los altos city council jan 24, 2012 complete packet of agenda

City Council Minutes January 10, 2012

of 4

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF LOS ALTOS, HELD ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2012, BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. AT LOS ALTOS CITY HALL, ONE NORTH SAN ANTONIO ROAD, LOS ALTOS,

CALIFORNIA

ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mayor Carpenter, Councilmembers Casas, Fishpaw, Packard and Satterlee ABSENT: None

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Mayor Carpenter led the pledge of allegiance to the flag.

CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT

Mayor Carpenter reported that no action was taken in the closed session meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

There were no public comments.

CONSENT CALENDAR Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Casas, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Fishpaw, the Council unanimously approved the Consent Calendar:

1. Council Minutes Approved the minutes of the December 13, 2011 regular meeting.

2. Santa Clara County City Manager’s Association Compensation Recommended Best Practices Endorsed the Santa Clara County City Manager’s Association Compensation Recommended Best Practices Report.

3. Amendment to the List of 2012 City Council Assignments Appointed Councilmember Packard as the City’s Representative to the Santa Clara County Cities Association Legislative Action Committee and Mayor Carpenter as the Alternate.

4. Annual Sewer Video, Project 12-05 Awarded a contract for the Annual Sewer Video, Project 12-05 to Presidio Systems, Inc. in the amount of $144,337 and authorized the City Manager to execute a contract on behalf of the City.


of 4

5. City Council Norms and Procedures Adopted the amended City Council Norms and Procedures.

6. Ordinance Amending Section 2.04.010 – Meetings Introduced and waived further reading of Ordinance No. 2012-376 amending Section 2.04.010 of the Los Altos Municipal Code as it relates to Council meetings.

7. 2012 Council Meeting Schedule Adopted Resolution No. 2012-01 approving the 2012 Council Meeting Schedule.

PUBLIC HEARING

8. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Senior Planner Dahl presented the report. Mayor Carpenter opened the Public Hearing. Public Comment: Los Altos resident Jim Wing spoke in favor of the amendments and encouraged Council to increase the minimum driveway length in Section 4 of the Ordinance from 18 feet to 20 feet. Mayor Carpenter closed the Public Hearing. Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Satterlee, seconded by Councilmember Casas, the Council unanimously introduced, as amended, and waived further reading of Ordinance No. 2012-375 amending various chapters of Title 14 of the Los Altos Municipal Code as it pertains to zoning (the Council changed the minimum driveway length in Sections 4 and 5 from 18 to 20 feet).

DISCUSSION

9. Planning Commission, Traffic Commission, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Meeting

Councilmember Packard presented the report. Public Comments: Los Altos resident Jeannie Bruins spoke in favor of continuing to talk with commissioners about a proposed Planning and Transportation Commission and encouraged Council to table all other recommendations. Suzanne Ambiel, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Chair, requested additional clarification regarding the recommendations.


of 4

Mayor Pro Tem Fishpaw disclosed ex parte communication with Jeannie Bruins. Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Packard, seconded by Councilmember Casas, the Council unanimously directed staff to take steps to eliminate the Board of Adjustments and modify the Architectural and Site Review Committee to solely review two-story, single-family homes and one-story, single-family homes as referred by staff, and directed the ad hoc subcommittee to continue meeting with commissioners and report to Council accordingly.

10. Traffic/Parking at Main Library City Manager Schmitz introduced the item and City Architect Bosman presented the proposed changes to the parking and driveway along the entryway to the main library. Public Comments: Los Altos Libraries Community Librarian Jane Cronkhite and Library Commissioners Darwin Poulos and Judie Suelzle spoke in favor of the proposed changes to the parking lot configuration. BPAC Chair Suzanne Ambiel asked that the proposed changes be referred to the BPAC. Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Packard, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Fishpaw, the Council unanimously approved the design in principal and directed the BPAC to review and report back on January 24, 2012, as part of the mid-year CIP adjustment.

11. Baseline Trash Load and Short-Term Trash Load Reduction Plan Engineering Services Manager Gustafson and Senior Engineer Lind presented the report. Councilmember Packard stepped down from the dais and left the meeting to attend to his wife in the hospital. Public Comments: Environmental Commissioners Chris Keller and John Reed, and Maddy McBirney, representing GreenTown Los Altos, spoke in favor of the plan and encouraged Council to advance the date of banning polystyrene. Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Satterlee, seconded by Councilmember Casas, the Council directed staff to prepare the Short-Term Trash Load Reduction Plan by a 4-0 vote.

COUNCIL REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

Council Reports: Councilmember Casas reported he will be attending the Silicon Valley Joint Venture annual dinner on February 9, 2012 and the Los Altos Library Volunteer Recognition event on January 11, 2012.


of 4

Mayor Pro Tem Fishpaw reported he will be attending the Los Altos Town Crier “Los Altan of the Year Award” dinner on January 20, 2012. He also reported he participated in the City of Los Altos Fun Run on January 1, 2012. Mayor Carpenter shared that she was the starter for the City of Los Altos Fun Run on January 1, 2012 and reported on her attendance at the January 5, 2012 meetings of the 60th Anniversary of Incorporation Planning Committee and the Community Center Outreach Task Force. She mentioned that she will attend the January 12, 2012 meeting of the Santa Clara County Cities Association and noted that there is a position open on the Recycling, Waste and Reduction Commission. She also announced that she will attend the Los Altos Library Volunteer Recognition event on January 11, 2012, the Community Center Outreach Task Force meeting on January 17, 2012 and the Los Altos Town Crier “Los Altan of the Year Award” dinner on January 20, 2012. Staff Announcements: Police Chief Younis reported that parking enforcement in the downtown will resume as normal on January 11, 2012. Deputy City Clerk Maginot announced that the City is accepting applications to serve on Commissions and Committees and the deadline to apply is January 27, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. Future Agenda Items: At the request of Councilmember Satterlee, the Council requested a report from existing Council ad hoc committees on the expected outcomes of the committees consistent with the Council Norms and Procedures.

ADJOURNMENT Mayor Carpenter adjourned the meeting at 8:47 p.m. in celebration of the City’s 60th year of incorporation.

Valorie Cook Carpenter, MAYOR Jon Maginot, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

A G E N D A R E P O R T MEETING DATE: January 24, 2011 TO: City Council FROM: Valorie Cook Carpenter, Mayor SUBJECT: Cities Association of Santa Clara County Press Releases RECOMMENDATION: Accept the informational items. SUMMARY:

Estimated Fiscal Impact:

Amount: N/A

Budgeted: N/A

Public Hearing Notice: N/A

Previous Council Consideration: N/A

CEQA Status: N/A Attachments:

1. Priorities for Regional Collaboration in 2012 Press Release dated January 13, 2012 2. Ban of Expanded Polystyrene Food Ware Press Release dated January 13, 2012 Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager Date

Date Subject Title Page 2 BACKGROUND: Text here. DISCUSSION: Text here. FISCAL IMPACT: Text here. ALTERNATIVES: Text here.

CITIES ASSOCIATION OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY IDENTIFIES PRIORITIES FOR REGIONAL COLLABORATION IN 2012

After significant deliberation, the mayors and councilmembers of the Cities Association of Santa Clara County adopted their 2012 set of regional priorities at their January meeting. The workplan in 2012 will focus primarily in three areas, focused on regional economic development, drafting a regional policy for integrating transportation and land use decisions, and supporting innovative schools.

Regarding the first priority, Cities Association President and San Jose City Councilmember Sam Liccardo observed that, “Although each of our cities engage in economic development, including company attraction and retention efforts, no coordinated strategy has emerged for promoting Silicon Valley as a region to the rest of the country and the world.” This effort represents a desire to overcome the potentially destructive impacts of conflicting ambitions among the individual cities and towns, to promote Santa Clara County in a manner that other regions, such as the Research Triangle and Massachusetts’ 128 high-technology corridor, have succeeded in presenting a unified strategy for their economic development. “Other regions in this country and world are working together,“ noted Liccardo, “and for too long, Silicon Valley has ‘gotten by’ by resting on the laurels of its extraordinary companies, but the stakes are rising as we see competition not just from the Research Triangle, but from the Yangtze River Delta or Guangdong. We need to collaborate to better compete.”

With the proposed adoption of a Sustainable Communities Strategy in Santa Clara County, substantial debate will emerge about the role of land use planning and its connection to regional transportation funding. Since the decision-making authority over land use and housing lies within each of the individual 15 cities and towns of Santa Clara County, the Cities Association will engage in the discussion with the Valley Transportation Authority, the Association of Bay Area Governments, and other regional

January 13, 2012 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Media Contacts: Raania Mohsen, Cities Association of Santa Clara County (408) 730-7770 [email protected] Ragan Henningar, Office of Council Member Sam Liccardo (408) 535-4903 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


agencies to ensure that an equitable and effective policy emerges for coordinating the development of transportation infrastructure, housing, and jobs.

Finally, charter schools and other innovative educational models often struggle with conflicting land-use regulations between cities and the State of California, and cities can do much to facilitate the development of innovative schools within their boundaries. Recognizing the regional impact of promoting high-achievement public schools, the Cities Association will draft a proposal for cities to consider to enable charter schools and other innovative models to scale to a wider impact throughout the South Bay.

About the Cities Association of Santa Clara County

The Cities Association of Santa Clara County is a regional organization founded in 1990, representing the mutual interests of the County’s fifteen cities and towns with a unified voice to government, industry, and the public, and promoting collaboration among the diverse communities to promote the quality of life for all of Santa Clara County’s residents. The Board of Directors of the Cities Association consists of the mayors of each of the 15 cities and towns, or of their designee councilmembers. Their monthly meetings are open to the public, and the next scheduled meeting will be held on Thursday, February 9th, at 7:00 pm at Sunnyvale City Hall. More information about their meetings, initiatives, and schedules can be found at http://citiesassociation.org/.

http://citiesassociation.org/

CITIES ASSOCIATION OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY APPROVES BAN OF EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE FOOD WARE

Last night, by a vote of 10-0 with one abstention, the Cities Association of Santa Clara County adopted the recommendations of the County's Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission (RWRC) to move toward a regional ban of expanded polysterene (EPS) food ware, including such items as Styrofoam cups and "clam-shell" take-out food containers.

The South Bay mayors and the mayoral designees from each of Santa Clara County’s cities and towns opted to immediately encourage the councils of its 15 member jurisdictions to adopt policies prohibiting EPS food containers in all city facilities and events, and to launch public education efforts about the hazards of EPS to the creeks, bay, and marine life. Cities will subsequently consider adopting ordinance banning EPS food and beverage containers at all businesses selling food within their jurisdictions.

San Jose Councilmember Sam Liccardo, the President of the Cities Association, observed that “by moving forward together on this issue, our region’s cities can reduce the amount of polluting EPS in our creeks and bay, and demonstrate to Sacramento and Washington that they should again follow Silicon Valley’s lead in promoting environmental sustainability.” Cities Association Executive Director Raania Mohsen observed that “it is a positive milestone that representatives of our cities recognize the need to work and collaborate as a region on the ban of environmental products to promote a common vision for cities to adopt and to avoid economic disadvantages that can result when cities are compared to neighboring cities who have not adopted the ban.”

The Cities Association adopted a proposal formulated by the RWRC, a regional body also comprised of elected officials from throughout the County, chaired by Santa Clara County Councilmember Jaime McLeod. McLeod, who presented their proposal

January 13, 2012 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Media Contacts: Raania Mohsen, Cities Association of Santa Clara County (408) 730-7770 [email protected] Ragan Henningar, Office of Council Member Sam Liccardo (408) 535-4903 [email protected]



before the board, observed that, “by using a regional approach and focusing on EPS food ware, we can target the type of polystyrene that is resulting in hidden costs to our cities and direct costs to our environment.”

Save the Bay, a non-profit organization that has advocated for Bay Area jurisdictions to join the 50 other California cities and counties that have already banned polystyrene food containers, presented in front of the Cities Association board, as did a representative from polystyrene manufacturer Dart Corporation. Allison Chan at Save the Bay told the Cities Association board about consistent reports from recycling companies statewide that no financially feasible way of recycling food-contaminated polystyrene exists, because purchasers of recycled polystyrene insist that they can only reuse “clean” material. As a result, the toxic material ends up in the landfill at best, and at worst, as a poisonous enticement to marine life in Bay Area waterways. More information about their Clean Bay campaign can be found at www.savesfbay.org/clean-bay-project.

About the Cities Association of Santa Clara County

The Cities Association of Santa Clara County is a regional organization founded in 1990, representing the mutual interests of the County’s fifteen cities and towns with a unified voice to government, industry, and the public, and promoting collaboration among the diverse communities to promote the quality of life for all of Santa Clara County’s residents. The Board of Directors of the Cities Association consists of the mayors of each of the 15 cities and towns, or of their designee councilmembers. Their monthly meetings are open to the public, and the next scheduled meeting will be held on Thursday, February 9th, at 7:00 pm at Sunnyvale City Hall. More information about their meetings, initiatives, and schedules can be found at http://www.citiesassociation.org/.

http://www.savesfbay.org/clean-bay-project

http://www.citiesassociation.org/

A G E N D A R E P O R T MEETING DATE: January 24, 2012 TO: City Council FROM: Zachary Dahl, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendments RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Ordinance No. 2012-375 amending various chapters of Title 14 of the Los Altos Municipal Code as it pertains to zoning. SUMMARY:


Amount: Not Applicable

Budgeted: Not Applicable

Public Hearing Notice: December 21, 2011

Previous Council Consideration: January 10, 2012

CEQA Status: Exempt

Attachments:

Ordinance No. 2012-375 James Walgren, Assistant City Manager Date Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager Date

January 24, 2012 Zoning Ordinance Amendments Page 2 BACKGROUND: At the January 10, 2012 City Council meeting, Council introduced an ordinance amending various chapters of Title 14 of the Los Altos Municipal Code. This is the second reading and adoption of this ordinance amendment. The new ordinance will go into effect on the thirty-first day following its adoption. DISCUSSION: As modified by the Council at the January 10, 2012 meeting, the required setback for garages facing an exterior side property line is now 20 feet. Sections 4 and 5 of Ordinance No. 2012-375 have been updated to reflect this modification. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council may modify the proposed ordinance and reintroduce it, or reject the proposed ordinance.

Ordinance No. 2012-375 Page 1

ORDINANCE NO. 2012-375

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS AMENDING CHAPTERS 14.02, 14.04, 14.06, 14.08, 14.10, 14.12,

14.22, 14.48, 14.66 AND 14.74 OF THE LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL CODE

WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos initiated an application (11-CA-03) to amend Title 14 of the Los Altos Municipal Code pertaining to updating definitions for cul-de-sac, gross floor area, porte cochere and residential care homes, removing old district references, clarifying accessory structure setbacks in single-family districts, requiring a minimum setback for garages on narrow corner lots, restricting daycare uses on the ground floor of buildings on First Street in the CRS District, requiring a minimum clearance in side yards, requiring visitor parking for multiple-family development and defining net square footage for the purpose of parking requirements, referred herein as the “CA”; and

WHEREAS, said CA has been reviewed and considered by the City Council in accordance

with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended, and the guidelines promulgated thereunder, and Council finds that it can be seen with certainty that there are no significant environmental impacts on the environment resulting from these amendments and said amendments are therefore exempt from the requirements of the CEQA; and

WHEREAS, required public notices and public hearings were duly given and duly held

according to law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the CA on

November 17, 2011 and the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the CA on January 10, 2012; and

WHEREAS, the CA was processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the Los Altos Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon the City Council’s decision is based in the Office of the City Clerk.

NOW THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Portions of Section 14.02.070 of Chapter 14.02 of the Los Altos Municipal Code entitled “Definitions” are hereby amended as follows:

“Cul-de-sac” means any street having but one outlet for vehicular traffic. “Gross floor area” means the total floor space under roof of all floors of a building measured to the outside surfaces of exterior walls, including halls, stairways, elevator shafts, ducts, service and mechanical equipment rooms, interior courts, garages, and enclosed accessory structures, and carports. In the case of a sloped ceiling or ground surface, the floor area shall be measured to the point at which the interior height is five feet.


“Gross floor area” does not include: porches, verandas, balconies, alcoves, or other similar elements, which are open on at least one side; basements or attic areas; unenclosed accessory structures; exterior roof overhangs or chimney projections; porte cocheres; interior heights less than five feet; or structures under six feet in height. “Porte cochere” means a roofed structure covering a driveway that is not designed for the storage of automobiles. “Residential care home for aged persons” means a structure in which nonmedical services are provided for persons sixty-two (62) (60) years of age and over in accordance with standards set forth by the Social Welfare Department of the state. California Health and Safety Code Section 1569.2.

SECTION 2. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Section 14.04.010 of Chapter 14.04 of the

Los Altos Municipal Code entitled “Districts” is hereby amended as follows: Districts. The districts established by this chapter shall be designated as follows: A. Single-Family District (R1-10); B. Single-Family District (R1-H); C. Single-Family District (R1-20); D. Single-Family District (R1-40); E. Single-Story Single-Family Overlay District (R1-S); F. Multiple-Family District (R3-4.5); G. Multiple-Family District (R3-5); H. Multiple-Family District (R3-3); I. Multiple-Family District (R3.1.8); J. Multiple-Family District (R3-1); K. Office-Administrative District (OAD); K. Office-Administrative District (OA); L. Office-Administrative District (OA-1 and OA-4.5); M. Office Multiple District (OAD/R3-1); Commercial Downtown/Multiple-Family District

(CD/R3); N. Commercial Neighborhood District (CN); P. Commercial District (CN-T); O. Commercial Downtown District (CD); P. Commercial Retail Sales District (CRS); Q. Commercial Thoroughfare District (CT); T. Affordable Housing/Mixed-Use Overlay District Regulations (AH/MV); R. Commercial Retail Sales/Office District (CRS/OAD); S. Public and Community Facilities District (PCF); T. Public and Community Facilities/Single-Family District (PCF/R1-10); U. Planned Community (PC); V. Loyola Corners Specific Plan Overlay District (LCSPZ); and W. Planned Unit Development (PUD). W. Planned Unit Development/Senior Citizen Housing. The city is divided into districts in which certain uses are permitted. The districts are as shown on the zoning map of the city which is incorporated in this chapter by reference.


SECTION 3. AMENDMENT OF CODE: A portion of Section 14.06.120 of Chapter 14.06, Section 14.08.120 of Chapter 14.08, Section 14.10.120 of Chapter 14.10 and Section 14.12.120 of Chapter 14.12 of the Los Altos Municipal Code entitled “Accessory structures, outdoor barbeques and swimming pools” is hereby amended as follows:

B. Accessory structures that are more than six feet in height may be located in the required

rear yard setback area or in the main structure's building envelope, subject to the following provisions:

1. Accessory structures shall have a minimum setback of two and one-half feet from the side and rear property line and a minimum setback from the rear property line as follows:

i. Two and one-half feet when the structure is under eight feet in height; ii. Five feet when the structure is between eight and ten (10) feet in height; iii. Seven and one-half feet when the structure is between ten (10) and twelve (12) feet in

height; and iv. Two and one-half feet when the rear property line abuts an alley. 2. No portion of any accessory structure shall project above a daylight plane, beginning at a

height of six feet at the side property line and increasing at a slope of four feet for each ten (10) feet of distance from the side property line to a distance of ten (10) feet from the side property line.

3. The maximum allowable height for accessory structures shall be twelve (12) feet. as follows:

i. Eight feet in height when located within five feet of a rear property line. ii. Ten (10) feet in height when located within seven and one-half feet of a rear property

line. iii. Twelve (12) feet in height when located a minimum of seven and one-half feet from a

rear property line, or two and one-half feet from a rear property line that abuts an alley. SECTION 4. AMENDMENT OF CODE: A portion of Section 14.06.080 of Chapter

14.06 of the Los Altos Municipal Code entitled “Setbacks (R1-10)” is hereby amended as follows: E. On a lot less than eighty (80) feet in width, or in the case of a corner lot less than ninety

(90) feet in width (hereinafter referred to as "narrow" lots), the minimum width of side yards shall be as follows:

1. On a narrow corner lot, the minimum width of the side yard adjoining the street shall be twenty (20) percent of the average lot width but in no case less than ten (10) feet, whichever is greater. The minimum interior side yard setback for corner lots greater than eighty (80) feet in width shall be as provided in subsection A of this section. The minimum interior side yard setback for corner lots less than eighty (80) feet in width shall be as provided in subsection (E)(2) of this section. For a garage or carport facing an exterior side yard, the minimum setback to the face of the structure shall be twenty (20) feet.


Los Altos Municipal Code entitled “Side yards (R3-1.8)” is hereby amended as follows: Side yards (R3-1.8). The minimum width of side yards shall be seven and one-half feet, except that on a corner lot, the minimum width of the side yard adjoining the street shall be fifteen (15) feet. Five


feet shall be added to each side yard for each story above the first story or for each ten (10) feet of height, or fraction thereof, above the lowest twelve (12) feet of the height of the structure, whichever is the lesser, except on the secondary setback on a corner lot. When a garage or carport faces a side yard adjoining a street, the minimum setback to the face of the structure shall be twenty (20) feet. Where R3-1.8 District property abuts on R1-10 District property, the minimum side yard shall be twenty-five (25) feet for one-story structures, of which the ten (10) feet abutting the property in the R1-10 District shall have a six-foot solid fence or wall outside a planting screen of evergreen trees or bushes of a variety, height, and spacing as approved by the building and planning department, all of which shall be permanently maintained by the property owner. Such ten (10) foot planting strip shall be used exclusively for landscaping purposes.

SECTION 6. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Portions of Section 14.48.040 of Chapter

14.48 of the Los Altos Municipal Code entitled “Conditional uses and structures (CRS)” are hereby amended as follows:

Conditional uses and structures (CRS). Upon the granting of a use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 14.80 of this title, the following uses shall be permitted in the CRS District, except when they displace a retail business located in a ground floor building space that fronts directly onto First Street, Main Street or State Street: D. Day care centers, except when located in a ground floor building space that fronts

directly onto First Street, Main Street or State Street; SECTION 7. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Section 14.66.190 of Chapter 14.66 of the

Los Altos Municipal Code entitled “Distances between structures” is hereby amended as follows: Distances between structures. Where there is more than one structure on a site, the minimum distance between a main structure and an accessory structure which exceeds six feet in height shall be ten (10) feet; provided, however, if the open spaces surrounding the accessory structure conform with the regulations for the main structure in the district in which they are located, the accessory structure may be located nearer than ten (10) feet from the main structure. No minimum distance shall be required between main structures, between accessory structures, or between a main structure and an accessory structure which does not exceed six feet in height; provided, however, in no case shall there be less than a five-foot wide unobstructed passageway adjacent to a main structure or an accessory structure. For the purposes of this section, the vertical dimension of the structure shall be measured from the elevation of the finished lot grade to the highest point of the structure. SECTION 8. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Section 14.74.020 of Chapter 14.74 of the

Los Altos Municipal Code entitled “R1-10 District requirements” is hereby deleted.

R1-10 District requirements. Not less than one garage or carport, plus one parking space for each single-family residence, plus one parking space for each roomer, shall be required.

http://library.municode.com/HTML/16460/level3/SUHITA_TIT14ZO_CH14.80USPE.html#SUHITA_TIT14ZO_CH14.80USPE


SECTION 9. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Section 14.74.070 of Chapter 14.74 of the Los Altos Municipal Code entitled “R3-1 District requirements” is hereby amended as follows:

R3-1 District requirements. A. There shall be two underground off-street parking spaces for each dwelling unit in a

multiple-family dwelling or apartment house having two rooms or more in addition to the kitchens and bathrooms.

B. There shall be one and one-half underground off-street parking spaces for each dwelling unit in a multiple-family dwelling or apartment house having less than two rooms in addition to the kitchens and bathrooms.

C. Projects with a site area less than thirty thousand (30,000) square feet may provide up to a maximum of one-half of the required parking above-ground. The proposed parking plan shall be subject to the approval of the commission and council.

D. One on-site visitor space shall be required for every four multiple-family residential dwelling units or fraction thereof.


Los Altos Municipal Code entitled “Residential uses in CN, CS, CD, CRS and CT districts” is hereby amended as follows:

Residential uses in CN, CS, CD, CD/R3, CRS/OAD, CRS and CT Districts. For those properties which participated in a public parking district, no parking shall be required for the gross net square footage which does not exceed one hundred (100) percent of the lot area. Parking shall be required as follows for any gross net square footage in excess of one hundred (100) percent of the lot area and for those properties which did not participate in a public parking district: A. There shall be two off-street parking spaces for each dwelling unit in a multiple-family

dwelling or apartment house having two rooms or more in addition to the kitchens and bathrooms.

B. There shall be one and one-half off-street parking spaces for each dwelling unit in a multiple-family dwelling or apartment house having less than two rooms in addition to the kitchens and bathrooms.

C. One on-site visitor space shall be required for every four multiple-family residential dwelling units or fraction thereof. Mixed use projects may substitute non-residential parking spaces for visitor use in-lieu of providing dedicated visitor parking spaces, subject to approval of the commission and council.


Los Altos Municipal Code entitled “Office uses in the OA-1, OA-4.5 and CN district” is hereby deleted.

Office uses in OA-1, OA-4.5 and CN Districts. Parking space requirements shall be not less than one parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of gross square footage. For the purposes of this section, "gross square footage" shall mean the total horizontal area in square feet on each floor, including basements, but not including the area of inner courts or shaft enclosures.


SECTION 12. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Section 14.74.100 of Chapter 14.74 of the Los Altos Municipal Code entitled “Office uses in OAD, OA, CS, CD, CRS and CT districts” is hereby amended as follows:

Office uses in CRS/OAD, OA, CS, CN, CD, CD/R3, CRS and CT Districts. For those properties which participated in a public parking district, no parking shall be required for the gross net square footage which does not exceed one hundred (100) percent of the lot area. Parking shall be required for any gross net square footage in excess of one hundred (100) percent of the lot area and for those properties which did not participate in a public parking district and shall be not less than one parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of gross net floor area. For the purposes of this section, "gross square footage" shall mean the total horizontal area in square feet on each floor, including basements, but not including the area of inner courts or shaft enclosures.

SECTION 13. AMENDMENT OF CODE: A portion of Section 14.74.110 of Chapter

14.74 of the Los Altos Municipal Code entitled “Commercial uses in OAD, OA, CN, CS, CD, CRS and CT districts” is hereby amended as follows:

Commercial uses in CRS/OAD, OA, CN, CS, CD, CD/R3, CRS and CT Districts. For those properties which participated in a public parking district, no parking shall be required for the gross net square footage which does not exceed one hundred (100) percent of the lot area. Parking shall be required as follows for any gross net square footage in excess of one hundred (100) percent of the lot area and for those properties which did not participate in a public parking district. For the purposes of this section, "gross square footage" shall mean the total horizontal area in square feet on each floor, including basements, but not including the area of inner courts or shaft enclosures. A. For intensive retail uses and personal services, not less than one parking space for each

two hundred (200) square feet of gross net floor area; B. For extensive retail uses, not less than one parking space for each five hundred (500)

square feet of gross net floor area; SECTION 14. AMENDMENT OF CODE: A subsection of Section 14.74.200 of

Chapter 14.74 of the Los Altos Municipal Code entitled “Development standards for off-street parking and truck loading spaces” is hereby amended as follows:

Q. For the purposes of this section, “net square footage” shall mean the total horizontal area in square feet on each floor, including basements, but not including the area of inner courts or shaft enclosures.

SECTION 15. FINDINGS. The City Council finds in accordance with Chapter 14.86 of

the Los Altos Municipal Code that the amendment is in the best interest of the City for the protection and/or promotion of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity and welfare; and that the amendment is in conformance with the City of Los Altos General Plan.

SECTION 16. CONSTITUTIONALITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or

phrase of this code is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this code.


SECTION 17. PUBLICATION. This ordinance shall be published as provided in Government Code section 36933.

SECTION 18. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be effective upon the

commencement of the thirty-first day following the adoption date. The foregoing ordinance was duly and regularly introduced at a meeting of the City Council

of the City of Los Altos on January 10, 2012 and was thereafter, at a regular meeting held on January 24, 2012 passed and adopted by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:

_____________________________

Valorie Cook Carpenter, MAYOR Attest: _______________________ Lee Price, MMC, CITY CLERK

A G E N D A R E P O R T MEETING DATE: January 24, 2012 TO: City Council FROM: Lee Price, City Clerk SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending Section 2.04.010 – Meetings RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Ordinance No. 2012-376 amending Section 2.04.010 of the Los Altos Municipal Code as it relates to Council meetings. SUMMARY:

Estimated Fiscal Impact: N/A

Amount: None

Budgeted: N/A


Previous Council Consideration: December 13, 2011, January 10, 2012

CEQA Status: None Attachments:

1. Ordinance No. 2012-376 Lee Price, City Clerk Date Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager Date

January 24, 2012 Ordinance Amending Section 2.04.010 – Meetings Page 2 BACKGROUND: On January 10, 2012, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 2012-376 modifying Section 2.04.010 of the Municipal Code as it relates to establishing other dates, times and locations for Council meetings. The attached ordinance amends Section 2.04.010 to read, as follows: “2.04.010 – Meetings.

The council shall hold its regular meetings in the community meeting chambers located at One North San Antonio Road, Los Altos, California on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. A special meeting of the City Council may be called at any time by the Mayor, or by a majority of the members of the City Council, in accordance with State law. Any meeting of the City Council may be cancelled in advance by majority vote of the Council. The Mayor may cancel a meeting in the case of an emergency or when a majority of members have confirmed in writing their unavailability to attend a meeting.” (Emphasis added)

The amendments eliminate the requirement to adopt a resolution every year establishing the Council meeting schedule and add standard language consistent with the Ralph M. Brown Act providing for the call and cancellation of meetings. This modification provides the Council with the flexibility to add meeting dates, other than regular meetings (special meetings or study sessions), as well as cancel meetings, if necessary, without the unnecessary requirement to return to Council for formal approval by resolution. It also assures the public that meetings will be called and noticed pursuant to State law. DISCUSSION: This is the second reading and adoption of this ordinance amendment. The new ordinance will go into effect on the thirty-first day following its adoption. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ALTERNATIVES: Take no action to adopt the ordinance. Taking no action to amend the Code in this matter causes an additional requirement for formal Council action whenever the meeting schedule is proposed to be changed.

Ordinance No. 2012-376 1


AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS AMENDING SECTION 2.04.010 OF THE LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL CODE AS IT RELATES TO COUNCIL MEETINGS

WHEREAS, at the first regular meeting in January of each year, the City Council typically

approves the schedule of meetings for the calendar year, which in addition to the regular meeting schedule may include the cancellation of regular meetings and the addition of special meetings and study sessions; and

WHEREAS, there currently exists a conflict between the Municipal Code and the Council

Norms and Procedures as it relates to establishing the Council Meeting Schedule; and WHEREAS, on December 13, 2011, the City Council provided direction to Staff to return to

the City Council with an ordinance for consideration amending the Municipal Code to remedy the conflict; and

WHEREAS, this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section

15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Chapter 2.04 is hereby amended to revise Section 2.04.010, to read as follows:

“2.04.010 – Meetings.

The council shall hold its regular meetings in the community meeting chambers located at One North San Antonio Road, Los Altos, California on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. A special meeting of the City Council may be called at any time by the Mayor, or by a majority of the members of the City Council, in accordance with State law. Any meeting of the City Council may be cancelled in advance by majority vote of the Council. The Mayor may cancel a meeting in the case of an emergency or when a majority of members have confirmed in writing their unavailability to attend a meeting.”

SECTION 2. CONSTITUTIONALITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or

phrase of this code is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this code.


SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be effective upon the commencement of the thirty-first day following the adoption date.


The foregoing ordinance was duly and properly introduced at a regular meeting of the City

Council of the City of Los Altos held on January 10, 2012 and was thereafter, at a regular meeting held on January 24, 2012 passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:

___________________________ Valorie Cook Carpenter, MAYOR

Attest: _______________________ Lee Price, MMC, CITY CLERK

A G E N D A R E P O R T MEETING DATE: January 24, 2012 TO: City Council FROM: Zachary Dahl, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Climate Action Plan Grant Application Authorization RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 2012-02 authorizing the City Manager to prepare and submit a grant application to provide funding for the preparation of the Los Altos Climate Action Plan. SUMMARY:


Amount: Not determined at this time

Budgeted: $75,000 currently in Capital Improvement Program

Public Hearing Notice: Not Applicable

Previous Council Consideration: June 28, 2011 and November 8, 2011

CEQA Status: Not Applicable

Attachments:

Resolution No. 2012-02 Russell Morreale, Finance Director Date James Walgren, Assistant City Manager Date Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager Date

January 24, 2012 Climate Action Plan Grant Application Authorization Page 2 BACKGROUND: State Assembly Bill 32 requires public agencies in California to implement measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to year 1990 levels by 2020. While the great majority of this responsibility restsresponsibility rests with the State and regional air quality boards, cities also need to have a plan in place that addresses carbon emissions when planning for programs and facilities and when issuing permits. This Climate Action Plan is intended to provide a framework to achieve those goals. The City Council approved a capital project for FY2011-2012 to prepare a Climate Action Plan. The plan will address AB 32 and incorporate the goals and policies of the recently completed Municipal Greenhouse Gas Inventory study. On November 8, 2011, the City Council approved a contract with Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC) to prepare a Climate Action Plan for the City. DISCUSSION: The City received a Request for Proposal from the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) for their Sustainable Communities Planning Grant and Incentive Program. The SGC is targeting projects that request between $100,000 and $1 million funding. The SGC is looking to fund projects that fall within the following three focus areas: 1) Local Sustainable Planning, 2) Regional SB 375 Plus and 3) Regional Planning Activities with Multiple Partners. The City would seek grant funding in the area of Local Sustainable Planning, which covers projects such as the preparation of a Climate Action Plan. The grant application would request funding to cover the following costs: 1) preparation of the Climate Action Plan (both staff time and consultant expenses), 2) an amendment to the Los Altos General Plan to incorporate the policies outlined in the Climate Action Plan and 3) an education and outreach campaign that would be used to implement the practices and policies outlined in the Climate Action Plan. A required part of the SGC grant application is a resolution from a community’s governing body that supports the grant application and commits to completing the project. FISCAL IMPACT: The City has currently committed $75,000, plus associated staff time, to prepare a Climate Action Plan. While the specific funding amounts have not yet been calculated, the goal of the application for the SGC Grant will be to leverage a portion of the approved capital project funding as a matching fund. The grant application would request funding to cover a portion of the consultant costs to prepare the Climate Action Plan, City staff time associated with the project and a subsequent education and outreach campaign. Provided that Council approves Resolution No. 2012-02, staff will move forward with preparation of the SGC Grant application, which is due by 5:00 P.M. on Wednesday, February 15, 2012.

RESOLUTION NO. 2012-02

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS IN SUPPORT OF SEEKING A GRANT TO FUND THE PREPARATION

OF THE LOS ALTOS CLIMATE ACTION PLAN IN ORDER TO BECOME A MORE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY

WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos will prepare a Climate Action Plan to identify measures

to reduce the Community’s greenhouse gas emissions, referred to herein as the “Project”; and WHEREAS, the Legislature and Governor of the State of California have provided funds for the Sustainable Communities Planning Grant and Incentives Program under the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 84); and WHEREAS, the Strategic Growth Council has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of this grant program, establishing necessary procedures; and

WHEREAS, said procedures require all award recipients commit to threshold requirements; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the Strategic Growth Council require a resolution certifying the approval of application by the Los Altos City Council before submission of said application to the State; and WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos, if selected, will enter into an agreement with the State of California to carry out the development of the Project.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby:

1. Approves the filing of an application for the grant to help fund the preparation of the project in order to become a more sustainable community; and

2. Certifies that City will have sufficient funds to develop the project or will secure the

resources to do so; and 3. Certifies that the project will comply with any applicable laws and regulations

including being consistent with the State’s Planning Priorities identified in Government Code section 65041.1 and summarized below: a. Promote infill development and invest in existing communities; b. Protect, preserve and enhance agricultural land and natural resources; and c. Encourage location and resource efficient new development; and

4. Certifies that threshold requirements outlined in the guidelines, including

consideration of Ocean Protection Council Sea Level Rise Guidance will be met; and

Resolution No. 2012-02 Page 1


5. Agrees to reduce, on as permanent a basis as feasible, greenhouse gas emissions consistent with California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Division 25.5 [commencing with Section 3850] of the Health and Safety Code), any applicable regional plan; and

6. Agrees to meet the Collaboration Requirements of the focus area applicable to the

Project, and includes all required documents in the application package; and 7. Appoints the City Manager, or his designee, as agent to conduct all negotiations,

execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to, applications, agreements, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed

and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the 24th day of January, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:

_____________________________ Valorie Cook Carpenter, MAYOR


A G E N D A R E P O R T MEETING DATE: January 24, 2012 TO: City Council FROM: Shaun Lacey, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: 925 Covington Road Tentative Map and Use Permit Application RECOMMENDATION: Approve the 925 Covington Road Tentative Map and Use Permit application subject to the listed findings and conditions. SUMMARY:




Public Hearing Notice: November 16, 2011

Previous Council Consideration: None

CEQA Status: Exempt Attachments:

1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Dated December 1, 2011 2. Planning Commission Staff Memorandum Dated December 1, 2011 3. Plans Dated November 23, 2011 James Walgren, Assistant City Manager Date Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager Date

January 24, 2012 925 Covington Road Tentative Map and Use Permit Application Page 2 BACKGROUND: At their December 1, 2011 meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a tentative map and use permit application to subdivide a property at 925 Covington Road. There was no public comment. Following a discussion, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the project. The Commission added a condition that at the time of development of Parcel 2, a landscape plan shall be provided for the driveway corridor, with a 14-foot maximum drive width and landscape to minimize impacts on adjacent lots (see Condition No. 13). A more comprehensive description and analysis of the project is included with the attached Planning Commission staff memorandum. The meeting minutes are also attached for reference. The subdivision proposes a new 17,909 square-foot interior lot (shown as Parcel 1 on the plan) and a new 19,673 square-foot flag lot (shown as Parcel 2). Each lot exceeds the minimum standards required to create a new interior lot and flag lot. Procedurally, the project requires a use permit because the subdivision would create a flag lot, which is a conditional use within the City’s single-family residential zoning districts. ALTERNATIVES: Council may deny the application based on negative findings or amend the conditions of approval.

January 24, 2012 925 Covington Road Tentative Map and Use Permit Application Page 3

FINDINGS

11-DL-01 and 11-UP-05—925 Covington Road 1. With regard to subdivision application 11-DL-01, the City Council makes the following

findings pursuant to Chapter 4, Article 1, Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California: a. That the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan land use

designation; b. That the site is physically suitable for this type and density of development; c. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to

cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially injure fish or wildlife; d. That the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health

problems; and e. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with access easements.

2. With regard to use permit application 11-UP-05 to allow the flag lot, the City Council

makes the following findings per Section 14.80.060 of the Municipal Code:

a. That the proposed location of the use is desirable for the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, or welfare;

b. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the objectives of the zoning ordinance;

c. That the proposed location of the use, under the circumstances of the particular case, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, or welfare of persons residing in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity;

d. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations prescribed for the district in which the site is located and the general provisions of the zoning ordinance;

e. That the size of the proposed flag lot is sufficient to mitigate development impacts and is compatible with the existing lots in the immediate neighborhood;

f. That the proposed flag lot will not result in unreasonable noise impacts to neighbors adjoining the access corridor;

g. That the proposed flag lot will not result in unreasonable privacy invasion or unreasonable massing as a result of building height;

h. That the proposed flag lot will not result in incompatible setbacks from neighboring properties; and

i. That the allowed floor area ratio in accordance with district regulations will not result in adverse impacts on neighboring properties.

January 24, 2012 925 Covington Road Tentative Map and Use Permit Application Page 4

CONDITIONS

11-DL-01 and 11-UP-05—925 Covington Road GENERAL 1. Project approval is based upon the plans dated November 23, 2011 except as may be

modified by these conditions. 2. The subdivider shall contact California Water Service Company regarding the extension

of water service to the site. 3. The applicant shall coordinate the installation of cable television facilities with the

appropriate provider. 4. All work within the public right-of-way shall be done in accordance with plans to be

approved by the City Engineer. 5. All projects shall comply with the City of Los Altos Storm Water National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements in place at the time of construction. The improvement plans shall include the “Blueprint for a Clean Bay” plan sheet in all plan submittals.

6. All existing trees may not be removed unless approved by the City during any

subsequent development review or tree removal permit application. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE MAP 7. The applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication in accordance with Chapter

13.24 of the Los Altos Municipal Code. 8. The applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of traffic impacts in accordance with Chapter 3.48 of

the Los Altos Municipal Code. 9. The applicant shall pay the City for a sewer connection fee in accordance with the plans

approved by the City Engineer. 10. The subdivider shall install a six-foot-tall, sound-attenuating fence along the east

property line, adjacent to the driveway corridor of Parcel 2 as required by the Planning Division.

11. The existing structures on the property shall be removed upon issuance of a demolition

permit by the Building Division.

January 24, 2012 925 Covington Road Tentative Map and Use Permit Application Page 5 PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL 12. The applicant shall record the final map. 13. At the time of development of Parcel 2, a landscape plan shall be provided for the

driveway corridor, with a 14-foot maximum drive width and landscape to minimize impacts on adjacent lots.

PRIOR TO ANY PERMIT ISSUANCE 14. Detailed plans for any construction activities affecting the public right-of-way including

but not limited to, excavations, pedestrian protection, material storage, earth retention, and construction vehicle parking, shall be provided to the City Engineer for review and approval. The applicant shall submit on-site and off-site grading and drainage plans that include drain swales, drain inlets, rough pad elevations, building envelopes, tree drip lines, grading elevations at property lines and all trees to be maintained for approval by City staff.

15. A truck routing and staging plan for any proposed excavation of the site shall be

submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. 16. The applicant shall submit a utility plan which includes the location of the sanitary sewer

laterals for each lot. 17. The project shall comply with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Measures in

accordance with Chapter 10.16 of the Los Altos Municipal Code. 18. The applicant shall submit a Storm Water Management Plan. The Storm Water

Management Plan must be reviewed and approved by a City third-party consultant. The recommendations from the Storm Water Management Plan shall be shown on the building plans.

19. The applicant shall contact Mission Trail Waste Systems and establish refuse collection

service. The applicant shall submit evidence that Mission Trail Waste Systems has reviewed and approved the size and location of the proposed new enclosure for refuse and recyclables.

PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY 20. The applicant shall be responsible for the removal and undergrounding of the existing

overhead utilities serving the site. 21. The applicant shall label all new or existing public and private catch basin inlets which

are on or directly adjacent to the site with the “NO DUMPING – FLOWS TO THE BAY” logo as required by the City.

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: December 1, 2011 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Shaun Lacey, Assistant Planner

Comment [CM1]: See the “Memo” Template for instructions that also relate to this “Agenda Memo” Template. Also, this is the date the memo is written. Enter the date of the Meeting in the footer, on page one and two, after you have drafted the memo.

SUBJECT: 11-DL-01 AND 11-UP-05—925 COVINGTON ROAD RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of division of land and use permit applications 11-DL-01 and 11-UP-05 to the City Council subject to the listed findings and conditions.

Comment [CM2]: This is the person who is making the recommendation and did the staff work. If you are the staff to a body such as a Commission or Committee making the recommendation, use the name of the body here and sign the memo, below, as “Secretary to the [Planning Commission}

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Comment [CM3]: This is either a motion, resolution, ordinance, or for information only. This section should be formed in such a way that it can easily be read by the maker of the motion.

This is a division of land and use permit application to subdivide the property at 925 Covington Road. The project splits the subject lot into a new interior and a flag lot. The use permit is required to allow the new flag lot. The proposal meets or exceeds the zoning requirements for subdivision. Parcel 1, the interior lot, would contain 17,909 net square feet, while Parcel 2, the flag lot, would contain 19,673 net square feet. The project will remove the existing single-family dwelling on-site.

GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-family, 3.0-4.0 DU/Net Acre ZONING: R1-10, Single-family, Residential LOT SIZE: 43,397 square feet

Proposed

Required

PARCEL 1 Area Width Depth

17,909 square feet (net) 114.96 feet 155.77 feet

10,000 square feet (net) 80 feet 100 feet

PARCEL 2 Area Width Depth Corridor

19,673 square feet (net) 135 feet 145.75 feet 20 feet

15,000 square feet (net) 80 feet 100 feet 20 feet

Planning Commission 11-DL-01 and 11-UP-05, 925 Covington Road December 1, 2011 Page 2 DISCUSSION Zoning Standards Both proposed lots meet or exceed the minimum standards for subdivision. Parcel 1 is 17,909 square feet, where the minimum area is 10,000 square feet. Parcel 2 is 19,673 square feet, where the minimum area is 15,000 square feet for a flag lot. Parcel 1 is approximately 115 feet wide, while Parcel 2 is approximately 135 feet wide, where the minimum width is 80 feet. Parcel 1 has a depth of approximately 156 feet, and Parcel 2 has a depth of approximately 146 feet, where the minimum depth is 100 feet. A 20-foot-wide access corridor is also required for flag lots. The access corridor of Parcel 2 reaches the site by a proposed driveway along the easterly side of the property. By Code, the flag lot corridor does not count toward the net developable area of a flag lot. General Subdivision Findings There are several general findings required for subdivisions. First, the subdivision must conform to the General Plan. The General Plan designates the property for a low density, single-family land use between three to four dwellings per net acre. The proposal creates two, single-family lots within that density range. Second, the subdivision design and the proposed improvements should not cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially injure fish or wildlife, or public health issues. The site gradually slopes downwards from south to north within a suburban context with access to all city services including sewer, power and roads. Staff did not identify any negative environmental or public health issues associated with the project. Additionally, the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act review because of its small scope. The subdivision cannot conflict with any access easements. An existing pipe line easement exists along the southeast corner of the property where the proposed access corridor to Parcel 2 is located. However, the easement only grants the right to maintain the pipe line to the applicable utility companies and would not interfere with access to the site. Therefore, the proposed subdivision does not conflict with any known access easements. Use Permit Findings for Flag Lots Flag lots are conditional uses in the single-family zoning districts. Conditional uses require consideration of four standard use permit findings and five specific findings unique to flag lots. Staff recommends granting the use permit as discussed below. The location of Parcel 2 is desirable for the public since it creates an additional conforming single-family lot that helps the City meet its housing goals. The location of the proposed subdivision meets

Planning Commission 11-DL-01 and 11-UP-05, 925 Covington Road December 1, 2011 Page 3 the relevant zoning code objectives by providing for the orderly growth in an existing residential area, by ensuring a harmonious relationship of residential land uses (see below) and by maintaining the traffic circulation system with no substantial changes to Covington Road other than by providing a functional residential driveway to Parcel 2. Staff could not identify any effects of the flag lot subdivision that would be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. Regarding the specific use permit findings, the net size of the flag lot is approximately 4,600 square feet over the minimum required area and sufficient to mitigate the development impacts and is compatible with the surrounding lots. The normal rectangular shape of the proposed flag lot does not change the setback orientation of the existing property by maintaining its east and west property lines as side property lines. The proposed lots exceed the minimum lot size requirements for interior and flag lots. The proposed flag lot will not result in unreasonable noise impacts for neighbors adjoining the flag lot corridor. A typical condition of approval requires a solid, sound attenuating fence along the property boundary of the flag lot corridor. The proposed flag lot will not result in an unreasonable privacy impact. By Code, flag lot development is limited to a single story house and 20 feet of building height. These code restrictions will ensure that the future development of Parcel 2 will not unreasonably affect privacy or cause bulk impacts. The proposed flag lot will not result in incompatible building setbacks from neighboring properties. The front and rear property lines of Parcel 2 are the south and north property lines, respectively. This creates a compatible 25-foot front yard to rear yard relationship with Parcel 1, and maintains the existing 25-foot rear yard setback with the northerly property at 800 Yardis Court (in Mountain View). Parcel 2 would create a 15-foot side yard adjacent to the rear yards of abutting properties along Russell Avenue and Castilleja Court. In effect, the side yard to rear yard relationships created on Parcel 2 would increase the buffer between adjoining lots on Russell Avenue and Castilleja Court. The allowed floor area should not unreasonably affect the neighboring properties. With the proposed lot size, the floor area regulations would allow approximately 4,717 square feet of building area on Parcel 2. However, with the 15-foot side yard setbacks and single-story limitations on flag lots, impacts resulting from future development should be limited. General Plan Conformance The project conforms to the General Plan Housing Element policies related to residential subdivisions. Policy 1.4 of Goal 1 states that:

• The City shall ensure that the development permitted in the creation of land divisions results in an orderly and compatible development pattern, within the subdivision and in relation to its surroundings; provides for quality site planning and design; and provides for quality structural design.

Planning Commission 11-DL-01 and 11-UP-05, 925 Covington Road December 1, 2011 Page 4 Based on the use permit findings for flag lots (described in the former section) staff feels that the proposed subdivision meets this General Plan policy. Other Conditions The Engineering Division recommends typical conditions related to fixing any curb, sidewalk and gutter adjacent to the site, and providing a grading and drainage plan for the new lots. Work within the public right-of-way will be done prior to recording the subdivision. Grading plans are typically finalized with development review. The County Fire Department reviewed the proposed subdivision and had no conditions or requirements. The Fire Department also reviews the development applications for any new construction. The Fire Department will require fire sprinklers and/or a hydrant and/or a turn-around area on the proposed flag lot depending on the specific development proposal. The subdivision shows removal of several trees. These are not necessary to record the subdivision and should be considered with future development. However, an arborist report was provided to evaluate a large redwood tree (tree no. 22 on the map) at the east side of the property. According to the report, the tree is in slow decline and should be considered for removal. This tentative map will protect the tree pending the future development. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Class 15 of the California Environmental Quality Act because it is a division of property into four or fewer parcels. Attachments A. Application B. Maps C. Arborist Report Cc: Pravinkumar Hathi, Owner James Kammerer, JLK Associates

Planning Commission 11-DL-01 and 11-UP-05, 925 Covington Road December 1, 2011 Page 5

FINDINGS

11-DL-01 and 11-UP-05—925 Covington Road 1. With regard to subdivision application 11-DL-01, the Planning Commission makes the following

findings pursuant to Chapter 4, Article 1, Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California: a. That the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan land use designation; b. That the site is physically suitable for this type and density of development; c. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause

substantial environmental damage, or substantially injure fish or wildlife; d. That the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and e. That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with access easements.

2. With regard to use permit application 11-UP-05 to allow the flag lot, the Planning Commission

makes the following findings per Section 14.80.060 of the Municipal Code:

a. That the proposed location of the use is desirable for the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, or welfare;

b. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the objectives of the zoning ordinance;

c. That the proposed location of the use, under the circumstances of the particular case, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, or welfare of persons residing in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity;

d. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations prescribed for the district in which the site is located and the general provisions of the zoning ordinance;

e. That the size of the proposed flag lot is sufficient to mitigate development impacts and is compatible with the existing lots in the immediate neighborhood;

f. That the proposed flag lot will not result in unreasonable noise impacts to neighbors adjoining the access corridor;

g. That the proposed flag lot will not result in unreasonable privacy invasion or unreasonable massing as a result of building height;

h. That the proposed flag lot will not result in incompatible setbacks from neighboring properties; and

i. That the allowed floor area ratio in accordance with district regulations will not result in adverse impacts on neighboring properties.

Planning Commission 11-DL-01 and 11-UP-05, 925 Covington Road December 1, 2011 Page 6

CONDITIONS

11-DL-01 and 11-UP-05—925 Covington Road GENERAL 1. Project approval is based upon the plans dated November 23, 2011 except as may be modified

by these conditions. 2. The subdivider shall contact California Water Service Company regarding the extension of water

service to the site. 3. The applicant shall coordinate the installation of cable television facilities with the appropriate

provider. 4. All work within the public right-of-way shall be done in accordance with plans to be approved by

the City Engineer. 5. All projects shall comply with the City of Los Altos stormwater National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements in place at the time of construction. The improvement plans shall include the “Blueprint for a Clean Bay” plan sheet in all plan submittals.

6. All existing trees may not be removed unless approved by the City during any subsequent

development review or tree removal permit application. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE MAP 7. The applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication in accordance with Chapter 13.24 of

the Los Altos Municipal Code. 8. The applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of traffic impacts in accordance with Chapter 3.48 of the Loa

Altos Municipal Code. 9. The applicant shall pay the City for a sewer connection fee in accordance with the plans

approved by the City Engineer. 10. The subdivider shall install a six-foot-tall, sound-attenuating fence along the east property line,

adjacent to the driveway corridor of Parcel 2 as required by the Planning Division. 11. The existing structures on the property shall be removed upon issuance of a demolition permit

by the Building Division.

Planning Commission 11-DL-01 and 11-UP-05, 925 Covington Road December 1, 2011 Page 7 PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL 12. The applicant shall record the final map. PRIOR TO ANY PERMIT ISSUANCE 12. Detailed plans for any construction activities affecting the public right-of-way including but not

limited to excavations, pedestrian protection, material storage, earth retention, and construction vehicle parking, shall be provided to the City Engineer for review and approval. The applicant shall submit on-site and off-site grading and drainage plans that include drain swales, drain inlets, rough pad elevations, building envelopes, tree drip lines, grading elevations at property lines and all trees to be maintained for approval by City staff.

13. A truck routing and staging plan for any proposed excavation of the site shall be submitted for

review and approval by the City Engineer. 14. The applicant shall submit a utility plan which includes the location of the sanitary sewer laterals for

each lot. 15. The project shall comply with the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Measures in accordance with

Chapter 10.16 of the Los Altos Municipal Code. 16. The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan. The Stormwater Management Plan

must be reviewed and approved by a City third party consultant. The recommendations from the Stormwater Management Plan shall be shown on the building plans.

17. The applicant shall contact Mission Trail Waste Systems and establish refuse collection service.

The applicant shall submit evidence that Mission Trail Waste Systems has reviewed and approved the size and location of the proposed new enclosure for refuse and recyclables.

PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY 18. The applicant shall be responsible for the removal and undergrounding of the existing overhead

utilities serving the site. 19. The applicant shall label all new or existing public and private catch basin inlets which are on or

directly adjacent to the site with the “NO DUMPING – FLOWS TO THE BAY” logo as required by the City.

P:\Planning\Exec Assistant\Minutes\2011\PC\PC 12-1-11 (FINAL).doc

MINUTES

PLANNING COMMISSION

7:30 p.m., December 1, 2011 Community Chambers, Los Altos City Hall

One North San Antonio Road, Los Altos, California 94022

CALL TO ORDER

Chair BAER called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM.

ROLL CALL

All Present: Chair BAER, Vice-Chair LORELL, Commissioners MOISON, BODNER, ABRAMS, BRUINS and JUNAID

Staff: Planning Services Manager KORNFIELD and Assistant Planner LACEY

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Planning Commission Minutes Minutes of the November 17, 2011 regular meeting.

MOTION BY VICE-CHAIR LORELL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JUNAID, to approve the minutes from the November 17, 2011 regular meeting as written. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

PUBLIC HEARING 2. 11-DL-01 and 11-UP-05 – P. Hathi – 925 Covington Road

Tentative map application for a two-lot subdivision and a use permit application to create a flag lot. The subdivision and use permit would allow a 17,909 square-foot interior lot and a 19,673 square-foot flag lot. Project Planner: Lacey

Assistant Planner LACEY presented the staff report recommending approval of division of land and use permit applications 11-DL-01 and 11-UP-05 to the City Council subject to the listed findings and conditions. He explained that some of the trees on the property may have been removed recently and that staff was looking into the matter; although the trees shown on the site plan are to remain through the subdivision process and their potential removal would be considered with the future development of the lots. The Commission discussed the project and gave their general support. A majority of the commission noted that they would like to see the driveway corridor of Parcel 2 landscaped at the time of development. There was no public comment.

Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 2011 Page 2 of 2

P:\Planning\Exec Assistant\Minutes\2011\PC\PC 12-1-11 (FINAL).doc

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRUINS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JUNAID, to approve division of land and use permit applications 11-DL-01 and 11-UP-05 per the staff report findings and conditions, with the following additional condition:

■ At the time of development of Parcel 2, a landscape plan shall be provided for the driveway corridor, with a 14-foot maximum drive width and landscape to minimize impacts on adjacent lots.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

CORRESPONDENCE None.

ARCHITECTURE AND SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT

None.

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS REPORT

Commissioner MOISON gave the Board of Adjustments report.

CITY COUNCIL REPORT

Commissioner BRUINS gave the City Council report and spoke about the reorganization of the Council.

ADJOURNMENT Chair BAER adjourned the meeting at 8:02 PM. ________________________________ David Kornfield, AICP Planning Services Manager

A G E N D A R E P O R T MEETING DATE: January 24, 2012 TO: City Council FROM: Jim Gustafson, Engineering Services Manager SUBJECT: Lehigh Cement Plant RECOMMENDATION: Receive information from Iris Environmental concerning a public meeting to discuss the Lehigh Cement Plant on February 6, 2012. SUMMARY:


Amount: N/A

Budgeted: Consulting agreement approved in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 for $12,500 to be matched by the Town of Los Altos Hills


Previous Council Consideration: January 25, 2011 March 8, 2011 April 26, 2011

CEQA Status: None Attachments: (Final attachments to be provided under separate cover)

1. Report: Surface Water and Sediment Sampling in Permanente Creek 2. Technical Memorandum – Review of Documents Pertaining to the Lehigh

Southwest Cement Permanente Plant Jim Gustafson, Engineering Services Manager Date Russell J. Morreale, Finance Director Date Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager Date

January 24, 2012 Lehigh Cement Plant Page 2 BACKGROUND: The City of Los Altos and the Town of Los Altos Hills have an agreement with Iris Environmental to evaluate available information and conduct a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) of the operations at the Lehigh Cement Plant located at the southwest end of Stevens Creek Boulevard. The HRA addresses the impacts on residents of Los Altos and Los Altos Hills. DISCUSSION: Iris Environmental has completed the study of the Lehigh Cement Plant and prepared two reports. Attachment 1 addresses water quality impacts as sampled from water and sediment taken from Permanente Creek in Rancho San Antonio Park. Attachment 2 addresses air quality impacts from data available from other public agencies. This information will be presented at a public forum in the Town of Los Altos Hills Council Chambers on February 6, 2012. Representatives from the State Water Board and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District are also expected to attend. Notice of the meeting will be provided by the Town of Los Altos Hills. Additionally, meeting information will be posted on the City’s website. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact beyond the $12,500 City cost-share approved by Council.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE

LEHIGH SOUTHWEST CEMENT PERMANENTE PLANT

Lehigh Southwest Cement Permanente Plant

24001 Stevens Creek Boulevard

Cupertino, California 95014

January 19, 2012

Prepared for:

Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road

Los Altos Hills, California 94022

and

City of Los Altos 1 North San Antonio Road Los Altos, California 94022

Prepared by:

IRIS ENVIRONMENTAL 1438 Webster Street, Suite 302

Oakland, California 94612

Technical Memorandum – Document Review January 19, 2012 Lehigh Southwest Cement Permanente Plant

i IRIS ENVIRONMENTAL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At the request of the Town of Los Altos Hills and the City of Los Altos, Iris Environmental has reviewed documents pertaining to the Lehigh Southwest Cement Permanente Facility (Facility) to determine if there have been significant releases of chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) from the Facility. Specifically, Iris Environmental reviewed an AB 2588 Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) conducted at the request of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and documents pertaining to potential releases to surrounding water bodies issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board).

The HHRA, conducted at the request of the BAAQMD, summarizes stationary source ambient air emissions from the Facility and associated potential human health risks. Based on a review of the HHRA, exposures to airborne emissions from the Facility are below BAAQMD public notification levels for the current and future emission scenarios. The review documented in this Technical Memorandum determined that the HHRA was adequately and sufficiently conducted. Limitations of the HHRA are documented in detail within this memorandum. It may be optimal to monitor Facility response to requirements in the HHRA on an ongoing basis to ensure the planned emission reductions incorporated into the HHRA are successfully implemented.

Historical Water Board documents indicate that the Facility has discharged sediment-laded water to Permanente Creek in violation of their stormwater permit. The Water Board is in the process of bringing the Facility into compliance under a different, more stringent permit. Firstly, the Water Board is requiring monitoring which characterizes the nature and extent of all discharges from the Facility (indirectly or directly) to Permanente Creek. Once discharges from the Facility are fully characterized, the Water Board will require the Facility to obtain the necessary discharge permit. The Facility will be subject to additional discharge restrictions and facility management practices intended to be protective of water quality in Permanente Creek. It may be optimal to monitor Facility response to these requirements on an ongoing basis to ensure the adequate and timely compliance of the Facility with these proposed actions.

In addition to the review of these documents, at the request of the Town of Los Altos Hills, Iris Environmental collected one surface water sample and one sediment sample in Permanente Creek. This single data point provides a snapshot of the potential characteristics of the creek, but does not provide a definitive characterization of discharges from the Facility. Based on this single data point, there does not appear to be excessively high levels of contaminants in the creek at the sampling location.


ii IRIS ENVIRONMENTAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... i 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Chemicals of Potential Concern .......................................................................................... 1 3.0 Review of Stormwater and Non-Stormwater Discharge Issues .......................................... 1

3.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Stormwater Discharge Violations .................................................................................. 2 3.3 Non-Stormwater Discharge Violations .......................................................................... 4 3.4 Future Regulatory Activities and Facility Requirements ............................................... 5 3.5 Surface Water and Sediment Sampling in Permanente Creek ....................................... 6 3.6 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 6

4.0 Review of the Revised Health Risk Assessment ................................................................ 7 4.1 Review of Estimated Emissions ..................................................................................... 7

4.1.1 Sources Evaluated ................................................................................................... 7 4.1.1.1 Summary of Approach and Key Assumptions .................................................. 7 4.1.1.2 Assessment of Approach ................................................................................... 7

4.1.2 Chemicals of Potential Concern .............................................................................. 8 4.1.2.1 Summary of Approach and Key Assumptions .................................................. 8 4.1.2.1 Assessment of Approach ................................................................................... 8

4.1.3 Methods Used ......................................................................................................... 8 4.1.3.1 Summary of Approach and Key Assumptions .................................................. 8

2005 Emission Scenario .................................................................................................. 8 2008/2009 Emission Scenario......................................................................................... 9 2010 and 2011 Emission Scenarios ................................................................................ 9 2013 Emission Scenario .................................................................................................. 9

4.1.3.1 Assessment of Approach ................................................................................... 9 2005 Emission Scenario .................................................................................................. 9 2008/2009 Emission Scenario....................................................................................... 10 2010 and 2011 Emission Scenarios .............................................................................. 10

4.2 Review of Air Dispersion Model Assumptions and Inputs .......................................... 11 4.2.1 Source Inputs ........................................................................................................ 11

4.2.1.1 Summary of Approach and Key Assumptions ................................................ 11 4.2.1.2 Assessment of Approach ................................................................................. 11

4.2.2 Receptor Grid ........................................................................................................ 12 4.2.2.1 Summary of Approach and Key Assumptions ................................................ 12 4.2.2.2 Assessment of Approach ................................................................................. 12

4.2.3 Modeling Approach .............................................................................................. 12 4.2.3.1 Summary of Approach and Key Assumptions ................................................ 12 4.2.3.2 Assessment of Approach ................................................................................. 13

4.2.4 Meteorological Data.............................................................................................. 13 4.2.4.1 Summary of Approach and Key Assumptions ................................................ 13

Selected Critical Input Parameters ................................................................................ 13 Land Use Parameters (e.g., albedo, Bowen ratio, and roughness length) ..................... 13 Methods to Address Missing Meteorological Data ...................................................... 13 Source of Upper Air Data ............................................................................................. 13

4.2.4.2 Assessment of Approach ................................................................................. 14


iii IRIS ENVIRONMENTAL

4.3 Review of Toxicity Assessment and Risk Characterization ........................................ 14 4.3.1 Inputs..................................................................................................................... 14

4.3.1.1 Summary of Approach and Key Assumptions ................................................ 14 4.3.1.2 Assessment of Approach ................................................................................. 15

4.3.2 Exposure Assumptions.......................................................................................... 15 4.3.2.1 Summary of Approach and Key Assumptions ................................................ 15 4.3.2.2 Assessment of Approach ................................................................................. 15

4.3.3 Toxicity ................................................................................................................. 16 4.3.3.1 Summary of Approach and Key Assumptions ................................................ 16 4.3.3.2 Assessment of Approach ................................................................................. 16

4.3.4 Outputs and Results .............................................................................................. 17 4.3.4.1 Summary of Approach and Key Assumptions ................................................ 17

Chronic Cancer Risk ..................................................................................................... 17 Chronic Noncancer Hazard ........................................................................................... 17 Acute Noncancer Hazard .............................................................................................. 18

4.3.4.2 Assessment of Approach ................................................................................. 19 4.4 Review of BAAQMD Air Monitoring Data ................................................................. 20 4.5 Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................... 21

5.0 References ......................................................................................................................... 21

List of Tables Table 1. Summary of BAAQMD Monitoring Data at the Cupertino Station

Appendices Appendix A – Surface Water and Sediment Sampling in Permanente Creek (Iris Environmental,

2011b)

Appendix B – General Sand and Gravel Permit Requirements


1 IRIS ENVIRONMENTAL

1.0 INTRODUCTION

At the request of the Town of Los Altos Hills and the City of Los Altos, Iris Environmental has reviewed documents pertaining to the Lehigh Southwest Cement Permanente Facility (Facility) located at 24001 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California, 95014. The results of this review are summarized in detail in this Technical Memorandum. As outlined in our Proposal for Engineering Consulting Services Associated with the Review of Information Regarding the Facility dated September 2 (Iris Environmental, 2011a), Iris Environmental has reviewed these documents to determine if there have been significant releases of chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) from the Facility.

Section 2.0 identifies the COPCs that might have been released to either air or water as a result of Facility operations. Section 3.0 summarizes the review of San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (Water Board’s) documentation pertaining to stormwater and non-stormwater discharges from the Facility. The purpose of the review of the Water Board’s documentation is to help determine if known discharges of COPCs from the Facility to nearby waterways such as Permanente Creek have occurred. Additional Water Board documentation is reviewed to determine anticipated regulatory requirements of the Facility for stormwater and non-stormwater discharges. The General Sand and Gravel Permit is also reviewed to identify possible additional requirements for stormwater and non-stormwater runoff compliance.

Section 4.0 summarizes a review of the revised health risk assessment (HRA) prepared by AMEC dated March 30, 2011 for the Facility (AMEC, 2011). The review of the HRA included a brief review of some documents cited in the HRA which are the basis for assumptions or inputs used in the HRA. The methods and key assumptions of the HRA are summarized. There is a review and critique of the estimated emissions, air dispersion modeling assumptions and inputs, toxicity assessment and risk evaluation. Ultimately an assessment of the adequacy and limitations of the HRA to evaluate potential health impacts to nearby communities is provided.

2.0 CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN

COPCs for this evaluation include metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and other chemicals which can potentially be released to the environment by the Facility’s operations. The HRA identified benzene, hexavalent chromium, and mercury as the most significant COPCs that may be released into the air as a result of Facility operations. There is limited information on the COPCs that potentially may have been released to water as a result of Facility operations. However, Permanente Creek has recently been listed by the Water Board as water quality impaired under the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) (SFBRWQCB, 2010a) due to selenium contamination. Therefore, these four COPCs are of particular focus for the review described here.

3.0 REVIEW OF STORMWATER AND NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGE ISSUES

Iris Environmental reviewed documents pertaining to stormwater and non-stormwater discharges from the Facility to nearby waterways to 1) determine if COPCs were discharged to Permanente creek and 2) identify additional potential regulatory requirements for stormwater and non-



stormwater runoff compliance of the Facility. To evaluate if COPCs were released, Iris Environmental reviewed several documents from the Water Board to the Facility including documents issued by the Water Board to the Facility to address unauthorized discharges from the Facility. Other historical documents were also briefly reviewed to develop a more detailed picture of potential discharges from the Facility. Discharges from the Facility are of potential concern due to the Facility’s proximity to Permanente Creek. As noted above, there is limited information on the specific COPCs that may have been released to this water body as a result of Facility operations.

Based on the Water Board’s review of the Facility, the Facility was determined to be in violation of their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Industrial Storm Water Permit (General Industrial Storm Water Permit) due to their discharge of prohibited non-stormwater (e.g., industrial process water). As a result, the Facility is required to obtain coverage under a different NPDES General Permit: Order NO. R2-2008-0011, General Water Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Process Wastewaters from Aggregate Mining, Sand Washing, and San Offloading Facilities to Surface Waters (General Sand and Gravel Permit) (SFBRWQCB, 2008). Additionally, the Water Board indicated that in the future the Facility will likely be required to obtain an individual NPDES discharge permit (individual NPDES permit). To identify additional requirements for future stormwater and non-stormwater discharge compliance, Iris Environmental reviewed recent Water Board documentation and the General Sand and Gravel Permit. The goal of this aspect of Iris Environmental’s review is to identify future permit requirements which will protect Permanente Creek from future discharges from the Facility that are potentially harmful.

3.1 Background

The primary Facility operation is cement production. Cement at the Facility is produced by mixing ground limestone, clay (containing silica, iron, and alumina) or similar raw materials with materials such as gypsum to produce cement. When this cement is mixed with aggregate materials, concrete is produced. Additional Facility operations include:

• Rock excavation, crushing, and transport;

• Waste storage;

• Raw material and water storage; and

• Wastewater treatment.

Since 1997, the stormwater discharges from the Facility have been covered under an NPDES General Permit: Industrial Storm Water General Permit Order 97-03-DWQ (General Industrial Storm Water Permit). Discharges from the Facility are of potential concern due to the Facility’s proximity to Permanente Creek. Permanente Creek flows from west to east along the southern perimeter of the Facility and then cuts through the Facility as it bends to the North.

3.2 Stormwater Discharge Violations

Inspections were performed by the Water Board in the late 1990s to determine compliance with the General Industrial Storm Water Permit. The Water Board issued Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 99-018 in 1999 to the Facility to address unacceptable discharges of sediment-laden



water from various locations at the Facility to Permanente Creek which were determined to be in violation of the Basin Plan (SFBRWQCB, 1999). During inspections of the Facility, water clarity in Permanente Creek was generally observed to be significantly more turbid downstream than upstream of the Facility. The Order required the Facility to develop interim and long term measures to eliminate discharge of sediment-laden water in Permanente Creek. The Facility implemented some corrective actions following the Order. Documentation of regulatory acceptance of the corrective action measures does not appear to be available. Moreover, there is no documentation of any ongoing inspection in the years following the Cleanup and Abatement Order to ensure adequacy of the corrective actions. Note that a detailed document review of the Water Board’s records is not within the scope of this technical memorandum, therefore these documents may exist but within the scope of this review they were not found.

From 2009 to 2011 the Water Board received a number of complaints regarding the operation of the Facility which requested that the Facility be investigated for compliance with water quality requirements. In response, the Water Board evaluated the status of the Facility’s compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), the California Water Code (Water Code), and the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan). The evaluation necessarily included an assessment of the Facility’s compliance with its then current permit, the General Industrial Storm Water Permit.

Per the requirements of the General Industrial Storm Water Permit, the Water Board required the Facility to submit of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which was submitted to the Water Board on March 4, 2010. Based on inspections of the Facility and a review of the SWPPP, the Water Board issued a Notice of Violation on March 26, 2010 which contained requirements for corrective actions for violations of the General Industrial Storm Water Permit at the Facility (SFBRWQCB, 2010b). The inspector concluded the Facility and the SWPPP do not sufficiently achieve Best Management Practices (BMPs) to implement controls that reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable/Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BAT/BCT). In particular, the inspector noted pollutant-laden discharges, inadequate materials storage techniques (increasing the likelihood of stormwater exposures to hydrocarbons, cleaning materials, and other chemicals), and insufficient erosion controls. These discharges were also determined to be in violation of the Basin Plan due to discharges of solid wastes into surface waters. This Notice of Violation indicates the Facility was, at a minimum, discharging stormwater containing elevated levels of sediment to Permanente Creek.

During two stormwater monitoring events in January 2010, the Facility detected concentrations of selenium in stormwater collected in the Facility in exceedance of the Freshwater Aquatic Life water quality limit from the Basin Plan and California Toxics Rule for chronic exposures (Geosyntec, 2010). Mercury was also detected at a concentration above the 4-day average water quality objective from the Water Board’s Basin Plan, however, the report produced by the Facility does not mention mercury. Hexavalent chromium was also detected, but at concentrations below water quality standards. Selenium is of particular concern because the Water Board in 2009 adopted a proposal to list Permanente Creek as water quality impaired by selenium under the CWA (SFBRWQCB, 2010a). The report prepared by the Facility concluded that stormwater discharged through the quarry dewatering system could be contributing to exceedances of the water quality standards for selenium in Permanente Creek. The Facility



proposed to implement additional BMPs to control selenium concentrations in stormwater runoff. As part of the CWA, the Water Board plans to develop a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for selenium in Permanente Creek by 2021 which will limit the total amount of selenium Permanente Creek can receive in order to achieve water quality goals.

Inspections performed by the Water Board on March 29, 2011 again noted muddy water flowing into Permanente Creek from the Facility, sedimentation ponds and sediment traps overwhelmed with sediment, an over-reliance on sediment management practices, and insufficient use of erosion control (SFBRWQCB, 2011a). These violations are similar to those noted by the Water Board in 1999 and 2010 described above.

The historical documentation available indicates that the Facility discharged sediment-laded stormwater to Permanente Creek in violation of their General Industrial Storm Water Permit in 1998, 1999, 2010 and again in 2011 primarily due to inadequate stormwater management practices and erosion controls. Sediment-laded water is of concern because it potentially contains metals such as hexavalent chromium, mercury, and selenium which can occur naturally in regional soils. These discharges increase turbidity and concentrations of these chemicals in Permanente Creek waters which can result in ecological impacts. Additionally, as further discussed in the following section, stormwater discharges from the Facility have the potential to become polluted by non-naturally occurring pollutants prior to discharge due to contact with Facility operations. It appears the Facility discharged stormwater to Permanente Creek with concentrations of some COPCs such as mercury and selenium above water quality objectives.

3.3 Non-Stormwater Discharge Violations

Ongoing inspections of the Facility by the Water Board documented additional violations and determined coverage of the Facility under the General Industrial Storm Water Permit is insufficient. In particular, a pipe outfall discharging sediment-laden water to Permanente Creek on the order of hundreds of gallons per minute was observed by Water Board staff on March 29, 2011 and the discharge was classified as non-stormwater. This non-stormwater discharge to Permanente Creek is of concern because water collected by the system includes water that has come in contact with industrial operations and material. This effluent is categorized as industrial process water and its discharge, regardless of its origin as rainfall, is prohibited unless specifically covered by a permit and is considered a non-stormwater discharge. The discharge was not disclosed in the SWPPP and is prohibited under the General Industrial Storm Water Permit.

The General Industrial Storm Water Permit allows general stormwater discharge and some non-stormwater discharges. All other non-stormwater discharges are strictly prohibited, including quarry bottom water, wash-down water, and dust suppression water. The Water Board concluded the facility is in violation of the General Industrial Storm Water Permit due to inadequate erosion and sediment controls, and the discharge of industrial process waters. The Water Board required the Facility to immediately cease and desist any and all discharges of quarry bottom water, dust suppression water, and wash down water. Due to these violations the Facility was required to obtain coverage under a different NPDES General Permit: The General Sand and Gravel Permit (SFBRWQCB, 2011a). The Facility was ultimately ordered to pay penalties for the unauthorized non-stormwater discharges (SFBRWQCB, 2011b).



The Water Board reiterated these violations and placed additional requirements on the Facility in a Water Code Section 13267 Order and Notice of Violation dated June 14, 2011 (SFBRWQCB, 2011c). The Water Board put the Facility on notice that it is expected the Facility will need to apply for an individual NPDES permit in the near future. The Water Board indicated that the custom permit is likely necessary and that the General Sand and Gravel Permit, which the Facility was required to obtain by July 10, 2011 for the interim time period, is inadequate due to the various discharges and COPCs that may have been released as a result of Facility operations. The Water Board also required development of a Report of Waste Discharge intended to assist the Water Board in evaluating the nature, extent, circumstances, and impacts of discharges from the Facility to surrounding waters. Specific requirements of the Report of Waste Discharge are further discussed in the following section.

The discharge violations by the Facility noted by the Water Board clearly indicate that the Facility has discharged sediment-laden water to Permanente Creek in violation of the General Industrial Storm Water Permit. Additionally, because this water was in contact with Facility operations it is considered industrial process water and is considered non-stormwater. It is not possible to definitely ascertain neither the nature of these discharges nor the extent of impacts to beneficial uses of Permanent Creek from the available documentation. It is possible the stormwater and non-stormwater discharges contain COPCs due to contact with Facility operations. These additional pollutants may not have been sampled for previously, including VOCs including benzene. The Report of Waste Discharges required by the Water Board and discussed in detail in the following section is intended to answer these questions.

3.4 Future Regulatory Activities and Facility Requirements

As noted above, the Water Board is considering requiring the Facility to operate under an individual NPDES permit because the General Sand and Gravel Permit does not cover the full set of COPCs or the various discharges relevant to the Facility. In order to fully understand discharges from the Facility, the Water Board is requiring the Facility to submit reports which describe: 1) the nature and extent of discharges at and from the Facility; 2) the nature and extent of pollution conditions in waters of the state and United States created by the discharges; 3) the threat to public health and the environment posed by the discharges; and 4) appropriate cleanup and abatement measures. The reports are intended to enable the Water Board to determine the extent of discharges, ascertain if the condition of pollution poses a threat to human health and the environment in the vicinity of the Facility or downstream, and provide technical information to determine what cleanup and abatement measures are necessary to bring the Facility into compliance with applicable water quality standards.

Specifically, the Water Board is requiring monitoring which characterizes the nature and extent of all discharges from the Facility (indirectly or directly) to Permanente Creek. A complete list of monitoring parameters is required including COPCs such as benzene, hexavalent chromium, mercury, and selenium. Additionally, continual flow measurements at sampling locations are required to quantify discharges to Permanente Creek. This additional monitoring will greatly assist in characterizing discharges from the Facility. Additionally, the inclusion of VOCs such as benzene in the analyte list will assist in determining if stormwater and non-stormwater discharges contain pollutants which do not occur naturally due to contact with Facility operations.



3.5 Surface Water and Sediment Sampling in Permanente Creek

The results of recent sampling in Permanente Creek are used as a point of comparison for the known discharges from the Facility. At the direction of the Town of Los Altos Hills, Iris Environmental collected one surface water and one sediment sample in Permanente Creek and analyzed the samples for a full list of metals. Details of this limited sampling effort are described in a separate document which is included as Appendix A (Iris Environmental, 2011b). Of particular note, hexavalent chromium, mercury, and selenium were not detected above laboratory reporting limits in the surface water sampling. Nonetheless, strong conclusions based on these sampling results cannot be made because this sampling effort was based on a single sample. In particular it cannot be concluded whether the discharges from the Facility to Permanente Creek contain these COPCs.

3.6 Conclusions

Historical Water Board documentation regarding the Facility indicates that the Facility discharged sediment-laded water to Permanente Creek in violation of their General Industrial Storm Water Permit in 1998, 1999, 2010, and again in 2011. Sediment-laded water is of potential concern because it may contain COPCs such as hexavalent chromium, mercury, and selenium which can occur naturally in regional soils. Based on this review, it is likely the Facility has discharged stormwater to Permanente Creek containing some naturally occurring COPCs such as mercury and selenium due to inadequate stormwater and erosion management practices. Discharges from the Facility to Permanente Creek have not been fully characterized making it difficult to make conclusions regarding the impacts to Permanente Creek from these discharges.

Recent inspections of the Facility have documented non-stormwater discharges (e.g., industrial process waters) which are in violation of the General Industrial Storm Water Permit for stormwater discharges. It is possible non-stormwater discharges contain other COPCs due to contact with Facility operations. The Water Board is in the process of bringing the Facility into compliance under either the General Sand and Gravel Permit or an individual NPDES permit. Firstly, the Water Board is requiring monitoring which characterizes the nature and extent of all discharges from the Facility (indirectly or directly) to Permanente Creek. Once discharges from the Facility are fully characterized, the Water Board will require the Facility to obtain the necessary discharge permit. Characterization of the discharges will assist in assessing the threat to public health and the environment posed by these discharges.

Whether the Facility is ultimately covered under the General Sand and Gravel Permit or an individual NPDES permit, the Facility will be subject to discharge restrictions and facility management practices intended to be protective of water quality in Permanente Creek. Once in place, these additional requirements will likely allow better characterization of the discharges from the Facility to Permanente Creek, and allow for more robust conclusions regarding the potential impact of Facility operations on Permanente Creek. Requirements of the General Sand and Gravel Permit including effluent limitations and discharge specifications are summarized in Appendix B. It may be optimal to monitor Facility response to these requirements on an ongoing basis to ensure adequate and timely compliance of the Facility with these proposed actions.



4.0 REVIEW OF THE REVISED HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

Iris Environmental has reviewed the revised health risk assessment (HRA) prepared by AMEC dated March 30, 2011. The focus of the review is to assess the adequacy and appropriateness of the methods and key assumptions of the HRA in estimating and quantifying exposures to surrounding communities. This section is divided into three subsections (Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3) focusing on a review of 1) the estimated emissions; 2) the air dispersion modeling assumptions and inputs; and 3) the toxicity assessment and risk evaluation. A screening assessment of the methods and key assumptions is made in each subsection. Additionally, a review of BAAQMD air monitoring data collected nearby the Facility is evaluated in Section 4.4 to compare to the concentrations of COPCs modeled in the HRA. Conclusions are provided in Section 4.5.

The HRA is intended to be in accordance with the AB 2588 Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program. The BAAQMD approved a protocol for completing the HRA. The HRA included five emission scenarios: 2005, 2008/2009, 2010, 2011, and 2013. The review conducted here focuses on the 2008/2009, 2010, 2011, and 2013 scenarios described in the HRA because these are the more recent scenarios. The 2005 scenario was used as the basis for the other scenarios, and therefore emissions and modeling assumptions implicit in the 2005 scenario are considered, but the results of the 2005 scenario are not specifically a focus of this review because this scenario is older and has been superseded by the newer scenarios. The HRA focuses on three receptors: maximum exposed individual resident (MEIR), maximum exposed individual worker (MEIW), and point of maximum impact located off site (PMI). The PMI may be in a location where no permanent receptors are present. Carcinogenic risks are also estimated for sensitive receptors, such as schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. Cancer risks, chronic noncancer hazards, and acute noncancer hazards are estimated for each receptor in the 2008/2009 and 2013 scenarios. The 2010 and 2011 scenarios estimate acute noncancer hazards only because cancer risks and chronic noncancer hazards were shown to be below thresholds in the 2008/2009 scenario.

4.1 Review of Estimated Emissions

4.1.1 Sources Evaluated

4.1.1.1 Summary of Approach and Key Assumptions

Activities at the facility consist of mining raw materials and processing for the production of cement. Processes which contribute to the release of AB 2588 reportable chemicals were included in the estimation of emissions. These sources include: the cement kiln (1 point source), plant baghouses (24 point sources), plant baghouses (1 volume source from inside a building), plant stationary internal combustion engines (2 point sources), and plant fugitive emissions (14 volume sources). These 42 sources are included in the air dispersion model.

4.1.1.2 Assessment of Approach

All stationary point and volume sources at the Facility appear to be included in the emissions estimates. While this appropriately follows the AB 2588 methodology, mobile sources are not included in emissions estimations and these sources may impact local and regional air quality. Mobile sources such as onsite truck traffic or cement truck traffic to and from the Facility are



potentially a significant source of benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and other petroleum related VOCs. Using the AB 2588 HRA to understand the total potential impacts associated with Facility operations is limited by the absence of mobile source emissions. Assessing the impact of mobile sources on the risk conclusions presented in the HRA is not within the scope of this review. The potential contribution from mobile sources is discussed in more detail in Section 4.5.

4.1.2 Chemicals of Potential Concern


Emissions estimates were recorded in the 2008 Comprehensive Emissions Inventory Report (CEIR) (AMEC, 2009 as revised). Of the chemicals emitted from the 42 sources, 69 were identified as toxic air contaminants (TACs) regulated under the AB 2588 program. These chemicals are included in the HRA. The results of the HRA, discussed in detail below, indicate that mercury is by far the most significant COPC for chronic and acute noncancer hazard calculations and that benzene and hexavalent chromium together are by far the most significant COPCs for chronic cancer risk calculations. This review will focus in detail on these hazard and risk drivers of the HRA.


The HRA includes all chemicals emitted from the facility which are designated as TACs under the AB 2588 program. This includes metals, VOCs, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The chemical list is sufficiently exhaustive to conservatively estimate exposures to surrounding communities.

4.1.3 Methods Used


2005 Emission Scenario

Emissions estimates were recorded in the CEIR for 2005 levels of production at the Facility. Sixty-nine chemicals regulated under AB 2588 were identified as being emitted from 42 sources at the Facility. For the cement kiln and the finish mill baghouses, TAC source test data were available, for other sources, particulate matter (PM) or TAC emissions were calculated using published emission factors incorporating assumptions for operating parameters. Mercury emissions from the kiln were calculated using a mass balance approach rather than source tests. The mass balance approach assumes all mercury contained in the processed materials is released. Annual average emissions and maximum hourly emissions were calculated. Maximum hourly emissions are controlled by production capacity, and therefore do not vary between 2005 and 2011. Annual average emissions are controlled by market conditions and vary with the demand for construction materials.



2008/2009 Emission Scenario

To develop annual average emission rates for low cement production rates in years after 2005, annual production of clinker and cement from 2008 and 2009 were compared to 2005 annual production. The average 2008 and 2009 production was divided by the 2005 annual production from the CEIR to develop a production ratio to apply to the emission estimates. Specifically, the ratio was applied to all controlled and fugitive dust emissions with the exception of those related specifically to wind erosion. Assuming facility vehicles are driven at rates proportional to production, the ratio also was applied to fuel dispensed at the fueling station and dust generated on roads by vehicles, but not to emergency diesel generators or welders.

Maximum hourly emissions were assumed to be the same for 2005 and 2008/2009 with the exception of mercury emissions from the kiln which were slightly reduced.

2010 and 2011 Emission Scenarios

Emission scenarios for 2010 and 2011 incorporate mercury emissions mitigation measures. A kiln mill dust collector conveyance system was installed in 2010 and shown to remove approximately 30 percent of mercury emissions. This reduction is included in the 2010 emission scenario. The 2011 emission scenario incorporates the injection of an activated carbon sorbent which removes approximately an additional 50 percent of mercury emissions from the kiln.


A 2013 emission scenario was developed reflecting expected conditions in 2013 once planned Facility changes are completed. In particular, the kiln at the Facility will be reconfigured to emit from a single 300 foot stack rather than the 32 rooftop stacks currently in place. Additionally, the Facility will be required to meet NESHAPs which will affect emissions of hydrochloric acid and mercury. The 2013 emission scenario assumes that maximum annual clinker production of 1,600,000 tons is achieved.



A variety of methods are used to estimate emissions for each source for the 2005 base scenario. There is some uncertainty inherent in estimating emissions based on published emission factors. However, more accurate source testing data is used for two sources, the cement kiln and finish mill baghouses, including the largest source at the Facility, the cement kiln. Additionally, based on the comments by the BAAQMD, a mass balance approach is used to conservatively estimate mercury emissions by assuming that all mercury contained in the materials is emitted by the cement kiln. More accurate emissions measurements for other sources could impact estimated exposures somewhat, but are unlikely to alter the conclusions of the HRA. The methods used to estimate emissions are adequate and appropriate for the 2005 scenario.



2008/2009 Emission Scenario

The approach used to scale the annual average emissions calculated in the high-production 2005 emission scenario to estimate emissions in the low-production 2008/2009 emission scenario is reasonable. Emissions due to wind are not scaled down. It is very reasonable to assume emissions are proportional to production for the largest source of COPCs at the Facility, the cement kiln. Overall the methods used to calculate the 2008/2009 emission scenario are adequate and appropriate.

Production at the Facility for the 2008/2009 is based on actual emission rates which are less than the maximum permitted emission rates due to market conditions. While this approach is reasonable for evaluating historical operations, emissions estimates for future scenarios should assume the maximum annual production rate.

We have the following minor specific comment regarding the maximum hourly mercury emission in the 2008/2009 scenario. The HRA is unclear as to why the maximum hourly mercury emissions in 2005 and the 2008/2009 scenario differ. Regarding the 2008/2009 maximum hourly emissions, Appendix A of the HRA mentions that “maximum hourly production is limited by permit condition on use of petroleum coke set in 2007.” Appendix A does not explicitly say that this is the reason for the slight reduction in maximum hourly mercury emissions. However, if this is the case, it seems probable that maximum hourly emissions of other chemicals would also be slightly reduced. The HRA also does not explicitly provide the reason for the mercury reduction. Nonetheless, while clarity in the approach would be helpful, on the surface the approach appears conservative.

2010 and 2011 Emission Scenarios

The 2010 and 2011 emission scenarios contain mitigation measures for the cement kiln, specifically aimed at lower mercury emissions. The reduction rates assumed seem reasonable on the surface and it is conservative to assume these mitigation measures do not reduce emissions of other chemicals. However, the performance of mitigation measures should be monitored on an ongoing basis to ensure the assumed reductions are occurring. It cannot be assumed reductions observed in initial or pilot testing will continue under various operating conditions or as the systems age. These assumptions are critical in the conclusion that the acute noncancer hazard indices are below the BAAQMD public notification level of 1.0 at the MEIR and MEIW for the 2011 emission scenario.


Similar to the 2010 and 2011 emission scenarios, inherent in the 2013 emission scenario is an assumption of future reductions in emissions. The 2013 emission scenario assumes that National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) have been met and structural changes at the facility have been made. Fulfillment of these assumptions should be demonstrated for validation of the 2013 emission scenario. Failure to reduce emissions by 2013 as assumed would likely result in exceedances of BAAQMD public notification levels due to the projected increase in production at the Facility. Indeed, the HRA presents an “Optimal Production Scenario” which calculates the maximum annual production rates for clinker and



cement that would result in predicted cancer risks just below the BAAQMD public notification level of 1.0×10-5 for the MEIR based on current emission rates. The scenario concluded that an annual production of 951,790 tons of clinker would yield a chronic cancer risk of 9.8×10-6. Therefore, if the maximum annual clinker production rate of 1,600,000 tons was implemented without achieving the anticipated emissions reductions, the chronic cancer risk would be approximately 1.6×10-5 and would be above the BAAQMD public notification level.

4.2 Review of Air Dispersion Model Assumptions and Inputs

Air dispersion modeling was used to estimate off-site air concentrations of chemicals associated with Facility emissions. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) (CARB, 2010) is specifically designed for conducting AB 2588 HRAs and was used to estimate the health risks associated with Facility emissions. Air dispersion modeling was conducted in accordance with the Air Quality Modeling Protocol, which was approved by BAAQMD on June 21, 2010. The Lakes MPI version of AERMOD was used to predict ambient concentrations resulting from the Facility’s emissions sources. Annual average and maximum 1-hour concentrations are calculated at offsite receptors to evaluate chronic and acute exposures, respectively.

4.2.1 Source Inputs


Two simplifying assumptions in particular were made in modeling the sources identified at the site. First, dust collector sources with an insignificant contribution to particulate emissions (less than 0.5 percent of PM10 emissions) were modeled as one combined source located in an average location based on the stacks it is comprised of in the main operations area of the Facility. Second, fugitive sources were assigned to one of eight volume sources or were divided between two or three volume sources if the fugitive source spanned multiple of these eight volume source areas.

Inputs for point sources were provided by the Facility, AMEC did not measure any source parameters. Stack velocities were calculated based on the stack flow. For sources which operate at ambient temperature which varies seasonally, a value of 0 °K was used for the stack emission temperature. Some source input parameters such as operating schedule, stack height, emission temperature, and stack flow were obtained from a Facility inspection report dated March 10, 2005 which AMEC received after the CEIR was prepared. The assumptions used to calculate throughputs for each source are documented in the CEIR.

The HRA does not explicitly explain how source parameters for fugitive volume sources such as operating schedule and source dimensions are obtained.


The two simplifying assumptions used in defining point and volume sources are reasonable and unlikely to significantly affect modeled concentrations of chemicals at receptors.



The HRA notes point source input parameters used in modeling were provided to AMEC by the Facility to conduct the modeling. AMEC did not measure any source parameters. There is no documentation of third-party verification of the accuracy of these source inputs. Iris Environmental cannot verify the accuracy of the point source input parameters based on the available documentation. Additionally, the HRA does not explicitly explain how source parameters for fugitive volume sources such as operating schedule and source dimensions are obtained. This information should be specified in the HRA for clarity. However, absent a third-party review of the Facility it is impossible to definitely conclude that source input parameters are accurate and appropriate.

4.2.2 Receptor Grid


A receptor grid including elevations was input to the model. The receptor grid was a modification of the BAAQMD fine receptor grid generated for their preliminary modeling. AMEC recognized that the receptor locations provided by BAAQMD were not consistent with the property boundary provided by the Facility. Based on this review, the receptor grid was modified to exclude receptors within the Facility boundary and to add receptors in offsite areas where they were not previously present. The grid includes residential and worker receptors. Sensitive receptors such as schools, hospitals, and daycare centers are also identified within the receptor grid.

Receptors were placed on various grid spacing (30 to 500 meters) covering an area approximately 14 kilometers from east to west and 16 kilometers from north to south. A 30-meter grid spacing was used in the residential area nearest the Facility. These grid receptors were also used to define the zone of impact (ZOI) which is further discussed in Section 4.3.


Concentrations were modeled at each location within the receptor grid and the worst-case receptor used to make conclusions. The Facility spans nearly 4,000 meters west to east, therefore, the grid spacing of 30 to 500 meters is sufficiently dense to reasonably estimate the worst-case receptor. Iris Environmental did not verify that all residential, worker, and sensitive receptors near the Facility were identified as this was outside the scope of our review.

4.2.3 Modeling Approach


Regulatory default inputs were selected for elevated terrain algorithms requiring input of terrain height data for receptors and emission sources, stack tip downwash (building downwash automatically overrides), calms processing routines, and buoyancy-induced dispersion. Increased ground level concentrations resulting from the presence of large buildings near stacks were incorporated with USEPA’s Building Profile Input Program for PRIME. A rural land use was selected for modeling because the area within 3 kilometers of the Facility is only 31 percent residential and commercial land use.




The model is a regulatory developed dispersion model and model inputs are primarily regulatory defaults. This is consistent with typical risk assessment dispersion modeling and is likely conservative. Rural land use was selected and is more conservative than urban land use. We have the following specific comment.

The HRA states, “For the year to second unit conversion in the annual emissions, HARP On-Ramp uses 8760 seconds per year, essentially assuming all processes emit constantly for the entire year and were modeled correspondingly.” Assuming emissions occur continuously over the year underestimates exposures to the MEIW if the majority of emissions occur during the workday. Also, there is an obvious typo in the statement (there are 8760 hours in a year). While Tables 2 and 3 of the HRA show that many of the Facility sources operate 24 hours/day, including the cement kiln, it would be helpful to know whether this continuous operation is applicable to a low-production scenario such as the 2008/2009 emission scenario. It should be demonstrated that Facility emissions occur continuously in order to justify this year to second unit conversion in the calculation of annual emissions.

4.2.4 Meteorological Data


Selected Critical Input Parameters

USEPA AERMET tool was used to process meteorological data for use in the modeling. AERMET merges National Weather Service (NWS) surface observations and onsite meteorological data with NWS upper air observations. Wind speed and direction were collected hourly at an onsite 10-meter tower located near the southwestern Facility boundary.

Land Use Parameters (e.g., albedo, Bowen ratio, and roughness length)

USEPA’s AERSURFACE tool was used to calculate the surface roughness length, albedo, and Bowen ratio inputs required by AERMET. Surface parameters were calculated for a 1 kilometer radius around the onsite meteorological tower. United States Geological Service (USGS) National Land Cover Data (NLCD) were acquired for the northern section of California and used as an input to AERSURFACE. The area was broken into six compass sectors and land use parameters were calculated for each. Surface characteristics were also broken down by month to account for seasonal variations. Average surface moisture was assumed.

Methods to Address Missing Meteorological Data

Surface observations collected by NOAA at the San Jose Airport were used to provide relative humidity, station pressure, and cloud cover data.

Source of Upper Air Data

Upper air radiosonde data were provided by BAAQMD for the Oakland NWS site. This combination of data met the USEPA completeness requirements for meteorological data.




The use of agency recommended software for processing meteorological data is appropriate. We note that the use of meteorological data which were collected from locations not at the Facility introduces some uncertainty into the modeling. As presented in Figure 1 of the HRA, the surface station and upper air station are located at the San Jose airport and in Oakland, respectively. Because the Facility is located in a mountainous area, whereas offsite monitoring data was collected at relatively flat locations at sea-level, local meteorology may vary significantly. Additionally, wind speeds and direction are based on just one year of monitoring data. It is common and would be more robust to use five years of monitoring data in this type of modeling. This meteorological dataset was proposed in the Facility’s Air Quality Monitoring Protocol dated June 8, 2010. Explicit documentation of BAAQMD approval of the protocol is not available online, however it can be inferred that BAAQMD approved of the use of this combination of meteorological datasets. Indeed, the BAAQMD provided the Facility with the upper air data to use in this modeling.

4.3 Review of Toxicity Assessment and Risk Characterization

The HRA is conducted in accordance with the AB 2588 Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program. Risk calculations were performed using HARP, which is a software package designed by the CARB. Chronic cancer risk, chronic noncancer hazard, and acute noncancer hazard are calculated for each emission scenario and receptor based on the dispersion modeling discussed above. Overall, this approach seems reasonable.

4.3.1 Inputs


HARP incorporates the algorithms and exposure assumptions for estimating exposures for the AB 2588 program recommended by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). HARP incorporates the dispersion coefficients predicted by AERMOD and emission rates to predict ground-level concentrations for each receptor. This modeling is discussed in Sections 4.1 and 4.2. HARP then uses the ground-level concentrations, environmental fate assumptions, exposure parameters, and dose calculation algorithms recommended by OEHHA to estimate potential health effects for all receptors.

Three primary emissions scenarios are considered in the HRA: 2005 based on the CEIR emissions study (AMEC, 2008), 2008/2009 based on a low production scenario, and 2013 based on estimated production expansion and structural changes at the Facility including compliance with NESHAPs. Two additional scenarios were included for the acute noncancer endpoint for 2010 and 2011 production. The 2010 scenario incorporates the implementation of a kiln mill dust collector conveyance system, which reduced emissions of mercury by 30 percent. The 2011 scenario is based on the addition of activated carbon sorbent to the flue of the kiln to remove mercury; the system is expected to remove an additional 50 percent over the 2010 scenarios for a total reduction of 65 percent from 2008/2009 emissions.




Inputs specific to the toxicity assessment and risk characterization are agency default inputs. Inputs which are specific to the Facility are the dispersion coefficients and emission rates developed in the modeling discussed in Sections 4.1 and 4.2. It should be reiterated that ongoing monitoring of the mercury removal technologies should be conducted to ensure anticipated emissions reductions are occurring. Without ongoing monitoring, the 2010, 2011, and 2013 emission scenarios cannot be validated.

4.3.2 Exposure Assumptions


The risk assessment focuses on three receptors: MEIR, MEIW, and PMI. The PMI may be in a location where no permanent receptors are present. Carcinogenic risks are also estimated for sensitive receptors, such as schools, hospitals, and daycare centers.

Age sensitivity factors are applied for carcinogenic exposures to account for higher sensitivity of younger receptors. When these age sensitivity factors are considered over a 70-year lifetime, the average lifetime age sensitivity factor (LASF) is 1.7. For school children above the age of 2 years, the default age sensitivity factor of 3 is applied. These factors were applied to health risks calculated in the HRA outside of the HARP model because the HARP model has not yet been updated to address this change.

Under the Derived Adjusted Method, HARP calculates the inhalation risk using a 80th percentile breathing rate estimate if inhalation is the only pathway evaluated or one of the two dominant (risk-driving) pathways evaluated for a particular chemical. Otherwise, an average breathing rate value is used as opposed to the high-end value.

Per BAAQMD guidance, residential exposure scenarios are based on a 70 year exposure duration, commercial exposure scenarios are based on a 40 year exposure duration, and school children exposure scenarios are based on a 9 year exposure duration.


The exposure assumptions used in the HRA are generally consistent with AB 2588 Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program, which is a valid risk assessment methodology. Exposure assumptions vary somewhat among agency guidance regarding risk characterization. The Hot Spots Program recommendation of residential exposure duration and the incorporation of the LASF are on the conservative end of risk assessment guidance. The exposure assumptions incorporated into the risk assessment are adequate and appropriate.

We have the following specific minor comment regarding the justification for the assumed breathing rate for noncancer hazard calculations: as noted in the HRA, HARP has two options for the inhalation rate for residential exposure: the Derived OEHHA Method inhalation rate and the Derived Adjusted Inhalation rate. The HRA uses the lower, less conservative, Derived Adjusted Inhalation rate because it is “consistent with BAAQMD guidance”. However, the BAAQMD guidance referenced only mentions this breathing rate when referring to estimating



cancer risks. There is no mention of recommending this breathing rate to estimate chronic or acute noncancer hazards. While it could be argued BAAQMD guidance can be extended to noncancer hazard calculations, the current justification is inaccurate. Incorporation of the higher, more conservative, inhalation rate would increase noncancer hazards via the inhalation route by approximately one-quarter and would likely change the conclusion regarding acute noncancer hazard exposures for the 2011 scenario. Conclusions for other scenarios would likely remain unchanged.

4.3.3 Toxicity


Toxicity values published by OEHHA are used in the HRA. Mercury, a primary risk-driver, is considered for the inhalation route only. The HRA states: “Based on guidance provided to BAAQMD by OEHHA (Dr. Bob Blaisdell), it has been determined that elemental mercury does not have multiple exposure pathways. It is an inhalation risk only.”

Noncancer effects are considered additive only if they have the same organ/system endpoint. Potential end points for acute and chronic noncancer toxicological effects were classified into thirteen categories based on OEHHA guidelines.


Toxicity values used in the risk assessment are those published by California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) OEHHA for use in the AB 2588 Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program and are in accordance with OEHHA guidance. Assuming noncancer effects are additive only if they have the same organ/system endpoint is standard Cal/EPA guidance and is appropriate for risk characterization.

Consideration of sources of toxicity values in addition to OEHHA could be more conservative, such as those promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Some Cal/EPA offices do recommend this approach, particularly for noncancer endpoints, notably the Cal/EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Therefore, there is a bit of a gray area in Cal/EPA risk assessment guidance. Iris Environmental has not reviewed toxicity values of individual chemicals or made an assessment of the impact on the results of incorporating USEPA or other toxicity values because this is outside the scope of our review.

For mercury, the HRA considered only the inhalation route. We agree that the oral routes for exposure to elemental mercury are incomplete pathways because elemental mercury is volatile and tends to be in the vapor-phase in ambient air. However, the HHRA does not appear to demonstrate that the only form of mercury emitted by the facility is elemental mercury. Naturally occurring mercury can exist in many other inorganic and organic mercury compounds. Nonetheless, inhalation of mercury is likely to be the most significant exposure pathway for mercury and it is conservative to assume all of the mercury is in the elemental and volatile form.



4.3.4 Outputs and Results


Chronic Cancer Risk

2008/2009 Scenario

Estimated carcinogenic risks for the MEIR and MEIW are 8.5×10-6 and 7.9×10-7, respectively, based on average 2008/2009 production rates (low production emissions). Neither of the predicted risks for the MEIR and MEIW exceeds the BAAQMD regulatory public notification level of 1.0×10-5. The predicted cancer risk at the PMI is 1.2×10-5 for the 2008/2009 scenario, although this is above the BAAQMD regulatory public notification level, the AB 2588 program focuses on long-term exposure for residents and workers, and none are present at the PMI for the Facility. The carcinogenic risk estimates for sensitive receptors range from 3.2×10-7 to 1.0×10-6 for the 2008/2009 scenario. The cancer risk for the MEIR is higher for the 2008/2009 scenario as compared to the 2005 scenario due to the inclusion of the LASF. The COPCs contributing most significantly to predicted risk are hexavalent chromium and benzene. Hexavalent chromium contributed between 42 and 58 percent of the estimated risks. Benzene contributed between 24 and 38 percent of the estimated risks.

The cancer burden was calculated for the 21 census tracts relevant to the zone of impact (ZOI) as the product of the predicted cancer risk and the tract population. The total population cancer burden for these 21 tracts was 0.14 which is below the typical threshold of 1.0.

A ZOI based on a 1.0×10-6 risk level is developed. The ZOI based on average emissions in 2008/2009 extends approximately 5 kilometers east, approximately 5 kilometers north, and approximately 5 kilometers south.

2013 Scenario

A 2013 scenario was developed reflecting expected conditions in 2013 once planned Facility changes are completed. An assumption is made regarding the maximum annual rate of clinker production. Operational revisions designed to comply with NESHAPs requirements will result in changes to emission rates of mercury and hydrochloric acid. In addition, the kiln at the Facility will be reconfigured to emit from a single 300 foot stack rather than the 32 rooftop stacks currently in place.

The revised modeling predicts lower exposures for the MEIR and MEIW; however, due to the assumption of increased production at the quarry, risks for the MEIR and MEIW are estimated to be 7.0×10-6 and 9.3×10-7, respectively. The highest predicted carcinogenic risk for the PMI was 1.7×10-5, but at a location where no permanent receptors are located.

Chronic Noncancer Hazard

2008/2009 Scenario



The highest target organ-specific chronic hazard indexes for the MEIR and MEIW are 0.34 and 0.18, respectively. The predicted target organ-specific chronic hazard index at the PMI is 0.41. The chemical contributing most significantly to predicted chronic hazard indexes is mercury (85 to 97 percent), which occurs naturally in the raw materials used to make cement. All hazard indexes are below the BAAQMD regulatory public notification level of 1.0.

2013 Scenario

The highest predicted target organ-specific chronic hazard indexes for the MEIR, MEIW, and PMI are 0.078, 0.079, and 0.19. These values are well below the BAAQMD regulatory public notification level of 1.0.

Acute Noncancer Hazard

2008/2009 Scenario

The highest predicted target organ-specific acute hazard indexes for the MEIR, MEIW, and PMI are 2.1, 2.6, and 4.4, respectively, for the 2008/2009 scenario. All hazard indexes are above the BAAQMD regulatory public notification level of 1.0.

The chemical contributing most significantly to predicted acute hazard index is mercury (97 to 99 percent), which occurs naturally in the raw materials (e.g., limestone) used to make cement. Of the emission sources at the Facility, the kiln contributes most significantly to the acute hazard index (98 to 99 percent). The hazard indexes calculated for the 2008/2009 scenario are higher than the 2005 scenario because OEHHA reduced the reference exposure level (REL) for mercury by adding an additional factor of 3 to the uncertainty factor.

2010 Scenario

In 2010 the Facility began implementing a kiln mill dust conveyance system, which reduced mercury emissions by 30 percent. Emissions of other chemicals were assumed to remain equal to the 2008/2009 scenario. The highest predicted target organ-specific acute hazard indexes for the MEIR, MEIW, and PMI are 1.5, 1.9, and 3.1, respectively, for the 2010 scenario. All acute hazard indexes are above the BAAQMD regulatory public notification level of 1.0.

2011 Scenario

The Facility expected to begin operation of a system which injects powdered activated carbon sorbent into the kiln flue gas in 2011. Based on testing of the system, the system is expected to reduce maximum hourly mercury emissions by an additional 50 percent for a total 65 percent reduction of mercury emissions for the 2008/2009 scenario. The highest predicted target organ-specific acute hazard indexes for the MEIR, MEIW, and PMI are 0.76, 0.94, and 1.5, respectively, for the 2011 scenario. The acute hazard index for the PMI is above the BAAQMD regulatory public notification level of 1.0, however, the AB 2588 program focuses on exposure for residents and workers, and none are present at the PMI for the Facility.

2013 Scenario



The highest predicted target organ-specific acute hazard indexes for the MEIR, MEIW, and PMI are 0.025, 0.026, and 0.043. These values are well below the BAAQMD regulatory public notification level of 1.0.


The HRA compares cancer risks to a threshold of 1.0×10-5 and cites this as the BAAQMD regulatory public notification level. The BAAQMD health risk guidance states: “Any HRSA [health risk screening analysis] shall be completed by following the procedures described in the OEHHA Health Risk Assessment Guidelines for the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program that were adopted by OEHHA on October 3, 2003 and any State risk assessment and risk management policies and guidelines in effect as of June 1, 2009.” Most California risk assessment guidance uses a threshold of 1.0×10-6 as the de minimis risk level for residential exposure scenarios based on a typical risk management range of 1.0×10-6 to 1.0×10-4. While 1.0×10-5 is the logarithmic midpoint of this range, we note that the Cal/EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Office of Human and Ecological Risk (HERO) generally uses a point of departure for cancer risk for residential scenarios of 1.0×10-6, whereby further investigation is warranted if risks are above 1.0×10-6. Additionally, the Cal/EPA OEHHA publishes California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs), which are conservative initial screening tools, based on a cancer risk of 1.0×10-6. This is potentially significant as the estimated cancer risks under the 2008/2009 and 2013 scenarios for the MEIR are 8.5×10-6 and 7.0×10-6, respectively. However, there are differences in the exposure assessment methodology guidance of these various agencies, which make a direct comparison between the methodologies difficult. This is a gray area in California health risk assessment guidance.

The HRA develops a ZOI to demonstrate the overall impact of the Facility to the surrounding community. The cancer burden is calculated within the ZOI based on a 1.0×10-6 risk level, which is the most typical method under the AB 2588 methodology. However, the Hot Spots Methodology states “some districts may prefer to use a cancer risk of 10-7 to define the carcinogenic ZOI.” The cancer burden should quantify impacts to the entire surrounding community, therefore it may be more appropriate to calculate a cancer burden within a ZOI based on a 1.0×10-7 risk level. Lower risk levels over larger population sizes are significant. Given the large population in the nearby area of the Facility, it would be insightful to calculate a ZOI based on a 1.0×10-7 risk level.

Additionally, regarding the ZOI, we note that it is proposed in the 2013 scenario to move to a single larger and higher kiln stack. While this is intended to lower impacts at the MEIR and MEIW, the higher stack will spread the impacts over a greater area and therefore a greater population. The HRA does not calculate a ZOI for the 2013 scenario. It would be helpful to have the 2013 ZOI shown on the figures.

The HRA is inherently narrow in focus with respect to available Cal/EPA risk quantification guidance because it is intended to demonstrate compliance with the AB 2588 Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program. The results of the HRA are only explained in the context of this program, and are done so adequately and appropriately for this purpose. A response to the comments noted here would help to more fully understand potential health impacts to surrounding communities by the Facility. Additionally, the Air Toxics Hot Spots program proposed revisions to the



technical support document for exposure assessment and stochastic analysis on November 7, 2011. The document is currently in a public review period. Future risk assessments for the facility should include updates to the guidance.

Finally, we have the following minor comment regarding Table 17: Table 17 appears to incorrectly show the bottom range of the contribution for every source as 0 percent. The 2005 and 2008/2009 scenarios have very similar results and therefore the bottom of the range should be very similar to the top.

4.4 Review of BAAQMD Air Monitoring Data

A review of air monitoring data is conducted here to compare to the concentrations modeled in the HRA. The BAAQMD has operated a special purpose air monitoring station in Cupertino located approximately 1,500 meters east of the Facility since September 2010 to determine if the residents of Cupertino are exposed to elevated pollution levels which might not be captured at other air monitoring stations in the Bay Area because of the Facility. The study measures pollutants in ambient air specific to suspected emissions from the Facility and its associated truck traffic. The maximum detected concentration of chemicals measured between September 2010 and June 2011 are summarized in Table 1 and compared to conservative screening levels published by the Water Board and USEPA. Monitoring results for gasses reported by the BAAQMD in parts per billion (ppb) units and are converted based on molecular mass to micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) for comparison with agency published screening levels.

Of note is that mercury was detected at low concentrations, with a maximum detection of mercury of 0.00005 μg/m3 and a maximum detection of total atmospheric mercury of 0.005 μg/m3. These concentrations are at least two orders of magnitude lower than the maximum hourly concentrations modeled in the HRA. These concentrations are similar to the annual average concentrations modeled in the HRA. One would expect the maximum 24-hour measurements made by the BAAQMD to be higher than annual average concentrations, particularly given the inclusion of any background concentrations in the BAAQMD measurements. This suggests that either the emission or the modeling assumptions contained in the HRA regarding mercury could be conservative, if this station is appropriately located to correctly capture emissions from the Facility.

Benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde were all detected above conservative residential screening levels at concentrations two to three orders of magnitude higher than those modeled in the HRA. Diesel truck traffic due to the Facility could explain these elevated concentrations. The HRA does not include mobile sources, such as diesel truck traffic, and therefore there is a gap in the HRA. However, these chemicals are generally present in ambient air in the Bay Area due to regional vehicular traffic and therefore it cannot be concluded that these concentrations are solely due to the Facility. Indeed, the maximum concentrations of these chemicals measured by the BAAQMD in ambient air in San Jose in 2009 are higher than those measured in Cupertino (BAAQMD, 2011). Mobile sources could be included in a separate analysis to definitely conclude if operations at the Facility are resulting in harmful exposures.



4.5 Summary and Conclusions

Iris Environmental has reviewed the assumptions, methodology, and conclusions of the AB 2588 HRA conducted for the Facility. Our efforts focused on a review of 1) the estimated emissions; 2) the air dispersion modeling assumptions and inputs; and 3) the toxicity assessment and risk evaluation. Specific critiques of the approach taken in the HRA are contained above. Overall the conclusions of the HRA appear reasonable. We do have the following observations.

The cancer risks and chronic noncancer hazards estimated in the HRA for the 2008/2009 and 2013 scenarios are below the BAAQMD public notification levels of 1.0×10-5 and 1.0, respectively. However, the estimated cancer risks are above the Cal/EPA de minimis risk level of 1.0×10-6. The impact to the overall communities was quantified via a cancer burden assessment over the entire zone of impact (ZOI) and was determined to be less than the typical threshold of 1.0. Production at the Facility for the most recent scenario (2008/2009) is assumed to be low due to market conditions. If the Facility was currently operating at maximum production, cancer risks would be above 1.0×10-5. The permit the Facility currently operates under is inadequate in ensuring Facility operations will not pose cancer risks above 1.0×10-5 in the surrounding communities unless the Facility undertakes all the proposed mitigation measures and structural changes.

Acute hazard indices are above the public notification level of 1.0 for the 2008/2009 scenario due predominantly to emissions of mercury. The Facility has implemented several mitigation measures which are intended to reduce mercury emissions such that the acute hazard indices are below 1.0 by 2011 as demonstrated in the 2011 scenario. The performance of these mitigation measures should be monitored on an ongoing basis to ensure the assumed reduction in mercury emissions is occurring. It cannot be assumed reductions observed in initial or pilot testing will continue under various operating conditions or as the systems age. Nonetheless, based on a review of BAAQMD air monitoring data it appears that the assumptions contained in the HRA regarding mercury emissions may be conservative, should this station be appropriately located to correctly capture emissions from the Facility.

The HRA contains a 2013 scenario in which production occurs at the maximum rate and exposure levels are shown to be below BAAQMD public notification levels due to mitigation measures and structural changes to the Facility. However, it is unclear if the NESHAPs or other regulations which currently require the Facility to reduce emissions by 2013 will remain in effect. It may be optimal to monitor Facility response to these requirements on an ongoing basis to ensure the planned emission reductions incorporated into the HHRA are implemented. Additionally, the structural changes to the Facility’s cement kiln exhaust stack will result in lower exposures to nearby receptors but may spread the exposures over a larger area and population. Conducting a cancer burden assessment for the 2013 scenario would ensure this is not of concern.

5.0 REFERENCES

AMEC Geomatrix (AMEC). 2009. Comprehensive Emission Inventory Report (CEIR) For Lehigh Southwest Cement Company’s Cupertino Facility for 2008. March 27.



AMEC. 2011. Revised AB 2588 Health Risk Assessment 2005, 2008, 2009/ and 2013 Production Scenario. March 30.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2011. Cupertino Toxic Gasses and Metals Sampling Data with Comparison to San Jose. http://www.baaqmd.gov/sitecore-s/~/media/Files/Technical%20Services/Cupertino_toxics.ashx

Geosyntec consultants (Geosyntec). 2010. General Industrial Stormwater Permit, Report of Potential Exceedances of Water Quality Standards, Review of Current Best Management Practices, and Additional BMPs to be Developed and Implemented. Lehigh Southwest Cement Company Permanente Plant, Cupertino, California. March 17.

Iris Environmental. 2011a. Proposal for Engineering Consulting Services Associated with the Review of Information Regarding the Lehigh Mine and Quarry located at 24001 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California. September 2.

Iris Environmental. 2011b. Surface Water and Sediment Sampling in Permanente Creek. Permanente Creek, Rancho San Antonio County Park, California. November 18.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (SFBRWQCB). 1999. Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 99-018. Hanson Permanente Cement Company, Inc. Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California.

SFBRWQCB. 2008. Order No.R2-2008-0011, General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Process Wastewaters from Aggregate Mining, Sand Washing, and Sand Offloading Facilities to Surface Waters (“Sand and Gravel General Permit”). February 13.

SFBRWQCB. 2010a. Final California 2010 Integrated Report ( 303(d) List/305(b) Report) http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2010state_ir_reports/00683.shtml

SFBRWQCB. 2010b. NOTICE OF VIOLATION and required correction actions for failure to protect stormwater at industrial facility. March 26.

SFBRWQCB. 2011a. Letter to Lehigh Southwest Cement Company, Notice of Violations and Requirement to Obtain Coverage for Discharges to Waters of the U.S. under Different Permit, Regional Water Quality Control Board. February 18.

SFBRWQCB. 2011b. Complaint No. R2-2011-0023 Administrative Civil Liability in the Matter if Unauthorized Discharge Lehigh Southwest Cement Company, Santa Clara County. April 29.

SFBRWQCB. 2011c. Water Code Section 13267 Order and Notice of Violation for unauthorized discharge to Permanente Creek. June 14.

Technical Memorandum – Document ReviewLehigh Southwest Cement Permanente Plant

January 19, 2012

Table 1. Summary of BAAQMD Monitoring Data at the Cupertino Station

Chemical of Potential Concern Maximum4 Residential RSL2 Residential ESL3

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3)

Gasses

Benzene 1.1 0.31 0.084

Chloride < 0.14 NA NA

1,3-Butadiene < 0.13 0.081 NA

Acetone 22 32000 660

Methyl Ethyl Ketone 2.6 5200 1,000

Toluene 3.4 5200 63

Ethylbenzene 0.43 0.97 0.98

m,p-Xylene 1.7 100 21

o-Xylene 0.69 100 21

Trichlorofluoromethane 1.5 730 NA

Methylene Chloride 1.1 5.2 5.2

1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 0.54 31000 NA

Chloroform 0.39 0.11 0.46

Ethylene Dichloride < 0.40 0.094 0.094

Methyl Chloroform < 0.16 5200 460

Carbon Tetrachloride 0.82 0.41 0.019

Trichloroethylene 0.16 1.2 1.2

Ethylene Dibromide < 0.077 0.0041 0.0041

Perchloroethylene 0.14 0.41 0.41

Formaldehyde 5.7 0.19 NA

Acetaldehyde 3.2 1.1 NA

Metals

Aluminum 0.078 5.2 NA

Silicon 0.28 NA NA

Phosphorus 0.0030 NA NA

Sulfur 0.092 NA NA

Chlorine 0.34 0.15 NA

Potassium 0.037 NA NA

Calcium 0.13 NA NA

Titanium 0.010 NA NA

Vanadium 0.00069 NA NA

Agency-Published Screening Levels

IRIS ENVIRONMENTALI:\LAH Planning\Data\BAAQMD_Air_Monitoring_Data\BAAQMD_Air_Monitoring_Data

Page 1 of 2

Technical Memorandum – Document ReviewLehigh Southwest Cement Permanente Plant

January 19, 2012

Table 1. Summary of BAAQMD Monitoring Data at the Cupertino Station

Chemical of Potential Concern Maximum4 Residential RSL2 Residential ESL3

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3)

Agency-Published Screening Levels

Chromium 0.00053 NA NA

Manganese 0.0025 NA NA

Iron 0.13 NA NA

Cobalt 0.00076 0.00027 NA

Nickel 0.00031 0.0094 NA

Copper 0.0017 NA NA

Zinc 0.0025 NA NA

Arsenic 0.000050 0.00057 NA

Selenium 0.00012 21 NA

Bromine 0.00086 NA NA

Rubidium 0.00017 NA NA

Strontium 0.00081 NA NA

Yttrium 0.000070 NA NA

Molybdenum < 0.000060 NA NA

Tin 0.00052 NA NA

Antimony 0.00069 NA NA

Barium 0.0046 0.52 NA

Mercury 0.000050 0.31 0.019

Lead 0.00041 NA NA

Total Atmospheric Mercury 0.0050 0.31 0.019

Notes:

(1) "NA" indicates that a screening level for this chemical is not available.

(2) Residential air screening level from the USEPA's Regional Screening Level (RSL) Summary Table June 2011.

(3)

(4)

(5) Concentrations in exceedance of conservative screening levels are bolded and highlighted gray.

Residential indoor air screening levels developed by the SFBRWQCB as part of the November 2008 Enviornmental Screening Levels (ESL) Tables.

Concentrations measured between September 2010 and June 2011 at the BAAQMD air monitoring station in Cupertino (BAAQMD, 2011).

IRIS ENVIRONMENTALI:\LAH Planning\Data\BAAQMD_Air_Monitoring_Data\BAAQMD_Air_Monitoring_Data

Page 2 of 2


IRIS ENVIRONMENTAL

Appendix A

Surface Water and Sediment Sampling in Permanente Creek (Iris Environmental, 2011b)

I R I S E N V I R O N M E N T A L

Via Email

November 18, 2011 Ms. Debbie Pedro Planning Director Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022

Re: Surface Water and Sediment Sampling in Permanente Creek Permanente Creek, Rancho San Antonio County Park, California

Dear Debbie:

At your request, Iris Environmental collected one surface water and one sediment sample in Permanente Creek. The purpose of this evaluation is to provide a screening evaluation of the potential characteristics of discharges from the Lehigh Southwest Cement Permanente Plant (the Facility) to Permanente Creek. This sampling effort and the results are briefly summarized in this letter.

Sampling Efforts

Iris Environmental conducted sampling efforts on October 28, 2011 in Permanente Creek at a location in Permanente Creek within Rancho San Antonio County Park identified by the Town of Los Altos Hills and shown on the attached map. As you requested, the samples were delivered to Test America Laboratories and analyzed for Title 22 Metals (CAM 17) plus mercury and hexavalent chromium. Soil results were reported on a dry-weight basis to be consistent with agency-published soil screening levels. Analytical results are summarized in Table 1.

Sampling Results

Table 1 presents a summary of the analytical results. Chemicals shown in bold were detected. Of the 18 chemicals analyzed for, three chemicals were detected in surface water sampling: barium, molybdenum, and vanadium. Additionally, eleven chemicals were detected in sediment sampling: arsenic, barium, hexavalent chromium, total chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, vanadium, and zinc.

Ms. Debbie Pedro November 18, 2011

Detections of chemicals in surface water and soil are compared to potentially applicable Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) published by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB), see Table 1. Detections in exceedance of ESLs are bolded and highlighted gray in Table 1. One chemical was detected above ESLs in surface water sampling: molybdenum. Two chemicals were detected above ESLs in sediment sampling: arsenic and vanadium.

Observations

The detection of arsenic in sediment sampling is two orders of magnitude above the ESLs. The detection of a high level of arsenic in sediment suggests discharges from the Facility may be a source of arsenic in Permanente Creek. However, background concentrations of arsenic are commonly found in soils throughout California. A background study would be required to determine if arsenic concentrations in sediment are elevated above regional background levels. A background study is not within the scope of this sampling effort.

The detection of hexavalent chromium in sediment sampling is somewhat unusual and potentially suggests a source of hexavalent chromium from the Facility. Indeed, emissions of hexavalent chromium to air is a significant pathway in the HRA conducted for the Facility. However, portions of California have been shown to exhibit background concentrations of hexavalent chromium. A background study and/or a detailed source/receptor study would be required to determine if the detection of hexavalent chromium is related to the Facility. These studies are not within the scope of this sampling effort.

Of the chemicals which were including in the sampling, barium, cobalt, and molybdenum are not included in the recent Health Risk Assessment (HRA) (Amec, 2011) nor are these chemicals analytes in the monitoring of discharge waters required as part of the Notice of Violation (NOV) issued by the SFBRWQCB on June 14, 2011. Therefore, these chemicals are potentially not of concern in evaluating discharges from the Facility.

Limitations

Iris Environmental has not reviewed the nature and extent of this sampling to determine if it is adequate to draw robust risk-based conclusions about the characteristics of the discharges to Permanente Creek. This would likely require additional samples and multiple rounds of sampling. Moreover, nondetects do not necessarily provide a definitive conclusion that there are no discharges of this chemical to Permanente Creek. Finally no background analysis was conducted. In sum, we collected samples at a location provided by you and are reporting the results; the ability to draw strong conclusions regarding the meaning of the results may be limited.

Please don’t hesitate to call us at (510) 834-4747 if you have any questions regarding this summary.

Ms. Debbie Pedro November 18, 2011

Sincerely,

IRIS ENVIRONMENTAL

Robert Balas John McLaughlin Principal Senior Scientist Attachments: Table 1. Summary of Surface Water and Sediment Sampling in Permanente

Creek

Map of Sampling Location in Rancho San Antonio County Park

Test America Analytical Report, Job Number 720-38386-1

Surface Water and Sediment Sampling in Permanente CreekPermanente Creek, Rancho San Antonio County Park, California

November 18, 2011

Table 1. Summary of Surface Water and Sediment Sampling in Permanente Creek

Chemical of Potential ConcernAnalytical

Result Water ESL1 Water ESL2Analytical

Result Soil ESL3 Soil ESL4

(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

Antimony < 0.01 6.0E-03 6.0E-03 < 2.4 6.3E+00 6.3E+00

Arsenic < 0.01 1.4E-04 5.0E-02 49 3.9E-01 3.9E-01

Barium 0.07 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 140 7.5E+02 3.0E+03

Beryllium < 0.002 2.7E-03 4.0E-03 < 0.49 4.0E+00 3.1E+01

Cadmium < 0.0025 2.5E-04 5.0E-03 < 0.61 1.7E+00 1.7E+00

Chromium, hexavalent < 0.01 1.1E-02 2.1E-02 2.7 8.0E+00 9.4E+00

Chromium, total < 0.01 5.0E-02 5.0E-02 42 NA NA

Cobalt < 0.002 3.0E-03 1.4E-01 5.9 4.0E+01 2.8E+02

Copper < 0.02 9.0E-03 1.3E+00 220 2.3E+02 6.3E+03

Lead < 0.005 2.5E-03 1.5E-02 3.8 2.0E+02 2.6E+02

Mercury < 0.0002 2.5E-05 2.0E-03 0.032 1.3E+00 1.3E+00

Molybdenum 0.14 3.5E-02 3.5E-02 < 2.4 4.0E+01 7.8E+01

Nickel < 0.01 5.2E-02 1.0E-01 48 1.5E+02 3.0E+02

Selenium < 0.02 5.0E-03 5.0E-02 < 4.9 1.0E+01 7.8E+01

Silver < 0.005 3.4E-04 3.5E-02 < 1.2 2.0E+01 7.8E+01

Thallium < 0.01 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 < 2.4 1.3E+00 1.3E+00

Vanadium 0.015 1.5E-02 1.5E-02 32 1.6E+01 1.6E+01

Zinc < 0.02 1.2E-01 5.0E+00 28 6.0E+02 4.7E+03

Notes:

(1) SFBRWQCB Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs), Surface Water Bodies, Surface Water

(2) SFBRWQCB Summary of Drinking Water Screening Levels

(3)

(4) SFBRWQCB direct Exposure Soil Screening Levels, Residential Exposure Scenario

(5) "NA" indicates there is no available screening level.

(6) Detections of chemicals are shown in bold. Detections of chemicals which are above screening levels are highlighted gray.

Water Sampling Evaluation Sediment Sampling Evaluation

SFBRWQCB Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs), Shallow Soils (<3m bgs), Groundwater is Current or Potential Source of Drinking Water, Residential Landuse

IRIS ENVIRONMENTALI:\LAH Planning\Data\Summary_of_Surface_Water_and_Sediment_Sampling

Page 1 of 1

FO

OT

HIL

LE

XP

WY

PE

RM

AN

EN

TE

CR

EE

K

ST.

JO

SE

PH

AVE

280

PE

RM

AN

EN

TE

CR

EE

KT

RA

IL

R A NC

HO

SA

NA

NT

ON

IOT

RA

IL

RA

NC

HO

SA

NA

NT

ON

IOT R

A I L

C R I S T OR E Y

D R

C O Y O T ET R AIL

HIL

L

TRAIL

PE

RM

AN

EN

TE

CR

EE

K

SO

UT

HM

EA

DO

WT

RA

IL

P

PARK ENTRANCE

P

0 500

SCALE IN FEET

1000

MARYKNOLL SEMINARY

SOUTH MEADOW

WATER TANK

NORTH MEADOW

DEER MEADOW

HANDBALL

RANCHO SAN ANTONIO OPEN SPACE PRESERVE

(MROSD)

GATE OF HEAVEN CEMETARY

To San Jose

➛

To San Francisco

No Park Access from St. Joseph Ave

➛

1.0 miles To Deer Hollow Farm ➛

C U P E R T I N O

L O S

A L T O S

L O S

A L T O S

H I L L S

P

P

DE

ER

MEA

DOWT

RA

IL

600

4 0 0

400

4 0 0

400

4 0 0

600

600

P

P

P.5

.1

.2

.33

.26

.3

.3

.4

.26

.06

.25

.18

.4

.08

Rancho San Antonio County Park

Note: Ranger Office located at Stevens Creek Park. (408) 867-3654

1.1

Information Board

Restrooms

Public Telephone

Parking

Picnic Area

Tennis

Equestrian Staging

Horse Trough

Two Lane Paved Road

Two Lane Park Road

Multiple Use (Paved) Hiking, Bicycle

Multiple Use (Unpaved) Hiking, Equestrian

Unpaved Trail (Hiking)

Trail Distance (miles)

Creek

Private Property

Other Public Lands

Gate

Non-Gas Powered Model Aircraft Staging

L E G E N D

P

jmclaughlin

Oval

jmclaughlin

Text Box

Location of surface water and sediment sampling

ANALYTICAL REPORTTestAmerica Laboratories, Inc.TestAmerica San Francisco1220 Quarry LanePleasanton, CA 94566Tel: (925)484-1919

TestAmerica Job ID: 720-38386-1Client Project/Site: Los Altos Hills Planning

For:Iris Environmental1438 Webster StreetSuite 302Oakland, California 94612

Attn: John McLaughlin

Authorized for release by:11/4/2011 2:59:50 PM

Dimple SharmaProject Manager [email protected]

This report has been electronically signed and authorized by the signatory. Electronic signature isintended to be the legally binding equivalent of a traditionally handwritten signature.

Results relate only to the items tested and the sample(s) as received by the laboratory.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

https://secure.testamericainc.com/TotalAccess/login.aspx

http://www.testamericainc.com/AskTheExpert/Expert_index.htm

http://www.testamericainc.com


Table of Contents

Client: Iris EnvironmentalProject/Site: Los Altos Hills Planning

TestAmerica Job ID: 720-38386-1

Page 2 of 22TestAmerica San Francisco

11/4/2011

Cover Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Definitions/Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Case Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Detection Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Client Sample Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

QC Sample Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

QC Association Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Lab Chronicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Certification Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Method Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Sample Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Chain of Custody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Receipt Checklists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Definitions/GlossaryTestAmerica Job ID: 720-38386-1Client: Iris Environmental

Project/Site: Los Altos Hills Planning

Glossary

These commonly used abbreviations may or may not be present in this report.

☼ Listed under the "D" column to designate that the result is reported on a dry weight basis

Abbreviation

%R Percent Recovery

CNF Contains no Free Liquid

DL, RA, RE, IN Indicates a Dilution, Reanalysis, Re-extraction, or additional Initial metals/anion analysis of the sample

EDL Estimated Detection Limit

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

MDL Method Detection Limit

ML Minimum Level (Dioxin)

ND Not detected at the reporting limit (or MDL or EDL if shown)

PQL Practical Quantitation Limit

RL Reporting Limit

RPD Relative Percent Difference, a measure of the relative difference between two points

TEF Toxicity Equivalent Factor (Dioxin)

TEQ Toxicity Equivalent Quotient (Dioxin)

TestAmerica San FranciscoPage 3 of 22 11/4/2011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Case NarrativeClient: Iris Environmental TestAmerica Job ID: 720-38386-1


Job ID: 720-38386-1

Laboratory: TestAmerica San Francisco

Narrative

Job Narrative

720-38386-1

Comments

No additional comments.

Receipt

All samples were received in good condition within temperature requirements.

Metals

No analytical or quality issues were noted.

General Chemistry

No analytical or quality issues were noted.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Detection SummaryTestAmerica Job ID: 720-38386-1Client: Iris Environmental


Client Sample ID: 0221401T Lab Sample ID: 720-38386-1

☼Arsenic 49

RL

4.9 mg/Kg 6010B4

MDLAnalyte Result Qualifier Unit Dil Fac D Method Prep Type

Total/NA

☼Barium 6010B140 2.4 mg/Kg 4 Total/NA

☼Chromium 6010B42 2.4 mg/Kg 4 Total/NA

☼Cobalt 6010B5.9 0.97 mg/Kg 4 Total/NA

☼Copper 6010B220 7.3 mg/Kg 4 Total/NA

☼Lead 6010B3.8 2.4 mg/Kg 4 Total/NA

☼Nickel 6010B48 2.4 mg/Kg 4 Total/NA

☼Vanadium 6010B32 2.4 mg/Kg 4 Total/NA

☼Zinc 6010B28 7.3 mg/Kg 4 Total/NA

☼Mercury 7471A0.032 0.012 mg/Kg 1 Total/NA

☼Chromium, hexavalent 7196A2.7 1.2 mg/Kg 1 Total/NA

Client Sample ID: 0221401T Lab Sample ID: 720-38386-2

Barium 0.070

RL

0.0050 mg/L 6010B1

MDLAnalyte Result Qualifier Unit Dil Fac D Method Prep Type

Total/NA

Molybdenum 6010B0.14 0.010 mg/L 1 Total/NA

Vanadium 6010B0.015 0.010 mg/L 1 Total/NA


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Client Sample ResultsTestAmerica Job ID: 720-38386-1Client: Iris Environmental


Lab Sample ID: 720-38386-1Client Sample ID: 0221401TMatrix: SolidDate Collected: 10/28/11 12:45

Percent Solids: 75.3Date Received: 10/28/11 18:00

Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP)RL MDL

Antimony ND 2.4 mg/Kg ☼ 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 15:10 4

Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier

4.9 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 15:10 4☼Arsenic 49

2.4 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 15:10 4☼Barium 140

0.49 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 15:10 4☼Beryllium ND

0.61 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 15:10 4☼Cadmium ND

2.4 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 15:10 4☼Chromium 42

0.97 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 15:10 4☼Cobalt 5.9

7.3 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 15:10 4☼Copper 220

2.4 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 15:10 4☼Lead 3.8

2.4 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 15:10 4☼Molybdenum ND

2.4 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 15:10 4☼Nickel 48

4.9 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 15:10 4☼Selenium ND

1.2 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 15:10 4☼Silver ND

2.4 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 15:10 4☼Thallium ND

2.4 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 15:10 4☼Vanadium 32

7.3 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 15:10 4☼Zinc 28

Method: 7471A - Mercury (CVAA)RL MDL

Mercury 0.032 0.012 mg/Kg ☼ 11/01/11 13:35 11/02/11 14:35 1


General ChemistryRL MDL

Chromium, hexavalent 2.7 1.2 mg/Kg ☼ 11/02/11 18:15 11/03/11 11:42 1


0.10 % 11/02/11 11:05 1Percent Moisture 25


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Client Sample ResultsTestAmerica Job ID: 720-38386-1Client: Iris Environmental


Lab Sample ID: 720-38386-2Client Sample ID: 0221401TMatrix: WaterDate Collected: 10/28/11 12:45

Date Received: 10/28/11 18:00

Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP)RL MDL

Antimony ND 0.010 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 19:07 1


0.010 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 19:07 1Arsenic ND

0.0050 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 19:07 1Barium 0.070

0.0020 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 19:07 1Beryllium ND

0.0025 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 19:07 1Cadmium ND

0.010 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 19:07 1Chromium ND

0.0020 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 19:07 1Cobalt ND

0.020 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 19:07 1Copper ND

0.0050 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 19:07 1Lead ND

0.010 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 19:07 1Molybdenum 0.14

0.010 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 19:07 1Nickel ND

0.020 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 19:07 1Selenium ND

0.0050 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 19:07 1Silver ND

0.010 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 19:07 1Thallium ND

0.010 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 19:07 1Vanadium 0.015

0.020 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 19:07 1Zinc ND

Method: 7470A - Mercury (CVAA)RL MDL

Mercury ND 0.00020 mg/L 11/02/11 11:25 11/02/11 16:18 1


General ChemistryRL MDL

Cr (VI) ND 0.010 mg/L 10/28/11 22:21 1



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

QC Sample ResultsTestAmerica Job ID: 720-38386-1Client: Iris Environmental


Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP)

Client Sample ID: Method BlankLab Sample ID: MB 720-102037/1-A

Matrix: Water Prep Type: Total/NA

Analysis Batch: 102094 Prep Batch: 102037

RL MDL

Antimony ND 0.010 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 18:09 1

MB MB

Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedDUnitResult Qualifier

ND 0.010 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 18:09 1Arsenic

ND 0.0050 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 18:09 1Barium

ND 0.0020 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 18:09 1Beryllium

ND 0.0025 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 18:09 1Cadmium

ND 0.010 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 18:09 1Chromium

ND 0.0020 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 18:09 1Cobalt

ND 0.020 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 18:09 1Copper

ND 0.0050 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 18:09 1Lead

ND 0.010 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 18:09 1Molybdenum

ND 0.010 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 18:09 1Nickel

ND 0.020 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 18:09 1Selenium

ND 0.0050 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 18:09 1Silver

ND 0.010 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 18:09 1Thallium

ND 0.010 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 18:09 1Vanadium

ND 0.020 mg/L 11/01/11 08:08 11/01/11 18:09 1Zinc

Client Sample ID: Lab Control SampleLab Sample ID: LCS 720-102037/2-A



Antimony 1.00 1.01 mg/L 101 80 - 120

Analyte

LCS LCS

DUnitResult Qualifier %Rec

Spike

Added

%Rec.

Limits

Arsenic 1.00 0.982 mg/L 98 80 - 120

Barium 1.00 1.02 mg/L 102 80 - 120

Beryllium 1.00 1.01 mg/L 101 80 - 120

Cadmium 1.00 0.964 mg/L 96 80 - 120

Chromium 1.00 0.999 mg/L 100 80 - 120

Cobalt 1.00 1.03 mg/L 103 80 - 120

Copper 1.00 0.992 mg/L 99 80 - 120

Lead 1.00 1.01 mg/L 101 80 - 120

Molybdenum 1.00 1.03 mg/L 103 80 - 120

Nickel 1.00 0.993 mg/L 99 80 - 120

Selenium 1.00 0.950 mg/L 95 80 - 120

Silver 0.500 0.504 mg/L 101 80 - 120

Thallium 1.00 1.01 mg/L 101 80 - 120

Vanadium 1.00 1.02 mg/L 102 80 - 120

Zinc 1.00 1.01 mg/L 101 80 - 120

Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample DupLab Sample ID: LCSD 720-102037/3-A



Antimony 1.00 0.988 mg/L 99 80 - 120 2 20

Analyte

RPDLCSD LCSD

DUnitResult Qualifier RPD%Rec

Spike

Added

%Rec.

Limits Limit

Arsenic 1.00 0.962 mg/L 96 80 - 120 2 20

Barium 1.00 1.00 mg/L 100 80 - 120 2 20

Beryllium 1.00 0.980 mg/L 98 80 - 120 3 20

Cadmium 1.00 0.937 mg/L 94 80 - 120 3 20

Chromium 1.00 0.960 mg/L 96 80 - 120 4 20


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14



Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) (Continued)




Cobalt 1.00 1.01 mg/L 101 80 - 120 2 20

Analyte

RPDLCSD LCSD


Spike

Added

%Rec.

Limits Limit

Copper 1.00 0.967 mg/L 97 80 - 120 3 20

Lead 1.00 0.992 mg/L 99 80 - 120 2 20

Molybdenum 1.00 1.02 mg/L 102 80 - 120 2 20

Nickel 1.00 0.973 mg/L 97 80 - 120 2 20

Selenium 1.00 0.927 mg/L 93 80 - 120 2 20

Silver 0.500 0.497 mg/L 99 80 - 120 1 20

Thallium 1.00 0.990 mg/L 99 80 - 120 2 20

Vanadium 1.00 0.987 mg/L 99 80 - 120 3 20

Zinc 1.00 0.985 mg/L 98 80 - 120 2 20

Client Sample ID: 0221401TLab Sample ID: 720-38386-2 MS

Matrix: Solid Prep Type: Total/NA


Antimony ND 1.00 1.02 mg/L 102 75 - 125

Analyte

MS MS


Spike

Added

Sample

Result

Sample

Qualifier

%Rec.

Limits

Arsenic ND 1.00 1.02 mg/L 102 75 - 125

Barium 0.070 1.00 1.08 mg/L 101 75 - 125

Beryllium ND 1.00 0.978 mg/L 98 75 - 125

Cadmium ND 1.00 0.943 mg/L 94 75 - 125

Chromium ND 1.00 0.966 mg/L 96 75 - 125

Cobalt ND 1.00 0.977 mg/L 98 75 - 125

Copper ND 1.00 0.958 mg/L 96 75 - 125

Lead ND 1.00 0.960 mg/L 96 75 - 125

Molybdenum 0.14 1.00 1.16 mg/L 103 75 - 125

Nickel ND 1.00 0.948 mg/L 94 75 - 125

Selenium ND 1.00 0.967 mg/L 96 75 - 125

Silver ND 0.500 0.500 mg/L 100 75 - 125

Thallium ND 1.00 0.938 mg/L 94 75 - 125

Vanadium 0.015 1.00 1.04 mg/L 102 75 - 125

Zinc ND 1.00 0.984 mg/L 98 75 - 125

Client Sample ID: 0221401TLab Sample ID: 720-38386-2 MSD



Antimony ND 1.00 0.999 mg/L 100 75 - 125 2 20

Analyte

RPDMSD MSD


Spike

Added

Sample

Result

Sample

Qualifier

%Rec.

Limits Limit

Arsenic ND 1.00 0.990 mg/L 99 75 - 125 3 20

Barium 0.070 1.00 1.06 mg/L 99 75 - 125 2 20

Beryllium ND 1.00 0.948 mg/L 95 75 - 125 3 20

Cadmium ND 1.00 0.917 mg/L 92 75 - 125 3 20

Chromium ND 1.00 0.933 mg/L 93 75 - 125 3 20

Cobalt ND 1.00 0.957 mg/L 96 75 - 125 2 20

Copper ND 1.00 0.932 mg/L 93 75 - 125 3 20

Lead ND 1.00 0.937 mg/L 94 75 - 125 2 20

Molybdenum 0.14 1.00 1.14 mg/L 101 75 - 125 2 20

Nickel ND 1.00 0.924 mg/L 92 75 - 125 3 20

Selenium ND 1.00 0.939 mg/L 93 75 - 125 3 20


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14







Silver ND 0.500 0.491 mg/L 98 75 - 125 2 20

Analyte

RPDMSD MSD


Spike

Added

Sample

Result

Sample

Qualifier

%Rec.

Limits Limit

Thallium ND 1.00 0.917 mg/L 92 75 - 125 2 20

Vanadium 0.015 1.00 1.01 mg/L 99 75 - 125 3 20

Zinc ND 1.00 0.961 mg/L 96 75 - 125 2 20




RL MDL

Antimony ND 0.50 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 13:56 1

MB MB


ND 1.0 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 13:56 1Arsenic

ND 0.50 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 13:56 1Barium

ND 0.10 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 13:56 1Beryllium

ND 0.13 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 13:56 1Cadmium

ND 0.50 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 13:56 1Chromium

ND 0.20 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 13:56 1Cobalt

ND 1.5 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 13:56 1Copper

ND 0.50 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 13:56 1Lead

ND 0.50 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 13:56 1Molybdenum

ND 0.50 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 13:56 1Nickel

ND 1.0 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 13:56 1Selenium

ND 0.25 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 13:56 1Silver

ND 0.50 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 13:56 1Thallium

ND 0.50 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 13:56 1Vanadium

ND 1.5 mg/Kg 11/02/11 08:49 11/02/11 13:56 1Zinc




Antimony 50.0 46.6 mg/Kg 93 80 - 120

Analyte

LCS LCS


Spike

Added

%Rec.

Limits

Arsenic 50.0 48.2 mg/Kg 96 80 - 120

Barium 50.0 49.4 mg/Kg 99 80 - 120

Beryllium 50.0 49.8 mg/Kg 100 80 - 120

Cadmium 50.0 48.7 mg/Kg 97 80 - 120

Chromium 50.0 49.5 mg/Kg 99 80 - 120

Cobalt 50.0 50.2 mg/Kg 100 80 - 120

Copper 50.0 49.7 mg/Kg 99 80 - 120

Lead 50.0 49.7 mg/Kg 99 80 - 120

Molybdenum 50.0 51.4 mg/Kg 103 80 - 120

Nickel 50.0 49.9 mg/Kg 100 80 - 120

Selenium 50.0 46.5 mg/Kg 93 80 - 120

Silver 25.0 23.9 mg/Kg 96 80 - 120

Thallium 50.0 49.8 mg/Kg 100 80 - 120

Vanadium 50.0 49.3 mg/Kg 99 80 - 120

Zinc 50.0 48.6 mg/Kg 97 80 - 120


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14







Antimony 50.0 46.7 mg/Kg 93 80 - 120 0 20

Analyte

RPDLCSD LCSD


Spike

Added

%Rec.

Limits Limit

Arsenic 50.0 48.0 mg/Kg 96 80 - 120 0 20

Barium 50.0 49.8 mg/Kg 100 80 - 120 1 20

Beryllium 50.0 49.7 mg/Kg 99 80 - 120 0 20

Cadmium 50.0 48.4 mg/Kg 97 80 - 120 1 20

Chromium 50.0 49.2 mg/Kg 98 80 - 120 1 20

Cobalt 50.0 49.9 mg/Kg 100 80 - 120 1 20

Copper 50.0 49.5 mg/Kg 99 80 - 120 0 20

Lead 50.0 49.6 mg/Kg 99 80 - 120 0 20

Molybdenum 50.0 51.6 mg/Kg 103 80 - 120 0 20

Nickel 50.0 49.5 mg/Kg 99 80 - 120 1 20

Selenium 50.0 46.6 mg/Kg 93 80 - 120 0 20

Silver 25.0 23.8 mg/Kg 95 80 - 120 1 20

Thallium 50.0 49.4 mg/Kg 99 80 - 120 1 20

Vanadium 50.0 49.2 mg/Kg 98 80 - 120 0 20

Zinc 50.0 48.4 mg/Kg 97 80 - 120 0 20

Client Sample ID: Lab Control SampleLab Sample ID: LCSSRM 720-102124/17-A



Antimony 105 72.0 mg/Kg 69 11 - 101

Analyte

LCSSRM LCSSRM


Spike

Added

%Rec.

Limits

Arsenic 79.4 73.4 mg/Kg 92 69 - 119

Barium 391 374 mg/Kg 96 61 - 117

Beryllium 304 299 mg/Kg 98 56 - 102

Cadmium 48.3 40.9 mg/Kg 85 67 - 118

Chromium 171 155 mg/Kg 91 67 - 121

Cobalt 59.2 53.4 mg/Kg 90 64 - 133

Copper 327 289 mg/Kg 88 68 - 126

Lead 181 155 mg/Kg 86 62 - 113

Molybdenum 156 149 mg/Kg 95 62 - 128

Nickel 76.0 65.5 mg/Kg 86 65 - 117

Selenium 76.9 66.3 mg/Kg 86 63 - 126

Silver 29.1 25.9 mg/Kg 89 51 - 130

Thallium 192 160 mg/Kg 83 64 - 124

Vanadium 213 201 mg/Kg 95 67 - 123

Zinc 256 233 mg/Kg 91 62 - 110

Method: 7470A - Mercury (CVAA)




RL MDL

Mercury ND 0.00020 mg/L 11/02/11 11:25 11/02/11 16:03 1

MB MB



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14



Method: 7470A - Mercury (CVAA) (Continued)




Mercury 0.0100 0.0100 mg/L 100 85 - 115

Analyte

LCS LCS


Spike

Added

%Rec.

Limits




Mercury 0.0100 0.0100 mg/L 100 85 - 115 0 20

Analyte

RPDLCSD LCSD


Spike

Added

%Rec.

Limits Limit

Method: 7471A - Mercury (CVAA)




RL MDL

Mercury ND 0.010 mg/Kg 11/01/11 13:35 11/02/11 14:27 1

MB MB





Mercury 0.833 0.740 mg/Kg 89 80 - 120

Analyte

LCS LCS


Spike

Added

%Rec.

Limits




Mercury 0.833 0.728 mg/Kg 87 80 - 120 2 20

Analyte

RPDLCSD LCSD


Spike

Added

%Rec.

Limits Limit

Method: 7196A - Chromium, Hexavalent

Client Sample ID: Method BlankLab Sample ID: MB 720-101921/1


Analysis Batch: 101921

RL MDL

Cr (VI) ND 0.010 mg/L 10/28/11 22:21 1

MB MB


Client Sample ID: Lab Control SampleLab Sample ID: LCS 720-101921/3



Cr (VI) 0.250 0.268 mg/L 107 85 - 115

Analyte

LCS LCS


Spike

Added

%Rec.

Limits


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14



Method: 7196A - Chromium, Hexavalent (Continued)

Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample DupLab Sample ID: LCSD 720-101921/4



Cr (VI) 0.250 0.253 mg/L 101 85 - 115 6 20

Analyte

RPDLCSD LCSD


Spike

Added

%Rec.

Limits Limit

Client Sample ID: 0221401TLab Sample ID: 720-38386-2 MS



Cr (VI) ND 0.250 0.253 mg/L 101 85 - 115

Analyte

MS MS


Spike

Added

Sample

Result

Sample

Qualifier

%Rec.

Limits




Cr (VI) ND 0.250 0.249 mg/L 99 85 - 115 2 20

Analyte

RPDMSD MSD


Spike

Added

Sample

Result

Sample

Qualifier

%Rec.

Limits Limit




RL MDL

Chromium, hexavalent ND 1.0 mg/Kg 11/02/11 18:15 11/03/11 11:41 1

MB MB





Chromium, hexavalent 10.0 8.78 mg/Kg 88 80 - 120

Analyte

LCS LCS


Spike

Added

%Rec.

Limits




Chromium, hexavalent 734 710 mg/Kg 97 80 - 120

Analyte

LCS LCS


Spike

Added

%Rec.

Limits

Method: Moisture - Percent Moisture

Client Sample ID: 0221401TLab Sample ID: 720-38386-1 DU



Percent Moisture 25 25 % 0.8 20

Analyte

RPDDU DU

DUnitResult Qualifier RPD

Sample

Result

Sample

Qualifier Limit


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

QC Association SummaryTestAmerica Job ID: 720-38386-1Client: Iris Environmental


Metals

Prep Batch: 102037

Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Prep Type Matrix Method Prep Batch

Water 3010A720-38386-2 0221401T Total/NA

Solid 3010A720-38386-2 MS 0221401T Total/NA

Solid 3010A720-38386-2 MSD 0221401T Total/NA

Water 3010ALCS 720-102037/2-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA

Water 3010ALCSD 720-102037/3-A Lab Control Sample Dup Total/NA

Water 3010AMB 720-102037/1-A Method Blank Total/NA

Prep Batch: 102065


Solid 7471A720-38386-1 0221401T Total/NA

Solid 7471ALCS 720-102065/2-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA

Solid 7471ALCSD 720-102065/3-A Lab Control Sample Dup Total/NA

Solid 7471AMB 720-102065/1-A Method Blank Total/NA



Water 6010B 102037LCS 720-102037/2-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA

Water 6010B 102037LCSD 720-102037/3-A Lab Control Sample Dup Total/NA

Water 6010B 102037MB 720-102037/1-A Method Blank Total/NA



Water 6010B 102037720-38386-2 0221401T Total/NA

Solid 6010B 102037720-38386-2 MS 0221401T Total/NA

Solid 6010B 102037720-38386-2 MSD 0221401T Total/NA

Prep Batch: 102124


Solid 3050B720-38386-1 0221401T Total/NA

Solid 3050BLCS 720-102124/2-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA

Solid 3050BLCSD 720-102124/3-A Lab Control Sample Dup Total/NA

Solid 3050BLCSSRM 720-102124/17-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA

Solid 3050BMB 720-102124/1-A Method Blank Total/NA

Prep Batch: 102138


Water 7470A720-38386-2 0221401T Total/NA

Water 7470ALCS 720-102138/2-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA

Water 7470ALCSD 720-102138/3-A Lab Control Sample Dup Total/NA

Water 7470AMB 720-102138/1-A Method Blank Total/NA



Solid 6010B 102124720-38386-1 0221401T Total/NA

Solid 6010B 102124LCS 720-102124/2-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA

Solid 6010B 102124LCSD 720-102124/3-A Lab Control Sample Dup Total/NA

Solid 6010B 102124LCSSRM 720-102124/17-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA

Solid 6010B 102124MB 720-102124/1-A Method Blank Total/NA



Solid 7471A 102065720-38386-1 0221401T Total/NA


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

QC Association SummaryTestAmerica Job ID: 720-38386-1Client: Iris Environmental


Metals (Continued)

Analysis Batch: 102166 (Continued)


Solid 7471A 102065LCS 720-102065/2-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA

Solid 7471A 102065LCSD 720-102065/3-A Lab Control Sample Dup Total/NA

Solid 7471A 102065MB 720-102065/1-A Method Blank Total/NA



Water 7470A 102138720-38386-2 0221401T Total/NA

Water 7470A 102138LCS 720-102138/2-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA

Water 7470A 102138LCSD 720-102138/3-A Lab Control Sample Dup Total/NA

Water 7470A 102138MB 720-102138/1-A Method Blank Total/NA

General Chemistry



Water 7196A720-38386-2 0221401T Total/NA

Solid 7196A720-38386-2 MS 0221401T Total/NA

Solid 7196A720-38386-2 MSD 0221401T Total/NA

Water 7196ALCS 720-101921/3 Lab Control Sample Total/NA

Water 7196ALCSD 720-101921/4 Lab Control Sample Dup Total/NA

Water 7196AMB 720-101921/1 Method Blank Total/NA



Solid Moisture720-38386-1 0221401T Total/NA

Solid Moisture720-38386-1 DU 0221401T Total/NA

Prep Batch: 131252


Solid 3060A720-38386-1 0221401T Total/NA



Solid 3060AMB 500-131252/1-A Method Blank Total/NA



Solid 7196A 131252720-38386-1 0221401T Total/NA



Solid 7196A 131252MB 500-131252/1-A Method Blank Total/NA


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Lab ChronicleClient: Iris Environmental TestAmerica Job ID: 720-38386-1


Client Sample ID: 0221401T Lab Sample ID: 720-38386-1Matrix: SolidDate Collected: 10/28/11 12:45

Percent Solids: 75.3Date Received: 10/28/11 18:00

Prep 3050B 11/02/11 08:49 ET102124 TAL SF

Type

Batch Batch

MethodPrep Type LabAnalystRun

Prepared

or Analyzed

Batch

Number

Dilution

Factor

Total/NA

Analysis 6010B 4 102162 11/02/11 15:10 CAM TAL SFTotal/NA

Prep 7471A 102065 11/01/11 13:35 ET TAL SFTotal/NA

Analysis 7471A 1 102166 11/02/11 14:35 EFH TAL SFTotal/NA

Prep 3060A 131252 11/02/11 18:15 CLM TAL CHITotal/NA

Analysis 7196A 1 131397 CLM TAL CHITotal/NA

11/03/11 11:42

11/03/11 11:43

(Start)

(End)

Analysis Moisture 1 102135 11/02/11 11:05 DAF TAL SFTotal/NA

Client Sample ID: 0221401T Lab Sample ID: 720-38386-2Matrix: WaterDate Collected: 10/28/11 12:45

Date Received: 10/28/11 18:00

Prep 3010A 11/01/11 08:08 ET102037 TAL SF

Type

Batch Batch

MethodPrep Type LabAnalystRun

Prepared

or Analyzed

Batch

Number

Dilution

Factor

Total/NA

Analysis 6010B 1 102102 11/01/11 19:07 BA TAL SFTotal/NA

Prep 7470A 102138 11/02/11 11:25 ET TAL SFTotal/NA

Analysis 7470A 1 102179 11/02/11 16:18 EFH TAL SFTotal/NA

Analysis 7196A 1 101921 10/28/11 22:21 EYT TAL SFTotal/NA

Laboratory References:

TAL CHI = TestAmerica Chicago, 2417 Bond Street, University Park, IL 60484, TEL (708)534-5200

TAL SF = TestAmerica San Francisco, 1220 Quarry Lane, Pleasanton, CA 94566, TEL (925)484-1919


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Certification SummaryClient: Iris Environmental TestAmerica Job ID: 720-38386-1


Laboratory Authority Program EPA Region Certification ID

TestAmerica San Francisco 2496State ProgramCalifornia 9

TestAmerica Chicago ADE-1429DoD ELAPACLASS

TestAmerica Chicago AT-1428ISO/IEC 17025ACLASS

TestAmerica Chicago 40461State ProgramAlabama 4

TestAmerica Chicago 01132CANELACCalifornia 9

TestAmerica Chicago E871072NELACFlorida 4

TestAmerica Chicago N/AGeorgia EPDGeorgia 4

TestAmerica Chicago 939State ProgramGeorgia 4

TestAmerica Chicago N/AState ProgramHawaii 9

TestAmerica Chicago 100201NELACIllinois 5

TestAmerica Chicago C-IL-02State ProgramIndiana 5

TestAmerica Chicago 82State ProgramIowa 7

TestAmerica Chicago E-10161NELACKansas 7

TestAmerica Chicago 66Kentucky USTKentucky 4

TestAmerica Chicago 90023State ProgramKentucky 4

TestAmerica Chicago 30720NELACLouisiana 6

TestAmerica Chicago M-IL035State ProgramMassachusetts 1

TestAmerica Chicago N/AState ProgramMississippi 4

TestAmerica Chicago 291North Carolina DENRNorth Carolina 4

TestAmerica Chicago 8908State ProgramOklahoma 6

TestAmerica Chicago 77001State ProgramSouth Carolina 4

TestAmerica Chicago T104704252-09-TXNELACTexas 6

TestAmerica Chicago P330-09-00027USDAUSDA

TestAmerica Chicago 460142NELAC Secondary ABVirginia 3

TestAmerica Chicago 999580010State ProgramWisconsin 5

TestAmerica Chicago 8TMS-QState ProgramWyoming 8

Accreditation may not be offered or required for all methods and analytes reported in this package. Please contact your project manager for the laboratory's

current list of certified methods and analytes.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Method SummaryTestAmerica Job ID: 720-38386-1Client: Iris Environmental


Method Method Description LaboratoryProtocol

SW8466010B Metals (ICP) TAL SF

SW8467470A Mercury (CVAA) TAL SF

SW8467471A Mercury (CVAA) TAL SF

SW8467196A Chromium, Hexavalent TAL CHI

SW8467196A Chromium, Hexavalent TAL SF

EPAMoisture Percent Moisture TAL SF

Protocol References:

EPA = US Environmental Protection Agency

SW846 = "Test Methods For Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods", Third Edition, November 1986 And Its Updates.

Laboratory References:

TAL CHI = TestAmerica Chicago, 2417 Bond Street, University Park, IL 60484, TEL (708)534-5200

TAL SF = TestAmerica San Francisco, 1220 Quarry Lane, Pleasanton, CA 94566, TEL (925)484-1919


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Sample SummaryTestAmerica Job ID: 720-38386-1Client: Iris Environmental


Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID ReceivedCollectedMatrix

720-38386-1 0221401T Solid 10/28/11 12:45 10/28/11 18:00

720-38386-2 0221401T Water 10/28/11 12:45 10/28/11 18:00


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

of 22 11/4/2011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Login Sample Receipt Checklist

Client: Iris Environmental Job Number: 720-38386-1

Login Number: 38386

Question Answer Comment

Creator: Mullen, Joan

List Source: TestAmerica San Francisco

List Number: 1

N/ARadioactivity either was not measured or, if measured, is at or below

background

N/AThe cooler's custody seal, if present, is intact.

TrueThe cooler or samples do not appear to have been compromised or

tampered with.

TrueSamples were received on ice.

TrueCooler Temperature is acceptable.

TrueCooler Temperature is recorded.

TrueCOC is present.

TrueCOC is filled out in ink and legible.

TrueCOC is filled out with all pertinent information.

TrueIs the Field Sampler's name present on COC?

TrueThere are no discrepancies between the sample IDs on the containers and

the COC.

TrueSamples are received within Holding Time.

TrueSample containers have legible labels.

TrueContainers are not broken or leaking.

TrueSample collection date/times are provided.

TrueAppropriate sample containers are used.

TrueSample bottles are completely filled.

N/ASample Preservation Verified.

TrueThere is sufficient vol. for all requested analyses, incl. any requested

MS/MSDs

TrueVOA sample vials do not have headspace or bubble is <6mm (1/4") in

diameter.

TrueMultiphasic samples are not present.

TrueSamples do not require splitting or compositing.

N/AResidual Chlorine Checked.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Login Sample Receipt Checklist

Client: Iris Environmental Job Number: 720-38386-1

Login Number: 38386

Question Answer Comment

Creator: Kelsey, Shawn M

List Source: TestAmerica Chicago

List Creation: 11/01/11 11:33 AMList Number: 1

TrueRadioactivity either was not measured or, if measured, is at or below

background

TrueThe cooler's custody seal, if present, is intact.

TrueThe cooler or samples do not appear to have been compromised or

tampered with.

TrueSamples were received on ice.

TrueCooler Temperature is acceptable.

TrueCooler Temperature is recorded.

TrueCOC is present.

TrueCOC is filled out in ink and legible.

TrueCOC is filled out with all pertinent information.

TrueIs the Field Sampler's name present on COC?

TrueThere are no discrepancies between the sample IDs on the containers and

the COC.

TrueSamples are received within Holding Time.

TrueSample containers have legible labels.

TrueContainers are not broken or leaking.

TrueSample collection date/times are provided.

TrueAppropriate sample containers are used.

TrueSample bottles are completely filled.

TrueSample Preservation Verified.

TrueThere is sufficient vol. for all requested analyses, incl. any requested

MS/MSDs

TrueVOA sample vials do not have headspace or bubble is <6mm (1/4") in

diameter.

TrueMultiphasic samples are not present.

TrueSamples do not require splitting or compositing.

TrueResidual Chlorine Checked.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14


IRIS ENVIRONMENTAL

Appendix B

General Sand and Gravel Permit Requirements


IRIS ENVIRONMENTAL

1.0 SAND AND GRAVEL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

Iris Environmental reviewed Order NO. R2-2008-0011, General Water Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Process Wastewaters from Aggregate Mining, Sand Washing, and San Offloading Facilities to Surface Waters (General Sand and Gravel Permit) (SFBRWQCB, 2008). As discussed in detail in Section 3.0 of the main report, is presently required to obtain coverage under the Sand and Gravel Permit and may in the future be required to obtain coverage under the an individual National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (individual NPDES permit). This Appendix provides a brief summary of the requirements of the General Sand and Gravel Permit and is not intended to be exhaustive of all permit requirements.

The General Sand and Gravel Permit order was adopted February 13, 2008, and became effective on May 1, 2008, and will expire on April 30, 2013. This permit regulates discharges from aggregate mining, sand washing, and sand offloading facilities. Requirements of the order are also discussed in detail below.

1.1 General Requirements

Industrial stormwater discharges are required to obtain an NPDES permit for discharging stormwater from the facility to state water and to implement Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) to control pollutants in industrial stormwater discharges.

A Discharger is required to submit a Best Managements Practices (BMP) plan with the Notice of Intent (NOI) to obtain coverage under this permit up to 30 days prior to its operation or commencement of discharge. This allows the Discharger to develop a BMP plan that is specific to its operation and to better identify which areas of the facility operation need improved BMPs. Dischargers must update the BMP plan annually to control and abate the discharge of pollutants from the facility to surface waters and to achieve compliance with the BAT or BCT requirement and with applicable water standards.

BMP’s must address all specific means of controlling the discharge of pollutants from the facility, and shall submit annual updates to its BMP plan to the Regional Water Board (RWB). A schedule must be submitted for any modifications or maintenance of the facility that may result in violation of effluent limitations or alterations of the outfall location(s).

1.2 Effluent Limitations and Discharge Specifications

The Order includes technology-based effluent limitations, which are based on the San Francisco Bay Region Basin Plan, Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Mineral Mining and Processing Point Source Category, and best professional judgment (BPJ) pursuant to the CWA and NPDES regulations.

Individual pollutant restrictions consist of technology-based effluent restrictions and water quality-based effluent limitations. The technology-based effluent limitations consist of restrictions on total suspended solids (TSS) and settleable matter. Water quality-based effluent limitations have been scientifically derived to implement water quality objectives that protect


IRIS ENVIRONMENTAL

beneficial uses. Both the beneficial uses and the water quality objectives have been approved pursuant to federal law and are the applicable federal water quality standards. The Order lists effluent limitations for aggregate mining facilities for TSS, turbidity, settable matter, pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), chloride, total chlorine residue, and acute toxicity. Representative samples of the discharge at the discharge points must pass a 96-hour bioassay of undiluted effluent in a single-sample maximum with a survival rate of at least 70%. Restrictions on individual pollutants in this Order are no more stringent than required by the federal CWA.

The Order requires that existing quality of waters be maintained unless degradation is justified based on specific findings. Further details regarding this requirement are contained in Appendix F of the Order. The discharge is required to not cause adverse conditions to occur at any place, cause a nuisance or adversely affect the beneficial uses of the receiving water, exceed limits for dissolved oxygen, dissolved sulfide, pH, TDS, chlorides, or turbidity, and cause a violation of any particular water quality standard. All NPDES permits specify requirements for recording and reporting monitoring results. See Attachment E of the Order for further details.

The discharge shall not cause the following conditions to exist at any place in receiving surface water:

• Floating, suspended, or deposited macroscopic particulate matter or foam in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses;

• Bottom deposits or aquatic growths to the extent that such deposits or growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses;

• Alterations of temperature, turbidity, or apparent color beyond present natural background levels;

• Visible, floating, suspended, or deposited oil or other products of petroleum origin; and

• Toxic or other deleterious substances to be present in concentrations or quantities that can cause deleterious effects on wildlife, waterfowl, or other aquatic biota, or that can render any of these unfit for human consumption, either at levels created in the receiving waters or as a result of biological concentration.

The Order lists triggers for accelerated monitoring and additional investigation for toxic pollutants. They are not effluent limitations and should not be construed as such. Instead, they are levels at which additional investigation is warranted to determine whether a numeric limit for a particular constituent is necessary.

If any constituent in an effluent exceeds the corresponding trigger, the Discharger shall take three monthly samples (three influent, if applicable, and three effluent) for each exceeded constituent following the exceedance. The Discharger must submit a report of the exceedance within 24 hours after awareness of the exceedance. A written notification needs to be submitted within 5 business days following the report; the Discharger shall also indicate the past and on-going efforts in the written notification.

The Discharger shall submit a Feasibility Analysis that describes if methods to control levels of pollutant(s) of concern are feasible, and if so, describes the selected methods of control to ensure that levels of pollutant(s) of concern in effluent will not be discharged at levels exceeding


IRIS ENVIRONMENTAL

applicable water quality objectives. If there is no feasible control method, the Discharger’s Feasibility Study shall document the possibility of relocating the discharge to land, or to a sanitary sewer system.

A G E N D A R E P O R T MEETING DATE: January 24, 2012 TO: City Council FROM: Michelle Bocalan, Junior Engineer SUBJECT: Pavement Management Technical Assistance Program (P-TAP) Grant RECOMMENDATION:

A. Accept the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Pavement Management Technical Assistance Program (P-TAP) grant for $15,000; and

B. Appropriate $3,000 from the General Fund Unreserved to provide the City’s share of the grant.

SUMMARY:


Amount: City’s Share: $ 3,000 MTC Share: $12,000 Total: $15,000

Budgeted: No

Public Hearing Notice (Date of Publication): None

Previous Council Consideration: None

CEQA Status (If Required): None Attachments: Jim Gustafson, Engineering Services Manager Date Russell J. Morreale, Finance Director Date Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager Date

January 24, 2012 Pavement Management Technical Assistance Program (P-TAP) Grant Page 2 BACKGROUND: On October 6, 2011, the City submitted a grant application for the Pavement Management Technical Assistance Program (P-TAP) Round 13. The City received a letter on January 6, 2012 from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) stating that it had approved the City’s grant application. It requested the City’s matching funds for this grant be submitted by February 15, 2012. DISCUSSION: P-TAP grants are used to implement, maintain or update specific components of the Los Altos pavement management program. Staff submitted a P-TAP Round 13 application asking MTC to fund a citywide inventory of the City’s sidewalks and ramps for ADA compliance and to have the inventory created on a shapefile to help the City implement a sidewalk database. A consultant under contract with MTC will conduct this survey. The total cost for the sidewalk and ramp survey is $15,000. The grant will provide 80% of this amount and the City will pay the remaining 20% match, or $3,000. Staff recommends accepting the grant and appropriating the 20% contribution from the General Fund Unreserved. FISCAL IMPACT: Appropriation of $3,000 from the General Fund Unreserved to pay for the 20% match of the $15,000 grant. The 80% match, or $12,000 of the $15,000 grant will directly be paid to the consultant from MTC. ALTERNATIVES: An alternative would be to not accept the grant. The City would have to hire its own consultant for the assessment and fund it from other sources.

A G E N D A R E P O R T MEETING DATE: January 24, 2012 TO: City Council FROM: Jolie Houston, City Attorney SUBJECT: Sign Ordinance Amendments RECOMMENDATION: Introduce and waive further reading of Ordinance No. 2012-377 amending Chapters 9.26 and 14.68 of the Los Altos Municipal Code as related to signs. SUMMARY:


Amount: N/A

Budgeted: N/A

Public Hearing Notice: January 11, 2012

Previous Council Consideration: June 22, 2010; July 27, 2010; November 9, 2010; November 23, 2010; May 24, 2011; July 26, 2011; September 27, 2011


1. Ordinance No. 2012-377 2. Houston Memorandum to Planning Commission dated November 17, 2011 Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager Date

January 24, 2012 Sign Ordinance Amendments Page 2 DISCUSSION: The City’s Sign Ordinance is codified in the Los Altos Municipal Code (“LAMC”) Chapter 14.68 et seq..1 At the time of its adoption, the Council recommended that it be brought back for a review in six (6) months. That review was scheduled for May 24, 2011, but was delayed due the late hour of the meeting. Thereafter the Los Altos Village Association and the Chamber of Commerce sponsored a series of meetings to review the City’s Sign Ordinance. On July 26, 2011, the City held a publicly-noticed Study Session to review the Sign Ordinance. The City Council further reviewed the Sign Ordinance at its September 27, 2011 meeting and recommended changes to certain sections. The City Council further directed that the Sign Ordinance amendments be reviewed by the Planning Commission pursuant to the Los Altos Municipal Code and State law. That review occurred on November 17, 2011. The November 27, 2011 Planning Commission memo is attached. Based on the City Council’s and Planning Commission’s recommendations, the required actions are outlined below. Any recommended changes to the LAMC are designated by underlining. The sections that are affected by the Planning Commission’s recommendations are highlighted in bold. The proposed Sign Ordinance is attached. 1. Digital Signs Recommendation and Discussion: City Council’s direction was to repeal the total ban on digital signs. The Planning Commission recommended the repeal. It also recommended that City staff look into the following: (1) a limitation on the hours of operation; and (2) the strength and/or amount of “lumens” that each digital sign could have. If Council agrees with this recommendation, then it is recommended that it not adopt this section until this information is obtained and approved by Council. Required Action(s): A. Amend LAMC Section 14.68.040 definition of “Digital” to read as follows:

“Digital Sign: An electronic sign which displays visible images to the public by means of panels of light emitting diodes (LED), liquid crystal displays (LCD), plasma displays or functionally equivalent display technology, and the panels are capable of displaying still images, a series of still images in "slide show" fashion, or images which appear animated or in motion,

1 The City’s Signs on City Property is codified in LAMC Chapter 9.26.

January 24, 2012 Sign Ordinance Amendments Page 3

including DVD (DVD means digital video disc or digital versatile disc) or computer displays. Such signs are typically programmable and changeable by remote control or automated control devices such as computers.”

B. Amend LAMC Section 14.68.070 D “Prohibited Signs” to read as follows:

“Digital signs or ‘digital displays’ are not prohibited if they are located in windows of stores in the Downtown Commercial District, including the CRS, CRS/OAD, CD and CD/R3, and cumulatively they do not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the total window display area. The digital sign or digital display area counts toward the total allowable temporary signage.”

C. Amend LAMC Section 14.68.040 (signs that are not included in the definition of sign) “Interior graphics” to read as follows:

“Interior graphics. Visual communicative devices, interior signage or digital signs or digital displays, that are located five (5) or more feet from the store front window and entirely within the building or other enclosed structure and are not visible from the exterior thereof;”

2. Ribbons on City Trees Recommendation and Discussion: City Council’s direction was to allow ribbons on City trees. The Planning Commission recommended this amendment with a slight modification to LAMC Section 14.68.040 as follows: “… and they shall be displayed no more than two (2) weeks.” If the Council agrees with this recommendation, then it will be incorporated into LAMC Section 14.68.040. Required Action(s): Amend LAMC Section 14.68.040 (signs that are not included in the definition of sign) to add “Ribbons” to read as follows:

“Ribbons. Notwithstanding the prohibition to signs on City property contained in Chapter 14.68, Section 14.68.070 D and Chapter 9.26, Section 9.26.040, ribbons on City trees are not considered signs and may be allowed only in the City’s Downtown Commercial Districts, including the CRS, CRS/OAD, CD and CD/R3. Such ribbons shall not have any advertisement, name of event or any other written message or any graphic element contained in or attached to the ribbons, and they shall be removed within two (2) weeks.”

January 24, 2012 Sign Ordinance Amendments Page 4 4. Non-profit A-frame Signs Recommendation and Discussion: City Council’s direction was to allow the United Methodist Church or other non-profit groups to use A-frames under similar conditions as the real estate A-frame signs. At that time the Council gave direction to have the Planning Commission review this section and recommend a time period for these signs. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Section 9.26.105 and recommended the following changes: (1) that “non-profits” be changed to “not-for-profit”; and (2) “Display Time. Only during the day and hours of the event.” If the Council agrees with these recommendations, then they will be incorporated into LAMC Section 9.26.105. Required Action(s): Amend LAMC by adding a new Section 9.26.105 to read as follows:

“9.26.105. A-frames in conjunction with certain non-profit activities.

Non-profit organizations engaged in fund raising activities may display temporary A-frame or similar portable sign by placing it on the public right-of-way as follows:

A. Display Time. Only during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 1:30

p.m. on Fridays, and 11:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays.

B. Display Face. It shall not be illuminated, digital or have moving

parts.

C. Dimensions. May not exceed four square feet per display face (maximum two display faces per sign) and not to exceed thirty-two (32) inches in height.

D. Location and Number of Signs. For any non-profit property

currently conducting fund raising activities, a maximum of one sign may be placed on public property at an intersection and placed so as to minimize interference with pedestrian traffic. Beyond intersections, signs are not allowed on city street medians or right-of-ways, or within Foothill Expressway medians or right-of-ways.

January 24, 2012 Sign Ordinance Amendments Page 5

E. The message substitution policy of Chapter 14.68 applies to this section.

F. The signs authorized by this section do not require a sign permit,

but are subject to all other applicable permits and approvals.”


AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS AMENDING LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL

CODE CHAPTER 14.68 ENTITLED “SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY” AND CHAPTER 9.26 ENTITLED “SIGNS ON

CITY PROPERTY”

WHEREAS, by adopting this Ordinance, the City Council intends to balance the right of free speech by sign display against the community interests in limiting the impacts of excessive and/or inappropriate signs; and

WHEREAS, the City Council further intends by this Ordinance to regulate signs in a

manner which is consistent with the Constitutions and laws of the State of California and the United States; and

WHEREAS, the Ordinance amendments set forth below further the goals and policies of

the City’s General Plan and are necessary to promote the health, safety and welfare of the City; and WHEREAS, the Ordinance amendments set forth below have been reviewed and

considered by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (“CEQA”), and the guidelines promulgated thereunder and, further, the Council finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that said amendments may have a significant adverse effect on the environment and said amendments are therefore exempt from the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to the provisions of Section 15061(b)(3) of Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

The City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Los Altos Municipal Code Chapter 14.68, Section 14.68.040 definition of “Digital” to read as follows:

“Digital Sign: An electronic sign which displays visible images to the public by means of panels of light emitting diodes (LED), liquid crystal displays (LCD), plasma displays or functionally equivalent display technology, and the panels are capable of displaying still images, a series of still images in "slide show" fashion, or images which appear animated or in motion, including DVD (DVD means digital video disc or digital versatile disc) or computer displays. Such signs are typically programmable and changeable by remote control or automated control devices such as computers.” SECTION 2. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Los Altos Municipal Code Chapter 14.68,

Section 14.68.070 “Prohibited Signs” is amended to read as follows:

“Digital signs or ‘digital displays’ are not prohibited if they are located in windows of stores in the Downtown Commercial District, including the CRS, CRS/OAD, CD and CD/R3, and cumulatively they do not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the total window


display area. The digital sign or digital display area counts toward the total allowable temporary signage.”

SECTION 3. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Los Altos Municipal Code Chapter 14.68,

Section 14.68.040 definition of “Sign” is amended to read as follows:

“Sign: In general, the public display of a communicative image for the purpose of attracting attention and/or expressing some message, which is visible from an exterior location open to the public. The word includes any visible image which, either directly or indirectly, advertises, informs or identifies persons, businesses, commodities, services or ideas by the display of any communicative image or graphic design. The word “sign” also includes, but is not limited to, all writing, trademarks, graphic illustrations and lighting primarily directed at facilitating communication, as well as supporting structures. However, notwithstanding the breadth and generality of the foregoing, the following are not within the definition of sign: • Aerial signs or banners towed behind aircraft; • Architectural features. Decorative or architectural features of buildings (not including

lettering, trademarks or moving parts), which do not perform a communicative function; • Fireworks; • Foundation stones and cornerstones; • Grave markers, grave stones, headstones, mausoleums, shrines, and other markers of the

deceased; • Historical plaques; • Holiday decorations and cultural observances which are on display in season and which

do not include commercial advertising messages; • Inflatable gymnasiums. Inflatable, temporary, moveable, gymnasium devices commonly

used for children’s birthday parties, and similar devices; also called “party jumps”; • Interior graphics. Visual communicative devices, interior signage or digital signs or

digital displays, that are located five (5) or more feet from the store front window and entirely within the building or other enclosed structure and are not visible from the exterior thereof;

• Manufacturers’ marks. Marks on tangible products, which identify the maker, seller, provider or product, and which customarily remain attached to the product even after sale;

• Mass transit graphics. Graphic images mounted on duly licensed and authorized public mass transit vehicles that legally pass through the City; taxis;

• Newsracks and newsstands; • Personal appearance. Items or devices of personal apparel, decoration or appearance,

including tattoos, makeup, wigs, costumes, masks, etc. (but not including commercial mascots or hand-held signs or sign twirlers);

• “Ribbons. Notwithstanding the prohibition to signs on City property contained in Chapter 14.68, Section 14.68.070 D and Chapter 9.26, Section 9.26.040, ribbons on City trees are not considered signs and may be allowed only in the City’s Downtown Commercial Districts, including the CRS, CRS/OAD, CD and CD/R3. Such ribbons shall not have any advertisement, name of event or any other written message or any


graphic element contained in or attached to the ribbons, and they shall be removed within two (2) weeks.”

• Search lights when used as part of a search and rescue or other emergency service operation. This exclusion does not apply to search lights used as attention attracting devices for commercial or special events;

• Shopping carts, golf carts, horse drawn carriages, pedicabs and similar devices. Any motorized vehicle which may be legally operated upon a public road is not within this exclusion;

• Symbols embedded in architecture. Symbols of noncommercial organizations or concepts including, but not limited to, religious or political symbols, when such are permanently integrated into the structure of a permanent building which is otherwise legal; by way of example and not limitation, such symbols include stained glass windows on churches, carved or bas relief doors or walls, bells, religious statuary, etc.;

• Vehicle and Vessel Insignia. On street legal vehicles and properly licensed watercraft: License plates, license plate frames, registration insignia, noncommercial messages, messages relating to the business of which the vehicle or vessel is an instrument or tool (mobile, onsite commercial speech, in contrast to general advertising);

• Vehicles displaying allowable commercial message signs, and parked in public view, with a maximum six (6) square feet of copy area.

• Vending machines, automated intake devices and product dispensing devices which do not display offsite commercial messages or general advertising messages;

• Window displays. The display of merchandise in a store window.”

SECTION 4. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Los Altos Municipal Code Chapter 9.26, is amended by adding a new Section 9.26.105 to read as follows:

“9.26.105 A-frames in conjunction with certain non-profit activities.

Non-profit organizations engaged in fund raising activities may display temporary A-frame or similar portable sign by placing it on the public right-of-way as follows:

A. Display Time. Only during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on

Fridays, and 11:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays.

B. Display Face. It shall not be illuminated, digital or have moving parts.

C. Dimensions. May not exceed four square feet per display face (maximum

two display faces per sign) and not to exceed thirty-two (32) inches in height.

D. Location and Number of Signs. For any non-profit property currently

conducting fund raising activities, a maximum of one sign may be placed on public property at an intersection and placed so as to minimize interference with pedestrian traffic. Beyond intersections, signs are not allowed on city street medians or right-of-ways, or within Foothill Expressway medians or right-of-ways.



E. The message substitution policy of Chapter 14.68 applies to this section.

F. The signs authorized by this section do not require a sign permit, but are

subject to all other applicable permits and approvals.”

SECTION 5. CONSTITUTIONALITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this code is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this code.


SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be effective upon the commencement of the thirty-first day following the adoption date. The foregoing ordinance was duly and regularly introduced at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Altos on __________, 2012 and was thereafter, at a regular meeting held on ___________, 2012 passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:

_______________________________ Valorie Cook Carpenter; MAYOR Attest: _______________________ Lee Price, CITY CLERK

A G E N D A R E P O R T MEETING DATE: January 24, 2012 TO: City Council FROM: Zachary Dahl, Senior Planner SUBJECT: New Safeway Grocery Store Development RECOMMENDATIONS:

A. Certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; and B. Approve Resolution No. 2012-03 approving Design Review Application 11-D-03 and Use

Permit Application 11-UP-02 with Findings and Conditions. SUMMARY:




Public Hearing Notice: November 30, 2011

Previous Council Consideration: October 25, 2011

CEQA Status: Mitigated Negative Declaration

Attachments:

1. Resolution No. 2012-03 2. Planning Commission Minutes, December 15, 2011 3. Planning Commission Memorandum, December 15, 2011 4. Applicant Correspondence 5. Public Correspondence

James Walgren, Assistant City Manager Date Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager Date

January 24, 2012 New Safeway Grocery Store Development Page 2 BACKGROUND: The new Safeway grocery store development (Project) was heard before the Planning Commission on December 15, 2011. At the meeting, the Commission heard public comments from local residents and Downtown business and property owners. There was broad support for the development of a new and expanded grocery store, but concerns were raised with regard to potential public parking shortages in Plaza 7, the terms of the draft parking agreement, traffic congestion and potential negative impacts to adjacent businesses. Concerns were also raised about potential aesthetic, noise and headlight glare impacts to the residences along University Avenue to the southwest of the Project. Following public comment, the Commission discussed the Project, expressing support for the architectural design, and the need to redevelop and expand the existing Safeway grocery store. But several commissioners did raise concerns about the parking demand analysis for the expanded grocery store, noting that lack of onsite parking could result in parking shortages in Plaza 7. Several commissioners also raised concerns about the draft Parking Term Sheet and the need to address any potential impacts to the University Avenue residence. Following the discussion, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and recommend approval of the Design Review and Use Permit applications with the following additional recommendations:

• Provide a more detailed explanation about the parking model that was used to estimate parking demand.

• Revise Condition No. 2 to note that the applicant shall be responsible for retrieving all shopping carts left in any public right-of-way or public parking plaza area.

• The applicant shall actively maintain the green wall along First Street that screens the parking lot.

• Include ample public parking signage. • Continue to work with Project neighbors to address concerns about headlight glare

and noise. • Include additional landscaping along Foothill Expressway if appropriate and feasible. • Consider installing screening landscaping in Lincoln Park opposite the project

frontage. • Consider revising the terms of the opt-out clause in the Parking Term Sheet to be

more beneficial to the City and consider increasing the cost for Safeway to opt out to be consistent with other projects.

The staff memorandum to the Planning Commission (Attachment 2) and December 15, 2011 meeting minutes (Attachment 3) are attached for reference.

January 24, 2012 New Safeway Grocery Store Development Page 3 DISCUSSION: Design Changes Following the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant revised the plans to address several of the comments. The Project plans, dated January 13, 2012, include the following revisions:

• A preliminary signage plan (Sheet A0.2). • Sheet A2.3 has been revised to correctly show a solid wall along Foothill

Expressway. • The proposed elevations for each side are shown with and without landscaping. • A cross-section through the main driveway entrance and Foothill Expressway

showing headlight profiles has been included on Sheet A3.4. In addition, the applicant has submitted two letters further addressing Planning Commission comments and elaborating on the methodology used for the parking demand model (Attachment 4). To respond to the other Planning Commission recommendations, staff has updated Condition No. 2 regarding shopping cart retrieval on public property, added a new condition (No. 3) to address green wall maintenance and updated Condition No. 11 to note that the master sign program shall include ample public parking signage. The landscape plan along Foothill Expressway is appropriate as proposed and including additional species could result in vegetation encroaching into the expressway travel lanes. Also, planting additional screening landscaping in Lincoln Park is not appropriate as there are already multiple layers of trees and landscaping (existing and proposed) between the Project and the residences on the west side of University Avenue. In addition, the open space in Lincoln Park is used for public events and views of the park from Downtown are an aesthetic benefit. Resolution No. 2012-03 contains the findings and conditions for the Project (Attachment 1). Parking Agreement City staff has had ongoing discussions with Safeway representatives over the years about either building a new, larger store or renovating their current store. The recommendation to support Safeway’s request to join the public parking district was accepted by the City Council in September 2010, thus finding a solution to Safeway’s primary obstacle – providing adequate parking for a new expanded grocery store. On October 25, 2011, the City Council considered a draft Parking Term Sheet for the new Safeway grocery store. The agreement would allow the 45,265 square-foot grocery store to provide 154 on-site parking spaces, a ratio of 3.4 spaces/1,000 square feet where a parking ratio of 5 spaces/1,000 square feet is required. As outlined in the terms of the agreement, the Project would contribute 129 parking spaces for public use in exchange for use of public parking during peak shopping periods. Safeway would also contribute $500,000 to the City for future parking solutions. The Council voted to approve the Parking Term Sheet with the understanding that a formal Parking Agreement would be reviewed and approved by City Council following Project approval.

January 24, 2012 New Safeway Grocery Store Development Page 4 The agenda report which provides a detailed discussion about the Parking Term Sheet is included as Attachment C of the Planning Commission Memorandum. The Parking Term Sheet, as approved by Council, is included as Exhibit B in Resolution No. 2012-03. The financial contributions contained in the Parking Term Sheet were negotiated by then Mayor Packard, Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter and City Manager Schmitz with Safeway representatives. Subsequent to that meeting, Councilmember Packard has continued to negotiate with Safeway on the terms based on comments made at the October 2011 meeting. Below are the resulting recommended changes:

• For the first five years following the opening of the new store, Safeway may opt out of this agreement at any time at its sole discretion by providing a one-year notice of termination and by paying the City a termination fee of $2,880,000 – less the initial $500,000 payment.

• After the first five-year period, Safeway may opt out of this agreement at its sole discretion by providing the City a one-year notice of termination and by paying the City a termination fee of $1,500,000 – less the initial $500,000 payment.

• The secondary period opt-out fee identified above will be reduced by $500,000 in the event the parking ratio in the surrounding downtown area is reduced per the Parking Term Sheet.

• Opt-out fees are subject to inflationary adjustments every five years based on the Consumer Price Index commencing with the store opening.

A formal Parking Agreement document incorporating these changes will be drafted and reviewed and approved by City Council following project approval. Environmental Review As part of the development review process, environmental review is required to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In order to ensure that all aspects of the project are fully evaluated, the applicant prepared and submitted a transportation impact analysis, an acoustical analysis, an air quality assessment and a greenhouse gas emissions analysis. Following review and approval of the technical reports by staff, an environmental initial study was prepared. The initial study identified potentially significant impacts related to air quality, biology, cultural resources and hydrology (storm water runoff). However, with appropriate mitigation measures incorporated, all potential impacts were reduced to a less than significant level. The initial study was published on November 7, 2011 and the public review period ran through November 28, 2011. The initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, which includes the technical reports, are included in Attachment E of the Planning Commission Memorandum.

January 24, 2012 New Safeway Grocery Store Development Page 5 During the public review period for the initial study, three comment letters were submitted. The majority of the comments were related to traffic circulation and the parking analysis. However, there were also comments related to aesthetics, greenhouse gas emissions, biology and noise. CEQA does not require an initial study and mitigated negative declaration to be recirculated unless a substantial revision is required. As outlined in the response to comments (Attachment F of the Planning Commission Memorandum), no new avoidable significant impacts were identified and no new mitigation measures will be required. In order to incorporate the mitigation measures into the Project, they have been included as part of Exhibit A in Resolution No. 2012-03.


RESOLUTION NO. 2012-03

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION (11-D-03) AND USE PERMIT APPLICATION

(11-UP-02) FOR A NEW SAFEWAY GROCERY STORE AT 160 FIRST STREET

WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos received a development application for a new Safeway grocery store located at 160 First Street, referred herein as the “Project”; and

WHEREAS, said Project includes Design Review and Use Permit applications (11-D-03 and 11-UP-02); and

WHEREAS, said Project was the subject of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”),

prepared by the City as the lead agency in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended (“CEQA”); and

WHEREAS, all required public notices and public hearings were duly given and duly held

according to law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed

MND and the proposed Design Review and Use Permit on December 15, 2011, and recommended adoption of the MND and approval of the Design Review and Use Permit; and

WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting on the proposed MND and the

proposed Design Review and Use Permit on January 24, 2012; and WHEREAS, on _______, 2012, the City Council adopted the MND, finding that it had

reviewed and considered the information therein, that it had been completed in compliance with CEQA, and that it reflected the independent judgment of the City as lead agency for the Project, as more fully set forth in the attached CEQA findings; and

WHEREAS, the Design Review and Use Permit were processed in accordance with the

applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the Los Altos Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which

constitute the record of proceedings upon the City Council’s decision are located in the Office of the City Clerk.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby adopts the MND and approves the Design Review and Use Permit subject to the findings and conditions of approval attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by this reference.


I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed

and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the ___th day of _____, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:

_____________________________ Valorie Cook Carpenter, MAYOR



EXHIBIT A

FINDINGS

11-D-03 and 11-UP-02—160 First Street

1. With regard to the Environmental Review, the City Council finds that:

A. The MND is in accordance with CEQA (Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Ch. 3, Tit. 14), as amended, and that the Project, with the incorporated mitigation measures, would not create any significant environmental effects. The City Council finds and determines that evidence in the administrative record, including, without limitation, the analysis and conclusions set forth in the staff reports, responses to comments, testimony provided at the Project’s public hearings, the MND and the supporting technical studies including 1) Air Quality Technical Report by ENVIRON Inc. (September 2011), 2) Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory Analysis by ENVIRON Inc. (September 2011), 3) Acoustical Study by Wilson Ihrig & Associates (August 31, 2011), 4) Transportation Impact Analysis by Fehr and Peers (October 2011) and 5) Parking Demand Estimation Clarification Letter by Fehr and Peers (January 13, 2012) demonstrate that, with incorporation of the identified mitigation as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), the Project will not have any significant environmental impacts. The City Council has considered all comments and other information submitted to the City in connection with the MND. The City Council further finds and determines that no substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project may have a significant environmental impact has been submitted to the City in connection with the MND.

B. Based on evidence in the administrative record, including, without limitation, staff reports, responses to comments, the MND, the MMRP, testimony provided at the Project’s public hearings, and the supporting technical studies including the Project’s technical Transportation Impact Analysis, the Project’s technical Parking Study (August 2011), the technical consultant’s supplemental analysis prepared in response to comments (December 2011 and January 2012), the City Council finds and determines that the Project will not result in any significant secondary traffic or air quality impacts from the Project’s parking proposal. The City Council has considered all comments and other information submitted to the City in connection with the Project’s parking proposal. The City Council further finds and determines that no substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project may have a significant environmental impact relating to secondary traffic or air quality impacts has been submitted to the City in connection with the MND.

C. Based on evidence in the administrative record, including, without limitation, staff reports, responses to comments, the MND, the MMRP, testimony provided at the Project’s public hearings, and the supporting technical studies including the Project’s technical Transportation Impact Analysis, the City Council finds and determines that the Project will not result in any significant individual or cumulative traffic impacts. The City Council further finds and determines that no substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the

http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/


Project may have a significant traffic impact has been submitted to the City in connection with the MND.

D. Based on evidence in the administrative record, including, without limitation, staff reports, responses to comments, the MND, the MMRP, and testimony provided at the Project’s public hearings, the City Council finds and determines that the Project will not result in any significant aesthetic impacts. The City Council further finds and determines that no substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project may have a significant aesthetic impact has been submitted to the City in connection with the MND.

E. Based on evidence in the administrative record, including, without limitation, staff reports, responses to comments, the MND, testimony provided at the Project’s public hearings, and the supporting technical studies including the Project’s technical Transportation Impact Analysis and the technical Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Analysis (GHG Emission Inventory Analysis and the supplemental technical analysis prepared in response to comments), the City Council further finds and determines that the Project will not result in any significant GHG emissions impacts.

F. Based on evidence in the administrative record, including, without limitation, staff reports, responses to comments, the MND, testimony provided at the Project’s public hearings, and the supporting technical studies, including the Project’s technical Transportation Impact Analysis and the technical GHG emissions analysis (GHG Emission Inventory Analysis and the supplemental technical analysis prepared in response to comments), the City Council finds and determines that the Project will not result in any significant GHG emissions impacts. The City Council further finds and determines that no substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project may have a significant GHG emissions impact has been submitted to the City in connection with the MND.

G. Based on evidence in the administrative record, including, without limitation, staff reports, responses to comments, the MND, the MMRP, and testimony provided at the Project’s public hearings, the City Council finds and determines that the Project will not result in any significant biological resources impacts. The City Council further finds and determines that no substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project may have a significant biological resources impact has been submitted to the City in connection with the MND.

H. Based on evidence in the administrative record, including, without limitation, staff reports, responses to comments, the MND, the MMRP, and testimony provided at the Project’s public hearings and the supporting technical studies, the City Council finds and determines that the Project will not result in any significant noise impacts. The City Council further finds and determines that no substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project may have a significant noise impact has been submitted to the City in connection with the MND.

2. With regard to Commercial Design Review application 11-D-03, the City Council finds in

accordance with Section 14.78.040 of the Municipal Code that: A. The proposal meets the goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan and the

Downtown Design Plan due to the fact that a larger, modern grocery store will function as


an anchor store that improves and strengthens Downtown vitality, will create a stronger customer attraction, will provide additional public parking through a shared parking arrangement and will increase retail sales tax and property tax revenues. The proposal meets the Commercial Design Review Guidelines and the CRS District design controls in that the new architecture will be an asset to the Downtown aesthetic, it will implement the First Street Streetscape Improvement Project by installing new crosswalks, street trees, sidewalks and pedestrian amenities along First Street, and will install new trees and landscaping along the Foothill Expressway edge;

B. The proposal has architectural integrity and has an appropriate relationship with other

structures in the immediate area in terms of height, bulk and design; C. Building mass is articulated to relate to the human scale, both horizontally and vertically.

Building elevations have variation and depth, and avoid large blank wall surfaces; D. Exterior materials and finishes convey quality, integrity, permanence and durability, and

materials are used effectively to define building elements such as base, body, parapets, bays, arcades and structural elements;

E. Landscaping is generous and inviting, and landscape and hardscape features are designed to

complement the building and parking areas and to be integrated with the building architecture and the surrounding streetscape. Landscaping includes substantial street tree canopy, either in the public right-of-way or within the Project frontage;

F. The proposed signage is designed to complement the building architecture in terms of style,

materials, colors and proportions; G. Mechanical equipment is screened from public view and the screening is designed to be

consistent with the building architecture in form, material and detailing in that the equipment will be located within the building or on the roof behind parapet walls; and

H. Service, trash and utility areas are screened from public view, or are enclosed in structures

that are consistent with the building architecture in materials and detailing; the delivery bays will be located within building and be shielded from public view.

3. With regard to the Use Permit, the City Council finds in accordance with Chapter 14.80 of the

Municipal Code that: A. The proposed location of the conditional use is desirable or essential to the public health,

safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, or welfare as evidenced in the agenda report and due to the fact that it is located within the Downtown commercial setting, will strengthen the commercial retail base, will provide additional public parking through a shared parking arrangement and is maintaining the existing grocery store use on the site;

B. The proposed location of the conditional use is in accordance with the objectives of the

zoning plan as stated in Chapter 14.02 of this title due to the fact that it is a retail commercial use that supports Downtown;


C. The proposed location of the conditional use, under the circumstances of the particular case,

will not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, as evidenced by the analysis and conclusions in the MND and supporting technical documents that there are no significant unmitigated impacts of the Project; and

D. The proposed conditional use complies with the CRS District regulations, including use,

design and setbacks, and the general provisions of Chapter 14.02 except where the Exception for Public Benefit allows for over-height parapet walls to screen rooftop mechanical equipment, reduced parking based on a shared parking arrangement and a reduced landscape buffer width along First Street to accommodate standard parking stalls on a narrow lot.

4. With regard to Exceptions for Public Benefit in the CRS District, the City Council finds in

accordance with Section 14.48.180 of the Municipal Code that:

A. The granting of exceptions to allow for over-height parapet walls to screen rooftop mechanical equipment and a reduced landscape buffer width along First Street to accommodate standard parking stalls on a narrow lot will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the area, as evidenced above and due to the fact that the parapet walls will improve aesthetics and reduce noise, and the reduced landscape buffers are providing vertical green walls that provide an equivalent amount of landscape screening for the on-site parking as viewed from First Street;

B. The benefits to the City derived from granting the exceptions, which include a redeveloped

and expanded anchor store that brings more customers Downtown, increases retail sales tax and property tax revenues, additional public parking based on a shared parking arrangement, new architecture that improves the Downtown aesthetic, new design elements, street trees landscaping along the Foothill Expressway edge and implementation of the First Street Streetscape Improvement Plan, is an appropriate mitigation when considered against the cost to the developer;

C. The Project and mitigation, as evidenced above, will result in a public benefit to the

Downtown; and

D. The resultant Project and mitigation are consistent with the General Plan and accomplish objectives of the Downtown Design Plan, as evidenced above.


CONDITIONS


GENERAL

1. Project approval is based upon the plans received on January 13, 2012 except as modified by

these conditions. 2. As a condition of the use permit, the grocery store operator shall be responsible for retrieving all

shopping carts left in any public right-of-way or public parking plaza areas in a timely manner. 3. As a condition of the use permit, the applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the green

walls along First Street in order to ensure that the planting species provide adequate screening of the on-site parking lot. If needed, replacement species shall be promptly planted.

4. With regard to improvements within the First Street right-of-way:

a. The applicant shall be responsible for the engineering and the installation of improvements within the public right-of-way along the frontage of the subject property. Improvements include, but are not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping and street trees. The improvements shall be consistent with the First Street Streetscape Improvement Plan and the design shall be approved by the City Engineer.

b. The applicant shall contribute to the City for the cost to install the following public improvements: 1) the mid-block crosswalk adjacent to Plaza 7, 2) the crosswalks and paving to complete the First Street and State Street intersection improvements, and 3) the storm drain improvements within the public right-of-way.

c. The applicant shall coordinate their construction schedule with the City, to the extent feasible, and taking into account the applicant’s anticipated construction schedule and the timing of its proposed construction, to allow the City’s streetscape improvements to be constructed concurrently with the Project and applicant improvements within the First Street right-of-way. The applicant shall work with the City to minimize public street and sidewalk closures, to the extent feasible.

5. The required permits shall be obtained from the Engineering Division prior to any work done

within the public right-of-way. The permits and the work shall be in accordance with the Project, as approved, as well as with the related improvement plans to be approved by the City Engineer.

6. Improvements shall comply with the City of Los Altos Municipal Regional Storm Water (MRP)

NPDES Permit No. CA S612008, Order R2-2009-0074 dated October 14, 2009. The improvement plans shall include the “Blueprint for a Clean Bay” plan sheet in all plan submittals.

7. The applicant shall contact electric, gas, communication and water utility companies regarding the

installation of new utility services to the site.


8. All Project improvements shall comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 9. The applicant agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including

attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to its approval of the Project.

PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF BUILDING PERMIT 10. The applicant shall execute the Shared Parking Agreement. The Shared Parking Agreement shall

be substantially in compliance with the Parking Agreement Term Sheet as contained in Exhibit B. The form and content of the Shared Parking Agreement shall be reviewed by the City Manager or his designee, and the City Attorney, and approved by the City Council.

11. The applicant shall provide a master sign program that includes locations, sizes, materials,

illumination and colors of all proposed signage. The master sign program shall include ample public parking signage in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Shared Parking Agreement.

12. The plans shall show that all exterior lighting on the building has shrouds and/or is directed

downward to avoid impacts to the adjoining properties. 13. The applicant shall prepare a landscape and irrigation plan that includes the Foothill Expressway

shoulder within the public right-of-way that fronts on the subject property. The landscaping along Foothill Expressway shall include trees and landscaping that are found in the City’s list of approved plantings for Foothill Expressway. The plan shall meet the requirements of the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (AB 1881) and it shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. If deemed necessary by the City Arborist, the applicant shall provide up to two (2) 24-inch box Olea europaea “Swan Hill” (Olive) trees for planting in the Foothill Expressway median adjacent to the Project site.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT 14. The applicant shall submit a copy of the Notice of Intent to comply with the State Construction

Storm Water General permit submitted to the State Water Resource Control Board. The State required Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the State of California’s General Construction Permit. The applicant shall submit a copy of the filed SWPPP to the City Engineer prior to any demolition, grading or issuance of the building permit, which ever happens first.

15. The applicant shall record a pedestrian use easement for the crosswalk and ADA ramps at the main

driveway entrance in a form approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney. The plat and legal description of the pedestrian use easement shall be submitted for review by the City Land Surveyor. Applicant shall provide a sufficient fee retainer to cover the cost of the review of the pedestrian use easement.


16. The applicant shall submit the Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) in accordance with the requirements provided by the City Engineer. The SWMP will show the entire requirement on how the design is in compliance with the MRP. The SWMP shall be reviewed and approved by a City approved third-party consultant at the applicant’s expense. The recommendations from the SWMP shall be shown on the building plans and approved by the third-party consultant.

17. The applicant shall prepare and record a lot merger map for APNs 167-39-107, 167-39-108 and

167-39-135. Plats and legal descriptions of the lot merger shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Land Surveyor. The applicant shall provide a sufficient fee retainer to cover the cost of the lot merger application. The lot merger map shall show all necessary public utility easements and revise the access easement that benefits the properties at 400 Main Street and 230 First Street to reflect the revised driveway configuration.

18. The applicant shall pay the applicable traffic impact fee in accordance with Chapter 3.48 of Los

Altos Municipal Code. 19. The applicant shall pay all applicable sanitary sewer connection fees. 20. The applicant shall submit on-site grading, utility and drainage plans for approval by the City

Engineer. The grading/drainage plans shall include, but not be limited to, drain swales, drain inlets, rough pad elevations, building envelopes and elevations at property lines. Utility plans shall show the size of proposed sanitary sewer lateral for the new building. The location of all underground utilities in the public right-of-way shall be shown on the plans. The applicant shall verify that the City sewer and storm drain systems are adequately sized to handle the proposed flows.

21. The utility plans shall show a grease interceptor. A grease interceptor is required to be installed

for each commercial grease-generating activity (LAMC 10.08.280(C)). The grease interceptor is required to be sized in conformance with the Uniform Plumbing Code (LAMC 10.08.280(D)).

22. The applicant shall contact Mission Trail Waste Systems and submit a solid waste disposal plan

indicating the type and size of container proposed and the frequency of pick-up service subject to the approval of the Engineering Division. The applicant shall submit evidence that Mission Trail Waste Systems has reviewed and approved the size and location of the proposed new enclosure for recyclables.

23. The applicant shall submit plans to the County of Santa Clara for any proposed improvements

within the County’s right-of-way and provide documentation to reflect any required County approval of these improvements to the City.

24. The applicant shall submit a construction management plan for review and approval by the City

Engineer. The plan shall include: a. A traffic control plan and a pedestrian detouring plan that will be implemented during the

construction phase of this Project. b. Detailed plans for any construction activities affecting the public right-of-way, including but

not limited to excavation, material storage, earth retention, construction vehicle parking, traffic control and safe pedestrian access.


c. A truck routing and staging plan for the proposed excavation of the site. d. Pay applicable fees before the transportation permit can be issued by the Traffic Engineer.

PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION 25. The applicant shall provide an acoustical analysis of all rooftop mechanical equipment to

confirm that the Project is in compliance with the City’s General Plan and the Noise Control Regulations as required in the MMRP and specified performance standards.

26. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment

permit from County Roads and Airports prior to installation of landscaping and irrigation in the Foothill Expressway shoulder.

27. A one-year, ten percent maintenance bond shall be submitted upon acceptance of improvements

in the public right-of-way. 28. The applicant shall label all new or existing public and private catch basin inlets which are on

and adjacent to the site with the “NO DUMPING - FLOWS TO BAY” logo as required by the City.

29. The applicant shall submit a recorded maintenance agreement for the storm water treatment

methods installed in accordance with the Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). The approved third-party consultant shall certify that all storm water treatment systems were properly installed per the approved SWMP and Plans.


MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

11-D-03 and 11-UP-02—160 First Street 1. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures as reflected in the Project’s MND and

the related MMRP, as set forth more fully herein. 2. AIR MM 1: The following mitigation measures shall be implemented during all phases of

construction to prevent visible dust emissions from leaving the Project site: a. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily or as often as needed to control dust

emissions. b. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose materials, and/or ensure that all trucks

hauling such materials maintain at least two feet of freeboard. c. Pave, apply water twice daily, or as often as necessary, to control dust, or apply non-toxic

soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.

d. Sweep daily, or as often as needed, with water sweepers all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites to control dust.

e. Sweep adjacent public streets daily, or as often as needed, to keep streets free of visible soil material.

f. Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas. g. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt,

sand, etc.). h. Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. i. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. j. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.

3. BIO MM 1: In compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code, the

proposed Project shall implement the following measures to reduce or avoid construction-related impacts to nesting raptors and their nests: a. If construction occurs during the non-breeding season (September – January), pre-

construction surveys are not necessary for migratory birds, as they are expected to abandon their roosts during construction activities. If construction occurs during the breeding season (February – August), pre-construction surveys shall be completed by a qualified ornithologist to identify active nests that may be disturbed during Project implementation. All potential nesting areas (trees, tall shrubs) shall be surveyed no more than 30 days prior to tree removal or pruning, if the activity will occur within the breeding season. If more than 30 days pass between the completion of the pre-construction survey and the initiation of construction activities, the pre-construction survey shall be completed again and repeated at 30-day intervals until construction activities are initiated.

b. If an active nest is observed, tree removal and pruning shall be postponed until all the young have fledged. An exclusion zone appropriate to the bird species observed shall be established around the nest site, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game.


c. Active nests shall be monitored weekly until the young fledge. No construction activities, parking, staging, material storage, or other disturbance shall be allowed within the exclusion zones until the young have fledged from the nest.

4. CR MM 1: In the event of the discovery of unanticipated buried prehistoric or historic era

cultural materials during Project construction, work will halt within 30 feet of the discovery until it has been inspected by a qualified archaeologist. If it appears that additional construction related earthmoving will affect a potentially significant resource, the archaeologist shall submit a plan for the evaluation of the resource to the Los Altos Planning Department for approval. Evaluation normally takes the form of limited hand excavation of the suspected cultural deposit to determine if it contains information and/or materials that make it eligible for placement on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). If it is determined that construction activity will impact an eligible resource, the City of Los Altos shall prepare a plan for mitigation of impacts to the resource before work is allowed to recommence in the zone designated as archaeologically sensitive. Mitigation can take the form of additional hand excavation coupled with limited hand excavation to ensure that significant archaeological materials and information are retrieved for analysis and report preparation as required by CEQA.

5. CR MM 2: If human remains are discovered during construction, construction activities that

could disturb the remains and any associated artifacts would halt and the Project sponsor will contact the local Coroner's Office and the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC would then name a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to advise the Project sponsor on the manner of exposure and removal of burials and associated grave goods, and to help designate a place for the reburial of these materials.

6. HYDRO MM 1: The proposed Project shall comply with the requirements of the MRP, as well

as other local, state and federal requirements. Specifically, the Project shall comply with provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), which provides enhanced performance standards for the management of storm water for new development.

7. HYDRO MM 2: The Project will implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) for reducing

the volume of runoff and pollution in runoff to the maximum extent practicable per MRP. These BMPs may include source control measures, site design elements and post-construction treatment measures such as the following: a. Vegetated swales and flow-through areas; b. Bioretention areas or basins; c. Disconnected downspouts that are directed into landscape areas; d. Minimization of impervious surfaces and increased use of permeable pavement; e. Location of all storm drain inlets to be stenciled with, “No Dumping! Flows to Bay” to

discourage illegal dumping; f. Location and design of trash enclosures (all shall be covered) and materials handling areas; g. Use effective, site-specific erosion and sediment control methods during post-construction

periods. 8. HYDRO MM 3: The proposed Project shall comply with all City of Los Altos ordinances,

policies and processes regarding the post-construction treatment of storm water runoff. Specifically, a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) will be developed prior to issuance of


building permits for Project construction, to ensure compliance with City of Los Altos and MRP requirements. The SWMP will meet the criteria for storm water protection outlined in Chapters 10.16 of the Los Altos Municipal Code. The purpose of the SWMP is to: a. Identify the pollutants of concern. b. Identify the site constraints that could limit the types of BMPs and site design measures that

can be implemented. c. Incorporate site design measures to minimize imperviousness and redirect runoff from

impervious surfaces to less pervious surfaces. d. Select BMPs (both source and treatment control measures) for those impervious areas that

cannot be served by site design measures. 9. HYDRO MM 4: The proposed Project will file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water

Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to commencement of construction. The Project’s SWPPP shall include measures for: a. Soil stabilization. b. Sediment control. c. Sediment tracking control. d. Wind erosion control. e. Non-storm water management and waste management and disposal control.

10. HYDRO MM 5: BMPs shall be implemented for reducing the volume of runoff and pollution

in runoff to the maximum extent practicable during site excavation, grading and construction. All measures shall be included in the Project’s SWPPP and printed on all construction documents, contracts and Project plans. a. Restrict grading to the dry season or meet City requirements for grading during the rainy

season. b. Use effective, site-specific erosion and sediment control methods during the construction

periods. Provide temporary cover of all disturbed surfaces to help control erosion during construction. Provide permanent cover as soon as is practical to stabilize the disturbed surfaces after construction has been completed.

c. Cover soil, equipment and supplies that could contribute non-visible pollution prior to rainfall events or perform monitoring of runoff. Cover stockpiles with secure plastic sheeting or tarp.

d. Implement regular maintenance activities such as sweeping driveways between the construction area and public streets. Clean sediments from streets, driveways and paved areas on-site using dry sweeping methods. Designate a concrete truck washdown area.

e. Dispose of all wastes properly and keep site clear of trash and litter. Clean up leaks, drips, and other spills immediately so that they do not contact storm water.

f. Place fiber rolls or silt fences around the perimeter of the site. Protect existing storm and sewer inlets in the Project area from sedimentation with filter fabric and sand or gravel bags.


EXHIBIT B

PARKING TERM SHEET


The following are the basic tenets of the Parking Term Sheet approve by the City Council on October 25, 2011, all subject to the mutually agreed upon definitions and parameters of the Parking Agreement: 1. Based on a 45,265 net square foot store, a minimum of 154 parking spaces shall be provided for

a parking ratio of 3.4 parking spaces per every 1,000 square feet of net building area. Net building area will exclude stairways and elevators, loading docks and mechanical rooms. If the store square footage changes, the parking will be adjusted to be no less than 3.4 parking spaces per every 1,000 square feet of net building area.

2. Safeway will contribute $500,000 to the City toward the cost of a downtown parking solution

prior to issuance of building permits.

3. Safeway will grant the City an easement over 129 parking spaces for public use. Safeway will reserve 25 stalls near the entrance for their customers. Safeway employees may not participate in the public parking plaza long-term parking permit program.

4. The parking will be accessible to the public at all times but may be limited to no longer than 90

minutes. Safeway will be responsible for maintaining and monitoring the parking area and will pay the real estate taxes on the parking area at no cost to the City. Both Safeway and the City will secure and maintain an equal amount of commercial general liability insurance.

5. Safeway may opt out of this agreement at any time at its sole discretion by paying a $1,000,000

fee to the City. The opt-out fee shall be structured with a cost escalator.

6. Safeway may opt out of this agreement for $500,000 if the parking ratio for the downtown area adjacent to Safeway is reduced below the existing (TBD)/1,000 square feet of commercial area. The opt-out fee shall be structured with a cost escalator. The area adjacent to Safeway is defined as Main Street to the South, Second Street to the East, Foothill Expressway to the West, and Shasta to the North extending through to Second Street. The specific terms and conditions of this provision will be defined in the Parking Agreement.

7. Safeway maintains the right to redevelop their site at any time in the future pursuant to the

development regulations contained in the City of Los Altos Municipal Code.

A G E N D A R E P O R T MEETING DATE: January 24, 2012 TO: City Council FROM: Jon Maginot, Deputy City Clerk SUBJECT: Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Project RECOMMENDATION: Receive the presentation by VTA staff and provide feedback on the El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit project. SUMMARY:


Amount: N/A

Budgeted: N/A


Previous Council Consideration: June 14, 2011 (Study Session); October 11, 2011


1. Public Correspondence Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager Date

January 24, 2012 VTA El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Project Page 2 BACKGROUND: On June 14, 2011, VTA staff presented the El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project to the City Council. This project includes the portion of El Camino that passes through Los Altos. The BRT will include dedicated bus lanes for portions of the corridor, enhanced stations, traffic signal prioritization and rapid boarding. Since the June 14, 2011 meeting, VTA has developed a preferred investment strategy. This layout calls for mixed-flow traffic in the northern portion of El Camino in Los Altos (from the Palo Alto border through San Antonio Road). The remainder of the portion (to the Mountain View border) will include a dedicated bus lane. In order to account for the dedicated lane and to preserve the median, which was indicated as a priority, VTA will reduce the travel lanes for the affected stretch from three lanes to two. DISCUSSION: At the request of Mayor Pro Tem Fishpaw, VTA will present to the Council an update on the preferred layout for comments. This strategy will then go to the VTA Board of Directors on February 2, 2012. The City Councils of the six cities will then be asked to endorse the strategy (Los Altos is tentatively scheduled for May 8, 2012). The Board will then decide whether to reconfirm the strategy based on the cities’ decisions on June 7, 2012.

ATTACHMENT 1

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE

A G E N D A R E P O R T MEETING DATE: January 24, 2012 TO: City Council FROM: Jon Maginot, Deputy City Clerk SUBJECT: Community Survey on Downtown RECOMMENDATION: Discuss the proposed questionnaire for the Downtown Survey and provide feedback and approval of the questionnaire. SUMMARY:


Amount: N/A

Budgeted: N/A


Previous Council Consideration: December 13, 2011

CEQA Status: None Attachments:

1. Godbe Research 2012 Downtown Planning Survey Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager Date

Date Subject Title Page 2 BACKGROUND: Text here. DISCUSSION: Text here. FISCAL IMPACT: Text here. ALTERNATIVES: Text here.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS

2012 Downtown Planning Survey

Questionnaire n=400 15 to 20-minutes (tbd) / 2,229 words Hybrid Sample: Voter n=335 / RDD n=65

January 19, 2012

Draft 3

www.godberesearch.com

Northern California and Corporate Offices 1660 South Amphlett Blvd., Suite 205 San Mateo, CA 94402 Southern California 4695 MacArthur Court, 11

th Floor

Newport Beach, CA 92660 Nevada 59 Damonte Ranch, Suite B-309 Reno, NV 89521 Pacific Northwest 601 108

th Avenue NE, Suite 1900

Bellevue, WA 98004

http://www.godberesearch.com/

Godbe Research Los Altos Downtown Planning Survey

Questionnaire – Draft 3 January 19, 2012 Page 2 of 14

INTRODUCTION FOR RDD / VOTER SAMPLES

If Voter File Sample (n=335)

Hello. May I speak with _________? My name is _________ and I’m calling on behalf of the City of Los Altos. We’re conducting a survey concerning issues that are important to residents of the City of Los Altos, and I’d like to ask you a few questions.

[IF NEEDED:] I can assure you that I am not trying to sell you anything – this is a study about local issues and your opinion is extremely valuable.

[IF THE PERSON ASKS WHY YOU ONLY WANT TO TALK TO THE INDIVIDUAL LISTED ON THE SAMPLE, OR ASKS IF THEY ARE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE INSTEAD OF THE INDIVIDUAL, THEN SAY:] “I’m sorry, but for statistical purposes this survey must only be completed by this particular individual.”

[IF THE INDIVIDUAL SAYS THEY ARE ON THE NATIONAL DO NOT CALL LIST, RESPOND BASED ON THE GUIDELINES FROM THE MARKETING RESEARCH ASSOCIATION. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE INDIVIDUAL SAYS: “There's a law that says you can't call me,” RESPOND WITH:] “This type of opinion research is exempt under the law that Congress passed. That law was passed to regulate the activities of the telemarketing industry. This is a legitimate research call, and we would appreciate your input. Your opinions count!”

If RDD Sample (n=65)

Hello, my name is __________ and I’m calling on behalf of the City of Los Altos. We’re conducting a survey concerning some important issues in the City of Los Altos and we would like to get your opinions. This should just take a few minutes of your time. [IF NEEDED:] This is a study about issues of importance in Los Altos – it is a survey only and I am not selling anything.

We are trying to obtain a representative cross-section of respondents from within the City of Los Altos in terms of their gender and age. For statistical reasons, I would like to speak to the youngest adult male currently at home who is at least 18 years of age. [Or youngest female depending on statistics of previous completed interviews]

[IF THERE IS NO MALE/FEMALE AT LEAST 18 AVAILABLE, THEN ASK:] Ok, then I’d like to speak to the youngest adult female currently at home who is at least 18 years of age.

[IF THERE IS NO MALE/FEMALE AT LEAST 18 AVAILABLE, THEN ASK FOR CALLBACK TIME.]

[PLEASE EXPLAIN IF AN OLDER RESPONDENT/FEMALE ASKS WHY THEY ARE NOT INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SURVEY – THIS IS BECAUSE THE SURVEY RESULTS ARE MEANT TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ENTIRE ADULT POPULATION OF THE LOS ALTOS CITY AND CURRENTLY WE HAVE COMPLETED ENOUGH SURVEYS WITH RESIDENTS SHARING YOUR DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS – THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.]



SCREENERS

A. Record Gender [DO NOT ASK, RECORD FOR RDD AND VOTER]:

Male ------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Female --------------------------------------------------------- 2

B. For statistical purposes I am going to read some age groups. Please stop me when I reach the group that best describes your age. [ASK AND RECORD FOR RDD ONLY]

18 to 29 -------------------------------------------------------- 1 30 to 39 -------------------------------------------------------- 2 40 to 49 -------------------------------------------------------- 3 50 to 64 -------------------------------------------------------- 4 65+ years ------------------------------------------------------ 5 [DON’T READ] Prefer not to say/NA ----------------- 99

i. [IF RDD SAMPLE] Do you live in the City of Los Altos? [ASK AND RECORD FOR RDD ONLY]

Yes -------------------------------------------------------------- 1 [CONTINUE] No ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2 [THANK & TERMINATE] DK/NA -------------------------------------------------------- 99 [CONTINUE]

ii. Are you, or a member of your household, elected or appointed to any City, County, or School District board, council, committee, or commission? [ASK ALL RESPONDENTS]

Yes -------------------------------------------------------------- 1 [CONTINUE TO Qiii TEXT] No ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2 [GO TO QC] [DON’T READ]DK/NA ------------------------------------ 99 [CONTINUE TO Qiii TEXT]

iii. Thank you for your time, but the focus of this survey is on the general public’s opinion of local issues. Due to your response to this question, you are not eligible to complete the survey. Thank you again for your time. [TERMINATE]

C. How long have you lived in the City of Los Altos? [ASK ALL RESPONDENTS]

Less than one year------------------------------------------ 1 One to three years ------------------------------------------ 2 Four to nine years ------------------------------------------- 3 Ten to fifteen years ----------------------------------------- 4 Sixteen to twenty years ------------------------------------ 5 Twenty-one to twenty-five years ------------------------ 6 More than twenty-five years ------------------------------ 7 [DON’T READ] DK/NA ----------------------------------- 99



PERCEPTIONS OF LIVING IN LOS ALTOS & DOWNTOWN

Now, I’d like to get your overall opinion of living in the City of Los Altos.

1. Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the overall quality of life in Los Altos? [GET ANSWER, THEN ASK]: Is that very or somewhat [satisfied/dissatisfied]?

Very satisfied ------------------------------------------------- 1 Somewhat satisfied ----------------------------------------- 2 [DON’T READ] Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied --- 3 Somewhat dissatisfied ------------------------------------- 4 Very dissatisfied --------------------------------------------- 5 [DON’T READ] DK/NA ----------------------------------- 99

2. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with Downtown Los Altos? [GET ANSWER, THEN

ASK]: Is that very or somewhat [satisfied/dissatisfied]?

Very satisfied ------------------------------------------------- 1 [SKIP Q3] Somewhat satisfied ----------------------------------------- 2 [SKIP Q3] [DON’T READ] Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied --- 3 [SKIP Q3] Somewhat dissatisfied ------------------------------------ 4 [ASK Q3] Very dissatisfied --------------------------------------------- 5 [ASK Q3] [DON’T READ] DK/NA ----------------------------------- 99 [SKIP Q3]

3. [IF Q2 = 4 OR 5, ASK:] Why are you dissatisfied with Downtown Los Altos?

[SPECIFY:] ___________________________ --- 98 [DON’T READ] DK/NA ---------------------------------- 99

4. What do you think the purpose of Downtown Los Altos is? [DON’T READ LIST, MULTIPLE

RESPONSE OK]

To serve the needs of Los Altos ------------------------- 1 Other, please specify____________ ---------------- 98 (DON’T READ) DK/NA ----------------------------------- 99

5. Approximately, how times a month do you visit Downtown Los Altos? [DON’T READ LIST]

Several times a day ----------------------------------------- 1 Daily ------------------------------------------------------------- 2 A few times a week or more ------------------------------ 3 Once a week -------------------------------------------------- 4 A few times a month ---------------------------------------- 5 Once a month ------------------------------------------------ 6 A few times a year or less--------------------------------- 7 Only for special events (parades, farmers market, etc) ---------------------------------------------- 8 Never ----------------------------------------------------------- 9 [SKIP TO Q10] (DON’T READ) DK/NA ----------------------------------- 99



6. Do you typically go to Downtown Los Altos during the weekends, or weekdays? And is that during the day or evening? [ACCEPT FIRST RESPONSE ONLY]

Weekends during the day --------------------------------- 1 Weekends during the evening (includes Fri.) -------- 2 Weekdays during the day --------------------------------- 3 Weekdays during the evening --------------------------- 4 Depends/varies/anytime during week ----------------- 5 (DON’T READ) DK/NA ----------------------------------- 99

7. What is your primary reason for going downtown? [OPEN-ENDED. DO NOT READ

RESPONSES, FIRST RESPONSE ONLY]

Banking / financial services ------------------------------- 1 Coffee/dessert ------------------------------------------------ 2 Dining/eating out/have drinks ---------------------------- 3 Dry cleaning / laundry -------------------------------------- 4 Gas / Auto Repair / Maintenance ----------------------- 5 Mail / shipping ------------------------------------------------ 6 Medical / Dental ---------------------------------------------- 7 Meet friends --------------------------------------------------- 8 Personal services (barber, beauty salon, etc) ------- 9 Shopping (apparel, gifts, etc.) -------------------------- 10 Shopping (food, groceries, etc.) ----------------------- 11 Special events, parades, farmers market, etc ----- 12 Walking/exercise/just to get out ----------------------- 13 Work ---------------------------------------------------------- 14 Other, please specify____________ ---------------- 98 (DON’T READ) DK/NA ----------------------------------- 99 [SKIP TO Q10]

8. What are your other reasons for going downtown? [OPEN-ENDED. DO NOT READ RESPONSES, MULTIPLE RESPONSE OK]

Banking / financial services ------------------------------- 1 Coffee/dessert ------------------------------------------------ 2 Dining/eating out/have drinks ---------------------------- 3 Dry cleaning / laundry -------------------------------------- 4 Gas / Auto Repair / Maintenance ----------------------- 5 Mail / shipping ------------------------------------------------ 6 Medical / Dental ---------------------------------------------- 7 Meet friends --------------------------------------------------- 8 Personal services (barber, beauty salon, etc) ------- 9 Shopping (apparel, gifts, etc.) -------------------------- 10 Shopping (food, groceries, etc.) ----------------------- 11 Special events, parades, farmers market, etc ----- 12 Walking/exercise/just to get out ----------------------- 13 Work ---------------------------------------------------------- 14 Other, please specify____________ ---------------- 98 (DON’T READ) DK/NA ----------------------------------- 99



9. How do you typically get to Downtown Los Altos? [FIRST RESPONSE ONLY]

Bike -------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Bus -------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Carpool --------------------------------------------------------- 3 Drive ------------------------------------------------------------ 4 Taxi -------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Walk ------------------------------------------------------------- 6 (DON’T READ) Refused --------------------------------- 99

10. [IF Q9 = 4] What would encourage you to walk or bike to Downtown Los Altos? [DON’T

READ LIST]

More bike parking / racks --------------------------------- 1 Bike lanes ----------------------------------------------------- 2 Crosswalks ---------------------------------------------------- 3 Other [SPECIFY:] _____________ ----------------- 97 [DON’T READ] Nothing ---------------------------------- 98 [DON’T READ] DK/NA ----------------------------------- 99

11. Besides Downtown Los Altos, where else do you go locally to get a downtown experience?

[IF NEEDED: When you want to go shopping, go out to eat, meet friends, get coffee or dessert, etc.] [DO NOT READ RESPONSES]

Los Gatos ------------------------------------------------------ 1 Mountain View ----------------------------------------------- 2 Palo Alto ------------------------------------------------------- 3 San Francisco ------------------------------------------------ 4 Santana Row ------------------------------------------------- 5 Shopping malls (include Stanford, Valley Fair)------ 6 Other [SPECIFY:] _____________ ----------------- 97 (DON’T READ) Don’t know ---------------------------- 99



12. What would motivate you to go to Downtown Los Altos more often? (OPEN-ENDED. DO NOT READ RESPONSES)

PARKING-RELATED More parking -------------------------------------------------- 1 Parking closer to the shop / restaurant I want to visit ------------------------------------------------------------- 2 More 20-minute parking ----------------------------------- 3 RESTAURANT-RELATED Different or better restaurants ---------------------------- 4 Less expensive restaurants/options -------------------- 5 More restaurants -------------------------------------------- 6 More variety in restaurants ------------------------------- 7 RETAIL-RELATED Bookstore ------------------------------------------------------ 8 Different or better stores/shops -------------------------- 9 More stores/shops ---------------------------------------- 10 Stores open longer hours ------------------------------- 11 More Brand Name shops -------------------------------- 12 OTHER Entertainment----------------------------------------------- 13 Night club ---------------------------------------------------- 14 More attractions/parks for children ------------------- 15 More attractions or shops for pre-teens ------------- 16 More attractions or shops for teens ------------------ 17 Movie theater ----------------------------------------------- 18 Other [SPECIFY:] _____________ ----------------- 97 [DON’T READ] DK/NA ----------------------------------- 99

[IF Q12=(4, 5, 6, 7) OR (8, 9, 10, 11, 12) OR (13, 14, 15, 16, 17) ASK Q13, OTHERWISE SKIP TO Q14]

13. In terms of [BASED ON Q12: restaurants/retail stores/entertainment], what types of [BASED

ON Q11: restaurants/retail stores/entertainment] would you like to see downtown that aren’t currently there? [PROBE FOR SPECIFIC NAMES OF RESTAURANTS OR RETAIL STORES IF POSSIBLE]

[SPECIFY:] ___________________________ --- 98 [DON’T READ] DK/NA ---------------------------------- 99

14. Is it convenient or inconvenient to park in Downtown Los Altos? [GET ANSWER, THEN

ASK:] Is that very or somewhat (convenient / inconvenient)?

Very convenient ---------------------------------------------- 1 Somewhat convenient ------------------------------------- 2 Somewhat inconvenient ----------------------------------- 3 Very inconvenient ------------------------------------------- 4 [DON’T READ] DK/NA ---------------------------------- 99



15. Some communities on the Peninsula charge for on-street parking so there is more turnover of parking spaces and as a result there are more spaces available in their downtown areas. Would you be willing to pay 50 cents per hour to get parking closer to your downtown destination?

Yes -------------------------------------------------------------- 1 No ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2 [DON’T READ] DK/NA ---------------------------------- 99

The City of Los Altos is working to make Downtown meet the needs of residents. Now I’m going to read you the opinions of different people about what they believe should be done in Downtown Los Altos. After I read each set of opinions please tell me which one is closer to your own view.

16. Here are the first two opinions:

[RANDOMIZE]

OPINION A: This person believes that Downtown Los Altos is fine just the way it is and that nothing should be done other than normal maintenance ---- 1

OPINION B: This person believes that Downtown Los Altos needs more entertainment options like a movie theater or night clubs --------------------------- 2

[DON’T READ] Mixed opinions ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3 [DON’T READ] Neither ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 [DON’T READ] DK/NA -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99

17. Currently there are no public parking structures in Downtown Los Altos. Here are two more

opinions:

[RANDOMIZE]

OPINION C: This person believes that Downtown Los Altos needs a parking structure ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

OPINION D: This person believes that a parking structure would cost taxpayers too much and that there is enough parking right now -------------------------------- 2




18. [IF Q17 = 1 OR 3, ASK:] To build above ground parking costs about $30,000 per space, whereas below-ground parking costs about $60,000 per space. Do you think that Downtown Los Altos should have a new parking structure above ground or below ground?

Above ground------------------------------------------------- 1 Below ground ------------------------------------------------- 2 [DON’T READ] Mixed opinions ------------------------- 3 [DON’T READ] Neither ------------------------------------ 4 [DON’T READ] DK/NA ---------------------------------- 99

19. Here are two more opinions:

[RANDOMIZE]

OPINION E: This person believes that Los Altos needs new office buildings and housing in Downtown, and this would increase the number of people working and living Downtown which will support and improve the types of restaurants and shops ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

OPINION F: This person believes that office and housing development and the traffic it would bring to Los Altos would damage the small town character of Downtown Los Altos --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2


20. [IF Q18 = 1 OR 3, ASK:] Currently buildings on Main and State streets are mostly one story

and limited to two stories. Do you think the building regulations should be changed to allow three story buildings or stay the way they are now?

Allow three story buildings -------------------------------- 1 Stay the way it is now -------------------------------------- 2 [DON’T READ] Mixed opinions ------------------------- 3 [DON’T READ] Neither ------------------------------------ 4 [DON’T READ] DK/NA ---------------------------------- 99

21. Recently the City of Los Altos invested in improving several intersections and sidewalks in

Downtown Los Altos. Now that the work is finished, have you seen it?

Yes -------------------------------------------------------------- 1 No ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2 [SKIP TO Q23] [DON’T READ] DK/NA ---------------------------------- 99 [SKIP TO Q23]

22. [IF Q21 = 1, ASK:] Do you think this was a good investment of taxpayer dollars?

Yes -------------------------------------------------------------- 1 No ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2 [DON’T READ] Mixed opinions ------------------------- 3 [DON’T READ] DK/NA ---------------------------------- 99



23. Do you favor or oppose additional infrastructure and cosmetic improvements in the future?

Favor ------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Oppose --------------------------------------------------------- 2 [DON’T READ] Mixed opinions ------------------------- 3 [DON’T READ] DK/NA ---------------------------------- 99

24. How important do you think it is to maintain the current look of Main Street in Los Altos? Is it

extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important?

Extremely important ---------------------------------------- 1 Very important ------------------------------------------------ 2 Somewhat important---------------------------------------- 3 Not at all important ------------------------------------------ 4 [DON’T READ] DK/NA ---------------------------------- 99



DEMOGRAPHICS

[Ask All Respondents]

And now just a few questions for comparison purposes.

D. Do any children under the age of 18 live in your household?

Yes -------------------------------------------------------------- 1 [CONTINUE] No ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2 [SKIP TO QF] [DON’T READ] DK/NA ----------------------------------- 99 [SKIP TO QF]

E. [IF QD = 1, YES] What are the ages of the children living in your household? [MULTIPLE RESPONSES PERMITTED. IF NECESSARY, PROMPT WITH GRADE LEVELS]

0 to 4 years (infant or pre-school)----------------------- 1 5 to 11 years (grade-school) ----------------------------- 2 12 to 13 years (middle-school) -------------------------- 3 14 to 17 years (high-school) ------------------------------ 4 [DON’T READ] DK/NA ----------------------------------- 99

F. Do you own or rent your place of residence? [DON’T READ CHOICES.]

Own ------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Rent ------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Other ------------------------------------------------------------ 3 [DON’T READ] DK/NA ----------------------------------- 99

G. What is your current job status? [DON’T READ CHOICES –MULTIPLE RESPONSE OK]

Employed - fulltime------------------------------------------ 1 Employed - in the home ----------------------------------- 2 Employed - part-time --------------------------------------- 3 Employed - work from home ----------------------------- 4 Retired ---------------------------------------------------------- 5 Unemployed looking for work ---------------------------- 6 Volunteer ------------------------------------------------------ 7 [DON’T READ] Refused --------------------------------- 99



H. What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of or feel closest to? [DON’T READ CHOICE. IF RESPONDENT HESITATES, READ LIST.]

African-American/Black ------------------------------------ 1 Asian [PROBE:] Chinese ----------------------------------------------------- 2 Indian -------------------------------------------------------- 3 Filipino ------------------------------------------------------ 4 Japanese --------------------------------------------------- 5 Korean ------------------------------------------------------ 6 Vietnamese ------------------------------------------------ 7 Other Asian ------------------------------------------------ 8 Caucasian/White -------------------------------------------- 9 Latino(a)/Hispanic ----------------------------------------- 10 Native American ------------------------------------------- 11 Pacific Islander --------------------------------------------- 12 Two or more races (Not any combination with Latino/Hispanic) ---------------------------------------- 13 Other ---------------------------------------------------------- 98 [DON’T READ] DK/NA ----------------------------------- 99

I. Do you live in:

North Los Altos ----------------------------------------------- 1 Central Los Altos -------------------------------------------- 2 South Los Altos ---------------------------------------------- 3 [DON’T READ] Refused --------------------------------- 99

Those are all the questions I have for you. Thank you very much for your participation.

DEMOGRAPHICS FROM VOTER FILE:

All information is included in voter registration records, and these items will not be asked during interviews.

J. Age

18-29 years --------------------------------------------------- 1 30-39 years --------------------------------------------------- 2 40-49 years --------------------------------------------------- 3 50-64 years --------------------------------------------------- 4 65+ years ------------------------------------------------------ 5 Not coded ------------------------------------------------------ 6



K. Individual Party

Democrat ------------------------------------------------------ 1 Republican ---------------------------------------------------- 2 Other ------------------------------------------------------------ 3 DTS ------------------------------------------------------------- 4

L. Household Party Type

Democrat (1) -------------------------------------------------- 1 Democrat (2+) ------------------------------------------------ 2 Republican (1) ------------------------------------------------ 3 Republican (2+) ---------------------------------------------- 4 Other (1) ------------------------------------------------------- 5 Other (2+)------------------------------------------------------ 6 Democrat & Republican ----------------------------------- 7 Democrat & Other ------------------------------------------- 8 Republican & Other ----------------------------------------- 9 Democrat, Republican, & Other ------------------------- 0

M. Reg. Date

2009 to present ---------------------------------------------- 1 2005 to 2008 -------------------------------------------------- 2 2001 to 2004 -------------------------------------------------- 2 1997 to 2000 -------------------------------------------------- 4 1993 to 1996 -------------------------------------------------- 5 1981 to 1992 -------------------------------------------------- 6 1980 or before ------------------------------------------------ 7 Not coded ------------------------------------------------------ 8

N. Voting History

No Poll Mail

Voted 6/06 ------------------------------------------------------ 0 ------------- 1 ------------- 2 Voted 11/06 ---------------------------------------------------- 0 ------------- 1 ------------- 2 Voted 11/07 (if applicable) -------------------------------------- 0 ------------- 1 ------------- 2 Voted 2/08 ------------------------------------------------------ 0 ------------- 1 ------------- 2 Voted 6/08 ------------------------------------------------------ 0 ------------- 1 ------------- 2 Voted 11/08 ---------------------------------------------------- 0 ------------- 1 ------------- 2 Voted 5/09 ------------------------------------------------------ 0 ------------- 1 ------------- 2 Voted 11/09 (if applicable) -------------------------------------- 0 ------------- 1 ------------- 2 Voted 06/10 ---------------------------------------------------- 0 ------------- 1 ------------- 2 Voted 11/10 ---------------------------------------------------- 0 ------------- 1 ------------- 2 Voted 11/11 (if available) --------------------------------------- 0 ------------- 1 ------------- 2

O. [PLEASE COUNT TIMES VOTED IN QK] Times Voted in Past Elections: ______

P. [PLEASE COUNT TIMES VOTED BY MAIL IN QK] Absentee Voter: ______



Q. Permanent Absentee Voter

Yes -------------------------------------------------------------- 1 No ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2

R. Likely Absentee Voter

Yes -------------------------------------------------------------- 1 No ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2

S. Geographic Area by Precinct (tbd)

North ------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Central ---------------------------------------------------------- 2 South------------------------------------------------------------ 3 Split ------------------------------------------------------------ 99

PRECINCT NUMBER [REQUIRED] _______________________________________________

NAME____________________________________________ PHONE____________________

ADDRESS ___________________________________________________________________

DATE OF INTERVIEW ______________________VALIDATED BY ______________________

los altos city council jan 24, 2012 complete packet of agenda

Documents

city council minutes

city council assignments

council meetings

city of los altos

council meeting schedule

amended city council

los altos city hall

councilmember casas