein refer only to the Non-living Collections. The living collections are outside the scope of this document. The Non-living Collections are used for exhibitions and for on-site educational programs and off-site educational outreach programs. In exhibitions and programs, the JMZ seeks to relate objects and living things to a child’s experience and to their sense of place. The vision for the collection is to provide the best, most appropriate examples of natural objects and specimens that help us to engage a child’s curiosity in science and nature. - 3 - Revised 4/2016 2. SCOPE OF COLLECTIONS The JMZ collections include six Main Collections: Invertebrate Zoology, Vertebrate Zoology, Geology, Paleontology, Botany, Historic. The JMZ maintains detailed documentation for each object whenever possible, recognizing that such documentation is essential to the study and understanding of the object. The JMZ also maintains general supporting documentation and library resources that facilitate study of the collections. The natural history specimens include mollusk shells, arthropods (especially insects), herbarium specimens, birds, fossils, rocks, minerals, mammals, and other vertebrates. The live animal collection is outside the scope of this document. Historic objects are mostly Native American, including many baskets, pots, tools, weapons, textiles, photographs, documents, and objects of fine art. One set of human remains, assumed to be Native American, is also in the collections; the JMZ has followed proper legal procedures for repatriation under NAGPRA. Refer to Repatriation Policy (page 7) for more information. Nearly all of the JMZ’s collections consist of “dry” specimens; its holdings of objects preserved in fluid (e.g. alcohol or formalin) are few. The collections are maintained solely for educational purposes, exhibitions and teaching, not for research purposes. Collections Defined The JMZ’s collections comprise two groupings: 1. Permanent Collections – Items for exhibitions and for purposes of educational programs (most items are catalogued and most are accessioned) 2. Temporary Collections – Items that are on temporary loan with the JMZ or awaiting for the accession procedure to be completed Within the Permanent Collection, objects are accessioned into one of six Main Collections: Invertebrate Zoology, Vertebrate Zoology, Geology, Paleontology, Botany, Historic. Objects are then catalogued into an even more specific Collection Category (see below). Except for Native American objects, historic objects are not assigned into a collection category. All objects are given an Access Number from 1 – 3 that determine their access and handling policies. Refer to Access Policy (page 17) for more information. Catalog Collection Categories When natural history objects are catalogued, they are assigned a Collection Category. Collection Category Catalog Prefix Minerals MI Igneous Volcanic IV Igneous Plutonic IP Metamorphic Small M-S Metamorphic Medium M-M - 4 - Revised 4/2016 Sedimentary S Paleontology P Mammals MA Ornithology O Ornithology Oology oo Ichthyology I Herpetology He Mollusks M* Entomology E Invertebrate Zoology IZ Assembled Teaching Collection ATC Native American NA *Mollusks is a historic category, and only existing accessioned & cataloged objects within this category have this Prefix. Any newly accessioned mollusks are to be cataloged in the Invertebrate Zoology (IZ) category. - 5 - Revised 4/2016 3. COLLECTIONS PLAN The JMZ may acquire collection objects by gift, bequest, purchase, field collection, or other appropriate means. Because of its public trust responsibility to maintain and preserve accessioned objects in perpetuity, the JMZ will only acquire objects for which it can provide proper care and which will advance its mission. Objects for which the Museum anticipates no foreseeable use for exhibition or education should not be accepted. Collection development must be selective due to limited resources and must adhere to established criteria. Sometimes it is appropriate to select objects for removal from the collections (deaccession). For criteria relating to acquiring and deaccessioning objects, see Evaluating an Acquisition (page 5, below) and Evaluating a Deaccession (page 6). Unrestricted Gifts Policy The JMZ will only accept unrestricted gifts. A Deed of Gift and Accession Report form must be completed and signed by the Donor to accept the gift. The donor is responsible for furnishing evaluation to the government tax agencies. Fees charged for the evaluation of gifts to the City are borne by the donor. A letter from the JMZ Director acknowledging and accepting the gift shall be provided by the City. 2 Groupings of Collections: Permanent and Temporary On-Loan Collections There are two groupings of collections which an object will be categorized in. The Permanent Collection supports educational programs and exhibitions. Within the Permanent Collection, objects are accessioned into one of six Main Collections: Invertebrate Zoology, Vertebrate Zoology, Geology, Paleontology, Botany, Historic. The decision to accession or deaccession objects into or out of this collection is subject to the approval of the JMZ Director. Temporary Collection objects may be accepted by the JMZ from other institutions, generally for exhibitions. Loans are subject to the approval of the JMZ Director. Other objects in this Collection consist of objects accepted from a donor and in possession by the JMZ but awaiting accession paperwork and activities to be completed. Evaluating an Acquisition When evaluating an acquisition, JMZ staff is first governed by the City of Palo Alto’s overall responsibility to: 1. Preserve and conserve the objects in its collections. 2. Catalog the objects in its collections. Records of accession must be completed and maintained for all objects acquired. - 6 - Revised 4/2016 3. Make the objects in the collections known to the public through display, publication, and/or other educational means. The following criteria should be used in evaluating an acquisition:  JMZ must be able to provide proper long-term care and storage for the object (see above responsibilities).  Object supports the JMZ mission and the Collections Plan (page 5).  Object is unique or difficult to obtain.  Object is suitable for educational use in the Permanent Collections.  Object was collected legally and required permits are provided.  Object documentation is extent and accurate.  Object condition is fair to excellent.  Object meets all ethical considerations that may pertain to it.  Preservation method of the object does not present health concerns or require significant special handling or storage (e.g., minerals, such as asbestos, that are hazardous or animal mounts preserved with arsenic or other toxic chemicals). These objects should be generally NOT be accessioned. However, if the object is noteworthy, the accession should be very carefully considered in regards to storage, handling, and documentation procedures.  “Wet” specimens should be limited to those with special use in exhibitions or educational programs. Development of substantial collections of fluid-preserved specimens would introduce concerns regarding storage, fire safety, and health.  Equipment, routine furnishings, library materials, etc. are NOT objects suitable for the collections. Library materials may be accepted with approval of JMZ Director but are NOT to be accessioned into the collections.  Objects should NOT be accessioned for research purposes. Collections are acquired solely for use in exhibits or educational programs.  Objects should be considered according to the following collection goals: o The six Main Collections include: Invertebrate Zoology, Vertebrate Zoology, Geology, Paleontology, Botany, and Historic. Only objects falling into those categories should be acquired. o Subject areas that deserve continuing collection development include, but are not limited to, insects and other arthropods, zoological specimens, and natural history specimens from the arctic and tropical regions. o Acquisitions to the Native American or Historic Collection should be limited and carefully considered. The connection to the JMZ mission, the educational programs, and exhibition needs must be fully justified. Evaluating a Deaccession JMZ staff will identify objects for removal from the collections. At the discretion of the JMZ Director, outside experts may be consulted on the scientific, educational, and commercial value of particular specimens or artifacts, and on possible methods for disposal. The following criteria should be used in evaluating a deaccession: - 7 - Revised 4/2016  Object does not relate to the JMZ’s mission and the Collection Plan (page 5).  Object is a duplication of material.  Object is a health or safety hazard.  Object is damaged beyond use.  Object is part of an exchange agreement.  Object is subject to Repatriation. See Repatriation Policy (page 7, below) for more information.  There are new issues regarding legality or ownership.  Object is known to be fraudulent or undocumented.  JMZ is unable to provide proper care.  Object may be subjected to destructive analysis for research or documentation. Repatriation Policy The JMZ is complying with and will continue to comply with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). To date, all human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony that have been identified as such have been inventoried and returned to tribal representatives, excepting the human skeletal remains. These remains have followed all legal channels and are still awaiting tribal identification. JMZ staff will cooperate fully, following NAGPRA procedures, with tribal representatives seeking information on JMZ holdings or visiting the collections by appointment. If a cultural affiliation and/or right of possession are established, the objects will be expeditiously returned to the requesting party. - 8 - Revised 4/2016 4. GENERAL DOCUMENTATION PROCEDURE The JMZ recognizes that proper management and preservation of all data associated with collection objects is as essential as the management and preservation of the objects themselves. Collection documentation must be scrupulously recorded, managed, and preserved in order to build and maintain a collection with permanent scientific and historic integrity. The documentation should be associated with the objects to which they apply. Collection documentation is the responsibility of the JMZ Director and Exhibits Director charged with caring for the collection. Other JMZ representatives should understand that their actions may affect the quality of documentation for objects. For example, if in the absence of the JMZ Director or Exhibits Director, a JMZ representative were to provisionally receive an object, then the person receiving the object would be responsible for completing the appropriate paperwork and obtaining donor contact information and all possible data at the time of receipt. Collection documentation includes a completed Deed of Gift and a donation Letter for donations, a Non-living Accession Report and other associated documentation (e.g. permits, field notes, essential correspondence, exhibit labels, loan records, conservation records, photographs, maps, etc.). Associated documentation may take the form of physical (e.g. paper) or digital records. Not all will be available or appropriate for all collection objects. If the object has not yet been approved for accession by the JMZ Director, a Temporary Deposit Receipt should be completed. The following general documentation procedure should be followed: 1. Records shall be retained in perpetuity. Digital collections records should be attached to the object’s record in the Collection Digital Catalog and a copy kept on the City of Palo Alto shared drive. 2. Hardcopies of records should be kept in the Collections files. 3. The most recent hardcopy of the entire Collections Digital Catalog was printed in February 2014. Hardcopies of new additions are to be added annually in January. 4. The electronic copy of the Collections Digital Catalog is stored on the Collections computer in the Collections Room. A copy on a portable hard drive is stored off- site. The version on the portable hard drive should be updated when a significant number of objects are added to the collection or on a bi-annual basis. Specific documentation procedures – such as temporary receipts, deeds of gift, accessions, deaccessions, object moves, and loans – are outlined elsewhere in this document. - 9 - Revised 4/2016 5. FOUND IN COLLECTIONS POLICY The JMZ considers an object “Found in Collection” (FIC) if no acquisition or loan documentation can be found. FIC objects will be considered the property of the JMZ. Undocumented objects will be tracked and documented from the time they are found, and may be used as any permanent collection object is used. FIC objects may be accessioned or removed from the collection according to the criteria for evaluating acquisitions and deaccessions. The decision to accession or deaccession FIC objects from the collections shall follow the Collections Plan (page 5) and be subject to the approval of the JMZ Director and with the approvals that (s)he determines necessary, such as those of any subsequent City Managers or City Council. The JMZ Director will solicit the advice of the Education Director, Exhibits Director and Zoo Director when making a decision to accession or deaccession objects. FIC objects to be accessioned into the collection should be given accession numbers and the Accession procedure (page 11) should be followed. Their source should be listed as FIC. If the original documentation is later found for an object that has been accessioned into the collection as FIC, the object will be returned to its original status and number and the new number will be retired with a notation of the restored number and documentation. FIC objects to be removed from collections should comply with the Deaccession procedure (page 13). Their source should be listed as FIC and the accession number should be listed as FIC. If a claim is made on an undocumented or FIC object, the JMZ will make an ad hoc decision in consultation with legal counsel regarding how to respond to the claim based on the merits of the case. - 10 - Revised 4/2016 6. TEMPORARY DEPOSIT RECEIPT PROCEDURE Sometimes an individual or organization would like to drop off an object to be examined for donation, purchase or loan. Though staff is authorized to accept the object temporarily, we strongly discourage this practice because people often will not pick up object(s) if the decision is not to acquire it. Consequently, the JMZ is left with the responsibility of storage or disposal. It is preferable to agree to acquire an object(s) prior to drop-off via photos, descriptions or viewing the object(s) in person. This process facilitates obtaining legal documents, signatures, and object information during drop-off. If an examination via Temporary Deposit is required, the staff person is to have the owner (Depositor) of the object(s) fill out a Temporary Deposit Receipt form (page 24). The staff person should make it clear to the Depositor that the decision to accept the object as a donation is subject to approval and will be made after examination of the object(s). The following procedure must be followed by the JMZ staff member accepting the temporary object: 1. A Temporary Deposit Receipt is to be completed and signed by the Depositor. 2. The original Temporary Deposit Receipt is given to the Depositor. 3. A copy of the Temporary Deposit Receipt is to stay with the object(s). 4. The object(s) are to be given to the JMZ Director for examination and consideration of acquisition. 5. If the object(s) are not accepted, the Depositor is to be given written notice of the decision and shall be requested to retrieve the object(s). 6. If the object(s) are not retrieved within 30 days of notice to the Depositor, it may be placed in storage. After 3 years, the object(s) become the property of the JMZ. 7. See the Temporary Deposit Receipt form (page 24) for additional legal details. - 11 - Revised 4/2016 7. ACQUISITION / ACCESSION PROCEDURE Accessioning is the process of formally documenting the JMZ’s acquisition of one or more objects under terms of the JMZ’s legal ownership into the JMZ collection. Selected accessioned objects may become subject to disposal, but only through a formal Deaccession Procedure (page 13). The decision to acquire and accession objects into the collections shall follow the Collections Plan (page 5) and be subject to the approval of the JMZ Director and with the approvals that (s)he determines necessary, such as any subsequent City Managers or with the City Council. The JMZ Director will solicit the advice of the Education Director, Exhibits Director and Zoo Director when making a decision to accession objects. Refer to Evaluating an Acquisition (page 5) for criteria. The budget office shall review acquisitions that may require additional city resources to care for. Accession Procedure The JMZ will only accept unrestricted gifts. See Unrestricted Gifts Policy (page 5) for more information. For donations, a Deed of Gift (page 24) is required to be completed and signed by the Donor. Only one Deed of Gift is required for a group of objects from the same Donor. In addition, a Non-living Accession Report form (page 24) is required to be filled out for each object and signed by the donor. One Accession Report may be used if the objects are pieces that form a whole (e.g. a mouse skeleton comprised of many loose bones). The Deed of Gift, Accession Report and a donation letter serve as the signed records of donation and legal documentation for JMZ ownership. An accession number shall be assigned to each object. It is a unique record for an accession, whether or not the accessioned object(s) remain in the JMZ’s possession. The following procedure must be followed by the JMZ staff member accepting the acquisition: 1. If the object is a donation, a Deed of Gift is to be completed and signed by the Donor. A copy of the Deed of Gift is to be attached to the Accession Report. 2. If the object is a donation, a dated donation letter is to be sent to the donor stating what the donation is and signed by the JMZ Director. A copy of the donation letter is to be attached to the Accession Report. 3. A Non-living Accession Report form is to be filled out for each object that is accessioned. Each object is assigned a unique accession number that consists of the year and a number. Follow the examples below: Accession# 2012-3 – This object was accessioned in year 2012 and was the 3rd object accessioned that year. - 12 - Revised 4/2016 Accession#2012-4a-b – This object was accessioned in year 2012 and was the 4th object accessioned that year. The object consists of 2 parts (e.g., a related skull and jaw bone) and each receives its own letter label (a,b). Accession # 2012-5bin – This object was accessioned in year 2012 and was the 5th object accessioned that year. It is a bin of many pieces (e.g., a box of teeth) that are related but do not deserve their own accession numbers. 4. All fields on the Accession report form must be completed. 5. The JMZ staff member accepting the acquisition is responsible for obtaining all available documentation at the time of the transfer of the object(s). This documentation includes, but may not be limited to, data pertaining to the objects and pertinent information regarding the provenance and chain of ownership of the object. Relevant permits or licenses should be verified. These may include collecting permits, salvage permits, export permits, import permits, and/or CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) documentation. Field notes, if extant, must be obtained. Related correspondence should be obtained if possible. Documentation is to be attached to the Accession Report (in hard copy and digital format). 6. If the object is a donation, the donor signs the Accession Report form to acknowledge the transfer of ownership of the object to the JMZ. In cases when a decision to acquire the object(s) has been made but there is not time to assign accession numbers and fill out all the Accession Report form(s), then a Deed of Gift may be used as a record of donation until the Accession Reports are completed. When a large number of objects is donated and it is not feasible for a donor to sign each Accession Report, then the following language in lieu of signature may be used: “The object(s) listed above was released to the City of Palo Alto as an unconditional gift via a Deed of Gift dated _____ and signed by (name of donor) and the (name of JMZ Director).” 7. A record for the object is created in the Collections Digital Catalog. Information about the object, a photograph, and scans of the Accession Report with all supporting documentation (including the Deed of Gift and donation letter) are entered into the record. 8. Hard copies of all documentation are filed in the Collections files. Digital copies are attached to the object’s record in the Collections Digital Catalog and copies filed on the City of Palo Alto shared drive. All records for accessioned objects shall be retained in perpetuity. 9. JMZ staff transmits a report informing City Council of the accession. - 13 - Revised 4/2016 8. DEACCESSION PROCEDURE Deaccessioning is the process of legally removing an object or group of objects from the collections. The decision to deaccession objects from the collections shall follow the Collections Plan (page 5) and be subject to the approval of the JMZ Director and with the approvals that (s)he determines necessary, such as the Department Head, City Manager or with the City Council. The JMZ Director will solicit the advice of the Education Director, Exhibits Director and Zoo Director when making a decision to deaccession objects. As well, the means of disposal, with respect to ethics, must also meet these approvals. Refer to Evaluating a Deaccession (page 6) for criteria. The JMZ will follow good museum practice by documenting each step used in determining how an object from the collection was chosen for deaccession, how the value of the object or like objects was determined, and why the method (gift, loan, sale…) of disquisition was chosen. Determining Disposal Methods Maximum possible return on the property should be obtained. However, it is worth noting that maximum possible return does not always mean monetary value. Specimens and objects may have high educational value with low commercial value. These objects may be offered to other educational institutions in trade for desired collection objects. Or for the greater public good, they may be given to other museums or educational institutions without expecting a direct return to the JMZ. The museum community thrives on reciprocal altruism, and the good will and cooperation engendered by appropriate gifts to other institutions is often “the maximum possible return.” Disposal of City property can be through the City’s auction program or other means pursuant to City Policy 1-49. Questions regarding legality of disposal shall be referred to the City Attorney. The proceeds of the disposal of any specimens or objects will be used solely for acquiring new artifacts for the JMZ’s non-living collections. Deaccession Procedure A Non-living Deaccession Report form (page 24) is required to be completed for each object. This report also serves as the legal documentation for deaccession. The catalog numbers and accession numbers are never reassigned. A catalog and accession number are unique records for an object, whether or not that object is held by the JMZ. The following procedure must be followed: 1. A Non-living Deaccession Report form shall be completed for each object that is deaccessioned. Formatted: Font color: Auto - 14 - Revised 4/2016 2. The original Accession Report or historic accession record and whatever legal records of donation exist (e.g. Deed of Gift, donation letter, historic legal record), and any additional records deemed important should be attached to the Deaccession Report (in hard copy and digital format). 3. If a Found in Collections (FIC) object is to be removed from the collections without being accessioned, it still requires a Deaccession Report form to be filled out. The Nature of Source and Donor information should be filled out as “Found in Collections.” The Accession number should be filled out as “FIC.” 4. A hard copy is filed in the Collections files. Digital copies are attached to the object’s record in the Collections Digital Catalog and a copy filed on the City of Palo Alto shared drive. All records for deaccessioned objects shall be retained in perpetuity. 5. JMZ staff transmits a report informing City Council of the deaccession. - 15 - Revised 4/2016 9. LOANS POLICY A loan is a temporary transfer of object(s) from one institution or individual to another without transfer of ownership. The JMZ makes or receives loans for purposes of exhibition. Loaning or borrowing is undertaken only under the terms of a loan agreement which forms a contract between lender and borrower and specifies terms and conditions of the loan including the respective responsibilities of each party. Only the JMZ Director may approve an outgoing or incoming loan. Only the JMZ Director may sign loan documents. Outgoing Loans Loans are only to be made to institutions, preferably AAM accredited, not to individuals. The JMZ Director must approve an exception to loan to an individual (for example for scholarly or scientific research or for educational purposes). All terms outlined in the Outgoing Loan Agreement (page 24) must be met by the borrowing institution. The following procedure must be followed: 1. All terms of an Outgoing Loan Agreement must be met by the receiving institution in order to proceed with loan. The Outgoing Loan Agreement must be executed by JMZ staff and signed by lender and JMZ Director. 2. Should the borrowing institution extend its own loan agreement in addition to the Outgoing Loan Agreement, the review and approval of said agreement shall be at the discretion of the JMZ Director. 3. If an exception has been made by the JMZ Director to loan to an individual, an Outgoing Loan Agreement is preferred, but a written approval with terms will also suffice. However, all other procedures must be followed. 4. Take photos of all loaned objects. Include detail shots showing condition, especially any pre-existing damage. 5. Upon return of loaned objects, unpack them immediately to take inventory, check condition, and return to storage. Any discrepancies are to be reported to the borrowing institution (or individual) immediately so action can be taken. 6. A hard copy of the loan agreement and accompanying documents such as, the inventory of returned objects and any documentation regarding disputes is filed in the Collections files. Digital copies are filed on the City of Palo Alto shared drive. Records of loan agreements and accompanying documents shall be retained in perpetuity. - 16 - Revised 4/2016 Incoming Loans The JMZ may borrow objects from institutions or individuals in order to support its mission. The JMZ will meet the conditions specified by the lender. In the absence of specified conditions, the JMZ uses as guidelines the conditions listed on its own Outgoing Loan Agreement. The following guidelines apply: 1. Objects loaned to the JMZ are fully insured by the City of Palo Alto while in the custody of the JMZ. 2. The JMZ does not accept indefinite-term loans. Long-term loans should not exceed a 5 year term. 3. The JMZ will not knowingly accept incoming loans or other objects that were acquired or collected unethically or illegally. 4. Incoming loans should be quarantined upon arrival and frozen or fumigated, if necessary, to protect the JMZ’s collections from potential pest infestations. 5. Objects should be stored in a secured area. During installation and take-down, objects should be kept under surveillance by one or more JMZ staff. 6. Loans should be returned to the lender using the same packing materials whenever feasible, or superior ones if not. The following procedure must be followed: 1. Where a loan agreement is supplied by the loaning institution and approved by the JMZ Director, the terms of that agreement shall be met. An inventory and conditions report of loaned objects should be supplied. If nothing is supplied by the loaning institution, JMZ must create an inventory and conditions report. 2. Upon arrival of the loaned objects, the objects must be checked against the inventory and conditions report. Take photos of all borrowed objects. Include detail shots showing condition, especially any pre-existing damage. Inform the lending institution via written notice about any significant damages using the photos as documentation. 3. When the objects come off display, they should be inventoried and conditions checked against the initial conditions report and photographs. 4. Return the objects to the lender in a timely manner and receive documentation from the lender that objects were returned in original condition or with noted damage. 10. A hard copy of the loan agreement and accompanying documents such as, the inventory of returned objects and any documentation regarding disputes is filed in the Collections files. Digital copies are filed on the City of Palo Alto shared drive. Records of loan agreements and accompanying documents shall be retained in perpetuity. - 17 - Revised 4/2016 10. ACCESS POLICY Access to the JMZ’s collections is controlled in order to protect the collections. Access is granted selectively to trained JMZ staff for the purposes of collections care and management, education, and exhibition. Access is provided to the general public through programs and exhibitions. Private access is not granted to the general public without the approval of the JMZ Director. Access to the Permanent Collections Access to the Permanent Collections that are not in a public exhibition will be granted to trained staff and volunteers only. Each object is given a number on an Access Scale that determines its access and handling policies: 1 – Hands-On Access, 2 – Trained Staff Access, 3 – Restricted Access. Refer to Access Scale Criteria below for more information. Access to the Permanent Collections is NOT granted for scholarly or scientific research or for visitation by individuals due to limited staff time. The JMZ Director must approve an exception to this policy. If an exception is granted, a JMZ staff person must be present during the collections tour. No collection objects may be removed from the JMZ facility without following the Loans Policy and procedures (page 15). Access to Temporary Collections Only the JMZ Director and Exhibits Director or a staff member approved by them will have access to the Temporary Collections that are not in a public exhibit or program. Refer to Loans (page 15) for more information on policies and procedures. Access Scale Criteria Only trained staff or volunteers may access Permanent Collections regardless of Access Scale number. 1 – Hands-On Access Accessible for frequent use by education staff and unregulated off-site use, Objects may be handled by children and public. Criteria:  No data  Insignificant monetary/historic/scientific value  Durable  Easily replaceable (through purchase or an established source)  Does not require special storage  One of many examples/types of a specimen  May be a replica or reproduction  Object is in poor to moderate condition  May be handled by volunteers  May be handled by children and public under supervision - 18 - Revised 4/2016 2 – Trained Staff Access Accessible for routine use by education staff, regulated off-site use, and objects are to be handled only by trained personnel. Criteria:  Associated with data  Medium to low monetary/historic/scientific value  Durable to somewhat fragile  Replaceable (but may require a collecting permit or be challenging to replace)  May be kept in locked or unlocked storage but requires protective containers  Good example of its kind in the collections  Object in good or great condition (we want to preserve this condition)  May be used in classes or programs but only handled by educator 3 – Restricted Access Accessible by permission only, for infrequent use by staff on-site and handled with gloves and following written protocols or best practices. Criteria:  Associated with data and known provenance and/or provenience  Significant monetary/historic/scientific value  Fragile  Impossible or difficult to replace  Requires locked, special storage  Unusual or only example of its kind in the collections  Object is in excellent condition  Contains toxic or hazardous material or byproducts o May be used only by permission and handled only by trained personnel with gloves - 19 - Revised 4/2016 11. COLLECTIONS CARE POLICY Collections care is the responsibility of the JMZ Director, the Education Director (Access Scale #1-#2) and Exhibits Director (Access Scale #3). Collections care includes responsibility for both the physical condition and storage of objects and their documentation (both hardcopy files and the Collections Digital Catalog). Staff members preserve and conserve the objects, their documentation and related materials by following and enforcing policies and procedures, providing adequately controlled storage conditions, and by conservation treatment if necessary. Security The alarm must be set each evening by the last person leaving the facility. Only trained staff and volunteers may access the Permanent Collections and according to the restrictions based on an object’s Access Number. Only the JMZ Director, Exhibits Director, or a staff member approved by them may access the Temporary Collections. An exception is during an emergency when any JMZ staff may access the collections to salvage objects according to the Emergency Plan (page 20). The Collections Room is to be kept locked. All cabinets are to be kept individually locked. The JMZ Director or Exhibits Director shall insure that procedures are followed and security is in place before a tour of the collections or work on the collections commences. Exhibits with collection objects must be in locked or otherwise secure cases. Collection objects rated as Access Scale #1 – Hands-On Access are kept in storage cabinets in Science Lab 1. Access to these objects is restricted to authorized staff members (mostly educators). The classroom is to be kept locked with windows closed when not in use. All cabinets are to be kept locked when not being accessed. Collections policies and procedures are to be followed by staff, specifically in regards to “checking objects in and out” and transporting objects. When objects are not in use for a class, they should be returned immediately to the storage cabinets. Preventive Conservation The agents of deterioration that affect collections are physical forces, thieves and vandals, dissociation, fire, water, pests, pollutants, light (UV and IR), incorrect temperature and incorrect humidity. JMZ staff will aim to control and apply preventative measures appropriately for maximum long-term preservation of the collections. Because JMZ staff are limited in time, and no staff person is devoted to the collections, preventive conservation procedures are minimized. The following guidelines should be adhered to:  Non-latex disposable gloves should be worn when handling object(s), and two hands per object should be used at all times.  When packing objects, archival tissue and packing materials should be used. Do not over pack objects, and use extra packaging materials. - 20 - Revised 4/2016  All objects should be returned to their storage cabinets when not in use.  When designing an exhibition that uses collections, the displays should be designed with conservation in mind. Ongoing documentation of collection storage and exhibit environments, object conditions, and management measures taken, are important tools for assessing collection needs and progress in preventive conservation. This is a future goal for JMZ to aim for but at current staffing levels is unattainable. Pest Control JMZ is committed to the effective and safe control of pests that represent a threat of biological deterioration of any collection objects. Toxic pest treatments should be avoided with freezing objects for 48 hours being the preferred pest treatment. Exceptions to toxic pest control treatments may be necessary. Recently acquired or objects on loan should be frozen for pest control before entering Collections Room. Food is not permitted in the Collections Room. Health and Safety The JMZ is committed to providing a safe and healthy environment for staff and visitors. Collection Storage Room should have posted warning signs as required by California State Proposition 34 sign and other applicable laws. Few specimens have been preserved in fluid, so there are only small quantities of alcohol and formaldehyde. Vapors should not present a concern unless containers are opened. The limited quantity of alcohol reduces the risk of fire. The mounted specimens of birds and perhaps mammals have been treated with the mineral “borax” which may naturally contain variable and unknown amounts of arsenic. Handle these specimens with caution to avoid frequent exposure of the skin to borax. Use non-latex, disposable gloves and wash hands after handling. The mineral collection does not contain large samples of any identified hazardous minerals. The fire detection and fire sprinkler systems protect the entire JMZ, including collections areas. Fire extinguishers are readily available and shall be kept in working condition. First aid kits are available in work areas. Non-latex disposable gloves are available for handling potentially toxic materials. Despite the limited hazards of the current collections, JMZ staff should remain alert to new or unrecognized hazards. Emergency Plan The JMZ has evaluated potential emergencies and disasters and their likely effects on the collections and people in the JMZ. Emergency Response Flipbooks (“flipbook(s)”) are located in every room. The protocols contained within the flipbooks cover individual emergencies with a specific regard to the - 21 - Revised 4/2016 safety of people. The flipbook also contains a protocol, called “Emergency Assessment for Non-living Collections.” This protocol should be referred to only after the threat to the safety of people has passed. The assessment will determine if further action is necessary. Located on the back of the flipbook is the Collections Emergency Pocket Plan which covers communication and recovery response if the assessment determines recovery efforts are necessary. Additional disaster documents are kept in Emergency Packets. These are located in key locations at the JMZ, including the Collections Room, and at the homes of disaster team members. A Collections Disaster Bin is located in a shed in the Zoo Back Area and contains supplies for immediate response during an emergency or disaster. JMZ staff members participate in training for emergency preparedness and response. All Emergency and Disaster plan documents should be reviewed and updated when changes are made or on an annual basis. Object Movement Procedure If a collections object is removed from storage then the location must be tracked. Reasons for removing an object include, but are not be limited to, outgoing loans, pest treatment, testing, conservation, photographing, exhibition, or an educational program. The following procedure must be followed: 1. An Object Move form (page 24) should be completed. 2. Hang the form on the clipboard in the Collections Room. 3. Place a copy of the form as a placeholder for the object in its storage location. 4. When the object is returned to its storage location, discard its Object Move form. 5. If a relocation of an object is permanent, then an Object Move form is not required. When the object is relocated, immediately update the new location on the object’s record in the Collections Digital Catalog. - 22 - Revised 4/2016 12. INSURANCE POLICY Collections should be insured with a fine arts insurance policy in addition to the City’s self-insurance policy. This policy is considered best practices in the museum field and offers a higher level of protection for the valuable collection objects. JMZ and CSD staff is working the City’s risk manager to obtain additional insurance beyond the City’s self-insurance policy. - 23 - Revised 4/2016 13. ETHICS POLICY The JMZ collections are held and preserved in public trust for posterity. All JMZ staff must uphold high standards of professional conduct regarding the acquisition, care, management, documentation, use, and disposal of collections. Any JMZ staff that handles the collections must be familiar with and comply with the Non-living Collections Plan, Policies, and Procedures which must be in compliance with the law. The following guidelines shall be followed:  Objects collected by the JMZ shall be relevant to its mission and the Collections Plan (page 5) and must be accompanied by a valid legal title. The JMZ will not knowingly accept an object that was acquired or collected unethically or illegally.  Collecting shall be conducted so as to avoid adverse effects on a species or the environment in general and with the required permits.  JMZ staff or volunteers shall not acquire disposed or deaccessioned objects from the collections (either owned by or on loan to the JMZ) unless the disposal or deaccession process is public in nature. The disposal method must be approved and must follow the Deaccession Procedure (page 13).  JMZ staff shall refrain from personal collecting activity that competes with the JMZ.  JMZ staff shall not use his or her JMZ affiliation to promote his or her personal collecting activities.  JMZ staff shall refrain from dealing (buying or selling for profit, as distinguished from occasional sale or exchange from a personal collection) in objects similar or related to the objects collected by the JMZ. Any personal collecting shall be done legally and open to inspection.  The objects in the collections, their documentation, and all additional documentation developed subsequent to their acquisition are the property of the JMZ. Objects and field notes collected by JMZ staff for JMZ work become the property of the JMZ. Ethical questions should be directed to the JMZ Director and the City Attorney as needed. - 24 - Revised 4/2016 14. FORMS The following forms are attached in order: 1. Temporary Receipt 2. Deed of Gift 3. Non-living Accession Report 4. Non-living Deaccession Report 5. Object Move Form 6. Outgoing Loan Agreement 1 COLLECTIONS AT THE PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSUEM & ZOO The Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ) Collections include more than 3000 specimens in its Non-living Collections. Within this Permanent Collection, objects are accessioned into one of six Main Collections: Invertebrate Zoology, Vertebrate Zoology, Geology, Paleontology, Botany, and Historic. Natural History objects are then catalogued into even more specific collection categories. Except for Native American objects, historic objects are not assigned into a collection category or catalog. The JMZ Living Collections includes a dynamic collection of over 400 specimens of live animals representing more than 50 species. The collection includes invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. Natural History Collection The Natural History Collection incorporates more than 2000 specimens that are grouped into invertebrate zoology, vertebrate zoology, geology, paleontology, botany. The invertebrate zoology collection includes insects (entomological), mollusks and other shells, crustaceans, other arthropods. The entomological specimens form the most robust part of the Natural History collection both in terms of size and available data and are preserved as pinned insects and Riker Mounts. The mollusk collection consists of individually labeled mollusk shells. Within the vertebrate zoology collection are mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians collected from the late 19th Century and into the 21th Century. The collection includes live mounts study skins, skeletal specimens, bird eggs, and bird nests. The geology collection consists of specimens of Minerals, and Rocks including Igneous Volcanic, Igneous Plutonic, Metamorphic, and Sedimentary. The paleontology collection consists of individual specimens as well as extensive samples from the Montana State University Dinosaur collection. The botany collection consists of dried plant specimens collected at Foothills Park. Historic Collection: American Indian and Ethnographic Art Catalog American Indian and Ethnographic Art comprise the majority of the Historic Collection. The catalog incorporates more than 600 pieces of traditional Native art and folk art that are grouped into 584 numbered units. The Catalog includes art from every culture area of North 2 America as well as Mesoamerica and South America. The strong North American emphasis is in the tribal art of California, the Great Basin, and the Southwest. The Artic and the Plains/Plateau tribal areas are well represented with lesser representation of the North American culture zones. In addition there are pieces from Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the Pacific. The temporal range is also great with a few prehistoric pieces, and a few village utilitarian pieces form the early period of European contact. By far the majority of the pieces in the Catalog are contemporary art that was made for the market or for individual use. The range of quality and importance of the pieces is also very mixed. Historic Collection: Toys Historic toys comprise the majority of the Historic Collection second to the American Indian & Ethnographic Art made up of over 800 objects. The collection includes approximately 300 small 20th century toys and approximately 500 dolls, in various sizes, and which represent a wide range of human cultures and are dressed in traditional clothing. Living Collection The Living Collection currently includes 424 living specimens representing 63 species but the number of specimens and species fluctuates over time. The make-up of the collection correlates strongly with the JMZ educational and experiential goals for children and illustrate a wide range of biological adaptations. The JMZ is one of only four zoos in California to exhibit fruit bats. The largest number of species and the greatest number of specimens are invertebrates and fish. The largest animals by weight are bobcats. Valuation The establishment of fair market value of the American Indian and Ethnographic Art Catalog was determined in 2004 when the JMZ assessed this catalog following in compliance with the Federal and State Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGRPA). Benjamin F. Benson and Associates created a museum catalog and formal appraisal of 584 units of the JMZ’s American Indian and Ethnographic Art objects and valued the collection at $364,145 effective April 1, 2004. No other appraisals or evaluations of the JMZ’s collections have been conducted. Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, revised 8/2015 Original – JMZ Director for permanent collections file, Copy – Donor, PDF of signed original – Digital collections catalog Accession Number Non-living Accession Report Use this record to document the receipt of objects and collect pertinent information from the Source of Accession. If additional space is needed, attach a separate sheet. Do NOT accept objects without filling out this form for EACH object with input from donors. Collection: Refer to the back of this report for key to Collection Category Prefixes and Access Scale. BOLD the Main Collection that the object will be accessioned into: Invertebrate Zoology Vertebrate Zoology Geology Paleontology Historic BOLD the Collection Category that the object will be cataloged in: MI IV IP M-S M-M S P MA O oo I HE E IZ ATC NA BOLD the Access Scale Number that the object will be assigned: 1 – Hands-On Access 2 – Limited Access 3 – Restricted Access Nature of Accession: Indicate donation, purchase, field collection, exchange, JMZ deceased animal, Found in Collections, or other. Name and Address of Source of Accession: Email: Daytime Telephone: __________________________________________________________________________________________ Name and Address of Collector (if other than donor): Email: Daytime Telephone: __________________________________________________________________________________________ Brief description of object: Obtain as much of this information as possible from the source of accession. BOLD condition: Good Fair Poor Identification: Date collected or purchased: Age of object, if known: Locality collected: Permits required and provided: BOLD. YES NO Do not accept object(s) if permits are required, and copies of them are not attached to this document. Type of preservation: Dimensions (in cm): Visual description: History of object: __________________________________________________________________________________________ Objects/specimens Accessioned by: Employee: Date: __________________________________________________________________________________________ I certify that the objects described above and on any attached documents have been received and accepted. JMZ Director: Signature: ___________________________ Date: __________________________________________________________________________________________ If the accession is a donation, donor needs to sign and date below. Contact information should be listed above. I hereby release to the City of Palo Alto as an unconditional gift the object(s) listed above. Name of Donor: Signature:___________________________ Date: Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, revised 8/2015 Original – JMZ Director for permanent collections file, Copy – Donor, PDF of signed original – Digital collections catalog Collection Category Catalog Prefix Minerals MI Igneous Volcanic IV Igneous Plutonic IP Metamorphic Small M-S Metamorphic Medium M-M Sedimentary S Paleontology P Mammals MA Ornithology O Ornithology Oology oo Ichthyology I Herpetology HE Mollusks M* Entomology E Invertebrate Zoology IZ Assembled Teaching Collection ATC Native American NA *Mollusks is a historic category, and only existing accessioned & cataloged objects within this category have this Prefix. Any newly accessioned mollusks are to be cataloged in the Invertebrate Zoology (IZ) category. Access Scale 1 – Hands-On Access Accessible, Frequent use by education staff, Unregulated off-site use, May be handled by children and public Criteria:  No data  Insignificant monetary/historic/scientific value  Durable  Easily replaceable (through purchase or an established source)  Does not require special storage  One of many examples/types of a specimen  May be a replica or reproduction  Object is in poor to moderate condition  May be handled by volunteers  May be handled by children and public under supervision 2 – Trained Staff Access Accessible, Routine use by education staff, Regulated off-site use, Handled only by educators Criteria:  Associated with data  Medium to low monetary/historic/scientific value  Durable to somewhat fragile  Replaceable (but may require a collecting permit or be challenging to replace)  May be kept in locked or unlocked storage but requires protective containers  Good example of its kind in the collections  Object in good or great condition (we want to preserve this condition)  May be used in classes or programs but only handled by educator 3 – Restricted Access Accessible by permission only, Infrequent use by education staff , On-site use only, Handled only by educators with gloves Criteria:  Associated with data and known provenance and/or provenience  Significant monetary/historic/scientific value  Fragile  Impossible or difficult to replace (requires collecting permit)  Requires locked, special storage  Unusual or only example of its kind in the collections  Object is in excellent condition  Contains toxic or hazardous material or byproducts  May be used only by permission and handled only by trained educator with gloves Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, revised 8/2015 Original – JMZ Director for permanent collections file, PDF of signed original – Digital collections catalog Accession Number Non-living Deaccession Report Use this record to document the deaccession of object(s). If additional space is needed, attach a separate sheet. Attach a copy of the original Accession Report to this form. Collection: BOLD the Main Collection that the object was accessioned into: Invertebrate Zoology Vertebrate Zoology Geology Paleontology Historic BOLD the Collection Category that the object was cataloged in: MI IV IP M-S M-M S P MA O oo I HE E IZ ATC NA Accession Background Information: Date of Accession: Nature of Accession: Indicate donation, purchase, field collection, exchange, JMZ deceased animal, Found in Collection, or other. Catalog title and number: Provide if applicable. Name and Address of Source of Accession: Email: Daytime Telephone: _________________________________________________________________________________________ Contacting Donor: If the object was a gift, answer the following: Is the donor still alive? BOLD. YES NO UNKNOWN Has the donor (or heirs) been informed of the intention to deaccession? BOLD. YES NO Has the donor (or heirs) objected to deaccessioning? BOLD. YES NO Notes: _________________________________________________________________________________________ Brief description of object: Obtain this information from the accession report, catalogue, records, or a physical inspection. BOLD condition: Good Fair Poor Identification: Date collected or purchased: Age of object, if known: Locality collected: Permits transferred: BOLD. YES NO Be sure to transfer permits for object(s) if they are required. Attach copies of them to this document. Type of preservation: Dimensions (in cm): Visual description: Justification for Deaccession: Using one or more of the reasons listed at the end of this document, justify the deaccession. _______________________________________________________________________________________ Recommendation for Disposition: BOLD the recommendation: Exchange Gift Transfer Sale Destruction Repatriation _________________________________________________________________________________________ Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, revised 7/2015 Original – JMZ Director for permanent collections file, PDF of signed original – Digital collections catalog _________________________________________________________________________________________ Information for institution accepting/selling object: Or if object is slated for destruction, complete information for staff person assigned to carry out destruction. Institution: Department: Contact Person: Address: City, State, Zip: Phone: Fax: Email: Describe why this institution (or destruction) is the best disposition for this object: _________________________________________________________________________________________ Appraised Market Value: Fill out if information is available or object is to be sold. Attach any documentation. Value of object when accessioned: $ Current Market Value: $ How has this been determined? Appraisal Value: $ Name of Appraiser: Date: Comparable recent public auction/catalogue price: $ Name of auction/catalogue price: Date: Comparable recent public auction/catalogue price: $ Name of auction/catalogue price: Date: __________________________________________________________________________________________ I certify that the objects described above and on any attached documents have been deaccessioned according to the PAJMZ Collections Policies and Procedures. JMZ Director: Signature: ___________________________ Date: _______________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ Justification for Deaccession: Use one or more of the following criteria to justify the reasons for deaccession. 1. Object does not relate to the Museum’s mission. 2. Object is a duplication of material. 3. Object is a health or safety hazard. 4. Object is damaged beyond use. 5. Object is part of an exchange agreement. 6. Object is subject to repatriation according to NAGPRA. 7. There are new issues regarding legality or ownership. 8. Object is known to be fraudulent or undocumented. 9. Museum is unable to provide proper care. 10. Object may be subjected to destructive analysis for research or documentation. Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo Outgoing Loan Agreement Form BETWEEN: The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, “Lender” of the City of Palo Alto Name of Collection:____________________________________________________________________ Name and Title of Authorized Representative:________________________________________________ Address: 1451 Middlefield Road City: Palo Alto State: CA Zipcode: 94301 Phone: (650) 329-624 Fax: (650)473-1965 E-mail: ______________________________________________________________________________ AND: “Borrower” Institution Name:_______________________________________________________________________ Name and Title of Authorized Representative: _______________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ Address: ______________________________________________________________________ City: ____________________________ State: _____________________ Zipcode: __________ Phone: ( )__________________________ Fax: ( ) __________________________________ E-mail: _______________________________________________________________________ Description of Loaned Object(s) □ Continuation Sheet Attached Accession/ Catalogue Number Object Description (physical description, dimensions, condition notes, attach photo) Insurance Value (U.S. dollars) Total Insurance Value $ □ Insurance Certificate Attached Hereinafter referred to as the “Loaned Object(s)” 1/4 Outgoing Loan Agreement Form – Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo 23 September 2010 Purpose(s) of Loan: □ display □ research □ conservation □ education Duration of Loan: From: To: Terms of the Loan: 1. General Conditions 1.1 The Lender agrees to permit the Borrower to borrow the Loaned Object(s) upon the terms and conditions herein set out. The Borrower agrees to the terms laid out in this document, as well as any additional terms or conditions provided in writing to the Borrower by the Lender. 1.2 If the Borrower wishes to request a change in the dates, schedule or other conditions of the agreement, they must submit the request in writing to the Lender for approval at the address specified on the front of this agreement. 1.3 The Loaned Object(s) shall be kept at the location specified on the front of this Agreement. The Borrower shall not lend the Loaned Object(s) to any third party or affiliate of the Borrower nor shall it permit the Loaned Object(s) to be kept at any location other than the location set out herein. 2. Care and Handling, Installation and Display of the Loaned Object(s) 2.1 Only qualified members of the Borrower’s staff are to pack, unpack or otherwise handle the Loaned Object(s). The Borrower is to make every effort to prevent loss or damage the Loaned Object(s). The Loaned Object(s) is not to be conserved, fumigated or altered in any way without the written permission of the Lender. 2.2 The Lender will complete a condition report of the Loaned Object(s) prior to delivery. The Lender requires a condition report to completed upon receipt of, and prior to the return of, the Loaned Object(s). The Borrower is required to notify the Lender immediately upon noticing a change in the condition of the Loaned Object(s). Completed condition reports are to be returned to the Lender with the Loaned Object(s). 2.3 The Loaned Object(s) must not be placed in storage, even temporarily, without prior written approval of the Lender. 2.4 Damages of any kind, either to the Loaned Object(s) or shipping and packing materials, regardless of circumstances or responsibility, shall be reported immediately to the appropriate Lender’s representative. 2.5 The Borrower will provide a written outline of the planned method of mounting and displaying the Loaned Object(s) to the Lender for approval based on the sensitivities of the Loaned Object(s). Special Requirements: 3. Facilities and Security 3.1 The Borrower must provide the Lender a current facility report which will be reviewed to ensure That the Borrower’s facilities are appropriate for the sensitivities of the Loaned Object(s): Special Requirements: 2/4 Outgoing Loan Agreement Form – Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo 23 September 2010 3.2 The Borrower must protect the Loaned Object(s) from all risks, including without limitation, theft, fire, flood, exposure to harmful levels of light or environment, pests, dirt and handling by untrained persons. 3.3 The Borrower shall have 24 hour/7 days per week fire detection/prevention, security and environmental control systems. Should there be a failure in any system the Borrower must notify The Lender immediately. Special Requirements: 4. Packing and Transportation 4.1 Packing and transportation shall be by safe methods approved in advance by the Lender. Damages occurring during transit shall be reported to the Lender immediately. 5. Insurance, Liability and Indemnity 5.1 The Borrower will, at its own expense, provide insurance coverage on the Loaned Object(s) under Its Fine Arts policy, in the amount identified in this Agreement which is the stated and agreed value for insurance purposes of the Loaned Object(s). This insurance coverage will include coverage for theft, vandalism, damage by fire, water, acts of nature including but not limited to snow and rain storms, floods, earthquake, lightning, and sudden and accidental environmental loss. The Borrower shall be required prior to shipment of the Loaned Object(s) to furnish a certificate of insurance naming The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo as an additional insured. 5.2 The Borrower is responsible for the security and care of the Loaned Object(s) and shall be liable for Any loss or damage to the Loaned Object(s) from the time it leaves the Lender premises in Palo Alto, California until it is returned to the Lender in Palo Alto, California. Any lapses in insurance coverage, any failure to secure insurance and/or any inaction by the Lender regarding notice will not release the Borrower from liability for loss or damage. 5.3 The Borrower will indemnify and save harmless the Lender its directors, officers, employees or agents, from and against any and all claims, demands, actions and liabilities including but not limited to losses, damages, judgments, costs (including legal costs on a lawyer and his own client basis), and expenses incurred by the Lender and that are a result of, based upon, occasioned by or arising on the part of the Borrower its trustees, administrators, directors, officers, employees, agents, or visitors to the Borrower’s premises in the execution of this agreement by the Borrower. 6. Rights, Reproductions and Credit Lines 6.1 Unless permission is declined, the Loaned Object(s) may be photographed for the purposes of enhancing the display of the Loaned Object(s). The Loaned Object(s) may not be photographed for any other purposes without the written consent of the Lender. All such images of the Loaned Object(s) shall be considered to be the property of the Lender and may not be used or reproduced other than for the specific purposes set out herein without the written consent of the Lender. Special Requirements: 3/4 Outgoing Loan Agreement Form – The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo 23 September 2010 6.2 Information about the Loaned Object(s) for use on labels, catalogues, publicity or for any other Purpose must include the full credit line as provided by the Lender Credit line to read: The Borrower acknowledges the proprietary interest of the Lender in all names, trademarks, crests or logos owned by the Lender and shall not use any Lender name, trademark, crest ore logo other than as specifically set out in this agreement, without the prior written consent of the Lender. 7. Term of Loan 7.1 The Loaned Object(s) shall be returned by the Borrower at the time specified on this agreement. The Lender reserves the right to withdraw the loan at any time should the safety of the Loaned Object(s) be endangered in the opinion of the Lender, in its sole discretion. The Lender further reserves the right to request the return of the Loaned Object(s) on seven (7) days notice, although the loan period is not terminated. No extension of the loan will be granted without the written consent of the Lender. Early termination of the agreement does not release the Borrower from any financial, insurance or indemnity obligations as set forth in this agreement. 8. Additional Conditions: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ THE CONDITIONS OF THIS LOAN AS STATED ABOVE ARE ACCEPTED: On behalf of the_________________________ On behalf of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo Signature: ______________________________ Signature:_________________________________ Name:_________________________________ Name:____________________________________ Title:__________________________________ Title:_____________________________________ Date:__________________________________ Date:_____________________________________ 4/4 Outgoing Loan Agreement form – The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo 23 September 2010 TEMPORARY DEPOSIT RECEIPT City of Palo Alto Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo 1451 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2111 Date: _______________ The Junior Museum &^Zoo has received from: Name: ________________________________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Telephone: _______________________ Fax:_________________ E-Mail:___________ For The Following Purpose (s): __________Identification Examination for _____Gift _____Loan _____Purchase _______________________________________________Other Scheduled Date of Removal: ________________________________________________________________ Description of Objects The object(s) described above has been received by the Junior Museum & Zoo subject to the conditions stated. ____________________________________________________ _______________________________ (Received By) (Date) ___________________________________________________ _______________________________ (Depositor) (Date) The depositor acknowledges that the above listed object (s) have been returned in satisfactory condition. _________________________________________________ ________________________________ (Depositor) (Date) (1) CONDITIONS 1. The Junior Museum & Zoo will exercise the same care with respect to the object (s) described in this receipt, as it does in the safekeeping of the comparable property of its own. The Junior Museum & Zoo cannot, however, accept any responsibility whatsoever for objects deposited on an examination status which are left at the owner’s risk. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing, no insurance will be carried by the Junior Museum & Zoo on objects deposited for examination. The owner hereby releases the Junior Museum & Zoo, the City Council of Palo Alto, the Friends of the Junior Museum & Zoo, the Recreation and Park Commission, and employees from liability for any and all claims arising out of any loss of or damage to the object (s) so deposited. Responsibility for insurance is that of the owner. 2. Upon reasonable notice from the depositor or from his duly authorized and accredited or legal representative, any objects listed on this receipt which have not already been accepted by the Junior Museum & Zoo pursuant to an offer of gift or sale made by the depositor, or which are not included as a loan in a special exhibition then on display, may be withdrawn during the regular Museum hours by surrendering this receipt or upon presentation of the depositor’s written order. 3. Should the Junior Museum & Zoo accept the objects described in this form as a loan, gift or purchase, this examination receipt will be superseded, with respect to the specific objects involved, by documents appropriate to the transaction. 4. The Junior Museum & Zoo will give reasonable notice to the depositor, at the address appearing on the receipt, to take back or remove the deposited property. If such objects or property, are not withdrawn by the depositor or the duly authorized and accredited agent or legal representative at the expiration of a period of thirty (30) days after such notice, they may be placed in storage in any warehouse company at the depositor’s risk and expense. After 3 years the objects will become the property of the Junior Museum & Zoo. 5. The Junior Museum & Zoo reserves the right to photograph the object(s) described in this receipt. 6. This receipt must be surrendered when the object(s) is returned. I have read and agree to the above CONDITIONS, and I certify that I have full authority to agree thereto: __________________________________________ _________________________ (Depositor’s Signature) (Date) (2) City of Palo Alto (ID # 6979) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/23/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Second Reading: Reach Code Ordinance Title: SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing and Restating Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, California Energy Code, 2016 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings (FIRST READING: May 2, 2016 PASSED: 9-0) From: City Manager Lead Department: City Clerk This Ordinance was heard as a first reading on May 2, 2016 where Council unanimously approved it with no changes. It is now back for second reading. Attachments:  Attachment A: Reach Code Ordinance (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED 1 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing and Restating Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, California Energy Code, 2016 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal is hereby amended by repealing in its entirety Chapter 16.17 and adopting a new Chapter 16.17 to read as follows: 16.17 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE 16.17.010 2016 California Energy Code adopted. The California Energy Code, 2016 Edition, Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations together with those omissions, amendments, exceptions and additions thereto, is adopted and hereby incorporated in this Chapter by reference and made a part hereof the same as if fully set forth herein. Except as amended herein, all requirements of the California Energy Code, 2016 Edition, Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations shall apply. Unless superseded and expressly repealed, references in City of Palo Alto forms, documents and regulations to the chapters and sections of the former California Code of Regulations, Title 24, shall be construed to apply to the corresponding provisions contained within the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2013. Ordinance No. 5345 of the City of Palo Alto and all other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby suspended and expressly repealed. One copy of the California Energy Code, 2016 edition, has been filed for use and examination of the public in the Office of the Building Official of the City of Palo Alto. 16.17.020 Violations -- Penalties. Any person, firm or corporation violating any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as provided in subsection (a) of Section 1.08.010 of this code. Each separate day or any portion thereof during which any violation of this chapter occurs or continues shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable as provided in this section. 16.17.030 Enforcement -- Citation authority. The employee positions designated in this section may enforce the provisions of this chapter by the issuance of citations; persons employed in such positions are authorized to exercise the authority provided in Penal Code section 836.5 and are authorized to issue citations for violations of this chapter. The designated employee positions are: (1) chief building official; (2) building inspection supervisor; and (3) code enforcement officer. NOT YET APPROVED 2 16.17.040 Local Amendments. The provisions of this Chapter shall constitute local amendments to the cross-referenced provisions of the California Energy Code, 2016 Edition, and shall be deemed to replace the cross-referenced sections of said Code with the respective provisions set forth in this Chapter. 16.17.050 Section 100.3 Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. Section 100.3 California Energy Code is added to read: 100.3 Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code (a) New single-family residential construction. The performance approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of proposed single-family residential construction is at least: 1. Ten percent (10%) less than the TDV energy of the Standard Design if the proposed building does not include a photovoltaic system; or 2. Twenty percent (20%) less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design if the proposed building includes a photovoltaic system. (b) New multi-family residential construction. The performance approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of proposed multi-family residential construction is at least: 1. Ten percent (10%) less than the TDV energy of the Standard Design if the proposed building does not include a photovoltaic system; or 2. Twelve percent (12%) less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design if the proposed building includes a photovoltaic system. (c) New non-residential construction. The performance approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of proposed non-residential construction is at least: 1. Ten percent (10%) less than the TDV energy of the Standard Design if the proposed building does not include a photovoltaic system or includes a photovoltaic system smaller than 5kW; or 2. Equal to the TDV Energy of the Standard Design if the proposed building includes a 5kW or greater photovoltaic system. 16.17.060 Section 100.4 Exceptions to Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code Section 100.4 of the California Energy Code is added to read: 100.4 Exceptions to Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code New single-family residential, multi-family residential, and non-residential construction that is designed and built as to be all-electric shall be exempt from the requirements of Section 100.3, Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. For the purposes of this Chapter, construction shall be NOT YET APPROVED 3 considered “all-electric” if electricity is the only permanent source of energy for water-heating, space-heating, space cooling, cooking, and clothes-drying. Nothing in this section shall relieve a project applicant from the meeting any other requirement of the California Energy Code, 2016 Edition, Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations. 16.17.060 Section 110.10 Mandatory Requirements For Solar Ready Buildings. Section 110.10 Mandatory Requirements for Solar Ready Buildings is amended as follows: (a) Subsection 110.10(a)1 is amended to read: 1. Single-family residences. New single family residences shall comply with the requirements of Sections 110.10(b) through 110.10(e). (b) Subsection 110.10(b)1A is amended to read: A. Single Family Residences. The solar zone shall be located on the roof or overhang of the building and have a total area no less than 500 square feet. EXCEPTION 1 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences with a permanently installed solar electric system having a nameplate DC power rating, measured under Standard Test Conditions, of no less than 1000 watts. EXCEPTION 2 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences with a permanently installed domestic solar water-heating system meeting the installation criteria specified in the Reference Residential Appendix RA4 and with a minimum solar savings fraction of 0.50. EXCEPTION 3 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences with three habitable stories or more and with a total floor area less than or equal to 2000 square feet and having a solar zone total area no less than 150 square feet. EXCEPTION 4 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences located in Climate zones 8-14 and the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area as defined in Title 24, Part 2 and having a whole house fan and having a solar zone total area no less than 150 square feet. EXCEPTION 5 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Buildings with a designated solar zone area that is no less than 50 percent of the potential solar zone area. The potential solar zone area is the total area of any low-sloped roofs where the annual solar access is 70 percent or greater and any steep-sloped roofs oriented between 110 degrees and 270 degrees of true north where the annual solar access is 70 percent or greater. Solar access is the ratio of solar insolation including shade to the solar insolation without shade. Shading from obstructions located on the roof or any other part of the building shall not be included in the determination of annual solar access. NOT YET APPROVED 4 EXCEPTION 6 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences having a solar zone total area no less than 150 square feet and where all thermostats comply with Reference Joint Appendix JA5 and are capable of receiving and responding to Demand Response Signals prior to granting of an occupancy permit by the enforcing agency. EXCEPTION 7 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences meeting the following conditions: A. All thermostats comply with Reference Joint Appendix JA5 and are capable of receiving and responding to Demand Response Signals prior to granting of an occupancy permit by the enforcing agency. B. Comply with one of the following measures: i. Install a dishwasher that meets or exceeds the ENERGY STAR Program requirements with either a refrigerator that meets or exceeds the ENERGY STAR Program requirements or a whole house fan driven by an electronically commutated motor; or ii. Install a home automation system capable of, at a minimum, controlling the appliances and lighting of the dwelling and responding to demand response signals; or iii. Install alternative plumbing piping to permit the discharge from the clothes washer and all showers and bathtubs to be used for an irrigation system in compliance with the California Plumbing Code and any applicable local ordinances; iv. Install a rainwater catchment system designed to comply with the California Plumbing Code and any applicable local ordinances, and that uses rainwater flowing from at least 65 percent of the available roof area. (c) Subsection 110.10(c) is amended to read: (c) Interconnection pathways. 1. The construction documents shall indicate a location for inverters and metering equipment and a pathway for routing of conduit from the solar zone to the point of interconnection with the electrical service. For single-family residences the point of interconnection will be the main service panel. 2. Residential buildings shall provide conduit to support the installation of future solar requirements. The conduit shall be located adjacent to the solar ready area and shall extend from the roofline and terminate at the main electrical panel. NOT YET APPROVED 5 3. The construction documents shall indicate a pathway for routing of plumbing from the solar zone to the water-heating system. (d) Subsection 110.10(f) is added to read: (f) Existing tree canopies. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Code, the Solar Shade Act of 2009, and the Palo Alto Tree Ordinance (Chapter 8.10), the most protective of existing tree canopies shall prevail. 16.17.070 Infeasibility Exemption. (a) Exemption. If an applicant for a Covered Project believes that circumstances exist that makes it infeasible to meet the requirements of this Chapter, the applicant may request an exemption as set forth below. In applying for an exemption, the burden is on the Applicant to show infeasibility. (b) Application. If an applicant for a Covered Project believes such circumstances exist, the applicant may apply for an exemption at the time of application submittal in accordance with the Development Services administrative guidelines. The applicant shall indicate the maximum threshold of compliance he or she believes is feasible for the covered project and the circumstances that make it infeasible to fully comply with this Chapter. Circumstances that constitute infeasibility include, but are not limited to the following: (1) There is conflict with the compatibility of the currently adopted green building ordinance and/or California Building Standards Code; (2) There is conflict with other City goals, such as those requiring historic preservation or the Architectural Review criteria; (3) There is a lack of commercially available materials and technologies to comply with the requirements of this Chapter; (4) Applying the requirements of this Chapter would effectuate an unconstitutional taking of property or otherwise have an unconstitutional application to the property. (c) Review by Architectural Review Board (ARB). For any covered project for which an exemption is requested and Architectural Review is required by the ARB, the ARB shall provide a recommendation to the Director of Development Services or designee regarding whether the exemption shall be granted or denied, along with its recommendation on the project. (d) Granting of Exemption. If the Director of Development Services, or designee, determines that it is infeasible for the applicant to fully meet the requirements of this Chapter based on the information provided, the Director, or designee, shall determine the maximum feasible threshold of compliance reasonably achievable for the project. The decision of the Director, or designee, shall be provided to the applicant in writing. If an exemption is granted, the applicant shall be required to comply with this Chapter in NOT YET APPROVED 6 all other respects and shall be required to achieve, in accordance with this Chapter, the threshold of compliance determined to be achievable by the Director or designee. (e) Denial of Exemption. If the Director of Development Services or designee determines that it is reasonably possible for the applicant to fully meet the requirements of this Chapter, the request shall be denied and the Director or designee shall so notify the applicant in writing. The project and compliance documentation shall be modified to comply with this Chapter prior to further review of any pending planning or building application. (f) Council Review of Exemption. For any covered project that requires review and action by the City Council, the Council shall act to grant or deny the exemption, based on the criteria outlined above, after recommendation by the Director of Development Services. 16.17.080 Appeal. (a) Any aggrieved Applicant may appeal the determination of the Director of Development Services or designee regarding the granting or denial of an exemption pursuant to 16.17.070. (b) Any appeal must be filed in writing with the Development Services Department not later than fourteen (14) days after the date of the determination by the Director. The appeal shall state the alleged error or reason for the appeal. (c) The appeal shall be processed and considered by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.77.070(f) of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 2. The Council adopts the findings for local amendments to the California Energy Code, 2016 Edition, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be held invalid. SECTION 4. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it is a regulatory action for the protection of the environment. // // NOT YET APPROVED 7 SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the commencement of the thirty- first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Deputy City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Development Services ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services NOT YET APPROVED 8 Exhibit A FINDINGS FOR LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, 2016 EDITION Section 17958 of the California Health and Safety Code provides that the City may make changes to the provisions in the uniform codes that are published in the California Building Standards Code. Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code require that for each proposed local change to those provisions in the uniform codes and published in the California Building Standards Code which regulate buildings used for human habitation, the City Council must make findings supporting its determination that each such local change is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Local building regulations having the effect of amending the uniform codes, which were adopted by the City prior to November 23, 1970, were unaffected by the regulations of Sections 17958, 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code. Therefore, amendments to the uniform codes which were adopted by the City Council prior to November 23, 1970, and have been carried through from year to year without significant change, need no required findings. Also, amendments to provisions not regulating buildings used for human habitation, including amendments made only for administrative consistency, do not require findings. Code: Cal Green Section(s) Title Add Deleted Amended Justification (See below for keys) 100.3 and 100.4 Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code and Exceptions  C & E 110.10 Mandatory Requirements For Solar Ready Buildings   C NOT YET APPROVED 9 Key to Justification for Amendments to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations C This amendment is justified on the basis of a local climatic condition. The seasonal climatic conditions during the late summer and fall create severe fire hazards to the public health and welfare in the City. The hot, dry weather frequently results in wild land fires on the brush covered slopes west of Interstate 280. The aforementioned conditions combined with the geological characteristics of the hills within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Energy Code is required. Failure to address and significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could result in rises in sea level, including in San Francisco Bay, that could put at risk Palo Alto homes and businesses, public facilities, and Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway), particularly the mapped Flood Hazard areas of the City. Energy efficiency is a key component in reducing GHG emissions, and construction of more energy efficient buildings can help Palo Alto reduce its share of the GHG emissions that contribute to climate change. The burning of fossil fuels used in the generation of electric power and heating of buildings contributes to climate change, which could result in rises in sea level, including in San Francisco Bay, that could put at risk Palo Alto homes and businesses 1 public facilities, and Highway 101. Due to decrease in annual rain fall, Palo Alto experiences the effect of drought and water saving more than some other communities in California. E Energy efficiency enhances the public health and welfare by promoting the environmental and economic health of the City through the design, construction, maintenance, operation and deconstruction of buildings and sites by incorporating green practices into all development. The provisions in this Chapter are designed to achieve the following goals: (a) Increase energy efficiency in buildings; (b) Increase resource conservation; (c) Provide durable buildings that are efficient and economical to own and operate; (d) Promote the health and productivity of residents, workers, and visitors to the city; (e) Recognize and conserve the energy embodied in existing buildings; and (f) Reduce disturbance of natural ecosystems. G T This amendment is justified on the basis of a local geological condition. The City of Palo Alto is subject to earthquake hazard caused by its proximity to San Andreas fault. This fault runs from Hollister, through the Santa Cruz Mountains, epicenter of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, then on up the San Francisco Peninsula, then offshore at Daly City near Mussel Rock. This is the approximate location of the epicenter of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The other fault is Hayward Fault. This fault is about 74 mi long, situated mainly along the western base of the hills on the east side of San Francisco Bay. Both of these faults are considered major Northern California earthquake faults which may experience rupture at any time. Thus, because the City is within a seismic area which includes these earthquake faults, the modifications and changes cited herein are designed to better limit property damage as a result of seismic activity and to establish criteria for repair of damaged properties following a local emergency. The City of Palo Alto topography includes hillsides with narrow and winding access, which makes timely response by fire suppression vehicles difficult. Palo Alto is contiguous with the San Francisco Bay, resulting in a natural receptor for storm and waste water run-off. Also the City of Palo Alto is located in an area that is potentially susceptible to liquefaction during a NOT YET APPROVED 10 major earthquake. The surface condition consists mostly of stiff to dense sandy clay, which is highly plastic and expansive in nature. The aforementioned conditions within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Building Standards Codes is warranted. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6782) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/23/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 2515-2585 El Camino Real Site and Design Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Approval of a Site and Design and Architectural Review Application and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project Located at 2515-2585 El Camino Real to Allow a new 39,858 Square Foot, 3- Story Mixed-use Building Including Retail, Office, 13 Residential Condominium Units and one Level of Underground Parking on a 39,638 Square Foot Lot to Replace a 9,694 Square Foot Existing Restaurant (Olive Garden). Approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to Exceed the 5,000 Square Foot Office for the Site by Approximately 4,835 Square Feet. Zoning Districts: CC(2) and CN. The Planning and Transportation Commission Recommended Approval From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachments E through H) and the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) approving the Site and Design Review, Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Review application to allow the construction of a three story, mixed-use development, with one level of underground parking on a 39,908 square foot lot at 2515-2585 El Camino Real. Executive Summary The proposed development would construct an approximately 40,000 square foot mixed-use development containing 13 residential units, office and retail. A Site and Design application is required because the project includes more than nine residential units. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) has been requested to allow 9,835 square feet of office where 5,000 square feet is permitted without a need for a CUP. Architectural Review is required for the overall development. A total of 108 parking spaces are required for the project and 104 are proposed. The applicant seeks a parking reduction of four spaces as provided in the code based on a shared parking analysis. A portion of the project is located in the California Avenue Assessment City of Palo Alto Page 2 district, which has lower parking requirements than the standards that apply elsewhere in the city. The property is zoned Commercial Neighborhood (CN) adjacent to El Camino Real and Community Commercial (CC (2)) for a portion of the project along Sherman Avenue. An environmental analysis revealed a need to mitigate potential hazardous material impacts associated with the ground water plume. The project would not have significant traffic-related impacts, meaning that project traffic would not itself cause a significant impact, and would not contribute in a “considerable” way to cumulatively significant impacts. Both the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) have recommended approval of the project, subject to conditions. In addition to the overall review of the project, this report provides additional comments related the applicant’s request for a parking reduction and office space in excess of 5,000 square feet. Background The project applicant proposes to demolish the existing Olive Garden restaurant building at the subject property and replace it with a new mixed-use development. On the ground floor would be retail and office uses with office and residential units above. The project is subject to the retail moratorium. This requires an equivalent amount of floor area to be dedicated for retail or retail-like uses due to the removal of the restaurant space. More specifically, the existing restaurant is approximately 9,694 square feet. The proposed ground floor retail space is approximately 9,706. Based on this design, the project is consistent with this ordinance. The project was also subject to the office cap interim ordinance. However, since fewer than 50,000 square feet of office space was set to be approved this year, Council review of this project in the context of other projects is not required. However, the need for the Site and Design application subjects this project to City Council review. And, when one aspect of a project is subject to Council review, staff bundles the other applications so the Council can take an action on the entire project. Attached to this report are the verbatim minutes for the two ARB and one PTC meeting related to this project (Attachments I, J and K). Staff reports are available online: ARB March 3, 2016: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51264 ARB March 17, 2016: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51516 PTC March 9, 2016: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/50939 Architectural Review Board On March 3, 2016, the ARB held a hearing on the subject application. There were no public speakers. The ARB was generally supportive of the project but had comments regarding the City of Palo Alto Page 3 pedestrian connection from Sherman to Grant Avenue; concerns with the length of building frontage on El Camino Real; a desire to break up the El Camino Real and Grant Avenue corner elevation; and, interest in more landscaping on Sherman Avenue and El Camino Real elevation. The applicant addressed these comments to the ARB’s satisfaction and received a recommendation for approval on March 17, 2016. The Board voted 3-1 to endorse the project. Commissioner Lew was the dissenting vote and was generally supportive of many aspects of the project, but expressed concern that the frontage along El Camino Real was too long and not consistent with the pattern of development in the area or the desired pedestrian-oriented nature of the street. Planning and Transportation Commission The Commission held a public hearing and unanimously recommended approval of the project on March 9, 2016. Despite its support, the Commission expressed a desire for more housing units to achieve the realistic yield of 18 units as set forth in the Housing Element; the proposed 13 units fall short of that expectation. The amount of floor area dedicated to residential uses is the maximum area allowed for projects in the CN zone. However, smaller unit sizes would yield a greater density and this would require additional parking. Additionally, the Commission questioned the request for more office space, beyond the 5,000 square feet permitted in the code. The Commission explored the parking requirements for the proposed mix of uses and found that the design oriented the majority of office and retail space toward the portion of the site that benefitted from the lower parking requirement of the California Avenue Parking District. Part of this is a necessity of the project design to build across the development site. However, the applicant has also elected not to place floor area over the CC (2) portion of the property, which is also located in the parking district. The Commission received staff’s explanation for its support of the CUP for additional office space, which was informed by three observations:  The project site contained two independent parcels that were to be merged together. As two sites, each parcel would be allowed by code to establish 5,000 square feet of office, or 10,000 square feet for the entire project site. However, merging the site creates better design opportunities, including a more efficient subterranean garage.  The project was filed in August 2014. The interim ordinance establishing a growth meter office cap was not adopted at that time. Had the ordinance been established, staff may have cautioned against the CUP request.  Finally, it was believed that a Transportation Demand Management solution could be established for the project to mitigate the increased office floor area. Based on the foregoing, the PTC agreed that the request for the CUP could be supported with a condition requiring an enforceable TDM plan. The Commission discussed the reduced parking request for four fewer spaces than required. While supportive, at least one commissioner expressed concern about a possible trend of City of Palo Alto Page 4 projects seeking minor deviations from parking requirements. As such, this commissioner noted the objection, but did not pursue project modification. The zoning code permits, for mixed-use developments, a maximum floor area ratio of 0.50 for residential and 0.50 for commercial in the CN district. While generally supportive of the project, commissioners expressed an interest for more housing units than was being provided. The PTC recommended approval (6-0-1) of the project, but included in its motion a request that the Council explore ways to increase unit density and required a TDM Plan for the parking reduction. The PTC meeting minutes are attached (Attachment K) and the March 9, 2016 PTC staff report is viewable at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The TDM Plan requirement is proposed as a condition of approval in the Record of Land Use Action. Discussion The referenced staff reports and minutes provide background information for the community and Council. The project received support for the architectural scale, mass and design. The reason this project is before the Council is because the applicant seeks more than nine residential units, which is the threshold for a Site and Design application, which requires Council approval. Included in Attachment A are the findings for Architectural Review, including Context- Based Design criteria, and for the Site and Design application. Consistency with Housing Element The PTC expressed its interest in seeing more units on the site. Part of the reason the project does not achieve the realistic yield set forth in the Housing Element is due to the size of the proposed units, the increased need for parking to accommodate more units, and because no development is proposed on the CN portion of the property. There are no code requirements that mandate an owner provide the maximum number of achievable units as part of the development. If the Council is interested in seeing more units on site as recommended by the PTC, this project change would need to relate to the Site and Design findings and would likely include a discussion regarding compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and, more specifically, the Housing Element. For instance, Housing Element Policy H2.1 seeks, in part, to identify and implement a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity, including mixed use development, near community services, including a range of unit types. If project changes are required that cannot be addressed through conditions of approval, it is unlikely the project would be approved this year due to the time needed to make those changes, staff time to review the changes and scheduling the continued public hearing before the City Council prior to the June 30th deadline established for office projects under the FY16 office/R&D annual limit. Conditional Use Permit Request for Additional Office Space The site originally consisted of two parcels that were joined prior to application submittal. Staff recently learned that the lot merger occurred on May 24, 1996 and not just prior to the application being filed as was originally thought. This information combined with the Council’s enactment of the office cap ordinance may inform the Council’s deliberation as to the appropriateness of granting the CUP. If the CUP is not approved, the spaces used for ground City of Palo Alto Page 5 floor office in excess of 5,000 sf could not be converted to residential, because the development already maximizes the residential floor area allowed in the zoning district. This office space then would likely be converted to retail space. However, this conversion would require an additional 5 parking spaces and modification to the parking plan or elimination of approximately 1,250 sf of commercial area. A further reduction of commercial floor area would make parking available to support smaller, but greater density housing units. Residential parking is parked at 1.25 spaces for a studio unit, 1.5 for a one-bedroom unit and 2.0 spaces for a two or more bedroom unit. Guest parking for a project this size is 10 percent of the units, plus 1 space. As noted earlier, such changes, if they cannot be conditioned, would require redesign and that may result in this project missing the review period for office development projects this year. Further, staff does not have information on how further reductions of commercial floor area to support more housing could impact the development from the applicant’s perspective. Approval or denial of the conditional use permit is based on findings (PAMC 18.76.010 (c)). These findings are: 1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. 2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. Ground Floor Retail On May 11, 2015, the City Council adopted an Urgency Ordinance 5325 placing a moratorium on the conversion of ground floor retail use permitted or operating as of March 2, 2015 or thereafter. The ordinance was intended to address the Council’s desire to prevent existing retail and services from converting to office or other uses citywide. The project proposes to remove an existing 9,694 square foot restaurant replacing it with 9,706 square foot ground floor retail. The project meets the intent of the moratorium. Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit This project proposal is subject to the interim ordinance that established a 50,000 square foot annual limit on Office/R&D development in a portion of the City including Downtown, the California Avenue area, and the El Camino corridor, adopted October 26, 2015. The interim ordinance is intended to control the pace of growth and change in these areas for a two-year trial period or until the Comprehensive Plan Update is adopted, with the understanding that the Comprehensive Plan Update may perpetuate or modify this policy initiative. The interim ordinance reflects the City Council’s specific direction on parameters of the annual limit program, including affected land uses and exemptions, the process by which the annual and the disposition of pending or “pipeline” projects (ordinance available online: City of Palo Alto Page 6 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49501). While the 50,000 square feet limit has not been exceeded, based on the requirements of the interim ordinance, in order for this project to be eligible for approval in 2016, all relevant planning entitlement steps must be completed (i.e. CEQA review, ARB, PTC, and Council reviews) by June 30, 2016. For Site and Design projects such as this one, that would include approval by the City Council. Affordable Housing For projects including five or more for sale residential units, the developer is required to contribute at least 15% of those units at below market rates. The subject project, with 13 housing units, is required to provide one on-site unit and may make an in-lieu payment to the City’s Housing Development Fund for the resulting fractional unit (.95 unit). The initial BMR sales prices are set by the City's Director of Planning and Community Environment, and the buyer selection process is administered by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC). Staff understands the applicant would like the proposed residential units to be available for sale, making them subject to the City affordable housing regulations. The applicant has been informed their tentative map application will need to be submitted to the Planning Department prior to Building permit application and approved prior to issuance of Building permits. Policy Implications Attacment A contains the Record of Land Use Action that includes responses to project-related findings and statements regarding the project’s compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and other documents. Attachment A can be modified to reflect the Council’s final action. Environmental Review An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was prepared for the project. Based upon the IS/MND, it was determined that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The IS/MND was available for public review beginning January 19, 2016 and the review period will end on February 18, 2016. As of the preparation of this staff report, no comments have been received. Attachments:  Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action (DOCX)  Attachment B: Zoning Comparison Table (DOC)  Attachment C: Comprehensive Plan Table (DOC)  Attachment D: Performance Standards (DOC)  Attachment E: Initial Study (PDF)  Attachment F: Initial Study Appendix G - Traffic Report (PDF)  Attachment G: Mitigated Negative Declaration (PDF)  Attachment H: Mitigation Monitoring Program (PDF)  Attachment I: March 3, 2016 ARB verbatim minutes (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 7  Attachment J: March 17, 2016 ARB verbatim minutes (PDF)  Attachment K: March 9, 2016 PTC verbatim minutes (PDF)  Attachment L: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)  Attachment M: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 ATTACHMENT A DRAFT ACTION NO. 2015-__ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 2515-2518 EL CAMINO REAL: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HAYES GROUP ARCHITECTS, ON BEHALF OF ECRPA, LLC (15PLN-0170) On ________, the Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Site and Design Review Application and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a mixed use building in the Community Commercial Subdistrict CC (2) and Community Neighborhood (CN) zone district. SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. Hayes Group Architects, on behalf of ECRPA, LLC has requested the City’s adoption and approval for the following items: (1) A Mitigated Negative Declaration, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); (2) Site and Design Review application for a to allow a new 39,858 square foot, 3-story mixed use building including retail, office, 13 residential condominium units and one level of underground parking on a 39,908 square foot lot to replace a 9,694 square foot existing restaurant (Olive Garden). The project includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to exceed the 5,000 square foot office for the site by approximately 4,835 square feet. These properties are designated on the Comprehensive Plan land use map as Neighborhood Commercial and Regional/Community Commercial and are located within Community Commercial Subdistrict CC (2) and Community Neighborhood (CN) the zone district. B. The Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed the request for Site and Design Review, on March 9, 2016 and recommended approval. C. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the application for Site and Design Review on March 17, 206, and recommended approval. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City, as the lead agency for the Project, has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) will be required for the project subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Public Notice period for the MND began on January 18, 2016 and concluded on 2 February 19, 2016. The City Council hereby approves the MND for the project and adopts the related Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Plan. SECTION 3. Site and Design Review Findings 1. The use will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The proposed mixed use building would introduce compatible and harmonious uses in relation to adjacent and nearby uses in this diverse neighborhood. The project is located in an area of office, restaurant, commercial use and residential uses down Grant Avenue. The project redevelops the single- story building site with a three-story building; the project is designed to minimize the visual impact of the structure by stepping the building back, providing a plaza area with planters and street trees and landscaping along the building frontages. The development will complement the nearby uses. The materials, colors and landscaping selection have been designed to blend in with the natural environment to the greatest extent feasible. 2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. The approval of the project would maintain the desirability of investment by providing a project with a mix of uses that would assist in improving the neighborhood by making better use of an underutilized parcel. The project would maintain desirability of investment in the same and adjacent areas, in that the proposed design, size and use of the site are consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and with the existing and future uses on El Camino Real. The construction and improvements would be governed by regulations of the current zoning ordinance, the Uniform Building Code and other applicable codes to assure safety and a high quality of development. 3. Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance are observed in the project. The proposal, as a mixed use infill project, is intended to benefit the environment by providing new housing within the city to reduce vehicle commute times. The project incorporates the following: Tree Removal The project includes removal of all existing trees (33); no trees are considered significant trees. The underground garage footprint encompasses the entire site, with the exception of a small section at the northwest corner. Several trees are located along the frontages and adjacent to the proposed building. Excavation for the garage will adversely impact the trees especially the trees along El Camino Real. Additionally, constructing the building and installing vertical shoring will require space currently occupied by tree limbs and branches. The existing structural conditions of the trees vary between fair to 3 poor, and would be difficult to retain and relocate. The project proposes 29-24 inch box trees to be planted. The landscape design is intended to provide color interest throughout the year. The planting will provide a buffer between the proposed improvements and the neighbors to the north of the site while at the same time addressing storm water improvements. The entire perimeter of the site is landscaped. Sustainability and Green Building Design Various green building strategies have been incorporated into the project. The building proposes to use sustainable materials and strategies, including high quality and long-life cycle rain screen façade system, recessed windows, high efficiency glazing systems, and abundant day-lighting. Parking is efficient and concentrated to minimize on-grade parking and deep excavation. Site lighting will be LED or other efficiency lighting type. Electric vehicle charging stations will comply with the type and quantity required by the City. Skylights are proposes to illuminate the second floor corridor during the day. A solar photovoltaic system is proposed and oriented for solar exposure. The site is located near a VTA bus stop. The proximity to the Caltrain station and the short-term and long term bicycle parking would encourage alternative methods of transportation. 4. The use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The use will be developed in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan as further described in Section 4 (ARB Findings). SECTION 4. ARB Findings/Context Based Design Criteria Findings and Architectural Review Findings 1) The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Comprehensive Plan and Purpose of ARB: Finding #1: The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Finding #16: The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review, which is to:  Promote orderly and harmonious development in the city;  Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city;  Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements;  Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas; and  Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other. 4 The project is consistent with Findings #1 and #16 because:  The project promotes medium density residential development within the El Camino Real corridor and areas within the 0.5 miles of the Caltrain station.  The design of the mixed-use development is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in that the site is designated Neighborhood Commercial and Regional/Community Commercial, where residential is allowed and the Comprehensive Plan Table indicates compliance with the applicable policies.  The project will comply with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: o Policy L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The project has been designed to be compatible with the neighborhood by anchoring the block to the corner, stepping the building back and providing a street presence to enliven the neighborhood. o Policy L-14: Design and arrange new multifamily buildings, including entries and outdoor spaces, so that each unit has a clear relationship to a public street. The pedestrian and vehicular entries are separated to provide for a clear relationship for access. A pedestrian path is provided from Grant Avenue to Sherman Avenue. The vehicle entrance is provided from Sherman and Grant Avenues. o Policy H2.1: Identify and implement a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity, including mixed us development, near community services, including a range of unit types. The project site has been identified in the City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element that could accommodate residential development. As noted in the Housing Inventory Site Table B-1, the combined sites 2515 and 2585 El Camino Real could accommodate 18 units. The project proposes 13 residential units.  The proposed project is not inconsistent with: o Policy L-14: which states, “Design and arrange new multifamily buildings, including entries and outdoor spaces, so that each unit has a clear relationship to a public street” since the proposed project is consistent in scale, density and building design with the surrounding structures that have multi-family residential uses. o Policy L-48: which states, “Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces since the contemporary design is an attempt to employ a look that is compatible to the Mid-Century Modern buildings of the surrounding neighborhoods. Compatibility and Character: Finding #2: The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. Finding #4: This finding of compatibility with unified or historic character is not applicable to the project (there is no unified design or historic character along this portion of El Camino Real). Finding #5: The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between 5 different designated land uses. Finding #6: The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site. The project is consistent with Findings #2, #4, #5 and #6 because: The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the building is located within a commercial zone district where other buildings of similar size and scale are common and where multifamily is allowed. The design is a reflection of its mixed use. Individual entries and detailed materials reinforce a pedestrian scale. The forms are informal and varied reflecting a mixed use character. The proposed project’s siting reinforces the El Camino street frontage and sidewalk and provides a plaza amenity along the less busy Sherman Avenue frontage. The building defines the separation of uses through a change of form, materials and façade treatments. Most of the building along El Camino Real would be three stories while the portion closest to Sherman Avenue would be stepped down to two stories. The design is compatible with the sidewalks, roadway, utilities and other existing improvements. The proposed landscaping will enhance the improvements both on and off site. Functionality and Open Space: Finding #3: The design is appropriate to the function of the project. Finding #7: The planning and siting of the building on the site creates an internal sense of order and provides a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community. Finding #8: The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures. The project is consistent with Findings #3, #7, and #8 because: The project redevelops the single-story building site with a three-story building; the project is designed to minimize the visual impact of the structure by stepping the building back, providing a plaza area with planters and street trees and landscaping along the building frontages. The development will complement the nearby uses. The materials, colors and landscaping selection have been designed to blend in with the natural environment to the greatest extent feasible. The project provides 14,903 square feet of public landscape area and open space and 2,700 sf of usable private open space, including balconies and terraces for each residential unit. Circulation and Traffic: Finding #9: Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with the project’s design concept. Finding #10: Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. The project is consistent with Findings #9 and #10 because: The project will provide a minimum 12 foot sidewalk on El Camino Real and a pedestrian path from Sherman to Grant Avenue. Large storefront windows, plaza area and planters create a pedestrian friendly project. Short term bicycle racks are located along Sherman and Grant Avenues, and long term spaces are located in the garage below. Car charging stations are proposed in the garage. Surface 6 parking and access to the underground parking is located on grade level. A pedestrian path is proposed from Grant Avenue to Sherman Avenue. Landscaping and Plant Materials: Finding #11: Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project. Finding #12: The materials, textures and colors and details of construction and plant material are an appropriate expression to the design and function and compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions. Finding #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 on the site and the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unit with the various buildings on the site. Finding #14: 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. The project is consistent with Findings #11- #14 because: Natural features will be preserved by retaining nine street trees and providing new landscaping and new street trees along El Camino Real, Sherman and Grant Avenues. Drought tolerant landscaping is proposed throughout the project site and efficient irrigation systems are to be provided as reflected in the proposed irrigation plans. Natural features will not be displaced. Landscaping along the side property line softens views of the site from the adjacent residential unit. Sustainability: Finding #15: The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy design elements including, but not limited to: a. High efficiency toilets b. Efficient appliances c. Fire resistant roofing materials d. Low-water plant materials e. Use of energy efficient LED lighting f. Low-flow plumbing and shower fixtures The project is consistent with Finding #15 because: The project incorporates various green building strategies including high quality and long life-cycle rain screen façade system, recessed windows, high efficiency glazing systems, LED lighting, electric car charging stations and abundant daylighting. Context Based Design Criteria Findings 7 Pursuant to PAMC 18.13.060(b), in addition to the findings for Architectural Review contained in PAMC 18.16.090(b) ‘Commercial District Context-Based Design Criteria,’ the following additional findings have been made in the affirmative: 1) Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment: The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project will provide a minimum 12 foot sidewalk on El Camino Real and a pedestrian path from Sherman to Grant Avenue. Large storefront windows, plaza area and planters create a pedestrian friendly project. Short term bicycle racks are located along Sherman and Grant Avenues, and long term spaces are located in the garage below. 2) Street Building Facades: Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the streets, to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the façade includes large windows, projecting eaves, overhangs, and above grade balcony areas for both commercial and residential users help to create an relationship. The main building entry is accessed from the plaza fronting Sherman Avenue and is defined by the buildings mass and shape. The building improves and defines the site relationship with the street, block and corners. 3) Massing and Setbacks. Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project has a hierarchy of height and form, and differentiates uses through mass and material. The building’s massing informs the primary entry and the roof form accommodates solar panels. The building appears as two separate masses with a prominent corner entry. 4) Low-Density Residential Transitions: Where new projects are built abutting existing lower-scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the building is setback from the RM40 zoned property where there is currently a single-family home. Landscaping, setbacks, and a concrete wall will provide visual privacy and separation. 5) Project Open Space: Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project incorporates a plaza, a common open space area positioned along Sherman Avenue and residential balconies. 6) Parking Design: Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the parking is mostly below ground with access off of from Grant and Sherman Avenues. On grade parking and vehicular access is screened from abutting properties with landscaping and fences. 8 7) Large (multi-acre) Sites. Large (in excess of one acre) sites shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood. This finding is not applicable to this project since the site is approximately 39, 953 square feet in area. 8) Sustainability and Green Building Design. The project incorporates various green building strategies including high quality and long life-cycle rain screen façade system, recessed windows, high efficiency glazing systems, LED lighting, electric car charging stations and abundant daylighting. SECTION 5. Conditional Use Permit Findings Conditional Use Permit approval is based on the findings indicated under PAMC Section 18.76.010 and is subject to the Conditions of Approval listed below: 1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The proposed mixed use project is permitted in the Community Commercial (2) subdistrict CC (2) and the Community Neighborhood (CN) Zoning District and is compatible and will contribute to the active community commercial district. The mixed-use project will be located on El Camino Real and is expected to be conducted in a manner that will not be injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience. Moreover, to address additional vehicle trips associated with the increased office space, a condition has been incorporated into the approval requiring the preparation, implementation, and monitoring of a transportation demand management program. 2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed mixed-use project is compatible with the site’s land use designation of Community Commercial and with its CC (2) and CN zoning designations. Retail and multi- family residential will serve to enliven the mix of businesses on El Camino Real and contribute to the area’s economic vitality. SECTION 6. Site and Design Review Approval. Site and Design Review granted by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.30(G).070, for application 15PLN-00170, subject to the conditions of approval in Section eight of the Record. 9 SECTION 7. Conditions of Approval. Department of Planning and Community Environment 1. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans date stamped May 23, 2016, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. 2. These conditions of approval shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permits. 3. The existing city street trees shall be maintained and protected during construction per City of Palo Alto requirements. 4. Unless an appeal is filed, this project approval shall be effective for one year from May 23, 2016, within which time construction of the project shall have commenced. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. The time period for a project may be extended once for an additional year by the Director of Planning and shall be open to appeal at that time. In the event the building permit is not secured for the project within the time limits specified above, the Architectural Review approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. 5. All proposed signage for the site shall be submitted for Architectural Review and approval in a separate planning entitlement application. 6. For all future commercial business, operating or with activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., a conditional use permit shall be obtained and conditions of approval shall be applied as deemed necessary to ensure the operation is compatible with the site’s surrounding uses (PAMC 18.23.040). 7. All projects shall comply with Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Noise Ordinance). 8. The applicant shall prepare a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment prior to the issuance of building permits. The TDM plan shall include measures and programs to achieve a reduction in single-occupancy vehicle trips to the site by a minimum amount equal to anticipated trip generation for the office component of the project that exceeds 5,000 square feet. The TDM plan shall include an annual monitoring plan to document mode split and trips to the project site. The TDM plan and monitoring and reporting requirements may be revised in the future if the minimum reduction is not achieved through the measures and programs initially implemented. Projects that do not achieve the required reduction may be subject to daily penalties as set forth in the city’s fee schedule. 9. As applicable, the project is subject to interim Ordinance 5330, related to the temporary moratorium on the conversion of ground floor retail and retail-like uses. 10 10. Estimated Development Impact Fees in the amount of $971,989 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 11. 90-Day Protest Period: California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. 12. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 13. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), prepared for this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), is included in the administrative record and shown as Attachment H in the May 23, 2016 City Council Staff Report, and is hereby incorporated by reference as conditions of approval. The applicant shall comply with all specified mitigation measures in the timelines outlined in the project’s MMRP. Prior to requesting issuance of any related demolition and/or construction permits, the applicant shall meet with the Project Planner to review and ensure compliance with the MMRP, subject to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning of Planning and Community Environment. Fire Department 14. Fire sprinklers to be designed per NFPA 13. Fire sprinklers and fire alarm systems required in accordance with NFPA 13, NFPA 24, NFPA 72 and State and local standards. Sprinkler, fire alarm and underground fire supply installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 11 15. Sprinkler main drain must be coordinated with plumbing design so that 200 gpm can be flowed for annual main drain testing for 90 seconds without overflowing the collection sump, and the Utilities Department approved ejector pumps will be the maximum flow rate to sanitary sewer. 16. Applicant shall work with Utilities Department to provide acceptable backflow prevention configuration. 17. All floor levels must be served by an elevator capable of accommodating a 24 x 84 inch gurney without lifting or manipulating the gurney. 18. All welding or other hot work during construction shall be under a permit obtained from the Palo Alto Fire Department with proper notification and documentation of procedures followed and work conducted. 19. Low-E glass and underground parking areas can interfere with portable radios used by emergency responders. Please provide an RF Engineering analysis to determine if additional devices or equipment will be needed to maintain operability of emergency responder portable radios throughout 97% of the building in accordance with the Fire Code Section 510 as adopted by the City of Palo Alto. A written report to the Fire Marshal shall be provided prior to final inspection. Public Works Engineering 20. SUBDIVISION: The proposed project is shown merging two lots and creating more than 4 condominium units. Therefore, prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit, receive approval for, and record with the county recorder, a Tentative/Final map. As part of the mapping for this project, the city requests that the existing sidewalk easement on Sherman Avenue be dedicated to the city and that a 4FT wide public access easement be provided along the El Camino Real frontage, consistent with the 12FT wide El Camino Sidewalk code requirement. 21. Tentative/Final maps are submitted under a Major Subdivision application to the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Public Works will review and provide comments on the documents provided as part of the submittal. Please be advised that under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, off-site improvement plans are processed as an extension of the subdivision application process and the applicant may be required to enter into a subdivision improvement agreement and provide security for work shown in the plans. 22. OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS: As part of this project and the associated subdivision, the applicant shall meet with city officials to determine specific off-site improvement requirements. At 12 minimum, the following improvements shall be provided and shown on the off-site improvement plan and within the plans submitted for a building permit. 23. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace all existing sidewalk, curb, gutter and driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the project. Sidewalk curb extensions/bulb outs at Grant Avenue and Sherman Avenue intersection shall be provided as part of the sidewalk improvements. Bulbs shall extend 6-ft beyond the existing face of curb on the Sherman and Grant frontages, not extend beyond the existing El Camino Real face of curb, and the corner radius shall be 15-ft. Any existing non- compliant curb ramps adjacent to the required resurfacing work shall also be replaced. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 24. STREET RESURFACING: The applicant is required to resurface the full width (curb to curb) of Sherman Avenue and Grant Avenue. The El Camino Real pavement section between the face of curb and the center median island shall also be resurfaced per Caltrans standards. Should the El Camino Real resurfacing requirement conflict with future Caltrans requirements, Caltrans requirements shall apply. At minimum, all striping shall be replaced in kind and additional signage added as needed. 25. STREET TREES: Please refer to Public Works Urban forestry for specific comments and conditions of approval, but at minimum, new street trees within the public right of way adjacent to the property frontage (s) may be required as part of this project. Illustrate all required street tree work on the architectural site plan, landscape plan, and the grading and drainage plans. 26. STREET LIGHTING: The applicant is required to install decorative street lights along the El Camino Real sidewalk frontage. The existing “cobra head” luminaires, poles, and foundations shall be replaced in place with new roadway decorative masts, bases, arms, and luminaires. New pedestrian-scale luminaires, poles and bases shall be centered between the roadway lighting to provide a combined spacing of roughly 60-ft O.C. Decorative roadway and pedestrian scale lighting standards are available from Public Works staff. 27. STORM DRAIN: The plans submitted with the Site and Design Application show a new storm drain connection within Grant Avenue connecting with an existing storm drain main under El Camino Real. The applicant is advised that multiple utility crossings within El Camino Real are 13 necessary to construct the line as proposed. The applicant shall verify utility depths to assess the feasibility of constructing this line and revise if necessary. 28. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7- 3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 29. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 30. DEWATERING: Basement excavations may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend a piezometer to be installed in the soil boring. The contractor must determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using the piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole if the deepest excavation will be within 3 feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level. If groundwater is found within 2 feet of the deepest excavation, a drawdown well dewatering system must be used, or alternatively, the contractor can excavate for the basement and hope not to hit groundwater, but if he does, he must immediately stop all work and install a drawdown well system before he continues to excavate. Public Works may require the water to be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for the contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. 14 Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Street Work Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a street work permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has a sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website. 31. WATER FILLING STATION: Due to the California drought, applicant shall install a water station for the non-potable reuse of the dewatering water. This water station shall be constructed within private property, next to the right-of-way, (typically, behind the sidewalk). The station shall be accessible 24 hours a day for the filling of water carrying vehicles (i.e. street sweepers, etc.). The water station may also be used for onsite dust control. Before a discharge permit can be issued, the water supply station shall be installed, ready for operational and inspected by Public Works. The groundwater will also need to be tested for contaminants and chemical properties for the non-potable use. The discharge permit cannot be issued until the test results are received. Additional information regarding the station will be made available on the City’s website under Public Works. 32. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2%. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales. Grading will not be allowed that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from, neighboring properties. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for New Single Family Residences: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 33. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: An application for a grading & excavation permit must be submitted to Public Works when applying for a building permit. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 34. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 15 35. SWPPP: The proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant will be required to comply with the State of California’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and preparing and implementing a site specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses both construction-stage and post- construction BMP’s for storm water quality protection. The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. Also, include the City's standard "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet in the building permit plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at the Development Center. 36. SOURCE CONTROL: As a stormwater pollution prevention measure, any drains within loading docks, trash enclosures, and the covered portion of the underground parking garage shall discharge to the sanitary sewer. Exterior loading docks and trash enclosures shall be covered. 37. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-496-5953). This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of the trees per city requirements. 38. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 39. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 16 40. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, and restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities, and uncovered parking lots that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts of the project on storm water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm” specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system. Effective February 10, 2011, regulated projects, must contract with a qualified third-party reviewer during the building permit review process to certify that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. The certification form, 2 copies of approved storm water treatment plan, and a description of Maintenance Task and Schedule must be received by the City from the third-party reviewer prior to approval of the building permit by the Public Works department. Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings. 41. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to the first building occupancy sign-off. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. There is currently a $350 C.3 plan check fee that will be collected upon submittal for a grading or building permit. 42. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s 17 parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. The plan will be attached to a street work permit. 43. CALTRANS: Caltrans review and approval of this project is required. Caltrans right-of-way across El Camino Real extends from back-of-walk to back-of walk. The City has a maintenance agreement with Caltrans that requires the City to maintain the sidewalk and to issue Street Work Permits for work done on the sidewalks by private contractors. Caltrans has retained the right to review and permit new ingress/egress driveways off El Camino Real as well as the installation of Traffic Control devices as part of this project. Green Building Local Energy Reach Code for Non-Residential Projects The following conditions apply to the project: 44. The project includes new construction and therefore triggers the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. For all new non-residential construction: The performance approach specified within the 2013 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed building is at least 15% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design. (Ord. 5326 § 1 (part), 2015) Green Building Requirements for Non-Residential Projects The following conditions apply to the project: 45. The project is a new nonresidential construction project greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must comply with California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory plus Tier 2 requirements, as applicable to the scope of work. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. The submittal requirements are outlined here: www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. 46. The project is a new building over 10,000 square feet and therefore must meet the commissioning requirements outlined in the California Building Code section 5.410.2 for Planning Approval. The project team shall re-submit the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR) in accordance with section 5.410.2.1 with an updated Basis of Design (BOD) in accordance with 5.410.2.2 that reflects the design elements finalized between Planning Approval and Permit Submittal. The project shall also submit a Commissioning Plan in accordance with 5.410.2.3 and 18 the GB-3 and GB-4 requirements listed on the green building section of the Development Services webpage. 47. The project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation and therefore must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months. PAMC 16.14.380 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015). The Energy Star Project Profile shall be submitted to the Building Department prior to permit issuance. Submittal info can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.asp. 48. EMERGENCY DROUGHT REGULATIONS: The project is a non-residential new construction project with a landscape of any size included in the project scope and therefore must comply with Potable water reduction Tier 2 in accordance with the Emergency Drought Regulations effective June 1st, 2015. Documentation is required to demonstrate that the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) falls within a Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) using the ET adjustment factor (ETAF) of 0.55 for landscaped areas. Special Landscape Areas (SLA) will be given an allowance of 0.45. The resulting ETAF for SLA shall be 1.0. (PAMC 16.14 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015) and the Emergency Drought Regulations link below: http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/2015TriCycle/BSC-Meetings/Emergency-Regs/HCD- EF-01-15-ET-Pt11.pdf The project applicant shall update sheet L-6 to reflect the landscape calculations and information above on the Permit Plans. 49. The project includes a new or altered irrigation system and therefore must be designed and installed to prevent water waste due to overspray, low head drainage, or other conditions where water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, walks, roadways, parking lots, or structures. PA 16.14.300 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015). 50. The project includes a new or altered irrigation system and therefore the irrigation must be scheduled between 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. unless weather conditions prevent it. Operation of the irrigation system outside the normal watering window is allowed for auditing and system maintenance. Total annual applied water shall be less than or equal to maximum applied water allowance (MAWA) as calculated per the potable water use reduction tier. PAMC 16.14.310 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015). ). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 51. The project is outside the boundaries of the recycled water project area and is greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must install recycled water infrastructure for irrigation 19 systems. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 52. The project is either new construction or a rehabilitated landscape and is greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must install a dedicated irrigation meter related to the recycled water infrastructure. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 53. The project is a nonresidential new construction or renovation project and has a value exceeding $25,000 and therefore must meet Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction Tier 2. PAMC 16.14.240 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. 54. The project includes non-residential demolition and therefore must meet the Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction - Tier 2. PAMC 16.14.270 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. 55. The project is a new non-residential structure and therefore must comply with the City of Palo Alto Electric Vehicle Charging Ordinance 5324. The project shall provide Conduit Only, EVSE- Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for at least 25% of parking spaces, among which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall be EVSE Installed. The requirements shall be applied separately to accessible parking spaces. See Ordinance 5324 for EVSE definitions, minimum circuit capacity, and design detail requirements. PAMC 16.14.380 (Ord. 5263 § 1 (part), 2013) See https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/43818 for additional details. 56. The project has indicated the locations of the EVSE infrastructure on sheet A0.3. The following are required at Post-Construction after 12 months of occupancy. 57. The project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation and therefore must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months. PAMC 16.14.250 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015). Submittal info can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.asp. 58. OPTIONAL: The project is a new construction or remodel of a commercial project and therefore may elect to engage the City of Palo Alto consultant, BASE Energy Inc, free of charge. BASE will assist the project in targeting Zero Net Energy and exceeding the Title 24 Energy Code. Rebates may be available via working with Base. For more information, visit 20 cityofpaloalto.org/commercial program or call 650.329.2241. The applicant may also contact Ricardo Sfeir at BASE Energy at rsfeir@baseco.com to schedule a project kick-off. Utilities Incentives & Rebates OPTIONAL: The project may be eligible for several rebates offered through the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. These rebates are most successfully obtained when planned into the project early in design. For the incentives available for the project, please see the information provided on the Utilities website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/rebates/default.asp Bird-Friendly Building Design 59. OPTIONAL: The project contains a glazed façade that covers a large area. The project should consider bird-safe glazing treatment that typically includes fritting, netting, permanent stencils, frosted glass, exterior screens, and physical grids placed on the exterior of glazing or UV patterns visible to birds. In some cases, bird-friendly treatment is invisible to humans. Vertical elements of the window patterns should be at least 1/4 inch wide at a minimum spacing of 4 inches, or have horizontal elements at least 1/8 inch wide at a maximum spacing of 2 inches. The applicant should reference the San Francisco Guidelines for Bird-Safe Buildings: http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=2506. Public Works Environmental Services 60. PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater The project is located in an area of suspected or known groundwater contamination with Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). If groundwater is encountered then the plans must include the following procedure for construction dewatering: Prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering, the water shall be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using EPA Method 601/602 or Method 624. The analytical results of the VOC testing shall be transmitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) 650-329-2598. Contaminated ground water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain system or creeks. If the concentrations of pollutants exceed the applicable limits for discharge to the storm drain system then an Exceptional Discharge Permit must be obtained from the RWQCP prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. If the VOC concentrations exceed the toxic organics discharge limits contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) a treatment system for removal of VOCs will also be required prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. Additionally, any water discharged to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system must be free of sediment. 21 61. PAMC 16.09.055 Unpolluted Water Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system. And PAMC 16.09.175 (b) General prohibitions and practices Exterior (outdoor) drains may be connected to the sanitary sewer system only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent is provided. For additional information regarding loading docks, see section 16.09.175(k) 62. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(9) Covered Parking Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system 63. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection, except for single-family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water runon and runoff from the area. 64. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory. 65. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 66. PAMC 16.09.205 Cooling Towers No person shall discharge or add to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system, or add to a cooling system, pool, spa, fountain, boiler or heat exchanger, any substance that contains any of the following: (1) Copper in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; (2) Any tri-butyl tin compound in excess of 0.10 mg/liter; (3) Chromium in excess of 2.0 mg/liter. (4) Zinc in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; or (5) Molybdenum in excess of 2.0 mg/liter. 22 The above limits shall apply to any of the above-listed substances prior to dilution with the cooling system, pool, spa or fountain water. A flow meter shall be installed to measure the volume of blowdown water from the new cooling tower. Cooling systems discharging greater than 2,000 gallons per day are required to meet a copper discharge limit of 0.25 milligrams per liter. 67. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing. 68. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps. 69. PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains, Boilers and Heat Exchangers It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm drain system. 70. PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping - Flows to Bay," or equivalent. Undesignated Retail Space: 71. PAMC 16.09 Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of the space with undesignated tenants or future use will need to meet all requirements that would have been applicable during design and construction. If such undesignated retail space becomes a food service facility the following requirements must be met: Designated Food Service Establishment (FSE) Project: A. Grease Control Device (GCD) Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes 1. The plans shall specify the manufacturer details and installation details of all proposed GCDs. (CBC 1009.2) 2. GCD(s) shall be sized in accordance with the 2007 California Plumbing Code. 3. GCD(s) shall be installed with a minimum capacity of 500 gallons. 4. GCD sizing calculations shall be included on the plans. See a sizing calculation example below. 5. The size of all GCDs installed shall be equal to or larger than what is specified on the plans. 23 6. GCDs larger than 50 gallons (100 pounds) shall not be installed in food preparation and storage areas. Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health prefers GCDs to be installed outside. GCDs shall be installed such that all access points or manholes are readily accessible for inspection, cleaning and removal of all contents. GCDs located outdoors shall be installed in such a manner so as to exclude the entrance of surface and stormwater. (CPC 1009.5) 7. All large, in-ground interceptors shall have a minimum of three manholes to allow visibility of each inlet piping, baffle (divider) wall, baffle piping and outlet piping. The plans shall clearly indicate the number of proposed manholes on the GCD. The Environmental Compliance Division of Public Works Department may authorize variances which allow GCDs with less than three manholes due to manufacture available options or adequate visibility. 8. Sample boxes shall be installed downstream of all GCDs. 9. All GCDs shall be fitted with relief vent(s). (CPC 1002.2 & 1004) 10. GCD(s) installed in vehicle traffic areas shall be rated and indicated on plans. B. Drainage Fixture Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes 11. To ensure all FSE drainage fixtures are connected to the correct drain lines, each drainage fixture shall be clearly labeled on the plans. A list of all fixtures and their discharge connection, i.e. sanitary sewer or grease waste line, shall be included on the plans. 12. A list indicating all connections to each proposed GCD shall be included on the plans. This can be incorporated into the sizing calculation. 13. All grease generating drainage fixtures shall connect to a GCD. These include but are not limited to: a. Pre-rinse (scullery) sinks b. Three compartment sinks (pot sinks) c. Drainage fixtures in dishwashing room except for dishwashers shall connect to a GCD d. Examples: trough drains (small drains prior to entering a dishwasher), small drains on busing counters adjacent to pre-rinse sinks or silverware soaking sinks e. Floor drains in dishwashing area and kitchens f. Prep sinks g. Mop (janitor) sinks h. Outside areas designated for equipment washing shall be covered and any drains contained therein shall connect to a GCD. i. Drains in trash/recycling enclosures j. Wok stoves, rotisserie ovens/broilers or other grease generating cooking equipment with drip lines k. Kettles and tilt/braising pans and associated floor drains/sinks 14. The connection of any high temperature discharge lines and non-grease generating drainage fixtures to a GCD is prohibited. The following shall not be connected to a GCD: a. Dishwashers b. Steamers c. Pasta cookers d. Hot lines from buffet counters and kitchens 24 e. Hand sinks f. Ice machine drip lines g. Soda machine drip lines h. Drainage lines in bar areas 15. No garbage disposers (grinders) shall be installed in a FSE. (PAMC 16.09.075(d)). 16. Plumbing lines shall not be installed above any cooking, food preparation and storage areas. 17. Each drainage fixture discharging into a GCD shall be individually trapped and vented. (CPC 1014.5) C. Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas PAMC, 16.09.075(q)(2) 18. Newly constructed and remodeled FSEs shall include a covered area for all dumpsters, bins, carts or container used for the collection of trash, recycling, food scraps and waste cooking fats, oils and grease (FOG) or tallow. 19. The area shall be designed and shown on plans to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. 20. Drains that are installed within the enclosure for recycle and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins serving FSEs are optional. Any such drain installed shall be connected to a GCD. 21. If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in the covered area. 22. These requirements shall apply to remodeled or converted facilities to the extent that the portion of the facility being remodeled is related to the subject of the requirement. D. Large Item Cleaning Sink, PAMC 16.09.075(m)(2)(B) 23. FSEs shall have a sink or other area drain which is connected to a GCD and large enough for cleaning the largest kitchen equipment such as floor mats, containers, carts, etc. Recommendation: Generally, sinks or cleaning areas larger than a typical mop/janitor sink are more useful. E. GCD sizing criteria and an example of a GCD sizing calculation (2007 CPC) Sizing Criteria: GCD Sizing: Drain Fixtures DFUs Total DFUs GCD Volume (gallons) Pre-rinse sink 4 8 500 3 compartment sink 3 21 750 2 compartment sink 3 35 1,000 Prep sink 3 90 1,250 Mop/Janitorial sink 3 172 1,500 Floor drain 2 216 2,000 Floor sink 2 Quantity Drainage Fixture & Item Number DFUs Total 1 Pre-rinse sink, Item 1 4 4 1 3 compartment sink, Item 2 3 3 2 Prep sinks, Item 3 & Floor sink, Item 4 3 6 1 Mop sink, Item 5 3 3 25 Example GCD Sizing Calculation: Note:  All resubmitted plans to Building Department which include FSE projects shall be resubmitted to Water Quality.  It is frequently to the FSE’s advantage to install the next size larger GCD to allow for more efficient grease discharge prevention and may allow for longer times between cleaning. There are many manufacturers of GCDs which are available in different shapes, sizes and materials (plastic, reinforced fiberglass, reinforced concrete and metal)  The requirements will assist FSEs with FOG discharge prevention to the sanitary sewer and storm drain pollution prevention. The FSE at all times shall comply with the Sewer Use Ordinance of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The ordinances include requirements for GCDs, GCD maintenance, drainage fixtures, record keeping and construction projects. Building Inspection Division 72. Separate submittals and permits are required for the following systems and components if utilized: EVSE, P.V., and Solar Hot Water systems. 73. A demolition permit shall be required for the removal of the existing building on site. 74. The accessible elevator landings above or below the level of exit discharge shall include a Two- Way communication system per CBC 1007.8 75. When Alarms or emergency warning systems are installed they shall include both audible and visible alarms complying with NFPA 72 and CBC 907.5.2.1 and 907.5.2.3 (this includes “adaptable units”). Public Works Tree Specialist 76. PUBLIC STREET TREES. The Civil Sheets and Landscape Plans shall show: for each new tree proposed in the publicly owned right-of-way the following information. Sidewalk base between the curb and basement wall shall serve the dual purpose of support as well as function as rootable soil for new trees. Each tree shall be provided with 1,200 cubic feet of rootable soil volume, providing a separate specification detail and cross section. Rootable soil shall mean compaction less than 90% over the area except when mitigated with structural grid (e.g. Silva Cell diagram shall specify depth, width and length with backfill soil specified by the Project Site Arborist and Landscape Architect.) The civil engineer, in consultation with the project site arborist shall verify this performance measure is achieved with staff prior to building permit submittal. 1 Floor trough, Item 6 & tilt skillet, Item 7 2 2 1 Floor trough, Item 6 & steam kettle, Item 8 2 2 1 Floor sink, Item 4 & wok stove, Item 9 2 2 4 Floor drains 2 8 1,000 gallon GCD minimum sized Total: 30 26 77. REVISED TREE PROTECTION REPORT. The project site arborist shall revise and update the tree protection report for a final version, based on review of 90% design plans. All advisory recommendations shall be incorporated into the Building permit submittal. 78. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the 50% and entire 90% building permit plan set submittal and, (b)* verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and changes are incorporated in the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (d) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. * (b above) Other information. The Building Permit submittal set shall be accompanied by the project site arborist’s typed certification letter that the plans have incorporated said design changes for consistency with City Standards, Regulations and information: a. Applicant/project arborist’s final revised Tree Protection Report (TPR) with said design changes and corresponding mitigation measures. (e.g.: a Pier/grade beam?=soils report w/ specs required by Bldg. Div.; a Standard foundation?= mitigation for linear 24” cut to all roots in proximity) b. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC 8.10.080. c. Specialty items. Itemized list of any activity impact--quantified and mitigated, in the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree. 79. BUILDING PERMIT CORRECTIONS/REVISIONS--COVER LETTER. Provide a separate cover letter with Correction List along with the revised drawings when resubmitting. State where the significant tree impacts notes occur (bubble) and indicate the sheet number and/or detail where the correction has been made. Provide: 1) corresponding revision number and 2) bubble or highlights for easy reference. Responses such as “see plans or report” or “plans comply” are not acceptable. Your response should be clear and complete to assist the re-check and approval process for your project. 80. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor are mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #2-6 applies; with landscape plan: Insp. #7 applies.) 27 b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, Arbor Resources, dated: (per final revised report date) shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index. 81. Show Protective Tree Fencing. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility, etc.) must delineate/show Type I or Type II fencing around each Regulated Trees, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone as shown on Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35- Site Plans; or using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. 82. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS: a. Add Site Plan Notes. i. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated in the Tree Protection Report on Sheet T-1 and the approved plans”. ii. Note #2. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans and relevant sheets shall add a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Site Arborist at Arbor Resources, 650.240.0777"; iii. Note #3. “Basement or foundation plan. Soils Report and Excavation for basement construction within the TPZ of a protected tree shall specify a vertical cut (note if stitch piers are necessary) in order to avoid over-excavating into the tree root zone. Any variance from this procedure requires Urban Forestry approval, please call (650) 496-5953.” iv. Note #4. Utility sheets (sanitary sewer/gas/water/backflow/electric/storm drain) shall include the following note: “Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T-1 for instructions.” 83. TREE REMOVAL—PROTECTED & RIGHT-OF-WAY TREES. Existing trees (Publicly-owned or Protected) to be removed, as shown accurately located on all site plans, require approval by the Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit prior to issuance of any building, demolition or grading permit, and shall also be referenced in the required Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering a. Add plan note for each tree to be removed, “Tree Removal. Contractor shall obtain a completed Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit # _enter TRE-# here_ separate from the Building or Street Work Permit. Permit notice hanger and conditions apply. Contact (650-496-5953).” The Form used for public or private Protected tree removal requests available from the Urban Forestry webpage: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/trees/default.asp 28 84. NEW RIGHT-OF-WAY TREES--PLAN REQUIREMENTS. New trees shall be shown on all relevant plans: site, utility, irrigation, landscape, etc. in a location 10’ clear radius from any (new or existing) underground utility or curb cut (see Note #4 above). a. Add note on the Planting Plan that states, “Tree Planting. Prior to in-ground installation, Urban Forestry inspection/approval required for tree stock, planting conditions and irrigation adequacy. Contact (650-496-5953).” b. Plans shall state the Urban Forestry approved species, size and include relevant Standard Planting Dwg. #603, #603a or #604 (reference which), and shall note the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. c. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. d. Add note on the Planting & Irrigation Plan that states, “Irrigation and tree planting in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards.” e. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers shall not be mounted inside an aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. 29 85. NEW RIGHT-OF-WAY TREES--SOIL. Plans shall specify: Unless otherwise approved, each new large* tree shall be provided with 1,200 cubic feet of rootable soil area, utilizing Standard Dwg. #604/513. Rootable soil shall mean compaction less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas except when mitigated. Sidewalk Mitigation in lieu of compacted root conditions may use Alternative Base Material methods such as: structural grid, Engineered Soil Mix base or other method as approved. a. Minimum soil volume for tree size growth performance (in cubic feet): Large: 1,200 cu.ft. Medium: 800 cu.ft. Small: 400 cu.ft. b. Silva Cell Structural Grid. Structural grid base material shall be utilized in specified areas, such as a sidewalk base or other landscape area, to achieve expected shade tree rooting potential and maximum service life of the sidewalk, curb, parking surfaces and compacted areas. Plans and Civil Drawings shall designate these areas identified by cross-hatch or other symbol, and specify a minimum of 40" depth. Use of this product may be counted toward any credits awarded for LEED or Sustainable Sites certification ratings. c. Sidewalk planter cut outs shall match to 4’ x 8’ openings. 86. LANDSCAPE PLANS a. Include all changes recommended from civil engineer, architect and staff, including planting specifications if called for by the project arborist, b. Provide a detailed landscape and irrigation plan encompassing on-and off-site plantable areas out to the curb as approved by the Architectural Review Board. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for the project. A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant will prepare these plans, to include: i. All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. ii. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. iii. Irrigation schedule and plan. iv. Fence locations. v. Lighting plan with photometric data. vi. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. vii. All new trees planted within the public right-of-way shall be installed per Public Works (PW) Standard Planting Diagram #603 or 604 (include on plans), and shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. Sidewalk planter cut outs shall match to 4’ x 8’ openings. viii. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. 30 ix. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees, including existing trees in the right-of-way. For trees, Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers shall not be mounted inside an aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards. x. Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow device is adequately obscured with the appropriate screening to minimize visibility (planted shrubbery is preferred, painted dark green, decorative boulder covering acceptable; wire cages are discouraged). c. Add note for Mandatory Landscape Architect (LA) Inspections; Verification to the City. The LA of record shall verify the following performance measurements are achieved with a letter of verification to City Planning staff, in addition to owner’s representative for each of the following: i. All the above landscape plan and tree requirements are in the Building Permit set of plans. ii. Percolation & drainage checks have been performed and are acceptable. iii. Silva Cell soil and all plantable areas shall be personally inspected for correct profile, average pH, tilling depth, rubble removal, soil test amendments are mixed and that irrigation trenching will not cut through any tree roots. iv. Tree and Shrub Planting Specifications, including delivered stock, meets Standards in the CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.30-3.50. Girdling roots and previously topped trees are subject to rejection. 87. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance, a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. DURING CONSTRUCTION 88. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans. 89. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, Arbor Resources, 650.240, and (b) 31 landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 90. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. A mandatory Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 91. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 92. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY 93. URBAN FORESTRY DIGITAL FILE & INSPECTION. The applicant or architect shall provide a digital file of the landscape plan, including new off-site trees in the publicly owned right-of-way. A USB Flash Drive, with CAD or other files that show species, size and exact scaled location of each tree on public property, shall be delivered to Urban Forestry at the tree and landscape inspection. 94. LANDSCAPE INSPECTION LETTER. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of a verification letter that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. 95. PROJECT ARBORIST INSPECTION LETTER. The contractor shall call for a final inspection by the Project Arborist to evaluate all trees to be retained and protected, as indicated in the approved plans, of the activity, health, welfare, mitigation remedies for injuries, if any, and for the long term care of the trees for the new owner. a. The final project arborist letter report shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to written request for temporary or final occupancy. The final report may be used 32 to navigate any outstanding issues, concerns or security guarantee return process, when applicable. 96. PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner (650-329-2441) to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. POST CONSTRUCTION 97. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2001 or current version). Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. Water, Gas & Wastewater Division PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 90. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures. 91. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. FOR BUILDING PERMIT 92. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet per parcel/lot for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 93. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially 33 conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes, electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 94. The site plan (A1.1) only includes gas utility (gas meters) only. The gas main on Grant Ave. is only a 2” PE main (total gas demands is required to calculate connections capacity). 95. Water and wastewater utilities to be connected from Sherman/Grant Ave. are preferred (total fixture units/demands are required to calculate utility main capacity). 96. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 97. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 98. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. After the work is complete but prior to sign off, the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of the contractor installed water and wastewater mains and services per City of Palo Alto Utilities record drawing procedures. For contractor installed services the contractor shall install 3M marker balls at each water or wastewater service tap to the main and at the City clean out for wastewater laterals. 99. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements 34 of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 100. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU’s approval). Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 101. Single and multi-family up to 4 unit residences that have fire sprinklers served off the domestic water service shall have an approved double check assembly (DCA) installed on the main water service connection. DCAs shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the point of service within 5 feet of the property line. 102. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 103. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 104. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 105. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 106. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For service connections of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant's contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control 35 equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 107. A new water service line installation for fire system usage may require. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements. 108. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must conform to utilities standard details. 109. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans 110. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for facilities installed in private property. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies of the public utilities easement across the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the development. 111. Where public mains are installed in private streets/PUEs for condominium and town home projects the CC&Rs and final map shall include the statement: “Public Utility Easements: If the City’s reasonable use of the Public Utility Easements, which are shown as P.U.E on the Map, results in any damage to the Common Area, then it shall be the responsibility of the Association, and not of the City, to Restore the affected portion(s) of the Common Area. This Section may not be amended without the prior written consent of the City”. 112. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 113. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 36 114. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout at the front of the building. This cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can be videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is installed by directional boring. 115. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 116. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for all utility work in the El Camino Real right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW engineering section. 117. Due to high demands outside City’s control, a three to six month wait time for water and gas meters are expected. The applicant is strongly encouraged to provide the application load sheet demands as early in the design process as possible to the WGW utilities engineering department. Once payment is made, anticipate service installations completed within said time frame (3 – 6 months). Electric Utility Engineering Department 118. 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. 119. 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. 120. 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. THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN SUBMITTALS FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE 121. A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal. 37 122. 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. 123. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 124. If this project requires padmount transformers, the location of the transformers shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. 125. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16 (see detail comments below). 126. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. 127. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 128. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 129. 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. 130. 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. 131. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM 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 a transition cabinet will not be required. 132. 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. 38 133. If the customer’s total load exceeds 2500 kVA, service shall be provided at the primary voltage of 12,470 volts and the customer shall provide the high voltage switchgear and transformers. 134. 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. 135. 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. 136. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer’s expense and must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. DURING CONSTRUCTION 137. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 138. 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 check by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 139. The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no 1/2 – 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. 140. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 141. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling 39 142. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct. The installation shall meet the National Electric Code and City Standards. 143. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards for meter installations. 144. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior to installing switchgear to: Gopal Jagannath, P.E. Supervising Electric Project Engineer Utilities Engineering (Electrical) 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 145. Catalog cut sheets may not be substituted for factory drawing submittal. 146. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. AFTER CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO FINALIZATION 147. 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. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OCCUPANCY PERMIT 148. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. 149. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 150. All fees must be paid 151. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant 40 SECTION 8. Term of Approval. Site and Design Approval. In the event actual construction of the project is not commenced within two years of the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.30(G).080. SECTION 9. Standard Conditions A. Except as expressly specified herein, the site plan, floor plans, building elevations and any additional information or representations, submitted by the Applicant during the Staff review and public hearing process leading to the approval of this entitlement, whether oral or written, which indicated the proposed structure or manner of operation, are deemed conditions of approval. B. The approved use and/or construction are subject to, and shall comply with, all applicable City ordinances and laws and regulations of other governmental agencies. C. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. D. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. E. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 41 ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: 1. Those plans prepared by Hayes Group Architect “2515 & 2585 EL Camino Real”, consisting of 31 pages, dated September 2, 2015. 2515-2585 El Camino Real (15PLN-00170) Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT B - ZONING TABLE 2515-2585 El Camino Real - 15PLN-00170 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR CN ZONE DISTRICT ZONE DISTRICT STANDARD PROPOSED PROJECT CONFORMANCE Maximum Residential Density 13 units 13 units Conforms Maximum Site Coverage (building footprint 40% (3,226 sq. ft.) 30.8% (2,488 sq. ft.) Conforms Maximum Site Coverage (covered patios & overhangs) 50% 19,954 square feet Conforms Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.5:1 residential 0:5:1 nonresidential 0.5:1 residential 0:5:1 nonresidential Conforms Minimum Site Open Space (percent) 35% 13,983 (37.3%) 14,903 sq. ft. Conforms Minimum Usable Open Space (150 sq. ft. per unit) 150 sq. ft. x 13 = 1,950 sf 2,700 sq. ft. Conforms Building setbacks Front (El Camino Real) 0-10 feet to create 8’- 12’ effective sidewalk width 12’ sidewalk Conforms Sherman Avenue 15 feet 15 feet Conforms Grant Avenue 5 feet 5 feet Conforms Rear 10 feet 10 feet Conforms Building height 40 feet 40 feet Conforms Right side Daylight Plane None N/A Conforms Left side And Rear Daylight Planes None N/A Conforms BMR units None required N/A N/A *There’s no development proposed on the CC (2). The lot will contain surface parking for the project. 2515-2585 El Camino Real 15PLN-00170 Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT C COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE 2515-2585 El Camino Real 15PLN-00170 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY REVIEW Policy L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The project has been designed to be compatible with the neighborhood by anchoring the block to the corner, stepping the building back and providing a street presence to enliven the neighborhood. Policy L-14: Design and arrange new multifamily buildings, including entries and outdoor spaces, so that each unit has a clear relationship to a public street. The pedestrian and vehicular entries are separated to provide for a clear relationship for access. A pedestrian path is provided from Grant Avenue to Sherman Avenue. The vehicle entrance is provided from Sherman and Grant Avenues. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The proposed development reflects modern architecture which will be compatible with the various styles of the neighboring buildings. Policy L-70: Enhance the appearance of streets and other public spaces by expanding and maintaining Palo Alto’s street tree system. Street trees are proposed on El Camino Real, Sherman and Grant Avenues. Policy H2.1: Identify and implement a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity, including mixed us development, near community services, including a range of unit types. The project site has been identified in the City’s 2015- 2023 Housing Element that could accommodate residential development. As noted in the Housing Inventory Site Table B-1, the combined sites 2515 and 2585 El Camino Real could accommodate 18 units. The project is proposed 13 residential units. 2515-2585 El Camino Real (15PLN-00170) Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT D PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 2515-2585 El Camino Real 15PLN-00170 Pursuant to PAMC 18.23, Performance Standards are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial and industrial zones. 1) Trash Disposal and Recycling: Provide adequate and accessible interior and exterior areas enclosures for storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The project includes separate, accessible trash facilities for the residential and commercial uses. The commercial facility is setback from Grant Avenue and partially blocked from view by raised planters. The residential trash facility is located within the building perimeter and is completely blocked from public view. 2) Lighting: Minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites from adjacent roadways. Energy efficient exterior light bollards, wall mounted light fixtures, recessed wall lights, recessed down lights, and linear LED fixtures illuminate the plaza and the paths to ensure safe and secured access to the site and building. Light levels from fixtures on site will not exceed 0.5 foot- candle at the RM-40 property line. All fixtures will be mounted less than 15’ above grade. All fixtures will direct light downward. There are no light fixtures proposed within driveway vision triangles. 3) Late Night Uses and Activities. The purpose is to restrict use with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 pm and 6:00 am. The tenant has not been determined for the commercial portion of the building. 4) Visual, Screening and Landscaping: Residential properties should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. The equipment will be screened from the public and abutting residential properties. Plant selection considers solar orientation, drought tolerance, maintenance requirements and privacy screening and shall allow for a mature appearance in five years. There are no on-site loading docks, and trash enclosures are setback and partially screened from view. The landscape abutting the residential properties is designed to screen and visually separate properties. A solid fence is proposed to separate the properties. 2515-2585 El Camino Real (15PLN-00170) Page 2 of 2 Protrusion of roof elements will be designed to minimize visual impacts from the street and neighboring properties. No roof top enclosures or equipment shall extend 15 feet over the roofline. All equipment shall be screened from public view. 5) Noise and Vibration: Protect residential properties from excessive or unnecessary noise and vibration. All mechanical equipment shall be located out of the setbacks and view from the abutting residential properties. Mechanical vibration generated from the site shall not be noticeable. 6) Parking: The visual impact of parking shall be minimized. Most of the parking will be located in an underground garage. At-grade parking will be located behind the proposed building. Landscaping will screen the surface parking from adjacent neighbors. 7) Vehicular, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Access. Site access impacts should be designed to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses. Vehicular access is located toward the back of the site and accessed from Grant and Sherman Avenues. Site circulation directly connects to adjacent public sidewalks. The designated commercial loading zone is along Sherman Avenue and replaces a curb cut. 8) Air Quality. The requirement for air quality is intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and or toxic contaminants. There are no known toxic contaminants for the project. Future tenants will need to meet City and County ordinances as it relates to odors. 9) Hazardous Materials. The intent is to minimize the potential hazards of any use on the development site. No hazardous material storage/handling is proposed at the project site. In conclusion, the proposed project at 2515-2585 El Camino Real [15PLN-00170] is consistent with the Performance Standards for all of the reasons and findings specified above. 2515 & 2585 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT Initial Study JANUARY 2016 Attachment E Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 1 January 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS ...........................................................................................................3 I. PROJECT SUMMARY.................................................................................................................5 II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ...............................8 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...............................................................8 A. AESTHETICS ....................................................................................................................9 B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................11 C. AIR QUALITY.................................................................................................................12 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................15 E. CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................16 F. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY .....................................................................17 G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ...............................................................................19 H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS...........................................................20 I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...................................................................25 J. LAND USE AND PLANNING .......................................................................................27 K. MINERAL RESOURCES ...............................................................................................30 L. NOISE ...............................................................................................................................30 M. POPULATION AND HOUSING ...................................................................................34 N. PUBLIC SERVICES .......................................................................................................36 O. RECREATION ................................................................................................................37 P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC .........................................................................37 Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .......................................................................43 R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .......................................................44 III. SOURCE REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................46 SOURCES (CHECKLIST KEY)................................................................................................46 REFERENCES CITED ...............................................................................................................46 REPORT PREPARERS ..............................................................................................................47 IV. DETERMINATION ....................................................................................................................48 APPENDICES A Proposed Building Plans B Air Quality Modeling Results C Historic Resource Evaluation D Geotechnical Investigation Report E Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments F Noise Impact Study G Transportation Impact Analysis Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 2 January 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) FIGURES 1 Regional Map ..................................................................................................................... 53 2 Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................................... 51 3 Aerial Map ......................................................................................................................... 53 4 Site Plan ............................................................................................................................. 55 5 Elevations ........................................................................................................................... 57 6 Perspective Renderings ...................................................................................................... 59 TABLES 1 BAAQMD Screening Criteria ............................................................................................ 13 2 Proposed Project Construction Emissions by Phase .......................................................... 14 3 BAAQMD Operational GHG Screening Criteria .............................................................. 20 4 Groundwater Sample Dissolved Metals Laboratory Results ............................................. 22 5 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Activities .......................................................... 31 6 Existing Ambient Noise Levels ......................................................................................... 32 7 Predicted Rooftop Mechanical Noise Levels ..................................................................... 33 8 Project Trip Generation Estimates ..................................................................................... 39 9 Existing Conditions Plus Project Level of Service Analysis ............................................. 39 10 Background Conditions Plus Project Level of Service Analysis ....................................... 40 11 Cumulative Plus Project Level of Service Analysis .......................................................... 41 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 3 January 2016 ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS Acronym/Abbreviation Definition µg/L micrograms per liter AB Assembly Bill APN Assessor’s Parcel Number BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BMR Below-Market-Rate CARB California Air Resources Board CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model Cal-OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration Caltrans California Department of Transportation CC(2) Community Commercial (2) CEQA California Environmental Quality Act City City of Palo Alto CMP Congestion Management Program CN Neighborhood Commercial CNEL community noise equivalent level CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide Connell Connell Geotechnical Inc. dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibel DNL day/night average sound level du dwelling unit FAR floor area ratio EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Environmental Site Assessment ESL Environmental Screening Level GHG greenhouse gas Hexagon Hexagon Transportation Consultants Inc. Leq equivalent level over a given time period LOS level of service MRZ-1 Mineral Resource Zone 1 NO nitrogen oxide NOx oxides of nitrogen NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PAD Parking Assessment District PAMC Palo Alto Municipal Code O3 ozone PM10 coarse particulate matter PM2.5 fine particulate matter ppm parts per million ROG reactive organic gas RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board sf square feet Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 4 January 2016 Acronym/Abbreviation Definition TCE trichloroethylene TPH-cc carbon chain total petroleum hydrocarbons VOC volatile organic compound VTA Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 5 January 2016 I. PROJECT SUMMARY 1. PROJECT TITLE 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94303 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Margaret Netto, Contract Planner City of Palo Alto 650.796.5828 4. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS ECRPA LLC 311 9th Avenue San Mateo, California 94401 415.297.0709 5. APPLICATION NUMBER 15PLN-00170 6. PROJECT LOCATION 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Palo Alto, California Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 124-33-067 and 124-33-066 The project is located in the City of Palo Alto (City), which is in the northern portion of Santa Clara County. The 0.9-acre (39,953-square-foot) project site is located in the Evergreen Park area of the City one block southeast of the California Avenue commercial district, northeast of Interstate 280, southwest of U.S. Highway 101, and west of Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway (Figure 1, Regional Map). The project site consists of two parcels located at the southeastern corner of the intersection of El Camino Real and Sherman Avenue and is bounded by Sherman Avenue to the north, El Camino Real to the west, and Grant Avenue to the south, as shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map, and Figure 3, Aerial Map. All figures are provided at the end of this document. 7. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION The project site is designated Neighborhood Commercial and Regional/Community Commercial per the Palo Alto 1998–2010 Comprehensive Plan. The Neighborhood Commercial designation includes shopping centers with off-street parking or a cluster of street-front stores that serve the immediate neighborhood. In some locations, residential and mixed-use projects may also locate in this category. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 6 January 2016 Non-residential floor area ratios (FARs) range up to 0.4. The Regional/Community Commercial designation includes larger shopping centers and districts that have wider variety goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. Non-residential FAR’s range from 0.35 to 2.0. 8. ZONING A majority of the project site is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN) with the rear portion of 2515 El Camino Real zoned Community Commercial (2) (CC (2)). The regulations for these zones are set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), Chapter 18.16. The CN district is intended to create and maintain neighborhood shopping areas primarily accommodating retail sales, personal service, eating and drinking, and office uses of moderate size serving the immediate neighborhood, under regulations that will assure maximum compatibility with surrounding residential areas. The CC district provides for a broad range of office, retail sales, and other commercial activities of community-wide or regional significance. The CC (2) subdistrict is intended to modify the site development regulations of the CC district to allow site specific variations to the allowed uses and development standards. The 2515 El Camino Real portion of the project site is also within the California Avenue Parking Assessment District. 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project would demolish the existing Olive Garden restaurant building (9,694 square feet) and parking lot at the project site and construct a mixed-use building that includes office, retail, and residential land uses with one level of underground parking (Figure 4, Site Plan). The project includes a request for a conditional use permit (CUP) to exceed the 5,000 square-foot office maximum for the site by approximately 4,835 square feet. The CN zoning district allows 25% of the site or 5,000 square feet to be used for office use. However, office use may be allowed to exceed the maximum size, subject to issuance of a CUP. The two project site parcels would be combined to create a single 39,953-square-foot parcel. The parcel would be L-shaped, with the longest leg fronting on El Camino Real. The new building is proposed to be 39,930 square feet in gross floor area and would cover 19,954 square feet (50%) of the site. The building would be constructed in an L-shape fronting on El Camino Real and on Sherman Avenue, with the surface parking lot located to the north of the building. Access to the parking lot would be provided at both Sherman and Grant Avenues. Access to the below-grade parking would be provided from a ramp at the northern edge of the parking lot, adjacent to the southwest corner of the residential parcel located at 466 Grant Avenue. The proposed project would eliminate the existing curb cut that allows access to the site from El Camino Real. The total increase in gross floor area would be 30,236 square feet. The proposed building would provide 10,122 square feet of retail space, 9,835 square feet of office space, and 19,973 square feet of residential uses in 13 residential condominiums. A total of 14,903 square feet of landscaping and open space would be provided, as well as 2,700 square feet of usable private open space, including balcony and terraces provided for each residential unit. The FAR of the proposed project would be 0.50 for commercial uses and 0.50 for residential uses. The proposed maximum building height is 40 feet (3 stories), but a proposed photovoltaic roof screen would bring the total height to 47 feet (Figure 5, Elevations). The proposed building plans are provided in Appendix A. The El Camino Real frontage would be articulated to create the appearance of several individual storefronts. Most of the building along the El Camino Real frontage would be three stories tall while the portion closest to Sherman Avenue would be stepped down to two stories. Building materials would include wood rainscreens and metal panel cladding on portions of the building, as well as concrete and glazing. Landscaped planters would help to define the corners on both Sherman and Grant Avenues. A photovoltaic roof screen is proposed to be placed over the central portion of building along the El Camino Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 7 January 2016 Real frontage. The second and third floors of this elevation would be finished with wood rainscreens and glazing, each surrounded by a formed concrete border that would extend out over the ground floor. The ground floor fronting El Camino Real would be primarily glass and would include several separate entrances from the sidewalk into the building. Street trees would be provided along all street frontages to provide shade and enhance aesthetics. The rear elevation of the building would include similar articulation and building materials as the El Camino Real elevation. Under the PAMC requirements for office, retail, and residential land uses, the proposed project would be required to provide 108 parking spaces. Approximately half of the site is within the California Avenue Parking Assessment District, which has different parking requirements than the portion outside the district. The project would provide a total of 104 parking spaces, including 34 spaces equipped as electric vehicle charging stations. Ninety parking spaces would be provided in the one-level underground parking garage and 14 spaces would be provided at-grade. Eighteen long-term bicycle parking spaces and 8 short- term bicycle parking spaces would also be provided. The applicant requests a shared parking adjustment for four parking spaces (less than 4% of the parking spaces). The project meets PAMC Section 18.52 for parking requirements with the shared parking adjustment, which allows a reduction of up to 20% of the total spaces required for the site. The proposed project is designed in accordance with the City’s Green Building Ordinance, which requires compliance with California Green Building Code Tier 1 and the Build It Green GreenPoint Rated Checklist (for the residential portion) with Local Amendments. The project would use both conventional and sustainable building materials, including a concrete frame, high-efficiency glazing systems, plaster finishes, day-lighting and sun-shading systems, and an energy-efficient cool roof. The project would also include facilities for electric vehicle charging stations. The proposed project would involve the removal of all 18 existing on-site trees, 5 street trees, and 1 tree on the neighboring property to the east. A total of 29 trees would be planted as part of the project, including 2 autumn blaze maples, 15 red sunset red maples, 5 London planes, and 7 Chinese elms. Additional shrubs, groundcovers, and bioretention plants would also be planted on the site. Drip irrigation would be used throughout the site and would be controlled by a Smart Irrigation controller with climate monitoring and flow sensing to maximize water efficiency. 10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING As shown on Figures 2 and 3, the project site is located one block southeast of the California Avenue commercial district. The project site is surrounded by a mix of commercial, office, and residential uses. A single-story office building is located adjacent to the project site on Sherman Avenue, and the two-story Coronet Motel and a City parking lot are located across Sherman Avenue from the project site. A single- family residence is located adjacent to the project site on Grant Avenue, and a Chipotle Mexican Grill and associated parking lot are located across Grant Avenue from the site. Multifamily residential uses extend northeast on both sides of Grant Avenue. El Camino Real is a major arterial with three lanes in each direction and a median. Two office buildings are located directly across El Camino Real from the project site, one is six stories tall and the other is two stories tall. The Stanford-Palo Alto Playing Fields are located just south of the office buildings on El Camino Real. Office/bank uses extend northwest on El Camino Real toward California Avenue. The building heights along El Camino Real vary between one to six stories in the vicinity of the project site. 11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVALS REQUIRED  San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) approval for Vapor Intrusion Mitigation and Risk Management Plan; potentially for an Exceptional Discharge Permit. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 8 January 2016 II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. (A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).) 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) “(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, “Earlier Analysis,” may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The second column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 9 January 2016 A. AESTHETICS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1, 2, 3, 4 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 1, 3 (Map L4) X c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1, 3 (Map L4) X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The proposed project includes replacing one existing single-story retail building and a surface parking lot with a new two- to three-story mixed-use building. While the proposed project would result in a change in the existing visual character of the site, the project design will be reviewed by the City’s Architectural Review Board (ARB) to ensure that compatibility concerns are addressed and it does not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The building would be built within the allowable setbacks of the property, and no public views or view corridors would be adversely affected by the proposed building. The project site is located in a developed area of the City and is not within the viewshed of a state scenic highway; therefore, it would not damage any scenic resources within a state scenic highway. The project site is primarily surrounded by commercial buildings along El Camino Real, ranging in height from one to six stories. As shown on Figure 5 and Figure 6, Perspective Renderings, the proposed building would be larger in scale and mass than some of the adjacent buildings; however, the project would be similar in scale and mass to other buildings in the vicinity, and considerably smaller than the six-story building across the street. In addition, the project would comply with the maximum height standards for the site. The height of the proposed roof would be 40 feet, and the height to the top of the rooftop photovoltaic units would be 47 feet. The maximum allowable height for the site is 40 feet, but rooftop equipment is permitted to exceed the maximum height limit up to 15 feet. The building frontage on El Camino Real would be articulated to create the appearance of several individual storefronts. Most of the building along the El Camino Real frontage would be three stories tall while the portion closest to Sherman Avenue would be stepped down to two stories. Building materials would include wood rainscreens and metal panel cladding on portions of the building, as well as concrete and glazing. Landscaped planters would help define the corners on both Sherman and Grant Avenues. A photovoltaic roof screen is proposed to be placed over the central portion of building along the El Camino Real frontage. The second and third floors of this elevation would be finished with wood rainscreens and glazing, each surrounded by a formed concrete border that would extend out over the ground floor. The ground floor fronting El Camino Real would be primarily glass and would include several separate entrances from the sidewalk into the building. Street trees Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 10 January 2016 would be provided along all street frontages to provide shade and enhance aesthetics. The rear elevation of the building would include similar articulation and building materials as the El Camino Real elevation. The project site and its surroundings are currently developed with a mix of retail, office, and residential uses, which include sources of light and glare. Uses associated with the proposed project would not create a substantial amount of additional lighting and glare. Glare is defined as a light source in the field of vision that is brighter than the eye can comfortably accept. The proposed building would increase the number and surface area of windows compared to the existing building. At the street level along the frontages of El Camino Real, Sherman Avenue, and Grant Avenue, the project proposes a series of storefront system windows with an overhang above the windows. Windows provided on the second and third floor frontages of El Camino Real and Grant Avenue would be setback with overhangs to reduce glare. The exception to this is the portion of the building closest to Sherman Avenue, which would include metal paneling and windows without overhangs. These windows are not anticipated to create substantial glare due to the northwest exposure of this portion of the building. The Sherman Avenue frontage would also receive less sunlight exposure given its northern exposure, and the windows on this side of the building are not anticipated to create substantial glare. Street trees on all street frontages of the building would serve to reduce potential glare from the building. The primary use of exterior building lighting would be to ensure safety at building entrances. The project is required to meet the City’s lighting standards, including PAMC Section 18.23.030, which establishes that “Exterior lighting in parking areas, pathways and common open space shall be designed to achieve the following: (1) provide for safe and secure access on the site, (2) achieve maximum energy efficiency, and (3) reduce impacts or visual intrusions on abutting or nearby properties from spillover and architectural lighting that projects upward.” PAMC Section 18.23.030 also requires that “lighting of the building exterior, parking areas and pedestrian ways should be of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose, and be designed to focus illumination downward to avoid excessive illumination above the light fixture.” Although the project would result in increased building height compared to the existing buildings, which could increase shading, there are no adjacent public spaces other than streets and sidewalks that would be affected by additional shadows. In addition, the project is designed to avoid shading of the adjacent residential uses with a surface parking lot located between the proposed building and the residential uses to the rear of the site. The project is subject to design review and approval by the City through the Architectural Review process, which ensures compliance with City standards to promote visual environments that are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other. Therefore, for the reasons described above, aesthetic impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 11 January 2016 B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 1, 3 X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 1, 3 (Map L9), 4 X c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)1) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 45262)? 1, 4 X d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1 X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1 X DISCUSSION As reflected in the Comprehensive Plan (City of Palo Alto 2007), the project site is located in a developed, urban area in Palo Alto and does not contain any land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the Santa Clara County Important Farmland map prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Department of Conservation (2011). The site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not subject to any Williamson Act contracts. The project site is within a fully developed urban area and does not support forest or timberland. No impacts to agricultural and forestry resources would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. 1 California Public Resources Code, Section 12220(g): “Forest land” is land that can support 10% native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. 2 California Public Resources Code, Section 4526: “Timberland” means land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis after consultation with the district committees and others. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 12 January 2016 C. AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 1, 2, 6 X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 1, 2, 6, 13 X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 1, 2, 6, 13 X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 1, 2, 6, 13 X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley, which is part of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has the primary responsibility for ensuring that the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin attains and maintains compliance with federal and state ambient air quality standards. The BAAQMD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emissions sources and through its planning and review process. The California ambient air quality standards are generally more stringent than federal standards. The federal and state Clean Air Acts define allowable concentrations of six air pollutants, which are referred to as “criteria air pollutants.” When monitoring indicates that a region regularly experiences air pollutant concentrations that exceed those limits, the region is designated as nonattainment and is required to develop an air quality plan that describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented to reduce air pollutant emissions and concentrations. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is designated nonattainment for the federal 8-hour ozone (O3) standard. The area is in attainment or unclassified for all other federal standards. The area is designated nonattainment for state standards for 1-hour and 8-hour O3, 24-hour coarse particulate matter (PM10), annual PM10, and annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5). To address the region’s nonattainment status, the BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (BAAQMD 2006) and the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2010a), which is an update to the 2005 document and provides “an integrated, multi-pollutant strategy to improve air quality, protect public health, and protect the climate.” The 2010 plan addresses O3, PM2.5, and PM10, air toxics, and greenhouse gases (GHGs). The 2010 plan identifies a number of control measures to be adopted or implemented to reduce emissions of these pollutants. Because the proposed project is consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the project site, it is consistent with the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. The BAAQMD has adopted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) air quality guidelines (2010 BAAQMD Guidelines) (BAAQMD 2010b) that establish air pollutant emission thresholds that identify whether a project would violate any applicable air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Compared with the previous set of guidelines adopted in 1999, the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 13 January 2016 lower the level of pollutant emissions and health risk impacts that are considered a significant environmental impact. The BAAQMD’s adoption of the thresholds has been challenged in court. However, the litigation is procedural in nature and does not assert that the BAAQMD failed to provide substantial evidence to support its adoption of these thresholds. Because the 2010 thresholds are more conservative than the BAAQMD’s prior thresholds, this impact analysis is based on the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines. The 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines also establish screening criteria based on the size of a project to determine whether detailed modeling to estimate air pollutant emissions is necessary. Table 1 lists several examples of screening levels set by the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines. Table 1 BAAQMD Screening Criteria Land Use Type Construction Related Screening Size Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Screening Size1 General office building 277,000 sf (ROG) 346,000 sf (NOx) Office park 277,000 sf (ROG) 323,000 sf (NOx) Regional shopping center or strip mall 277,000 sf (ROG) 99,000 sf (NOx) Quality restaurant 277,000 sf (ROG) 47,000 sf (NOx) Single-family residential 114 du (ROG) 325 du (ROG) Apartment, low-rise, or condo/townhouse, general 240 du (ROG) 451 du (ROG) City park 67 acres (PM10) 2,613 acres (ROG) Daycare center 277,000 sf (ROG) 53,000 sf (NOx) Source: BAAQMD 2010b, Table 3-1. Notes: sf = square feet; ROG = reactive organic gas; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; du = dwelling units. 1 If the project size is less than the screening size, the project would have less than significant impacts. If the project size is greater than the screening size, detailed project-specific modeling is required. Construction Emissions The project would result in a net increase of 10,263 square feet of commercial and office space and 13 new condominium units; this is substantially below the screening thresholds of 277,000 square feet (office or regional shopping center/strip mall space) and 240 dwelling units (apartment, low-rise, or condo/townhouse, general) for construction emissions. While the project size is less than the screening criteria size for construction, the project would require demolition of the existing building and parking lot. The BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines recommend that the screening criteria not be applied to projects that include demolition. Therefore, project-specific modeling of construction emissions has been completed using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2013.2.2. Table 2 presents the estimated air pollutant emissions for each construction phase, and the CalEEMod output results are included as Appendix B. As shown in Table 2, average daily emissions throughout the construction phase would remain below the BAAQMD threshold, which is 54 pounds per day. Further, the project would implement all construction emission control measures identified in Table 8-2 of the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines recommended for all proposed projects, as required by the City’s standard conditions of approval. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 14 January 2016 Table 2 Proposed Project Construction Emissions by Phase Phase ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Highest Daily Emissions (maximum pounds per day) Demolition 3.0079 28.9699 22.7120 2.4082 1.7595 Excavation 4.6543 56.2209 39.9118 8.5010 4.5933 Building construction 3.5263 21.6607 17.5665 1.7321 1.4274 Parking structure paving 1.3740 13.2707 9.8259 0.9311 0.7772 Architectural coatings 96.4796 2.4013 2.2245 0.2536 0.2120 Total Annual Emissions (tons per year) Full Project 0.7671 2.9965 2.4275 0.2689 0.2012 Average Daily Emissions (pounds per day) Full Project 6.0640 23.6877 19.1897 2.1257 1.5905 Source: Appendix B. Notes: ROG = reactive organic gas; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter. Operational Emissions The proposed project would result in a net increase of 10,263 square feet of commercial and office space and 13 condominium units. This total increase in development is substantially below the screening thresholds of 346,000 square feet (office space), 99,000 square feet (regional shopping center or strip mall), and 451 dwelling units (apartment, low-rise, or condo/townhouse, general) for operational emissions (see Table 1). Since the project is substantially smaller than the screening criteria size, emissions of criteria air pollutants associated with operation of the proposed project would remain below the BAAQMD thresholds. Project operation would not result in emissions that violate any applicable air quality standards, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or conflict with an air quality plan; therefore, impacts would remain less than significant. Cumulative Impacts As discussed previously, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and federal O3 standards and state PM10 and PM2.5 ambient air quality standards. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. As described in the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines, “by its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself; result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant” (BAAQMD 2010b). Because operation of the proposed project would not result in emissions that violate any applicable air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, the project would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact. Mitigation Measures None required. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 15 January 2016 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1, 2, 3 (Map N1) X b) 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 Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 1, 2, 3 (Map N1) X c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 1, 2, 3 (Map N1) X d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1, 2 X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 X f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1 X DISCUSSION The proposed project is located on a parcel that is entirely developed with an existing building and paved surface parking, which would be removed to accommodate the project. Due to its developed nature, the site does not support sensitive habitats and has a very low potential to support candidate, sensitive, and special-status species. The site is not subject to any habitat conservation plans. The project site supports trees protected by Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation and Management Regulations. The PAMC regulates specific types of trees on public and private property for the purpose of avoiding their removal or disfigurement without first being reviewed and permitted by the City. Three categories within the status of regulated trees include protected trees, street trees, and designated trees. As documented in the Arborist Report prepared for Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 16 January 2016 the site by Arbor Resources (provided in Appendix A), a total of 33 trees were inventoried within or adjacent to the project site and include the following eight species: Brisbane box, California fan palm, flowering pear, Hollywood juniper, London plan tree, Maidenhair tree, Mexican fan palm, and sweet bay. Of the 33 trees located within the project study area, 18 are located within the project site. None of the identified trees are protected trees under PAMC 8.10; however, street trees are regulated under PAMC 8.04. The proposed project would involve removal of all 18 existing on-site trees, 5 street trees, and 1 tree on the neighboring property to the east. A total of 29 trees would be planted, including 2 autumn blaze maples, 15 red sunset red maples, 5 London planes, and 7 Chinese elms. Removal of 5 existing street trees and planting of 6 new street trees would be required to be completed in accordance with City requirements for tree removal and replacement. The following measures will be implemented to ensure proper planting of new street trees, as required by PAMC 8.04:  Soil conditions for the new street trees to be planted shall be improved by preparing a planting area at least 6 feet square for each tree and installing Silva Cells to reduce compaction. The Silva Cells shall be filled with proper soil amendments and growing medium as determined by the City Arborist.  Unless otherwise approved, each new tree shall be provided with 800 to 1,200 cubic feet of rootable soil area, using Standard Drawing #604/513. Rootable soil is defined as compaction less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas.  Two bubbler drip irrigation units shall be installed for each new tree to adequately water the new planting area.  Kiva tree grates shall be used around each new tree.  Replacement tree size shall be a 24-inch box, properly structured nursery stock. Mitigation Measures None required. E. CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? 1, 3 (Map L7), 8 X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section15064.5? 1, 3 (Map L8) X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 1, 3 (Map L8) X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1, 3 (Map L8) X DISCUSSION The proposed project involves excavation and construction activities within a fully developed and previously disturbed site. The Comprehensive Plan (City of Palo Alto 2007) indicates that the project site is located in an area identified as a moderate archaeological resource sensitivity zone. Although existing and historic development Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 17 January 2016 has altered the project site, there is the potential to discover unknown cultural resources during site excavation. As a standard condition of approval to ensure compliance with state and federal law, the City of Palo Alto requires that the project contractor immediately notify the City and the Native American Heritage Commission, as appropriate in the event any paleontological, archaeological or human remains are discovered on the site. The City further requires that all soil-disturbing work be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist, as defined by CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and approved by the City, completes a significance evaluation of the finds pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Any human remains unearthed must be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, and California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99, which include requirements to notify the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office and consult with Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants, as appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission. With compliance with this standard condition of approval impacts would remain less than significant. The Historic Resource Evaluation prepared for the proposed project (Appendix C) found that the project site is not historically significant under National Register Criteria, California Register Criteria, or the City of Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory (PAMC, Chapter 16.49), primarily because substantial alterations to the building have removed its historic integrity. Constructed in 1946 as the Chick Drive-in Restaurant, subsequent alterations to the building were installed as the restaurant changed ownership in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1990s. These changes have nearly completely obscured the original building’s design as a Mid-Century Modern drive-in restaurant. Since the project site does not include any historic resources or examples of major periods of California history or prehistory, no impacts to historic resources would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. F. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 9 X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 3 (Map N-10), 9 X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 3 (Map N-5), 9 X iv) Landslides? 3 (Map N-5), 9 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1, 9 X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a 3 (Map N-5), 9 X Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 18 January 2016 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 3 (Map N-5), 9 X e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 1 X DISCUSSION Connell Geotechnical Inc. (Connell) prepared a geotechnical investigation report for the project site in March 2015 (see Appendix D). The geotechnical report identifies potential geologic hazards that may affect the project site and presents recommendations for design and construction of the project. Given the project site’s location in a seismically active area, there is potential for severe ground shaking during an earthquake. High levels of ground shaking during potential future earthquakes and soil conditions that may be unsuitable to support construction-related excavations and site improvements are typical issues of concern related to development in seismically active areas. These issues are routinely encountered in California, and there is no evidence that unique or unusual geologic hazards are present on site (e.g., mapped landslide, collapsible soils, lateral spread) that would require additional mitigation beyond what is already required as part of the City’s standard development approval processes. Seismic ground shaking and the presence of adverse soil conditions would be addressed through required compliance with the California Building Code (and local amendments) as well as incorporation of geotechnical recommendations into the project’s construction and design plans. The site is not located in a mapped area of potential liquefaction and ground displacement on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones map for the Palo Alto Quadrangle. Connell determined that the potential for liquefaction or lateral spreading is low due to the generally dense nature of the sands and gravels and depth of groundwater. However, some densification of the medium dense sand underlying the structure could occur during a moderate to large earthquake resulting in minor settlement of the structure. The geotechnical report indicates the project site is located in an area where there have been historical occurrences of earthquake-induced liquefaction and there is the potential for “permanent earthquake-induced ground displacement.” The Association of Bay Area Governments indicates the site is in an area with a moderate chance of liquefaction. However, there are no active or potentially active faults that cross the project site, and the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone (USGS 2013). The closest active fault is the San Andreas Fault, which is located approximately 5.3 miles southwest of the site. The project site is flat and is not located in an area susceptible to landslides. The site is mapped as being underlain by coarse-grained Pleistocene-age alluvial fan deposits consisting mainly of interbedded sands, gravels, clayey sands, and sandy clays. Connell explored subsurface conditions at the site with three borings drilled to depths of 24.5 to 36 feet. Subsurface conditions encountered in the borings generally consisted of a surficial layer of stiff sandy and gravelly clays and silts to a depth of 4 to 7 feet underlain by medium dense to dense sandy gravels/gravelly sands to depths of 15 to 22 feet underlain by mostly stiff to very stiff sandy clays to the depths explored. At the surface the borings encountered 3 to 4 inches of asphalt underlain Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 19 January 2016 by about 3 to 4 inches of base rock. The site surficial clayey soils have a low plasticity and expansion potential. All new construction is subject to the earthquake design parameters contained in Chapter 16, Section 1613, of the 2013 California Building Code, directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. In addition, the City’s standard conditions of approval will ensure that potential impacts on erosion and soil remain less than significant. These conditions require the applicant to submit a final grading and drainage plan subject to review by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading and building permits. Requirements and standards of adequacy for the grading and drainage plans are contained in the PAMC. The proposed building would be connected to the City’s sewer system, and the project would not involve use of septic tanks. Impacts to geologic resources and soils and impacts associated with geologic hazards would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 2, 7 X b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 2, 7 X DISCUSSION In 2006, the State of California enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 requires reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The state’s plan for meeting the reduction target is outlined in the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Climate Change Scoping Plan (2008 Scoping Plan) (CARB 2008). CARB’s 2008 Scoping Plan fact sheet states, “This plan calls for an ambitious but achievable reduction in California’s carbon footprint—toward a clean energy future. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels means cutting approximately 30% from business-as-usual emissions levels projected for 2020, or about 15% from today’s levels. On a per-capita basis, that means reducing annual emissions of 14 tons of carbon dioxide for every man, woman and child in California down to about 10 tons per person by 2020.” CARB’s GHG emissions inventory report found the total statewide GHG emissions in 2011 were equivalent to 448.1 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) (CARB 2013). Compared with the emissions in 2001, this is a 6% decrease. As described in Section C of this report, the BAAQMD adopted the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines, which establish screening criteria based on the size of a project to determine whether detailed modeling to estimate GHG emissions is necessary (BAAQMD 2010b). Projects that are smaller than the GHG screening criteria size are considered to have less than significant GHG emissions and would not conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions. Table 3 presents GHG screening level examples taken from the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 20 January 2016 Table 3 BAAQMD Operational GHG Screening Criteria Land Use Type Operational GHG Screening Size1 Single-family residential 56 du Apartment, low-rise, or condo/townhouse, general 78 du Apartment, mid-rise 87 du Condo/townhouse, general 78 du Regional shopping center 19,000 sf Strip mall 19,000 sf Hardware/paint store 16,000 sf Daycare center 11,000 sf General office building 53,000 sf Medical office building 22,000 sf Office park 50,000 sf Quality restaurant 9,000 sf Source: BAAQMD 2010b, Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes. Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; du = dwelling unit; sf = square feet. 1 If the project size is less than the screening size, the project would have less-than-significant impacts. If the project is greater than the screening size, detailed project-specific modeling is required. The project would result in a net increase of 10,263 square feet of commercial and office space along with 13 new condominium units; this is substantially below the BAAQMD screening thresholds of 53,000 square feet (office space), 19,000 square feet (commercial space), and 78 condominium units (condo/townhouse) for operational GHG emissions. Since the project is substantially smaller than the screening criteria size, GHG emissions associated with operation of the proposed project would remain below the BAAQMD thresholds. In addition, the project would comply with the green building requirements identified in Chapter 16.14 of the PAMC. Project operation would not result in GHG emissions that would significantly affect the environment or conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The project would have less-than-significant impacts related to GHG emissions. Mitigation Measures None required. H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1, 2, 9, 10 X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 1, 2, 9, 10 X Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 21 January 2016 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 1, 2 X d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 1, 2, 10 X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1 X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? 1 X g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1, 3 (Map N7) X h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 1, 3 (Map N7) X DISCUSSION A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and Phase II Subsurface Investigation were prepared for the project site in December 2013 by Partner Science and Engineering. The Phase I and Phase II assessments are included in Appendix E. Records indicate that a blacksmith shop occupied the southeast portion of the site in 1894, and an auto repair facility was located at the same location from as early as 1925 until at least 1931. The existing building was built in 1948. The project site is located within the California-Olive-Emerson Superfund Site, which encompasses the area of a contaminated groundwater plume. Chemicals of concern include volatile organic compounds (VOCs), particularly 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene (TCE), and other chlorinated solvents. Groundwater samples collected from on-site and nearby monitoring wells have indicated non-detectable concentrations of chemicals of concern and low levels of TCE, respectively. Soil and groundwater samples were collected from four borings as part of the Phase II Subsurface Investigation to investigate the potential impact of petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs, and/or metals to groundwater. Initially two soil samples and three groundwater samples were analyzed for carbon chain total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH- cc), VOCs, and California Administrative Manual 17 Metals. Based on the preliminary results of the analyses, which indicated elevated levels of diesel-range organics, motor oil-range organics, and lead in one of the samples, the two remaining soil samples were analyzed for diesel-range organics and motor oil-range organics in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8015C, and for lead in accordance with EPA Method 6010B. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 22 January 2016 The San Francisco Bay RWQCB has established Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) as an initial screening level evaluation. ESLs aid in assessing the potential threats to human health, terrestrial/aquatic habitats, and/or drinking water resources due to contaminants in soil, soil gas, and/or groundwater. Of the four soil samples analyzed for TPH-cc, only the diesel-range organics and motor oil-range organics concentrations detected in one of the samples exceeded their respective residential ESLs of 100 and 500 milligrams per kilogram; however, the concentrations were below their respective commercial/industrial ESLs of 500 and 2,500 milligrams per kilogram. The remaining detected TPH-cc concentrations were below both their residential and commercial/industrial ESLs. None of the analyzed soil samples contained detectable concentrations of gasoline-range organics or VOCs. One of the analyzed soil samples contained concentrations of cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc that exceed background concentrations for typical California soils. Of the metals detected that exceed the background concentrations, only the lead concentration, which was measured at a maximum of 360 milligrams per kilogram, exceeded the residential and commercial ESLs of 80 and 320 milligrams per kilogram, respectively. The remaining metals that exceed background concentrations were below their respective residential and commercial ESLs. None of the three analyzed groundwater samples contained detectable concentrations of TPH-cc. Each of the three analyzed groundwater samples contained detectable concentrations of the VOCs chloroform and/or TCE. TCE concentrations of 32 micrograms per liter (µg/L), 71 µg/L, and 11 µg/L were detected; these exceed the groundwater ESL of 5 µg/L. The detected chloroform concentration was below its groundwater ESL of 70 µg/L. Of the various metals detected in groundwater, barium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, vanadium, and zinc exceeded their respective groundwater ESLs. Table 4 compares the groundwater ESLs for these metals to the levels detected in groundwater on site. Concentrations shown in bold in Table 4 exceed the groundwater ESL. Although not all metals exceed the groundwater ESLs in all boring locations, each of the metals listed exceeds the groundwater ESLs in at least one location. Table 4 Groundwater Sample Dissolved Metals Laboratory Results Sample Identification Boring Identification Groundwater ESL PES-B2-GW PES-B3-GW PES-B4-GW Barium 1600 830 1800 1000 Chromium 79 56 26 50 Cobalt 75 43 38 3 Copper 100 120 90 3.1 Lead 47 45 <17 2.5 Mercury <0.022 <0.022 0.062 .025 Nickel 150 66 96 8.2 Vanadium 72 130 57 15 Zinc 130 200 120 81 Source: Appendix E (adapted from Table 8). Notes: All units in milligrams/liter (mg/L). Concentrations in bold exceeds Groundwater ESL. < indicates metal not detected above indicated laboratory Method Detection Limit. Only metals exceeding their respective ESLs are displayed in this table. For a complete listing of metals detected in groundwater, see Table 8 of the Phase II ESA prepared by Partner Science and Engineering (Appendix E). EPA Method CAM 17 Metals via 6010B/7471A The project involves the demolition of one building and construction of a new building with a one-level subsurface parking garage. Construction equipment accessing the site would use hazardous and/or flammable materials, including diesel fuel, gasoline, and other oils and lubricants. During project construction, there is the potential for the short-term use of hazardous materials/fuels; however, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of these materials would be required to comply with all existing local, state, and federal regulations. Operation of the proposed project would not include any uses that would require the transport, handling, or Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 23 January 2016 disposal of hazardous materials, other than typical household and landscaping materials. The types and quantities of these common household chemicals would not be substantial and would not pose a health risk to residents of the project or any adjacent uses. Demolition and site preparation activities, such as excavation and grading, could release hazardous building materials into the air. During demolition and construction, workers may be exposed to soil or groundwater with trace levels of TCE and other VOCs. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 is required to reduce the potential effects on health and safety during construction by requiring preparation and implementation of a Soil Management Plan, which would include a health and safety plan and program to be prepared and implemented by the contractor. Based on the construction date of the existing building (1946), it is possible that the building may contain asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paints. Lead-based paints could also be present and the light ballasts may be a source of polychlorinated biphenyls. Therefore, demolition of the existing buildings could result in hazards related to the release or disposal of these hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 requires surveys and proper disposal methods to ensure that impacts remain less than significant. If found, lead-containing materials and asbestos-containing materials would be required to be disposed of in accordance with state and federal regulations, including the EPA’s Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA) Construction Lead Standard (8 CCR 1532.1), and California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA requirements for disposal of hazardous waste. If polychlorinated biphenyls are found, these materials would be required to be managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act of 1991 (California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160–42185) and other state and federal guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications would be required to incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards Act, particularly Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling, for the removal of mercury switches, polychlorinated biphenyl- containing ballasts, and refrigerants. Groundwater was encountered during the Phase II investigation at depths between 18.5 and 29.8 feet below ground surface. The geotechnical investigation identified groundwater at a depth of approximately 22 to 23 feet below ground surface; however, according to the Santa Clara Valley Water District maps, the depth to first groundwater is between 10 to 20 feet at the site. Due to the extended drought conditions, long-term groundwater levels are probably shallower than 22 feet at the site. If groundwater is encountered during excavation for the underground parking garage (approximately 12 to 15 feet below ground surface), installation of dewatering wells would be required. It is possible that groundwater pumped during construction would contain TCE (or other VOCs) and metals. Standard conditions of the City’s architectural review process require special procedures for dewatering. Specifically, the City’s Public Works Department, Water Quality Control Plant section, would require that prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering, the water be tested for VOCs using EPA Method 601/602. The analytical results of the VOC testing would be transmitted to the RWQCB. If the concentration of any VOC exceeds 5 µg/L (5 parts per billion), the water may not be discharged to the storm drain system and an Exceptional Discharge Permit for discharge to the sanitary sewer must be obtained from the RWQCB prior to discharge. If the VOC concentrations exceed the toxic organics discharge limits contained in the PAMC, a treatment system for removal of VOCs would also be required prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. Additionally, any water discharged to the storm drain system is required to be free of sediment. There is also the potential for vapor from the impacted groundwater plume to migrate into buildings in certain circumstances, which could result in a significant hazard. By fire code, both stairwells and elevator shafts are required to be pressurized to minimize smoke intrusion. In addition, as required by the building code, the new garage would have mechanical fans to regularly vent the space to remove CO from the garage. In addition, Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 would ensure that potential impacts due to vapor migration remain below a level of significance by requiring on-site testing of indoor air quality in the garage. There are two existing schools within 0.25 mile of the project site: Casa dei Bambini, a private preschool, and Living Wisdom School, a private K–8 school. Operation of the project would not result in the emission of Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 24 January 2016 hazardous materials, and Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce construction impacts associated with hazardous building materials to less-than-significant levels. There are no airports within 2 miles of the project site. The nearest airport is the Palo Alto Airport, which is located approximately 2.6 miles northeast of the site. Therefore, no impact related to safety hazards associated with aircraft would occur. The proposed project would not impair or interfere with the City’s Emergency Operations Plan. The nearest evacuation route to the project site is Page Mill Road. The project would not result in any changes to this evacuation route, would not substantially increase traffic or roadway congestion such that use of the evacuation route would be hindered, and would not otherwise impair implementation of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan. Therefore, no impact related to emergency response or evacuation would occur. The project site is located in a developed urban area that is not identified as a high or medium fire hazard area in the City’s Comprehensive Plan (City of Palo Alto 2007). Therefore, no impact related to fire risks would occur. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: In order to avoid the potential for vapor migration, the project shall prepare a Vapor Intrusion Mitigation and Risk Management Plan (Plan) for approval by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of grading or building permits from the City of Palo Alto. The Plan shall outline strategies for managing contaminated soil and groundwater encountered during project construction. The Plan shall include provisions for hazardous substance management, handling, storage, disposal, and emergency response. Hazardous materials spill kits shall be maintained on site for small spills. Copies of the Plan shall be maintained on site during demolition, excavation, and construction of the proposed project. All workers on the project site shall be familiarized with these documents. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Prior to building demolition, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto that a survey of the existing buildings has been conducted by a qualified environmental specialist who meets the requirements of the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for suspected lead-containing materials, including lead-based paint/coatings, asbestos-containing materials, and the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls. Any demolition activities likely to disturb lead- containing materials or asbestos-containing materials shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead- or asbestos-related construction work. Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: In order to quantitatively verify that established regulatory thresholds for indoor air quality are not being exceeded due to vapor intrusion, following construction, 24-hour integrated air samples shall be collected from a minimum of two locations in the garage, plus an exterior location deemed representative of ambient/background conditions. Given the higher sensitivity of the residential units, the garage sampling locations shall be under that portion of the building as opposed to the office portion. The samples shall be collected with the garage venting system off and on a weekend day to minimize interferences from vehicle exhaust. A California state-certified laboratory shall analyze the air samples for TCE and cis-1,2-dichloroethylene (the target VOCs) using EPA Method TO-15 with sensitive ion mode. Results shall be compared to published Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Environmental Screening Levels along with any additional criteria deemed appropriate by the regulatory agencies, with the ambient/background amounts strongly weighed for interpretation of the garage amounts. The air monitoring shall be conducted quarterly for the first year of building occupancy, semiannually for the second year, and annually for the third through fifth years. The first monitoring results shall be incorporated into a Risk Management Plan Implementation Report that will be submitted to the RWQCB. The annual events (as well as one of the semiannual events) shall be in a cold weather month (i.e., December, January, or February) since Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 25 January 2016 these are currently recognized as having higher vapor advection. After the initial Risk Management Plan Implementation Report, monitoring reports shall be submitted annually to the RWQCB. If the indoor air criteria are not exceeded over this 5-year period, after factoring in ambient/background data and general quality assurance/quality control considerations, no further monitoring shall be required. Should the garage air tests show TCE (or other VOCs) over an agreed criteria and not reflective of ambient/background conditions, RWQCB staff shall be notified and a supplemental sampling event shall be scheduled within 60 days. Additional actions would be discussed with RWQCB staff upon receipt of the supplemental test data. Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1, 2, 3 X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 1, 2, 3 (Map N2), 10 X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 1, 2 X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 1, 2 X e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 1, 2 X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1, 2, 10 X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 1, 3 (Map N6) X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 1, 3 (Map N6) X Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 26 January 2016 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam or being located within a 100- year flood hazard area? 1, 3 (Map N8) X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1, 3 (Map N6) X DISCUSSION The project site is fully developed, and the proposed project would not substantially change the amount of impervious surface area on the project site, nor would the project rely on groundwater for its water supply. With the exception of some street trees on Grant Avenue, El Camino Real, and Sherman Avenue, the existing site is composed of buildings and paved surface parking lots and thus is largely impervious. The project proposes to create a single 39,953-square-foot parcel. The proposed building would cover 19,954 square feet of the site (50%), and a total of 14,903 square feet of landscaping and open space would be provided. As described in Section H, groundwater was encountered at depths of 22 and 23 feet during the geotechnical investigation. Based on the Santa Clara Valley Water District maps, the depth to first groundwater is between 10 to 20 feet at the site. Groundwater levels will vary with time and location, depending on rainfall and runoff. The nearest surface water in the vicinity of the project site is Matadero Creek, located approximately 0.5 mile east of the site. Stormwater runoff water quality is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to control and reduce pollutants to water bodies from surface water discharge. Locally, the NPDES project is administered by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The RWQCB worked with cities and counties throughout the region to prepare and adopt a Regional Municipal Stormwater Permit. This Regional Permit identifies minimum standards and provisions that the City of Palo Alto, as a permittee, must require of new development and redevelopment projects within the city limits. Compliance with the NPDES Permit is mandated by state and federal statutes. The proposed project would be required to comply with all city, state, and federal standards pertaining to stormwater runoff and water quality. Under the Regional Municipal Stormwater Permit, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB generally requires new development projects to implement low-impact design techniques to treat stormwater runoff. Stormwater would be treated on site in flow-through planters and bioretention areas. Stormwater from the below-grade garage would be pumped to the proposed plaza area for on-site treatment. Drainage would be conveyed to the eastern portion of the site, where it would be discharged into an existing 12-inch, 260-linear-foot storm drain located within the Page Mill Road and El Camino Real right-of-way. Although groundwater was identified in the geotechnical investigation at depth of approximately 22 to 23 feet below existing grade level, the depth to first groundwater is between 10 to 20 feet at the site according to the Santa Clara Valley Water District maps. The lower groundwater level may be the result of extended drought conditions, and long-term groundwater levels are likely shallower than 22 feet at the site. If groundwater is encountered during excavation for the underground parking structure (approximately 12 to 15 feet below grade), installation of dewatering wells would be necessary. It is possible that groundwater pumped during construction will contain trace levels of TCE near or just above the state maximum contaminant level. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires that the Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 27 January 2016 groundwater pumped during dewatering be tested and treated if TCE (or other VOC) levels are greater than the state maximum contaminant level. Standard conditions of the City’s architectural review process require special procedures for dewatering. Specifically, the City’s Public Works Department, Water Quality Control Plant section, would require that prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering, the water be tested for VOCs using EPA Method 601/602. The analytical results of the VOC testing shall be transmitted to the RWQCB. If the concentration of any VOC exceeds 5 µg/L (5 parts per billion), the water may not be discharged to the storm drain system and an Exceptional Discharge Permit for discharge to the sanitary sewer must be obtained from the RWQCB prior to discharge. If the VOC concentrations exceed the toxic organics discharge limits contained in the PAMC, a treatment system for removal of VOCs will also be required prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. Additionally, any water discharged to the storm drain system is required to be free of sediment. The City’s standard conditions of approval will ensure that potential impacts on local drainage remain less than significant. These conditions require the applicant to submit a final grading and drainage plan subject to review by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading and building permits. Requirements and standards of adequacy for the grading and drainage plans are contained in the PAMC. The project site is located within Zone X on the Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No. 06085C0017H (FEMA 2009). This indicates that the project site is not in a zone expected to be subject to inundation in a 100-year flood event. Additionally, the project site is not located within an area identified as a dam failure inundation area (City of Palo Alto 2014a). The project site is not subject to flooding or inundation and construction of the project would result in no impacts associated with exposure of people to flood-related hazards. The project site is located on relatively flat ground and is not near an open body of water or near a hillside; therefore, there is no risk for seiche, tsunami, or mudflow hazards. No impacts related to these hazards would result from implementation of the proposed project. Additionally, there are no streams within or adjacent to the site, and the project would have no impacts related to streambank stability. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: See Section H, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. J. LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 2 X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1, 2, 3, 4 X Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 28 January 2016 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The proposed project, a 39,930-square-foot, retail, office, and residential building, is an allowed use under the project site’s land use and zoning designations, as established by the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan (PAMC; City of Palo Alto 2007). The project would replace one existing Olive Garden restaurant building and parking lot. The increase from one-story to a larger, multistory building would change the existing scale, but the proposed project would be consistent and compatible with the commercial, office, and residential buildings of one to six stories that are located in the vicinity of the project site. The project would increase the existing retail, office, and residential land uses in the immediate vicinity and would not introduce any incompatible land uses. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation of the project site is Neighborhood Commercial and Regional/Community Commercial. The project site is located in the Cal-Ventura Mixed-Use Area, which is the area of the City generally bounded by Cambridge Avenue, Fernando Avenue, the CalTrain railroad track, and El Camino Real. The Comprehensive Plan encourages mixed-use development in the project area through the following policies:  Policy L-4: Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable qualities.  Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development.  Policy L-11: Promote increased compatibility, interdependence, and support between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods.  Policy L-16: Consider siting small neighborhood-serving retail facilities in existing or new residential areas.  Policy L-19: Encourage a mix of land uses in all Centers, including housing and an appropriate mix of small-scale local businesses.  Policy L-21: Provide all Centers with centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms and public art.  Policy L-31: Develop the Cal-Ventura area as a well-designed mixed use district with diverse land uses, two- to three-story buildings, and a network of pedestrian-oriented streets providing links to California Avenue. Since the project proposes a mixed-use development with three stories in an area where mixed-uses and buildings of two to three stories are encouraged, the project would be consistent with the policies listed above. The zoning designation is Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and Community Commercial (2) (CC(2)) subdistrict. The regulations for these zones are set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.16. The CN district is intended to provide for neighborhood shopping areas accommodating retail sales, personal services, eating and drinking, and office uses serving the immediate neighborhood. The CC(2) subdistrict modifies the site development regulations of the community commercial district, which provides for larger commercial centers. Residential uses are permitted only as part of mixed-use developments. Section 18.16.060(b) provides development standards for new residential mixed-use developments. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 29 January 2016 The project would also include construction of one level of underground parking and installation of new landscaping. The project is in compliance with the applicable CN, CC(2), and California Avenue Parking Assessment District zoning and parking regulations. Approximately half of the site is within the California Avenue Parking Assessment District, which has different parking requirements than the portion outside the district. Under PAMC requirements for office, retail, and residential land uses, the proposed project would be required to provide 108 parking spaces. The applicant requests a shared parking adjustment for four parking spaces (less than 4% of the parking spaces). The project meets PAMC Section 18.52 for parking requirements with the shared parking adjustment, which allows a 20% reduction of the total spaces required for the site. The project would provide a total of 104 parking spaces, including 34 spaces equipped as electric vehicle charging stations. Ninety parking spaces would be provided in the one-level underground parking garage and 14 spaces would be provided at-grade. Eighteen long-term bicycle parking spaces and 8 short-term bicycle parking spaces would also be provided. PAMC Section 18.16.060(b)(4) specifies that “For CN sites on El Camino Real, height may increase to a maximum of 40 feet and the FAR may increase to a maximum of 1.0:1 (0.5:1 for nonresidential, 0.5:1 for residential).” The maximum building height would be 47 feet, including the rooftop photovoltaic units, which would extend 7 feet above the building height of 40 feet. PAMC Section 18.40.090 allows rooftop equipment to exceed the maximum height limit by up to 15 feet. The FAR would be 0.5 for commercial uses and 0.5 for residential uses. The project would not conflict with existing zoning. In addition, the project would be consistent with the context-based design criteria for development in a commercial district, which promotes pedestrian- oriented design that is compatible with adjacent development. The project includes a request for a CUP to exceed the 5,000 square-foot office maximum for the site by approximately 4,835 square feet. The CN zoning district allows 25% of the site or 5,000 square feet for office use. However, office use may be allowed to exceed the maximum size, subject to an issuance of a CUP. An FAR of 1.0:1 is allowable for mixed use buildings on CN zoned sites, such as the project site, that front El Camino Real. Ground floor professional and general business office use is allowed in the CN zone district under certain circumstances. The project proposes office space at the corner of Grant Avenue and El Camino Real, where a parking lot currently exists. PAMC Chapter 18.16 Section 18.16.050 sets forth restrictions on office use; as long as the ground floor area devoted to restaurant/retail services does not decrease, ground floor office space in a new building is a possibility. Since the project would not decrease ground floor retail, ground floor office space would be allowed. The City’s 2015-2035 Housing Element includes the following policy related to increased housing density and diversity, including mixed use development: Policy H2.1: Identify and implement a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity, including mixed us development, near community services, including a range of unit types. The project site has been identified in the City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element as a site that could accommodate residential development. As noted in the Housing Inventory Site Table B-1, the combined sites 2515 and 2585 El Camino Real could accommodate up to 18 units. The project proposes 13 residential units. The project site is surrounded by primarily mixed-use and commercial buildings along El Camino Real, Grant Avenue, and Sherman Avenue ranging in height from one to six stories. As described in Section A, the proposed building would be larger in scale and mass than some of the adjacent buildings; however, the project would be similar in scale and mass to other buildings in the vicinity and smaller than the six-story building across the street. The design of the proposed building is intended to minimize the potential for incompatibility with surrounding uses. The frontage of the building along El Camino Real would be articulated to create the appearance of several individual storefronts. Most of the building along the El Camino Real frontage would be three stories tall while the portion closest to Sherman Avenue would be stepped down to two stories. In addition, as described in Section A, the project design will be reviewed by the Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 30 January 2016 City’s Architectural Review Board to ensure that compatibility concerns are addressed and it does not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The project site is not subject to any habitat conservation plans, and the project would not impact farmland. See Sections B and D for further discussion of these topics. Mitigation Measures None required. K. MINERAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1, 3 X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 1, 3 X DISCUSSION The City has been classified by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1). This designation signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The Division of Mines and Geology has not classified the City for other resources. There is no indication in the Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City (City of Palo Alto 2007). Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed mixed-use building on the currently developed project site would result in no impacts related to mineral resources. Mitigation Measures None required. L. NOISE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 1, 2, 3, 11, 13 X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibrations or ground- borne noise levels? 1, 2, 11 X Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 31 January 2016 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1, 2, 11, 13 X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1, 11, 13 X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1, 2 X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION Noise would be generated during the proposed demolition of the existing building and construction of the proposed project. The magnitude of the construction noise would depend on the type of construction activity, the noise level generated by various pieces of construction equipment, site geometry (i.e., shielding from intervening structures), and the distance between the noise source and receiver. Construction noise levels are based on an EPA (1971) study, which measured average noise levels during construction stages for a variety of typical projects. Sound is measured in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing and 60 dB corresponding roughly to the noise level of a typical conversation. Typically, a weighting system is applied to sound levels to more closely correlate sound levels with human perception, recognizing that humans are less sensitive to sounds in frequency ranges below 1,000 hertz and above 5,000 hertz. This system is called the A- weighted sound level, and is abbreviated as dBA. As shown in Table 5, average noise levels generated on a construction site could be as high as 89 dBA equivalent level over a given time period (Leq) at a distance of 50 feet during the loudest phases of construction. Typically, construction noise is cyclical in nature and noise levels vary throughout the day. Table 5 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Activities Construction Activity Average Sound Level at 50 feet (dBA Leq) 1 Standard Deviation (dB) Ground clearing 84 7 Excavation 89 6 Foundations 78 3 Erection 87 6 Finishing 89 7 Source: EPA 1971 Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibel; Leq = equivalent level over a given time period 1 Sound level with all pertinent equipment operating. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 32 January 2016 All development in the City, including the proposed construction activities, must comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction activity. Short-term temporary construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in less-than- significant impacts to nearby land uses and sensitive receptors. The project is located in a busy commercial district with an active train station in the vicinity. Although there are residential uses in the project vicinity, the existing noise conditions are not quiet and the temporary construction activities would not create any new significant noise impacts. To analyze the potential noise impacts associated with operation of the proposed project, a noise report was prepared by Mei Wu Acoustics in March 2015. Existing ambient sound pressure levels were measured and/or calculated at six locations around the project site and were found to range from 34.8 to 46.2 dBA (L90 dBA), as shown in Table 6. The day/night average sound level (DNL) and community noise equivalent level (CNEL) measured at four other locations identified by color and also listed in Table 6. The DNL ranges from 61.6 to 74.1 dBA, and the CNEL ranges from 62.0 to 74.6 dBA. The locations listed in Table 6 are shown in Figure 2 of Appendix F. Table 6 Existing Ambient Noise Levels Location DNL (dBA) CNEL (dBA) Lowest L90 (dBA) Yellow 74.1 74.6 46.2 Red 69.1 69.6 42.8 Orange 65.0 65.3 43.2 Blue 61.6 62.0 42.7 1 n/a n/a 43.0 2 n/a n/a 34.8 3 n/a n/a 36.5 4 n/a n/a 43.2 5 n/a n/a 46.2 6 n/a n/a 46.2 Source: Appendix F Notes: DNL = day/night average sound level; CNEL = community noise equivalent level; dBA = A-weighted decibels PAMC Section 9.10.030 requires that project-generated noise not exceed 6 dBA above the existing ambient noise level at any point outside of the development property. During operation, non-transportation-related noises would be generated by the project’s rooftop mechanical systems. The noise report calculated ambient noise levels due to each rooftop mechanical unit at the nearest property plane, which are shown in Table 7. As shown in Table 7, the proposed mechanical equipment would result in a maximum increase relative to existing levels of 5 dBA. Because noise generated by rooftop mechanical equipment would not result in an increase of 6 dBA above existing noise levels, non-transportation noise levels generated by the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact. Policy N-39 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan requires that the average interior noise level in multifamily dwellings be limited to DNL 45 dB (City of Palo Alto 2007). However, the City also states that residences exposed to a DNL of 60 dB or greater should limit maximum instantaneous noise levels to 50 dB in bedrooms and 55 dB in other rooms. Since the existing noise levels in the project area exceed 60 dB, architectural upgrades (as detailed in Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2) would be required to meet interior noise standards. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 33 January 2016 Table 7 Predicted Rooftop Mechanical Noise Levels Rooftop Unit Property Plane1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-1 Projected Noise Level2 Change from Existing Ambient3 Projected Noise Level Change from Existing Ambient Projected Noise Level Change from Existing Ambient Projected Noise Level Change from Existing Ambient Projected Noise Level Change from Existing Ambient Projected Noise Level Change from Existing Ambient Combined Noise Level4 38 +3 40 +5 40 +3 35 +1 42 -4 43 0 Source: Appendix F Notes: 1 Plane 1-2 is the plane between points 1 and 2. 2 All noise levels in A-weighted decibels (dBA). 3 Predicted Noise Levels – Existing Ambient Noise Levels. 4 Resultant total noise level of all rooftop units at the respective property planes. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 34 January 2016 Potential project-related noise effects from traffic were analyzed by comparing existing, future (existing plus cumulative growth), and estimated project-related traffic volumes, as provided by the traffic impact analysis prepared for the project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (Appendix G). It was determined that the “future with project” traffic noise levels would increase by less than 1 dBA along El Camino Real and Page Mill Road3 because the net change in traffic volumes from the project would be very small compared to the existing and cumulative (without project) volumes. Because there would be no audible or measurable change in traffic noise levels, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact to noise levels as a result of project generated traffic. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. The closest airport is the Palo Alto Airport, which is located approximately 2.6 miles northeast of the site. There would be no impact associated with noise from planes. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Residential Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies with Sound Transmission Class rating up to 45 and upgraded exterior walls shall be used in the residential portion of the proposed building to achieve the State of California’s and City of Palo Alto’s interior residential noise standard for residential uses (45 dBA Ldn). The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met prior to issuance of building permits. Commercial Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies for the commercial portions of the building shall comply with the State of California CalGreen noise standards (maximum interior noise level of 50 dBA Leq). The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met prior to issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The residential portion of the proposed building shall have ventilation or an air- conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment when windows are closed. The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that this standard is met prior to issuance of building permits. Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. M. POPULATION AND HOUSING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1, 2, 3 X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1, 2 X 3 Based upon the project’s trip distribution pattern (Appendix G, Figure 6), the roadways carrying 10% or more of project traffic would be El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 35 January 2016 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The project would replace an existing one-story restaurant building and parking lot with a three-story mixed-use building that would result in a net increase of 10,263 square feet of commercial and office space and 13 new dwelling units. The increase of 13 residential units would add approximately 32.5 persons based on the 2013 average household size of 2.5 (City of Palo Alto 2014b). The addition of 32.5 persons is not considered substantial population growth. The increased commercial or office space is not expected to induce substantial population growth. The addition of 13 dwelling units would provide additional housing in the Evergreen Park area, which includes a concentration of employment opportunities along El Camino Real. The project would not displace any housing or people. Standard conditions of approval require that the project applicant pay fees to cover any increased need for housing. The City addresses the community’s cumulative affordable housing needs through the Affordable Housing Fund, which is a local housing trust fund that provides financial assistance for the development of housing affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households within the City. The Affordable Housing Fund is made up primarily of two sub-funds composed of local sources of housing monies: the Commercial Housing Fund and the Residential Housing Fund. The Commercial Housing Fund is funded through fees paid under the requirements of Chapter 16.47 of the PAMC. Under this requirement, the project applicant would be required to pay into the City’s Affordable Housing Fund at the time that building permits are issued. This fee is currently set at $18.44 per square foot for nonresidential development and would be applied only to the new gross square footage of commercial space proposed to be constructed at the site. The Residential Housing Fund is funded through the City’s Below-Market-Rate (BMR) Program, as expressed in Policy H-36 of the Housing Element and Chapter 18.14 of the PAMC. The BMR Program is intended to meet the City’s goal of retaining an economically balanced community. Residential projects with four or fewer dwelling units are exempt from the City’s BMR Program ordinance. Since the proposed project includes 13 dwelling units, the project would be required to comply with the BMR Program. The project site has been identified in the City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element as a site that could accommodate residential development. As noted in the Housing Inventory Site Table B-1, the combined sites 2515 and 2585 El Camino Real could accommodate up to 18 units. The project proposes 13 residential units. With compliance with the PAMC and standard conditions of approval regarding payment of the Affordable Housing Fee, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None required. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 36 January 2016 N. PUBLIC SERVICES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? 1, 2 X Police protection? 1, 2 X Schools? 1, 2 X Parks? 1, 2 X Other public facilities? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The proposed project is located in an urban area that is currently served by the City Police and Fire Departments, and the additional 10,263 square feet of commercial and office space and 13 new condominium units proposed would not cause a substantial increase in population that would demand additional services. In addition, the conditions of approval for the project contain requirements to address all fire prevention measures. Standard conditions of approval require the project applicant to pay fees to address any increased need for community facilities, schools, and housing. With payment of development impact fees for community facilities, schools, libraries, and parks, the project’s impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None required. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 37 January 2016 O. RECREATION Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 1, 2 X b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The project would replace an existing one-story restaurant building and parking lot with a three-story mixed-use building that would result in a net increase of 10,263 square feet of commercial and office space and 13 new dwelling units. The 10,263-square-foot increase in commercial and office space and the addition of 13 residential units are not expected to have a significant effect on existing recreational facilities. Development impact fees for parks and community facilities for the increase in floor area and residential units are required per City ordinance. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None required. P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? 1, 2, 13 X Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 38 January 2016 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 1, 2, 13 X c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 1, 2 X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 1, 2, 13 X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1, 2, 13 X f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 1, 2, 13 X DISCUSSION Hexagon Transportation Consultants Inc. (Hexagon) prepared the Transportation Impact Analysis for the proposed project (Appendix G). The potential impacts of the proposed project were evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth by the City and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The VTA administers the County Congestion Management Program (CMP). According to the VTA Transportation Impact Analysis guidelines, a CMP intersection shall be included in the analysis if the proposed development project is expected to add 10 or more peak hour vehicles per lane to any intersection movement. The same criterion was used to identify non-CMP intersections to be included in this study. The study included an analysis of AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions for two signalized intersections and one unsignalized intersection. The magnitude of traffic generated by the proposed project was estimated by applying applicable trip generation rates obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers published Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition, 2012. Trips that could be (and have historically been) generated by the existing facilities were deducted from the estimated number of trips generated by the proposed project. It is estimated that the proposed project would generate 21 net new trips in the AM peak hour and 7 net new trips in the PM peak hour, as shown in Table 8. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 39 January 2016 Table 8 Project Trip Generation Estimates Land Use Size Daily Rate Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Rate In Out Total Peak Hour Rate In Out Total Proposed Uses: Condominium 13 5.81 76 0.44 1 5 6 0.52 4 3 7 Shopping Center 10.122 42.70 432 0.96 6 4 10 3.71 18 20 38 General Office Building 9.825 11.03 108 1.56 13 2 15 1.49 2 13 15 Total Primary Trips 616 20 11 31 24 36 60 Existing Uses: Restaurant 9.694 n/a n/a n/a 8 2 10 n/a 40 13 53 Net Project Trips 12 9 21 -16 23 7 Source: Appendix G Trip rates based on Institute of Transportation Engineers 2012, General Office Building (710), Residential Condominium/Townhouse (230), Shopping Center (820). Hexagon applied the project’s trip generation and trip distribution estimated to each of the study intersections to determine whether the project would result in a significant change in level of service (LOS) at any location. The trip distribution pattern was developed based on existing traffic patterns and the location of complementary land uses (see Figure 6 in Appendix G). Based on the trip distribution, the following intersections were evaluated: 1. El Camino Real and California Avenue 2. El Camino Real and Grant Avenue (Unsignalized) 3. El Camino Real and Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway (CMP intersection) The project would create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection in the City if for either peak hour: 1. The LOS at the intersection degrades from an acceptable level (LOS D or better for non-CMP intersections and LOS E or better for CMP intersections) under background conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or F under background plus project conditions, or 2. The LOS at the intersection is an unacceptable level (LOS E or F at non-CMP intersections and LOS F at CMP intersections) under background conditions and the addition of project trips causes both the critical- movement delay at the intersection to increase by four or more seconds and the demand-to-capacity ratio to increase by .01 or more. As shown in Table 9, operation of the proposed project would not cause any of the study intersections to deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS (E or F) and all of the intersections would continue to operate at acceptable LOS. Therefore, no impact would occur at these intersections as a result of the proposed project. Table 9 Existing Conditions Plus Project Level of Service Analysis Study Number Intersection Peak Hour Existing Existing Plus Project Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS 1 El Camino Real and California Avenue AM 21.5 C 19.5 B PM 27.6 C 26.6 C Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 40 January 2016 Table 9 Existing Conditions Plus Project Level of Service Analysis Study Number Intersection Peak Hour Existing Existing Plus Project Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS 2 El Camino Real and Grant Avenue (unsignalized)1 AM 17.7 C 17.8 C PM 18.9 C 19.0 C 3 El Camino Real and Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway2 AM 65.7 E 58.8 E PM 53.0 D 48.9 D Source: Appendix G Notes: 1 The reported delay and corresponding level of service (LOS) for one-way stop-controlled intersection are based on thestop-controlled approach with the highest delay. 2 Denotes CMP intersection. Background peak-hour traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing peak-hour volumes the estimated traffic from approved but not yet constructed developments. Background conditions also include occupancy of the existing Olive Garden restaurant. It is assumed that the transportation network under background plus project conditions would be the same as the existing transportation network. The approved projects that would add traffic to the intersections that were studied are listed below:  2450-2500 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development  385 Sherman Avenue Mixed-Use Development  3159 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development  260 California Avenue Retail Development  2555 Park Boulevard  411 Page Mill Road The peak-hour trips generated by the project were added to background traffic volumes to obtain background plus project traffic volumes. As shown in Table 10, all of the study intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS and the El Camino Real and Grant Avenue intersection would not meet traffic signal warrants under background plus project conditions. Table 10 Background Conditions Plus Project Level of Service Analysis Study Number Intersection Peak Hour Background Background Plus Project Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS 1 El Camino Real and California Avenue AM 21.4 C 21.4 C PM 27.5 C 27.7 C 2 El Camino Real and Grant Avenue (unsignalized)1 AM 18.2 C 18.4 C PM 19.3 C 19.3 C 3 El Camino Real and Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway2 AM 61.9 E 62.4 E PM 49.9 D 49.8 D Source: Appendix G Notes: 1 The reported delay and corresponding level of service (LOS) for one-way stop-controlled intersection are based on thestop-controlled approach with the highest delay. 2 Denotes CMP intersection. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 41 January 2016 Cumulative conditions represent traffic conditions that would occur in the year 2025. Cumulative traffic volumes with the project were estimated by adding to cumulative no project traffic volumes the net additional traffic generated by the project. Cumulative with project conditions were evaluated relative to cumulative no project conditions in order to identify whether the project’s contribution to potential cumulative impacts would be significant. As shown in Table 11, all of the study intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS under cumulative plus project conditions. Table 11 Cumulative Plus Project Level of Service Analysis Study Number Intersection Peak Hour Cumulative No Project Cumulative Plus Project Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS 1 El Camino Real and California Avenue AM 21.1 C 21.1 C PM 27.1 C 27.3 C 2 El Camino Real and Grant Avenue (unsignalized)1 AM 18.5 C 18.7 C PM 19.5 C 19.6 C 3 El Camino Real and Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway2 AM 61.6 E 62.2 E PM 55.0 E 55.0 E Source: Appendix G Notes: 1 The reported delay and corresponding level of service (LOS) for one-way stop-controlled intersection are based on thestop-controlled approach with the highest delay. 2 Denotes CMP intersection. Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities Pedestrian facilities in the project area consist of sidewalks at all study streets and crosswalks at the intersections of El Camino Real at California Avenue and El Camino Real at Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway. There are no crosswalks at the intersection of El Camino Real at Grant Avenue or El Camino Real at Sherman Avenue. Generally, there is good connectivity for pedestrians to and from the site, and the project would provide pedestrian paths to connect the sidewalks on El Camino Real, Grant Avenue, and Sherman Avenue to the project site. The project would not conflict with pedestrian facilities in the area. There are numerous bicycle lanes in the vicinity of the project site, including on Page Mill Road, California Avenue, and Park Boulevard. Bicycle trips resulting from the project would be accommodated by the existing bicycle facilities in the area, and the project would not adversely impact existing bicycle facilities in the area. Currently, there are three VTA bus lines, one AC Transit line, and shuttle service to Caltrain serving the project site. The site is within reasonable walking distance of the California Avenue Caltrain station. The bus stops for all lines are located within walking distance of the project site. The closest bus stop on El Camino Real and California Avenue is located approximately 500 feet from the project site. Given that the site is served by several bus routes, any new transit riders generated by the project could be accommodated by the existing transit service. Site Access and On-Site Circulation The project site would be accessed via two driveways, one located on Grant Avenue and one on Sherman Avenue. Both driveways would provide two-way access in to and out of the project site. The driveways serving the project would be free and clear of obstructions, thereby ensuring that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk and vehicles traveling on Grant Avenue and Sherman Avenue. Adequate sight distance would be provided at the driveways in accordance with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) standards to reduce the likelihood of a collision at a driveway or intersection. The existing driveway on El Camino Real and a second existing driveway on Sherman Avenue would be eliminated. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 42 January 2016 The two driveways would provide direct access to the proposed surface parking and underground parking garage. Based on the site access configuration, most inbound and outbound project traffic from El Camino Real would be expected to access the project site via the full access driveway at Grant Avenue. The Sherman Avenue access would be expected to be used by drivers traveling to the north on El Camino Real and from the local area. The traffic to westbound Page Mill Road and southbound of El Camino Real would use Ash Street or make a U- turn at the El Camino Real and California Avenue intersection. It is assumed that no project traffic would make a left turn from Grant Avenue to El Camino Real because of the long delays that they would face. Park Boulevard would be used for the traffic to eastbound Oregon Expressway. Birch Street would be used for the traffic from westbound Oregon Expressway to the project site. The City’s standard width for two-way drive aisles is 25 feet for 8.5-foot-wide stalls and 23 feet for 9.5-foot- wide stalls for 90-degree parking. This allows sufficient room for vehicles to back out of parking spaces. The project would provide 90-degree parking in the surface lot and both 90-degree and 60-degree parking in the underground parking garage. The at-grade drive aisle is shown to be 20 feet wide and would provide a direct connection between the two driveways. This drive widens to meet or exceed the minimum required backup aisle for 90-degree parking stalls. The proposed project would include a restricted on-site loading zone and an on-street loading zone. The on-site loading zone would be for loading from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. and available for regular parking (three spaces) outside of those hours. As indicated in Appendix G, the City has agreed to stripe a regular loading zone (not time restricted) on Sherman Avenue. It should be noted that the project would eliminate two existing driveways, which would provide additional space for on-street parking to offset the space taken by the loading zone. The proposed project would also include a trash enclosure on site. Trash trucks could pull into the site to unload the bins. Queuing The Transportation Impact Analysis (Appendix G) includes an analysis of potential impacts related to vehicle queuing as a result of the proposed project. The queuing analysis indicates that the maximum vehicle queues for both the northbound left-turn pocket at the El Camino Real and California Avenue intersection and the southbound left-turn pocket on El Camino Real at Grant Avenue would not exceed the existing vehicle storage capacity. The analysis also indicates that the maximum vehicle queues for the westbound right-turn on Grant Avenue at El Camino Real would not block the project driveway. The project driveway is about 95 feet from El Camino Real. The queuing analysis shows that the maximum queue would be only one vehicle, which is about 25 feet. Parking The parking for the proposed project was evaluated based on the City’s parking code. Roughly half of the property is within the California Parking Assessment District (PAD); therefore, parking requirements were examined based on the portions of the proposed building inside and outside of the PAD. For areas outside the PAD, the parking requirement for office space is 1 space per 250 square feet; for retail space it is 1 space per 200 square feet; and for residential space it is 2 spaces per unit plus guest parking. Within the PAD, the requirement for office space is 1 space per 310 square feet; for retail space it is 1 space per 240 square feet; and for residential space it is 2 spaces per unit plus guest parking. Additionally, a reduction of up to 20% of required spaces is allowed for shared parking in mixed-use developments. A shared parking analysis determined that the maximum parking demand would be 95 spaces for the proposed project. The proposed underground parking garage and the surface parking space would provide a total of 104 parking spaces, which would exceed the minimum parking standards. The project would also provide 18 long-term bicycle parking spaces and 8 short-term bicycle parking spaces. The City requires bicycle parking spaces for retail uses equal to 10% of automobile parking, with 20% of the bicycle spaces for long-term parking (lockers or a locked room) and 80% of the bike spaces for short-term parking (a bike rack). For office uses, the City requires bicycle parking spaces also equal to 10% of automobile parking but with Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 43 January 2016 60% long term and 40% short term. For condominiums, the City requires one long-term bicycle parking space per unit plus one short-term bicycle parking space per 10 units. This yields a requirement of 17 total long-term bicycle parking spaces and 7 short-term bicycle spaces. The proposed project would exceed this requirement with 18 long-term bicycle parking spaces provided in the underground parking garage, and 8 short-term bicycle parking spaces provided above ground. The project is also required to provide on-site loading spaces. In order to adequately share the parking supply among the three uses while providing the required loading area, the project would incorporate the following parking restrictions: 1. Commercial parking would be of limited duration (2–4 hours) with a limited number of permits to allow employees to park all day. 2. The on-site loading zone would be used as general parking during the day, providing three additional parking spaces while parking demand is at its highest. The on-site loading zone would be reserved for loading between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. 3. Residents would receive only one reserved space per unit, with a second unreserved space available with a permit. As described above, the proposed project would generate an estimated 21 new trips in the AM peak-hour and 7 newt trips in the PM peak-hour. None of the study intersections would deteriorate from an acceptable LOS under background conditions to an unacceptable level as a result of the proposed project. The proposed project would meet all City parking requirements and the project would not conflict with existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities and services. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Mitigation Measures None required. Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1, 2 X b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1, 2 X c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1, 2 X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 1, 2 X Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 44 January 2016 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 1, 2 X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 1, 2 X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems, nor would it result in the wasteful or inefficient use of resources. Standard conditions of approval require the applicant to submit calculations by a registered civil engineer to show that the on-site and off-site water, sewer, and fire systems are capable of serving the needs of the development and adjacent properties during peak-flow demands. The project would tie into the City’s existing water, wastewater, and storm drain infrastructure and would not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. In addition, the project would comply with the green building requirements set forth in the California Green Building Code and the City’s Build It Green program. This would ensure that water conservation and solid waste reduction measures are included in the project to reduce demands for utility services. The project’s impacts on utility services would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None required. R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1, 2 X Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 45 January 2016 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? 1, 2 X b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (“cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 1, 2 X c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The proposed project would not have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or historic resources with mitigation as described in Sections D and E. As described in Section A, the proposed use is appropriate for the site and although the project would alter the visual character of the site, the building has been designed to ensure that it does not result in an adverse visual impact. The project’s impacts would all be reduced to below a level of significance through implementation of the mitigation measures described in the previous sections. The project would therefore not result in any cumulatively considerable impacts. There is nothing in the nature of the proposed development and property improvements that would have a substantial adverse effect on human beings or other life or environmental impacts once mitigation is implemented to reduce potential impacts from hazardous materials and noise as described in Sections H and L. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 46 January 2016 III. SOURCE REFERENCES SOURCES (CHECKLIST KEY) 1. Project Planner’s knowledge of the site and the proposed project. 2. Project Plans (Appendix A) 3. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998–2010 (City of Palo Alto 2007) 4. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18, Zoning Ordinance 5. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 8.10.030, Tree Technical Manual 6. Arborist Report, 2015 (included in Appendix A) 7. Air Quality Modeling Results, 2015 (Appendix B) 8. Historic Resource Evaluation, 2015 (Appendix C) 9. Geotechnical Investigation Report, 2015 (Appendix D) 10. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, 2015 (Appendix E) 11. Noise Impact Study, 2015 (Appendix F) 12. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 9.10, Noise Ordinance 13. Transportation Impact Analysis, 2015 (Appendix G) REFERENCES CITED 8 CCR 1532.1. Lead. Article 4: Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors, and Gases. 14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A–L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2006. Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. Adopted January 4, 2006. Accessed September 2015. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/ Planning%20and%20Research/Plans/2005%20Ozone%20Strategy/adoptedfinal_vol1.ashx. BAAQMD. 2010a. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September 15, 2010. Accessed September 2015. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Plans/2010%20Clean%20Air%20P lan/CAP%20Volume%20II_Sections%20A-F.ashx. BAAQMD. 2010b. Bay Area Air Quality Management District California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2010. Accessed September 2015. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/ Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/Draft_BAAQMD_CEQA_Guidelines_May_2010_Final.ashx? la=en. California Department of Conservation. 2011. Santa Clara County Important Farmland Map 2010. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. June 2011. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 47 January 2016 California Public Resources Code, Section 4526. Timberland. Chapter 8, Z’Berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973. Article 2, Definitions. California Public Resources Code, Section 12220(g). Forest Land. Article 3, Definitions. California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160–42185. Metallic Discards Act of 1991. CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. December 2008. Accessed September 2015. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/ document/scopingplandocument.htm. CARB. 2013. “California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2011 – Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators.” October 2, 2013. Accessed September 2015. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ cc/inventory/data/data.htm. City of Palo Alto. 2007. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. July 17, 2007. Accessed September 2015. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp. City of Palo Alto. 2014a. “Hydrology and Water Quality.” Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Existing Conditions Report. Draft. August 29, 2014. City of Palo Alto. 2014b. 2015-2023 Housing Element, City of Palo Alto. Adopted November 10, 2014. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. Prepared by Bolt, Beranek & Newman. December 31, 1971. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Santa Clara County, California. Map Number 06085C0010H. May 18, 2009. PAMC (Palo Alto Municipal Code). Accessed September 2015. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/ depts/clk/municode.asp. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2013. “USGS Geologic Hazards Science Center – U.S. Seismic Design Maps.” Webpage with seismic design value application. Accessed September 25, 2013. http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php. REPORT PREPARERS DUDEK 853 Lincoln Way, Suite 208 Auburn, California 95603 Katherine Waugh, AICP, Senior Project Manager Heather Ivey, AICP, Environmental Planner Christine Wolfe, Planner Alejandro Goena, Planner Milpitas SanJose MountainView PaloAlto Gilroy Campbell SanRamon BlackhawkDanville MoragaTown Alamo DiscoveryBay Orinda Lafayette WalnutCreek Clayton Brentwood PleasantHill OakleyConcord AptosHills-LarkinValley Interlaken SantaCruz Soquel Aptos Corralitos Felton DayValley ScottsValley BenLomond BoulderCreek MorganHill LexingtonHills SanJose LosGatos Saratoga Cupertino LosAltosHills LosAltos SantaClaraSunnyvalePortolaValley Woodside Atherton SanCarlosHalfMoonBay MenloPark BelmontEl Granada RedwoodCity Montara Hillsborough SanMateo FosterCity Burlingame San Bruno Pacifica South SanFrancisco SanFrancisco Newark Fremont Union City Hayward PleasantonFairview LivermoreDublinSanLeandroCastroValley Alameda Oakland Berkeley Richmond Mill Valley SanRafael Santa Cru z County San MateoCounty San Francisco County MarinCounty Co n t r a C o s t a Co u n t y Contra Costa Co u n t y Monterey County Santa Cla r a C o u n t y Santa Cr u z C o u n t y Santa Clara County Santa CruzCounty San Mateo County Alameda Count y Alameda County P a c i f i c O c e a n ?35 ?24 ?131 ?85 ?13 ?61 ?4 ?185 ?237 ?129 ?17 ?152 ?130 ?9 ?84 ?92 ?82 ?1 £¤101 §¨¦80 §¨¦238 §¨¦680 §¨¦280 §¨¦580 §¨¦880 Copyright:© 2014 Esri FIGURE 1Regional Map 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Z:\ T e m p l a t e s \ A r c m a p \ C u r r e n t \ V i c i n i t y \ 8 x 1 1 _ V i c i n t y _ P o r t r a i t . m x d 0 105Miles Project Site ^ n Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 50 January 2016 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLNAK FIGURE 2 Vicinity Map 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real SOURCE: Bing Imagery, 2015. 02,0001,000 Feet Project Site Project Boundary 82 Service Layer Credits: Image courtesy of USGS ' 2015 Microsoft Corporation Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 52 January 2016 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Aerial Map 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real SOURCE: Bing Imagery, 2015. Dat e : 9 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 5 - L a s t s a v e d b y : h p a n n o - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 9 2 0 4 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ F i g u r e _ 3 A e r i a l . m x d 0 12060Feet Project Site Boundary FIGURE 3 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 54 January 2016 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Site Plan 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real SOURCE: Hayes Group Architects, 2015 Da t e : 9 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 5 - L a s t s a v e d b y : h p a n n o - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 9 2 0 4 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n \ F i g u r e _ 4 S i t e P l a n . m xd FIGURE 4 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 56 January 2016 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Elevations 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real SOURCE: Hayes Group Architects, 2015 Da t e : 9 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 5 - L a s t s a v e d b y : h p a n n o - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 9 2 0 4 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n \ F i g u r e _ 5 E l e v a t i o n s . mx d FIGURE 5 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 58 January 2016 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Perspective Renderings 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real SOURCE: Hayes Group Architects, 2015 Da t e : 9 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 5 - L a s t s a v e d b y : c b a t t l e - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 9 2 0 4 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ F i g u r e _ 6 P e r s p e c t i v e R e n d e r i n g s . m x d FIGURE 6 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Initial Study Page 60 January 2016 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2515&2585 El Camino Real Draft Transportation Impact Analysis Prepared for: ECRPA, LLC June 26, 2015 Hexagon Office: 4 North Second Street, Suite 400 San Jose, CA 95113 Hexagon Job Number: 13GB73 Phone: 408.971.6100 Attachment F 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | i Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................. ii 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................................... 7 3. Existing Plus Project Conditions .................................................................................................................. 15 4. Background Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 22 5. Background Plus Project Conditions ............................................................................................................ 25 6. Other Transportation Issues ......................................................................................................................... 28 7. Cumulative Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 37 8. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................. 41 Appendices Appendix A New Traffic Counts Appendix B Volume Spreadsheets Appendix C Level of Service Calculation Sheets Appendix D Traffic Signal Warrant Calculation Sheets List of Tables Table ES 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary .......................................................................................... iv Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay .................................... 5 Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay ................................ 5 Table 3 Existing Intersection Levels of Service.............................................................................................. 14 Table 4 Project Trip Generation Estimates .................................................................................................... 16 Table 5 Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ......................................................................... 21 Table 6 Background Intersection Levels of Service ....................................................................................... 24 Table 7 Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service................................................................... 26 Table 8 Vehicle Queuing and Left-Turn Pocket Storage Analysis ................................................................. 33 Table 9 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................................................ 40 List of Figures Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersections ................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 Existing Bicycle Facilities .................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 3 Existing Transit Service ..................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 4 Existing Lane Configurations ............................................................................................................ 12 Figure 5 Existing Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 6 Project Trip Distribution Pattern ........................................................................................................ 17 Figure 7 Proposed Project Trip Assignment.................................................................................................... 18 Figure 8 Net Project Trip Assignment ............................................................................................................. 19 Figure 9 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................... 20 Figure 10 Background Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................. 23 Figure 11 Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................... 27 Figure 12a Site Plan ............................................................................................................................................ 29 Figure 12b Underground Parking Plan ................................................................................................................. 30 Figure 13 Cumulative No Project Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................ 38 Figure 14 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes .......................................................................................... 39 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | ii Executive Summary Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. prepared this traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the proposed 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real mixed-used project in Palo Alto, California. The proposed project consists of 10,122 square feet (s.f.) of ground floor retail space, 9,825 s.f. of office space, and 13 condominiums. The project would replace an existing 9,694 s.f. Olive Garden restaurant and attached parking lot. Access to the site would be provided via driveways on Grant Avenue and Sherman Avenue. The existing driveway to El Camino Real would be eliminated. The potential transportation impacts of the project were evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth by the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The VTA administers the County Congestion Management Program (CMP). According to the VTA TIA guidelines, a CMP intersection shall be included in the traffic impact analysis if the proposed development project is expected to add 10 or more peak hour vehicles per lane to any intersection movement. The same criterion was used to identify non-CMP intersections to be included in this study. The study included an analysis of AM and PM peak- hour traffic conditions for two signalized intersections and one unsignalized intersection. Project Trip Generation Trip generation estimates were based on rates obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) published Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition, 2012. Trips that could be (and have historically been) generated by the existing facilities were deducted from the estimated number of trips generated by the proposed mixed-used buildings. It is estimated that the proposed project would generate 21 net new trips in the AM peak-hour and 7 net new trips in the PM peak-hour. Intersection Level of Service Analysis Table ES-1 summarizes the results of the weekday peak hour intersection level of service analysis under the following conditions: existing (Chapter 2), existing plus project (Chapter 3), background (Chapter 4), background plus project (Chapter 5), and cumulative with and without project (Chapter 7) conditions. The result show that, measured against the City of Palo Alto and The VTA administers the County Congestion Management Program standards, all of the study intersections currently operate at acceptable level of service and would continue to do so under background plus project and cumulative plus project conditions. The El Camino Real and Grant Avenue intersection would not meet traffic signal warrants under any conditions. Other Transportation Issues The project site is well-served by existing transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the study area. No improvements would be necessary. 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | iii Parking The parking for the proposed project was evaluated based on the City of Palo Alto parking code. Roughly half of the property is within the California Parking Assessment District (PAD), so parking requirements were examined based on the portions of the proposed building inside and outside of the PAD. In most areas of the City, threquirement for Office space is a minimum parking supply of 1 space per 250 square feet; for Retail space is a minimum parking supply of 1 space per 200 square feet, and for residential space is a minimum parking supply of 2 spaces per unit plus guest parking. Within the PAD, the requirement for Office space is a minimum parking supply of 1 space per 310 square feet; for Retail space is a minimum parking supply of 1 space per 240 square feet, and for Residential space is a minimum parking supply of 2 spaces per unit plus guest parking (the same as outside the PAD). A 10% reduction is allowed for mixed-use development. This calculates to a requirement to provide 97 parking spaces. The City has indicated that in addition to providing an adequate parking supply, the project must provide on-site loading spaces. In order to adequately share the parking supply among the three uses while providing the required loading area, the project would incorporate three major parking restrictions. First, commercial parking would be of limited duration, perhaps 2-4 hours, with a limited number of permits to allow employees to park all day. Second, the loading zone would be used as general parking during the day, providing 3 additional parking spaces while parking demand is at its highest. We assume the loading zone would be used for loading between 7 AM-10 AM. Third, residents would receive only 1 reserved space per unit, with a second unreserved space available with a permit. An additional shared parking analysis determined that the maximum parking demand would be 95, a reduction of 14 spaces from the 108 spaces required without considering the 10% shared parking reduction. Based on the June 25, 2015 site plan, the proposed underground parking garage and the surface parking space would provide a total of 104 parking spaces, which is more than adequate and would comply with the minimum parking standards specified by the City of Palo Alto. For retail uses the City’s municipal code requires bike parking spaces equal to 10% of auto parking, with 20% of the bike spaces for long-term parking (lockers or a locked room) and 80% of the bike spaces for short-term parking (a bike rack). For office uses the City’s municipal code requires bike parking spaces also equal to 10% of auto parking but with 60% long term and 40% short-term. For condominiums the City’s municipal code requires one long-term bike parking space per unit plus one short-term bike parking space per 10 units. This yields a requirement of 17 total long-term bike parking spaces and 7 short-term spaces. The proposed site plan complies with this requirement. 25 1 5 & 2 5 8 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l Ju n e 2 6 , 2 0 1 5 Pa g e | i v Ta b l e E S 1 In t e r s e c t i o n L e v e l o f S e r v i c e S u m m a r y Stu d y P e a k C o u n t Wa r r a n t Av g . Wa r r a n t Av g . Wa r r a n t Av g . Wa r r a n t Av g . I n c r . I n I n c r . I n Wa r r a n t Av g . Wa r r a n t Av g . I n c r . I n I n c r . I n Nu m b e r I n t e r s e c t i o n H o u r D a t e Me t ? (3 ) De l a y L O S M e t ? (3 ) De l a y L O S M e t ? (3 ) De l a y L O S M e t ? (3 ) De l a y L O S C r i t . D e l a y C r i t . V / C M e t ? (3 ) De l a y L O S M e t ? (3) De l a y L O S C r i t . D e l a y C r i t . V / C 1 El C a m i n o r e a l a n d C a l i f o r n i a A v e n u e AM 01 / 2 3 / 1 3 -- 2 1 . 4 C - - 1 9 . 5 B - - 2 1 . 4 C - - 2 1 . 4 C 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 - - 2 1 . 1 C - - 2 1 . 1 C 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 PM 01 / 2 3 / 1 3 -- 2 7 . 5 C - - 2 6 . 6 C - - 2 7 . 5 C - - 2 7 . 7 C 0 . 3 0 . 0 0 4 - - 2 7 . 1 C - - 2 7 . 3 C 0 . 3 0 . 0 0 4 2 El C a m i n o r e a l a n d G r a n t A v e n u e ( U n s i g n a l i z e d ) (1 ) AM 0 2 / 2 6 / 1 3 N o 1 7 . 7 C N o 1 7 . 8 C N o 1 8 . 2 C N o 1 8 . 4 C - - - - N o 1 8 . 5 C N o 1 8 . 7 C - - - - PM 0 2 / 2 6 / 1 3 N o 1 8 . 9 C N o 1 9 . 0 C N o 1 9 . 3 C N o 1 9 . 3 C - - - - N o 1 9 . 5 C N o 1 9 . 6 C - - - - 3 El C a m i n o r e a l a n d P a g e M ill R o a d / O r e g o n E x p r e s s w a y (2 ) AM 0 4 / 3 0 / 1 3 - - 6 1 . 9 E - - 5 8 . 8 E - - 6 1 . 9 E - - 6 2 . 4 E 0 . 8 0 . 0 0 3 - - 6 1 . 6 E - - 6 2 . 2 E 0 . 8 0 . 0 0 3 PM 0 4 / 3 0 / 1 3 - - 4 9 . 9 D - - 4 8 . 9 D - - 4 9 . 9 D - - 4 9 . 8 D 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 - - 5 5 . 0 E - - 5 5 . 0 E 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 1 Bo l d i n d i c a t e s L O S w o r s e t h a n t h e s t a n d a r d . (1 ) T h e r e p o r t e d d e l a y a n d c o r r e s p o n d i n g l e v e l o f s e r v i c e f o r o n e - w a y s t o p - c o n t r o l l e d i n t e r s e c t i o n a r e b a s e d o n t h e s t o p - c o n t r o ll e d a p p r o a c h w i t h t h e h i g h e s t d e l a y . (2 ) D e n o t e s C M P i n t e r s e c t i o n . (3 ) S i g n a l w a r r a n t a n a l y s i s i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o s i g n a l i z e d i n t e r s e c t i o n s . Cu m u l a t i v e P l u s P r o j e c t Ex i s t i n g Ex i s t i n g P l u s P r o j e c t Ba c k g r o u n d Ba c k g r o u n d P l u s P r o j e c t Cu m u l a t i v e 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | 1 1. Introduction This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis conducted for the proposed 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real mixed-used project in Palo Alto, California. The proposed project consists of 10,122 square feet (s.f.) of ground floor retail space, 9,825 s.f. of office space, and 13 condominiums. The project would replace an existing 9,694 s.f. Olive Garden restaurant and attached parking lot. Access to the site would be provided via driveways on Grant Avenue and Sherman Avenue. The existing driveway on El Camino Real would be eliminated. The project site location and the surrounding study area are shown on Figure 1. Scope of Study The potential transportation impacts of the proposed development were evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth by the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The VTA administers the County Congestion Management Program (CMP). According to the VTA TIA guidelines, a CMP intersection shall be included in the traffic impact analysis if the proposed development project is expected to add 10 or more peak hour vehicles per lane to any intersection movement. The same criterion was used to identify non-CMP intersections to be included in this study. The study included an analysis of AM and PM peak- hour traffic conditions for two signalized intersections and one unsignalized intersection. 1. El Camino Real and California Avenue 2. El Camino Real and Grant Avenue (unsignalized) 3. El Camino Real and Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway (CMP) Traffic conditions at the intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic. The AM peak hour of traffic is generally between 7:00 and 9:00 AM, and the PM peak hour is typically between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. It is during these periods that the most congested traffic conditions occur on an average weekday. Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Conditions. Existing traffic volumes were obtained from VTA and year 2013 manual turning movement counts. Scenario 2: Existing Plus Project Conditions. Existing plus project peak hour traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Existing Plus Project conditions were evaluated relative to existing conditions in order to determine the effects the project would have on the existing roadway network. 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | 3 Scenario 3: Background Conditions. Background traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing peak-hour volumes the projected volumes from approved but not yet constructed and occupied developments. The approved but not yet completed development list was obtained from the City of Palo Alto. Background conditions include occupancy of the existing buildings as the Olive Garden restaurant. Scenario 4: Background Plus Project Conditions. Background plus project traffic volumes were estimated by adding to background traffic volumes the net additional traffic generated by the project. Background plus project conditions were evaluated relative to background conditions in order to determine potential project impacts. Scenario 5: Cumulative (Year 2025) No Project Conditions. Cumulative conditions represent traffic conditions that would occur in the future year 2025. The cumulative no project condition traffic volumes were obtained from the County Expressway Study provided by Santa Clara County. Scenario 6: Cumulative (Year 2025) Plus Project Conditions. Cumulative traffic volumes with the project were estimated by adding to cumulative no project traffic volumes the net additional traffic generated by the project. Cumulative with project conditions were evaluated relative to cumulative no project conditions in order to identify whether the project’s contribution to potential cumulative impacts would be significant. Methodology This section presents the methods used to determine the traffic conditions for each scenario described above. It includes descriptions of the data requirements, the analysis methodologies, and the applicable level of service standards. Data Requirements The data required for the analysis were obtained from the City of Palo Alto, VTA, Santa Clara County, and field observations. The following data were obtained from these sources: x existing traffic volumes x intersection lane configurations x signal timing and phasing x approved project trips x cumulative no project volumes Analysis Methodologies and Level of Service Standards Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using levels of service. Level of Service, or “LOS”, is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. The various analysis methods are described below. City of Palo Alto Signalized Intersections All study intersections are located in the City of Palo Alto and are therefore subject to the City of Palo Alto level of service standards. The City of Palo Alto evaluates level of service at signalized intersections based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service methodology using TRAFFIX software. This method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. Since TRAFFIX also is the CMP-designated intersection level of service methodology, the City employs the CMP default values for the analysis parameters. The City of Palo Alto level of service standard for signalized non-CMP intersections is LOS D or better. For CMP intersections, the City’s level of service standard is LOS E or better. Table 1 shows the level of service definitions for signalized intersections. 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | 4 CMP Intersections The designated level of service methodology for the CMP also is the 2000 HCM operations method for signalized intersections, using TRAFFIX. The CMP level of service standard for signalized intersections is LOS E or better. Unsignalized Intersections The methodology used to determine the level of service for unsignalized intersections is also TRAFFIX and the 2000 HCM methodology for unsignalized intersection analysis. This method is applicable for both two-way and all-way stop-controlled intersections. For the analysis of stop-controlled intersections, the 2000 HCM methodology evaluates intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles on the stop-controlled approaches. For the purpose of reporting level of service for one- and two-way stop-controlled intersections, the delay and corresponding level of service for the stop-controlled minor street approach with the highest delay is reported. For all-way stop-controlled intersections, the reported average delay and corresponding level of service is the average for all approaches at the intersection. The City uses a minimum acceptable level of service standard of LOS D for unsignalized intersections, in accordance with its adopted threshold of significance in its Guidelines for Preparation of Transportation Impact Reports. The correlation between average delay and level of service for unsignalized intersections is shown in Table 2. Signal Warrants The level of service analysis at unsignalized intersections is supplemented with an assessment of the need for signalization of the intersection. The need for signalization of unsignalized intersections is assessed based on the Peak Hour Volume Warrant (Warrant 3) described in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (CA MUTCD), Part 4, Highway Traffic Signals, 2010. This method makes no evaluation of intersection level of service, but simply provides an indication whether vehicular peak hour traffic volumes are, or would be, sufficient to justify installation of a traffic signal. The decision to install a traffic signal should not be based purely on the warrants alone. Instead, the installation of a signal should be considered and further analysis performed when one or more of the warrants are met. Additionally, engineering judgment is exercised on a case-by-case basis to evaluate the effect a traffic signal will have on certain types of accidents and traffic conditions at the subject intersection as well as at adjacent intersections. Intersections that meet the peak hour warrant are subject to further analysis before determining that a traffic signal is necessary. Other options such as traffic control devices, signage, or geometric changes may be preferable based on existing field conditions. Intersection Operations The analysis of intersection level of service was supplemented with an analysis of traffic operations for intersections where the project would add a significant number of left turns. The operations analysis is based on vehicle queuing for high demand left-turn movements at intersections. Vehicle queues were estimated using a Poisson probability distribution, which estimates the probability of “n” vehicles for a vehicle movement using the following formula: P (x n)  On e – (O) n! Where: P (x=n) = probability of “n” vehicles in queue per lane n = number of vehicles in the queue per lane O Avg. # of vehicles in the queue per lane (vehicles per hour per lane/signal cycles per hour) 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | 5 Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay Level of Average Control Delay Service Description Per Vehicle (Sec.) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle lengths.Up to 10.0 B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths.10.1 to 20.0 C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear.20.1 to 35.0 D Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.35.1 to 55.0 E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.55.1 to 80.0 F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths.Greater than 80.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. (Washington, D.C., 2000) Level of Average Control Delay Service Description Per Vehicle (Sec.) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle lengths.Up to 10.0 B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths.10.1 to 20.0 C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear.20.1 to 35.0 D Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.35.1 to 55.0 E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.55.1 to 80.0 F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths.Greater than 80.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. (Washington, D.C., 2000) B Operations with low delays occurring with good progression. 10.1 to 15.0 C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression. 15.1 to 25.0 D Operation with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression of high V/C ratios.25.1 to 35.0 E Operation with high delay values indicating poor progression and high V/C ratios. This is considered to be the limited of acceptable delay.35.1 to 50.0 F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to oversaturation and poor progression.Greater than 50.0 Source:Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.(Washington, D.C., 2000) Level of Service Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Sec.) A Up to 10.0Operations with very low delays occurring with favorable progression. 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | 6 The basis of the analysis is as follows: (1) the Poisson probability distribution is used to estimate the 95th percentile maximum number of queued vehicles per signal cycle for a particular movement; (2) the estimated maximum number of vehicles in the queue is translated into a queue length, assuming 25 feet per vehicle; and (3) the estimated maximum queue length is compared to the existing or planned available storage capacity for the movement. This analysis thus provides a basis for estimating future left-turn storage requirements at signalized intersections. The 95th percentile queue length value indicates that during the peak hour, a queue of this length or less would occur on 95 percent of the signal cycles. Or, a queue length larger than the 95th percentile queue would only occur on 5 percent of the signal cycles (about 3 cycles during the peak hour for a signal with a 60-second cycle length). Therefore, left-turn storage pocket designs based on the 95th percentile queue length would ensure that storage space would be exceeded only 5 percent of the time. The 95th percentile queue length is also known as the “design queue length.” Report Organization The remainder of this report is divided into seven chapters. Chapter 2 describes existing conditions, including the existing roadway network, transit service, and existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Chapter 3 presents the intersection operations under existing plus project conditions and describes the method used to estimate project traffic. Chapter 4 presents the intersection levels of service under background conditions. Chapter 5 presents the intersection levels of service under background plus project conditions. Chapter 6 presents the analysis of other transportation related issues, including site access and circulation. Chapter 7 presents the intersection operations under cumulative without and with project conditions. Chapter 8 presents the conclusions of the traffic study. 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | 7 2. Existing Conditions This chapter describes the existing conditions for all of the major transportation facilities in the vicinity of the site, including the roadway network, transit service, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Existing Roadway Network Regional access to the project site is provided via US 101, I-280 and SR 82 (El Camino Real). These facilities are described below. US 101 is a primarily north-south freeway extending north through San Francisco and south through San Jose and Gilroy. In the vicinity of the project area, US101 provides four travel lanes (with one HOV lane) in each direction. Access to the site from US 101 is provided via Oregon Expressway to Page Mill Road. Interstate 280 (I-280) is a north-south freeway extending from the US 101 interchange in the City of San Jose in the south to San Francisco in the north. The freeway includes four to five mixed-flow lanes per direction with HOV lanes north of the I-280/Interstate-880/State Route (SR) 17 interchange and south of the Magdalena Avenue interchange. Access to the site from I-280 is provided via its interchange with Page Mill Road. SR 82 (El Camino Real) is a six-lane, north-south arterial street that extends south towards Mountain View and Santa Clara and north towards Redwood City, Millbrae, and San Bruno. El Camino Real provides access to local and regional commercial areas. Access to the site is provided via its intersections at Grant Avenue and Sherman Avenue. Local access to the site is provided by Oregon Expressway, Page Mill Road, California Avenue, Grant Avenue and Sherman Avenue. These roadways are described below. Page Mill Road is a four-lane, east-west divided arterial road that extends west to Los Altos Hills and connects with Oregon Expressway at Alma Street. Page Mill Road provides access to local commercial and industrial areas as well as access to I-280. Oregon Expressway is a four-lane, east-west expressway that extends between Alma Street and US 101. Oregon Expressway becomes Page Mill Road west of El Camino Real. Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway is part of the County expressway system and provides access to local residential areas as well as access to US 101 from the project site. California Avenue is a two-lane east-west roadway in the vicinity of the project. It extends from Amherst Street eastward to Park Boulevard. Grant Avenue is a two-lane local road. It extends from El Camino Real eastward to Park Boulevard. Access to the site is provided via a driveway on Grant Avenue. The intersection of Grant Avenue with El Camino Real is an unsignalized “T” intersection and allows all movements. 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | 8 Sherman Avenue is a two-lane local road. It extends from El Camino Real eastward to Park Boulevard. Access to the site is provided via a driveway on Sherman Avenue. There is a raised median on El Camino Real at Sherman Avenue, so only right turns in and out are allowed. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities According to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency (VTA) Bikeways Map, there are numerous bike lanes in the vicinity of the project site (see Figure 2). The following roadways contain bike lanes: ƒ Page Mill Road, between Junipero Serra Boulevard and El Camino Real ƒ California Avenue, between Hanover Street and Park Boulevard ƒ Park Boulevard, between California Avenue and Lambert Avenue Pedestrian facilities in the project area consist of sidewalks and crosswalks. Sidewalks are found along all previously described local roadways in the study area as well as along Page Mill Road on both sides. Crosswalks are located across all of the legs of the signalized intersections in the vicinity of the project site. Existing Transit Service Existing transit service to the study area is provided by the VTA, AC Transit, Stanford Marguerite Shuttle, and Caltrain. The transit service is described below and shown on Figure 3. There is a bus stop approximately 500 feet from the project site along northbound El Camino Real. There is another bus stop for southbound buses across from site, accessible via the crosswalk at California Avenue. VTA Bus Service Route 22 is a local bus route that provides service between the Palo Alto Transit Center and Eastridge Transit Center via El Camino Real near the project site with 12-minute headways. The bus stop is located on El Camino Real, approximately 500 feet from the project Route 89 provides service between the California Avenue Caltrain Station and Palo Alto Veterans Hospital. Within the study area, Route 89 operates along California Avenue and Hanover Street with 30-minute headways during commute hours. The bus stops closest to the project site are on California Avenue. Route 104 provides service between the Penitenicia Creek Transit Center and Deer Creek in Palo Alto, with 40- minute headways during commute hours. Within the study area, Route 104 operates along Page Mill Road with 40-minute headways during commute hours. The bus stops closest to the project site are located on Page Mill Road just in front of the project site. Route 182 provides service between Palo Alto and IBM/ Bailey Ave via California Avenue and Page Mill Road in the vicinity of the project site, with one peak hour trip service. The bus stops closest to the project site are at the intersection of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. Route Rapid 522 is an express bus route that provides service between the Palo Alto Transit Center and Eastridge Transit Center via El Camino Real near the project site with 15- to 30-minute headways. The bus stop is located on El Camino Real, approximately 500 feet from the project site. AC Transit Service One AC Transit bus line Dumbarton Express (DB1) serves the project site. The DB1 line provides service between Union City Bart Station and Stanford Oval, with 20-minute headways during commute hours. The DB1 line has bus stops located on El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. Stanford Marguerite Shuttle Service There are four Stanford Marguerite Shuttle lines serving the project area: Line R, RP, SE, and Line V. Line R provides service between the California Avenue and Hill View Avenue, with 20-minute headways during commute hours. Within the study area, Line R operates along El Camino Real, California Avenue, Page Mill 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | 9 Road and Hill View Avenue with bus stops located on El Camino Real and Page Mill Road, and Yale Street and California Avenue. Line RP provides service between the downtown Palo Alto Transit Center and Deer Creek Road, with 20-minute headways during commute hours. Within the study area, Line RP operates along El Camino Real and Page Mill Road with bus stops located on Page Mill Road just in front of the project site. Line RP provides service from the project site to the Caltrain Station in downtown Palo Alto. Line SE provides service between the downtown Palo Alto Transit Center and San Antonio Shopping Center, with 2-hour headways during commute hours. Within the study area, Line SE operates along El Camino Real with bus stops located on El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. Line SE provides service from the project site to the Caltrain Station in downtown Palo Alto and San Antonio Shopping Center. Line V provides services between Stanford Medical Center and VA Hospital, with 30-minute headways during commute hours. Line V operates along California Avenue and Hanover Street in the study area with bus stops located at Hanover Street/Page Mill Road and Hanover Street/California Avenue. Commuter Rail Commuter rail service between San Francisco and Gilroy is provided by Caltrain. The closest Caltrain station to the project site is the California Avenue station, located less than a half mile east of the project site. The California Avenue Caltrain station provides Park-and-Ride lots, bike lockers, and 7-day service. The California Avenue Caltrain station is served by bus route 89 and line V on California Avenue near the project site. Another nearby Caltrain Station – the Downtown Palo Alto Station – is served by Baby Bullet trains. The AC Transit line DB1 and the Stanford Marguerite Shuttle line RP provide service between the downtown Caltrain Station and the project site. Existing Traffic Volumes & Lane Configurations The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were determined by observations in the field and are shown on Figure 4. Existing peak-hour traffic volumes were obtained from the CMP TRAFFIX count database and recent (2013) peak-hour counts. The existing peak-hour intersection volumes are shown on Figure 5. 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | 14 Existing Intersection Levels of Service The results of the existing intersection level of service analysis are summarized in Table 3. Intersection Analysis The results of the analysis show that all of the study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service. The El Camino Real and Grant Avenue intersection does not meet traffic signal warrants under existing conditions. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. The traffic signal warrant calculation sheets are included in Appendix C. Table 3 Existing Intersection Levels of Service Study Peak Count Warrant Avg. Number Intersection Hour Date Met?(3)Delay LOS 1 El Camino real and California Avenue AM 01/23/13 -- 21.5 C PM 01/23/13 -- 27.6 C 2 El Camino real and Grant Avenue (Unsignalized) (1)AM 02/26/13 No 17.7 C PM 02/26/13 No 18.9 C 3 El Camino real and Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway (2)AM 04/30/13 -- 65.7 E PM 04/30/13 -- 53.0 D Bold indicates LOS worse than the standard. (1) The reported delay and corresponding level of service for one-way stop-controlled intersection are based on the stop-controlled approach with the highest delay. (2) Denotes CMP intersection. (3) Signal warrant analysis is not applicable to signalized intersections. 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | 15 3. Existing Plus Project Conditions This chapter describes existing plus project traffic conditions, including the method by which project traffic is estimated. Existing plus project traffic conditions could potentially occur if the project were to be occupied prior to the other approved projects in the area. It is unlikely that this traffic condition would occur, since other approved projects expected to add traffic to the study area would likely be built and occupied during the time the project is going through the development review process. The proposed project consists of constructing a total of 10,122 square feet (s.f.) of ground floor retail space, 9,825 s.f. of office space, and 13 condominiums. The project would replace an existing 9,694 s.f. Olive Garden restaurant and attached parking lot. Access to the project site is provided via Grant Avenue and Sherman Avenue. Transportation Network Under Existing Plus Project Conditions It is assumed in this analysis that the transportation network under existing plus project conditions would be the same as the existing transportation network. Project Trip Estimates The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear are estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate is made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets. These procedures are described further in the following sections. Trip Generation Through empirical research, data have been collected that correlate trip making to building size for various land use types. For many types of land uses there are standard trip generation rates that can be applied to help predict the future traffic increases that would result from a new development. The standard trip generation rates are published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual entitled Trip Generation, 9th Edition. The proposed project would construct 10,122 square feet (s.f.) of ground floor retail space, 9,825 s.f. of office space, and 13 condominiums. According to ITE trip generation rates (Residential Condominium/Townhouse: ITE category 230, Shopping Center: ITE category 820, and General Office: ITE category 710), the project would generate 31 trips during the AM peak hour and 60 trips during the PM peak hour (see Table 4). Trips that could be (and have historically been) generated by the existing buildings were deducted from the estimated number of trips generated by the proposed mixed-use building. The existing building is occupied by an Olive Garden restaurant. Driveway counts were conducted at the Olive Garden restaurant to determine the 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | 16 existing trip generation. The driveway counts are shown in Appendix A. The proposed project would generate 21 net trips in the AM peak-hour and 7 net trips in the PM peak-hour. The trip generation estimates are presented in Table 4. Table 4 Project Trip Generation Estimates Trip Distribution Pattern and Trip Assignment The trip distribution pattern was developed based on existing traffic patterns and the location of complementary land uses (see Figure 6). The peak-hour trips generated by the proposed project were then assigned to the roadway system in accordance with the trip distribution pattern (see Figure 7). Trips that could be (and have historically been) generated by the existing restaurant were also assigned by the same trip distribution pattern and the net project trip assignment results are shown in Figure 8. Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes The proposed project trips were added to existing traffic volumes to obtain existing plus project traffic volumes (see Figure 9). Traffic volumes for all components of traffic are tabulated in Appendix B. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Daily Pk-Hr Pk-Hr Land Use Size1 Rate Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Proposed Uses: Condominium2 13 5.81 76 0.44 1 5 6 0.52 4 3 7 Shopping Center3 10.122 42.70 432 0.96 6 4 10 3.71 18 20 38 General Office Building4 9.825 11.03 108 1.56 13 2 15 1.49 2 13 15 Total Primary Trips 616 20 11 31 24 36 60 Existing Uses: Restaurant5 9.694 n/a n/a n/a 8 2 10 n/a 40 13 53 Total Existing Trips 8 2 10 40 13 53 Net Project Trips 12 9 21 -16 23 7 1 Condominium size expressed in number of dwelling units. Shopping center, office and restaurant size expressed in 1,000 s.f. 2 Source: Residential Condominium/Townhouse (230) ITE Trip Generation, Ninth Edition, 2012, average rates. 3 Source: Shopping Center (820) ITE Trip Generation, Ninth Edition, 2012, average rates. 4 Source: General Office Building (710) ITE Trip Generation, Ninth Edition, 2012, average rates. 5 Source: Existing site trip generation based on driveway counts conducted by Hexagon on January 21, 2015. 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | 21 Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service The results of the intersection level of service analysis under existing plus project conditions are summarized in Table 5. Intersection Analysis The results of the analysis show that all of the study intersections would operate at acceptable level of service. The El Camino Real and Grant Avenue intersection would not meet traffic signal warrants under existing plus project conditions. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix C. The traffic signal warrant calculation sheets are included in Appendix D. Table 5 Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service Study Peak Warrant Avg. Warrant Avg. Number Intersection Hour Met?(3)Delay LOS Met? (3)Delay LOS 1 El Camino real and California Avenue AM -- 21.5 C -- 19.5 B PM -- 27.6 C -- 26.6 C 2 El Camino real and Grant Avenue (Unsignalized) (1)AM No 17.7 C No 17.8 C PM No 18.9 C No 19.0 C 3 El Camino real and Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway (2)AM -- 65.7 E -- 58.8 E PM -- 53.0 D -- 48.9 D Bold indicates LOS worse than the standard. (1) The reported delay and corresponding level of service for one-way stop-controlled intersection are based on the stop-controlled approach with the highest delay. (2) Denotes CMP intersection. (3) Signal warrant analysis is not applicable to signalized intersections. Existing Existing Plus Project 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | 22 4. Background Conditions This chapter presents background traffic conditions, which are defined as conditions just prior to completion of the proposed project. Traffic volumes for background conditions comprise volumes from existing traffic counts plus traffic generated by other approved developments in the vicinity of the site. Background conditions include occupancy of the existing restaurant building. This chapter describes the procedure used to determine background traffic volumes and the resulting traffic conditions. The background scenario predicts a realistic traffic condition that would occur as approved development gets built and occupied. Background Transportation Network It was assumed in this analysis that the transportation network under background conditions would be the same as the existing network. Background Traffic Volumes Background peak hour traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing peak hour volumes the estimated traffic from approved but not yet constructed developments. Background conditions also include occupancy of the existing Olive Garden restaurant. The approved but not yet completed developments list was obtained from the City of Palo Alto. The approved projects that would add traffic to the intersections that were studied are listed below. Approved Projects List x 2450-2500 El Camino Real Mixed Use Development x 385 Sherman Avenue Mixed Use Development x 3159 El Camino Real Mixed Use Development x 260 California Avenue Retail Development x 2555 Park Boulevard x 411 Page Mill Road Background traffic volumes are shown graphically on Figure 10. Traffic volumes for all components of traffic are tabulated in Appendix B. 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | 24 Intersection Levels of Service Under Background Conditions The results of the intersection level of service analysis under background conditions are summarized in Table 6. Intersection Analysis The results of the analysis show that all of the study intersections would operate at acceptable level of service. The El Camino Real and Grant Avenue intersection would not meet traffic signal warrants under background conditions. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix C. The traffic signal warrant calculation sheets are included in Appendix D. Table 6 Background Intersection Levels of Service Study Peak Warrant Avg. Warrant Avg. Number Intersection Hour Met?(3)Delay LOS Met? (3)Delay LOS 1 El Camino real and California Avenue AM -- 21.4 C -- 21.4 C PM -- 27.5 C -- 27.5 C 2 El Camino real and Grant Avenue (Unsignalized) (1)AM No 17.7 C No 18.2 C PM No 18.9 C No 19.3 C 3 El Camino real and Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway (2)AM -- 61.9 E -- 61.9 E PM -- 49.9 D -- 49.9 D Bold indicates LOS worse than the standard. (1) The reported delay and corresponding level of service for one-way stop-controlled intersection are based on the stop-controlled approach with the highest delay. (2) Denotes CMP intersection. (3) Signal warrant analysis is not applicable to signalized intersections. Existing Background 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | 25 5. Background Plus Project Conditions This chapter describes near-term traffic conditions that most likely would occur when the project is complete. It includes a description of the significance criteria used to establish what constitutes a project impact, the method by which project traffic is estimated, and any impacts caused by the project. Background plus project conditions were evaluated relative to background conditions in order to determine potential project impacts. Project Trip Estimates The proposed project consists of constructing a total of 10,122 square feet (s.f.) of ground floor retail space, 9,825 s.f. of office space, and 13 condominiums. The project would replace an existing 9,694 s.f. Olive Garden restaurant and attached parking lot. Access to the project site is provided via Grant Avenue and Sherman Avenue. The project trip generation estimates, trip distribution and net project trip assignment were presented in Chapter 3. Significant Impact Criteria Significance criteria are used to establish what constitutes an impact. For this analysis, the criteria used to determine significant impacts on signalized intersections are based on the City of Palo Alto’s level of service standards. Project impacts also were analyzed according to the County Congestion Management Program (CMP) methodology for the CMP study intersections. Although the CMP guidelines specify these criteria only for the Background Plus Project scenario, for the purposes of this analysis they also were applied to the Cumulative Plus Project scenarios. City of Palo Alto Definition of Significant Intersection Impacts The project is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection in the City of Palo Alto if for either peak hour: 1. The level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable level (LOS D or better for non- CMP intersections and LOS E or better for CMP intersections) under background conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or F under background plus project conditions, or 2. The level of service at the intersection is an unacceptable level (LOS E or F at non-CMP intersections and LOS F at CMP intersections) under background conditions and the addition of project trips causes both the critical-movement delay at the intersection to increase by four or more seconds and the demand-to-capacity ratio (V/C) to increase by .01 or more. 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | 26 An exception to this rule applies when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of average delay for critical movements (i.e. the change in average delay for critical movements is negative). In this case, the threshold of significance is an increase in the critical V/C value by .01 or more. CMP Definition of Significant Intersection Impacts The definition of a significant impact at a CMP intersection is the same as for the City of Palo Alto. A significant impact by CMP standards is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that would restore intersection operations to acceptable conditions or background conditions. Background Plus Project Conditions Transportation Network It is assumed in this analysis that the transportation network under background plus project conditions would be the same as the existing transportation network. Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes The peak hour trips generated by the project were added to background traffic volumes to obtain background plus project traffic volumes (see Figure 11). The project trips were assigned to the roadway system in accordance with the trip distribution pattern discussed above. Traffic volumes for all components of traffic are tabulated in Appendix B. Background Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Analysis The results of the intersection level of service analysis under background plus project conditions are summarized in Table 7. Intersection Analysis The results of the analysis show that all of the study intersections would operate at acceptable level of service. The El Camino Real and Grant Avenue intersection would not meet traffic signal warrants under background plus project conditions. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix C. The traffic signal warrant calculation sheets are included in Appendix D. Table 7 Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service Study Peak Warrant Avg. Warrant Avg. Incr. In Incr. In Number Intersection Hour Met?(3)Delay LOS Met? (3)Delay LOS Crit. Delay Crit. V/C 1 El Camino real and California Avenue AM -- 21.4 C -- 21.4 C 0.0 0.000 PM -- 27.5 C -- 27.7 C 0.3 0.004 2 El Camino real and Grant Avenue (Unsignalized) (1)AM No 18.2 C No 18.4 C -- -- PM No 19.3 C No 19.3 C -- -- 3 El Camino real and Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway (2)AM -- 61.9 E -- 62.4 E 0.8 0.003 PM -- 49.9 D -- 49.8 D 0.0 0.000 Bold indicates a substandard level of service. (1) The reported delay and corresponding level of service for one-way stop-controlled intersection are based on the stop-controlled approach with the highest delay. (2) Denotes CMP intersection. (3) Signal warrant analysis is not applicable to signalized intersections. Background Background Plus Project 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | 28 6. Other Transportation Issues This chapter presents an analysis of other transportation issues related to the project, including: x Vehicular site access and circulation x Vehicle queuing and storage at selected intersections x Potential project impacts to bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities x Parking Unlike the level of service impact methodology, which is adopted by the City Council, the analyses in this chapter are based on professional judgment in accordance with the standards and methods employed by the traffic engineering community. Site Access & Circulation A review of the project site plan was performed to determine whether adequate site access and circulation would be provided. This review was based on the site plan provided by Hayes Group Architects, Inc. dated June 11, 2015 (see Figures 12a and 12b). Site Access The site plan shows that the project site would keep two of the four existing driveways, one located on Grant Avenue and one on Sherman Avenue. The driveway on Sherman Avenue would be widened from a one way driveway to a full-access driveway. The existing driveway on El Camino Real and a second existing driveway on Sherman would be eliminated. The driveways would provide direct access to the proposed surface and underground parking garage. Based on the site access configuration, most inbound and outbound project traffic from El Camino Real would access the project site via the full access driveway at Grant Avenue. The Sherman Avenue access would be used by traffic to the north on El Camino Real and from the local area. The traffic to westbound Page Mill Road and southbound of El Camino Real would use Ash Street or make a u- turn at the El Camino Real and California Avenue intersection. It is assumed that no project traffic would make a left turn from Grant Avenue to El Camino Real because of the long delays that they would face. Park Boulevard would be used for the traffic to eastbound Oregon Expressway. Birch Street would be used for the traffic from westbound Oregon Expressway to the project site. 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | 31 Sight Distance at the Driveways Serving the Project Based on the site plan provided, the driveways serving the project would be free and clear of obstructions, thereby ensuring that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk and vehicles traveling on Grant Avenue and Sherman Avenue. Adequate sight distance (sight distance triangles) should be provided at the driveways in accordance with Caltrans standards. Sight distance triangles should be measured approximately 10 feet back from the traveled way. Providing the appropriate sight distance reduces the likelihood of a collision at a driveway or intersection, and provides drivers with the ability to exit a driveway or locate sufficient gaps in traffic. Sight distance generally should be provided in accordance with Caltrans standards. The minimum acceptable sight distance is often considered the Caltrans stopping sight distance. Sight distance requirements vary depending on the roadway speeds. For the project driveways on Grant Avenue and Sherman Avenue, which have a posted speed limit of 25 mph, the Caltrans stopping sight distance is 200 feet (based on a design speed of 30 mph). Thus, a driver must be able to see 200 feet down Grant Avenue and Sherman Avenue in order to stop and avoid a collision. Based on the project site plan, it can be concluded that the project driveways would meet the Caltrans sight distance standards. Circulation The City’s standard width for two-way drive aisles is 25 feet for 8 ½ foot wide stalls and 23 feet for 9 ½ foot wide stalls for 90-degree parking. This allows sufficient room for vehicles to back out of parking spaces. According to the site plan, the project would provide 90-degree parking in the surface lot and both 90-degree and 60-degree parking in the underground parking garage. The at-grade drive aisle is shown to be 20 feet wide and would provide a direct connection between the two driveways. This drive widens to meet or exceed the minimum required backup aisle 90-degree parking stalls. The basement plan shows there is a short dead end aisle at the northeast corner of the underground parking garage. However, since the dead-end aisle is so short, it should not cause a problem. The site plan shows a time restricted loading zone and an on-street loading zone. The on-site loading zone would be for loading from 7 AM – 10 AM and available for regular parking (three spaces) outside of those hours. . Hexagon understands that the City of Palo Alto has agreed to stripe a regular loading zone (not time restricted) on Sherman Avenue, which is shown on the site plan. It should be noted that the project would eliminate two existing driveways, which would provide additional space for on-street parking to offset the space taken by the loading zone. Figure 12 shows a trash enclosure on-site. Trash trucks could pull into the site to unload the bins. Overall, the site plan exhibits good site access and on-site circulation for motor vehicles. The project would provide pedestrian paths to connect the sidewalk on El Camino Real, Grant Avenue and Sherman Avenue to the project site. All the proposed pedestrian paths on site are along desired lines. Intersection Queuing Analysis The analysis of intersection level of service was supplemented with an analysis of traffic operations for intersections where the project would add left turns. The operations analysis is based on vehicle queuing for high demand left-turn movements at intersections. Vehicle queues were estimated using a Poisson probability distribution, which estimates the probability of “n” vehicles for a vehicle movement using the following formula: P (x=n) = On e – (O n! Where: P (x=n) = probability of “n” vehicles in queue per lane n = number of vehicles in the queue per lane O Avg. # of vehicles in the queue per lane (vehicles per hr per lane/signal cycles per hr) 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | 32 The basis of the analysis is as follows: (1) the Poisson probability distribution is used to estimate the 95th percentile maximum number of queued vehicles per signal cycle for a particular movement; (2) the estimated maximum number of vehicles in the queue is translated into a queue length, assuming 25 feet per vehicle; and (3) the estimated maximum queue length is compared to the existing or planned storage capacity for the movement. This analysis thus provides a basis for estimating future left-turn storage requirements at signalized intersections. The 95th percentile queue length value indicates that during the peak hour, a queue of this length or less would occur on 95 percent of the signal cycles. Or, a queue length larger than the 95th percentile queue would only occur on 5 percent of the signal cycles (about 3 cycles during the peak hour for a signal with a 60- second cycle length). Thus, left-turn storage pocket designs based on the 95th percentile queue length would ensure that storage space would be exceeded only 5 percent of the time. The 95th percentile queue length is also known as the “design queue length.” The vehicle queue estimates and a tabulated summary of the findings are provided in Table 8. El Camino Real and California Avenue The queuing analysis indicates that the maximum vehicle queues for the northbound left-turn pocket at the El Camino Real and California Avenue intersection would not exceed the existing vehicle storage capacity with the project. El Camino Real and Grant Avenue The queuing analysis indicates that the maximum vehicle queues for the westbound right-turn on Grant Avenue at El Camino Real would not block the project driveway. The project driveway is about 95 feet from El Camino Real. The queuing analysis shows that the maximum queue would be only one vehicle, which is about 25 feet. Therefore, the driveway would not be blocked. The queuing analysis indicates that the maximum vehicle queue for the southbound left-turn pocket on El Camino Real at Grant Avenue would not exceed the existing vehicle storage capacity with the project. 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | 33 Table 8 Vehicle Queuing and Left-Turn Pocket Storage Analysis Transit, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Facilities Analysis Although no transit reduction was applied to the estimated trip generation for the project, it can be assumed that some of the project trips would be made by transit. Currently, there are three VTA bus lines, one AC Transit line, and shuttle service to Caltrain serving the project site. Also, the site is within reasonable walking distance Measurement AM PM AM PM AM PM Existing Cycle/Delay1 (sec) 100 100 20.3 17.5 17.7 13.6 Volume (vphpl ) 105 95 37 46 53 48 Avg. Queue (veh/ln.) 2.9 2.6 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 Avg. Queue2 (ft./ln) 73 66 5 6 7 5 95th %. Queue (veh/ln.) 6 6 1 1 1 1 95th %. Queue (ft./ln) 150 150 25 25 25 25 Storage (ft./ ln.) 250 250 95 95 125 125 Adequate (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Background Cycle/Delay1 (sec) 100 100 21.3 18.1 18.2 13.9 Volume (vphpl ) 90 124 37 46 53 48 Avg. Queue (veh/ln.) 2.5 3.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 Avg. Queue2 (ft./ln) 63 86 5 6 7 5 95th %. Queue (veh/ln.) 5 7 1 1 1 1 95th %. Queue (ft./ln) 125 175 25 25 25 25 Storage (ft./ ln.) 250 250 95 95 125 125 Adequate (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Background + Project Cycle/Delay1 (sec) 100 100 21.1 17.4 18.4 13.7 Volume (vphpl ) 92 131 41 56 55 45 Avg. Queue (veh/ln.) 2.6 3.6 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 Avg. Queue2 (ft./ln) 64 91 6 7 7 4 95th %. Queue (veh/ln.) 5 7 1 1 1 1 95th %. Queue (ft./ln) 125 175 25 25 25 25 Storage (ft./ ln.) 250 250 95 95 125 125 Adequate (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Cumulative + Project Cycle/Delay1 (sec) 100 100 20.5 18 18.7 14.1 Volume (vphpl ) 92 131 41 56 55 45 Avg. Queue (veh/ln.) 2.6 3.6 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 Avg. Queue2 (ft./ln) 64 91 6 7 7 4 95th %. Queue (veh/ln.) 5 7 1 1 1 1 95th %. Queue (ft./ln) 125 175 25 25 25 25 Storage (ft./ ln.) 250 250 95 95 125 125 Adequate (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y 1 Vehicle queue calculations based on cycle length for signalized intersections. 2 Assumes 25 Feet Per Vehicle Queued Northbound Left-turn Westbound Right-turn El Camino Real & California Ave El Camino Real & Grant Ave Southbound Left-turn 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | 34 of the California Avenue Caltrain station. As described in the existing conditions chapter, the bus stops for all lines are located within walking distance of the project site. The closest bus stop on El Camino Real and California Avenue is located approximately 500 feet of the project site. Given that the site is served by several bus routes, any new transit riders generated by the project could be accommodated by the existing transit service. Pedestrian facilities in the project area consist of sidewalks at all study streets and crosswalks at El Camino Real and California Avenue, and El Camino Real and Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway intersections. There are no crosswalks at El Camino Real and Grant Avenue, and El Camino Real and Sherman Avenue. Generally, there is good connectivity for pedestrians to and from the site. There are numerous bike lanes in the vicinity of the project site, including on Page Mill Road, California Avenue, and Park Boulevard. Thus, the bike trips resulting from the project would be accommodated by the existing bicycle facilities in the area. Parking Parking Code Requirements The parking for the proposed project was evaluated based on the City of Palo Alto parking code. Roughly half of the property is within the California Parking Assessment District (PAD), so parking requirements were examined based on the portions of the proposed building inside and outside of the PAD. In most areas of the City, the requirement for Office space is a minimum parking supply of 1 space per 250 square feet; for Retail space is a minimum parking supply of 1 space per 200 square feet, and for residential space is a minimum parking supply of 2 spaces per unit plus guest parking. The required guest parking is one space plus 10% of the number of units. Within the PAD, the requirement for Office space is a minimum parking supply of 1 space per 310 square feet; for Retail space is a minimum parking supply of 1 space per 240 square feet, and for Residential space is a minimum parking supply of 2 spaces per unit plus guest parking (the same as outside the PAD). As previously described, the proposed project would construct 9,835 square feet of new office space, 10,122 square feet of new retail space, and 13 condominiums. The non-residential uses are divided into 3,159 square feet of office space and 4,057 square feet of retail space outside the PAD, and 6,677 square feet of office space and 6,065 square feet of retail space inside the PAD. City of Palo Alto parking ratios calculate to 108 required parking spaces onsite. The City’s zoning code allows up to a 10% reduction for mixed-use development. This calculates to a requirement of 97 spaces. The project will be relying on shared parking to meet the parking requirement, and therefore the City will require a parking management plan. Such a detailed parking management plan with annual reporting would be conducted post-occupancy, in coordination with City Staff. Assumed Parking Conditions The City has indicated that in addition to providing an adequate parking supply, the project must provide on-site loading spaces. In order to adequately share the parking supply among the three uses while providing the required loading area, the project would incorporate three major parking restrictions. First, commercial parking would be of limited duration, perhaps 2-4 hours, with a limited number of permits to allow employees to park all day. Second, the loading zone would be used as general parking during the day, providing 3 additional parking spaces while parking demand is at its highest. We assume the loading zone would be used for loading between 7 AM-10 AM. Third, residents would receive only 1 reserved space per unit, with a second unreserved space available with a permit. Shared Parking Analysis Since the project proposes complementary land uses, some of the on-site parking can be shared between the office, retail and residential uses. An analysis was conducted to determine the number of parking spaces that could be shared. The parking analysis is based on the Urban Land Institute’s publication entitled Shared Parking, which provides parking occupancy rates for many land uses according to the time of day. The parking occupancy rates can be applied to the parking demand for each proposed land use. Comparing the parking requirement for each land use separately with the cumulative parking demand for all land uses will show whether or not parking demand can be reduced through implementation of a shared parking plan. 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | 35 Table 9 shows the parking occupancy and the potential for shared parking between the three proposed land uses. The table is based on the City’s parking code and not based on the parking demand rates in the ULI Shared Parking publication. That publication is used to show how parking demand varies throughout the day. During the midday the office and retail uses would require up to their maximum parking supply, whereas the residential use would not. The results show that parking demand for the three proposed land uses are complementary and that some spaces associated with the residential component of the project would remain vacant during the peak midday hours. According to the shared parking analysis, a reduction of 14 parking spaces can be achieved. This equates to a peak parking demand of 94 spaces. Therefore, the number of on-site parking spaces could be reduced to 94. Based on the June 25, 2015 site plan, the proposed underground parking garage and the surface parking space would provide a total of 104 parking spaces, which is more than adequate and would comply with the minimum parking standards specified by the City of Palo Alto. Table 9 Shared Parking Analysis Bicycle Parking For retail uses the City’s municipal code requires bike parking spaces equal to 10% of auto parking, with 20% of the bike spaces for long-term parking (lockers or a locked room) and 80% of the bike spaces for short-term parking (a bike rack). For office uses the City’s municipal code requires bike parking spaces also equal to 10% of auto parking but with 60% long term and 40% short-term. For condominiums the City’s municipal code requires one long-term bike parking space per unit, plus one short-term bike parking space per 10 units. This yields a requirement of 17 total long-term bike parking spaces and 7 short-term spaces. The proposed site plan shows storage for 18 bicycles in the underground parking garage. The site plan shows 8 short-term bicycle spaces at ground level. Therefore, the project would comply with the bicycle parking requirement. Total Spaces Hour of Day Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday 600am 1 0 28 29 700am 7 4 25 35 800am 21 8 22 52 900am 32 19 21 72 1000am 34 31 19 84 1100am 34 40 17 90 1200pm 31 44 17 92 100pm 31 46 17 93 200pm 33 44 17 94 300pm 32 43 17 92 400pm 26 40 19 85 500pm 16 36 22 74 600pm 8 37 24 69 700pm 2 41 27 70 800pm 2 40 27 69 900pm 1 28 28 57 1000pm 1 15 28 44 1100pm 0 6 28 34 1200pm 0 0 28 28 Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute Shared Parking Residential (non-CBD)Office Retail 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | 36 7. Cumulative Conditions This chapter presents a summary of the traffic conditions that would occur under cumulative conditions, as stipulated by the CMP guidelines. Cumulative conditions represent traffic conditions that would occur in the future year 2025. It is assumed in this analysis that the transportation network under cumulative conditions would be the same as described under existing conditions. Cumulative Traffic Volumes Cumulative conditions represent traffic conditions that would occur in the future year 2025. The cumulative no project condition traffic volumes were obtained from the County Expressway Study provided by Santa Clara County. The peak hour traffic volumes under cumulative without project conditions are shown on Figure 13. Since these volumes were derived with a travel demand forecasting model, it is assumed that they include full occupancy of the existing buildings on the site. Cumulative traffic volumes with the project were estimated by adding to cumulative no project traffic volumes the net additional traffic generated by the project. Cumulative with project conditions were evaluated relative to cumulative no project conditions in order to identify whether the project’s contribution to potential cumulative impacts would be significant. The peak hour traffic volumes under cumulative with project conditions are shown on Figure 14. Traffic volumes for all components of traffic are tabulated in Appendix B. 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | 39 Cumulative No Project Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Analysis The results of the intersection level of service under cumulative no project and with project are summarized in Table 9. The results of the analysis show that all of the study intersections would operate at acceptable level of service. The El Camino Real and Grant Avenue intersection would not meet traffic signal warrants under cumulative conditions. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix C. The traffic signal warrant calculation sheets are included in Appendix D. Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Analysis The results of the analysis show that all of the study intersections would operate at acceptable level of service. The El Camino Real and Grant Avenue intersection would not meet traffic signal warrants under cumulative plus project conditions. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix C. The traffic signal warrant calculation sheets are included in Appendix D. Table 10 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service Study Peak Warrant Avg. Warrant Avg. Incr. In Incr. In Number Intersection Hour Met?(3)Delay LOS Met? (3)Delay LOS Crit. Delay Crit. V/C 1 El Camino real and California Avenue AM -- 21.1 C -- 21.1 C 0.0 0.000 PM -- 27.1 C -- 27.3 C 0.3 0.004 2 El Camino real and Grant Avenue (Unsignalized) (1)AM No 18.5 C No 18.7 C -- -- PM No 19.5 C No 19.6 C -- -- 3 El Camino real and Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway (2)AM -- 61.6 E -- 62.2 E 0.8 0.003 PM -- 55.0 E -- 55.0 E 0.1 0.001 Bold indicates a substandard level of service. (1) The reported delay and corresponding level of service for one-way stop-controlled intersection are based on the stop-controlled approach with the highest delay. (2) Denotes CMP intersection. (3) Signal warrant analysis is not applicable to signalized intersections. Cumulative Conditions No Project With Project 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | 40 8. Conclusions This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis conducted for the proposed office development located at 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real mixed-used project in Palo Alto, California. The proposed project consists of 10,122 square feet (s.f.) of ground floor retail space, 9,835 s.f. of office space, and 13 condominiums. The project would replace an existing 9,694 s.f. Olive Garden restaurant and attached parking lot. Access to the site would be provided via driveways on Grant Avenue and Sherman Avenue. The existing driveway on El Camino Real as well as one on Sherman Avenue would be eliminated. The potential transportation impacts of the project were evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth by the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The VTA administers the County Congestion Management Program (CMP). According to the VTA TIA guidelines, a CMP intersection shall be included in the traffic impact analysis if the proposed development project is expected to add 10 or more peak hour vehicles per lane to any intersection movement. The same criterion was used to identify non-CMP intersections to be included in this study. The study included an analysis of AM and PM peak-hour traffic conditions for two signalized intersections and one unsignalized intersection. Project Trip Generation Trip generation estimates were based on rates obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) published Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition, 2012. Trips that could be (and have historically been) generated by the existing facilities were deducted from the estimated number of trips generated by the proposed mixed-used building. It is estimated that the proposed project would generate 21 net trips in the AM peak-hour and 7 net trips in the PM peak-hour. Intersection Level of Service Analysis Background Plus Project Conditions Compared to background conditions, the project would have no significant impacts. None of the study intersections fell from an acceptable LOS under background conditions to an unacceptable level under background plus project conditions. The El Camino Real and Grant Avenue intersection would not meet traffic signal warrants under background plus project conditions. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Compared to cumulative conditions, the project would have no significant impacts. None of the study intersections fell from an acceptable LOS under cumulative conditions to an unacceptable level under cumulative plus project conditions. The El Camino Real and Grant Avenue intersection would not meet traffic signal warrants under cumulative plus project conditions. 2515&2585 El Camino Real June 26, 2015 Page | 41 Other Transportation Issues The project is well served by existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities and services. No improvements are necessary. El Camino Real and California Avenue The queuing analysis indicates that the maximum vehicle queues for the northbound left-turn pocket at the El Camino Real and California Avenue intersection would not exceed the existing vehicle storage capacity with the project. El Camino Real and Grant Avenue The queuing analysis indicates that the maximum vehicle queues for the westbound right-turn movement on Grant Avenue at El Camino Real would not block the project driveway. Parking The parking for the proposed project was evaluated based on the City of Palo Alto parking code. Roughly half of the property is within the California Parking Assessment District (PAD), so parking requirements were examined based on the portions of the proposed building inside and outside of the PAD. In most areas of the City, the requirement for Office space is a minimum parking supply of 1 space per 250 square feet; for Retail space is a minimum parking supply of 1 space per 200 square feet, and for residential space is a minimum parking supply of 2 spaces per unit plus guest parking. Within the PAD, the requirement for Office space is a minimum parking supply of 1 space per 310 square feet; for Retail space is a minimum parking supply of 1 space per 240 square feet, and for Residential space is a minimum parking supply of 2 spaces per unit plus guest parking (the same as outside the PAD). A 10% reduction is allowed for mixed-use development. This calculates to a requirement to provide 97 parking spaces. The City has indicated that in addition to providing an adequate parking supply, the project must provide on-site loading spaces. In order to adequately share the parking supply among the three uses while providing the required loading area, the project would incorporate three major parking restrictions. First, commercial parking would be of limited duration, perhaps 2-4 hours, with a limited number of permits to allow employees to park all day. Second, the loading zone would be used as general parking during the day, providing 3 additional parking spaces while parking demand is at its highest. We assume the loading zone would be used for loading between 7 AM-10 AM. Third, residents would receive only 1 reserved space per unit, with a second unreserved space available with a permit. An additional shared parking analysis determined that the maximum parking demand would be 95, a reduction of 14 spaces from the 108 spaces required without considering the 10% shared parking reduction. Based on the June 25, 2015 site plan, the proposed underground parking garage and the surface parking space would provide a total of 104 parking spaces, which is more than adequate and which would comply with the minimum parking standards specified by the City of Palo Alto. For retail uses the City’s municipal code requires bike parking spaces equal to 10% of auto parking, with 20% of the bike spaces for long-term parking (lockers or a locked room) and 80% of the bike spaces for short-term parking (a bike rack). For office uses the City’s municipal code requires bike parking spaces also equal to 10% of auto parking but with 60% long term and 40% short-term. For condominiums the City’s municipal code requires one long-term bike parking space per unit plus one short-term bike parking space per 10 units. This yields a requirement of 17 total long-term bike parking spaces and 7 short-term spaces. The proposed site plan complies with this requirement. DRAFT ADOPTED ON: __________________________________ City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date: January 19, 2016 Project Name: 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Project Location: The 0.90-acre (39,953-square-foot) project site is located in the Evergreen Park area of the City of Palo Alto one block southeast of the California Avenue commercial district. The project site consists of two parcels located at the southeastern corner of the intersection of El Camino Real and Sherman Avenue and is bounded by Sherman Avenue to the north, El Camino Real to the west, and Grant Avenue to the south. Project Proponent: ECRPA LLC City Contact: Margaret Netto, Contract Planner Department of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Project Description: The proposed project would demolish the existing Olive Garden restaurant building (9,694 square feet) and parking lot at the project site and construct a mixed-use building that includes office, retail, and residential land uses with one level of underground parking. The project includes a request for a conditional use permit (CUP) to exceed the 5,000 square-foot office maximum for the site by approximately 4,835 square feet. The CN zoning district allows 25% of the site or 5,000 square feet to be used for office use. However, office use may be allowed to exceed the maximum size, subject to issuance of a CUP. The two project site parcels would be combined to create a single 39,953-square-foot parcel. The parcel would be L-shaped, with the longest leg fronting on El Camino Real. The new building is proposed to be 39,930 square feet in gross floor area and would cover 19,954 square feet (50%) of the site. The building would be constructed in an L-shape fronting on El Camino Real and on Sherman Avenue, with the surface parking lot located to the north of the building. Access to the parking lot would be provided at both Sherman and Grant Avenues. Access to the below-grade parking would be provided from a ramp at the northern edge of the parking lot, adjacent to the southwest corner of the residential parcel located at 466 Grant Avenue. The proposed project would eliminate the existing curb cut that allows access to the site from El Camino Real. The total increase in gross floor area would be 30,236 square feet. The proposed building would provide 10,122 square feet of retail space, 9,835 square feet of office space, and 19,973 square feet of residential uses in 13 residential condominiums. A total of 14,903 square feet of landscaping and open space would be provided, as well as 2,700 square feet of usable private open space, including balcony and terraces provided for each residential unit. The floor area ratio (FAR) of the proposed project would be 0.50 for commercial uses and 0.50 for residential uses. The proposed maximum building height is 40 feet (3 Attachment G Page 2 of 4 stories), but a proposed photovoltaic roof screen would bring the total height to 47 feet. The proposed building plans are provided in Appendix A. The El Camino Real frontage would be articulated to create the appearance of several individual storefronts. Most of the building along the El Camino Real frontage would be three stories tall while the portion closest to Sherman Avenue would be stepped down to two stories. Building materials would include wood rainscreens and metal panel cladding on portions of the building, as well as concrete and glazing. Landscaped planters would help to define the corners on both Sherman and Grant Avenues. A photovoltaic roof screen is proposed to be placed over the central portion of building along the El Camino Real frontage. The second and third floors of this elevation would be finished with wood rainscreens and glazing, each surrounded by a formed concrete border that would extend out over the ground floor. The ground floor fronting El Camino Real would be primarily glass and would include several separate entrances from the sidewalk into the building. Street trees would be provided along all street frontages to provide shade and enhance aesthetics. The rear elevation of the building would include similar articulation and building materials as the El Camino Real elevation. Under the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) requirements for office, retail, and residential land uses, the proposed project would be required to provide 108 parking spaces. Approximately half of the site is within the California Avenue Parking Assessment District, which has different parking requirements than the portion outside the district. The project would provide a total of 104 parking spaces, including 34 spaces equipped as electric vehicle charging stations. Ninety parking spaces would be provided in the one-level underground parking garage and 14 spaces would be provided at-grade. Eighteen long-term bicycle parking spaces and 8 short-term bicycle parking spaces would also be provided. The applicant requests a shared parking adjustment for four parking spaces (less than 4% of the parking spaces). The project meets PAMC Sections 18.51 and 18.52 for parking requirements with the shared parking adjustment, which allows a 10% reduction of the total spaces required for the site. The proposed project is designed in accordance with the City’s Green Building Ordinance, which requires compliance with California Green Building Code Tier 1 and the Build It Green GreenPoint Rated Checklist (for the residential portion) with Local Amendments. The project would use both conventional and sustainable building materials, including a concrete frame, high-efficiency glazing systems, plaster finishes, day-lighting and sun-shading systems, and an energy-efficient cool roof. The project would also include facilities for electric vehicle charging stations. The proposed project would involve the removal of all 18 existing on-site trees, 5 street trees, and 1 tree on the neighboring property to the east. A total of 29 trees would be planted as part of the project, including 2 autumn blaze maples, 15 red sunset red maples, 5 London planes, and 7 Chinese elms. Additional shrubs, groundcovers, and bioretention plants would also be planted on the site. Drip irrigation would be used throughout the site and would be controlled by a Smart Irrigation controller with climate monitoring and flow sensing to maximize water efficiency. II. DETERMINATION In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. X Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this Page 3 of 4 case because mitigation measures have been added to the project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. The attached initial study prepared for this project incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required for the project. In addition, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project: Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: In order to avoid the potential for vapor migration, the project shall prepare a Vapor Intrusion Mitigation and Risk Management Plan (Plan) for approval by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of grading or building permits from the City of Palo Alto. The Plan shall outline strategies for managing contaminated soil and groundwater encountered during project construction. The Plan shall include provisions for hazardous substance management, handling, storage, disposal, and emergency response. Hazardous materials spill kits shall be maintained on site for small spills. Copies of the Plan shall be maintained on site during demolition, excavation, and construction of the proposed project. All workers on the project site shall be familiarized with these documents. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Prior to building demolition, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto that a survey of the existing buildings has been conducted by a qualified environmental specialist who meets the requirements of the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for suspected lead-containing materials, including lead-based paint/coatings, asbestos-containing materials, and the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls. Any demolition activities likely to disturb lead-containing materials or asbestos-containing materials shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead- or asbestos-related construction work. Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: In order to quantitatively verify that established regulatory thresholds for indoor air quality are not being exceeded due to vapor intrusion, following construction, 24-hour integrated air samples shall be collected from a minimum of two locations in the garage, plus an exterior location deemed representative of ambient/background conditions. Given the higher sensitivity of the residential units, the garage sampling locations shall be under that portion of the building as opposed to the office portion. The samples shall be collected with the garage venting system off and on a weekend day to minimize interferences from vehicle exhaust. A California state-certified laboratory shall analyze the air samples for TCE and cis-1,2-dichloroethylene (the target VOCs) using EPA Method TO-15 with sensitive ion mode. Results shall be compared to published Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Environmental Screening Levels along with any additional criteria deemed appropriate by the regulatory agencies, with the ambient/background amounts strongly weighed for interpretation of the garage amounts. The air monitoring shall be conducted quarterly for the first year of building occupancy, semiannually for the second year, and annually for the third through fifth years. The first monitoring results shall be incorporated into a Risk Management Plan Implementation Report that will be submitted to the RWQCB. The annual events (as well as one of the semiannual events) shall be in a cold weather month (i.e., December, January, or February) since these are currently recognized as having higher vapor advection. After the initial Risk Management Plan Implementation Report, monitoring reports shall be submitted annually to the RWQCB. If the indoor air criteria are not exceeded over this 5-year period, after factoring in ambient/background data and general quality assurance/quality control considerations, no further monitoring shall be required. Should the garage air tests show TCE (or other VOCs) over an agreed criteria and not reflective of ambient/background conditions, RWQCB staff shall be notified and a 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Project Page 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program February 2016 INTRODUCTION Section 15097 of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that, whenever a public agency approves a project based on a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the public agency shall establish a mitigation monitoring or reporting program to ensure that all adopted mitigation measures are implemented. This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is intended to satisfy this requirement of the CEQA Guidelines as it relates to the 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Project. This MMP would be used by City staff and mitigation monitoring personnel to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. Mitigation measures identified in this MMP were developed in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project. As noted above, the intent of the MMP is to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of all adopted mitigation measures. The MMP will provide for monitoring of construction activities, as necessary, and in the field identification and resolution of environmental concerns. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The City of Palo Alto will coordinate monitoring activities and ensure appropriate documentation of mitigation measure implementation. The table below identifies each mitigation measure for the 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Project and the associated implementation, monitoring, timing and performance requirements. The MMP table presented on the following pages identifies: 1. the full text of each applicable mitigation measure; 2. the party or parties responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure; 3. the timing of implementation of each mitigation measure including any ongoing monitoring requirements; and 4. performance criteria by which to ensure mitigation requirements have been met. Following completion of the monitoring and documentation process, the final monitoring results will recorded and incorporated into the project file maintained by the City’s Department of Planning and Community Environment. It is noted that the mitigation measure numbering reflects the numbering used in the Initial Study prepared for the 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Project (Dudek 2016). Attachment H 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Project Page 2 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program February 2016 No mitigation measures are required for the following resources:  Aesthetics  Agricultural Resources  Air Quality  Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Geology, Soils, and Seismicity  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hydrology and Water Quality  Land Use and Planning  Mineral Resources  Population and Housing  Public Services  Recreation  Transportation and Traffic  Utilities and Service Systems Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: In order to avoid the potential for vapor migration, the project shall prepare a Vapor Intrusion Mitigation and Risk Management Plan (Plan) for approval by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) prior to issuance of grading or building permits from the City of Palo Alto. The Plan shall outline strategies for managing contaminated soil and groundwater encountered during project construction. The Plan shall include provisions for hazardous substance management, handling, storage, disposal, and emergency response. Hazardous materials spill kits shall be maintained on site for small spills. Copies of the Plan shall be maintained on site during demolition, excavation, and construction of the proposed project. All workers on the project site shall be familiarized with these documents. Applicant San Francisco RWQCB City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Plan shall be approved by the San Francisco RWQCB. Copies of the Plan shall be maintained on site during demolition, excavation, and construction of the proposed project. All workers on the project site shall be familiarized with these documents. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Prior to building demolition, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto that a survey of the existing buildings has been conducted by a qualified environmental specialist who meets the requirements of the current U.S. Environmental Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Prior to issuance of demolition permit and during demolition Building survey report submitted. Demolition activities likely to disturb 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Project Page 3 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program February 2016 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for suspected lead- containing materials (LCMs), including lead-based paint/coatings, asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), and the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Any demolition activities likely to disturb lead-containing materials or asbestos- containing materials shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead- or asbestos-related construction work. Environment LCMs or ACMs shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead- or asbestos-related construction work. Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: In order to quantitatively verify that established regulatory thresholds for indoor air quality are not being exceeded due to vapor intrusion, following construction, 24-hour integrated air samples shall be collected from a minimum of two locations in the garage, plus an exterior location deemed representative of ambient/background conditions. Given the higher sensitivity of the residential units, the garage sampling locations shall be under that portion of the building as opposed to the office portion. The samples shall be collected with the garage venting system off and on a weekend day to minimize interferences from vehicle exhaust. A California state-certified laboratory shall analyze the air samples for TCE and cis-1,2-dichloroethylene (the target VOCs) using EPA Method TO-15 with sensitive ion mode. Results shall be compared to published Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Environmental Screening Levels along with any additional criteria deemed appropriate by the regulatory agencies, with the ambient/background amounts strongly weighed for interpretation of the garage amounts. The air monitoring shall be conducted quarterly for the first year of building occupancy, semiannually for the second year, and annually for the third through fifth years. The first monitoring results shall be incorporated into a Risk Management Plan Implementation Report that will be submitted to the RWQCB. The annual events (as well as one of the semiannual events) shall be in a cold weather month (i.e., December, January, or February) since these are Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Soil samples collected prior to and during site clearing/grading. Soil screening during site preparation/ excavation. Soil disposal during site preparation/ excavation. Air samples collected and analyzed following construction, and quarterly for first year of occupancy, semiannually for the second year, and annually for the third through fifth years. 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Project Page 4 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program February 2016 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria currently recognized as having higher vapor advection. After the initial Risk Management Plan Implementation Report, monitoring reports shall be submitted annually to the RWQCB. If the indoor air criteria are not exceeded over this 5-year period, after factoring in ambient/background data and general quality assurance/quality control considerations, no further monitoring shall be required. Should the garage air tests show TCE (or other VOCs) over an agreed criteria and not reflective of ambient/background conditions, RWQCB staff shall be notified and a supplemental sampling event shall be scheduled within 60 days. Additional actions would be discussed with RWQCB staff upon receipt of the supplemental test data. NOISE Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Residential Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies with Sound Transmission Class rating up to 45 and upgraded exterior walls shall be used in the residential portion of the proposed building to achieve the State of California’s and City of Palo Alto’s interior residential noise standard for residential uses (45 dBA Ldn). The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met prior to issuance of building permits. Commercial Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies for the commercial portions of the building shall comply with the State of California CalGreen noise standards (maximum interior noise level of 50 dBA Leq). The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met prior to issuance of building permits. Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit. Approved building plans shall include window sound transmission ratings and interior noise levels verification from a qualified acoustical consultant. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The residential portion of the proposed building shall have ventilation or an air-conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment when windows are closed. The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that this standard is met prior to issuance of building permits. Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit. Approved building plans shall include details of the residential ventilation system. 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 2515 & 2585 El Camino Real Project Page 5 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program February 2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order Roll Call Present: Chair Robert Gooyer; Vice Chair Alexander Lew, Board Members Wynne Furth, Peter Baltay Absent: Board Member Kyu Kim Oral Communications Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Official Reports 1.Future Tentative Agenda Schedule and Subcommittee Assignments 2.List of Staff Approved (Minor) Architectural Reviews Continued Business New Business 1. 2515-2585 El Camino Real [15PLN-00170]: Request by the Hayes Group Architects on Behalf of ECRPA, LLC for Site and Design Review to Allow a New 39,858 Square Foot, 3-Story Mixed Use Building Including Retail, Office, 13 Residential Condominium Units and One Level of Underground Parking on a 39,638 square foot Lot to Replace a 9,694 Square Foot Existing Restaurant (Olive Garden). The Project Includes a Request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to Exceed the 5,000 Square Foot Office for the Site by Approximately 4,835 Square Feet. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study was drafted and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated on January 19, 2016. Zoning Districts: CC (2) and CN. For more information, contact Margaret Netto at margaret.netto@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Gooyer: Staff. Margaret Netto: Good morning, Chair and Board Members. My name is Margaret Netto. Today we have—the project proposes demolition of the 9,694 square foot restaurant, the Olive Garden, and surface parking lot and construction of a new 39,858, three-story, mixed-use building including retail, office, 13 residential units, and one-level underground parking. This item is also subject to the terms of the recently enacted interim office limit ordinance. The project requires review by the PTC. However, two previously scheduled meetings were canceled due to a lack of quorum. The purpose of this meeting is to review the project and to provide the applicant with comments. This project will return to the ARB on March 17th for recommendation to Council. This slide shows the location of the project site. The project site consists of two parcels located on the northeast side of El Camino Real between Sherman and Grant Avenues. The project proposes approximately 10,000 square feet of ground floor retail, 9,835 square ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT OF MINUTES: March 3, 2016 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue Attachment I City of Palo Alto Page 2 feet of office on the second and third floors, and approximately 19,000 square feet of residential condominiums on the second and third floor. Access to the underground and surface parking is from Grant and Sherman Avenue. No access will be provided from El Camino Real. The existing curb cut will be removed. This is a view from Sherman Avenue. The building concept includes a modern design with street-facing building walls meeting the current build-to line. Regulation low planters are proposed on Sherman Avenue. This is the view from El Camino. The El Camino-facing building wall would be set back a minimum of 4 feet from the property line to supply the 12-foot effective sidewalk from curb to building face. The corners of the building have raised planters that function as storm water management components. The project meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. It is compatible with the neighborhood, provides clear relationship for access and provides housing. The project meets the Context Based Design Criteria. The project is designed to minimize the visual impact of the structure by stepping the building back, providing a plaza area with planters and street trees and landscaping along the building frontages. The building materials and color selection have been designed to complement the building and surroundings. The project includes the use of sustainable materials and strategies including high-quality rain screen facade system, recessed windows and high-efficiency glazing systems. The project also meets the Performance Standard Criteria. I want to highlight a few of the zoning compliance topics. The project includes the request for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed 5,000 square feet of office for the site by approximately 4,835 square feet. The CN District allows 25 percent of the site over 5,000 square feet for office use. This project proposal is also subject to the interim office ordinance that established a 50,000 square foot office limit on office and R&D development, and also the parking. Approximately half the parking is within the California Avenue Assessment District. The parking requirements in and outside of the Assessment District have different requirements. The project would provide a total of 104 parking spaces where 108 would be required for a mixed-use project. The applicant requests a shared parking adjustment for four parking spaces, less than 4 percent of the spaces. As noted, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. The public review period was from January 19th to February 18th, and no comments have been received to date. The next steps. Continue this project to the March 17th ARB meeting. The project will be reviewed by the PTC on March 9th. Staff will forward the Commission and ARB recommendations to City Council. The recommendation is that staff recommends the ARB review the project, provide comments and continue the project to March 17th, 2016. We also have Heather Ivey from Dudek who prepared the Mitigated Negative Declaration here, if you have any questions for her. The applicant is also here for a presentation. I did put the building materials up there. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Would the applicant like to make his presentation? You know the drill. You've got 10 minutes. [Due to a technical difficulty with the applicant's presentation, Chair Gooyer proceeded to approval of minutes and Item Number 2, and then returned to this item.] Item 1, I'm not going to bother rereading it again. It is the 2515-2585 El Camino Real. We've already had staff's presentation so, Ken, why don't you take it? Ken Hayes: Great. Thank you, Chair Gooyer. Good morning, members of the Board. My name's Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects. I'm joined this morning with my client, Victor Lo, as well as a representative from Callander and Associates, the landscape architects. The site, as staff pointed out, is about a 40,000 square foot site on El Camino between Grant and Sherman. It was formerly two sites, but it's all been combined into one. It is surrounded by CS zone, CC(2) as well as RM-40. A portion of the site is actually CC(2), which is this little piece right here. We're not actually building on that portion of the site. The surrounding neighborhood. I think we're all familiar with the Olive Garden site. This is from El Camino looking north. The Coronet Hotel on the left, this is looking south on El Camino. The project site is located here. The new Stanford housing project across the street pretty much spans the length of our project. This is a shot on Sherman looking towards the corner here, so El Camino is down here. The small office building on Sherman here. Important to the project are connections. We saw this connection as one day being more developed, but it's there nonetheless right now. The Coronet Hotel is on the left. This actually is called Peral Lane or Peral Lane, P-E-R-A-L. This is California Avenue down here. That's the building on the corner that was done by Tony Carrasco years ago. That connects beyond through an alley to a public parking facility. We felt that was an important connection to our site, and that's where we've developed the plaza that you saw 14 months ago at the preliminary review. The City of Palo Alto Page 3 program hasn't changed. We want to create a new three-story, mixed-use building with 13 two-bedroom townhouses. We're going to respond to the site and the forces. Park the project in a subterranean garage primarily. Provide outdoor space for living as well as for the users and a courtyard and support sustainable systems. When we were here in November 2014, we had the site diagram with forces. You were supportive essentially of the concept. We're stepping about 64 feet from the RM-40 zone at the back. We have the locations of the entries to the parking facilities coming off of Sherman and off of Grant here to the south. Multiple ancillary entry locations sort of around the entire building, so it activates the sidewalk, reinforces the build-to line of 75 percent here along El Camino Real. Then this is sort of the public realm of sidewalk and open space around the building. The main entry to the building, however, is located here, and that is essentially off of the main plaza. You see Peral Lane and the force of Peral Lane then reinforcing this idea of an entry plaza, a place for a coffee shop, outdoor seating. Our public artwork is located there. At the preliminary hearing, you were generally supportive of this concept. You talked about strengthening the corners. You talked about trying to link the plaza in some way to El Camino Real, and so we've done that. You can see the linkage here and helping to define some entry points in the building. This is also an entry point; however, the main entry for the upper floors is what you see in yellow. Just a larger size for the site plan. One of the big changes we made was to relocate residential trash and recycling facilities to this location. The commercial recycling and trash is going to be separate, so the two facilities are separate. GreenWaste actually prefers that. There's a chute for the residences to get their trash and recyclables to the ground floor. There are 13 townhomes. They're all two-story. They are all two-bedroom. This is the main living level. Balconies facing the street, facing the rear and at the end. Our open space is in excess of what we need. This is the second floor of the townhouses, the third floor of the building. There are two bedrooms, as I said, in each. We have a master bedroom and then an ancillary bedroom, a second bedroom, located here. There are penetrations in that floor or through that floor to allow light to come through, some rooftop skylights, but we also have about a 30-kilowatt PV array on the roof, and then the skylights are located there so that when you're in the hallway of the residential units, you've got some connection to the outside. I'm not really a proponent of double-loaded hallways. The ARB comments when we were here for the elevations—excuse me—were to on the Sherman side try to reinforce an entry and make that more defined. Try to get more height at the corner to demarcate that. This is the El Camino frontage. There was concern that this was a little bit too heavy. We have 10-foot high glass along here, but you wanted us to address perhaps bringing that level up. I think there was support for the rhythm of the units and the definition of each unit, kind of, as you march down El Camino. Then the same comment here about trying to create some more emphasis on the corner. What we've done. If you look at El Camino first, we've essentially separated off the corner by a reveal here in the building facade. We've increased the height. We've changed the windows from horizontal to vertical to help accentuate the corner itself. That is the office corner, if you will. There's the pointer. Office corner, then there's a balcony here to help the definition of separating that piece from the remainder of the building. We've raised the front of the building by about 3 feet to create a higher impression along El Camino Real, and it also helps reinforce the rhythm with some of the ground floor treatment with the entries there as well. On the Sherman side, again we've carved out a balcony. Instead of this piece coming all the way across like it did previously, it actually helps define the entry there and also have a space for the office users at the second floor, kind of overlooking that plaza. We still have the cool stair off the side of the building here that connects the second floor to the plaza. And then we've enhanced the frontage here with concrete planters. Did the same thing along El Camino Real where there's lots of planters here and anchored the corner with more planters itself as well. Just the streetscape. This is to the south. Chipotle, mostly a parking lot. This site's mostly a parking lot with a little restaurant, so we're really trying to create an edge for El Camino there, respect the build-to line, and then the Coronet Hotel you see here. Along Sherman, it sort of steps down as the street heads toward the railroad tracks to the east. The building section. We're 15 feet floor-to-floor, and then I believe we have 11-foot ceilings on the first floor of the residential, and 9 ceilings on the second floor. This gives you an idea how the skylights penetrate through to the main circulation level of the main level of the apartments, the condominiums. Then this is a section through the plaza at Sherman. Underground garage. Part of that plaza is covered. They could have tables and chairs there, and part of it is exposed. This is from the east looking at the plaza, the stair that connects sort of down to this area. The planters that help define the plaza. Those are seat-wall height in this area here, so one could easily sit there. Our public art's going to go on this wall here, and I think I've got a ... City of Palo Alto Page 4 Not sure how that—there we go. As you come into that entry, defined there. This is for El Camino Real looking north, and we have a similar. We're trying to—we recessed the entry back. This connects to the public plaza. We have some different materials as well as some benches, seat walls to try to differentiate the entry. Then a view from north. We have aluminum composite metal panels, glass sunshades on the office portion of the building. Here, that's all situated on top of a formed-concrete base with board- formed concrete planters that help define the edge along here. The main building—part of the residential building is a Equitone rainscreen product and also a Resysta rainscreen product that helps warm up—I think it has a little more residential scale to it. Then this is the plaza side of the building. Again, the planters help define that. The entry located here. The public art will be on this wall there, and then the stair that comes down to the plaza will be located along that side. Because of the harsh exposure, we have the sunshades on this entire facade as well as the El Camino facade. Those are glass shades. This is the south side, which is all residential. Up here, you can see the Resysta panel. The glass at the balcony is all a translucent glass. That was a comment that Board Member Popp had made 14 months ago. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you very much. I look forward to your comments. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to address the Board on this item, from the public? Seeing none, I'll close that and bring it back. Wynne, you want to start? Board Member Furth: Not particularly, but ... Board Member Baltay: I had a question, Robert. Chair Gooyer: Go ahead. Board Member Baltay: This is for staff, I suppose. In the staff report on page 3, I note that you say the applicant proposes a pedestrian path alongside the new buildings to connect Grant Avenue to Sherman Avenue. Can you, can someone explain to me where that pedestrian path is please? Mr. Hayes: Board Member Baltay, it's from Sherman here. From the plaza and the main entry of the building, there is a pedestrian path that connects from Grant to Sherman. It's essentially the circulation on the backside of the building. You can get there through the lobby when the lobby is open or, when the lobby's not open, you would need to walk around. It's on the back side of the building. Board Member Baltay: It's a private pedestrian pathway? Mr. Hayes: It's on private property, right. Board Member Baltay: But the lobby will be locked during off hours. Mr. Hayes: There will be occasions when the lobby's locked; that's right. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Go ahead. Vice Chair Lew: I have a question for staff. This is about the Council's new process for office space. I was wondering if you could explain what our options are, since we're right up against the deadline, right, which is March 17th, which will be the next ARB meeting. Jodie Gerhardt: The actual deadline is March 31st, but you are correct that ... Vice Chair Lew: That' s the last meeting. Ms. Gerhardt: ... the next meeting is the 17th. There is, we may have, we have the ability on March 24th if everyone's available, we could possibly have a hearing then if needed. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Vice Chair Lew: Okay. So the consequence, can you explain exactly what has to be approved? It has to be like complete ARB approval? Can we have things come back to subcommittee, details, or can other things come back to staff? Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, subcommittee would be, we just need a recommendation from the ARB. When you add those subcommittee items, that's still considered a recommendation. Vice Chair Lew: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Anyone have any questions, additional questions? Wynne. Hang on. Vice Chair Lew: Sorry. One more question for staff. There's a request for four parking spaces, a reduction of four parking spaces based on mixed use. Then I had a ... Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, that's correct. Vice Chair Lew: In looking at the plans, I did see that in the basement garage, that all of the residential spaces are dedicated, like reserved for the residents. Mr. Hayes: I think there's one space per unit that's dedicated. Vice Chair Lew: Yeah. Is the shared, mixed use just based on retail and office? Is that the shared, is that the synergy where you get the parking reduction or is it visitor spaces or is it affordable housing? How do you ... Mr. Hayes: It's the synergy ... Vice Chair Lew: I guess ... Mr. Hayes: Sorry. Vice Chair Lew: I was just trying to understand that. We do get a lot of questions from the public about how do you get, about the reduction. Mr. Hayes: Right. It has been my understanding in the past that if you have dedicated spaces, then the reduction is calculated—you don't really apply for the reduction. Hexagon is not here today, correct? Our transportation consultant is not here. This came out of the transportation consultant's recommendation in how he evaluated the parking. Hexagon, Mr. Black, and he came up with dedicating those spaces and his recommendation based on IT or the transportation requirements. That's where those dedicated spaces came from. We did not have those originally. Vice Chair Lew: And you're not asking for any reduction based on proximity to transit, which you could ask the Director for like a 20 percent reduction because you're on a ... Mr. Hayes: We're not. Vice Chair Lew: ... bus line and near Caltrain and what not. Mr. Hayes: Right, good point. No, we're not. Chair Gooyer: Wynne. Board Member Furth: Thank you. I, of course, have not seen this project before, but I appreciate it. I went out to look at it again, the site again this morning because I realized I had misremembered City of Palo Alto Page 6 something, and that's why I was late, dealing with the formidable local travel. Just a first note. I think of a townhouse as being a residence that has a street-level entrance. You may have steps up or it may be at the street, but I think to refer to housing on the second and third floor of a building that does not have street-level entrances is a misuse of the term that makes it more or less meaningless, which I may be wrong. There may be an architectural convention I don't know about, but it bothers me that it seems misleading. There was an interesting comment in the paper this morning, a letter from John Hanna basically saying who do those people think they are, stopping projects for aesthetic reasons. I think that the legitimacy of what we do, it's democracy. That's what it is. Not only property owners have rights in these processes, but certainly the legitimacy of what we do depends very much both on the expertise of my colleagues and paying attention to the adopted documents that the City has to guide us in doing our work. I'll try to link what I have to say to that. Just to say also that it is so lovely to see a plaza proposed on Sherman that looks like a place that people would actually like to spend time and where we don't have to deal with the problem of noise to the same extent. I appreciate it very much, and I also appreciate the 12-foot sidewalk. I've been thinking, of course, about Finding Number 7, that the project creates a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community. I am concerned that that's an entire block. It may be that you have places to sit along there, I'm not sure, but I would like to know if we do have places to sit and, if so, if we don't, I'd like to see them added. I also think it's important that some of the places to sit have armrests because for people with disability ... Mr. Hayes: Backs. Board Member Furth: ... difficulties—backs are good, but for people with disability difficulties, it's hard to get up from a seated position if you can't lever yourself against something. This is why often you see seating where, rows of seating where only the aisle seating actually has armrests, but that's because not everybody can get up without it. If we're going to do the conversion to alternative ways of moving that we say we're going to do to save our planet and ourselves, we're going to have to really walk a lot more. It is really striking how much people do walk in that neighborhood, and it's becoming a really attractive, maybe it always was, residential neighborhood in close proximity to retail. I also had a question about the residential balconies. At first, my concern was that they seemed too shallow because I think of balconies as a place where you put tables and chairs, but then I realized the more serious concern was that they seemed to me too noisy. Perhaps that's a question for staff, but how are they usable given the noise level on the street? We looked at another project recently with which Mr. Hayes is familiar that has really dealt with the issue, I think, the problem of how do you get attractive housing on El Camino that provides outdoor space in which occupants can effectively relax. We live in one of the great climates of the world, and where do I get to enjoy that on this project? I'm also concerned—if we could see the slide of the view from Grant Avenue. Mr. Hayes: The perspective? Board Member Furth: Yeah, looking across at the building from Grant Avenue. Mr. Hayes: Not that one? Board Member Furth: No. It was good. Mr. Hayes: From Grant, oh, Grant, sorry. Board Member Furth: On the south side of the building, looking at this project from the south side. Grant Avenue is, once you get immediately off El Camino, to me surprisingly it's lovely, it's soft. It has trees with feathery leaves. The dominant thing is greenery. There's multiple family housing which is terrific, but it's multiple family housing that's very open to the street. It has balconies. It has front lawns essentially on the multiple family. It's green. It was interesting hearing the comment about air quality on San Antonio earlier today, because for me the thing that happens when you have significant amounts of greenery and a lot of leaf space and not just kind of industrial, very low, trimmed across the top of the planter planting and trees that are evergreen and preferably trees that bloom and fruit, though, I realize City of Palo Alto Page 7 that I'm suffering from allergies myself right now, but there are plants that do that without making us all sneeze. The quality of the breathed air changes. I mean, the sound changes because you get sound from the plants, and the feeling of the air on your skin changes because of what the plants are doing to it. What concerns me is this looks like we're building a replacement heat island for the one we already have. I'm concerned that there's inadequate, that the view across from that residence which is opposite basically ... Mr. Hayes: Is a parking lot. Board Member Furth: The parking lot. It's horrible now, but I'm concerned that this is not making it as much better as it should, and that it could be much better. Mr. Hayes: The three existing mature trees, so we're struggling again. Do we want to see the trees, which you can go out and look at or do you want to see the building? We've sort of hidden the trees. There are three large trees, if you look on the site plan, that are existing right here. Board Member Furth: It's not your building. The building basically is opposite the commercial space that fronts on El Camino. It's further, it's as you go east on Grant. It's the view of the parking of the rear of the structure that I'm concerned with. Mr. Hayes: This parking here? Board Member Furth: Yeah. Mr. Hayes: I see. I'm sorry. Board Member Furth: No, no, you're ... Mr. Hayes: I thought you were talking about the green. Board Member Furth: I'm not commenting on your building. Mr. Hayes: No, no. I thought you were talking about the green and what's not shown. Board Member Furth: I know that you cannot put, I'm not suggesting that you plant out your driveway so you can't get through. This ... Mr. Hayes: We do actually, if I just can point out just one second. Board Member Furth: Sure. Mr. Hayes: On the site plan, Board Member Furth, let's see. This whole, one of the struggles that you always have when you're dealing with parking in underground structures is that parking tends to occupy the whole underground, and then where do you put your vegetation. One of the reasons we're short four cars is that we could put them right here. But, number one, because of the house and because of needing, we want to have some place for storm water filtration, retention. This area is actually real, planted in the ground, earthen planters that are low. We have Chinese maple—I'm sorry—we have Chinese elms that are planted in this area. I would contend that there's going to be, it'll feel like a lot of landscaping. Not a whole lot of parking, but you've got to have some drive aisle to get down to the ramp. Trying to conceal the ramp off to the side and not having it right out here at the street level is also an improvement. This is all, everything on this back edge is all in the ground, the planting. Board Member Furth: Chinese elms are big trees. What about, it may be that the Grant Avenue perspective is, as you say, trying to show the building. What about the planting areas on either side of the garage near the sidewalk? City of Palo Alto Page 8 Mr. Hayes: This, I don't know why the cursor seems to disappear every now and then. This is raised planter here. This is raised planter here. When I say raised, it's about 3 feet. Board Member Furth: When I look at your pictures, it looks like it's 3 feet of planter and 6 inches of plant. I'm suggesting that more plant would be desirable. Mr. Hayes: I would agree as well. Board Member Furth: I also had a concern about the parking lot. I very much appreciate the offset access. I think that the problem of ramps going down into garages is an interesting one, and I think you've done a good job of moving that experience away from the pedestrians. I'm concerned about security and senses of security. Is it not going to be gated ever? It concerns me that if I'm coming home to those residential units late at night, I'm not going to feel safe. Mr. Hayes: It would be gated and probably open during business hours so people could park there. Then after a certain time, it would come closed. We haven't really discussed that in any detail. Board Member Furth: I would think that for this to function well for the people who live there, it should be gated. I think that's it for me. Mr. Hayes: Thank you very much. Chair Gooyer: Peter. Board Member Baltay: Good morning. Thank you, Architect Hayes. This looks very good overall. I think I'll be able to support the project. I'd like to point out in increasing order of importance to me three items that, I don't know what to say. I'd like to see them changed, but I recognize it may not be possible. The first. On my site visit the other day, the existing mature palm trees are striking. They're striking from a distance. They're striking up close. I never realized quite how much I identified them with that restaurant. It really just brings a tear to my eye that we can't save even some of them. Mr. Hayes: Yeah, but ... Board Member Baltay: I saw the note that the arborist said they weren't in great shape, but they look to me to be doing well enough that, is there any way you could save any one or two of them? On this Sherman, on the Grant Road entrance in, for example, there's one right by the drive right now. Gosh, it's got to be ... Mr. Hayes: If it's in a location, I'm not sure how well transplanting a palm would be, but ... Board Member Baltay: Well, no, I don't think you could transplant it. You'd have to lose a parking place to get it in there. Mr. Hayes: To be truthful, we never considered saving the palms, so I don't know really off the top of my head where they are relative to the garage below grade. If it was possible, we can look into that if that's something that strikes you. Board Member Baltay: I acknowledge that that is not the first time you've heard comments from us, and it is pretty late to try to make that change. I find those palm trees quite striking ... Mr. Hayes: They're very tall. Board Member Baltay: ... and quite important to my impression, at least, of El Camino over the years. The second is, has to do with the concept of the pedestrian pathway. Again, being on that side, it's City of Palo Alto Page 9 striking how many people are migrating north and south along the back side of Olive Garden, along the alley you've so carefully pointed out. I think the idea of this pathway, as you pointed, it could be very good, but is there any way you could make that lobby open? In other words, not have glass doors that close it sometimes, make it an open space. Your architecture sure speaks to that. The buildings are separate masses. There's a new space below it. I understand the programmatic requirements might make that difficult. Another idea might be to do something with the paving pattern to make it more visually obvious that this is intended, at least, that people could walk through this space. Right now, the paving for the plaza stops at the door. I suspect most people would feel uncomfortable ... Mr. Hayes: It'd be great to carry it through. We haven't, yeah. Point taken. Board Member Baltay: Just some further efforts to try to get, allow that linkage to continue. It would help your retail or your office down at the ground level. Mr. Hayes: I'll talk with my client about that. Board Member Baltay: That's sort of second most important to me. And then I find that the corner of the residential building on El Camino and Grant to be problematic. And this is more where I'm thinking you've got this two-dimensional facade element you're repeating along El Camino, and then you flip it and repeat twice on Grant Avenue. I'd like to see if you could try to fold it instead on the corner. In other words, have a balcony that wraps the corner or windows that do that. Something that acknowledges that the building is at a corner; it's not just an inconvenient spot in the plan. Because the way you have it, the piece on El Camino at the corner is different than the rest of the rhythm ... Mr. Hayes: It is. Board Member Baltay: ... and I find that bothers me. Then when I look at the corner, you don't show us the perspective from El Camino looking north at this corner, but I think it would not be as attractive. Mr. Hayes: I don't have it in here. It might be in the set of drawings. Board Member Baltay: I didn't see it, the opposite corner from what you're showing us here. This is effectively what you're going to see on El Camino. That right-hand side is a pretty tall, blank wall. Mr. Hayes: Look on A4.1, Board Member Baltay. Elevation, Perspective 6, the top left-hand. Board Member Baltay: Yes, I'm sorry. Mr. Hayes: There you go. The idea there was we have this rhythm of inserted units that are these two- story blocks that march down El Camino. Yeah, you've pointed out that at the corner we turn it. And so you see sort of the completion of the Equitone rainscreen which is the gray, which is the outline that you see on the face of the units as it goes down El Camino. Then you, it sort of turns and you reveal the side of that block, and then that block is carved out to show where the, I'm going to call it wood siding, but where the Resysta siding is. It was quite deliberate to like take what was inserted in the front and insert it on that side and then erode the building so that you saw it. Board Member Baltay: I'll confess my first thought, and no disrespect intended, was that Ken has some low-level draftsman doing the same floor plan over and over and he didn't want to change it, so he rotated it and they were done. And then I looked more carefully, and I thought no, he probably didn't do that. Mr. Hayes: No, there was a lot of study. Board Member Baltay: I really am thinking that there's more opportunity to do something more interesting at the corner itself than the gray element that's there. I think that's my strongest design City of Palo Alto Page 10 feeling, is that that corner is not as strong as it could be. I'd like to talk to my fellow Board Members about something. I went back through the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, and it's quite a bit of reading. I have to say that this building conforms in almost every respect quite well with these guidelines. It is a three-story building; it does have retail on the ground floor; it does do the residential above; it has balconies; it has a nice plaza off the street; the parking is from the side streets. The one thing I found it doesn't really have, and it seems to me we haven't addressed it on several projects, is the sense of a base, middle and top to the architecture. There's a clear calling for that in the Design Guidelines. I think that runs a little bit counter to some of the current projects we're getting, which are a more contemporary style. So I've been scratching my head, because I like the building. I think it's good architecture and, yet, this base, middle and top, straight out of the Renaissance palazzo. It keeps coming, other towns are doing it up and down El Camino. I sort of ask myself why is it important. I think it allows buildings to have a linkage. Somehow the cap of the building relates to the next one. I'm becoming a little bit concerned we're going to wind up with, again Ken, don't be flattered, a Fifth Avenue full of Guggenheim museums and losing a sense there's just a background building up and down El Camino, which is what, I think, our real objective is overall. I wonder if we shouldn't be more saying to architects you have to tone it down a bit for many buildings and incorporate this base, middle, top architectural vernacular. I'm throwing that out to the Board because it's sort of a different way of looking at it, but I really would love to see what everyone else's take on that is. Those are my comments. Thank you very much, Architect Hayes. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Alex, you want to chime in as far as the question? Or go ahead and do your comments, if you want, and then ... Vice Chair Lew: I'll incorporate it in the beginning, I think. Thank you, Ken, for the revisions. I would say like I was more opposed to this project at the beginning than other Board Members, and I still am. Really the main thing is the length of the facade on El Camino. Can I just say like on the things that I like about the project? I like the sizable residential component. I like that they're townhouses. I like the skylights in the corridors. Mr. Hayes: It's my understanding a townhouse is like a two-story unit. Whether it's on the ground or not is irrelevant. Vice Chair Lew: There's a difference about a townhouse versus a row house. Board Member Furth: That's because you're from the East originally. (crosstalk) grow up here. Vice Chair Lew: In Mountain View they have some multifamily design guidelines, and they distinguish between townhouse and a row house. The row house is the thing that is like the brownstone with the steps going down to the sidewalk. Board Member Furth: (inaudible) Vice Chair Lew: Anyway, I like the residential component of the project, and I like the extensive ground floor retail. I think generally the architectural style that you're using is compatible with the buildings on Grant and Sherman. So that's all fine. But I am opposed to the project because of the length of the facade on El Camino. I did bring some drawings; I think staff has them, and the Board has them. Your building is longer than any other building in the vicinity on El Camino, and there's less modulation than any of the other buildings in the vicinity. You have a very articulated facade. I like all of the recesses that you have on the upper balconies, and that's all fine. I think our better buildings have bigger breaks. They have more prominent lobbies facing El Camino. Like the David Baker building across the street has a big glass connector piece between the two buildings. It really provides a break in the building. I think you've made some revisions, and I do appreciate that, but I don't think it's enough given the length of City of Palo Alto Page 11 the facade. I mean, this project is longer than your Alma Village building, a little bit, not a lot. It's like 20 feet. Mr. Hayes: Yeah, I'm not sure. I think this is 180 feet ... Vice Chair Lew: I thought it was like 200 and ... Mr. Hayes: ... from here to here. No, but this ... Vice Chair Lew: You're saying that, the total length is more like 200 ... Mr. Hayes: Right, but you have to admit that this looks like it's broken. It's clearly differentiated, the commercial from the residential. Right? I mean, wouldn't you agree? Vice Chair Lew: Yeah, I would, I think just in terms of urban pattern, like, I like Hamilton Avenue which has like two buildings per block, split. Like, they're 100 feet, 100-plus feet, 100-plus feet. Here the ratio is off to me. Mr. Hayes: It's like one-fifth/two-fifths or one-fifth/four-fifths. Vice Chair Lew: Yeah. And that the residential component is just too overwhelming for the block. And it doesn't really fit the urban pattern on El Camino that's already there. Yeah, that's where I am on that. Mr. Hayes: I just have a question. I'm confused, because the time to have said that would have been 14 months ago, Alex, when we brought that concept, when we brought the concept forward. Vice Chair Lew: I think I did, and I think that I was in the minority. I think that the rest of the Board, I think my opinion was not as strong as it was. Mr. Hayes: You said it reminded you of Alma Plaza. You did say that, but you didn't say that you felt it was too long, in my recollection. Vice Chair Lew: One of the things that I've been doing separately from the ARB is actually tracking all of the buildings together. I would say that I don't think my comment is far off . I apologize if I wasn't very clear before. I think we've gone through this exercise before. So like Carraso's College Terrace Center a couple of blocks way, it's a slightly longer site than yours, but like when that went to the PTC initially it was one big, long, block building. The PTC said no way, and they made him separate it into two buildings, one garage, and then there's a bridge that connects the two portions of the building. And then it came to the ARB. The ARB didn't really ever see the one long, block of a building. I think the other thing too on Alma Village is that we've gotten so much criticism for that. I think the building is fine, but there's a combination of street setback, having 40 mile an hour traffic right in front of this ... Mr. Hayes: It's an 8-foot sidewalk, I think. Vice Chair Lew: No, I've measured ... Mr. Hayes: That was all dictated to us. Vice Chair Lew: I've measured Alma Plaza, and it's sort of like 10 to 12 feet. It depends where you're measuring from on the curb, and you have pilasters and what not. I do think that the architecture here is more articulated ... Mr. Hayes: A lot more. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Vice Chair Lew: ... and you have more glass on the ground floor. I don't want, just compare it direct, make a simple, direct comparison. I'm just saying I think we could do better here. I'm mindful of our new process and all of the problems that causes you. I'm very mindful of that. I think the second thing, I'm less opposed, is the plaza on Sherman. I think ultimately I'm sort of siding with Board Member Baltay. I think that a stronger alley connection, even if it went straight through, would ultimately be better for the urban pattern. In our Urban Design ... Mr. Hayes: I will talk to my client about that notion. I like that. Vice Chair Lew: Our Urban Design Guidelines do argue for stronger alley connections and also connections between the alley or whatever, you have parking in the back, to El Camino, which you don't have. You could go through your building, through the retail space, to get to El Camino. That's also in the Guidelines, and you're not doing that. I agree with Board Member Baltay on the corner. Then the top, middle, base thing, I'll also agree with you about that. We haven't been enforcing it. I think that we would be better off if we did. So I have some nitpicky things here. I think some of your drawings are showing planters along El Camino in some of the (crosstalk) ... Mr. Hayes: I saw that. Vice Chair Lew: ... perspectives, but they're not in the landscape. Like 12 feet of concrete is not so good in my book without any planters. I think there's a ... Mr. Hayes: I have a question then. We'd love to have planters there, where we're showing them, but they would be in the public—actually no, they'd still be on our property, I think, because we're ... Vice Chair Lew: You have some setback ... Mr. Hayes: ... we've got more of a setback. It's a 12-foot from face of curb to face of building, so we might be able to keep them on our property. Vice Chair Lew: You're allowed wiggle ... That is the effective sidewalk, right, and you're allowed the 12 feet. The things that are on your property is a gray ... Mr. Hayes: That was my question. I think we'd be on our property. If we were in the right-of-way, we'd have a problem. Vice Chair Lew: I think you have, I think there's wiggle room. I don't know what staff thinks about it, but I think there's wiggle room for that. Mr. Hayes: I think we'd like to see planters. Vice Chair Lew: You may be able, I think to Wynne's comment about the landscaping on Grant, you may be able to do continuous planter strips instead of tree wells. That would be more consistent with the residential nature of Grant. I don't know what utilities are down there. I know that's a complicated issue. Your bike rack seems to be totally unusable in my ... Mr. Hayes: Unusable? Vice Chair Lew: It's very cool, I have to say. It looks like you have to use a cable lock, and those are pretty useless by most bicyclists' standards. You need to be able to get the U-lock through there, and then ideally you want to lock both wheels. It seems to be very difficult to do with that. I will defer to Transportation, because I think they're the arbiters of the bike rack standards. I think that's all that I have. Again, we're not making a motion today, as I understand this from staff, but I think I would be a no on this. I wish I had better, like, I think that you're following all the City guidelines. I'm arguing that we should have yet more standards in regard to facade length. Other cities do, and we don't. I don't City of Palo Alto Page 13 think that you're doing anything, that you're violating any of our zoning. The only thing that I can stand by is in our compatibility standards, that you're trying to make, fit in with the rhythm of the neighboring context. I wish I had something more quantitative. Mr. Hayes: We're trying to do that with the rhythm of the units obviously, but not changing the style of the building so it looks like a different building. Chair Gooyer: I do agree that, as you said, the old concept of a base, a middle and a top, we are losing. I think it's probably, mainly because we look at a lot of these buildings as individual entities. As you said, after a while you end up with all these little items next to each other. They somewhat relate in scale but not really in any flow. I think that could be a problem. As far as this building itself, the one thing I didn't like about it the first time, and again I've mentioned that on a couple of your, I don't like the repetitiveness of the six items. I guess I'm different than the other people that are here. The length of the building I don't have a problem with other than the fact that I think you're just enhancing it where you get the six that are very repetitive, and then the corner basically doesn't really help that any. To a certain extent, I know there was a lot of thought given to that, and it isn't just a "we decided to turn it 90 degrees." I mean, I can see that. It gives that initial, at least to me it gives that perception from the outside. It's the old if you drive by at 40 miles an hour, nobody really can appreciate the thought you put into doing that. I don't know if it's benefiting you from the exterior. That sort of thing. I like the separation, as you said, of the commercial from the residential that are two distinct items. I even like the way you handled each individual unit with the balcony and how it relates to the adjacent bedroom. Like I said, I think that corner needs work on the Grant side. I also agree that the link between, there's nothing worse than seeing a nice visual shot all the way through. You walk up and there's a glass set of doors that are locked. I think you could probably, if you had to, make that lobby or that area a little wider, even if it means the building or the portion of the building further down away from El Camino gets a little, comes a little bit closer to the street to make up the square footage you're losing. Even if you make it so that there's a lobby that's half glass-enclosed, yet there's still a walkway that goes past it. That's ... Mr. Hayes: I like what has come out of this in terms of that walkway maybe being open. I like that. Chair Gooyer: Exactly, exactly. Other than that, it's sort of a, I'd like to approve it, but I'm not, it's not there for me yet. Mr. Hayes: You can't vote today, right, because we haven't gone to Planning Commission yet. We go next week to Planning Commission, as staff pointed out. Something like the corner, is that an item that could come back for ... Chair Gooyer: That's probably an awfully big item for a subcommittee. Mr. Hayes: We have three projects that are all of a sudden jammed into the next three weeks. I ... Chair Gooyer: I understanding where you're coming from, but I can't judge this with the biggest criteria being you're in a time crunch. Mr. Hayes: Understood, right. Chair Gooyer: I have to look at it for ... Mr. Hayes: How about (crosstalk). Chair Gooyer: We sit here because we have a certain amount of knowledge, and we're doing this for the best of the community. I'm not saying that you haven't been pushed into this corner to a certain extent, maybe through no fault of your own or whatever the case is. That's not really the point. I can appreciate that, but I can't use that as the criteria for making my decision. I mean, it may mean some City of Palo Alto Page 14 real push. It could if, as you said, I think a couple of us have a problem with the corner. If the corner goes 75 percent of the way there and we're pretty happy with it, we could say the fine-tuning aspect of it could go to subcommittee, but not the overall "we'll put a corner on it in the subcommittee." Mr. Hayes: Later, right, yeah. Understood. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Anything else from anyone? Board Member Furth: I just wanted to say that, ask staff. The Context Based Criteria do apply to this project? Ms. Netto: Yes. Board Member Furth: At this point, I have no opinion on the corner of the building until I finish listening to you all. I have opinions on two things. One is that I think it's essential that the pedestrian walkway between the two buildings, between the two streets, be something that looks like it's where you're intended to go and that it's available and open. It needs to be ... Chair Gooyer: More inviting. Board Member Furth: It needs to be inviting, and not like I'm just cutting through somebody's parking lot. I think that will be a positive addition to the neighborhood, and it will just make it better. I'm very struck by what Alex says about the solid frontage on El Camino. One of the things that does make walking and being at a place more attractive is your ability to duck off that highly noisy, congested space to somewhere more attractive. I agree that this needs more landscaping on this extra-wide area that we'll call sidewalk, much of which is located on the applicant's property. I think it needs to be significantly attractive. I do not consider Rafael [phonetic], if it's pruned within an inch of its life, anything attractive to sit by or walk by, but there are lots of attractive plants that are attractive to sit by or walk by. I don't consider this, at this point, with regard to landscaping of the eastern portion of the project to be compatible with the development across the street. I think it's too bright, too hard, and insufficiently green. It may be that I don't understand how to read the plans, but I don't think that's it. I think the Chinese elms are good. I think that's a large tree that can be a significant presence, pretty untidy to live under. I'm concerned about how this works all year. I'm concerned about what it's like in the winter. I'm concerned about what these trees do throughout the year, not just at the little interval where the London planes are fully leafy. I don't think it's compatible yet, because if you look across the street, you get a radically different approach to residential living. Thanks. Which is unarmored essentially. This building is armored against the external environment, the ... Mr. Hayes: Armored? Board Member Furth: The residential is up off the ground floor. It's sealed away. The parking is underground, and it doesn't, I can't walk out of my residence onto the street or into my front yard. Mr. Hayes: That may not be a style of living that you like. Board Member Furth: That's, it's not, what I'm saying is across the street, I mean I live in a fairly ... Mr. Hayes: That's a different zone, though, right, RM-40. Board Member Furth: But it's, but we're talking about context, and we're required to find it ... Chair Gooyer: When we talk about different zone, the average person standing there doesn't know the difference from (crosstalk). City of Palo Alto Page 15 Board Member Furth: I'm not saying that you should be building that. I'm saying that when you build what you're building and the product that you're building, it needs to not damage the way of life across the street. That's what these Context Based Design Criteria are. I'm not arguing that you should change your building. I am arguing that you change your landscape approach. I like what you, I believe I like, as far as I can tell. I like what you've done in moving the, a lot of the things that I think are frequent problems when you try to make these things fit together, you solved those problems by pulling back your ramp and doing the (inaudible) and having significant trees that are in the ground. I mean, I live in a residential infill project that used to be a printing press. We are insulated from Lytton Avenue's traffic by a commercial building, which has a great big garden behind it. That, in my view, is an ideal context shift. It's possible that your building will make it a better neighborhood to live in, and that's the goal. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Anyone else? Board Member Baltay: Wynne, I didn't hear any comments from you about my base, middle, top business. Do you have no opinion on that? Board Member Furth: I could pull out my art history credentials, but I am fairly knowledgeable about Italian Renaissance architecture based on my 6 months living in Florence with Matt Kahn lecturing me daily. I am concerned that, I think you ought to be able to tell where you are on El Camino. I think that there should be something about the rhythm of the buildings that isn't, as a layperson I don't know how it's done, but I know it when it's missing. I'm concerned that we don't have it. I understand that it has a great deal to do with how buildings are spaced in relation to each other and the lines we unconsciously draw connecting them. I do not see how buildings like this will be that successful on this avenue. I mean, I tend to be slightly not at the "grow a little ivy over it" school but "plant significant trees" school. That's one of the classic indicators of a boulevard, is significant, big landscaping that pulls things together. I think that it's worth, actually I should say our guidelines say you're supposed to do it, so we should do it. Chair Gooyer: You got enough? Mr. Hayes? Yes, thank you very much. 2. 744-750 San Antonio Road (15PLN-00314): Request for a Community Scoping Meeting to take verbal comments regarding the scope and content of the forthcoming Draft EIR. The proposed discretionary Architectural Review application is for a request by Rashik Patel on behalf of M10 Dev, LLC for Architectural Review of a lot merger, architectural review, demolition of existing structures and construction of two new hotel buildings (297 rooms in 153,580 square feet). The project includes surface parking and an underground garage, hotel amenities and other minor site improvements. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report will be prepared. Zoning District: Service Commercial CS. For more information, contact Sheldon A. Sing at sheldon@mplanninggroup.com. 3. 355 University Avenue [15PLN-00237]: Request by Terrence Murphey of Hayes Group Architects, on behalf of Palo Alto Masonic Temple Association, for Architectural Review, Historic Review, Sign Exception, and Seismic Rehabilitation Floor Area Bonus for new façades and signage on University Avenue and Florence Street, new ground floor parking accessed from the adjacent public alley, new second story with outdoor rooftop display area, and interior modifications. Environmental Assessment: Categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guideline Section 15301 Existing Facilities, Section 15304 Minor Alterations to Land, and Section 15311 Accessory Structures. Zoning District: Downtown Commercial (CD-C(GF)(P). For more information, contact Rebecca Atkinson at rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Study Session Minutes Approval: January 21, 2016 Draft Minutes February 18, 2016 Draft Minutes Subcommittee Item 180 El Camino Real [15PLN-00355]: Review responses to Condition of Approval #14 regarding b) exterior lighting and f) living wall for The North Face at Stanford Shopping Center. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Adjournment City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order Roll Call Present: Chair Robert Gooyer; Vice Chair Alexander Lew, Board Members Wynne Furth, Kyu Kim Absent: Board Member Peter Baltay Oral Communications Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Official Reports 1.Future Tentative Agenda Schedule and Subcommittee Assignments 2.List of Staff Approved (Minor) Architectural Reviews Continued Business 3. 2515-2585 El Camino Real [15PLN-00170]: Request by the Hayes Group Architects on Behalf of ECRPA, LLC for Site and Design Review to Allow a New 39,858 Square Foot, 3-Story Mixed Use Building Including Retail, Office, 13 Residential Condominium Units and One Level of Underground Parking on a 39,638 square foot Lot to Replace a 9,694Square Foot Existing Restaurant (Olive Garden). The Project Includes a Request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to Exceed the 5,000 Square Foot Office for the Site by Approximately 4,835 Square Feet. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study was drafted and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated on January 19, 2016. Zoning Districts: CC(2) and CN. For more information, contact Margaret Netto at margaret.netto@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Gooyer: Could we have the staff report? Margaret Netto: Good morning, Chair and Board Members. My name is Margaret Netto. I'll make a brief staff presentation. As noted, this item was continued from the March 3rd Architectural Review Board meeting. The ARB was generally supportive of the project and offered some recommendations to break up the facade along El Camino Real; make the pedestrian connection between Sherman and Grant Avenue more friendly; break up the El Camino Real corner; and also provide more seating along El Camino Real. On March 9th, this item went to the Planning and Transportation Commission. The PTC recommended approval of the project to Council along with encouraging the Council to request a higher number of units and to include a TDM plan for the parking reduction. That concludes my staff report, and the applicant is also here to make a presentation. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Are there any questions of staff? Go ahead. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT OF MINUTES: March 17, 2016 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue Attachment J City of Palo Alto Page 2 Board Member Furth: Now that the project we just reviewed, was that 901, is no longer applying for office space in this session, what does that to do the competitive process or the approval process? Could you explain? Jodie Gerhardt: Yes. I'm getting some confirmation from this, so I may have more information as we go along, but now that we are under the 50,000 limit, these would not need to be reviewed by Council. They would be approved by the Director. I just need to confirm what that sort of window that the Director can approve them in ... Board Member Furth: Whether we're still under a timing constraint? Ms. Gerhardt: I think we are under some time constraints, but not March 31st. Again, the rest of these items have been to at least one ARB hearing prior to this. Board Member Furth: I'm not arguing that we should be dilatory; I just want to know what the consequences are to applicants if we're unable to approve a project. Ms. Gerhardt: I hope to have a deadline for you shortly. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Any other questions? Could we hear from the applicant then? You know the drill, Ken. You've got 10 minutes. Ken Hayes: Hopefully I won't take nearly that much time this morning. Good morning. Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects. I'll be presenting the project on behalf of my client, Victor Lo, who is here if you have questions. Unfortunately, Brian Fletcher with Callander and Associates had to leave. We were messed up on the agenda this morning. So I'll try to answer any questions on landscape, if you should have some. Let me go back to the beginning. This is not—okay. This is the site plan that you saw 2 weeks ago. We were, although you were generally supportive, you had some encouraging ideas and things that we should consider. One was the possibility of making this an open, all-day, all-time-of-day pathway linkage between Sherman and Grant. You also suggested that to help break up the frontage that we should consider something, although we had something different on the corner, something a little more different on the corner to break the mass. So we have something to show you with regard to that. Then Board Member Furth had concerns about some of the raised planters in this area. I pointed out at the hearing that in fact we don't need to make them raised there any longer, and we can actually put them in the ground. Then perhaps think of some way to tie this side of the building in with the Grant Street neighborhood. As you proceed down Grant, you tend to have landscape strips between the sidewalk and the curb. Then lastly, we had and then we removed them and now they're back on El Camino Real some potted plants that sort of matched the rhythm of the building as it extends along the street frontage. We have created this linkage that was suggested from the plaza on Sherman all the way through the site on the back side. You'll have storefront windows for that entire length. We'll take the featured paving that we have in front in the plaza and just draw that right through on the back edge, so that you have this defined, enhanced paving material. We also looked at the landscaping on the upper right-hand corner, if you will, and have removed the planter, which it shows here the raised planter is gone. All that vegetation is now in the ground plane and depicted on the landscape drawings. We have added the—I don't know if this has a pointer—added a planter that runs from the driveway all the way to the corner along Grant Avenue. And we have grasses and shrubs in that planter to help tie it to the street further down on Grant. Then at the corner we have increased the landscaped raised planter area, but also pushed the building back between 5 and almost 12 feet, like 11 1/2 feet, to create that, a break in that facade. This is what we had before. Hopefully it looks better on your screen than it does up there. Certainly you have the drawings. This is what was before. The far, right-hand side on El Camino is a unit like the others. It's turned 90 degrees, and we thought perhaps that we could do a better transition there. What we've done is, on the far left-hand side here where it transitions to the commercial, we actually have a reveal in the building that has a balcony, that is about 8 to 10 feet deep. City of Palo Alto Page 3 We have a material change on the ground floor to the concrete so it ties and wraps around the corner. So we've taken that idea for the new corner now on the far right-hand side so we pretty much frame the five condominiums that are between the two corners, between these two reveals that again are about, it's about 10, about 11 feet back to the wall of the unit on the right-hand side, which is similar to what it is on the left-hand side where it transitions to the commercial. I think that creates this rhythm break. I still like the five units in a row, but it addresses I think Board Member Lew's comment about a little bit too much of it along El Camino. You can see that we've wrapped the storefront window at the ground floor. There is a column there similar to what we have on the far left-hand side at Sherman. The retail window will now wrap, whereas before there was a column there. It recreates that whole corner, I think, in a pleasant way. Then you can see the revised side elevation on Grant above that, where you see the window wrapping at the ground floor, the planter. Then the balconies are still on that side; we wanted to get those balconies to face Grant. This is the 3-D before that you saw last time, and so now we have the break and you actually read a pretty good piece of wall that extends into the building, like I said, about 11 feet. Then the unit is still on the end. The unit, we're still employing the concept of taking these units and plugging them into the main form. And then you can see how the material change on the ground floor really helps break that piece up, and then we reinforced that with the raised planter. The unit was completely redesigned on the inside. I don't have the slide of that in the presentation, but it's in your packet. Again, from the north looking south at that corner and how that would break the form. It is a balcony off the kitchen on the first level of the condo, so it's a usable space off of the kitchen. This is probably the most revealing view, and I know you're going to say no one ever sees it like this, but that's how we design. This is how we would break it so it becomes this unique element on the corner, not unlike the uniqueness of the commercial piece, but it still reads residential. We're still matching the Equitone; we're still matching the Resysta, and then we're taking the concrete base that we have on Sherman and using that here on the corner. That's my presentation. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Questions for anyone, for the applicant? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address this Board on this item? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Board. Kyu, you want to start? Board Member Kim: Sure. Thank you for bringing the project back. I apologize for having missed your last presentation 2 weeks ago. I was able to catch-up. Overall I'm very excited about the direction that it's gone. I'm very pleased with the new corner treatment. Chair Gooyer: I tell you what. I'd forgotten about the card; I remembered it here. There is one person that wants to speak. They didn't mention anything, but I have one card here. That would be Jeff Levinsky. Jeff Levinsky: Good morning, Commissioners. I wanted to address three points, relatively simple, about this project. First of all, if it's still true that the project is applying for a shared-use parking exemption, in the past there's been a study done. The Code requires that there be a study done to show how that would work. I haven't seen that in the packet, and we asked for it and didn't get a copy of any such study. The second point is that the Code also requires that for this project there be a separate loading space onsite. We didn't see that in the plans. Maybe it's there; we just missed it. The third point regards the FAR of the project. The project, of course, is a mixed use, and the residential FAR is 3 1/2 feet less than the total allowed FAR for the site. That's fine except that if you look at how the shared spaces were allocated between the different uses, it's not consistent with other projects from the same architect. If you look, for example, at the basement utility room, it's a 600 square foot space. What they've done is, even though over half the building is residential, they've given two-thirds of that space to nonresidential use. The same thing happens on the top floor. Then if you look at the second floor, they've allocated half of the circulation space to office, but the office is a lot less than half of that floor. Any of these changes, if any of them were corrected for, the building would be over its FAR for residential. When I added up, it would shift approximately, over 500 square feet from nonresidential to residential by making the normal adjustments for how to handle that space. It would be helpful, I think, overall if projects were consistent in how they do this. Maybe you can give comment on that as well today. Thank you very much. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Why don't we—sorry about that. Why don't you go ahead and start again? Board Member Kim: That's fine. Would staff like to comment or respond to those comments? Ms. Netto: Yes, there was a shared parking study prepared by Hexagon Consultants, which actually showed that, with that shared parking, 95 spaces would actually be required in this mixed-use project. They are proposing the 104 parking spaces. Yes, there is a loading parking space. You can see it on Sheet A0.3. It is a timed loading space, so it's between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., and then there's also a space on, I believe it's on the Emerson side, street side, that's also for loading as well. But there is one onsite space. Then as far as the FAR and the allocation, staff did look at that and felt that it adequately addressed the ratios of mixed use. I hope that answers your questions. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Board Member Furth: Excuse me. Was the parking study made available to the public? Ms. Netto: It was part of the Initial Study/MND, so it should have been part of, I mean it was also addressed in the Initial Study as well. Board Member Furth: Or referenced. Chair Gooyer: I'll bring it back to the Board then. Go ahead, Kyu. Board Member Kim: Thanks, again, for bringing it back. I was really quite pleasantly surprised by the new corner treatment and very much in favor of that. I think it's a very elegant way that you've kept some of that same character, yet made the massing of that corner so much better than it was. Just a second. I think compared to the previous project that we reviewed together with the HRB, I think in this case because it is along El Camino, there is somewhat of a different rhythm that could be addressed. Having said that, I think the way that you've addressed it works quite nicely with El Camino Real. Of course, it's better than the existing building that's on the site, and it makes much better use of that space. Thank you again for having the majority of the parking underground. That's always an excellent choice. I think just a small comment. There were some section details on Sheet 8.2. I think some of those references still needed to be updated, but overall I appreciated the way that you've laid those out. We've been there previously as well. Mr. Hayes: Not all the sheets have been updated with the revisions just from the timing standpoint. Board Member Kim: I think we've commented quite a bit on the project in the past. As far as the new corner treatment, I'm very much in favor of it. I think it's been well done, and I think I would be ready to approve the project today. Thank you. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Alex. Vice Chair Lew: Thank you for all the revisions. I think this project is really a very nice project. I'm still probably opposed to it. I'm thinking that as nice as the building is that conceptually, for me though, like of all the modulations that you have put in, it's still more than, it's still less than all of the other buildings on El Camino that are built at the build-to line. I would just say, like for example, the building across the street, their modulation thing in the center, the glass bridge, it's like 25 feet, it's like a 25 by 25 foot notch in the building. The largest element that you have is maybe like 8 feet by 8 feet. Mr. Hayes: I think it might be, one's 8, I think one's 12. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Vice Chair Lew: Yeah. I'm just so, that's where I am on this one, that it's a very handsome building that—I went back there yesterday just to make sure that I was reading your drawings correctly. I do think that that is just a very long frontage. It's the whole block long. It's not a huge ... Mr. Hayes: I actually think that's the strength of the project. Vice Chair Lew: It's not, like, the facade length, 240 feet on a 260-foot lot, is not huge by any stretch of the imagination. There are very few, like, I think, like Mountain View's specific plan for El Camino allows up to 250-foot long facades. Mr. Hayes: Before a break. Vice Chair Lew: Yeah. I'm still arguing that the pattern in Palo Alto, particularly in this area which is a pedestrian area, is smaller than that. But I do like the retail. I do like your units. I think the architecture is very articulated, and I like the vertical proportions. I like the plaza on Sherman, and I like all of the landscape enhancements that you have on Grant. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Wynne. Board Member Furth: Thank you. First of all, thank you for putting street names on your site plans. That's very helpful to people like me who can never figure out what north, south, east and west are on El Camino Real. It makes it much easier to refer to things. Really appreciate it. Thank you for the increased landscaping, which I think helps, for the Grant Avenue neighborhood. I had a question. I also (inaudible) for staff or the applicant, the architect, which is what seating is there for the public along El Camino Real? Mr. Hayes: We actually added, I forgot to mention that, at the corner, the new corner. At the Sherman, I'm sorry, the Grant corner, there is a cantilevered wood bench that projects from the raised planter. I can't tell you how long it is. Board Member Furth: With a functional back. Mr. Hayes: I'm sorry? Board Member Furth: Which functions, then the planter then functions as the back? Mr. Hayes: That's correct, yes. I think the ... Board Member Furth: Every time I have more back surgery, you get more requirements. Mr. Hayes: We have a bench with a back on the other project too. If you look at L1, you see it there. It's actually, it extends the length of the planter, so multiple people could sit apart from one another. Board Member Furth: They could even chat. Not to defend us for not knowing everything, but I did measure. You gave us 4 1/2 inches of material this week. Sometimes double sided, mostly. I've been looking for standards for bench placement and I, when reading the CAP plan, you have one. The SOFA CAP says ... Mr. Hayes: 12 feet. Board Member Furth: ... 15 percent of the proposed linear footage with a minimum of 12 linear feet. There's a standard. Let me find my notes on this project. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Mr. Hayes: All of the planters along Sherman are also seats. That's primarily for the plaza, but to create a buffer at that edge. Board Member Furth: Good. I had a, I forgot to say this, but I had a question from a member of the public, Asher Waldfogel, about are those London planetrees going to fit or are they going to have to be pruned significantly? Is their crown too big to be in those areas without intruding and requiring possibly less than lovely pruning? I wouldn't say mutilated. They're big trees; is there enough space for them to be big? Ms. Netto: It was reviewed by Urban Forestry. I would assume yes, they can be placed there. Board Member Furth: My only other comment is I've been looking at this block a lot while I drive north on El Camino. It's going to be radically transformed, and it's going to become enclosed. You're not going to see a lot of sky, and you're not going to see a lot of views through. I realized that's pretty much what the El Camino Plan seems to be visualizing. We'll see. I do think it emphasizes the fact that if this is to look like we're in Palo Alto, it means really working hard on the landscaping and really maintaining it. I'm very pleased that the plaza is not on El Camino. I went, inadvertently did a field trip to look at the one at, what is our hotel, new hotel just south of the Midas Muffler shop? Vice Chair Lew: The Hilton Garden Inn. Board Member Furth: The Hilton Garden Inn, which has an outdoor space with a fireplace and glass screens and deafening noise levels. I think before you bring us more of these, when you bring us more of these, it will be important to have sound data that's specific to those plazas. This one looks like a good one. I'm pleased with the changes to address the existing development on Grant Avenue. One of the comments last time we were here made me think that perhaps the applicants think that I think that it's inappropriate to have very different kinds of living units. I mean, these are second and third story; they're approached from an underground, secure garage; they're going to be ownership not rental or maybe they're rental. Anyway, they're very different, bigger than the sort of more modest, multiple family in the area. It's not that I think they should be the same; it's that I think they shouldn't diminish the attractiveness of living in those places. I think this project is a lot better than it was. I'd be prepared to approve. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Yeah, I agree, the changes you made, I think, are a definite help. I guess I'm in the same situation that Alex is in. I'm still, I've mentioned it on this project a couple of times where it's sort of the repetitiveness of it almost to the extreme. The other way to look at it is all the other points of this building have just really improved greatly. That's one of these things that I could probably, I don't want to say overlook that, but sort of the good points outweigh the bad points. I think I'd probably be ready to approve this. Could I get a motion from someone? Board Member Kim: I'm ready to move that we approve the project. Were there any comments on the Conditions of Approval or was there anything that ought to come back to subcommittee? Board Member Furth: I did have actually one question. Sorry. I really, this project in some ways in terms of enhancing the residential neighborhood starts from a really low baseline. This is going to be nicer than an asphalt parking lot, even if that did provide a lot of easy access, and it may do a little noise buffering. As somebody who lives in an area buffered from a high-intensity street by office development, bigger development, multistory development, I appreciate that upside. My question was, again, I'm this hypothetical, older person, female, coming home at night to my nice secure garage. I get in the elevator. Will it bypass that open ground floor? Mr. Hayes: Yes. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Board Member Furth: It's a key card? Mr. Hayes: Yep. Board Member Furth: Thanks. Mr. Hayes: That was one of our concerns about the comment that we received 2 weeks ago, so we've addressed that. Vice Chair Lew: I think that one, there's one additional Condition of Approval that could be added which would be to require the ground floor retail glazing to remain unobscured. Like, you can have window shades or they could build a wall behind it, but that the glass has to be transparent. Like, no film on the, no film directly on the window. MOTION Board Member Kim: I will move that we approve the project with the added condition that the glazing on the ground-floor level remain unobscured. Chair Gooyer: Any other comments? Do we get a second? SECOND Board Member Furth: I'll second. Chair Gooyer: All those in favor. Board Member Kim: Aye. Chair Gooyer: Aye. Board Member Furth: Aye. Chair Gooyer: Opposed? Vice Chair Lew: Nay. MOTION PASSED Chair Gooyer: It passes 3-1, one absent. Mr. Hayes: Thank you very much for your time today. New Business 4. 2747 Park Boulevard [14PLN-00388]: Request by DES Architects, on behalf of Jay Paul Company, for Architectural Review of a new three-story 33,323 sq. ft. research and development project, replacing the existing 4,800 sq. ft. commercial building. The project provides 133 parking spaces and includes landscape and pedestrian amenities. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were circulated on January 29, 2016. Zoning District: General Manufacturing (GM). For more information, contact Clare Campbell at clare.campbell@ctiyofpaloalto.org. 5. 411-437 Lytton Avenue [14PLN00-489]: Request by Hayes Group Architects, Inc. On Behalf Of Ehikian & Company for Architectural Review to allow the demolition of an existing City of Palo Alto Page 8 commercial building and the construction of a new three story mixed-use, office and residential building (two units) and a 1,417 sf Addition To An Existing Historic Category 2 residence on two lots to be merged. A two level underground parking garage is proposed to be constructed under the new mixed use building adjacent to the existing residential building. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated February 26, 2016 to March 17, 2016. Zoning District: CD-C(P) Community Commercial Downtown District and Pedestrian Shopping Combining District. For more information, contact Sheldon Ah Sing at sheldon@mplanninggroup.com. 6. 429 University Avenue [14PLN-00222]: To Consider an Appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s Architectural Review Approval of a 31,407 Square-Foot, Four Story, Mixed Use Building with Parking Facilities on Two Subterranean Levels on an 11,000 Square-Foot Site. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study was prepared and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated from November 17, 2014 to December 12, 2014. Zoning District: Downtown Commercial (CD-C (GF)(P)) District. For more information, contact Christy Fong at Christy.fong@cityofpaloalto.org. Study Session Minutes Approval: March 3, 2016 Subcommittee Item Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Adjournment City of Palo Alto Page 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Verbatim Minutes 2 March 9, 2016 3 4 EXCERPT 5 6 7 8 QUASI‐JUDICIAL APPLICATION 9 1. 2515‐2585 El Camino Real [14PLN‐ 00321]:  Request by the Hayes Group Architects  on Behalf of10 ECRPA, LLC for Site and Design Review to Allow a New 39,858 Square Foot, 3‐Story Mixed Use11 Building Including Retail, Office, 13 Residential Condominium Units and One Level of12 Underground Parking on a 39,908 Square Foot Lot to Replace a 9,694 Square Foot Existing13 Restaurant (Olive Garden).  The Project Includes a Request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to14 Exceed the 5,000 Square Foot Office for the Site by Approximately 4,835 Square Feet.15 Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study was drafted and a Mitigated Negative Declaration16 was circulated on January 19, 2016.  Zoning Districts: CC (2) and CN. For more information,17 contact Margaret Netto at Margaret.netto@cityofpaloalto.org.18 19 Chair Fine: Will bring us back to order for our second item which was  a quasi‐judicial 20 application for 2515 and 2585 El  Camino.  This  is a request by the Hayes Group 21 Architects  for a site and design review of a new mixed use building.  This  is a quasi‐22 judicial project and just for the record Commissioner Downing has departed us.  She’s 23 recused herself from this  topic based on a sphere of influence or Cara?  Proximity.   24  25 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Thank you.  Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City 26 Attorney.  Kate Downing has a leasehold interest in some property close to the project 27 so she has recused herself. 28 29 Chair Fine: Ok.  And there are two major things  for us to consider tonight.  One is a 30 Record of Land Use Action (RLUA).  You can find the four criteria for this  on Page 5 of 31 the staff report.  And then also a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to exceed the 5,000 32 square foot of office for the site.  As  you may have seen there was  an environmental  33 assessment which included a mitigations around hazardous contaminants and vapors.  34 With that I think let’s kick it off with a staff report or… any disclosures?  Thank you.   35  36 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Ok, so thank you.  Margaret Netto our Contract 37 Planner is going to give the presentation for this  project.   38  39 Margaret Netto, Senior Contract Planner: Good evening Chair and Planning 40 Commissioners, my name is Margaret Netto and I’m a Senior Contract Planner here with 41 the City.  The project overview the proposed project would involve demolition of the 42 existing Olive Garden building which is about 9,694 square feet (sf) and surface parking 43 Attachment K City of Palo Alto Page 2 lot and construction of a new three story, 39,858 square foot mixed use building 1 including retail, 13 condominium units, and also office.   2  3 This  is the location map.  The project site consists of two parcels located on the 4 northeast side of El Camino Real between Sherman and Grant Avenues.  The site has 5 two zone districts and two comprehensive land use designations.  The restaurant and its 6 parking are within the CN, the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and the neighborhood, 7 and have a Neighborhood Commercial  comprehensive land use designation.  A small 8 portion of 2515 El  Camino which is the parking lot in the back is with the Community 9 Commercial  and that’s  the CC(2) Zone and has a comprehensive land use designation of 10 Regional Community Commercial.   11  12 Sorry about that.  And this  is the site plan which proposes approximately 10,000 sf of 13 ground floor retail, 9,000 sf of office on the second and third floors, and 19,000 sf of 14 residential condominiums on the second and third floors.  Access to the underground 15 and surface parking lot is from Grant and Sherman Avenue.  No access will be provided 16 off of El  Camino Real.  That existing curb cut will be removed.   17  18 This is a view from Sherman Avenue.  The building concept includes a modern design 19 with street facing building walls meeting the current build to line regulation and little 20 planters are proposed on Sherman Avenue.  The next slide shows the El  Camino Real  21 elevation and the building concept includes the modern design with straight facing 22 building walls meeting also the current build to line regulation.  Little planters are 23 proposed on Sherman Avenue, I mean on El  Camino Real.   24  25 Tonight the Commission purview is the site and design process and this  is intended to 26 ensure the development in environmentally sensitive areas will be harmonious with 27 other uses in the vicinity.  The Commission shall review the following objectives as 28 noted.  The orderly construction and operation the project is designed to minimize the 29 visual impact of the structure by stepping the building back providing plaza area with 30 planters, street trees, and landscaping along the building frontages.  The materials and 31 landscaping selection have been designed to complement the building and surroundings 32 and ensure desirability of investment the project will maintain desirability of investment 33 in the same and adjacent areas and the proposed design, size, and use of the site are 34 consistent with the zoning and the existing uses on El  Camino Real.  Ensure 35 environmental  design and ecological balance observed. Various  screen building 36 measures  have been incorporated into the project and replacement trees  will also be 37 planted.  And also as noted in the staff report the project does meet the Comprehensive 38 Plan.   39  40 I want to highlight some of the zoning compliance topics  as noted above.  The project 41 includes a request for a CUP to exceed the 5,000 square foot of office for the site by 42 City of Palo Alto Page 3 approximately 4,835 sf.  The CN Zone does allow for 25 percent of the site or 5,000 sf 1 for office use; however, office use may be allowed to exceed the maximum size subject 2 to issuance of a CUP and I know that the staff report noted that this  was  the purview of 3 the Planning Director, but this will actually all be bundled together as one approval to 4 the City Council.  And these findings will be included in the record of land use approval. 5  6 And also number two, this project is subject to the interim ordinance that established a 7 50,000 sf annual office limit on R&D.  And number three, this  project is subject to the 8 affordable housing requirements and the applicant is proposing to provide one Below 9 Market Rate (BMR) unit and the fraction will be paid, the fraction thereof will be also 10 paid to the City.  And number four, parking the project is half of the parking; half of the 11 property is with the California Avenue Parking Assessment District.  The parking 12 requirements inside and out of the Assessment District have two different 13 requirements.  The parking would provide 104 spaces where 108 would be required for 14 parking spaces for mixed use.  The applicant will request a shared parking adjustment 15 for four of these parking spaces and then that’s  less than 4 percent. 16  17 An environmental  document was  prepared, an initial study Mitigated Negative 18 Declaration (MND).  The public review period was  from January 19th to February 18th 19 and no comments  have been received to date.  The next step this  item actually went to 20 the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on let’s see, March 4th.  And the ARB did bring up 21 two issues at that meeting and one was  to enhance the proposed pedestrian connection 22 between Sherman and Grant Avenue and they were also concerned with the length of 23 the façade on El  Camino Real. 24  25 So the next steps after upon recommendation by the Planning Commission this  project 26 will go back to ARB on the 17th and staff will forward the Commission and ARB 27 recommendations to City Council.  And with that here is the Motion if you choose to do 28 this  tonight and I’m here to answer any questions and also we have Heather Ivey here 29 from Dudek if you have any questions on the environmental document.  And the 30 applicant is also here for a presentation.  Thank you.   31  32 Chair Fine: Thank you very much.  I believe the applicant gets  15 minutes.  We…  33  34 Ken Hayes, Hayes  Group Architects: Thank you Jodie.  Good evening Chair Fine and 35 members  of the Commission.  My name is Ken Hayes  with Hayes  Group Architects.  I’ll 36 be presenting the project on behalf of my client, Victor Low, who actually is joining me 37 tonight.  I’d also like to point out that I’m joined by Gary Black our Transportation 38 Consultant with Hexagon and Brian Fletcher with Callander Associates our Landscape 39 Architects.   40  41 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Let me just get this  positioned.  So the site as staff just pointed out is between Sherman 1 and Grant on El Camino, located here.  It’s almost 40,000 sf.  It is in the CN Zone and the 2 one portion that is in this the CC(2) is this little sliver here where we’re proposing some 3 of the parking.  It’s surrounded by some RM(40), some CS across the street, and then 4 more of the CC(2) Zoning District.  This  is the site of the Olive Garden.  I’m sure you’re all  5 familiar with it, but I do have some photos I want to walk through.  From the south on El 6 Camino looking north and then this  is from the north on El  Camino looking south with 7 the Coronet Hotel, motel  rather on the left and the new Stanford housing project 8 directly across the street.  And then this  is a view looking back towards  El  Camino on 9 Sherman and so our site is located here and this  is another property there.   10  11 One of the aspects of the property that we really wanted to capitalize on was  12 connections, creating connections kind of in the California Avenue area and to pull the 13 building into that district.  This is the back of the Coronet Hotel.  This is Peral Lane and 14 down there you can see the building on the corner of El  Camino and California Avenue 15 and then just beyond that the parking garages.  There’s  a deliberate alleyway that sort 16 of bisects this area and if you turned and looked towards our site from that lane this is a 17 connection that we wanted to strengthen and over time hopefully it will become more 18 than what it is today, but I’ll show you how we tie into that.   19  20 The program is to create a new three story mixed use building.  Again as staff explained 21 we have 13 two bedroom condominiums.  They are two story units about 1,400 sf.  I 22 want to respond to the nature and the forces of the site in the context.  Parked the 23 project primarily in an underground garage where we have 90 of the cars and we have 24 14 cars at grade and provide some outdoor courtyard space and that plays into these 25 connections.  Balconies and support sustainable systems.  We have some photovoltaic 26 panel arrays and some rainscreen siding and high performance windows, mechanical 27 units.   28  29 So this  is the site plan.  ARB saw this last week.  Just point out we’re about 64 feet away 30 from this  is a single family home in an RM(40) Zone so we’ve positioned the building out 31 here.  It helps reinforce the street edge as well as the El Camino Real  Guidelines.  Two 32 entry points here and here and this comes into the lot and you go down the ramp there 33 to the garage or you can cycle through to the on grade parking spaces.  Multiple entry 34 points all the way around the building, so from the back, from the front, on the ends.  35 You want to be able to get to people visually into the building and then physically with 36 multiple door locations to get into the building easily so it comes kind of transparent.   37  38 The public zone, the sidewalk wraps  the building.  We do have compliance with the El  39 Camino Real  Guidelines along El  Camino here and then as that kind of wraps around the 40 Sherman side of the building and gives  it a little bit more generous space there.  The 41 main entry to the upper floors is this yellow area and then Peral Lane that force kind of 42 City of Palo Alto Page 5 sort of begs for a plaza at this location and that’s why we’ve developed it there.  A place 1 for a coffee shop, some kind of outdoor seating area that then gets tied into the 2 Downtown or the Cal Ave.   3  4 This is the blowup of that site plan.  So just to point out at last weeks’ ARB hearing they 5 generally are supportive of the project.  They would like to see this  connection here to 6 Grant along the back of the building from the plaza and from Sherman to be open all the 7 time.  And so what we’re going to do we’re revising this  right now so that instead of this 8 being a controlled entry point for visitors or for the people that live there it will be a 9 breezeway.  So you’ll be able to traverse from the plaza along the back of the building to 10 Grant Avenue at any time.  The other thing that they had us study and we’re in the 11 process of doing it right now is the corner here to try to break up the length of the 12 building.  We’ve done a nice job here at this  corner and then the units are sort of in this  13 zone and they wanted to see something maybe happen at this corner.  So we’re 14 presently responding to that and we’ll see them again next week. 15  16 These are the plans at the second floor.  This is about 4,800 sf of office usable here and 17 then 13 condominiums.  This  is the first floor of the units.  It’s the living floor: living 18 room, dining room, kitchen, powder room, generous balconies that are on both sides of 19 the building including the ones at the ends.  So they have lots of outdoor space.  An 20 internal stair then takes  them to the second floor where there are two additional, two 21 bedrooms rather with more outdoor space off of the master bedroom.  These yellow 22 rectangles sort of run down the center f the building and those are skylights that bring 23 natural light into the ground, the first floor of the condominiums to make that a nice 24 experience.  The roof plan here we have photovoltaic panels, about 30 kilowatt array on 25 the roof.  These are the skylights that you see there and I highlighted it in blue.   26  27 The ARB comments in 2014 when we were there for a preliminary they thought this  is 28 the Sherman view.  They thought we could probably define the entry a little bit better.  29 They thought that the building maybe was  a little too horizontal; they’d like to see a 30 little more height.  So we’ve raised the height of this  corner element and changed the 31 orientation of the window fenestration pattern.  Along El Camino Real they sort of said 32 the same thing, try to break this  up.  And then the main units are here with their 33 balconies, but they felt like it was a little bit too heavy on the retail on the ground floor 34 and that we probably should try to lighten that up.  So what we did was on the El 35 Camino façade we raised that up about three feet, created a windows with canopies.  36 The windows I think are 10 feet along El Camino.  At the corner we sort of sectioned off 37 with this  building reveal the commercial  element.  So this  is the commercial  office 38 space.  We’re using materials  that are more reflective of kind of the commercial  office 39 or commercial  environment for office and then trying to relate more to the residential 40 with a residential more friendly kind of warm materials.   41  42 City of Palo Alto Page 6 At the Sherman side we again broke the building apart, created two pieces  instead of 1 sort of the one and then defined the entry in the center here with an outdoor balcony 2 that the office space can use.  And then there’s  a rhythm of built in planters that help 3 define the street edge and the courtyard seat wall height so hopefully places for people 4 to congregate.  A little bit small, but this is the street view on El  Camino.  Parking lot 5 here on the Chipotle side and then the Coronet Hotel  or motel  located there.  And then 6 this  is the streetscape on Sherman.  There is a new project proposed here since we did 7 this  slide.  A mixed use project not unlike our mixed use project, but you can see how it 8 sort of transitions to a little bit lower scale buildings here as our Plaza steps the building 9 down.   10  11 Cross section through the building, we’re about 15 feet floor to floor so the ground floor 12 retail will be nice retail space.  It’ll be a concrete structure so that you’ve got even more 13 expression of height when you’re inside.  This gives you an idea here of if I can find the 14 cursor of how the skylight delivers light down to the main hallway of the units and then 15 one unit on this  side lives to this  edge and then a unit on this  side lives to that edge and 16 then the outdoor space sort of buffers the unit from being right on El  Camino.   17  18 And then this  is the cross section at the plaza, so Sherman is here, gives  you an idea.  19 Part of the plaza is covered actually so we have a covered seating area which would be 20 good on days like yesterday, but also the majority of it is uncovered where we have 21 opportunities for seating and so on.  And this  was  intended to be some kind of a coffee 22 shop retail something that would spill out into that outdoor courtyard space to activate 23 it.   24  25 This  is an aerial view from Sherman.  We have a unique stair feature that comes from 26 the office space above and delivers people down into the courtyard.  We thought that 27 was  a nice feature to help again activate the courtyard.  And then the ARB was  28 interested in this  entry and I told you earlier how we’ve pulled it apart, created a 29 balcony, and that will now be this entry and I think I can click that and it sort of shows 30 you how you come into the entry, the plaza located there.  Lots of ground floor 31 windows.  There.  Did a similar thing on El Camino where we they wanted to see the 32 entry sort of develop better and connected to the plaza so you can see we’ve changed 33 the material, recessed it back, have planters and then this  is an arcade that would 34 connect you to the plaza.  So there’s  a physical visual connection from El Camino along 35 the edge of the building that’s  on our property combined with the sidewalk it’s quite a 36 bit of space on that edge.   37  38 And then staff already showed you the building view from El  Camino.  I said earlier 39 aluminum composite panels, high performance glazing systems, poured in place 40 concrete for the commercial element of the building here to be more expressive I think 41 of a commercial  occupancy and then the residential is a rain screen composite wood 42 City of Palo Alto Page 7 panel product as well as a composite material that provides this outline of each of the 1 individual units along El Camino so that they’re all uniquely defined.  The vocabulary of 2 the building sort of picks up on this midcentury modern idea and then also uses it on the 3 residential in the same kind of way.  But it’s used to sort of define the units themselves.   4  5 This  corner here is what the ARB is actually asking us to address right now.  And then 6 one of the Members  of the Board also expressed an interest in maybe getting rid of the 7 raised planter here which we don’t need and perhaps some strip planters between the 8 building and the curb or the sidewalk and the curb to create more of a gradual transition 9 to the neighborhood beyond because it’s a little bit more residential like on Grant as 10 you go down Grant.  And so we thought having this  planter removed and just plant in 11 grade would be a good solution there.  And I think that that is it for my presentation, but 12 I’m happy to answer any of your questions.  Thank you. 13  14 Chair Fine: Thank you very much.  I think we have one public speaker.  Let’s  do that. 15  16 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Mr. Robert Moss.  Five minutes. 17  18 Robert Moss: Thank you Chairman Fine and Commissioners.  I have two major problems 19 with this  project.  The first one is the office space.  Speaking as one of the three people 20 who created the CN Zone we very clearly wanted to limit office space to no more than 21 5,000 sf.  Not 9,835 sf.  Not 5,001 sf.  5,000 period.  The CN Zone is supposed to be 22 primarily retail and the second use would be residential.  Office space was supposed to 23 be an afterthought, not the primary reason for building the project.  So I’d strongly urge 24 you to reject the request for an additional 4,835 sf of office space.  Convert that to 25 residential. 26  27 Second, the amount of parking required for offices is not one parking space for 250 sf.  28 That figure has been obsolete for almost five years.  More people are jamming into 29 office spaces and taking up less space than they did 10 years ago.  A more realistic figure 30 today is between 150 and 175 sf per worker.  That’s the number you should be using to 31 assign parking spaces.   32  33 Now if you reduce the office space to 5,000 sf then you can reduce the number of 34 parking spaces slightly and we’d be ok, but if we have too much office space and not 35 enough parking we’re going to have real problems because this  part of town has a 36 parking and traffic problem.  And we already have problems with people who work in 37 office spaces and retail parking in the residential areas closer to Park Avenue.  I have 38 some friends that live there and they’re complaining that if they leave in the morning 39 they can’t park there during the day when they return because the parking spaces are 40 taken up by workers.  So reduce the office area and adjust the parking to one space per 41 150 or 175 sf for the office space that you finally approved. 42 City of Palo Alto Page 8  1 One other point in the toxics, as you probably know I’m on the board of a Barron Park 2 Association Foundation which was  given oversight of the toxics  in Palo Alto from the 3 Superfund site.  This  is in what’s  called the California‐Olive‐Emerson (COE) area and it’s 4 a Superfund site which is contaminated from the Research Park, primarily 640 Page Mill.  5 The requirement for sampling indoor air is totally inadequate.  In Mountain View which 6 is overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indoor air sampling and a 7 mixed use project requires sampling in the residential area, not just in the garage.  8 Unfortunately Palo Alto is overseen by the Regional  Water Quality Control Board not 9 EPA and the Water Board knows an awful lot about water, but nothing about toxics and 10 so they don’t put in adequate restrictions and requirements.  So the sampling for air 11 contamination should be done quarterly in the residential area for five years.  That’s  12 what we required in Mountain View.  Lenny Siegel  who is a Mountain View City Council 13 Member and is also on the Board of the RAB said he’s delighted he lives only half a mile 14 from the toxic site in Mountain View and not in Palo Alto because in Mountain View he 15 feels safe.  In Palo Alto he’d feel  in danger because of the poor oversight of the Water 16 Board.  So since it’s important to protect people’s health and safety I urge you to require 17 adequate indoor air sampling for anything that’s  built here.   18  19 Chair Fine: Thank you very much.  With that let’s bring it back to the Commission.  20 Actually my Vice‐Chair has just brought up a point.  Can staff respond to that one point 21 by Mr. Moss  about the toxic sampling in, with regards to…? 22  23 Mr. Lait: Yeah, I think we can definitely respond to that, but I also want to remind you 24 about giving the applicant a chance for rebuttal as well to the public comments.  But yes 25 to answer the question on the toxics.   26  27 Heather Ivey: As Mr. Moss mentioned the requirements that we have included in the 28 mitigation measures for this site are based on the Regional Water Quality Control Board.  29 So these are in line with the standards for this site.  If it was in a location in Mountain 30 View or another location that would be monitored by the EPA the requirements may be 31 different, but in this  case these are in line with the requirements. 32  33 Chair Fine: Thank you.  And then one other question for staff with regards to Mr. Moss’ 34 question or actually point about the parking spot requirement being unreasonable; is 35 the 250 figure is that in City code or is that just… yep, ok. 36  37 Ms. Netto: Yes, that’s  correct.   38  39 Chair Fine: If the applicant has a rebuttal to any points otherwise we can bring it back to 40 the Commission.  Ok.  Let’s bring it back to the Commission.  Let’s open it up for 41 questions first and then we’ll  go on to comments.  Commissioner Rosenblum. 42 City of Palo Alto Page 9  1 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, I just have a couple of questions.  So there’s a 2 comment that the CUP which is the basis for Mr. Moss’ objection to the exceeding of 3 the office square footage is not part of the PTC’s purview unless appealed and this is an 4 item for the Planning Director.  Is that so am I to understand that’s  not part of this  5 meeting?  6  7 Mr. Lait: So there’s  a reference in our staff report that says that, that incorrectly states 8 that the CUP is not subject to the Planning Commission, the PTC’s purview.  And what 9 we have is a history of a policy decision where we actually have required or we have 10 allowed for multiple, when multiple applications are being submitted and ultimately one 11 of those is being reviewed by the City Council we’ve had this  practice of folding all of 12 those discretionary entitlements  together and moving that on to the Council for its 13 review.  So we would as Margaret had noted in her presentation we would suggest that 14 if the Commission does have some comments  about the CUP we’d love to hear that and 15 forward that on to the Council. 16  17 Commissioner Rosenblum: So I have a couple of other questions, but I’ll probably come 18 back to wanting to understand the reason for staff’s approval of the CUP or the staff’s 19 recommendation to approve the CUP.  But my other questions this  one seems  small, but 20 there is a small allowance for parking reduction due to mixed use and it’s a four percent 21 reduction.  What is the tolerance range normally for mixed use projects for reduction in 22 parking requirements? 23  24 Ms. Netto: It’s up to 20 percent. 25  26 Commissioner Rosenblum: Up to 20 percent.  Ok.  And then finally how many of the 27 units, of the housing units being provided are classified as affordable housing? 28  29 Ms. Netto: That would be one unit. 30  31 Commissioner Rosenblum: One unit.   32  33 Ms. Netto: And then the fraction they would pay to the City. 34  35 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok, yeah because it would be 15 percent of… ok.  Those are 36 all my questions for now. 37  38 Chair Fine: Commissioner Waldfogel. 39  40 Commissioner Waldfogel: Thank you.  Let’s see, I’d just like to focus or raise two issues 41 and see if there’s  any interest in further discussion among my colleagues.  The first one 42 City of Palo Alto Page 10 is that this project is in the CN Zone, Neighborhood Commercial, which is defined to 1 include shopping centers with off street parking which I don’t think this  project is or a 2 cluster of street front stores that serve the immediate neighborhood.  Typical  uses 3 include supermarkets, bakeries, drug stores, variety stores whatever those are, barber 4 shops, restaurants, self‐serve laundries, dry cleaners, and hardware stores.  So I’m just 5 wondering if there’s  any interest in discussing whether the format of the retail space in 6 the relationship to the proposed first floor office space really supports this  notion of 7 clusters of street front stores. 8  9 The second topic that I’d also just like to tee up is the housing inventory site table 10 identifies  these two sites 2515 and 2585 El  Camino as accommodating up to 18 units, 11 residential units and this project proposes 13 residential units which I think references is 12 that Comp Plan H2.1?  And I’d just like to see if there’s any interest in a discussion about 13 whether 13 versus 18 or some other number is the right number and possibly whether 14 we might invoke I think it’s Policy B17 which would allow for some parking adjustments 15 for additional housing as opposed to adjustments for office.  So I just wanted to tee up 16 those two topics.   17  18 Chair Fine: Thank you Commissioner.  Do we have other lights?  Vice‐Chair. 19  20 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  So yeah this is very good point about the 21 13 units in relationship to the office area.  So I’d like to just ask staff this question just to 22 seek clarification about the comment that my colleague just mentioned.  So what was 23 rationale behind incorporating the specific 13 units versus 18 allowed and 5,000 plus 24 what 3,500 of the office space as opposed to lower area of the retail space?   25  26 Mr. Lait: So… 27  28 Vice‐Chair Gardias: What was  the project rationale between the balance office versus 29 residential units? 30  31 Mr. Lait: Right.  So I think that we have is you have an applicant who has a proposal in 32 mind and they come to the City and they submit their request and what they’re 33 interested in.  I think the Commissioners have identified an important policy 34 conversation.  There is this ask being made for the additional 5,000 sf of office.  I think 35 it’s within the Commission’s purview certainly to review those findings which we can 36 present to you because I don’t know that was  in the staff report for the CUP.  And you 37 have the Housing Policy that Commissioner Waldfogel had mentioned and that is an 38 opportunity for you to have that conversation.   39  40 With respect to the staff assessment there is an opportunity to request a CUP that is set 41 forth in the code.  It is a viable path where one could pursue that and additionally 42 City of Palo Alto Page 11 there’s  we’ve had some further conversation about it and it’s not reflected in the report, 1 but would be reflected in a matter going to the City Council and that’s an exploration of 2 how we can use Transportation Demand Management (TDM) to account for the 3 additional 5,000 sf of office so that we can mitigate that to a point where it’s been 4 substantially reduced in terms  of the traffic and parking considerations.  But I mean it’s 5 a great policy conversation that we would like to hear what the Commission’s view is on 6 that. 7  8 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Ok and there was a question from a different angle that may be 9 related to it or may not, but given some changes that ARB requested and then some 10 verbal explanation that we had from the applicant I know that there will be some 11 change in the corner, the opposite corner.  How, I understand that area that now it’s 12 filled with that corner unit is going to be moved somewhere else.  It wasn’t clear from 13 the description what will that project, what will be the shape of the project after ARB 14 changes that ARB requested recently. 15  16 Mr. Lait: Right.  So we don’t have I don’t know that the City’s received any revised plans 17 since the last week’s  ARB meeting.  I think that would be a good question to ask the 18 applicant to see how their thought process has developed on that issue. 19  20 Vice‐Chair Gardias: The reason I’m bringing this up, right, because I’d like to understand 21 if eventually we will be the project that we will be approving or not how good 22 understanding of this what will be subject of the vault we will have a grasp on, right?  So 23 that’s just giving the verbal description I’m not really sure how that area modification, 24 the corner area modification would impact floor area for retail, office, and other areas 25 of the building. 26  27 Mr. Lait: Right.  Yeah again I think that the applicant can probably give you some 28 thought.  My guess is that there’s not going to be any increase in floor areas.  You would 29 be looking at if anything reductions because there as I understood the conversation they 30 were looking, as communicated by the applicant that the ARB is looking for a little bit 31 more articulation or modulation at that corner.  So I would not expect a significant 32 change to the building program and this  is an area where the ARB traditionally has 33 spent… that’s  one of the things  that they’re looking at.  That’s  not to say that the 34 Council or the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) cannot look at that issue 35 and then I would just refer you to page looks like packet Page 16 where we have the site 36 and design findings.  As  you, if you do open it up to the applicant again if you do want to 37 hear what that the direction that that’s going you can think about that in the context of 38 those findings, but yeah I hear you.  This  is I mean it’s evident that there’s  going to be 39 some design changes to the project.  That it’s going to be different from the project 40 that’s  before you.  The, I don’t know what the extent of those changes are. 41  42 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Ok, very good.  We’re going to if Chair allows we’re going to ask 1 applicant a question, but before we do last question to you.  Is it common that because I 2 don’t recall any project that was brought to us in unfinished form or in the form that’s  3 being revised.  So I’d like to ask you about clarification of the procedures.  Is it proper 4 that to this  Commission there is a material brought that’s under revision?  If you could 5 clarify this?   6  7 Mr. Lait: Sure, well I can tell you my personal preference is that we got a finished 8 product that is being presented to you.  I will say that there is the 50,000 sf office cap 9 that is I would say clearly influencing the scheduling of meetings  without putting any 10 judgment into whether that’s  good or bad.  That’s  sort of the circumstance that we find 11 ourselves in and it’s one of the I would say consequences of this  deadline that we have 12 and applicants of course wanting to take advantage of that process.  So I would express 13 to the Commission to the extent that you feel comfortable moving, reviewing the 14 project and if you feel comfortable moving forward with modifications  or conditions 15 that’s  great, but I would also suggest that you’re not compelled to act on a project 16 unless you’re a majority of the Commission feels  like it’s ready to act. 17  18 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thanks  for clarification.   19  20 Chair Fine: Commissioner Gardias  has a question of the applicant I’d like to… 21  22 Mr. Lait: Yeah, no I think it’s great to open up the public hearing and hear that. 23  24 Chair Fine: Yeah open the public hearing again Mr. Hayes.   25  26 Mr. Lait: And as Ken comes up I just and I know that the Commission’s  aware of this, I 27 mean this  was  a project that was originally scheduled for February 10th and we did have 28 a couple of… we didn’t have the quorum.  So this is the third attempt to have the 29 meeting so I wouldn’t say that it was  completely this  isn’t necessarily the applicant’s 30 fault in that there was  an effort to be here a little bit ago. 31  32 Chair Fine: Absolutely.   33  34 Mr. Lait: Thank you. 35  36 Vice‐Chair Gardias: So Mr. Hayes  you heard the question, right?   37  38 Mr. Hayes: Yes. 39  40 City of Palo Alto Page 13 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Pretty much I’d like to understand if those ARB requested 1 modifications  would they result with the area, floor area decrease in this  particular 2 corner or there will be some bonds or just movement of the space?   3  4 Mr. Hayes: Right, so to answer your question directly we would try to balance the area.  5 And so what we’re considering and I actually have a diagram, but it’s fairly small.  I’m 6 happy to share that with you if you like, but we’re addressing this  corner here as you 7 pointed out and we’re going to handle it in a similar way we did this  where we created a 8 deep recess and a balcony for the second floor office tenant in this  case.  And it sort of 9 breaks the building apart so that you kind of read that as a corner element.  Then we’re 10 going to have the middle part of the building which will be from this point here 11 Commissioner Gardias all the way to here.  And then we’re going to actually recess this  12 back about seven feet, create a balcony on… a balcony right here on this  second floor.  13 The ground floor pushes back about three feet so that the planter that’s  there actually 14 gets bigger.  So the attempt is to push that element back I’d say the net is about three 15 feet on the ground floor, about the same on the second floor except for this  sort of 16 reveal in the building that’ll push back seven feet to separate the end unit from the rest 17 of the building.   18  19 And then the other change would be the breezeway that’s  easier to explain.  We would 20 take the doors off so the breezeway on the other side of the building was  open at all 21 times  for people to traverse the site.  Materials would be the same and we would just 22 try to balance the area.  Looks like the second floor steps back about five feet.  I’m 23 happy to show you this.   24  25 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Yes, please if you could just circulate among us.  I would appreciate 26 this.  Thank you. 27  28 Mr. Lait: I’m sorry Chair if we can have the applicant connected to the mike? 29  30 Chair Fine: Sorry, if you could speak into a mike even if it’s one of our mikes.   31  32 Mr. Hayes: Thank you for indulging me.  On the ground floor it’s the same.  We have two 33 concepts here.  Both of them are similar on the ground floor.  Currently these columns 34 come down.  There’s  another one here and another one here.  We’re pushing we’re 35 getting rid of it and pushing this  back about three feet on the ground floor and 36 extending the planter back to the window line.   So it gets  about three feet deeper.   37  38 On the second floor this  is the option that we prefer so the unit used to be out here just 39 like these units.  And so we’re essentially pushing it back that’s  more like six feet back 40 probably above.  So it really sort of steps in at the corner and then this is that notch I’m 41 talking about that is similar to the notch that’s here.  Yeah, so it’ll have a… so this will be 42 City of Palo Alto Page 14 a balcony with a door off the kitchen area and then this is all balcony here.  Yeah, so we 1 put the main balcony on that side.  And then the second floor is again another small 2 balcony off the master.  This is that notch and then that’s pretty straightforward.  And 3 then it has the balcony there and it lines up with the existing side of the building over 4 here.  So the biggest change is the pushback I think here and trying to separate that 5 piece off.  The reason we have two is that we’re not sure which one yet, but we’re out 6 to decide before Monday.  And we’ll  balance the area.   7  8 [Unidentified Commissioner asks question – unintelligible] 9  10 Mr. Hayes: We made this  balcony smaller.  Ok, so no it doesn’t necessarily go over here, 11 but this  unit got larger in this  direction because the balcony has been made a little bit 12 smaller.  So we’re trying… it’s a play on numbers.   13  14 Chair Fine: Same square footage overall?   15  16 Mr. Hayes: That’s  the objective, yes.  And we’re at the limit on the residential area.   17  18 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Somebody else can comment. 19  20 Chair Fine: Sorry.  Commissioner Alcheck. 21  22 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, staff can you just remind us I know that this is subject to the 23 interim office annual growth limit.  Just can you remind us the process by which 24 applicants can obtain approval?  Is that… is… I remember when we went through this  25 process there were various options, first come first serve or there would be some sort of 26 beauty contest.  Can you just highlight for us how that process will work really quickly?   27  28 Ms. Silver: Yes, thank you.  So the this is a the first year that we are entering this process 29 and what the interim ordinance anticipates is that if the City receives more than 50,000 30 sf of office development prior to March 31st then there will be a sort of the beauty 31 contest or this  development review process will go before the Council.  And so there are 32 a set of projects that are teed up and it does look like we are going to achieve this  33 50,000 sf threshold.  So March 31st is the deadline.  Projects need to get all of their 34 lower level approvals and if they receive those approvals by March 31st then they can go 35 to the second round of review which will be by the City Council.   36  37 The City Council will have a two‐step review process.  First they will review the projects 38 just for the overall entitlements.  If there are any projects that they think should not be 39 approved then the Council will act on those in the first instance.  If after that approval 40 there’s  still a 50,000 sf allotment of projects then the Council will apply a further 41 screening criteria.  And the screening criteria has been established through an 42 City of Palo Alto Page 15 administrative guideline with different criteria and weighting values.  And the Council 1 will apply that criteria to each one of the projects and the top ranked projects will then 2 be allowed to move forward and will be approved.   3  4 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok.  Well, as you all know I’m not a huge fan of the process.  I 5 wish it had not been what I will refer to as a beauty contest because I think it enhances 6 the uncertainty of our application process tremendously and I think if an applicant’s 7 prepared and they apply… well, that time has passed, but well… I’ll just sort of jump into 8 my comments  about this  particular project.   9 Big surprise I’m prepared to support a Motion and to recommend approval of this  10 project.  I’ll tell  you why.  I think a big an important step in the process for what I will  call 11 revitalizing El Camino, what some people might call the Grand Boulevard concept or 12 whatever you want to call it is the merging of lots.  I don’t think the sort of development 13 we want to see on El  Camino can happen without some land accumulation and so this is 14 an example of two lots sort of coming together.   15  16 I think and one of my fellow Commissioners  wanted to talk about particularly the CUP 17 and the request for excess  office.  I would argue that if you took these two lots 18 separately and you said well  they’re entitled to 20 percent office or 5,000 sf you’d find 19 that there’d, that they could place probably 8,000 sf of office on their square footage so 20 when they merge their lots that 5,000 sf cap becomes punitive because if you have a 21 larger lot you are restricted by a cap.  I think that’s a mistake and I think that’s the sort 22 of mistake that a CUP is there for.  It’s precisely there for because if we want to 23 encourage the kind of merging of tiny little lots on El Camino so that we can have a little 24 bit more of a cohesive development process then we have to sort of rely more heavily 25 on that 20 percent than on that 5,000 sf cap.  So that said we’re looking at a limit and if 26 you look at the 20 percent of 8,000 and they’re asking for about 1,800 more than that 27 I’m comfortable with recommending approval for that. 28  29 I also think that the there was a question about our Housing Element identified this site 30 as 18 did I?  Yeah.  I’m remembering that correctly.  I think that when we consider what 31 the Housing Element identifies as possible should be considered as a lens that when we 32 look at a proposed project anything that’s  not in excess  of that should be considered 33 highly favorable.  Meaning that if somebody came to the site and said I want to build 18 34 residential units then we shouldn’t say that seems like too many.  It’s a lot, I think it’s, I 35 think our Housing Element I think the process of sort of identifying those lots and 36 suggesting what is the greatest amount of density we can place on them is an exercise 37 for us to sort of meet the State’s requirements, but it’s also it’s also a very lofty goal.  38 And it’s I think very difficult to determine what the precise ratio is, but I’ll sort of suggest 39 that a ground floor residential space on El Camino doesn’t really make sense.  And so 40 what we’re seeing primarily on this project is no ground floor residential, but residential 41 on every other floor, right?  We’re not seeing office on the second floor.   42 City of Palo Alto Page 16  1 Mr. Hayes: There is office on the corner. 2  3 Commissioner Alcheck: On the corner.  Ok.  That’s  true.  There’s  office on the corner, 4 but it sort of it’s a separated in the context of this  building it’s sort of separated into two 5 components and I guess what I’m trying to suggest is unless we were willing to sort of 6 revisit the CU process from the perspective of a density and height sort of question I’m 7 not entirely sure that we could look at their use of the space and say I really think you 8 should allocate the office that you’re using to more housing.  I just don’t know that 9 that’s  sort of a realistic suggestion.   10  11 I’m not, I… I also think it might be helpful to know what it is, what that 15 percent fee is, 12 right?  The… right, there’s a fee associated with the decision to only create one BMR 13 unit, right?   14  15 Ms. Silver: My understanding was  that the applicant was proposing to actually provide 16 instead of paying the fee the applicant was proposing to provide two on site BMR units.  17 Is, has that changed?  Is that not correct?  Ok.  Ok.  One, one.   18  19 Commissioner Alcheck: So there isn’t (interrupted)  20  21 Ms. Silver: That’s  an additional (interrupted)  22  23 Commissioner Alcheck: So there is a fee, right?   24  25 Ms. Silver: Incremental  fee. 26  27 Commissioner Alcheck: So there is a fee.  And so how do we determine what that fee is?  28 I know there’s, I’m just curious.  Is that based on the permit? 29  30 Mr. Lait: Well no so we can I have that information I can pull it up.  I just don’t know it 31 off the top of my head, but it’s a fraction.  So the requirement of the 15 percent is I 32 think 1.7 if I remember correctly.  And so we get the one unit and then the fractional 33 component is paid for in fees  that are based on the formula that we have.   34  35 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. 36  37 Mr. Lait: Ok.   38  39 Commissioner Alcheck: I would just argue that it’s sort of it’s nice to know what that 40 number is from our perspective because I think it creates a little bit of an understanding 41 of the costs of producing low income housing just from our perspective.   42 City of Palo Alto Page 17  1 Ms. Silver: I believe it’s seven percent of oh 7.5 percent of the… yeah, actual sale price 2 of the units.   3 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok.  Ok, alright.  I guess my I lost my train of thought there, but I 4 think I’ve made my points. I guess  one of the things  that’s  I’m really unclear about is 5 how the process will unfold with respect to the office cap.  I it’s unclear to me whether a 6 project that’s seeking office space will they evaluate a project that’s seeking office space 7 in conjunction with a CUP be less appealing than a project that’s not seeking any kind of 8 enhanced or conditional use of greater office space?  There’s so much uncertainty in this  9 process that I’m, I almost think that sort of the debate at this level is redundant because 10 I have a feeling that when this  goes  up to Council and they go through this  two phased 11 process of review there’ll  be just this  tremendous debate about well  which office is the 12 best office and how they will allocate it.  So I kind of want to hear what my fellow 13 Commissioners  think about that too.   14  15 Mr. Lait: So I would just say the Council did give us some specific criteria in which to 16 evaluate it and there’s a I think Cara’s looking for it if it’s of interest to the Commission, 17 but separate and apart from that I guess I would ask the Commission to focus in on what 18 the area that you have purview over and that’s the site and design findings and I would 19 let, I would evaluate the project that’s  before you and the Council is going to evaluate it 20 in the context of the multitude of projects through the lens that they have and so your 21 focus here is the site and design findings, the CUP findings, and so forth.  Thank you. 22  23 Chair Fine: Thank you, staff.  I would appreciate if staff could send us those 24 administrative guidelines that Council is using to weigh projects.  That would help us, 25 but Commissioner Alcheck I mean we could have a hundred projects competing for 26 office space and we’d have to evaluate them all and pass them on to Council and do as 27 you say the beauty contest.  Thank you for your comments.  Commissioner Tanaka. 28  29 Commissioner Tanaka: So does staff know for these housing units are they going to be 30 rental or are they going to be sold?  Does staff know?   31  32 Ms. Netto: Yes, they plan on being for sale units. 33  34 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, they’re for sale.  Ok.  And I was going to ask the Chair 35 whether we should I think Commissioner Waldfogel brought up two good points, right?  36 One is the CN is supposed to be a little bit more retail oriented, right, then perhaps this 37 project is and also the fact that I guess there’s  supposed to be more units of housing 38 then there are.  Should we focus the Commission on those two topics  because those 39 seem pretty substantive to the conversation here.   40  41 City of Palo Alto Page 18 Chair Fine: So I think so.  I think they are issues we should address in terms  of the CN 1 how the retail is perhaps broken up.  In terms  of the units of housing I think it’s the 2 perspective that I have and maybe staff or my colleagues can correct me is that this site 3 has been designated as it could have up to 18 units.  I think all of us on this Commission 4 would love to see more housing in Palo Alto in a spot like this, but it really is up to the 5 applicant how many they build.  Staff. 6  7 Ms. Netto: And I would just like to clarify too that we do have a maximum Floor Area  8 Ratio (FAR) limit for the residential units so I don’t know that the I think we’re up to that 9 maximum with this project.  You could have maybe more smaller units, but the square 10 footage would remain the same. 11  12 Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah, that’s  actually where I’m going on this  is that for like senior 13 housing there’s  a certainly a dearth of that.  There’s  a dearth of housing for young 14 professionals.  We want to have more units near transit.  This  is certainly near transit.  15 So I just wanted to explore that conversation because do we need more two bedroom 16 units or do we need more studios, one bedroom units, right, for senior housing perhaps, 17 right?  That’s in transit oriented areas and places that’s walkable, right?  Does that make 18 more sense or does it make sense to have like more family oriented housing that 19 impacts schools already, right?  What makes more sense for a project like this, right?   20  21 So I think the topic that our fellow Commissioner brought up is actually a good one to 22 talk about to see should we, is this  I mean I know there’s  a floor area limit so I’m not 23 saying we should have more residential, but maybe the mix of residential should be 24 smaller units.  Studios, one bedrooms versus two bedrooms.  So I just want to bring that 25 topic up.  So I’m leaning more in favor of smaller units because I think the two ends of 26 the spectrum, certainly housing needs  is I think for young professionals and also for 27 seniors.  I think both of them that’s  kind of an area of housing need in Palo Alto.  It also 28 in terms  if we’re looking for more BMR housing there’s  also a way to get more BMR 29 housing, right?  So without a huge impact on schools.  So I think that’s  something that 30 we should consider. 31  32 I think the second topic which I think is also a good one is: is this  the right amount of 33 retail?  So given that this  is CN Zone I think one of the members  of the public brought it 34 up, brought that up and so in general it seems like a good idea.  Now this project still has 35 to be viable, right?  Retail may not pay as much rent as office or housing so that’s 36 something that we have to also balance as well, but I’m open to hearing more 37 discussion on those two topics.   38  39 Chair Fine: Thank you, Commissioner Tanaka.  The major items I’ve written down so far 40 and before I go through my comments  and give us another round are with regards to 41 the CN zoning what is the breakup of retail?  Is the overall size correct?  With regards to 42 City of Palo Alto Page 19 housing as you were just pointing out do we as a Commission want to encourage 1 smaller units?  One issue I’m going to bring up is about the parking and the four percent 2 little exemption there.  BMR it seems like we could put a requirement on there for it to 3 be two units rather than one and just a payoff for the other.  And then issues of the 4 CUP.  So I do see other lights, but I’m going to give my comments  and questions first and 5 then I’ll go back to everyone else.   6  7 So generally I think this  is a good project.  I like the look of it in general  and I’m mostly 8 agreed that the RLUA and the El  Camino Design Guidelines are in order here.  The 9 project responds to those.  I do have some concerns about specifics which I’ll bring up in 10 a moment.  As a few other Commissioners have mentioned there are a few major policy 11 implications such as the office cap and ground floor retail.  I’d like to apologize to the 12 applicant that we couldn’t meet earlier.  I do regret that, but at the same time it’s not 13 our responsibility on the PTC to hustle projects through.  We are supposed to process 14 the City’s work in an orderly fashion considering this building probably has a lifespan of 15 50 years or longer.   16  17 So a couple questions for staff.  I’ll start with the specific ones and get to the broader 18 ones.  Commissioner Alcheck brought up the point that this  project if we built on the 19 two parcels could have more of a office space.  Do we know what the maximum office 20 space would be if it were built as two separate projects?   21  22 Mr. Lait: So I think it would be, will at least be 75, it would be 5,000.  Well it’s 25 percent 23 of the lot area.  I think we’d have to figure out that, but you get a minimum of 2,500 sf 24 so it’s in the neighborhood of… let me just run those numbers on those individual lots.  25 Ok, so just under 10,000 sf. 26  27 Chair Fine: Ok.  And then with regard to the parking exemption of four percent at the 28 Director’s approval I understand that’s  generally for a mixed use project or if you’re 29 doing like sharing with freight delivery, things  like that.  Is it within the purview of the 30 Commission to recommend the Director not provide this  exemption?  Could we do that?  31 I know it’s at the Director’s discretion, but could we make an encouragement or a 32 suggestion?   33  34 Mr. Lait: So I’ll, we certainly welcome points of view on that.  So we would welcome any 35 feedback that you have to offer that of course substantiated by some guidance or some 36 reason behind that.   37  38 Chair Fine: Sure. 39  40 Mr. Lait: And I would also offer that a project like this  that’s  going to go to the Council 41 anyways. 42 City of Palo Alto Page 20  1 Chair Fine: Yeah, ok.  And then my last question would be we haven’t yet really seen a 2 justification for the CUP and I’m wondering if staff could walk us through that?   3 Mr. Lait: So as I recall some earlier conversations we were kind of on the point that 4 Commissioner Alcheck was discussing about the two separate lots and how they might 5 be developed independently and yield a similar amount of commercial office space.  We 6 also thought that and it’s not incorporated into the staff report and so we’ll  need to do 7 that.  There might be ways  to mitigate the increase of traffic and parking through some 8 effective TDM program that would require reporting and things  along those lines.  9 Additionally, we thought it’s a discretionary process and we would open it up for some 10 public comment and we’re going through that process to learn how that could be 11 affected or modified through that process.  So those would have been some of the 12 findings that you would have seen as a, if it were presented to you, but of course 13 because we were not quite on the same page about whether it was  going to be subject 14 to the PTC review or not that’s  why it’s not included in your packet. 15  16 Chair Fine: Ok.  Thank you.  So it’s helpful to hear about the two separate lots issue.  I’m 17 sure this  Commission would like to dig into that.  I think it’s interesting that without that 18 CUP this project likely would get in under the cap.  With it it’s suddenly over and so we 19 have some issues there or at least the applicant does.   20  21 So I’m just going to reiterate the major issues I’ve seen here.  One is on the CN zoning 22 and as Commissioner Waldfogel has brought up whether the overall size is correct or 23 whether it’s one large pad and should be broken up.  There’s  also a discussion to be had 24 about housing and whether we want to encourage more but smaller units.  Personally 25 I’m in favor if we do grant the CUP I’m not sure this  project we should not encourage 26 the Director to grant the four percent exemption with regards to Mr. Moss’ suggestion 27 that the 250 sf ratio is perhaps inadequate.  And then finally if there’s  any discussion 28 about BMR.  So I want to pass it back to all my colleagues.  The first light l saw after me I 29 believe was Vice‐Chair. 30  31 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Yeah that’s correct, but I’ve toggled the switch before we had this  32 discussion. I have the so, but nevertheless the questions I have may be related to this.  33 So if I may ask them. Some of them are not, some of them are.  So let me just go 34 through them at one swoop.  There are a few of them. 35  36 So let me just start with page on the plan with any plan and I’m just looking at A2.1 37 where there is an office assumed location that’s  a dotted line where office area on the 38 ground floor is just pretty much it shows that will be this  will be approximate location of 39 the future offices.  Which I understand that this office will get fluctuate anywhere within 40 that area and my question is like this: is there any restriction for this  area given that 41 front which is from El  Camino side would be the most desirable retail space?  So my 42 City of Palo Alto Page 21 expectation would be that future office location on the ground floor would not expand 1 toward the front along El  Camino. 2  3 Ms. Netto: Just to answer the question I think at the very moment we do not have a 4 condition that would require that office to remain on the backside of the building.  We 5 certainly are open to this discussion and potentially adding a condition related to that.  6 We may also want to open it to the applicant and they could give us some more 7 information about that. 8  9 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Yes, so that’s  number one.  Number two and sorry I’m going to just 10 ask them all so then we’ll be done with them.  So small item, but on Page Number 3 11 there is a seven sf of the retail space on the third floor.  Sorry, I’m just curious. 12  13 Ms. Netto: There are some shared spaces, some hallways spaces, utilities I believe is the 14 seven sf.  So it’s a shared utility amongst the whole building and so we had to split it up 15 in some fashion and (interrupted)  16  17 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Ok, so it’s a technical calculation? 18  19 Ms. Netto: Correct. 20  21 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Ok, very good.  So now… sorry?  Yes (laughed).  Next question is 22 related to the parking, to the parking spaces that are calculated on Page Number 8.  So 23 as Bob Moss, Mr. Moss, I’m also concerned with parking effect and potential spillover 24 given that there would be a larger occupancy than the parking requirement.  So my first 25 question is like this: I mean first of all let me share this  observation that here we have 26 those two, two different areas one this  is that’s  required for the California Avenue 27 Parking Assessment District.  The second one is outside of this  district and this  is based 28 on that one lot belongs to this  District, the other one doesn’t belong to this  District 29 which is not real assumption it’s just a technical gimmick because I don’t believe that 30 any, that there would be there is any distinction, real distinction between those two.  So 31 pretty much those parking requirements of 310 sf for office for the California Avenue 32 and then outside 250 it’s pure fiction for me and in reality there will be more at this  33 because pretty much within this  area that would be those distinctions blend pretty 34 much.  But then in addition so that’s  number one, in addition there would be larger 35 occupancy lot on the, in the office area.  So I would like to understand what will be, 36 what would be the number of the potential occupants in the office area versus that’s  37 what’s  written here and where would this  cars park?   38  39 Ms. Netto: So our regulations don’t go by occupancy.  We do parking regulations based 40 upon square footage and I can calculate those in a second here. 41  42 City of Palo Alto Page 22 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Ok, good.  Thank you.   1 Chair Fine: Commissioner Rosenblum. 2  3 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah so I’ll just make some comments.  So a few things, I do 4 think this is really well aligned with the Comp Plan and with the zone.  This is zoned not 5 only CN, but it’s also part of the Cal/Ventura Ave. Mixed Use Zone which I think is 6 intended for this.  Our Comp Plan anticipates having denser use, residential use close to 7 transit.  That’s  clearly this area.  In terms of a couple of things  I would suggest I would 8 personally like to see more smaller units.  And so if this  does come down to a beauty 9 contest so if that’s  the process we’re following I would hope Council would consider 10 projects that have more units to be more beautiful than those with fewer units.   11  12 On the parking issue I think I’m out of step with everybody else here.  If anything I’d like 13 to see less parking.  This  is a mixed use development.  It allows up to 20 percent 14 reduction.  There was  a project that came before us where the applicant was proposing 15 reducing 10 parking spaces in exchange for Caltrain passes for all tenants.  I thought that 16 was a great proposal.  Because of the nature of mixed use I do think that only four 17 percent reduction seems a little bit odd.  You have people coming in and out at different 18 times and therefore the reduction in parking requirement should be even more than 19 just four percent, but I would prefer it that there was something because of its 20 proximity to a Caltrain station that the applicant consider something like this  other 21 building where there was  an exchange and additional value given to all tenants of the 22 building.   23  24 Furthermore I don’t see any evidence for a reduction of the 250 square foot metric.  It’s 25 in our code.  I think people like to say this  anecdotally we actually do have surveys now 26 of buildings.  When you look at the surveys and look at the number of people that are 27 working in those buildings, look at the number of cars in those buildings it actually turns  28 out to be the opposite in many cases.  So I urge people to actually look at the survey 29 data that was  submitted by the large companies Downtown that are close to transit.  30 This  would also be close to transit. 31  32 Now finally I also agree that the CUP logic isn’t totally clear to me.  It’s not clear to me 33 why there would be additional office although I guess the argument that seems most on 34 point is that if this were two separate parcels it would add up to 9,800 and that is 35 precisely what’s being asked, but is that the core of the logic for the granting of the 36 CUP?  I’m sorry; this was not the question session.  I would say that still feels opaque to 37 me.  38  39 So to summarize I’m supportive of the building.  I would be supportive with even less 40 parking.  I’m not supportive of attempts  to add more parking.  I question the CUP and I 41 think this  is well aligned with both the Comp Plan, the zoning, and the general  intent of 42 City of Palo Alto Page 23 what we’re trying to do.  I’d like to see more smaller units if possible and that would 1 make it a more beautiful project. 2  3 Chair Fine: Thank you.  Commissioner Tanaka. 4  5 Commissioner Tanaka: So I generally agree that mixed use projects generally because 6 you have non‐overlapping uses of parking kind of makes sense to have less parking, but I 7 think we have to think about the context of where this building is.  So this building is 8 actually in the Cal Ave. area which I think for most people that have been there 9 especially during lunch time knows that there’s quite a bit of a dearth of parking 10 already.  So if there wasn’t that kind of parking shortage already I would generally say 11 yeah that’s probably ok, but I think what we want to do is we want to have projects that 12 kind of make up for the deficit somewhat.  So in terms  of a beauty contest I would say 13 that this  project was  even more beautiful by having more parking than less, right?  14 Because this  is in an area where parking is really needed and so and that’s  why I actually 15 think that we should move more towards like being fully parked than slightly under 16 parked because of the context of where this  building is and the cumulative impacts that 17 are already happening in this area. 18  19 Chair Fine: Thank you, Commissioner Tanaka.  Commissioner Alcheck. 20  21 Commissioner Alcheck: You guys are really illustrating my point about the ambiguity of 22 the process when it comes to the beauty pageant with this  discussion.  I really don’t 23 envy any applicant at this  point that’s  suggesting commercial  office space.  I want to 24 suggest that I found Commissioner Rosenblum’s comments  very convincing.  I think that 25 this  mixed use concept is really well  suited for this  space, for this  zone, and while I 26 wouldn’t suggest a further reduction in parking because I just I think the goal  should 27 always be to create as many spaces as you possibly can.  I’m sure that was  the 28 developer’s goal, the applicant’s goal.  But I think there’s  something to the fact that 29 because this  is a mixed use and there may be different patterns of use that the 30 “requirement” is that there’s room there in what you would suggest the overall 31 requirement is.   32  33 Sometimes we have a conversation at this dais about Commissioner Gardias’ suggestion 34 about maybe restricting whether there can ever be a swap of retail and office.  And I 35 think that that’s  I would prefer we didn’t do that and the reason why is because number 36 one, the area of this building that’s sort of best suited for retail will continue to be retail.  37 The requirement that they have a certain specific number of square feet designated for 38 retail won’t change, but determining sort of which sort of space is best suited for retail 39 is a science.  It involves understanding the retail consumer and their patterns.  And so I 40 think you have to be tremendously familiar with a building and it’s sort of surrounding 41 area to suggest and I don’t think you’re suggesting a change, but I think what you’re 42 City of Palo Alto Page 24 suggesting is that there should be no flexibility in the decision and to me setting in stone 1 inflexibility when it comes to allocation of retail is a mistake.  We sometimes don’t 2 know.   3 For example I’ll give you a perfect example.  There’s a courtyard sort of I mean this  4 parking lot creates and internal courtyard and right now that’s the office.  In my mind El 5 Camino is not yet maybe this particular location is a little better suited, but in my mind 6 El Camino is not yet at that point where people are just walking down it for blocks and 7 so in theory the retail might be very well  suited as parking lot facing.  And from my 8 perspective if that occurred to them post development that these spaces actually facing 9 the parking lot were a  lot better suited for a retail client because they’re going to park 10 there anyways and they’d have to walk around… you get my point.  My point is that I 11 think we shouldn’t involve ourselves in that sort of nuance.  I think we should let the 12 experts  sort of lay out their building the way they do.  If we have a requirement on the 13 total  square footage or space then I think we enforce that, but not necessarily where it’s 14 allocated in the building. 15  16 And then the only other thing I’d like to suggest is that this was an argument that former 17 Commissioner Keller used to have a lot which was  the size of the units, making them 18 smaller.  Look, a two bedroom is not half the price of or double the price of a one 19 bedroom in this  market.  And again I would argue that without understanding sort of 20 the appeal and utilization of a one bedroom in our market, who is that customer?  Let’s  21 assume for a minute that in every two bedroom you have four people.  That’s  probably 22 what it would take to afford for any young person, right?  So I just I sort of think that 23 suggesting that we go do 18 single one bedroom units as opposed to the mix of two 24 bedroom units is imposing a unsubstantiated conclusion.  We don’t have the evidence 25 to suggest that that’s  better for our community.  We don’t have the evidence to suggest 26 that that would be more appealing to the people that we think we’re serving.   27  28 Don’t get me wrong, I would love to see more units.  I’m a huge advocate for increasing 29 the housing supply in Palo Alto and I’m also a huge advocate of low income housing.  I 30 would… if I was  a City Council Member and there was  and this  beauty contest allowed 31 me to create a preference for a greater number of low income housing units I would.  I 32 would prefer any project that came with more low income housing because our 33 community needs  it, but that being said I think it’s sort of dangerous to decide what the 34 mix of the unit is without a consultant, without understanding really how that would 35 work.   36  37 Ok so those are my comments.  I think that when this  Commission is ready to sort of 38 proceed with a Motion I’d be happy to make it.   39 Chair Fine: Thank you, Commissioner Alcheck.  I just wanted to remind everybody that 40 this  the retail portion of this site is subject to the ground floor retail so the site will have 41 to maintain the square footage that is currently covered by the Olive Garden, but your 42 City of Palo Alto Page 25 point is taken that allow the owner to shift it around as they need.  Next I believe is 1 Commissioner Waldfogel. 2  3 Commissioner Waldfogel: Thank you.  Question for staff, since we’ve put the question of 4 what would be allowed on, what would be allowed if these were two separate parcels 5 on the table how much retail and how much housing would be allowed on these two 6 parcels if they were two separate parcels instead of joined?   7  8 Mr. Lait: How much would be allowed? 9  10 Commissioner Waldfogel: Yeah, I don’t remember whether the FAR formula for housing 11 has some, does it have some base piece that’s a higher ratio than the subsequent piece?  12 I just don’t remember how the formula plays out.  While you’re looking at that the other 13 part of that question is if the CUP were denied then would those extra couple of 14 thousand feet just go away in this  project or would they be available to be repurposed 15 in some fashion?  And I guess  the third part of that is if they, would we have the 16 discretion to suggest more housing in that space instead of office?   17  18 Mr. Lait: Well you’d certainly have the discretion to suggest.   19  20 Commissioner Waldfogel: Well, to ask the applicant. 21  22 Mr. Lait: And the additional 5,000 they’re not getting an additional 5,000 beyond the 23 base zoning so that 5,000 could be repurposed.   24  25 Commissioner Waldfogel: And what would the zoning require without a CUP? 26  27 Mr. Lait: For a use that does not require a CUP so it could be for more retail.  We’d have 28 to take a look of the ratio of the FAR requirements for commercial  versus residential 29 which I think is different.  I have in my mind that it’s 1.0 for commercial  and .4 30 (interrupted)  31  32 Commissioner Waldfogel: Right, yeah so I think it’s important to just know what the 33 alternatives are CUP yes or CUP no.  and then just the final point I just want to respond 34 to what my colleague Commissioner Alcheck just said about retail which is of course it 35 should be driven by the market, but at the same time there is a CN requirement for this  36 idea of cluster of street front stores that serve the immediate neighborhood.  So we do 37 have to exist within that code framework and I’m sure, we should ensure that whatever 38 use does go into this  site follows that CN format. 39  40 Mr. Lait: Yeah and I guess  to the extent that the site and design findings need to be 41 evaluated to the proposed project design that’s  a conversation for the Commission to 42 City of Palo Alto Page 26 have.  The Zoning Code also sets forth the permitted land uses that are authorized in the 1 Zoning Code.  So if it was one of those permitted or conditionally permitted uses then it 2 would be approved and (interrupted)  3  4 Commissioner Waldfogel: I mean would for example a bank taking the entire space be a 5 permitted use in the CN District?   6  7 Mr. Lait: So I’m hearing from Jodie that it’s a CUP for a bank and also I’m not sure 8 that’s… Ok, so medical  office and banks require CUP.   9  10 Chair Fine: Thank you.  Vice‐Chair Gardias. 11  12 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you.  Jodie I think that you were making calculations so what’s 13 the result?   14  15 Jodie: You were asking if the entire property was had to adhere to the standard parking 16 ratios.  Is that what you’re asking? 17  18 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Yeah, I was  asking specifically about office setting the other retail 19 aside what would be the, but you know if you did it differently, but my question was  20 what was  the difference between the parking requirement as it is in this  handout versus 21 occupancy versus parking calculated for occupancy requirement?   22  23 Jodie: So we don’t have an occupancy requirement, but we what’s in the code is we do 24 have parking requirements for the California Avenue Assessment District and we have 25 parking requirements for all of our kind of standard zoning districts.  And so this  26 property is sort of in both kind of half and half and which is why you see on Page 10 of 27 the packet those kind of two different breakdowns. 28  29 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Right. 30  31 Jodie: Of the parking requirement. 32  33 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Right and I understand this.   I just I doubt those.  I think that this  I 34 made a comment that this  break down is artificial because it doesn’t mean anything 35 within given this  development of this  two combined lots, but my question was  how 36 many parkings would be in reality, how many cars would be in reality, how many 37 parking spaces would be in reality needed giving the occupancy requirement versus 38 parking requirements as depicted in Table 2 and 3?  There will be a difference of certain 39 number of cars that would have to be parked somewhere between this  handout and 40 occupancy.   41  42 City of Palo Alto Page 27 Mr. Lait: So if I’m understanding so our and I think Jodie, just trying to understand the 1 question, there’s  a parking standard in our code and you’re saying there’s going to be an 2 occupancy of this building that’s going to exceed that parking standard in the code 3 (interrupted)  4  5 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Yes. 6  7 Mr. Lait: And where are these people going to park? 8  9 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Yes. 10  11 Mr. Lait: Ok.  So the if in fact it is the case that the parking demand for the employees  12 and visitors of the site exceeds  the capacity they would not have sufficient parking on 13 site and presumably there would be some street, public street parking that people 14 would avail themselves  to or public parking garages.  The, I believe there was  a traffic 15 study, a parking study done for the project so we can take a look at that and I believe 16 the applicant’s consultant is here to maybe speak to those issues.  And I guess  there’s  if 17 I’m to help provide some guidance to the Commission we would look at the, I think 18 there’s  an interesting comment sort of embedded in your question which has to do with 19 the Cal Ave. parking standards which is a lower threshold or a lower number of parking 20 spaces are required in that area.  So I understand why you’re saying it’s artificial, but it is 21 what the code has as far as the standard.  And it’s interesting how the project is laid out 22 in terms of square footage depending on where you put that office square footage 23 you’re going to get a different parking ratio. 24  25 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Right. 26  27 Mr. Lait: So but I think what might be helpful is maybe hearing from the traffic or 28 parking consultant and learning a little bit more from that traffic report to see if the 29 conclusions of that resonate with you.  And if they do then you would or if… I believe 30 the report finds that the amount of parking that’s  being provided on site is sufficient for 31 the needs.  I think you’re challenging that conclusion. 32  33 Vice‐Chair Gardias: That’s  correct.  Yes.   34  35 Mr. Lait: Ok. 36  37 Vice‐Chair Gardias: And then just going to your comment, right?  I mean this is for now it 38 is what it is, right?  We have this law so pretty much applicant meets  the regulation 39 requirements.  We just we cannot change it, but for the for our perspective work, right, 40 we might take a look at this  artificial separation because it doesn’t clearly work in this  41 example.  So we may in our studies we may just take a look at this  how truly should be 42 City of Palo Alto Page 28 parking located between the Cal Ave. Assessment District and the adjacent district, 1 right? 2 Mr. Lait: Yes, I do (interrupted)  3  4 Vice‐Chair Gardias: But as an additional exercise, right, in the future, right?  But then 5 just building up on this  thought if we can just open the hearing for a moment just and 6 just talk to the parking consultant (interrupted)  7  8 Chair Fine: Yeah, well  let’s open the public hearing for some question (interrupted)  9  10 Gary Black, Hexagon Transportation Consultants: Thank you, Gary Black with Hexagon 11 Transportation Consultants.  We did a shared parking analysis is what we did.  We did 12 not evaluate whether the City parking code is correct or incorrect, but what we did is we 13 applied that, we used that parking code and then we applied the shared parking 14 assumptions that I think you’ve talked about quite a bit tonight that because of the mix 15 of uses which is they, the parking demand, doesn’t peak for each one of those uses at 16 the same time.  They peak at different times  and therefore the mix that’s  really the logic 17 behind the allowable 20 percent reduction for mixed use development.   18  19 What we did here is we actually put in the actual development that was  proposed.  We 20 didn’t just apply a 20 percent reduction, but we put in the different uses as are 21 proposed and with typical time of day factors our results showed that we’re estimating 22 that the peak demand would be 94 parking spaces.  The proposed, the project is 23 proposing 104 parking spaces so our report says you have 10 parking spaces more than 24 you need.  So it gives you a little… if the City code parking ratio if you believe it is too 25 low our analysis says you have 10 extra  parking spaces to play with. 26  27 Vice‐Chair Gardias: How many?  I’m sorry. 28  29 Mr. Black: Ten. 30  31 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Ten.  Ok so just to just going back to this what Assistant Director Lait 32 said, right, that the challenge that I’m having with this  numbers, right, is pretty much 33 that when you’re going to take 6,677 sf and divide them over 250 sf, right, you’re going 34 to get 27 spaces, right?  Which is pretty much more by five spaces then it’s calculated in 35 here, right?  So out of those ten, five is already filled with this difference, right, between 36 this districts, right?  That’s half, right?  Then if you’re going to take retail then probably 37 there will be another half, right?  So I’m already at the limit that you’re saying that you 38 have built in as a buffer zone, right?  But I can just say farther, right, and I can go to Mr. 39 Moss’ argument and say look in reality this number 240 is not real one and maybe it’s 40 like what it’s 200?  And then you’re going to just end up with 20 cars that have to be 41 City of Palo Alto Page 29 parked somewhere.  And my question is how are you going to mitigate that, right?  That 1 will be reality so. 2  3 Chair Fine: Staff. 4  5 Jodie: If I may clarify, if we used the standard parking ratios across the entire project so 6 that would be office at one per 250 that would be 39 some odd spaces, retail at one per 7 200 be 50 some odd spaces, plus the 28 for residential that would give you a grand total 8 of 118 and there is 104 being provided. 9  10 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you. 11  12 Chair Fine: Thank you.  So just to make it clear for the record and for anybody who 13 might still be watching on TV we’re talking about how if you shift the office inside or 14 outside of the California Avenue Parking Assessment District those numbers might 15 change.  I think my opinion here is that this  is just an artifact that this boundary kind of 16 crosses the site.  I believe it’s our duty wherever the office is allocated the project 17 should meet those parking standards as set out in our code.  I’m not sure I would be in 18 favor of raising the parking to 118 just because if we assume we can extend the district 19 to the whole site. 20  21 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Right, but then but when we settled on the numbers, right?  So that 22 was the first part of this exercise.  So now the question to the applicant is that one way 23 or the other you’re going to and I understand you’re meeting the zoning requirements.  24 I am fine with this, but reality will be like this  that you will be having truly more cars that 25 would be brought to the site.  So what is the mitigation item in the project in terms  of 26 some TDM or some other program that will just take those cars off the street or off the, 27 I’m sorry, parking spaces.   28  29 Mr. Black: Let me just comment that the numbers that we calculated assume no TDM 30 plan whatsoever.  So to the extent that the applicant is willing to commit to a TDM plan I 31 think we could take some reductions off that parking as you suggest.   32  33 Chair Fine: Thank you.  Commissioner Rosenblum.   34  35 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, I just want the record to reflect that we’re kind of 36 making up numbers around occupancy and just saying well it might be one person per 37 100 feet or it might be 200 and therefore these numbers were wrong.  We do actually 38 have surveys on this.  So we had five companies in the Downtown area submit their own 39 data plus we have now business registry data, but I’ve just pulled up the one from last 40 year.  There… between three companies that submitted together which is Palantir, A9, 41 Survey Monkey there was  228 sf of office per head.  So indeed lower than 250, but their 42 City of Palo Alto Page 30 mode share was such that they had .37 cars per employee so the number of sf per 1 parking space was 434.  Now no one’s suggesting that we should use that number and 2 reduce dramatically the number of parking spaces.  I’m saying instead of making up 3 numbers we have numbers and the City also has standards on this.  So I just think it’s a 4 bit of a distraction, but for the record the numbers that we have don’t support the 5 notion that 250 is an arbitrarily high figure.  And I just think it’s a bit of a distraction.  It’s 6 misleading to suggest that that’s  common wisdom. 7  8 Chair Fine: Thank you.  I appreciate that comment and I think I agree that even if we 9 think 250 is too low or too high I tend to agree with you it’s probably too low.  We have 10 the standards in the code currently.   11  12 So I just want to remind everybody it’s a little bit past 9:00.  We have talked I just want 13 to before I pass it to you Commissioner Waldfogel, some of the issues I see that we want 14 to get into is there’s this parking issue.  Maybe we’ve resolved it here.  There is still the 15 issue of the CN Zone whether the retail should be on the street front and multiple 16 shops.  I think it seems  there is some appetite on the Commission to encourage more 17 and smaller units even if we don’t make that part of the conditions of approval.  And 18 then the big issue I still see that we haven’t really addressed is whether we recommend 19 approval of the CUP or not.  Commissioner Waldfogel. 20  21 Commissioner Waldfogel: I’d just quickly like to comment on Commissioner 22 Rosenblum’s point, which is we just looked at the TMA studies that showed that the 23 large companies have higher transit use, but smaller companies which are the likely 24 office tenants in this  building with only what is it around 10,000 sf are less likely to or 25 are more likely to have Single Occupant Vehicles (SOV).  So I think it’s a bit deceptive to 26 believe that the Palantir results will apply to the tenants in the building.  I mean we just 27 don’t know is the bottom line.  We just don’t know and so I agree with Chair Fine’s point 28 that we should just abide by the code standards.  We really don’t have anything else to 29 go on.   30  31 Chair Fine: Alright.  I’d like to push us to make a Motion and I’m not going to make it my, 32 sorry.  Ok, one more question.   33  34 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Just a, I want to just make sure that we just that this  parking item 35 will be somehow addressed, right?  So just going back to the applicant and your parking 36 person so you’re going to revise the numbers?  We have an agreement that you’re going 37 to revise the number to show the number of the cars that would be truly that would be 38 parked under lower parking requirements scenario for the entire building.  And this will 39 be additional calculation because this calculation that’s on Page 8 meets of course code 40 requirements, but then reality calculations should be also added to this  package and 41 then presented to the Council as the set of the numbers that would be more real.   42 City of Palo Alto Page 31  1 Chair Fine: I think Vice‐Chair that you’re concern here is valid that there is this issue of 2 shifting the office space.  And I think that’s an important one for us to highlight to 3 Council in terms  of the fact that this  parking could be built today with the office on this  4 side and they could shift the office over and suddenly the demand is different, but I 5 think that’s a bit of an artifact given where the current Cal Ave. Parking Assessment 6 District falls.  You are welcome to make a Motion around that.  I’m not sure if it will be 7 supported, that’s  up to my fellow Commissioners.   8  9 Staff looks like you are hoping to say something?  Oh, excellent.  Me too.  Alright.  I 10 don’t see any more lights at the moment so I’m going to encourage us to make a 11 Motion.  I’m not going to make it myself at the moment, but just to sketch it out I think 12 it would be an approval of the RLUA.  Correct me if I’m wrong though, it doesn’t seem 13 like we have enough justification to approve the CUP, but if you disagree please let me 14 know.  We’d also like to make a recommendation to encourage more and smaller units.  15 There’s  the note of the parking issues in terms  of the Parking Assessment District and 16 then there’s  we still have to deal with the fact about the retail and the street front and 17 multiple shops.  That could be a requirement or just a suggestion.  Commissioner 18 Alcheck. 19  20 MOTION #1 21  22 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so I would like to make a Motion that we recommend to the 23 City Council the approval of the MND and the RLUA approving a site and design, 24 approving site and design review to allow construction of this project.  I also would like 25 to include a recommendation I guess that’s included.  That includes the CUP, right? 26  27 Mr. Lait: So actually our draft RLUA does not have the CUP findings on there so the 28 Motion would be to include that if that’s  the direction that you’re going. 29  30 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, I would like to (interrupted)  31  32 Mr. Lait: Ok with some supporting information. 33  34 Commissioner Alcheck: I would like my Motion to include recommendation that the CUP 35 be granted.  Do I need to make those findings in my Motion or are we ok?   36  37 Mr. Lait: Yeah, I think we if the if there are I guess  if there’s  a second for that then 38 maybe during the deliberation we could expand on the findings. 39  40 SECOND 41  42 City of Palo Alto Page 32 Commissioner Rosenblum: I second that.   1  2 Chair Fine: Alright so the Motion on the floor by Commissioner Alcheck is that we 3 recommend approval of the MND, the RLUA, and we include the approval of the CUP as 4 seconded by Commissioner Rosenblum. 5  6 Mr. Lait: So before you vote if I can? 7  8 Chair Fine: Oh no, we’re going to discuss it first I think. 9  10 Mr. Lait: Ok. So great.  So then can I just put on the record what the findings are so that 11 you have that for your deliberations? 12  13 Chair Fine: Sure.  Thank you. 14  15 Mr. Lait: Ok.  So there are two findings for the CUP and they read as this, as follows: that 16 the proposed, that the CUP would not be detrimental or injurious to property or 17 improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, 18 general  welfare or convenience.  And the second finding is that it be located and 19 conducted in a manner and accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the 20 purpose of this  title, the zoning title.   21  22 Chair Fine: Thank you.  Ok, so I have a few amendments I’d like to suggest, but I want to 23 let the speaker and the seconder.  Sorry, the mover and the seconder speak to their 24 Motion.   25  26 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok.  Would you like me to make the findings?  To suggest why 27 the findings are made?   28  29 Chair Fine: If that’s  what you want. 30  31 Commissioner Alcheck: No I’m asking my seconder.  Would you like me to take on that? 32  33 Commissioner Rosenblum: Go ahead. 34  35 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok.  I think that the, I think I’ve made the case for I think this  36 project is worth suggesting recommend, is worth recommending for approval.  I will 37 identify why I think the findings for the CUP are met.  I don’t think that this is, I think we 38 meet the first finding very easily.  I don’t think this is injurious to the parcels or 39 properties  in the nearby vicinity.  I think more importantly I think this is in line with our 40 Comprehensive Plan and also the sort of guidelines that define this specific area in that 41 when we encourage sort of the development that we want to see there, and I made this 42 City of Palo Alto Page 33 point earlier about merging parcels, what we’re really allowing them to do in terms  of 1 the office space with the CUP is achieve a very similar result that they theoretically 2 could have achieved with a much less efficient use of space had they divided this parcel 3 into two and then it would have resulted in probably significantly less residential, 4 significantly less retail.  Well, I don’t know exactly how that would work, but I think what 5 we’re doing here is we’re in effect achieving compliance with our Comprehensive Plan 6 by allowing the site to effectively achieve its office utilization that I believe the 7 Comprehensive Plan and the guidelines for this  specific area are suggesting are what 8 they want.  So I might be a little convoluted, but I think that’s  why it meets  the CUP 9 findings.   10  11 Chair Fine: Commissioner Rosenblum. 12  13 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, that to me the CUP was the piece that I was  most 14 unsure about.  I find the argument that A) if it was  two parcels it would be entitled to 15 almost precisely the same square footage and so now combine the two parcels which I 16 also think is well  aligned with the goals  of both the El  Camino Plan and our 17 Comprehensive Plan and this  zone.  I find that compelling.  So this  combining these 18 kinds of parcels I think is useful for the achievement of the goal  of both El  Camino and 19 the transit oriented areas.   20  21 Chair Fine: Thank you very much.  I see one light from the Vice‐Chair. 22  23 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 24  25 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Yes, I’d like to make an amendment if I may?  So I’d like to propose a 26 Friendly Amendment to do the, to include this  two following requirements.  Number 27 one that office space, office space let me say it differently.  That retail space along El  28 Camino that retail space along El  Camino, space along El  Camino would be restricted 29 only to retail space.  That’s  number one.   30  31 Number two is that the applicant will provide or Council will receive calculations for in 32 addition to the parking calculations on Page 8 will receive calculations of the for the 33 entire, for the entire parking requirements per lower ratios for office and retail and the 34 applicant will provide mitigation plan for the overage of the parking spaces that would 35 that this  delta would result with. 36  37 Chair Fine: Is there a second for this  Motion?  I actually saw three, this  Amendment 38 three parts. 39  40 Commissioner Alcheck: Nope, I don’t think that’s how it works. 41  42 City of Palo Alto Page 34 Chair Fine: Oh, so it goes  to you guys.  Sorry.  My mistake. 1  2 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 FAILED 3  4 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah.  So I don’t accept either of those amendments as friendly 5 to my Motion.   6  7 Chair Fine: Alright.  So I believe Vice‐Chair that this  data about the entire parking 8 requirement and finding the delta and providing mitigations  is something we could 9 individually write to Council about as an important issue.  It seems  to be one you find 10 very important and we appreciate that.  There may be something to the requirement 11 about retail along El  Camino or the space along El  Camino be devoted to retail.  I don’t 12 know if there’s  any interest in a Friendly Amendment just around that?  Ok.  13 Commissioner Tanaka. 14  15 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 16  17 Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah, so I’d like to make a Friendly Amendment.  The 18 amendment is that there be smaller more units in this development.  I think Waldfogel 19 recommended or I forgot the thing you said if it was  18 it’s so… how’s that?  Housing 20 inventory, yes. 21  22 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so I think at least from my perspective I would need a little 23 clarification from what you’re suggesting.  Are you suggesting that approval be 24 recommended only if the unit mix was  different than 13 or are you suggesting that we 25 recommend approval of this  site, but would encourage Council to consider potentially a 26 slightly different unit mix?  Are you suggesting you would only approve this  if the unit 27 mix, you would only recommend approval if the unit mix was greater than 13 or are you 28 suggesting that you would recommend approval, but you want Council to consider that 29 we think 18 that a greater number of units is prudent?  That’s what I’m trying to 30 understand. 31  32 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, well I think whatever we say is recommendations, right?  33 So… 34  35 Commissioner Alcheck: I know, but I’m wondering if… assuming Council sees the 36 minutes of this  conversation and they understand that there’s some discussion here and 37 there’s some support for this idea of potentially a different unit mix.  What I want to 38 understand is if the unit mix didn’t change would you suggest Council deny this project?  39 Because if that’s what you’re suggesting then it informs, I’m trying to understand your 40 amendment. 41  42 City of Palo Alto Page 35 Commissioner Tanaka: Sure.  Yeah, so my amendment is that the unit mix be 18. 1  2 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 FAILED 3  4 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, well I can’t support, I can’t accept that amendment either as 5 a friendly amendment. 6  7 Ms. Silver: Through the Chair?  If I could help out a little bit on this  issue; so our code 8 does not talk about unit size per se.  It talks about overall FAR of course and then there 9 are some Housing Element policies that talk about number of units for this  particular 10 site.  And so I think it is important to explore this  issue in the context of the Housing 11 Element that does require that anticipates a higher number of units then is being 12 proposed.  Also in the context of the site and design findings you may want to see a 13 higher density smaller units may be more appropriate for this site if you can try to fold it 14 into those findings or if you can try to fold it into the CUP findings or maybe deny the 15 CUP, but suggest that there be some additional permitted use that goes  into that space 16 such as housing.  And that would since it looks like they’re already at the FAR unit for 17 housing you would have to decrease the size of some of the other housing units to allow 18 for the permitted use.  So those are some thoughts  to consider. 19  20 Chair Fine: Thank you.  Commissioner Tanaka  would you like to reframe your 21 amendment or? 22  23 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 RESTATED, UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 24  25 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. I think for site design reasons, I think for CUP reasons, I think 26 for the fact that there’s  more housing stock needed for young professionals and seniors, 27 school impacts, many other reasons I think that this project should meet the Housing 28 Element.  The Housing Inventory and that should be 18.  So that’s  my Friendly 29 Amendment if you don’t accept that, which I think you don’t then it’s an Unfriendly 30 Amendment and so I need a second on that. 31  32 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 FAILED AGAIN 33  34 Commissioner Alcheck: Like I said with the utmost respect I do not accept that as a 35 Friendly Amendment.   36  37 SECOND 38  39 Chair Fine: There is an Unfriendly Amendment on the floor.  I’m willing to support it.  I’m 40 willing to second that.  Please, please. 41  42 City of Palo Alto Page 36 Commissioner Rosenblum: With respect I actually think the mechanism is to pass to 1 Council the recommendation that they see this project as less attractive because it has 2 fewer units and it’s up to the applicant to try to find a way to increase the number of 3 units rather than us dictating a number of units that we would approve it at.  That 4 would be my view.  That would something I would support as a signer on to the Alcheck 5 proposal. 6  7 Chair Fine: So… 8  9 Commissioner Rosenblum: I just don’t think we can dictate the number of units is what 10 I’m saying. 11  12 Chair Fine: So I understood the Unfriendly Amendment at this  point to be an 13 encouragement since we cannot dictate it or are you placing it as a requirement?  I’m 14 sorry if misconstrue. 15  16 Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah.  So I believe for this  site given the Comp Plan, given the 17 Housing Inventory that a higher number of housing units is warranted on this  site. 18  19 Chair Fine: I completely agree, I think though it’s going to be an encouragement or 20 suggestion rather, unless you want to make it a requirement. 21  22 Commissioner Tanaka: These are all recommendations. 23  24 Chair Fine: Yeah, ok.  So I mean as I see it then what we have now is a movement to 25 approve the RLUA including the CUP, but also recommend that the project have a mix of 26 18 units.  Yes. 27  28 Commissioner Alcheck: Just so we’re clear all the units… how many, just so we’re clear, 29 how many of the units are two bedroom?   30  31 Mr. Lait: Seven I think. 32  33 Commissioner Alcheck: There’s 13?  So in theory there are 26 bedrooms and we’re 34 suggesting we would prefer an allocation where there was  only 18 bedrooms?   35  36 Mr. Lait: So just so there’s  7, there’s  7 two bedrooms and there’s  4 one bedrooms.  So, 37 14 and 4, 18 bedrooms.   38  39 Commissioner Alcheck: There’s  currently 18. 40  41 Mr. Lait: Proposed. 42 City of Palo Alto Page 37  1 Commissioner Alcheck: And what we’re suggesting is that anything that we would 2 support, what we’re suggesting here is that we feel  this  amendment is suggesting that 3 the housing should have 18 units?  Ok.  My preference for this  process is that we have a 4 Motion on the table.  I haven’t accepted that Friendly Amendment.  I would rather we 5 take a vote on the Motion and then they can have a vote on the Unfriendly Amendment 6 and if there’s  support for that Unfriendly Amendment then it moves  up.  I think we 7 should go through the process like as laid out for us.   8  9 Chair Fine: Alright. 10  11 Commissioner Alcheck: If there’s more amendments then we should go through that 12 process. 13  14 Chair Fine: I agree.  We have lots, we’ve had lots of opportunity to comment and I think 15 it will be clear to Council the issues that we have around the 18 units, around the 16 parking issues that may result, around retail on El Camino.  Those seem to be the big 17 three we’ve highlighted.  Assistant Director. 18  19 Mr. Lait: So I’m just as I’m hearing the dialogue I’ve got to just share an area that gives  20 me some discomfort. 21  22 Chair Fine: Sure. 23 Mr. Lait: So I appreciate the I guess  what I’m hearing is that the current project that’s  24 being, for the Unfriendly Amendment conversation about wanting 18 units what I’m 25 hearing is that the current proposal that’s before you those that might support that the 26 finding that the Commission may be struggling with is one of the site and design findings 27 that say that this project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan you’re cite 28 for that would be the Housing Element and I think it’s Housing Program 2.1 and that’s  29 fine.  My concern would be that if you’re asking for a redesign I would be concerned 30 that you’re asking for five more units.  I don’t know what that’s going to look like in 31 terms  of the building, what that’s  going to do for the parking mix, and there’s  a lot of 32 uncertainty into what that project now looks like.  And for me I think that’s  fine if the 33 Commission wants  to head down that direction, but that’s a continuation for the 34 applicant to go back and study those issues so that we can present to you a more, a 35 project that responds to that should the applicant be interested in pursuing that.  So I’m 36 uncomfortable with the let’s add five more units and send it off to Council because I 37 think there’s  some unfinished work there. 38  39 Chair Fine: I hear you.  Thank you.  Ok, so I’d like to thank my colleagues for all our work 40 here.  It seems like we are maybe ready to proceed with a clean Motion which I’ll 41 City of Palo Alto Page 38 restate in a moment and then I’d like to take a vote.  Vice‐Chair.  I’m being too generous 1 with you. 2 Vice‐Chair Gardias: In terms  of the clean I’d like to just offer or propose Unfriendly 3 Amendment for the second item that I was  proposing before to (interrupted)  4  5 Mr. Lait: I’m sorry Vice‐Chair we’ve got, we’re losing track here.  We had two, we have a 6 Motion, we have one Friendly Amendment that was  failed, we had a second Friendly 7 Amendment that failed, now we have an Unfriendly Amendment I think that has been 8 offered and I believe (interrupted)  9  10 Chair Fine: We are not going forth with it.  So right now as I am reporting the Motion on 11 the floor is Commissioner Alcheck’s original Motion to approve the MND, the RLUA, and 12 the CUP.  It’s a clean Motion along with the findings for the CUP. 13  14 Ms. Silver: I’m sorry, wasn’t there an Unfriendly Amendment and a second?   15  16 Chair Fine: Yes.   17  18 Ms. Silver: So that should be voted on first. 19  20 Chair Fine: Ok.   21  22 Vice‐Chair Gardias: [Unintelligible] that there should be vote. 23  24 Chair Fine: Am I allowed to withdraw my support for that one and then take it off the 25 floor?   26  27 Ms. Silver: Yes. 28  29 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 FAILED 30  31 Chair Fine: I’ll do that.  So it’s back to the original Motion.  Thank you.  Vice‐Chair. 32  33 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 34  35 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Ok, so pretty much Unfriendly Amendment would be to provide 36 calculations and mitigation measures  for excess  parking. 37  38 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 FAILED 39  40 City of Palo Alto Page 39 Chair Fine: Alright, there is an amendment on the floor from Vice‐Chair Gardias.  Is there 1 a second for that?  Doesn’t seem like it.  We’re back still with a clean Motion from 2 Commissioner Alcheck.  This  is the last light I have.  Commissioner Waldfogel. 3  4 Commissioner Waldfogel: Let me just explore one other option on housing which is to 5 leave the housing the 13 units as proposed, but as an alternative to the office CUP to 6 replace the second floor office with some number of additional housing and I don’t 7 know if we know what that, what format that would be whether it would be 2 units, 3 8 units, something.  And if that requires a variance of some sort then we would be 9 recommending that variance.  So I just want to explore that as a… 10  11 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so I’ll just say that again I don’t, I think there are, the reason 12 why I think that’s an Unfriendly Amend, I think the reason why I would deem that an 13 Unfriendly Amendment is because there are issues related to the maximum FAR of 14 residential that I think somehow we’re ignoring in this conversation and so if the 13 unit 15 mix is exactly the same then what you’re suggesting is a CUP they haven’t asked for 16 which hasn’t been studied and hasn’t been evaluated and so and then that could change 17 the parking allocation.  There’s just so many variables in what you’re suggesting. 18  19 My preference is that and I hope my seconder agrees  here that we don’t accept that as 20 a Friendly Amendment and I have full faith that Council will see this deliberation as an 21 indication of our amazing support for greater housing units in all projects in Palo Alto, 22 but I just I don’t know that we’re doing ourselves any justice here by involving so many 23 variable involved suggestions.  So I… 24  25 Chair Fine: Thank you, Commissioner Alcheck.  Commissioner Waldfogel is that an 26 amendment you’d like to make? 27  28 Commissioner Waldfogel: Yes, and I just want to make one other point relative to this  29 which is that in half of our deliberation we’re giving the applicant credit for joining 30 parcels together and in the other half we’re ignoring that.  So for example, the retail 31 that the entire project is offering is a replacement for the retail that was  on one of the 32 two parcels.  So if these parcels were not joined there would be more retail here.  So it 33 just seems  to me that we can’t deliberate part of the time as if this  should be two 34 projects and part of the time as if it should be one. 35  36 Chair Fine: So to answer that they are required to preserve the existing ground floor 37 retail which is 9,000 something sf.  They are not required to build over it.  It seems  like 38 that’s  what they’re doing. 39  40 Commissioner Waldfogel: But if the parcels weren’t joined there would be 9,000 on the 41 one side and then there would be (interrupted)  42 City of Palo Alto Page 40  1 Chair Fine: But there’s no retail there so they’re not required to build it or retain it as far 2 as I understand.  Alright.  Folks, folks, let’s focus.  So we have a Motion on the floor to 3 approve recommendation of the MND, the RLUA, and include approval of the CUP 4 based on the findings that the CUP is not detrimental  to property or public safety and 5 that it is in accordance with the Comp Plan.  We have gone over a number of things.  I 6 think Council will hear loud and clear and if we like we can write (interrupted)  7  8 Commissioner Alcheck: I just (interrupted)  9  10 Chair Fine: Hold one moment (interrupted)  11  12 Commissioner Alcheck: I think you should allow him to suggest an Unfriendly 13 Amendment though.  I didn’t accept his Friendly so he has an opportunity.   14  15 Chair Fine: I’m not sure at this  moment we… you’re welcome to Commissioner 16 Waldfogel.  I’m not sure there will be the support for it at the moment.  I’ll leave it to 17 you, but otherwise I think we’re ready for a vote. 18  19 Commissioner Waldfogel: I’m not hearing overwhelming support so let’s go. 20  21 VOTE 22  23 Chair Fine: Ok.  So Motion on the floor as proposed by Commissioner Alcheck and with 24 the findings for the CUP, all those in favor?  One, two, three.  Those opposed?  One, 25 two, three.  We’re split.   26  27 MOTION #1 FAILED 28  29 Chair Fine: Should we maybe take a five minute break? 30  31 Mr. Lait: Sure. 32  33 Chair Fine: And then come back to this. 34  35 The Commission took a break 36  37 Chair Fine: Let’s  get back to this  and see if we can finish this  off tonight.  Thank you all 38 for your patience.  I’m going to go over first a couple options that we could do that 39 maybe we could get some consensus here.  So one with regards to the housing we could 40 make a suggestion to Council that they look ways to maximize the housing on the site in 41 City of Palo Alto Page 41 accordance with Comp Plan.  We could also make a requirement of this of the approval 1 be that there be another BMR unit or something of sort, sorry (interrupted)  2  3 Mr. Lait: You couldn’t require that, but it’s a (interrupted)  4  5 Chair Fine: Suggestion for condition of approval to Council.  With regards to the parking 6 issues that Vice‐Chair Gardias  has brought up staff has said they will include those 7 numbers based on the lower parking requirement thresholds  in the report to Council.  8 We could also encourage the project or make a suggestion for requirement that the 9 project either join the Transportation Management Association (TMA), do a TDM pan, 10 plan, require van pools or carpools for the office space and that would be linked to the 11 CUP.  So I want to leave it open to the floor for any Motions.  Let’s  try to do Motions  12 rather than just discussion.  We’ve had a long time for that.  Vice‐Chair. 13  14 MOTION #2 15  16 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for building up this options.  So I’m going 17 to make a Motion.  The Motion would be just to approve the project as it was presented 18 with suggestion to the Council that to increase number of the units and also to with the 19 requirement to for the applicant to join TDM program for additional or for overage 20 parking spaces their calculation for lower ratio.   21 Chair Fine: Is there a second for that?  And I will note you’ve not included the CUP as the 22 current boiler plate Motion does not include the CUP.  Would you like to include 23 approval of the CUP with its findings? 24  25 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Yes. 26  27 Chair Fine: Ok.   So let me just type this  out.  So the Motion as proposed by the Vice‐28 Chair is to approve the Negative Mitigated Declaration, the RLUA, and the CUP along 29 with its findings in addition we make a suggestion to Council to increase the number of 30 units on the site and also a suggestion that the applicant join the TDM for the parking 31 spaces that are an overage as staff understands the overage being the difference 32 between the in district versus out of district area.  Is there a second?  Commissioner 33 Tanaka. 34  35 SECOND 36  37 Commissioner Tanaka: I’ll second it. 38  39 Chair Fine: Seconded by Commissioner Tanaka.  Would you like to speak to your 40 Motion? 41  42 City of Palo Alto Page 42 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you.  Yes, so I think that this  is a reasonable compromise 1 between different voices and also respect to those that were proposing other solutions 2 on this floor and for this reason I think that that’s the best vote that we can have on the 3 floor. 4  5 Chair Fine: Thank you.  Commissioner Tanaka, would you like to speak to this? 6  7 Commissioner Tanaka: So I think we all know Cal Ave. is already impacted by a parking 8 shortage so I think the suggestion about parking makes sense and I think I’ve spoken a 9 lot already about the more units so I don’t think I need to do that. 10  11 VOTE 12  13 Chair Fine: Thank you very much.  Let’s  do this  as a vote.  So the Motion just to restate it 14 is to approve, recommend approval of the project including the MND, the RULA, the 15 CUP along with its findings and that Council consider ways  to increase the number of 16 units on the site and also we suggest that Council require the applicant to join a TDM for 17 the overage parking spaces.  All those in favor?  One, two, three, four, five.  Look at that, 18 unanimous.  That’s all of us in favor so I believe that item is concluded.  Thank you all for 19 your patience.  I’m sorry this was a little confusing and troublesome.  A lot of that is on 20 me.  Ok, that item is done.   21  22 MOTION #2 PASSED (6‐0‐1, Commissioner Downing recused) 23  24  25 Commission Action: Motion by Vice‐chair Gardias with second by Commissioner Tanaka 26 to approve the  project. Motion passed 6‐0, Commissioner Downing recused. 27 Attachment L Attachment M Hardcopies to City Council and Libraries only Project plans can be reviewed at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=2779&TargetID=319 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6578) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/23/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Adobe Creek/Hwy 101 Pedestrian Overcrossing Project Title: Approval of a Contract with Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. in the Amount of $1,474,297 to Provide Design and Environmental Assessment Services for the Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Pedestrian Overcrossing, Capital Improvements Program Project PE-11011 From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Contract No. C12162262, a professional services agreement with Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. (Attachment A) (Design Agreement), in a not- to-exceed amount of $1,474,297 for Phase 1 services, to provide environmental assessments, engineering, landscape, and architectural design services for the Highway 101 Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project (PE-11011), including $1,340,270 for basic services and $134,027 for additional services under Phase 1. Executive Summary The report provides information on the project design team, bridge options, costs, funding and schedule, as well as the attached Design Agreement. The recommended design team, Biggs Cardosa Associates, will provide design services for a standard bridge, 12-feet wide, with a construction cost within the anticipated $13 million project budget. The preferred basic bridge components and enhancements identified during the design competition process will be developed conceptually as part of the designer’s scope of work. Staff will return to Council with the bridge concepts prior to starting the environmental assessment to confirm the project components such as bridge structure type, width, amenities and optional enhancements. At that time, staff may City of Palo Alto Page 2 recommend continuing to seek additional funding that could allow incorporation of the optional enhancements. Background The Highway 101 Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing Project includes construction of a new, year-round, grade-separated, shared bicycle and pedestrian crossing over Highway 101 and Adobe Creek. This project will improve connectivity to the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, East/West Bayshore Road businesses and the regional San Francisco Bay Trail network. In November 2011, Council approved a Feasibility Study identifying the need for a year-round pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing at Highway 101 and Adobe Creek (Staff Report ID #2074). In June 2012, Council awarded a contract to Alta Planning + Design to develop a preliminary design and conduct an environmental assessment of the Adobe Creek overcrossing (Staff Report ID #2771). To obtain a wider range of bridge designs incorporating innovative, versatile and sustainable design to construct a “landmark” bridge, the City conducted a design competition that was completed in December 2014. Following the design competition, Council selected the low-profile suspension bridge design proposed by Moffatt and Nichol (M&N) and directed staff to negotiate a design contract with M&N after confirming the bridge’s constructability and cost. On December 14, 2015, staff reported to Council that the uniqueness and complexity of the M&N design would likely result in significantly higher cost than the available budget (Staff Report ID #5780). Council directed staff to: 1. Cease contract negotiations with M&N; 2. Proceed with a Request for Proposal (RFP) for design services to develop a bridge concept meeting a new $13 million project budget; 3. Work with Google to secure additional funding to supplement the project budget; and 4. Pursue additional public and private funding to support enhancements to the standard bridge design. Discussion Request for Proposal Process City of Palo Alto Page 3 On December 22, 2015, the City released an RFP (No. 162262) for Highway 101 Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing design services. Staff contacted firms that participated in the 2014 Design Competition. The RFP required prospective design firms to submit proposals for the design of a standard, low-profile pedestrian and bicycle bridge and enhancements within a total $13 million project budget. The RFP included design of the proposed Adobe Reach Trail connection along the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) maintenance road from West Bayshore Road to East Meadow Drive. The RFP identified three separate phases for the design work, which are discussed in greater detail below, under the Negotiations and Scope of Services Refinements section of this report. Table 1 provides a summary of the RFP solicitation process. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Table 1. Solicitation Process Summary Proposal Description/Number Highway 101 Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing Project RFP (Number 162262) Proposed Length of Project Approximately 3 years and 9 months Total Days to Respond to Proposal 49 Pre-proposal Meeting Date N/A Number of Company Attendees at Pre-proposal Meeting N/A Number of Proposals Received: 3 Company Name Location (City, State) Selected for oral interview? Proposal Amount 1. Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. San Jose, CA Yes $1,655,175 2. Endrestudio Emeryville, CA Yes $1,240,750 3. NRV Nutt Redfield Valentine Mill Valley, CA Yes $1,232,615 Evaluation of Proposals A total of 44 vendors downloaded the RFP and three proposals were received. An evaluation committee consisting of Public Works Engineering Services Division staff and representatives from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and Google reviewed the proposals. The three firms that submitted proposals were invited to participate in oral interviews on February 24, 2016. The evaluation committee carefully reviewed each firm's qualifications and submittals. The RFP criteria used to evaluate firms included: quality and completeness of the proposals; quality, performance and effectiveness of solutions; experience with similar scope and complexity; cost; financial stability; ability to perform required services within the project schedule and make strategic decisions; prior record performance; compliance with applicable laws and regulations; and experience with the Caltrans review process. The evaluation committee recommended Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. as the top proposer. Biggs Cardosa Associates ranked highest due to their understanding of project goals and needs, experience working on projects with similar scope and complexity, and in-depth knowledge and experience with the Caltrans review process essential for successful project execution and timely completion. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Negotiations and Scope of Services Refinements After the evaluation committee recommended Biggs Cardoza Associates (hereafter, the “Consultant”), staff refined the design scope of services based in part on further discussions with the Consultant. The bridge design work includes three types of design components: 1) baseline project elements, 2) core additional project elements, and 3) optional enhancements. In the attached professional services agreement for design services, these three components are structured in a manner that is intended to meet a $10 million construction budget and $13 million total project budget. The scope of services, Exhibit A of the attached Design Agreement, includes developing the first and second components, standard bridge design with baseline and core additional elements, to final design, and developing the optional enhancements only to 15% design for Council consideration. At the completion of 15% design for the third component, staff will update Council on the design concepts, graphics and estimated construction costs for the optional enhancements. Council will then have the opportunity to select optional enhancements for inclusion in the project, which will require increasing the project budget to provide funding for the selected optional enhancements. The baseline, core additional and optional enhancements are described in greater detail in the Project Elements section of this report, below. The Design Agreement’s scope of services consists of Phase 1 of the three phases outlined in the RFP and further described in, Exhibit A of the Design Agreement, summarized as follows: 1. Phase 1 – Design Development, Caltrans Project Approval and Environmental Document a) Preliminary design and environmental assessments (15% and 35% designs) b) Caltrans approval document (Permit Evaluation and Engineering Report) c) Design development with community input, public artist selection, City approval of Site and Design Review, and City and Caltrans approval of environmental assessments d) Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) at 65% Design and Caltrans structure approval 2. Phase 2 – Final Design and PS&E a) PS&E at 90% Design City of Palo Alto Page 6 b) PS&E at 100% Design and Caltrans approval of construction bid documents c) Caltrans encroachment permit, right-of-way certification and maintenance agreements with Caltrans and SCVWD, identification of existing utilities relocation, obtaining easements for the 3600 West Bayshore Road property and SCVWD for the Adobe Creek Reach Trail and required environmental agency permits 3. Phase 3 – Bidding and Construction Support a) Bid phase services b) Construction administration services At this time, staff recommends authorizing Phase 1 services only, for the not-to- exceed amounts shown on Exhibit C to the Design Agreement (Compensation). Subject to the City Council’s further review and consideration upon completion of 35% design under Phase 1, the Design Agreement may be amended to include services under Phase 2 and Phase 3. Project Elements The standard bowstring steel bridge design includes a composite structure with steel trusses and concrete approaches. It will include a painted, prefabricated, steel truss bridge, approximately 165-feet long, clear-spanning Highway 101, with a 60-foot long span over East Bayshore Road, and a 60-foot long span over West Bayshore Road, and concrete structures at the approach ramps. The total bridge width will be 14-feet with a clear walkway width of 12 feet. The 12-foot clear walkway width meets minimum Caltrans guidelines for multi-use trails using a ten-foot center path width and one-foot wide shoulders. See Attachment B for a conceptual bridge alignment and rendering. The bridge will include five-percent slopes with optimum alignment and turning radiuses to improve accessibility and meet bicycle speed limit requirements. A “missile barrier” fence, eight feet high with one-inch square openings, is required over Highway 101. Landscaping and habitat restoration for the east ramp area will reflect the plant palette in the Baylands Master Plan as well as the SCVWD design guidelines for planting along creeks. The standard bridge will be an attractive, bird-friendly, environmentally suitable design with a strict level of structural and seismic performance. The typical bridge design life is 50 years or more. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation consists of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation will be prepared in accordance City of Palo Alto Page 7 with Caltrans policies and requirements. Caltrans will perform as the NEPA lead agency role from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under the NEPA Delegation Program. The Consultant will coordinate with public art staff to identify and collaborate with an artist via a separate RFP process, in accordance with the City’s municipal art policy. Public art elements may include design enhancements and will be an integral part of the concept and final plans. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the estimated standard bridge baseline and core elements costs, respectively. Table 2. Baseline Elements and Costs (fee shown for Phases 1-3) Baseline Elements Consultant Fee Construction Cost (Year 2016) 1. Principal span with clear walkway width of 12 feet: Painted prefabricated steel truss roughly 165-feet long clear- spanning Highway 101, roughly 60-feet long spanning East Bayshore Road, and roughly 60-feet long spanning West Bayshore Road. 2. Eastern and Western approaches with clear walkway width of 12 feet: Cast-in- Place concrete ramp bridge structure roughly total 600-feet long spanning the Google parking lot and corner of baylands. Self-weathering prefabricated steel truss roughly 150-feet long spanning Adobe Creek and Barron creek confluence. 3. General civil, landscaping and standard architectural elements such as Caltrans fencing, railings, lighting and wayfinding signage. $1,200,000 $5,517,000 CEQA Documentation $146,140 NEPA Documentation $127,000 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Baseline Elements Consultant Fee Construction Cost (Year 2016) Construction Support $273,345 Total Consultant Cost with 10% Additional Services $1,921,134 Total Construction Cost with 10% mobilization and 20% Contingencies $7,282,440 Table 3. Core Additional Elements and Costs (fee shown for Phases 1-3) Core Additional Elements Consultant Fee Construction Cost (Year 2016) Stair at the western approach ramp $20,000 $200,000 Overlook platform to the eastern approach ramp $40,000 $150,000 Enhanced lighting $50,000 $400,000 Adobe Creek Reach Trail head improvements $15,000 $50,000 Addition of educational signage $5,000 $10,000 Modification of West Bayshore roadway for bike lane and sidewalk improvements $30,000 $270,000 Total Consultant Cost with 10% Additional Services $176,000 Total Construction Cost with 10% mobilization and 20% Contingencies $1,425,600 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Table 4 provides a summary of optional enhancements and associated design fees. The construction cost estimates for these optional enhancements will be provided upon 15% design completion. Table 4. Optional Enhancements and Fees (fee shown for Phase 1) Optional Enhancements Consultant Fee Plaza at terminus of the eastern approach ramp (2,000 sf) $15,000 Enhanced railing (galvanized steel) $15,000 Enhanced amenities $5,000 Modification of principal span and approach structures to have a 16-foot clear width $20,000 Alternative principal span structure for maximum of five (5) structure types $60,000 Total Optional Enhancement Fees with 10% Additional Services $126,500 The total Consultant design fee to complete all three phases including construction support, is $2,021,485 for basic services and a total of $2,223,634, which includes 10% for additional services. The total construction cost estimate with contingency (baseline and core elements) is $8,708,040. Assuming a 3% annual escalation over two years, the total construction cost estimate is $9,238,360 by early 2019. Staff recommends authorizing the current contract for Phase 1 services only (Attachment A) totaling $1,340,270 and $134,027 for additional services, with a total contract not to exceed $1,474,297 for Phase 1 services (Design Agreement, Exhibit C). Design services will be provided for up to 65% design for baseline and core elements and 15% design for optional enhancements (Design Agreement, Exhibit A). Funding Grant Funding and Expected Loss of STIP Funds: City of Palo Alto Page 10 In addition to the City’s allocation of $4.7 million, the project was previously awarded grants totaling $8.35 million to be used for construction, including  $4 million in Santa Clara County Recreation Trails Program funds, awarded to the City in November 2012  $4.35 million in State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds from the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Program and the Regional Improvement Program (RIP). However, due to reductions in STIP funding, in January 2016 the California Transportation Commission (CTC) adopted an amended fund estimate. The new estimate projects a $1.5 billion State shortfall in funding for commitments made in the 2014 STIP for fiscal years 2016-17 through 2018-19. Staff was informed at the VTA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting in early 2016 that the $4.35 million in STIP funds would be recommended for deletion by VTA due to the funding shortfall. On March 22, 2016, the City and Google co-signed a letter (Attachment C) addressed to Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and CTC, requesting the commissions to continue project funding. MTC subsequently voted to recommend deletion of funds to the CTC. The CTC will take action at its May 18-19 meeting, and staff expects that CTC will approve the removal of the funding. VTA staff is aware of the importance of the $4.35 million in project funding and has committed to replace the deleted STIP funding. Staff received a letter from VTA staff dated April 7, 2016 (Attachment D) stating the project will be given priority for funding in the next OBAG 2 Competitive Complete Streets Program coming this fall. Staff is optimistic that VTA will be successful in replacing the funding and has included NEPA environmental review in the Design Agreement with the expectation that additional federal funds will be allocated to the project. Potential County/Stanford Trails Funds: Stanford and the City submitted a joint $8.5 million grant application in 2012 and Stanford was awarded $4.5 million from the Santa Clara County Recreation Fund established by the County/Stanford Trails Agreement. Stanford has relinquished the $4.5 million grant funding and is building the Stanford perimeter trail with its own funds. This could provide an opportunity to use the $4.5 million for the bridge. Currently, Santa Clara County staff have asked City staff to refrain from City of Palo Alto Page 11 making a formal request for the funds while internal discussions are occurring. Any use of the funds is subject to Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors agreeing to their reallocation. Potential Google Contribution: Following Council direction on December 14, 2015 to work with Google to secure additional funding, staff has continued to discuss a potential contribution from Google representatives. Most recently, Google representatives confirmed Google’s offer to make a $1 million contribution to the project in the attached letter (Attachment F). A contribution from Google could be used to supplement the current $13 million project budget or to offset the City’s current funding allocation. Resource Impact The total design and construction support fee for all three phases is $2,223,634 including a 10% additional services budget. However, the Council is currently being asked to authorize Phase 1 design services only ($1,474,297 - 65% baseline and core, optional enhancements to 15%). Table 5 presents the current project budget. Table 5: Project Budget Spent to date and committed (preliminary design, environmental assessment and the design competition) included in CIP PE-11011 $796,433 Total Spent to Date $796,433 Construction in early 2019 $8,398,360 Construction Contingency (10%) $840,000 Total Construction Cost $9,238,360 Soft Costs Phase 1 Design – baseline and core to 65% , optional enhancements to 15% $1,474,297 Phase 2 and 3 Design and Construction Support $749,337 Construction Management (4%) $369,535 Inspection, Environmental & Testing (3.5%) $327,151 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Infrastructure Plan Program Manager $100,000 Total Soft Costs $3,020,320 Total Project Budget $13,055,113 Funding for this project is included in Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project (PE-11011) – Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass Project. Policy Implications The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and programs. Goal T-3 Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. Goal T-14 Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi- model transit stations. Timeline Schedule and milestones:  Consultant Award of Contract – May 2016  Phase 1:  Phase 1 services and design - May 2016  Complete 15% design - Summer 2016  Complete 35% design and public review meetings - Fall 2017  Complete California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/public review –Winter 2017  Complete 65% Design – Winter 2017  Phase 2:  Authorize Phase 2 and Phase 3 Services – Fall 2017  Right of way certification and complete 90%-100% design and construction bid documents, obtain permits, and Caltrans approval – Fall 2018  OBAG Cycle 2 access to funding – October, 2018  Phase 3: City of Palo Alto Page 13  Begin construction, construction administration - early 2019  Complete construction – early Spring 2020 The proposed project schedule presented to Council in December of 2015 included beginning construction in early 2018 to meet a federal grant deadline of November 1, 2017. That preliminary schedule included “design risk” with preliminary design and environmental phases accelerating faster than the Caltrans review and comment process, thus leading to multiple revisions and some redesign. However, staff has revised the schedule to eliminate the “design- at-risk” component and provide the standard Caltrans time periods for review of design and environmental documents, resulting in construction being pushed out almost one year to January 2019. Attachment E provides a detailed schedule flowchart. The new schedule aligns with the expected OBAG Cycle 2 funding, under which construction funds will not be available until November 2018. Environmental Review Award of the Design Agreement is not a project under CEQA or NEPA. CEQA review will be carried out prior to the issuance of entitlements for the Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass project. Pursuant to CEQA requirements, a draft IS/MND and a Mitigation Monitoring Program will be prepared and circulated before issuance of entitlements. The project includes federal funding, thus a separate NEPA categorical exclusion clearance process will be undertaken. It is anticipated the project will not result in significant impacts. Attachments Attachment A – Design Agreement Attachment B – Conceptual Bridge Alignment and Rendering Attachment C – March 22, 2016, letter to MTC and CTC Attachment D – April 7, 2016 letter from VTA staff Attachment E – Detailed Project Schedule Attachment F – May 6, 2016 letter from Google Attachments:  A- Biggs Cardosa Associates Inc. Contract (PDF)  B - Baseline Bowstring Bridge (PDF)  C - Palo Alto and Google letter to MTC and CTC on STIP funding 22Mar2016 (PDF)  D - VTA letter dated April 7, 2016 (PDF)  E - Schedule Flowchart (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 14  F - Google Letter (PDF) Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C16162262 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 23rd day of May, 2016, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES, INC., a California, located at 865 The Alameda, San Jose, CA 95126 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to build a year-round, grade separated, shared bicycle and pedestrian crossing (“Project”) and City desires to engage a consultant to provide Phase 1 design services for the Project, including environmental assessment and coordination, and engineering, landscape and architectural design services for a low profile standard pedestrian and bicycle bridge with optional enhancements; and if later approved by the City Council, this Agreement will be amended to include Phase 2 and Phase 3 services, which include preparation of final bid documents and bidding for Phase 2 services, and construction administration services for Phase 3 services, all in connection with the Project (“Services”). B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. However, unless or until the City Council approves amendment(s) to this Agreement to include Phase 2 and Phase 3, this Agreement applies only to Phase 1 services, and all references to “Services” will be construed to apply only to Phase 1 services. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described at Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. Optional On-Call Provision (This provision only applies if checked and only applies to on- call agreements.) Services will be authorized by CITY, as needed, with a Task Order assigned and approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Each Task Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit A-1. Each Task Order shall designate a CITY Project Manager and shall contain a specific scope of work, a specific schedule of performance and a specific compensation amount. The total price of all Task Orders issued under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of Compensation set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for work DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 performed under an authorized Task Order and CITY may elect, but is not required, to authorize work up to the maximum compensation amount set forth in Section 4. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through completion of the services in accordance with the Schedule of Performance attached at Exhibit “B” unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Million three hundred forty thousand two hundred seventy dollars ($1,340,270.00). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed One million four hundred seventy four thousand two hundred ninety seven Dollars ($1,474,297.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out at Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit “A”. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C- 1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: 1. BKF Engineers – Civil, survey, traffic, drainage, utility and Right-of-Way Engineering DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 2. FMG Architects – Bridge architecture, aesthetics, lightning and graphics 3. Callander Associates – Landscape architecture, restoration and way finding 4. Parikh Consultants – Geotechnical engineering, materials testing and corrosivity 5. Y&C Transportation – Electrical engineering and lightning 6. Schaaf & Wheeler – Hydraulic & Hydrologic Engineering 7. CM Carlson Management – Constructability and cost verification 8. DJ Powers – Environmental assessment and coordination CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Anthony Notaro as the Project Manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and Roy Schnabel as the project Director to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. CITY’s project manager is Elizabeth Ames, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone:650-329-2502. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon receipt of final payment, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. The CITY assumes all responsibility for the use of the work product outside of its original intent. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. [Option A applies to the following design professionals pursuant to Civil Code Section 2782.8: architects; landscape architects; registered professional engineers and licensed professional land surveyors.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. In accordance with Section 2782.8 of the State of California Civil Code, the duty to indemnify, including the cost to defend is limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct caused by CONSULTANT, and only to the extent caused by CONSULTANT. [Option B applies to any consultant who does not qualify as a design professional as defined in Civil Code Section 2782.8.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Chief Procurement Officer during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 18, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the CITY’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, CONSULTANT shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: • All printed materials provided by CCONSULTANT to CITY generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post- consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. • Goods purchased by CONSULTANT on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in accordance with CITY’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Division’s office. • Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT, at no additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONSULTANT shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, CITY shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager (Required on contracts over $85,000) APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney (Required on Contracts over $25,000) BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES, INC. By:___________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:________________________ Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF SERVICES EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “C-1”: HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Principal Roy Schnabel Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Palo Alto (City) plans to build a year-round, grade-separated, shared bicycle and pedestrian crossing over U.S. Highway 101 and Adobe Creek in Palo Alto, CA. The Highway 101 Pedestrian and Bicycle Overcrossing Project (Project) will improve connectivity to the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, East Bayshore Road businesses, and regional San Francisco Bay Trail network from residential neighborhoods and employment districts in southern Palo Alto. The construction budget for the project is $10 million inclusive of construction contingencies, with a total project budget of $13 million. The project shall include design of a low-profile standard pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing with basic bridge elements and enhancements as feasible to meet the total project budget of $13 million. SCOPE OF SERVICES The Consultant shall provide environmental assessment and engineering, landscape and architectural design services for a low-profile standard pedestrian and bicycle bridge for approval by the City, Caltrans, and other applicable agencies. Environmental documentation shall be prepared under both National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Potential art elements shall be included as an integral part of the design concept and final design. Final design, bidding and construction support services may also be provided by the Consultant, however, these services are not included in this Contract and City reserves the right to amend the Contract as necessary and authorize these services or to issue a new solicitation for these services after completion of the preliminary design. This scope of work consists of the following baseline project elements, core additional project elements, and optional enhancements to meet the project budget goals. Consultant’s fee includes development of the baseline and core additional project elements from preliminary to final design phases and development of optional enhancements to 15% design level only. After the 15% design review, the City will provide direction to the Consultant if any of the optional enhancements should be included for design beyond 15% design level. Design development at and beyond 35% design level shall include baseline project elements, core additional project elements, and optional enhancements (if selected and as authorized by the City after 15% design reviews). A. Baseline Project Elements The baseline project elements include the following: 1. Element #1 – Principal spans with clear walkway width of 12’-0”: Painted prefabricated steel truss roughly 165-feet long clear spanning Highway 101, roughly 60-feet long spanning East Bayshore Road, and roughly 60-feet long spanning West Bayshore Road. 2. Element #2 – Western Approach with clear walkway width of 12’-0”: Cast-in-Place concrete ramp bridge structure roughly 250-feet long spanning the Google parking lot and self-weathering prefabricated steel truss roughly 150-feet long spanning Adobe Creek. 3. Element #3 – Eastern Approach with clear walkway width of 12’-0”: Cast-in-Place concrete ramp bridge structure roughly 350-feet long spanning the corner of the Palo Alto Baylands. DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 4. General civil, landscape and architectural elements include: • No roadway improvements work. • Landscaping limited to restoration of areas disturbed by construction. • Standard architectural elements with standard colors, textures and finishes. • Standard Caltrans fencing, railings and lighting. • Signage limited to standard wayfinding signage within the limits of construction. • Art prepared by the City’s art consultant shall be accommodated into the project. Work is limited to providing locations to accommodate independent art elements (such as panels or free standing monoliths) that can be installed by a separate specialty contractor. B. Core Additional Project Elements The core additional project elements include the following: 1. Addition of a stair structure at the Western Approach Ramp Bridge Structure. 2. Addition of an overlook platform to the Eastern Approach Ramp Bridge Structure. 3. Addition of enhanced lighting design throughout the bridge structures. 4. Addition of trail heads at the proposed Adobe Creek Reach Trail along Adobe Creek between West Bayshore Road and East Meadow Drive. Trail head design shall include simple concrete connections to the adjoining streets/sidewalks (no formal plazas), associated pavement delineation and street signage. The trail shall utilize the existing Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) maintenance road along Adobe Creek (maintaining the existing aggregate base surfacing) and shall include installation of safety railing along Adobe Creek Reach Trail (as allowed by the SCVWD). 5. Addition of instructional and educational signage within the project limits. Work is limited to providing locations to accommodate independent signage (such as panels along the bridge railing) that can be installed by a separate specialty contractor. 6. Modification of the existing section at West Bayshore Road to accommodate bike lane and sidewalk. C. Optional Enhancements The optional enhancements development to the 15% design level includes the following: 1. Addition of a 2000 square-foot at-grade plaza at the terminus of the Eastern approach ramp structure with the San Francisco Bay Trail. 2. Addition of enhanced railing design throughout the bridge structures beyond readily available City/Caltrans railing designs. (Assumes the use of galvanized steel components and hardware). 3. Addition of enhanced amenities package (benches, bike racks, trash receptacles, etc.) beyond readily available City/Caltrans standard amenities. (Assumes amenities will be reviewed and selected from the existing available manufacturer components). Custom designed components are not included. 4. Modification of principal span structures, West approach structures, and East approach structures to have a clear width of 16-feet (rather than 12-feet). 5. Alternative principal span structure type review including structure type selection description, anticipated costs and conceptual graphics. Limited to a maximum of five (5) structure types through 15% design level and narrowed to one preferred structure type after meeting with the City Council. Only the preferred structure type will be developed beyond DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 15% PS&E level. (Structure types are assumed to be variations on the prefabricated bowstring truss included in the project baseline such as standard truss, box truss, Virendeel truss, etc. Alternatives review is limited to the principal span structures crossing Highway 101/Bayshore Road.) The design evaluation and selection of elements and enhancements will define the environmental assessment scope of work. Environmental assessment and coordination includes: • CEQA Documentation to consist of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). CEQA work consists of review and revision of technical studies and CEQA documentation previously prepared by the City to meet current baseline and core additional project elements and optional enhancements upon direction by City after 15% design. • NEPA compliance pursuant to the policies and requirements of Caltrans, which has assumed the NEPA Lead Agency role from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under the NEPA Delegation Program. All NEPA documents prepared for Caltrans are required to comply with the procedures outlined in Caltrans’ Standard Environmental Reference (SER). The Consultant shall assume Caltrans Permit Engineering Evaluation Report (PEER) process as the appropriate Project Approval document for the project. The work furnished by the Consultant shall be prepared in accordance with the current City and Caltrans regulations, policies, procedures, manuals and standards, including compliance with FHWA requirements. The Consultant shall provide professional services in three phases, but only to the extent that each of the following Phases is authorized by the City Council: 1. Phase 1 – Design Development and Caltrans Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) 2. Phase 2 – Final Design and Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) 3. Phase 3 – Bidding and Construction Support Phases 2 and 3 are future design and bidding and construction support services, which are not part of this Contract and represent a scope of work to complete the project. The City may amend the scope of services as necessary and authorize Phase 2 and Phase 3 services upon completion of 35% design and upon Council direction. PHASE 1 – DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND CALTRANS PA&ED Task 1: Preliminary Design 1.1 Phase 1 Project Management The Consultant shall provide project management and administration services including monitoring subconsultants’ activities, coordinating with City staff and subconsultants, implementing quality control and quality assurance procedures, submitting monthly invoices and progress reports, preparing and maintaining project schedule, and developing a work plan to ensure the project remains within budget and on schedule. 1.2 Phase 1 Project Meetings The Consultant shall conduct one (1) kick-off meeting with City staff to review and refine scope DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 of work, work plan, and schedule. Identify critical milestones and establish communications protocol. The Consultant shall attend up to six (6) in-person Project Development Team meetings with Caltrans, and up to 14 (six (6) in-person and eight (8) teleconferences) progress and coordination meetings with City staff, key stakeholders, or other agencies. Prepare and submit agenda, pertinent materials and meeting minutes for each meeting for City staff reviews. 1.3 Data Collection and Review and Site Visits The Consultant shall review available data and information provided by the City, Caltrans, and other agencies. Conduct up to three (3) site visits to review existing conditions and identify constraints that may affect the proposed design. Provide field notes, representative photos, and field measurements. Available data/information includes, but is not limited to the following: • Previous studies, reports and/or documents related to the project • Community input on schematic designs received during Design Competition • Design guidelines and City’s preferred project footprint and bridge alignment • As-built plans • Environmental studies and documents • Utility information • Aerial photos and digitized topography • Survey control data • Right-of-Way (R/W) information 1.4 Survey/Mapping and Potholing The Consultant shall conduct field surveying to gather supplemental site topography information. Provide all equipment, photographs, documentation, and services for surveying. Activities under this task include, but are not limited to: • Prepare a detailed scope for field survey and provide scope for City’s review • Coordinate with the utility companies in accordance with City requirements for potholing and potholing survey. Provide recommendations for locations and depth of potholing surveys. No potholing shall be performed in the Caltrans R/W • Provide a traffic handling plan for work on local streets. • Conduct required surveys and update topographic surveys within the project area • Perform Landnet Mapping of R/W and property lines mapping within the project area. • Prepare a Right-of-Way Requirement Report for review by Caltrans and the City • Compile all survey data in an AutoCAD base map • City to provide benchmarks and controls used for the existing aerial mapping 1.5 Utility and Agency Coordination The Consultant shall coordinate with the affected utility companies and property owners (Caltrans, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), tele-communication companies, etc.) to make preliminary determination of ownership rights and relocation cost liabilities, and other requirements. Prepare an existing utility base map in AutoCAD format within the Project area. Identify potential high risk utility impacts and encroachments in the Caltrans R/W and prepare a Longitudinal Utility Encroachment Exception (LUEE) Report for Caltrans approval. 1.6 Public Outreach The Consultant shall attend and provide support to City staff in public outreach and community meetings to obtain input on the proposed design. Provide all necessary meeting materials including graphics, presentation slides, handouts, drawings, graphic boards, etc. for each DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 meeting, as appropriate. Conduct a “pre-meeting planning session” with the City via teleconference before each meeting to review meeting materials. Provide minutes for all meetings. The following public meetings are anticipated prior to and during the City’s Site and Design Review: • Stakeholder Meeting: Following the 15% design (Task 1.7), the consultant shall attend up to three (3) initial stakeholder meetings to obtain initial input on design. • Environmental Public Hearing: Provide technical support and conduct public hearing for compliance with environmental regulations. Participate in up to two (2) “pre-meeting planning sessions” and up to two (2) interagency field meetings prior to public hearing. • Community Open House: The Consultant shall organize and conduct one (1) community open house to present the proposed design at 15% design level. • Commission Meetings: The Consultant shall attend and make presentations in up to a total of ten (10) Design Review Committee, Board, Commission, or Council meetings. These meetings shall be planned during the 15% and 35% design development. 1.7 Design Concept and Preliminary Geometric Plans (15%) The Consultant shall develop 15% design plans (design concept and graphics with all baseline project elements, core additional project elements and optional enhancements) in accordance with all applicable design standards and guidelines. Features to include, but are not limited to: • Embankments, retaining walls, supports, main span and approach structure geometrics • Geometric alignment and clearances • Preliminary pedestrian and bicycle fencing, railings, and lighting concepts. • Utilities, property lines, environmentally restricted areas • Landscape conceptual plans for at-grade improvements. • Adobe Creek Reach Trail heads at West Bayshore and East Meadow • Development of a final design concept in compliance with the $10 million total construction budget (baseline project elements plus core additional project elements) • Third-party constructability and cost verification review to verify design assumptions and budget • Principal span structure selection matrix including structure type, anticipated costs, key constraints and conceptual graphics. The Consultant shall meet with the City to present principal span structure selection matrix, discuss pros and cons of each alternative and obtain City Council direction for preferred design for design development beyond 15% level. Provide five (5) draft 15% design documents for City’s review. Incorporate City’s comments and submit final 15% design documents. Provide one (1) final Design Concept Statement incorporating all comments and recommending a final design concept with core additional project elements and optional enhancements for City’s review. 1.8 Environmental Support and Reports 1.8.1 Environmental Assessment and CEQA Compliance: The Consultant shall provide CEQA Documentation consisting of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). The CEQA work is limited to review and revision of technical studies and CEQA documentation previously prepared by the City to meet current baseline project elements, core additional project elements, and optional enhancements selected by the City. Any significant impacts due to the inclusion of the optional enhancements are not included DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 in the Consultant’s fee estimate. The CEQA Documentation assumes: • The City will be the Lead Agency under CEQA and the level of CEQA review will be an IS/MND. • Only one build alternative will be evaluated in the IS/MND • The project will be designed to avoid “take” of the endangered Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse • The project will not impact riparian vegetation • Construction of the project will not involve work within or below the top-of-banks of Barron Creek or Adobe Creek. Therefore, permits will not be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) • All partially- and fully-completed environmental studies that were prepared for the previous phase of the Project will be made available to the Consultant at the initiation of the project. The Consultant shall prepare an IS/MND in compliance with CEQA. The primary sections of the IS shall consist of description of the project, environmental setting, and project’s environmental impacts, including mitigation where applicable. The impacts section shall include the standard environmental checklist used by the City in its CEQA documents. The project description section of the IS shall include graphics, as appropriate, to depict the location, footprint, and characteristics of the Project. The Consultant shall submit five (5) hard copies and one electronic copy of the administrative draft IS to the City for review. The IS shall be revised based on City’s comments and an electronic screen check version shall be provided to the City for final review/approval. Upon approval, the Consultant shall make 50 hard copies of the IS/MND (with appendices on a CD inside the back cover). The Consultant shall also complete the CEQA Notice of Completion form and send 15 copies of the IS/MND to the State Clearinghouse. Mailing and distribution of the IS/MND to the public and non-State agencies will be undertaken by City staff. The City will be responsible for the preparation and publication of public/newspaper notices. This scope of work assumes up to 40 hours of Consultant project management time to assist the City in preparing responses to comments on the IS/MND. Upon adoption of the MND and project approval, the Consultant shall prepare and file the CEQA Notice of Determination (NOD) with the Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder on behalf of the City. The Consultant shall pay the $2,260.25 NOD filing fee. 1.8.2 Environmental Studies and Coordination: A. Biological Resources Report – The Consultant shall conduct an updated search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and conduct a quick reconnaissance visit to the site to determine whether any changes have occurred in site conditions or in information regarding the distribution of special-status species on or in the vicinity of the site since the preparation of a Natural Environment Study for the project in 2014. The Consultant shall review the updated plans for the Project and prepare a biological resources report that describes existing biological conditions, including special-status species with the potential to occur on the site and any potentially sensitive/regulated habitats that occur on the site. The report shall describe potential impacts to existing biological resources, and any conceptual mitigation measures necessary to mitigate potentially significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. Graphics to DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 be prepared include site/vicinity, biotic habitat, impact, and CNDDB maps. The Consultant shall draw heavily from the previous documents that were prepared for this Project, but the quantification of impacts shall be revised. It is assumed that the new design may incorporate design elements that are different from the previous alternatives that were analyzed and that could impact biological resources in ways not previously analyzed; this may necessitate additional research and analysis. B. Construction-Related Toxic Air Contaminants Risk Assessment Report - To address the community risk from emissions that will occur during the construction phase of the project, the Consultant shall complete a screening level modeling using the EPA’s ISCST3 model to predict cancer risk and PM2.5 exposure at adjacent properties. If significant impacts are identified, based on the technical analysis, mitigation measures shall be identified. C. Visual Impact Assessment Report - The Consultant shall prepare a Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) that will evaluate the visual and aesthetic effects of the proposed Project. In 2014, a VIA was prepared for this project but the alternatives evaluated were different from the design now being considered. However, much of the baseline information contained in the 2014 VIA is still valid, therefore the 2014 VIA shall be utilized to the full extent applicable in the preparation of the revised VIA. The VIA shall contain three photo simulations of the overcrossing, one from each of the previously-identified primary view sheds. D. Other Technical Reports – The Consultant should assume that some of the other technical reports and information that are relevant for this project have previously been completed as part of the work on the previous phase of the project and that such reports are adequate for use in the current IS/MND. These include the cultural resources assessments, initial site assessment for hazardous materials, and the paleontological identification report. Additional design studies and reports are outlined in Task 1.9 – Design Studies and reports. E. Endangered Species Act Coordination – The City’s previous environmental consultant prepared a Biological Assessment describing potential effects of the project on the state and federally endangered salt marsh harvest mouse, and meetings with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) were conducted regarding the project’s potential effects on this species. The project design under this Contract is intended to completely avoid impacts to this species, and the Consultant shall identify any additional avoidance measures necessary to ensure that take does not occur. However, because the USFWS and CDFW were previously consulted regarding this project, the Consultant shall coordinate with these agencies to obtain their concurrence that the project will not result in take of the harvest mouse and/or to obtain input on any additional measures necessary to avoid take of this species. This coordination may include providing the CEQA biological resources report to these agencies and participating in meetings, site visits, and/or conference calls with agency representatives. 1.8.3 Environmental Assessment and NEPA Compliance: Based on direction provided by Caltrans during an earlier phase of the project, it is anticipated that work under this task would include the following: • Section 7 Endangered Species Act consultation and coordination with the USFWS • Preparation of documentation to support a NEPA Categorical Exclusion • Revisions to previous versions of the following technical studies to delete the alternatives no longer under consideration and to add the current alternative. The Caltrans process typically involves multiple review and revision cycles for these reports: DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015  Historic Property Survey Report  Archaeological Survey Report  Location Hydraulic Study  Traffic Analysis  Stormwater Data Report  Water Quality Report  Paleontological Identification Report  Natural Environment Study  Biological Assessment  Initial Site Assessment It is assumed that Caltrans will not require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI). 1.9 Design Studies and Reports The Consultant shall prepare/update the following reports in accordance with Caltrans guidelines. Assume up to two (2) rounds of comments by Caltrans and the City. • Storm Water Data Report (SWDR) - The SWDR shall include project impacts on water quality, minimization measures, recommended best management practices (BMPs), erosion control measures, and a preliminary hydro-modification assessment to determine the magnitude of the impacts and the need for minimization. • Soil Management and Health & Safety (H&S) Plan - Prepare a Soil Management and H&S Plan for reviews and approval by the City and Caltrans. • Soil Borings and Foundation Reports - Review the Preliminary Foundation Report (PFR) approved by Caltrans for the Project. Prepare a draft and a final geotechnical report for review and approval by the City and Caltrans. Caltrans may require Consultant to perform additional field explorations and laboratory testing. A CEQA Exemption shall be filed with the City and County prior to conducting the field exploration program. Field explorations shall be performed under the direction of a registered geotechnical engineer or geologist in the State of California. Maintain a soil log and perform visual examination of the collected soils. Perform borings and testing (estimated up to twelve locations and up to 120 feet deep). The total number of explorations (12 assumed) can be shared between drilled borings and cone penetrometer tests. A foundation report will be prepared in accordance with Caltrans standards. More detailed scope and estimate shall be provided upon City’s request. • Location Hydraulic Study (LHS) – Review Draft LHS previously prepared by the environmental consultant. Evaluate potential changes in floodplain hydraulics, perform a floodplain risk assessment, and recommend potential mitigation measures. Submit the revised LHS for review by the City and Caltrans. Submit final LHS for Caltrans approval. • Transportation Management Plan (TMP) - Prepare a TMP Data Sheet and staging concept display. Provide all supporting documents for Caltrans review and confirm traffic management strategies, traffic detours, lane closures, etc. • Constructability and Cost Verification (CCV) – Consultant shall hire a third-party with expertise in bridge design and construction to perform a CCV after 15% and 35% design for potential cost reductions, evaluation of the bridge structure and enhancements (baseline elements, core additional elements and optional enhancements) and ways to produce a high quality and more efficient design. The evaluation shall include a constructability review and also identify cost reductions to remain under a $3 million DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 construction estimate within the State R/W. The findings and recommendations shall be documented in a draft memorandum for City and Consultant review and input. The third- party shall finalize memorandum based on City’s comments. 1.10 Design Exceptions The Consultant shall review geometrics of the proposed facility for nonstandard features and prepare Fact Sheets for Exceptions for Caltrans review and approval. Develop data, exhibits, and preliminary details as necessary to obtain Caltrans approval. 1.11 Right-of-Way Data Sheets The Consultant shall prepare and submit Caltrans Right-of-Way Data Sheets in accordance with Caltrans, City and SCVWD guidelines. 1.12 Preliminary Plans (35%) The Consultant shall refine the 15% concept designs and prepare preliminary design plans (35%) based on community and City input showing architectural and civil plans, structure elevations, sections, layouts, benches, artwork, lighting, and fence/railing elements, horizontal control lines, vertical profiles and super-elevations, grading and drainage, structure location and wall limits, utility impacts, and R/W/construction easement impacts. Refine the following major project elements and submit the preliminary design for City’s Site and Design and Caltrans reviews: • Main bridge span over Highway 101 and approach structures • Connecting bike trails along Adobe Creek to the San Francisco Bay Trail • Pedestrian/bicyclist access along West Bayshore Road to the bridge ramp landing • Core additional project elements • Optional enhancements (as authorized by the City after 15% design reviews) with associated cost and benefits 1.13 Bridge Structure Type Selection Study (35%) The Consultant shall analyze bridge structure type selection before extensive structural design work is performed. Develop Bridge Type Selection Report in accordance with Caltrans guidelines. Include a Bridge General Plan, Bridge Site Data Submittal, Foundation Plan, Construction Cost Estimate and Type Selection Memo. This work shall be developed using Section 10, “Type Selection,” of the Caltrans Bridge Design Aids, and Section 1-29, “Type Selection Review Meeting,” of the Caltrans Bridge Memo to Designers. Submit the Type Selection Report for Caltrans review, and present the proposed structure to Caltrans at a Bridge Type Selection Meeting in Sacramento, CA. Conduct one (1) “pre-meeting planning session” teleconference with the City. The Consultant shall conduct an independent Type Selection Meeting with the SCVWD to solicit comments on the design development. Finalize Type Selection Report based on input received in the meeting. 1.14 Preliminary Cost Estimates The Consultant shall prepare a preliminary construction cost estimate for the project in accordance with Caltrans guidelines including Caltrans Bridge Memo to Designers 1-8 and Section 11 of the Caltrans Bridge Design Aids. Use Caltrans APS Cost Estimate form for bridge items. Task 2: Caltrans Approval Document 2.1 Project Approval Document The Consultant shall prepare a Permit Evaluation and Engineering Report (PEER) per Caltrans guidelines to retain the PEER/Encroachment Permit. Include cost estimates showing construction value of Project improvements within Caltrans R/W. Submit PEER for City and Caltrans review DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 and approval. Task 3 – Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) (65%) 3.1 Architectural/ Landscape Architectural Design The Consultant shall develop preliminary architectural and landscape architectural design to 65% completion. Ensure that the 65% preliminary architectural and landscape architectural design is consistent with the design developed at 15% and 35% PS&E levels. The design elements shall be consistent with the baseline and core additional project elements and optional enhancements (as authorized by the City after 15% design reviews). Anticipated architectural and landscape architectural design drawings include but are not limited to: • Architectural Site Plan • Architectural Features • Landscape Architectural/ Revegetation Features • Lighting Plan and Details • Pedestrian and Bicycle Railing Details • Surface Treatments and Amenities • Art Element - Work with City’s Art Consultant to identify opportunities to integrate art elements into modules/panels established in the design • Adobe Creek Reach Trail signage, details and plans within the defined project limits • Project specifications, special provisions and estimates 3.2 Civil Design The Consultant shall develop civil improvement design to 65% completion. Anticipated civil design drawings include but are not limited to: • Bridge, Road and Trail Alignment Plans • Demolition and Grading Plans • Profiles and Civil Details • Typical Sections • Right-of-Way Plans • Utility Plans and Profiles • Drainage Plans and SWPPP Details • Stage Construction Drawings and Traffic Handling Plans • Construction Area Signage • Road and Trail Signage and Pavement Marking Plans within the defined project limits • Project specifications, special provisions and estimates 3.3 Structural Design Upon Caltrans approval of Bridge Type Selection at 35% design level, the Consultant shall conduct structural analysis and prepare 65% structural drawings. Anticipated structural design drawings include, but are not limited to: • General Plan • Structure Plan • Deck Contours • Foundation Plan • Construction Sequence • Abutment Layout and Details • Retaining Wall Layout and Details DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 • Bent Layout and Details • Typical Sections • Girder Layout and Details • Approach Ramp Details • Log of Test Borings • Project specifications, special provisions and estimates The work shall also be performed in accordance with the most current California bridge practices and the following bridge design codes and manuals: • City of Palo Alto CAD Drafting Standards, General Provisions and Specifications • Caltrans Standard Plans and Specifications • Caltrans Bridge Design and Detailing Manuals • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Load and Resistance Factor Design (AASHTO LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications • California Amendments to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications • AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges • Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria 3.4 Project Specifications and Special Provisions The Consultant shall prepare technical specifications and special provisions for all bid items including bid alternates. Documents shall be developed in accordance with federal, state and local requirements in all subsequent final design tasks. General conditions shall follow the City and Caltrans requirements. The Consultant shall prepare special provisions based on Caltrans Standard Special Provisions, Caltrans Standard Specifications, and City construction contract standards. Special provisions shall follow the current format of the Caltrans Standard Specifications and Standard Special Provisions (SSP’s). Bid additive alternates shall be identified as design enhancements. 3.5 Cost Estimate Prepare an engineer’s estimate of probable construction cost for 65% design using both Caltrans and Consultants professional experience. Estimate shall include construction costs that reflect current market conditions, the bid items, utility relocation costs, environmental mitigation costs, contingencies and construction administration costs. 3.6 65% PS&E Submittal The Consultant shall submit the 65% PS&E package for City and Caltrans review, including: • Full Size 65% Plans (22x34) – five (5) sets • Special Provision and Technical Specifications – five (5) sets • Structural Design Calculations – five (5) sets • Quantities and Cost Estimate – two (2) sets The deliverables listed above shall also be provided in electronic format. Additional copies shall be provided to Caltrans Office of Specially Funded Projects (OSFP) in accordance with Caltrans OSFP Manual Guidelines. Two half-size sets of the 65% PS&E shall be submitted to SCVWD for review. PHASE 2 – FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E This is a future phase. The City intends to authorize the services under Phase 2 upon completion of 35% design. The Consultant shall complete the 90% and 100% PS&E design for DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 the project. The goal of this phase shall be to strive to limit construction cost within Caltrans’ R/W to $3 million or less to preserve the opportunity to gain approval of the project through the PEER process. • All plans shall include City’s standard border and shall follow Caltrans format. • The Consultant is fully responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the plans and related PS&E. City reviews shall not transfer the responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or details with which such designs are depicted on the plans. • The title sheet for the specifications and each sheet of the plans shall bear the professional seal, certificate number, registration and classification, expiration date, and signature of the professional engineer responsible for its preparation. Task 4 – Phase 2 Project Management and Coordination 4.1 Phase 2 Project Management The Consultant shall provide project management and administration services including monitoring subconsultants’ activities, coordinating with the City and subconsultants, implementing quality control and quality assurance procedures, submitting monthly invoices and progress reports, preparing and maintaining project schedule, and developing a work plan to ensure the project remains within budget and on schedule. 4.2 Phase 2 Project Meetings The Consultant shall attend up to six (6) in-person Project Development Team meetings with Caltrans, and up to 14 progress and coordination meetings with City staff and key stakeholders. Prepare and submit agenda and meeting minutes for each meeting for City staff reviews. 4.3 Phase 2 Utility and Agency Coordination The Consultant shall coordinate with the affected utility companies (Caltrans, PG&E, SCVWD, telecommunication companies and property owners) to assist them in developing relocation plans (to be prepared by the individual facility owners) and permits/agreements. The Consultant shall prepare a utility base map including relocation information received from the utility companies. Prepare and submit Caltrans letters to the affected utility owners and assist City with finalizing agreements and permits to construct with each affected utility. Consultant shall attend up to six (6) utility coordination meetings. 4.4 Right-of-Way Services The Consultant shall utilize a Caltrans certified R/W agent to perform engineering and acquisition services to assist the City in obtaining ownership in fee of property necessary to construct the improvements, and to obtain rights of entry or temporary construction easements as might be required. Potential acquisitions include: 1) Private property at 2501 West Bayshore Road on the west of Route 101; 2) SCVWD aerial and access easements / agreements over Adobe Creek and the confluence of Adobe and Barron Creeks and Adobe Creek Reach Trail; 3) PG&E 30-inch gas main and temporary easements; 4) Caltrans aerial and access easement over Highway 101. The Consultant shall acquire preliminary title reports for four parcels along with record mapping from the Santa Clara County, SCVWD, PG&E and Caltrans. Delineate right-of-way and property lines in the areas of acquisition. The Consultant shall also provide title reports, appraisal sketches showing property lines and proposed acquisition over aerial photos. Prepare four (4) descriptions with accompanying plats for permanent acquisition and four (4) descriptions with accompanying plats for temporary acquisitions. DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 During boundary surveys, any conflicts or alternate evidence may trigger the need to file a record of survey map. Should such a conflict or evidence occur, work shall be immediately stopped and the project team shall be notified. Work shall continue when an agreement has been reached on path forward and additional budget for a record of survey map has been secured. Task 5 - Final PS&E (90% and 100%) 5.1 Landscape Plans The Consultant shall develop landscape plans in accordance with the landscape concept approved in Phase 1. Landscape items include, but are not limited to: • Signage, planting and irrigation plans for landings, plazas, and approach areas • Planting and irrigation plans for bio-swales and similar storm water management techniques 5.2 Lighting Plans The Consultant shall develop lighting design in accordance with the lighting concept approved in Phase 1. Prepare lighting plans, elevations, fixture schedules, luminaire cut sheets, control plans, mounting details, and specifications for conceptual lighting plan. Photometric calculations shall be provided for both functional and aesthetic lighting of the bridge. 5.3 Architectural Plans Upon approval of the 65% architectural design, the Consultant shall develop architectural plans to 90% completion. Incorporate City and Caltrans comments to prepare final (100%) architectural plans. 5.4 Erosion Control and Construction Phase BMP’s A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project shall be prepared in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations in effect at the notice to proceed. The SWPPP shall be used to obtain construction permitting by the contractor during construction. 5.5 Permanent BMP’s A Final Water Quality Technical (WQT) Report shall be prepared to address the permanent BMP’s to protect water quality after completion of construction. The WQT Report shall include a map showing the locations and types of Low Impact Development, Structural Source Control, Treatment Control, and Hydromodification Control (if applicable) BMP’s for the project. Such BMP’s shall be shown on construction plans. In addition, prepare an Inspection, Operation, and Maintenance Plan. 5.6 Bridge Independent Check As required by the Caltrans OSFP, an independent check of the bridge design and drawings shall be performed. The independent check shall be performed by an engineer who was not involved in the design of the bridge. The independent check shall be performed for 65% and subsequent design phases. 5.7 Civil Plans Upon approval of the 65% civil design, the Consultant shall develop civil plans to 90% completion. Incorporate City and Caltrans comments to prepare final (100%) civil plans. 5.8 Structural Plans Upon approval of the 65% structural design, the Consultant shall develop structural plans to 90% completion. Incorporate City and Caltrans comments to prepare final (100%) structural plans. DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 5.9 Project Specifications and Special Provisions Upon approval of the 65% Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, the Consultant shall develop Special Provisions and Technical Specifications to 90% completion. Incorporate City and Caltrans comments to prepare final (100%) Special Provisions and Technical Specifications. 5.10 Cost Estimate Upon approval of the 65% cost estimate, the Consultant shall develop the 90% cost estimate. The Consultant shall incorporate City and Caltrans comments to finalize the cost estimate. Include supporting data for City use in administering construction. 5.11 Final PS&E Submittals 90% PS&E Submittal: The 90% PS&E submittal shall include all plans in required format, special provisions, technical specifications, and the engineer’s estimate as follows: • Full Size 90% Plans (22x34) – five ( 5) sets • General and Special Provisions, technical specifications – five (5) sets • Bid Quantities and Cost Estimate – two (2) sets The deliverables listed above shall also be provided in electronic format. Additional copies shall be provided to Caltrans OSFP in accordance with Caltrans OSFP Manual Guidelines. Two half- size sets of the 90% PS&E shall be submitted to SCVWD for review. Per Caltrans OSFP Manual Guidelines, an initial (90%) and intermediate (91%, 92%, etc. as applicable) shall be submitted to Caltrans OSFP for review. City’s Construction Management (CM) Firm will perform an independent review of the 90% PS&E to provide constructability, bidability and cost verification. 100% (Final) PS&E Submittal: The 100% (Final) PS&E submittal shall include all plans in required format, stamped calculations, special provisions and the engineer’s estimate as follows: • Full Size Final Plans (22x34) – five (5) sets • General and Special Provisions, technical specifications – five (5) sets • Stamped Structural Design Calculations – two (2) sets • Bid Quantities and Cost Estimate – two (2) sets The deliverables listed above shall also be provided in electronic format. Additional copies shall be provided to Caltrans OSFP in accordance with Caltrans OSFP Manual Guidelines. Two half- size sets of the 100% PS&E shall be submitted to SCVWD for their files. 5.12 Caltrans Encroachment Permit, R/W Certification and Maintenance Agreement The Consultant shall assist the City in obtaining Caltrans Encroachment Permit and necessary Right-of-Way Certification for construction of the proposed improvements within State R/W. Consultant shall complete and sign an American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Certification. The Consultant shall also assist the City in negotiation of Maintenance Agreements for the permanent structure within the State R/W and for the public access of the Santa Clara Valley Water District maintenance road along Adobe Creek. The City will be the lead on the Caltrans and SCVWD maintenance agreement coordination and negotiation. Consultant assistance to the City will be limited to preparation of exhibits upon request by the City. Consultant is not required to attend maintenance agreement meetings. PHASE 3: BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT This is a future phase. The City intends to authorize the services under Phase 3 upon DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 completion of 35% design. The Consultant shall provide a detailed scope of services and fee estimate for Task 7 below after 90% design completion. The Consultant shall provide bid and construction phase services including, but not limited to: Task 6 – Bid Phase Services 6.1 Bid Package The Consultant shall prepare bid documents including bid forms and final PS&E that can be used to solicit competitive bids for the Project. Provide a draft bid set for City’s review. Incorporate comments and finalize the bid package. 6.2 Pre-bid Conference and Bid Addenda The Consultant shall conduct one (1) pre-bid conference, prepare agenda and minutes, and answer questions from prospective bidders. Prepare bid addenda and revisions to design, as necessary. 6.3 Bid Review The Consultant shall review submitted bids and bid alternates. Provide a summary of bids and recommendations for a contractor to perform the work. Task 7 – Construction Phase Services The consultant shall provide construction administration and support during the anticipated construction duration from early 2019 through completion of construction in early 2020. Construction Support Services shall be confirmed and authorized at the completion of the 90% PS&E phase and are anticipated to include, but are not limited to: 7.1 Pre-Construction Meeting The Consultant shall attend one (1) pre-construction meeting. City CM shall prepare agenda and minutes of the meeting. Consultant shall respond to any project and construction documents related questions during the meeting. 7.2 Submittals and Request for Information (RFIs) The Consultant shall review and provide comments on contractor’s submittals, and respond to RFIs in a timely manner. Maintain a log of submittals and RFIs received from the contractor. 7.3 Design Clarifications The Consultant shall provide clarifications and/or explanations of the construction documents, as requested by the contractor during construction. 7.4 Change Orders The Consultant shall assist the City in preparing and reviewing change orders, as necessary. 7.5 Meetings and Coordination The Consultant shall attend weekly progress meetings during the course of the construction upon request of the City Construction Manager. Coordinate construction administration services with City’s construction management consultant. The Consultant shall make site visits for construction coordination as requested by the City Construction Manager. 7.6 Final Review The Consultant shall participate in the final project review at the site and prepare the final review punch list. 7.7 Record Drawings The Consultant shall coordinate the preparation of record drawings with the Contractor and City’s construction Project Manager during the construction and post construction phases. DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 Consultant shall perform final review of the records drawings for “as-built” accuracy and assist the City in submitting the record drawings for review and approval. The Consultant shall make any modifications to the record drawings per Caltrans comments as necessary. CITY PROVIDED SERVICES 1. City will provide or obtain a Caltrans cooperative agreement and encroachment permit for conducting field activities. If a Contractor Double Permit is required by Caltrans to perform field activities, fees will be paid by City. 2. City will arrange open house location and conduct all pre-meeting notifications. 3. City will maintain stakeholder and interested party lists and make all email notifications. 4. City will create and place any required newspaper ads or other forms of notification. 5. All fees associated with the regulatory permits and filing of notifications will be paid by the City except the CEQA NOD filing fee. The Consultant will pay the CEQA NOD filing fee. 6. City will coordinate for plan check and issuance of City permits. ASSUMPTIONS 1. All plans will be prepared using AutoCAD. AutoCAD files of structure plans will be converted to Microstation, as required by Caltrans OSFP. Road plans will not be converted since electronic copies other than PDF are not required by Caltrans OSFP. 2. It is assumed that the existing aerial mapping AutoCAD base map will be made available and can provide an accurate 3-D model for use for the Project design. 3. The principal bridge span over Highway 101 and the secondary span over Adobe Creek are assumed to consist of prefabricated steel truss superstructure elements. 4. The City will provide the primary coordination and scheduling for the Public Outreach portion of the project including coordinating and obtaining all meeting dates, locations, mailings, notifications and advertising. The Consultant will provide PowerPoint slide presentation, presentation boards and graphics as applicable for each meeting. Handouts are assumed to not be required at Public Meetings. A limited number of handouts will be provided, as applicable at Stakeholder Meetings, Interagency Field Meetings and Design Review Board/ Commission Meetings. The City may request the Consultant to present in Public Meetings as appropriate. It is assumed that the City will provide formal meeting minutes and updates and notifications to City website, as required. 5. Based on preliminary information from the Consultant’s environmental subconsultant, it is believed that the structure alignment can be refined to avoid impacts to the wetlands, riparian woodland and the Waters of the US and therefore US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and California department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) permits are assumed to not be required. 6. Consultant will coordinate with the SCVWD and obtain an Encroachment Permit for the project field investigations and for the project construction on behalf of the City. The City will pay all SCVWD Encroachment Permit Fees. The City will coordinate any license agreements for maintenance, operations and right-of-way with the SCVWD. 7. Consultant will prepare special provisions/technical specifications (Caltrans Division 2 through 10) utilizing Caltrans current Standard Special Provisions (SSPs). Caltrans current Standard Specifications and current Standard Plans will be referenced in the design. City shall prepare all necessary boilerplate specifications. Consultant will provide bid items list and assist with calculation of liquidated damages for inclusion in city boilerplate. DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 8. Formal Caltrans Value Engineering services will not be required since the project is less than the $40 million per bridge project threshold. Value engineering is included in the City’s Request for Proposal. Constructability and cost verification services will be provided after 15%, 35% and 65% design per the Scope of Work. The City will retain a Construction Management (CM) firm prior to completion of the 90% PS&E submittal and the CM firm will perform a constructability, bidability and cost verification of the 90% PS&E. 9. The Construction Support Services scope of work and fee is assumed based on anticipated project development. Final Construction Support Services will be submitted and negotiated with the City at the completion of the 90% PS&E submittal to ensure that all required services are adequately addressed. Construction Support Services do not include geotechnical observation of foundation construction which can be provided as Extra Work. The construction support services include an allowance for minor Change Orders. Actual Change Order costs will be determined on a case by case basis. 10. The scope of work and design fee includes the baseline project elements and core additional project elements as outlined in the Scope of Services to develop these elements from preliminary to final design phase. The scope of work and design fee includes the development of optional enhancements to 15% design phase only. The optional enhancements must be selected by the City after the 15% design reviews and prior to commencing the 35% design phase. Optional enhancements identified after significant completion of the 35% design can be provided for additional fee and extension of the project design schedule. 11. PS&E Submittals will be provided at 35%, 65%, 90% and 100% completion levels. Agency reviews are limited to one round of comments consolidated to one set of redline plan, specification and estimate redline comments per agency. Project Reports will be limited to one draft and one final version of each report. City reviews will be provided one week before reviews by other Agency reviews. Additional PS&E submittal, agency reviews and report submittals will be considered Extra Work unless submittals are deemed incomplete by Caltrans. 12. Selection of a principal span alternative other than the baseline prefabricated steel truss alternative may require additional design fee depending on the complexity and design requirements of the structure type selected by the City. 13. NEPA compliance consultation with Caltrans (if required) will be initiated after completion of the field exploration program. OPTIONAL SERVICES 1. Additional field surveys and potholing 2. Design Memorandum 3. PSR/ PR, Advance Planning Study and Risk Management Plan 4. Supplemental outreach graphics and 3D/ dynamic renderings 5. Unusual/ Non-standard structural design 6. Conversion of City Artist images into PS&E level details 7. Supplemental design elements not identified in the baseline and core additional project elements and optional enhancements authorized by the City 8. Construction Management and Resident Engineering 9. Construction support services (upgraded structure) (Based on steel main span upgrade) 10. Construction inspection services 11. Geotechnical observation of foundation construction DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 12. USACE, RWQCB and/or CDFW permits 13. West plaza design 14. Principal span upgrade design 15. Adobe Creek landscaping package (removal and replacement of eucalyptus trees on East) 16. Convert artwork into CD for incorporation into design package 17. Modify creek bridge at Bayshore to accommodate bike lane 18. Optional enhancements beyond 15% design phase DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. Milestones No. of Weeks Completion from NTP 1. Task 1. Preliminary Design 98 weeks 2. Task 2. Caltrans Approval Document 98 weeks 3. Task 3. PS&E (65%) 98 weeks 4. Task 4. Phase 2 Project Management and Coordination TBD 5. Task 5. Final PS&E (90% and 100%) TBD 6. Task 6. Bid Phase Services TBD 7. Task 7. Construction Phase Services TBD DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $1,340,270. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed $1,474,297. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $1,340,270 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $134,027. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1 $905,062 (Preliminary Design) Task 2 $5,715 (Caltrans Approval Document) Task 3 $249,485 (PS&E (65%)) Task 4 TBD (Phase 2 Project Management and Coordination) Task 5 TBD (Final PS&E (90% and 100%)) Task 6 TBD (Bid Phase Services) Task 7 TBD (Construction Phase Services) Sub-total Basic Services $1,160,262 DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 Reimbursable Expenses $180,008 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $1,340,270 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $134,027 Maximum Total Compensation $1,474,297 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees. B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $500 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Classification Actual Hourly Rate (Min) Actual Hourly Rate (Max) Overhead Multiplier Fee Fully Loaded Rate (Max) Fully Loaded Rate (Max) Principal III $95.00 $105.00 155.66% 10.00% $267.16 $295.29 Principal II $80.00 $95.00 155.66% 10.00% $224.98 $267.16 Principal I $75.00 $82.00 155.66% 10.00% $210.92 $230.61 Associate $55.00 $67.00 155.66% 10.00% $154.67 $188.42 Engineering Manager $50.00 $57.00 155.66% 10.00% $140.61 $160.30 Senior Engineer $42.00 $52.00 155.66% 10.00% $118.11 $146.24 Project Engineer $38.00 $48.00 155.66% 10.00% $106.87 $134.99 Staff Engineer $32.00 $40.00 155.66% 10.00% $89.99 $112.49 Assistant Engineer $28.00 $34.00 155.66% 10.00% $78.74 $95.62 Junior Engineer $17.00 $32.00 155.66% 10.00% $47.81 $89.99 Sr. Computer Drafter $30.00 $47.00 155.66% 10.00% $84.37 $132.18 Administration $11.00 $52.00 155.66%10.00%$30.93 $146.24 *Charge Rates Applicable October 1, 2015 – September 30, 2016 (Charge Rate revisions will be submitted in October of each year) BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES, INC. RFP No. 162262 Highway 101 Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing Project EXHIBIT C-1 HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 DIRECT HOURLY RATES JANUARY 1, 2016 - DECEMBER 31, 2016 PERSONNEL HOURLY RATES ENGINEERING Principal (Natalina Bernardi $125.00) $125.00 Associate (Jeff Wang $69.57) $69.00 - $75.00 Project Manager (Jason Mansfield $58.00) $45.00 - $65.00 Engineer IV $45.00 - $55.00 Engineer III $40.00 - $55.00 Engineer II $33.00 - $47.00 Engineer I $29.00 - $37.00 Engineer Assistant $15.00 - $22.00 SURVEYING Surveyor IV $45.00 - $55.00 Surveyor III $40.00 - $55.00 Surveyor II $33.00 - $47.00 Surveyor I $29.00 - $37.00 Field Surveyor $16.00 - $48.00 DESIGN AND DRAFTING Technician $35.00 - $40.00 Drafter $20.00 - $30.00 SERVICES AND EXPENSES Project Assistant $20.00 - $30.00 Clerical/Administrative Assistant $63.00 Overhead Rate is 180.00% and Profit is 10%. Charges for outside services, equipment, and facilities not furnished directly by BKF Engineers will be billed at cost plus 10%. Such charges may include, but shall not be limited to printing and reproduction services; shipping, delivery, and courier charges; subconsultant fees and expenses; special fees, permits, and insurance; transportation on public carriers, meals, and lodging; and consumable materials. Mileage will be charged at the prevailing IRS rate per mile. Monthly invoices are due within 30 days from invoice date. Interest will be charged at 0.833% per month on past due accounts. EXHIBIT C-1 HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Job Classification Position Rate Range Base Hourly Rate Overhead Rate Home Office Billing Rate Home Office 10% Profit Senior Principal $75-$80 80.00$ 224.00%259.20$ 285.12$ Managing Principal $75-$80 80.00$ 224.00%259.20$ 285.12$ Senior Project Manager $50-$64 64.00$ 224.00%207.36$ 228.10$ Project Manager $40-$50 50.00$ 224.00%162.00$ 178.20$ Architect III $37-$39 39.00$ 224.00%126.36$ 139.00$ Architect II $33-$36 36.00$ 224.00%116.64$ 128.30$ Architect I $30-$32 32.00$ 224.00%103.68$ 114.05$ Designer III $35-$37 37.00$ 224.00%119.88$ 131.87$ Designer II $32-$34 34.00$ 224.00%110.16$ 121.18$ Designer I $29-$31 31.00$ 224.00%100.44$ 110.48$ Intern III $26-$28 28.00$ 224.00%90.72$ 99.79$ Intern II $23-$25 25.00$ 224.00%81.00$ 89.10$ Intern I $20-$22 22.00$ 224.00%71.28$ 78.41$ Specification Writer $35-$40 40.00$ 224.00%129.60$ 142.56$ Staff III $23-$29 29.00$ 224.00%93.96$ 103.36$ Staff II $20-$22 22.00$ 224.00%71.28$ 78.41$ Staff I $17-$19 19.00$ 224.00%61.56$ 67.72$ Claudia Guadagne, President 4-Jan-16 Print Name, Title Date FMG Architects 2016 Rate Break Down Table FMG Architects EXHIBIT C-1 HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Classification Actual Hourly Rate Overhead Multiplier Fee Fully Loaded Rate Principal $75.25 184.00% 10.00% $235.08 Associate $54.39 184.00% 10.00% $169.91 Project Manager 1 $45.69 184.00% 10.00% $142.74 Designer 1 $32.14 184.00% 10.00% $100.41 Construction Manager $50.26 184.00% 10.00% $157.01 Administration $20.00 184.00% 10.00% $62.48 Callander Associates Palo Alto Highway 101 EXHIBIT C-1 HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Classification/Role Labor Rate actual and/or range Loaded Rate 2.5 plus 10% (2.75) Project Manager $92.59 $254.61 Sr. Engineering Geologist $65 $178.75 Sr. Project Engineer (QA QC- Eng. Manager)$67.1 $184.53 Sr. Project Engineer $53 - $61 $145.75 - $167.75 Project Engineer $43 - $50 $118.25 - $137.5 Field Engineer $44 - $50 $ 121 - $137.5 Lab Technician/@Materials Tester $32 - $44 $88 - $121 Sr. Staff Engineer/PE $33 - $35 $90.75 - $96.25 Staff Engineer $28 - $34 $ 77 - $93.5 Draftsperson $34 - $36 $93.5 - $99 The rates may be changed based on annual escalations and are valid for the year specified. Loaded Rates are calculated based on: 42.27% Labor Fringes 107.73% Gen. Admin. & Overhead 150% Total Overhead 10% Fee 2.75 Total Multiplier @ Prevailing Wage will apply as per DIR requirements & will be calculated on a project specific basis. 2016 Billing Rate Cost Plus Fee EXHIBIT C-1 HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Y&C Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2016 Billing Rates Engineer XII $203-$226/hr Engineer XI $181-$203/hr Engineer X $158-$181/hr Engineer IX $140-$158/hr Engineer VIII $131-$140/hr Engineer VII $120-$131/hr Engineer VI $109-$120/hr Engineer V $97-$109/hr Engineer IV $84-$97/hr Engineer III $72-$84/hr Engineer II $64-$72/hr Engineer I $59-$64/hr Technician IV $57-$80/hr Technician III $45-$57/hr Technician II $38-$45/hr Technician I $34-$38/hr Clerk III $45-$80/hr Clerk II $38-$45/hr Clerk I $34-$38/hr The billing rates are subject to change at the beginning of each year. The billing rate is based on a 1.047 overhead multiplier plus 10% fee. MISCELLANEOUS COSTS Reimbursables (Printing and Materials, Express Mail and Delivery Expenses, Filing Fees, Parking and Field Expenses) will be billed at cost. Auto Mileage will be billed at current IRS rate. EXHIBIT C-1 HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Labor Classification Hourly Salary Overhead Multiplier Professional Fee % (Profit) Fully Loaded Hourly Rate Project Manager $71.51 186.0%10%$225.00 Project Engineer $62.00 186.0%10%$195.07 Senior Engineer $55.00 186.0%10%$173.04 Associate Engineer $44.50 186.0%10%$140.01 Assistant Engineer $40.00 186.0%10%$125.85 Designer $35.00 186.0%10%$110.12 Junior Engineer $32.50 186.0%10%$102.25 Technician $25.00 186.0%10%$78.66 Indirect Labor Percentage Calculations Employee & Fringe Benefits (1) 36.8% 11.2% 6.5% Payroll Tax 8.7% PST Contribution 9.6% Workers Comp 0.8% General Overhead Expense (2) 149.2% 24.6% Office Expenses 8.7% Supplies 2.8% Automobile 2.2% Travel 1.6% Taxes & Licenses 0.3% 2.5% 2.0% 4.5% Depreciation 6.3% 92.1% Miscellaneous 1.6% Total Indirect Cost (1)+ (2) 186.0%<-- Indirect Cost used for Multiplier Indirect % of Direct Labor Calculations* Benefit Insurance Legal & Accounting Schaaf & Wheeler Fully Loaded Hourly Rate by Classification Vacation, Sick, Holiday General Administration Corporate Insurance Rent and Maintenance Prof Dues & Training *Modified categories to match Federal DCAA Audit for Schaaf & Wheeler EXHIBIT C-1 HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 CM CARLSON MANAGEMENT, INC. RATE INFORMATION Bill Carlson, PE o Direct Rate: $81.00/Hour o Multiplier: 2.02 o Fee: 10% o Loaded Rate: $179.98/HR o Labor Rate increase at 3% per calendar year o ODCs as requested: At cost plus 5% markup EXHIBIT C-1 HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Overhead Classification Min Max Multiplier Fee Min Max Principal Project Manager 61.00$ 87.00$ 200.74%10.00%201.80$ 287.81$ Senior Project Manager 50.00$ 53.00$ 200.74%10.00%165.41$ 175.33$ Project Manager 34.00$ 47.00$ 200.74%10.00%112.48$ 155.48$ Associate Project Manager 27.00$ 40.00$ 200.74%10.00%89.32$ 132.33$ Assistant Project Manager 25.00$ 31.00$ 200.74%10.00%82.70$ 102.55$ Researcher 23.00$ 26.00$ 200.74%10.00%76.09$ 86.01$ Graphic Artist 25.00$ 28.00$ 200.74%10.00%82.70$ 92.63$ *Charge Rates Applicable October 1, 2015 - September 30, 2016 (Charge Rate revisions will be submitted in October of each year.) David J. Powers & Associates, Inc Actual Hourly Rate Fully Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Schedule U.S. 101/Adobe Creek Bike/Ped Overcrossing Project EXHIBIT C-1 HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRE D TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE EMAILED TO: InsuranceCerts@CityofPaloAlto.org DocuSign Envelope ID: 97BA0501-7A2B-4E0E-BA9C-5A81BF203150 Baseline Layout OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY OF PALO ALTO 250 Hamilton Avenue. 7th Floor Palo Alto. CA 94301 650.329.23 9 2 March 22, 2016 Mr. Dave Cortese, Chair Metropolitan Transportation Commission 101 8th Street Oakland, CA 94607 Re: City of Palo Alto US-lOll Adobe Creek Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge -STIP Funding Dear Mr. Cortese: In anticipation of the 2016 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) hearing this month, we humbly request that the allocation of $4,350,000 in construction funding for the City of Palo Alto US- 101/Adobe Creek Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge be programmed in STIP Fiscal Year 17-18. This project is a model for effective state, local and private partnerships, as the $4,350,000 in STIP funds will be used to match $4,000,000 in previously authorized county funds and $4,650,000 in city funds. Google Inc. has also been working very closely to support this project. To date, Google has partnered with the city in planning efforts for the project and committed to provide the needed right-of-way, and Google is considering additional efforts. This project has already absorbed substantial cost increases, due to delays in preparing environmental studies and an extensive public involvement process. We cannot afford to postpone this project any longer. The City of Palo Alto has been working diligently to begin construction on this project in early 2018, and the current schedule is necessary for the following reasons: • The $4,000,000 in county funds may be reprogrammed if this project is not completed as currently scheduled. • Several locally-funded bicycle boulevards and enhanced bikeways, which will link cyclists directly to the US-101/Adobe Creek Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge, will be constructed in 2017. • The seasonal undercrossing at this location already sees over 43,000 annual bicycle and pedestrian trips, and it is only open for about six months per year. This project will help the state, region and city meet their aggressive vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions goals by increasing the active transportation mode share significantly. The goal of this project is to provide year-round bicycle and pedestrian access between Palo Alto, Stanford University, San Francisco Bay Trail, Baylands recreational areas, and large job centers east of US 101. An existing bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing at Oregon Expressway is approximately 1.4 miles north and is inconvenient for active transportation users who live in south Palo Alto and commuters to the Google and Facebook campuses. City Of Pa I oA Ito.o rg Printed With soy-based Inks on 100% recycled paper processed Without chlorine. OFFICE OF THE CITY r",ANAGER CITY OF PALO ALTO 250 Hamil t on Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 650.329.2392 March 22, 2016 Mr. Bob Alvarado, Chair California Transportation Commission 1120 N Street, Room 2221 (MS-52) Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: City of Palo Alto US-lOll Adobe Creek Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge -STIP Funding Dear Mr. Alvarado: In anticipation of the 2016 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) hearing this month, we humbly request that the allocation of $4,350,000 in construction funding for the City of Palo Alto US- 101/Adobe Creek Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge be programmed in STIP Fiscal Year 17-18. This project is a model for effective state, local and private partnerships, as the $4,350,000 in STIP funds will be used to match $4,000,000 in previously authorized county funds and $4,650,000 in city funds. Google Inc. has also been working very closely to support this project. To date, Google has partnered with the city in planning efforts for the project and committed to provide the needed right-of-way, and Google is considering additional efforts. This project has already absorbed substantial cost increases, due to delays in preparing environmental studies and an extensive public involvement process. We cannot afford to postpone this project any longer. The City of Palo Alto has been working diligently to begin construction on this project in early 2018, and the current schedule is necessary for the following reasons : • The $4,000,000 in county funds may be reprogrammed if this project is not completed as currently scheduled. • Several locally-funded bicycle boulevards and enhanced bikeways, which will link cyclists directly to the US-101/Adobe Creek Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge, will be constructed in 2017. • The seasonal undercrossing at this location already sees over 43,000 annual bicycle and pedestrian trips, and it is only open for about six months per year. This project will help the state, region and city meet their aggressive vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions goals by increasing the active transportation mode share significantly. The goal of this project is to provide year-round bicycle and pedestrian access between Palo Alto, Stanford University, San Francisco Bay Trail, Baylands recreational areas, and large job centers east of US 101. An existing bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing at Oregon Expressway is approximately 1.4 miles north and is inconvenient for active transportation users who live in south Palo Alto and commuters to the Google and Facebook campuses. C i tyOfPa I oA I to.o rg Printed With soy-based inks on 100% recycled paper processed wi thout chlorine. CERTI F I ED COPY should be de~programmed. BART Extensionjj-om Benyessa to Santa Clara: Tilese funds were programmed as paltof an exchange with the 11 casure A program which fh,ed local funds to be used to design the Express Lane system. lfthe funds are deprogratmned, 111e VTA Board will need to re-program them at the eat'liest 0pp01tunity. Sf John Street Mul!.imodal Improvements:' The City of San Jose is currently completing design for ihi.s project, and expects to go to construction in the smmnerof2016. lfthis project is de- programmed from the STlP, VIA staff would recommend reprogramming it in tl,e second One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) cycle. The project will be delayed by these actions. Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge over US-J 01 at Adobe Creek: The City of Palo Alto is in the environmental clearance stage. The project has been delayed several years to allow for robust community input and avoid conilicts with other construction on US 10 I in the same at·ea. If this project is deleted from the STIP, VT A staff would recommend reprogramming it in the second OBAG cycle. The project is unlikely to be delayed by tlleseactions. ALTERNATIVES: The VTA Boat'd ofDircctors may adopt other priorities. FISCAL Th1PACT= IfPlatllling, Progralml1ing & Monitoring funds are deprogrammed or rescheduled, this will reduce revenues available to fund the FYI? Congestiou Management Program Work Plan which may result in a.reduction of planned activities. Deprogral11ming of any of the remaining projects would require either future reprogralmning in tile STIP or reprogramming to anotllyr grant source in order to complete the projects. STAl'IDING COMMITTEE mSCUSSIONIRECOMlVffi]\iDATION: The Congestion Management Planning & Progral1llning (CMPP) CDlnmittee heard and discussed this item at its Febmary 18, 2016 meeting. The ConTI1nttee elevated the soundwall projectto second priority based 011. lack of potential replacement funding and approved tile revised prioritization for consideration by the full VTA Board of Directors. The rcvised priorities are reflected in this memorandnm. Prepared by: Marcella Rensi Mcmo l'{o. 5441 ATTACH1\1ENl"S: crC-I016STLP1Ur (PDF) Page 3 of3 I certify thattl1e foregoing Instrument is a true and exact copy of the original on file in the Secretary of the Board of Director's office. ~l~&.h .. ~--....... Ie _.....-'" __ ~ 4 '(,e"/I Date! II I J.b I I 6.10 CERTIFIED COPY Attachment A county Route Proj ect Title Lassen IDe City Street Rehabilitation Lassen IDe City Street Rehabilitation Lassen IDe City Street Rehabflitation Lassen IDe City Street Rehabilitation Lassen IDe Beaver Creek Bridge 117(-82 [HW\' Bridge pro&f'lm Match), Replace , Lassen IDe Center Road, Route 395-Johnstonville Road, Reconstruct Lassen IDe New Main Street-Johnstol1vflie Road Connection Lassen IDe Skyl.ine Road East/Extension, Phase 2 Los Angeles gsep BurbankAirport/Rail station Pedestrian Grade Separation * LosAngele~ rail light RaU Vehicles , Los Angeles 138 Widening Segment 6, 87th Street E-96th Street E , Los Angeles 133 Widening Segment 13, 190th Street E-Route 18 Madera 99 Madera, Ave 12-Ave 17, Widen to 6 Lanes * Madera 99 SOlJth of Madera, Ave 7-Ave 12, .Widen to 6 lanes , Marin IDe Parkade Area Circulation lmprove!'y1ents Mariposa IDe Silva Road, Post Miles 10-11.092, Rehabilitation Mariposa IDe Triangle Road, Post Miles 11.8-14.11, Rehabilitation Mariposa loe Merced Falls Road, Post Miles 10.00-12.50,. Rehab., Phase 1 Mariposa IDe Ben Hur Road, Post Miles 15.00-18.50, Re~onstruction Mendocino IDe Laytonville, Branscomb Road( Multi-Use Bridge Men.docino bus Revenue Vehicle Replacements, Six (6) * -Mendocino IDe Gobhl Street/Wau.gh lane intersection, TraffiC Sfgnal Mendocino IDe Low Gap Road/N. Bush Street Intersection, Roundabout MendOCino loc Ukiah Downtown 5treetscape Improvements, Phase 1 Mendocino 101 N, State St Interchange Improvements, Roundabout, Phas.e 1 Mendocino 1 (Main 5t) Bike & Pedestrian Access Improvements Mendocino 101 Willits Bypi3sS Relinquishment , Mendocino 101-Sherwood Road"Geometrlc Upgrade * Mendocino IDe East Side Potter Valley Road, Rehabitita.tion, Phase 1 < Merced 99 Livingston 5-Lane Widening, NorJlbound and Southbound .;. Merced 99 Uvingston 6-Lane Widening, 'Southbound Modoc loe County Road 55, Route 395-County Road 247A, Rehab. , Modoc --IDe Pedestrian Improvements A.lturas Central Business District Modoc IDe Oak and Juniper Streets, from Route 299 to Loth Street,. Rehab. Modoc IDe County Road 87, in Arlin, Route 2.99-County Road'91, Rehab. Modoc IDe County Road 111, Route 139-County Road 108, Rehab. Modoc IDe Alturas .. on East Street, Modoc Stl-eet-4th street, Rehab. Modoc loe County Road 114( Route 139-County Road'lOl, Rehab. Modoc loc County Road 272, Lassen-Modoc CD line to Day Road, Rehab_ Mono IDe Meridian Roundabout and Signa! Relocation Mono 203 (W Minaret Rd), 5idewalk & Safety Mono loe Airport Road, Rehabilitation Mono IDe Countywide Preventive Maintenance Program Monterey rail Capitol Corridor Extension ~ Kick Start Monterey 1 Operational Improvements, Carmel , Monterey rail Coast DaylightjCaltrain Track Improvements , Monterey bus Monterey Salinas Transit Buse$ Monterey IDe lmji["l Road Widening to 4 Lanes • Californla Transportafloll Commiss-Ion 20tS CMPP Item #~ February 18, 2016 VTA Board Item #--, March 3, 2016 Total Program.med Assembly Se.nate ($ thousands) Disf:rict(s) District(s} 1,846 1 1 955 1 1 956 1 1 2,320 1 1 254 1 1 2,890 1 1 100' 1 1 3,900 1 1 7,000 43 25 41,48,49, 2.2.,2.4,25, 102,400 51,53,54, 26,30,32, 59,62,63, 64,70 33,35 13,700 36 21 41,900 36 21 S)l4S 5 12 3,000 5 12 255 10 2 531 5 8 838 5 8 91-2 5 8 1,115 5 8 385 2 2 88 2 2 532 2 2 703 2 2 1,155 2 2 468 2 2 1,485 2 2 3,442 2 2 3,590 2 2 3,150 2 2 2,070 21 12 34,250 21 12 75 1 1 942 1 1 890 1 1 632 1 1 687 1 1 962 1 1 407 1 1 196 1 1 2,610 5 8 575 5 8 1,273 5 8 1,100 5 8 18,856 29,30 12,17 3,000 29,30 12,17 300 29,30 12/17 2,000 29,30 12,17 1,650 29,30 12./17 January 27, 2016 W City of Palo Alto Highway 101 Adobe Creek Bridge CEQA/NEPA CE Schedule  May‐16 Public Input / Review/ Decision Making En v i r o n m e n t a l  Cl e a r a n c e  an d  Ou t r e a c h En g i n e e r i n g a n d  De s i g n  Ph a s e Council  Award/NTP 5/23/16 Field work 5/16‐7/16 Environmental Studies Preparation  & Approvals by  Caltrans  11/16‐6/17 15% Design 7/16‐9/16 Formal Biological  Opinion 7/17‐12/17 IS/MND Draft  Preparation; Ready  for Public Circulation 5/17‐9/17 IS/MND Circulation (30‐day) 9/17‐10/17 Public  Meetings during  MND Circulation  (Review/Final Input) ‐PTC ‐ARB ‐PRC/PIO 15% Design Public Meetings  (Concept Review/Input)  9/16‐11/16 ‐PRC ‐ARB ‐PTC ‐Public Workshop ‐PABAC  Mitigation Monitoring  & Reporting Program 10/17‐11/17 City Council Approval  of MMRP/Project 12/17 NEPA CE  Preparation/  Caltrans Approval 12/17‐1/18 Structure  Type Selection &  Approval by Caltrans 11/16 ‐3/17 35% Design 2/17 ‐4/17 65% Design & PEER 10/17 ‐2/18 90% Design  2/18 ‐9/18 100% Design & Caltrans  Approval 9/18 ‐11/18 City Construction Permit 9/18 ‐11/18 ROW Engineering &  Certification 2/18 ‐9/18 E‐76 for Construction 9/18 ‐11/18 Bid Advertisement & Bid Opening 11/18 ‐12/18 Council Award of  Construction 1/19 DRC Meeting 5/17 CMA Call for Projects 3/16 ‐1/17 Commission Approval  of OBAG 2 Projects 2/17 ‐3/17 2nd Yr OBAG 2 (FY18‐19)  Access to Funding 10/18 Construction  Completion 4/20 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6483) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/23/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Urban Forest Master Plan revision Title: Discussion and Council Direction Regarding the Urban Forest Master Plan Draft Revisions to Goals, Policies, and Programs and Alternate Vision Statement From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staffs recommends that Council review and provide feedback on the draft revised Goals, Policies, and Programs chapter of the Urban Forest Master Plan (Attachment A) and the alternate vision statement (Attachment B). Background In May 2015 Council adopted the Urban Forest Master Plan and directed staff to return with a second iteration including greater discussion and emphasis on:  Native tree plant species;  Greater development of Goal Number 5;  Options for strengthening the Vision Statement;  Expanding canopy cover in South Palo Alto;  Exploration of the role of agricultural landscaping;  Expansion of the role of local environmental groups;  Support for habitat; and  Development impacts on trees. Discussion Over the past nine months, a stakeholder team comprised of staff, representatives from Acterra, Audubon Society, California Native Plant Society, Canopy, Sierra Club, former City Council members, and Palo Alto residents met five times. The team focused on augmenting plan Goals, Policies, and Programs City of Palo Alto Page 2 (Attachment A) to ensure staff tasked with implementing the plan receives adequate direction. Following are highlights of the improvements. Native Species and Support for Habitat The health and distribution of native species are recognized components of a healthy and functional ecosystem. Conversely exotic and invasive species can be viewed as a hindrance to ecosystem function especially where they reduce or diminish the quality of habitat for key indicator species. Goal 2 was added to elevate the importance of native species and new programs incorporated to:  Inventory existing invasive species and reduce;  Provide emergency water during severe drought;  Review existing procedures for using mulch to suppress weeds and conserve water to ensure minimal impacts to wildlife;  Provide educational workshops about the benefits of native species;  Assess existing habitat and biodiversity; and  Develop a landscape technical manual. One goal, five policies, and twenty programs were augmented to emphasize support for wildlife and ecosystems and an administrative program added to accommodate the costs of intensifying the project review process, ensuring ecological and environmental concerns are met. Program 2.A.iii. was modified to increase the percentage of native trees within the street tree population to 10% within the life of this plan and 20% within 20 years, and in urban parks to 25% within the life of this plan and 50% within 20 years. Goal 5 and Development Impacts Expanding Goal 5 (now Goal 6) reorganized and aggregated content and added programs resulting in several improvements, including:  Actions for implementing or changing necessary administrative processes (6.A.i., formerly 5.1.)  Programs to: o Analyze dewatering impacts on nearby trees o Educate staff about community vibrancy, green spaces, and City of Palo Alto Page 3 alternative transportation o Develop a Landscape Technical Manual o Develop a flexible staffing model commensurate to work load to avoid delays in project review  The language of several programs was strengthened, including: o Requirements for street trees in new commercial, multi-unit, and single-family housing projects; o Techniques to avoid root damage; o Requirements limiting underground utilities location to a corridor, preferably coincident with driveway; o Methods for clearing power lines to avoid tree disfigurement; o Procedures utilized by maintenance crews; o Incentives to retain and plant trees; o Municipal fees for failure to comply with tree protection and unapproved modifications to plans; and  Approximately twenty-one programs were edited to clarify required inter- departmental coordination. Vision Statement Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society proposed an alternate vision statement (Attachment B). Canopy Cover in South Palo Alto The adopted version of Goals, Policies and Programs included a year 1 program to investigate reasons for lower canopy in south Palo Alto (6.D.i.). Investigations began in late 2015 (Attachment C) and to date completed work includes 1) further analysis of the 2011 canopy cover study, 2) outreach to South Palo Alto residents and community leaders through interviews and a community-wide survey, 3) inspection and assessment of vacant tree sites, 4) research on successful canopy growth programs in various American cities, 5) formulation of two main strategies to reverse canopy disparity. Attachment C elaborates on these elements and presents summary results of the community survey. Because investigation was already in progress, the stakeholder team did not discuss South Palo Alto in depth. However, at one meeting, a South Palo Alto resident suggested some homeowners, who are taking advantage of incentives City of Palo Alto Page 4 for drought-tolerant landscaping do not want street trees in front of their property due to the perceived water needs of young trees. In response to this concern, Program 6.D.ii. was augmented to emphasize incentives as a strategy and an administrative program (6.D.iv.) was added to ensure adequate budget to accomplish the strategies, including incentives for preserving and increasing the canopy in South Palo Alto. Agricultural Landscaping Edible/agricultural landscaping is closely connected to the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan currently under development within the concept of building greater self-sufficiency, reducing the importation of food, and increasing the availability of locally grown food. Trees, particularly fruit and nut producers, play an important role. Existing programs were modified to be more supportive and a new program was added to utilize public space opportunities, and encourage the use of private space opportunities, to implement forest gardening or other management techniques that enable trees, shrubs, and compatible vegetation to coexist with the goals of producing ecosystem benefits, aesthetic interest, layered wildlife habitat, and food and products for people. Local Environmental Groups In addition to the collaboration that resulted in this version of the plan, seven programs were augmented to stipulate participation by some or all of the aforementioned stakeholder groups. Building on this progress, staff recommends that Program 4.A.iii., which calls for a recurring forum for the community to communicate with staff and decision-making bodies, be implemented in year 2 (2016-17) instead of year 3. The City Manager will designate a citizen advisory committee to serve as the recurring forum and formalize ongoing consultation with the City Manager and staff during the life of the plan. Summary of Key Issues Policy Implications The plans and programs described in the Urban Forest Master Plan will need to be integrated and harmonized into other planning efforts, including the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan, the Parks Master Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan update. Municipal Code changes may also be required, including, for example, to add clauses to Title 8 which direct landscape design for development City of Palo Alto Page 5 or renovation projects that satifies the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance while also satisfying City of Palo Alto goals identified in plans. Modifying existing protection of Redwoods ( a high water use tree) is one likely change. Planning and development issues in particular require changes in business practices or departmental procedures and documents as described extensively within new Goal 6. Water allocations and conservation will become increasingly important thus requiring more extensive collaboration between departments, partner organizations, customers, and the public. The Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, Water Efficient Landscape Rebate Program, and non-potable water distribution or use allowances may provide opportunities as well as challenges in implementing programs or accomplishing goals. The plan includes language to expand the role of local environmental groups by providing for a recurring forum to formalize communication with the community and provide for ongoing consultation with the City Manager and staff. Native species are of paramount importance to a healthy ecosystem, however, the definition of “native” is not universally agreed upon, diversity protects against epidemics, and ecosystems adapt in response to influences such as climate change. Climate change predictions vary though it is without debate that water availability and weather pattern changes exacerbated by human population growth will be important issues as actions are planned. Staff recommends that the city recognize the need for an expanded list with some ecologically important “adapted” species, and/or an adaptive approach that compares progress on indicators to available resources for management and uses discretion based on site conditions. Staff further recommends that identifying appropriate “adapted” species could be accomplished, with the participation of local environmental groups, within the framework of the recurring meetings described above. Possibly the most significant change pertaining to development impacts is stronger direction for inter-departmental coordination. These programs will likely require multiple departments to modify guiding documents and possibly field activities. The study session can be an opportunity for Council direction regarding some of these efforts. City of Palo Alto Page 6 The study session also provides an opportunity to review both the original vision statement and the one submitted by Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (Attachment B) and for Council to provide staff further direction. In regard to canopy equity, studies indicate potential for increasing the number of street trees; however increasing the overall canopy will rely heavily on the planting of trees on private property. The aforementioned input from a South Palo Alto resident illustrates a paramount concern—the potential for conflicts between sustainability goals and programs. The Council may wish to discuss potential conflicts and provide direction. If project review is intensified, as advocated by several programs, there will be a increased opportunities to encourage fruit and nut producing trees thus promoting urban agriculture in appropriate places. Council may wish to use the study session to discuss the pros and cons of intensifying the review process, and provide further direction. This information will be important to multiple departments as well as the development community. Resource Impact New programs were added and existing programs strengthened. New inventory, management planning, public education, and delivery of services through contracts or temporary employees requires that staff capabilities be developed to ensure proper quality control and operational efficiency. Programs such as the newly created invasive species inventory and management program (2.A.iv.) may require significant coordination by staff with relevant education and experience, in addition to contracts ranging upwards of $100,000 annually. Inventory information must first be acquired, primarily through the development of comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs) proposed by the Community Services Department within the CIP program. Management activities appropriate for the inventory will be proposed to add new funds following completion of individual CCPs in fiscal years 2019-2024 and beyond, where initial funding for any one property will be greater initially and then reduced to control invasive species populations. Costs will vary depending upon the size of the property, density and composition of invasive plants, access, labor pools, partnership opportunities, and other factors. Implementation may be deferred to year 4 (fy 2019) or beyond of the plan to allow for inventory, FTE reclassification(s), and projected needs City of Palo Alto Page 7 analysis. Likewise achieving canopy equity between north and south Palo Alto (Policy 6.D., Program 6.D.iv.) may require substantial financial and staff resources to provide incentives and education to private property owners, however results of open source inventory and other education programs already present in the plan may better inform the projected costs and benefits of implementing these programs at varying scales as well as identify viable partnership opportunities. Policy, education, and partnership solutions may reduce costs for incentives such as new rebate programs. Solutions which utilize existing budget and staff will be employed before proposals for new funding. Some programs such as creation of the Landscape Technical Manual projected to cost $150,000 (one time) may need to be implemented in fiscal year 2018 to ensure compliance with the California Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, storm water permitting, and other regulatory requirements. Significant challenges will be encountered to implement the adopted plan with 97 programs as well as the second iteration’s addition of 13 new programs and a significant increase in scope to the program for native tree evaluation and care (2.A.i). As such, all programs and other recommendations requiring additional resources must be viewed as subject to and contingent upon the City’s annual budget approval process. The plan as adopted in May 2015 was to be implemented by adding capacity through contract, temporary, and partner services while also developing staff to administer an increased quantity and complexity of services. Program additions proposed in this second itereation of the plan will increase the need for additional capacity in financial terms and partnership relationships as well as staff abilities, knowledge, and authority. Environmental review The Initial Study and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts for the adopted plan sufficiently addresses potential impacts. Because added content is similar in concept and potential impacts, supplemental environmental review is not required. Timeline Staff recommends that meetings continue with the community members/groups forum to finalize the second iteration of the Urban Forest Master Plan and return to Council for adoption in October 2016. Implementation scheduling and costs will be updated/projected within the implementation plan chapter based on City of Palo Alto Page 8 Council’s feedback. Courtesy Copies Attachments:  Attachement A: Goals Policies and Programs redline version for Council study session (PDF)  Attachment B: Vision alternate or adopted FINAL (PDF)  Attachment C: North-South canopy analysis for staff report (PDF) City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs2nd Edition Draft—V.14 as of February 24, 2016 for Council Study Session Goals, Policies, and Programs Goal 1. A well developed contiguous, healthy, and ecologi- cally resilient citywide urban forest that: • Is a mix of native and exotic introduced climate adap- tive species—to minimize vulnerability to disease, storms, drought, pests, and other stressors. • Emphasizes locally-evolved or adaptive drought-tol- erant species, with particular focus on regenerating a native woodland ecosystem on a landscape scale. • Avoids invasive species • Is a mix of young, semi-mature and mature ages—to facilitate uniformity in annual maintenance costs and con- tinuity of benefits. • Maximizes habitat, environmental, and aesthetic benefits while trying to minimize conflicts with infrastruc- ture and water-conservation goals. • Maximizes the potential in each neighborhood—to achieve the greatest possible canopy equity. Policy 1.A. Strive for: • A greater percentage of native, drought-tolerant, and fruit tree species. • Species choices that are appropriate to the setting and site conditions e.g., • Maximize opportunities for fruit, nut, and flower bearing trees where there are fewer maintenance concerns. • Maximize opportunities to include less drought tolerant trees where water is not as limited such as riparian corridors, special design or bioretention landscapes, or where groundwater level is higher e.g., plant riparian trees such as box elder, syca- mores, cottonwood and willows near creeks and where where groundwater conditions allow. • Maximize opportunities for species groupings that form interconnected ecosystems and an ecologi- cally resilient landscape that supports birds, pollina- tors, and other beneficial insects with an emphasis on oak woodland species based on the principles of San Francisco Estuary Institute’s “Landscape re- silient Framework” and “Vision for a resilient SIlicon Valley Landscape”. • Minimize infrastructure conflicts, hazards, and maintenance issues. • Appropriate age diversity. • No loss of benefits—as defined in iTree eco analysis (or other peer-reviewed benefits-estimation model.) • No loss Increased habitat, health, and social benefits. Program 1.A.i. Work with Canopy to complete the online “Tree Library”— to achieve a helpful tool for staff and property owners. Endeavor to Include information from the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Native Plant Society about the value for birds and butterflies of species listed in the library. Ensure that searches can include multiple attributes. Program 1.A.ii. Work with Canopy and stakeholders to develop a “Preferred and Restricted Species List” that will be a helpful tool for staff and property owners. The list will acknowledge differing priorities for: • Public street trees • Public park trees near playing fields or playing fields, paths, or hardscape. Page 1 of 16 Goals, Policies, & Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan2nd Edition Draft—V.14 as of February 24, 2016 for Council Study Session • Public park trees further from playing fields, paths, or hardscape. • Public trees in nature preserves • Private trees on residential property • Private trees on commercial (non-residential) property • All trees in riparian corridors The list will consider: • Habitat value and attractiveness for birds, butterflies and pollinators. • Opportunities to create riparian habitat. • Ecological benefits such as shelter, food, and breeding sites for both resident and migratory birds and pollinators. • Energy use reduction potential. • Carbon sequestration potential. • Emission levels of (BVOCs) • Stormwater runoff reduction treatment potential. • City goals for conserving potable water. • City goals for recycled water. • Infrastructure conflicts. • Maintenance issues. • Aesthetics. • City’s goal of 50% shading goals for rights-of-way, parking lots, and heat islands. • City’s goal to emphasize native species. • Need for age diversity. • Toxicity to birds. • Potential to become invasive (vegetation reproduction). • Potential to provide healthy, local food to homeowners residents. Notes: • The resulting list should be searchable by attributes. • Special consideration should be given to the golf course. • A comprehensive conservation plan is needed to ad- dress the complexity of the ecosystems of preserves, and open spaces recognizing that the desirability of traits is often contingent upon location or limited rooting area i.e., problems on one site may be benefits on another. For example, species with maintenance concerns such as those that drop fruit, nuts, and flow- ers might not be appropriate in some urban areas. • Although allergens are a concern, current research does not support species selection for allergens. Program 1.A.iii Work with Canopy and stakeholders to develop site-specific- species-selection protocols to complement the “Preferred and Restricted Species List” (Program 1.A.ii.) In addition to the criteria above, include consideration of: • Resident’s requests. • Regeneration of native woodland. • Surrounding species theme and the past performance of that species. • Adjacent property use. • Potential visibility issues (e.g., at intersections). • Available soil volume. • Available water. • Potential conflicts with overhead power lines. • Potential conflicts with hardscape. • Potential conflicts with underground utilities. • Avoidance of monocultures. • Avoidance of inappopriate species in areas that are ideal for rainwater bioretention areas. • Creation of habitat corridors and ecologically resilient landscapes, contribution to native woodland recovery For sites within parks, selection should also consider: • The Comprehensive Plan’s vision that parks should inte-grate nature with recreation and aesthetics and strive to bring people closer to nature. • Existing and future irrigation systems for nearby park turf. • Maintenance issues specific to each park e.g., litter on playing fields. • Wildlife habitat needs e.g., the creation of understory to provide shelter for birds. Page 2 of 16 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs2nd Edition Draft—V.14 as of February 24, 2016 for Council Study Session Additionally, species selection for trees in natural areas should prefer native species and also consider: • Threats that may be more likely to affect trees in natural areas than in urban areas—especially Sudden Oak Death. • Wildlife Bird breeding time lines season. • Relationship and impact to trails. • Soil types and natural heritage. • Opportunities for planting species that drop fruit, nuts, and flowers in areas where maintenance is not as big of a concern. Note: As mentioned earlier, a separate Resource Manage- ment Plan—or Comprehensive Conservation Plan—is needed to address the complexity of the ecosystems of preserves, and open spaces. Program 1.A.iv. Manage species diversity such that no one species accounts for more than 10% of the population and no one genus ac- counts for more than 20% of the population in such a way as to: • Emphasize regeneration of an native woodland landscape through the creation of species patches at a scale that sup-ports regional ecological resilience. • Avoid monocultures that create vulnerability to cata- strophic losses due to species-specific threats—especially in the urbanized area. Note: In some areas a more diverse palette will be appro- priate and in other areas it will be advantageous to create species patches large enough to support regional ecologi- cal resilience. Urban forestry guidelines suggest that—as a precaution against catastrophic losses due to species- specific threats—no one species should account for more than 10% of the population and no one genus for more than 20% of the population. Policy 1.B. Endeavor to ensure commercial availability of appropriate tree species. Program 1.B.i. Upon completing the “Preferred and Restricted Species List”, work with Canopy to encourage local and regional nurseries and garden centers to defer to stock the “pre- ferred” species—with emphasis on increasing the availabil- ity of species that are drought-tolerant as well as tolerant to recycled water—and to avoid stocking invasive species. Program 1.B.ii. Consider feasibility of a city-owned nursery or partnership with California Native Plant Society, Acterra, or other local non-profits. Policy 1.C. Conserve viable street tree planting sites. Program 1.C.i. Work with relevant departments to develop criteria for viable street tree planting sites, increased planting of street trees, and related protocols to ensure optimal stocking level of 98%. Add criteria to Tree Technical Manual. Program 1.C.ii. Use criteria for viable street planting sites to review and update information about existing and available viable sites in TreeKeeper, and GIS—as well as an interactive open- source mapping solution such as OpenTreeMap. Program 1.C.iii. Work with relevant departments to evaluate implementa- tion and effectiveness of the requirement for 50% shading for parking lots (public and private) and identified heat islands. Identify reasons for success and or failure. Modify as needed. Note: Use ecosystem service calculations and give special consideration to the impact of substituting solar panels for trees to meet the 50% shading requirement. Program 1.C.iv. Work with relevant departments to develop requirements for new commercial, multi-unit, and single-family hous- ing development projects to provide street trees (or space for future trees) and related irrigation systems. Note: The requirement for public art may be a useful model. Policy 1.D. Strive for optimal stocking levels for street trees. Plantings should exceed removals until a goal of 98% full stocking of identified viable planting sites within right-of-ways and parks is achieved. Assume an average 50 year life span and consistent replacement and removal rates. Fluctuations should be ex- pected due to past trends of planting as well as other variables. Page 3 of 16 Goals, Policies, & Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan2nd Edition Draft—V.14 as of February 24, 2016 for Council Study Session Program 1.D.i. Develop a monitoring program and produce annual reports of removals and plantings to show progress toward the goal of 98% full stocking of identified viable planting sites within right-of-ways and parks. Goal 2. Re-generated native woodland and riparian land- scapes as the key ecological basis of the urban forest with focus on native species and habitat. Policy 2.A. Conserve and grow native and introduced climate adaptive tree population to regenerate and recover native woodland ecosys- tem on a landscape scale . Program 2.A.i. Work with Canopy to update the Oakwell survey to: • Assess changes in the population of native oaks since 1997. • Evaluate the health of existing native trees and take actions to improve conditions as needed (e.g., remove hardscaping or turf watering around tree drip line.) • Evaluate gaps and opportunities to plant native oaks and native woodland species to create a mosaic of native woodland species distribution that mimics the spatial distribution of an native woodland ecosystem. Program 2.A.ii. Consider incorporating Oakwell survey data into Tree- Keeper, the City’s GIS, and an interactive open-source mapping system such as OpenTreeMap. Program 2.A.iii. Develop a plan for restoring a city-wide native woodland landscape by increasing the percentages of native trees especially oaks as well as to track and by tracking prog-ress. Implementation should begin as soon as possible by providing more native trees and introduce climate adaptive species for all tree installations——to create a mosaic of native woodland species distribution that mimics the spatial distribution of an native woodland ecosystems. Specifically, achieve the following goals: • Street trees: Increase native woodland and introduced climate adaptive trees from 7% to 10% within the life of this 10-year plan—and to 20% within the next 20 years. • Urban parks: Increase native woodland and introduced climate adaptive trees from 11% to 25% within the life of this 10-year plan—and to 50% within the next 20 years. • Open spaces and preserves: Existing to at least 80% native woodland and introduced climate adaptive trees within the life of this 10-year plan. • Private land: Increase percentage of native trees by providing property owners, gardeners, landscapers, and developers with educational resources, supply informa- tion, and incentives for native plants, emphasizing native woodland species. • Re-oaking where oaks are appropriate—ensuring that oaks are spaced so there are no gaps wider than 100-ft among the trees. Program 2.A.iv. Initiate “tree giveaway” events that provide residents with free fruit trees, native trees and introduced climate adaptive trees. Program 2.A.v. Work with Canopy and stakeholders such as the California Native Plant Society, and Acterra to: • Inventory the invasive tree species population as defined by the Recommended and Restricted list. • Formalize a plan for decreasing that population (Note: This will need to be a recurring task..) Upon completion of the inventory and establishment of a plan work with Canopy, and stakeholders such as the Cali- fornia Native Plant Society, and Acterra to: • Develop procedures and coordinate field activities for re- moving invasive species—with special attention given to the removal of seedlings and saplings • Provide education and incentives to homeowners to re- move invasive species on their property. • Develop specifications for invasive species removal to be conditionally applied during Planning development review for projects, when appropriate, in all zoning districts or abut- ting creek areas (e.g. open space, residential estates, commer- cial, research park, etc.) • Develop monitoring programs to track progress. Program 2.A.vi. Utilize public space opportunities--and encourage the use of private space opportunities--to implement manage- Page 4 of 16 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs2nd Edition Draft—V.14 as of February 24, 2016 for Council Study Session ment techniques that enable trees, shrubs, and compatible vegetation to coexist with the goals of producing ecosystem benefits, aesthetic interest, layered wildlife habitat, and food for people. Program 2.A.vii. Create educational materials on oak tree care and proactively reach out to property ownershomeowners, landscaping firms, real estate agents and other audiences to educate them about the importance of oaks, other native, and introduced climate adaptive trees and how to care for these trees. Program 2.Aviii. When a property transfers, provide information on how to care for oaks Goal 3. A citywide Sustainability Plan that coordinates integrates the goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan with other sustainability goals such as those related to water conservation, carbon neutrality, and solar energy—and communicates the value of the urban forest and the importance of tree protection. Policy 3.A. The City’s Sustainability Plan shall... • Incorporate the contributions and needs (including water needs) of the urban forest emphasizing the importance of habitat as well as carbon sequestration by the urban forest and the need to preserve canopy and ecosystems. • Identify conflicts as well as alignment between urban forest goals and those of other sustainability concepts especially Green Building water use review and the as- sociated WOCULS plant species list. • Describe procedures for prioritizing and mitigating con- flicts. Program 3.A.i. Work with the city’s Office of Sustainability to evaluate the “Preferred and Restricted Species List” to ensure that it complements the City’s Sustainability Plan in consider- ing BVOC emissions and incorporates the need to preserve public health as well as ecological and habitat benefits pro- vided by native species such as oak trees, cottonwood and willows, large broadleaf trees, and key introduced climate adaptive species. Program 3.A.ii. Work with the city’s Office of Sustainability to evaluate future participation in carbon credit programs. Program 3.A.iii. Work with the city’s Office of Sustainability to evaluate the establishment of an oversight group (elected or appointed by the City Council), to investigate and comment on the impact of projects on the urban forest and overall ecosys- tem—and monitor the progress of the Urban Forest Master Plan goals. Program 3.A.iv. Work with the Utilities Department to publish tools and priorities for siting of solar collection devices. Program 3.A.v. Work with the city’s Office of Sustainability and/or the Utilities Department and Canopy to create a guidance docu-ment—how to successfully incorporate solar collection and trees into site design—for those considering solar. Program 3.A.vi. Work with the city’s Office of Sustainability to explore new funding sources for the Urban Forestry program. Program 3.A.vii. Work with the city’s Office of Sustainability to reevaluate costs and fees related to efforts to coordinate sustainability programs. Policy 3.B. The well being of the urban forest and preservation of its ecological, environmental, public health, aesthetic, economical, social, and community benefits will be considered in all deci- sions pertaining to the environment, sustainability, and capital improvements. Program 3.B.i. Formalize the Urban Forester’s role relative to: • Citywide Sustainability Plan. • Development of citywide policy. • Inter-departmental collaboration. • Technical advice. Program 3.B.ii. Work with the city’s Office of Sustainability to develop a “Landscape Sustainability Checklist”—for development review—that incorporates citywide goals for water use, sus- tainability, storm water management and tree selection and Page 5 of 16 Goals, Policies, & Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan2nd Edition Draft—V.14 as of February 24, 2016 for Council Study Session strives for ecological balance and resilience. Incorporate into the Landscape Technical Manual. Program 3.B.iii. Work with the city’s Office of Sustainability to educate staff about the importance of describing potentially negative—or unintended—impacts to the urban forest and ecologic bal- ance/resilience in staff reports about Capital Improvement Projects—whether or not California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review is required. Policy 3.C. Monitor the salinity levels of recycled water and explore options for adjusting potable/recycled mix rates, soil modification/aug- mentation—to improve leaching—on a site by site basis. Program 3.C.i. Review existing monitoring programs regarding the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation at the Municipal Golf Course and Greer Park. Modify as needed. Program 3.C.ii. Develop a report describing what has been achieved rela- tive to the City’s goals for reducing the salinity of recycled water from the Regional Water Quality Control Plant since Council adopted Resolution 9035 in January of 2010. The report should include a draft handout brochure for property owners considering conversion to recycled water--outlining site drainage expectations, exemption process and new plant material conversion and responsibilities.Ensure that staff are aware of this City policy and understand its impli- cations. Program 3.C.iii. Work with Canopy and stakeholders such as the California Native Plant Society, Acterra, and the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society to develop a list of tree species appropri- ate for use in areas where recycled water is or may be used for irrigation. Incorporate into the Landscape Technical Manual. Program 3.C.iv. Work with relevant departments to develop an emergency program to provide water to trees during severe drought. Program 3.C.v. Woprk with relevant departments to encourage construc- tion of rain gardens and use of condensation water from air-conditioning units, groundwater dewatering water, and hydrant flushing water to provide water for “thirsty” habitat trees such as willows, sycamores and cottonwoods Program 3.C.vi. Emphasize the Utilities Department’s “Waste Avoidance” programs (for water) on the Urban Forestry website. Policy 3.D. Use wood chips and mulch appropriately. Program 3.D.i. Review existing procedures and protocols for using mulch to suppress weeds (including state requirements) and develop site-specific criteria to ensure minimal impacts to wildlife–especially in the wetlands and natural areas. Upon completion: • Incorporate into the Tree Technical Manual. • Incorporate into the Landscape Technical Manual (Pro- gram 6.F.i.) • Work with stakeholders such as the California Native Plant Society, Acterra, the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society on an outreach program to educate property own- ers and residents about mulch use. Program 3.D.ii. To prevent runoff of polluted water, avoid use of recycled- tire or synthetic mulch and discourage use of recycled-tire or synthetic mulch on private property Program 3.D.iii. To prevent runoff of polluted water, avoid use of dyed mulch and discourage use of dyed mulch on private property. Program 3.D.iv. Explore an expansion of the existing urban-wood recycling program to include higher end products that do not break the wood down. Include consideration of the following: • Breaking wood up to create mulch releases previously sequestered carbon. • Conversion to energy requires burning which releases previously sequestered carbon. • Recycling urban wood as a higher end product that does not break it down e.g., using logs for habitat or outdoor furniture, will allow the carbon to remain sequestered within the wood. • Carbon credit programs. Page 6 of 16 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs2nd Edition Draft—V.14 as of February 24, 2016 for Council Study Session Goal 4. A community that appreciates its urban forest and partners with the city and Canopy, and other local organizations and stakeholders to steward it. Policy 4.A Optimize communication between the City, residents, property owners, business owners, other cities and other government agencies, and non-profits. Program 4.A.i. Work with Canopy and stakeholders such as the Califor- nia Native Plant Society, Acterra, the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society to conduct at least 4 community outreach meetings to educate and get feedback: • Introduce the website as a resource. • Discuss “Hot Topics” from Master Plan survey. • Discuss interactive open-source mapping. Program 4.A.ii. Work with Canopy and stakeholders such as the California Native Plant Society, Acterra, the Santa Clara Valley Audu- bon Society and the community to develop outreach proce- dures to follow prior to making any significant changes to the urban forest —whether or not California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review is required. Program 4.A.iii. Work with Canopy and stakeholders such as the California Native Plant Society, Acterra, and the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society to establish a recurring forum that pro-vides the community an opportunity to communicate with staff and members of the decision making bodies about tree benefits, concerns, and ideas. Note: this may coincide with the similar ideas for the citywide Sustainability Plan. Program 4.A.iv. Continue pruning workshops and tree walks and consider additional ways for community and staff to interact. Program 4.A.v. Coordinate with the Palo Alto Unified School District re- garding plantings, species selection, maintenance, manage- ment of landscapes, Arbor Day, and other events. Program 4.A.vi. Develop a capability for community input on the Urban Forestry website. Program 4.A.vii. Explore Work with Canopy the California Native Plant So- ciety, Acterra, and the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society to develop the content for outreach possibilities such as city mailings, e-mail blasts, door hangers, bill inserts, social media, press releases, and newspaper columns. Program 4.A.viii. Partner with Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society for the Palo Alto Christmas Bird Count, Spring Bird Count, and the Backyard Bird Count. Program 4.A.ix. Work with Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society to develop programs to familiarize residents with Palo Alto’s urban forest’s birds and butterflies—and ways to attract them. Program 4.A.x. Educate citizens about correct pruning at the best time to protect bird habitat and nesting. Program 4.A.xi. Partner with Acterra, Audubon and California Native Plant Society to develop educational materials and workshops on native woodland ecosystems, other native habitats and the benefits of native tree species in the urban landscape for both the public and urban forestry staff. Policy 4.B. Ensure exhaustive exploration into the common concerns that emerged from the responses to the Master Plan survey and ensure that the resulting information is well communicated. Program 4.B.i. Work with relevant departments to develop ways to avoid root damage to sidewalks beyond just matching growth charac- teristics to the conditions of the planting site. Explore root barriers and special design solutions such as meandering sidewalks around trees, suspending sidewalks above tree roots, and replacing concrete sidewalks with sidewalks made of recycled rubber or other material. Program 4.B.ii. Work with relevant departments to develop ways to prevent conflicts between tree roots and underground infrastructure such as requirements that limit the location of underground utilities to a corridor—preferably coincident with driveway. Program 4.B.iii. Work with relevant departments to develop ways to avoid disfigurement of trees from power line clearing such as run- ning the power lines through protective conduits that don’t require as much clearance. Page 7 of 16 Goals, Policies, & Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan2nd Edition Draft—V.14 as of February 24, 2016 for Council Study Session Goal 5 An effective and efficient Urban Forestry Division. Policy 5.A. Monitor Ensure that the City has adequate baseline informa- tion—so changes in the urban forest and ecological benefits can be monitored. Program 5.A.i. Follow up the 2010 canopy cover assessment done by UC Davis that established the baseline for this master plan— with a similar assessment in approximately 2020. Present a comparison of the two assessments to the City Council. Ensure that the follow-up canopy cover assessment con- siders the open spaces as well as the urban forest. (See programs related to Policy _____). Note: This type of survey will provide canopy density of the entire urban forest—both public and private trees and is generally accepted as the best method for comparisons be- tween municipalities, assessing canopy equity, and monitor- ing change from development impacts etc. Program 5.A.ii. Follow up the 2010 inventory update and i-Tree streets analysis done by Davey Resources with either: • A similar comprehensive inventory update and i-Tree streets analysis in approximately 2020. • OR a series of seven partial inventories done—annually— on one-seventh of the entire street tree population. Ensure that follow-up analyses consider open spaces as well. (Also see programs related to Policy______). Ensure that any economic analysis of tree value consider the costs inherent in invasive trees. Note: This type of survey will provide multi-faceted and detailed data about each city-owned tree and is essential to the City’s asset management requirements. Program 5.A.iii. Conduct an i-Tree eco analysis (or similar) to establish a city wide benchmark that spans the entire population of both public and private trees and then to monitor change in the future. Metrics should be compared to changes in order to craft policies, provide incentives, and adapt partnerships. Note: This type of survey will provide multi-faceted infor- mation such as health and composition of the entire urban forest—both public and private trees. Program 5.A.iv. Conduct an i-Tree wildlife (or similar) assessment of the existing habitat and biodiversity—to establish a baseline and help identify and prioritize needs. Note: The software used for this type of analysis is relative- ly new. This type of survey will provide information about the potential for both public and private trees to provide habitat or to damage habitat (e.g., species that can be in- vasive) and will help the City incorporate ecological needs into the decision making process for many issues. Policy 5.B. Strive for best possible tools—such as updated such as tech- nology, information about the trees, and procedural documen- tation, knowledgeable staff, and fiscal resources—to support the Urban Forest Master Plan vision, goals, policies and programs. Program 5.B.i. Conduct electronic tree surveys to enable analysis of devel- opment impact. Program 5.B.ii. Develop database management tools to assist with monitor- ing, documentation, and evaluation of tree restoration work. Program 5.B.iii. Develop open portals for data entry–as a way of engaging the community as partners in stewardship and to improve data currency and accuracy: • Electronic submittals of tree surveys might allow more accurate queries and reports to quantify the influence of development. (Also see Program ________) • Open source mapping might allow input by anyone agree- ing to comply with standards and complete training. • Open portals might accommodate reports of maintenance needs from community members. Note: Any such tools should be compatible with the mobile reporting application that is currently being developed for the city to both report and monitor service requests. Page 8 of 16 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs2nd Edition Draft—V.14 as of February 24, 2016 for Council Study Session Program 5.B.iv. Review Update the City’s GIS and Tree Keeper database information about trees within the 32 parks, Municipal Golf Course, utility easements, city facilities, and city-owned property such as fire stations—to ensure completeness and accuracy. Program 5.B.v. Integrate the information in Tree-Keeper with the city’s GIS to enable review of the relationship between trees and other relevant geographic information such as parcel lines, land uses, zoning, soil types, watersheds, creeks, pavement, hazard areas, and utility infrastructure. Program 5.B.vi. Use the City’s GIS system to highlight native trees especial- ly oak species, and create a layer that identifies connectivity and spatial distribution of oaks and riparian tree species. Program 5.B.vii. Develop or obtain a more up-to-date and accurate soils map and add it into the GIS. Program 5.B.viii. Consider developing Develop a map showing the depth of available water within the urban forest. Program 5.B.ix. Update the Tree Technical Manual. The update should: • Include new and innovative ways to add trees in difficult circumstances. • Review and expand the requirements and options for mitigating the removal of existing trees for development projects. Roof top plantings–which are expensive initially but have a long term life cycle may be worth more as a mitigation measure than a transplanted tree–which often suffer from diminished survival potential. Coordinate this with Sustainability Plan and Landscape Technical Manual. • Include information, specifications, and standard details for employing structural grids to provide an adequate vol- ume of quality soil to grow trees to desired mature size. • Establish soil volume requirements in a manner similar to those described in the city of Raleigh’s Landscape Manual. • Work with Public Works sidewalk maintenance to con- sider contract language to implement rooting channels for confined existing or new trees to achieve longer life and tree benefits. • Establish requirements for providing independent spaces for trees and turf so that water can be applied appropri- ately and efficiently and nearby plantings will support optimal performances e.g., only forest species should be planted near trees where as turf areas may support orna- mental landscape plants or riparian habitat trees and shrubs. • Prohibit the planting of new turf in public rights-of-way, medians, planter strips, and other roadway adjacent areas of landscaping. Note: In addition to the above listed enhancements, the Tree Technical Manual will be the repository for many of the products called for by programs in this master plan such as: criteria for a viable street tree planting site. As a result, the role of the Tree Technical Manual will be significantly expanded. Program 5.B.x. Incorporate stormwater treatment and bioretention best management practices into the Tree Technical Manual, Standard Conditions of Approval, and Standard Details, Sustainability Plan, and Landscape Technical Manual. Include best practices and other requirements from both Municipal and Regional Permits and emphasize the advan- tages (or disadvantages) of: • Planting trees, shrubs, and ground cover to provide an understory and a more complex habitat for birds in private and public landscaping. • Planting less drought resistant species (e.g., native ripar- ian species that provide habitat), where there is a natu- ral water sources such as a creek or higher water table level—to help provide diversity. • Planting larger broadleaf trees where there are no over- head wires—to help provide ecological benefits. • Planting introduced climate adaptive trees in areas that are ideal for bioretention of stormwater. • Rain gardens and use of condensation water from air-con- ditioning units to provide water for “thirsty” habitat trees such as willows, sycamores and cottonwoods Page 9 of 16 Goals, Policies, & Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan2nd Edition Draft—V.14 as of February 24, 2016 for Council Study Session Program 5.B.xi. Complete the update of the Street Tree Management Plan. Include information,criteria, procedures, and strategies regarding: • Selecting street tree species. • Providing for age diversity. • Ensuring that planting parallels tree removal to avoid canopy and benefit loss. • Young tree care. • Preventing loss of viable street tree sites. • Optimizing opportunities for adding trees for new private development and Capital Improvement projects. • Canopy disparity between north and south Palo Alto. • Standards used for line clearing and criteria for selecting contractors. • Sidewalk repair. • Recycled water and progress relative to the Salinity Re- duction Policy for Recycled Water. • Benefits to local birds, butterflies, bees, and other pollinators. • Regeneration of spatially connected native woodland ecosys- tem. • Shade for pedestrians. Program 5.B.xii. Work with relevant departments to improve Explore the way maintenance work done by field crews is documented and uploaded into TreeKeeper and/or the City’s GIS. This exploration should include Smart Phone capabilities. Program 5.B.xiii. Consider transferring maintenance responsibilities from Community Services Parks Division to Public Works Urban Forestry Division for: • Trees in developed areas of Open Space (along park roads and around structures/park facilities) • All trees on the golf course. • Evaluate the cost resources needed to establish written risk management protocol and training for scheduled inspections and training (see Program 5.B__) Program 5.B.xiv. Nurture existing volunteer support groups and work with non-profit organizations to reach out to businesses and corporate sponsors for forest-restoration projects. Program 5.B.xv. Work with relevant departments to explore a collaboration between relevant local fire protection districts and CAL FIRE regarding an educational campaign to inform home- owners about selecting species and pruning trees to achieve “defensible spaces” as part of vegetation management in appropriate areas of the city. Incorporate into Sustainability Plan and Landscape Technical Manual. Program 5.B.xvi. Evaluate needs and Provide opportunities for training Urban Forest staff and park rangers that include: • Certification as arborist. • Certification in pesticide application. • Education in Integrated Pest Management. • Education in Best Management Practices for management of invasive plants. • Education in ecology and native plant management. • Proficiency in relevant software programs. • Tree Risk Management Protocols. Review should include exploration of conferences, in-house training, online training, etc. Program 5.B.xvi. Develop a flexible staffing model that ensures staffing com- mensurate to work load increases and decreases. (Manpow- er shortages cause delays in project review.) Program 5.B.xvii. Work with relevant departments to update development review fees—to accommodate intensification of the review process to ensure that all ecological and environmental concerns are met. Page 10 of 16 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs2nd Edition Draft—V.14 as of February 24, 2016 for Council Study Session Program 6.A.ii. Work with relevant departments to augment project-review standard conditions of approval with: • Requirements for no net canopy loss per project site. • Soil volume requirements for trees per species group. • Habitat connectivity and regeneration of an native wood- land ecosystem on a landscape scale. Program 6.A.iii. Ensure that (in addition to building standards) Palo Alto’s standards for landscape installations and renovations, con- sider appropriate species selection and placement of trees— especially relative to existing trees and habitat value. Program 6.A.iv. Work with relevant departments to analyze the impact of basement construction—and dewatering by wells and base- ment sump pumps—on tree health and the urban forest. Focus shall include but not be limited to: • Soil volume. • Water table. Policy 6.B. Review of both private and public projects will: • Occur early in the design phase. • Be coordinated with the reviews of other departments. • Seek ways to add trees, canopy, and habitat benefits. • Promote solutions that respect promote regional ecosys tems and natural functions including watersheds and wildlife corridors connectivity. • Promote regionally native and introduced cllimate adaptive plants and discourage the use of invasive species. • Promote green space systems within/among communities. • Promote bicycle and public transportation nodes and routes. • Promote shade to encourage pedestrian and bicycle mobility. • Consider absorption of carbon dioxide and air pollutants. • Evaluate impacts to ecosystems and natural functions. • Evaluate impacts to watersheds and wildlife corridors. • Evaluate impacts to stormwater systems. • Evaluate impacts to existing impervious surfaces. • Evaluate impacts to groundwater. • Evaluate impacts to soil volume and quality. • Evaluate impacts to bird especially re: nesting seasons. Goal 6. An Urban Forest that enhances the built environ-ment and connects it to the natural environment. Policy 6.A. Updates to Palo Alto’s Zoning Regulations, Green Building Standards, Standard Conditions of Approval, Standard Details, Green Infrastructure Practices, and stormwater permitting procedures shall consider the following as key factors: • Conservation of existing trees and replacement of undesir able species when appropriate. • Appropriate native and introduced climate adaptive species and placement for new trees. • Respect for regional ecosystems and natural functions. • Respect for watersheds and wildlife corridors. • Habitat overlay zones. • Green space systems within and among communities. • Absorption of carbon dioxide and air pollutants. • Responsible storm water management. • Responsible ground water management. • Responsible soil conservation. • Vibrancy of the community. Program 6.A.i. Work with relevant departments and divisions to review up-to-date sources for new measures and possible modifica- tions to Palo Alto’s Zoning Regulations, Building Stan- dards, Green Building Standards, Standard Conditions of Approval, Standard Details, Green Infrastructure Practices, storm water permitting procedures, and other relevant documents—to ensure currency with environmental laws, best practices, and innovative solutions and to enable the policies and goals of this plan. Review to include but not be limited to these resources: • Updated Green Building Standards. • Sustainable Sites Initiative. • American Planning Association recommendations for land use objectives and actions. • Best Practices for responsible stormwater management. • Best Practices for soil conservation.• Landscape Resilience Framework and Vision for a re-silient Silicon Valley Landscape (San Francisco Estuary Institute.) Page 11 of 16 Goals, Policies, & Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan2nd Edition Draft—V.14 as of February 24, 2016 for Council Study Session Program 6.B.i. Work with relevant departments and divisions to ensure that the Urban Forestry Division is included in the early phases of design and review of private projects. For discretionary reviewed projects, work with the Planning Department to ensure that in each environmental assessment prepared it will include trees in the aesthetic resources section (desig- nated landscape and public trees) and biological resource section (protected trees) as applicable in the early review phase. Program 6.B.ii. Work with the relevant departments and divisions to ensure that the Urban Forestry Division is included in the early phases of budgeting (for staff resources) as well as the early phases of design for Capital Improvement Projects. Program 6.B.iii. Provide education to Urban Forestry staff about innovative ways to add trees to development projects and in limiting situations. Program 6.B.iv. Provide education to all relevant staff about the “Preferred and Restricted Species List.” Program 6.B.v. Provide education to citywide development review staff about City Sustainability Plan priorities and need for staff reports to include information about the role of trees in moderating potential negative impacts to the environment or add beneficial services related to: • Canopy. • Wildlife Birds and pollinators. • Watershed health. • Storm water systems. • Ground water stability. • The need for adequate soil volume and/or quality. • The value of trees with regard to aesthetics and privacy concerns. Program 6.B.vi. Educate citywide development review staff about this City priorities and need for staff reports to include information about potential opportunities to enhance: • The vibrancy of the community including economy and employment opportunities e.g., teen career opportunities, training, and local food production. • Human health benefits —both physical and psycho-social health—of green spaces within and among communities. • Bicycle and public-transportation nodes and routes. Program 6.B.vii. Provide education to citywide development review staff to ensure that tree maintenance practices continue to consider bird nesting seasons. Program 6.B.viii. Work with Canopy and other stakeholders to educate the development community about the need to discuss trees during the early stage of a project’s design. Program 6.B.ix. Work with Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and other wildlife organizations to educate the development commu- nity about minimizing project effects on local wildlife. Policy 6.C. Strive for no net loss /increase in canopy cover. Program 6.C.i. Continue to enforce the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance but also review it to ensure that it reflects state water ef- ficiency standards as well as this master plan’s goals for regeneration of native woodland landscape. Program 6.C.ii. Evaluate needs and benefits of a possible requirement that digital information about protected trees be submitted to the City as a condition of approval for permit applications. Program 6.C.iii. Work with relevant departments to develop canopy thresh- olds—possibly based on zoning and land use goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Consider appropriateness to the ecotype e.g., Baylands canopy should be much less than riparian corridors. Note: This program does not intend to concentrate plant- ings in open space grasslands and, thereby, reduce plant- ings in developed areas. Thresholds suggested by orga- nizations such as American Forests may be helpful as guidelines. However, where such suggestions are less than existing density, they should not imply a need or desire to reduce density. Page 12 of 16 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs2nd Edition Draft—V.14 as of February 24, 2016 for Council Study Session Policy 6.D. Strive for canopy equity—prioritizing areas in which the UC Davis report indicated a decrease between 1982 and 2010. Program 6.D.i. Investigate reasons for less canopy in south Palo Alto. This should include evaluation of: • Development review procedures. • Maintenance activities and contracts • Property-owner objections to street trees. • Prohibitive physical conditions such as soil type, absence of planting strip, etc. Program 6.D.ii. Develop strategies to end the trend of decreasing canopy in South Palo Alto e.g., • Plan and budget to work with Work with Canopy and stakeholders such as Acterra, the California Native Plant Society, and the Audubon Society on an outreach program to ensure residents, property owners, and business owners understand how their decisions affect the canopy and encour- age them to plant trees. • Create incentives for home and business owners. • Add new planting sites for street trees where possible—and focus on planting native species. • Incorporate the use of interactive open source mapping. Program 6.D.iii. Ensure that staff and contractors performing maintenance tasks in South Palo Alto know that preserving and in- creasing the canopy—and focus on native and introduced climate adaptive species—in South Palo Alto is a City priority. Program 6.D.iv. Ensure adequate budget to accomplish the strategies—in- cluding incentives—for preserving and increasing the canopy in South Palo Alto. Policy 6.E . Recognize El Camino Real’s importance as the preeminent link between Palo Alto and adjoining communities. Program 6.E.i. Utilize the following resources when reviewing projects on El Camino Real: • El Camino Real Master Planning Guidelines and Appen- dices. Incorporate into sidewalk maintenance replacement contracts and Landscape Technical Manual, the remedial specification BMP’s for existing trees (Appendix 5) and design guidelines for new trees.(Section 5.4) • Appropriate scenic design plans • Appropriate plans of nearby jurisdictions and agencies • Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Program 6.E.ii. Coordinate with nearby jurisdictions and agencies regarding trees within the El Camino Real Corridor e.g., • Management of existing trees.• Development impacts and opportunities.• Projected future needs.• Grand Boulevard Project. Note: These guidelines for reviewing projects within the El Camino Real Corridor should be reflected in the Tree Technical Manual. Policy 6.F. Private and public landscape and irrigation plans that include both trees and turf will be reviewed to ensure that each is pro- vided enough independent space to ensure that their differing maintenance needs can be met efficiently e.g., so that: • Water can be applied appropriately and efficiently. • Nearby plantings will support optimal performance e.g., only forest species (e.g., understory species) should be planted near trees whereas turf areas may support ornamental landscape plants (e.g., plants requiring more frequent watering.) Program 6.F.i. Develop a Landscape Technical Manual that aggregates landscape requirements and best management practices from all relevant sections of the Municipal Code as well as the Baylands Master Plan, El Camino Real Master Plan and Appendices, Comprehensive Plan, Sustainability Plan, Green Building Code, and Tree Technical Manual. Focus to include but not be limited to: Page 13 of 16 Goals, Policies, & Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan2nd Edition Draft—V.14 as of February 24, 2016 for Council Study Session • Solutions to promote canopy equity for South Palo Alto e.g., planting, soil, and watering recommendations. • Special concerns related to the development of properties within OS (Open Space) and Residential Estate Zoning Districts e.g., fire safe landscapes and hydroseding. • Retention of existing mature (non-invasive) trees. • Regeneration of an native woodland ecosystem on a land- scape scale. Policy 6.G. Provide incentives to increase canopy and ecological benefits. Program 6.G.i. Work with relevant departments to explore incentives such as increased density. Program 6.G.ii. Work with relevant departments to develop incentives to retain and plant trees—and where appropriate, trees of high habitat value and fruit trees—through additional points via LEED certification , Build It Green (BIG) Green Points, Backyard Habitat Programs, and/or similar certification systems such as those defined by the Sustainable Sites Initiative, the National Wildlife Federation, and the San Francisco Estuary Institute’s Vision for a Resilient Silicon Valley. Program 6.G.iii. Work with relevant departments to explore the feasibility of a tree adoption program—possibly to be modeled after programs offered by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) which has been operating successfully for 15 years. Policy 6.H. Minimize the negative effect on the urban forest from develop- ment and infrastructure maintenance. Program 6.H.i. Work with relevant departments to review line clearing stan- dards and criteria for selecting contractors; publish on the Urban Forest website. Program 6..H.ii. Work with relevant departments to analyze and resolve con- flicts regarding the space required between utilities under- ground equipment and other criteria related to what makes a planting site viable for street trees. Program 6.H.iii. Evaluate the current street tree pruning program and the possible advantages of a more frequent pruning cycle. En- sure that pruning continues to consider bird nesting seasons. Program 6.H.iv. Work with relevant departments to create criteria for mini- mum tree plantings as development requirements. Program 6.H.v. Work with relevant departments to review and update current fines and incentives as related to tree malpractice and van- dalism. Program 6.H.vi. Work with relevant departments to amend fee schedule to include development fees to enable appropriate participa- tion in project review, building and other permit issuance, regulatory compliance, and auditing. Policy 6.I. Approved development plans shall not be modified in any way that may affect street trees or approved landscape plans without review of those modifications by the Urban Forestry Division. Program 6.I.i. Work with relevant departments to reevaluate and adjust de- velopment review fees to accommodate work load increases and staffing impacts if necessary in order to address: • Failure to include tree protection review in the permitting process. • Failure to comply with tree protection requirements. • Unapproved modifications to approved plans—made in the field. Policy 6.J. Strive for optimal conditions in the natural areas of the city preserves and open spaces. Note: the needs of preserves and open spaces may differ from those of the urban forest and Resource Management Plans—specific to those environments—are needed. Program 6.J.i.. Ensure that the next citywide canopy cover analysis (Pro-gram 5.A.i.) is sufficient to establish a baseline of canopy cover in the city’s preserves and open spaces. Page 14 of 16 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs2nd Edition Draft—V.14 as of February 24, 2016 for Council Study Session Note: Natural habitats are complex and it is important to keep both habitat diversity and specific species interactions in mind when dealing with natural areas. Therefore, al- though the percentage of canopy cover in the natural areas is worth monitoring, it may not have the same relevance—in terms of optimal conditions—as it does in the urban forest. Program 6.J.ii. Establish a baseline for relevant information to be moni- tored—in addition to canopy cover—such as native versus non-native species populations. A statistically valid sample should be collected to analyze current conditions. Sampling methodology should enable long term monitoring, direct management decisions, and analyze the effectiveness of current practices. A permanent plot system would be an option. Experimentation in conjunction with analysis of natural regeneration practices, simulated disturbance regimes, and predation relationships should be employed. Note: This is not redundant with programs 5.A.iii. the analysis of 5.A.iii.will inform this task. Program 6.J.iii. Work with relevant departments to develop a long-range budget for tree management and maintenance in the open spaces that includes: • Tree inspections. • Tree removal and replacements. • Forest restoration. • Training for rangers. • Technology for tracking maintenance tasks. • Retention of dead trees and snags. • Protection of native volunteer saplings. • Survey of invasive tree species. • Mapping of soil types and depth to water table to inform selection of ideal locations for a variety of tree species. • A plan to increase native canopy and decrease the popula- tion of invasive tree species—and monitor results. Program 6.J.iv. Work with relevant departments to develop a Comprehen- sive Conservation Plan that includes and/or considers: • Up-to-date information regarding Sudden Oak Death Dis- ease and other pathogens that impact the local ecosystem. • Maintaining healthy ecosystems by reducing the impact on trees by the implementation of fire managment plans. • Best Management Practices for forest restoration. • A well-defined plan for tree replacement within the parks and open spaces. • Detailed map of locations of sensitive species. • Consideration of snags and dead trees. • Protection of native volunteer tree saplings. • Consideration for removal of invasive trees and replace- ment with native trees. • Trail placement that avoids impacts to native trees and sensitive understory species. Program 6.J.v. Work with relevant departments to update existing park plans and/or develop new plans to ensure that tree issues are ad- dressed. Program 6..J.vi. Coordinate between departments and outside partners re: • Appropriate mixes of trees, shrubs, and grasses • Natural cycles of disturbance such as fire • Response to use and impacts. • Appreciation by the community. Program 6.J.vii. Ensure that the “Restricted Species List” includes consid- eration of species appropriate for the golf course, parks, preserves, and open spaces e.g., • Importance of native species in natural areas. • Importance of avoiding invasive species. • Importance of fruit trees. • Need for evergreen canopy to support watershed protec-tion and wildlife habitat. • Need for shrub and understory species for increased and multi-layered canopy and habitat. • Maintenance impacts of root damage to trails. • Maintenance impact of litter on playing fields. Page 15 of 16 Goals, Policies, & Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan2nd Edition Draft—V.14 as of February 24, 2016 for Council Study Session Program 6.J.viii. Develop database management tools to assist with monitor- ing, documentation, and evaluation of tree restoration work. Program 6.J.ix. Work with Canopy to educate the community regarding the necessity of tree removals— and where safe, snag preserva- tion—in the parks and open spaces. Program 6.J.x. Work with relevant departments to ensure consideration of tree preservation and tree replacement for capital improve- ment projects within city parks and open spaces. Page 16 of 16 Vision (proposed alternate) Our Urban Forest is the heart of Palo Alto’s urban and natural landscape. It is an essential economic, community, environmental and ecological asset that provides a tangible connection to the natural world for our citizens in their everyday lives, enhancing their health, intellect and wellbeing. Trees, vegetation, soil, water and wildlife have great individual value and interdependent attributes, and must be cared for as a whole. Palo Alto City leaders, city staff, residents, property owners, business owners and partner organizations are caretakers of the Urban Forest. The caretakers collaborate to protect, create, restore and enhance environmental and ecological functions and biodiversity of the Urban Forest. Careful planning insures that the forest thrives and is contiguous, complex, and resilient in the face of continued urbanization and climate change. Vision (adopted) Palo Alto’s urban forest will be a model of form and function— a complement of diverse yet symbiotic ecotypes that will mirror the city’s vibrant and thriving population and provide a tangible connection to nature. Trees, vegetation, soil, air, water, and wildlife will be valued for their individual and interdependent attributes— and cared for as a whole. Natural processes will be undisturbed, supplemented, emulated, or mitigated as appropriate. Both tangible and intangible benefits of green infrastructure will be valued and stewardship will reflect collaboration by city leaders, city staff, residents, property owners, business owners, and partners. Careful management that prioritizes efficiency and innovation and takes advantage of technological advances will ensure the continuance of these benefits and advances. Opportunities presented by new development will be optimized and negative impacts of new development will be minimized. Draft Attachment C to Staff Report for 5‐9‐16 Council  Study Session  Growing the Tree Canopy in South Palo Alto ‐ Community  Survey results    The adopted version of the Urban Forest Master Plan’s Goals, Policies and Programs includes a  Year‐One program to investigate reasons for lower canopy in south Palo Alto (Program 6.D.i.)   Work on this program was started in late 2015 and so far includes a) further analysis of the  canopy cover study conducted in 2011; b) outreach to south Palo Alto residents and community  leaders through interviews and a community‐wide survey; c) inspection and assessment of  vacant tree sites;  d) research of canopy growth programs successfully implemented in various  American cities; e) identify opportunities to reverse the canopy disparity.   This report summarizes results of the community survey and potential opportunities that arose  from the survey. The quotes inserted below are excerpted from the survey responses.  The tree canopy disparity between north and south Palo Alto doubled over the last three  decades as a result of an increase in the north and a decrease in some south Palo Alto  neighborhoods, mostly associated with redevelopment.     “I see a large difference in tree coverage between north and south Palo Alto.                            Additional residential street trees will be more than welcome. [...] Along El Camino Real, one                              can clearly see the disparity between north and south. South of Stanford Ave / Page Mill                                Road, the tree cover drops dramatically. It leaves an ugly stretch of road, with no shade for                                 pedestrians from the neighborhoods. I look forward to seeing this improved.”   ‐ Barron Park resident, 11/23/2015     Community feedback confirmed that this is an important issue for residents, and our recent  survey revealed south Palo Alto residents’ overwhelming willingness to grow the tree canopy in  their neighborhoods.   1    A. South Palo Alto Tree Canopy Community Survey    We conducted the South Palo Alto Tree Canopy Community Survey from November 20, 2015 to  December 21, 2015. The purpose of the survey was to collect south Palo Alto individual  residents’ opinions about street and yard trees. The goals were to gather quantitative and  qualitative data about South Palo Alto residents’ preferences and to open channels of  communication for future community input. The quantity and quality of responses surpassed  expectations and are informing our upcoming recommendations.    Close to 500 residents responded, 92% of which were south Palo Alto residents. The greatest  percentage of responses came from Barron Park, Midtown, Palo Verde, Greenmeadow, and  Green Acres. The majority of respondents were single family residence homeowners, who  revealed their desire for more trees.    More than ​95%​ ​of respondents strongly agree or agree that ​there should be more trees in  south Palo Alto.      “On my street years ago, the city planted Shamel Ashes which were a huge tree                              uprooting everything and tangling the utility wires. The city has removed them, one by one.                              If the city offered my street/neighborhood to replant city trees, I think the neighbors would                             love it. We need the correct tree for a neighborhood street.”  ‐ Adobe Meadow resident, 11/22/2015    2      93%​ ​of respondents strongly agree or agree that the ​City/Canopy should launch a campaign  to plant more trees and engage the community.      “In the past I have worked with Canopy to plant more trees on our street and would                                  be willing to do it again. I live on Matadero Ave. I'd like to see both Canopy and the City work                                          together for better street tree pruning. I have had both good and bad luck in the past with                                    pruning of City owned trees.”    ‐ Barron Park resident, 11/21/2015        When asked to identify issues that could prevent tree planting on their property, almost ​50%  of respondents indicated that they have ​no objections to planting more trees​.      “Can the city recommend drought tolerant trees? I would be happy to plant one of                              those.”   ‐ Palo Verde resident, 11/30/2015    3      Almost ​70%​ ​of respondents indicated that they would ​“very likely” ​water and take care of a  new street or yard tree if one was provided.      “In addition to adding beauty to our surroundings, trees are vitally important to air                           quality, they provide shade for our homes, resulting in energy savings, and they provide                            homes for local wildlife. They are well worth any additional water requirements.”   ‐ Barron Park resident, 11/21/2015        B. Opportunities arising from survey results  Our final report will propose canopy cover goals for each south Palo Alto neighborhood and  strategies to achieve these goals.    The community survey brought to light opportunities  to increase the overall tree canopy cover  in south Palo Alto through 1) A campaign to plant more trees and 2) Measures to prevent  canopy loss in south Palo Alto.  4  1. Create a campaign to plant more trees in south Palo Alto  We will provide estimates of how many trees need to be planted, and on what time frame, in  order to reach our canopy goals.  Staff has been inspecting vacant street tree sites in south Palo Alto and has found that, while  infrastructure has rendered some sites obsolete, available vacant sites and potential new sites  should enable an increase to the number of street trees. However, street trees account for only  a small portion of the overall canopy and achieving a significant increase in canopy will rely on  new trees being planted on private property.     The City, residents, non‐governmental organizations, and private businesses all have a part to  play to grow the tree canopy in south Palo Alto. Therefore this approach includes the three  following components:  a. Take advantage of opportunities in public right‐of‐way    Inter‐departmental collaboration is needed to prioritise tree canopy expansion in south Palo  Alto.     For instance, enlisting the help of the Community Services department and Friends of the Palo  Alto Parks will result in a heightened awareness of tree planting opportunities in parks and at  community centers.      As the Public Works department implements the Urban Forest Master Plan’s goal of bringing  the stocking of street tree planting sites to 98%, it will prioritize among the more than 2,000  available sites, those in south Palo Alto.     Capital Improvement Projects also have an important role to play in the early design stages  when trees should be incorporated. In particular, CIPs incorporating “complete street”  principles offer invaluable opportunities to enhance the streetscape by specifying larger  planting strips and appropriate tree species.    b. In partnership with Canopy, engage the south Palo Alto community in the campaign to  plant more trees.  We are evaluating strategies, programs, and incentives deployed successfully in other cities in  the United States. Opportunities to plant more trees include:     ‐Encourage and/or incentivise residents to plan for large shade trees in the initial stages  of property redevelopment or landscape remodel. Reach out to architects,  landscape  architects, and consulting arborists to enlist their support.    5    “I notice new construction‐‐both commercial and residential‐‐ lacks trees. Partly this                     is due to "build to property line" design guideline: so the setbacks that provided visual relief                                are gone. No room for trees. This is one of the factors that has indelibly changed South Palo                                    Alto: it needs to change back if we want to reverse the trend toward concrete everything.                                Please focus on that. Thanks.”   ‐ Barron Park resident, 11/22/2015    ‐Engage neighborhood associations to bring neighbors together and empower them to  re‐tree the public‐right‐of‐way and their private yards through neighborhood tree  planting and maintenance events. Provide workshops on how to care for young trees  during the pivotal first three years after planting.     ‐Through cutting edge technology such as Open Tree Map, a) increase education and  awareness; b) allow residents to take an active role in monitoring their young trees and  report on the health and success of their new trees using social media; and c) garner  potential sponsors.      “I strongly advocate finding and planting native trees as street trees in Palo Alto. We                              are falling behind on our neighboring cities in this front whereas we have been leaders in                               alternate energy and plastic bag bans. It is not sufficient to just have more green cover, it                                  needs to be of higher quality to support the entire ecosystem. Canopy and the city of Palo                                  Alto can and should work with organizations such as CNPS (California Native Plant Society)                           and Acterra to identify and use appropriate native trees.”  ‐ Midtown resident, 11/27/2015        ‐Position this effort in the context of enhancing the resilience of the  landscape/ecosystem as a whole, and meshing it with efforts to re‐oak Palo Alto, will  further motivate Palo Alto residents who are increasingly interested in the interaction  between the urban and natural environment.    6  ‐Increase understanding of the state of the urban forest and opinions of property owners  within specific boundaries through data analysis and then target planting or tree care  solutions that are most likely to be successful.  c. Engage south Palo Alto businesses, Palo Alto Unified School District and the faith  community      “It would be wonderful for churches to have help in identifying possible tree                          locations, acquiring trees and assistance in digging the holes for planting the trees. It is                              important to increase the canopy cover in south Palo Alto to provide songbird habitat, shade,                              and CO2 emissions absorption. Church sites are ideal candidates for this.”   ‐ Barron Park resident, 11/30/2015    ‐Partner with businesses, schools and churches to ensure that trees be prioritized. These  property owners own and maintain a significant share of landscapes in south Palo Alto  and have a lot to gain from a greater tree canopy.    ‐Enforce the parking lot 50% shading ordinance to help achieve tree canopy goals.    2. Prevent tree canopy loss      “Very concerned by the recent PG&E plans to remove trees in the South of Palo Alto                                area. South of Palo Alto has been increasingly impacted by traffic and commercial                        development without a strategic and commensurate plan regarding its tree planting and                       green environment and infrastructure. Together with the planting, there must also be a                        corresponding maintenance plan and sound guidelines (agreed and supported by the                     community) for their care and removal: utilities, water consumption, pruning, root                     growth/sidewalk maintenance, etc.”  ‐ Saint Claire Gardens resident, 12/02/2015      Many of the Urban Forest Master Plan programs address forest management strategies that  will directly affect south Palo Alto. Emphasis should be placed on efforts that minimize tree  7  removals and maximize appropriate tree maintenance. Preventing tree canopy loss can best be  accomplished by employing the following three measures:  a. Examine challenges in public tree maintenance contracts    ‐Public Tree Pruning and Removal and Line Clearing Contracts  require inspection reports  that are verified by City staff. Best Management Practices and American National  Standards Institute (ANSI) sections are cited to represent the industry criteria for  performing tree care operations, ensure quality control, and justify decisions to  residents.     ‐Continued interdepartmental collaboration will further efforts to communicate tree  removal and maintenance to residents in a timely and effective manner while  maintaining contract objectives. Constraints in time and funding, and advanced  challenges such as integration of above and below ground fiber optics will be reviewed  in detail to ensure south Palo Alto’s public trees are prioritized.     b. Enhance communication    ‐Make the City’s Urban Forestry code and requirements more accessible and  understandable to the public through community meetings, workshops, and online  resources. Make the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Tree Ordinance, and development  impacts on trees readily available to residents and developers and landscape  professionals.     “I've lived in South Palo Alto over 55 years and am still unclear about what makes a                                  tree a "street tree" ‐ distance from the (rolled) curb? who planted it and when? what kind of                                    tree it is? I would like to see more clarity and information available about this ‐ who is                                    responsible for planting, trimming, checking? what kinds are appropriate and/or available? I                        would also like to see something on the City website that identifies the common street trees                                around Palo Alto. A picture and description with names and characteristics would be helpful                           when trying to decide on a tree or in discussions about them. I appreciate the City's work on                                    this. Thank you.”   ‐ South of Midtown resident, 11/23/2015    ‐Establish a new standard for communicating with the public to allow residents to report  public tree‐related concerns to staff easily. Provide timely and effective follow‐up.  Increase communication to residents about scheduled activities in the right‐of‐way, such  as tree planting, pruning, and removals.     8  “As a long‐time homeowner‐45+ years‐ I feel that there needs to be more specific                           communication. When does the City prune existing trees? How can Homeowners work with                         the city to care for their trees? Recommendations from the City to care for City Trees.                               Recommendation for trees that would grow well in my area. Assurance that trees planted                            are non‐invasive and less likely to affect sewers and foundation.”   ‐ South of Midtown resident, 11/23/2015  c. Emphasize urban forest management in City long‐range planning documents   ‐Incorporate the role of the urban forest in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the  Sustainability and Climate Action Plan and how urban trees help achieve these plans’  goals. Dedication of resources to south Palo Alto’s trees should be recognized in these  documents, addressing the need for long‐term tree planting and maintenance.       9