Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-07-13 City Council Agenda Packet 1 07/13/09 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. A binder containing supporting materials is available in the Council Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting. Special Meeting Council Chambers July 13, 2009 6:00 P.M. ROLL CALL CLOSED SESSION This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker 1. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY -- EXISTING LITIGATION Subject: Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Palo Alto, et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 109CV140463 Subject Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) 6:30 P.M. or as soon as possible thereafter STUDY SESSION 2. Information on Citywide Ultra-High-Speed Broadband System Project CMR 307:09 and ATTACHMENTS SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 3. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Gayle Likens Upon Her Retirement ATTACHMENT 2 7/13/09 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 4. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Mehrzad “Mac” Saberi Upon His Retirement ATTACHMENT CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the right to limit the duration or Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 8, 2009 June 15, 2009 CONSENT CALENDAR Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members. 5. Adoption of a Resolution Opposing the Seizure by State Government of the City of Palo Alto’s Street Maintenance Funds CMR 297:09 and ATTACHMENTS 6. Approval of Council Priorities Work Plan and Palo Alto See-It Site CMR 309:09 and ATTACHMENTS 7. Approval of a Contract with Granite Rock Company DBA Pavex Construction Division, in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,493,356 for the 2009 Street Maintenance Program Asphalt Overlay Capital Improvement Project PE-86070 CMR 308:09 and ATTACHMENTS AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS 3 7/13/09 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes per speaker. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. Approval of a Development Agreement to Extend Approvals for Architectural Review and the Vesting Tentative Map with Exceptions and Providing Additional Project Benefits of the Approved 45-unit Townhome Development at 200 San Antonio Road in the ROLM and RM-30 Zone Districts and Adoption of an Ordinance Approving a Development Agreement between Hewlett- Packard Company and the City of Palo Alto *Quasi-judicial CMR 302:09 and ATTACHMENTS 9. Initiation of (1) a Zone Change from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District to Planned Community (PC) District at 2180 El Camino Real (The New College Terrace Centre) for a Mixed Use Project Having 61,960 Square Feet of Floor Area Including 8,000 Square Feet of Grocery (Intended for JJ&F Market), 5,580 Square Feet of Other Retail, 14 Affordable One-Bedroom Residential Units, 39,980 Square Feet of Office Use, and Two Levels of Below-Grade and Surface Parking Facilities Providing 227 Parking Spaces, and (2) a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Assign the Mixed Use Land Use Designation to a Site currently designated as Neighborhood Commercial *Quasi-judicial (continued from 6/1/09) STAFF MEMO CMR 304:09 and ATTACHMENT CITIZEN MEMO COUNCIL MATTERS 10. Adoption of an Ordinance Increasing the Utilities Advisory Commission from Five to Seven Members and Amending Section 2.23.010 (Membership), Section 2.23.030 (Term of Office) and Section 2.23.060 (Meetings) of Chapter 2.23 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code CMR 314:09 and ATTACHMENTS 4 7/13/09 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. COUNCIL COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND REPORTS FROM CONFERENCES Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services, or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact 650-329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO GAYLE LIKENS UPON HER RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Gayle Likens has served the City of Palo Alto and its citizens as a member of City Staff from July 9, 1973 to June 25, 2009, having been hired by the City in 1973 as an Account Clerk in Revenue Collections, transferred to the Department of Planning and Community Environment in 1979, as an Associate Planner, and was eventually promoted to the position of Transportation Manager; and WHEREAS, during her tenure in the Transportation Division, Ms. Likens was instrumental in improving mobility for Palo Alto residents by managing the City’s Project Mobility Program for subsidizing taxi trips for seniors and disabled residents in the 1980s, helping establish the City’s free shuttle program in 1999 which is still a vital element of Palo Alto’s transit program, and playing a key role in the continuing development of the City’s Safe Routes to School Program and the bikeway network; and WHEREAS, Ms. Likens has earned the respect of transportation engineers and planners from Caltrans, VTA, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Caltrain, and municipal agencies throughout the Peninsula and the South Bay; and WHEREAS, Ms. Likens through her professional excellence, wisdom, integrity, and humanity, has earned the high esteem of her City of Palo Alto colleagues across departments and divisions. NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby commends the outstanding public service of Ms. Gayle Likens, and records its appreciation, as well as the appreciation of the citizens of their community, upon her retirement. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: JULY 13, 2009 ATTEST: APPROVED: _____________________ ______________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________ ______________________ City Attorney City Manager RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO MEHRZAD “MAC” SABERI UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Mehrzad “Mac” Saberi has served the City of Palo Alto and its citizens as a member of the City Staff from August 19, 1985 to June 25, 2009, having first been hired as a Plan Check Engineer in the Building Division of the Department of Planning and Community Environment, and then having been promoted to the position of Assistant Building Official in 2008; and WHEREAS, throughout his tenure, Mac has provided invaluable technical expertise and support to numerous building design and construction professionals who have renovated and built a countless number of buildings in Palo Alto, as well as to the City’s Architectural Review Board and Development Review Committee; and WHEREAS, Mac has been instrumental in the implementation of the City’s landmark Seismic Hazard Mitigation Program, which has resulted in the successful retrofitting and repair of many structures throughout Palo Alto, thus creating a safer community for its residents, employees and visitors alike; and WHEREAS, Mac oversaw the plan review and permitting activities associated with many landmark buildings located in Palo Alto, including the Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life, the VM Ware Corporate Campus, the Hewlett-Packard Corporate Headquarters, the Facebook Corporate Headquarters, the Palo Alto Internet Exchange Building, the Hyatt Classic Communities and Ronald McDonald House development, as well as many city-owned facilities to name just a few; and WHEREAS, Mac has capably represented the City on and before technical committees affiliated with the International Conference of Building Officials, the International Code Council, the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California and the Tri-Chapter Uniform Code Committee; and WHEREAS, Mac through his professional knowledge, integrity, and commitment to making the built environment in Palo Alto better and safer for all, has earned the well deserved respect from his City colleagues, and the many building design and construction professionals with whom he has interacted over the years. NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby commends the outstanding public service of Mehrzad “Mac” Saberi and records its appreciation, as well as the appreciation of the citizens of this community, upon his retirement. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: JULY 13, 2009 ATTEST: APPROVED: _____________________ ______________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________ ______________________ City Attorney City Manager TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE: JUL Y 13, 2009 CMR: 297:09 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: . Adoption of a Resolution Opposing the Seizure by State Government of the City of Palo Alto's Street Maintenance Funds RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) opposing the seizure of the City's street maintenance and transportation funds by State of California. DISCUSSION The State of California is facing an estimated $24 billion budget deficit and is proposing to seize almost $1 billion in city and county shares of revenues from the gas taxes in the Highway Users Tax Account (HUT A) to fund State transportation debt service costs in FY 2009-10 and an additional $750 million in FY 2010-11 to help solve this budget shortfall. The City of Palo Alto anticipates receiving approximately $1.1 million annually in gas tax revenue. The current State proposal would result in 100% reduction of the City's gas tax funding in FY 2009-10 and a 75% reduction in subsequent years. This will result in significant reductions to the City's operating and capital budgets rebated to street maintenance. Street repairs, transportation and street maintenance programs would be impacted by the proposed gas tax reductions as follows: FY 2009-10 Gas Tax allocations Public Works Operations Division programs Transportation Division programs Annual Street Maintenance Program (Subtotal of Planned Expenditures) Total Reduction anticipated FY 2009-10 (assuming 100% gas tax revenue shortfall) FY 2010-11 Gas Tax allocations Public Works Operations Division Transportation Division CMR:297:09 $164,000 $128,000 $750,000 $1,042,000 $1,042,000 $164,000 $128,000 Page 1 of3 Annual Street Maintenance Program Safe Routes to School Program (Subtotal of Planned Expenditures) Total Reduction anticipated FY 2010-11 (assuming 75% gas tax revenue shortfall) $750,000 $100,000 $1,142,000 $856,500 In summary, reducing the City's gas tax funding will reduce or eliminate programs as follows: e Reduce road safety repairs including base failure repairs, crack sealing, pothole repair and trip and fall sidewalk repairs performed by the Public Works Operations Division; @ Eliminate the Planning/Transportation Division non-salary expenses used primarily to fund the City's membership with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and/or reduction of the Planning/Transportation Division's transit, bike and pedestrian related programs; !9 Reduce the annual street maintenance program funding by 40 percent resulting in the paving of approximately 12 fewer lane miles; and " Eliminate the Planning/Transportation Division's safe routes to school capital program In addition, this gas tax reduction could result in a decrease of road safety improvement plans and increase the City's street maintenance backlog. Hundreds of pavement segments that would otherwise receive preventative maintenance will likely deteriorate at an advanced rate and add to the City's street maintenance backlog. The City will not be able to meet the local matching funds for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) , Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Safe Routes to School, and/or State Transportation Program (STP) grant programs, thus increasing the backlog even further. Construction job losses are estimated at 100 or more per year, and this local construction industry decline may hurt local businesses and the community. Upon Council approval, staff will submit this resolution to the Governor, the City'S State Legislators, League of California Cities, the Chamber of Commerce, agencies and other community groups affected by the seizure of gas tax used for the City's Street Maintenance and Transportation Programs. RESOURCE IMPACT The adoption of the resolution has no fiscal impact. The City is at risk of losing approximately $1.1 million gas tax funds should the State approve the proposal to seize all gas tax funds in FY 2009-10 and 75 percent (approximately $856,500) in FY 2010-11. The funds for the FY 2009"'_ 10 Capital Improvement Program Street Maintenance project, PE-86070, would be reduced 40% from $1.8 million to approximately $1.05 million. The Planning and Community Environment Department's Transportation Division budget would be reduced by $128,000 in FY 2009-10 currently allocated for transportation related programs. The Public Works Department's Operations Division budget would be reduced by $164,000 in FY 2009-10 currently allocated for road safety repairs. CMR:297:09 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. ATTACHMENT: Attachment: Resolution PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR:297:09 Director of Public Works / ", "";,~~ ... :;: ~,.( JAMES KEENE City Manager Page 3 NOT YET APPRO'VIE])) Resolution No ---Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Opposing the Seizure by State Government of the City of Palo Alto's Street Maintenance Funds WHEREAS) the current economic crisis has placed cItIes under incredible financial pressure and caused them to make painful budget cuts) including layoffs and furloughs of city workers, decreasing maintenance and operations of public facilities) and reductions in direct services to keep spending in line with declining revenues; and WHEREAS) since the early 1990s the state government of California has seized over $10 billion of city property tax revenues statewide) now amounting to over $900 million each year, to fund the state budget even after deducting public safety program payments to cities by the state; and WHEREAS, in his proposed FY 2009-10 budget the Governor has proposed transferring $1 billion of local gas taxes and weight fees to the state general fund to balance the state budget, and over $700 million in local gas taxes permanently in future years, immediately jeopardizing the ability of the City to maintain the City's streets, bridges, traffic signals, sidewalks and related traffic safety facilities for the use of the motoring public; and WHEREAS, the loss of almost all of Palo Alto's gas tax funds ($1.042 Million in FY 2010 and $856,500 in FY 2011) will seriously compromise the City of Palo Alto's ability to perform critical traffic safety related street maintenance, possibly including, but not limited to, drastically curtailing patching) resurfacing, street lighting/traffic signal maintenance, and signals, bridge maintenance and repair, sidewalk and curb ramp maintenance and repair, drainage repair, as well as possibly eliminating important school traffic safety programs; and WliEREAS, some cities report to the League of California Cities that they will be forced to eliminate part or all of their street maintenance operations while others will be forced to cut back in other areas (including public safety and transportation staffing levels) to use city general funds for basic street repair and maintenance. Furthermore, cities expect that liability damage awards will mount as basic maintenance is ignored and potential traffic accidents, injuries and deaths increase; and WHEREAS, in both Proposition 5 in 1974 and Proposition 2 in 1998 the voters of our state overwhelmingly imposed restriction on the state's ability to do what the Governor has proposed) and any effort to permanently divert the local share of the gas tax would violate the state constitution and the will of the voters; and WHEREAS, cities and counties maintain 81 % of the state road network while the state directly maintains just 8%; and WHEREAS, ongoing street maintenance is a significant public safety concern. The City's failure to maintain its street pavement (potholes filling, sealing, overlays, 090623 jb 0130488 1 NOT YET APPlROVEJl)l etc.), traffic signals, signs, and street drainage repair could result in increased traffic accidents, injuries and deaths; and WHEREAS, according to a recent statewide needs assessment, prepared by Nichols Consulting Engineers sponsored by the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties and the County Engineers Association of California, on a scale of zero (failed) to 100 (excellent), the statewide average pavement condition index (PCI) is 68, or "at risk." Local streets and roads will fall to "poor" condition (Score of 48) by 2033 based on existing funding levels available to cities and counties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto, as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby opposes legislation that unconstitutionally diverts the City's share of funding from the Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA), also known as the "gas tax," to fund the state general fund. SECTION 3. The City Manager shall send this resolution with an accompanying letter from the Mayor to the Governor, informing them in the clearest of terms of the City'S adamant resolve to oppose any effort to frustrate the will of the electorate as expressed in Proposition 5 (1974) and Proposition 2 (1998) concerning the proper use and allocation of the gas tax; and SECTION 4. A copy of this Resolution shall be sent by the City Manager to the League of California Cities, the local chamber of commerce, and other community groups whose members are affected by this proposal to create unsafe conditions on the streets of our City for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney City Manager 090623 jb 0130488 2 CMR: 309:09 Page 1 of 2 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE DATE: JULY 13, 2009 CMR: 309:09 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Approval of Council Priorities Work Plan and Palo Alto See-It Site RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the work plan for the 2009 Council Priorities and the framework developed within the interactive Palo Alto See-It web-based tool to track progress on the priorities and communicate effectively with the community about progress made through simple, interrelated content, graphics and data maintained on the new Palo Alto See-It site. DISCUSSION On January 10, 2009, during the annual Council Retreat, the Council identified these priorities for 2009: Environmental Protection, Civic Engagement for the Common Good and Economic Health. After the priorities were determined, staff began creating a work plan of goals and actions to address them. Through a series of meetings, including a Council Study Session on Monday, April 6, a framework for accomplishing the 2009 Priorities was developed, which included 18 strategies and 82 actions that each correspond to a specific priority. Taking into consideration the feedback from previous methods of tracking progress towards priorities, staff elected to utilize a new and innovative system to enhance accountability and transparency. Staff chose to work with Visible Strategies Inc., of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, and use its interactive See-It software tool. The See-It software creates a simple, clear, connected picture of goals, strategies, actions, targets and performance data necessary to achieve them. The 18 strategies and 82 actions compiled in support of the Council priorities have been entered into the City’s new Palo Alto See-It site. Every action has a tracking scorecard which provides detailed information on the goal of the action, timeline for implementation, current status, relevant additional information, and supporting documentation. Additionally, each scorecard offers the user the ability to directly contact someone for feedback and to obtain more information. Creation of the Palo Alto See-It site at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/cou/see_it.asp provides a visual tool for the Council, community and staff that improves the transparency of CMR: 309:09 Page 2 of 2 City government, defines specific actions to support Council priorities, initiates stronger performance management and transforms how the City monitors progress on the Council priorities and communicates this progress effectively with the community. Staff will host a Community Information and Demonstration Session of the Palo Alto See-It site on August 18, from 7-9 p.m., in the Council Chambers. The session will allow community members to hear more about the site, learn how to navigate the site and get acquainted with the information contained in it. The Palo Alto See-It site, specifically designed to track progress made towards achieving Council-set priorities, will initiate stronger performance management and transform how staff communicates effectively with the community. The capability and opportunity for site is vast. It will not only be a repository of valuable quantitative information on City operations, but will also serve as a forward looking plan that charts the course for the long-term vision of the City. RESOURCE IMPACT There will be minimal staff time required to maintain the web-based tool for tracking statistics and accomplishments. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This request does not represent a change in current policy. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The See-It site is not considered a project subject to review under California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) section 21080. Environmental Review for individual projects falling under the Priorities work plan will be or has been completed if required by CEQA. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2009 Council Priority Scorecards – Overviews Attachment B: 2009 Council Priority Scorecards – Sample Details for Stormwater Runoff Reduction PREPARED BY: ______________________________________ Greg Hermann, Management Analyst CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ______________________________________ James Keene, City Manager ATTACHMENT A Carbon Intensity of Electricity CKI scorecard 453 I ! ~ 226.5 8 '0 ~ 0 background feedback Target Statement Overview The goal is to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) ~ emissions factor of the City's electricity supply to no more i!!. than 150 Ibs of C02e per MWH by 2015, assuming T The score is red for this action because the City chose to use a baseline that represented an average amount of rainfall per year a It) \iii ,.. <lO 01 <:I .. ~ <:I <:I 0 g .. .. ~ <:I <:I <:I <:I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,.. ,.. ,.. .. .... ... .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M (:;I ,.. ... ... ... .. ... .. N M .., .. .. .. 0 <:I <:I ~ ~ ~ .. .. .. ~ ~ ~ .. .. .. It) .. <:I I:::! ... ('I') (:;I .. and past years have Baseline fluctuated considerably from 373 that average. For example, 2006 was a very wet year and 2007 and 2008 were dry years. Staff believes that the actual progress in this area is better than what is Target illustrated by the score. 145.5 In March 2007, the Council increased the City's qualified renewable electric supply target for 2015 from 20% to 33%. This will achieve an 83% carbon free Target Statement: • The goal is to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions factor of the City's electricity supply to no more than 150 Ibs of C02e per MWH by 2015, assuming average hydro electricity production. Overview: The score is red for this action because the City chose to use a baseline that represented an average amour of rainfall per year and past years have fluctuated considerably from that average. For example, 2006 was a very wet year and 2007 and 2008 were dry years. Staff believes that the actual progress in this area is better than what is illustrated by the score. In March 2007, the Council increased the City's qualified renewable electric supply target for 2015 from 20% to 33%. This will achieve an 83% carbon free electric supply with a portfolio of qualified renewable and hydrc resources by the year 2015. As a result, the carbon content of City's electric supply is expected to reduce fro 453 Ibs/MWh in 2008 to 150 Ibs/MWh by 2015. These targets are based on average hydro electricity generation conditions and could vary widely between a wet and dry hydro year. Date: 12/31/2008 Target:335.5 Ibs of C02e per MWh Actual:453 Ibs of C02e per MWh Score:O out of 10 Status Report: Due to the City's heavy reliance on hydro electric power, the actual emissions factor varies significantly from year to year with precipitation levels. Due to drought conditions over the past three years, the current emissions factor is much greater than it would be in an "average" hydro year. Year 2006, on the other hand, was a very wet year -resulting in a very low emissions factor for the City. In spite of the City's high emission: factors in 2007 and 2008, these values were still 33% and 22% below PG&E's emissions factors, respectivel C02 emissions generated by City operations [8] OCO,rll()~rd 27646 N 0 (.) '0 ~ 13823 .e (..) ~ 0 baokground Target Statement feodback Overview The City's goal is to reduce City operations generated ~~-Actions the City have already emissions by 5% of 2005 levels by 2009 and 15% of 2005 iii taken include purchasing 30% levels by 2020. renewable energy for City Y operations) reducing energy . " , . 1/)' l\II co .... N M co ~ ... ... ... ... ~ ~ ~ ~ co t:! .... .... ... .... .... .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... .... ,.. .... .... .... ~ I/) t.O ,.. .... .... co co ~ t:! t:! .... ~ .... ~ .., ~ .... .... .... "" 011 .... .... ~ ~ .... .... ~ ~ .... .... ~ .... ~ .... Baseline consumption by 10% in City 27646 offices by turning off all Target computers and printers at 23499 night, reducing City-generated waste through employee education and through programming duplex-capable printers to default to two-sided printing and increasing alternative commutes by increasing incentives for employees to use public transport. Target Statement: • The City's goal is to reduce City operations generated emissions by 5% of 2005 levels by 2009 and 15% of 2005 levels by 2020. Overview: Actions the City have already taken include purchasing 30% renewable energy for City operations, reducing energy consumption by 10% in City offices by turning off all computers and printers at night, reducing City- generated waste through employee education and through programming duplex-capable printers to default tl two-sided printing and increasing alternative commutes by increasing incentives for employees to use public \ ' transport. . Date: 12/31/2005 Target:27646 metric tons of C02 Actual:27646 metric tons of C02 Score: 1 0 out of 10 Status Report: C02 emissions generated by the community 0 scorecard 754000 ~ () '0 Vl 377000 c: .9 0 :EO Q) E 0 background feedback Target Statement Overview The City's goal is to reduce community generated ~ The City Council has emissions by 5% of 2005 levels by 2012 and 15% of 2005 ;; undertaken a goal to reduce levels by 2020. community generated ... greenhouse gas emissions. II) N .., :! II) ... 0 ... ... ... ... 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~ .., .., .., ~ N N ... ... ... ... ... .... 00 a> ... ... ... 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ .., .., .., N N N ... ... ... 0 N 0 ~ .., N ... Baseline This will be accomplished by a 754000 coordi,nated set of actions between the community, City Target staff and regional authorities. 603000 A detailed implementation plan is being developed and will posted on the information tab of this scorecard when complete . -------~- Target Statement: • The City's goal is to reduce community generated emissions by 5% of 2005 levels by 2012 and 15% of 2005 levels by 2020. Overview: The City Council has undertaken a goal to reduce community generated greenhouse gas emissions. This wil be accomplished by a coordinated set of actions between the community, City staff and regional authorities. detailed implementation plan is being developed and will posted on the information tab of this scorecard whe complete. Date: 12/31/2005 Target:754000 metric tons of C02 Actual:754000 metric tons of C02 Score: 1 0 out of 10 Status Report: Healthy Urban Forest 00 scorecard 6 " Q.l Q) a. E 0 u 3 Ul Q.l c:: 0 1ii i!! ~ 0 background Target Statement doouments feedback The City's goal is to develop an Urban Forest Management Plan by July 2014. , j> . (1 " r'l CI CI C> ... M 'It C> C> .. ... ... .. ! ~ ~ C> C> C> l::! l::! l::! .. ... ... ... .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... .. ... ... ... Target Statement: Target Overview Milestones: 1. Update the Tree Tech Manual 6 2. Update Urban Forest component of CompreBuilding Blocks [PaloAltoUsrj ObjetXhensive Plan 3. Begin to input Street Tree Database into GIS system 4. Reapply for State Grant Funding for Plan Development Other milestones to be Baseline identified after funding is o secured. The City's goal is to develop an Urban Forest Management Plan by July 2014. Overview: Milestones: 1. Update the Tree Tech Manual • 2. Update Urban Forest component of CompreBuilding Blocks [PaloAltoUsr] ObjetXhensive Plan 3. Begin to input Street Tree Database into GIS system 4. Reapply for State Grant Funding for Plan Development Other milestones to be identified after funding is secured. PaloAltoGreen Participation 0 scorecard 25 I!! Q) e .e B 12,5 '0 ::.!! " 0 background feedback Target Statement The City's goal is to achieve 25% of its customers* ~ participating in the PaloAltoGreen program. This is iii equivalent to about 6% of total electric usage in Palo Alto. ;. ~ "" It) II) <.0 <.0 ,.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ !!! !!! ~ ~ 0 ... 0 ... t:! t:! .., t:! § $ CI> <.0 i'i co:> ... ... ,.. co co 0 0 0 0 g 0 ~ ~ ... S t:! .., <.0 i'i ... ... CI> CI> 0 0 0 0 !!! ~ 0 SJ .., t! Target 25 Baseline 0 ~ Target Statement: Overview PaloAltoGreen is the nation's top-ranked renewable energy program by customer participation rate, This program has been ranked #1 by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, The program allows residents and businesses in Palo Alto to choose 100% wind and solar energy to power their homes or businesses, This renewable energy comes from some of the cleanest and newest generation sources in the country. • The City's goal is to achieve 25% of its customers* participating in the PaloAltoGreen program. This is equivalent to about 6% of total electric usage in Palo Alto. Overview: PaloAltoGreen is the nation's top-ranked renewable energy program by customer participation rate. This program has been ranked #1 by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The program allows residents and businesses in Palo Alto to choose 100% wind and solar energy to power their homes or businesses. Th renewable energy comes from some of the cleanest and newest generation sources in the country. Date:4/30/2009 Target: 17 % of customers Actual:20.87 % of customers Score: 10 out of 10 Status Report: Use of Photovoltaics and Other Technologies 00 scorecard 6500 3250 background feedback Target Statement The City's goal is to fund rebates for the installation of at ~:..y~,~. least 6,500 kilowatts (kW) of solar electric or photovoltaic = (PV) installations between 2007 and 2017 to meet state Target 6500 Overview The PV Partners Program was begun in 1999 and pays customers rebates for installing qualifying solar electric systems. It continues to be one of the most successful programs - in the state and entire country. The state added its goals for PV installations beginning in 2007, which have furthered enhanced funding for these City rebates. PV provides power at the time the electric usage is Baseline highest-a summer 0 0 afternoon. Of course, solar "-IX> '" co .... N 1"1 '<I" II) IQ systems do not provide co co co .... .... .... .... .... .... .... power all the time. To co co co co co co co co co co ~ t:! a! a! t:! t:! t:! t:! t:! t:! co co co co co co co !!! ~ !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ Target Statement: • The City's goal is to fund rebates for the installation of at least 6,500 kilowatts (kW) of solar electric or photovoltaic (PV) installations between 2007 and 2017 to meet state law. As a comparison, the average residential PV system has a capacity of about 4 kW. Overview: The PV Partners Program was begun in 1999 and pays customers rebates for installing qualifying solar electric systems. It continues to be one of the most successful programs in the state and entire country. The state added its goals for PV installations beginning in 2007, which have furthered enhanced funding for thesE City rebates. PV provides power at the time the electric usage is highest-a summer afternoon. Of course, solar systems do not provide power all the time. To achieve the City goals for PV, about 3% of the load at the peak time would need to be met by power generated locally by PV systems. Currently about 1 % of the peak load come from these systems. Date :6/30/2008 Target: 1300 Kilowatts Actual:1347.2 Kilowatts Score: 1 0 out of 10 Status Report: Community Natural Gas Savings [8] scorecard 1.4mil O.7mll background documents feedback Target Statement Overview The City's goal is to reduce community natural gas use by ~ The City's 2007 Ten-Year 1.4 million therms (or a projected 3.5% of use) by 2020, jii Energy Efficiency Plan and as measured against the base year of 2007. This target is its 2007 Climate Protection ~ Plan both call for significant co CO> = ... N '" ~ In '" = = ... ... ... ... ... ... .. = ~ = = = = = = = !:! ~ ~ !:! !:! !:! !:! !:! = = = = = = = l::! l::! l::! l::! l::! l::! l::! ill ill '" '" '" '" '" '" '" .... co CO> .. .. .. = = = !:! !:! !:! = = = ill ill ill Target reductions in the amount of 1,400,000 natural gas used to meet customer space and water heating needs over the coming decade. Residents use about 50% of Palo Alto's natural gas. Making the ambitious reductions envisioned in the Plans will require large numbers of residents to install solar water heating Baseline systems and highly efficient 0 natural gas furnaces or boilers. Likewise, many non- ~ residential customers will Target Statement: • "" The City's goal is to reduce community natural gas use by 1.4 million therms (or a projected 3.5% of use) by 2020, as measured against the base year of 2007. This target is to be updated every three years. Overview: The City's 2007 Ten-Year Energy Efficiency Plan and its 2007 Climate Protection Plan both call for significar reductions in the amount of natural gas used to meet customer space and water heating needs over the coming decade. Residents use about 50% of Palo Alto's natural gas. Making the ambitious reductions envisioned in the Plan~ will require large numbers of residents to install solar water heating systems and highly efficient natural gas furnaces or boilers. Likewise, many non-residential customers will need to make significant efficiency improvements. Date:6/30/2008 Target: 1 07692 Therms Actual: 35507 Therms Score:3 out of 10 Status Report: Purchases of Renewable Energy [8] scorecard 33 16.5 o background feedback Target Statement Overview Meet at least 33% of electric needs by 2015 with ~ .. ' qualifying renewable resources built after 2002 in addition iii' to voluntary renewable energy programs. '" In addition to voluntary customer efforts, Palo Alto Utilities is pursuing a Council adopted Renewable Portfolio <') <f It) U> r-. 00 CI> 0 0 CI CI 0 CI 0 0 CI CI 0 0 0 0 !:! Sl !:! !:! !:! !:! !:! .... .... .... ~ .... .... i\1 .., <') i\1 !::! <') N N N N .... .... .... .... .... .... .... CI .... N .... .... .... 0 0 0 !:! !:! !:! § .... .... i\1 <') N .... .... <') <f .... .... CI CI !:! !:! .... .... ~ i\1 .... .... Target Standard (RPS) to add 33 qualifying renewable energy to the electric portfolio. Qualifying renewable resources include wind, solar biomass, landfill gas, geothermal, small hydroelectric, etc. Palo Alto plans to maintain its large hydroelectric resources, that supply about 50% of customers' loads, but is not considered a qualified Baseline renewable resource. o ~ Target Statement: • Meet at least 33% of electric needs by 2015 with qualifying renewable resources built after 2002 in addition t voluntary renewable energy programs. Overview: In addition to voluntary customer efforts, Palo Alto Utilities is pursuing a Council adopted Renewable Po rtfo Ii. Standard (RPS) to add qualifying renewable energy to the electric portfolio. Qualifying renewable resources include wind, solar biomass, landfill gas, geothermal, small hydroelectric, etc. Palo Alto plans to maintain its large hydroelectric resources, that supply about 50% of customers' loads, but is not considered a qualified renewable resource. Date: 12/31/2008 Target:20 % from Qualifying Renewables Actual:18 % from Qualifying Renewables Score:9 out of 10 Status Report: The target was unable to be fully reached due to an inability to get developer commitment to renewable projects. Community Electricity Savings [8J scorecard 43000 21500 0 background feedback Target Statement Overview The City Council adopted its ... Ten-Year Energy Efficiency plan in April 2007. This plan The City's goal is to reduce community electricity use by ~,,=_ .. 43,000 megawatt-hours' by 2020. Based on current _ projections, this will be about 4% of load. is to be revised every three Target years based on potential for ..... <10 C'I co ... N .., .., co co co ... ... ... ... ... co co co co co co co co ~ ~ ~ a; a; a; ~ ~ co co co co co ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <Q ..... <Q ..... ... ... ... co co fl ~ ~ co co <:> ~ ~ ~ <Q <Q DO ... co ~ co ~ 43000 savings in the community. I!! The plan will provide a rolling ten year goal for energy efficiency reduction. Achieving the savings in the plan will take concerted effort by residents and businesses in Palo Alto. All savings projected in the plan are over and above replacement of equipment Baseline and appliana::s with 2500 standard effiCiency Items, and these projections are made based on the ~ assumptions that all in Palo .... Target Statement: • The City's goal is to reduce community electricity use by 43,000 megawatt-hours* by 2020. Based on curren1 . projections, this will be about 4% of load. Overview: The City Council adopted its Ten-Year Energy Efficiency plan in April 2007. This plan is to be revised every three years based on potential for savings in the community. The plan will provide a rolling ten year goal for energy efficiency reduction. Achieving the savings in the plan will take concerted effort by residents and businesses in Palo Alto. All savings projected in the plan are over and above replacement of equipment and appliances with standard efficiency items, and these projections are made based on the assumptions that all in Palo Alto will make a coordinated action to reduce energy, make permanent changes to structures and install highly efficient equipment and appliances. Note: These goals are subject to change. Actual use reported is reflective of cumUlative lifetime savings. Date:6/30/2008 Target:3300 MWh Actual: 12875 MWh Score: 10 out of 10 Status Report: r---.------... ----------------------------, Regional Water Quality Control Plant Energy Use [8J scorecard 37.B1mll Jg (I) C6 .i:: 18.9mil :::I in .c: ~ 0 background feedback Target Statement Overview The City's goal is to reduce the Palo Alto Regional Water ~ The Regional Water Quality '" Quality Control Plant's energy use by 30% of 2005 levels i.1 Control Plant is the largest by the end of 2012. single energy user in the ". City's operations, and on <:> <:> £:! ..... ~ .... Baseline therefore represents an ------:----------37,805,447opportunity to achieve to-00 '" C> C> '" '" ..... '" '" '" '" l:! £:! l:! l:! ..... ..... ..... ..... '" ~ '" ~ N N ... ... .... ... ..... N ..... ..... C> '" ~ £:! ... ~ ~ .... ... significant reductions in natural gas and electricity ;:;: Target usage by optimizing 26,460,OOotreatment processes, fully utilizing landfill gas from the Palo Alto landfill, and implementing energy efficiency projects. The Plant's efforts to reduce energy use decrease operational costs while contributing significantly to meeting the greenhouse gas reduction goals for City operations that were Target Statement: • The City's goal is to reduce the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant's energy use by 30% of 2005 levels by the end of 2012. Overview: The Regional Water Quality Control Plant is the largest single energy user in the City's operations, and therefore represents an opportunity to achieve significant reductions in natural gas and electricity usage by optimizing treatment processes, fully utilizing landfill gas from the Palo Alto landfill, and implementing energy efficiency projects. The Plant's efforts to reduce energy use decrease operational costs while contributing significantly to meeting the greenhouse gas reduction goals for City operations that were established in the Climate Protection Plan. 2009 is the first year for which a target has been established. Date: 12/31/2008 Target:33985992 kWh equivalents Actual:33985992 kWh equivalents Score:10 out of 10 Status Report: Zero Waste to Landfills [8] scorecard 90 .$ t1l a:: c: .g 45 [!! 4l .~ Cl ?fl- O <4 background documents feedback Target Statement The City's goal is 73% diversion of waste from landfills by 2011 and Zero Waste by 2021. ~ CD ~ i I iii> ... N M "" 1.1) CD I iii> iii> c:o .C:O c:o c:o c:o G> iii> c:o c:o iii> c:o c:o c:o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t:! t:! t:! t:! t:! t:! t:! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... ... .... ... ... ----... -~ ... Target Statement: Target 90 Overview In October 2005. the City established a goal of 73 percent diversion by 2011 and to strive for Zero Waste by 2021. To reach these goals. the City will need to work collaboratively with the community . The most recent information Palo Alto has for diversion is a couple years behind because of the state reporting process and its use of the Consumer Price Baseline Index to help estimate 17.9 t' b waste genera Ion num ers, The state is aware of the problems associated with such a long wait for ~ diversion numbers and is • The City's goal is 73% diversion of waste from landfills by 2011 and Zero Waste by 2021. Overview: In October 2005, the City established a goal of 73 percent diversion by 2011 and to strive for Zero Waste by 2021. To reach these goals, the City will need to work collaboratively with the community. The most recent information Palo Alto has for diversion is a couple years behind because of the state reporting process and its use of the Consumer Price Index to help estimate waste generation numbers. The state is aware of the problems associated with such a long wait for diversion numbers and is working to address the issue. Date: 1/1/2006 Target:55 % Diversion Rate Actual :62 % Diversion Rate Score:10 out of 10 Status Report: We are ahead of our target in this reporting period due to the results of efforts to increase waste diverted frol landfill. See the information tab for more details. Composting [KI scorecard 3 1.5 o background feedback Target Statement The City's goal is to evaluate alternatives for the ~ management of the City's yard trimmings and other " organics and to implement the selected alternative by the .. Target Overview Milestones: 1. Creation of a Compost Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) 3 2. BRTF completes recommendations Baseline o 3. BRTF to present recommendations to Council Once Council adopts or modifies the BRTF recommendations additional milestones will be determined. Target Statement: • The City's goal is to evaluate alternatives for the management of the City's yard trimmings and other organic and to implement the selected alternative by the time the City's compost facility closes in 2011. Overview: Milestones: 1. Creation of a Compost Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) 2. BRTF completes recommendations 3. BRTF to present recommendations to Council Once Council adopts or modifies the BRTF recommendations additional milestones will be determined. Date:1/12/2009 Target: 1 Milestones completed Actual:1 Milestones completed Score: 10 out of 10 Status Report: The Palo Alto City Council created a Compost Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) to evaluate and recommend alternatives to address Palo Alto's composting needs. Residential Zero Waste Participation 00 20 10 o background feedback Target Statement The City's goal Is to increase the number of Palo Alto ~".:: residents participating In mini can refuse service to 20% :: by January 2010. Overview Zero Waste efforts include waste prevention, reuse, recycling and buying recycled" As residents increase their Target efforts on all these fronts they 20 will throw fewer and fewer resources in the garbage. Therefore, efforts will be . measured by residential Ba~lne garbage collection service. Target Statement: • The City's goal is to increase the number of Palo Alto residents participating in mini can refuse service to 20~ by January 2010. Overview: Zero Waste efforts include waste prevention, reuse, recycling and buying recycled. As residents increase thE efforts on all these fronts they will throw fewer and fewer resources in the garbage. Therefore, efforts will be measured by residential garbage collection service. Date:4/30/2009 Target: 14.75 % of customers Actual:13.7 % of customers Score:4 out of 10 Status Report: Business Zero Waste Participation [8] scorecard 100 ~ ~ .e VI 50 ::I U '6 cf? 0 background documents feedback Target Statement The City's goal is to increase the number of Palo Alto commercial customers participating in a recycling collection program to 100% by 2011. I>, (. '" '" <:> <:> <:> <:> ... .... .... <:> <:> .... .. ... .... ... .... .... <:> ~ <:> <:> <:> <:> <:> <:> <:> s::! s::! ~ s::! ~ s::! ~ s::! ~ <:> ~ <:> <:> J::.! J::.! M J::.! J::.! J::.! (I) M <.0 N M <.0 (I) .... .. Target Statement: ... .... <:> s::! <:> § Overview The 2006 Palo Alto Waste .... Composition Study indicates that over 14,000 tons of the commercial I Target waste stream is comprised ;; 100 of recyclable material (e.g., paper, plastic, metal, glass and construction and demolition debris) currently accepted in the City's . recycling program. As of Ba;~me July 2008, 50% of Commercial Refuse account holders were participating in the City's recycling program. To further facilitate recycling and utilization of existing programs, which have been in place since the 1970's, the City and its contractor, • The City's goal is to increase the number of Palo Alto commercial customers participating in a recycling collection program to 100% by 2011. Overview: The 2006 Palo Alto Waste Composition Study indicates that over 14,000 tons of the commercial waste strea is comprised of recyclable material (e.g., paper, plastic, metal, glass and construction and demolition debris) currently accepted in the City's recycling program. As of July 2008, 50% of Commercial Refuse account holders were participating in the City's recycling program. To further facilitate recycling and utilization of existing programs, which have been in place since the 1970's, the City and its contractor, GreenWaste of Pa Alto, are committed to providing technical assistance and comprehensive services to help the meet the goa/. Recycling reduces greenhouse gas emissions because: 1) less energy is needed to make products from existing materials (Le., recycled content) than from virgin materials, and 2) diverted materials do not decompose in landfills emmiting greenhouse gasses. Green Business Certifications [8J scorecard 65 I/l <l) I/l I/l <l) c: 32.5 'iii :::I ..c '0 '*I: 0 background documents Target Statement The City's goal is to increase the number of Palo Alto businesses certified by the Bay Area Green Business program by 20 each year, starting January 2009. 8 ~ ~ t:n C> Q C> Q co Q ... ... ... co Q C> C> C> C> C> t:! t:! t:! t:! t:! t:! t:! ... Q ~ ... ... C> C> ~ l!! ~ ~ ~ l!! co t:n ... Target Statement: Q ... C> t:! ... ~ ... Overview Businesses certified in the .... Bay Area Green Business Program take measures to reduce solid waste and Target recycle, implement energy 65 efficiencies, conserve water = and prevent pollution. The best practices that Green Baseline Businesses adopt reduce 45 greenhouse gas emissions, save money and protect worker health. There is no cost for certification and businesses receive a window decal, the Green Business logo for marketing purposes and a listing in the Bay Area Green Business directory. As of 2009, over 1,600 businesses have been certified Bay Area- • The City's goal is to increase the number of Palo Alto businesses certified by the Bay Area Green Business program by 20 each year, starting January 2009. Overview: Businesses certified in the Bay Area Green Business Program take measures to reduce solid waste and recycle, implement energy efficiencies, conserve water and prevent pollution. The best practices that Green Businesses adopt reduce greenhouse gas emissions, save money and protect worker health. There is no co for certification and businesses receive a window decal, the Green Business logo for marketing purposes ani a listing in the Bay Area Green Business directory. As of 2009, over 1,600 businesses have been certified Be Area-wide, including the City of Palo Alto (City facilities). Note: The City's certification goal is influenced by County staff resources to implement the Program throughout Santa Clara County. Date: 6/30/2009 Target:50 # of businesses Actual:60 # of businesses Score: 1 0 out of 10 Status Report: Green House Gas Emissions Reductions Page 1 of 1 The City's Climate Protection Plan (CPP) identifies buildings as a priority in reducing green house gas emissions. Buildings have multiple contributions to green house gas emissions including the energy they consume, the water they use, the waste they produce and transportation of construction materials and debris to and from buildings. Strategies for reducing green house gas emissions in buildings is part of the Palo Alto Green Building Program. As more data becomes available this scorecard will be used to report on the reduction of green house gas emissions from the building sector through the Green Building Program. The first update will occur in August 2009. F or more information visit: htlP:I!w:ww.cityQful:llpa1tQ.()JgLd~pt~/plnJgIeel1~ bllildingLdefault.a.$p http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.coml 7/9/2009 Residential Green Buildings Page 1 of 1 The Goal of the Palo Alto Green Building Program is to ensure the design, building and operation of a new generation of efficient, environmentally responsible, and healthy buildings in the City of Palo Alto. The City believes that the practice of green building can have a significant impact on reducing energy, water and natural resource consumption, and improve Palo Alto citizens' well being through improved indoor air quality and comfort. Green building is the practice of taking an integrated approach to building construction, building systems, and building sites to provide more environmentally responsive, healthy, productive, and economical places to work, learn and live. Green building also goes beyond the physical buildings to consider how the site and buildings interact with the community and transportation infrastructure. In June of 2008, the City of Palo Alto passed a mandatory Green Building Ordinance, which added Chapter 18.44 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The new ordinance required specific project types to meet minimum thresholds of compliance, and verification using the appropriate USGBC LEED or Build It Green (BIG) Green Point Rated (GPR) green building rating systems. The City Council concurrently passed a complimentary ordinance which added chapter 16.18 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code establishing local energy efficiency standards based on the California Energy Code. The ordinance requires covered projects to exceed Title 24, Part 6 ofthe California Energy Code by 15%. The Green Building Program also includes promoting the City's Climate Protection Plan (CPP) and Zero Waste goals as buildings contribute to a high percentage of the City's green house gas emissions and waste. Currently (last updated 6/1/09): -There are 2 green homes subject to the mandatory program that have been constructed. -There are 10 green homes subject to the mandatory program now under construction. As more data becomes available this scorecard will be used to report on these items. http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.coml 7/9/2009 Non-Residential Green Buildings Page 1 of 1 The Goal of the Palo Alto Green Building Program is to ensure the design, building and operation of a new generation of efficient, environmentally responsible, and healthy buildings in the City of Palo Alto. The City believes that the practice of green building can have a significant impact on reducing energy, water and natural resource consumption, and improve Palo Alto citizens' well being through improved indoor air quality and comfort. Green building is the practice of taking an integrated approach to building construction, building systems, and building sites to provide more environmentally responsive, healthy, productive, economical places to work, learn and live. Green building also goes beyond the physical buildings to consider how the site and buildings interact with the community and transportation infrastructure. In June of 2008, the City of Palo Alto passed a mandatory Green Building Ordinance, which added Chapter 18.44 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The new ordinance required specific project types to meet minimum thresholds of compliance, and verification using the appropriate USGBC LEED or Build It Green (BIG) Green Point Rated (GPR) green building rating systems. The City Council concurrently passed a complimentary ordinance which added chapter 16.18 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code establishing local energy efficiency standards based on the California Energy Code. The ordinance requires covered projects to exceed Title 24, Part 6 of the California Energy Code by 15%. The Green Building Program also includes promoting the City's Climate Protection Plan (CPP) and Zero Waste goals as buildings contribute to a high percentage of the City's green house gas emissions and waste. Currently (last updated 7/1/09): • There are 750 employees working in green offices. • There are 3 non-residential green buildings subject to the mandatory program that have been constructed or renovated. • There are 5 non-residential green buildings subject to the program now under construction. As more data becomes available this scorecard will be used to report on these items. For more information visit: http://w:wY!.r;.jtyQfp~lQfl1to!QJ:g/d(;.:pt~/pll}lgre~lLb1.li1di:QgJd(;.:falllt.~$p http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.coml 7/912009 Water Efficiency Page 1 of 1 The City, along with the Environmental Protection Agency, believe that depleting reservoirs and groundwater can put water supplies, human health, and the environment at serious risk. Lower water levels can contribute to higher concentrations of natural or human pollutants. Using water more efficiently helps maintain supplies at safe levels, protecting human health and the environment. Water reduction is also important in reducing energy used to deliver and heat water. Water reduction supports the City's green building and climate protection goals. Water reduction is achieved through low flow or highly efficient indoor fixtures and appliances, water recycling, and through efficient irrigation systems and drought/climate sensitive landscaping. 5 billion gallons of potable water are used in the United States solely to flush toilets each day. As more data becomes available this scorecard will be used to report on water efficiency achieved through the Green Building Program. For more information visit: http:l{www!cityofpfl19alt9,Qrglg~pt!3Lplnlgr~~lJJ,JJ.lilQingrQdfllJlt.fl~p http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.coml 7/9/2009 Energy Efficiency Page 1 of 1 Buildings consume 30% of all energy and 60% of all electricity generated nationally. Energy efficient buildings reduce demand on natural resources, decrease environmental pollution and green house gas emissions. There are many methods to create or renovate an energy efficient building including using passive design, good daylighting, efficient and appropriately sized HVAC and lighting systems and a well designed building envelope. Energy efficiency is part of the City's Green Building Program. Covered projects are required to achieve 15% energy savings beyond the California State Energy Code, Title 24 Part 6. As more data becomes available this scorecard will be used to report on energy efficiency achieved through the Green Building Program. http://paioaito.visiblestrategies.com/ 7/912009 Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Page 1 of 1 Construction and demolition debris (C&D) recycling supports the green building, zero waste and climate protection goals for the City. In 2004, the City adopted the C&D Diversion Ordinance to add Chapter 5.24 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code, requiring covered projects to divert 90% of inert debris (i.e. asphalt, concrete) and 50% of all other construction and demolition debris from the landfill. Diversion can occur through salvage or recycling and all diverted debris must go to an approved facility. In 2009, the City revised Chapter 5.24 to increase the number of covered projects by lowering the threshold from a $50,000 valuation to a $25,000 valuation, to increase the diversion rate of non-inert materials from 50% to 75%, and to improve compliance. The diversion rate of construction and demolition debris in 2008 was 87% or 12,036 tons. As more data becomes available this scorecard may be used to report on this item. For more information visit: bttp:ljW:WW,GityofpalQ~lt().Qrg/depls/plnlgJ:~~JLI:>1Jilding£d~f~1JIt.a~p Note: An increase or decrease in the total amount diverted does not reflect the diversion rate, it simply varies based on the volume and size of demolition or construction projects which greatly varies year to year. http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.coml 7/912009 Alternative Energy Solutions Page 1 of 1 The City's Green Building Program and Climate Protection Plan (CPP) encourage the use of alternative energy solutions such as solar, wind, and passive design. Alternative energy sources reduce demand on traditional energy supply sources such as hydroelectric and fossil fuels. The mild climate of Palo Alto, and abundant solar access throughout the year allow alternative energy solutions to be a prominent source of energy supply for typical buildings that are designed to take advantage of the climate through proper orientation, daylighting and efficient building systems. As more data becomes available this scorecard will be used to report on the number and type of alternative energy installations achieved through the Green Building Program. For more information visit: h:ttp:llwww.~ityQfpI.lIQaltQ.Qrgldepts/pll.llgreelLPuildillg/defa.ult.li$.p http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.com/ 7/9/2009 Pedestrian and Transit-Oriented Development The City of Palo Alto intends to facilitate a mix of uses, along with enhanced pedestrian, bicycle, and transit usage, and supporting services and amenities, within areas proximate to the University Avenue and California A venue transit stations. The City's goal is to begin to measure the ratio of number of housing units to square feet of commercial square footage approved in California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) District. The intent of developing Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development is to provide for Page 1 of 1 reduced automobile use (particularly as measured in vehicle-miles traveled), enhanced community interaction, diversity of housing opportunities, and improved integration of jobs, services and housing. The City's 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan includes policies to develop regulations to implement Transit Oriented Residential zoning (Program L-14) within areas designated as such in the . Plan (llttP:I/www.(;itYQfp;:tlQaJt.Q,QIgI~iyiql!fil~b;:t11l(/blobglQa.4,a.$.p7BlQbU)=8J]Q). These areas are defined as being located within 2000 feet of the University A venue and California Avenue Cal train stations. ' In 2006, the City Council amended the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18.34) to provide for a Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District in the California Avenue area (1lt;tp://www&ityQfpa.lQa.ltQ.QIg/chiGWfil~l>&lkIbl~ibglQa.g-,~127B1QblD=1377Q). In 2007, the City submitted an application to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to include the California Avenue area in its Priority Development Areas (PDA) list to receive potential funding for planning and implementation purposes. Both station areas were included within submittals by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to ABAG as PDAs, along with all other transit stations and the EI Camino Real corridor within VT A's jurisdiction. In 2009, as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan Amendment, an Area Plan is being prepared for the California A venue area (ht;tp:llwww,palQa.ltoc;Qmpnla112Q20-,Qrg), to be followed by more specific planning and implementation measures. A downtown (University Avenue) plan is also expected to be developed within the next few years. Baseline data and measurements of progress in implementing these planning concepts will be developed as part of those plans. Comprehensive Plan definition of Transit Oriented Residential, Policy L-14, maps: httP:I['WWw&itYQfpalQSlJtQ.Qrg/~i.yi.c:Mfil~bal1k/blQbglQCl4,a$p7Blobl1.)=8170 Zoning Ordinance PTOD district regulations for California Avenue PTOD: Municipal Code, Title 18 (Zoning), Chapter 34 (Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District: llttj2:IIWWF..c:itYQfnalQ;:tltQ,oIglc:iYi.c;;:t/fil~.ba.nk/blQbdlQa.g.a.$.p7B10b1))::=:1377Q Links to Transit Oriented Development References and Studies: bttp:!!www.~c:Qll11ec;til1g8.l11eric;a.org!public/tQd http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.coml 7/9/2009 Housing Production Page I of I The projected housing need is described as the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA), which is mandated by State Housing Law and implemented by the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) as part ofthe periodic process of updating the City's housing element of the Comprehensive Plan. The regional housing needs allocation process addresses statewide and regional concerns of jobs and housing imbalance and sustainable growth, and reflects shared responsibility among local governments for accommodating the housing needs of all economic levels. The law does not require local governments to provide housing to meet all of its identified need, but it requires that the community plan for the needs of all their residents. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) indicates that Palo Alto's projected housing need for the period from January 1,2007 December 30, 2014 will be 2,860 units (930 units have already been approved as of June 30, 2009, so the net remaining need is 1,930). In addition to projecting overall housing needs, ABAG also projects housing needs by income category. The intent of this action is to equitably distribute new housing growth by household income categories so that all cities and counties provide a variety of housing types affordable to various income groups to help meet overall regional housing needs. Below is the breakdown by income category of the City of Palo Alto's assigned "fair share" of housing units. • 690 Very Low Income Units • 543 Low Income Units • 641 Moderate Income Units • 986 Above Moderate Income Units The City Council has not taken a position on the City's assigned "fair share" of 2,860 housing units. Since staff is currently preparing the draft Housing Element, it is anticipated that the Council will be reviewing the draft Housing Element in 2010, which will include a Housing Sites Inventory that identifies sites sufficient to meet Palo Alto's assigned housing allocation. The table below show the cumulative number of housing units approved for development broken by income category on an annual basis (the data for 2009 is as of 6/30): Data Cumulative Number of Housing Units Approved for Development. Income Category 2001 2OO4J; 2OO9t"" Very Low Income 57 57 92 Low Income 2 2 16 Moderate 91 S8 105 Above Moderate 604-680 717" Totftl 154 331 930 * as of June 3D, 2009 http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.coml 7/9/2009 Online Development Plans and Permits Page 1 of 1 The City is committed to working toward a goal of Zero Waste and increased customer service efficiency; particularly, permit processing efficiency. The City is seeking ways to reduce paper usage each year and is pursuing web based technology to allow for on-line plan submittal and increased server capacity to allow plan storage. Only a few California cities have begun pilot programs for limited types of on-line permitting. Electronic plans are problematic for routing and reviewing since the City does not have large computer monitors, nor a storage system for large electronic files. At this time, the only permit application types received electronically or via fax are re-roofing and water heater replacement permits. The City targets online processing for additional permit types within five years. In the meantime, the submittal of compact disks (CDs) containing concept plans for major projects is encouraged to facilitate uploading to a webpage link so that staff and public may view projects prior to public hearings. Read-only options would prevent the public from downloading and printing copyrighted architectural plans. CDs of Environmental Impact Reports are now distributed to hearing bodies and libraries. The City uses the Accela web-based system to track planning and building permit review progress. Accela modules currently in use are Building, Planning, Public Works, Fire, Code Enforcement and Utilities. Applicants are able to log on to the City's website on the Development Center webpage to see comments that have been entered by City staff. Progress toward the following goals will be quantified in the future: -reducing the amount of paper plans and related documents submitted for planning entitlements and building permits -improving public information about the status of pending projects -allowing the community to view concept plans Check back here in the next few months to see goals and measurements for target dates January 1 and July 1,2010. http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.coml 7/9/2009 San Francisquito Creek Flood Control [8] scorecard 8 4 o background feedback Target Statement Overview The City's goal is to complete the construction of an initial ~ ... capital project to reduce the risk of flooding from San " Frandsquito Creek downstream of Highway 101 by the 1. Issue Request for ... Proposals for feasibility Milestones: /ill /ill /ill /ill 0 0 0 0 0 .... 0 0 0 0 0 !::! ~ !::! ~ !::! .... .... .... N M «I c; ;;; .... _ ..... - Target study 8 2. Hire consultant to II perform feasibility study 3. Select preferred project alternative 4. Hire consultant to perform project environmental review and Baseline design 1 5. Complete 50% project plans, speCifications, and cost estimate Target Statement: • The City's goal is to complete the construction of an initial capital project to reduce the risk of flooding from San Francisquito Creek downstream of Highway 101 by the end of Summer 2012 in partnership with the Sar Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority. Overview: Milestones: 1. Issue Request for Proposals for feasibility study 2. Hire consultant to perform feasibility study 3. Select preferred project alternative 4. Hire consultant to perform project environmental review and design 5. Complete 50% project plans, specifications, and cost estimate 6. Adopt project CEQA environmental document 7. Start construction 8. Complete construction Date: 3/1 12009 Target:2 Milestones completed Actual:2 Milestones completed Score: 1 0 out of 10 Status Report: Uiro t"''''~~I''+''''t'"\+ +" norF"rt"'lr'\ fo...,,~ihili+\1 ~+llrI\1 Pesticide Free Parks [8] soorecard 7 Vi "'" "-co 0.. (l) ,§ (l) 3.5 I 0- '0 ~ 0 background feedback Target Statement Overview The City has a goal to have seven pesticide free parks by In 2002, The City of Palo Alto 2012. instituted an integrated pest 01 co ... Q ... ... Q f! co ~ !::! co Q ~ 5l 5l «> management plan (IPM), which requires the City to carry Target out its pest management 7 operations using techniques to reduce or eliminate chemicals for the control of pests to the maximum extent possible. Chemicals will be used only as a last resort for pest management problems, Baseline o Target Statement: The City has a goal to have seven pesticide free parks by 2012. Overview: • In 2002. The City of Palo Alto instituted an integrated pest management plan (IPM). which requires the City t carry out its pest management operations using techniques to reduce or eliminate chemicals for the control ( pests to the maximum extent possible. Chemicals will be used only as a last resort for pest management problems. Date :6/30/2009 Target: 1 # of Pesticide free parks Actual: 1 # of Pesticide 'free parks Score: 1 0 out of 10 Status Report: Wallis Park -located at 202 Ash Street at Grant Avenue Open Space Trails Page 1 of 1 From the salt marsh of the Baylands though the grasslands ofPearson-Arastradero to the oak woodlands of Foothills Park, Palo Alto has more that 4000 acres of preserves with over 45 miles of trails to explore. Preserves are open every day from 8:00am to sunset to explore. So if you are looking to explore nature, Palo Alto's Open Space preserves are just for you. For more information on Open Space and Parks visit our home page at: The Baylands Nature Preserve protects some of the last remaining salt marsh and mud flat habitats on the west coast. It offers excellent birding year round. F or a park map visit: http://www.dtYQfpa.lQa.ltQ.Qrg/dyicajfi1~b(ll1k!blQbcllQacl.a.sp ?810 bID=6117 Foothills Park is a 1,400-acre preserve with rugged chaparral, woodland, fields, streams, a lake, 15 miles of backwoods trails and spectacular views of the bay. For a park map visit: bttp:!lwww.GityQfpa.lQa.ltQ.Qrg!Giykajfil~ba.l}k!blQbcllQa.cl.a.~P£B1Qb11)==85Q5 Pearson-Arastradero Preserve is a beautiful mixture of rolling savannah grassland and broadleaf evergreen forest. Each area of the preserve has something different to offer: views of the bay, a quiet walk through the grasslands, or a snooze by the lake. http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.coml 7/9/2009 Arastradero Creek Restoration 0 scorecard 6 "0 .E:l Q) Ci E 8 3 til Q) c: .9 til ..!!2 ~ 0 background Target Statement feedback To increase valuable habitat, the City's goal is to recreate ~ .. an 1100 foot natural seasonal stream where a concrete iii culvert existed within the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve .. ,. Overview Milestones: 1. City acquired 13-acre inholding Target an ~ .... = = = 51 = = I::! I::! !: :t: :t: ... .. .. 6 2. Hydrologic design and planting plant completed 3. Groundbreaking started 4. Construction completed and site hydro mulched. Phase one of three planted with over 500 plants using over 2000 hours of volunteers Baseline 5. Phase two planted with o over 500 plants using over 4000 hours of volunteers Target Statement: • ... To increase valuable habitat, the City's goal is to recreate an 1100 foot natural seasonal stream where a concrete culvert existed within the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve by January 2010. Overview: Milestones: 1. City acquired 13-acre inholding 2. Hydrologic design and planting plant completed 3. Groundbreaking started 4. Construction completed and site hydro mulched. Phase one of three planted with over SOO plants using over 2000 hours of volunteers S. Phase two planted with over SOO plants using over 4000 hours of volunteers 6. Phase three planted with over 6S0 plants using 4200 hours of volunteers 7. Successfully establish at least 80% of the planted willows. Establish a monitoring and maintenance systen with future goals of percent native plant canopy over the stream corridor. Date: 1/1/2009 Target:S Milestones completed Actual:S Milestones completed Score: 1 0 out of 10 Status Report: Baylands Conservation Plan [8J scorecard 12 j ! E 8 6 !3 c ~ j! :; 0 background feedback Target Statement Overview Milestones: Plan that will help guide staff on best management ;; 1. Contract awarded to ESA The City has a goal to complete a Baylands Conservation ~ practices in the areas of vegetation, wildlife, and public ... to create the plan ;; II) II) II) .... 03 03 en tTl c:o c:o c:o c:o c:o c:o c:o c:o c:o .... c:o c:o c:o c:o c:o c:o c:o § c:o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ .... .... .... a :t: j;:: Co in i'I <0 .... .... .... .... .... .... .... N .... .... .... c:o c:o c:o ~ ~ ~ i;:j .... U; .... Target 12 2. ESA conducts stakeholder interviews 3. ESA and City staff host public workshop 4. ESA completed 1st draft of vegetation section of the plan 5. ESA completed 2nd draft of vegetation section Baseline 0 6. ESA conducted wildlife field work and analysis of Byxbee Hills; focusing on ... Target Statement: • The City has a goal to complete a 8aylands Conservation Plan that will help guide staff on best managemen practices in the areas of vegetation, wildlife, and public access. Funding for the project was temporarily eliminated due to budget constraints. Alternative methods for completing the plan are being researched. Overview: Milestones: 1. Contract awarded to ESA to create the plan 2. ESA conducts stakeholder interviews 3. ESA and City staff host public workshop 4. ESA completed 1st draft of vegetation section of the plan 5. ESA completed 2nd draft of vegetation section 6. ESA conducted wildlife field work and analysis of 8yxbee Hills; focusing on creating suggestions for habit~ for the land that is active land fill, but will revert to park land in 2011 7. Project stopped due to lack of funding 8. Determine if local universities (grad student or class project) can complete the plan for a small stipend 9. 1 st draft of wildlife element 10. 2nd draft of wildlife element 11. 1 st draft of public access element Oregon Expressway Improvements Project [8] scorecard 9 ~ -a E 8 4.5 U) (I) c ~ (I) ~ 0 background feedback Target Statement Overview Milestones: ... The City, in cooperation with the County of Santa Clara, ~ .... :. will monitor all project activities in the project review, '" development, alternatives recommendation, design and 1. 1st Community Meeting Target 2. 2nd Community Meeting 9 3. 3rd Community Meeting 4. Planning and " co co q, q, q, q, C> C> C> C> C> C> C> C> C> C> ... C> C! C! ~ ~ C! ~ ... C> ... C> C> ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ iD .., I"-.... .... .... N .... .... .... C> C> ... C! ~ ~ C> ~ C> ~ ~ M Transportation Commission Meeting 5. City Council Meeting 6, Design & Environmental Completion Baseline 7. Advertise for o Construction 8. Begin Construction Target Statement: • The City, in cooperation with the County of Santa Clara, will monitor all project activities in the project review development, alternatives recommendation, design and construction of the Oregon Expressway Improvements Project. Overview: Milestones: 1. 1 st Community Meeting 2. 2nd Community Meeting 3. 3rd Community Meeting 4. Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting 5. City Council Meeting 6. Design & Environmental Completion 7. Advertise for Construction 8. Begin Construction 9. End Construction Date:3/30/2009 Target:3 Milestones completed Actual:3 Milestones completed ~r..nr~·1 n nllt nf 1 n High Speed Rail [8] scorecard 8 4 o background feedback Target Statement Overview Milestones: The City of Palo Alto will monitor all project activities and ~ provide timely comment to the California High Speed Rail "I Authority (CHSRA) on the EIR/EIS for the San Francisco' 1. Council Direction to Staff ... to report back on High IlCI I ... Target Speed Rail project 8 2. Council forms Ad Hoc High Speed Rail Committee and approves Scoping Comments Letter on Project EIR/EIS 3. Council provides Policy Direction to CounCil High Speed Rail Ad Hoc Committee Baseline 4. Draft HST Scoping o Report 5. Conceptual Design Target Statement: • The City of Palo Alto will monitor all project activities and provide timely comment to the California High Spee Rail Authority (CHSRA) on the EIR/EIS for the San Francisco to San Jose High Speed Train (HST) project a1 every project milestone to ensure that the project results in minimal impacts to Palo Alto residents. Overview: Milestones: 1. Council Direction to Staff to report back on High Speed Rail project 2. Council forms Ad Hoc High Speed Rail Committee and approves Scoping Comments Letter on Project EIR/EIS 3. Council provides Policy Direction to Council High Speed Rail Ad Hoc Committee 4. Draft HST Scoping Report 5. Conceptual Design Options Alternatives and Station Needs Assessment 6. Alternatives Analysis Draft Report 7. Station Concepts Report 8. Draft EIR/EIS 9. Final EIR Date: 5/30/2009 Target:3 Milestones completed Employee Commute Program [8J scorecard 73 36.5 o background feedback Target Statement Overview The City's goal is to reduce the percentage of employees ~ .... __ =I who get to work by driving solo from 65% in 2009 to 73% by 2013. This Information will be measured primarily by the percentage of employees whose usual commute mode 0= Baseline Is driving alone, as indicated in 73 'biannual employee commute Target surveys conducted by 511.org 65 and also the annual averages of the number of employees who participate In the City's commute program by taking transit, participating in a vanpool or carpool, biking or walking. Target Statement: • The City's goal is to reduce the percentage of employees who get to work by driving solo from 65% in 2009 t 73% by 2013. Overview: This information will be measured primarily by the percentage of employees whose usual commute mode is driving alone, as indicated in biannual employee commute surveys conducted by 511.org and also the annUi: averages of the number of employees who participate in the City's commute program by taking transit, participating in a van pool or carpool, biking or walking. Caltrain Shuttle [8] scorecard 7327 3663.5 0 feedback Target Statement Overview The City's goal is to work with regional transit agencies to ~.' support Caltrain and achieve a 10% annual growth in ii' Caltrain ridership at the two Caltrain stations in Palo Alto. y The City's 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan includes policies to promote and improve local and regional It) U> "'" co '" <::> C) C) = = = ..... C) ~ = = = C) .t:! .t:! .t:! .t:! .t:! ... ... ... ... ... ... '" ~ '" ~ '" ~ N N N ... ... ... ... ... ... ..... N ..... ... <::> = .t:! .t:! ... ... '" '" N N ... ... '" ... 0 .t:! ... £:! N ... "'" ... C) .t:! ... ~ ... Target transit services to support the 7327 city's goal to have a "convenient, efficient, public transit system that provides a viable alternative to driving." The City provides funding for shuttle services that serve the Palo Alto Caltrain station, Baseline operation of the bikestation 2825 and other commute programs to encourage Caltrain use. Target Statement: • The City's goal is to work with regional transit agencies to support Caltrain and achieve a 10% annual growth in Caltrain ridership at the two Caltrain stations in Palo Alto. Overview: The City's 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan includes policies to promote and improve local and regional tram services to support the city's goal to have a "convenient, efficient, public transit system that provides a viable alternative to driving." The City provides funding for shuttle services that serve the Palo Alto Caltrain station, operation of the bikestation and other commute programs to encourage Caltrain use. Date: 12/31/2008 Target:4589 # of riders Actual:4589 # of riders Score: 1 0 out of 10 Status Report: Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Page 1 of 1 The City of Palo Alto has applied for Department of Energy Clean Cities Grant to purchase electric "Neighborhood" vehicles for the City fleet and for the placement of upwards of 270 electric recharging stations in 6 separate public garages throughout the City. This funding, when combined with other State and private sector funding, will allow for residents and commuters alike who purchase the new electric vehicles to be able to charge the vehicles while they are working and shopping in the City. This grant is being submitted in collaboration with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, in order to for Palo Alto to be a key participant in this Bay Area- wide program. Additional information on the success of this grant application will be provided once new information is made available. The City expects to be notified if the grant was accepted in September 2009. http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.coml 7/912009 Bicycle Transportation Plan 0 scorecard baokground feedbaok Target Statement Overview The City's goal is to implement 10 of the high priority ~"._=_, projects identified in the Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan by 2013. Milestones: 1. Completed Homer Avenue/Caltrain 13 6.5 o ..,. g 1.0 1.0 ,.. co CI> = = = '" = = = = ~ = = ~ = £! £! £! £! £! .... .... .... .... .... .... ... ~ M ~ ~ M ~ ~ i'i N i'i .... .... ... .... .... .... ... Target Statement: CI> '" '" ... '" .... .... .... = = '" = £! £! £! £! ... .... ... ... ~ ~ ~ ~ N N ... ... ... .... N .... '" £! ... ~ .... Target Undercrossing Project 13 2. Completed Caltrain Rail Trail project 3. Completed Hanover AvenuetPorterAvenue Bike Lanes Project 4. Completed Charleston Road Bike Lanes Project 5. 1 Completed Maybell Baseline Avenue Bicycle Boulevard o trial installation 6. Initiate Park Boulevard • The City's goal is to implement 10 of the high priority projects identified in the Palo Alto Bicycle Transportatio Plan by 2013. Overview: Milestones: 1. Completed Homer Avenue/Caltrain Undercrossil1g Project 2. Completed Caltrain Rail Trail project 3. Completed Hanover Avenue/Porter Avenue Bike Lanes Project 4. Completed Charleston Road Bike Lanes Project 5. 1 Completed Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevard trial installation 6. Initiate Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard Study 7. Complete California Avenue business district bike route improvements 8. Initiate Hwy 101 pedestrian/bicycle grade separation feasibility study 9. COl1struct Park Blvd. Bicycle Boulevard project 10. Construct Stanford Avenue/EI Camino Real Streetscape Improvements 11. Complete Oregon Expressway crossing improvements 12. Implement a third Bicycle Boulevard location TBD Bike Share Program 0 scorecard 4 2 o background feedback Target Statement The City's goal is to create a pilot public bicycle sharing station by June 2010. Target Statement: Overview Mitestones: 1. Project initiation Target 2. Consultants to complete 4 which would analyze Baseline o · Market analysis · Station/rental technology · Finance and business plan · Develop pilot program implementation plan 3. City of Palo Alto Staff provide Year One report back to City Councit 4. Implement pilot program The City's goal is to create a pilot public bicycle sharing station by June 2010. Overview: Milestones: 1. Project initiation 2. Consultants to complete which would analyze · Market analysis · Station/rental technology · Finance and business plan · Develop pilot program implementation plan 3. City of Palo Alto Staff provide Year One report back to City Council 4. Implement pilot program Date:4/30/2009 Target: 1 Milestones completed Actual:1 Milestones completed Score: 1 0 out of 10 Status Report: • Community Water Savings 0 scorecard 667 333.5 0 background Target Statement feedback The City's goal is to reduce community water use by 667 ~",== .. Acre-feet per year (AFY) by 2030 (a 4.7% reduction), as measured against the base year of 2004. An Acre Foot Target 667 Baseline 0 I/) ~ "-co en 0 .. N !'t ..,. I/) '" 0 0 0 o· 0 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ~ ~ 0 0 0 § 0 0 0 ~ 0 § ~ t! t! I I ~ t! t! ~ C> 0 0 0 s::! s::! s::! s::! $ s::! s::! ~ '" '" '" ~ '" '" '" '" Target Statement: Overview The most effective way that residents and businesses in Palo Alto can help achieve this goal is to reduce outdoor water use. Over one-half of the average residential water use over the year is used for outdoor "irrigation" of plants. Through a partnership with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the City has rebates to assist residents and businesses install new landscaping that uses less water. • The City's goal is to reduce community water use by 667 Acre-feet per year (AFY) by 2030 (a 4.7% reductior as measured against the base year of 2004. An Acre Foot equals 325,851 gallons, or approximately as muc as about 8 people use on an annual basis, assuming a per capita water use of 115 gallons per day. Overview: The most effective way that residents and businesses in Palo Alto can help achieve this goal is to reduce outdoor water use. Over one-half of the average residential water use over the year is used for outdoor "irrigation" of plants. Through a partnership with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the City has rebates tc assist residents and businesses install new landscaping that uses less water. Date:6/30/2008 Target:305 AFY Actual:274 AFY Score:9 out of 10 Status Report: Recycled Water Use [8] scorecard background feedback Target Statement The City's goal is to utilize 600 million gallons of recycled ~:=_. water from the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plan by 2011. 600 300 • 0 PI 'II' It) (0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g ~ £:! £:! :t: :t: :t: .... .... .... .... Target Statement: ,.. 00 '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ £:! :t: :t: :t: .... .. .... 0 .... .... .... 0 0 £:! £:! :t: :t: .... .. Target 600 Baseline 0 Overview The use of recycled water decreases the use of potable water. The recycled water meets state regulations for use in landscape irrigation and dust control. The near-term increases in the use of recycled water will result from increased demand for landscape irrigation water in the North Bayshore Area of Mountain View. • The City's goal is to utilize 600 million gallons of recycled water from the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plan by 2011. Overview: The use of recycled water decreases the use of potable water. The recycled water meets state regulations fc use in landscape irrigation and dust control. The near-term increases in the use of recycled water will result from increased demand for landscape irrigation water in the North 8ayshore Area of Mountain View. Date:1/1/2008 Target: 129 H20 -MG (millions of gallons) Actual:129 H20 -MG (millions of gallons) Score:10 out of 10 Status Report: Stormwater Runoff Reduction [8] scorecard background feedback Target Statement Overview The City's goal is to reduce stormwater runoff to local ~:"'",-E· •. ' creeks by issuing financial rebates to Palo Alto residents and businesses for 50,000 square feet of permeable A portion of the monthly Storm Drainage Fee paid by all Palo Alto residential and commercial utility customers is 50000 25000 o Target Statement: Target used to provide financial 50000 incentives for reducing stomn water runoff to storm drains and local creeks. Reducing stomn water runoff protects the environment by preventing street flooding and creek erosion and lessens the need for costly storm drain infrastructure improvements. Runoff reduction measures eligible for the rebates include permeable pavement, rain Baseline barrels, cisterns, and green o roofs. • The City's goal is to reduce stormwater runoff to local creeks by issuing financial rebates to Palo Alto resider and businesses for 50,000 square feet of permeable pavement by July 2010. Overview: A portion of the monthly Storm Drainage Fee paid by all Palo Alto residential and commercial utility customel is used to provide financial incentives for reducing storm water runoff to storm drains and local creeks. Reducing storm water runoff protects the environment by preventing street flooding and creek erosion and lessens the need for costly storm drain infrastructure improvements. Runoff reduction measures eligible for the rebates include permeable pavement, rain barrels, cisterns, and green roofs. Mercury Reduction [8] scorecard 44.5 22.25 0 background feedback Target Statement Overview Reduce the mercury air emissions from the Palo Alto ~< Mercury at the Regional Water Regional Water Quality Control Plant's incinerator to 13.6 Ii! Quality Control Plant attaches grams per day by the end of 2012. < to the solids that are burned in ... an incinerator. Nearly all of the Q ... N ,... co Q Q Q Q Q ~ Q ~ Q Q t:! t:! t:! .. .. .. ... .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N .. ... .. ... .. (II Q ... Q ... ... Q Q Q t:! t:! t:! .... ... Ii ~ ~ N N .. .. .. N ... Q t:! ... ~ .. Baseline mercury that enters the Plant 44.5 is released to the atmosphere. The City has for many years implemented pollution prevention programs that attempt to reduce the amount of mercury coming to the Plant. Examples of these programs include mercury Target thermometer exchanges, 13.6 fluorescent light bulb recycling, and reqUirements for dental offices to install amalgam separator equipment. Target Statement: • Reduce the mercury air emissions from the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant's incinerator to 13.6 grams per day by the end of 2012. Overview: Mercury at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant attaches to the solids that are burned in an incinerator. Nearly all of the mercury that enters the Plant is released to the atmosphere. The City has for many years implemented pollution prevention programs that attempt to reduce the amount of mercury coming to the Plar Examples of these programs include mercury thermometer exchanges, fluorescent light bulb recycling, and requirements for dental offices to install amalgam separator equipment. Date: 12/31/200B Target:1B.6 grams Actual:1B.6 grams Score:10 out of 10 Status Report: Ultraviolet Light Water Disinfection Unit CK/ scorecard 10 5 0 background feedback Target Statement The City's goal is to complete the construction of an Ultraviolet Light Water Disinfection Unit at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant by January 1, 2011. : "" co co ! co co Q> '" ... '" '" '" '" '" '" ... ... '" '" '" <:> ~ '" ! <:> <:> <:> s::! ~ ~ s::! .!.'!! s::! !::! ~ ~ .... It) ;;; ... j;:: ... ;; ~ j;:: co <Xi ... <:> .... ... --.. -.~-----~-.-----------~ Target Statement: Overview Milestones: 1. 1st of 4 Community DialoglWorkshop on Target Disinfection Alternatives 10 2. Council Approval of Project Design and SRF Loan Application 3. Council Approval of Environmental Review 4. 50% Design Complete 5. 90% Design Complete Baseline 6. Council Approval of UV o Equipment Selection 7. 100% Design Complete • The City's goal is to complete the construction of an Ultraviolet Light Water Disinfection Unit at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant by January 1, 2011. Overview: Milestones: 1. 1 st of 4 Community DialoglWorkshop on Disinfection Alternatives 2. Council Approval of Project Design and SRF Loan Application 3. Council Approval of Environmental Review 4. 50% Design Complete 5. 90% Design Complete 6. Council Approval of UV Equipment Selection 7. 100% Design Complete 8. Start Construction 9. Complete Construction 10. Initiation of Operations Date:5/1/2009 Target:8 Milestones completed Actual:8 Milestones comoleted '~-"---'---'----------------------------------, Reusable Bag Ordinance 0 scorecard 5 ~ II 0. E 8 2.5 Cf) Q) c: .9 Cf) Q) :E 0 background feedback Target Statement Overview The City's goal is to take the initial steps to restrict the ~ ... _'" distribution of certain single-use plastic bags and to take _ additional steps in the future. Milestones: 1. Initiation of dialogue with Business and Community Target Stakeholders. 5 2. Adoption of phase·out of single-use plastic checkout bags at grocery stores. 3. Compliance date for phase out of single-use plastic checkout bags at grocery stores." 4. Council consideration of fee system for single-use Baseline paper bags,* 0 co '" '" '" ... 5. Council consideration of ... ... ... ... .... next phase of restrictions on ... ... ... ... ... l::! l::! l::! £:! £:! .... .... co .... ... ;or ~ ai ~ ~ '" .... Target Statement: • ... The City's goal is to take the initial steps to restrict the distribution of certain single-use plastic bags and to take additional steps in the future. Overview: Milestones: 1. Initiation of dialogue with Business and Community Stakeholders. 2. Adoption of phase-out of single-use plastic checkout bags at grocery stores. 3. Compliance date for phase out of single-use plastic checkout bags at grocery stores. * 4. Council consideration of fee system for single-use paper bags.* 5. Council consideration of next phase of restrictions on single-use plastic bags. * *Note: Dependent on outcome of litigation initiated by plastic bag interests. Date: 3/31/2009 Target:2 Milestones completed Actual:2 Milestones completed Score: 1 0 out of 10 Status Re port: Adoption of phase-out of single-use plastic checkout bags at grocery stores. ------- Polystyrene Ban 0 scorecard 4 2 o background feedbaok Target Statement The City's goal is to eliminate the distribution of Expanded ~ Polystyrene (usually called Styrofoam) food containers by 5 April 2011. ... Target 4 Overview Milestones: 1. Adopt an Ordinance requiring Food Service Establishments (FSE) to phase out Expanded Polystyrene Food Containers by 4/22/10 with the possibility of a one year = extension. 2. Notify businesses and residents of the new requirements and assist in the selection of alternatives. 3. Achieve 85% compliance Baseline with the Ordinance. o 4. Achieve 100% compliance with the new Target Statement: • The City's goal is to eliminate the distribution of Expanded Polystyrene (usually called Styrofoam) food containers by April 2011. Overview: Milestones: 1. Adopt an Ordinance requiring Food Service Establishments (FSE) to phase out Expanded Polystyrene Food Containers by 4/22/10 with the possibility of a one year extension. 2. Notify businesses and residents of the new requirements and assist in the selection of alternatives. 3. Achieve 85% compliance with the Ordinance. 4. Achieve 100% compliance with the new requirements. Date:5/29/2009 Target:1 Milestones completed Actual: 1 Milestones completed Score: 1 0 out of 10 Status Report: Adopt an Ordinance requiring Food Service Establishments (FSE) to phase out Expanded Polystyrene Food Containers by 4/22/10 with the possibility of a one year extension Incorporate Green Criteria into City Purchases 0 scorecard 6 j Gl 0. E 8 If) 3 (I) r::: ~ ..!!2 ::is 0 background feedback Target Statement The City's goal is to implement its three year Green Purchasing Plan by January 2010. co '" '" C) 0 C) C) C) ... ... C) C) C) C) C) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... 0 :!:: l::! t? ~ ... Q ... It) ... ... Target Statement: • Overview Milestones: 1. Adopt Green Purchasing Policy Target 2. 'Require that all II 6 purchased printers are duplex-capable 3. Require outsourced printing services to use soy inks and increase use of 100% recycled post- consumer content paper processed without chlorine 4. Update contract Baseline speCifications for City's 0 copiers, office supplies, C) blueprints, custodial ... products, lighting, cafeteria 0 ~ ... t? .., The City's goal is to implement its three year Green Purchasing Plan by January 2010. Overview: Milestones: 1. Adopt Green Purchasing Policy 2. Require that all purchased printers are duplex-capable 3. Require outsourced printing services to use soy inks and increase use of 100% recycled post-consumer content paper processed without chlorine 4. Update contract specifications for City's copiers, office supplies, blueprints, custodial products, lighting, cafeteria service and batteries 5. Require maximum energy efficiency, reduced toxicity, appropriate recycling/disposal and producer responsibility for computers and monitors 6. Systemize green purchasing into City operations Date:5/29/2009 Target:3 Milestones completed Actual:3 Milestones completed Score:10 out of 10 Status Report: Printing services Local/Regional Food Production and Consumption 0 scorecard 3 1.5 o background feedbeck Target Statement Overview Milestones: The City's goal is to average 200 monthly participants in ~. the weekly Palo Alto Community Farmshop by October 1, :;; 2010. 1. Launch Palo Alto .. Community Farmshop pilot Target project 3 Baseline o 2. Maintain an average of 100 weekly participants 3. Maintain an average of 200 weekly participants (the City will also strive for 25% of these participants to be from downtown businesses) Target Statement: • The City's goal is to average 200 monthly participants in the weekly Palo Alto Community Farmshop by October 1, 2010. Overview: Milestones: 1. Launch Palo Alto Community Farmshop pilot project 2. Maintain an average of 100 weekly participants 3. Maintain an average of 200 weekly participants (the City will also strive for 25% of these participants to be from downtown businesses) Date:4/22/2009 Target:1 Milestones completed Actual: 1 Milestones completed Score:10 out of 10 Status Report: Launch Palo Alto Community Farmshop pilot project Community Cafe Speaker Series Page 1 of 1 One key element of the initial civic engagement work will be to build awareness of the effort among community members. To this end, the City could host and/or co-sponsor a speaker series that would help introduce key civic engagement concepts to both staff and the community. Currently, staff is proposing three sessions between July and November and is exploring different topical possibilities. A couple of ideas include a session focused on using technology to build community and a session exploring civic engagement models in other cities/agencies/institutions. Staff would also explore ways to incorporate an interactive or participative element to each session, thus allowing for further input and feedback on the civic engagement initiative. http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.coml 7/9/2009 Leadership Palo Alto Page 1 of 1 A small group of community stakeholders, staff and Council members has been meeting to discuss reinitiating the Leadership Palo Alto program formerly sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce. This group is evaluating ways to rebuild or re-form the program in a way that supports the Council's Civic Engagement priority. This proposal will likely return to Council for further discussion in the coming months. http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.coml 7/9/2009 Staff Resource Team Page 1 of 1 The staff resource team would bring together a group of staff members dedicated to enhancing the relationship between City Hall and the community and developing key skills in this group. The group will help City Hall understand why it exists and will help develop resources that will allow City Hall to work towards its purpose. This might take the form of a group of trained facilitators that can be utilized for varied community meetings. The group could also help design meeting agendas to maximize effective outcomes. http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.coml 7/9/2009 Community Conversations Page 1 of 1 The City's goal is to facilitate 5-7 Community Conversations by October 2009. The City will convene community conversations with various stakeholders around key topics. The conversations are a way to hear specific concerns about certain issues, but are also a way for City staff and the community to practice civic engagement in the process. Staffwill be participating in the conversations but will also be trying to learn from the community about ways we need to change the way the City does business. http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.coml 7/9/2009 Emergency Block Preparedness Coordinator Program (}[I scorecard 550 0 background feedback Target Statement The City's goal is to provide emergency training for 550 ~. Block Preparedness Coordinators (BPCs) and 5' Neighborhood Preparedness Coordinators (NPCs) by the ' ... co CI> <:> <:> <:> <:> £:! £:! ... ... ~ ~ ... ... <:> ... Q £:! ... ..., N ... Target 550 Baseline 0 Target Statement: Overview The progam focuses on emergency preparadness training for the community conducted by public safety personnel to improve emergency preparadness and disaster recovery by coordinating governmental and community resources. • The City's goal is to provide emergency training for 550 Block Preparedness Coordinators (BPCs) and Neighborhood Preparedness Coordinators (NPCs) by the end of 2010. Overview: The progam focuses on emergency preparadness training for the community conducted by public safety personnel to improve emergency preparadness and disaster recovery by coordinating governmental and community resources. Date: 12/31/2008 Target: 183 Individuals Trained Actual:300 Individuals Trained Score: 1 0 out of 10 Status Report: Community Environmental Action Partnership (CEAP) Page 1 ofl The City of Palo Alto and community groups created the Community Environmental Action Partnership (CEAP) in accordance with the recommendations made by the 2006 Green Ribbon Task Force and the 2007 Climate Protection Plan. In our inaugural meeting on March 5th, 2008, community members collaboratively defined CEAP's mission and goals. CEAP Mission: To bring the various segments of our community together to share knowledge, build mutual understanding, leverage resources, and both create and implement innovative environmental solutions. CEAP Goals: • Identify and implement top-priority environmental initiatives with measurable objectives. • Educate and engage each segment of the community in environmental initiatives that fit their needs. • Create a vehicle for communication, education and awareness among the City and all segments of the community. • Leverage resources and actions among segments by aligning and coordinating efforts. • Connect with expertise, input and initiatives from the community and beyond to inform, improve and inspire innovative ideas and programs. • Track and report progress toward objectives to the community. Detailas ofthis report as well as the report on CEAP's Green Takes ... Action! show can be found on the CEAP website at www,p~:c~e~p,.Qt:g http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.coml 7/9/2009 ----_ .... __ .. _---------:: izen Police Academy (KI I~·~ro-baokground feedbaok Target Statement The City's goal is to have 30 students graduate annually from Palo Alto Police Departments Citizen Police Academy. Overview The purpose of the Palo Alto Police Department Citizens Police Academy is to provide an opportunity for I' Target citizens to get a better 381 understanding of how the Police Department _, operates. This is an exciting '" opportunity to learn about roles and responsibilities of local law enforcement and building community support. Participants will learn and expand their knowledge of police duties, responsibilities through the eight week academy. Baseline Classes such as laws of Target Statement: o Arrest, Evidence Collection, Criminal Investigations, Defensive Tactics, Patrol • The City's goal is to have 30 students graduate annually from Palo Alto Police Departments Citizen Police Academy. Overview: The purpose of the Palo Alto Police Department Citizens Police Academy is to provide an opportunity for citizens to get a better understanding of how the Police Department operates. This is an exciting opportunity learn about roles and responsibilities of local law enforcement and building community support. Participants will learn and expand their knowledge of police duties, responsibilities through the eight week academy. Classes such as laws of Arrest, Evidence Collection, Criminal Investigations, Defensive Tactics, Patrol and Use of Deadly Force will be offered in addition to police ride-alongs with an officer and a sit-along with Dispatch personnel. Date: 12/31/2008 Target:321 # of students Actual:321 # of students Score: 1 0 out of 10 Status Report: Palo Alto/Stanford Citizen Corps Council Page 1 of 1 The City Manager's Office is in the process of revamping the Citizen Corps Council (CCC). The CCC will serve as an advisory body to the City Manger, coordinating all City-and Stanford-sponsored disaster volunteer and education programs. The City will work to streamline communication and coordination with CCC members by implementing new technologies, including a common calendar of emergency-related events and volunteer opportunities, training, maps of neighborhoods and other areas (showing points of contact such as Neighborhood Preparedness Coordinators. Read more about the national CCC program on www.citLzEmcorp§,gov- http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.com/ 7/9/2009 Library Bond Stakeholder Group Page 1 of 1 The Library Bond Stakeholder Group consists of both staff and community stakeholders and will initially include representatives from the Library Foundation, Friends of the Palo Alto Libraries, Library Advisory Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Recreation Foundation, Library Department, Community Services Department, Public Works Department and the City Manager's Office. This group will meet monthly as convened by the City Manager's Office and will be responsible for information flow both to and from the community. The group has convened several times and developed a draft communications strategy. This plan is currently being finalized and will include: -Project website with job site webcams -Job site signage -Construction fencing windows -Various public and community meetings -Regular updates to Council Once the plan has been finalized it will be incorporated into this scorecard. Do you have outreach ideas for the Library construction projects? Let us know by clicking on the Feedback Tab of this scorecard. http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.coml 7/9/2009 Website Committee Page 1 of 1 In the spirit of civic engagement the City collaborated with members of the community in an effort to improve the City website. Over a period of six months the committee met in collaboration with City staff. The outcome of the work was a set of recommendations for improving the City website, which were presented to the City Council on May 18,2009. The committee will continue to meet to collaborate with the City on implementing the first group of recommendations and to plan for the later groups. More information on the recommendations of the Website Committee can be found: • In the Staff Report on the City website at: h.1;1:p:aWYN!.~itYQfpJlIQlilllQ,Qrg/~iYi~alfiJ~l>flnklblQl>41QJld,fl~p7.:BlQhlD==JiaLl9 .. • On the City Website scorecard under the Civic Engagement for the Common Good priority and the Building Community Through Technology Strategy on the Palo Alto See-It site. • On the Documents tab of this scorecard where the presentation to Council can be viewed. http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.com/ 7/9/2009 Boards & Commissions 00 scorecard 3 1.5 o background feedback Target Statement The City's goal Is to increase the average number ~ ... = applications per vacancy on Boards and Commissions to = 3 applications per vacancy by June, 30, 2010. Target 3 Baseline 1 Target Statement: Overview The number of applications received in the past two years for Boards and Commissions vacancies have decreased. The City Clerk's office is striving to increase the number of applications by using outreach strategies to attract citizens eager to serve their city. • The City's goal is to increase the average number applications per vacancy on Boards and Commissions to : applications per vacancy by June, 30, 2010. Overview: The number of applications received in the past two years for Boards and Commissions vacancies have decreased. The City Clerk's office is striving to increase the number of applications by using outreach strategies to attract citizens eager to serve their city. Date:6/30/2009 Target:3 # of applications Actual:1.6 # of applications Score:3 out of 10 Status Report: Volunteer Programs [8] scorecard 36106 j 18053 o background feedback Target Statement The City's goal is to provide meaningful opportunities for ~' volunteers to partner with staff to strengthen, enrich, and Ii beautify the community and to increase citizen awareness ' ... Overview As a measurement of the support provided by volunteers to City operations, information will be provided annually on the total number of volunteer hours worked in the following programs: Library Department, Community Services Department (Open Space & Parks, Art Center, Children's Theatre, Junior Museum & Zoo, Fire Department" Office of Emergency Services. If volunteer support is valued at an average of $20 per hour, the service provided in FY Target 2008 would equate to o $722,120. Baseline o Target Statement: • The City's goal is to provide meaningful opportunities for volunteers to partner with staff to strengthen, enrich and beautify the community and to increase citizen awareness of City programs, services, and issues. Overview: As a measurement of the support provided by volunteers to City operations, information will be provided annually on the total number of volunteer hours worked in the following programs: Library Department, Community Services Department (Open Space & Parks, Art Center, Children'S Theatre, Junior Museum & Zoo, Fire Department -Office of Emergency Services. If volunteer support is valued at an average of $20 per hour, the service provided in FY 2008 would equate t( $722,120. Date:6/30/2008 Target:O hours Actual:36106 hours Score: 1 0 out of 10 Status Report: City Website Improvements 0 scorecard 5 * is. E 0 (,,) 2.5 (I) Q) c J2 (I) ~ :E 0 background feedback Target Statement Overview The City's goal Is to implement the first group of ~ .. recommendations from the Website Committee and g develop a plan to address additional recommendations by T The City's goal is to update the website on a regular basis to ensure that it remains a central component of the Ch Ch II> Q CI CI Q CI I C! S GCI .... ... iii 00 .... CI CI .... .... Q CI C! C! !: CI ... t! (D Target City's efforts to build 5 community. In response to communications about the current website, staff convened a group of community members to review the website and make recommendations about ways to improve it. The outcome of that effort is currently documented in this scorecard. Additional efforts to update the website will be incorporated as Baseline they are defined. o Target Statement: • The City's goal is to implement the first group of recommendations from the Website Committee and develo~ a plan to address additional recommendations by October 2009. Overview: The City's goal is to update the website on a regular basis to ensure that it remains a central component of tl City's efforts to build community. In response to communications about the current website, staff convened a group of community members to review the website and make recommendations about ways to improve it. The outcome of that effort is currently documented in this scorecard. Additional efforts to update the website will be incorporated as they are defined. Date:5/18/2009 Target: 1 Milestones completed Actual: 1 Milestones completed Score: 1 0 out of 10 Status Report: Provide list of recommendation to the City Council Open City Hall Page 1 of 1 Open City Hall is an on-line forum for civic engagement, giving community members an opportunity to voice their opinion on current issues which will be made available to city officials making decisions or having influence in decision-making processes. You can participate in Open City Hall by visiting llttp:l,IpaJQ(lltQ,QPel)Gityhall&Qm/. You can learn more about the Open City Hall program by visiting http://WWYt,9itYQfpalQ(ll1Q.QIg/d(;)pt~L(lscl/1Jews/del(lil~,a~p?New~IP::=ltS9&I~rgetJP::=1.:21 .. The Open City Hall program has proven to be a successful pilot and the next steps for the program are currently being developed. They may include: -Embedding the Open City Hall site onto the City Website -Embedding a hyperlink to the Open City Hall City on agenda items -Various strategies to increase the number of participants in the program As the next steps are finalized they will be incorporated into this scorecard. Do you have feedback about the Open City Hall program or do you have ideas on how to increase participation? Please let us know by clicking on the Feedback tab of this scorecard. http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.coml 7/912009 Palo Alto See-It Page 1 of 1 On January 10,2009, during the annual Council Retreat, the Council identified these priorities for 2009: Environmental Protection, Civic Engagement for the Common Good and Economic Health. After the priorities were determined, staff began creating a work plan of goals and actions to address them. Through a series of meetings, including a Council Study Session on Monday, April 6, a framework for accomplishing the 2009 Priorities was developed, which included 18 strategies and 83 actions that each correspond to a specific priority. Taking into consideration the feedback from previous methods of tracking progress towards priorities, staff elected to utilize a new and innovative system to enhance accountability and transparency. Staff chose to work with Visible Strategies Inc., of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, and use its interactive See-It software tool. The See-It software creates a simple, clear, connected picture of goals, strategies, actions, targets and performance data necessary to achieve them. The 18 strategies and 83 actions compiled in support of the Council priorities have been entered into the City's new Palo Alto See-It site. Every action has a tracking scorecard which provides detailed information on the goal of the action, time line for implementation, current status, relevant additional information, and supporting documentation. Additionally, each scorecard offers the user the ability to directly contact someone for feedback and to obtain more information. The Palo Alto See-It site, specifically designed to track progress made towards achieving Council-set priorities, will initiate stronger performance management and transform how staff communicates effectively with the community. The capability and opportunity for site is vast. It will not only be a repository of valuable quantitative information on City operations, but will also serve as a forward looking plan that charts the course for the long-term vision of the City. Have thoughts or ideas about this site? Please use the Feedback tab to let us know. http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.com/ 7/912009 Social Networking Strategy Page 1 of 1 The City is extremely aware of the important role that new and emerging social networking sites and new media channels are playing in the exchange of information between governments and the communities they serve. In recognition of this trend, the City of Palo Alto is undertaking a process to develop an Online Social Networking and New Media Strategy. The first step in this process is the development of a Technological Communications Committee. The members of this committee are currently being determined and it will be formed by the end of August 2009. Possible areas of the action for this committee include: -Drafting of policies and procedures for communication with social networking and new media sites -Development of City of Palo Alto Facebook pages -Development of City of Palo Alto Twitter accounts -Use of video on the City website and on other locations -Other areas of interest as they are brought to the committee Once the committee is formed, a plan of action will be developed and incorporated into this scorecard. Do you have thoughts on what steps the City should be considering to take advantage of social networking sites and new media channels? Please let us know by clicking on the Feedback tab of this scorecard. ' http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.coml 7/9/2009 Community Alert Notification System Page 1 of 1 In September 2007, the City of Palo Alto contracted for mass notification services with NTI Group Inc (NTI), uti1izing its Blackboard Connect product as part of the Community Alert and Notification System (CANS). CANS is a mass communication system that is capable of rapidly communicating with residents, businesses, City employee groups over telephones (cellular and landline), email, and wireless devices. Examples of notifications include: disaster information, crime bulletins, power outages, and other related urgent or time-sensitive information. A database of published numbers is maintained by CANS and residents can add or edit information by logging on to the company's website he.re.. In 2009 (as of6/15) the CANS system has sent out 15 emergency and informational notifications. To sign up for CANS please click he.re.. http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.coml 7/912009 Arts & Culture [8] soorecard 75 37.5 0 baokground feedback Target Statement Overview The City's goal is to develop and/or have in process two ~"';; public art projects on an annual basis adding 32 new ~ artworks to the City's Art in Public Places collection by Palo Alto's Art in Public Places program's mission is to promote and maintain art in public sites. The program It) ID ,.. 00 (I) Q ... Q Q = = Q ... ~ = Q = = = Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ... ... ... ~ ... ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ... ... ... ... .... ... ~ M 'It ... ... Q = Q ~ g ~ ~ ... 1:2 § N ... .... ~ IC .... Q Q ~ ~ ~ § .... Target takes every opportunity to site 75 art throughout the City, using the work of artists, craftspeople, architects, and Baseline landscape architects in the 53 design and improvement of public spaces. ~ Target Statement: • The City's goal is to develop and/or have in process two public art projects on an annual basis adding 32 ne\l artworks to the City's Art in Public Places collection by 2020. Overview: Palo Alto's Art in Public Places program's mission is to promote and maintain art in public sites. The prograrr takes every opportunity to site art throughout the City, using the work of artists, craftspeople, architects, and landscape architects in the design and improvement of public spaces. Date: 12/31/2008 Target:58 # of artworks Actual:63 # of artworks Score: 10 out of 10 Status Report: Community Services W scorecard 24116 12058 0 background feedback Target Statement Overview The City's goal is to increase participation in Community ~T-=­ Services programs and classes by 2% a year or 24,116 participants by 2020. The City provides and develops vibrant programs and special interest classes for youth development, ., II) <D ".. co ." = = = = = = = .... = = = = = = = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !:: !:: !:: !:: !:: !:: ;: ... ... ... ... ... ... ... !:! .., .... .... = = = ~ ~ ~ !:: !:: !:: ... .... ... ., II) .... ... C> C> ~ ~ ;: !:: .... Target increased knowledge, artistic 24116 expression. physical activity, social well-being, and Baseline enjoyment of the outdoors. 19000 Through the classes and programs we offer to the community, we promote life styles and activities that enhance the physical and mental well-being of program participants, patrons and park visitors. ~ Target Statement: • The City's goal is to increase participation in Community Services programs and classes by 2% a year or 24,116 participants by 2020. Overview: The City provides and develops vibrant programs and special interest classes for youth development, increased knowledge, artistic expression, physical activity, social well-being, and enjoyment of the outdoors. Through the classes and programs we offer to the community, we promote life styles and activities that enhance the physical and mental well-being of program participants, patrons and park visitors. Date:1/1/2008 Target: 19000 # of Participants Actual: 19018 # of Participants Score: 1 0 out of 10 Status Report: Quality Schools & Childcare CKI scorecard background feedback Target Statement Quality education in Palo Alto is recognized as one of the ~ community's greatest assets. The City is in partnership !i! with the school district to support quality education . ~ 8.4 Ii) c ~ 'E 4.2 1!.1 ~ c 0 Target 0 '" c::> .... N Baseline c::> .... .... .... 0 c::> c::> c::> c::> ~ l:::.! l:::.! l:::.! c::> c::> ~ ii5 S!? S!? It) It) Target Statement: Overview As a measurement of the support provided by the City to the school district, information will be provided annually on the total dollars budgeted on programs directly benefitting the schools. The City's contribution of $8.4 million is roughly 6 percent of the City's General Fund operating budget. The largest component of this support comes through the Cubberley lease payment. • Quality education in Palo Alto is recognized as one of the community's greatest assets. The City is in partnership with the school district to support quality education through contributions for school programs. Overview: As a measurement of the support provided by the City to the school district, information will be provided annually on the total dollars budgeted on programs directly benefitting the schools. The City's contribution of $8.4 million is roughly 6 percent of the City's General Fund operating budget. The largest component of this support comes through the Cubberley lease payment. Date:6/18/2009 Target:O Dollars (in millions) Actual:8.4 Dollars (in millions) Score: 1 0 out of 10 Status Report: Green Technology Hub Page 1 of 1 A baseline number of employees in green tech businesses will be estimated by July 1,2010, and the change in the number of employees in that sector will be reported annually to measure success of the City's efforts. Economic development staffwill identify green tech companies that are currently located in Palo Alto. A baseline of green tech companies will be completed for the initiation of targeted business outreach efforts. One challenge that the City faces is that companies of this type often site their research and development functions in Palo Alto, but when production (and point of sale) development begins, local companies are often enticed away by financial incentives from other cities or unable to afford the cost of manufacturing and development of products in Palo Alto. Staff expects to develop a menu of strategies that would position Palo Alto to compete for these valuable second stage companies. In addition, to support the green principles of the City, staffwould like to identify the City as the "green tech" hub that Palo Alto has the potential to achieve. Following the establishment of a baseline inventory of green tech businesses, an interdepartmental team will be assembled to identify key interdepartmental strategies that will assist in green tech development and expansion. Possible areas for concentration will include: development process enhancements that support and target this business sector, utility department incentives that support green business principles and business outreach that will assist in identifying obstacles to green business location and growth. Companies interested in a Palo Alto location or seeking to expand will be targeted for specific assistance. Businesses will be informed about the benefits of a Palo Alto location and offered assistance in locating or growing their business here. http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.coml 7/9/2009 Destination Palo Alto 00 scorecard 18372 "0 ~ 8 .c :E .!2l c: 9186 E 0 e '0 =It 0 background feedbaok Target Statement Overview To measure of the effectiveness of the Destination Palo ~ ... _=_. Alto program, the total number of room nights booked by the San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention & The purpose of Destination Palo Alto is to provide visitorship services that will enhance the number of bUsiness travelers and tourists to Palo Alto, increasing revenues to the city, primarily transient occupancy tax and sales tax. DC! Q Q ! ... These graphs reflect the total number of room nights booked by the San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau for all of San Mateo County except for two cities and Palo Target Alto. o Baseline o Target Statement: • To measure of the effectiveness of the Destination Palo Alto program, the total number of room nights booke by the San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau will be provided on a quarterly basis. Overview: The purpose of Destination Palo Alto is to provide visitorship services that will enhance the number of business trave.lers and tourists to Palo Alto, increasing revenues to the city, primarily transient occupancy ta) and sales tax. These graphs reflect the total number of room nights booked by the San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau for all of San Mateo County except for two cities and Palo Alto. Date:3/30/2009 Target:o # of room nights booked Actual:17178 # of room nights booked Score: 1 0 out of 10 Status Report: Update Economic Development Strategy Page 1 of 1 The City of Palo Alto's Economic Development Strategy was last updated in 1999. Since that time, the economic climate, city priorities and available resources to address these priorities have changed significantly. To maximize the efforts of economic development and other City staff, an updated plan, reflective of current City priorities will guide citywide economic development efforts in the future. The City's goal is to update the City's Economic Development Strategy to coincide with Council priorities and the update of the City's Comprehensive Plan. In the past, the City's Economic Development Strategy has guided the priorities and actions ofthe City of Palo Alto. To provide for an integrated, citywide economic development strategy, an effort that encompasses areas such as revenue enhancement, green business attraction (through Utility Department incentives) and business district safety (Police Department) must be initiated. This multi-department initiative will incorporate city departments, the public and local business to assure a strategy that is forward thinking, innovative and responsive to business and community needs. This opportunity to re-evaluate the City's economic development priorities and craft a plan that effectively addresses these goals currently has no allocated staff and no budget. The need for a comprehensive multi-department economic development strategy will be shared with City Council in late 2009, and direction for next steps will then be identified and an implementation program developed. http;llpaloalto.visiblestrategies.coml 7/912009 Healthy Business Districts Page 1 of 1 To support and strengthen local business districts, City staff must evaluate objective data and work proactively with stakeholders to monitor changes, detect threats and assist in business success. Business districts will be defined as retail, employment and business centers in Palo Alto. The City's goal is to identify districts and establish business "health" parameters by July 1,2010. Healthy business districts are a visible measure of the economic health of the City. A balanced mix of retail, personal service and other commercial uses ensure that residential neighborhoods are supported by nearby uses. In addition, vibrant business and employment districts provide sales tax, transient occupancy tax and other revenues that support City services. The success of a business district includes clean streets, adequate public safety, appropriate business attraction and retention efforts by City staff and attractive elements like streetscape design and public art. To assess the viability of the City's business districts, staff will establish a list of parameters to measure business district vitality. The parameters for districts will vary according to the district to assess opportunities and threats to each area. Examples of such parameters may include (where data is available): • Vacancy rates • Sales tax revenues, lease rates and other data that may serve as an indicator of changes in the local economy and in specific business sectors • Citizen and/or employee satisfaction rates In addition, City staff will continue to interact on a regular basis with key stakeholders in the City's regional, local and neighborhood business districts. Staff participates regularly in Chamber of Commerce, CAADA, BID, and other associations to understand issues affecting local businesses and address concerns that threaten their viability. Business outreach efforts further enhance the understanding of local and regional issues that affect business viability. htt :// aloalto.visiblestrate ies.coml 7/912009 Development Review Process Efficiency Page 1 of 1 The Planning, Building and Public Works staff are committed to identifY and implement improvements to the development review process to streamline processing time lines while providing for mandatory public review and adequate civic engagement related to pending development projects. Certain minor building permits now have a three to five day process timeline. Development Review Committee meetings of City staff are held within two to three weeks of planning application submittals, and applicants are invited to attend these meetings to receive verbal and written comments on development proposals. Staff is committed to forwarding department comments to applicants in writing within the 30-day time line afforded by the Permit Streamline Act, and in some cases, have targeted hearing dates within that time period. City Council will receive a report from the Chief Building Official on August 3 outlining various improvements to the photovoltaic permitting and inspection processes in order to expedite permit issuance and minimize staff time and costs for both permit applicants and the City. A second report will be provided on September 21 that will outline a plan for identifYing improvements to the broader Building Permit plan review and permit processes. Some of the recommendations anticipated to be made will be evaluation of increased ability to submit permit applications on-line, performance of plan reviews by appointment, improved interdepartmental coordination, and restructuring of Development Center management control. and operations to facilitate improved service delivery through increased staff productivity and reduced operating costs. Specific performance benchmarks will be identified and reported out at least quarterly and feedback mechanisms, such as customer surveys, will be implemented. In 2004 and 2005, the City Council approved ordinance changes to streamline planning entitlement processes following a 2003 audit that was critical of the number and variety of planning processes. City staff met with focus groups to strategically revise the permit processing regulations. Several of the City's planning processes involve public hearings only by request and this change has significantly reduced the number of Director's Hearings for applications such as Conditional Use Permits and Variances. Appealed entitlement approvals do not go to public hearings unless the City Council opts to hear them by pulling the item off the consent calendar and scheduling a public hearing. The maximum number of Architectural Review hearings allotted to major projects is three hearings and it is easy for applicants to get scheduled for daytime Architectural Review Board hearing agendas. The evening meetings of the Planning and Transportation Commission are long and it is sometimes difficult for applicants to get scheduled for hearings, and recommendations can be quite unpredictable. Applicants are cautioned regarding lengthy processing time lines for large projects requiring review by the commission and City Council, and Council may provide direction to its boards and commissions to assist staff in streamlining development review processes. Staff is also open to ideas for marketing staff services to maximize development potential and revenue to support a sustainable budget. Check back in the near future to see strategies and dates of focus group meetings related to this topic. http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.coml 7/9/2009 Emergency Water Supply (8] scorecard 10 "0 S ! E 8 5 C/) Q,) c:: ~ ..!!! ~ 0 background feedback Target Statement The City's goal is to Improve public safety by increasing ~ .• the emergency water supply through the completion of the i!i Emergency Water Supply Project by 2013. ... Target 10 Overview Milestones: 1. Emergency Water Study completed 2. AdviSOry Vote on the Use of EI Camino Park for a Water Reservoir 3. Acquire Land for a Reservoir, Pump Station and Well at EI Camino Park 4. Council Certification of the Environmental Impact Report Baseline 5. Pre-design Contract for o Two New Wells 6. Award of a Design-build Target Statement: • The City's goal is to improve public safety by increasing the emergency water supply through the completion of the Emergency Water Supply Project by 2013. Overview: Milestones: 1. Emergency Water Study completed 2. AdviSOry Vote on the Use of EI Camino Park for a Water Reservoir 3. Acquire Land for a Reservoir, Pump Station and Well at EI Camino Park 4. Council Certification of the Environmental Impact Report 5. Pre-design Contract for Two New Wells 6. Award of a Design-build Contract for the Construction of Two New Wells 7. Design Contract for Reservoir, Pump Station and Well at EI Camino Park 8. Design Contract for Mayfield Reservoir Pump Station Upgrade 9. Construction Contract for Mayfield Reservoir Pump Station 10. Construction Contract for Reservoir, Pump Station and Well at EI Camino Park Date: 3/1/2009 Target:4 Milestones completed Actual:4 Milestones comoleted Foothills Fire Management Plan Page 1 of2 The City first prepared and adopted a Foothills Fire Management Plan in 1982. The City's consultants have prepared an updated Foothills Fire Management Plan, in response to Council direction to staff and in response to changes in the Foothills, laws and regulations, and input from residents, neighboring jurisdictions, and other community members. The Plan incorporates lessons learned from the Oakland Hills Fire of 1991 and other best practices, including working collaboratively with neighboring jurisdictions, police and fire agencies, and community partners. The objectives driving the recommendations in the Plan are: • Life Safety • Structure and Infrastructure Protection • Ignition Prevention • Fire Containment • Natural Resource Protection and Enhancement The components of the Plan are: • Fire Hazard Assessment: The consultant conducted a fire science review of fuel types, loads, topography, and other factors. The data were analyzed with various computer models and correlated on maps. • Regional Evacuation: The consultant surveyed 19 miles of City roadways, 12 miles of which are identified as critical evacuation routes, and most of which have prolongations or feed other road systems outside the City limits. • Review of Municipal Ordinances: The consultant found most City Municipal Codes related to the Foothills are adequate. Several updates were suggested. • Staffing of Fire Station 8: The consultant analyzed objectives and resources for response to fires in the Foothills. The recommendation in the Plan is to maintain current staffing levels for Fire Station 8 (~$200,000 in staff overtime and ancillary costs). Police officers (directed patrol) and Open Space Ranger staffing may need to be increased during high-risk conditions (viz., Red Flag). • Wildland Fire Management Recommendations and Mitigations: The consultant presents specified fire prevention treatments on City-owned lands and roads. An outside environmental consultant (TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc.) supplemented the evaluation of and incorporation into the Plan of best practices for recommended treatments. • Updates to Pearson-Arastradero Trails Master Plan and Foothills Trail Maintenance Plan: The consultant reviewed existing Plans and suggested updates. • CEQA Documentation: The consultant worked with the Planning Department and TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc. to develop the MND. • Implementation Plan and Potential Funding: The Plan presents an overview of funding htt :/1 aloalto.visiblestrate ies.coml 7/9/2009 Foothills Fire Management Plan Page 2 of2 strategies. The total five-year cost, beyond what the City currently spends, to implement the recommended projects is estimated at approximately $435,000. This report will not include a plan to address the funding implications of the recommendations. Staff will return to the Council at a later date with funding plan recommendations along with other implementation measures. While the Palo Alto Police Department is the lead agency for evacuation planning and operations, other jurisdictions must coordinate in these processes. The Plan calls for the creation of a regional evacuation and response system for the Foothills: "Foothills Regional Emergency Response and Evacuation Plan (FREREP)." This plan would provide for standardized signage and evacuation route nomenclature and protocols. The Block Preparedness Coordinator (BPC) Program will be an integral component, as residents who are BPCs can open gates and serve as "eyes and ears" for first responders. The FREREP would also facilitate an "all hazards" approach, covering crime prevention, missing persons (lost child or person at-risk), and other issues affecting the Foothills region. The Draft Plan plan can be found at www,citYQfpl:iIQalto.Qrg/civic<:l/fikbanklblobdlQad,aspilUQblP.= 14823. The Staff Report pertaining to this item can be found at http://wWw.city()fpaIQ~JtQ,Qrg/civic&lfilebanklPlo.bdlQad.aspialQbIP.=15866. The Palo Alto Parks & Recreation Commission, at the request of the City Council, recently reviewed the Foothills Fire Management Plan and has recommended that the Council adopt it. The minutes from that meeting can be found at http://~.cityQfpaloallQ~ivica(fiJ~b~lQbdload.l:isp7.81.obrp.=16148. The City Manager's Office has formed a staff implementation team to implement the recommendations of the Plan. The team will be continuing to work with stakeholders including residents, business, and neighboring jurisdictions through the formation of a new Midpeninsula Foothills Emergency Forum, which will operate through the Palo Alto/Stanford Citizen Corps Council. More information about the Foothills Fire Management Plan can be found at http://Y:fWW,citYQfpl:ilQal1Q.QIg/infQ/A9.ws/d9.tails,asp?:N9.wsIP.=lQ49&.Il:tl;g~tr.J)=6Q. htt :11 aloalto.visiblestrate ies.com/ 7/912009 -----------'-'-~-"----------------------, Diversified Revenue Base [8] scoreoard 20 10 0 background feedbaok Target Statement The City's goal is to maintain a broad revenue base so ~& ... '~' that the top Individual revenue sources remain near 20% .. of total budgeted revenues in a given year. Iti II.) .... OQ ." ." ." ." ." ." ! = IS ." = ~ I::! ~ ." ~ ~ ~ ." ... ... ... = ." I::! I::! !!! '" ~ II.) N ... ." I::! '" I::! II> Target 20 Baseline 0 Target Statement: Overview The City of Palo Alto has a goal to sustain diverse revenue sources for the long- term. A diverse revenue base makes it easier for the City to weather economic downturns since the City is not reliant on a single revenue stream. By monitoring individual revenue sources for their percentage of total revenue, the City gets an indicator of the broadness of the revenue base. • The City's goal is to maintain a broad revenue base so that the top individual revenue sources remain near 20% of total budgeted revenues in a given year. Overview: The City of Palo Alto has a goal to sustain diverse revenue sources for the long-term. A diverse revenue ba~ makes it easier for the City to weather economic downturns since the City is not reliant on a single revenue stream. By monitoring individual revenue sources for their percentage of total revenue, the City gets an indicator of the broadness of the revenue base. Date:6/29/2009 Target:20 % Actual:17.8 % Score:9 out of 10 Status Report: Balanced Budget 00 scorecard 5.096 ~ ... ~ Vl c: !!! -2.548 ~ .Q ~ .= ~ o background feedback Target Statement The City's goal is that expenditures remain equal to or ~"' ... _=~- below revenues on annual basis and that any additional remaining funds are transferred to the General Fund Target o Baseline o Target Statement: Overview A balanced budget is achieved by ensuring expenses are below revenues on a fiscal year basis. Any surplus revenues are committed to the General Fund reserve and other city reserves as required by policy and approved by the City Council. On rare occasions the City of Palo Alto must use funds from the General Fund reserve to achieve a balanced budget as is antiCipated for FY 2009. • The City's goal is that expenditures remain equal to or below revenues on annual basis and that any additior remaining funds are transferred to the General Fund reserve. Overview: A balanced budget is achieved by ensuring expenses are below revenues on a fiscal year basis. Any surplu: revenues are committed to the General Fund reserve and other city reserves as required by policy and approved by the City Council. On rare occasions the City of Palo Alto must use funds from the General Fun( reserve to achieve a balanced budget as is anticipated for FY 2009. Date:6/30/2009 Target:O $ in millions transferred Actual:O $ in millions transferred Score: 1 0 out of 10 Status Report: Rainy Day Fund 0 scorecard background feedback Target Statement Overview The City has the goal of maintaining a healthy rainy day ~".~_=-__ - fund, also known as the Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR). The Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) is the City's primary financial reserve to handle emergency 20.8 ~ o 10.4 0 In CD ..... 00 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Q Q Q !!? !!? !!? !!? CD CD CD CD Target Statement: '" Q .... Q .... .... Q Q Q ~ ~ ~ Q Q Q !!? !!? !!? CD CD CD N .... Q ~ '" ~ CD expenditures and other City Council-approved high Target 18.5 priorities that impact the General Fund_ A Council policy sets the BSR at a range of between 15 and 20 percent of General Fund expenditures with a target of 18.5 percent. This range gives the City flexibility in funding the reserve. The BSR currently sits at 15 percent. A healthy BSR Baseline helps the City address o critical priorities and is also recognized by third parties a central component of overall • The City has the goal of maintaining a healthy rainy day fund, also known as the Budget Stabilization Reser\J (BSR). Overview: The Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) is the City's primary financial reserve to handle emergency expenditures and other City Council-approved high priorities that impact the General Fund. A Council policy sets the BSR at a range of between 15 and 20 percent of General Fund expenditures with a target of 18.5 percent. This range gives the City flexibility in funding the reserve. The BSR currently sits at 15 percent. A healthy BSR helps the City address critical priorities and is also recognized by third parties a central component of overall fiscal health. Date:6/30/2009 Target:18.5 % Actual:18.1 % Score: 1 0 out of 10 Status Report: Long Range Financial Forecast Page 1 of 1 The Long Range Financial Forecast takes a forward look at the City's General Fund revenues and expenditures. Its purpose is to identify financial trends, shortfalls, and issues so the City can proactively address them. It does so by projecting the future fiscal results of continuing the City's current service levels and policies, and providing a snapshot of what the future will look like as a result of the decisions made in the recent past. Any needed course corrections are thereby illuminated. The Long Range Financial Forecast sets the stage for the upcoming budget process, aiding both the City Manager and Council in establishing priorities and allocating resources appropriately. This year's forecast addresses the current economic turmoil that is being felt both nationally and worldwide. The consequences of these events may affect the City's ability to sustain the current level of services and programs over a long period of time within its revenue constraints. The City will update the annual Long Range Financial Forecast annually and presents to Council in early December. The Long Range Financial Forecast is not intended as a budget, or as a proposed plan. The City has changed the name of the report from "Long Range Financial Plan" to "Long Range Financial Forecast" to make it clear that this document does not present a comprehensive financial plan for achieving City or Council objectives. To see the current Long Range Financial Forecast, please follow this link: http://www.cityofpalQalto.Qrg/depts/asd/financial_reporting.asp htt :11 aloalto. visiblestrate ies.coml 7/9/2009 General Fund Infrastructure Backlog [8] scorecard 155 77.5 o background feedback Target Statement The City's goal is to fully fund the current 5-year General Fund Infrastrucutre Backlog. Target Statement: Target 153 Baseline o Overview The City's General Fund Backlong includes the maintenance and rehabilitation of streets, sidewalks, parks and open space and City buildings. The reduection of backlog is funded each year by the Infrastructure Reserve Fund which a part of the City's General Fund. SpeCific projects are prioritized and approved by Council in the annual budget. Specifc details can be found in the information tab of this scorecard. • The City's goal is to fully fund the current 5-year General Fund Infrastrucutre Backlog. Overview: The City's General Fund Backlong includes the maintenance and rehabilitation of streets, sidewalks, parks and open space and City buildings. The reduection of backlog is funded each year by the Infrastructure Reserve Fund which a part of the City's General Fund. Specific projects are prioritized and approved by Council in the annual budget. Specifc details can be found in the information tab of this scorecard. Date:6/30/2009 Target: 153 Dollars (in millions) Actual:64 Dollars (in millions) Score:4 out of 10 Status Report: Measure N Library Bond 00 scorecard 16 8 0 background feedback Target Statement Overview The City plans to build a new joint library and community ~ ... _=..,.,' center at Mitchell Park, renovate the Downtown Library and renovate and expand the Main Library by March Project Milestones: 1 -September 2006, Feasibility Study begins &D &D ..... OCI OCI (I) (I) c:> c:> c:> c:> c:> c:> c:> c:> .... c:> c:> 0 c:> c:> c:> ~ c:> ~ ~ t! ~ t! t! t! 0 c:> OCI g,: ~ ~ ~ $ £'! t! 0 ~ (;j .... .... .... .... c:> c:> c:> .... .... .... .... .... c:> ~ 0 c:> ~ t! ~ c:> c:> ~ £'! £'! U) <C Target 16 2 -December 2006, Library Advisory Commission's 'Library Service Model AnalYSis (LSMAR)' is approved by Council 3 -May 2007, Conceptual design and public reviews begin 4 -July 2008, Environmental analysiS is Baseline approved 0 5 -November 2008, Voters ~ approve Measure N bond Target Statement: • ii ... The City plans to build a new joint library and community center at Mitchell Park, renovate the Downtown Library and renovate and expand the Main Library by March 2013. Overview: Project Milestones: 1 -September 2006, Feasibility Study begins 2 -December 2006, Library Advisory Commission's 'Library Service Model Analysis (LSMAR)' is approved b~ Council 3 -May 2007, Conceptual design and public reviews begin 4 -July 2008, Environmental analysis is approved 5 -November 2008, Voters approve Measure N bond for improvements and/or expansion of the Downtown Library, Mitchell Park Library and Community Center and the Main Library 6 -February 2009, Design work begins on Downtown Library rehabilitation project and new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center. 7 -May -Dec 2009, Public meetings to review design (Library Advisory Commission, Parks & Recreation, community, etc) 8 -January 2010, Improvements to provide a Temporary Library begin at the Cubberly Community Center Auditorium 9 -April 2010, Temporary Library is completed and transfer of staff and books begins. 10 -May 2010, Downtown Library begins construction 11 -June 2010, Mitchell Park Library and Community Center begins construction 12 -May 2011, Downtown Library is completed and re-opens 13 -August 2012, Mitchell Park Library and Community Center is completed and opens to the public 14 -December 2011, Main Library begins design 15 -March 2012, Main Library begins construction 16 -March 2013, Main Library completes construction and re-opens to the public Date:2/28/2009 Target:6 Milestones completed Actual:6 Milestones completed Score: 10 out of 10 Status Report: Greer Park Renovation Project [8] scorecard background feedback • Target Statement Overview Milestones: The City's goal is to complete the Greer Park renovation project by August 2010. 1 . Council direction to utilize I' undeveloped land Target i, 11 5.5 0 Cl) QO QO 00 0 '" 0 '" '" '" '" '" !::! !::! !::! !::! E S .... '" ~ ~ QO .... ~.~,_._,"",,~_.~ .. _._4~_~'~~"<-___ ~ ____ """"_~ Target Statement: 00 CI) CI) '" '" '" 0 '" 0 $l !::! !::! ~ .... (') (') iN it; .... CI) '" '" !::! '" fa 11 2. Design consultant selected 3. Project kick off with consultant 4. Park improvements with cost estimates given to City staff 5. First of two community presentations held; Baseline beginning of preliminary o design 6. Second community The City's goal is to complete the Greer Park renovation project by August 2010. Overview: Milestones: 1. Council direction to utilize undeveloped land 2. Design consultant selected 3. Project kick off with consultant 4. Park improvements with cost estimates given to City staff 5. First of two community presentations held; beginning of preliminary design 6. Second community presentation held; comments forwarded to City staff for review 7.95% of design completed including comments from community presentations 8. 100% of design completed 9. Council approval of construction contact 10. Construction begins 11. Greer Park renovation project completed Date:6/30/2009 Taroet:8 Milestones comoleted Fiber to the Premises Page 1 of 1 Using its existing dark fiber backbone, the City's goal is to provide 100 mbps, symmetrical broadband service to every residential, institutional, and commercial premise in the City. The network would be an open access system. A wireless component is being considered as the City extends the fiber network. In 1997 a 41 mile dark fiber backbone was built throughout the City with the goal of delivering broadband services to all premises. There have been several efforts since then to implement this vision. At Council's direction, staff issued an RFP in 2006 to find firms willing to build out the system leveraging existing City assets. After 3 years of negotiations with a consortium of firms, this process was terminated due to the lack of necessary funding. With the advent of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, federal stimulus funding is being sought to achieve the City's goal. Should the City receive no funding, an alternative plan is being developed to build out a fiber network using existing City resources. http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.com/ 7/912009 ATTACHMENT B Stormwater Runoff Reduction [KJ scorecard background feedback Target Statement Overview The City's goal is to reduce stormwater runoff to local ~:=_ creeks by issuing financial rebates to Palo Alto residents and businesses for 50,000 square feet of permeable A portion of the monthly Storm Drainage Fee paid by all Palo Alto residential and commercial utility customers is 50000 25000 o Target Statement: Target used to provide financial 50000 incentives for reducing storm water runoff to storm drains and local creeks. Reducing storm water runoff protects the environment by preventing street flooding and creek erosion and lessens the need for costly storm drain infrastructure improvements. Runoff reduction measures eligible for the rebates include permeable pavement, rain Baseline barrels, cisterns, and green o roofs. • The City's goal is to reduce stormwater runoff to local creeks by issuing financial rebates to Palo Alto resider and businesses for 50,000 square feet of permeable pavement by July 2010. Overview: A portion of the monthly Storm Drainage Fee paid by all Palo Alto residential and commercial utility customel is used to provide financial incentives for reducing storm water runoff to storm drains and local creeks. Reducing storm water runoff protects the environment by preventing street flooding and creek erosion and lessens the need for costly storm drain infrastructure improvements. Runoff reduction measures eligible for the rebates include permeable pavement, rain barrels, cisterns, and green roofs. StOlTI1Water Runoff Reduction Page 1 of3 The following storm water runoff reduction measures qualifY for the City's storm water rebate program: Standard paving materials (such as concrete and asphalt) used for driveways, patios, walkways, and parking lots are highly impervious and produce high rates of storm water runoff. Rainfall flows quickly across these paved surfaces, picking up accumulated surface pollutants and draining directly to gutters and storm drains and thence to local creeks and the Bay. The use of permeable paving materials allows rainfall to enter the pavement section and infiltrate into the underlying soils. The three primary permeable pavement technologies are porous asphalt, pervious concrete, and permeable interlocking concrete pavers. All permeable pavements have high initial surface infiltration rates and can immediately infiltrate and store rainfall from most storm events. Permeable pavements rely on the ability of open-graded aggregate in their surfaces and base to receive; store, and infiltrate runoff into the underlying soiL In many cases, storm water runoff from the pavement is completely eliminated. Rebate Information: Install a driveway, patio, walkway, or parking lot using an permeable pavement material and receive a rebate of $1.50 per square foot. (Maximum residential rebate = $1,000) (Maximum commercial rebate = $10,000) Rain Barrels Rain barrels are low-cost, effective, and easily maintainable water conservation devices that can be used to reduce runoff volume and, for smaller storm events, delay and reduce the peak runoff flow rates from residential and commercial sites. By storing and diverting rainfall runoff from roofs, these devices reduce ~; the undesirable impacts of runoff that would otherwise ' flow swiftly into gutters and storm drains and contribute to flooding and erosion problems in creeks. Due to their relatively small volume, rain barrels are most commonly used as a secondary source of water for gardening in residential areas. Rain barrels can provide a source of chemically untreated 'soft water' for gardens and compost, free of most sediment and dissolved salts. Because residential irrigation can account for up to 40% of domestic water consumption, water conservation measures such as rain barrels can be used to reduce the demand on the municipal water system, especially during the hot summer months. For residential applications, a typical rain barrel design will include a hole at the top to allow for flow from a roof downspout, a sealed lid, an overflow pipe and a spigot at or near the bottom of the barrel. The top opening must be fitted with a screen in order to control mosquitoes and other insects. The stored http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.com/ 7/912009 Stormwater Runoff Reduction Page 2 of3 water can then be used for lawn and garden watering. Rain barrels can be connected to provide larger volumes of storage. Rebate Information: Purchase and install a rain barrel and receive a $50 rebate. Stormwater runoff cisterns are roof water management devices that provide retention storage volume in above or underground storage tanks. They are typically used to supplement the water supply for landscape irrigation. Cisterns are substantially larger than rain barrels, with some underground cisterns having the capacity of 10,000 gallons or more. They are also typically equipped with an electric pump to facilitate pressurized distribution to an automated landscape irrigation system. Cisterns are constructed of durable material, such as concrete, plastic, polyethylene, or metal. Rebate Information: Install a rain water cistern at your home or business and receive a rebate of 15 cents per gallon. (Maximum residential rebate = $1,000) (Maximum commercial rebate = $10,000) Green Roofs Green roofs, also known as vegetated roof covers, eco- roofs or nature roofs, are multi-beneficial structural components that help to mitigate the effects of urbanization on water quality by filtering, absorbing or detaining rainfall. They are constructed of a lightweight soil media, underlain by a drainage layer, and a high quality impermeable membrane that protects the building structure. The soil is planted with a specialized mix of plants that can thrive in the harsh, dry, high temperature conditions of the roof and tolerate short periods of inundation from storm events. Green roofs provide storm water management benefits by utilizing the biological, physical, and chemical processes found in the plant and soil complex to prevent airborne pollutants from entering the storm drain system and reducing the runoff volume and peak discharge rate by holding back and slowing down the water that would otherwise flow quickly into the storm drain system. The quantity of rainfall retained or detained by a green roof can vary, but for small rainfall events little or no runoffwill occur and the majority of the precipitation will return to the atmosphere through evapotranspiration. For storms of greater intensity and duration, a vegetated roof can significantly delay and reduce the runoff peak flow that would otherwise occur using conventional roof design. In addition to their storm water benefits, green roofs also reduce the urban "heat islandll effect, reduce C02 levels, reduce summer air conditioning costs and winter heat demand, and help preserve habitat and biodiversity by providing an oasis of life in an otherwise sterile urban environment. http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.coml 7/9/2009 Stormwater Runoff Reduction Page 3 of3 Rebate Information: Install a green roof on your building and receive a rebate of $1.50 per square foot. (Maximum residential rebate $1,000) (Maximum commercial rebate $10,000) City of Palo Alto Storm Water Rebate Program web site: www&ityQfp~lQl:lltQ,Qr~stQnllwI:lJ~:r http://paloalto.visib1estrategies.coml 7/9/2009 Stormwater Runoff Reduction 0 scorecard background feedback Submit your feedback message here, click 'Send Message' and this information will be sent to the manager of this scorecard. Your name Your e-mail Subject Stormwater Runoff Reduction Message Send Message TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE: JULY 13, 2009 CMR:308:09 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Approval of a Contract With Granite Rock Company DBA Pavex Construction Division, in an Amount not to Exceed $1,493,356 for the 2009 Street Maintenance Program Asphalt Overlay Capital Improvement Project PE-86070 RECOlVIMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with Granite Rock Company DBA Pavex Construction Division (Attachment A) in an amount not to exceed $1,493,356 for the Street Maintenance Program Asphalt Overlay Capital Improvement Project PE-86070; and 2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Granite Rock Company DBA Pavex Construction Division, for related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $149,336. BACKGROUND The Public Works Engineering Division manages construction contracts for concrete pavement repair, preventative maintenance, resurfacing and reconstruction of various City streets on an annual basis. The candidate streets are surveyed biannually by Public Works Engineering staff and then rated by a computerized pavement management system. The annual budget for these past contracts averaged approximately $2.1 million and included all phases of the project. Since 2003, the Public Works Engineering Division has implemented multi-phased resurfacing projects by bidding one phase for concrete repairs and preparation, a second phase for preventative maintenance and a third phase for asphalt concrete resurfacing. This method of phasing has proved more cost effective by avoiding the typical 15% markup on concrete work and preventative maintenance work previously included in asphalt resurfacing contracts because the work was subcontracted out. DISCUSSION Project Description The project focuses on the placement of asphalt concrete overlays on the older Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) base streets that have a low Pavement Condition Index (PCI) score. These CMR:308:09 Page 1 of4 streets are all high priorities on the City's resurfacing backlog and have been coordinated through monthly project coordination meetings between the Public Works Engineering, Public Works Operations, and the Utilities Departments. The purpose of these meetings is for each department to present their anticipated schedules for upcoming projects and make sure the planned work does not conflict with the schedule of another department. Streets in this contract include Waverley Street along the Gamble Garden Center, five blocks of the Bryant Street Bike Boulevard, California A venue from E1 Camino Real to the Caltrain Station, and several streets in the College Terrace Targeted Work Zone (TWZ). The work to be performed under this contract will also include Portland Cement concrete base repairs, asphalt milling, placement of interlayer membranes on PCC cold joints, crack filling, driveway, curb and gutter, and sidewalk repair, installation of ADA compliant pedestrian ramps, catch basin replacements, raising of manholes and utility vaults to the new pavement elevations, traffic calming devices, new pavement striping and inert recycling on 5.4 lane miles of streets. The project work locations are identified on the project list of streets (Attachment B). Much of the sidewalk, driveway, and concrete base repairs for these streets have already been completed as part of a separate concrete contract. This work was separated out to save approximately 15 percent in overhead and administration fees typically charged by contractors on large resurfacing/overlay contracts. Separating the contracts will also enable the asphalt contractor to begin milling the existing asphalt concrete immediately upon the execution ofthis contract. Certain elements of the comprehensive California Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project are included in this contract. The paving of California A venue includes the installation of colored crosswalks, and the restriping of the roadway down from two lanes to one lane in each direction. This will create a pedestrian and bicycle friendly two-lane road configuration. New trees, tree grates, benches, trash cans, and bike racks will be installed under a separate CIP PE-07005 later this year. Public Works held several meetings with the California A venue Area Development Association (CAADA) while developing the scope of work for these projects and coordinating the schedule of activities with the Utilities Department for the improvements on California Avenue. Extensive coordination was also involved with the portion of this contract located in the College Terrace neighborhood. The Public Works and Utilities Departments worked together to accelerate all of the needed utility work to take place before street resurfacing. Upon completion of this contract, 40% of the College Terrace neighborhood will have been resurfaced. The remaining 60% will be resurfaced in phases over the next two years. The tentative College Terrace Target Work Zone (TWZ) Resurfacing Schedule is included with this report as Attachment D. All three of the add alternate streets recommended in this contract are located in the College Terrace TWZ. Upon approval by Council on August 3, 2009, the installation of traffic calming devices in the College Terrace TWZ will be incorporated into this project. Th~ . original and <trial project traffic circles along College Avenue will be removed while pedestrian refuge islands and several speed humps will be installed in their place. One additional speed table will be installed on California Avenue between Dartmouth and Columbia as well. It is expected that these new traffic calming features will be more effective than the trial project traffic circles. The traffic calming devices were designed by the Transportation Division and are funded through College Terrace Traffic Calming Capital Improvement Program (CIP PL-05003). Page 2 Bid Process On May 21, 2009, a notice inviting formal bids for the 2009 Street Maintenance Program Asphalt Overlay Project was posted at City Hall, and was sent to 11 builder's exchanges and 12 contractors I subcontractors. The bidding period was 19 calendar days. Bids were received from six qualified contractors on June 9, 2009 as listed on the attached Bid Summary (Attachment C). ummaryo 1 S fB'd P rocess Bid NamelNumber Asphalt Overlay Proiect I IFB #131632 Proposed Length of Project 130 calendar days Number of Bids Mailed to 12 Contractors Number of Bids Mailed to Builder's 11 Exchanges Total Days to Respond to Bid 19 Pre-Bid Meeting? No Number of Bids Received: 6 Bid Price Range (Base bid plus four From a low of$I,660,886 to a high of$I,917,413. alternates Bids ranged from a high of $1,917,413 to a low bid of $1,660,886 and ranged from 3 % over to 11% under the engineer's estimate. The engineer's estimate of$1,861,512 was decreased based on the low bids received for similar work last year and is reflective of the continued deflated construction market. The number of contractors bidding the project and lower construction bids are also indicative of the current construction market in this economic downturn. Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the base bid and the first three add alternates totaling $1,493,356 submitted by Granite Rock Company DBA Pavex Construction Division be accepted and that Granite Rock Company DBA Pavex Construction Division be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The change order amount of $149,336, which equals 10 percent of the total contract, is requested for related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project. Current funding does not allow for the recommendation to award the fourth. add alternate. The fourth add alternate was to repave Cornell Street in College Terrace. This work will be completed as part the 2010 Street Maintenance Project. The lowest responsible bidder, Granite Rock Company DBA Pavex Construction Division, has worked with the City on previous paving projects and staff found no significant complaints. Staff also checked with the Contractor's State License Board and found that the contractor has an active license on file. RESOURCE IMPACT Funds for this project are included in the FY 2009-10 CIP Street Maintenance project, PE-86070. Funds for the modification of traffic calming measures on College Avenue are included in the CIP project PL-05003 College Terrace Traffic Calming. This project is not funded in any part by Federal stimulus funds, The stimulus funds are reserved for projects on collector or arterial streets only and the funds allocated to the City of Palo Alto will be used on San Antonio Avenue, Lytton Avenue, and Alma Street later this year. The State CMR:308:09 Page 3 of 4 of California is currently proposing withholding payment of Gas Tax funds to local governments for street maintenance. This proposal would put future street maintenance projects in jeopardy by significantly reducing the annual budget for street maintenance during the term of this non- payment ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301c of the CEQA Guidelines as repair, maintenance andlor minor alteration of the existing facilities-and no further environmental review is necessary. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Contract Attachment B: List of Streets Attachment C: Bid Summary Attachment D: College Terrace Targeted Work Zone Resurfacing Schedule PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: MATT BRID'lNINGS Engineer GLENN S. ROBERTS Director of Public Works Page 4 TO: FROM: DATE: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER JULY 13, 2009 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 302:09 REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: Approval of a Development Agreement to Extend Approvals for Architectural Review and the Vesting Tentative Map with Exceptions . and Providing Additional Project Benefits of the Approved 45-unit Townhome Development at 200 San Antonio Road in the ROLM and RM-30 Zone Districts and Adoption of an Ordinance Approving a Development Agreement between Hewlett-Packard Company and the City of Palo Alto EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This development agreement is requested to extend the Palo Alto approvals of a 45-unit housing development on property owned by Hewlett Packard at 200 San Antonio, so that the Palo Alto project will have the same effective date (February 26, 2014) as that of the adjacent 450-unit housing development within the City of Mountain View, also on Hewlett Packard property. The development agreement includes the relocation of a large sculpture (by Ginnever) from Mountain View to a landscaped area within the Palo Alto project site, and requires compliance with the City's Green Building Ordinance, which was adopted subsequent to project approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance (Attachment A) approving the proposed Development Agreement for the project located at 200 San Antonio Road (Attachment B with Exhibits 1 and 2). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed development agreement is to extend previous approvals for a project to be constructed on land owned by Hewlett Packard located at the intersection of San Antonio Road and Central Expressway. Known as the Toll Brothers project, 45 housing units would be constructed on approximately 4.9 acres in Palo Alto, and 450 housing units would be constructed on approximately 20 acres in Mountain View. CMR:302:09 Page 1 of3 On October 22, 2008, the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) issued the Architectural Review approval for the 45 units to be contained within stacked flats and townhomes between two and three levels high, clustered in a series of twelve separate buildings containing two to six units each. The Director's approval became effective upon Council approval of the Vesting Tentative Map on February 9, 2009. The Development Agreement would extend the Architectural Review approval of the 45-unit housing project and Council approval of the associated Vesting Tentative Map to a new effective date (February 26, 2014), beyond the time frames identified in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This would be consistent with the expiration of approvals for development within the Mountain View portion of the housing project. As a part of the extension, the agreement provides for additional project benefits: the relocation of a large sculpture from Mountain View into Palo Alto and project compliance with Palo Alto's green building requirements for multiple family residential projects, which requirements were adopted after project approval. Attachment F to this report provides information regarding why the applicants found it necessary to submit this application, which was filed on February 17, 2009. In summary, the property owners will sell the land to a "Master Developer" as required by the City of Mountain View to ensure the construction of public infrastructure, utilities, parks and other project features will be efficiently coordinated, economical and safe. The Development Agreement includes Exhibit B, conditions of approval (of Architectural Review and Vesting Tentative Map approvals) and notes that the owner shall comply with and perform all of the conditions of approval. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOlVIMENDATIONS On May 27, 2009, the Commission voted unanimously on a 6-0-0-1 (Fineberg absent due to conflict of interest) to recommend Council approval of the development agreement with two amendments: (a) add to Section 8.1 an introductory clause that reads 'at the expense of the owner,' and (b) attach the conditions of approval as an exhibit to the Development Agreement. There were no public speakers. The May 27, 2009 Commission staff report and minutes are attached to this report. Staff reports and meeting minutes from the January 14, 2009 Commission, February 9, 2009 Council and April 17, 2008 ARB meetings are available on the City's website to provide further background information on the approved project and vesting tentative map. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The project was found to be in conformance with Comprehensive Plan Policies by the Architectural Review Board, the Commission, and City Council in prior reviews. By extending the time for compliance with the project approvals, the Development Agreement will provide certainty that the project can be developed and used in accordance with the approved plans consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Development Agreement provides additional project benefits that could not otherwise be obtained, including the inclusion of the Ginnever sculpture on the Palo Alto site, and the applicant's compliance with the Green Building Ordinance, which was adopted subsequent to project approval. CMR:302:09 Page 2 of3 RESOURCE IMPACT A section on resource impacts was provided in a prior report to Council related to the subdivision. The section noted annual revenues (totaling $75.000) and one-time fees and taxes (development impact fees, school impact fees, and documentary transfer tax, totaling $435,000). The Development Agreement will not result in additional impacts. Approval of the Development Agreement will avoid the need to expend resources of staff and reviewing bodies to review re- submitted applications after future expiration of permits. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Prior to Architectural Review approval of the multi-family development, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared. Because most of the project lies within the City of Mountain View, that city served as the lead agency for the document. The EIR was adopted by Mountain View in June of 2006. It was provided to all Commissioners and Council members in compact disc (CD) format prior to the public hearings on January 14,2009 and February 9, 2009, during which the Vesting Tentative Map was recommended and approved, respectively. PREPARED BY: Manager of Current Planning DEPARTMENT HEAD: CURTIS WILLIAMS Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: /t ATTACHMENTS A. Ordinance B. Development Agreement C. Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report dated May 27, 2009, with attachments (except for development agreement provided as Attachment B above) D. Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes of May 27,2009 E. Sculpture Location plan set (Council only) F. Applicant's Letter Dated March 25, 2009 Regarding Need for Extension COURTESY COPIES Penny Ellson Jo Price, Toll Brothers Peter Gilli, City of Mountain View Frank Pedraza, Hewlett Packard CMR:302:09 Page 3 of3 I I I I I I I I , I I I I ATTACHMENT A NOT YET APPROVED Ordinance No. --- Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving a Development Agreement between the Hewlett-Packard Company and the City of Palo Alto The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Recitals. A. The City and the Hewlett-Packard Company ("HP") have negotiated a Development Agreement under which the Architectural Review approval and Council approval of the associated Vesting Tentative Map for a 45 unit housing project located in the City of Palo Alto would be extended to an effective date of February 26, 2014, beyond the time frames identified in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, to be consistent with the expiration of approvals for the larger portion of the housing project located in the City of Mountain View. As a part of the extension, the agreement provides for additional project benefits, including the relocation of a large sculpture from Mountain View to Palo Alto and project compliance with Palo Alto's green building ordinance requirements for mUltiple family residential projects. B. HP has requested this Agreement in order to vest the land use policies and regulations established in the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Palo Alto Design Approval, current as of the Effective Date hereof. This Agreement authorizes HP and its successors in interest to implement, subject to other City land use decisions consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the terms hereof, a phased, multi-year program, of redeveloping and completing its residential and related uses of the subject property. C. City proposes to enter this Agreement for the reasons enumerated in the Development Agreement Statute, and (i) to eliminate uncertainty in the comprehensive development planning of large-scale projects within the City, such as the Project; (ii) to secure orderly development and progressive fiscal benefits for public services, park and recreation improvements and facilities planning in the City; (iii) to meet the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan; and (iv) to replace, for Owner's and City's benefit, obsolete office and parking buildings with a modem, attractive, master-planned residential community capable of meeting the housing needs of many current and future Palo Alto residents, at a location well served by regional thoroughfares, mass transit and retail services. 1 090708 syn 0120375 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council finds and detennines that: A. Notice of intention to consider the development agreement has been given pursuant to Government Code section 65867. B. The Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council have each conducted a public hearing on the Development Agreement. C. The City Council has reviewed the contents of the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") prepared for the Project, and all other relevant infonnation, including staff reports, and all testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter. D. The City Council finds and detennines that the development agreement IS consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Palo Alto. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement between the Hewlett-Packard Company and the City of Palo Alto, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit IIAII, and authorizes the Mayor to execute the agreement on behalf of the City. SECTION 4. The City Clerk is directed to cause a copy of the Development Agreement to be recorded with the County Recorder not later than ten (10) days after it becomes effective. II II II II II II II II II II 2 090708 syn 0120375 SECTION 5 after its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney 090708 syn 0120375 NOT YET APPROVED This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first (31st) day 3 APPROVED: Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment ATTACHMENT B NOT YET ADOPTED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered municipal corporation AND HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered as of this day of _____ , 2009 ("Effective Date") by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO ("City"), a chartered California municipal corporation, and the HEWLETT -PACKARD COMPANY ("Owner"), a Delaware corporation. THE PARTIES ENTER THIS AGREEMENT on the basis of the following facts, understandings and intentions: A. Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code (the "Development Agreement Statute") authorizes City to establish procedures to enter binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property located within the City for development of the property. B. On March 9, 1987, the City Council ("City Council") of the City approved Resolution No. 6597, establishing the authority and procedure for review and enactment of development agreements pursuant to the Development Agreement Statute. C. Owner is the legal owner of the property ("Property") governed by this Agreement, comprising an approximately five (5) acre site located near the intersection of San Antonio Avenue Street and Central Expressway in the City of Palo Alto, California, further described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. Owner proposes to build out a master-planned residential complex on the Property, and on adjacent property within the City of Mountain View, in phases, consistent with the policies and regulations expressed in the City's Comprehensive Plan ("Comprehensive Plan"), zoning ordinances, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Architectural Review Board design approval (collectively, "Palo Alto Design Approval"), and consistent with the City of Mountain View's Master Plan, Tentative 1 090625 syn 0120356 Subdivision Maps and Planned Community Permits ("PCP's") for each of four (4) development areas defined in the Master Plan (collectively, "Development Plan"). The approved Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, authorizing subdivision of the Property, and the approved Palo Alto Architectural Review Board design approval, authorizing construction of Owner's new buildings on the Property and specifying the permitted uses, density and intensity of use and public improvements, are incorporated herein by this reference D. Owner has requested this Agreement in order to vest the land use policies and regulations established in the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Palo Alto Design Approval, current as of the Effective Date hereof. This Agreement authorizes Owner and Owner's successors in interest to implement, subject to other City land use decisions consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the terms hereof, a phased, multi-year program ("Project"), of redeveloping and completing its residential and related uses of the Property. The City of Mountain View has required that the Property in both jurisdictions must be developed by a single "Master Developer" in order to ensure that construction of public infrastructure, utilities, parks and similar Project features will be efficiently coordinated, economical and safe. The purpose of this Agreement is to ensure that the Palo Alto Design Approval and the Mountain View Development Plan will be efficiently implemented as approved by the Cities of Palo Alto and Mountain View respectively, and that the vested term of all Project land use approvals will be coeval. E. City and Owner acknowledge that development and construction of the Project is a large-scale undertaking involving major investments by Owner and City, with development occurring in phases over several years. Certainty that the Project can be developed and used in accordance with the terms hereof will benefit Owner, City and the general public, and will 2 090625 syn 0120356 provide to both parties a relatively stable and permanent plan for development of the Property, in implementation of City's Comprehensive Plan. F. City and Owner, through their representatives, cooperatively have invested several years of comprehensive, community-wide planning and design effort into crafting the Development Plan and the Palo Alto Design ApprovaL The Development Plan and the Palo Alto Design Approval reflect extensive neighborhood, City staff, and community-wide insights and priorities, and provides for several attractive design features, extraordinary park and recreation amenities, and infrastructure improvements providing for safer, more convenient pedestrian access to mass transit. The national real estate fmancing market recently has produced a situation in which the foregoing amenities and improvements economically could not be provided without relative certainty that the Project can be financed, built and implemented consistently with the Development Plan and the Palo Alto Design Approval. G. City proposes to enter this Agreement for the reasons enumerated in the Development Agreement Statute, and (i) to eliminate uncertainty in the comprehensive development planning of large-scale projects within the City, such as the Project; (ii) to secure orderly development and progressive fiscal benefits for public services, park and recreation improvements and facilities planning in the City; (iii) to meet the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan; and (iv) to replace, for Owner's and City's benefit, obsolete office and parking buildings with a modem, attractive, master-planned residential community capable of meeting the housing needs of many current and future Palo Alto residents, at a location well served by regional thoroughfares, mass transit and retail services. H City's willingness to enter this Agreement is a material inducement to Owner to implement the Project within the City of Palo Alto, and to provide at Owner's cost the park and 3 090625 syn 0120356 recreation amenities and infrastructure improvements described in the Development Plan. Owner proposes to enter this Agreement in order to obtain assurance from City that the Project may be financed in the current economic climate, developed, constructed, and occupied pursuant to the Palo Alto Design Approval, subject to the limitations expressed herein. I. On May 27,2009, the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this Agreement, and (i) determined that consideration of this Agreement complies with CEQA, based on certification of the Project's Environmental Impact Report; (ii) determined that this Agreement is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and (iii) recommended that the City Council approve and enact this Agreement. 1. On ______ , 2009, the Palo Alto City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on this Agreement, determined that consideration of this Agreement complies with CEQA, found this Agreement to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and introduced Ordinance No. ___ , approving this Agreement. 1. On _______ , 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. ____ , enacting this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority contained in the Development Agreement Statute and Resolution No. 6597, and in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises of the parties, the parties agree as follows: 1. Development Of The Property. 1.1 Development Plan. Owner shall have the vested right to develop the Property in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. The permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, the vehicle parking plan, the heights, sizes, design and construction methods of the proposed buildings and landscaping, the on-site and off-site public 4 090625 syn 0120356 improvements, the development schedules and the general prOVlSlons for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes or fees in lieu thereof shall be as provided in the Palo Alto Design Approval; provided, however, that future implementation of the Project will be subject to other discretionary and ministerial decisions by City which will govern issuance of building and grading permits, among other things. Owner shall comply with and perform all of the conditions of approval embodied in the discretionary permit and vesting tentative subdivision map comprising the Palo Alto Design Approval, which are attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated by this reference. Where "Toll Brothers" or "Applicant" appears III approval conditions, "Owner" and "Owner's successors" shall be responsible. Nothing contained herein shall restrict City's discretion to approve or conditionally approve amended Project features proposed by Owner. 1.2 Present Right to Develop. Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, City hereby grants to Owner the present vested right to develop and construct all improvements comprising the Project in accordance with the policies and development density regulations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, Municipal Code and Palo Alto Design Approval in effect as of the Effective Date of this Agreement. No future modifications of the Comprehensive Plan, Municipal Code, ordinances, policies or regulations which purport to (i) limit the development density, design, residential unit count, parking plan, or schedule of development of the Project; or (ii) impose new fees, exactions, design features or moratoria upon development, occupancy or use of the Project, shall apply to the Project, except as otherwise provided herein. Nothing stated herein, however, shall prevent or preclude City from adopting any future General Plan amendments, zoning measures or other land use regulations. 5 090625 syn 0120356 1.3 Cooperation in Obtaining Allocation of Utilities. City shall cooperate with Owner in obtaining and reserving the allocation of sufficient utilities, including electricity, gas, water and sewerage service capacity and facilities, for development of the Project in accordance with the terms hereofthroughout the Term of this Agreement (defined in Section 3 below). 2. Demolition of Obsolete Improvements. hnmediately following the Effective Date, Owner is authorized to demolish all of the non-residential buildings and other improvements ("Obsolete Improvements") located on the Property which are inconsistent with the Palo Alto Design Approval, in compliance with the terms of one comprehensive "Master" Demolition Permit, regulating demolition of Obsolete Improvements throughout the entire site, to be issued by the City of Mountain View with the written approval of the Chief Building Official for the City of Palo Alto. The scope ofthe Building Official's review shall be, to ensure compliance with Palo Alto's regulations for diversion of demolition debris from landfills as set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 5.24. A condition of the Master Demolition Permit shall be that the remaining landscaping shall be maintained (weeded, trimmed, mowed, watered) until the site is redeveloped and access via roadways through the site shall remain open to the public following the demolition and prior to commencement of redevelopment. 3. Relocation of Outdoor Sculpture. Owner, at its sole expense, shall relocate the large metal outdoor sculpture ("Untitled; In Homage to My Father"), created by Bay Area artist Charles Ginnever, from its present location in Mountain View to a publicly visible and publicly accessible location on the Property in Palo Alto, near the intersection of "A venue B" and San Antonio Road. Within two years of the Effective Date and prior to the relocation of the sculpture, Owner shall finalize the landscaping plan for the sculpture's setting and submit the plan for final Public Art Commission review and staff level architectural review approval and to 6 090625 syn 0120356 address comments noted by the Architectural Review Board. The Owner shall then implement the Palo Alto Design Approval, in particular the site plan and landscaping plan, as it has been revised to accommodate the sculpture. 4. Green Building Ordinance Notwithstanding any provision(s) to the contrary herein, Owner shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 18.44 of the Zoning Ordinance ("Green Building Regulations") in effect at the time each building permit application is submitted 5. Effect of Agreement. 3.1 Supersedure by Subsequent State or Federal Laws or Regulations. If state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date are inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be deemed modified or superseded to the extent necessary to comply with the new state or federal laws or regulations. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, City may exercise its discretion to impose conditions upon any development approval for the Project which will enable the City to comply with any federal or state law, regulation, or mandate which is in effect at the time the approval is sought, provided that the conditions imposed (1) are necessary to comply with any federal or state law, regulations or mandate which is in effect at the time the approval is sought; and (2) are necessary to protect against a substantial threat to the City's health, safety and welfare. Owner shall have the right to challenge, in a court of competent jurisdiction, the law or regulation preventing compliance with the terms of this Agreement and, if the challenge is successful, this Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. 3.2 Future Exercise of Discretion by City. This Agreement shall not be construed to limit the authority or obligation of City to hold convenient or necessary public 7 090625 syn 0120356 hearings, to conduct all analyses required by CEQA, the State Planning Act, the Subdivision Map Act, City ordinances or any other applicable federal, state or local law or regulation. Furthennore, this Agreement does not limit the discretion of City or any of its officers or officials with regard to rules, regulations, ordinances or laws which require the exercise of discretion by any of its officers or officials, provided that the discretionary decisions reached are consistent with this Agreement. 4. Term. The tenn (IITennll) of this Agreement shall commence upon the Effective Date, which is the thirty first day after the date of adoption of ordinance No. __ , and shall automatically expire on February 26, 2014. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Owner or its successors in interest obtain and record a final subdivision map implementing the Palo Alto Design Approval before January 27, 2014, the Tenn automatically shall be extended, to expire on January 27,2017. 5. Development Fees, Assessments, Exactions, and Dedications. All Citywide fees, assessments, dedication fonnulae and taxes payable in connection with the development, construction, occupancy and use of the Project pursuant to this Agreement shall be those applicable to all similar developments in the City at the time of issuance of Project building pennits. Notwithstanding the foregoing general tenn and any interpretation of this Agreement to the contrary, the city-wide Palo Alto Parkland Dedication Fee, enacted by City after Owner's applications for the Palo Alto Design Approval were complete, shall not apply to the Project, due to Owner's more than adequate provision for dedicated public park and recreation facilities within the Project's design and conditions of approval. No other Project-specific fee, assessment, exaction or required dedication policy, not in effect on the Effective Date, shall be imposed on the Project, unless it is imposed unifonnly on all similar types of development 8 090625 syn 0120356 Citywide. This Agreement does not preclude imposition of new or increased fees or taxes on the Project subsequent to the Effective Date, other than the Parkland Dedication Fee, provided that the fees or taxes shall be imposed or increased on a Citywide basis. 6. Standard of Review of Ministerial Permits. All ministerial permits ("Permits") required by Owner to develop the Property, including (i) demolition permits; (ii) street and sidewalk construction permits; (iii) grading permits; (iv) building permits; and (v) certificates of occupancy, shall be issued by City after City'S review and approval of Owner's applications therefor, provided that City's review of the applications is limited to determining whether the following conditions are met: (a) The application is complete and includes payment of all applicable fees; (b) The application complies with all city, federal and state requirements normally administered by City; and (c) The application demonstrates that Owner has complied with the Palo Alto Design Approval as of the Effective Date hereof. 7. Cooperation in Implementation. City shall cooperate with Owner in a reasonable and expeditious manner, in compliance with the deadlines mandated by applicable statutes or ordinances, to complete all steps necessary for implementation of this Agreement and development of the Project in accordance herewith, in particular in performing the following functions: (a) Scheduling all required public hearings by the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission; and 9 090625 syn 0120356 (b) Processing and checking all maps, plans, land use permits, building plans and specifications and other plans relating to development of the Project filed by Owner or its nommees. Owner, in a timely manner, shall provide City with all documents, applications, plans and other information necessary for the City to carry out its obligations hereunder and to cause its planners, engineers and all other consultants to submit in a timely manner all necessary materials and documents. It is the parties' express intent to cooperate with one another and to diligently work to implement all land use and building approvals for development of the Project in accordance with the terms hereof. 8. Periodic review. 8.1 Annual Review. At the expense of Owner, City and Owner shall review all actions taken pursuant to the terms of this Agreement once annually, within sixty (60) days before the anniversary of the Effective Date, during each year of the Term unless the City and Owner agree in writing to conduct the review at another time. 8.2 Owner's Submittal. Within ninety (90) days before each anniversary ofthe Effective Date, Owner shall submit a letter ("Compliance Letter") to the City's Community Development Director, describing Owner's compliance with the terms of this Agreement during the preceding year. The Compliance Letter shall include a statement that the Compliance Letter is submitted to City pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 65865.1. 8.3 City's Findings. Within sixty (60) days after receipt of the Compliance Letter, the Community Development Director shall determine whether, for the year under review, Owner has demonstrated good faith substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Owner's failure timely to submit a Compliance Letter shall not affect the terms or 10 090625 syn 0120356 continuing binding effect of this Agreement. If the Community Development Director finds and determines that Owner has complied substantially with the terms of this Agreement, or does not determine otherwise within sixty (60) days after delivery of the Compliance Letter, the annual review shall be deemed concluded and this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Upon a determination of compliance, the Community Development Director shall issue at Owner's request a recordable certificate confirming Owner's compliance through the year(s) under review. Owner may record the certificate with the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office. If the Community Development Director initially determines the Compliance Letter to be inadequate in any respect, he or she shall provide written notice to that effect to Owner. If after a duly noticed public hearing thereon the City Council finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that Owner has not complied substantially in good faith with the terms of this Agreement for the year under review, the City Council shall give written notice thereofto Owner specifying the non-compliance. If Owner fails to cure the non-compliance within a reasonable period of time established by the City Council, the City Council, in its discretion, maya) grant additional time for Owner's compliance, or, following a public hearing on the matter, modify this Agreement to the extent necessary to remedy or mitigate the non-compliance, or b) terminate this Agreement. Except as affected by the terms hereof, the terms of the Development Agreement Statute shall govern the compliance review process to be followed by City. 9. Default and Remedies. 9.1 Default. Failure by either party to perform any material term or provision of this Agreement shall constitute a default hereunder, provided that the party alleging the default shall have given the other party advance written notice thereof and sixty (60) days within which to cure the condition or, if the nature thereof is such that it cannot be cured within that 11 090625 syn 0120356 time, the party receiving notice shall not be in default hereunder if the party commences to perform its obligations within the sixty (60) day period and thereafter diligently completes performance. Written notice shall specify in detail the nature of the ob1igation to be performed by the party receiving notice. 9.2 Remedies. Upon City's material default, Owner shall have all of the remedies available to Owner under California law, including the option to institute legal proceedings to specifically enforce, rescind or reform this Agreement. Upon Owner's material default in its obligations set forth in Section 6 hereof, City shall be entitled to initiate legal proceedings to specifically enforce, rescind, or reform the Agreement. Any such legal action by either party does not preclude that party from recovering damages or other judicial relief No action by either party during the Term hereof shall be deemed a waiver or release of any right to assert a claim for monetary damages from the other party. 10. Agreement to Amend or Terminate. City and Owner by mutual agreement may terminate or amend the terms of this Agreement, and the amendment or termination shall be accomplished in the manner provided under California law for the adoption of development agreements. If Owner or its successors in interest apply for amendments to this Agreement for the purpose of varying the physical design, number, location or other physical features of Project residences within any area subject to the Palo Alto Design Approval, City in its discretion may approve, conditionally approve or deny Owner's application, but the terms, conditions and approved designs of the other Development Areas defined in the Development Plan shall remain vested and not subject to amendment without Owner's consent. 11. Mortgagee Protection; Certain Rights of Cure. 12 090625 syn 0120356 11.1 Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to all liens placed upon the Property or portion thereof after the date on which a memorandum of this Agreement is recorded, including the lien of any deed of trust or mortgage ("Mortgage"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against all persons and entities, including all deed of trust beneficiaries or mortgagees ("Mortgagees") who acquire title to the Property or any portion thereof by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise. 11.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated. No foreclosing Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Agreement to construct or complete the construction of any improvements required in connection with this Agreement, or to pay for or guarantee construction or completion thereof. City, upon receipt of a written request therefor from a foreclosing Mortgagee, shall permit all Mortgagees to succeed to the rights and obligations of Owner under this Agreement, provided that all defaults by Owner hereunder that are reasonably susceptible of being cured are cured by the Mortgagee as soon as is reasonably possible. The foreclosing Mortgagee thereafter shall comply with all of the provisions of this Agreement. 11.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee. If City receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to Owner hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, City shall deliver to the Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereof to Owner, all notices given to Owner describing all claims by the City that Owner has defaulted hereunder. If City determines that Owner is in noncompliance with this Agreement, City also shall serve notice of noncompliance on the Mortgagee concurrently with service thereof on 13 090625 syn 0120356 Owner. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same period available to Owner to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the condition of default claimed or the areas of noncompliance set forth in City's notice. 12. Assignability. 12.1 Right to Assign. Owner may assIgn its rights to develop the Project pursuant to this Agreement without written consent by the City. Each successor in interest to Owner shall be bound by all of the terms and provisions hereof applicable to that portion of the Project acquired by it. Subject to the foregoing, this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' successors, assigns and legal representatives. The terms of this section 11.1 shall not restrict, prevent or otherwise affect Owner's ability to lease, sell or convey interests in the Property. This Agreement or a memorandum hereof shall be recorded by the City in the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office promptly upon execution hereof by both parties. 12.2 Covenants Run With The Land. During the Term of this Agreement, all of the provisions, agreements, rights, powers, standards, terms, covenants and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding unconditionally upon the parties and their respective heirs, successors (by merger, consolidation or otherwise) and assigns, devisees, administrators, representatives, lessees and all other persons or entities acquiring the Property, any lot, parcel or any portion thereof, and any interest therein, whether by sale, operation of law or other manner, and they shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors. This Agreement creates no personal obligations of Owner or its successors, but only obligations appurtenant to the Property. 13. General. 14 090625 syn 0120356 13.1 Construction of Agreement. The language in this Agreement in all cases shall be construed as a whole and in accordance with its fair meaning. The captions of the paragraphs and subparagraphs of this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered or referred to in resolving questions of construction. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 13.2 No Waiver. Subject to the provisions of Section 8.2, no delay or omission by the City in exercising any right or power accruing upon the noncompliance or failure to perform by Owner under the provisions of this Agreement shall impair any right or power or be construed to be a waiver thereof A waiver by City of any of the covenants or conditions to be performed by Owner or City shall not be construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach of the same or other covenants and conditions hereof 13.3 Agreement is Entire Agreement. This Agreement and all Exhibits attached hereto or incorporated herein comprise the sole and entire Agreement between the parties concerning the Project. The parties acknowledge and agree that neither of them has made any representation with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement or any representations inducing the execution and delivery hereof, except the representations set forth herein, and each party acknowledges that it has relied on its own judgment in entering this Agreement. The parties further acknowledge that all statements or representations that heretofore may have been made by either of them to the other are void and of no effect, and that neither of them has relied thereon in connection with its dealings with the other. 13.4 Estoppel Certificate. Either party from time to time may deliver written notice to the other party requesting written certification that, to the knowledge of the certifying 15 090625 syn 0120356 party (i) this Agreement is in full force and effect and constitutes a binding obligation of the parties; (ii) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or, if it has been amended or modified, specifying the nature of the amendments or modifications; and (iii) the requesting party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, describing therein the nature and monetary amount, if any, of the default. A party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return the certificate within thirty (30) days after receipt thereof. The Community Development Director of City shall have the right to execute the certificates requested by Owner hereunder. City acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by permitted transferees and Mortgagees. At the request of Owner, the certificates provided by City establishing the status of this Agreement with respect to any lot or parcel shall be in recordable form, and Owner shall have the right to record the certificate for the affected portion of the Property at its cost. 13.5 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but the counterparts together shall constitute only one Agreement. 13.6 Severability. Each provision of this Agreement which shall be adjudged to be invalid, void or illegal shall in no way affect, impair or invalidate any other provisions hereof, and the other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 13.7 Further Documents. Each party hereto agrees to execute all other documents or instruments necessary or appropriate to effectuate and implement this Agreement. 13.8 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of every covenant and obligation to be performed by the parties hereunder. 16 090625 syn 0120356 13.9 Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any dispute between the parties involving the covenants or conditions contained in this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable expenses, attorneys' fees and costs. "Prevailing party" shall include a party who brings an action against the other party after the other party's breach or default, if the action is settled or dismissed upon payment or performance by the other party of the matter allegedly due, or performance of the covenants allegedly breached, or if the plaintiff obtains substantially the relief sought by it in the action. 13.10 Indemnity. Each party shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the other party for all claims for damages of any kind arising from the indemnifying party's performance of this Agreement. 14. Notice. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, all notices and demands pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person, by commercial courier or by first-class certified mail, postage prepaid and return receipt requested. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, notices shall be considered delivered when personally served, or upon actual receipt if delivered by commercial courier or by mail. Notices shall be addressed as appears below for the respective parties; provided, however, that either party may change its address for purposes of this Section by giving written notice thereof to the other party: City: Owner: 090625 syn 0120356 City Clerk The City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 General Counsel Hewlett-Packard Company 3000 Hanover Street Palo Alto, California 94304 17 The provisions of this Section shall be deemed directive only and shall not detract from the validity of any notice given in a manner which would be legally effective in the absence of this Section. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Owner have caused this Agreement to be executed in one (1) or more copies as ofthe day and year first above written. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Interim Director of Planning and Community Development 090625 syn 0120356 18 "CITY" CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered municipal corporation Mayor "OWNER" HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation By: ______________________ __ Title: ----------------------- CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT (Civil Code § 1189) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF ) On ________ , before me, ________ , a notary public in and for said County, personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in hislher/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by hislher/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under penalty of peljury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. 19 090625 syn 0120356 CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT (Civil Code § 1189) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF ) On , before me, , a notary public in and for said County, personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in hislherltheir authorized capacity(ies), and that by hislherltheir signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person( s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. 20 090625 syn 0120356 EXHIBIT A 090708 syn 0120375 Tbe City of Palo Alto nNetS,2006-12..Q2 200 SanAntonio Zoom (\\oc.-map$.'<;jI8$'(jls\edmln\PeTsonel\rri>lera.mdb) EXHIBIT 1 Legend City Jurisdictional Limits: ('::,:! Palo Alto City Boundary c::J 200 San Antonio Ave (Project Site) abc Known Structures ~\1JIr~ William Kelly Parcel This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS 200 San Antonio Ave Project Area Map -. 0' 150' e graphic representation only of be${ ev&llebie souro&$. The City of Peb AJto asstMn8$OO responsibikty for any srtOt$ @1989!02008CltyofPaIoMo 200 San Antomo Avenue October 2008 [07PLN-OOOOO-00302] Page 2 of 16 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ]PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT 2 1. The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with plans dated received on April 3, 2008 as modified by these conditions of approvaL 2. The approval of Major Architectural Review shall not become effective until the City Council approves the Vesting Tentative Map. This condItion shall not effect the appeal period ofthe ARB approval. 3. The light standard at the guest parking spaces located adjacent to the existing Rosewalk development appears to cast light beyond the property boundary. This fixture must be shielded or relocated such that light does not spill beyond the property boundary. This requirement also applies to all other exterior light sources. 4. The applicant shall work with their design team and the appropriate city departments to ensure that required utility features are not visible on the outside of the buildings wherever possible. 5. All mitigations listed in the final EIR shall be implemented. 6. If the applicant is unable to secure the small City owned parcel adjacent to San Antonio Avenue the alternate plan show on page All shall be considered approved. 7. The proposed development is subject to Development Impact estimated at $360,675.00. The actual fees are due and will be calculated prior to building pennit Issuance. 8. No music is allowed to be played outdoors in the carwash area. 9. The carwash area shall have no electrical outlets such that cars may not be vacuumed in this location. 10. The plans submitted for building permit shall be revised to accurately show the cross walk across San Antonio Avenue at Nita Avenue. 11. The Build It Green Multifan1ily Green Point Rated Checklist shall be printed on the plans submitted for building pennit. 12. BMR Program Compliance: At the 15% BMR rate, the mimmum number of required BMR units is calculated as' 45 units x 15% 6.750 units. Rounded up 7 out of the 45 total units proposed for construction must be prOVIded as for-sale BMR units. 200 San Antonio Avenue October 22, 2008 [07PLN-OOOOO-00302] Page 3 of 16 13. The following items must come back to the ARB subcommittee for review prior to building pem1it issuance: f) Selection of an alternate street light standard; II) Simplification of the carwash structure; €I Reconsideration of the window material; e Reconsider the shape of the proposed horizontal windows; ® Simplification of the proposed entry wall. 14. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties")from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. UTILITIES MARKETING Prior to issuance of either a Building Permit or Grading Pem1lt, the landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by Utility Marketing Services, a division ofthe Utilities Department. Since landscape modifications for this project exceed 1,500 square feet, the applicant will need to comply with the City of Palo Alto's Landscape Efficiency Standards. Note that a maximum water allowance and a dedicated irrigation and backflow prevention device will be required. Due to the size ofthis project and it's proximity to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (serving both Mountain View and Palo Alto), consider installing purple pipe for the irrigation system. Although not mandatory requirement yet, the City is considering this amendment for all commercial and multi-family projects with over 1,500 square feet. To comply with the Landscape Efficiency Standards, please submit the following items when applying for your Building and/or Grading Permits: » Landscape Water Statement » Water Use Calculations » Irrigation Plan » Grading Plan » Planting Plan All documents and information to comply with the Landscape Water Efficiency Standards can be found on the City of Palo Alto Utilities website at \vww.cityofpaloa.lto.org/utll1ties. If you have any further questions, please contact 200 San Antomo Avenue October 22, 2008 [07PLN-00000-00302j 4 of 16 Amanda Cox with Utility Marketing Services at (650) 329-2417. In addition to planning a sustainable and water efficient landscape, applicants must work to minimize fertilizer applications and reduce stormwater runoff Consider the fonowing conditions at your project site: J. Landscaping shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration, and minimize the use of feliilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat stonnwater runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain, and infiltrate runoff In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolonged exposure to water shall be specified. 3. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. 4. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 5. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. UTILITIES ELECTRIC 1. A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all building permit applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal. Applicant to submit engineering design for on-site electrical utilities. Design shall include primary, secondary and service electrical facilities. Applicant is responsible for ensuring the voltage and flicker drops are within Nand CPAU limits. City staff will provide design standards to applicant's consultant. Design shall show trench routes, location ofpadmount distribution transfom1er(s) and electric meter locations. Design will be submitted to Utilities Engineering for review and approvaL 3 This project requires locations for padmount transfonners. The location of the padmount transformers shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. 4. A location for a padmount switch may be reqUIred at the comer of San Antonio and Whitney Avenue. Applicant shall consult with the Utilities Engineering to determine design requirements. 200 San Antonio A venue October 22, 2008 [07PLN-00000-00302] Page 5 of 16 5. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property as required by the City. 6. Applicant shall meet with the City'S Electric Engineering staff to determine the electric utility design requirements for equipment and associated substructure work. 7. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer's switchgear. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no Y2-inch size conduits are permitted. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. The design and installation shall also be according to the City standards. 8. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 9. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 10. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility's padmount transformer and the customer's main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 11. No more than four 750MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation oftransition cabinet will not be required. 12. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. 13. Proj ects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. Additional fees may be assessed for the reinforcement of offsite electric facilities. 14. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The 200 San Antonio A venue October 22, 2008 [07PLN -00000-00302 ] Page 6 of 16 Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Prior Ito issuance of a building permit 15. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. During construction 16. Contractors and developers shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of Public Works before in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 17. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 18. The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no Y2-inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer's expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. Utilities Rule & regulation #16. 19. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at a depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 20. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 21. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. 22, Prior to fabrication of electric switchboards and metering enclosures, the customer must submit switchboard drawings to the Electric Metering Department at 3201 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto 94303 for approval. The City requires compliance with all applicable EUSERC standards for metering and switchgear, 200 San Antonio Avenue October 22, 2008 [07PLN-00000-00302] Page 7 of 16 23. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energlZmg. After construction and prior to finalization 24. The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switchitransformer pads. Prior to issuance of building occupancy permit 25. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. 26. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 27. All fees must be paid. 28. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. Additional comments 29. Load calculations based on National Electrical Code must be submitted. 30. Extension of existing distribution lines or relocation of utilities (if feasible and required) will be at developer's expense. Developer must schedule a meeting with Utilities Engineering Department (650-566-4516/4535) and obtain all the engineering details prior to sUbmitting plans to the Building Department. 31. The electric utility will approve and maintain street light poles and fixtures thai are cunently in the City's inventory. No new styles of poles and/or fixtures shall be approved. 32. These are only preliminary comments and should not be construed as final review or approval for the proj ect. Utilities Engineering will provide detailed comments as well as cost estimate when plans are submitted to the Building Department for review and approval. The City recommends customers/developers to contact Utilities Engineering (650-566-4533/4516) and obtain Utilities Standards and Requirements prior to finalizing plans. BUILDING DIVISION 1. The plans submitted for the building permit shall include the Code Analysis on the cover sheet of plans The following code information for each building shall be provided: 200 San Antomo Avenue October 22. 2008 [07PLN -00000-00302] Page 8 of 16 <:) Type of Construction. e Occupancy Group Classification. e Allowable Floor Area. G) Actual Floor Area Analysis. 2. The lower floor (garage / ground) shall be classified as the first floor. Every occupant above the second floor shall have access to not less than two exits. This requirement applies regardless of the marmer in which each floor is labeled on the plans. The third floor within individual dwelling unit not exceeding 500 square feet may have access to only one exit Total gross floor area of third floor (500 sq/ft) shall include area of the stairway. 3. At least ten percent of the dwelling units shall be accessible to persons with disabilities. See CBC Section 11 02A. 3 for the requirements. 4. Provide accessible path oftravel to all common areas. 5. The plans submitted for building permit shall include all mechanical, electrical, and plumbing plans. M.E.P. plans shall not be deferred submittal. 6. A separate building permit shall be required for the construction of each building. 7. Due to the scale of the overall project, the applicant shall be required to utilize a 3Td party plan check agency to conduct the building code plan review. A list of the agencies approved by the City of Palo Alto is available at the Development Center. The City's Building plan check fees are reduced by 75% when a 3Td party plan check agency is utilized. 8. No wood burning fireplaces shall be constructed except as provided in P AMC Section 9.06. 9. An acoustical analysis shall be submitted and the plans shall incorporate the report's recommendations needed to comply with the sound transmissions requirements in CBC Appendix Chapter 12, Division llA 10. The plans submitted for each building permit shall include the full scope of the construction including utility installations, architectural, structural, electrical, plumbing and mechanical work associated with each proposed building. 11. The applicant shall be schedule and attend a pre-application meeting with Building Division staff to review the pennit application process and to verify that the pern1it application will comply with all of the foHowing conditions. 12. A separate grading permit shall be required for cut and/or fill grading exceeds 100 200 San Antonio A venue October 22, 2008 [07PLN-OOOOO-003 02 J Page 9 of 16 cubic yards and for other site development (such as landscaping, disabled access, site drainage, common sanitary sewers, water, electric utilities) of areas outside the perimeters of the buildings. The excavation of the basement parking garages is included as part of the building perulit and does not require a separate grading permit. 13. The location of each buildings' electrical service shall require prior approval by the Inspection Services Division and shall be located at an exterior location or in a room or enclosure accessible directly from the exterior. 14. The plans submitted for the building permits for the multi -unit residential buildings shall include allowable floor area calculations that relates the mixed occupancies to type of construction. 15. Tne plans submitted with the permit application for the shell building shall include the complete design for disabled access and exiting for entire site. 16. The project is located within a seismic hazard zone indicated on the State Geologist's Mountain View Quadrangle Map and is thus subject to the requirements of the California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA). As such, the building permit application shall include a geotechnical report that identifies any site specific seismic hazards and provides recommendations for their mitigation. Additionally, the report's recommendations shall be incorporated into the building designs. I)UBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Public streets: Avenue A and the portion ofvVhitney Drive in Palo Alto are designated as public streets. However, they do not meet Public Works' minimum standards for a collector street, which requires 5-foot wide sidewalks, 4.5-foot wide planter strips, 6-inch curbs, 8-ft parking lanes, and 12-ft drive lanes, adding up to a 60-foot wide right-of-way (ROW). We understand that Mountain View is requiring all of the streets on the Mountain View side of the development to be public and that they meet Mountain View's standards, which are a 56-ft wide ROW. The differences in the two city's standards are that Mountain View only requires 7-ft wide parking lanes and l1-ft wide drive lanes. Mountain View staff has informed Palo Alto staff that the requirement for all of the streetS in the development to be public is primarily due to the fact that the public will be using these streets to access the two public parks that are part of the development and it IS felt that the homeowner's association should not have to be responsible for the maintenance cost of these streets if they are being used by the public. Accordingly, Public Works will accept Avenue A and Whitney Drive as public streets with some adjustments to the proposed configuration ofthe streets. Specifically, the 3 bulbed-out ends of A venues A & B at the crosswalks are shown as 22-ft wide, but we require them to be 28-ft wide. The 24-ft wide section of Whitney Drive near the center island must be increased to 28-ft wide. 200 San Antomo Avenue October 22, 2008 [07PLN-OOOOO-00302j Page 10 of 16 After ARB approval 2. Subdivision maps: A tentative map and a final map are required for the proposed development. The applicant shall submit an application for a major subdivision with the Plmming Division along with the tentative map. The "Step One: Preliminary Parcel Map or Tentative Map" checklist must accompany the completed application. All existing and proposed dedications and easements must be shown on the map, A digital copy of the Final Map, in AutoCAD fonnat, shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering and shall confonn to North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD 1929 for vertical survey controls. The applicant should review the Subdivision Map Act to determine the mapping requirements for a subdivision that overlaps jurisdictions. It may be that one tentative map should be prepared for the entire subdivision that both Mountain View and Palo Alto approve rather than preparing separate tentative maps. Separate final maps, one for each jurisdiction, would be required, No grading or building permits wi]] be issued until the Final Map is recorded with the County Recorder. 3. Private access road: In order to ensure public access to the development through the underpass, the developer must acquire the private parcel on the west side of San Antonio A venue on which the access road to the underpass lies and then deed this parcel to the City of Palo Alto, The applicant will be required to upgrade the access road to City standards, including sidewalks, should the road currently not meet these standards. This work would be included in the improvement plans, 4, Improvement plans: After approval of the Major Architectural Review, the applicant shall arrange a meeting with the Public Vv'orks Engineering, Public Works Operations, Water/Gas/Wastewater Engineering, Electric Engineering, Plarming, Transportation, and the Fire Department to discuss what on-site and off-site public improvements will be required, Typical improvements may include the upgrading of public utilities; replacement of the sidewalk, curb & gutter along the frontages of the site, including the installation of curb ramps and street trees; and the resurfacing, restriping and signage of the streets along the project frontage, 5. Underpass retrofits: The improvement plans must include the structural retrofits of the underpass that were recommended in the structural evaluation perfonned by Peoples Associates, Also, the applicant shall make repairs to the underpass' road surface, sidewalks, gutters and stonn drain, "Low clearance" signage shall be installed on both approaches to the underpass, The final map cannot be submitted for review until tbe improvement plans have been submitted, reviewed and preliminarily approved by tbe City. 200 San Antonio Avenue October 22, 2008 [07PLN-00000-00302] Pagellof16 6. Developer's project manager: The subdivision includes significant complexity involving coordination of infrastructure design and construction. The developer shall appoint a Project Manager to coordinate with Planning, Public Works and Utility Department staff. Public Works will have regular communication with the Project Manager in order to facilitate timely review and approval of design and construction. Prior to Council approval of final map 7. Subdivision improvement agreement: A subdivision improvement agreement is required to secure compliance with the conditions of approval and security ofthe onsite and offsite public improvements. The agreement must be finalized prior to City Council approving the Final Map. 8. Bonds: The subdivider shall post securities, typically payment and performance bonds, prior to City Council approval of the Final Map to guarantee the completion of the onsite and offsite public improvements. The applicant must submit a construction cost estimate for the onsite and offsite public improvements. The amount ofthe bonds shall be determined by the Planning, Utilities and Public Works Departments after reviewing the plans and the estimate. Include in submitta1 for Building permit 9. Grading & excavation permit: A Grading and Excavation Permit is required for the project. A grading penuit only authorizes grading and storm drain improvements, therefore, the following note shall be included on each grading permit plan sheet: "This grading permit will only authorize general grading and installation of the stornl drain system. Other building and utility improvements are shown for reference information only and are subject to separate building permit approval." No utility infrastructure should be shown inside the building footprints. 10. Storm drains: The existing municipal storm drainage system in the area is undersized and may be unable to convey the peak runoff from the project site. The applicantmay be required to provide storm water detention on-site to lessen the project's impact on city storm drains. The applicant's engineer shall provide storm drain flow and detention calculations, including pre-project and post-project conditions. The calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. Alternatively, the Palo Alto-side storm water may be collected and discharged into the Mountain View storm drain system. It is Palo Alto staffs understanding that Mountain View staff has reviewed and approved this scenario. 11. C3: This project is required to meet the Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.11 and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board's revised provision C.3 for storm water regulations that apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet of impervious surface. These regulations require that the proj ect incorporate a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment 200 San Antonio A venue October 22, 2008 [07PLN-00000-00302j Page 12 of 16 controls that serve to protect storm water quality. The applicant will be required to calculate, develop and incorporate permanent stornl water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavers rather than mechanical measures that require long-term maintenance) to treat a specified percentage of site runoff. The C.3 measures are included on the grading and drainage plan. Public Works charges $750 (currently) to review C.3 calculations and plans. The applicant must designate a party, typIcally the homeowner's association, to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City. The maintenance agreement and shall be in the form of a covenant running with the land. The agreement shall provide access to the extent allowable by law for representatives or agents of the City for the purposes of verification of proper operation and maintenance of specific C.3 measures. The agreement must be entered into and recorded prior to Public Works' inspector signing off on building permits. The CC&R's should include provisions for maintenance of the C.3 measures. Information regarding storm water control measures can be found on the web at these addresses: http://www .cabmphC!Dc.ibooks.org/Developm ent. asp http://www.scvurppp.org/ 12. Survey datum: Plans shall be prepared using North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD 1929 for vertical survey controls throughout the design process. 13. }i"inal grading & drainage plan: The plans shall include a final grading and drainage plan prepared by a licensed professionaL This plan shall show existing and proposed spot elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, shall be maintained. Downspouts and splash blocks should be shown on this plan. Public Works encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. 14, SWPPP: This proposed development will disturb more than one acre ofland. Accordingly, the applicant must apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) :NPDES general perulit for storm water discharge associated with construction activity. A Notice of 11ltent (NOl) must be filed for this project with the SWRCB in order to obtain coverage under the permit. The General Permit requires the applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Depalirnent for review and approval prior to issuance ofthe building pernlit. SWPPP should include both permanent, post-development project design features and temporary measures employed during construction to control storm water pollution. 200 San AntOnIO Avenue October 22, 2008 [07PLN-00000-00302] Page 13 of 16 15. Impervious surface area: The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building pern1it application. For multi-family residential properties, a StOID1 Drainage Fee will be assessed on the monthly City utility bill in the month following the final approval ofthe construction by the Building Inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets and instructions are available from Public Works Engineering and on the division's website: http://www .cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pwd/foID1s --'permits. asp 16. Storm water sheet: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention -It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at the Development Center or on our website: http://www.cityoipaloalto.org/depts/pwd/forms--'permits.asp. 17. Dewatering: Add the following note to the plans, "If dewatering any excavation becomes necessary during excavation or construction, all construction must stop and the contractor must prepare and submit a dewatering plan to Public Works Engineering. If acceptable, the plan will be included in a Permit for Construction in the Public Street. The contractor will be required to pay a dewatering fee. The dewatering system can then be installed, but must be inspected and approved by Public Works' inspectors prior to commencing dewatering and resuming construction." Alternatively, the applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set to help expedite this process. Dewatering guidelines are available on Public Works' website. 18. Work in the right-or-way: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is to be conducted in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk, driveway approach, curb, gutter or utility lateral work. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per Public Works' standards and that the contractor perfoID1ing this work must first obtain a Permit for Construction in the Public Street ("street work permit") from Public Works at the Development Center. 19. Street trees: Show all street trees in the public right-of-way. Include street tree protection details in the plans. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement installation within 10 feet of a street tree, must be approved by Public Works' arborist, Eric Krebs (phone: 650-496-6905). This approval shall appear on the plans. Prior to construction 20. Street work permit: A Permit for Construction in the Public Street ("street work pennit") must be obtained by the general contractor to cover all work performed in the public right-of-way. All construction within the right-of-way, easements or other propeliy under City jurisdiction shall conform to the standard specifications and 200 San Antonio Avenue October 22, 2008 [07PLN-OOOOO-00302] Page 14 of 16 details of the Public Works and Utility Departments. Typically, the off-site public improvement plan set is used for this permit. The fee for a street work permit is 5% of the construction cost of the improvements. 21 . Logistics plan: A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing al1 impacts to the public and shall include, as applicable: work hours, noticing of affected businesses and residents, construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, contractors' parking, truck routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic controL All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto's Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map, which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. A handout describing these and other requirements for a construction logistics plan is available from Public Works Engineering. The construction logistics plan is attached to the street work permit. During construction 22. Inspection: The contractor must contact Public Works' Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. Prior to Public Works acceptance 23. Storm drain logo: The applicant is required to paint "No Dumping/Flows to Bay (or creek's name)" in blue on a white background adjacent to all onsite stom1 drain inlets. The name of the creek to which the proposed development drains can be obtained from Public Works Engineering or the City of Mountain View. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. The applicant is required to install thermoplastic logos adjacent to all off-site storm drain inlets that are located in the public right-of-way and affected by the project. The thermoplastic logos may be obtained from the Public Works Inspector. 24. Record drawings: At the conclusion of the project applicant shall provide digital as- built/record drawings of all improvements constructed in the public right-of-way or easements in which the City owns an interest. The digital files shall conform to North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD 1929 for vertical survey controls. In addition, a digital copy of any project parcel map, subdivision map, or certificate-of-compliance shall also be provided. All files should be delivered in AutoCad fom1at. 25. Signoff: The Public Works' Inspector shall sign-offthe building permit prior to the final sign-off by the Building Division. All as-builts, on-site grading, drainage and post-developments BMP's shall be completed prior to sign-off. The maintenance agreement for the C.3 measures must be entered into and recorded prior to the 200 San Antonio A venue October 22,2008 [07PLN-OOOOO-00302] Page 15 of 16 inspector's sign-off ofthe building permit. The work in the Permit/or Construction in the Public Street must be completed and the Public Works' lDspector must sign off this pennit prior to signing off the building permit PUBLIC WORKS WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT prior to plan approval by this department: 1. P AMC 16.09.032(B)(17) Covered Parking Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system 2. PAMC 16.09.106(1) Carwash Required Residential buildings with 25 or more units provide a covered carwash area for vehicle washing by residents. The carwash area is required to drain to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer. 3. PAMe 16.09.115(a) Pools, Spas or Fountains It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas or fountains to the storm drain system. 4. PAMC 16.09.032(15) Swimming pool discharge drains shall not be connected directly to the storm drain system or to the sewer system. When draining is necessary, a hose or other temporary system shall be directed into a sewer (not stonn drain system) clean out. A sewer clean out shall be installed in a readily accessible area. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. Overhead clearance at main vehicular entry shall be not less than 13 ft., 6 in. high. 2. Site address to prominently posted next to the driveway access to the property. (2001 CFC90 1 ) 3. Hydrants shall be placed at locations not 10 exceed 125 feet from any point along the fire vehicle access. Fire access road for 20 in each direction from fire hydrant shall be not less than 26 feet in width. (PAMC15.04.140) 4. A sprinkler system shall be provided which meets the requirements ofl\fFP A Standard No. l3R, 2002 Edition. (P AMC15.04.160) Fire Sprinkler system installations or modifications require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC15.04.083) 5. An exterior bell shall be provided, and an approved audible sprinkler flow alaml to alert the occupants shall be provided in the interior of each building in approved locations. (2001 CBC904. 3. 2)Fire Alarm system installations or modifications require separate submittal to the Prevention Bureau. (P AJ'vlC15.04.083) 200 San AntonIO A venue October 22, 2008 [07PLN-00000-00302] Page 16 of 16 6. All sprinkler drains, including those for floor control valves and inspector's test valves, as well as the main drain, shall not discharge within the building. Water discharged from these points shall be directed to an approved landscape location or to the sanitary sewer system. (99NFPAI3, Sec. 5-14.2.4.3) NOTE: Please check with Roland Ekstrand in Utilities for maximum flow capacity of sanitary sewer in the area. Main Drain test discharge flow rate shall be impounded and attenuated to below sanitary sewer capacity before discharge. The approval will become effective 14 days from the postmark date of this letter, unless an appeal is filed in accordance with Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This project approval shall be effective for one year from November 6, 2008, within which time construction of the project shall have commenced. Application for extension may be made prior to the expiration on November 6, 2009. The time period for a project may be extended once for an additional year by the Director of Planning and shall be open to appeal at that time. In the event the building permit is not secured for the project within the time limits specified above, the Architectural Review Board approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. If you have any questions regarding the amount ofthe development fees or the nature of the dedications, reservations or exactions imposed in connection with your project, please call. Should you have any questions regarding this ARB action, please do not hesitate to call me at (650)617-3119. Sincerely, ~"" .)::;~"7:/C~:~/c Russ Reich Senior Planner Attachment: A. ARB Findings B. Findings C. Variance Findings ATTACHMENT C PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: Amy French Manager of Current Planning AGENDA DATE: May 27, 2009 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment SUBJECT: 200 San Antonio Avenue: Request by Hewlett Packard for approval of a Development Agreement extending the Architectural Review and the Vesting Tentative Map (with exceptions) approvals for five years and providing additional project benefits of the approved 45-unit townhome development in the ROLM and RM-30 Zone Districts. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report has been adopted in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. Zoning District: ROLM and RM-30. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving the Development Agreement, Attachment A. SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION Development Agreement The requested action is a recommendation to City Council to approve the Development Agreement extending the ARB approval for the 45-unit housing project and Council approval of the associated Vesting Tentative Map beyond the time frames identified in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, to be consistent with the expiration of approvals for development within the Mountain View portion of the housing project. As a part of the extension, the agreement provides for additional project benefits: the relocation of a large sculpture from Mountain View into Palo Alto and project compliance with Palo Alto's green building ordinance requirements for multiple family residential projects. The Development Agreement includes Exhibit 1, which provides information regarding why the applicants found it necessary to submit this application, which was filed on February 17, 2009. The Development Agreement notes that the owner shall comply with and perform all of the conditions of approval embodied in the ARB and vesting City of Palo Alto Page 1 2 tentative subdivision map approvals. Staff reports and meeting minutes from the January 14, 2009 Commission, February 9,2009 Council and April 17,2008 ARB meetings are available on the City's website to provide further background information on the approved project and vesting tentative map. Environmental Review The Environmental hnpact Report (EIR) prepared by the City of Mountain View for the project included analysis of both Palo Alto's 4.9 acre portion (shown in yellow on Attachment H) and the larger portion of the project in Mountain View. The EIR was certified by the City of Mountain View in June 2006. The EIR was adopted by Palo Alto's Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) in conjunction with the Architectural Review approval on October 22,2008. A compact disk of the EIR was provided to the Commission prior to its January 14, 2009 consideration of the Vesting Tentative Map, for which an application to create four parcels was filed on August 15, 2008. Vesting Tentative Map On February 9,2009, the City Council approved the Vesting Tentative Map with Exceptions for creation of the four parcels, two of which would be smaller than the required minimum lot size of one acre. The Council's Record of Land Use Action on the map is included as Attachment C to this report. Attachment D is an image of the Vesting Tentative Map. The Vesting Tentative Map would expire two years after approval, or February 9, 2011, unless a Final Map is submitted and approved compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 21.16 and submitted to the City Engineer (pAMC Section 21. 16.01O[aJ), or unless the Vesting Tentative Map is extended by the City Council up to five years beyond the expiration. With a Development Agreement approval, the map may be extended for the period of time specified in the agreement, but not beyond the duration of the agreement (pursuant to Subdivision Map Act Article 2.5, commencing with Section 65864, of Chapter 4 of Division 1). Architectural Review Approval The Architectural Review Board (ARB) application, which involved the site design, architecture, and Design Enhancement Exceptions for the 45 residential units and public streets, was filed on October 1,2007. On April 17, 2008, the ARB reviewed and recommended approval, prior to the July 2008 effective date of the green building ordinance for multiple family residential projects. The Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) approved the ARB application on October 22, 2008, once the below market residential agreement had been finalized. The ARB approval letter (Attachment B) includes condition #2, which notes that the ARB approval would not become effective until Council approval of the Vesting Tentative Map (February 9,2009). Therefore, ARB approval would expire February 9,2010, with an additional extension to February 9,2011 allowable subject to the Director's approval, unless a building permit is issued prior to the expiration. There are five items required to be reviewed by a subcommittee of ARB members prior to issuance of building permit, as set forth in condition of approval #13. Relocation of Ginnever Sculpture The Development Agreement includes item #3, Relocation of Outdoor Sculpture. Staff learned of the applicant's proposal to include within the agreement the relocation ofthe Ginnever sculpture to an approved landscaped area in Palo Alto next to the approved recreation building in Mountain View. On April 2, 2009, the ARB conducted a study session to review the proposed City of Palo Alto Page 2 location of the sculpture, currently located within the Mountain View, and provided comments. A copy ofthe ARB study session report is provided (Attachment F) along with a location map, preliminary site plan and landscape perspective (Attachment J, for Commission only). The ARB recommended the sculpture be more accessible from the streets in the development (Avenues A and B) and that the "wall" of redwood trees be modified to allow additional sunlight into the space and that the orientation of the sculpture be carefully studied. On April 16, 2009, the Public Art Commission conducted a study session to review the proposed location of the sculpture and requested that the applicant return for a final review of detailed plans to ensure proper placement. Development Agreement Procedures and Requirements Resolution No. 6597 (Attachment E) establishes procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements. Development Agreements are considered to be a legislative act approved by ordinance and subject to referendum. Resolution No. 6597 authorizes the City to enter into a development agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property within the City for the development ofthe property. It sets forth the process as review by the Commission and Council, with noticing requirements and notes that approval by Council requires a finding that the provisions of the agreement are consistent with the City's general plan and any applicable specific plan. Resolution No. 6597 requires the Director to review the development agreement every 12 months to ensure the applicant or successor in interest is demonstrating good faith compliance with the terms of the agreement. Section 8 of the resolution states that if the Director finds the agreement has not been complied with or has resulted in dangers to health and safety matter, the Director may refer to the Commission and Council for consideration at a public hearing the agreement's termination or modification of the agreement's provisions. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES As noted in Exhibit 1, attached to the Development Agreement (Attachment A), the City of Mountain View's development agreement allows for an initial term of five years, extended by another three years upon the issuance of a Final Subdivision Map. The applicant wishes to provide this assurance to potential buyers of the combined properties who may wish to execute a final map and develop the entire site as approved by both public agencies. The City of Palo Alto's approval ofthe ARB application may be extended by the Director until February 9, 2011 without Development Agreement approval. As noted on page 7 ofthe proposed Development Agreement, the "Agreement is to commence upon the Effective Date, 30 days after the enactment of the agreement and automatically expires upon the 5th anniversary of the Effective Date", The tentative date for City Council review has been set for July 6,2009, with second reading then set for July 20. If August 19,2009 (30 days past July 20,2009) becomes the Effective Date, the applicant would need to record a final map prior to August 19, 2014 in order to be able to extend the ARB approval to August 19,2017. This date is six years and six months beyond the extended expiration available to the applicant under the existing regulations set forth in Chapter 18.77 ofthe Palo Alto Municipal Code. Per the City's regulations, building permits would have to be issued prior to August 19,2017, as long as the Final Map is recorded with the County of Santa Clara prior to August 19,2014. Neither the Improvement Plans, nor the application for a Final Map, have been submitted for City of Palo Alto Page 3 City review. Nonnally, these documents would be submitted and executed within two years of the Council's approval ofthe Vesting Tentative Map. Without a Development Agreement in place, prior to the expiration ofthe Vesting Tentative Map (February 9,2011), the applicant could request an extension ofthe expiration and the Vesting Tentative Map could be extended by City Council up to five years beyond the initial two years as set forth in the Subdivision Map Act. If extended five years beyond the initial two years by Council action other than a Development Agreement, the fmal map would have to be recorded by February 9,2016. As noted above, the Development Agreement (page 7) states that the final map must be recorded prior to August 19, 2014 in order for the ARB approval to remain in effect until August 19, 2017. Demolition The Development Agreement includes item #2, Demolition of Obsolete Improvements, which notes that following the Effective Date of the Development Agreement, the owner is authorized to demolish all of the non-residential buildings and other improvements that are inconsistent with Palo Alto approvals and that Mountain View will issue a master demolition pennit. Additional wording was included to ensure compliance with the City's demolition debris diversion requirements (pAMC Chapter 5.24), and to ensure maintenance of public access and landscaping to remain after demolition and prior to commencement of redevelopment. Maintenance of the access is important since pedestrians from Palo Alto currently use the underpass through the site to access the Caltrain station and the shopping center in Mountain View. Final Review of Sculpture Setting The Development Agreement includes a requirement that the final plans for development ofthe sculpture's setting be submitted for staff architectural review and Public Art Commission review within two years ofthe Effective Date of the Development Agreement. Green Building Requirements The approved ARB application included an applicant letter dated October 1, 2007 committing to "sustainable construction" along with a Multifamily GreenPoint Checklist noting an intended 77 points (Attachment 1). At the time it was submitted, the checklist was required to create a complete application, but the mandatory green building regulations (P AMC Chapter 18.44) were not in effect until July 2, 2008. Therefore, the project was not subject to mandatory regulations. Currently, multiple family residential developments of over 30 units are required to submit a LEED for neighborhoods checklist for ARB evaluation and Director's approval. However, such projects are not currently required to register the project with the U.S. Green Building Council's processing agency to ensure the project achieves certification. The Development Agreement includes a requirement that the developer meet the City's Green Building requirements in effect at the time building permit applications are submitted. Additional Benefits to City There is no requirement stated within Resolution 6597 for an applicant to propose and the City to detennine adequacy prior to accepting the additional benefits (sculpture and green building) offered in conjunction with a Development Agreement. The Development Agreement tenns ensure that the new owner pay the rate in effect at the time of the issuance of building pennits for the applicable Development Impact Fees, which are the Community Facilities Fees (libraries, community centers and parks). The Development Agreement does state that any new types of City of Palo Alto Page 4 impact fees that may be proposed and adopted after the Effective Date of the Development Agreement would not be applicable to the project. This is consistent with practice of imposing the type of impact fees applicable at the time of planning entitlements, payable at the rates in effect at Building Permit issuance. William Kelly Parcel When the Mayfield Mall was developed, an underpass was constructed beneath San Antonio Avenue that provides vehicle access to westbound San Antonio A venue to avoid installing a left tum at the Nita and San Antonio Avenue intersection. As a result of this earlier development there is a piece of privately owned land (the William Kelly parcel) where the current roadway sits. The conditions of the Vesting Tentative Map include that the William Kelly parcel shall be acquired by Toll Brothers and dedicated to the City of Palo Alto prior to the approval of the Final Map. Although this condition specified "Toll Brothers", it is intended to be applicable to the new owner ofthe Hewlett Packard property. The Draft Development Agreement includes wording to ensure this and other conditions specific to the previous applicant apply to the owner or owner's successor. The City has begun the process of accepting the property. A level 1 hazardous materials investigation is underway, and upon its completion, the parcel acquisition will come before the City Council for consideration. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Attachment G provides relevant Comprehensive Plan Policies and comments on the development project's conformance as included in the staff report to the ARB for their review and recommendation. By extending the time for compliance with the project approvals, the Development Agreement will provide certainty that the project can be developed and used in accordance with the approved plans consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Development Agreement provides public benefits that could not otherwise be obtained, including the inclusion of a public sculpture and the applicant's compliance with the Green Building Ordinance, which was adopted subsequent to project approval. Finally, resources of staff and reviewing bodies that would have to be expended on re-reviewing re-submitted applications after expiration of permits will be conserved. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Prior to Architectural Review approval of the multi-family development, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared. Because most of the project lies within the City of Mountain View, that city served as the lead agency for the document. The EIR was adopted by Mountain View in June of2006. It was provided to the Commissioners in compact disc (CD) format prior to the January 14, 2009 Commission meeting to recommend the Vesting Tentative Map. TIMELINE Action: Environmental Impact Report Adopted: ARB application received: Director's approval of the ARB application: Vesting Tentative Map Application Received: Vesting Tentative Map Application Deemed Complete: Action by Council on Tentative Map: Development Agreement application received: City of Palo Alto Date: June, 2006 October 1, 2007 October 22, 2008 August 15,2008 November 24, 2008 February 9, 2009 February 17, 2009 PageS ATTACHMENTS A. Development Agreement, and Exhibit I (Memorandum dated March 25, 2009*) B. ARB approval letter with findings and conditions C. Approved Record of Land Use Action for Vesting Tentative Map D. Vesting Tentative Map image* E. Resolution No. 6597 Establishing Procedures and Requirements for the Consideration of Development Agreements F. ARB Study Session Report regarding Sculpture Relocation G. Comprehensive Plan Table H. Project Area Map for 200 San Antonio Avenue I. Applicant Correspondence dated October 1, 2007, MultiFamily Green Point Checklist* 1. Sculpture Location plan set (Commissioners Only)* *Prepared by applicant; others prepared by staff. COURTESY COPIES Penny ElIson Jo Price, Toll Brothers Peter Gilli, City of Mountain View Frank Pedraza, Hewlett Packard Prepared by: Amy French, Manager of Current Planning W . Reviewed by: Julie Caporgno, Chief Planning and Transportation Officia~ Department/Division Head Approval: ~ W~ Curtis Williams, Interim Director City of Palo Alto Page 6 October 22, 2008 Jo Price 2560 North First Street, Suite 102 San Jose, CA 95131 City Palo Alto Department oj Planning and Cornmunity Environment Attachment B Subject: 200 San Antonio Avenue [07PLN-00000-00302] Dear Ms. Price: On Thursday, April 1 2008, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the application (07PLN-00000-00302) and recommended approval with conditions to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. On Wednesday October 22, 2008, the Director of Planning and Community Environment conditionally approved the project and adopted the associated Environmental Impact Report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request by Toll Brothers on behalf of Hewlett Packard for a Major Architectural Review Board review of a 4S-unit mUltiple family housing development. The proposal includes requests for a Design Enhancement Exception for encroachments into setbacks, and a Variance for encroachments into a special setback, and to provide a seven foot screen wall exceeding the allowable height. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental . Impact Report was prepared and certified by the City of Mountain View in June, 2006. Zone District: ROLM, FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 1. The approval is based upon the project's compliance with the attached ARB, Variance and DEE findings, 2. Approval of this project shall be subject to the conditions listed below. Planning 250 Hamilton Avenue PO. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2 441 650.329.2154 TransportatIon 250 Hanulton Avenue PO. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2520 650.617.3108 Building 285 Hamilton Avenue PO. Box 10250 Palo CA 94303 650.329.2496 6503292240 ATTACHMENT A ARB J;'INJI}ING§ FOR APPROV AlL 200 Antomo A venue 07PLN-00000-00302 The design and architecture of the proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as specified in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMe. (1). The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city's Comprehensive Plan in that the site is designated for research/office park which allow multifamily residential uses. The proposed density is 13 du/acre and is on the lower end of the scale of allowable density within the multiple family residential land use designation, which specifies a range of 8 to 40 dulacre. (2). The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the proposed development is located adjacent to existing multifamily residential development and is pari of a larger housing development proposed across the city boundary in Mountain View. (3). The design is appropnate to the function of the project in that the design would adequately serve the residents of the townhomes. (4). In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character Or historical character, the design is compatible with such character. Not applicable due to the fact that this area does not have a unified or historical design character. (5). The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses in that the site would serve as a transition between existing, multi-family uses and single family residences adjacent to the project site. (6). The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site in that this project is a residential infill development that will seamlessly tie into the larger housing development proposal in Mountain View. (7). The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community in that the proposed layout creates an enhanced pedestrian environment by providing sidewalks that are separated from the street with landscape medians filled with rows of street trees and has building entries oriented to the street. Buildings are purposefully onented to engage the streetscape while providing convenient access for both vehicles and pedesllians. (8). The amount and anangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures in that the buildings and streets have been situated to provide ample room for landscape material between the buildings and the public rights of way. (9). Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project in that there will be adequate onsite visitor vehicle and bicycle parking and a covered car wash facility. (l0). Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in that pedestrian pathways throughout the' site have been proposed in addition to a continuous street circulation for vehicles and bicycles, which all link to the existing public street and sidewalk network. (11). Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project in that the primary natural features on-site the trees -have been preserved where possible and that a comprehensive tree inventory has been developed to integrate the development with the existing trees. The removal of many of these trees is supportable given the condition and location of the existing trees and the fact that there are many replacement trees that would be planted as mitigation. (12). The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function in that an appropriate colors and materials palette has been chosen, as well as a variety of tree and plant materials to enliven the site and to provide adequate buffer for the surrounding properties. (13). The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment in that project incorporates landscape materials where appropriate which would provide screening and shading for the units, the common open space areas, the surface parking areas, and the roadways. The selected plant species are appropriate to the scale of the project. (14). Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. The selected plant species are a combination of California native plants with exotic and ornanlental species which have low maintenance and water use requirements. (15). The project exhibits green building and sustainable design that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recyc]ed content materials. The following considerations should be included in site and building design: '" Optimize building orientation for heat gam, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation; • Design landscaping to create comfOliable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects; • Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access; <> Maximize on site stornlwater management through landscaping and permeable paving; <> Use sustainable building materials; o Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy and water use; '" Create healthy indoor environments; and <) Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments, The applicant has provided the Build It Green Multifamily Green Point Checklis't demonstrating that they have earned 77 points, exceeded the 50 point minimum standard for consideration as a green horne, (16). The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review, which is to: (1). Promote orderly and harmonious development in the city; (2). Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city; (3). Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements; (4). Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas; and (5). Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other. The design is consistent for all of the reasons and findings enumerated above, ATTACHMENT B DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION FINDINGS 200 San Antonio Avenue File No. 07PLN-00000-00000-00302 The requested Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE) are consistent with the following findings as stated in PAMe 18.76.050 (c). Section 18.76.050 provides for Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE) to pennit mmor exceptions to site development regulations. The following Design Enhancement Exceptions are requested: 1. A six foot encroachment into the required 16 foot street side yard at building # two. A 10 foot encroachment into the required 16 loot street side yard setback at building # three. 3. A nine foot encroachment into the required 20 foot front yard setback at building # four. 4. A three foot encroachment into the required 16 foot side yard at building # nine. 5. A three foot encroachment into the required 16 foot street side yard setback at building # 10. 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district, in that: The project site is a uniquely located infill residential development. The two parcels that would result are oddly configured in order to maintain the intemal street grid pattem of the unified master plan for the entire project that spans the Palo Alto and Mountain View borders. The site is further complicated by the location of the existing intersection of Nita Avenue and San Antonio Avenue. To link San Antonio Avenue with V.,lhitney Drive in Mountain View, Nita Avenue must bend to make the connection without relocating the existing intersection. The site is further complicated by the bend in San Antonio Avenue that narrows the site at the south end resulting in a more triangular shape. The granting of these Exceptions will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of Title 18 and the standards for review set forth in this Chapter, in that: The granting of the exceptions will improve the neighborhood character by allowing for adequate green spaces around the buildings while maintaining adequate setbacks from existing residential uses, At building #2 and #3 the encroachments allow the buildings to provide pedestrian friendly covered entry porches and maintain a maximum setback from the existing Rosewalk town homes and the single family residences in Mountain View. The encroachments at buildings nine and ten also allow the location of covered entry porches that enhance the pedestrian environment of the neighborhood. 3. The Exception is related to a site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvement in the site vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience, in that: The requested DEE will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvement in the site vicinity as the exceptions are relatively minor in scope and are internal to the project. The encroachments do not occur adjacent to existing uses and would enhance the development of the site. ATTACHMENT C V ARIANCE FINDINGS 200 San Antonio Avenue Toll Brothers Mayfield Townhorne Development File No. 07PLN-00000-00302 Variances may be granted for setbacks and Palo Alto Municipal Code, height per section 17.76.030(b) of the The following variances are requested: 1. 3. Fence variance to exceed the allowable fence height of four feet by a maxImum of for a total height of seven Two foot encroachment into the required 25 foot arterial street setback at building # Seven foot encroachment into the required 25 foot arterial street setback at building # seven. 4. Five foot encroachment into the required foot arterial street setback at building # eight. 5. Ten foot encroachment into the required foot arterial street setback at building #11. 6. Seven foot encroachment into the required 25 foot arterial street setback at building # 12 (1) Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject properties, including (but not limited to) shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict applicatwn of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such properties of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject properties. The lots are inegularly shaped and located adjacent to a busy arterial street. Because San The project SIte is a uniquely located infill residential development. The two parcels that would result are oddly configured in order to maintam the internal street grid pattern of the unified plan for the entire project that spans the Palo Alto and Mountain View is further complicated by the location of the existing intersection of Nita Avenue and San Antonio Avenue. To link San Antonio Avenue with Whitney Drive in Mountain View, Nita Avenue must bend to make the cOlllection without relocating the eXIstmg mtersection. The site is further complicated by the bend in San Antonio Avenue that narrows the site at the south end resulting in a more triangular shape. (2) The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance wzth the regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limztations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property, and The granting of the application is necessary to grant relief from the setbacks because of the special circumstances of the two parcels. The proposed density of 45 units is far below the allowable density of 120 units and the exceptions do not impart additional development rights or privileges beyond what is allowed. (3) The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning), and The exceptions allow the orderly implementation of the master plan within both Palo Alto and Mountain View, providing the ability to create a cohesive neighborhood. The exceptions also allow the preservation of tree # 50 a large mature Evergreen Ash located prominently at the entrance to the development. (4) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or mjunous to property or improvements in the vzcinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The encroachments occur along San Antonio A venue where a six to seven foot high screen wall would be located. This would be a decorative wall softened with shrubs and vines. The encroaching buildings would be further obscured from the roadway by the dense row of existing stone pines and new tree plantings. APPROVAL NO. 2008-11 RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 200 SAN ANTONIO AVENUE: VESTING TENTATIVE MAP WITH EXCEPTIONS 08PLN-00000-00262 (TOLL BROTHER'S INC, APPLICANT) Attachment C At its meeting on February 9, 2009, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Vesting Tentative Map with Exceptions to subdivide four parcels (approx. 4.89 acres) into four reconfigured parcels, which would be developed into 45 residential condominium units on two of the four lots, and create a new public street, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council U ) finds, determines, and dec as follows: A. Proposed by Toll Brothers Inc. on behalf of Hewlett Packard (HP) , this project involves the subdivision of four sting parcels (approx. 4.89 acres total) into four reconfigured lots. Lot 1 would be 43,996 square t and would be developed with three separate buildings containing a total of nine multi- family dwelling units and Lot 2 would be 97,139 square and developed with nine separate buildings with a total of 36 multi- family dwelling units. Lots 3 and 4 would also be created totaling 12,632 square feet with no structures proposed for these parcels. In addition, 0.02 acres would be vacated and 1.1 acres would be dedicated as a public right of way to create the new public street, Avenue A, and to realign Nita Avenue to connect with the new Whitney Drive. B. The Vesting Tentative Map plan set dated November 12, 2008 includes information on the existing parcels, onsite condi tions, and the layout of the proposed new lots. These drawings are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the City's Subdivision Ordinance with the exception to minimum lot size. These plans contain all information and notations required to be shown on a Vesting Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12), as well as the design requirements concerning the creation of lots, streets, walkways, and similar features (PAMC 21.20). 1 SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),requires that a Lead Agency examine the potent environmental impacts of the 'whole of an action' which has the potential to physically change the environment, directly or indirectly, and not just the act of merely subdividing a parcel into four lots. In this case, the four lot subdivision would ultimately facilitate the construction of a 45 unit multi family development which is not exempt from CEQA requirements. Prior to Architectural Review approval of the proposed Toll Brothers multi-family development, the city of Mountain View prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which evaluated the potential environmental impacts the project. The Environmental Impact Report was certified by the City of Mountain View in June of 2006. The EIR was adopted by Palo Alto's Director of Planning and Community Environment on October 22, 2008. SECTION 3. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474) : 1. That the proposed map is not consistent wi th applicable general and speci c plans as specified in Section 65451: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The site does not lie within a specific plan area and is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. The land use designation in the area of the subdivision is Research/Office Park which allows multifamily residential development and the zoning designation is ROLM and RM-30. The proposed development of multi- family dwelling units is consistent with the land use and zoning designations of the site. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The map is consistent with the following Comprehens Plan policies: (1) Policy L-1 -Limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service areai (2) Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densitiesi (3) Policy L-12 -Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled 2 structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of developmen t: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. site can accommodate the proposed residential development. The is adjacent to established multifamily and single family development and is proposed in conjunction with a master plan for multifamily residential development in Mountain View. The site is relatively flat and has multiple connections for bikes / pedestrians/ and cars. The site is close to the San Antonio Cal Train station and is currently served by water/ gas/ wastewater/ electric/ and communication ces. The site so has multiple access points for emergency service delivery. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: This finding can not be made in the firmative. The subdivision would be consistent with the te development regulations of the RM-30 zone district. The proposed density of 45 units is less than the allowable density of 106 units. The proposed density of development is not considered growth inducing with respect to service and utility infrastructure or with respect to access. 5. Tha t the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat: This finding can not be made in the firmative. The subdivision would not cause environmental damage or injure fish/ wildlife/ or their habitat/ as the site is currently developed with a paved parking lot and a portion of an elevated parking structure. The site does contain a number of mature landscape trees. Many of these were identified as being insignificant due to their size and health. There are 75 trees on site that were identified as having some significance. Of these trees/ 17 are specified to be protected and 5 are proposed to be transplanted to a different location on site. An additional 120 new trees will be planted as specified in the approved landscape plan. 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision the existing parcels into four lots will not cause 3 serious public health problems. The resulting residential development will not cause a public health problem in that it is designed to provide access for emergency services, will supply necessary utility services, such as sanitation, and is designed per City and State standards to ensure public safety. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements wi conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The subdivision of the existing parcels will not conflict with existing public easements. New utility easements and new public rights of way will be created and the plan is designed to maintain public access throughout the site. SECTION 4. Exception Findings. Lots 3 and 4 result from the dedication of land for the public streets and are smaller than the code requires. This section contains the findings for the exceptions for lots #3 and #4 to be smaller than the minimum lot size of 1 acre required by the ROLM zone district. 1. There are special affecting the property. circumstances or condi tions There are special circumstances fecting the property in that the property is irregularly shaped. The curve in San Antonio Avenue narrows the property from north to south. When the regular street pattern of the proposed development is applied to the property, the less than one acre parcels, lots 3 and 4, are created. The proposed residential infill subdivision is requested to be consistent with the Mayfield Masterplan approved by the adjacent City of Mountain View where the majority of the new residential development will occur. 2. The exceptions are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. 4 The exceptions are necessary in that the right to develop the property would be severely impacted by the rigid enforcement of the minimum lot size requirement. Imposing the minimum lot size requirement would alter the street pattern and would have a detrimental impact on the master plan. The resultant street alignments would not be safe, efficient, or consistent with those in the Mountain View portion of the project. 3. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental in that the resulting parcels less than one acre will allow the harmonious development of the site such that the overall new neighborhood street pattern would not be dictated by the lot size requirement. The implementation of a regular street pattern will be a benefit to the public and other property in the vicinity in that it will improve pedestrian and vehicular circulation around the community, provide public access to the new publ parks, and provide access to the San Antonio underpass. 4. The granting of the exception will not violate the requirements, goals, policies, or spirit of the law. The granting of the exception does not violate the requirements, goals, policies or sprit of the law in that the intentions of each of these is to guide the harmonious development of the community. The proposed exceptions serve to accommodate the harmonious development of the site implementing the masterplan by allowing for a regular street pattern where the roadway locations are not dictated by the lot sizes and are designed for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and drivers. The small lots, 3 and 4, will not be developed, but instead are proposed as landscape buf including planter strips, sidewalks, and recreational open space. SECTION 5. Approval of Tentative Map. Tentative Map approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code ("PAMC") Sections 21.13 and 21.20 and the California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 7 of this Record. SECTION 6. Final Map Approval. The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto shall be in substantial conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map prepared by HMH Engineers titled 5 "Vesting Tentative Tract Map for 45 Condominiums -200 San Antonio" consisting of four pages, dated November 12, 2008, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 7. A copy of this Tentative Map is on file the Department of Planning and Community Environment, Current Planning Division. Wi thin two years of the approval date of the Vesting Tentat Map, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and a Final Map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Section 21.16 and submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]). SECTION 7. Conditions of Approval. Department of Planning and Community Environment Planning Division 1. A Map, in conformance with the approved Vesting Tentative Map, all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC Section 21.16), and to the satisfaction of the City , shall be filed with the Planning Division and the Publ Works Engineering Division wi thin two of the Tentative Map approval date (PAMC 21.13.020[c]). 2. The William Kelly parcel shall be acquired by Toll Brothers and dedicated to the City of Palo Alto prior to the approval of the Final Map. 3. A Below Market Rate agreement must be executed prior to City Council Action on the Final Map and recorded concurrently with the map. Public Works Department 4. Private access road: In order to ensure public access to the development through the underpass, the developer must acquire the private parcel on the west side of San Antonio Avenue on which the access road to the underpass lies and then deed this parcel to the City of Palo Alto. The applicant will be requi to upgrade the access road to City standards, including sidewalks, should the road currently not meet these standards. This work would be included in the improvement plans. 6 5. Underpass retrofits: The improvement plans must include the structural retrofits of the underpass that were recommended in the structural evaluation performed by Peoples Associates. Also, the applicant shall make repairs to the underpass' road surface, sidewalks, gutters and storm drain. "Low clearance" signage shall be led on both approaches to the underpass. 6. The Final Map cannot be submitted for review until the improvement plans have been submitted, reviewed and preliminarily approved by the City. 7. Subdivision improvement agreement: A subdivision improvement agreement is required to secure compliance with the conditions of approval and security of the onsite and offsite public improvements. The agreement must be finalized prior to City Council approving the F Map. 8. Bonds: The subdivider shall post securities, typically payment and performance bonds, prior to City Council approval the Final Map to guarantee the completion of the ons and offsite public improvements. The applicant must submit a construction cost est for the onsite and offs public improvements. The amount of the bonds shall be determined by the Planning, Utilit and Public Works Departments after reviewing the plans and the estimate. Fire Department 9. Overhead clearance at rna than 13 ft., 6 in. high. vehicular entry shall be not less 10. Site address to be prominently posted next to the driveway access to the property. (2001CFC901) 11. Hydrants shall be placed at locations not to exceed 125 feet from any point along the re vehicle access. Fire access road for 20 feet in each direction from fire hydrant shall be not less than 26 feet in width. (PAMC15.04.140) 12. A fire sprinkler system shall be requirements of NFPA Standard (PAMC15. 04.160) Fire Sprinkler modifications require separate Prevention Bureau. (PAMC15.04.083) provided which meets the No. 13R, 2002 Edition. system installations or submittal to the Fire 13. An exterior bell shall be provided, and an approved audible sprinkler flow alarm to alert the occupants shall be provided in the interior of each building in approved locations. 7 (2001CBC904.3.2)Fire Alarm system installations or modifications require separate submittal to the Prevention Bureau. (PAMCI5.04.083) 14. All sprinkler drains, including those for floor control valves and inspector's test valves, as well as the main drain, shall not discharge within the building. Water discharged from these points shall be directed to an approved landscape location or to the sanitary sewer system. (99NFPAI3, Sec. 5-14.2.4.3) NOTE: Please check with Roland Ekstrand in Utilities for maximum flow capacity of sanitary sewer in the area. Main Drain test discharge flow rate shall be impounded and attenuated to below sanitary sewer capacity before discharge. Utilities Water Gas Wastewater 15. Sanitary sewer mains and laterals on private streets are to be privately owned and maintained and shall be designated as such on the plans. The Cit responsibility for wastewater will start at a cleanout where the onsite wastewater system enters the public street right of way (Item 2 shall be included in the CCRs) . 16. If the proj ect sanitary sewer main goes to the Palo Al to sanitary sewer collection system, the applicant is required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer mains to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer mains will be permitted. 17. A 16" water interconnect with the City of Mountain View is required as part of this project. Show the 16" water line and interconnect on the plans. 18. Onsite public water mains will be 8" diameter minimum (16" diameter for the pipe leading from San Antonio to the Mountain View interconnect) limited to the one loop through the property as currently shown on the plans and will require a minimum 20' wide public utility easement with limited street parking (where not in a public ROW). All city owned water meters shall be within the public ROW or a public utility easement outside of the paved street surface (locate in the sidewalk or planting strip). All other onsite water lines downstream of the water meter shall be private water lines and 8 shall be designated as such on the plans. No dead end water lines are allowed on the public water main except to the hydrant. Where the water main is in an easement, no water services may be connected thereto. 19. Public water mains shall have a minimum of 10' clear distance from the parallel running sanitary sewer lines and 4' minimum from the storm and as specified by the state health code. Where the public water I cross storm or sanitary sewer lines the state heal th code separation and material requirements shall be adhered to. Onsite public water mains shall be 5' minimum from the edge of the easement. 20. Flushing of the fire system to sanitary sewer shall not exceed 30 GPM. Higher flushing rates shall be diverted to a detention tank to achieve the 30 GPM flow to sewer. 21. An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) shall be installed for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to irrigation, mixed use, commercial and I buildings. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter. 22. An approved double check assembly shall be installed for water connections to residencies that are fire sprinklered. Double check valves shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property I 23. An approved double detector check valve shall be installed for the existing or new water connections for the fire system. Double check detector check valves shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property I 24. Where public mains are inst led in private streets/PUEs for condominium and town home projects the CCRs and final map shall include the statement: \\Public Utili ty Easements: the City's reasonable use the Public Utility Easements, which are shown as P.U.E on the Map, results in any damage to the Common Area, then it shall be the responsibility of the Association, and not of the Ci ty, to Restore the affected portion (s) of the Common Area. This Sec on may not be amended without the prior written consent of the City". 25. Any existing water and wastewater services shall be abandoned at the main per WGW util procedures. 26. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application -load sheets for City of Palo 9 Alto Utilities. A separate application/load sheet needs to be submitted for each set of meters (each residential or commercial unit) The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.) . 27. Onsite public gas mains will be limited to one loop through the property in private/public streets in the same 20' easement with water main or a dedicated minimum 10' public utility gas easement. Show the gas and electric/comm on the plans, so the ty can evaluate spacing and placement. 28. Gas mains will Iowa straight route through the development and be within 3' of the curbline. Gas mains shall be in a separate trench (gas is not allowed in a joint trench). A 4" gas main crossing San Antonio is required. A separate gas service is required for each building. Gas meters shall be ganged at separate building per the WGW Utility Standards. 29. The applicant I create a separate detailed public mains and services plan under the direction of CPAU. The applicant shall supply CPAU with an AutoCAD copy of the approved gas plan. Electric Utilities 30. Applicant shall show locations of public utility easements associated with all pad-mounted equipment. 31. All electric utility equipment shall be pad-mounted. 32. Public utility easements for pad-mounted transformers shall be 10 feet by 10 For pad-mounted switches, the PUE shall be 7 feet by 11 feet. 33. Typical space requirements are 8 feet from the edge of the concrete pad on all \\operable" sides of equipment (typically the sides with doors) and 3 feet from the edge of the pad on "non-operable sides". Access to the equipment by personnel and city trucks must also be provided. 34. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all ut ity services and/or meters including a sign affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected. 10 35. The applicant shall submit a completed elect load sheet for each lot for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide 1 the information requested for util service. 36. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of-way. 37. Any extension or relocation of existing distribution lines or equipment shall be done at customer/developer's expense. Customer /Developer shall ensure that no structure is built over the sting easements. 38. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for facil installed in private property. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa Clara, and provide the Utilities Engineering section with copies of the public utilities easement across the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the development. 39. Utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto Utilities electrical service requirements. 40. Where ect c utilties are installed in private st s/PUEs for condominium and town home projects the CC&Rs and final map shall include the statement: "Public Utility Easements: If the City's reasonable use of the Public Utility Easements, which are shown as P.U.E on the Map, results in any damage to the Common Area, then it shall be the responsibility of the Association, and not of the City, to Restore the fected portion (s) of the Common Area. This Section may not be amended without the prior written consent of the City". Transportation Division 41. An all-way stop shall be provided at the intersection of Whitney Drive and Avenue A. 42. Transportation Division shall review the building permit plans for final approval of intersection plans for specific ramp locations, proposed signing, and striping. SECTION 8. Tentative Map. All conditions of approval of the Tentative Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a Final Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010 [c] ) . 11 Unless a Final Map is filed, and all conditions of approval are fulfilled within a two-year period from the date of Tentative Map approval, or such extension as may be granted, the Tentative Map shall expire and all proceedings shall terminate. Thereafter, no Final Map shall be filed without first processing a Tentative Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[d]). PASSED: 5-0-2-0 AYES: Barton, Burt, Drekmeier, Klein, Schmid, Yeh, Kishimoto NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Morton, Espinoza APPROVED AS TO FORM: fi==:J~ ___ _ Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: ~R~VE.DD~: ~~ Director DfPlaIlIliIl9and Community Environment Those plans prepared by HMH Engineers titled, uVesting Tentative Tract Map for 45 Condominiums-200 San Antonio", consisting of four pages, dated received on November 12, 2008. 12 GENERAl NOTES: • f>RO".ECT NAME: ._"'" .""""""", ·1.J'roI1i~ UAWlIl.O IiI£UTf pAQ(ARI) co ~~~iml H£W!.£TT PACkAAD 00 ~~= ~EHGI~ 157() 0AI':l..AN!) ROAO SAN JOSE. CA 95131 (4(8) 487-2200 AJrmlQfI' VlGHW),. RC£ f63461 A~~E£RS.CCM • S'f'REET 1.QCA,11ON: NQif1H EAST o:¥lNER ~ <::DiTRA!.. DF'RESSWA '( AND $.l.N ANTtIfIO RQ.fII) NONE RCiI.M. RlI-JO ~Qi/OFFlCf! PARk. lA.Il..l'IP\.£ F..uQLY RESIOEND,IJ. COWUERaAl 0f'f1CE, PJWQNG ....... -aTVOF' p~ ALTtI CITY Cf' p~ ALTO Cll'Y Of WOUNTAIN \4EW 147-~041. 05e. 057. Ot>Q $HAU. OONF't1OoI TO CITY Cf' PAlO AlTO STANOAROS ~~C=c..-".",";_._. __ . : ;.t~(GROSS} ,., (1.4 AC1!:ES, ;t 3.S ACRES (NET) • pRCPOS£O LOTS: 4 LOTS • PROPOSED UNITS: 4:S ea.!OOWltwM UNITS • AVERAGE SiZE OF LOT: ;t o.8B ACRES • SIIIAt.LEST 512£ LOT: :t 0.09 ACRES • IoiUl,.l1Ft.£ FINAL Io4APS WAY 6'e FILED PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATI~ fF lHE lENTA11YE MAP. • R£OlJIRED ACCE'SS ROADS. UP 'THROOGH FIRST UfT OF' ASPHALT, SHAll BE INSTAl.l.£D AND r PRlOfii! TO THE START Of COOSTR\JCl1Qo1. BULK . BE DElJ\IERED TO THE SITE UKnL INSTALlA'TION IS EMERGENCY ACCfSS ROADS SHAI.J.. BE t.lAlNTAINED CI.£AR INC F'ERNIT ISSUANCE IoiAY BE WflHHElD UNTll • A SANITAR'f LAVAL CI.£AN-OUT SHAll BE INSTAI.l.ED AT THE PROPERTY UHf. If" ONE DOES NOT ALREADY EXtS'T WITHIN TWO (2) FEET Of THE PROPERTY UNE. Alff 1REHCHING M11-I THE ORlPUN£ OF' Ai..L TREES SHAU. B£ HAND DUG AND SO NOTIl) ON THE P'lAHS.: AU. UT1Un£S SER\IING THE SITE SHALL. BE: UNDERGRWND. • FlNHo. GRAOIIiG P1J.NS SHALL I»clUOt: A COWPlETE EROSION CONTRa.. PLAN. 1HTER!t.t EROSIOH CONTROl UEASVRES TO BE CAARJED WT 0URlNC CONSlRUC1l('Jo1 AND BEFORE INSTALlATJON OF THE FJHAL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INC1.J.JOED. INlERIN ER~ ca.TRa... WrTliODS SiiOULO IriCt.JJO£ SILT fENCES OR STRAW BALE DIKES (Wlnl LOCATION ANO OCTAlIS) AND 1'HE CHY $TANDARD SE'EDIHGl SPEaFJCA11CH. • DEWa.JTlaof Of: EXlSllNG STRUC'lURES TO 8£ COWP1.flED IlS PART a; lliE DDKlUTION P£RwT PROCESS AND PRIOR TO lliE ~SlTlON Of: FlHAJ.. ElUJU)tNG PEfO,(IT APPROVAL • DE\'El.CPMENT SHOWN ON lHtS 'o'£ST\NQ. 'l'EHTATlVE UAP (\11'14) FOR lliE IiIOUNTAlN \'lEW PORTlaof Of: 1HE PMIPOS£D $liE j$ SJS'JECT TO A m"AAATt \11'14 lSSUED BY lHE OTY CF UOONTAIN W:W. ELEV DATUY: mY Of: PALO ALTO (HG:\1) 1$~9) BlNQiUIJIK 2100. EL£V .... .».45 FEET, DES(.;RII3fD AS "C!S {CHISElm SOVAAfl N.w. COR N.W. RET'" Of" AlMA AND SAA ,JoN'f'CWIO AIJEfrCIJE. BA$lS Of: SEARQilCS; a:.trrE:R UNt ~ SAN ANTONIO WAY AS ~TAWSHED NJ5'J9'35t:. TRACT NO. 5-477. 340-U-49. LEGEND I I PRQ..ECT EIOUHtlARY """""""''''''"''''''''' -""""""'" UN£ UN£ C91TER thE Of: SlREET R/W TO RaiAIH (So. ... AC) IlfllICAlED """''''' TANGENT TABLE CURVE TABL.I! No. -Leng1h .... 1-1-1 ....... Li """'""' ...... 2 1'211"'" I 50"37'14" 1' ...... .................. ...... 3U8' 71"02'1r ...... l! .... 40'2%"lIl :nut UI $8i .......... 2.57' L1 .......... "" ...... IJI Nf1'3&'SO'W 20.411' La N5i'3T'2S"W :ns Lt. $8i"3r23"E 3$.04" • GRAPHIC SCALE £V.A.£. 1.£.£. P.s.£. P.o.£. ~ VEHICt.£ A.CCiSS £J.SEW[HT INCR£SS AHO ~ E:ASE:M£)!iT PUEIUC $ER\\CE £J.SEW[HT ~ 0 ~ ~ _ a I-w-• ..._' I PV8UC Ul1UlIES E.ASDlEHT (In Feet) .. 1H£ EXtS11HG,S' P.u.£. JS REca:tO€Ii IN BOOK 6529 C*. PAGE 603.. 1 Inch = 1001 H~'~H ENGINEERS SanJooe (4(16).4874200 GlIf9y (""l""""'" -- -1---- I -- Vesting Tentative Tract Map for 45 Condominiums -200 San Antonio Palo Alto California J(8 NUWI!IER 3298.00 ~ -I ~ ::t: s: m z -I C Attachment E ORIGINAL RESOLUTION NO. 6597 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ESTABLISHING PROCBOURES Aim REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGR~eMENTS W!iEREAS., tre State legislature has found and declared that t -(a) The lack of certainty in the approval of developmental project. can result in a 4aste o~ resour~es, escalate the cost of housing and other developm6P.t to the consumer, and discourage in- ve~tment in and co •• it~ent to c~.prehensive planning which would make maIillu. efficient utilization of resources at the least eco- nomic cost to the public. (b) Assurance to the applic.nt for a development project that upon approval of the proje~t, the .vvlicant may proceed with the project in accor~.nce with existiny policies, rules and r~gu­ lations, and subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen tr.e public planning process, encourage private participation ir comprehensive planning, and rerluce the economic costs of de~elop­ lIIent. (c) The lack of public facilities, including .. but;. not 1i.i- ted to, streets, sewerage, transportation, drinkin~ vater, school and utility faciliti.s, is a serious impediment to the develop.ent of new housing. Whenever possible, applicants and local gov6rn- lIIents .. y include provisions in agree.en~8 whereby applicants are relabursed over tia. for financing public facilities.-(Govern- .ent Code Section 65864); and WHEREAS, the legislature therefore adopted Gnvern.ent Code Sections 6586. through 65869.5 authorizing cities to enter into developaent agre ... nt.; and WHBRBAS, Go~ern.ent Code section 65865(0) requires that cities shall, if requested by an applicant, est~bli.h procedures and require.enta for consideration of d.velo~.nt agree.ents. Nai, TH8BE:FORE, the Couneil of the Ci ty of Palo AI to doea hereby RESOLVE a • .i.;oliOWSI SECTION 1. Authorization for ~doption. Theae procedures are adoptea under the authOrIty of GOvernment Code Sections 65864- 65869.5. SECTlvN 2. Authorization. (a) The City .&y enter into a develop-ent agre ... nt with any per~n hal~ng ~ legal oc equitable intereat in real property with- in the Citt for the develoPilent of the property •• provided in this re.olution. 1. (b) The City may enter into a development agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property in unincorporated territory within the City's sphere of influence for th~ development of the property as provided in this resolution. However, the agreemeat shall not become operative unlsss annexa- tion proceedings annexing the property to the city are completed within the period ot time specifiAd by the agreement. If the annexation is not compl<ted within the time specified in the agreement or any extension of the agreement, the agreement is null and void. ,!ECTION 3. Application. Appl tca tion for a developme.lt agreell'l4nt shall be made to the ~partment of Planning and Com- munity Environment on a form prescribed by the department. 'rhe application shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed by the municipal fee schedule, no part of which shall be returnable to the appl ican t. SECTION 4. C~ntents. A development agreeMent shall specify the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the dt"::iai,ty or intensi ty of use, the maxill'lull height and siZe of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of :and to~ public purposes. The development agreem~nt aay in- clude conditions, terms, restrictions, and require_ents lor subse- quent discretionary acHol!&, provided that such conditionfl, ter.s~ restrictions, and require.ante for subsequent discretionary actions shall not prevent develop_ent of the land for the uses and to the density or intenaity of develop.ent set forth in the agree- ment. The agreeMent may 9rovide that construction shall be com- menced within m specified tiee and that the project or any phase thereof be cOllp'leted within a $pe~ified tic •• The agree.ent I14Y also inch,de ter.,. ana conditions relating to applicant financing of necessary public facilities and subs&- quent reimbursement over ti.e. SECTION S. Rules, r.'ulationa and ofticial P2ltcies. Unless otherwise providea by the develo~ent agreement, ruIes,-regula- tions, lIrid official policies ooverni."~ permitted uses of the land, governing density, and 90,;ernlng cMsign, improveNDt, and con- struction standards ~nd specifications, applicable to development of the property subject to a develop.ent agreeMent, ~hall be those rules, regulations, and official policies in force at the time of execution of the a9~ee.ent. A develo~ent agreeaent shall not prevent the City, in .ub8~quent actions .pplicable to the pro- pe~ty, fro. applying nev rul •• , regUlations, .nd policies which do not conflict with thoae rule., regulations, lIt.nd policies appli- cable to the progerty •• aet forth in the development agree •• nt, nor ahall a develop •• nt agre.ment prevent the City fro_ denying or <.londi tiot .... lly .pp~oving any Bub.equent develcp&8ent project !:ppli- cation on the basis of auch exi8ting or ne" rules, regulation8, and policie8. 2. SECTION 6. Public hearin~ and notice of intention to con- sider ~ adoption. A public hea:r ng on an appl Ica1Ion for a aevelop- mant agreement shall be held by the Planning Commission ~nd by the City Council. Notice of intention to consider adoption of a development agreement shall be given as provided in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.98.060, in addition to any other notice required by law for other actions to be considered concurr-ently with the development a~reement. SECTION 7. Lagislative Act. A development agreement is a legielatlve act which shall be approved by ordinance and is sub- ject to referendum. A development agreeMent shall not be approved unless the legislative body finds that the provisione of the agreement are conqistent ~i~h the City's general plan and any appJ lcable spec~ofic plan. SEC~ION 8. Amendment or terrintaion. {a} Periodic reviev. The Director of Planning and Community Environll!ent shall review the developmont agreemeo1t at least every 12 m~nths, at which time the applicant or successor in interest thereto, shall be required to demo~strate good faith compliance with the t~; OilS of the agreeMent. If, as a result of such periodic reviewl the director determines that, on the basis of substantial evidence, the ag~ee.ent has not been co_plied with in good faith, or that the failure of the City to terminate or modify the pro- visions of the development agree~ent would place the residents of the territory subject to the development agreement, or the ~esid9nts of the Cit¥, or both, in a condi~ion dangerous to their health or safety, or both, the Planning Co"mission and City Coun- cll shall hold a public h4aring to consider terminating or .edi- fying the a~ree~ent. ~ • .;tice of such hearing shall be given as ~rovid9d in Palo Alto Municipal Coda Section 18.98.060. If the City Council determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that the applicant or 8UCCef"·(IIor in intereSt: thereto h!l8 not COil- plied in good faith with the terms or conditions of the agreeeent, or that the failure of the City to terminate or. modify the p~o­ visions of tl,e developillent agreement would place the residents of the te~ritory .ubject to the development agreement, or the resi- dents of the City, or ~th, in a condition dangerous to their health or safety, or both, tne Council may terminate or modify the agreeJllent. (b) Mutual consent. A develop.ent agree.ent may be amended, or canceled in whole or in part, by ~utual consent of the parties to the agreelll6·nt or their SUCC6ssors in interest. Notice of and public hearing regacding an intention to amend or cancel ~ny por- tion of the agreement shall be ~iv.n and held in the Minner pro- vided in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.98.060. ~~ amendment to an agreement shall be 8u~ject to the provisions of Section 7 of this resolution. (c} State or federal laws and regulations. !n the eve~t that state or feder~1 law. or regulatIons, enacted after a 3. I I I - development agreement has been entered into, prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of the development agree- ment, such provisions of the agreement sh~ll be modified or sus- pended as ~y be necessary t~ comply with such state or federal laws or r8~ulation8. SECTION 9. Enforeement. unle~s amenued or canceled pursuant to Section § nereln, a development agreerent shall be enforceable by any party therete, notwithstanding any change in any applicable general or specific plan, zoning, subdivision, or buildil.g reQ",la- tion adopted by the City, which altera or amends the rules, I'egu- lations1 or policies specified in Section 5 herein. SECTION 10. Recordation. No later than 10 days after the City enters Into a develop.ent agreement, the City shall record with the county recorder a copy of the agreement, which ehall describe the land subject thereto. From and after the ti.~ of such recordation, the agree_ent shall i.part such notice thereof to all persons a. is afforded by the recording laws of this state. The burde~s of the aqree.llent shall be binding upon, and tne bene- fits of the agree.ent shall 1nt"re to, all successors in interest to the parties to the agreement. SECTION 11. The Council fia.:Ss that the adoption of this r.solution is not a project for the purposes of the california Environ.ental Quality Act, and, therefore, no environ .. ntal impact assessaent is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: March 9, 1987 AYES: NOES: Bechtel, Cobb. Fletcher. Klein, levy, Patitucci, SUtorius. Woolley Renzel ABSTENTIONS z None ABSENT; None APPROVED: ~ e;!-:: \.,~ J Mayor ~ APPROVED. ~~ nreetor~ ann n9 an Co •• unity £nv~ron •• nt 4. Attachment F PLANNING DIVISION Memorandum Date: April 2, 2009 To: Architectural Review Board From: Amy French Subject: ARB Study Session on 200 San Antonio: Ginnever Sculpture Relocation SUMMARY The study session will start at 8:30 AM in the Council Chambers. The applicant's landscape architect will describe the proposed setting within the approved Palo Alto portion of the Toll Brothers' development project, for a steel sculpture owned by Hewlett Packard (HP) currently located on the Mountain View portion ofHP's Mayfield property. The ARB is asked to comment on the appropriateness of the sculpture's proposed setting in Palo Alto and the proposed adjustments to the previously approved landscape plan. Since the proposal is for location on private property, involvement by the Art Commission is not required. Should staff and the ARB find the proposed setting for the sculpture to be appropriate, the sculpture would be included in a proposed development agreement, which would be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council. BACKGROUND Hewlett Packard (HP) had commissioned the sculpture in 1985 to fulfill a requirement that the City of Mountain View imposed on new projects. HP reported that the City of Mountain View is not interested in keeping the sculpture in Mountain View. The City of Palo Alto previously expressed interest in having the sculpture relocated into Palo Alto. The artist is Charles Ginnever, who is originally from San Mateo. He's well-known in some art circles and has had quite a few commissions and awards over the years. The title of the piece is: "Untitled (In Homage to my Father)." The sculpture, along with it's location at HP's Mayfield site, is listed in Ginnever's list of his works which include three pieces at Stanford, one at the San Francisco Museum of Modem Art and many other places across the country. The sculpture is included in a brochure & guide to public art, both city and corporate-owned art, in Mountain View. The link to the piece on Ginnever's Web site can be found at http://charlesginnever.net! and on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles Ginnever PROJECT DESCRIPTION The large, steel sculpture is intended to be re-Iocated to the park adjacent to the HOAlRec.Bldg. in Palo Alto. This park is surrounded by a grove of redwoods and the proposed site could address a scale transition between the sculpture and the trees. The sculpture is proposed to be located opposite the picnic area, where people could sit and appreciate the sculpture. HP has provided colored drawings for staff and ARB review and discussion. The set includes a site plan showing the existing location of the sculpture, plan and elevation views of the proposed location. HP proposes to pass the cost of moving the piece to the developer and has discussed including sculpture relocation onto the City's portion of the development project this as part of a development agreement recently filed with the City of Palo Alto to extend the recently granted approvals to be consistent with Mountain View's approval timeline for the project within Mountain View city limits. Attachment G ATTACHMENT G COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE 200 San Antonio Avenue (ARB Approval) POLICY Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. A void land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. Policy L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be i compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Policy L-14: Design and arrange new multifamily buildings, including entries and outdoor spaces, so that each unit has a clear relationship to a public street. Policy L-15: Preserve and enhance the public gathering spaces within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. • Ensure that each residential neighborhood has such spaces. Policy L-17: Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide continuous sidewalks, • healthy street trees, benches, and other .. amemtIes that favor pedestnans. CONFORMANCE The proposal of 45 units, rather than the allowable 120, reduces the scale of the project to create a smother transition between the low density residential neighborhood in Palo Alto across San Antonio A venue and the proposed higher density structures in Mountain View. The proposed buildings would enhance the character of the neighborhood and would be in a consistent character with the surrounding buildings that are both multi- family, single-family. The shallow sloping gables of the proposed design are a familiar design element of the Eichler homes in the area. The front doors and entries have been oriented to the street wherever possible. Two separate parks will be provided within the master plan development area in close proximity to this development. One 2.13 acre park on Whitney Drive and one 1.40 acre park on Mayfield Avenue. The proposed public streets will provide i five foot wide public sidewalks separated from the street by continuous rows of street • trees. The sidewalk would be shaded by a double row of trees, one on each SIde ofthe • sidewalk. The sidewalks will provide uninterrupted access through the site and provide connections to existing sidewalks off site. For pedestrian safety, narrow street comers (bulb outs), are provided to reduce the walking distance across the streets. I I Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative The proposed development would be design and site planning that is compatible compatible with adjacent development. with surrounding development and public Building one, adjacent to the Rosewalk spaces. townhomes, is very similar in height and massing. Buildings two and three, adjacent to the single story residences in Mountain View, are reduced to two stories for compatibility. The Palo Alto portion of the development is a small part of a larger master plan for the entire site that crosses the city border into Mountain View. Policy T-19: Improve and add attractive, Guest bicycle parking racks are provided at secure bicycle parking at both public and two locations within the proposed private facilities, including multi-modal development. transit stations, on transit vehicles, in City parks, in private developments, and at other community destinations. Policy N-15: Require new commercial, The proposed proj ect would provide a multi-unit, and single family housing double row of street trees along all public proj ects to provide street trees and related streets including A venue A and Whitney irrigations systems. Drive. 10/1107 Russ Reich Planning Dlrector HlOme Palo Alto Department ofPlannmg and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 RE: P A Townhomes Green Measures Dear Attached to this letter is the Multifamily GreenPoint Checklist produced by the Attachment I Build It Organization. As Toll Brothers further the townhome units in Palo Alto and Master Plan in Mt VIew we are aggressively looking into good green building practices. As we get further down the road and start our workmg drawings, with consultants on board we intend to continue integrating additional measures into our build- out that will create "sustainable construction". This letter summanzes the environmentally sustainable practices and construction materials we are incorporating into our Townhome product in Palo Alto, and areas we are researching. l. Community/Site €1 As an Infill Site we are close to mass transit and neighborhood services pedestlian access to 1'1 Minimum 65% of Construction Waste is recycled 2 FoundatIOn (!) Utilize a minimum of30% Flyash in lieu of Portland Cement m Concrete 3 Landscaping () 75% of Plants are Califorma Natives or other infrequent watering. w is less than 33 oflandscaped area appropriate that reqUIre ;j) Installation of HIgh-Efficiency IUIgation Systems(low flow drip, bubblers, sprinklers) 4. Structural Frame/Rough-m and Exterior Finish c Engineered lumber IS for Joist system as well as for sheathing(OSB subfloor, walls and roof). tiiI Non-combustible cementitious lap siding <'I Insulation will be 01350 Certified(no added fonnaldehyde) €> Hi-efficiency furnace and AIC with non-HCFC rerngerants(Puron) New York Stock Exchange'" TOL Northern California Division 100 Park Place, Suite 140 0 San Ramon, CA 94583 0 (925) 855-0260 0 Fax 855-9927 5. Finishes ~ Low VOC pamts and wood fimshes. e Recycled Shaw Green Edge Carpet wlll be offered at the commumhes ~ ENERGY STAR appliances will be installed Toll is very eXClted about movmg forward with above implementations and products as well as reVIewmg as we get into workmg drawmgs: <Ii> PrOVIding a tankless Water Heatmg system ~ Installation of a Durable 40-yr compositlOn roofing o InstallatlOll of water efficient plumbing fixtures * Radiant Barrier sheathing As we further into the desIgn we look forward to other opportunities to implement towards good green bUlldmg practices. Yours truly, JCTaM~·~ W Mark Evans Q Toll Sf. PM 100 Park Place, Suite 140 San Ramon, CA 94583 925 855-0260 -,:.; 'i :':1: '.'-:-. ~ --:~.: .. ,,:, " :,;; ~ -.... ~ :;.;.;' "'~! ~ This checkllsllracks green features in a multifamily prOject The recommended minimum requirements for a green home are Earn a total of 50 pOints or more; obtain the following minimum points per category Community (6), Energy (11), Indoor Air Quality/Health (5), Resources (6), and Water (3), and meellhe prerequisites A . .3.a (50% conslruction waste diversion), A.10.a (No shingle roofing) and N.1 (Incorporate GreenPoint checklisl in blueprints). The green building practices listed below are described in greater detail in the Multifamily Green Building Guidelines, available al wwwmultifamilygreenorg E~'tie~~ ':1T(i;'t:E1~ (~C![l!dG·230~~~Gf0 .~:::~C)O~ l~£G(:·; of 'U\G: [~['Q,jG(t: (~ntG'fi'· Ya'l~eJ1 ~'1on"'I;~Gsndievi!t~C;!rr ~~bO(tV LS~rG0~ ()f t;i.t'{)i!ecL Percent of Project Dedicated to Residential Use Palo Alto Townhomes o o 1. Infill Sites a. Project is Located Within an Urban Growth Boundary & Avoids Environmentally Sensilive Sites b. Project Includes the Redevelopment of At Least One Existing Building 82,339 100% ~('~' ". . -' c. Housing Density of 15 Units Per Acre or More (1 pt for every 5 u/a) E'1I'er Project Oe!'siiy Numbel (1/1 Units Pel Acre) d. Locate Within Existing Communily that has Sewer Line & Utilities in Place o 0 0 0 0 0 0 n LJ 0 o o o o [] o e Project Redevelops a Brownfield Site or is Designaled a Redevelopment Area by a City f. Site has Pedestrian Access Within Y, Mile to Neighborhood Services (1 Pt for 5 Or More, 2 Pts for 10 Or More): [!] 1) Bank 0 2) Place of Worship 0 4) Day Care [!] 5) Cleaners [!] 7) Hair Care [!] 8) Hardware 0 10) Library 0 11) Medical/Dental [!] 13) Public Park [!] 14) Pharmacy [!] 16) Restaurant 0 17) School 0 19) Commercial Office 0 20) Community Cenler [!] 22) Convenience Store Where Meat & Produce are Sold g. Proximity to Public Transit 2. Development is Located Wilhin 1/4 Mile of One Planned or Current Bus Line Stop 1/4 Mile of Two or More Planned or Current Bus Line Stops 1/2 Mile of a Commuter Train/Light Rail Transit System h. Reduced Parking Capacity: Less than 1.5 Parking Spaces Per Unit Less than 1.0 Parking Spaces Per Unit --.-.. -.... ----.---.... ~.--" .. -.... -...... " ..... -....... -.. " '-. Mixed·Use Developmenls 0 3) Full Scale Grocery/Supermarket 0 6) Fire Station 0 9) Laundry 0 12) Senior Care Facility 0 15) Post Office 0 18) After School Programs 0 21) Theater/Entertainment a. Al least 2% of Development Floorspace Supports Mixed Use (Non-Residential Tenants) b. Half of Above Non-Reside,1tial Floorspace is Dedica:ed 10 ~~ejghborhGod Services .. " ... " ....• " ..... '''-'.'' --.. ~.... _ .... --' .. ' ." -" .. . .... - 3. Building Placement & Orientation ... , .... _ .. ~~_~rot~:t~.?il.~_,E.x~s.ti~g~l~nts.~.,!~ee: 4. Design for Walking & Bicycting a. Sidewatks Are Physically Separated from Roadways & Are 5 Feet Wide b. Traffic Calming Strategies Are Installed by the Developer c. Provide Dedicated, Covered & Secure Bicycle Storage for 15% of Residents d Provi~~ Secure~i9'cl: Storag~for~%o.f~on.Resi?:n~.al Tenant Empl?x~.es & VI~!~()rs. 5. Social Gathering Places a, Outdoor Gathering Places for Residents (Average or 50 sf Per Unit Or More) ... b :.?u.!9.?or 9a 1~.er~n.~._~I~~:~ ~rovid.~~.at~r,~1 ~ lelllen t~JF()rco.n:p_ac'~/'e:~n/y,!.hls.p()inf no'~v~!,a?~. irA 5~iS c~ec~:d) .... ... ' 6. Design for Safety and Natural Surveillance o a. All Main Entrances to the Building and Site are Prominent and Visible from the Street o b. Residence Entnes Have Views to Calters (Windows or Double Peep Holes) & Can Be Seen By Neighbors MF GreenPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v.2 ...... ,,_ ......... _-" ... " ........... . Current Point Total 77 .. ,, ___ c.'. ; -~ '- Page 1 of 6 Palo Alto Townhomes >-~ '" <= UJ 7. Landscaping rul.: CheNCk hpere irS/he landsc l 3 1 PRe areo i s S h <10% orthe lolal site area Pro/eeis wii!; ciO% l,;r,(lseape UN: Gilly c/Jeel, lip to 3 boxes in :ili,. ser.fie)? ~ a. 0 lanl peCI€s WI equ<re eanng b No planlings are cisled on the Invasive Planllnvenlory by the California invasive Planl Council c. Specify California Nalive or Mediterranean Species [hal ReqUife Occasional, lillie or No Summer Walenng d. Creale Drought Resislanl Soils o i Mulch All Planting Beds (0 a Depth of 2 Inches or Grealer as Per Local Ordinance o i, Amend with 1 Inch of Composl or as per Sod Analysis 10 Reach 15% SOli Orgall!C Maller e. Design & Inslall High·Efficiency Irrigalion Syslem i. Specify Smarl (Weather·Based) Irngation Controllers ii. Specify Drip, Bubblers or Low·Flow Spflnklers lor All Non T uri Landscape Areas ( Group Plants by Waler Needs (Hydrozones) in Planting Plans & Identify Hydrozones on Irrigallon Plans g Minimize Turf in Landscape Installed by Builder G j Do Nol Specify Turf on Slopes Exceeding 10% or in Areas Less Than 8 Feet Wide ".~~._~:s.~J~~r:: .. ~~~._~!"p:II.L~d.~.~~£,.~~.!::re-" .. ls as Turf AND All Turf has Waler 8. Building Performance E)(ceeds Title 24 filter tliG PerCent ij.Dove rhe 2005 Version or nNe 24 F?0Sideilii8i ali(; Non-I"<esil1enii2i PorilOI!S 0n!!(.; PwjecL i-":"H~i·o:":'j."" a. Residences 2 Poinls for Every 1% Above 2005 T24 (Weighted Average Up To 30 Total Poinls for Measure 8 a & b) b Non·Residenllal Spaces 2 Poinls for Every 1% Above 2005 T24 (Up To 30 Tolal Points for Measure 8 a & b) : J :;he[;J[ herG iF using 2C01vsrsion of Title 20. '; J,....;;;;;;;"'...I {v;t:;tery 1% l:hove 2001 Titla 24. 9. Cool Site o 3. At least 30% 01 the Sile Includes Cool Sile Techniques 10 Adaptable BUIldings a. Include Universal Design Principles in Unils 50% at Unils 80% 01 Units o b. live/Work Unils Include A Dedicated Commercial Entrance o G ,"~-'''-"<--' ,-',,-, 11. Affofdabdity 1. a. A Percentage 01 Units are Dedicated to Households Making 80% or Less of AMI 10% of All Units 20% 30% 50% or More b. Develop'~~~~ Includes Divert a Porlion of all Conslruction 8. Demolition Was Ie: a. f·;'&(uireci Diverl50% b. Divef16S% Constfuctlon Material Efficiencies a. Lumber is Delivered Pre·Cut from Supplier (80% or More of Tolal Board Feel) b. Componenls of Ihe Projecl Are Pre-Assembled Off-Sile & Delivered 10 Ihe Project 25% of Total Square Footage 50% of T alai Square Footage o 75% of Tolal 3 Construction Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Management Plan o 8. Minimum ,25':0 Recycle.d for Fill, Backfill & Other Uses 2. Recycled Flyash in Concrete a. Flyash or Slag is Used to Displace a Parllon of Portland Cernenl in Concrele E 20% 30% or More MF GreenPoinl CheCkis1 2005 Edition v. 2 :" - -= <h '" -;;; :: '" => ::c 0 :;; a '" ~ ~ '" s 0:: Page 2 of 6 · Palo Alto Townhomes 3. FSC·Certified Wood lor Framing Lumber 8. FSC·Certifled Wood for a Percentage of All DimenSional Studs 40% o 70% b. FSC-Cerlifled Panel Products for a Percentage of Ail Sheathing (OSB & Plywood) 40% 70% >',,~ "_ •• "P •••• _ •• _,,'.. " ,_" • ,., •• 4. Engineered Lumber or Steel Studs, Joists, Headers & Beams a 90% or More 01 All Floor & Ceiling Joists b. 90% or More of Ail Studs c. 90% or More of All Headers & Beams 5. Optimal Value Engineering Framing 3. Siuds al 24" Centers on Top Floor Exterior Walls &/or All Interior Walls b. Door & Window Headers Sized for Load c._u.~.~ . .?~Iy'.J~c.k & Siuds 6. Steel Framing ....~ .. ~.jt!~~:.Lh !:~~~I •. ~~!9.RI~~_~~n_sl~~~1n.9,E:!e.f!~: _I,n.s u la I ion 7. Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Or Other Solid Wall Systems a. SIPs Or Olher Solid Wall Syslems are Used lor 80% of All Floors Walls Roofs a. 75% 01 All Rool Trusses Have Raised Heels 9. Insulation a. All Ceitmg, Wall & Floor Insulation is 01350 Certified OR Conlains No Added Formaldehyde b. All. C.e.!Ii~9.:.~~n.~ Flo0r.I~sulay?n H~:_ a HecY,cled Content ?,f5~'Y.~_ or More 10. Durable Roollng Options a. R&quirect: No Shingle Roofing OR All Shingle Roofing Has 3-Yr Subcontractor Guarantee & 20·Yr Manufacturer Warranty. __ .~. !\I1~!ope,? ~~~f~~ ~_M~teri~l,s.~~rry~~O:'(~a.r_~anu fa~turer,Wa,rra~ty. 11. Moisture Shedding & Mold Avoidance a Building(s) Include a Definitive Drainage Plane Under Siding [J b. Bathroom Fans are Supplied in All Bathrooms, Are Exhausted to the Outdoors & Are EqUipped with Conlrols o ,c. __ ~,~lil:i~~rn of 80o/~ ol.K.iI~hen~ange Ho.?~s Are Venled to the Exterior 12 Green Roofs a. A Portion ollhe Low·Slope Roof Area IS Covered By A Vegelated or "Green" Roof 25% 8. Orientation. At Least 40% of the Units Face Direclly South o b. Shading On All South-Facing Windows Allow Sunlight to Penetrate in Winter, Not in Summer c. Therm~l~ass __ .At_Least50% of lh~Floor Area ~ir:Glly_?~_hln~ 2 Radiant Hydronic Space Heating o a'.,ln.~_ta_II_~~?~~nl~ydr?rJic Heating for IAO.p~rp?ses.(No Force.d. ~.ifJ.inJ',11 ReSidences 3. Solar Water Heating a. Pre·Plumb for Solar Hot Water _b~.In.~I,~I!S.O:~~~?_t_~lat:r~t:t::~_I?r. Pre~~~~i~g~Hvy_ . 4. Air Conditioning with Advanced Retrlgerants a. Ins tail AirConditioning wit~ Non-HCFC H~frigeranls 5. Advanced Ventilation Pracfices Perform the Following Praclices in Residences a. Infiltration Testing by a C-HERS Raler for Envelope Sealing & Reduced Infiltration b. Operable Windows or Skylights Are Placed To Induce Cross Venlilalion (AI Least One Room In 80% 01 Unils) o c. Ceiling Fans in Bedroom & Living Room OR Whole, House Fan isUsed 6. Ga;age Ventilation a. Garage Ventiiation Fans Are Controiled by Carbon Monoxide Sensors (Passive Ventilation Does Not. Count) MF GreenPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v 2 £' :£ ~ 5 '" >-((; u E '" :;; e' ::J: ~ E a 0 <ll <n 0 c: '" '" U LW ~ C!:; s Page 3 of 6 Paio A~to Townhomes 7. Low-Mercury Lamps a Low-Mercury Producls Are Inslalled Wherever Linear Fluorescenl Lamps Are Used b L()~:I~~r.c~!LPrCl.~~.~~~ ~~e Ins~~I.I:_d .. W~erever Compacl Fluorescenl L~r:r:ps Are Used 8. Light Pollution Reduction 3. Exterior Luminaires Emil No Light Anove Horizontal OR Are Dark Sky CertifJed .. b .. ~?~lr~I_I~gh!.~r.~spa.~: ()nl~~~I_g~?ori~g.Ar~~s.Thr0u.gh A.p'p~opri_~!e Fixture Selec!ion & Placement 9. Onsite Electricity Generation o a Pre-Wire for Pholovollaics & Plan for Space (Clear Areas on Roof & In MeChanical Room) b. Install Photovollaics to OHset a Percent of lhe Projec!'s Total Estimaled Eleclricity Demand 10% 20% 30% or more c. Educational Display is Provided in a Viewable Public Area '_T_ ,. . ........ . 10. Elevators a. Gearless Elevalors Are Inslalled ,~ .. '_ ~,~. _, _ .... ~ ..... _ ..... ~.~ ._ .• _ ... __ '· __ k·._·.·. ___ .~, . __ •. ~ •• '_. 11. ENERGY STAR®Appliances a. Install ENERGY STAR Refrigerators In All Locations ENERGY STAR·Qualified ACEEE-Listed Refrigeralors b. Install ENERGY STAR Oishwashers in All Localions All Dishwashers Are ENERGY STAR-qualified Residential-grade Oishwashers Use No More than 6.5 Gallons Per Cycle install ENERGY STAR Clothes Washers In All Locations in Residences 12. Central Laundry a. ~e.nlra: L~~nd.fY F acilities Ar~ :r?~I?:~ for All Occupants 13. Water·Efficient Fixtures a. All Showerheads Use 2.0 Gallons Per Minute (gpm) or Less b High·Efficiency Toilets Use 1.28 gpf or Less or Are Dual Flush In Ali Residences In Atl Non-Residential Areas c. Install High Efficiency Urinals (0.5 gpl or less) or NoWaler Urinals Wherever Urinals Are Specified Average flush rale is 0.5 gallons per flush or less Average nush rate is 0.1 gallons per nush or less d. Flow Limilers Or Flow Conlrol Valves Are Installed on All Faucets ReSidences: Kitchen· 2.0 gpm or less Non·Residential Areas: Kitchen· 2.0 gpm or less Residences: Balhroom Faucets-1.5 gpm or less Non-ReSidential Areas; Bathroom Faucets· 1.5 gpm or less . e.: N?n:.~:.~i~:.n.!~al.~!e.~.s.._ln~.~aH.~~e:.R.!~~:. ~era.y. ~av.es.l~g~.':1rn~r~Ia.I_~llchens 1:6gPm or less 14. Source Water Efficiency a, Use Recycled Water for Landscape Irrigation or 10 t:lush Toilets/Urinals b. Use Captured Rainwater for Landscape Irrigalion or to Flush 5% 01 Toilets &/or Urinals c. Water is Submetered for Each Residential Unit & Non-ReSidential Tenant 1. Construction Indoor Air Quality Management a. P~!.f?~rr:.~ 2·1J'J?:,<.":"'hol:S.~~~I~g Flush-_()~I~ri"or to?~cupancy 2. Entryways a Provide Permanent Walk-Off Mats and Shoe Storage al Ail Home Entrances b Perl1lane~tWalk()~_~ySlernS ~!~ Provided ~t~AII Main. Buildlng~n~rances & In ~ornmon A.~eas 3 Recycling & Waste Collection a. Residences Provide Buill-In Recycling.Ce~t~r In Each Unit MF GreenPoint Checklist 2005 Edilion v.2 "~ c: " E E o C> 4 of 6 ,. j ,,-..... , , · Pa~o Alto Townhomes 4 Use LowINo-VOC Paints & Coatings a. Low· VOC Interior PalOls «50 gpl VOC, (Flai) and <150 gpl VOCs (Non·Flal)) In All Residences o In All Non-Residential Areas b. Zero·VOC: InleriorPainls «5 gpl VOCs (Flal)) In All F~esidences o In All Non·Residential Areas c. Wood Coatings Meellhe Green Seal Standards for Low-VOCs In All Residences o In All Non·Residential Areas d. Wood Stains Meelthe Green Seal Standards for Low· VOCs tn All Resrdences In All Non·Residential Areas: 5. Use Recycled Content Exterior Paint .. "" ..... ~:.~~~. ~e~r~"'.d_~?~.I:~t .~~i~.I.~n._50.~~.?~~II. Ex.~e~lors 6. Low-VOC Construction Adhesives 7 Environmentally Preferable Materials fOf Intenor .£ :E '"' '" '" E '" u '" '" :x:: E a '" '" 0 ::; <l> U C!:: Use Environmentally Preferable Materials for Interior Finish A) FSC-Certifled Wood, 8) Reclaimed Lumber, C) Rapidly Renewable D) Recycled-Content or E) Finger·Jointed a. Residences AI Leas! 50% of Each Material i. Cablnels ii. Interior Trim o Iii Shelving iv. Doors 0 0 0 0 v. Counlertops b. Non-Residentr31 Areas At Leasl 50% of Each Material i. Cabinets il Inierior Trrm iii. ShelVing Iv. Doors v. Cou nlerlops , .. -~.,-,-.---~"-'- 8. Reduce Formaldehyde in Interior Finish Materials Reduce Formaldehyde in Inlerior Finish Materials (Section 01350) for At Least 50% of Each MalerialBelow: a. Residences' i. Cabinets il Inlerror Trim iiI. Shelving IV. Subfioor b. Non-Residential Areas' i. Cabinels Ii. Inlerior Trim iii Shelving iv. Subfioor 9 Environmentally Preferable Flooring .. Use Environmentally Preferable Floorrng A) FSC·Certified or Reclaimed Wood, 8) Rapidty Renewable Flooring Malerials, C) Recycled-Conlenl Ceramic Tiles, D) Exposed Concrele as Finrshed Floor or E) Recyclea·Contenl Carpet Note. Floorrng Adhesives Must Have <50 gpl VOCs a. Residences i. Minimum 15% or Floor Area [I] ii. Minimum 30% of Floor Area iii. Minimum 50% of Ftoor Area iv. Minimum 75% of Floor Area b. Non ·Residential Areas' o i. Minimum 15% of Floor Area ii. Minimum 30% of Floor Area o iii. Minimum 50% of Floor Area o iv Minimum 75% of Floor Area .« .•••. ,., ,. ~ ~. ..' ." 10. Low-Emitting Flooring a. Residences' Flooring Meets Section 01350 or CRI Green Label Plus Requrremerrts (50% MinImum) o b. Non·Residential Areas Flooring Meets Section 01350 or CRI Green Label Plus Requirements (50% Minimum) MF GreenPOfnt Checklist 2005 Edition v.2 Page 5 of 6 . Palo Alto Townhomes ?: ::: c " ~ i::' E 0> <5 ,2 E :;; II> 0 c: ., ~ u UJ a:: 11. Durable Cabinets Inslall Durable Cabinets in All: 12. Furniture & Outdoor Structures o a. Play Structures & Suriaces Have an Overall Average Recycled COl1tenl Greater Than 20% o b. Environmentally Preferable Exterior Site Furmshlngs c At Least 25% of All .• ~.c __ . __ • __ ._. ._._._ .•. _ .. _ .. c~_ a. ProJ:ctlndudes Vandalls.rn~:sjstafll Finishes.~nd~tra.legies M.int,,,n:'nrp Manuals a. Provide O&M Manual to Building Maintenance Staff a. Residenls Are Offered Free or Discounled Transil Passes ._,_~_" .... ,".'~" __ ,~~,." __ .. "._,, .......... ~ ".~,. ,,"' __ """_'H'" ..... _ •. _.w._. __ ._ •• _.~' .• ,.,., M"'" 4. Educational Signage a ~d.u.C~liona.L~I~~a.~e~ig~li~11tr~~& ~xp,tai~l~g the Green Features is Included 5. Vandalism Management Plan • a.~r_oJec~ Includes a Vandalism M;lnl'!rIPITIPnl Plan for De.al'n.g wilh Dist .. ur~ances 6. Innovalion: Lisl innovative measures .hat meelthe green building objeclrves 01 the Multifamily Guidelmes. 'Enter up to a 4 Points in each calegory Poinls will be evaluated; by local jur,sdiction or GreenPoint raler ti' I nnovation in Community Enler up to 4 Points alleft Enler description here II I nnovalion in Energy: Enter up to 4 Points alleh. Enter description here {} I nnovation in IAQJHealth: Enter up to 4 Points alleft Enter description here G I nnovation in Resources: Enter up 104 Points at left Enter descriplion here fi I nnovation in Waler: Enter up to 4 POints at left Enter description here .§~mmCJ.'Y .,.,. MF GreenPoint CheCklist POints Achieved from Specific Categories Current Pornt Total 2005 Eoition v.2 Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ATTACHMENTD Planning and Transportation Commission May 27, 2009 Approved Verbatim Minutes (approved June 24, 2009) EXCERPT Commissioner Fineberg: I will be recusing myself on the next item regarding the development at 200 San Antonio. My husband is employed by Hewlett Packard so I have a personal conflict of interest. Chair Garber: Thank you. Five minute break. Public Hearing: 2. 200 San Antonio Road: Request by Hewlett Packard for review and recommendation to City Council to approve a Development Agreement extending the Architectural Review and Vesting Tentative Map with Exceptions approvals for five years and providing additional project benefits of the approved 45-unit townhome development. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report has been completed in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. Zone Districts: ROLM and RM-30. Chair Garber: Folks, lets get started. This is item number two, 200 San Antonio Avenue. A request by Hewlett Packard for approval of a Development Agreement extending the Architectural Review and Vesting Tentative Map with Exceptions approvals for five years and providing additional project benefits of the approved 45 unit townhome development in ROLM and RM-30 zone districts. Would Stafflike to make a presentation? Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: Yes, and I will make it rather short. Thank you, Chair Garber and Commissioners. The Development Agreement is to extend the ARB and Vesting Tentative Map approvals. It does note that the owner shall comply with and perform all of the conditions of approval of those approvals. I want to note that we are looking at an end date of February 26,2014, as far as the effective date. The applicant has made note of that and he can present anything surrounding that. It would coordinate with the Mountain View extensions of the Mountain View approvals. Of course, the project is heavily a Mountain View project with just a mere 45 units in our city. So the Mountain View approvals are the ones that they will be really interested in having a developer have a consistency between the two approvals for anybody who does buy this parcel and develop it. The project benefits of extending the development approvals includes the Ginnever Sculpture, which you have a copy of the map which is helpful to see where the sculpture is now on the Mountain View side and where it is proposed to be located as noted in the report from Staff. As noted, this did go to the Architectural Review Board and Public Arts Commission for review of the proposed location. As also noted in the report, the Development Agreement procedures and requirements are governed by Resolution 6597, which notes that this is a legislative act. It is approved by ordinance by Council and is subject to referendum. It also requires the Director to review annually development agreements to make sure there is good faith compliance with the 1 tenns ofthe agreement. Again, the extensions are not a whole lot longer than what would be 2 allowed as far as the Vesting Tentative Map because the Subdivision Map Act does allow 3 extensions without a development agreement. So it extends it just a bit longer than those. 4 5 The staff just became aware tonight of an email that was sent from a neighbor in the 6 Greenmeadow Homeowner's Association, Penny Ellson. I believe it was put at places. We 7 found it on the back table. So I have shared that with the applicant who is here to present to you. 8 Just to clarify that the EIR covered some of these things. 9 10 Chair Garber: Excuse me Amy I don't think it was at places. 11 12 Ms. French: Oh, okay. 13 14 Chair Garber: Did anybody else get it? So you may want to review that. 15 16 Ms. French: Okay. It was received I guess Monday evening and Julie and I found it on the back 17 table today and I shared it with the applicant. So let's get it to you. It has three questions and a 18 comment; it has a comment on the submittal. As I said, the applicant is ready to address several 19 of those and I am happy to answer questions about it. Basically the first question relates to the 20 EIR and the analysis of approved projects and future reviews ofprojects. It would consider this 21 as an approved project for future review of traffic analysis for other projects that are going to 22 come in the future. The second question has to do with the fact that there is a property, the 23 William Kelley parcel, which you may remember from your review of the Tentative Map not 24 many months ago where they are doing a phase one analysis of the hazardous materials to make 25 sure there are no hazardous materials. The City would not want to acquire a dirty site so as part 26 of the conveyance document, it was actually analyzed in the EIR presented there, and as part of 27 any conveyance document to the City it would have mitigation for the applicant to clean up prior 28 to the City's acquisition of such parcel. Then the third question has to do with maintaining the 29 tunnel access during construction. On page four ofthe Staff Report as well as page six of the 30 Development Agreement we cover that, as far as after the demolition and during redevelopment 31 we would have access through the site preserved. That pretty much sums up what I was going to 32 say. As I note the applicant is here to make a presentation. 33 34 Chair Garber: You will have 15 minutes. 35 36 Ms. Caporgno: Before the applicant begins I would like to respond to the first question from Ms. 37 Ellson a little bit more about the Development Agreement and the traffic analysis. I think what 38 is being questioned is whether or not we are going to consider the site as being vacant for future 39 traffic analysis as they come forward before the project is actually built. That would not be the 40 case. Now that project is assumed to have 45 units on it. So any subsequent traffic analysis for 41 any future development in that area would assume that traffic on that property. So therefore it 42 would be in addition to whatever their impacts would be. 43 44 Chair Garber: Please. 45 1 Mr. Douglas Aikins, Palo Alto: Good evening Mr. Chainnan and Commissioners. I am with the 2 law finn of Rattan and Tucker in Palo Alto. I am representing Hewlett Packard. I would add 3 only to Julie's comment that all 481 units would be considered for planning and EIR purposes as 4 existing and their impacts would be factored into every subsequent environmental analysis in 5 that area. 6 7 I think the staff report in summary covered the project very well and I would only add a couple 8 of context comments in addition to speaking to Ms. Ellson's objections. By way of context the 9 same real estate financial crisis that cast Hewlett Packard in the role of a more or less unwilling 10 real estate developer has also placed a crucial premium on certainly and stability in the land use 11 approvals that have been granted over the last five years by both Mountain View and Palo Alto. 12 It took a long time to get them. They are very complex. They interrelate well. They address 13 literally hundreds of issues and the prospect of them unraveling in 18 months or less as current 14 land use approvals expire is intimidating and potentially fatal to a quick and successful 15 conveyance of the site into the hands an expert residential developer. Not only did Hewlett 16 Packard have to become a real estate developer overnight it had to become a residential 17 developer capable of game planning exactly what a buyer for the property would want to see. 18 Foremost among the things a buyer for the site would want to see is a very stable, relatively 19 certain set of land use approvals that can be properly priced that will detennine the value for the 20 property. 21 22 So Hewlett Packard came to the City of Palo Alto and to Mountain View relatively late in the 23 process and said this is the feedback we are getting from the buying community, the local expert 24 developers that you are familiar with, and we need a Development Agreement. Mountain View 25 was quick to accommodate with a Development Agreement that produced both party's best 26 guesses as to what the duration of time would be needed for the real estate financing crisis to 27 abate and things to get back to nonnal. They enacted one extending their land use approvals for 28 five years with the proviso that provided that all of the complex infrastructure improvements 29 would be bonded for and financially secured and a Final Map issued on that basis within the five 30 years. Then an additional three years would be available if necessary. Again, assuming that our 31 best guesses as to the duration of the current financial crisis might be off. 32 33 The financial reality driving that is the potential disaster scenario that expiring development 34 approvals could force the buyer, the project developer, to rely on insufficient or fragile financing 35 particularly construction financing and start demolition and construction prematurely, before the 36 financing picture was solid or affordable or feasible, leading to the potential scenario of a half- 37 built project and defaults in loans and a disappointment of all of the community expectations 38 both in Palo Alto and in Mountain View. 39 40 So the financial reality Mountain View, and we hope Palo Alto, recognize and accommodate is 41 one in which the developer needs time in which to select the moment at which it will obtain 42 construction financing, begin a roughly $2.5 million demolition process, and then begin 43 construction of a very complicated property. The approved building types are very complex and 44 difficult to finance because there is underground parking with four or five stories of building 45 above that. You can't build those in chunks you have to build them simultaneously and they cost 46 tens and tens of millions of dollars. So we are in effect accommodating the developer 1 community by providing the certainty that they require in order to get financing at all and make 2 the project approvals a reality as soon as possible. 3 4 I can only underscore that these Development Agreements are crucial to Hewlett Packard. They 5 are financially imperative to conveyance of the site and commencement of construction as soon 6 as feasible. I will be happy to answer any questions. 7 8 Before I get that I would like to speak briefly to the objections raised by Ms. Ellson. Her first 9 point to the effect that the developer could build the project virtually unimpeded by potential 10 future land use regulation changes is true but it is one side of a whole issue. While this 11 Development Agreement does protect against future land use regulation changes the very 12 certainty that future land use regulation changes will not overburden financially, or radically 13 restructure or redesign the project, is a crucial element in allowing a developer to not only 14 understand the financial obligations of building out the project but also be able to plan a timeline 15 during which the proj ect can be built without having to go back to the either city or both cities 16 for additional land use approvals. I can speak further to that issue if you wish. It is a very 17 important statewide policy issue that actually prompted the enactment of the development 18 agreement statute in the late 1970s, particular pertaining to large complex multiple phase projects 19 like this one. 20 21 The EIR issue, the second paragraph, she notes I think it can be characterized as her opinion on a 22 technical issue that the Mountain View City Council has resolved already in certifying the EIR. 23 24 Amy has spoken already to item number one. Item number two, I think there is no reason to 25 expect that any hazardous level one materials study would be an impediment to the conveyance. 26 That is a diagnostic study, it would simply say this is what we found on the site, the site has been 27 within Palo Alto's control for 30-plus years, and I doubt that there is anything there other than 28 what is there on other center medians and other traffic effected pieces of real estate. There are 29 no changes to that underpass area proposed by the new development. So her worry about 30 impeding a conveyance I think is unfounded. 31 32 The tunnel access issue, number three, there are no changes to the pedestrian tunnel proposed in 33 the new project. As Amy mentioned the Development Agreement explicitly requires that all 34 existing access will stay open until construction commences. That is an important issue for Palo 35 Alto and Mountain View both. The Development Agreement has regulated that issue. We are 36 perfectly content with that regulation. When first demolition and then construction begin of 37 course the site will be fenced and it will be an active construction site, a large one. So 38 unavoidably for the interim period the public will have to just avoid and go around an active 39 construction site until the new streets and new access ways are built. I hope that takes care of the 40 issues that have been raised and I will be happy to answer any questions you have. 41 42 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma and then Keller. 43 44 Vice-Chair Tuma: First a question for Amy. You said they would be allowed to get a certain 45 amount of time extended anyway and that it is only a little bit of difference. Can you quantify 46 that difference? 1 2 Ms. French: Yes, the ARB approval was extended to the adoption of the Vesting Tentative Map 3 approval. That was in February of this year, by City Council. So technically then the ARB 4 approval would go until next year, February 9, with an option for the applicant to request a one 5 more year extension. The ARB permit could conceivably expire February 9,2011 as opposed to 6 February 2014. so that is a three-year difference. The Vesting Tentative Map, again because of 7 the Subdivision Map Act, could extend all the way out to February 9,2011 unless the Final Map 8 is submitted. It can be extended by Council without a DeVelopment Agreement up to five years 9 beyond the expiration so even without a Development Agreement Council could extend it five 10 years beyond 2011 so that would be 2015. 11 12 Again, because the applicant is interested in selling the site it is important to do it this way with 13 the Development Agreement but I don't think it is all that different from what could be done by 14 Council. 15 16 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. So I am going to go straight to comments. In looking at this, 17 particularly Exhibit 1, Attachment A, the memorandum from the applicant, the last two 18 paragraphs I find it particularly compelling. I think the request is very reasonable and I see no 19 reason to not support the request. 20 21 My only concern is, and this is another question for Staff, we talked about this a little bit in pre- 22 Commission. Is there anything that the City of Palo Alto needs to do to protect itself from the 23 impacts of any delays? What I am thinking about in particular is essentially what I gleaned from 24 the math we just did is this basically gives them as a matter of right once this is defined 25 something two years longer than what they could otherwise get, which is five years instead of 26 three years. So it seems to me that if we have any ordinances that get passed in that intervening 27 time that would otherwise entitle the City to something whether it is impact fees or something 28 like that would it be appropriate to instead of that curtain going down now it would go down now 29 three years from now? So it would give them the certainty of the extended amount of time but 30 not impede Palo Alto's ability to get certain impact fees or other changes in ordinances that 31 would be applicable. Is that appropriate under these circumstances? 32 33 Mr. Larkin: I think if you look at Section five on page eight of the Agreement that actually 34 addresses the issue. It says that any fees, assessments, dedication, taxes payable in connection 35 with the development, construction, occupancy, and use shall be those applicable to similar 36 developments in the City at the time of the issuance of the Building Permits. So that does give 37 the City that flexibility. The only thing that is excluded from that is the Quimby Act fees. I was 38 reminded that the reason that we excluded Quimby Act fees to begin with is that the project is in 39 compliance providing more than adequate parkland. The difficulty is the parkland that is being 40 provided is on the site but it is not in the city limits and that is where the confusion comes in. 41 42 Vice-Chair Tuma: So in that paragraph it says no other project-specific fee, assessment, 43 exaction, or required dedication policy not in effect on the effective date. What would be the 44 effective date? 45 1 Mr. Larkin: The effective date is the date of Council passage. But again, it is unless it is 2 imposed uniformly on all similar projects. So ifthe City passes a citywide impact fee on certain 3 developments it would apply to this project. Normally that would not be the case with a Vesting 4 Tentative Map. 5 6 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, it sounds like that is covered. I am not prepared to make a motion at 7 this time but under the circumstances I see no reason not to be supportive of granting the 8 Development Agreement or recommending it anyway. 9 10 Chair Garber: Let's see if there are other questions and then perhaps we can come back to you to 11 make the motion. Commissioner Keller and then Lippert. 12 13 Commissioner Keller: So with respect to the timeline I notice that even under environmental 14 review it says that this went to the Commission on January 14, 2009 that date is not to be seen 15 within the timeline. So I am assuming that the fact that it went to the Planning Commission 16 should be in the timeline and is not there. 17 18 What I do remember at the meeting of January 14, 2009 when we had Toll Brothers here is that I 19 asked the gentleman from Toll Brothers whether they were planning to develop this or whether 20 they were planning to sell the rights or somehow transfer the right to develop to somebody else. 21 I was told unequivocably by Toll Brothers that they were planning to develop them themselves. 22 Yet, one month and three days later we get the application for the Development Agreement. In 23 fact that was eight days after the Council approved the Tentative Map. While I certainly have no 24 beef with Hewlett Packard trying to proceed this forward this does indicate that the statement 25 was somewhat misleading by Toll Brothers. Ijust want to point that out for the record. The 26 gentleman here from Hewlett Packard did not make that statement and should not be blamed for 27 it but does indicate some lack of clarity in terms of the statement made by Toll Brothers. 28 29 I have a couple of concerns. One is what is the timing of the conveyance of the William Kelley 30 parcel to the City with respect to this potentially eight-year timeline? 31 32 Mr. Akins: That is required by Condition 3 on page ten of ARB approval. It simply says it must 33 acquire it and I don't know of a required point in the sequence of events by which it must be 34 acquired. In order to obtain a Final Map all the conditions ofthe Tentative Map and the ARB 35 approval must be satisfied. So either this parcel must have been acquired by the time of issuance 36 of a Final Map or it must have been a performance of acquisition must have been guaranteed by 37 provision of an adequate financial security subject to the approval ofthe Staff and City Attorney. 38 39 Commissioner Keller: So it seems to me that part of the Development Agreement I think should 40 have a time line with respect to the conveyance of that parcel. 41 42 Mr. Akins: If! may, the acquisition is a mandatory prerequisite to issuance of a Final Map so it 43 must occur. Arbitrarily picking a time in space by which it must occur would probably not be as 44 effective as allowing the acquisition process to proceed because the acquisition is a two-step 45 event. The obligation is placed first on the owner, which would be a developer to be named later 46 at that time. That person would go and attempt to acquire it through private negotiations. If 1 those negotiations fail the owner, the developer at that time, will come back to Palo Alto and say 2 we have failed. Here are appraisals for the property. Here is our last best offer. Here is a 3 percentage surcharge that we think might be agreed to in a negotiation with the Kelley heirs, and 4 here Palo Alto is a check or a financial device of some sort in a certain amount, satisfactory to 5 the Staff and City Attorney that will guarantee that that property can be acquired through 6 eminent domain. 7 8 Commissioner Keller: If eminent domain turns out to be greater in cost. 9 10 Mr. Akins: We would make up the difference. 11 12 Commissioner Keller: You would make up the difference. 13 14 Mr. Akins: When I say we, it is the owner at the time, the person who wants that Final Map. 15 Palo Alto has a hammer that is unavoidable. 16 17 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. The second issue is I am concerned about the idea of early 18 demolition prior to an approved plan or Building Pennit issued for the new thing. The problem 19 is that essentially you would be creating something that is more, to me at least, more blight than 20 what currently exists. Rubble or sort of the removal of the existing building and the big expanse 21 of land I am not sure if that is better than what exists. I am wondering if it makes sense to defer 22 the demolition and perhaps put the building to some use in the interim rather than demolishing it 23 potentially eight years or so prior to I am not sure. There is at least five years between now 24 and when the Final Map can be approved and then it could be a year or two after that when 25 construction begins. So potentially it could be five, six, seven years of rubble. 26 27 Mr. Akins: If! may I could answer that to the Chair. Maintenance of the building in a lights out 28 condition, the building complex, costs nearly $2.0 million a year for security, inspections, 29 maintenance, and cleanup, you name it, people dump stuffthere, and a variety of community 30 organizations request pennission to use the facility for various things. Hewlett Packard provides 31 them for free but they cost money to Hewlett Packard. Hewlett Packard's motivation, and it 32 happens to dovetail perfectly with Mountain View's motivation, is to get rid ofthese buildings as 33 soon as possible. They are expensive, relatively dangerous, they are sort of an attractive 34 nuisance to people who want to go into empty buildings and do whatever they want to do there. 35 The cost of having them present is extraordinary compared to the benefit, and this Development 36 Agreement and the Mountain View Development Agreement both provide that we would be 37 starting immediately with negotiations and discussions on the technical merits of Mountain View 38 issuing a comprehensive master demolition pennit. That would address a long list of roughly 20 39 policy items that Mountain View has identified where it wants to properly coordinate the 40 sequence oftenninating utilities on the site, fencing, security provisions, what have you, off haul 41 of demolition waste. It is a big deal to take away an industrial complex like this. Mountain 42 View is focused on this extensively. They want the buildings gone as soon as possible. It is 43 roughly a $2.5 million process to demolish them. it is going to take roughly six months to get a 44 demolition pennit at all, and then roughly eight or nine or ten months, something like that to do 45 the demolition work. It is a major undertaking and it is under rather comprehensive management 46 by Mountain View. Hewlett Packard's request is that Palo Alto not inject its own additional 1 policy priorities into that process beyond what is expressed in the Development Agreement 2 already. The Palo Alto Staffhas gone through that and they provided for coordination between 3 the two building departments but once again Hewlett Packard is seeking a clarity and a 4 simplicity of the regulatory process that will translate in the eyes of the buyer of the site into a 5 bigger check. If the buyer of the site has to deal with two municipalities with competing and 6 conflicting requirements the site becomes less valuable. 7 8 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So let's suppose this moves forward as you envision and a 9 year and a half from now the demolition is complete and there are presumably somewhere on the 10 order of three to six years after that before construction starts. What will be the state of the site 11 during that interim period? 12 13 Mr. Akins: A fenced grassy meadow punctuated by roads. The roadway network will remain. 14 Well, not necessarily, I take back, sorry. As long as possible the roadway network will remain 15 and at some point it will either have to be a set of roadways, existing roadways in the gaps 16 among fenced grassy sites or the entire area including the removed roadways will exist. That 17 will be immediately prior to construction. Palo Alto has required that the roadways remain as 18 long as possible to provide continuing community access to the site and that can be done. That is 19 feasible. 20 21 Commissioner Keller: So presumably getting onto my final question here is that other than as 22 needed during the demolition process and subsequently during the construction process there will 23 be continuous access for the bike lane from Nita into Mountain View. 24 25 Mr. Akins: As expressed in the Development Agreement. I don't recall specifically whether 26 your example is addressed there but the Development Agreement addresses it in a relatively 27 comprehensive way. 28 29 Mr. Larkin: It is all access via the roadways through the site shall remain open. Also the 30 Development Agreement has a provision that requires that the landscaping be maintained so as 31 not to create a public nuisance. So there would not be piles of rubble the site would be 32 maintained during the time there wouldn't be buildings on it. 33 34 Commissioner Keller: So what you are saying is that the bike lane from Nita into Mountain 35 View and the path from the tunnel to the Mountain View train station would be accessible. 36 37 Mr. Larkin: We were not explicit in the Agreement. We said that all the access ways had to 38 remam open. 39 40 Ms. French: Technically it says following the demolition and prior to the commencement of 41 redevelopment. So there is a window there when it is safe and there is not something happening. 42 43 Mr. Akins: Yes, that is the picture I was trying to create. All existing roadways remain and the 44 areas in between the roadways would be fenced and grassy. 45 1 Commissioner Keller: So if these things are grassy I am wondering why they have to be fenced. 2 Could these in some sense be used for recreational purposes during that period oftime or is that a 3 hazardous condition? 4 5 Mr. Akins: I am actually paraphrasing Mountain View's preference. I don't know whether they 6 would be fenced. Ifthey could be open I am sure Mountain View would go with that solution as 7 a community amenity for the interim. If they find that exposed items left over from demolition 8 are a problem again, their demolition permit is anticipated so far to be about 50 pages long. 9 10 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. Just to close this issue I think that to the extent that the 11 space can be available for community use by having it be a grassy area without impedance of 12 fences it seems that the fences actually create a potential nuisance more than removing it does 13 if it is not hazardous. 14 15 Mr. Akins: If I may further paraphrase Mountain View they share your desire to balance both 16 access by the community, which is mostly Mountain View, with the upper limits of feasibility. 17 If it is unsafe, if it is impossible to maintain, if you can't maintain it without a half million 18 dollars worth of sprinkler system that might be a constraint. Some areas may be grassy and 19 others not. They share your desire to balance those two competing interests. 20 21 Commissioner Keller: Thank you very much. 22 23 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert and then Rosati and then Holman. 24 25 Commissioner Lippert: I have a similar line of questioning to Commissioner Keller's. I am not 26 concerned about the demolition of the building in the sense of having a physical building there. I 27 think it should be raised almost immediately. 28 29 My concern is slightly different though. Hewlett Packard acquired the site back in the mid to 30 early 1980s. At that time property tax adjusted on the sale when they purchased the property. 31 Now it has increased in property taxes that were paid into the county and the local governments 32 at the rate of Prop 13. Here we are that you are asking that we have this Development 33 Agreement so that you can defer building on the property. So the expectation is that as far as our 34 community is concerned the buildings would be raised and then developed and it would turnover 35 and thereby generate even greater property taxes. In this case, we are taking a site, demolishing 36 a building, and as far as the County Assessor there is no improvement on the land what happens 37 to that portion of the property tax? 38 39 Mr. Akins: Through the Chair, I think what you would see is an immediate step up in the 40 assessed valuation basis ofthe property from the valuation current as ofthe date when Hewlett 41 Packard acquired it, and I don't know what that is so let's say it is mid 1980s values or early 42 1980s values to present value. Hewlett Packard's interest obviously in obtaining a streamline, 43 simple, clear entitlements picture is to make sure that they get as much money for it as possible. 44 Therefore the assessed valuation basis would be current as of2009. My assumption, and it is 45 only that, is that would be substantially higher than the original acquisition price the early 1980s. 46 So Palo Alto would see a step up in property taxes current as of now, and then when construction 1 began the value of the construction financing loan would hit the Assessor's Office that would be 2 another step up in basis, and when the occupancy pennits are issued upon completion of 3 construction that would be another assessment event, and at that point it would be assessed at the 4 value of 481 units. 5 6 Commissioner Lippert: Maybe the City Attorney could correct me if I am wrong but once the 7 building is demolished can they not apply to the county to have the improvement portion oftheir 8 property taxes expunged? 9 10 Mr. Larkin: I am not a tax attorney. 11 12 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. 13 14 Mr. Akins: If! may just clarify a point. The last evidence the Assessor would have is of the 15 conveyance value. Assuming that that is higher than the present assessed basis, that step up on 16 basis would be continuous regardless of whether improvements were removed because it is the 17 land that is being purchased and it is the land that has that value. 18 19 Commissioner Lippert: So what you are saying is, and again I am not a tax attorney I am an 20 architect. 21 22 Mr. Akins: I am not a tax attorney either. 23 24 Commissioner Lippert: If the building were demolished it would not represent a reduction in the 25 property tax? 26 27 Mr. Akins: From my limited experience in this I think the property owner at that time would 28 have to carry the burden with the Assessor that the land without the buildings is in fact cheaper 29 than the price he paid for it. In this instance I think that would be a hard row to hoe because this 30 would be fully entitled land with six subdivision maps on it in probably the hottest residential 31 real estate market in Northern California. 32 33 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, that is just something I think Staff should probably be aware of 34 and probably want to check with Council on that. 35 36 Then one other question is with regard to the level one environmental that is being done. That 37 needs to be done for transfer of the property in order to be able to secure the financing. Hewlett 38 Packard is notorious for paying cash for their buildings. What they generally do is say we are 39 going to build another fab building or office building and then they pay cash and don't have to 40 worry about the level one. The Mayfield Mall site was there and something else was probably 41 there prior to that. What if it came back positive that there was contamination there? How 42 would that impact the financing and further impact the schedule? 43 44 Mr. Akins: The level one diagnostic analysis of soil conditions would be in the hands of both, 45 let's say the developer it wouldn't be Hewlett Packard by that time. It would be a sophisticated 46 residential expert developer. It also would be made available to the Kelley heirs, the people who 1 own the property. That would probably affect the price depending on the magnitude of what is 2 discovered there. Let's say the fair market value as clean is X, it would be X minus the 3 mitigation cost. Soil of this type in this location probably the worst risk is that it would have 4 either lead from automobiles passing by for 50 years or agricultural chemicals left over from 5 predevelopment days. One way or the other you can excavate a lot of soil from this center 6 median, this very large center median area, and replace it with clean soil. So mitigation is just a 7 question of how may trucks of soil you have to haul away and store appropriately. In the scheme 8 of things this land is covered by Palo Alto's easements for access and maintenance. It is literally 9 a center median where there is no development permitted so it has a very low market value. 10 When you take that low market value it has no access, it can't be developed, there is no utility 11 whatsoever but reduce it by the cost of mitigation of surface soil conditions it is a pretty cheap 12 piece of property. 13 14 Commissioner Lippert: Thank you very much. 15 16 Chair Garber: Commissioner Rosati and then Holman. 17 18 Commissioner Rosati: I have a question for Amy. Does this set any kind of precedent? I am 19 thinking if other developers or property owners wanted to do something like this in the future are 20 we thinking there are any worries or anything we should think about? 21 22 Ms. French: In fact we do have other developments out there, developers, applicants who are 23 concerned about pending expiration of permits in this current economic climate. So we have had 24 discussion about coming forward with a proposal to allow for extensions by the Director for 25 certain periods to get us through this crisis in the economy. As far as precedent, there is that 26 state law that allows for development agreements and so anyone can come in any time and 27 request these. They are approved by ordinance, by Council, and referendable. 28 29 Mr. Larkin: One distinction on this project is that it is a very large project the bulk of which is 30 not within our jurisdiction. So the idea of doing a development agreement that mirrors the 31 development agreement in Mountain View made a lot of sense to Staff. 32 33 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman. 34 35 Commissioner Holman: A clarification on something that was just said. Amy, could you restate 36 what you were saying about the Director extending approvals. 37 38 Ms. French: Currently ARB approvals are good for a year and then by request they can be 39 extended for another year. This has some applicants concerned about approvals that have been 40 issued. There is a case of a Planned Community with similar concerns. There was no 41 development agreement accompanying that Planned Community, and a Planned Community 42 expires after a year. They can be extended for one year, with a two-year total by the Director. 43 Then after that they would have to do something extraordinary. So we are looking at coming 44 forward with something that wi11look into having the Director have greater flexibility, an 45 additional year maybe, but we can talk about that at this level. We have not agendized it. It has 46 not been vetted through Staff yet but we are getting concern out there. 1 2 Commissioner Holman: That would come to us? Nothing would happen without it coming to us 3 first? 4 5 Ms. French: Correct. 6 7 Commissioner Holman: Okay, thank you for that clarification. 8 9 Two things about this, and I appreciate the other Commissioner's lines of questioning. On page 10 ten of the Development Agreement, under number 8, Periodic Review, 8.1 Annual Review, City 11 and owner shall review all actions taken pursuant to the term of the Agreement once annually 12 within 60 days before the anniversary of the effective date, etc. Who pays for that? There is 13 going to be involvement with the City. Is there any mechanism by which the City can recuperate 14 the Staff expenses for doing that review? 15 16 Mr. Larkin: It is cost recovery. It is not expensive but it is cost recovery. 17 18 Commissioner Holman: Even after the Development Agreement is signed, after permits have 19 been given it is still cost recovery. 20 21 Ms. French: Our accounting allows for us to keep open, we have a deposit that is received. In 22 this case I believe Toll Brothers paid it. So the question would only be once there is a new buyer 23 do we look into getting a deposit if it is not Toll Brothers acquiring the property, we may look 24 into that. 25 26 Commissioner Holman: Would there be any difficulty in just saying 'at owners expense' in the 27 Development Agreement? That way it is clear, straightforward, and there is no question. 28 29 Mr. Larkin: We can talk to the applicant about that. I don't see why that would be a problem. 30 31 Mr. Akins: Through the Chair, if! may that is certainly an assumed principle. Every time we 32 come to the City or anytime anybody comes to the City for Staffwork my understanding is that 33 your existing ordinance and resolutions provide for cost recovery. This is a well-known 34 statewide principle. These sections are taken from state law and everybody in the development 35 business understands that a review of annual compliance is in effect an application subject to the 36 fees. 37 38 Commissioner Holman: It is somewhat different but it has come to my attention if it stated 39 correctly that in the PC Ordinance we have a requirement for review of those PC projects every 40 three years. A Staff person said that when we look at changing that ordinance we need to build 41 in something that says that it will be paid for by the owner because there is no way now to 42 recoup those costs. So that is what causes me to ask the question. So I am just looking for 43 would it provide better clarity rather than just an assumption to add that in. 44 45 Mr. Larkin: It is actually a good suggestion because the actual cost of doing this type of a 46 compliance certificate is less than. Normally what would happen is either we would have it at 1 the deposit, the deposit is gone, we would charge them a new fee for a certificate of compliance. 2 This is actually cheaper than a normal certificate of compliance. So we could put at owner's 3 expense and that shouldn't be an issue. 4 5 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. The only other thing that I have and it does come from 6 looking at ordinances in the last year or more is there any difficulty with including the conditions 7 of approval in the Development Agreement? What happens sometimes, more than one time, is 8 conditions of approval get separated from Development Agreements or PC Ordinances and then 9 you have track down something else and sometimes they are just lost. So could we incorporate 10 the conditions of approval in the Development Agreement? Is there any difficulty with that? I 11 would suppose not. 12 13 Ms. French: Or we could do it as an exhibit. I think that is one way we have done it in more 14 recent times and have actually kept track of those exhibits. 15 16 Commissioner Holman: If you are comfortable that it would not get lost or separated. 17 18 Ms. French: We are more modem today than we were in the 1960 when those kinds of things 19 went missing. 20 21 Commissioner Holman: More recent than that too but not under your watch. Okay, those were 22 my two questions. 23 24 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma, motion? We will close the public hearing. 25 26 MOTION 27 28 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yes, I would like to move that the Planning and Transportation Commission 29 recommend that City Council adopt the ordinance approving the Development Agreement, 30 which is attached as Exhibit A to our Staff Report with the following two amendments. Section 31 8.1 shall have an introductory clause that reads 'at the expense of the owner,' and additionally 32 the conditions of approval shall be attached as an exhibit to the Development Agreement. 33 34 SECOND 35 36 Chair Garber: I will second that. Would the Commissioner like to speak to his motion? 37 38 Vice-Chair Tuma: No. 39 40 Chair Garber: The seconder will just briefly. I would like to thank the Commissioners for their 41 questions. I thought they were very good. I think it is a very important thing for us to move this 42 forward. So let's vote unless there is other discussion, Commissioners? Commissioner Keller. 43 44 Commissioner Keller: I agree this makes sense to move forward and I cannot resist saying that 45 the economy has taken its toll. 46 1 MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Fineberg conflicted) 2 3 Chair Garber: Thank you, Commissioner Keller. All those in favor of the motion say aye. 4 (ayes) All opposed? The motion passes with Commissioners Holman, Rosati, Keller, Garber, 5 Tuma, and Lippert in favor and Commissioner Fineberg not participating. 6 7 With that we will close item number two. I would like to thank the applicant's representative for 8 a job very well done, nicely done, and for your patience waiting for this. 9 ATTACHMENT F MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Amy French, Don Larkin, Esq.; City of Palo Alto FROM: Douglas B. Aikins DATE: March 25, 2009 FILE NO.: 027227-0005 RE: Mayfield Project; Supplemental Information Regarding Application for Development Agreement On behalf of my client, the Hewlett-Packard Company ("HP"), the following is background information pertaining to HP's pending application for a development agreement. Temporary uses of the Mayfield Site. At the request of the Palo Alto Public Works Department, HP has granted temporary licenses to use portions of the Mayfield property to help facilitate Palo Alto's nearby street widening project. HP granted a license to the Gideon Hausner Jewish Day School to use the parking lot near the school for teachers and parents, while access to the school's parking area is blocked by Palo Alto's street construction project. HP also granted a license to Palo Alto's street widening contractor, Blossom Valley Construction, to use another portion of the parking area for construction equipment staging and storage, and as a work area for grinding and disposal oftrees removed as part ofthe street widening project. In addition to these temporary uses requested by Palo Alto, portions of the Mayfield site are annually made available to the Mountain View Fire Department and other local public safety agencies for purposes of conducting realistic training exercises within the buildings and parking structures. Rationale for Development Agreement. Normally, statutory development agreements in California are used in two types of instances; (1) when it serves the public interest to ensure that land use approvals will remain stable and effective for an extended period of time, or (2) when relief or exemption from some otherwise applicable land use regulation is justified, so that a real estate development project can be constructed as envisioned by its owner and by the municipality involved. This agreement is requested only to extend the duration of existing project approvals, and not to exempt the project from any Palo Alto land use regulations. Development agreements typically are well justified are (a) when the development project is unusually complex (mixed uses, a constrained site, etc.), (b) when a project will require an extended build-out period, normally in several phases over several years, (c) when a project is unusually difficult to finance or design, either due to its own unique features or its large size or expense, or due to prevailing market conditions, (d) when the project requires modifications of otherwise-applicable land use regulations in order to be feasible, or (e) when some other external factor threatens to unravel carefully crafted development approval conditions. In this case, several ofthe foregoing factors prompt HP's request for a development agreement. The Mayfield project approvals are extremely complex and detailed. They have been issued by two separate cities, are carefully coordinated, and address literally hundreds of design, public improvement and land use elements of the project. The project includes five main 2486/027227-0005 999633.01 a03/24/09 Ms. Amy French, Don Larkin, Esq.; City of Palo Alto March 25, 2009 Page 2 "development areas" and 485 units of five principal housing types on an oddly-shaped large site, comprising the largest current "infill" housing development on the Peninsula. Construction and home sales ofa project of this large size, in the best of real estate markets, would require build- out in phases over several years. The project's design, multi-level housing over an underground garage, imposes unusually severe construction financing requirements, since the large buildings over parking must be built all at once. In current national real estate financing market conditions, very large construction loans are difficult, if not infeasible, to obtain. In this case, the project requires no special relief or exemptions from Palo Alto's land use regulations; on the contrary, it complies with or exceeds all applicable Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations. The current construction financing market, however, does comprise an external factor that threatens existing project approvals. After two municipalities spent over five years to craft the project's land use approvals, involving many thousands of hours of community and professional staff input, project approvals will start to expire if construction is not begun within less than a year. In this real estate market, with credit restricted and house prices depressed, Palo Alto's and Mountain View's investment in project approvals could be quickly wasted, unless the expiration dates of project approvals are extended. Mountain View has enacted a development agreement with an initial term of five (5) years, extended by another three (3) years upon issuance of a Final Subdivision Map. Five years was selected as both parties' best estimate of how soon the national construction credit markets would become more normal. The three-year extension is intended to allow for a further extension before construction must begin, in case the 5-year estimate is not long enough, while ensuring that the first phase of the project's very expensive public improvements will be guaranteed and financially secured. This development agreement is requested purely for "defensive" reasons; not to obtain relief from any applicable Palo Alto land use regulation, or to obtain any benefit or favorable treatment normally withheld from other real estate developers, but simply to guard against the possibility that an historically poor national financial market could force the project owner to choose between letting project approvals expire, or starting construction prematurely, with inadequate or insecure financing, running the risk of default or foreclosure and half-built buildings. Either of these scenarios would be not only disastrous for the project developer, but also contrary to the public interests embodied in seeing the project built and occupied as envisioned and approved. 2486/027227-0005 999633.01 a03/24/09 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: JUL Y 13, 2009 REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 304:09 SUBJECT: Initiation of: (1) a Zone Change from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District to Planned Community (PC) District for a mixed use project having 61,960 square feet of floor area, including 8,000 square feet of grocery (intended for JJ&F Market), 5,580 square feet of other retail, 14 affordable one-bedroom residential units, 39,980 square feet of office use, and two levels of below-grade parking facilities and surface parking facilities providing 227 parking spaces located at 2180 EI Camino Real; and (2) a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to assign the Mixed Use land use designation to a site currently designated as Neighborhood Commercial. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This project entails requests for the initiation of a Planned Community Zone Change from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) to Planned Community (PC) and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use for a site located at 2180 EI Camino Real. The proposal includes the construction of a mixed use development with three buildings built over two levels of below grade parking with retail, office and residential uses above. The key issue for consideration is the adequacy of the retention of the neighborhood grocery store as a public benefit to offset the proposed amount of office square footage. The Planning and Transportation Commission recommended denial of both requests at its April 29, 2009 meeting. The City Council has three primary options regarding the action it may take on this item. The Council may: 1) decline to initiate the PC rezone request and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment; or 2) provide direction and return the item back to the Commission for further consideration before moving the item forward to the Architectural Review Board (ARB); or 3) initiate the rezone request and Comprehensive Plan Amendment and forward the application to the ARB. CMR: 304:09 Page 1 of7 RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommends that the City Council decline to initiate the requested PC Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Staff recommends that the City Council either: 1) Accept the Commission's recommendation and vote not to initiate the proposed amendments and the applicant could then submit a different application; or 2) Provide direction regarding development parameters, such as those pertaining to land uses and maximum floor area, that the City Council deems appropriate, suggest that the applicant modify the project and direct the Commission to conduct a second preliminary review of a modified project prior to forwarding the project to the ARB; or 3) Initiate both requested amendments and forward the project to the ARB, with direction to the ARB and applicant regarding suggested changes (if any). COUNCIL REVIEW AUTHORITY Rezoning to a Planned Community (PC) district follows a unique set of procedures and standards described in Chapter 18.38 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Commission first reviews a development program statement, plan, and schedule. If the Commission acts favorably, the development plan, plot plan, landscape plan and design plans are submitted for Architectural Review Board (ARB) review in the same manner as any commercial or mixed-use project. The development plan recommended for approval by the ARB is then returned to the Commission, together with a draft zoning ordinance, for its final review and recommendation to the City Council. The zoning ordinance identifies the permitted and conditionally permitted uses, and site improvements, as well as a schedule for completion of the project. The City Council then reviews the proposal along with recommendations from staff, the ARB and the Commission and determines if it will approve the proposed PC ordinance. In the instance where the Commission does not act favorably and does not initiate the PC rezone request, the request is forwarded to the City Council for review. The Council must then determine if it will approve or deny the request to initiate the PC rezone. If the Council decides to approve the request and initiate the PC rezone, then the application is forwarded to the ARB. The ARB then makes a recommendation to the Commission which makes a final recommendation to the City Council. If the City Council denies the request to initiate the PC rezone, then the process is over and the application does not move forward. The applicant would have the option to redesign the project and submit a new application. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project includes the demolition of all of the existing buildings on the 1.15 acre site at 2180 EI Camino Real and construction of a mixed use project having 61,960 square feet of floor area, including 8,000 square feet of grocery (intended for JJ&F Market), 5,580 square feet of other retail, 14 affordable one-bedroom residential units, 39,980 square feet of office use, and two levels of below-grade parking facilities and surface parking facilities providing a total of 227 parking spaces. The project includes a request for initiation of a Planned Community Zone, and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to assign the Mixed Use land use designation to the site which is currently designated as Neighborhood Commercial. The proposed total floor area ratio (FAR) would be 1.23:1 inclusive of 1.06 non-residential FAR (0.79 FAR office and 0.27 FAR retail). The project site now comprises four parcels with a total area of 50,277 square feet (1.15 CMR: 304:09 Page 2 of7 acres) containing the 8,712 sq. ft. JJ&F Market, a 4,315 sq. ft. retail building, and a 5,001 sq. ft. office building. Further detail and project analysis is included in the attached April, 29, 2009 staff report to the Commission (Attachment A). COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION The Commission conducted preliminary reviews ("pre-screenings") of the proposal for a Planned Community (PC) rezone and Comprehensive Plan amendment on February 13, 2008 and October 1, 2008. On April 29, 2009, the Commission formally considered the request to initiate the PC rezone and amend the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and voted 6-1 to deny the initiation requests. Comments below from the April 29, 2009 meeting address several of the key issues of concern to the Commission and the public. Grocery The Commission generally agreed that retention of the market is a public benefit. They were concerned however, that 8,000 square feet is not enough retail floor area to ensure that a market would be economically viable if JJ&F did not return. The Commission discussed ideas that would enable the grocery store to expand if needed, such as placing additional retail floor area or office space on the ground floor adjacent to the market such that a grocer could expand into that space if and when such space is needed. One idea was to relocate the residential units to the upper floor above the commercial floor area, to allow for additional ground floor retail/office space adjacent to the proposed market to allow for possible future expansion of the market. Housing Most Commissioners expressed support for the inclusion of the Below Market Rate (BMR) housing as part of the proposed public benefits. However, some of the Commissioners cited that the proposal includes too much office floor area and does not provide enough housing to be considered a balanced mixed use project. A couple of Commissioners also noted that the residential units could be market rate units to provide greater income through rental or sale of housing units, thereby offsetting loss of income from any reductions in office area. Office Use and Square Footage Most Commissioners agreed the proposal includes too much office space and noted that the amount of office increased since the previous proposal. Those Commissioners believed that the extensive office space (0.8 FAR) would be well in excess of the allowances for Neighborhood Commercial zoning. Others, however, noted that the office use in this location could benefit not only the market but also the other retail businesses along El Camino Real and within the California Avenue Business District by providing an enhanced customer base. One of those Commissioners commented that the amount of office is not a concern and that the proportions of the development are reasonable considering the size of the property and its location on El Camino Real. CMR: 304:09 Page 3 of7 Traffic and Parking The Commissioners agreed the location of the parking garage entrance on El Camino Real would avoid additional vehicular traffic entering the College Terrace neighborhood, and would allow for a car coming out of the garage to be level with good sight lines before crossing over the sidewalk. The bus stop location, in relation to the driveway, was noted as a positive feature, since the bus stop would become an effective turning lane for vehicles entering the garage, such that they would not slow traffic on EI Camino ReaL Some were skeptical, however, about the proposed parking reductions (254 spaces required, 227 spaces proposed) and agreed that either additional parking or a strong Transportation Demand Management program (TOM) would be needed. Some Commissioners commended the applicant for proposing two layers of below grade parking in line with City policies. Other Comments Some Commissioners commented that they needed to see the applicant's private agreement with JJ&F to feel more comfortable with the proposal. The Commissioners agreed that a deed restriction would be useful to assure continued use for JJ&F or another market. Other Commissioners were less concerned about the private arrangements since the City would have control over the uses through the PC ordinance. One Commissioner noted a benefit to the California A venue Business District in that the project could provide an anchor for the California Avenue retailers in the form of a customer base and that the project supports the neighborhood by providing a neighborhood grocery store. In addition, the Commission noted that the project land uses should be more integrated and that the project design needs to provide better transition areas at the ground level. It was also noted that breaking the project into separate buildings such that they are less monolithic was a positive revision to the prior plan. Minutes of the April 29th Commission meeting are enclosed as Attachment B. Public Comments Fifteen public speakers appeared at the meeting. Most speakers expressed a desire to retain the JJ&F neighborhood grocery store and to gain a full-service neighborhood market and not a convenience store. Some expressed appreciation for the convenience of the neighborhood market and liked the fact that it is locally owned and provides high quality products. Many were also concerned that the 8,000 sq. ft. grocery space may not be a large enough space to make it desirable for another tenant if JJ&F did not return. Some felt that the grocery use could not be guaranteed and that a vacant tenant space could result. Some recognized that the grocery and other retail uses would benefit the employees of the proposed office space by providing a convenient location to shop and have lunch. Some of the speakers had concerns regarding potential increased traffic into the neighborhood and inadequate parking, while others appreciated the location of the garage driveway on EI Camino to help to avoid traffic impacts to the neighborhood. One neighbor cited concerns about noise from the proposed grocery store loading dock area. Another believed that the initiation could not be considered by the Commission without having access to a completed environmental review document and without knowing whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. CMR: 304:09 Page 4 of7 Another resident noted that regional office space at this location along the El Camino Real would not be a problem and that it would bring people and vitality to the area, and be an improvement upon what is there now. Another speaker noted that the proposed setback of the grocery store would encourage pedestrian activity. Ultimately, most speakers agreed they wanted a center that would serve the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMENDATION Staff did not make a specific recommendation for this project, but identified the key issues for consideration. The fundamental issue for consideration is whether the guaranteed preservation of a neighborhood market in this location is a compelling benefit to allow for the substantial additional office square footage along El Camino Real. The preservation of the neighborhood market is the most significant element that the community requested be a part of any redevelopment of the site. If the Council determines that the retention of a market on the site justifies the Planned Community Zoning, staff would recommend the PC ordinance specify requirements to assure that the market be operational in advance of the occupancy of any of the other site uses. ALTERNATIVES The City Council may consider any of the following regarding the PC zoning and Comprehensive Plan initiation requests: 1. Adopt the Planning and Transportation Commission's recommendation and decline to initiate the requests for a PC rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment; or 2. Provide direction regarding development parameters that the Council deems appropriate to allow a revised proposal to be submitted for Commission review, prior to forwarding to the ARB for consideration; or 3. Initiate the PC rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment and forward to the ARB for review, with direction to the ARB and the applicant regarding suggested changes (if any). RESOURCE IMPACT Should the City Council choose to initiate the requested amendments, an analysis of resource impacts would be prepared for consideration by the Commission and City Council. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The April 29, 2009 Commission staff report includes key issues providing the basis for policy discussion. With respect to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, the proposed development is not consistent with the current Neighborhood Commercial land use designation, since the extensive office component and the proposed 1.23: 1 Floor Area Ratio would not be consistent with that land use and prescribed development intensity. The land use designation that would seem most appropriate in relationship to the proposed development is the Mixed Use land use designation. The definition of the Mixed Use land use designation is provided in the Commission staff report. While the current proposal is not compliant with the current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation, the proposal is compliant with many of the Policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. For instance, Policy B-25 says to "Strengthen the commercial viability of businesses along El Camino Real. Encourage development of pedestrian-oriented neighborhood CMR: 304:09 Page50f7 retail and office centers along the EI Camino Real." This project would implement this policy in many ways. It ensures pedestrian-oriented neighborhood serving retail by preserving the neighborhood market and by providing other retail spaces. It increases the economic viability of the other area businesses by providing an additional customer base with the new office and residential uses. (See the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies in Attachment C of the April 29,2009 Commission staff report Attachment A). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS An environmental review has not been conducted for the project since the requested zone change initiation is not considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). At this point in the Planned Community application process the project is not yet completely determined as the plans are of a conceptual nature and details and documentation are to be submitted only after the project has been initiated. Upon Councilor Commission initiation of the requested amendments or amendments as may otherwise be initiated, a draft environmental review document would be prepared for ARB and Commission review with final approval by City Council. PREPARED BY: ~.// ~-RUSSREICH~ Senior Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD: CURTIS WILLIAMS Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: P&TC Staff Report, April 29, 2009 (with attachments except attachment H) P&TC Minutes of April 29, 2009 Public Correspondence Neighborhood survey submitted by applicant (Council members only and available at this link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/planning.asp) Applicants project letter July 8,2009 (Council members only and available at this link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/planning.asp) Project Plans (Council members only) COURTESY COPIES Linda Poncini, Carrasco Associates CMR: 304:09 Page 6 of7 Tony Carrasco, Carrasco Associates Patrick Smailey, The Chilcote Trust Andrew Gregg Robin Kennedy William D. Ross Fred Balin Greg Tanaka Susan Rosenberg CMR: 304:09 Page 7 of7 ATTACHMENT A PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: Russ Reich, Senior Planner AGENDA DATE: April 29, 2009 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment SUBJECT: 2180 EI Camino Real: Initiation of (1) a Zone Change from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District to Planned Community (PC) District for a mixed use project having 61,960 square feet of floor area including 8,000 square feet of grocery (intended for JJ&F Market), 5,580 square feet of other retail, 14 affordable one-bedroom residential units, 39,980 square feet of office use, for a total floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.23:1 inclusive of 1.06 non-residential FAR, and two levels of below-grade parking facilities and surface parking facilities providing 227 parking spaces on the property, and (2) a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to assign the Mixed Use land use designation, allowing for a 1.15:1 non- residential FAR, to a site currently designated as Neighborhood Commercial. Environmental Assessment: A draft initial study is being prepared. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) consider the proposal to initiate the zone change application from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) to Planned Community (PC) and amend the Comprehensive Plan land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use to determine whether to forward the conceptual plans to the Architectural Review Board for their review. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES The applicant's development proposal for the proposed PC District is provided in Attachment F. Staff has identified the following topics for the Commission's specific consideration and comment: City of Palo Alto Page 1 • Zoning compliance and mix and intensity of land use; • Appropriateness of the proposed Comprehensive Plan land use designation; • Adequacy of the proposed public benefits; • Adequacy of parking facilities; • Conformance with the South EI Camino Real Design Guidelines; and • Contextual relationship of the project to surrounding neighborhoods. The staff report attachments include an aerial photo, a location map, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning compliance tables, and the project review timeline. Planned Community Zone Change The requested PC zone district is for the specific development proposal as described above and as shown on the proposed development plans. Rezoning to a PC district follows a unique set of procedures and standards described in Chapter 18.38 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Commission first reviews a development program statement, plan, and schedule. If the Commission acts favorably, the development plan, plot plan, landscape plan and design plans are submitted for Architectural Review Board (ARB) review in the same manner as any commercial or mixed-use project. The development plan recommended for approval by the ARB is then returned to the Commission, together with a draft zoning ordinance, for its final review and recommendation to the City Council. The zoning ordinance identifies the permitted and conditionally permitted uses, and site improvements, as well as a schedule for completion of the project. The Commission may recommend a PC zone change only if it finds that: (a) The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. (b) Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this section, the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district. (c) The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. BACKGROUND Project Location The project site is an entire block bounded by EI Camino Real to the east, Staunton Court to the west, Oxford A venue to the north, and College A venue to the south. A project location map is provided as Attachment A. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The project would encompass four parcels with a total area of 50,277 square feet (1.15 acres). There are currently several buildings on the site including the 8,712 sq. ft. JJ&F Market, a 4,315 sq. ft. retail building, and a 5,001 sq. ft. office building. All of the existing buildings would be removed. Prior Review and Community Outreach The City Council has not conducted a preliminary review of the project but directed the Commission to conduct a preliminary review of the proposal. The applicant has held a series of community meetings with the adjacent College Terrace neighborhood over the last few years. The Commission conducted preliminary reviews of the proposal on February 13, 2008 and on October 1, 2008. The Commission had the following general comments: • There was agreement that preservation of the neighborhood market (JJ&F) would be a public benefit though there were concerns about how the applicant would assure its retention; • There were concerns about traffic and parking; • A greener, more sustainable building design was requested; • There were concerns about building height relative to the others in the area; • There were concerns about the amount of office floor area within the proposed development; and • There were concerns about the overall scale of the project relative to the CN zone district. DISCUSSION The design of the project has changed since the original preliminary review. The proposal now includes 14 BMR units facing the residential portion of the College Terrace neighborhood. The JJ&F market has been relocated to the north east comer of the site for better visibility on El Camino Real. The buildings facing EI Camino have been modified from a three story wall into a mixture of two and three story buildings with the third floor being recessed in certain locations to reduce the mass. The driveway entrance to the below grade parking structure was relocated from Staunton Court to EI Camino Real. The plans have maintained these changes and have been further developed since the last preliminary review with some floor area changes for the various uses proposed on site. Overview of the Proposed Project The project includes the following components: • The replacement of 18,028 square feet of existing commercial space with 61,960 square feet of new commercial and residential space. The commercial space would include 13,580 square feet of ground floor retail space, and 39,980 square feet of office space; • Fourteen (14) residential below-market-rate (BMR) units, comprising 8,400 square feet; • Underground parking garage containing 216 parking spaces on two levels; • Surface parking lot accommodating 11 parking spaces; • 24 on-street parking spaces around the site's perimeter; • Automobile driveways and on-site circulation elements facilitating organized and efficient ingress and egress of vehicles, pedestrians and deliveries. Access to the below grade parking would be provided from El Camino Real. City of Palo Alto PageS Key Issues Discussion Staff has identified the following issues for the Commission's specific consideration and comment. Zoning compliance and mix and intensity of use The proposed development would exceed the allowed development standards specified for the CN (Neighborhood Commercial) zone in terms of floor area ratio (FAR). The applicant has stated that, in order to gain an adequate subsidy to retain the neighborhood market, the office floor area must exceed the maximum allowed within the CN zone district. The FAR of the proposed development would exceed the CN zone FAR maximum by 11,683 square feet. The office floor area would exceed the maximum office floor area allowed in the CN zone district by 27,411 square feet. The proposal is for 13,580 square feet of retail floor area with an additional 2,447 square feet of open air market space and 39,980 square feet of office floor area. The 14 below market rate units would add another 8,400 square feet to the floor area total. Floor Area Comparison CN requirements Proposed PC Floor Area Ratio 0.5:1 commercial 1.06:1 (FAR) 0.5:1 residential 0.16:1 (For mixed use) 1.0:1 total combined 1.23:1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation The proposed development is not consistent with the parameters of the current Neighborhood Commercial land use designation. The Neighborhood Commercial land use designation is defined as follows: Neighborhood Commercial: Includes shopping centers with off-street parking or a cluster of street front stores that serve the immediate neighborhood. Examples include Alma Plaza, Charleston Center, Edgewood Center, and Midtown. Typical uses include supermarkets, bakeries, drugstores, variety stores, barber shops, restaurants, self-service laundries, dry cleaners, and hardware stores. In some locations, residential and mixed use projects may also locate in this category. Non-residential floor area ratios will range up to 0.4. The retail component of the project would be consistent with the typical use and commercial FAR intended for this designation but the office component and the proposed 1.23: 1 FAR would not be consistent. . The land use designation that would seem most appropriate in relationship to the proposed development is the Mixed Use land use designation. The Mixed Use land use designation is defined as follows: City of Palo Alto Page 4 This category includes LivefWork, Retail/Office, ResidentiallRetail and Residential/Office development. Its purpose is to increase the types of spaces available for living and working to encourage a mix of compatible uses in certain areas, and to encourage the upgrading of certain areas with buildings designed to provide a high quality pedestrian-oriented street environment. Mixed Use may include permitted activities mixed within the same building or within separate buildings on the same site or on nearby sites. LivefWork refers to one or more individuals living in the same building where they earn their livelihood, usually in professional or light industrial activities. Retail/Office, ResidentiallRetail and Residential/Office provide other variations to mixed use with retail typically on the ground floor and residential on the upper floors. Design standards will be developed to ensure that development is compatible and contributes to the character of the street and neighborhood. Floor area ratios will range up to 1.15, although ResidentiallRetail and Residential/Office development located along transit corridors or near multi-modal centers will range up to 2.0 FAR with up to 3.0 FAR possible in areas resistant to revitalization. The FAR above 1.15 will be used for residential purposes. Adequacy of the proposed Public Benefits The applicant has suggested the following public benefits associated with the proposed PC: • Provision of a subsidized rental rate to ensure a neighborhood-serving grocery market will remain at this location • 10 Below Market Rate housing units The Commission must determine if the proposed project's public benefits are adequate, as required for the establishment of a PC district. The fundamental issue for consideration is whether the guaranteed preservation of a neighborhood market in this location is a compelling benefit to allow for the substantial additional office square footage along EI Camino Real. The preservation of the neighborhood market is the most significant benefit that the community requested be a part of any redevelopment of the site. The PC would require that a portion (8,000 sq. ft.) of the project would be specified for a neighborhood serving grocery use. This is one of the benefits of using the PC process because it can be used to specify specific uses that typical zone districts can not. Traffic/Parking The project would result in the construction of approximately 61,960 square feet of retail, office and residential space. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) report, by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. which covers operational level of service analysis and parking analysis, has been prepared. The findings of the report indicate that the project would not result in significant impacts. At this time the proposed entry/exit driveway on EI Camino Real has not been approved by Cal Trans. Once the Environmental document is complete, Cal Trans will act on the request to allow the entry/exit on EI Camino Real. The purpose of relocating the driveway to EI Camino Real is to prevent any increase in traffic volume on the residential side streets and to keep the College Terrace Centre traffic out of the neighborhood. City of Palo Alto PageS Parking Reduction The proposed project includes 216 underground parking spaces and 11 grade level spaces for a total of 227 on-site parking spaces. Chapter 18.52 of the Municipal Code requires 254 on-site spaces for all of the proposed uses. The current proposal for on-site parking spaces is deficient by approximately 27 spaces. The applicant identifies 24 on-street parking spaces around the perimeter of the project. However, the code does not allow on-street parking spaces to be counted towards the required amount of parking for the project. The code does make provisions for parking requirement reductions in specific instances such as joint use (shared) parking facilities, affordable housing units, and housing near transit. Eligibility for parking requirement reductions and potential impacts would be further studied by staff but the Commission's input on the parking proposal is encouraged at this time. Conformance with South EI Camino Real Design Guidelines A sidewalk width of 12 feet is encouraged, as stated in the South EI Camino Real Design Guidelines recommended for use by the Architectural Review Board in 2002. The guidelines suggest a 12-foot effective sidewalk width, with the building brought up to the edge of the sidewalk consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies for EI Camino Real and with context based design requirements for commercial zones in the zoning ordinance. The proposal includes sidewalks that are 12 feet wide along EI Camino Real. The retail/office building would be set back four feet eleven inches to create a 12 foot wide sidewalk along EI Camino Real plus an additional 10 inches. The grocery/office building would be setback 29 feet four inches to provide for the 12 foot wide sidewalk as well as an open air market area at the front of the building. Contextual Relationship to Surrounding Neighborhood The project site is located at the eastern edge of the College Terrace neighborhood. The project faces existing commercial uses to the north, south, and east, and faces residential uses along Staunton Court to the west. The residential uses are comprised of single family dwellings at the comer of Staunton Court and Oxford Avenue, and multifamily dwellings along the rest of Staunton Court. The two-story residential units of the proposed project would face the existing single family dwellings across Staunton Court; in effect, creating a transition between the existing residential area and the commercial portions of the proposed project. While the project is located within the College Terrace Neighborhood, it is at the commercial edge along EI Camino Real, which is a significant commercial highway and transit arterial where development of greater intensity is typically more appropriate. The tallest portion of the proposed project would be situated along EI Camino Real, which is characterized by a variety of one-to four-story commercial buildings. While the project is still in the schematic drawing phase, the proposal appears to be compliant with the Context-Based Design Criteria of Section 18.16.090 of the Municipal Code relative to the creation of pedestrian friendly environments, massing and setbacks, open space and parking design, and green building design. The applicant has provided images of several buildings that are located within close proximity to the proposed project to allow comparison of the height and scale of the proposed buildings to those of existing buildings within the immediate area. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Building Height Relative To Residential Zone Districts On page AO.5 of the project plans, the applicant has shown areas of the project site that are limited to a height of 35 feet due to their proximity within 150 feet of residentially zoned properties. The heights of the proposed buildings in these locations have been adjusted to comply with this limit. A member of the public has noted that the plans do not indicate all of the areas that would be subject to the 35 foot height limit. The Ananda Church across the EI Camino Real is residentially zoned and is located only 125 feet away from the subject property. While the church property is zoned residential (R-2) it is not a residential use and is not likely to be re- developed as a residential use under the R-2 zone district regulations. The intent of the height limitation is to limit the height of new buildings in close proximity to lower density residential buildings. There appears to be no conflict here with the proposed height of the building relative to the existing Church structure. It is also not likely that the proposed three story building would conflict with any future redevelopment of the Ananda church property across the EI Camino Real. Staff can study this further if the Commission finds this to be an issue. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has determined that an Initial Study is required for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This first hearing is an initiation of the zone change request so that, an environmental document is not required at this time. A Draft Initial Study would be prepared prior to the formal ARB review and prior to the project's return to the Commission for formal review and recommendation to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS Aerial Photo Site Location Map Comprehensive Plan Policies Zoning Compliance Table Project Timeline Applicant'S Development Proposal (Commissioners only)* Public Correspondence Attachment A. Attachment B. Attachment C. Attachment D. Attachment E. Attachment F. Attachment G. Attachment H. Neighborhood Survey and Letter from Chamber of Commerce submitted by Applicant * (Commissioners only and also available at this link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.orglknowzone/agendas/planning.asp) Attachment I. Plans (Commissioners only)* *Provided by applicant COURTESY COPIES: Linda Poncini, Carrasco Associates Tony Carrasco, Carrasco Associates Patrick Smailey, The Chilcote Trust Robin Kennedy, Manatt, Phelps, Philips William DRoss Fred Balin Greg Tanaka Susan Rosenberg City of Palo Alto Pagel Prepared by: Russ Reich, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Amy French, Manager of Current Planning DepartmentiDivision Head APproval:' __ ~~~""':""':::....:::.Iu..\1A9.4'" ...!.\O.;lLD.lI&.~~"":L...!..~ ______ _ Curtis Williams, Interim Director City of Palo Alto Page 8 <C I-Z w :E l: () ~ ~ m The City of Palo Alto ~ IZl ~ 0 ..... ,.J::l C ~ ~ . § ::E -:S ";l ~ ~''''''I:: U<l)~<l) -~ < ~<r:; \0 o 00 -C'l o o C'l This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS ® 0' &4' This document 1$ a gr:aphlc re~lIon only ofbest available 8OtJfC8S. The City etf Palo Allo assumes no ~1Ity fi:n' any 9ftOOl, C1989 to 2008 City 01 Palo Alto Legend .-.... , •••••• .!' 2180 EI Camino Real (Project Site) c::::J Stanford Lands c::::J Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels The City of Palo Alto rriv«a, 2008-01~30 15:14:36 (\~18$\gIs\admIn\Par&OnaJllrtvera,mdb) 2180 El Camino Real Zoning Districts Area Map ATTACHMENT B This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS -. o· This doournerIlla a graphic repfesentaUon onfy of best avallable~. The City of Pare Alto assumes no responsibiAty ror any errors 4:/1969 10 2008 City of Palo Allo Attachment C Planned Community District-College Terrace Centre 2180 EI Camino Real 07PLN-00000-00327 Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies Land Use and Community Design Element Goal L-1: A well, designed, compact City, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping centers, public facilities and open space. Policy L-4: Maintain Palo Alto's varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto's desirable qualities. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non- residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics of mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development. Program L-10: • Develop design standards for all mixed use designations for providing for buildings with one to three stories, rear parking or underground parking, street-facing windows and entries, and zero setback along the street, except that front gardens may be provided for ground-floor residential uses. Policy L-11: Promote increased compatibility, interdependence, and support between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Policy L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Goal L-4: Inviting, Pedestrian-scale centers that offer a variety of retail and commercial services and provide focal points and community gathering places for the City's residential neighborhoods and employment districts. Policy L-18: Encourage the upgrading and revitalization of selected Centers in a manner that is compatible with the character of surrounding neighborhoods. Policy L-20: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners with buildings that come up to the sidewalk or that form corner plazas. Policy L-21: Provide all centers with centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms, and public art. Policy L-22: Enhance the appearance of streets and sidewalks within all Centers through an aggressive maintenance, repair, and cleaning program; street improvements; and the use of a variety of paving materials and landscaping. Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance City streets and public spaces. Policy L-48: Promote high-quality creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an orderly variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human scale details and massing. Comprehensive Plan Policy Policy L-50: Encourage high-quality signage that is attractive, appropriate for the location, and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs. Policy L-73: Consider public art and cultural facilities as a public benefit in conjunction with new development projects. Consider incentives for including public art in large development projects. Policy L-75: Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate parking behind buildings or underground wherever possible. Policy L-78: Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project by providing for shared use of parking areas. Transportation Element Goal T-1: Less reliance on single occupancy vehicles. PolicyT-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. Policy T-19: Improve and create additional, attractive, secure bicycle parking at both public and private facilities, including multi-modal transit stations, on transit vehicles, in City parks, at public facilities, in new private developments, and other community destinations. Goal T-4: An efficient roadway network for all users. PolicyT-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-site parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. Goal T-8: Attractive, convenient public and private parking facilities. Natural Environment Element Goal N-3: A thriving "Urban Forest" that provides ecological, economic, and aesthetic benefits for Palo Alto. Policy N-15: Require new commercial, multi-unit, and single-family housing projects to provide street trees and related irrigation systems. Program N-16: Continue to require replacement of trees, including street trees lost to new development, and establish a program to have replacement trees planted off-site when it is impractical to locate them on site. Policy N-17: Preserve and protect heritage trees, including native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property. Policy N-18: Protect Palo Alto's groundwater from the adverse impacts of urban uses. PolicyN-20: Maximize the conservation and efficient use of water in new and existing reSidences, businesses and industries. Policy N-21 : Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. Policy N-22: Limit the amount of impervious surface in new development or public improvement projects to reduce urban runoff into storm drains, creeks and San Francisco Bay. Policy N-23: Reduce the discharge of toxic materials into the City's sanitary sewer collection system by promoting the use of Best Management Practices. Policy N·25: Reduce pollutant levels in City wastewater discharges. April 29, 2009 Page 2 Com prehensive Plan Policy Policy N-27: Reduce emission of particulates from wood burning stoves, construction activity, automobiles and other sources. Policy N-28: Encourage developers of new projects in Palo Alto, including City projects, to provide improvements that reduce the necessity of driving alone. Policy N-42: the City may require proposals to reduce noise impacts of development on adjacent properties through appropriate means including, but not limited to the following: • Construct noise walls when compatible with aesthetic concerns. • Screen and control noise sources such as parking, outdoor activities and mechanical equipment. • Increase setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings. • Whenever, possible, retain fences, walls or landscaping that serve as noise buffers although design, safety and other impacts must be addressed. • Use soundproofing materials and double-glazing windows. • Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise levels. Business and Economics Goal B-1: A thriving business environment that is compatible with Palo Alto's residential character and natural environment. Policy B-2 Support a strong interdependence between existing commercial centers and the surrounding neighborhoods as a way of encouraging economic vitality. Goal B-2: A diverse mix of Commercial, Retail, and Professional Service businesses. Policy B-4: Nurture and support established businesses as well as new businesses. Policy B-7: Encourage and support the operation of small, independent businesses Goal B-3: New businesses that provide needed local services and municipal revenues, contribute to economic vitality, and enhance the city's physical environment. Policy B-9: Encourage new businesses that meet the city's business and economic goals to locate in Palo Alto. Policy B-17: Where redevelopment is desired, encourage owners to upgrade commercial properties through incentives such as reduced parking requirements, credit for on-street parking, and increases in allowable floor area. Use such incentives only where they are needed to stimulate redevelopment or contribute to housing or community design goals. Policy B-25: Strengthen the commercial viability of businesses along EI Camino Real. Encourage the development of pedestrian-oriented neighborhood retail and office centers along the EI Camino Real corridor. April 29, 2009 Page 3 Attachment D Planned Community District-College Terrace Centre 2180 EI Camino Real· 07PLN-00000-00327 Table 1: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.38 (PC DISTRICT) Regulation Required Proposed Conformance* i Building Height 50 foot limit Up to 50 Conforms Building Height (Within 35 feet 30 -33'-6" feet Conforms 150' of a residential zone district) Roof Top Gazebo 40' 5 feet too tall Yard opposite an RM 10 feet 2'-4"Oxford St. Exception may be District (across Oxford required if plan is not Ave and Staunton Ct.) 7' Staunton Ct. modified Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off·Street Parking and Loading) Parking Spaces Required Proposed Conformance Office Spaces @ 1 :250 159.9 Market and Retail 67.9 spaces Spaces @ 1 :200 Residential Units @ 25.6 spaces 1 .5 per unit plus 1 guest space equal to 33% of all units Total 254 spaces 227 spaces (deficient 27 spaces) 11 % reduction requested Bicycles spaces conforms 38 38 *18.52.050 allows a reduction In the required number of parking spaces at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Table 3: COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL for mixed use) Regulation CN District Regulations Proposed PC Minimum Site specifications Minimum Site Area None Required 50,277 square feet Min. Site Width None Required 294 feet Min. Site Depth None required 131 feet Minimum Setbacks Front Yard 0-10' to create an 8' -12' 4'-11" effective sidewalk width (4'-2" setback is needed to The proposed setback of 4'-11" provides achieve the required 12' room for the 12 foot wide sidewalk. sidewalk on EI Camino real) Rear Yard 10' for residential portion; no N/A the lot does not have a rear yard requirement for commercial portion. Rear Yard abutting 10 feet N/A the lot does not have a rear yard residential zone district Interior Side Yard if 10 feet N/A there are no interior side yards abutting residential zone district Street Side Yard 5 feet Oxford setback: 2'-4" Staunton Court setback: 7' res. 18' commer. College Avenue setback 1'-10" Build-To-Lines 50% of frontage built to setback 30% EI Camino Real 33% of side street built to setback 59% Oxford 45% College 34% Staunton Court Permitted Setback Balconies, awnings, porches, N/A Encroachments stairways, and similar elements may extend up to 6 feet into the setback. Cornices, eaves, fireplaces and similar architectural features (excluding flat or continuous walls or enclosures of interior space) may extend up to 4 feet into the front and rear setbacks and up to 3 feet into interior side setbacks. Maximum Site 50% 47% of the site is covered by buildings Coverage Landscape/Open 35% 18% podium level open space Space Coverage 4% basement planter areas open to above 11 % vegetated roof areas 2% Balconies -... ----_ ... _ ........ _---------------- Total 35% Useable Open 200 sq ft per unit for 5 or fewer 105 square feet per unit Space units; 150 sq ft per unit for 6 units or more Maximum Height Standard 40 feet Height varies up to 50 feet (due to EI Camino Real frontage) Within 150 feet of a 35 feet Grocery loffice 30 feet residential zone (40 feet to top gazebo roof) district (other than an RM-40 or PC Residential units 33 feet six inches zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site. Daylight Plane for Daylight Plane height and slope NIA no residential zones directly abut any lot lines abutting shall be identical to those of the project lot lines one or more most restrictive residential residential zoning zoning district abutting the lot districts line Residential 15 Dwelling Units Per Acre = 17 14 Dwelling Units Density units Maximum 0.5:1 0.16:1 Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Maximum Non 0.5:1 1.06:1 Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Total Mixed Use 1: 1 1.23:1 Floor Area Ratio Minimum Mixed 0.15:1 0.47:1 Use Ground Floor Commercial FAR Maximum office 25% of the lot = 12,569 sq. ft. 38$5 sq. ft. square footage 0Bo without CUP (25% of lot size Maximum Office Code allows Director Discretion 38,~95 sq. ft. square footage No numeric limit is set. 3'1, 'leo with a CUP There is 13,027 sq ft of existing ground floor retail. This area may not be converted to ground floor office. Applicant could propose 12,569 sf. ground floor retail and 12,569 sf. second floor office. (This scenario would reduce the ground floor retail but is ok because it is not replaced with ground floor office) This would reach the 0.5:1 FAR cap for Commercial sf. Togo beyond the 12,569 sf. of office would require a variance to the FAR limit in addition to the CUP for additional office. Attachment E Planned Community District-College Terrace Centre 2180 EI Camino Real 07PLN-00000-00327 Review Timeline Application Received: P&TC Prescreen Review Meeting: Second P&TC Prescreen Review Meeting: P&TC Initial Review Meeting ARB Formal Hearing: P&TC Formal Meeting: Required Action by Council: October 18, 2007 February l3, 2008 October 1, 2008 April 29, 2009 To Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Determined CARRASCO &ASSOCIKrES ARCHITECTS COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE 2100 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, California PROJECT DESCRIPTION ATTACHMENT F Submitted by Applicant Department of PI.8xmlnc . Comml:d,y EnwonXH1[ January 14, 2009 College Terrace Centre is a two-and three-story mixed-use office, commercial/retail and residential development to be located on the site bounded by EI Camino Real, Oxford Avenue, Staunton Court and College Avenue. The proposed project is comprised of a neighborhood grocery store, open-air market and retail shops along EI Camino Real, office space on College Avenue and at the 2nd and 3rd floors, and two free-standing townhouse apartment buildings of two-story i-bedroom units facing Staunton Court. There are 2 basement levels of parking and a small on-grade parking lot to serve the development. College Terrace Centre is designed to be a LEED Silver Building, and incorporates many sustainable features. Included are: Vegetated roof at the 2nd floor; clearstory windows at the 3rd floor to introduce natural light into the center of the building; photovoltaic panels on the sloping roofs of the clearstories; recycled-content materials; highly-energy efficient mechanical, lighting and control systems; EnergyStar roofing; a cistern system for collection and storage of rainwater from the vegetated and other roof areas, in order to recycle the rainwater for landscape irrigation. A PC Zone Amendment is required for this project, as the existing zoning of C, does not allow for the density proposed. A significant public benefit for the PC Zone is providing subsidized rent for an 8,000 sq. ft. neighborhood-serving grocery store with an additional 2,447 sq. ft. of open-air market. This market will serve the immediate College Terrace neighborhood, Stanford University residents, and the surrounding areas of Palo Alto from Downtown to Barron Park. In addition, 14 units of below-market-rate housing are being provided in the 14 rental townhouses which front on Staunton Court. Construction methods to be used on this project include cast-in-place concrete structure below grade for the underground parking (2 levels), and a concrete post-tensioned floor at the grade level which separates the commercial spaces above from the parking garage below. Building construction above the post-tensioned slab will be will be wood construction at the Apartment building and steel construction at the commercial/retail building. There are currently 7 existing buildings on the 50,277 sq. ft. site: JJ & F Market facing College Avenue, some sheds used by the market for storage (facing Staunton Court), a furniture store facing EI Camino (which previously housed a bank, then a bicycle shop), and a commercial building facing Staunton Court which currently houses aneco-friendly tableware company. A small parking lot for JJ & F and the small commercial building is accessed off Staunton, and the furniture store on EI Camino has two parking lots and a drive-through. The proposed project will consist of three buildings over a two-level underground parking garage. The main building is broken into several components, beginning with the 2-story form at the corner of EI Camino and Oxford, which contains the grocery market at the ground floor and offices above. The deep setback from EI Camino allows for the grocery store to have an open air market fronting on EI Camino, bringing more activity and interest to this corner. Three-story elements of the main building are placed beyond the driveway from EI Camino to the underground parking. These elements wrap the corner at EI Camino and College, and are broken down to smaller masses punctuated with a clock tower and an entry , plaza at the corner. The portion of the project which faces Staunton Court includes two 2-story residential townhouse buildings containing 14 below market rate rental units. These units reflect a more residential feeling to reflect the one residential use directly across Staunton. By placing the 3-story mass along EI Camino, the commercial building buffers the residential building from traffic noise. This design also will serve to buffer the College Terrace neighborhood from the EI Camino traffic. The architecture of the project combines elements and massing evocative of a European village, and like many "'1i~~~a%lRdIfjQ,£f,SpIlYd'AQb:"&~~6a.n~s'?p£i~kl!ewr.arl&r6g8~2~~~~~0.oQ~a~!sJ~g,qte21~8~arrasco.com A Professional Corporation COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE -PC ZONE APPLICATION 2100 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STATEMENT 1 . Necessity of the application for a PC district 1 ;. , Revised 1/14/2009 The project site is comprised of four legal parcels bounded by EI Camino Real, College Avenue, Staunton Court, and Oxford Avenue, with a total area of 50,277 sq. ft. Existing zoning is CN. This proposal is for a mixed-use commercial/retail and office complex, and 14 residential rental units, all over two levels of underground parking. The site is so situated and the uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of the CN district will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. One key element of the development is to provide an 8,000 sq.ft. neighborhood-serving grocery store as well as a 2,447 sq. ft. open-air market. This development would preserve and enhance an existing market that serves the College Terrace neighborhood as well as other neighborhoods from Downtown to Barron Park, and Stanford University residents. In addition, 14 Below Market Rate one-bedroom for-rent townhouses will be constructed on the site. The proposed project strives to provide not only a rent structure which would retain a small grocery market, and allow it to remain in business, but also 14 units of affordable housing for the community. In order to achieve these public benefit goals, the remainder of the site needs to be developed with new retail and office uses whose higher rents will help to subsidize the lower rent chargeable to a grocery market and BMR housing. In order to gain an adequate subsidy and assulJle a vacancy and rent risk, the amount of square footage of the new retail and office uses needs to be higher than would normally be permitted for a mixed commercial/residential project in the CN zone. The allowable FAR for a mixed-use commercial/residential project in the CN zone on EI Camino Real would be limited to 0.5 for commercial, limiting the area to 0.5 x 50,277, or 25,139 sq. ft., and 0.5 for residential, also equaling 25,139 sq. ft .. for a total of 50,277 sq. ft. and an FAR of 1.0. As proposed, the project consists of 39,980 sq. ft. of office area, 13,580 sq. ft. of commercial/retail space including 8,000 sq. ft. of grocery store space, and an additional 8,400 sq. ft. of residential. The total floor area of the proposed project = 61,960 sq. ft. and a total FAR of 1.232 -just slightly above that which is allowed under CN zoning. This necessitates a PC district, to achieve the needed additional area and FAR. Due to the location of the site along EI Camino Real, and keeping with the guidelines for new development along EI Camino, the buildings would be placed near the property line, with 4 ft. setback for wider sidewalk and street trees. This allows for pedestrian proximity to shop windows, and creates a positive retail shopping experience. For mixed-commercial/residential projects, CN zoning requires a front yard setback of 10ft. and a street side yard setback of 5 ft. These setbacks are too restrictive for the commercial uses; thus, a PC Zone is required to allow for creating a better retail environment with store entrances directly on the sidewalk. 2. Listing of all uses proposed or potentially to be included within the PC district Commercial Retail uses, comprising 13,580 sq. ft. of enclosed space at the 15t floor: Neighborhood- serving grocery store consisting of 8,000 sq. ft. of indoor retail space and 2,447 sq. ft. of open-air market. Delivery space is located off Oxford Avenue, and recycling areas are adjacent. Other retail spaces for lease total 5,580 sq. ft. Potential retail uses could be a pharmacy, stationery store, shoe repair, hair salon, bookstore. flower shop, toy store, or other neighborhood-serving retail. 2 Office uses, comprising 39,980 sq. ft: Tenant spaces for professional offices and general business offices on the second and third floors totaling 34,661 sq. ft. The first floor also provides offices and lobbies of 5,319 sq. ft. Residential Use: 14 below market rate townhouse-type 1-bedroom rental housing units are located on Staunton Court at the corner with Oxford Avenue. These 2-story, 600 sq. ft. units will be rented at below- market rates to eligible tenants, as determined by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. Each unit has a small entry garden for private open space, and the space between the two residential buildings will provide additional common open space. Parking areas: There is a small on-grade parking lot adjacent to the residential buildings which can be used by residential visitors or retail customers. The two-level underground parking garage is accessed by a ramp from Ef Camino Real, to minirnize traffic onto Staunton Court. After business hours, the ramp will be secured by a gate with card-reader, so only tenants can access the garage. Parking exclusively for employees of the office and retail areas will be located on the 2nd level of the garage, and will be secured by card-reader operated grilles. Residents of the 14 living units can park on the 1 st level of the garage. Retail and office clients can park on the 15t and 2nd levels of the garage, while Grocery Store customers can park on the 1st level, where there will be grocery cart storage areas and a large elevator to service the market only. Included in the parking garage will be an area for Car Share vehicles, which will be accessible to the public during business hours. Refuse and Recycling area: Refuse and recycling will be located adjacent to the Grocery delivery area and also adjacent to the offices on the first floor for convenience of the office tenants. These areas will be gated and screened from view. PASCO can access the bins directly for easy collection. Bicycle Parking: There will be 23 bicycle parking spaces for the commercial/retail/office uses and 38 spaces for the residential use. Short-term (ST) commercial spaces will be located adjacent to the Grocery Store and near the small on-grade parking lot off Staunton Ct. The remainder of the required spaces for the retail and office uses will be long-term (L T) spaces located in the underground garage. L T bike parking (enclosed, secure parking) for the residences will be placed facing Oxford Ave. adjacent to the residences. 3. Nature of uses and need for differing regulations See description of uses noted above, for general information. The particular needs of the uses on the site, which in some circumstances require differing regulations than what would normally be allowed on this site are as follows: Neighborhood-serving retail/Market: As expressed in public hearings before the Planning Commission, it is important to the community that a neighborhood-serving retail use such asa grocery market remain in this location. It helps to create a sense of community for the neighborhood. To be viable, however, a small neighborhood market requires a rental rate considerably lower than typical for this type of retail space, particularly given the high quality of the building being proposed. The strong desire to keep a neighborhood retail/market use in business at this location has driven much of the chosen uses and the design of the development proposal. The site itself, even though zoned CN, is a key commercial site along EI Camino in the California Avenue Shopping District. Development of retail uses fronting EI Camino is a desire of the City of Palo Alto. Proximity to Stanford University and several neighborhoods, in addition to College Terrace, presents the opportunity to develop retail shops which can serve the local residents. This is a location to which residents can walk or bike. Proximity of the site to public transit is key. Bus lines 22, 89, 522, and the Dumbarton Express and Stanford Marguerite busses run on EI Camino. Bus line 22 has the highest ridership in Santa Clara county. The California Avenue Cal Train station is a few blocks away. Automobile access is also very convenient, as EI Camino Real (State Route 82) is a major thoroughfare. 3 By placing offices on the upper floors of the building, the opportunity for local residents to walk, take transit, or bike to work is provided. Small (600 s.f.) rental housing units are being proposed to transition from the commercial development to the surrounding neighborhood, and also to provide housing units which are affordable to a wider range of Palo Alto workers. The two residential buildings are located such that they are buffered from the traffic and noise of EI Camino by the new commercial building and are also directly adjacent to the only neighboring residences. These residential structures also provide a transition in scale from the commercial building and a soft texture to this corner of the neighborhood. This project creates a small village-type community within the site, which will be interactive, lively and a focal point for the College Terrace neighborhood. While providing many public benefits, the areas of the retail and office uses must be sufficient to support the lower rent structure of a neighborhood-serving retail/Market tenant and of below-market rate housing. In a CN Zone, parking requirement for the office users is calculated at 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. For the market and retail spaces, the parking requirement is calculated at 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Parking for the residential component is calculated at 1.5 spaces per unit plus 33% more spaces for visitors. This results in a total parking requirement of 254 in the CN Zone. For this PC Zone proposal, due to the proximity of public transit and the mixed-use nature of the development, it is felt that the 227 parking spaces provided on-site will be adequate based upon the various uses being able to "share" parking at various times of the day. There is ample on-street parking on EI Camino Real, and there are no other adjacent users, other than Stanford students, which would vie for the on-street parking spaces. The project applicants support the neighborhood's efforts to have the block signed for 2 hour parking. 4. Exemplary Design and Sustainable Features College Terrace Centre will provide a green, sustainable building which will be designed and constructed in conformance with the U. S. Green Building Council's LEED criteria. The project's goal is to achieve LEED Certification, and express the sustainable features as part of the architectural character of the structure and site. A vegetated roof over the 2-story portion of the building will provide a pleasant visual feature for offices on the 3fd floor, as well as serve to collect rainwater which can then be channeled to underground cisterns. Rainwater will also be channeled from other roofs and decks to the cisterns, from which it will be recycled for use in landscape irrigation. Photovoltaic panels will be utilized to generate power. Design of the podium landscaping will incorporate native grasses, flowers and plants which are drought tolerant. North-facing clearstory glass at the roof level will bring natural light into the interior of the office spaces. Provision for Car Share space in the parking garage will encourage employees to use alternative transportation This new building will have a smaller energy footprint and will incorporate sustainable, recycled and renewable materials, which will make it a good neighbor and an environmentally-sensitive addition to the City of Palo Alto. 4 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT: 1. Providing a subsidized rental rate to allow a neighborhood-serving Market to remain at the Centre, as a vital neighborhood and community asset. Such a neighborhood-serving use has proven to be important to the College Terrace neighborhood, and would be an important centerpiece in the fabric of this part of Palo Alto. 2. 14 units of below-market rate rental housing, located at the corner of Oxford Ave. and Staunton Ct. The residential component provides more affordable housing for workers in Palo Alto as well as making a transition from the College Terrace neighborhood to the commercial component facing EI Camino. As the housing is more interior to the site, it is buffered from the traffic noise of EI Camino by the commercial building. 3. Working and shopping space near Public Transportation and within walking distance from the College Terrace neighborhood. 4. Wider sidewalks and more street trees along EI Camino Real. 5. Contribution to median trees along EI Camino. 6. Increased community-serving retail. See attached Development Schedule for projected dates of Public review, Agency approvals, construction permitting, construction duration and occupancy. Dick & Karen Damian 870 College Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 April 3, 2009 Palo Alto City Council Members Members, Planning & Transportation Commission 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 ATTACHMENT G Received APR 062009 Department of Planning & Community Environment Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning & Transportation Commissioners, As folks who have been homeowners in College Terrace and shoppers at JJ& F for 23 years, we are writing to support the College Terrace Centre plans. It has been, as you know, a long and involved process to get to this point. We are pleased with this proposal and hope that you will pass the project at the formal approval hearing on April 29, 2009. Thank you all for the hard work you have done to create a solution that works for everyone involved. We are particularly pleased to read about the affordable housing units as well as the plans for our beloved neighborhood market. PAHC Housing Services, LLC 725 Alma Street· Palo Alto, CA 94301 • (650) 321-9709 • Fax (650) 321-4341 April 20, 2009 Planning and Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: College Terrace Centre Project Letter of Recommendation Dear Honorable Commission Members: Received APR 202009 Department of Planning & Community Environment The Palo Alto Housing Corporation, through its affiliate, P AHC Housing Services, LLC, hereby submits this letter of recommendation in support of the proposed planned community, College Terrace Centre, located at 2100 EI Camino Real. This project is being proposed by Carrasco and Associates on behalf of the Clara Chilcote Trust. College Terrace proposes 14 Below Market Rate (BMR) one-bedroom rentals of approximately 600 square feet. These spaciously-designed two-story lofts are unique to the BMR Rental Program in that there are no other one-bedroom units with similar design in the current housing inventory, and therefore, will be highly desirable to applicants. Additionally, the amenities, including but not limited to, an individual yard, reserved parking, retail and office spaces, and an onsite neighborhood grocery store make the project ideal for any single person or working professional. There is a current and constant demand for affordable housing in Palo Alto as evidenced by the lengthy BMR rental waiting lists maintained by the property managers. This project will provide some much needed affordable housing to the community. We are most pleased to lend our support to the College Terrace Centre project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, P AHC HOUSING SERVICES, LLC. An Affiliate of Palo Alto Housing Corporation o:'~~ Jaeje,J;: 0- BMR flousing Administrator ~~ez Executive Director 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 ATTACHMENTB EXCERPT FROM PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES AGENDIZED ITEM: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 Special Meeting at 6:00 PM Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 2. 2180 EI Camino Real (The New College Terrace Centre)*: Initiation of(1) a Zone Change from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District to Planned Community (PC) District for a mixed use project having 61,960 square feet of floor area including 8,000 square feet of grocery (intended for JJ&F Market), 5,580 square feet of other retail, 14 affordable one-bedroom residential units, 39,980 square feet of office use, for a total floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.23: 1, and two levels of below-grade parking facilities and surface parking facilities providing 227 parking spaces on the property, and (2) a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to assign the Mixed Use land use designation, allowing for a 1.15: 1 non-residential FAR, to a site currently designated as Neighborhood Commercial. Environmental Assessment: A draft initial study is being prepared. Mr. Russ Reich, Senior Planner: Good evening. Thank you Chair Garber and Commissioners. The application before you this evening is for the initiation of a Planned Community rezone to go from Neighborhood Commercial to Planned Community. The application also includes a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use. The proposal includes the construction of a mixed use development containing 14 residential units, roughly 40,000 square feet of office,S, 580 square feet of retail, and an 8,000 square foot grocery store. This is proposed above a two-story below grade parking structure providing 216 spaces. There are an additional 11 at grade spaces proposed for a total of227 parking spaces. The development is proposed to fit within the context of the surrounding neighborhood. To this end the access to the below grade parking structure has been located on EI Camino Real to remove cars from the residential side streets. Multiple buildings are proposed with varying heights to reduce the overall mass and improve the architectural interest of the buildings. The three-story retail/office building, which is the tallest ofthe three, is moved up to EI Camino and College A venue adjacent to commercial uses such that it is away from the existing residential uses. The two-story grocery/office building has been placed along EI Camino and Oxford for increased visibility and to improve the viability of the retail grocery store. The two-story residential building has been sited between the proposed commercial building and the existing residential units across the street on Staunton Court to provide an appropriate transition in land uses from the new project to the existing neighborhood. Most of the parking is below grade to I reduce vast amounts of paved surfaces. Wide sidewalks, a plaza, and open-air market space are 2 provided to enhance pedestrian activity. 3 4 As part of the PC process the Commission must find that the proposed development will result in 5 public benefits not otherwise attained under the existing regulations of the zone district. The 6 applicant has proposed the two following items for the Commission's consideration: the 7 retention of the neighborhood market and ten below market rate housing units. The applicant is 8 proposing to provide 14 of the units, all of the units, as BMR but since four of them will be used 9 as the payment for the commercial housing fee the resulting number is ten. The fundamental 10 issue for consideration is whether the guaranteed preservation of the neighborhood market in this II location is a compelling benefit to allow for the additional office square footage. 12 13 Staff has received a multitude of emails and faxes from the public providing comment on the 14 project proposal that expresses opinions of both support and do not support the proposal. From 15 those that do support the project it is clear that the preservation of the market is the most 16 important aspect. From those that do not support the proposal the large amount of proposed 17 office and the associated traffic and scale of the project appear to be of most concern. Being that 18 most of these were received beyond the packet deadline they have been provided to you at 19 places. 20 21 Based on some of the comments there seems to be some confusion about a key aspect of the 22 proposal. Ifthe PC were to be approved it would guarantee the preservation of a neighborhood 23 market. Based on some of the comments it did not seem to be understood by some that this 24 would be the case. One of the benefits of the PC process is that specific land uses can be 25 specified and required as part of the PC Ordinance that is ultimately approved by Council. 26 27 Staff has recommended that the Planning and Transportation Commission consider the proposal 28 to initiate the zone change application from Neighborhood Commercial to Planned Community 29 and amend the Comprehensive Plan land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to 30 Mixed Use to determine whether to forward conceptual plans to the Architectural Review Board 31 for review. The applicant is here to make a brief presentation. Thank you. 32 33 Chair Garber: Thank you. Planning Director? 34 35 Mr. Williams: Chair Garber in could just add a couple of comments. 36 37 Chair Garber: Please. 38 39 Mr. Williams: Thank you Commissioners. I would just like to emphasize some of Russ' last 40 points there that Staff does not have a specific recommendation before you because we do 41 believe that the key issue here is really the retention or the assurance of a grocery store, a 42 neighborhood commercial type of use. A compelling offset for the extent of the office use in 43 particular that is being proposed. The office use is at a scale and intensity that really is more 44 consistent with a community commercial or regional commercial type of level of office. This is 45 an area that is zoned and designated in the Comprehensive Plan for Neighborhood Commercial. 46 On the other hand you have very strong neighborhood commercial use as the one component 1 here in the market, and specifically as you have seen in the letters a particular affinity for a JJ&F 2 Market that is there now, which of course we, the City, can't guarantee would be the market to 3 be there. We certainly can assure as Russ said that a market of some kind and some size be part 4 of the project. So again, I just want to emphasize we really see that as being a key issue in terms 5 of whether you are comfortable with proceeding or not. That is really in many ways a 6 community judgment that the PC allows you to make. Thank you. 7 8 Chair Garber: Would the applicant like to make a presentation? You will have 15 minutes. 9 10 Mr. Patrick Smailey, Applicant: Good evening. I represent the property owner of the College 11 Terrace Centre proposal at 2180 EI Camino Real. I first want to thank this Commission, the 12 College Terrace residents, and other community members who have taken an ongoing and 13 heartfelt interest in our development plans. We are truly grateful for that input and our project is 14 better for it. 15 16 Our vision is to create a village style mixed use development that embraces the College Terrace 17 neighborhood, enables JJ&F to prosper in the future, and also does justice to this portion of Palo 18 Alto's El Camino Real corridor. College Terrace Centre offers an economically healthy and 19 balanced combination of housing, retail, and office space. We have worked diligently to make 20 certain that our project works well on our El Camino site and that it also blends seamlessly with 21 our neighbors. I am convinced we have accomplished this objective. 22 23 I also want to be very clear with everyone here tonight. The Garcia Family, John, Dennis, and 24 Lloyd have been and continue to be our partners in this venture. This project is truly built 25 around them and JJ&F Market. I also want to address head on the fiscal realities of this 26 undertaking. Office rents are approximately three to four times that of retail rents. In order to 27 even further discount the retail rents to JJ&F that is paid by the Garcia's and allow them to 28 continue to serve this great neighborhood for another 60 years we need to build this project as it 29 is proposed. . 30 3 I In these challenging economic times we are working hard to preserve a valuable community 32 asset and also provide further public benefit in the form of affordable housing. Over one quarter 33 of the total square footage of our proposal is dedicated to community space that is 26.5 percent 34 of the total square footage of the project. This is a big number in this and any economic time. 35 36 Lastly and most importantly, we have created a project that works. It works for College Terrace 37 and its residents. It works environmentally. It works from a transit, traffic, and parking 38 perspective. It works for pedestrians and bicyclists. It works for the Garcia's and the JJ&F 39 family. It works for Palo Alto by providing it with an estimated $700,000 in annual tax revenue. 40 It also works, as you will see and I think you all got a copy of this, because we have tremendous 41 community support for the project as designed. 42 43 Our full project team is here this evening to answer any questions and explain the details of the 44 proposal for you. I would like to thank you once again for you time. At this moment I would 45 like pass the floor over to Linda Poncini of the Carrasco & Associates, our architect on the 46 project. 1 2 Ms. Linda Poncini, Carrasco & Associates: Chair Garber and Commissioners, our planning staff 3 has presented a thorough report on the major project elements and the issues at hand. So I would 4 like to illustrate how Carrasco & Associates has taken great care to ensure that this project fits 5 seamlessly at it site on EI Camino and adjacent College Terrace. 6 7 As you know, we are requesting rezoning of the site to PC. However I will demonstrate how 8 College Terrace Centre has been carefully and specifically designed to meet the context based 9 design criteria of the existing CN zone. The images on the following slides are taken directly to from the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 18.16.090 and illustrate the concepts used in 11 designing College Terrace Centre. 12 13 First, the pedestrian and bicycle environment is created by providing walkability, bicycle 14 friendly circulation plan, and connectivity from transit to shopping, work, and residences. 15 Ground floor retail, outdoor seating and gathering areas, wide sidewalks, awnings at storefront 16 windows, and ample bicycle parking are featured. Also, primary vehicle access to the project 17 from El Camino means easy access for pedestrians and bicyclists from the College Terrace 18 neighborhood. 19 20 Two, street fa((ades are detailed to provide a strong relationship with each street frontage. That 21 relationship varies as one moves from the commercial fa((ade on EI Camino to the residential 22 units along Staunton Court. The residential units present a further texture and scale, a finer 23 texture and scale, to reflect the adjacent homes and apartments. Projecting eaves and overhangs, 24 balconies, decks, and other architectural elements provide human scale and interest, and enliven 25 the buildings. The exterior of each building is designed with great care and integrity so that the 26 College Terrace Centre does not have a backside. 27 28 Three, massing and setbacks, and four, low density residential transitions have been complied 29 with by carefully modulating the scale of the buildings. The project includes articulation, 30 setbacks, and visual interest on forms that step down from the comer ofEI Camino and College 3 I to lower heights and massing facing the neighborhood. The comer building for the new JJ&F 32 has a unique architectural character, which makes it a feature of College Terrace Centre. It will 33 be easily identified as a very special market and a destination. In keeping with the design criteria 34 the sidewalk is 12 feet on El Camino Real at the retail spaces and at least eight feet on Oxford, 35 Staunton, and College. A generous setback of29 feet at JJ&F provides additional space for the 36 open-air market. 37 38 Five, project open space consists of private and public open space designed for use by the 39 residents, visitors, and employees at this site. Gathering spaces activate the street fa((ade and 40 provide eyes on the street at Staunton for safety. Both private and common open space areas are 41 buffered from traffic noise by the larger building mass along the EI Camino frontage. 42 Aesthetically open space includes planters, vegetated roofs, mature trees, and textured and 43 colored paved surfaces. 44 45 Six, parking design criteria for the CN zone state that parking should not overwhelm the 46 character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. As a result 95 percent of the I parking is located below grade. A . large central opening in that parking allows light to flood into 2 both levels, and a landscape courtyard at the lowest level provides the softening effect of 3 bamboo, which is visible at all levels. Notably the one CN zone criteria that we have 4 intentionally not complied with is having primary parking access from side streets. In response 5 to community and Commission input we relocated the garage entrance to El Camino. 6 7 Seven, this is considered a large site in the CN zone, because of that we had the opportunity to 8 provide physical and visual connectivity throughout the site using a hierarchy of public and 9 private spaces. Within College Terrace Centre there is a diversity of building types, which 10 reflects the mixed use nature of the Centre. Each building type on the site has been designed to 11 respond to its immediate context. The commercial structures facing EI Camino have a character 12 appropriate to this major thoroughfare. The residential buildings are sited opposite existing 13 single and multifamily residential uses on Oxford and Staunton Court. Commercial use at the 14 comer of College Avenue and Staunton Court reflects the commercial uses immediately across 15 these streets. The JJ&F Market forms the comer magnet at Oxford and El Camino and will be 16 the hub of social interaction. 17 18 Eight, pursuant to sustainability and green building design College Terrace Centre is designed to 19 achieve a minimum ofLEED Silver certification. These sustainably designed buildings are 20 energy efficient, water conserving, durable, and nontoxic with healthy interior environments. 21 Orientation for winter heat gain, summer shading, day lighting, and natural ventilation is key. A 22 large installation of photo voltaic panels is on the roofs of the clearstories, which bring natural 23 light into the center of the building. Onsite storm water management directs rainwater to 24 cisterns, which allows for controlled release and irrigation use. Perhaps our favorite feature of 25 this green project is the vegetated roof. Not only will it manage storm water, provide a cooling 26 effect, and view from the offices, it will also provide an herb garden for JJ&F. The attributes of 27 a LEED certified building are numerous. If you have questions on that I will be glad to answer 28 any of those later in the meeting. 29 30 In summary, I have highlighted the CN zone context based design criteria to il1ustrate that even 31 though we are requesting a PC zone design of College Terrace Centre closely emulates a CN 32 zone development. We were able to accomplish this because the size and scale ofthe project 33 coupled with our village style allows the project proposal to work beautifully on the site. I will 34 now tum the presentation over to Tony Carrasco. 35 36 Mr. Tony Carrasco, Carrasco & Associates: Good evening Commissioners, thank you again for 37 reviewing this the third time. As Patrick has mentioned many outreach meetings and your 38 comments have contributed to a walkable, village scale place that fits EI Camino as well as this 39 neighborhood. Since October 2008 when we met for the second time little has changed with the 40 building forms and placement of these buildings. We have added a small plaza at the College 41 and Staunton comer on the sunny side of this development. We have re-categorized the 42 community room as you suggested as offices, as a result the office space increased by 941 square 43 feet and retail increased by 55 square feet. 44 45 Nelson Nygaard and Hexagon are here to answer questions about traffic and parking demand. 46 On parking counts, as you know, El Camino is a transit corridor. It is served by five bus lines I and bus rapid transit line, number 22. We have provided 40 cars more than the proposed uses 2 demand. That is by ULI, IT, and our traffic engineer's estimates. We could use the code, which 3 allows landscape reserve, and provide another 16 spaces on the lowest floor. We can add 4 another 50 bicycle spaces, which most people are going to bicycle to this space substituting for 5 six cars or adding six cars more. Our mixed use criteria will allow us more than five, which we 6 more than exceed at 27-foot space deficit. 7 8 A lot has changed since our last meeting. Palo Alto has decided to incorporate policies relating 9 to reducing our carbon footprint, which will move us more towards this kind of development. 10 Comparisons with buildings I can come back to. As you can see the pinkish areas are the 11 commercial zones and our building fits in very well with the existing buildings already there. 12 Sustainability moves us to build buildings that will last 100 years. So we ask when you consider 13 this development that you imagine the city and a neighborhood as it will exist 100 years from 14 now. Thank you. 15 16 Mr. John Garcia, JJ&F Market: Honorable Commissioners, we have been a Palo Alto 17 neighborhood family market for 60 years. We have operated out of the same facility for every 18 one of those years. When we were first approached about having a new store in the proposed 19 College Terrace Centre we actually considered trying to expand significantly to 15,000 to 20,000 20 square feet. However, after careful reviewing local consumer demands, with consideration given 21 to our local competitors, and the trend in the grocery business for smaller more practical stores 22 we have come to the conclusion that the proposed store size and design is ideal. We are very 23 excited about relocating to a store that is larger, more efficient, and in a new visible and 24 attractive location. The Garcia Family and JJ&F are full partners in the College Terrace Centre 25 development. 26 27 We desperately need a new store and this proposal will provide it. Our current building is 28 obsolete and dilapidated. We believe that it has a useful life of only about two or three more 29 years. This project is our opportunity to survive and compete with chain stores. We have 30 worked out a strong and fair agreement with the property owners that enables us to stay afloat 31 during the construction period and then come back better than ever with an ongoing deeply 32 subsidized rent structure. 33 34 We also care a great deal about our friends and customers. A new store will allow us to stay in 35 the neighborhood that we love for another six decades. Commissioners, I respectfully ask that 36 you initiate the PC rezoning for us, please. Thank you. 37 38 Chair Garber: Commissioners. 39 40 Commissioner Holman: Chair Garber, the last speaker needs to identifY himself for the record, 41 please. 42 43 Chair Garber: If you would identifY who you are so the Secretary can record it correctly. 44 45 Mr. Garcia: John Garcia. 46 1 Chair Garber: Thanks. Commissioners, let's do a round of questions before we go to the public. 2 Let's limit ourselves to two questions and see if we can get through in one piece. We have 13 3 members of public to speak. Is there a Commissioner that would like to go first? Vice-Chair 4 Tuma followed by Commissioners Holman and Fineberg. 5 6 Vice-Chair Tuma: A question for Staff and I did give you guys a heads up albeit a little bit late 7 today because of when I received it. We received from the CTRA a memo that has towards the 8 end, and this is towards the back of the packet that was left at places tonight, there is a one-page 9 comparison chart and then another entire page of footnotes. My question for Staff is, are there 10 any significant issues within that chart that you would take issue with, that you disagree with? 11 12 Mr. Reich: Because of the timing of Staff receiving this chart as well we have not had the 13 opportunity to give it incredibly detailed analysis but it doesn't appear that there is anything in 14 here that we would take issue with. 15 16 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, great, very helpful. It is from the neighborhood organization CTRA. 17 It is the last two pages of the group that was left at places. That's it for now. 18 19 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Holman followed by Fineberg. 20 21 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Is it okay to ask questions of the applicant or just of Staff at 22 this point? 23 24 Chair Garber: Either is fine. 25 26 Commissioner Holman: This is perhaps for either or both. Could there be a restatement of why 27 the market moved from College to Oxford comer and why the office space increased? The FAR 28 now has also increased. 29 30 Mr. Reich: I can speak to the relocation of the market. The other one I would defer to the 31 applicant to talk about. It is my understanding that the market has been relocated such that it has 32 greater visibility on El Camino, and so it is more economically viable to have that retail use 33 facing El Camino rather than being hidden away back on College. 34 35 Mr. Carrasco: Commissioner Holman, in discussions with JJ&F it became pretty apparent to us 36 that we needed to change the location of the market from a hidden away location to a very 37 prominent location to capture market share. This grocery store will not only survive on the 38 neighborhood but must attract people who are driving down El Camino and that is the reason 39 why it creates this outdoor market to attract people as they pass by that market and drive into the 40 parking garage. 41 42 The re-categorization of space and the configuration ofthe building in order to get the columns 43 lined up and square footages worked out allowed us a plaza on the comer of Oxford and 44 Staunton. It is a sunny comer and we envision uses that spillover into the sidewalks and are used 45 both by the neighborhood and the businesses who locate there. I think that answers the question 46 but I don't know ifit does. 1 2 Commissioner Holman: Kind of a follow up to that, I am well familiar with the businesses on 3 College across from where the market is now. I am afraid to admit that I neglected to get by 4 there to remind myself what the businesses are across the street on Oxford, in other words, across 5 from where the market in the future would be relocated. 6 7 Mr. Smailey: Right now it is a Sleep Train and then behind that is the back of the Stanford 8 Terrace Hotel. So the comer of Oxford and EI Camino is Sleep Train and behind that is the hotel 9 building. Then behind that is a small apartment as well I think there is a little doctor's office or 10 something there. 11 12 Commissioner Holman: Thank you very much. 13 14 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg. 15 16 Commissioner Fineberg: Question for the applicant. In Attachment H as well as your 17 presentation earlier you mentioned that there is approximately $700,000 in annual local tax 18 revenue. What components ofthe project contribute to the generation of that revenue? 19 20 Mr. Smailey: That would be sales tax revenue generated from the retail tenants projected for the 21 site. 22 23 Commissioner Fineberg: So groceries are not taxable. Would it be the nonfood component of 24 JJ&F? The retail is it services or how did you calculate that if you don't know what the retail 25 uses are? 26 27 Mr. Smailey: We have estimated with JJ&F their increase in sales, which I think if I remember 28 correctly John, was basically a doubling. In addition to that we have an expression of interest in 29 the retail location from other perspective tenants and we asked them for their projections on sales 30 revenues and backed into a sales tax that would flow through to the City. 31 32 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, thank you. For Staff, is it typical to initiate a zone change 33 before the Draft initial study of the Environmental Impact Report is prepared? Specifically, we 34 have issues where Caltrans has not reviewed or acted upon the El Camino driveway. Then we 35 have a comment from Mr. William Ross regarding a recent decision of the California Supreme 36 Court. In his letter he mentions that saying that the analysis should come first. Could Staff, 37 Planning and legal, comment on that please? 38 39 Mr. Williams: Yes, Commissioner Fineberg, we generally do not do the environmental analysis 40 until the item comes back to the Commission. It goes to the ARB and then comes back to the 41 formal process. The intent of the preliminary review is to not incur an extensive, detailed level 42 of cost before getting some direction as to whether the project appears to be feasible at least to 43 move through that review process. So this is the standard. 44 I The one you saw recently for 801 Alma was a different situation, it was an unusual situation, in 2 that we did have that particularly given the multitude of issues on that project. Typically we do 3 not include that. I don't know from the legal court case what that issue is. 4 5 Ms. Tronquet: Our preliminary review process does make it distinguishable from the case 6 mentioned. This part of the process is preliminary. The environmental review will come when 7 the project is formally considered both by the ARB and the Planning Commission again. So it 8 will be considered with the actual decision~making process not just preliminary consideration. 9 10 Chair Garber: Commissioners Keller, Lippert, and then myself. 11 12 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. First a quick clarification about slide six for the applicant. 13 Where it says parking design there are two little sort of looks like brownish or yellowish boxes 14 labeled residential. Is that an error? I am confused by that diagram. 15 16 Ms. Poncini: These are illustrations from the City's Municipal Code. We were just using these 17 to illustrate that the underground parking is our condition and that we are meeting the criteria in 18 the City's ordinance. In this particular instance there wasn't an illustration in the City's Zoning 19 Ordinance that had the residential separate. So that is just the image that we had from the City 20 ordinance. 21 22 Commissioner Keller: Right, so this is not representative of your project. Thank you. 23 24 I am sorry for throwing this out at Staff without having alerted you beforehand, which I try to do. 25 I realize that this project is on the other side ofEI Camino from what would be a PTOD district 26 and somewhat away from it but in some sense this kind of proposed project has some of the feel 27 if you will ofa PTOD kind of project. I am wondering if, without giving you advance notice so 28 that you could prepare, if you could sort of compare the general scope of this project with what 29 PTOD would allow. Not that this site is within the PTOD boundary but it gives us another 30 context for comparison. 31 32 Mr. Williams: Yes, Commissioner Keller, the total intensity of the project, the total floor area 33 ratio basically, is roughly consistent with what the PTOD total floor area would allow. However, 34 the PTOD zone requires most of that to be residential. So it really has a residential focus to it. 35 As you recall, we saw a project recently in the PTOD that a little bit more nonresidential than 36 would generally be permitted but even that was more than 50 percent ofthe floor area ratio was 37 residential, about 65 or 75 percent of it was. 38 39 In this case you have approximately 1.06 of this FAR is commercial and just a .16 or .17 FAR is 40 residential. In the PTOD in order to do a project ofthis intensity you would probably have to 41 almost reverse that' and it would be more like a 1.0 residential and .20 nonresidential. So the mix 42 of uses doesn't really match but the idea ofa mixed use project at this approximate intensity and 43 what is the height on this? About 40 feet? So it is approximately in the ballpark also in terms of 44 the height of a PTOD. 45 1 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Could you address how in an eventual PC Ordinance you 2 would address the guarantee that there would be a grocery store here? Would that be something 3 that we would want in an eventual PC Ordinance? How would we go about guaranteeing that 4 would be the case? 5 6 Mr. Williams: You would probably need to do something similar to what was done with Alma 7 Plaza, which is specify that a grocery store be one of the allowable uses, and what the minimum 8 size is of that. What we did in that case was we had to have a signed lease in place before any 9 construction of any other of the facilities on the site went forward, and that the grocery store had 10 to be up and occupied before the other uses were occupied. So it put priority on getting the 11 grocery store in place and up and running, and the lease in place, and that kind of thing. 12 13 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 14 15 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert and then myself. 16 17 Commissioner Lippert: I have two questions for the applicant. Can you just briefly explain the 18 orientation of the BMR units and their relationship to the surrounding neighborhood? 19 Specifically how they work with the neighbors across Staunton Court and Oxford Avenue. 20 21 Mr. Carrasco: If you look up at that graphic there the lower building on the top right hand corner 22 of the site faces the residential units across from Staunton and across from Oxford. That is the 23 reason why we placed those residential units in that place, the two stories with a roof that mimics 24 a residential kind of roof. 25 26 Commissioner Lippert: Why not integrate it more with the other building? 27 28 Mr. Carrasco: Which other building? 29 30 Commissioner Lippert: The market and the office building, in other words, I guess on the 31 backside make it more oriented so that it all works together as one piece rather than separated 32 from? 33 34 Mr. Carrasco: We could certainly look at that. I think if you look at the more detailed plans it 35 separates and has windows on both sides of the project. If you orient it the other way it may not 36 have that but it is a good question and we will look at that. 37 38 Commissioner Lippert: Then also with regard to the gazebo and the stairs that you have going to 39 the gazebo, why not have them going to the right so that you go through the residential court 40 between the BMRs and then up the stairs to the gazebo so it is more internal to the development 41 and there is more of a relationship? 42 43 Mr. Carrasco: Another good idea. We oriented it the way we did because we thought people 44 coming out of the grocery store would bring their lunches and so on and walk up those stairs to 45 the gazebo rather than go around the corner to Staunton Court and go up. 46 1 Commissioner Lippert: So it could be bi-directional. 2 3 Mr. Carrasco: It could be bi-directional. 4 5 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma wanted to ask his second question. 6 7 Vice-Chair Tuma: This is a question for either the applicant or the Garcia family. This is a 8 question I raised last time we were together. Without delving into the details of whatever 9 arrangements and financial details and that sort of thing, given that I agree with the 10 characterization made earlier by our Planning Director that a lot of this turns on the issue of 11 counterbalancing office versus retention of the market and specifically JJ&F, are you willing to 12 share with the public and with the Commission whether an agreement exists that obligates JJ&F 13 to take over the space once it is complete, and also that obligates the owner to allow JJ&F to do 14 that without getting into the details of that? 15 16 Ms. Robin Kennedy, Land Use Attorney: Commissioner Tuma, we have a Letter ofIntent and 17 we created this memorandum of it so that the Commission could see that it is signed. It is a very 18 brief summary of a longer agreement. JJ&F is not obligated but it has all of the rights to exercise 19 essentially a one-dollar option to go into this space. So we, as the developer, gave JJ&F the right 20 to choose if it wished to, and you have heard John Garcia tonight express the continuing 21 enthusiasm of the Garcia Family to come into this site. We don't want to force them to do that 22 so if it turned out that by the time we were ready to offer them a full lease they had all won the 23 lottery and gone off to Tahiti they could do that. So that is the answer to that question. 24 25 I would like to take advantage of the fact that I am up here to respond to Commissioner Lippert's 26 question. We are willing to do a deed restriction in addition to whatever the City would impose 27 as a condition of approval to ensure that for the life of the improvements this would be a grocery 28 store. So the City can impose it as a condition but there would also be on the public records, and 29 filed in the Recorder's Office with Santa Clara County, essentially a deed restriction ensuring 30 that so long as that building lasted that there would be a grocery store there. So I hope that 31 responds to that question as well. 32 33 Chair Garber: A couple of questions from me and then Commissioner Rosati, and then we will 34 go to the public. For the applicant, you have proposed pushing back the grocery store and office 35 from EI Camino. The EI Camino Guidelines, which are guidelines not a requirement, 36 recommend a building closer to EI Camino. How would you like the Commission to think about 37 that move relative to that guideline? 38 39 Mr. Carrasco: I think John Garcia will also additionally answer that question. As an architect 40 from the architect side talking to John he needed outdoor kind of exuberant, kind of attractive 41 groceries out there that get people into that space. Additionally there will be a few tables to sit 42 there and eat your lunch at the edge of the grocery store. 43 44 Chair Garber: Actually, as much as I am interested in John's description I think the question 45 might be more appropriately answered by you as to what the proposal is that you are asking us to 46 consider here is to tradeoff what the El Camino Guidelines suggest for something that doesn't do I that. So in an urban way and a planning way how is it that you want us to understand the space 2 relative to what the Guidelines suggest should be done there? 3 4 Mr. Carrasco: Yes, I got it now. The intent ofthese Guidelines as we read them is that you need 5 something active and alive and vibrant at that location. It suggests doors and awnings and so on. 6 These carts and so on replace that activity in the same location, 12 feet away from the curb, to 7 perform the same way as the intention of the building wall. 8 9 Chair Garber: If I am understanding you you are suggesting that the carts of produce, etc. would lObe perceived by the passerby and someone in a car the same way that a fayade would of a I I building. 12 13 Mr. Carrasco: Yes, thank you that is better said. 14 15 Chair Garber: Okay. My next question and actually you may find yourself being the one to 16 answer this one as well. Staff has recognized in their study here that the land use designation 17 that would seem most appropriate in relationship to the proposed development is the mixed use 18 land use designation. Maybe you could walk us through why that isn't appropriate for your 19 proposal. 20 21 Mr. Carrasco: Chairman Garber, I am not familiar enough with the mixed use designation. 22 23 Chair Garber: Okay, fair enough. Would the Planner like to walk us through? 24 25 Mr. Reich: Being that we believe that it is consistent with the mixed use land use designation it 26 would be difficult to say why it isn't. 27 28 Chair Garber: Let me explain myself. What I thought I was understanding here maybe I am not. 29 What you are suggesting is that that land use could be used in lieu of the PC? 30 31 Mr. Reich: No, the current land use designation is Neighborhood Commercial and the proposed 32 project does not fit the parameters in the land use designation within Comprehensive Plan. So 33 the land use designation has to be amended if the project was to be moved forward and approved 34 to a land use designation that does fit the project. In this case mixed use is a land use designation 35 within the Comprehensive Plan that fits what is being proposed here. 36 37 Chair Garber: The underlying. Okay, I got you, thank you. Commissioner Rosati. 38 39 Commissioner Rosati: I have two questions for Mr. Garcia if you would come up. The first 40 question has to do with the relationship between the office space and your business. How do you 41 see that as that is a concern a lot of the people who have responded to the project have? I think 42 that from a business perspective you may see that a benefit and I would like to hear from you 43 how you interpret having that retail location right next to offices impacts your businesses. 44 1 Mr. Garcia: I am very excited to have potential customers just a walk away. I feel we do a great 2 catering business, we do a great lunch business, and whatever offices that are up there are 3 potential business. It sounds like a very great opportunity for us to have those up there. 4 5 Commissioner Rosati: You see that as a good thing. 6 7 Mr. Garcia: Yes, definitely. 8 9 Commissioner Rosati: How may your business strategy change after this move? What else 10 would be different from what you have today? How are you planning to be successful and 11 therefore viable after this happens? 12 13 Mr. Garcia: For 60 years we have been doing business of pretty much getting people what they 14 want. They get good quality. 15 16 Commissioner Rosati: I am sorry, let me clarify. There has been a lot of concern about the size 17 of the space that you would be getting in the new development. How is that not going to be an 18 issue and how are you planning to be successful and viable? 19 20 Mr. Garcia: Right now our sales space inside the store is about 6,300 square feet and the rest of 21 the area is very jumbled up. It is a lot of boxes and warehouse space that is underutilized and we 22 can't tum it into sales space. With this building we will have a building that is built as a grocery 23 store. We have hundreds of square feet in the store that is walls that don't do us any good 24 because the building that we are in right now is actually three buildings. So with that we are 25 going to have a very efficient building where right now our building is very inefficient. I think it 26 will be much easier for us to run the business that way. 27 28 Chair Garber: All right. Let's go to the public. We have now 15 cards. Each member will have 29 three minutes a piece. I will call out three names, the first one will speak, the second one will be 30 on deck, and if the third one would approach in anticipation of speaking. We now have 16 cards. 31 We will accept cards until 8:30 or so. 32 33 The first person speaking is Malcolm Slaney, followed William Hurt, and if Pat Robinson would 34 get themselves ready. 35 36 Mr. Malcolm Slaney, Palo Alto: Hi I live about 220 feet from the proposed development. As a 37 neighbor I would like to see a viable development. The proposed development is requesting an 38 increase in office space by a factor ofthree, a large increase in traffic for the neighborhood, and 39 insufficient parking. In exchange the developer is offering BMR housing and neighborhood 40 grocery. 41 42 My family is a big fan and supporter of the JJ&F Market. My sons, wife, and I walk to JJ's 43 almost every day and we spend almost $1,000 a month there. I am looking forward to 44 continuing to shop there. But, my fondness and love for JJ&F does not translate into a blank 45 check for the developer. I am primarily concerned by the nature of the market guarantee. We 46 are not privy to the private agreement between the landowner and the JJ&F family. Therefore, it 1 is incumbent on you, the Planning Commission, to make sure our neighborhood doesn't suffer. 2 Our neighborhood does not benefit from a mini-market we want to walk to a full-service market. 3 I hope you can do that in the agreement. 4 5 Palo Alto does not have a perfect record when it comes to guaranteeing a long-term public 6 benefit. I am referring of course to the Cafe Riaci and the public space that is no longer public. I 7 hope that that happened before you wise folks started to serve on this Commission. 8 9 I worried the developer is not promising enough space for a viable grocery store. Previous 10 discussions here in Palo Alto suggest more space is needed to be viable in the grocery business. 11 I hope John is correct. I want to see a viable business. 12 13 Finally, I am worried about the impact of traffic and parking. I am glad that the primary entrance 14 will be on El Camino Real but substandard amount of underground parking will drive traffic and 15 parking into the neighborhood. I know I would prefer to park on the street instead of in a dark, 16 narrow garage. Forcing people to park offsite in order to get LEED points is not a win for 17 College Terrace. So I hope you consider the parking issues very carefully. I hope the Planning 18 Commission will consider the needs of our neighborhood and I really appreciate all your time on 19 this project. Thank you. 20 21 Chair Garber: Thank you. William Hurt followed by Pat Robinson, and if Carol Chatfield will 22 approach. 23 24 Mr. William Hurt, Palo Alto: I am 55 years in the neighborhood. I remember when JJ's was 25 little. What John said about it not being an efficient building he is absolutely correct. When they 26 took over the hobby shop that used to be next door they just sort of opened it up partially. If you 27 walk through there we got some roller coasters going on and it doesn't make any sense. It is not 28 an efficient building. I think the consideration for the smaller square footage to what everybody 29 seems to think a grocery store needs is certainly going to be made up, and I have to take his word 30 for it he is in the business. Ifhe thinks he can make the business work he can make the business 31 work. They certainly have done a pretty good job for 60 years. 32 33 I am also the Vice President of the College Terrace Residents Association. I have nothing to say 34 on behalf of the Association. There have been some things apparently distributed that are not 35 authorized by the Association. I think everybody is clear on what those are the significance of 36 those editorials. 37 38 I think that the developer's guarantee or the developer's willingness to put in a deed restriction 39 for a grocery store there is huge. I am also a real estate developer. I think that is extremely 40 generous and I am frankly surprised to hear that they are willing to do that. Anything that the 41 City does can be undone but a deed restriction cannot be undone to the best of my knowledge. I 42 think that makes a significant difference and that will solve a lot of problems. Palo Alto chased 43 the All American Market out of Barron Park and I would hate to see that happen to College 44 Terrace. 45 I I spend a lot more than $1,000 a month at 11's. I don't know if Mollie Stone's would every let 2 me sign for my lunch. J1's does. I have never been called by my name in Mollie Stone's. I am 3 repeatedly every time I show up at 11's. They know the names of my children. Mollie Stone's 4 doesn't know that I have children. 5 6 As far as the public benefit goes I think that 11's or a grocery store standalone is enough public 7 benefit to merit the zone change. I think the BMRs are a politically correct joke. I think that if 8 the developer can subsidize J1's a little more by getting full market rent for those apartments that 9 would be a better idea. Thank you very much. 10 II Chair Garber: Thank you. So noted, we are passing on Pat Robinson. Before we go to the next 12 person let me just caution the audience as well as the Commissioners that we should keep 13 ourselves from applauding or the opposite expression so that we can maintain a fair and unbiased 14 environment here regardless of our feelings one way or the other. The next person to speak is 15 Carol Chatfield followed by Scott Lonergan, and if Ken Kato can approach. 16 17 Ms. Carol Chatfield, Palo Alto: Hi I live in Palo Alto and I work nearby at Stanford University. 18 I want to speak in favor of being able to continue to have a locally owned high quality grocery 19 store in this area. I think if it continues to exist it will add greatly to the pleasure of living and 20 working in this community. I would hate to see it go. Thank you. 21 22 Chair Garber: Thank you. Scott Lonergan followed by Ken Kato, and if Daniel Coffran can 23 approach. 24 25 Mr. Scott Lonergan, Palo Alto: Good evening I have lived in the neighborhood about ten years. 26 My interest is not just this project but kind oflooking at that stretch ofEI Camino more broadly. 27 I think it needs some help. Some decisions may be bad ones in the past but this to me looks like 28 a nice project to kind of help make some improvements on El Camino. I know there is some 29 concern about the density and all the additional office space but when I kind of look at that in the 30 bigger picture there is a lot of it on Stanford Avenue with the Stanford buildings. So I don't see 31 a problem with having "regional" offices in the area that kind of bring some more vitality and 32 people into the area to help kind of make the ecosystem of the retail, which I think is critical, and 33 it has that the grocery store and the other retail that has to be there. I wouldn't want to ever see 34 that leave. So if has a couple of layers of offices on top I am okay with that. 35 36 The other key issue I see is driving cars into the neighborhood but because the entrance is on EI 37 Camino that is another critical thing to me this works. If those cars were coming into the 38 neighborhood I would have a problem with that. So the driveway on El Camino and just kind of 39 some of the things they put into the design of this project I think it works and helps get us going 40 in the right direction on that stretch of El Camino. Thank you. 41 42 Chair Garber: Thank you. Ken Kato followed by Daniel Coffran, and if Ranney Thayer could 43 approach. 44 45 Mr. Ken Kato, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. I have had a dental office in Palo Alto 46 for over 35 years and I think Palo Alto is very fortunate to have 11&F wishing to expand and 1 remain in their present location. In today's economy I believe that we must encourage JJ&F to 2 remain a viable part of our community. Therefore I support this project and I hope we can come 3 to a positive action tonight. I would hate to lose the best market in Palo Alto. Thank you. 4 5 Chair Garber: Thank you. Daniel Coffi·an followed by Ranney Thayer, and if Robbin Lonergan 6 could approach. It looks like we do not have Daniel so we will pass on that. We will go directly 7 to Ranney Thayer followed by Robbin Lonergan, and with Rita Taylor on deck. 8 9 Mr. Ranney Thayer, Palo Alto: Hello I have been in the neighborhood since 1994. I hadn't 10 planned to speak tonight but I just want to go for the record that I am for this project. Anything 11 that can keep JJ&F in business and viable is desirable. I do not have any objection to office 12 space in that area. As long as there is enough parking in this underground garage I think that we 13 have a winner here. I would like to urge the Board to approve the zoning change. 14 15 Chair Garber: Thank you. Robbin Lonergan followed by Rita Taylor, with Lynn Power coming 16 third. I am not seeing Robbin Lonergan so we will go directly to Rita Taylor followed by Lynn 17 Power, and Robert Moss third. No Rita Taylor. We will go to Lynn Power followed by Robert 18 Moss and then Joanne Garcia. 19 20 Ms. Lynn Power, Palo Alto: I have lived in the neighborhood since 1950 and I remember riding 21 down to JJ&F and getting my popsicles and signing for them even though my mother didn't tell 22 me I could. I am in favor of Garcia's. 23 24 As to the Commissioner's question about the setback off ofEl Camino it would seem to me that 25 that is definitely a benefit. Go in front of the mattress store, which is right there on the sidewalk, 26 which actually slopes out to the street. It is really unpleasant as far as walking or riding a bicycle 27 goes. So I think the setback is definitely an improvement over whatever standard you have for 28 El Camino. 29 30 Chair Garber: Thank you. Robert Moss followed by Joanne Garcia, and then Greg Tanaka. 31 32 Mr. Robert Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Garber and Commissioners. Most of the talk 33 you have heard tonight and previously has been for a specific occupant, JJ&F. You cannot zone 34 for a particular occupant. That is both illegal and stupid. You can zone for a requirement that 35 there be a grocery store but if JJ&F goes out of business or walks away what you will have is a 36 vacant spot with 8,000 square feet that almost no grocery store will ever want to move into. 37 However, you will have 40,000 square feet of office space and the 14 BMR units. So you cannot 38 guarantee that there will be grocery store if you don't have an occupant. 39 40 The PC that you are being offered is a classic PC where the City gets a very sick rabbit and the 41 developer gets a racehorse. Let me give you an example of what happens when you zone for an 42 occupant. Many years ago there was a young couple that bought a very small rundown house in 43 Crescent Park. The woman was pregnant. They wanted to tear it down and build a house that 44 was much, much larger than anybody else in the neighborhood and it violated the zoning and 45 required a number of variances. So they went around and knocked on all the doors of their 46 neighbors and said, we are moving into the neighborhood, we need a bigger house for our 1 family, we are growing so please approve the variances. So the neighbors kindly approved the 2 variance. They got the building permit. They sold the lot for a third more than they paid for it 3 and moved a couple of miles away. That is what happens when you zone for an occupant. 4 5 Now you were told there is was going to be $700,000 in sales tax revenue. The City gets a little 6 over one percent of the nine and one-quarter percent. In order to get $700,000 in sales tax 7 revenue from a grocery store where most of the sales are nontaxable the taxable sales would have 8 to approximately $70 million a year. That works out to about, with an 8,000 square foot 9 building, about $725 per square foot per month. Stanford Shopping Center manages to get about 10 $450 per square foot per month. Let me assure you you are not going to get that kind of revenue 11 from a grocery store. 12 13 Finally, speaking as one of the originators of the CN zone the intention of that zone was for the 14 local property that served retail for the neighbors. We intentionally limited the amount of office 15 space because we did not want to make it into a regional draw. Also, you heard about how we 16 are going to have .16 FAR of housing. In the CN zone you would have .5. They are giving you 17 one-third of what would be allowed in the CN zone and the change exchange you are getting 18 more office space. This is a lousy deal. This is not a true PC. It is not appropriate. Kill it. 19 20 Chair Garber: Thank you. Joanne Garcia followed by Greg Tanaka, and then Joan Meyn. We 21 will go to Greg Tanaka followed by Joan Meyn. 22 23 Mr. Greg Tanaka, Palo Alto: Thank you Commissioners. I am the elected President of the 24 College Terrace Residents Association. This evening I am going to read to you what has been 25 approved by the Board and it is a result of countless hours of time that we spent on the Board 26 with the task force, the 2180 Task Force, to come up with the statement. As you can imagine 27 getting consensus among a large number of people is extremely difficult. So we do not have a 28 yes, we do not have no, of do we support or do we not support this project. Rather, we have 29 some things that we would like you to consider as you consider the PC zoning for this project. 30 You have the statement but I will still read it to you. 31 32 The Board of the College Terrace Association adopted the following statement regarding the 33 proposed College Terrace Centre at 2180 EI Camino Real on April 22, 2009. This statement is 34 informed by a CTRA Task Force that has carefully studied the proposed design, debated its 35 merits, and conducted a neighborhood survey to find where alignment exists and does not exist. 36 The detailed survey and its results have been submitted to the Commission. 37 38 This statement is made in terms of neighborhood preferences and values, and not in terms of 39 planning metrics, zoning options, or statistics. We believe the Planning and Transportation 40 Commission is in a better position to translate these preferences into a structure framework for 41 moving forward. 42 43 Here are the seven items that we would support. Number one, a center that will anchor the 44 neighborhood, mirror the neighborhood, and serve the neighborhood. Number two, an 45 enforceable requirement that the center include an honest-to-goodness grocery store, not a 46 convenience store, with sufficient conditions to be economically viable. Third, giving JJ&F first I priority in a grocery store lease arrangement and every encouragement to return to our 2 neighborhood service after construction is completed, because of the Garcia Family's roots, ties, 3 and loyalty to the neighborhood. Next, including a strong, verifiable transportation demand 4 management program as part of any proposed reduction in onsite parking requirements, to 5 prevent spillover parking problems. The next one is ingress/egress to underground parking from 6 El Camino to help minimize traffic cutting through the neighborhood, followed by retail space 7 and office space designed to attract a diversity of businesses, stores, and restaurants geared to 8 serving the neighborhood. Lastly, a beautiful, walkable, bikeable magnet for community 9 interaction. 10 II We are neutral about the BMR units and the prior space for community room. 12 13 We would not support the following three: transformation of a neighborhood center into a 14 regional business district; the preponderance of office space to the diminishment of other 15 possible uses; and the level of traffic and parking turnover associated with medical offices. 16 17 In conclusion, we ask you to ensure that any development at the 2180 El Camino Reallocation 18 will anchor the neighborhood, mirror the neighborhood, and serve the neighborhood of College 19 Terrace. Thank you. 20 21 Chair Garber: Thank you. Joan Meyn followed by William Ross, and then Annette Ross. Joan? 22 No Joan. William Ross followed by Annette Ross, and then Doria Summa. 23 24 Mr. William D. Ross, Palo Alto: Good evening Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, members of the 25 public. I am a resident, a business owner, a taxpayer, and on the College Terrace Task Force. 26 The views that I am going express are mine not of the Task Force but I would respectfully 27 suggest that the information assembled by the Task Force results from extensive analysis of the 28 project and that technically it accurately reflects the intensity of what is proposed. 29 30 I have four points I would like to make. First, I believe there has been a change in the type of 31 environmental review and when it is accomplished since the last time this has been before your 32 Commission. The Save the Tara case articulates that when a project has such definition that it is 33 known and it will go forward, and there it was a Memorandum of Understanding only, it has to 34 be assessed under CEQA. A mere promise or a condition that it is going to be accomplished as 35 is set forth in the Staff Report here today is insufficient. 36 37 Second, you have two quasi-legislative actions, and as a prior speaker noted they are not 38 personal, they run with the land. That relates to the fourth point I am going to make. There 39 really isn't a guarantee here. Let me finish out the second one. These entitlements in this project 40 must be consistent with the general plan. There is no general plan consistency analysis that is 41 consistent with applicable law here. It is on four and four and it is barely a page. It has to be 42 related to both the Housing Element, the Land Use Element, and it must be internally consistent 43 with the entire plan. That is not present. Until that is present I would respectfully suggest that 44 an analysis of public benefits is premature because it is not known whether it is consistent with 45 the general plan. 46 ] The fourth point is assurance as to the continuing grocery store. More than ten months ago I 2 raised the issue saying a private agreement cannot serve as a basis for a land use decision. That 3 case is still good law, save Trancos. There is no development agreement here. There is no 4 owner participation agreement here. There is no development and disposition agreement here. 5 There is an unknown agreement. This is Palo Alto for God's sake. If there is an agreement that 6 obligates and is personal to that point it should be in the record. A Letter ofIntent doesn't cut it. 7 There is no assurance. 8 9 1 would hope that you would exercise your trustee capacity with respect to the Comprehensive ] 0 Plan so that in two years 1 don't have to be here with an intensity of a development with no ] I grocery store and a vacant space. The planning metrics is to be complied with. This PC zone 12 goes beyond it. Thank you. 13 14 Chair Garber: Thank you. Annette Ross followed by Doria Summa, and then Fred Balin. We 15 will stop taking cards at this time. 16 17 Ms. Annette Ross, Palo Alto: I live in the Terrace since 1983. 1 would like to say tonight that 1 18 think it is unfortunate that the discussion around the 2180 project has been characterized as for or 19 against JJ&F. Those of us with concerns about certain aspects of the project are not against 20 JJ&F. In fact, I think it is safe to say that we hope that JJ&F will return. 21 22 1 wrote a letter regarding my concerns and I would like to make additional points tonight. The 23 City has a Comprehensive Plan that is designed to protect the City's neighborhoods. Even 24 though there are some enticing features in this project we rely on you to make decisions that are 25 consistent with our Comprehensive Plan. I ask why we even have one if we don't follow it. 26 27 Also, parking is a huge problem in Palo Alto. We have a neighbor that gobbles parking spaces. 28 This project is under-parked. 1 think at the very least that if you approve this you should require 29 that the new housing units have dedicated 2417 parking so that at least those people are assured 30 of a parking space. 3] 32 Thirdly, I would like to say that the entrance on EI Camino is not approved. Many ofthe 33 supportive comments that you are hearing tonight hinge on that but that is still something that is 34 an unknown. If you have anything that you can do to promote that that is where the entrance is I 35 would say that I think many people would appreciate your promoting that. 36 37 Finally, many ofthose who are unfortunately characterized as not supportive of the project do 38 support the retention of JJ&F. I am certainly one of those people. We also understand that a 39 market can be a requirement ofa PC should it be approved, however the square footage of that 40 market is a concern. If JJ&F cannot return the space available for a market must be big enough 41 to attract an alternative grocer. Thank you. 42 43 Thank you. Doria Summa followed by Fred Balin, and then Joy Ogawa. 44 45 Ms. Doria Summa, Palo Alto: Thanks for letting me speak tonight. I live quite close to the 46 proposal. I am on the CTRA Board and also on the 2180 Task Force. I am not in favor of this I project as proposed but if you are going to initiate a PC process I would like you to consider the 2 following among or put this in your considerations. 3 4 The overall intensity and size of the development has not changed and it is still way too much. 5 The 39,000 square feet of office space is also just too much. I believe this would cause cut- 6 through traffic in College Terrace and exacerbate the already existing parking and traffic 7 problems that we have, especially if the applicant is not held to a strict standard of parking 8 requirement. 9 lOA grocery store limited to 8,000 square feet with no contiguous retail space in which it could 1 1 expand may not be large enough to attract other grocers in the event the Garcia Family does not 12 find it desirable or economically feasible to return after a long hiatus. I feel we have no 13 assurance of that. 14 15 I am concerned that this would set a precedent for PC zones in the neighborhood along the 16 eastern boundary and EI Camino Real. 17 18 The addition of BMR housing is a good thing for the City in general but lower College Terrace is 19 already very dense and has many small rental units. I think that this addition has only made the 20 overall project more built up, massive, and dense. 21 22 In short, I do not feel that sufficient public benefits as yet have been shown to warrant a change 23 to PC. I think many compromises still need to be made to this proposal to soften its impact on 24 the neighborhood, ensure the usability of both retail and office by the neighborhood, and 25 compromises made to ensure that this development fits in with the historic aspect of the 26 surrounding area. Thank you. 27 28 Chair Garber: Thank you. Fred Balin followed by Joy Ogawa, and our final speaker Colleen 29 King Ney. 30 31 Mr. Fred Balin, Palo Alto: Thank you Commissioners. I am a resident of College Terrace, a 32 member of our Residents Association Task Force that has been evaluating this project as a group 33 for over a year. Individual perspectives vary but we have been dedicated to thoroughly 34 researching the key elements, providing objective materials on the project specifications to our 35 residents, monitoring the process, and gathering neighborhood feedback. One example is our 36 neighborhood survey that was distributed to every household. The material was submitted to 37 you last week in hardcopy with the packet's release. 38 39 The overwhelming topic of conversation related to this project is heartfelt support for JJ&F 40 Market and a desire that it return after any redevelopment, a preference for 88 percent in our 41 survey. But the essence of the matter before you this evening is something different. It is a 42 question. How much need be given away by the Commission and the City Council from the 43 Comprehensive Plan's Neighborhood Commercial Land Use Designation and the zoning district 44 of the same name to keep a viable grocery store on this site? The Comprehensive Plan is a 45 thoroughly considered document, the result of a four-year effort. Neither it nor the zoning code, 46 both ordinances, should be regarded lightly. So what is the best process to evaluate this 1 proposal? Two preliminary reviews and tonight's materials have clarified zoning regulations, 2 community benefits that can or cannot be considered, and other technical details. On the core 3 issue of grocery store retention this Commission in two hearings initiated a zone change and an 4 inquiry on this very matter as a citywide issue. Then for whatever reasons you paused. But what 5 was deferred then is before you tonight. What was deferred then is before you tonight. And it 6 requires the same thinking that took along the path of last year. Your decision now is not with 7 regard to a genera] rule but rather to a specific proposal with concrete factual elements that has 8 the added benefit of enabling you to make a more solid decision. 9 10 This zoning chart, verified against the Staff Report and which you have at places, was part of our 11 neighborhood distribution this week. The shaded column at the right shows the differential 12 between the proposed PC and CN mixed use. Look at the chart and decide what is best for the 13 full community and what should go on this site. The chart, the survey, and the statement of the 14 CTRA Board are a few elements of the careful work undertaken by residents within the 15 neighborhood, and as with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code should be afforded 16 considerable weight. Thank you. 17 18 Chair Garber: Thank you. Joy Ogawa followed by Colleen King Ney. 19 20 Ms. Joy Ogawa, Palo Alto: Hi. First I want to say that this property is the heart of College 21 Terrace's neighborhood commercial district and it is vitally important to keeping College 22 Terrace a more livable, walkable neighborhood. We value our neighborhood commercial and to 23 change the Comprehensive Plan designation of this property would severely harm our 24 neighborhood and please don't do that. 25 26 Next I want to address the amount of office. The project proposes 39,980 square feet of office, 27 which is an increase of941 square feet from October, which is an increase of 544 square feet 28 from February. Now my reaction has always been that this is way too much office but I do 29 recognize that having a guaranteed grocer store would be a benefit to the neighborhood and the 30 community. This is a benefit that may warrant some concession in terms of increased office 31 space beyond CN zoning limits. But the real tough question is how much more office space? 32 That is a tough question. What I am thinking is that the number we should be focusing on for 33 office is 12,569 square feet because that is the absolute maximum even with a Conditional Use 34 Permit that is allowed in the CN zone district for this size property. This project exceeds that 35 maximum of 12,569 by 27,411 square feet. 36 37 So the question again is how much more office space is a reasonable tradeoff for an 8,000 square 38 foot grocery store? Well, I guess that depends on what the amount of the subsidy is, which is a 39 difference in rent between the grocery and the other retail, because that is what I understand is 40 what the subsidy is. Somehow I really doubt that the subsidy justifies even a one to one tradeoff, 41 which would be a one square foot of additional office for each square foot of guaranteed grocery. 42 43 We also need to recognize that the retail in this project enhances the value of the office for the 44 property owner. By including a grocery store and other retail the location becomes much more 45 attractive for offices as workers have convenient access to the retail. So including JJ&F in the 1 project is not only a benefit to the neighborhood and the public it is also a benefit to the property 2 owners, although they might not want to admit that. 3 4 So again, what is a reasonable tradeoff? I would say less than one square foot of additional 5 office space for each square foot of grocery. Start with that 12,569 square foot of office. 6 7 Finally, I just urge you to do your best to save College Terrace's neighborhood commercial. 8 Thanks. 9 10 Chair Garber: Thank you. Colleen King Ney, you will be our last speaker. 11 12 Ms. Colleen King Ney, Palo Alto: I have a small private practice business in College Terrace. 13 want to start off by saying I am a huge supporter of JJ&F. I am definitely for the project. 14 However I do have some considerations that I would like you to take up. JJ&F is a one of a kind 15 store as you know. It has definitely been a major part of my life and fabric of my life for the last 16 ten years. Even though they are not my family I feel like they are. I am really excited about the 17 project, however one of the things that I am concerned about is the noise issues. I notice that 18 there will be an entrance for receiving and also trash across from my office. I am wondering if 19 there are any other options for that in future planning and also wondering if there is any 20 possibility of assistance with soundproofing my office due to the nature of my practice. Thank 21 you. 22 23 Chair Garber: Thank you. That concludes our public speakers. We will keep the public hearing 24 open until after we have completed our work here. Before we start with questions and discussion 25 if I could ask the Planning Staffto outline what the possible outcomes could be in terms of our 26 actions this evening. 27 28 Mr. Reich: Well you could recommend to initiate the PC rezone, in which case the application 29 would be moved forward to the Architectural Review Board. You could recommend to initiate 30 the PC rezone with specific additional conditions, or you could recommend not to initiate the PC 31 rezone. 32 33 Chair Garber: You have split the description of the item into two pieces. Could we move one 34 forward and not the other, meaning move some action on the Comprehensive Plan and not take 35 action on the PC, for instance or the other way around? 36 37 Mr. Williams: Well, first of all the action on the Comprehensive Plan doesn't have to go to the 38 ARB so that would be a recommendation directly the Council to amend the Comprehensive Plan. 39 If you wanted to split it out that way you could although I would think that what is on the agenda 40 tonight is not to make a recommendation on that but just to initiate it. So it would have to come 41 back for your specific recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan designation to the Council 42 with the environmental analysis, at that point we would have to have the environmental analysis 43 with that as well because you would be recommending to the Council then. 44 45 As far as the other piece of it, moving the PC forward, you could move the PC to the ARB and 46 have us come back on the Comprehensive Plan either at the time when you see the PC make its 1 way back to you or ahead of them. Ifwe come ahead of that then we would have to have 2 environmental review all prepared for you at that point. They are pretty closely linked. If you 3 move the PC forward the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, this project can't really be done 4 without the Comprehensive Plan Amendment too. So while the Comprehensive Plan 5 Amendment doesn't go to ARB we kind of consider it to be part ofthe package. 6 7 Chair Garber: So you could move the Comprehensive Plan but you can't move the PC without 8 the Comprehensive Plan. 9 10 Mr. Williams: Right. 11 12 Chair Garber: Commissioner Rosati. 13 14 Commissioner Rosati: I have a question about the transferability of the subsidized rent, if you 15 like. What happens if JJ&F decides not to exercise their option? It is very clear that even in the 16 illustrations that the proposal is to have this rent somewhat very attractive so that they would stay 17 but ifthey change their mind for whatever reason is that transferable? Do they have the right to 18 transfer it or what else? 19 20 Ms. Kennedy: The way we envision this Commissioner Rosati is that the deed restriction that 21 would include the subsidy would run to whoever the grocery tenant was. So the deed restriction 22 would essentially have two parts. One would be that it would be a grocery store and the second 23 would be that it would be a subsidized grocery store according to a formula that we have not 24 completely worked out yet, and we obviously want to work out with the City to make sure. It 25 could be a percentage of what office rents are from time to time or a certain percentage discount 26 off retail rents but that the subsidy and the grocery would both be part of the deed restriction. 27 28 Chair Garber: Just a caution Commissioner Rosati, and Staff can correct me here, but those sorts 29 of agreements are between the applicant and the owner of the land and have limited purview and 30 opportunity for the City actually to take action on them. Is that fair? 31 32 Ms. Kennedy: Ifwe wanted to do it that way we could do it that way but that is not our 33 intention. Our intention is to provide a deed restriction that satisfies the City's interest and the 34 community's interest in preserving a subsidized grocery store and having language that the City 35 Attorney doesn't bless but reviews and discusses with us until there is language that we are in 36 agreement on. Then it gets recorded in the County Recorder's Office. 37 38 Chair Garber: But the recording is with the landowner the City does not participate in that. 39 40 Ms. Tronquet: That is correct. The portion of it though would come back to the Commission as 41 the PC Ordinance and what we would include in the PC Ordinance is the restriction for grocery. 42 How the property owners decide to execute it would be up to them but they have offered to do 43 the deed restriction though. 44 45 Chair Garber: I am not discounting the offer to work with the City and hence the neighborhood 46 to come to something that makes sense for all but ultimately the legal bind excludes the City. I 2 Ms. Tronquet: In terms of the precise rent but the grocery restriction would be part of the PC 3 Ordinance. 4 5 Chair Garber: Understood, but that restriction does not link directly to the occupant just to the 6 use of property. 7 8 Ms. Tronquet: Right. 9 10 Chair Garber: First let me ask if Rosati has completed his questions. II 12 Commissioner Rosati: This is a question to the City and that has to do with is it possible to 13 define or exclude some of the office use as part of this process. I am just asking the question 14 because there have been some concerns about the nature of the office use. Some office use has 15 more traffic than others and I am just curious ifthat is possible. 16 17 Mr. Reich: That can be defined in the ordinance and the applicant has specified in this particular 18 project that there will be no medical office. Medical office has a higher trip generation rate than 19 other office types. Their trip generation analysis did not include medical office as one of the 20 options. So that is off the table as an option so that would be written into the PC Ordinance that 21 it not be medical office. 22 23 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller and then Tuma. 24 25 Commissioner Keller: To follow up on what Commissioner Rosati asked. I guess this is to 26 Attorney Kennedy. In the event that there is a deed restriction who is the enforcer ofthe deed 27 restriction? In other words, for whose benefit is the deed restriction and who would be eligible 28 to remove that deed restriction? Do you understand my question? 29 30 Ms. Kennedy: I do understand your question. I think I understand it. The deed restrictions are 31 essentially enforceable by the Attorney General of the state in the sense that once there is a deed 32 restriction in place any citizen can go to the Attorney General and say this is being violated. It is 33 binding on the landowner and so anybody in the City could challenge us if25 years from now we 34 decided to put in a toy store instead of a grocery store. It is also of course binding on any lender, 35 anybody that is junior to the landowner in terms of what gets recorded. We can also record a 36 memorandum of lease but that would only go for the term of the lease. This would be binding 37 just the same way your BMR restrictions are binding such that you can't sell a BMR unit for 38 market rate. So deed restriction is the mechanism by which we enforce long-term arrangements 39 for land. Melissa, did you want to say anything more about that? No, okay. 40 41 Commissioner Keller: What I am wondering is if you impose a deed restriction, ifthe landowner 42 imposed a deed restriction on themselves, can the landowner decide that it no longer wants to 43 abide by that deed restriction and remove it? In other words, what is the good and valuable thing 44 that was received by the landowner in order to get the deed restriction on there? In a sense this is 45 a contract to have the deed restriction so how does the deed restriction get enforced? In other 46 words, can the landowner later on decide I don't want this take it away? 1 2 Chair Garber: Actually, I am going to interrupt just briefly. I think the question of deeds in 3 general is interesting because it demonstrates the commitment that the applicant has to finding a 4 way to satisfy the interests of the City and the neighborhood. But I think in terms of what this 5 Commission needs to consider the deed is peripheral to the action that we need to take. So as 6 much as I am interested in the answers here I think we need to get off the question of deeds and 7 get onto how we want to utilize the property. 8 9 Ms. Kennedy: Exactly. So as sort of a companion piece to your ordinance, which is really the 10 enforcement mechanism, but for example if we sold the property it would be subject to that deed 11 restriction. So if the owners of that property sold to a third party it would be burdened by that 12 deed restriction. It runs with the land essentially but the enforcement piece really lies with your l3 ordinance and a violation of the ordinance. 14 15 Commissioner Keller: Well, I am not a lawyer but what I understand is when party A sells a 16 property to party B and applies a deed restriction to it that essentially that it is party A that the 17 deed restriction is in favor of party A and party A is the enforcer. So to the extent that the 18 enforcement can be given powers to the City that the deed restriction is in favor of the City 19 perhaps that is a way of doing it and I would welcome the attorney's comments on that. 20 21 Ms. Tronquet: Well, I think what we are saying here is the important piece is the PC Ordinance 22 because that is what is going to restrict the use. If they have a deed or not they are still going to 23 be required to have that grocery store use there. They are only going to be able to have a grocery 24 tenant there so they are going to have to do whatever they need to do to get the grocery tenant 25 regardless of what their deed restriction says. So the PC Ordinance is what will really address 26 that use issue and that is really what we are talking about tonight. 27 28 Commissioner Keller: I appreciate that. There are members of the public who pointed out that 29 the open space in a property and further away is now that space, which was a public benefit, is 30 occupied by Riaci restaurant. So there is concern of whether or the extent to which this would be 31 enforced in perpetuity. So understanding the extent to which the deed restriction would actually 32 be enforced is interesting. 33 34 Perhaps this is a question of the architect. I notice that there is a loading dock for the grocery 35 store off of Oxford that is between the grocery store and the BMR units. That loading dock 36 essentially prevents any -in other words, on one side of the grocery store you have the driveway 37 from EI Camino and on the other side of the grocery store you have the loading dock so that 38 constraints the size of the grocery store. To what extent does that loading dock present a 39 problem with respect to adjacency for the BMR units? 40 41 Mr. Carrasco: The loading dock firstly is enclosed and the noise issue is contained inside of the 42 loading dock from the noise point of view. From the location point of view there is a walkway 43 that accesses units. So the loading dock dimensions go right up to that wall. Does that answer 44 your question? 45 1 Commissioner Keller: Yes, and also I will take this opportunity to ask do you want to address 2 the comment of the member of the public who talked about noise across the street? 3 4 Mr. Carrasco: Yes. Ms. Ney has expressed this opinion before and we have taken good care not 5 to let the noise come out, the loading dock enclosed a truck with sound doors that shut the 6 loading dock from the street. 7 8 Commissioner Keller: So the sound doors are on the street? 9 10 Mr. Carrasco: Yes. 11 12 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. A question for Staff. At what point in this approval process 13 do rights vest with respect to the applicants or the landowner with respect to this application? 14 You have indicated Attachment E here, at what point does the PC Ordinance get adopted? At 15 what point in time does that vest? Are there further approvals behind this third approval which is 16 to be determined, which is the required action by Council? 17 18 Ms. Tronquet: I am not sure if I entirely understand your question but generally the right to 19 develop vests after building permits are issued. 20 21 Commissioner Keller: Well, what I understood is that there is a process in Alma Plaza for 22 example, just to illustrate. There was an initiation of the PC and then it came back and then 23 Council somehow in the PC Ordinance created some sort of very locked-down kinds of things of 24 what would be in the PC, and then when it came back again too many things were locked-down 25 in that process. I am trying to understand how this process is going to have sufficient number of 26 restrictions in it but on the other hand don't tie your hands so that when something comes down 27 and we realize that this is not quite what we wanted, we learn more about it, we don't have a 28 problem. So I am trying to compare the approval process for this with the approval process for 29 Alma Plaza and understand what the issues are. 30 31 Mr. Williams: Yes, thank you Commissioner Keller, that is a very good question. The Alma 32 Plaza process was different than this process and the standard PC process. That is because in 33 that case they basically appealed the Commission's initiation to the Council. What happened 34 there, rather than going from the Commission to the ARB and through the process, in which case 35 the Commission had laid out some parameters but you would have seen it again, and the whole 36 package would have been before the Commission. In the Alma Plaza case they appealed to the 37 Council and the Council rightly or wrongly adopted the PC Ordinance basically. They didn't 38 adopt the site plan that goes with it and typically in our code there is a site development plan that 39 goes with the PC Ordinance so it is all part of one package that is seen by ARB, the Commission, 40 and the Council. So in that case having gone to the Council the Council adopted a PC Ordinance 41 that did not adopt the site plan but it specified in enough detail all these other criteria in the PC 42 Ordinance itself that it tied the hands to some degree of both the ARB and the Planning and 43 Transportation Commission when that site plan came back through, as well as tying the hands in 44 terms of number of units and all the other criteria. 45 1 So in this case theoretically it could to the Council too in that same way, but we would certainly 2 recommend if that happened that the Council not be specific that they just determine whether to 3 forward it to ARB and start that process. So it is a very different process. This should come 4 back to the Commission after going to ARB with your still full discretion as far as the uses, the 5 intensities, the site layout, all those criteria, plus you would have the environmental document at 6 that time. 7 8 Commissioner Keller: Thank you that clarifies things. So to summarize the discussion, 9 essentially if a PTC initiation restrictions are appealed to the Council then the process in some 10 sense needs to be fixed so that the Council does not overly restrict the process in the future. That 11 is something we might want to visit when we look at the PC Ordinance. Thank you. 12 13 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Tuma and then Fineberg. 14 15 Vice-Chair Tuma: The first question has to do with parking and the possibility for parking 16 reduction under different formulas. As I understand it, there isn't a formal proposal here to 17 reduce parking based on a specific code provision or anything like that it is just genera] reference 18 to the fact that there isn't enough parking here but there would presumably some entitlements to 19 reductions. Is that sort of a fair characterization of where we are on the parking reduction 20 question? 21 22 Mr. Reich: The applicant has actually provided something today that explains and gives more 23 rationale for their request for the parking reduction. In their traffic analysis they actually 24 provided information as well that leads to looking at that as terms of being rational in terms of 25 the number of spaces they are asking for a reduction for. They are asking for reductions based 26 on shared parking and they reference the Urban Land Institute published methodology in terms 27 of looking at shared parking. So there is a formula if you feed in the various square footages and 28 types of land use it will pop out the anticipated maximum number of parking spaces needed. So 29 they did that work and provided that and 215 parking spaces was the total that was arrived at. 30 Additionally the Institute of Transportation Engineers has published parking generation rates as 31 well and in going through that exercise they come up with 181 parking spaces. So based on 32 those two existing institutions it would look like they are providing ample parking. It may not 33 meet our current standard but according to those institutions they would have enough parking to 34 meet the demand. 35 36 Mr. Williams: IfI could just add that we received this today. We have not had a chance to 37 really go through it in some detail and our Transportation people have not either. We think there 38 are some problems with it, which is why we didn't just distribute it to the Commission tonight. 39 Certainly the applicants are here tonight and they indicated they have their traffic consultants 40 with them if you would like to hear more from them on this they are available to discuss it. We 41 want to stress that we have not had any real chance to review and this and see how it dovetails 42 with the reductions in our code, specifically 20 percent for one kind and 30 percent for another, 43 that kind of analysis. 44 1 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. The institutions that they referred to those are not institutions or 2 criteria that we have in any way referenced or adopted into our code, so our code would control. 3 These are just other reference points, is that right? 4 5 Mr. Williams: Right. These are professional engineering standard and engineering practice. 6 Our engineers utilize these sources but our code has specific numbers in it and that is what we 7 base our compliance on. 8 9 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, so talking about our code for a second, there are reductions for things 10 like in certain mixed use environments there are reductions. We saw a project not too long ago 11 where we applied that. Are there criteria in our code that deal with the type of mixed uses that 12 you have? For example, where you have a project that is half residential and half commercial 13 there is a certain mix there because of the overlap of when people go to work and that sort of 14 thing. Would we look at that differently than a project like this one that is predominantly 15 commercial with a little bit of residential, and would that impact how much reduction we would 16 see? 17 18 Mr. Williams: It certainly would be a different mix and a different type of reduction. The 19 reduction mayor may not come out to be similar. The code doesn't specify exactly how you do 20 that calculation. The code does say you need to do a calculation using sources such as ULI, 21 Urban Land Institute, which I think Russ indicated was one of the sources used. They have 22 standard methodologies that they use. So when you have a retail and an office use they overlap 23 in certain ways like the nighttime uses if there is a restaurant or a grocery store or something like 24 that a lot of the office people would be gone. So maybe some of those peaks would overlap in a 25 way that would allow for reduced parking. In this case you have a residential component that is 26 not very many units first of all, I don't know if the parking for that is sort of dedicated over to 27 that side. If it is, it is not really usable for the retail. If it is not, if it is grouped all together and 28 the parking is all jumbled together then there would be some benefit there, but obviously given 29 the scale of the office and retail and the minimal amount of residential you wouldn't expect a lot 30 of reduction based on that kind of use. So it depends on the amount of each type of use and this 31 calculation methodology being accepted by our Transportation Staff. 32 33 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Switching topics, several people from the public expressed some 34 concern regarding the size of the grocery store and the viability beyond JJ&F if for whatever 35 reason they did not continue there. The first question is, remind me the approximate size of the 36 market at Alma Plaza. 37 38 Mr. Williams: It was 15,000 square feet. 39 40 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. So does Staffhave any comment or concern on the size of the market 41 that is being proposed here? Not as to whether it would work for JJ&F they seem to be 42 comfortable with that, but whether it is generally a good size for viability long-term. 43 44 Mr. Williams: I don't know if Russ or Amy has seen anything different. I don't think we have 45 an indication that it particularly fits one market model as opposed to another. Our understanding 46 generally is that there is this model now of more smaller neighborhood type markets that even a 1 Safeway is considering and some ofthe other market chains are considering now, and usually 2 they start at about 10,000 square feet. So in this case I think it is 8,000 but they have the outdoor 3 area too. So I think their point is that it actually gets to be 10,000 but it is kind of on the cusp of 4 the low end of what we have seen from other markets. 5 6 Mr. Reich: In addition to that there is the fact that the market is required. So the actions that the 7 property owner has to take in order to get a tenant in there also impact the viability of that 8 particular market. So for instance if they have a much lower lease rate then that changes things 9 and helps increase the viability, whereas a typical market may need more square footage to have lOa greater volume or whatever other parameters there may be. 11 12 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, great, one last question for now. In the Staff Report there is a section 13 that says under Adequacy of Proposed Public Benefits one of the items is the provision of a 14 subsidized rental rate to ensure neighborhood serving grocery market will remain at this location. 15 16 Mr. Reich: Consider that a typo from the previous iterations of the Staff Report. Basically the 17 public benefit would be the assurance that a market remain there not necessarily the rental rates, 18 again because we can't enter into those private agreements but we can ensure in the ordinance 19 that the land use be specified at whatever square footage that it be a market. So that would be 20 amended the next time it goes around. 21 22 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. I have a comment that I will hold until we get to the comment period. 23 24 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, you had a quick follow up on parking. 25 26 Commissioner Keller: Yes to follow up on Vice-Chair Tuma's comment, looking at the diagram 27 title sheet AO.1 I think it is that indicates that the total required commercial parking is 228 spaces 28 and the total required for the residential is 26 spaces. But somehow after you add the residential 29 and the reduction you wind up with 226 spaces at the end. So the amount of spaces required 30 after the reduction is actually less than the commercial requires, which is somehow we get a 31 negative there by mixed use, which seems to be somewhat counterintuitive, let me put it that 32 way. So again when you have percentages off the top and you have skewing as Vice-Chair 33 Tuma pointed out large percentages don't make sense like that. Thank you. 34 35 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Holman. 36 37 Commissioner Fineberg: I have a question for Staff about the logic for the findings of a PC. The 38 findings require that the uses in the site development regulations are consistent with the 39 Comprehensive Plan. Ifwe need to amend the Comprehensive Plan in order to get consistency 40 does that mean that then by definition the project isn't consistent? Otherwise couldn't we go to 41 every site, every parcel, amend the zoning and then make everything consistent with the 42 Comprehensive Plan by changing zoning? So at what point -it comes back to one ofthe 43 questions I asked when I started a couple of years back, does the Comprehensive Plan matter? 44 How do we value the Comprehensive Plan as a document, as a well thought out whole? Ought 45 we be in the business of changing underlying zoning to fit a project? 46 1 Mr. Williams: Well, you certainly can change the Comprehensive Plan at which point it 2 becomes consistent with that. That is your determination whether to do that or not. So whether 3 it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan depends on whether you are comfortable with 4 changing the Comprehensive Plan. There are valid reasons to consider a Comprehensive Plan 5 change and if you feel those exist and then that this project fits within those valid reasons then 6 that is fine and you are consistent. 7 8 The other thing I would say is there are a lot of Comprehensive Plan policies and programs. So 9 when it says it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan it doesn't just mean the 10 Comprehensive Plan land use designation it also means that. So you could find, and I think this 11 case is probably a good example where it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan 12 designation, it probably is consistent with quite a few of our policies and about design and design 13 on El Camino, and access of mixing uses and those kinds of things, but it doesn't fit the 14 designation. So I think one of the points we made in the Staff Report and that I was trying to 15 make early on in the meeting is this an area of El Camino where it may be appropriate to be 16 looking at some different Comprehensive Plan designation than a Neighborhood Commercial 17 just by the nature of what El Camino we may want to see along El Camino in the future. On the 18 other hand, the Comprehensive Plan is a fundamental planning document. Is it appropriate to be 19 making that change on this parcel before we have had a chance to discuss it sort of up and down 20 El Camino, which we will be doing to some extent not a real focused extent but to some extent as 21 part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. So those are the kind of things the Commission needs 22 to consider. There are some reasons that sort of commend this towards the direction of a 23 Comprehensive Plan change looking at maybe the longer-term future of El Camino. On the 24 other hand it is Neighborhood Commercial, there is a neighborhood nearby that is served by this, 25 so there is reason for arguing sort of both designations. Ultimately if you feel comfortable with 26 that, you have to feel comfortable with that Comprehensive Plan change, and then it becomes 27 consistent but it is not just de facto inconsistent because right now it doesn't meet what the 28 zoning is proposed. That is a long roundabout way to get there but hopefully that is understood. 29 30 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. You touched on my next question, which is there have 31 been some discussion up and down the state about the redevelopment of El Camino. There have 32 been some descriptions of it as a grand boulevard, there have been some plans coming out about 33 how it is going to change regionally. I am sorry I didn't get this to you earlier. Could you 34 characterize just from your sense of this project whether this is consistent with how the El 35 Camino redesign for the longer scope of it beyond Palo Alto, is this consistent with how that is 36 going or not the way the bigger picture is going? 37 38 Mr. Williams: Well those efforts have two parts to them. One is sort of the public space, the 39 street, the width of the roadway, the way pedestrians or bicyclists can get across the street and 40 making those safer as well as street trees, and just the whole appearance of what is within the 41 right-of-way. Then the second part is the private development along the streets which generally 42 is characterized in most of those plans as higher intensity, mixed use, or residential development 43 that is maybe closer to the street, but for residential maybe not too close to the street. 44 45 I think this does a good job probably of emulating the concepts that are out there as far as 46 particularly having the office space up close, there should be some tiering back and setbacks up 1 upper floors to break up the massing along the street, having the sort of open space feel at the 2 corner there with the market and also at the office, are concepts that are in there as far as trying 3 to bring more public spaces and mixing uses. Those concepts are all part of that El Camino 4 effort. Again, it is like you said up and down the state. It is a very broad brush approach and 5 there are certainly going to be locations where that isn't appropriate as well. 6 7 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. Switching a little bit to some smaller areas. The 14 8 proposed BMR units, I believe it was 8,400 square feet, so it would be about 600 square feet per 9 unit, one bedroom. Do we know ifthere is demand for that? I am sorry, Amy. The 8,400 square 10 feet of BMR units, 14 units, so they are 600 square foot each. Is there demand for 600 square II foot one bedroom BMR units at whatever level of affordability they might be? 12 13 Mr. Reich: In your packet there should be a letter from the Palo Alto Housing Corporation 14 supporting that. They have stated that there is a demand for small low income rental housing 15 units for single occupancy. Over time as this property is redeveloped we are actually losing a 16 number of affordable rental units so any additional affordable rental units are appreciated. There 17 are significant waiting lists for people to be in those BMR rentals. 18 19 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, because there have been some conversations about maybe for 20 the larger ones whether at that price point there is a demand. So I was just wondering if that 21 particular kind of product, and there were some they were saying they had to get people outside 22 of Palo Alto. So do we know if that particular size and affordability is a demand or are we 23 building something we will have to import people for? 24 25 Mr. Reich: Right, I have not asked the Housing Coalition that specific question. 26 27 Commissioner Fineberg: All right, thank you. For the applicant about the BMR units, not trying 28 to get to too fine a grain of detail but if the units are 600 square feet and each unit has its own 29 internal stairway that means a large proportion of the unit's square footage is that internal 30 stairway. I was just wondering if there could be any consideration for making it first story units 31 and second story units and one external staircase. Granted, I know the building regulations 32 would be different but consider changing it so that there would be one staircase that could access 33 like four upstairs units and then you wouldn't be eating up so much of the unit on stairs. Just as 34 an idea. 35 36 Then also if this moves forward some consideration for how the tenants in the residential would 37 access their entries from the parking. It looks a little convoluted that they would have to go up 38 into the offices, out a back door, next to a driveway. It doesn't feel residential. 39 40 This is for the applicant. One of the issues a number of residents have talked about is questions 41 about the size and viability of the grocery store. Is there anything precluding a larger area that is 42 attached if the driver shifted that there could be larger ground floor retail with more flexibility 43 that JJ&F or whatever grocer could be bigger? 44 45 Mr. Carrasco: If you combine that with Lee Lippert's question about can we move the units 46 backwards and provide space, and then Commissioner Keller's question about whether that wall 1 has to be there or not there as an opportunity to move that parking lot to the corner and provide 2 more grocery store space in the future if we need it. So there are options and we will look at 3 them and bring them back to you. 4 5 Commissioner Fineberg: Great. That is it for my questions for now. Thank you. 6 7 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman and then Rosati and then we will move onto comments. 8 Commissioner Holman. 9 10 Commissioner Holman: Staff probably has the answer to this. What does office space rent for in 11 this general vicinity? 12 13 Mr. Williams: I don't really know. You might have an architect who knows better on the 14 Commission. 15 16 Chair Garber: You want an architect to talk about pricing? 17 18 Mr. Williams: Not about cost of services but of the leasing rates. 19 20 Chair Garber: No comment. 21 22 Commissioner Holman: Would anybody dare say if three dollars is way off target? 23 24 Mr. Williams: I would say it sounds low. 25 26 Ms. Kennedy: About five dollars and twenty-five cents to five dollars and seventy-five cents to 27 six dollars a square foot based on our analysis over the last four weeks. 28 29 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. I might need a moment to change my calculations if 30 somebody else has a question in the meantime. 31 32 Chair Garber: Commissioner Rosati. 33 34 Commissioner Rosati: Yes, I wanted to follow up again with the City on the calculation of the 35 incremental revenue. There was a comment form the public challenging the $700,000 number 36 and I was wondering if we could apply you perspective on that number. Does anybody know 37 how it was calculated and whether the number was within the ballpark or completely off? 38 39 Mr. Reich: That number is not something that Staff has analyzed. Perhaps the applicant can 40 speak to the calculation they provided. 41 42 Mr. Smailey: The $700,000 total is split between JJ&F. JJ&F would, we assume, double their 43 current tax payments to the City up to $200,000 a year. The remaining retail tenants would 44 generate the other $500,000 a year based on their projections of sales. 45 46 Commissioner Rosati: So the number is a total sales tax. 1 2 Mr. Smai1ey: I am sorry, total sales tax, yes. 3 4 Commissioner Rosati: So basically the City would be receiving the standard proportion, which 5 is? 6 7 Mr. Williams: It is about one cent of the eight or nine now. 8 9 Commissioner Rosati: Twelve percent of 100 percent of the taxes, something like that. 10 11 Mr. Williams: Something like that, yes. I should point out that there also would be I am sure a 12 property tax increase. Again, we get like nine percent of property taxes that are generated but 13 there should be some fairly significant property tax increase on this property being redeveloped 14 at this level of development given that the existing buildings are very old and have been kept at 15 low property tax levels. 16 17 Commissioner Rosati: So there would be incremental property tax as well. 18 19 Mr. Williams: Yes, but we haven't gotten any numbers on either of those. 20 21 Commissioner Rosati: Are there business taxes from the offices that would be using that as 22 well? 23 24 Mr. Williams: Oh yes. There are not right now, there are not business taxes but the City as you 25 probably know is evaluating the business license tax that may be in effect at the point these come 26 online and may generate some of that as well. 27 28 Commissioner Rosati: Okay. 29 30 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman. 31 32 Commissioner Holman: Okay, understanding that this doesn't include everything. It doesn't 33 include construction cost. It also doesn't include depreciations. This might be more ofa 34 comment but I think it is going to raise a question so I am going to throw it out there. I am being 35 conservative here and I am using five dollars a square foot. Three was really conservative but I 36 didn't know it was that conservative. Ifthere are 39,980 square feet of office here, let's forget 37 the other retail space we are just talking office here. At five dollars a square foot that generates 38 $199,900 a month in rental income. If you look at how much over even a CN CUP would allow 39 in office, which is the 27,411 square feet at five dollars a square foot that is $137,055 a month 40 over the CUP office allowance. 41 42 If you look at, and we have to suppose here, a 30 percent subsidy for the 8,000 square foot 43 grocery store and I am going to use the 8,000 square feet because the outside space is beneficial 44 but it is not the same as having indoor space for a market. It doesn't have the full utility that an 45 indoor space does. So if you use 8,000 square feet at five dollars a square foot we all know 1 groceries really can't support that usually, if you look at a 30 percent subsidy it is a $12,000 a 2 month subsidy, which pales quite a lot to the $137,000 a month or the $199,000 a month. 3 4 I understand that that doesn't include of course the construction costs. I understand that doesn't 5 include also depreciation. So I don't know if Staff or the applicant want to comment on that but 6 we are supposed be evaluating public benefit and I am seeing quite a large divergence here in 7 dollars coming in. So if we are weighing how much of a public benefit -have I totally 8 confounded everyone? 9 10 Mr. Williams: I think we would suggest that is an applicant question to respond to how that 11 works. I would point out that it is a little bit apples and oranges in terms of -well, what it does 12 is assume that the market rent if you didn't have the subsidy for the grocery store and the office 13 space at the CN with a CUP level is a viable project. I don't know if it is or not. It gives you 14 numbers here and based on then you take out construction cost and operating cost and all that. 15 So we don't have that level of information to kind of analyze that but the applicant may. 16 17 Commissioner Holman: It is one of the difficulties because Palo Alto doesn't do pro formas on 18 projects. It is a difficulty and a challenge that we face because we don't, which I wish we would 19 change. Does the City Attorney have something to add? Applicants want to comment at all? 20 21 Mr. Smailey: There are so many different components that apply here. The cost to build the 22 project is in excess of $50 million. The debt carry on that is an absolute shot in the dark today. 23 Our requirement to provide additional equity is a bigger shot in the dark. The comparison that I 24 think you want to consider is not against office rents but against retail rents that are lower than 25 office. The information that we received by polling two consultants and three brokerage houses 26 indicate that retail rents are probably in the two dollar and twenty-five cent to fifty cent to 27 seventy-five cent range per square foot in today's marketplace at the low end. Office rents are 28 someplace in the six dollar to six dollar and fifty cent range at the high end. Based on that we 29 gave you a comparison of three to four to one depending on a time and market and time of 30 product. So those factors will come into playas you look at an understanding, if you will, of the 31 financial aspects of the project. 32 33 In addition to those construction costs there is an equity carry and a carry of the funds that have 34 already been expended over the last five years to get us to this point. So the responsibilities of a 35 project once completed are frankly enormous at this stage. 36 37 Commissioner Holman: That is why I said I wasn't including the costs of construction. So 38 thank you for that. I really want to ask some pro forma questions but. 39 40 If the Commission were to, I guess since it is a PC we could condition it any way we wanted, so 41 that we could condition it such that whatever size we end up with, whatever project we end up 42 with we could condition it such that CN office uses were the only office uses that were allowed? 43 Okay. 44 45 Mr. Williams: Yes. 46 1 Commissioner Holman: This isn't the most important thing but I was curious about in the Staff 2 Report the Comprehensive Plan policies that were applicable to this. There were a good number 3 of them. This is pretty extensive, it is a little bit more than two and a half pages of 4 Comprehensive Plan polices that would apply to this project. Now they are not saying that the 5 project at this point complies with all of those. You are saying that these are all of the ones that 6 might apply to the project. Do I understand that correctly? 7 8 Mr. Reich: Yes, those are policies that would typically apply to this project based on the scope 9 of what the project is. 10 11 Commissioner Holman: But not ones that you are saying that at this point the project does 12 conform with, because it is unclear how it was submitted in the packet? 13 14 Mr. Reich: I apologize for that. Because we don't know that we have a project yet because the 15 PC has not yet been initiated, normally what we would do is go through each of those po licies 16 and explain how the project is in compliance with that. We will certainly do that when the 17 project comes back if it comes back, but that level of detail has not yet been provided for the 18 Commission. 19 20 Commissioner Holman: I carped you a little bit because it wasn't clear but I do want to thank 21 you very much for identifying the other attachments and their authorship. So thank you for that 22 to be absolutely fair. 23 24 The applicant did some of this but could Staff indicate some of the other changes you have seen 25 take place in this project since our last review? 26 27 Mr. Reich: There really have not been a significant number of changes since the last review. 28 There is a little bit more detail provided and information but the parameters of the project are 29 very similar. There were some significant changes from the first time that you saw it to the 30 second time, but there were not a lot of changes from the last time that you saw it. 31 32 Commissioner Holman: That was clarifying my understanding too, so thank you for that. Is 33 there any indication that you have that the property owner would bring forward a subdivision 34 map? 35 36 Mr. Reich: There is every indication that they would not be subdividing the property but they do 37 need a map in order to combine the lots. So there is no intention to condominiumize or do 38 separate and that would not come to the Commission actually. 39 40 Commissioner Holman: What I am interested in is, well we could require the retail to all remain 41 on one parcel, so I that is where I am going with that. 42 43 Mr. Reich: Well, the whole site is going to be built on podium parking so it is all one building so 44 it will become on parcel. 45 1 Commissioner Holman: But could we condition it such that they couldn't condominiumize the 2 second retail space if it remained a second retail space? 3 4 Mr. Reich: And sell off those spaces individually? 5 6 Commissioner Holman: Yes so that they are under different control. 7 8 Mr. Williams: I think you probably could condition that as part of the PC because you would not 9 see the subdivision given that this is not over two acres in size. The Commission wouldn't see 10 the subdivision unless the residences were to be sold and there were to be a subdivision for that 11 purpose. 12 13 Commissioner Holman: How would Stafflike us to proceed in terms of determining ifthere is 14 enough public benefit here? Do you have any guidance to offer in that regard? 15 16 Mr. Williams: No more so than usual. I think it is almost like a pluses and minuses list. I think 17 there are certainly some thing to commend the project in terms of public benefits, the guaranteed 18 market, the BMR units in particular, but how that weighs against the extensive amount of office 19 space. I commend you for trying to fiscally or financially try to make that and it might be 20 something that you ask us as this works its way through the process and then comes back to you 21 that we try to develop a better financial equation for that even though I am sure the developer is 22 not going to open up his books and show us all the details of how they get there. We probably 23 can do some basic analysis along the lines of where you were headed to try to give a better sense 24 of that as we get more into it. 25 26 Commissioner Holman: Chair Garber, I have a couple of other questions. I think you wanted us 27 to finish questions. 28 29 Chair Garber: Yes, I am not seeing any other lights so please. 30 31 Commissioner Holman: Could Staff comment on should we pass this along to ARB we don't 32 have any indication from Caltrain as to whether they are going to allow an entrance there. So 33 would we not be moving forward without any indication as to whether we have viable project 34 here or not? 35 36 Mr. Reich: We actually have to move forward. Caltrans will not weigh in on that until they 37 have an approved environmental document in front of them to review. So the project actually 38 has to be completed in terms of its review process in order to get Caltrans to weigh in the 39 granting of that curb cut. 40 41 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. There was a letter from Susan Rosenberg talking about 42 replacing the median trees adjacent to 2180 EI Camino Real. Would that be in close enough 43 proximity to this project that we could require that as a condition of approval? 44 45 Mr. Reich: Are you referring to the median trees directly out in front of the project? 46 1 Commissioner Holman: Adjacent to 2180, so yes. 2 3 Mr. Reich: I think that there would be a nexus to condition that. 4 5 Commissioner Holman: A question for the applicant. Last time this was here and then this 6 attachment to the Staff Report talks about that a grocer would have opportunity to take over more 7 of the retail space. But as indicated last time it really isn't feasible because it doesn't seem to me 8 feasible because there are real impediments to being able to expand in that space because of the 9 separations. 10 11 Mr. Carrasco: Commissioner Holman, you have an example of a driveway going through a retail 12 zone on Ramona Street right across from City Hall at the project where you have public parking 13 in the basement. That retail doesn't seem to be disrupted. We plan on a similar kind of 14 arrangement in this regard. So we think it will work. 15 16 Commissioner Holman: The Ramona situation that you refer to between University and 17 Hamilton, I am presuming you are speaking? 18 19 Mr. Carrasco: Yes. 20 21 Commissioner Holman: That doesn't have the at grade impediments that within the project 22 sphere that that project does as I read the plan. 23 24 Mr. Carrasco: In our design, which is better I think than Ramona, the Ramona driveway comes 25 right up to the sidewalk. Whereas ours has two car lengths of flat space before you get to the 26 sidewalk so the continuity of retail should be better in our case than it is at Ramona because you 27 can watch and see a pedestrian when a car is horizontal than at an angle. 28 29 Chair Garber: A follow up to that or perhaps something you might consider in your question. 30 The impact of the ramp on Ramona is less relative to the streetscape because it is one small 31 opening in a larger faryade. Here it is a gap between buildings. Does that change the way that 32 you might want to phrase your question? So perhaps the question is here there isn't a visual 33 continuity between the two building masses that would tend to keep a pedestrian from 34 understanding that those two buildings are actually occupied by the same use and/or the same 35 owner with the same identity. 36 37 Mr. Carrasco: Maybe two different but compatible uses on either side of that driveway. In one 38 case, in this case the grocery store is setback 29 feet from the 12 foot sidewalk so you have these 39 active sidewalk type uses that we spoke about that merge the continuity from one end to the 40 other side. It will probably appear in our next version of our landscape plan where it shows the 41 continuity of those outdoor public uses and how that driveway gets narrowed by those uses to 42 show continuity. 43 44 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman. 45 1 Commissioner Holman: I thought I had one more but I am not exactly finding it. I do have 2 comments and concerns. 3 4 Mr. Garcia: Excuse me can I put my two cents? One of the issues is of course the size. I have 5 been to areas, in San Francisco there are some areas like this where the actual store is here and 6 let's say the meat market is the next building over or the next building over, because of how busy 7 it is or whatever. So if I need to expand maybe into a pharmacy or let's say a coffee shop or 8 expand the meat department or deli department I can do it on the other side of the driveway and 9 it still can be utilized with the front area, patio area, or produce area. Do you understand what I lOam saying? 11 12 Commissioner Holman: I do. 13 14 Chair Garber: This was a topic that was brought up in one of our earlier meetings. I think what 15 the tension here is, not to put words in Commissioner Holman's mouth, but in a circumstance 16 where you have let's take the architect's example on Ramona. You can create a project that has 17 a continual image, a continual impact along an entire streetscape and the opportunity to create a 18 continuity of identity for a particular occupant on both sides of that ramp is much greater. Your 19 observation, Mr. Garcia's observation, is that given that you going to have two separate masses, 20 you are going to have these two separate identities. Your strategy for expanding your business 21 would be to create a different type of business that is still owned by you, potentially shares some 22 sort of identity but because it is different, it is not a grocery store, it is a meat market, it is a 23 pharmacy, it is a coffee shop it would have its own separate identity and would support a two 24 building scheme. That is what I am hearing. I am seeing nods of heads over there. 25 Commissioner Holman. 26 27 Commissioner Holman: Just two other things really quickly. To follow onto that with more of a 28 comment, you hear people mention a lot in the retail districts that ifthere is just a blank 29 storefront that is enough to get people to stop going to the next -it is applicable to this and a 30 double car parking garage entry is even more of an impact, but just having a vacant storefront is 3 1 enough to get people to stop going from one store and skip that open space and then go to the 32 next store. So that is the concern. 33 34 Also I brought my Staff Report from when we were looking at Neighborhood Center Zoning in a 35 Study Session. Just for whatever it is worth there is some number of floor area square footages 36 for some of the markets that Commissioners might want to consider. Segona's at Stanford is 37 17,000 and I am rounding these numbers to whatever the closest thousand is, Andronico's at 38 Stanford is 25,000, Whole Foods is 21,000, Mollie Stone's is 23,000, Country Sun we don't have 39 a number, Safeway in Midtown is 19,000, Piazza's is 18,000, Trader Joe's that will be going into 40 Town & Country is 12,000, Alma Plaza you heard is going to 15,000, the Albertson's that was 41 there was 17,000, and the Co-op that was on Middlefield was 18,500. So if that helps to provide 42 any context. 43 44 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Tuma has a question and Commissioner Rosati did 45 you have more questions as well? Commissioner Tuma and Fineberg have questions and then 46 we will move ourselves towards comments. 1 2 Vice-Chair Tuma: This is a question for Staff to make sure that I understand what we are being 3 asked to do and what we are not being asked to do tonight. I just want to make sure that I 4 understand this. Is it correct that we are not being asked to recommend that the zoning or the 5 Comprehensive Plan designation be changed but we are merely being asked to initiate the 6 change? 7 8 Mr. Williams: That is correct. 9 10 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. So likewise we are obviously not recommending approval or not 11 approving the PC? 12 13 Mr. Williams: That is right. 14 15 Vice-Chair Tuma: We are also not recommending whether the public benefit is adequate or 16 whether the parking is adequate or any of these other components as to whether they are 17 adequate or not for purposes of approval tonight. 18 19 Mr. Williams: No you are not although they are certainly considerations in whether you move it 20 forward. Are they in the right direction? 21 22 Vice-Chair Tuma: Right, so it would be appropriate to comment on the adequacy of those things 23 going forward but that is not the determination as to whether we initiate or not. 24 25 Mr. Williams: That is right. 26 27 Vice-Chair Tuma: So what I am left with is that if we recommend initiation tonight of both the 28 zone change and the Comprehensive Plan land designation change that we are essentially 29 sending a signal that this general mix of uses seems to be in the ballpark. Is that sort of a fair 30 characterization of where we are going tonight? 31 32 Mr. Williams: I think that is a good characterization that generally what you are moving forward 33 is this sort of level of mix and intensities but recognizing that the site plan could change, it could 34 be up or down on different types of uses before you see it again, but there is enough here to get it 35 started. Let the ARB take a look at it and get it back to you for your recommendation. 36 37 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. But all the issues of adequacy of public benefit, adequacy of parking, 38 all those other issues would certainly come back prior to any definition of what the PC would 39 look like let alone approval of that Pc. 40 41 Mr. Williams: That is right. 42 43 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, thanks. 44 45 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg. 46 I Commissioner Fineberg: This is a question for the applicant and you might consider this the cart 2 before the project. I am thinking about carts and I am thinking specifically about the Whole 3 Foods in Los Altos on EI Camino and how they handle carts and basements, the parking spaces 4 that were given up, and the mechanisms for getting carts to the basement, getting food to the 5 basement, getting carts back up. As this progresses could you please have some consideration of 6 carts? I don't know if you have any comments tonight or that will come. 7 8 Mr. Carrasco: The general configuration and the access to the elevator very much mimics the 9 Whole Foods in Los Altos in your plans. We will look at that even in more detail when we bring 10 it back to you. II 12 Commissioner Fineberg: Great. I would also agree with Commissioner Tuma's characterization 13 that we are not making findings tonight regarding adequacy of parking, consistency with 14 Comprehensive Plan, but I do think that our recommendations tonight send a message about our 15 preliminary determination on those items. At several of our meetings I have seen the argument 16 put forward that we ought to initiate an action so that we can have continued discussion. Then at 17 subsequent meetings that logic is sort of used as a well, we brought it forward because we liked 18 it therefore we should progress. I guess I just don't like that line of logic and I think that the 19 consideration tonight should focus on whether the preliminary determinations seem to be in the 20 ballpark and that we not go down a road of if we initiate we can decide later. That just gets into 21 slippery logic. 22 23 Chair Garber: Thank you. I see no more lights for questions. Commissioner Lippert you 24 wanted to start off our comments. 25 26 Commissioner Lippert: First of all I want to thank the applicant for coming back, and I really 27 appreciate hearing from the neighbors. I think it is real important that the College Terrace 28 neighborhood, especially the Association speak up in support or against the proposal here. 29 30 I am having great difficulty with this project. Part of it is that there is only one benefit that is 31 crucial here and that is the JJ&F Market or having a viable market. I live in Downtown North 32 and I know what it is like to not have a market. We used to have Norm Starlight Market, which 33 was a relative small, almost convenience store size, but I think it was maybe about 8,000 square 34 feet. At one point it was bought out and a bank was built there. That bank got bought out by 35 Comerica and Comerica had several banks in the Downtown and they consolidate, and gee you 36 can't eat money. It doesn't work. You want to have viable markets that people can go to and do 37 their neighborhood shopping. 1 happen to be lucky. I happen to live not very far from another 38 market, Willow Market, which is in walking distance. If I want to I can go to Whole Foods, 39 which is also within walking distance. 40 41 What troubles me here are a couple of things. Number one, economic viability means different 42 things at different times. So while I appreciate Commissioner Holman's analysis and trying to 43 assign dollars per square foot we have seen market trends where office space was the driving 44 factor for development. We have seen times where housing is the driving force for economic 45 development. What is important here is the location of a neighborhood center and the viability 46 of a market in that area. I am not blind to that but I don't see it in this proposal. The BMR units 1 while they are nice and it is generous to have them doesn't make or break the project, it is really 2 the market. The little gazebo on the roof doesn't make or break this project, it is the market. 3 The LEED elements or the sustainability elements or the solar panels on the roof don't make or 4 break the project, in fact, this project is going to have to comply with the green building code no 5 matter what is built there. So it is going to need to comply energy wise and sustainability wise. 6 7 What I do see are a couple of things here. I think that this is particularly important. Number 8 one, the State of California has the Village Development Infrastructure Financing that just went 9 actually went through. It is AB 30338. It just passed through committee. What it does is adds 10 to cities' ability to identify transit villages. The direction the state is actually going in with this is 11 that from a quarter of a mile they are now beginning to expand this out to what they are looking 12 at is half a mile. This market happens to be in half a mile walking distance of the California 13 Avenue transit center. So it becomes more important in terms of it being transit oriented 14 development. The questions that Commissioner Keller was asking in the beginning with regard 15 to PTOD were actually beginning to get to the meat of what is important in terms of this 16 development. If PTOD could be applied to this that is what is important. 17 18 Now, I did a little bit of calculation here and I think that the amount of office space that is being 19 asked for here is almost obscene. This really needs to be a true mixed use development. Where 20 I see a PC fitting in again is if you were to take the standards for the CN district which would 21 allow for basically 58,000 square feet plus or minus of development. Am I correct? 22 23 Mr. Reich: It is 50,277. 24 25 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. It is 50,000 and change. The point is that if you were to take 26 those 50,000 square feet that would be allowed to be 50 percent residential, 50 percent 27 commercial, and out of that commercial 50 percent of it could be office and 50 percent could be 28 retail. Then you add back into it to make it a PC the market. You get to about 58,000 square 29 feet. So what it does is goes over and above the allowable FAR but it begins to bring things back 30 into perspective in terms of something that is a transit oriented mixed use development. That is 31 really what this needs to be when it is a PC. If you want to add BMR units I think that is fine. It 32 is not something that is required well there are some BMR units that would be required. But to 33 have the mix of residential, office, retail, then you begin to get a mixed use, and then because of 34 its transit proximity and the overlapping of different kinds of uses during the day you can begin 35 to look at parking reductions. 36 37 So the way it is right now I would not initiate the rezoning on it. I would not support it as a PC. 38 I think from a square footage point of view it comes close to what it should be in terms of the 39 amount of square footage but as far as the use and the viability ofit in terms ofa mixed use 40 development it doesn't even come close. I think that we are just selling the project short. I think 41 that it can be made to work with all of these uses combined. 42 43 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Keller, you had some comments. 44 45 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I am sympathetic with a number of the issues that 46 Commissioner Lippert mentioned. I have a slightly different perspective on some of them. I I note that under a CN mixed use zoning it says 17 at 15 units per acre. We are getting 14 BMR 2 units. The 17 units with 15 units per acre essentially would be much larger units, which would 3 probably be more family oriented for a site that doesn't really lend itself as much to family 4 oriented. So I don't mind as much having smaller BMR units that gets the 14 units and helps for 5 a number of things towards our Housing Element. It essentially gets units that help us with the 6 BMR, it gets us the number of units that you could have there anyway in terms of density with 7 lesser impact. So I don't have a problem with that per se. 8 9 With respect to something that Commissioner Holman said I would not be surprised if there were 10 some sort of condo type subdivision in order for the BMR units to not have property tax 11 associated with them as we saw with some of the other projects that came through here. 12 Therefore, conditioning in terms of the nature of the condominiumization, if that is a word, of the 13 retail spaces and the office spaces and such, or the nature ofthe ownership I think that some 14 restrictions on that do make some sense. 15 16 It is my impression that the owner of the land doesn't want to sell off any parts of it in terms of 17 condos or in terms of any of these units. So some restriction that basically requires that any 18 condominiumization of this property that remain under single ownership would seem be a 19 restriction that I think the applicant would probably be happy with. 20 21 I think that the deed restriction is a very useful addition to this concept. I think it would be 22 helpful to understand that a little bit better so we see the implications of that and how that would 23 be enforced. 24 25 I would be sympathetic with the idea of being able to figure out how JJ&F could expand in some 26 way. I think it is an interesting idea in terms of being able to expand across a driveway. That is 27 kind of intriguing. That trades one kind of retail space for another. I am not sure whether 28 another substitute under the assumption, which is I hope not the case that JJ&F doesn't remain 29 there for a long period of time, I hope it stays there for a long period of time but in the case it 30 doesn't stay there for a long period of time that it would be nice to be able to figure out how to 31 have a retail space that could be more contiguous for a grocery store, larger in terms of what 32 some other grocer might want to have. 33 34 I do think that the idea of the EI Camino Real driveway seems to be useful. What is also 35 interesting here is that the entrance ramp on the EI Camino, the way to get to that driveway is by 36 way of a bus stop, which is actually quite nice because it means that when you are entering and 37 exiting the driveway you can enter it by essentially making your way into the bus stop if there is 38 no bus there. You can make your way out of the driveway having sight lines to be able to make 39 the right tum without being blocked by cars that are parked there so you have to nose your way 40 out and get your front comer of your car dented. So I think that is actually a clever idea that I 41 like. 42 43 There was a series of questions from Chair Garber about the EI Camino Design Guidelines and 44 the idea that you are supposed to do build to lines. I actually went to a talk a year or two ago 45 about EI Camino Design Guidelines. There was this wonderful grand boulevard vision of EI 46 Camino. The wonderful grand vision boulevard vision is that you had these nice buildings that 1 are all lined up along a grand boulevard, and you had the street in the middle, and somehow they 2 are all lined up and look nice. The interesting thing is the wonderful pictures that I saw of the 3 grand boulevard did not have ten or 12 foot sidewalks with the buildings up against the ten or 12 4 foot sidewalks. The grand boulevard vision pictures that I saw basically had much more than 12 5 foot, you had maybe 12 foot sidewalks followed by a lot of greenery, and then behind that you 6 had these buildings. So in some sense what we have for the EI Camino Design Guidelines is 7 actually something that I think is not desirable. I would like to see a little bit more space to 8 paraphrase or quote what Commissioner Holman has said in the past, you don't feel being 9 pushed off away from the buildings and onto the street because of this framework. In some 10 sense opening this up and providing more greenery is my idea of what I saw as a grand 11 boulevard. 12 13 An example of this is I grew up on Brooklyn, New York and there is an ocean parkway is a 14 wonderful example of a grand boulevard there that is three lanes each way, street in the middle, 15 there is then this little greenery on either side, followed by service roads, followed by walkways, 16 sort of pedestrian paths in terms of sidewalks, followed by greenery, followed by buildings. To 17 me that is a grand boulevard. Our El Camino Design Guidelines don't create a grand boulevard 18 for EI Camino. So I think the setbacks we have here go more towards what I think a grand 19 boulevard is than the design guidelines indicated. 20 21 I think that we should have some sort of requirement that there be no medical office space here 22 because of the increase of parking and the increase oftrip generation. I would like to see a 23 strong transportation demand program that applies to the BMR units, and the office space, and 24 the grocery employees. My favorite throwing in there of Echo Passes is much more affordable 25 when you aggregate it over all of the employees and tenants of this space. There are nice 26 economies of scale with respect to buying Echo Passes. 27 28 I am concerned, the issue to which there is a parking shortfall, I notice that the diagrams here do 29 take into account, do take some credit for or at least observant, I am not sure the extent to which 30 they really take credit, but they do observe the amount of on street parking around this. I do 31 think that on street parking in this area is at a premium so I don't really want to count that. So to 32 the extent that there is insufficient parking that should diminish the amount office space that is 33 used. I do think that the amount of office space used is somewhat more than I would be let me 34 put it this way, I would be happier with less office space than we actually have. I am very 35 sympathetic with the idea of having as a condition of approval the median trees on El Camino 36 Real. I am also very sympathetic with the comments made by or the line of questioning made by 37 Commissioner Fineberg with respect to having the BMR units be sort of all one story so you 38 have second story units and first story units, and thereby you don't have the internal staircases 39 for each ofthe 14 units taking up a lot of the space in there. I also think that is it is important to 40 figure out a better way so that the tenants ofthe BMR units can more easily access the parking 41 and if that is through some other staircase or elevator located on the comer of! guess Staunton 42 and Oxford near the BMR units, something that doesn't require that they go through something 43 else. That might make sense. If you were to do that one thing that might be intriguing is to 44 provide that elevator so that it not only goes to the garage but also goes to the first story and the 45 second story of the BMR units so somebody could actually use the elevator to get to the second 46 story of the BMR units. I don't think that would add much to the elevator cost but it would 1 allow this sort of nice combination of this space in a way that would allow better -you wouldn't 2 have as much of a walkup. Let me say that I spend a lot of my formative years on a boulevard in 3 Flatbush A venue, in Brooklyn, New York. I was on top of a retail store that was on the ground 4 floor, and then were two floors of apartments above it. We had one apartment that basically 5 filled an entire piece of that building. It did have some interesting advantages and disadvantages 6 in terms of living in that environment and I do have some sympathies for the idea of having 7 housing over retail or housing over office. That might be another consideration to think about in 8 terms of allowing JJ&F to expand further along Oxford, if there is a possibility of doing that and 9 then allowing some of the BMR units above that. If that necessitates reducing the amount of 10 BMR units in order to allow the additional retail space I think that would be a very desirable 11 tradeoff. Thank you. 12 13 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma followed by Commissioner Rosati. 14 15 Vice-Chair Tuma: So I like a couple of the previous Commissioners, find myself, I think there is 16 a lot to like about this project and think there are some real concerns that I still have. Lot to like 17 things are like the BMR units, I do like the entrance being on EI Camino, retention of a market 18 here is good and I will talk about that a little bit more in a minute, and a lot of the other items 19 that Commissioner Keller so eloquently referred to that are benefits. I do think they are 20 positives. 21 22 I continue to believe that there is too little parking, and whether there are TDM measures that 23 will help, but parking reductions I am going to be very skeptical about parking reductions and 24 counting on street parking in my mind is a non-started. We don't want to dump these cars into 25 the neighborhood. 26 27 Where I am really struggling has to do with what I think was framed in the very beginning, the 28 core issue, which is at one point several people have and I wrote this down, several people have 29 talked about guaranteeing a market here. In my view there is absolutely no way to guarantee a 30 market here. We can guarantee that the space can only be used for a market but that doesn't 31 guarantee that there is going to be a market here. Quite frankly, I feel like the applicant is 32 playing a little bit hide the ball here in terms of how this deal is going to work. Now I know that 33 we are not generally to get into the specifics of the financial arrangements between the parties, 34 however the adequacy of the public benefit, the retention ofa market at a below market rate. 35 The retention of the market which has been acknowledged needs to be at a below market rate for 36 us not to know what that arrangement is going to be makes it very difficult in my view to pass on 37 the adequacy. Is it adequate? We are never going to get to a guarantee but how close are we 38 going to get to a guarantee? How close is it going to be to being viable? This is a core, critical, 39 turning point issue for me. Really, without the market there in my view no way are we anywhere 40 close to this amount of office space. So how can we judge whether there is going to be a market 41 there long-term without knowing more about what the arrangements are? It is very, very 42 difficult. I think to talk about what they talk about in the legal world you have opened the door 43 so let's find out about what it is. That is really what this is turning on for me. Ifwe are not 44 closer to sure than we are now that there is going to be a viable market there long-term this 45 project doesn't go forward as far as I am concerned. It just doesn't. There is just way too much 46 office space there. Even with something closer to a guarantee about a viable market it is still a I struggle but it is less of a struggle. So as I sit here right now I don't know whether I would 2 support initiating, and I still need to listen to some of the other Commissioners, but without 3 repeating anything that Commissioner Lippert it is all about the market. I don't feel 100 percent 4 or even significantly comfortable that this is necessarily going to happen. So that is kind of 5 where I am right now. 6 7 Chair Garber: Commissioner Rosati. 8 9 Commissioner Rosati: Let me start by stating that in general I view this project positively. 10 echo many of the comments that were made by Commissioner Tuma a minute ago. I also like 11 the aspects such as the BMR units. The fact that there is a significant amount of office space is 12 not a particular concern of mine. I think that the proportions ofthe development are reasonable 13 for the space. There are many visual aspects that will contribute to the development of a better 14 EI Camino as I can refer to some of the comments that were made by others who have written 15 about this project. I also would say that I am not as keen to understand the private dealings 16 between the parties because I think that we can through our efforts make sure that whatever gets 17 developed is viable regardless of what the private arrangement is between the parties. 18 19 I think that one of the comments that we heard earlier that resonated with me was that we need to 20 be absolutely sure that the development goes forward in a way that is viable with a grocery store 21 regardless of who that grocery store is. I am very concerned about that. I think that the one area 22 of the project that is falling short is the amount of space dedicated to the grocery store. I 23 absolutely do not believe that the 8,000 square feet is sufficient. It may be sufficient for JJ&F 24 but if JJ&F one day decide not to take on that space it will make it very, very hard for the 25 community to have the honest-to-goodness grocery store that they want to have in College 26 Terrace. It will be extremely hard. We have data that was shared by Commissioner Holman 27 about all the grocery stores in the neighborhoods and none ofthem is that small. Maybe JJ&F 28 has managed to do that over the last 60 years but ifthey are not around somebody else needs to 29 come in and we need to have a compelling space for them. 30 31 So my single comment is that we must include a much greater allocation, at least 50 percent 32 maybe more I will let the City Planning Department define what that is and make a 33 recommendation, to ensure that there is viable space for full-fledged honest-to-goodness grocery 34 store for that community. In that case, I think personally that the other elements of the project 35 are reasonable and proportioned, and frankly, generally well accepted by the community it 36 appears. 37 38 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman. 39 40 Commissioner Holman: I agree with many of the comments that have been made, many by 41 Commissioner Lippert except I am not fully in align about the comments having to do with 42 PTOD, but many of the other comments I am in alignment with. I also share many of 43 Commissioner Tuma's comments and a number of Commissioner Keller's. 44 45 This project is 25 percent over what the CN zoning allows. That amount of massing just does 46 not provide compatibility with the neighborhood. This site especially as a full block is going to I have a significant impact on the College Terrace neighborhood. It is going to have either a 2 positive impact or a negative impact. I think currently it is not such a positive impact. 3 4 I am disappointed that from our last meeting to this that the applicant has not better responded to 5 the issues and concerns that we raised. The grocery store would be a real wonderful benefit and 6 I as well as many people in the public that you have heard from absolutely support JJ&F, but 7 there is just no assurance. It is not something that I can do in good conscience or feel that I am 8 being responsible to barter away the zoning for a hopeful outcome. 9 10 The grocery store also as just stated before me is not of a significant enough size to really 11 provide a viable grocery store for a broader selection should it be necessary of grocers. I sort of 12 agree with Commissioner Tuma's comments about the private agreement but also feel a little bit 13 like if we can put assurances in maybe even better assurances than at Alma Plaza we might be 14 able to deliver a grocery store but I am a little put off by the presentation that it is a private 15 agreement, and it is between us. A private agreement does not constitute a public benefit. So 16 that approach really doesn't win favor I think, and that is pretty blunt but it is how I view this. 17 18 I would very much be interested in some pro forma numbers from the City Staff. I think that 19 would be very, very helpful with us. It is tempting for everyone and it is also probably a true 20 perspective of people and applicants and proponents and opponents of projects to use labels. 21 This project somewhere or other in the project description was called a village. From my 22 perspective this really isn't a village project. It is an office complex that has some element of 23 housing and retail. Ifwe really want to have a village here we would have a lot more retail that 24 responded to the retail across the street on College and provided neighborhood services that 25 would benefit the neighborhood, and some mix of that with perhaps some BMRs and some 26 office. This level of office not only is it going to create and we could do other things too. I am 27 going to interrupt myself here because we could do other things like restrict the size of any single 28 office, and that is well and good but it is also very hard to monitor. So that is why when you get 29 office space ofthis scale it is very troubling. It could have immense traffic implications and 30 parking implications. This neighborhood is already overrun with excessive parking demands not 31 just created within the neighborhood but without. I agree with Commissioner Tuma's comments 32 absolutely having to do with parking with this project. 33 34 I feel like to initiate this project when it is so far away from something that would be supportable 35 from my perspective would be I believe irresponsible because it sends the wrong message. 36 37 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg. 38 39 Commissioner Fineberg: There are a number of things about this project that I find very 40 exciting, and that I like. 1 like the mixed use. I like that it has the BMR units. I like the 41 retention of a grocery store, of specifically JJ&F. I like the idea that people can walk from 42 Caltrain, work in the office park, shop locally, and patronize the retail stores. I wish it had come 43 back with less office space. I am stuck on that. I believe the Commission gave pretty clear 44 indicators that at our last hearing that the intensity of use and the amount of office space was just 45 too much. I can't get past that. 46 1 There are a number of other things I believe could be tweaked as the design moves forward, 2 things like increasing the square footage of the grocery dedicated space, possibly reconfiguring 3 the BMRs to be one story units, that I think would give some additional public benefit because 4 then those BMRs could be handicap spaces. There is also a lack of private open space for the .s BMR units. Frankly, there is a lack of what I would consider comfortable outdoor space or just 6 unpaved space on the entire parcel. I understand the green roof. I understand there is a gazebo, 7 but I don't necessarily know that people want to be in sunny, windy, noisy spaces. 8 9 The facility is under-parked. If the office space was reduced that would reduce the demand for 10 parking and it could be easily adequately parked. The sole most important public benefit is the 11 retention of the grocery store, and I would say more specifically the retention of JJ&F. If that 12 8,000 square feet turns into a 7-11 it is a bad tradeoff that we get what is it 40,000 square feet of 13 office space for a 7-11 or other quickie mart. It is not a benefit to the public in that scenario. 14 15 So let me go back a minute to some of the other things I think are really good about this but I 16 would not be able to support it in its current incarnation. I would not be able to support the PC 17 zoning change. I think the way it treats El Camino is wonderful, creating a vital public walkable 18 space, having the setback even if it is not consistent with EI Camino Guidelines, I think creates 19 vitality at the street front. The driveway, I would agree that the flat space makes it safer rather 20 than sort of a gaping mouth into the basement. Ifthere could be some way that the two halves of 21 the project could work together rather than the driveway being an impediment. It comes down to 22 decrease the office space and one could rationalize it in the way Commissioner Lippert said, that 23 it would be consistent with zoning ordinances but right now there is no way I can get there. I 24 can't say it looks like a CN. I can't say it looks like something that would be a PTOD if we 25 imagined it went further. The inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan are too broad at this 26 point. Thank you. 27 28 Chair Garber: That leaves me. This is really hard but let me askjust a couple of quick questions 29 before I get to some of my comments. First of all, for Staffthe BMR units renting versus being 30 available for purchase, does that create any issues for the City one way or the other in terms of 31 management or ongoing? 32 33 Mr. Williams: No, it doesn't. We can handle it either way. 34 35 Chair Garber: In a brief response to Commissioner Keller's comments regarding the EI Camino 36 Guidelines. I won't argue one way or the other whether the buildings are closer or further away 37 from the street. I think what is important though about the Guidelines is what they present and 38 what they are trying to accomplish, the intent of them, is that they create continuity along EI 39 Camino, which it lacks. One of the problems ofthis project is that it presents building masses 40 that are both close and far away so that continuity is not sustained or maintained, and does not 41 give direction to the buildings that would be or could be on the adjacent sites to it. So it is not 42 supporting one interpretation or another if you follow me. Those are just nits. 43 44 One other question regarding Commissioner Fineberg's concern about inertia versus 45 determination. If the Commission were to move forward with the initiation of a PC conditioned 46 in some way what happens if the next time it comes to us, after going through ARB, there is I certainly an expectation because of the inertia ofthe process that the applicant would have that 2 they are sort of on the right road, but if it came back to us and the Commission decided not to 3 support it what happens? Does the process simply start over at that point? 4 5 Mr. Williams: You mean after ARB reviews it and it comes back to you? 6 7 Chair Garber: Right. 8 9 Mr. Williams: It goes onto the Council. 10 11 Chair Garber: Oh, at point it does not come back to us? 12 13 Mr. Williams: Once it has gone to the ARB and it comes to you, you make a recommendation to 14 the City Council. So Council ultimately decides yes or no. 15 16 Chair Garber: Okay. So I think what I am hearing from the sense of the Commissioners here is 17 that they would be far more convinced to support the project if there was more or a larger 18 grocery store, and they would be more compelled to accept more office space. The other sense 19 that I am getting very clearly is that if there is a finer understanding of the economics behind the 20 grocery store that that may be the way to convince the Commission that there is a reasonable 21 argument therefore to accept a higher or greater amount of office space. 22 23 In my mind, I don't believe that is true. I believe that that is a red herring because fundamentally 24 the project needs to operate on a use basis, on a square footage basis, and support the 25 community. So I think we could get into the economics but I don't think it is going to actually 26 answer the land use questions that we need to struggle with. 27 28 I think one of the conundrums that the applicant has had and is germane to this site, and we have 29 talked about it in our previous meetings, is not surprisingly the parking. I commend them for 30 putting in two levels of parking below grade. That is an expense that is significant and it buries a 31 lot of problems that we would otherwise had. The big problem of course is you have to get out 32 ofthat hole. You had presented to us, and I forget which iteration this was, a ramp that goes up 33 through the side, which allows you to create a much larger grocery store space. Am I correct in 34 remembering that? 35 36 Mr. Reich: The ramp used to come off of Staunton. Not off the side but the back. 37 38 Chair Garber: So we had more space along EI Camino. 39 40 Mr. Reich: Which was not supported by the community due to traffic. 41 42 Chair Garber: The ramp would present additional traffic into the neighborhood and we said that 43 is the wrong thing. Get the ramp out of there. So the ramp could go to the corners but then it 44 wouldn't meet code or it wouldn't meet traffic safety requirements. So the only other place to 45 put it is in the center. If you want to keep it out of the neighborhood it ends up in the middle of 46 EI Camino at which point you end up subdividing the retail space. Short of invoking the fourth I dimension there is very little way around that. There are strategies around that that the occupant, 2 not the owner in this case, but the occupant has suggested which doesn't seem to be getting much 3 traction with the Commission. 4 5 So the problem is that we don't, and I say we in the royal we meaning the Commission, the 6 Planning Department because as this is one of the few times that the Planning Department has 7 come before us without a recommendation, and frankly I think the applicant has not figured out 8 this puzzle yet. We don't know what this piece of property is supposed to be doing for the City. 9 10 So I have been trying to think here over the last couple of minutes, what is wrong with it now? II Now, the first thought going through your head is, wait a minute, is he proposing that we do 12 nothing? I am not but let's go through the thought exercise here. JJ&F is providing services to 13 the community, which are highly valued at the size that they are now just as they have been. 14 They have been doing it at some pain to themselves. Does the property support the EI Camino 15 Guidelines, i.e., the way that the City would like to see that piece of property that supports the 16 Comprehensive Plan? Not quite. Does the property right now support the ultimate vision of the 17 Comprehensive Plan? Not quite either. We could do things that would improve that, that would 18 get us closer to what the vision of the City is. But the project isn't one thing or another, and 19 unfortunately this is one of those places where I suspect you can't answer everything in one 20 solution and you are going to have to pick one way of dealing with this, and that has to be 21 compelling enough to get us over the hump of all the other problems. 22 23 You tried that once when you first came in here and you had a very large project that covered the 24 site, and there was some significant push back on that. I am not suggesting you go back to that. 25 Let me pull back here for a minute. Not that I am going to lead you to a solution but I have been 26 struggling to try and find another way of thinking about this property. I do think it is about the 27 property, and where it is, how it operates in that part of the city, and what it is supposed to be 28 doing. This piece of property is unique I think for the following reasons. One, it is at the end of 29 a shopping and retail district known as California Avenue. I keep wanting to bend it so it 30 actually is on California Avenue. It isn't but it is there. It also is in many ways the terminus of 31 this neighborhood. Now there are other neighborhoods that exist on that side of EI Camino but 32 this is the only neighborhood that exists on that side of EI Camino that has a direct relationship to 33 California Avenue. So there is in my mind an argument that is being presented to us, which is 34 that despite the intelligence of the Comprehensive Plan there is an opportunity here to both 35 support California Avenue as well as the community that exists behind in a way that doesn't 36 exist other places along EI Camino. The very improvement of this property supports not just the 37 needs of the residential community but also supports how it is, what it does, and what it can do to 38 improve California Avenue. That by the very improvement of that, by the enlargement of the 39 space even slightly will allow it to operate as the anchor, the other side of California Avenue. I 40 think that argument needs to be made much more directly because the only argument that we 41 have really heard in terms of how this piece of property is supposed to operate for the City is to 42 anchor the residential community back behind it. If you can show us how this operates not just 43 for the residential community but also for how it supports the California retail district I am 44 hoping that there is a solution in there that will become more obvious and easier for the 45 Commission, hence the City, to accept. 46 1 So what is wrong with it now? In some ways nothing. What is the opportunity? A variety of 2 things. Certainly for the owner. which is not the occupant, but for the owner there is an 3 opportunity to get a higher use. a better use out of that piece of property. There are certainly 4 opportunities for the current occupant to reoccupy that site and make better use and have a better 5 business or a better space that supports their business. I think it is very important though that the 6 residential community behind there recognize that there is a larger opportunity that supports not 7 only them but the way that this piece of property can support a larger piece of the city, and that is 8 just one part of the puzzle. We have sort of solely focused on what is west as opposed to what 9 this frankly. very unique circumstance, the only other time that that really occurs where you have 10 something on the other side of EI Camino. and I welcome corrections here, is when you get to 11 University A venue, when you get to Stanford where you have another reason to get across EI 12 Camino like that. It doesn't really happen that way at the Stanford Mall. The Stanford Mall is 13 all back there and is sort of divorced from the rest of the city in that way. So in my mind I think 14 seeing that piece of property differently might lead us to a better solution, a more obvious 15 solution, and one that would cause the Commission to say, you know what, it doesn't answer 16 these things, I don't like the way it is doing it, but you know what, it is doing something more 17 and better. It is the one plus one is five or six as opposed to two and a half. I don't know ifthat 18 makes sense to anybody else. 19 20 Let me see if anyone would like to attempt .... 21 22 Mr. Williams: Chair Garber? 23 24 Chair Garber: Yes. 25 26 Ms. Tronquet: I just want to remind you that the applicant has not had their opportunity yet to 27 make their closing comments and you still have the public hearing open. 28 29 Chair Garber: Thank you. We will hear the applicant and then we will close the public hearing. 30 Would the applicant like to address the Commission? 31 32 Mr. Smailey: If I may, I think I have three minutes and I would like to split that between myself 33 and the representative from Nelson Nygaard to address some of the parking issues. 34 35 Chair Garber: Please. 36 37 Ms. Jessica Trochoud, Nelson Nygaard: Commissioners, I would just like to start by saying that 38 I support Commissioners Lippert and Fineberg in that this is a fairly transit oriented 39 development. We are right on El Camino routes, VTA routes, 22,522. They are extremely 40 productive from VTA's perspective. We are within easy walking distance offCaltrain. As we 41 know it is within easy biking distance of Stanford University. A lot of people walk and bike to 42 this site that is why we think the parking requirements are too high for this property. 43 44 We will be sharing parking and the shared parking alone will reduce the parking demand below 45 what can be supplied onsite. So just keep that in mind. We also have car sharing being proposed 46 or it will be incorporated into the project. Two car-sharing vehicles will be proposed. The 38 I bicycle parking spaces will be incorporated but an additional 50 bicycle spaces can be provided 2 ifthere is a need. In all this is a very transit oriented and mixed use location where most people 3 will walk and bike to, and the parking will not be a big issue here. That is what I would like to 4 say. Thanks. 5 6 Mr. Smailey: To continue on that vein before I read a statement here, the history on the project 7 is we have had commercial tenants whom have occupied the Staunton location. The majority of 8 those tenants have had employees that do not drive to work. The current tenant on that site has 9 over 60 percent of his employees that do not drive to work. 10 II A few things that I would like to address. The floor sales area for JJ&F in the proposed 12 development is 50 to 60 percent larger than their current location. They have 60 years of 13 experience in running a grocery store. They are convinced and confident that they will be able to 14 use that new configuration to their benefit going forward. I would also like to point out that Sun 15 Country is a much smaller store than the current JJ&F. Lastly, the BMR units, and when we 16 reviewed those unit designs and square footages with the folks from the housing authority they 17 were one, impressed with the size. They considered them large one-bedroom units. Secondly, 18 they were very impressed with the design because they thought it was something unique and 19 would be very desirable in the marketplace. So they appreciate the loft configuration for the 20 designs we are proposing. 21 22 The statement that I had prepared. Our team has worked very hard on the College Terrace 23 Centre proposal for over five years now. We are quite proud of the project that we presented to 24 you this evening. We have made many changes over time not the least of which the original 25 project was proposed I think ten percent larger than our current configuration. We now have a 26 project that we think is beneficial to the neighborhood, to the City, and can be financially viable. 27 This project is balanced and fair. We are proud of how it works, we are proud of how it mixes, 28 and how it fits into the community. You have been provided with I think a substantial amount of 29 feedback from the community. We have over 140 signatures from College Terrace residents 30 who are in favor of the project We have over 30 signatures from businesses immediately 31 adjacent to the project indicating that this new building will bring them new business and new 32 opportunities for growth. 33 34 I do need to be very clear about one thing. I am not prepared to divulge the financial information 35 I know about JJ&F. We have worked long and hard to ensure them ofa financially feasible 36 structure. I can assure you that the way we have designed the project and the components that 37 we have in it are necessary for its feasibility and viability. I do pledge to you that we will be 38 delivering to you a quality product It is a product I think you will be pleased with and proud of. 39 I think it would be beneficial to the City long-term and I ask you to please approve the PC 40 process to move forward this evening. Thank you very much. 41 42 Chair Garber: Thank you. Clarification, Attorney. When do I close the public hearing and what 43 relationship does that have to closing the item? 44 1 Ms. Tronquet: You would close the public hearing after all of the public comment and the 2 applicant, and if there is an appellant, appellant comment is complete. Then after you take action 3 on the item the item would be closed. 4 5 Chair Garber: So we will now close the public hearing. As much as I would like to find a way 6 to move this forward I suspect I am going to be -well let's find out where we go. 7 Commissioners Lippert, Keller, Holman, and then Tuma. 8 9 Commissioner Lippert: I am not going to repeat myself. I am just going to add some additional 10 comments for my colleagues to deliberate on. I have been hard pressed to find an example 11 where a driveway entrance separates retail spaces and has been successful. The one that comes 12 to mind is Plaza Ramona where that entire block is bisected by two elements, the retail of course 13 you have at the comer and then there is a plaza, and there is Fass clothing store, and then there is 14 a driveway entrance that goes down into the basement. Then immediately to that right is Nola. 15 That block is vibrant and works particularly well. So that doesn't really deter me very much 16 having the driveway aspect bisecting the building like that. In fact Plaza Ramona and the Birge 17 Clark original building along that Ramona block function almost as one complete building and 18 people think it is one building that goes all the way around the block. 19 20 The other comment I wanted to make is again regarding the whole idea of PTOD. I think it was 21 a misnomer for me to us PTOD but where it is lacking in the smart growth and livable 22 communities aspect is it falls short in the three D's and the T's, Density, Diversity, Design, and 23 Transit. It is on the edge of the transit center sphere of influence. The state legislature is going 24 to expand that to half a mile, it isn't there yet. Where it falls short is in the diversity that it is 25 very, very heavy in the office use. What I am afraid is going to happen is that its partner 26 building is really the building that is south of California Avenue on EI Camino Real that houses 27 Bank of America, which is a multistory office building adjacent to the soccer fields. It is about 28 the same distance away, it has office spaces, and it has retail on the ground floor. Actually it is a 29 bank on the ground floor. The point is that is what I am afraid is going to happen with this 30 building is that it is going to really be a major office use and the other uses associated with the 31 building are really just secondary. It is the preservation of the market and that is what is 32 important here but I think that it is going to be a deadly building. 33 34 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller and then Holman. 35 36 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. First let me observe to underscore what Commissioner 37 Lippert said, it was earlier mentioned that there was this driveway, which in some sense bisected 38 buildings. The driveway on Ramona actually is at the edge of that particular property. Nola's is 39 a separate building next to it. They are sort of glued together and in some sense it is at the edge 40 of that property but it is a long and much larger block for whatever that is worth. 41 42 I don't have an architectural license and I don't want one, just like I don't want a lawyer's 43 license. So let me make a couple of observations. The first observation is that I think that there 44 is a strong sentiment on the Commission that the office space is too large for the kind of property 45 that is basically greatly overrated in terms of office. 46 1 I have heard a number of comments from the Commission and some comments from members of 2 the public. First of all we are very happy that there the opportunity to continue JJ&F in this 3 location. But in some sense being risk managers is a part of what we have to do here. We have 4 to take into account what happens if JJ&F for some reason or other is not able to continue 5 indefinitely maybe the next generation will retire at some point, maybe the generation beyond 6 that won't be able to stay, and whatever. We do think of this as a building that is going to be 7 there for quite a long period of time and perhaps we should think of that in terms of a century 8 long or at least 50 years long. I would assume that the next generation of JJ&F that is going to 9 take over is probably going to be there for say 30 years. So we do have to think in terms of the 10 timeframe of what happens when JJ&F doesn't stay as a family-owned store as it is now or even 11 with the next generation. With that regard I think that there has been a consideration of if that 12 were to come to pass, and a grocery store wanted to come in that said we can't do it in 8,000 13 square feet we need 12 or 13,000 or whatever square feet. There is no way to expand except 14 across a driveway. I think the idea of putting a meat market on one side is a creative idea but 15 then you also need a separate set of cashiers, etc. 16 17 So let me just throw some ideas at you to think about in terms of this. For example, suppose 18 what you did was extended the grocery store building along Oxford so it continued all the way to 19 Staunton Court, and that was sort of a continuous building. I wouldn't even mind, in some sense 20 and just throwing an idea out, if you put office space down there that could be replaced by a 21 market if a market needed to expand. Suppose some of that office space was taken away from 22 the second story above the market and you extended the BMR units on the second story sort of 23 against that comer and further back? I don't know whether the nature of the loading dock 24 arrangement would be such that you could actually make a continuous sort ofU-shaped store or 25 whether it would be too weird or whatever. That is why I don't have an architect's license. That 26 is the kind of thing you can think about. It is sort of this creative idea of allowing for contiguous, 27 expandable store for which if it came to pass some day in the future that in order to retain the 28 grocery store we needed to be able to expand it, allowing for expansion room without tearing 29 down buildings or without having this weird solution of a driveway separating the same store 30 doesn't make as much sense. It makes more sense to me to be able to allow for that expansion 31 without having that be separated across a driveway. 32 33 So I am basically suggesting that you be a little bit more creative. I think that you have been 34 rather creative in terms of coming back to us and I appreciate the thoughts that you have put in 35 here. I think in some ways that the design here is creative and attractive and has some benefits to 36 it but I would be inclined to give you a little bit more crack at doing a design precisely because 37 of the comments made especially by Commissioner Fineberg. 38 39 That is if we do initiate the PC zone that even though there isn't a sense of entitlement that 40 comes from the PC zone there is a great sense of inertia that comes from moving forward with 4 1 the process. One of the things that is important to me about the failures of the Palo Alto process 42 is not spending enough time at the beginning of a project to get the concept right. I think if we 43 spend enough time at the beginning of a project to get the concept right that when it comes 44 through and comes back to us it should be accepted. Where the Palo Alto process fails is where 45 there is not enough time at the beginning and then when it comes back to us we say that is not 46 what we wanted anyway, start over again, and that is too late. It is a lot more time and money I spent by everybody in that process. So I quote my boss in college, he had this sign which says 2 why is there never enough time to do it right but always enough time to do it over? I would 3 rather have the tweaking done at the front end before it goes to the ARB than trying to tweak it at 4 the end where there has been a lot more architectural design. So I am not going to make a 5 motion but that is basically what my thinking is, and the kind of changes that I think would be 6 helpful, and would make the project have more longevity and more flexibility in the future. 7 Thank you. 8 9 Chair Garber: Commissioner Homan and then Tuma. 10 11 Commissioner Holman: I will be pretty brief here. There are several things to like about the 12 project. I mentioned several things earlier that I thought really needed some work. The things I 13 like about the project are that it is broken up into different buildings so that you don't have one 14 long, monolithic building. That I think is a positive. I actually think it is a good thing that there 15 are BMR units here. 16 17 Where I think it is challenged are the things that you have heard before. I think this can be a 18 more creative project in that I think it can be a more integrated project. The ground level, there 19 really do need to be better transition areas at the ground level. What is absolutely key for me is 20 not only the grocer store but being able to have other retail space. Perhaps one solution is to 21 expand the grocery store into or towards Staunton Court and make those second floor units. That 22 would solve some of these issues. It is possible or maybe not to move the entry on El Camino 23 one direction or the other, not at the comer of course, but maybe just move it one direction or the 24 other to provide better flow and access to the other retail space. The way it is now is really 25 problematic for me. The other thing, I have to mention this, is usable open space needs to be 26 better. The one thing that, as I read the specs, on College A venue I know the setback is not 27 followed there and yet there is a three story building on that street face. It is exactly the kind of 28 thing that the public just hates to see in projects. It is what they respond to so negatively about 29 projects on EI Camino and this is three story on College at less than the required setback. So that 30 is really an alarm for me as well. So those are my only comments. 31 32 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma. 33 34 Vice-Chair Tuma: Just one topic and there has been a lot of discussion tonight among 35 Commissioners about the appropriate size of a grocery store. We heard a list of sizes read off of 36 what others are and they are mostly in the teens and above. I think one of the things we have to 37 keep in mind here is that because there is a subsidy being proposed perhaps a smaller grocery 38 store maybe perhaps this is why JJ&F is saying that it is viable at a smaller size because they 39 have lower overhead. They have a subsidized rent. So maybe an 8,000 square foot plus some 40 number of square feet on the pathway in front maybe that is viable because they don't have to 41 pay as high of a rent. So at the risk of being accused of throwing out another red herring, I do 42 think that the magnitude of the subsidy goes directly to the viability of a smaller space. So 43 maybe a smaller space is just fine because the overhead is lower. So I think perhaps there is a 44 way to not have to expand the size ofthe grocery store, still make it viable, make it something 45 that is acceptable, and will be there long-term because they have a lower rent. This is why it 1 continues to be difficult for me to get to being comfortable with the viability of a smaller store 2 without having that information. 3 4 Chair Garber: Commissioner Rosati. 5 6 Commissioner Rosati: I don't think it is worth raising the point. I think that I withdraw my 7 point. 8 9 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman. 10 11 Commissioner Holman: Just real quickly as a reminder that we can't assume it is going to be 12 JJ&F there. That is our hope but we have to make sure that any zoning that we do here needs to 13 account for the fact that over time there may well be a different grocer there. 14 15 Chair Garber: We cannot put into zoning or the Comprehensive Plan that the space is to be 16 subsidized. To take the words of some of our other Commissioners, we can zone for what we 17 want, which could be a grocery store that is 8,000 square feet and then it is incumbent on 18 whoever ends up taking that deal to make it work for them. If it is a subsidy that is one way to 19 do it. Let me leave it there. Commissioner Lippert and then Keller. 20 21 Commissioner Lippert: I don't want to retread what I said previously but I do want to reiterate 22 one thing which is that the PC might take a profile of the 50/50 floor area, which is 50,000 23 square feet plus in addition to that the 8,000 square feet of grocery store space. So just in 24 looking at that alone it provides a significant amount of bump up and benefit. The question is 25 whether it becomes financially viable for the applicant to look at being able to have only 25,000 26 square feet of commercial, and that would be divided between office and retail, then an 27 additional 8,000 square feet of grocery store, and in addition to that being able to have say 28 another 25,000 square feet of housing which would be permitted under the CD zoning. 29 30 Chair Garber: Would you outline that again so I get it through my head? 31 32 Commissioner Lippert: The way it works is that right now under the zoning they are allowed to 33 have a 1:1 FAR. The 1:1 FAR works out to be half of that is residential, which would be 25,000 34 square feet and then out of that 25,000 square feet would be what would be called commercial. 35 Ifwe were to again divide that commercial because the ground floor would need to be retail, 36 12,000 of that would have to be ground floor retail space. Now looking at that just as a base to 37 begin with for the CN zoning and add to that another 8,000 square feet of retail for the grocery 38 store that brings you to 58,000 square feet of FAR. Now they could, because they only have to 39 have that 12,000 square feet of ground floor retail that grocery store figures into that mix. They 40 could take the additional 4,000 square feet and shift that up to second floor office space. That 41 gives them a significant additional bonus there also. It is just a question of whether they can 42 make the residential units sell to balance out the equation. 43 44 Chair Garber: I apologize Commissioner Lippert. The total number you are working with is 45 58,000? 46 1 Commissioner Lippert: Correct, but out of the existing zoning, the CN zoning, they can only 2 have 50,000 square feet of building. That is the underlying zoning that they have. 3 4 Chair Garber: So you are saying that 50,000 that is allowed in the zoning you would divide that 5 in half. Half of that is residential, right? 6 7 Commissioner Lippert: Correct, .50: 1. 8 9 Chair Garber: Right, and then half ofthat is commercial, which is composed of half of that is 10 grocery store and then retail. 11 12 Commissioner Lippert: No, I am saying retail and then office. 13 14 Chair Garber: Retail and office. 15 16 Commissioner Lippert: Then I am saying let's give them a bonus FAR of another 8,000 square 17 feet for the grocery store. So that brings it up to 58,000. Now on the ground floor they are 18 required to have the ground floor have 12,500 square feet of retail and the grocery store could 19 figure into that. 20 21 Chair Garber: Planning Director. 22 23 Mr. Williams: I appreciate where you are headed but I think getting into this detail of square 24 footage is well beyond sort of the concept of whether to move this along. The point I take from 25 this is that you are looking for a balance of residential, nonresidential, a balance between the 26 retail and office, and maybe giving some kind of credit for the grocery store to help as a bonus. 27 That is the fundamental thing, which is very far away from where the applicant is at this point on 28 the project. If that an idea the Commission wants to indicate might be a direction to go that is 29 fine but trying to get down to understanding number is a little bit too much detail right now. 30 31 Chair Garber: I appreciate your comments and thank you for the summary. 32 33 Commissioner Lippert: Just in closing, I am not deterred by the 60,000 square feet of building 34 that they are looking for. I think the massing is great. It boils down to the use and the diversity 35 of the use. 36 37 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Keller, and Rosati. 38 39 Commissioner Fineberg: Just to follow up to Commissioner Lippert's comment in his scenario 40 the kind of mental granting of that 8,000 square foot bonus because of the grocery store. It 41 basically reduces the property by about 3,000 square feet under what the applicant has proposed 42 now. So I would agree with him that the mix needs to be tweaked, but I think the intensity, the 43 height along the southern portion is still too great. 44 45 One of the other thoughts that came to me in thinking about that driveway splitting the parcel 46 along EI Camino we keep talking about what it feels like along that El Camino front and we are 1 not considering the College front. While College is really the retail district that it is a part of the 2 face along College on the first floor right now is penciled in as office space. So if I were to be 3 across the street let's say at Common Ground there would be nothing that would visually or no 4 retail that would draw me to come across to the parcel. In the same way, if I were at JJ&F there 5 is nothing that would draw me over to the other spaces on College. So it led me to think should 6 it operate respecting the retail and commercial uses on College and is there a way to tie that 7 together so that parcels are connected, and it is not so much of an island. That was it. 8 9 Chair Garber: Planning Director. 10 11 Mr. Williams: I am a bit concerned. It is 11: 15 and we are designing the project. I think we 12 have heard pretty close to a consensus of the Commission having some concerns about the 13 project and maybe not being able to move it forward although that is yet to be voted on. I am 14 just concerned about getting into this. Everybody has their own ideas we are hearing about 15 designing and there may be great ideas or merit to a number of those but that is ultimately up to 16 the applicant. The question before you is whether to move this proposal forward and if not, you 17 have indicated some of those ideas. They can take those back and decide whether they want to 18 come back to you with a modified proposal or whether they want to move onto Council. 19 20 Chair Garber: I very much want to get to an action here as well. I have been letting this draw 21 out to see if we could find a way to get there. I think what I am hearing is the Commissioners 22 trying to find a way at least in my mind potentially condition a motion that would forward it. 23 Because my sense here is that if we were to create a motion to support the initiation of the zone it 24 would likely not be passed without finding some conditions that the entire Commission can 25 support. Is that a fair statement, Commissioners? No. No it is not. Well in that case let's see if 26 we can get to a motion. I am happy to hear one. Commissioner Rosati. 27 28 Commissioner Rosati: There was a lot of discussion around the amount of office spaces being 29 excessive. As I mentioned earlier I actually don't agree and I want to explain why. I think that 30 39,000 square feet of office space in that location, which is prime office space, very expensive, 31 would allow for a higher quality building, really high quality finish. That is my assumption 32 based on what I see. This will attract high quality tenants. High quality tenants tend to use the 33 space very differently. They like to have a lot of space. They like to have less dense 34 environments and lots of meeting rooms. My assumption is that it actually would be a good 35 thing. I remain of the opinion that the office space is not the problem and I just wanted to share 36 that perspective with the other Commissioners. 37 38 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller and then Lippert. 39 40 Commissioner Keller: So let me make a few observations. I am sympathetic with what 41 Commissioner Lippert said in terms of the balance and I think Commissioner Fineberg said in 42 terms of the balance. The way that I see it is that in some sense two tradeoffs have been done. 43 One tradeoff that has been done is the tradeoff that Commissioner Lippert said of add 8,000 44 square feet of office space because ofthe grocery store. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the 45 kind of thing that we would have done if we had created the G-Overlay to basically allow some 46 sort of bonus FAR of some sort like that. I see that in some sense there has been conversion of 1 residential space for office space of two types. One is conversion of residential space to office 2 space in order to create the BMR units, which are rentals instead of for sale. I think that one of 3 the reasons that there is a lack of desire for sale is that I think that the applicant doesn't really 4 want to sell units that will essentially encumber the property like this and sort of encumber 5 the ... my sense is that the applicant wants to own the entire thing in perpetuity and not subdivide 6 it in such a way that other people own pieces of it. So in some sense the BMR units are a way of 7 sort oftrading off money to sort of subsidize the BMR units for housing. 8 9 The next thing that is going on is that there is a subsidy of the grocery store. There isn't a formal 10 mechanism for subsidizing a BMR grocery store like there is a formal mechanism for having 11 BMR rental housing. Essentially what we have is a BMR grocery store. That is some of the 12 conversion of the housing to office space is to provide that BMR grocery store. The problem is 13 in some sense we are being in some ways asked to take that BMR grocery store on faith. I 14 understand the business reasons for wanting to do that, but in some sense we are being asked to 15 do faith based zoning. 16 17 The other thing that is interesting is in some sense I have heard from Commissioner Rosati and 18 Commissioner Lippert that a 58,000 square foot building mass is more appropriate in terms of if 19 I take these things together. Commissioner Rosati doesn't seem to mind exactly how big it is. 20 Commissioner Lippert says a little bit smaller down to 58,000 square feet. What is interesting to 21 me is in some sense lowering the office space a little bit so that if you had lowering it by several 22 thousand square feet, bringing it down a little bit, would make the parking issue a little bit better. 23 I think that some of the other tweaks that I talked about might help to make it more likely that we 24 can see a path for the future for when the JJ&F generations decide to retire and maybe the next 25 might or might not want to do it, maybe somebody would buy it maybe not. I think there is 26 enough uncertainly in the life of this project that being able to reconfigure does make some 27 sense. I think that we have given you enough input and I don't think we need to give you any 28 more input in terms of this project. 29 30 MOTION 31 32 I am going to make the motion to deny the initiation of the PC zone. I would like you to tweak 33 it. Come back to us pretty soon. I think we have given you a lot of input to think about. There 34 has not been unanimity on the Commission in terms of the feelings on this but I think that there 35 is enough feedback that you can come up with a better project and bring it back to us. I would 36 rather have the gatekeeper function occurring at this end rather than conditionally moving it 37 forward in a way that we have no idea what we will get after it goes through the ARB process 38 and comes back to us. 39 40 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, make the motion and then you can comment. 41 42 Commissioner Keller: Okay, I have made the motion. 43 44 SECOND 45 46 Commissioner Lippert: I will second that although I might have stated it a little differently. I 2 Chair Garber: Thank you. The motion has been made by Commissioner Keller and seconded by 3 Commissioner Lippert. Would the maker like to speak to his motion? 4 5 Ms. Tronquet: Chair Garber, part of the recommendation was on the Comprehensive Plan 6 Amendment as well. 7 8 Commissioner Keller: I think that the idea is we don't go forward with the Comprehensive Plan 9 Amendment until the PC initiation happens. So we are not doing either of them at this point. 10 I I Chair Garber: Seconder? 12 13 Commissioner Lippert: I will accept that as well, even though I wouldn't have stated it that way. 14 15 Chair Garber: Would the maker like to speak to their motion? 16 17 Commissioner Keller: Yes. So I am hoping that we will be able to have improvements to the 18 design. I think that I would rather have a gatekeeper function at the beginning where we have a 19 design that makes more sense, satisfies more of the Commission's concerns, and then goes 20 through the ARB process and comes back to us, rather than the last minute kind of we don't like 21 this let's change it again later on. I would rather make sure that it is a design that a clear 22 majority of the Commission can support before it goes forward to the ARB. Thank you. 23 24 Chair Garber: Seconder, comments? 25 26 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. If I were to restate the motion I would just simply say that I would 27 not support a recommendation having the zoning or the Comprehensive Plan Amendment move 28 forward at this time. I believe that the applicant is on the right track it is really the 29 implementation and getting the right mix there in terms of what they are trying to do. The 30 preservation of the JJ&F Market or any market in that area is viable. I think that the square 31 footage is viable. I think it works particularly well. It is really the mix of the use that is really 32 the sticking point for me. I think with a little tweaking they might be able to come forward with 33 another proposal that will address a lot of the comments that my colleagues have brought up as 34 well as myself. 35 36 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Holman and then Keller. 37 38 Commissioner Fineberg: Can I get a clarification from Staff, please? Ifwe vote in favor of this 39 motion what are the applicant's potential next steps? Would they then be able to appeal this 40 directly to Council and what could their actions be? 41 42 Mr. Williams: The applicant's choices would be to redesign something and resubmit back to you 43 for another initiation request, to walk away entirely, or to appeal it to the City Council. If it is 44 appealed to the City Council the Council could either deny the request or they could initiate the 45 project either as proposed or with some conditions to it and forward that to ARB to begin the 46 process, in which case it would then come back to you and onto the Council. 1 2 There is out there a chance they could do what happened on Alma Plaza too, which is that they 3 could develop the skeleton of the ordinance with some of those criteria in it. I can tell you that 4 we will certainly recommend against that and I very strongly doubt that they would go that 5 direction. I think if they wanted the project to move forward they would just move it forward en 6 masse to the ARB and let it work its way back through the process. 7 8 Commissioner Fineberg: Would it benefit us to attach some sort of condition on this motion in 9 front of us if the applicant appeals to Council that they not approve the PC Ordinances at that lO time? How might we fend off that? 11 12 Mr. Williams: Maybe the City Attorney can add to this but you can't essentially deny it with the 13 condition that you something. You could deny the request and then make comments that it is 14 your hope that ifthe Council does proceed forward with it that they would forward the package 15 and not constrain the review of it as it moved through the process or something to that effect. 16 17 Commissioner Fineberg: So those comments would need to be made before the motion is voted 18 on? 19 20 Mr. Williams: No, they wouldn't be part of the motion. They would be comments, yes before 21 the motion. 22 23 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, great. Could we take what you just said and consider that my 24 comment, please? 25 26 Chair Garber: Well said, Commissioner Fineberg. Commissioner Keller you had something 27 quick. 28 29 Commissioner Keller: Yes. I will adopt Commissioner Lippert's motion, which was basically to 30 do the denials. I am assuming the issue about mixes and stuff like that is actually commentary 31 and not part ofthe motion that you proposed, is that correct? 32 33 Commissioner Lippert: That is correct. 34 35 Commissioner Keller: Then I will amend my motion to use Commissioner Lippert's wording. 36 37 Chair Garber: Seconder? I am assuming you agree. 38 39 Commissioner Lippert: Of course I agree. 40 41 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman. 42 43 Commissioner Holman: I am going to be support the motion but as the commentary that I heard 44 from both maker and seconder of the motion I heard the word 'tweaking' used. I think this 45 project needs a little more than tweaking based on the comments that I have heard from even the 1 maker and the seconder. I don't think the word 'tweaking' applies. So I just want to get that out 2 there. 3 4 A PC project as a standalone needs to be a good project. It needs to respond to its context, uses, 5 and built environment, and at the same time provide significant public benefit. This project has a 6 ways to go to achieve those ends. I think the applicant has heard much this evening that will 7 give them a lot to consider in revising this project. 8 9 Chair Garber: A couple of comments from myself. I, like Commissioner Rosati, don't have as 10 many fears about having heavier office use because I think the office and/or a different mix 11 begins to talk to the project operating differently for the City and supporting growth along El 12 Camino and beginning to anchor the California Avenue business district. I can't imagine that as 13 a public benefit but I think understanding how the property operates in this larger mode helps us 14 understand what its potential benefit is beyond simply providing the immediate functions, and 15 helps us make an argument that addresses some of the larger Comprehensive Plan issues and 16 how it fits into the city. Then of course I have my recurring comment about the El Camino 17 Guidelines but you have heard that. 18 19 MOTION PASSED (6-1-0-0, Commissioner Rosati opposed) 20 21 With that Commissioner, shall we vote on the motion? All those in favor? (ayes) All those 22 opposed? (nay) One opposed. So the motion passes with Commissioners Holman, Keller, 23 Garber, Tuma, Fineberg, and Lippert voting aye and Commissioner Rosati opposed. With that 24 we will close the item. 25 ~4/~~/~~~~ Ib:~~ 65~7~116~9 04/22/2839 16:19 6563241215 'IotCllllilo ltotfan> I.IIeIlt 'd<IId ttmIt 'S1fIIIpIIaI QrII ....... £ WTdJolW; 1(11 a 0IIIIff ISS( .,1Ik ..... "'~ IIoIrI PIM.! t BlII!k j/'Id Tn t CoIIIJIIIIr tarlWllnll!r hIz:.loI\a OInlllri Child tift .tx\1C11115 StinIarIJ tfCIH m:: IIII~ ~I IIIIIlt;IIIDrs ........... Ct ltliallaP,k t.IIt I GIrstMr The iloeftllalllYh 111 __ .. lUI" Me C9lIR HvIII ADVENTERA PACe 'ATTACHMENT C April 22, 2009 . Dan Garber, Chair Palo Alto Planlriq • TraaspQrtation Commission. City of'Palo Alto 2.5() Hamilton A~e. Palo Alto. CA 94301 A.t the April 14, 2009 Palo Alto ChembC% GovC1'mdA!lftt Action Committee meetiDE. Iqn'eSentatives of •• Conege Teaace Center project made a presentation of tho current iteration of the prcject 'I'he GAC voted to endorse the project's raqllest for ~ itmn eN to PC. Ofpartioala: appeal was the retention oflon,.tenb grocery store, JJ&1 and the addition ot otb .. nItail. ApPreCi_tiOli wa aiven by the Committee for the inclusion of8M1., one bedroom aparImtmtl and parlclDg ingteiS8 gel caress tom Bt ~ino RaJ. Thank YQll fur your consideration, Ncllllddclr _ rJOMlmC .... ~ .. lIltc.t:IIlaHal&1II 1It1'Olo-~ 5.)1\SIIIIIIII ';'It<1lfttu of H lid MImM lI.11idcD, SIIIIIord Sh _ CIntIr ~~ ......... ,./:<xlllvlllt!v80. ~Q\OSwnaI .II ~ Mr.CuwcI SIe!Il1ItInMo .. " M\dIIII!IIft ~ 1II0xIIpq I 1IIiellcltr I'J;",wIQAItCtr! f~ -,.. Aklllulft;lal llgehn/dng JaIIt!elIl~ SItmMort I!II!~ a-~ /t.crIm LII\ ~ Sinlces,lIt:. "'" amaGO IIIuII klldil P'aulaSmdu ~=riele.nt1CEO PAGE ~l/~l PAGE 81 College Terrace Residents' Association STATEMENT FROM THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION The Board of the College Terrace Residents' Association (CTRA) adopted the following statement regarding the proposed College Terrace Centre at 2180 EI Camino Real on April 22, 2009. This statement is informed by a CTRA Task Force that has carefully studied the proposed design, debated its merits, and conducted a neighborhood survey to find where alignment exists and does not exist. The detailed survey and its results have been submitted to the Commission. This statement is made in terms of neighborhood preferences and values, and not in terms of planning metrics, zoning options, or statistics. We believe the Planning and Transportation Commission is in a better position to translate these preferences into a structured framework for moving forward. We would support • A center that will anchor the neighborhood, mirror the neighborhood, and serve the neighborhood. • An enforceable requirement that the center include an honest-to-goodness grocery store, not a convenience store, with sufficient conditions to be economically viable. • Giving JJ&F first priority in grocery store lease arrangements and every encouragement to return to neighborhood service after construction is completed, because of the Garcia family's roots, ties, and loyalties to the neighborhood. • Including a strong, verifiable transportation demand management program as part of any proposed reduction in on-site parking requirements, to prevent spillover parking problems. • Ingress/Egress to underground parking from EI Camino Real to help minimize traffic cutting through the neighborhood. • Retail space and office space designed to attract a diversity of businesses, stores, and restaurants geared to serving the neighborhood. • A beautiful, walkable, bikeable magnet for community interaction. We are neutral about • The BMR units. • The prior offer of space for a community room. We would not support • The transformation of a neighborhood center into a regional business district. • The preponderance of office space to the diminishment of other possible uses. • The level of traffic and parking turnover associated with medical offices. IN CONCLUSION, we ask you to ensure that any development at the 2180 EI Camino Real location will anchor the neighborhood, mirror the neighborhood, and serve the neighborhood of College Terrace. Page 1 of 1 Betten, Zariah From: LONERGAN [scobbin@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 6:11 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: 2180 EI Camino Project Hello, I've been living in College Terrace for 10 years and wanted to pass along my views on the 2180 EI Camino Real project currently under discussion: Overall, I am in favor of the project as it is being proposed. The critical elements for retaining my support of this project are that it retains these features: > The car access be from of EI Camino (not through the neighborhood streets). > The bottom floor of the project be neighborhood retail in perpetUity. If either of the above critical elements were removed I would withdraw my support. It would seem that the primary disagreement that many have expressed with the project is that it allows a zoning change to include 'regional offices'. I don't see a problem with this as there are many regional offices (e.g. Stanford Ave) in the area and they add vitality to the local businesses and possibly even a job or two to locals. EI Camino Real suffers from poor decisions in the past -look at the state of many of the businesses in the area! This project is being propo$ed by a long-term owner/trustees that I believe they will improve the area with a quality project with long-term goals (not just a spec builder looking to make short-term gains). Best Regards, Scott Lonerga n 2090 Cornell St. 4/30/2009 Dr. and Mrs. 'rulng Schulman 836 Mayfield Ruenue Stanford, eft 94315 We haue been residents for 31 yaars, one mile from .JJ&F, and customers of the 6arcla family Since our arriual. dd&F is a unique market In the area .. It Is ueru small, compact and packed. Despite the size of the store. they manage to stock Just about euerything the customers want.. Rnd If they don't haue It, they will try to get it. Thera Is no other store as conuenlently locatad, and if you hape done any comparison shopping, you tnow that dd&F pricing Is more than fair. dtJDF's most unique quality is their relationship with their customers. They are our neighbors and friends .. 1111 bet there is no other marlcet hare or anyWhere that was eller gluen an annluersary party by thalr patrons! For those of you who weren't here in 1996 or didn't hear about it, the streets arollnd JJ&F were Closed, and some 311 neighbors and customers celebrated Jd&F's 61th year in business! We want to Iceep .... &F. They need more and better space and they are willing to saerlfite to get It. The new fatility would be a blessing for JJ&F, their tustomers, and those who are lucley enough to get one of those low .... tost apartmaots .. The Garcia family has done a great deal for our community and we should show our appreciation. Thank: you for your tonsideration. April 11, 2009 Virgiala Spea .... Berger ,SO Matadero Ave 'al. Alto, CA 9430' 650-4","5." Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Palo Alto City Hall Palo Alto, CA 94306 Subject: New College Terrace Centre Dear Commission~ I write to support authorization of the New College Terraa Center. This New-College Terr8l;e Center plan is welt designed. It includes much needed moderate income housing. It supports pubJic transit and pedestrian movement. Tbe design. is the result ofbroad, bigb--quality and creative public consultation. Particularly. the Garcia Family is an important part of our community. 'They are rooted here and are committed to community service. This family leadership should be supported by all of us. Thank you for consideration of my comments in support oftbe New College Terrace Center proposal. Betten, Zariah Subject: FW: JJ&F Market / College Terrace Centre -WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!! From: Ann Hayashi [mailto:ann_hayashi@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:54 AM To: TOHV, LLC Cc: Reich, Russ Subject: RE: JJ&F Market I College Terrace Centre -WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!! As a long time patron of JJ&F, I wholeheartedly support the JJ&F Market/College Terrace Centre. In this time of faceless owners of big box stores, the-family and community feel of JJ&F is what brings me back to the market. The Garcia family has been an asset to the College Terrace area and this new project promises to better serve the residents of the area and those of us who travel from nearby to support them. Ann Hayashi ---On MOll, 4/27/09, TOHV, LLC <info@210011c.com>wrote: From: TOHV, LLC <info@210011c.com> Subject: RE: JJ&F Market 1 College Terrace Centre -WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!! To: "ann _ hayashi@yahoo.com" <ann _ hayashi@yahoo.com> Date: Monday, April 27, 2009, 11 :56 AM Good Afternoon, There are two options for providing your support: 1. You may reply directly to this message and we will forward it on your behalf to City Staff 2. You may send your message directly to Planning.Comm[SSiPfl@CityofpaloAlto.org; we would ask that you also 'cc' Russ Reich russ.reich@cityofpaloalto.org who is the staff member directly involved with this project If you have any additional questions please do not hesitate to contact us. Your efforts are greatly appreciated! From: Ann Hayashi [ann_hayashi@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 27,2009 11:44 AM To: TOHV, LLC Subject: Re: JJ&F Market I College Terrace Centre -WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!! I'm unable to attend the meeting but would love to send a support emaiL Could you send me the link? Thanks, Ann ---On Fri, 4/24/09, TOHV, LLC <info@210011c.com>wrote: I From: TOHV, LLC <info@2IOOllc.com> Subject: JJ&F Market 1 College Terrace Centre -WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!! To: Ifagrant3@yahoo.com" <fagrant3@yahoo.com>, "ann_hayashi@yahoo.com" <ann_hayashi@yahoo.com>, "ericivers@gmaiLcom" <ericivers@gmail.com>, "ebandu@aol.com" <ebandu@aol.com> Date: Friday, April 24, 2009,6:03 PM Good Evening, 4/2912009 Betten, Zariah From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear commissioners, Michelle Oberman [moberman@scu.edu] Wednesday, April 29. 2009 1 :30 PM Planning Commission College Terrace development I am not able to attend tonight's meeting. so I am sending this note to you as a way of registering my opinion regarding the proposed development at the intersection of Stanford Ave and EI Camino Real. As a neighborhood resident, I want to register my strong opposition to the proposed zone change on the 2100 block of EI Camino from CN to PC. Knowing that compromises often are necessary in such cases. I want to make known my sense that the most offensive of the proposed changes is the over-delegation of office space, which would necessarily change the character of the community because of the downstream consequences needed to support the tenants of such offices. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Michelle Oberman (Dartmouth Street resident) Michelle Oberman Professor of Law Santa Clara University School of Law 500 EI Camino Real Santa Clara, CA 95050 Tel: 408-551-7104 http://www.scu.edu/law/faculty/profile/oberman-michelle.cfm http://ssrn.com/author=232686 1 Page 1 of 1 Betten, Zariah From: Paula Sand as [paula_sandas@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 4:34 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: College Terrace Center Dear Chair Garber and Commissioners - I am writing to express my appreciation for the work done by the developers of the College Terrace Center and some residents of College Terrace on the College Terrace Center. Since the project was first introduced, there has been a lot of forward movement to make the project work for the neighborhood. There are elements of the project that are worth consideration in rezoning the block from CN to PC. 1. The valuable retention of JJ&F Market at a size that is both potentially profitable for JJ&F and can fully serve College Terrace and the growing Stanford residential community. While I was a member of the P&TC, the retention of local, independent business was a significant factor in considering development projects. Not only will JJ&F Market open in a more visible location from the one it's in now, the family represented by the developer and JJ&F's Garcia family have worked cooperatively to create the best set of circumstances under which JJ&F can be redeveloped and hope to re-open as a profitable market. 2. The placement of the ingress/egress to College Terrace Center on EI Camino instead of inside the College Terrace neighborhood is a key improvement. Avoiding spillover parking into College Terrace residential streets is a welcome relief for the neighborhood. 3. The consideration given by the developer for low-income, single bedroom apartments that should not impact the school system shows sensitivity to a broader set of issues faced by the community. The apartments are placed on the block facing existing residential across Staunton Court, "stitching the seam" of residential to residential. 4. Finally, the family that owns the land on which the College Terrace Center is to be built demonstrates their long-term commitment to the legacy of a neighborhood grocery store, and the character of College Terrace while developing a project that will stand as a legacy for the next hundred years. Thank you for your consideration - Paula Sand as Paula Sandas paula_sandas@yahoo.com 4129/2009 Page 1 of 1 Betten, Zariah From: Karlette Warner [karlette46@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 8:04 PM To: Planning Commission Cc: CTRA Board; input@2180ecrtaskforce.org Subject: Comments for April 29, 2009, meeting regarding 2180 EI Camino Real (College Terrace Centre project) To the City of Palo Alto Planning Commission: I am unable to attend the April 29 meeting and am therefore sending my comments on the subject project via email. I am a 30-year resident of College Terrace. One of the primary attractions of living in this neighborhood is its proximity to shopping, transportation, and other services. Like many of my neighbors, I appreciate being able to walk to my local grocery store. I shop almost daily at JJ&F and never have to use my car! I strongly support the retention of a grocery store (preferably JJ&F) in the neighborhood. While I am not enthusiastic about additional office space and BMR housing in the proposed project, I nevertheless would support the project, if only to guarantee a grocery store at or near its current location. Thank you for your consideration. Karlette Warner 981 College Avenue 4/2912009 Page 1 of 1 Betten, Zariah From: Fred Balin [fbalin@sbcglobal.netJ Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 9:39 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Item 2: Ass't City Attorney: "Subsidy ... Not ... Appropriate as a Community Benefit" On page 5, the Staff Report reads as follows: The applicant has suggested the following public benefit associated with the proposed PC: • Provision of a subsidized rental rate to ensure a neighborhood-serving grocery market will remain at this location • 10 Below Market Rate Units The JJ&F "subsidy" (part of a private agreement between landlord and tenant) was discussed at the October 1 hearing, and I believe clarified with the following response from the Assistant City Attorney: Ms. Silver: The subsidy of a private for profit corporation would not be appropriate as a community benefit to designate a specific grocery store. However, the retention of a grocery store through the PC zone would be considered a community benefit. -10/1/08 P&TC Minutes p. 45 -Fred Balin 2385 Columbia Member, CTRA 2180 EI Camino Real Task Force 4/29/2009 Page 1 of 1 Betten, Zariah From: Joy Ogawa Ooy.ogawa@usa.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 20099:06 AM To: Planning Commission Subject: 2180 EI Camino Real Dear Planning & Transportation Commissioners: Here is a short list of some of the major issues I have concerning the proposed project: 1) Please maintain the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial for this property. The project should be brought into conformance with the existing Neighborhood Commercial land use designation; the land use designation should not be changed to conform with the proposed project! 2) The current proposal includes too much office (941 sq. ft. increase from October 2008 proposal; 1,485 sq. ft. increase from Feb. 2008 proposal). 3) The project's retail uses need to be better connected. In the current proposal, the driveway still divides the grocery from the other retail uses. 4) The project should have a prominent retail component on and facing College Avenue that provides better connection with the other existing neighborhood-serving businesses along College Avenue in the CN zone. -->Don't let College Avenue tum into a big office complex, which it seems to be in eminent danger of becoming. This would make a mockery of the purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial zone and the Comprehensive Plan goals of liveable, walkable neighborhoods. 5) The proposed 8,000 sq. ft. of designated grocery store floor area is smaller than even the current (8,712 sq. ft.) JJ&F market. All the residents I have spoken to are concerned that this is too small to accommodate another honest- to-goodness grocery store if JJ&F decides not to return. 6) The size and scale ofthe project are too big and not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Reduce the amount of office floor space and reduce the project's size and scale. Sincerely, Joy Ogawa 4/29/2009 Anna FaDkhauser Ernest Regua 567 o,cford Ave. Palo Alto, Ca., 94306 Palo Alto City Council Members Members, Planning &: Thmsportadon Commission 250 Hatmlton Avenue Palo Alto, Ca., 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning & Tmnsportation Commissioners, As .residents in the College Terrace neighborhood and JJ & f Store, we are writins to support the College Tccrace Center plans. We are pleased to see that the new facilities for the 11 &. P Store will briq our neighborhood and the City of Palo Alto a larser assortment of non-chain deli specialties. ftesh local products and a variety of food. We cherish this fiunily owned businesst as they have always $appotted our oommunity. They have been a valued member orthe businesses on Califomia Ave. The store is loved by families, students, lonatime resIdents. schools, businesses and offices. We are a150 pleased to see the 14 o.bedroom housinS units rented at affordable rata, which will be an enrichtnent to ou\" neipborhood. The green-village style d.evelopment design with living roof and LEED certification is at1 important step in the direction of green building. The new office space will provlde the 5urrounding ne1gb.borhoods with new customers, which we all welcome during these challenging economic times. Thank. you for aU your efforts to brini an improved. value to our neig.'hbothood and eommuniff. We hope you. will pus the project at the fonnal approval hearing on Wednesday, Aprl129, 2009. Sincerely, ~(t7t~ hmaF8~,~ __ ~--~ ----...,., EmestRegua Page 1 of 1 Betten, Zariah From: Joy Ogawa Ooy.ogawa@usa.net] Sent: Monday, April 27, 20091:55 PM To: Williams, Curtis Cc: Planning Commission Subject: 2180 EI Camino Real _ question about office floor area Dear Curtis: I have been reading the staff report for the 2180 El Camino Real preliminary review which is on the agenda for the Planning Commission's April 29 meeting. I am confused by what appears to be a discrepancy in the proposed floor area for office use. The body of the staff report says that the proposal includes 39,980 square feet of office use. However, when I look at Attachment D, the Zoning Compliance Table, the table indicates that the Proposed PC project proposes 38,495 square feet of office floor area (see the third page of Attachment D). Could you please explain this discrepancy and/or let me know which is the correct figure (or have one of your staff do so --I don't have Russ Reich's e-mail address). Thanks, Joy 4/28/2009 page 1 or 1 Betten, Zariah From: Robert Phillips [robert.phillips@nomissolutions.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 8:48 AM To: Planning Commission Subject: No Zone Change for 2180 EI Camino Real Dear Planning and Transportation Committee: I have lived on Yale St in College Terrace for almost 20 years. I have serious concerns regarding the project proposed for 2180 EI Camino Real. Specifically, I am concerned that the proposed project is simply too large for the neighborhood and would set a terribel precedent for further development in the area, destroying the original intent of the OJ Zoning. Some of my major concerns are with the traffic and parking impacts that a commercial building of the size proposed would place on an already stressed neighborhood. My preference would be for the zoning to remaining unchanged. However, if the zoning is to be changed or a variance granted that would allow a larger development, I believe it is critically important that approval be contingent on three items: 1. That the primary entrance to the facility be on EI Camino --which would require the granting of a curb cut. 2. That the building not contain medical offices which generate between 2 and 3 times the daily traffic as standard commercial offices. 3. That on-site parking be provided in an amount consistent with city code. Please feel free to contact me if I can answer any questions. Best regards, Robert Phillips 2290 Yale St. Palo Alto, CA (650) 858-2920 robert.phillips@nomissolutions.com 4/28/2009 yage 1 or 1 Betten, Zariah From: Eileen Stolee [estolee@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 11 :04 AM To: Planning Commission Cc: Fred Balin Subject: 2180 EI Camino Proposal Hello, I have lived in the College Terrace neighborhood since 1975 with my husband and two adult children and have been shopping at JJ&F all these years. When John Garcia came around on Tuesday, April 21st. with a petition to sign for support of a project that includes a market for JJ &F I signed it because of my love of JJ &F and my need for a functional market in our neighborhood. However, after some reflection I emailedthedeveloperonApriI23rd(info@210011c.com) and asked that my name be removed. I'm assuming this was done in time for the Planning meeting on April 29th. There are several reasons why I do not feel comfortable signing a blanket support for this project at this time. 1. Currently there is an agreement with JJ&F for a subsidized market of 8,000 sf. My concern is that if JJ&F does not return in two years, for whatever reason, can another small market (like JJ&F) survive in that small space? As far as I know the developer does not have to pass on the rent subsidy to the next tenant since it is not considered as a public benefit. The space seams too small in its current configuration to support a market other than JJ&F and I fear we will not have one in the end. I would like to see the grocery and retail spaces side by side so that if a larger market were needed in the future it could happen. This is not reflected in the current design 2. The entrance on EI Camino could cause back-up traffic on EI Camino going south and really big problems trying to tum left going north on EI Camino after exiting the underground garage. Cars are going to try and cross all lanes oftraffic to make a U-tum at an already difficult comer. I would like to see the entrance to the underground parking either on the first street before College or Stanton Avenue. Doing that will allow for more space for a grocery store by connecting to the retail space. For me this really isn't just about JJ&F. it is about keeping a viable market within walking distance of our lovely neighborhood of College Terrace. JJ&F or not. Sincerely, Eileen Stolee 984 S. California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 4/28/2009 Betten, Zariah From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Commissioners - Pria Graves [priag@birketthouse.com] Monday, April 27, 20094:02 PM Planning Commission 2180 EI Camino I once again have another commitment on Wednesday evening and am unable to participate in your discussion of the proposed development at 2180 EI Camino Real. Despite minor improvements in the proposed project, I still remain very concerned about the massive scale and several other aspects. Neighborhood Commercial zoning is intended to provide a comfortable transition space between the busier, more commercial uses on EI Camino and the quieter and smaller scale residential uses behind. This large-scale office development utterly fails in this regard. It creates the potential for the type of interface difficulties that have plagued College Terrace for years along its border with the Research Park: incompatible uses make uncomfortable neighbors. The existing streetscape along this part of EI Camino consists of single and two-story buildings. Inserting a massive office block into the middle of our neighborhood will undoubtedly be used as future justification for all future development to be as big and imposing. The neighborhood commercial character of the eXisting frontage will vanish. This poses an especially alarming threat to the historic church building directly across EI Camino from the 2180 site. I also continue to have huge concerns with respect to traffic and parking issues around this project. Although I applaud the decision to move the access to the underground parking from Staunton to EI Camino, I still anticipate an increase of traffic and congestion along Stanford Avenue. I also predict that much of the traffic destined for the site will cut through on Yale and Oxford when the Stanford/EI Camino intersection is busy. Other steps are needed to control the behavior of these drivers (such as a partial closure of Yale at Oxford plus a center island on Oxford to direct the turning cars). These measures should be funded by the developer. In addition, since many people do not like to drive into underground parking lots, the development will increase the pressure on surface parking on nearby neighborhood streets. Although the soon-to- be-implemented permit program will provide us with some protection from building staff parking in the neighborhood, the two hour "free" parking window will allow those coming to visit the building to park at will on our streets, causing more traffic as well as depriving residents of parking. I am also extremely concerned about the noise which will result from the project. I believe there will be unacceptable noise both from the construction and permanently, an increase in ambient noise levels from the air conditioners which appear to be located on top of this three-story monster. Our experience with air conditioning units in the Research Park is that the noise from them can travel a considerable distance into our quiet neighborhood. disrupting our night-time 1 peace and quiet. The City's noise ordinance addresses only noise impacts at or near the property line and at street level. not the impact on neighbors blocks away who are the victims of noise passing over the top of the intervening buildings. Once a building is in place. it is extremely difficult to get any satisfaction should there be a noise problem of this kind. With respect to the construction, I am particularly concerned about the excavation and compaction needed to create the below grade parking structure. During the recent construction of the basements under the two small units at 550 College, the noise inside my home was utterly intolerablel Though almost inaudible outside, the vibration was transmitted through the rock layer under the soil into my house. Again, Palo Alto IS noise ordinance does not address this kind of problem and with the much larger scale of this project, I'm frankly terrified as to the potential impact of this construction. I remain convinced that this proposal is too big and has too many impacts on our neighborhood. The proposed "benefit" of BAAR housing offers nothing to the neighborhood. And while we all want J J & F to remain, the question is at what cost to those who live here? Regards, Pria Graves 2130 Yale 2 ANNETTE PORTELLO ROSS April 29, 2009 Planning and Transportation Commission 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Re: 2180 EI Camino Real/College Terrace Centre Dear Commissioners, 2103 Amherst Street Palo Alto, California 94306 650-493-3760 I have lived in College Terrace since 1983. For the past year I have been an active member of the College Terrace Task Force studying this project. This letter is from me individually; it is not written on behalf of the Task Force. The applicant for the College Terrace Centre project is requesting a zoning change that, if granted, would have significant impact on College Terrace. To gamer support for the zoning change the applicant has been engaged in a campaign to convince College Terrace residents and City decision- makers that supporting this project is the same as supporting JJ&F, and that JJ&F will return when the project is complete but only if the zoning change is granted. This strikes me as an incongruous position to take towards an anchor tenant with a proven client base and broad community support, but that is where we are. I want to see JJ&F return but I am concerned that the outcome will be a development that, despite the Commission's previous request that the project be scaled back, is still nearly three times what is allowed for office space under existing neighborhood zoning but with no requirement or guarantee for a neighborhood-serving grocery store, be it JJ&F or not. I do not think that the project, as submitted, has sufficient community benefits to warrant sacrificing the protections ofthe current Neighborhood Commercial ("CN") zoning. My reasons follow. 1. The square footage dedicated to a grocery store in the current plan is 8,000sf; a size that is smaller than JJ&F is now. There is the promise of2,400sf outdoors, but that cannot be included in the floor area calculation for a grocery because it is not covered. 2. In Palo Alto alone JJ&F faces competition from Safeway, Whole Foods, Piazza's, Andronico's, Mollie Stones, Country Sun, the weekly Farmer's Market and, soon, Trader Joe's. 3. Although we do not know when the developer will break ground (and that could be a critical detail) there will be a construction hiatus that could easily last 18 -24 months. That is a long time for a grocer to have no claim on market share while once loyal customers are forced to shop elsewhere. 4. As currently designed, the College Terrace Centre is 64.5% office, 13.6% residential, 12.9% grocery, 9% other retail and under-parked by 27 spaces. We are told that JJ&F has a confidential agreement with the developer that may offset certain economic realities. I hope it is very favorable to JJ&F. However, if the cost of being out of business for an extended period of time plus the cost of tenant improvements plus the cost of the new lease plus the incalculable cost oflost market share preclude the return of JJ&F, where does that leave the neighborhood? I think the answer is clear: College Terrace will find itself with a 61,960sf, three story under-parked development with 14 new housing units but no JJ&F and possibly no neighborhood-serving grocery store at all. 5. JJ&F has stated that they intend to return and they must know that the store is smaller than what they now have. Presumably, the store will be designed in a way that maximizes the utility of the useable space, but 8,000sf is still much smaller than what most other grocers would require. On-line research suggests that 1 O,OOOsf under roof is the minimum area needed (e.g. Fresh & Easy) but 12,000 -15,000sfis a more common minimum area needed for a grocery to be competitive. While JJ&F is uniquely positioned with the promise of a subsidized lease rate and a dedicated client base to make it in an 8,000sf store, it is unlikely that another grocer would be attracted to the space if JJ&F were not able to return. Whatever decision is made, I think it would be prudent to require that the space be designed in such a way that sufficient contiguous under-roof square footage is dedicated for a neighborhood-serving grocery so that the space is viable to other groceries should JJ&F not return. 6. The requested zoning change from CN to Planned Community ("PC") would be inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and would eliminate the protections of CN zoning while a smaller project under CN Mixed Use zoning could achieve much of what the developer seeks and preserve the neighborhood. 7. Granting a zoning change to PC would set a precedent for doing the same thing along the El Camino Real border of College Terrace and this project alone presents uses and intensities that do not comply with the Comprehensive Plan's requirement for preserving neighborhoods. Land use decisions should, I think, be based on the merits of the application and compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan. I urge you to not approve the application in its current form but to instead consider alternative development options that are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and that preserve the College Terrace neighborhood. Sincerely, Annette Portello Ross Betten, Zariah From: Sent: To: Subject: Larry Kavinoky [Ikavinoky@stanfordalumni.org] Sunday, April 26, 2009 9:16 PM Planning Commission 2180 EI Camino (aka JJ &F Centre) I believe the major community benefit of this project is a viable grocery store. To that end I would like you to approve the zoning change to PC with enforceable provisions that the size, rent and other terms be fied by you and your staff, not the current landlord and tenant. I am sure that in the last 10 years with Alma Plaza your staff knows what the industry needs for a viable grocery store in perpetuity. Perhaps the size for a neighborhood store is 5-10-15 thousand square feet. Perhaps the rent is 25-50-75% of "average retail" or some other bench mark. Perhaps the developer should be to provide a "turn key" project meaning that all the grocery store furnishings and fixtures are provided in the rent. Perhaps in the future the rents or terms will have to be adjusted to keep a grocery store viable. If JJ&F or another local grocery store is willing to pay the requested rent, then it is viable. If not, then something has to be adjusted to work in a changed environment. We all love JJ&F so please remember that when we speak of JJ&F you will hear in your official planning capacity "grocery store". My family has been associated with the JJ&F folks since before they/we moved to Palo Alto. It should be of no concern to any of us what the current landlord and tenant have agreed to for now and in the future when you establish the exact definition of "viable grocery store" for this project. Also remember that when you see the public's support for this project, much of it really means are supporting JJ&F and not the specifics of the rest of the project. please move this project along and don't make us wait another 10 years for a newer and better grocery store. In my mind there is no "subsidy" here. The term just obscures the economics of the project. The developer has costs to meet LEEDS standards, earthquake standards, parking standards, grocery requirements, etc. They then will collect rents from the grocery store, retail, office, and other tenants. If your restrictions are too severe, the project will not move forward. please work with the developer to allow him enough rent, including the grocery store, to make this project viable for the owners. Perhaps your staff has some idea of how much income it will take to recover the anticipated costs. If that means exceeding your normal limits on "office space" or other metrics, please weigh that against the community benefit of the viable, walkable, neighborhood grocery store. Remember also that Stanford is adding many new housing units within a quarter mile of this project. I live directly across the street from this proposed project and I urge you to take the necessary action to be sure we have a viable grocery store. I do not believe it is in the community's best interest to drag this out as has been done with the Alma Plaza development or Ricky's. I believe that approving changes in zoning, etc in order to get the tremendous community benefit of a grocery store that would otherwise be forced to close is a great message to send to the citizens and developers of this city. "The is prepared to adjust its normal metrics when necessary for a particular site and benefit." please pass this project along to the next step. Larry Kavinoky 550 Oxford Ave, #4 1 Betten, Zariah From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: TaskForceDistributi Fred Balin [fbalin@sbcglobal.net] Tuesday, April 28, 2009 7:44 AM Planning Commission CTRA Boardmembers; 2180ECRTaskforce Item 2: Neighborhood-wide Distribution from CTRA 2180 ECR Task Force TaskForceDistribution_ 27 Apr09.pdf on_27Apr09.... C .. ommlssloners, fYI. Members of our Task force began distribution yesterday of the materials in the attached PDf (8 pages, 8.5 x 14 legal size) to all doorsteps in College Terrace to further update neighbors on the proposal before you on Wednesday evening and to encourage informed participation. fred Balin Member, CTRA 2180 EI Camino Real Task Force 2385 Columbia Street 1 The CTRA 2180 EI Camino Real Task Force Requests Your Careful Consideration of This Neighborhood-wide Distribution Then express your views to the Planning & Transportation Commission ASAP via email (to planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org) and/or in person at the public hearing Meeting begins at 6 pm, this Wednesday, April 29 However 2180 El Camino Real is Agenda Item No 2 We do not expect it to start before 7 pm Monday, April 27, 2009 Dear College Terrace Neighbor, On Wednesday evening, the Planning & Transportation Commission will decide whether or not to initiate a zone change on the 2100 block of El Camino Real from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) to Planned Community (PC) for the current project proposal and to change the corresponding Comprehensive Plan land use designation. This packet includes: Project-applicant floor plans with task-force annotations in the margin, Chart comparing the proposed PC with current CN guidelines, Task force editorials cautioning about a petition and exposing a false choice, and This information letter. As a group and since the beginning of 2008, the task force has been carefully studying the project. Members share a commitment to carefully research proposals, disseminate thoroughly objective information, gather input, and monitor the process. (Key task force distributions can be found at www.2180ecrtaskforce.org). Near the end oflast year, the task force developed a survey packet and then distributed it to all College Terrace households. The results were made available by Christmas. Recently, the project was updated with minor changes that have little or no impact on the survey. You will find the survey results within the floor plan margins. Part 1 0[2 Part 2 Last Wednesday, the CTRA Board approved a statement to the Planning & Transportation Commission. The statement is a skillfully crafted document. It is informed by the survey results but is expressed "in terms of preferences and values not in terms of planning metrics, zoning options, or statistics. " It also defers ultimate judgment to the commission, citing that "the Planning & Transportation Commission is in a better position to translate these preferences into a structured framework for moving forward. " In several areas, the statement speaks to a broader vision of a neighborhood-centered environment and concepts that would enhance it and those that would diminish it. The full text can be found in Saturday's eNews and via the web at www.ctra.org. The task force recommends that you read it. Now you have another important opportunity to let your voice be heard: Planning & Transportation Commission (planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org) or in person at the hearing CTRA Board (board@ctra.org) Task Force (input@2180ecrtaskforce.org) Thank you for your interest and participation, 2180 El Camino'Real Task Force Member [Task Force: Fred Balin, Maggie Heath, Larry Kavinoky, Emily Marshall, Annette Ross, William Ross, Doria Summa] Task Force Editorial JJ&F Store Petition: Understand What You Sign Did you see the at JJ&F Market? Did someone bring one to your door? sign this petition, you become an important part of a promotional campaign, orchestrated by the 2180 El Camino Real developer, in stating that you are "wholeheartedly supporting" the approval of his proposal, in its current form, as it comes before the Planning & Transportation Commission for consideration on Wednesday, April 29. As per the City's Staff Report, the proposal is not consistent with either the current Neighborhood Commercial zoning or the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Both would need to change to permit a development with more than twice the commercial space allowed under the current zoning and dominated with offices geared to a regional -not a neighborhood business district. A significant, increase in parking requirements and traffic generation, in addition to a potential precedent for similar projects on both sides of the site are among other possible side effects. lfyou are comfortable with all aspects of the project, then endorsing the petition is fine. But if you thought you were signing on for something else, for example, a simple heartfelt show of support for JJ&F Market and a desire that it return after redevelopment a preference for 88% of our neighborhood survey responses then you have been misled. The petition reads, "We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project ... " What plans were you given for review? Did they discuss trade-offs as well as benefits? If you wish now to correct matters, send an email to the Planning & Transportation Commission (Planning.Commission@cityofPaloalto.org), which has received all signed petitions submitted by last Wednesday, stating that you want your name removed. If you did not sign the petition but are disturbed by this tactic, you can also help by saying so in an email to the commission. In your email, whether you signed the petition or not, you may wish to consider contrasting this form of "outreach and input" to the detailed, objective material generated by the task force and the thoughtful, multi-fuceted considerations reflected in the recent statement on the project proposal by the CTRA Board. Task Force Editorial The False Choice Within 2180 EI Camino Real Since the initial proposal for redeveloping the 2100 block of El Camino discussions in the neighborhood have been dominated by the future of a market, and JJ&F. JJ&F has been on the site for six decades, with one lease after another, in good times and bad, with .no city requirement for a grocery store, and under the continuing land ownership of the same family. So why the heightened anxiety surrounding the proposals? It is fueled in large part by a pair of misleading assumptions linked as a false choice. Misleading Assumption # I The applicants say that if the Planned Community (PC) is denied, JJ&F would be forced to leave. It is misleading to make this assertion. If the PC is denied, JJ&F will not continue on the site only if(1) the landlord refuses to offer a new lease, (2) the rent offered is more than JJ&F can afford to pay, or (3) JJ&F decides not to return for other reasons. Misleading Assumption #2 The applicants say that if the zone change to PC is approved together with the project as is, JJ&F will return to business on the site after the redevelopment. This is not assured. Eighteen months to two years is a long time to be out of business and then start back up again. People form new habits and connections are lost. Declaring this assumption as fact is misleading. The False Choice The choice is not merely between one of these two misleading assumptions. A third option is for approval of a zone change to PC, with as few or as many conditions on the proposal as the Planning & Transportation Commission recommends and the City Council decides to impose. IV o ~ '. --" o GROCERY STORE o UTIlITIES OFFICE o o o S TAU N TON C 0 U R T Ground Floor 2180 EI Camino Real Proposal Retail Use -North Building Grocery Store (JJ&F or other) as Dubhc benefit -8,000 sf enclosed -2,447 sf of open-air market extending 28 feet back from 12-foot sidewalk on EI Camino Neighborhood Survey Results: • Full-service grocery as condition of approval is important to 90%; that the condition of approval should exist in perpetuity, important to 75%. • If ground-floor retail spaces between the two buildings are not directly connected and if JJ&F does not return, 64% agreed that the potential to attract another market will be reduced. Retail Use -South Building 5,580 sf enclosed space Total Retail: 13,580 sf + 2,447 open air market Neighborhood Survey Results ,42% concerned that proposed retail space (16,000 sf including 2,400 sf open-air) is not sufficient Parking Garage Driveways -Off EI Camino between retail buildings (Requires Caltrans approval) Neighborhood Survey Results: • Over two-thirds agreed on the importance that parking garage driveways are on El Camino. -11 spaces off Staunton by day, for residences otherwise) (Continued at end of Second Floor margin material) N o R ', . ..'\ 12 4 I.. o o 2ND FLOOR Of ACE o 2ND FLOOR OFFICE o o o o o o o o S TAU N TON C 0 U R T o o o o o Second Floor 2180 El Camino Real Proposal Offices 27,888 sf across north and south buildings -Two buildings connected at this level Housing -Top floor of 14 BMR housing units (Continued from end of Ground Floor margin.) Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing 14 one-bedroom, 600 sf, two-story units: • 4 units to pay for commercial impact fees -10 units as public benefit Neighborhood Survey Results • Responses fairly evenly distributed between "agree," "neutral," and "disagree" on importance of BMR housing Office Uses 6,051 sf, includes: -Offices in south _ -Lobby, stairs, and elevator in both buildings Community Room -Not included (was 1,600 sf off-hours office) Neighborhood Survey Results • Responses fairly evenly distributed, but slightly more favorably than for BMR housing N o It IE -4 L Q Q :lRD FLOOO OFFICE Q Q Q Q Q S TAU N TON C 0 U R T o o Third Floor 2180 EI Camino Real Proposal Office Uses South Building 12,092 sf Total Office Use (of all three floors) -39,980 sf Neighborhood Survey Results • 80% concerned, amount of office space proposed is three times the maximum allowed under CN zoning . • 73% concerned, office use seems geared to a business district rather than to a neighborhood. ·61 % concerned, medical offices might be pennitted on the project site. Building Heights North Building (2 stories): 30 ft (40 ft to gazebo roof. Gazebo is square area at end of walkway) South Building (3 stories): varies up to 50 feet Housing Units (2 stories): 33 ft 6 in Building Setbacks (from property line) -to El Camino: 4 ft II in (to create sidewalk) -to Oxford: 2 ft 4 in 12 ft -to Staunton: 7 ft opposite residential; 18 ft opposite commercial -to College: 1 ft to in ~ETAILiOffICE'flHAAED : PARKING AND LOADING PlAN -BASEMENT LEVEL B TOTALPARKIHG-BA,SEMENTl.EV'E1.1 "" the parking garage driveways are on El Camino. 1 5t Level _ 105 spaces provided 40 for Grocery Basement Levels of 2180 EI Camino Real Proposal 65 shared between residential, retail, and office Total Parking On-Site Parking Provided 227 spaces (105 + 111 + II) Parking Required by Parking Code: 254 spaces Applicant cites to areas of code for exceptions up to 20% permitted at the discretion of the Planning Director Neighborhood Survey Results: 59% of all responses agreed it was important that the city does not permit a parking reduction on the project site unless the applicant's justification is clearly permitted within the curent municipal code. III spaces provided all for offices Basement Levels, Overall Parking and Traffic Generation 2180 EI Camino Real Proposal Traffic Generation As per the latest Transportation Impact Analysis from the applicant's consultant, the project: -would increase the projected number of daily vehicle trips to and from the site, from an estimated 897 to 1590, an increase of 693 trips would not create significant impacts as defined by standard metrics, related to delays at intersections and traffic increases onto residential streets. Neighborhood Survey Results Just over 70% agreed that they were concerned about the amount of additional non-resident traffic on TOTAL(AU.OFFICEPAflI(JNG) Stanford and California Avenues and via interior street cut through even if 11 spaces shared by day for residences at other times Zoning Comparison Chart: 2180 EI Camino Real Proposal Created by CTRA 2180 EI Camino Real Task Force for Neighborhood Distribution (4/27/09) A B C D E EXISTING Lots and Uses Allowed under CN Choice 1: ALLOWEP Under CN Choice 2: PROPOSED by Applicant via DIFFERENTIAL (D vs. C) Neighborhood Commercial (CN)l Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Change to Planned Community Between Proposed PC and Non-Residential Standards Mixed Use Standards (pC)' District Existing CN Mixed~Use Standards ~~~~~ ~~~~~-~~~ ------~~~ ------ Lots / Sizes 4 lots, 50,277 sf (1.15 acres) I lot, 50,277 sf (1.15 acres): Combines 4 lots into I; 520 College: -10,200 sf 2180 EI Camino Real: 50,277 sf 2155 Staunton -6,900 sf 2121 Staunton: -11,200 sf 2180 EI Camino: -22,000 sf Non-Residential Sections: Total Floor Area 18,028 sf 20,Ill sf 25,138.5 sf 53,560 sf + 28,421 sf Floor Area Ratio 0~36 to I 0.4 to 1.0 0.5 to 1.08 1.065 to I + 0.565 to I -Retail 13,027 sf, including: 10,055 sf "protected"; 12,569 sf "protected,,9 13,580 sf, including: + 1011 sf -JJ&F: 8,712 sf' -JJ&F or other market, 8,000 S[IO II -Futon Shop: 4,315 sf -Other retail, 5,580 sf -Offices 5,001 sf: 10,055 sf 12,569 sf 39,980 sf +27,411 sf -World Centric -Other Other permitted uses6 Other permitted uses Other conditional uses 7 Other conditional uses ------~~ ------------ Residential Sections No residential permitted Total Floor Area 0 25,138.5 sf 8,400 sf -16,738.5 sf Floor Area Ratio 0 0.5 to 1.0 0.167 to 1.0 -0.333 to I i Units / Density 0 17 units I 15 per acre 14 unitsl2 - 3 units Non-Res Plus Res Sections Total Floor Area 18,028 sf 20,111 sf 50,277 sf 61,960 sf + 11,683 sf Floor Area Ration ~C~~~~ ~~~~_~~~~ 0.36 to I 0.4 to 1.0 1.0 to 1.0 1.23 to 1.0 + 0.23 Heights: Up to 40,13 South bldg: varies, up to 50ft 15 -Generally I story Up to 25' 12 stories up to 10' -Within 150' of residential 1 and 2 story Up to 25' 12 stories Up to 35' 14 BMR units 33'6; -1'6" North bldg: 30'; 40' gazebo rooftop + 5' at gazebo ~rootop ~ Lot Coverage ?% for each of 4 lots Ujl to 50% of the total sf of the lot Up to 50% ofthe total sf of the lot 47% covered by buildings -3% Landscape IOpen Space ? 35% 35% ? ? On-Site Parkine: 47 surface spots Up to 10010 Up to 165 227 proposed; 254 required" not applicable Setbacks Front (EI Camino) ? -4'2" to 10' 19 -4'2"1010' • 4' 11" +0' 9" Side Street (College) ? -20' -S' -I' 10" -3' 2" Side Street (Oxford) ? ,20' -5' • 2' 4" -2' 8" Side Street (Staunton) ? -20' -5' • 7' at residential; 18" at commercial + 2'; +13' Zoning Comparison Chart: 2180 EI Camino Real Proposal Created by CTRA 2180 EI Camino Real Task Force for Neighborhood Distribution (4/27/09) Purposes of Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District: " ... intended to create and maintain neighborhood shopping areas primarily accommodating retail sales, personal service, eating and drinking, and office uses of moderate size serving the immediate neighborhood, under regulations that will assure maximum compatibility with surrounding residential areas. " (PAMC 18.16.010 (a» 2 Specific purposes of Planned Community (PC) District: " ... intended to accommodate developments for residential, commercial, professional, research, administrative, industrial, or other activities, including combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts. The planned community district is particularly intendedfor comprehensively planned developments which are of substantial public benefit, and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.38.010) 3 Minor subdivison, i.e., combining of 4 lots or less, requires approval by the planning director. (PAMC Chapter 21) 4 Current JJ&F space of8,712 sf consists of 6,459 shales area and 2,253 sf for other uses. 5 Under CN, existing ground-floor retail space cannot be replaced by offices on the ground floor (PAMC 18.16.050(a». However the total could be reduced via offices on the second floor, which can expand up to 25% ofthe site without a conditional use permit. If the maximum floor area on the site of 20,111 sf (i.e, 0.4 x 50,277) were evenly split between office on the second floor and retail on the ground floor, total floor area for each would be 10,055 sf (Based on methodology in 4/29/09 Staff Report, Attachment D, Table 3, last item.) 6 Permitted uses include retail services; neighborhood business services; personal services; eating and drinking services; churches and religious institutions; animal care, excluding boarding and kennels; day care centers; family day care homes; small adult day care homes; and reverse vending machines 7 Conditional uses include medical offices, spaces over 25% of the lot size; private educational facilities; private clubs; recycling centers; commercial and outdoor recreation; liquor stores; ambulance services; automobile service stations; convalescent facilities; large adult day care homes; banks and financial services; mortuaries; farmer's markets; and temporary parking facilities. 8 For CN mixed-use sites on El Camino Real, non-residential FAR may increase to a maximum of 0.5 to 1; otherwise it is 0.4 to 1 (PAMC 18.16.060 (b) (8» 9 As stated in footnote 5, under CN, the existing ground-floor retail space cannot be replaced by offices on the ground floor. (PAMC 18. 16.050(a» However the total could be reduced via offices on the second floor, which can expand up to 25% of the site without a conditional use permit. If the maximum non-residential floor area on the site of 25, 138 sf (i.e, 0.5 x 50,277) were evenly split between office on second floor and retail on ground floor, total floor area for each would be 12,569 sf (as per 4/29/09 Staff Report, Attachment D, Table 3, last item). 10 Proposed additional 2,447 sf for open-air market is not counted in floor area if it does not have a permanently covered roof (as per City Planner Russ Reich at 10/1108 P&TC hearing.) II Proposed public benefit: requirement for a grocery story in the PC. Note: A grocery store is a permitted, but not a required use in the CN. 2d Note: a private agreement, such as a lease with a subsidized rent cannot be considered as a public benefit in regard to approving a PC (as per Assistant City Attorney at 10/1108 Preliminary Review). 12 Proposed public benefit: 10 of the 14 one-bedroom below market rate units. Remaining four units to cover mandated housing fees for commercial development above what currently exists on the site. 13 For CN mixed-use sites on EI Camino Real, heights may increase to a maximum of 40 feet (from the standard 35-foot limit). 14 For CN mixed use sites within 150 feet of a residential zone district abutting or located within 50 feet of the site, the maximum height drops to 35 feet (P AMC 18.16.060, Table 4). This StipUlatIon encompasses two nearby residential zones, the RM-30 zone along part of Oxford and the RMD (NP) zone surrounding the Oxford-Staunton comer and impacts about 40% of the site. 15 PC requirements stipulate a maximum height of35 ft for portions of the site within 150 ft of residential districts (PAMC 18.38.150 (b). In addition to the two sites noted in the previous footnote, this stipulation would also include a third residential zone, the Ananda Church, R-2 zoned site on the east side ofEI Camino. (See also 4/29/09 Staff Report Page 7 discussion of Ananda 16 Intensive retail at 5 spaces per 1,000 sf; office at 4 spaces per 1,000 sq ft. (PAMC 18.53.040). If entire site is intensive retail, 5/1000 x 20,000 sf = 100 spaces max. If 10,055 sf (protected) is retail and balance is office, (5/1000 x 10,055) + (4/1000 x 10,055) 50.2 + 40.2 90 spaces. 17 Intensive retail at 5 spaces per 1,000; office at 4 spaces per 1,000 sf; 2-bedroom multi-family units at 2.33 spaces per unit. (P AMC 18.53.040) If all non-residential is intensive retail, 511 000 x 25,000 = 125 spaces non-residential max; if all 17 residential unit.~ (I.e., 15 * 1.15 acres) are 2-bedroom units or more, 2.33 x 17 40 residential spaces max. 125 + 40 = 165 spaces max. 18 "Code does make provisions for parking requirement reductions in specific instances such as joint use (shared) parking facilities, affordable housing units, and housing near transit." (4/29/09 Staff Report p. 6) Add the discretion of the Planning Director, code allows up to 20% reduction in each of these areas (PAMC 18.52.050 Table 4). 19 Minimum of 4' 2" setback is required to create 12' sidewalk on El Camino Real as required by PAMC 18.16,060 (b) (8). Susan Rosenberg _________________ 1425 Stanford Ave. April 23, 2009 To: Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Re: 2180 EI Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 Spawned by the Trees for EI Camino Project, and with a grant from Caltrans, the City of Palo Alto developed the EI Camino Real Design Master Plan in 2003. The plan was the result of the inconsistencies that exist with having a California State Highway running smack dab through the middle of Palo Alto. The project before you effects an entire block on EI Camino Real, the adjacent College Terrace neighborhood, Evergreen Park neighborhood, and an expanding Escondido Village, and therefore the goals reached in the EI Camino Real Design Master Plan should have bearing on your decision regarding this project. Briefly, the vision for EI Camino Real that was developed during this process of public participation is: -To change the character from a highway to a road safe for walkers, bicyclists and vehicles -To become a center of community activity rather than a barrier -To become an aesthetically attractive corridor -To improve the quality of life along EI Camino Real while protecting adjacent neighborhoods The vision becomes reality with this project in some of the following ways: -A comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program would enhance safety over what exists -The return of JJ&F market and additional neighborhood serving retail coupled with the comprehensive safety program would draw consumers -A well designed project would replace buildings that are architectural "tired" and seismically unsound -The location of housing along Staunton provides a "step" into the neighborhood I believe this project would greatly assist in bringing the vision of a better EI Camino Real to reality, and would benefit my neighborhood and my community as a whole. It is truly a forward- looking project for Palo Alto. Given my interest that the Trees for EI Camino Project continue to flourish, I would have the developer replace the median trees adjacent to 2180 EI Camino Real consistent with the Trees for EI Camino Project as a condition of approval. Sincerely Susan Rosenberg Cc: Curtis Williams, Russ Reich 2 William D. Ross Kypros G. Hostetter Karin A. Briggs ChiragShah Of Counsel Law Offices of William D. Ross A Professional Corporation 520 South Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2610 Telephone: (213) 892-1592 Facsimile: (213) 892-1519 April 29, 2009 VIA FACSIMILE & ELECTRONIC MAIL (650) 617-3108 planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org The Honorable Daniel Garber, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Palo Alto 10ffice: 400 Lambert Street Palo Alto, California 94306 Telephone: (650) 843-8080 Facsimile: (650) 843-8093 Re: Commission Meeting Date: April 29, 2009 Public Hearing No.2; 2180 EI Camino Real Dear Chairperson Garber and Commission Members: This communication comments as a resident and homeowner within College Terrace and a business owner and taxpayer within the City who has both a personal and business account with JJ&F Market ("JJ&F"), a portion of the proposed project before your Commission. Although I am a member ofthe College Terrace Task Force, the views set forth in this communication are mine and are repetitive of previous requests made to your Commission in communications dated October 1, 2008 and February 12, 2008 respectively, copies of which are enclosed. It is again requested that the Commission consider a less dense alternative then that which is now proposed by the Applicant as the effect ofinitiating the requested Zone Change and General Plan Amendment is to initiate a process by the Planned Community ("PC") zoning, which will amend the Comprehensive Plan of Neighborhood Commercial Land Use Designation on a piecemeal basis. The Honorable Daniel Garber, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 2 Further, despite numerous representations concerning the Project, there is no guarantee that JJ &F Market will return to the site, and in fact, there is no guarantee that a neighborhood serving market could be maintained at the site.! The personal observations set forth in this communication concerning the College Terrace area and JJ&F do constitute substantial evidence as to how the proposed Project could affect the College Terrace neighborhood. See. Orofino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 882 (1990). THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project is defined in the Staff Report under the designation "SUBJECT" and is supplemented by Appendix F "Applicant's Development Proposal" dated January 14,2009 accomplished by Carrasco & Associates, Architects. ISSUES FOR ANALYSIS A review of the presently proposed Project indicates that the following issues need to be clarified before your Commission makes a recommendation. 1. The environmental analysis of the Project should exist presently prior to your decision because of a recent decision of the California Supreme Court. 2. The Project configuration, which now contains a General Plan Amendment, has not been sufficiently analyzed with respect to its internal consistency with the balance of a Comprehensive Plan,2 or its consistency with the Comprehensive ! Your Commission's action to initiating a G Combining District and Neighborhood Center Zoning at your June 12, 2008 meeting would have lead to more assurance that a neighborhood serving grocery store was possible at the Project site. 2 See, Government Code section 65300.5. The Honorable Daniel Garber, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 3 Plan Housing Element, a document which is subject to periodic review for its legal sufficiency by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. 3. The consistency of the PC Zone with the Comprehensive Plan should be analyzed first before determining whether there are "substantial public benefits" associated with the Project. 4. There is still no guarantee that JJ &F will return to the Project site, or that the site will be adequately restricted so that a Neighborhood Commercial grocery store use would in fact remaIn. With respect to the environmental review of the Project, it is initially noted that since last reviewed by the Commission, the California Supreme Court has clarified the obligations of a lead agency (like the City here) with respect to :vhen an~lysis of the environmental impact of a project as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq., "CEQ A") is to be accomplished. In Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood 45 Ca1.4th 116 ("Save Tara") the California Supreme Court, among other things, clarified what constitutes a project and when evaluation of a project should commence. More specifically, the Supreme Court held that when an action is taken by a public agency in the land use context that: . . . commits the public agency as a practical matter to the project, the simple insertion of a CEQA compliance condition will not save the action from being considered and approval requiring environmental review. Save Tara, supra, 45 Ca1.4th at 132. Stated differently, there is substantial legal authority that the CEQA analysis should be accomplished now, before the Commission makes the decision. This can be directly The Honorable Daniel Garber, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto April 29, 2009 Page 4 related to this Project. This is particularly appropriate in this case as the adoption of a PC Zone sets the stage for cumulative PC Zones on adjacent property. In other words, the City has an obligation to presently consider the cumulative environmental effects of its action before a project gains irreversible momentum. City of Antioch v. City Council 187 Cal.App.3d 1325 (1986) found that the construction of infrastructure would have a cumulative impact of opening the way for future development. City of Antioch, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at 1333-1334. The same type of cumulative impact could be present here for PC Zoning on adjacent properties. CONCLUSION First, the revised proposed Project has not been established as being consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Designation of Neighborhood Commercial and several of the Comprehensive Plan Element Goals and Policies, as well as the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element to ensure that they would fulfill the mandatory requirement of City implementation of those goals and policies. Second, until the Comprehensive Plan Analysis has been accomplished, it is uncertain as to whether there is any public benefit associated with the Project components supported by substantial evidence as required under the PC Zone criteria. Finally, because the exact terms and conditions of the private agreement between JJ&F and the Applicant has still not been disclosed as to whether and how it would return to the property, the potential misuse of the PC Zone for accomplishing an intense mixed-use development along El Camino persists, which should more appropriately be accomplished as a part of the Comprehensive Plan periodic revision, rather than by piecemeal PC Zoning. Very truly yours, ;;~~.~ William D. Ross WDR:lla Enclosures: October 1, 2008 letter to the Planning & Transportation Commission February 12,2008 letter to Planning & Transportation Commission Willi:Ull D, Russ l-:yprus (;, Hustetter K""ill :\. Hl'ill~S ('him:! Shah OI'CtlUlL~eJ VIA FACSIMILE (650) 617-3108 Law Offices of William D. Ross A Professional Corporation 520 South Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2610 Telephone: (213) 892-1592 Facsimile: (213) 892-1519 October 1, 2008 The Honorable Daniel Garber, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hami1ton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Palo Alto IOmee: 400 Lambert Street Palo Alto, CnUfomi3 94306 Telephone: (650) 843-8080 Facsimile: (650) 843·8093 File No: 1I1O Re: Agenda Item No.2; Public Hearing 2180 EI Camino Real (College Terrace Center) Dear Chairperson Garber and Commission Members: As a member of the College Terrace Task Force on the proposed development, in addition to the issues presented to you by Staff, the following concerns should be considered and addressed. In making these comments, it is acknowledged that the Developer has seemingly addressed some of the concerns previously raised before your Commission. However, the essential issue that raised public concern was the potential elimination of the JJ&F Market <md the continued provision for a neighborhood grocery store consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The modified proposal for the involved property raises two principal concerns. First, the proposal is contingent upon a confidential agreement between the Garcia Family and the Developer. The agreement evolved after a long litigated rent dispute between the Garcia Family and the Developer. The idea that there can be a confidential agreement in association with this Project is a misuse of the land use approval process. There are 110 trade secrets such as a formula for a soft drink or an intellectual property The Honorable Daniel Garber, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto October 1, 2008 Page 2 program involved. What is involved is a grocery store, which until the confidential agreement -Palts of which have been discussed and in reality actually suppressed discussion about a continued grocelY store use on the subject propelty -do not involve trade secrets. This type of agreement cannot serve as the basis for a land use decision. In Trancas !Jroperf;Y Owners Ass 'n v. City qj'Malibu (2006) 138 Ca1.App.4th 172, 186-187, the Court of Appeal examined whether a settlement involving land use authorizations in a litigation settlement could serve as the basis for a pruticular type and kind of development going forward. The litigation settlement was not made public and was discussed in Closed Session of the involved City Council. The Court of Appeal held that even the confidentiality provisions of the Brown Act could not shield the settlement from a public hearing. The public and your Commission is presented with a similar situation here. You are asked to initiate a proceeding with the understanding that there is a settlement between the Garcia F amity and the Developer which cannot be disclosed, but implies it is in the public's interest with the Project now proposed. Regardless of the merits of this proposed Project as may be claimed by the Developer, and without the anticipated analysis of the Project at a public hearing before your Commission an initial step must be disclosure of the confidential agreement. Remarkably, in Palo Alto which prides itself on openness and thoroughness of process, it is unacceptable that a land use decision should proceed forward with one component being a confidential agreement between the parties. A second issue which is advanced by the current proposal for development is the use of the PC Zone. It can be justifiably stated that the current proposal is once again just too big for the subject property and offers no guarantee to the original concern of the neighborhood for the property. There is no guarantee for a neighborhood grocery store, there is no guarantee for a neighborhood commercial use as designated by the Comprehensive Plan. W1ll the Comprehensive Plan along College Terrace on El Camino be compromised by one PC Zone after the other? That celtainly would be the precedent if this development proposal is allowed to proceed. Pragmatically, it is recognized that JJ&F may choose not to be in the grocery business, but the concern that there be a pennanent restriction for a grocery use consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is not furthered by this development proposal. The Honorable Daniel Garber, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto October 1, 2008 Page 3 Y Ollr Commission should take steps to address the original public concern regarding this property -assllling that a neighborhood grocery store will be present. Very truly yours, f,./~ .o.~ William D. Ross WDR:lla cc: College Ten-ace Task Force Members Willi:om 1>. Russ K~'pl'''s (;. Husfefft'r K:ol'in .\. UI'il1l!s (·hj .... ~ Shllh Of( ·"'llIst·' Law Offices of William D. Ross A Professiomll Corporation 520 South Grllnd Ayenue, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2610 Telepbone: (213) 892-1592 Facsimile: (213) 892-1519 F eblUaly 12, 2008 VIA ELECTRONIC & V .• \'. MAIL planning. cOllunission@cityofpaloalto.org The Honorable Karen Holman, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 9430 I Palo Alto IOffice: .. 00 Lambert Sireet P,du Altu, CalifoJ11ia 94306 Telephone: (650) 843-8080 F .. "simile: (650) 843-8093 File No: 1/10 Re: Agenda Item No.3, FebmalY 13, 2008 Ref,TUlar Meeting; Commission PreliminalY Review of Concept Plans for Development of66, 133 Square Foot Three-StOlY Retail/Office Building with Two Levels of Below Grade Parking and Rezoning from Neighborhood Commercial (CM) District to Planned Community (PC) Dear Chairperson Holman and Commission Members: This conununication comments as a resident and homeowner within College Terrace and a business owner and taxpayer within the City on the above-referenced matter on your Regular Meeting Agenda of February 13, 2008. The comments are based upon review of the Project Applicants' file based on a public records request (Govemment Code section 6250 el seq.) Accordingly, some Applicants' documents which were not included in the Staff Report Attachments to your Commission are referenced. The Honorable Karen Holman, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & TranspOltation Commission City of Palo Alto Februruy 12,2008 Page 2 I. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Until the Project is completely defined with reference to the ultimate uses proposed, and all needed development approvals PreliminaIY Review by the Commission is premature. Flllther, the proposal as described in the Applicants' Development Program Statement (Staff RepOlt, Attachment G) is inconsistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Designation for the Project site, Neighborhood Commercial, I and unless the proposed development includes a Plan Amendment, the Project should be found inconsistent with the (' omprehensive Plan by your Commission precluding further consideration until consistency has been achieved. Notwithstanding the lack of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the allegations of public benefit for the Planned Community (PC) Zone are superficial and inconsistent with actual facts as presented by the Applicants. Finally, the Applicants' Development Program Statement is inconsistent with representations made in a meeting with members of the public and business owners within the Project area where it was indicated that the Applicants would preserve the JJ&F Market throughollt the process of development of the property and that the square footage would be increased upon conclusion to between 12 and 14,000 square feet. II. \VHAT IS THE PROJECT FOR WHICH PRELIMINARY REVIEW IS REQUESTED? The Applicants' Development Program Statement, Staff Report, Attachment G, represents that a three-stOlY mixed office and commercial retail development would be located on the Project site, that the Project proposed would be a LEED certified building (of unspecified category), that a PC Zone District is necessary because of the intensity of use proposed to increase three times2 the existing squru'e footage on the subject propelty. I See, Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010, Land Use and Circulation Map, Revised through 2003 (the "Comprehensive Plan"). 2 18,028 square feet of commercial space exists currently, 66,133 square feet is proposed. StatTReport, Attachment C. The Honorable Karen Holman, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto Februmy 12,2008 Page 3 A review of the entire Statement does not list the need for Comprehensive Plan Amendment from the existing designation of Neighborhood Commercial to Service Commercial or Regional/Community Commercial to achieve required General Plan consistency.J The Statement references potential use on the second and third floors of 38,967 square feet of medical offices which is also referenced as a public benefit of the Project (Staff Report, Attachment G, p. 4, Item No.7). In the Project Applicants' file, in a document entitled "Environmental Assessment W orksheef' the following is set forth which clearly contemplates other Project approvals: 7. Application for: Minor Subdivision Site and Designx Parcel Map X ARB Revjew~ Use Permit ~ Zone Change PC Zone EIA, EIRX * for Tenant use by Medical Offices in future Additionally, several Staff communications indicate as proposed conditions to the PC zone that a Parcel or Final Map shall be submitted for review until the Offsite Plans have been submitted, and that a Subdivision Agreement is required to cause compliance with a conditional use approval and security of improvements onsite and otfsite. See, for example, a December 21, 2007 communication to Canasco & Associates regarding the Project from Russ Reich, City Planner. Assuming for the moment only, that General Plan consistency is not an issue or would be subject to some type of Plan Amendment in the future, notwithstanding the holding of Lesh€!r, supra, the question remains as to what the actual Project is in tenns of requested penn its? It is reasonably to conclude that because of the need to both combine .~ It has been accepted case law in California that all development Project approvals or entitlements tllllsl he COl1sistelll with the adopted General Plan, here the Comprehensive Plan. See, Iesher ('ommunicalions, Inc. v. Walnut Creek (1990) Ca1.3d 5 31, 540, 544 ("Lesher"). Stated succinctly, a/~)! suhordinate land use action such as a zoning ordinance, e.g., the PC zone designation, that is not consistent with the current General Plan is "invalid at the time il is passed" Lesher, slIpra. (Emphasis added) The City Municipal Code confirms this requirement as developed il?/i-a. The Honorable Karen Holman, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto February 12, 2008 Page 4 existing parcels and because of the possibility of existing airspace because of the medical office commercial use is proposed on the second and third floors that the Project should l70t be considered for Preliminaty Review until it is acknowledged that a Plan Amendment, subdivision and conditional use pelmit application for medical office space is a patt of the Project. Such a position by your Commission would be consistent with applicable law, among other things, the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq., "CEQA") as "segmentation" or "chopping up of a Project" is prohibited under the concept that the decision-makers would be misled by assessing anything less than the whole of a Project from the outset as opposed to addressing its components on a piecemeal basis, something which is proposed here. See, Hlfrbank-Ulemlale-fJasadena A irport Authority v. Hensler (1991) 233 Ca1.App.3d 577, 592. The prohibition against segmentation was applied to a shopping center mixed use proposal in ('ifizens Associationfi)r Sensihle f)evelop (dBishop Area v. County (dlnyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 165 where the COUlt invalidating the use of two separate Negative Declarations for a single shopping center proposal requiring both legislative and qllasi-adjlldicatOlY petmits -exactly what is proposed here, PC Zoning (legislative permits) followed by a review and a subsequent conditional use petmit and Subdivision approval (Cluasi-adjudicatOlY pelmits) for medical office facilities. In summaty, both the Commission and the public are entitled to a comprehensive Project Description of what is proposed. The advancement of a LEED stmcture with cUlTently unspecified tenants should not be used as a rouse to avoid compliance with either General Plan consistency or adeCluate envirolUnental review. In summary, until the Project is completely defined as consistent with what the apparent eventual intent of the Applicants is, Preliminary Review is inappropriate. In. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN As noted earlier, under Lesher, supra, and under the Municipal Code, zoning ordinances l71usl he in c01?fhrmity (with) and promote the objective policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan. Municipal Code section 18.0] .020(a). Indeed, a PC Zoning District must be of "substantial public benefit and ... cOI?jiJr117 lrifh and enhance the policies and programs (~lthe ... Comprehensive Plan" The Honorable Karen Holman, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & Transp0l1ation Commission City of Palo Alto February 12, 2008 Page 5 f\/lunicipal Code section 18.38.010.4 (Emphasis added) The Staff Rep0l1 does not provide a consistency analysis of the Applicants' proposal. The standard for detennining General Plan consistency is that of the General Plan ( luidelines 2003, p. 164: An action, program or project is consistent with the General Plan if, considering all aspects, it will fUlther the objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment. This method of detennining consistency has been judicially confinned. ,\'ee, ( 'orona-Norm (lnYied School i)isl. v. City o/Corona (l993) 17 Ca1.App.4th 985, 994. As noted earlier, the Applicants' request proposed development of the propelty is the PC Zone. From the outset, the PC Zone designation is inconsistent with the Neighborhood Commercial Designation of the Comprehensive Plan. Separate and apart from that initial and controlling inconsistency, the proposed Project is inconsistent with several Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals. The Project as proposed will "ohstruct" Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. With respect to land use and community design, the Project cannot be consistent with Goal L-l in maintaining an attractive neighborhood when it proposes a three-fold increase in density which again is inconsistent with the Plan Designation. The Pr~ject would be violative of Policy L-6 as it would create an abrupt change in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas. Likewise Goal L-4 creating and inviting pedestrians to a commercial area is not achieved if the principal use of the building is as a medical office facility and no real grocety market is maintained. 5 Goal L-4 the repetitive land use and .f Consistency is also required for Site and Design Review, Municipal Code section IS.':;O(G).O 1 0 and Conditional Use Permits section 18.76.0 I 0(c)(2). 5 The idea that a medical center can be lIei:<hhorhood serving is directly contrary to several of the means for providing medical services. Proximity to "neighborhoods" of medical oUices does not cause demand for medical use -medical insurance for a specific type of provider The Honorable Karen Holman, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto F ebmruy 12, 2008 Page 6 development policy of the City of neighborhood preservation and neighborhood commercial serving uses is not fUlthered by medical offices and the lack of a real grocery store. A veiled presentation of the Project as allowing for a grocery store with less square footage than what actnally exists at the JJ&F market presently is contrruy to the public representation promised by the developers in the previously referenced public meeting and in reality is nothing more thrul a sandwich shop. With respect to the Comprehensive Plan Transp011ation Element, Goal T -I it will be violated as medical office space will encourage single occupancy vehicle use. Likewise, Policy T -\ will not be fUlthered in that what is encouraged in telms of walking and bicycling from College TelTace to an existing full service grocely store cannot be accomplished because of the practical elimination of that use. Finally, the proposed Project does nothing to encourage and support the operation of small, independent businesses (Policy B-7), if the Project results in the elimination of a neighborhood grocery market and the elimination of JJ&F.6 Accordingly, employing the consistency analysis of the General Plan Guidelines, as judicially confilmed, absent a cbange in the Project proposal to make it consistent with fhe original development representation of the Applicants to preserve JJ&F and actually increase the amount of square footage grocely store -along with a Plan Amendment, the Project is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Conullission should refuse fUlther Project review until a development proposal that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is presented. IV. LACK OF PUBLIC BENEFIT ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED PC ZONE As previously stated, the Applicants' Development Statement sets forth claimed public benefits of the Project. Given the inconsistency of the Project with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Designation for the Project site, each of these public benefits should be questioned from the outset. determines use. (, It is noted that in the Phase 1 Environmental Review, a document in the City Application tile, for this Project, that a grocery store has existed on the JJ&F site since 1936. The Honorable Karen Holman, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & Transp0l1ation Commission City of Palo Alto February I 2008 Page 7 Proposed Public Benefit No. I provides: A subsidized rental rate to encourage a neighborhood-serving market to locate at the Centre, as a convenience to the neighborhood and community. Such a neighborhood-serving use has proven to be important to the College Terrace neighborhood, and has long been an important piece of the fabric of this pat1 of Palo Alto. This supposed "public benefit" tests credibility. There is presently no need for a subsidized rental rate on other portions of the property to maintain the viability of JJ&F. It is certainly not a function of the City's police power through land use regulation to guarantee a fixed profit or desired market retum to a property owner. It sounds as if planning for the area is to be set aside and an economic retum for the developer's proposal is the principal consideration that should be reviewed by the Commission for approval of the Project. This method of analysis of the Project would tum land lise law on its head what is planned for an area would 110 longer control, rather the developer's economic retum would control. This statement of public benefit should also be questioned as even the developer acknowledged in the referenced public meeting that an increase in the square footage for a grocery store, and for JJ&F in particular, would allow a greater amount of bTfOCelY market goods to be available to the neighborhood. As it is now with the restricted 7200 square foot presentation at best, a sancilvich shop would result. This concept of public benefit also relates to the issue of General Plan consistency if an overriding development policy of the City is to preserve neighborhoods and to also make a Neighborhood Cornnlercial uses available to seniors, such as the undersigned, how is that facilitated if full service grocery stores are more than mile and a half away and located on the other side of El Camino Real, a thoroughfare that has been characterized in several environmental documents of the City as a major impediment to bicycle and pedestrian claimed crossing? Public Bellefit No.2 providing an active Public Plaza at the location also should be questioned. Both the College Terrace Libraty and the four parks over the time span of 20 years by personal observation have provided that function on a velY regular basis to The Honorable Karen Holman, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto February 12, 2008 Page 8 the College Terrace neighborhood. There is no demonstrated need for an increase.7 The open landscape Plaza as a "quiet space to sit read or relax" as it is buffered from the traffic noise of EI Camino is also hard to understand in view of the access off Stanton COUli for both parking and loading for the proposed stmcture, which will present considerable noise and congestion -something that exists presently with one-third of the amount of commercial use. The fourth benefit of wider sidewalks and more street trees along EI Camino Real is offset by the restricted sidewalks and modified setbacks proposed for the balance of the structure. A common sense question might be, how is a wider sidewalk on EI Camino conducive to pedestrian and bicycle traffic which would all becoming from the College Tenace neighborhood to the other exposures of the property?!! The Staff Report also analyzes confonnance with the South EI Camino Real Design Guidelines (Attachment C, unnumbered page 4) suggesting that this is a benefit to the proposed configuration of the Project and that it is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policies. which are not referenced, for EI Camino ReaL First it is unique that the Applicants' CUlTent proposal for development is analyzed by Staff with respect to (TlI/defines for development but not with respect to the rc:qlliremenls of the land use provisions of Neighborhood Commercial of the Comprehensive Plan. Secondly. it must be questioned whether this is really a policy of the City, inasmuch as a review of another project, the three-story office building at 2825 El Camino (less than a mile from the Project) has direct access to EI Camino less than 100 feet from one of the m3;.jor intersections in the City EI Camino and Page MilL 7 It is noted that the writer's personal observations as well as other residents of College Terrace and customers of JJ&F do constitute substantial evidence as to how the proposed Project Gould affect the College Terrace neighborhood. ,)'ee, Oro Fino Gold lvlining Corp. v. County of i'.J Dorado ( 1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872. 882. If anything, the existing parks in College Terrace are under utilized. x With the proposed Stanford Mayfield Development it can only be assumed that the pedestrian and bicycle tratlic would be increased to the proposed site t( a grocery store as originally represented by the developer (12 to '4,000 square feet) were maintained. The Honorable Karen Holman, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto Februmy 12. 2008 Page 9 v. CONCLUSION Again, until the Project is completely defined with reference to all of the pennits that would be needed for development, which have already been discussed and analyzed by City Staff with the Applicants -conditional use pennit subdivision approval - Preliminary Review by your Commission is premature. Second, the cUlTently proposed Project is inconsistent with the Comprehensive PI an Land Use Designation of Neighborhood Commercial and several of the Comprehensive Plan Element Goals and Policies, which at a minimum, should be analyzed by Staff, as to whether this Project implements those Goals and Policies.'! Third, analysis of the claimed benefits of the PC Zone for the property are also questionable under the CUlTent presentation of the Project as College Ten-ace is presently adequately served by four existing parks and the College Ten-ace Libraty for places of public assembly, among other things. Lastly, the Applicants' statement at a previous public meeting that JJ&F market was to be maintained during the entire construction process and would in fact be enlat·ged should be considered in the context of what is advanced as benefits under the PC Zone and the lack of a Plan Amendment for the CUlTent proposal as to whether the cun-ent proposal actually is "neighborhood serving" to the College Ten-ace Neighborhood. Thank you for your review and consideration of the matters set forth in this ~ommunicati on. VelY tmly yours, /v~o~ William D. Ross WDR:l1a q A mandatory duty under Government Code section 651 03(a). Reich, Russ From: Williams, Curtis Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11 :03 AM To: Reich, Russ; French, Amy Subject: FW: JJ&F Market/PC Zone change fyi From: Emslie, Steve Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:00 AM To: Williams, Curtis Subject: FW: JJ&F Market/PC Zone change From: winter dellenbach [mailto:wintergery@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 08,20099:55 AM To: Council, City Subject: JJ&F Market/PC Zone change Dear Council Member: Page 10f2 I have one main concern re: the JJ&F block development -the size and continuity of the market Public Benefit. I recognize that you are under a lot of pressure from the developer and market owners because you don't want to loose a market. However, if you approve of the current size market proposal, it is as good as lost anyway within a few years. So don't give into the pressure. I have reviewed many Planned Community (PC) zoning ordinances and found a surprising number contain Public Benefits that were never produced or the on-going use simply dropped after a few years, completely canceling the benefit to the public as required by the PC ordinance. I have recently filed 3 complaints with Code Enforcement on 3 PC zoned properties based on discontinuance or complete non-compliance with PC Public Benefit requirements. I see with this current proposal before offering yet another potential Public Benefit (JJ&F Market) that will likely vanish within years of City approval of the PC zone change. Points: -This market is tiny by any standard but for convenience stores such as 7-Eleven (average size approximately 3000 square feet). -While a new design may make the store space for efficient, it is not a magic bullet that actually makes very small space significantly larger. -The owners are retirement age and very well may try to sell the market in the not distant future. -At the current size proposed (about 8000 square feet) it is reasonable to expect that in a few years the market will become nothing more than a large convenience-type store without fresh produce, meat, dry-goods, etc. In other words, not a market at all, and near useless to local residents. -It frustrates the intention of our zoning laws if the City Council approves a PC with a Public Benefit that is not viable in the short and long run. Recommendation: 7/8/2009 Page 2 of2 -The market must be larger to be viable beyond the current owners. -Your standard for evaluation should be not only what current market owners are satisfied with, but also what seems reasonably practicable for the future viability of real market. Winter Dellenbach 859 Barron Park, Palo Alto resident & JJ &F customer 7/8/2009 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ&F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. () f 0';/ lEJ--~ ~v~~ Printed Name: '-"'-r Signature: ~-~-~ s Shopping-Store Address: Sto _CU_L_l_C'i_G_E:_A.:_v_l _____________ _ Phone number and email: (8SO ~?-1--l2 ~ 2. u-.f' Le.-l .ott>-Ve€~/. c .......... Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F );> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ &F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: 'f)e.bOY"6Clk 66 per Signature: ~t-M.d-1 fM-tJA----- Shopping-Store Address: _--J,::;::;~"",-,,"J..£.-"'lL~( _______________ _ Phone number and email: (CryJJ ~ r1 ~08'g f drJvO(flr@~ (ttW I (2:z; 11-1 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );.> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidi'zed rent ." I '. - );.> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );.> Office space that will fund the new JJ &F );.> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );.> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );.> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );.> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ &F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Shopping-Store Address: Phone number and email: _-I.;;(;::!---'--tJ-><:(::;t)'--2--!..9 ..... b"'---_f!}_' --,-~_O-,V,---' _______ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this deve.!opment will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: » JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a sub,sidlzed rent ..... ,: .... -» 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates » Office space that will fund the new JJ&F » New neighborhood serving retail to enliven th~ .block » Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue » Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification » Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment ~ Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ &F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: f1}t+i NGOC-~ \ NH Signatu~ Shopping-Store Address: _____________________ _ Phone number and email: ___ ~_()_& ___ .2_q__'_t,_-_O_~_O_'I..I....._ _______ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F );> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue· );> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Sign&Ure: ____ ~~--~--~~----------------------------------------~ Shopping-Store Address: Phone number and email: --\:Ci:+b;:...;;g;;.....)"---+iJj)'-----"'Og~l &==--____________ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: j;;. 11 &F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent j;;. 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates j;;. Office space that will fund the new 11 &F j;;. New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block j;;. Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue j;;. Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification j;;. Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow 11&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from 11 &F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: A N A H DN' n::H A R Signature: h~ Shopping-Store Address: __ ------_____________ _ Phone number and email: (40 ~ .. ) 8 3 cF .... G> 4-Co 1 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: >-JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent >-14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates >-Office space that will fund the new JJ&F >-New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block >-Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue >-Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification >-Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: r--::.'-----'-__ CJ.,..-, _~_. _-_~_~_~_~_~ ________ _ Signature: --~--==::;:-""':'--,::=--9'--------------------- Shopping-Store Address: Phone number and email: _-")~.4,.._~-=V,,,--C:;--,,-~.....;..V __ " Z'--/-'->LJ-'-v ________ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ&F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Ttl reM// A p-tl:::"1J,tJ(j Signature: ~W It Shopping-Store Address: Phone number and email: (4og) 3f3-l flS t:~~. ~ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ 11&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new 11 &F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow 11&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from 11&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Shopping-Store Address: _____________________ _ Phone number and email: __ -"-__ -_W_· _9_--_' _<f--_<i_le ________ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: };> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidi"zed rent '," - };> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates };> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F };> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block };> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue };> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification };> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Shopping-Store Address: ________________ ------ Phone number and email: ______________________ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: » JJ &F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent » 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates » Office space that will fund the new JJ &F » New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block » Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue » Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification » Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed N arne: r-,L......:;...~--P"f-l--:':~_----'<-~_----r-:>!--'--'---"::::.,.~"-I-_.tf--=---"--~_J-=--R~_j __ _ Signature: __ ~~~~~ ________ ~~~~~~~~~~ ________________ -- Shopping-Store Address: __________________________________________ _ Phone number and email: G$O r) <iS1--:2 q d Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: » 11&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent » 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates » Office space that will fund the new 11 &F » New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block » Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue » Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification » Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Signature: ---~-' --~-~--+lJf-P-'-~-+Uf-~------------- Shopping-Store Address: _____________________ ~ Phone number and email: _--'---=-_~_<}_3_1_-_,r_~_-_3_J? _________ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ&F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: \)J\NNt:?'! 6IL_I~AN Sign~ure:~~~~6F~~.~·~~_~~. ~~~_._t_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_ Shopping-Store Address: Phone number and email: _~~,,·-,-,O,,-y-,,-9+-n __ '_-Lj..:...4--,--,--{O __________ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: )0> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent )0> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates )0> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F )0> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block )0> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue )0> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification )0> Comprehensive traffic, parking. transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in chal1enging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Signature: -L....j}-~--=----:~--1~bol-----------------_~ ~ Shopping-Store Address: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ 11&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new 11 &F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow 11&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from 11 &F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. p~inte~d.run.e: ~Jr2. Slgnat:.... _ _ ______________ - . . H,,"._"'_"_··_- Shopping-Store Address: Phone number and email:C:/P) 1;Pi r'7~ ').1.-( Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this develqpment will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: » JJ&F Market expanded al1d improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsid:iied rent , -» 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates » Office space that will fund the new JJ &F » New neighborhood serving retail to enliventhe ?lock » Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue » Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification » Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers. the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and fonnally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: --',lhcl,....,.-'f-!-lllla'"lVl=----LJ...IIfrU!-I--1I"D!J.Jrd_---':"'-J .,---Ufa ....... b-l"licm~I--___ --- Sign~ure:~~~~~I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Shopping-Store Address: Phone number and email: ---\;(....z.:..SI.::.....<O ),--n..L.!.13--,~_' G-'-Q_I_j~ _______ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ&F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: __ -"~T-tl ~...:...::..:.../; _--,---~-==---,~"",,-' -=-r\U2~.<..:.;\0t=-________ _ " Signature: ---'-~i""': "",,,-,,=-=" '--!kAAv",-' ==.=----.....;J,~,~=,=. =-____________ _ ! Shopping-Store Address: ____________________ _ Phone number and email: __ ...:...::-""-----=---'-_----'::::..::::...:._.~ __________ . __ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&FMarket expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ &F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and ~njoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ &F customers. the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible 'so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: ,'-f I L YV\6-- Signature: __ ---"w:'-"'-"jj4.</'-l1nt4'-"""'--->.~""-'="""7f-"'------------------ Shopping-Store Address: ________ . _____________ _ Phone number and email: __ 4-,-1J-,-~,' ~" /LI!5 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this develQpment will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded aI1d improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent 'f •• ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ &F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the officeusers and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic tim~s. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: mOl rtf) E ~w~t ;5' £-<\2/7 j:" . Signature: ---,.<ft7--,,,--)~~---,",,,~~-,,::=:7'-------------~----~- :7 J.-' -L til Shopping-Store Address: _7_w_O _N_1_",---, Vl_<;_' '_=~,-(/1_Y}--b~;-7J_cf!-_~/~.,/_j-r ____ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F );> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );> Comprehensive traffic. parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occt,lpants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: U Signature: __ ----"f+~~=' c:.!ZO'--______ _ Shopping-Store Address: ____________________ _ Phone number and email: __ 1i2t...::...!Lq_-_J1)lJ~'_·____'1:..::.1.z=3'__ _____________ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto. CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: )0> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent )0> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates )0> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F )0> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block )0> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue )0> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification )0> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers. the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above. we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Signature: ____ Q""'''-=-~~.(,.=j./Ur'''''' ""'/wrr-~--~.~-~----- Shopping-Store Address: Phone number and email: ____ c:/_·O-=-f_·~_0_q-'-(.L-[_·---",&~0(..:::::O~tJ,,--________ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );> JJ &F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );> Office space that will fund the new JJ &F );> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ &F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: __ -:;~:....;i'-'!:\!;::...111)ClLL)lA;:;..;;....:;A,,--_-=.V.;...;\ \":::",~,-.-,-.~-=~,,--______________ _ Signature: ----7riJlt-'1L~Lu=14f~-------------- Shopping-Store Address: ____________________ _ Phone number and email: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: . ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at,affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ&F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the blo~k ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ ComprehensIve traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre' as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: 2~ ~ 14. M~ ",,' (j ro S Signarure~~&h~ L'- Shopping-Store Address: -bS,..Lck---,--"..o:..(...;;;b",--'-L=~--,-(-"S=-___________ _ Phone number and email: Z€J'o\ h~y\ @ \( 9 ~ G Cl· <.. 0", Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and TJ;'~sportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ;.. JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ;.. 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ;.. Office space that will fund the new JJ&F ;.. New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ;.. Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ;.. Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ;.. Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&.F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for . other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: -.~-=~~~+------+~------~~--=-~~~---------- Signature: ---~-,L..~~~I=:----~~~~---""''''----------------- Phone number and email: -------------~------------------ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );> JJ&F Market expanded and imprOVed consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F );> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax: revenue );> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly"this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasure'd family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that copstruction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: ~irr;/!D Signature: ~ _ ~~ Shopping-Store Address: ~i~h_ Phone number and email: C~60) f?51-7q7~ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: » JJ&F Market expanded and improved c~)llsistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent » 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable ~tes » Office space that will fund the new JJ&F » New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block » Approximate.ly $700,000 in annual local tax revenue » Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification » Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In'addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and fonnally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: 0vSTlrJ Z4LG.:s.,.v; Signature: ---t-~r-"''--I:;,.c---------------------- Shopping-Store Address: -~~;------------------------ Phone number and email: ----------------------~----------- Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following:' » JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent » 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at,affordable rates » Office space that will fund the new JJ&F » New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the blo~k » Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue » Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification » ComprehenSIve traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In ",ddition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre' as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: lew6 ~~~~~~~~~~~------------------------------ Signarnre:-7~~~~~==::======~ ____________________________ ___ Shopping-Store Address: ---<.S_· ·L-~--I--""o...=r,_b.o....Lu-=----=c=-\S.!-r_:;: ____________ _ Phone number and email: 0 60 .-3 ~ 7 -iScr I to Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: . We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );-JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );-14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );-Office space that will fund the new JJ&F );-New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );-Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );-Green village-style development design.with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );-Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment . Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. . Printed Name: :{J1!rAJ~ ~iJJl ~J t:r Signa~~----I-"~~~~.jt£~.~~:'--:;--___ _ Shoppmg-Store Address: _--"<..,) ...... ~.L~_-'-f----L _L~ _____________ _ Phone number and email: --~------~~--~~~~~----------------- Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following; );> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias'· preferences at a subsidized rent );> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F );> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. , In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. . For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: fir!Ll Gttl Wfu1f\.P tgl Signat~Wv----:p U r Shopping-Store Address: 5fus6Vt,('A~ § ~. F . ) Phone number and email: ~C;7J .. -~ -3S gO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: > JJ&F Market expanded and improVed consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent > 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates > Office space that will fund the new JJ&F > New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block > Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue > Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership In Energy and Environmental Design) certification > Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home oc.cupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. , Printed Name: C a Y\ b l ~=-.---=~~",-"==-f) -"-.:-10=--_______ _ Signature: -~-+----~-~-'--...,.,~,L------'==------------------u~ (? Shopping-Store Address: -----:..9=+--y-"7F-ri--'---"'------------------ Phone number and email: _..-.(pi<:-'-=S,. __ 0 __ --'7'-----"'I_D_--:;9_&_U _______ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viab.i1ity of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ&F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family • business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. L Printed Name: 1:xw-QJ-l \ hl±l J ~ Signature: ,~~ . . Shopping-Store Address: ~J-t-~_ .. ~_~,,--=-+_~. ___ . __ _ Phone number and email: Lfp -9.9 -\ c:3 SO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportati9n Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 9430 I Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will brjng include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ&F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue >-Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification >-Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide'many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and 'formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name:6{j1R~ V\ e Signature: ----=-~~~"_Io_'t"if'~--=-~-------------- Shopping-Store Address: ---.---~ .. _.--'-I__J__. ____________ _ Phone number and email: DUJ\ \Au n ~(a CuViA..C CtJ )-, n e< t '- Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F );> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ).> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ).> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ).> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&,F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for . other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined aoove, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: I~ {-1/7.--,1 k-o Signature: 4- Shopping-Store Address: __ .5'-f--~"-~_~'-'~"'--· _c t. _______ .. ____ _ Phone number and email: _[-'->. ,,,,,-1=6 _-hLL.Z_?_-_(j_o_r~y:_---,-e_/J_~_(J_I-,-rf-,-«J_'f-8_(j )_ItA//,_I'f._~--,--.-",c._c"""",-=- Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F ®, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office. and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name/Sianature Address Email Phone tU/L It; z <;{ totl1''t(. t4vt t"lkPv1dbtrttt@~~b-CrA-I 6S"O·S"lL31Z7 ()d-~ro {).RJlesle{jS+-, ~-TSbl W A· SO \;tClVv,-, _ c;ov(,@ \ia.~o o. c~ 07A(l ctraneco ~yc{hwtQm Mfk ~ 1~\ ~ AY~ h~t-etk ~b fo1f'~ Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project , proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F Gif), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name/Sia nature Kathy me mlA \ teA 7G1:\-~1 ~ Mel( i1 (' Address lfr. ~~- 113't> JZJ6~~ ~ 1~ ~'~q ~.:~6."? \40 Lowell A\Je. iYQ\b A\to I C A q <-t '?Io \ ;3 }~q O:tvi'd 4v,Q....- y~{o 4-(·to '6 ~ ~ C tClccJen--I{J') -" .et Email Phone ~6'O -'1-'14 ....... JO~~ ~~~,~ ~ ~ '--0'3--\ ,-------------'- kath~ Me @ cwL Ci5YV\ 32..6--5323 ,---------------~----~ t{q4-(;f;f?7 {Pro 'Sg7 w%7 Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F <if>, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name/Signature Address Email Phone ;:;; IJ· 9 f{3t;! 0cf--:52!tP4'7 7--~ ~"'t> D ,~ ~'5t 3>S"'-~ 1 /J J _ (2 (' r _~ ~ lifO S_ Cot) ::jorb"-[ A /dv . I '(0) -x:r) --)! I ~S-c) 7Q~023: ,~ ';{ Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (if), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off El Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name/Sig nature Address Email Phone HoJ] 7!nfM! lrL.-U-~ 1-~'f'-f WtU e51 ~ y C;t, Mani;hou.@ S~foV6. G-(-?rf --2tvfj .criJ.1 X~ 'SiV\ (h / ~~ ~J!s.\~ <;-t, ~\V\x: ®~1'~{o~d" §Q 1 --;5 \ -!;;ti ~ ~.t" .~ w\-\t~ 'J,2;1-1J ~ S1 ' ~ \\l-t\;N A ~e~llf4-M ~ 7..-\ -S ~ <0 ~ I j \ \ t\ i1--\NA W\·\trp~ \\ Awe q fh2t.:LE/r t5 'i () C'tn.--\ '::OCLN I A 4q 4-/\ LCO? ~:~~~ f1{\/ ~"ct~ 1-~~Lc (;6 ~ ) I: j l 1 f t iF if i f i i I \i ~, r ~ ~; t; ~ ~ f' i Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F Gfj), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off El Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approvaL Address ~S5 ~I~S~ .palo Cl..W 0\ L.\&)lo ----;:;>"'1....---1--- ~ -~- Email ~~\<;.~@ ~ I ru.::t Phone laSO '-$1l ":) - 3'60 ~ tffJ)80.r9~ "9:<"7 ...Q~. 'I . , !. W I ~ ~ I~ il J , . ~ Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name/Sianature Address " ~j;Dllr~i( ~:X:17~~ ~20 --:;-{;J?JJOJ f.ay S!- Email 0rnrrorrcJ2 calJi/C ~ C/O#L9-JJ / 6 Phone 62 /D~t (fic V\ -eJ( f . -'c I \lJ'JQ~ l3-l{n~ If «-~~ LaA!7/~~ 2Dqc CO(yfe It ~+, 'Y' t-r'~ -I lW-O CO('"I'-e..\\ <s-\-. /V'Y C:>1~ ~ ,.--, c ~tJl-tI-J?7/t 'S{j '1 q 3. 51-s-'-( O.\i'SQ/"'. 'C-€va.---e ,~""~\. I bSO r04 ,<;'2 U COt"'- h~~~1/~'b~ 6D' ~1-5~1 I Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino ReaL We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F <11>, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Address Email Phone zv4t tJheA_Ll~ $( --V020 a~/ frY\ g - e.1A0I ) VC\'7'7\ ) ,W0 ' 2030 0661 /,' VI ~+, Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name/Si nature Address Email Phone - ! I ( U1 r t/~/ts yl{fC!< ck;/ J,/'JS-CD ~~ "' rt-r1 C75d/ .~ ~/2/~rSf to&.At-k4~ Q, ~ J ' (OV\.t ?soC; -( '~~ 0o(N2JJ\ ~ I\A. VJ ~ • e _ ~ l~1\ ~ , \, v--"-7 . d2-kiA.-8-6 ~'L~ 2Ll~) ff;v~.~ Sf- LO~ \ o~{L~ >1-I f\fV(\1 k @ £ tr-~ lr J ' Q.J ~ Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real \Ve, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's apIJroval of the proposed New CoIIege Terrace Centre project at '")180 EJ Camino Rcal. 'lve h,lVC rcvic\ved 111e plam; for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approvaL Name Address Email Phone OQSOWo--@hIdc:... C-d;"" t· r;. U~ ~4-- (z.b -zs t.'<i ~~~ ~ V r~~'07L.r f "","'" ~ ~ > '1 ~ () e-( eq,'-A. :"'4) ~ ..... ~r b50" y'tg" -8''7 . ~~\~ esSe> ~I'C=> ~ ~) ck(\~~ '6o-hC:th &m f."..::; o....Lof t:( 'J -~ D/ J~~-/I;~ ~l5<:i ~ \J .~~~~~ Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (i), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhoo&-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off El Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name/Sianature Address Email Phone ------- ~ ANDRi1) /~/lljj 1. t :; ( 1.11/1/ c! 1~.1/ 1IVDflM J IIIYi f G IIf 11;)1), 0111 GP t 14 SiJ!J SuStXNt Cf2A1~-JA 1150 Cl-L-~/~y S c[2j\hi,-Jo8( @ '(f\'UQ), CCM Cb~ _ 7-99 I 9 '35" LliIj)~ ~ .?f-::11-v~~ ').,\00 O'b~I~'l'\ s~ ~(""' ~ 0{"'>ruL. ~C6~~ \,~ .r-j p C ~-"""':::S' I \ \ I C~CLvv\ VV\c-~ @ ~'v~ v~'fVv'. GSo cscr} ~ oeu .,." ~ -,.,..- 1---1--- -------I 'petition in Support of the ~ew College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 El Camino Real \\le, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F ®, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone /.: --rf -<' . :.J (/fAit'S (fG. .,J vf tV I( f t\(S 2..2-10 CUd0 v r Y; I ~ -92 N lLkro +61) ~{Vx1\,p~ 'fi1-~(Jb - H,\~\~ :O()~,bOSln\~ 1(95" Ptbro.mc; ct, fT 1c8' mbo0..(bcY'\1'l @<;~ ~c\.~ .----- 2-0 1-0 ~l~St '?J-9'{)0? 8$'"7---1')6 '--t 31 ()~d{ LX~ e/~ 1-:'0.;-W6V'~~\, -----.. =- ~~-1{ulr-e-{f-~ . eeL r-- II 6f: lJR...E 61-~ ~ {;; lI-~we~Qva.-vs.JtS.~J(, c~ ,Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real \Vc, the undersigncd residcnts of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New kg\.: Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. \Vc have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly SUppOit it and the benefIts it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F GTi), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off El Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone lew S~lw. r 1- r "i"'""'" I. ((JV'.... -- .r~ ,5;JJ", t\ t..t J.. C.,; I <1 f-.k. Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. 'Ne have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F <!i), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone Po.'".X? ct ~ ~ ~ v--.c., }·co..- 1 j'Z-5' c. '" ~ .St~.4 i fo-~~ )(0-d-\;,cl-J-56 d Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real Wc, the undersigncd residents oftlle City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New Collegc Tcrrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. \Vc have rcviev"ed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F <i!), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone f\br 1(\ tesl"~VO\~4\ ct l~ jJr;t ,oie st. \7'\tv AHv{ eli ~Id-,'1\ "-G's~ . cCVV' w-s'ti--SJ9o ~)~} AVVJ1"c 'e-S I S~ R t) 1\\\2.-~ \\l t\ 0 u Q CO) tll y<!f ?-§f?6 (\Oit,( 54'f1tt==' S r-r"2.. "2r 'A( t. \31.. V 'i) I f M.o It I.. ~u I sAy ({ ~s <£ ts Y <-lL 3.1 fi"1I/1bf. r> ...IifA le/N.4 ~tve-. /.fa La, s , t~~tp-@A,~<;.. v.r j &:5b -8ft 2--{od Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the nndersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 21 RO El Cnmino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (i), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking, garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approvaL Name Address Email Phone A c{~VV\ ?-e rAt\. 7--r-7\ Cv\,<\V1 (0<:"'..( t" ,,010. .1"1."2 e ("r)lk ~ t1 m Ott\. Sccft ~n ]1(). f-tAlIs-r fwt-r (<? . : , . .... \. -~ .... -.. ~ Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space tor JJ&F (ij), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name ~<?"a)1 BlA,V¥-. Y<A.SeV1 L€-v v- ttn~ Ct~ \ ~a.v( ~' 'P eo.. ~,,~ ~ \v 'l\oO Address 690 ~O-n ttVLd or. 1 & P e 7-er Co-v it) C( V. ~Y. 1'-\ 1. CCYAV'C>va. ),fr"l,) 02- tb,n(J\(t:.( S1 -l' Y1 ~354 s+.M\c.,h~\ Ct· PA Email Phone .~~~leA A- ~l Petition in Support of the New·College Terrace Centre Pr<dect Droposed at 2180 EI Camino Real Vle, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. 'Ve have reviewed the pl:lI1s for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F ®, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Po f.\.A.,( Address Email Phone \U ( ~ ) ~ LO \ S~lA.\')\0 {d I LA '14 (V\ LCo. \ \ 0t \ \) ( '\ \lJ '< q \;1c;O • J '::"0 Co\3'-2Z~ '"2 S <., ru to'W.. t\"1). \.\ ,. .> \-t~ L <-A 9'-\30 ? d\.c14""" (. e.:, +-(N. ~ J ' -€ Jv i\ 0-~h 6'-11.-1.). t 3.--1"'1 v ,itvYpt /rv.-o) ~.Q; tv..J c 1.-,. '- ,I:(~G.r Q ~c, l"\~~ . 6+e Vo pc«<. ~ U cJto~"" r; 1'0-304-84r;1 S" So (c) / !~ Cf*' .q / -L t.f I...{ ""7 v c."" -;L\·vo ~ f~1 st 0"fTl 5)6~· 'l/~t "Cc.11'--- Al1e£ VLACfYlVr 17u-::-(v i1a-,.--/tv;::f) -4 AC:I. :A...oj f'! d''l-:YJ z.::rrp -1/""-. ( 1V"'~ <:::> 2) Petition in Support of the New CoIleJ!e Terrace Centre Proj:ect proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real \Vc, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have revie\:\,red the plans for the proposed project and we wh01eheartedly support it and the benefits it v/ilI offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F , 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off El Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully wlth the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustaipable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a -living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. . . Name Sl~2A: \I' j-',.,. Ctt rl . ..A.......- w~0l~~ s.t-?~jv,M 'it.f7 Sa~ ~~a ... ~~ ~tA. \ () l'l{ V4:-'-..) ~~!J...... DbJ~ (S-i-.~, ...... ~, G '1 ~l..~ ,LN PA 4 ~ v c) t4-{<. V-f1 PtA- Email I Phone ~ -~D'-3~(fj2- I t?ro"'11-( ~JJ 'fa 263 (l ~ : J;~ ,~t ;~~ l, S-s-0 G S-c C'( (ol ... Zl( 7 d Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Pr(dect proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. \Ve have reviewed the pbns for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (i), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a deVelopment the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone 'B1.v~)/\\(A \\-() :r2.Z (t,\fqQ, k\JQ-A'3\ 'tt\\\l AttD, I 'll"'V\\~-\XwkJ0J ti\l'\'t(\\·( JO~l1 fv1u(D~ 'St" 1(;·12<6 S)h+'tj:."tJ,( IJ ]ok,,-\ 1\Iw; l' '-J JLtG' k ,,~t t '" 'V \ t ll~\ (',D4 @ \\\'1l~c\(\t;<:du ~Q.~ES '0 91 f:J A-i/v\ ldrJ?~- Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180EI Camino Real V.,re, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholehealiedly support it and the benefits it wi,lI offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F ®, 14 Below i\1arkct Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Address Email Phone JIjJ -&,.,6",.fS; ppAcL)7,;u1' I' ~5 7 C1)']({t1 19D~ t",\i ~ ~rA. ~\(. t.o1S EL C}\Mtt"b ~eAL Petition in Support of the New C'ollege Terrace Centre Pr("ject proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at ::?! fiO El C~[Jnin() Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we vvholcheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F ®, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking-garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Email hone 1.'2.. j," "3'r~i> /,_, awl' "" '~r VY'-''"'·o~!-:l.11 Ifj~ -o?J7 -J-e-~ Vf7J~4~~t6 D-., '/lf ~ Cvcl., 411~ b 4'~ ..,9(-i 1'IQ ~(11 ~(~S J¥ ~\\'l.., .. {e. L/6~7Jon32 r-~--~-----==----t--------------l W; •• :S<fAT-, (S-e 5~\'" C-wA.- Vv1l~ btJOv61.A: ,~ltiVJv],€ t-f~.~ f'o..~ G'A"~~ E, 1 C,) <6A~.LoII. U ~' ~~.cI • '""l"Or ~, Petition in Support of the New .. Jllege Terrace Centre PrQ,ject proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the henefits it \vill offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&r ®, 14 Below .Markct Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone v~ \)( /~y ~z;,- b l Y tot ~ .~~~ ;lb<'< .4ASt~ /4'bUl IldoAtfo 10000Kml-ll/li e. MIll. t~ ~ ~~ ~14...,..d .... ~ PI} Petition in Support of the New )Hege Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real \Ve, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the henefits it wiI! offcr including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ& F ®, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving rctail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EJ Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone )(o\.f -. f tM. f. O. 11 oX' 17G fl Y' ~T 1(@ sft-.tfurJ·dv w~{~ ~n..ko --=---Z;'=ICQ OA.~a..g-?l.-~ ~ t... o?~~ c:!)y..."..... • c,._ ~ ~f.(~ -8<:x.:r1" lqJl>q M~~L 9SD AI $h' ~i7J,vIO f./J Ai'18A. 1/1) ,"H.JIf-~ 'MhL. LOM 65"P-?5>4 ~ ~------- 1fV1...q,o( .~" b ~ ':'j.i;"l~" Ai: . .l. \.',.i ~, ~. J.~,~-.ll,)\-, )\,; •. -;.l,~.\ J..\.'.~~l. ii\.,~U~·"jj.l.b , ",,:, c' (rr: i', " ,!, i !" (" "t,C'(' ~ '~(' n,'; f~ f' "t"1',;~ C": l" ," ,",' 1"" o'r, I ()C", T 1',1, <::1"l' ('5<: c,"~d~' ,.:II'i·'V"'u n \J and park'!'llg .galage ~,'i ';' • .i' .• ' , t. ~,' ...... /' i.L I"\., ,-,,,·,t ~,.iJ'D 1 .~"" .... J. L"~ '..!.; ... ~,_.\~ll.iO"'" 1. -'-. ... 1 UUIJ .1."-" ...... , .0.11 u. U ",,~yaJ (,ff E1 C~n]jiJic KC to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the Copege Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. . Name Phone VexO(J1 CllYL 42>QC c "~:3~ -Lu-ftzr'(\Jf~ (eCl{~s{~fl~. t-6s'1:l, J 1..b -Y L h' CVt-l' .Jv VY\ ,-,D «e.((D'71 4-\I~ ~A c' vII''' e'1 @ Sj-~~trd.. ~.fu ({'S'6 11:..( -'70 '1Cf 6k~v ~-~t-l A-(ft.-I (L Fw Lv-. ('k..ft~{ rI, ~ {,[l-f !l(rSJl L~"k({ ~tA-~( 5r, Pavlo A \ \-0 z.\,~ke(@.sftw.t(!rJ.e J.M. ,S"o-g3~-1~c> 8 Petition in Support of the New COlJege Terrace Centre PrQject proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (10, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking ,garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone IIW't1C-1610 l\;\u~ ~ w VV\ ~ e..vVV\e(( . ed0.-1 5& 7· ~z f Ii", V\ ~ I): d~(NJ qb~ rn~~ Q\-do.. u \" c::J S a v....; Ck..~1 sk I It bJL V\-<t.-t-4 ? s -0 ~? /' S-:.V\ 'De\", ~ \')\ ~ \ ~~ 1u 5-<;l i ~ l);7~® 'VtJ, 7~ ~ IIJ./J'/)~ MAJ.. Co (// ~ (s-t: NW IAbJVtI~t'o)\( DC AV'elflf116'Rl \/ ~h~b -~vd)~ (A) L· t\ tt1 VY1S ~<-7,7 4 1((;"'>0 2.-Ui £/6~' cwAI ,,,e-l-h~h:.-,). e..clc0 ' 7 10 q At[ G-f;v I U\I\.U Cot, 9 (4! I) A~ , Lle-~vl ~(; ~ t. ~c. If IA.. ..... ..; Jc:./' Sf::,..! /;:} ~ I LJ C&../} ::J (' ..... "'e:oc:,..u.. c;.....u £(() 6 4--4-6:J-J..) f,q 1~; c 3 Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F ®, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it~ prompt approval. Name/Sianature ~~.~ ~~A ~4!?P~1- Address ? ({eD )' J-o~~ Ct-~cJro A1h L 0 \ t1 Aq"L v 1\ tt () () I 21 60 C;kUh~~ (0/-.11- ~~~~-I--------j--'- 70 tUI--)L' /;9:&:1 fd/bcJtr4ve. '-. Email ,+..-ts:Qc.~gt.J''VlmW&l( C1(l ,f1lv-aNUi.6 ~---, --- S 4/7(U) ~Ccr:;Jf-'Z 1,1 _ ~\CVvL~ ill> ~"t~ BJ .. V t:;~,_onj"t~) 12 'J Phone Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off El Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it'% prompt approvaL Name/Si nature ') :\ o "l vI' J Cr·· 0 1 (Y~(l/y..v- I r~ ~~~ ~ r ~'\ d/ M'\~~ \-\:'\)Lh ~ @~~ Address ) 4,-~o \:" ,·t-" . '1 Y'/ Dlr",lf .. J (j. J #-~ 2 Y ~"353 lJ Q/b$te'0 «5 s> Lr' CO Jl <--Q WI} L( ;Z2S7(WJ//I'('-, C:;r ~4f)JIv I ro26 Sv\., "'\... i ~"V-vl.(J) (. 0 u~ \.0 ltu . 0\\ ~ a~v c., 'n j ;"i\ ~\'\~ \1(:> j(~ ~'\ \,1 ,,'\ (~,,~\IDv\ r-4 ... vA- Email Phone Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 El Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F @' 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off El Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it~ prompt approval. Name/Sianature Address Email Phone yl;21J ;f+" '2 ''146' U~:~!\ '7~ ~I )L"~ S't:)l~'f-~ (1--. /J {)./ 'L-s-v 2.-, e'fVl ~ S;{J-Y"\ S ,J.-.- --J(c<r ;.1--'J D'S / I ~j~"h%'Ai ~ ( S ~l' I l-t fl. Ih'."':") / t;; 5:0 5. ~ I , F. f11t.< b.l~l u) IDO/jt0Y~o::> [OvA Petition in Support of the New Ct.utege Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for ,J&F <1>, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking .garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features -.;T' including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone I I Petition in Support of the New College l.'errace Centre PrQ.ject proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (i), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone ~ <t1t 1OL~ l)R.,s~q ----. ~ '--- 7[b Petition in Support of the New CL_ .. ege Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F <1>, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking .garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the CoJlege Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name I Address Email Phone I QririL1nnM.El~n@Jo.~,cOM £d~ q0\ W~\\v'(d~'ve J ~o.\o ft\.\-o !J-;iv; ?4m6':;c;At:-r /25 ~d-4-t!/~;-c7 {I/~Sif~ ,geo!! y tJ'B/-,,,,k<O.lJt 6 ()~~ ~",,-,, 'U\ \ \ \.\Jt" 'V,\"'-<)uv \1\1 _ \~..J ,Y\.C \ 11>-' V-.J c> k4 ~ .. \ /T\ ~rp~ (J J.o!--rr,cu j, cCl"0 tA ~ f?4i\ (0) I ~C~ \-4tv-1\~/l7\1 ~M 'if)&, , Cf2L(~/ 1 .;l.j tki3 bII lit) ,~t 71:3I0we . I. o· . I I. ~ r 4-,1\ 1\ 1.-l'\ A c.-o I J 585 fM 'sf"-0rJ 6 I =}~~:~ In\~ ~r~ I I'~f,r J 'h-J~-A ~ f~ I V7J jutf2..q 0 i Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 El Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name/Sianature Address Email Phone <... ,?-o¥'O tt\e S+ IrA ;;LOG't \f~ St Pit- Ju 1 ~ '(, / 5/ j) /J '1l.t I I // 1 W\ fuu'{v\s (')~. \ vA ~ -Zl~Ca WI ~L1VL.? Peti!I.onJ!!. S!!I)]2Qrt. of theJ~T:e~v Co!lege Terrace Centre Project proposed at 218<LE1 Caluino Real \VC., the undersigned residents or the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. \Ve have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F ®, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone C -E: t.-<- 0""(.; f -S'i 3 - s-s-r ~/o,) ~,,--$~5) Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off El Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. ,---~~ ~ ~-~~ I I Na me/Sig natu re Address Email Phone ~ ~I z..,S-';-w/lll"'-M S ~ .. rp~ #I-h) Of GJ'r3ah C£ U~ Gj't{\f(\f\/\. (0'1 Ct ~ l1H1 frv (J AVt'IIAIlL ~ P cvi£! 0) to pPt f/ )/1S7..( ,~0/ ~11 s lfJ ~ \ (r-!A.iJ\A ~ ~~- ~~ .. ,~-~ ~- Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. - Name/Signature Address Email Phone 4ftY~ Zlt// tJl/)qw's Sf 1050 ,',5J, "'31 '-f) -- CIviL-v/,//itV>. f j t I 2/.11{ C ')-J -.. P/~I 0>/ .~. IJ ~ e-J \\\\ (,\l/V'-',.. s~ l -I _-~~ l-ZfoO~~~k- I Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. .I n _-_ om J t~_k:::~~~I.b-p~;~O~(J ~o • 0 _-0_ 1_ .' .00 .• ~d: ~ ~ ~ .. I--·-""'I_~P ~b~;l Q!;O &'SI-f{1 &)0 J;Js8q, 0S0 SJJ ~77f Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre PrQject proposed at 2180 El Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. [--= Name tl Address t ± I fIetJtw.f;J,oJ 3rLfk[ JfBl1Itvch-.O?PL~. (2{tYf..1U. eM. Email Phone U· I c/".e--:l (p 7 ~ t.-, :rO'~oY\ . <kAl~ 7 l .. _ Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name/Si nature Address Email Phone )~~ z., ~'o W IJt V.../(f l..a ~ )~ Cor6-03.0 ,0 .:ti" ,~l ~~~ 903 ~et- C".i-. J . .-.1 c ~~'I ('70 f~a.-~ I ~@~, 10S1l-,+QJ-$~ cit-Q/.f6()S ~I ~~-g9 1 (f? S(/I/Ll1l ct 'a (v 14 (-Iv ~I fi, ! n \ tl V;1/v) UI'JfJt ~/f3 )/)1.(* t1; 'PJ( Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre PrQject proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F <1>, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone 1. ' G 6?J ?>:2J., t; 16"1 r f, 'i"\) '} ~) 37''1;( iit 1'14' ~ L~-#r 'm,/f'fDY3 YClk\-t€s~-forJfci I ... SD-}.).'{ -q ~o 5 Petition in Support of the New Codege Terrace Centre PrQject proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F GJ'b, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking .garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the Copege Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approvaL Name Address Email Phone Sr\l{ -?":r {( ~-13L: s':;:) -1:12 ':J.. ~ 1/-Y-J t.t?' fV\ t1Y: \ lo.VI-e o-8.5Jj -:11 [(7 ~fctA 'tlrJ ~. · Petition' in Support of the NewC(dlege Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2'180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (1&, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Email Phone ~ /'1+ . ~'S"o) ~ (., ,?-2S~~ 'jOV\ fN).( \ ~ d ~oo ' ~ IY\ ~T¥.'\-~'S { }t\t\YiG Orn-n"-t~ '5'0 )''2..a. t-[ -'\. /; s-o-?62r-'2--~ V...--V\ "2-. -J/41Y1 ~i1) 3(6' -~r- Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real \\le. the undersigned resident~ of the City of Palo Alto. urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Ten:ace Cenrre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefit~ it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I). 14 Below Market Rate housing units. office and neighborhood-serving retail space Lo encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood. is oriented close to alternative trallsportation. and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, swface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name/Si nature Addr~ss Email Phone . MJ.,~.5 ~ 113 i t.-ot[ t3 e a.,vf-&:;7-2 cZ0' rUt! 0 klto '"2-&(1 ,,~ Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F G1f>, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone il'-f~A f.}/Ilf,J Y~e- !---~ t.( ~ (Ufes.mu-r ~T ~Ai) QA1eLo..s h S1J I S-tt 'i -() g 7 Y PA---r k"CtRM,1J ( 0 0 l '3o.~oyi\J<-<-M +-tv U I ..flu) 4?S-V9t;,y// & g ~ ~~~U [~,eI"'ilJ f" ( l t ( L{r\ <:;;l)$-----S I 0 I i J e£D1V-~ ,8 S,M-t.~ ~ ;Z 332.. So uJ-U. Co u..d?-T PA UJ A-L.;(1) --r &tdev ~ [VJ,... (l.,1 h __ c2 332 Sf) uU tJuv.J"--P;t.L b A-L. 7V --- ~ V~SE 11 ~UT Sr. 1M GflRLD,s "~(JfSqf-0 ~7tJ " L...-..~ Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I). 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone Y>trTH {kl;ff /S2--5 (. a..it. ttlft CA-1 t/3 v) ",,-lip -CeA..-G s;'¢~32..t-{~)"1- --~ ........ -.-- ,< ~ Petition in Support of the New Lollege Terrace Centre PrQject proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I)~ 14 Below Market Rate housing units~ office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking;garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials~ surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address ::' 'A/~Vi ~;';4I;/' . I'" t. .... ,&:"". " /)('1\ \) , ~ (4fc:16~~ ),vl ,-,' ;ur ! I j I" 71tJd J- Email Phone {::,vcd.es t ~ ~'1) v' c'--~~ , • /ot!r, rJ6 ' (' v r"'\ d . \ I ~ ". /' , ' if\. i (v-,@,,'I';C-(' .J ., Ci'J s,rr.k j ~I (,>,,-' I,l') )·8"6~5'-1 /~I VV il,.I1 'VI ' ,/ ~ f) 1 /M 'L, \ Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre PrQject proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the CQllege Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email t)\~ '4v~ el ,J~ .~)J ·~lr\V\"'~; ~ y~ "I I 6Sl) 7' 'f / :5 5""S" lll{O Petition in Support of the New C,uJege Terrace Centre PrQject proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre projec't at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking ,garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the Co~lege Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features /'IlJ{ including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the f '(l City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address -!P'l.i, s\J7-AN3 <S('JSE"J :,)-\-10 :2-' \ -L ,) Email ~"esr-t~~ "iJlVC'-.)'ii @.... SV\.-{~(. (~ ~ riotl) ~ Q qf}, h~f-- 5pi"eree (~tiJVlfctrtl e Phone ~7r~ ?5",--Vf ';(7S' 2"'1 r 9 ~-q 3 --f+ 3kJ o/t ,.03"z.U Petition in Support of the New Co:uege Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking.garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the Co~ege Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone 73! fJ14?t/d:e fA fw, S t4t is ;/)-g t L d~ (.~ '",,-;170 f ( i-) i~ • ./C [= R. _.~o 31(,,7 v '-/7 .e..c,-\..L 1\-7 () k l\r\K(/~ ~ SO-3'2.0-70 'if VOV'-~~~ fA, P.A. (;;c; 1) ~1l{ ~l3 b~ e ~f\JJtJ.L 6·.n~~3~ LoSl WR.jfe>r ~1-J) p~ ICOSUjcVY\ wo Y13-0i1 73( JOSJtV,tr ftv~. ,6..$.. o/~9'1--9/.:J..S:. :,. 'l d-J... Co-s s \..j 0-'I 6 5'" 2l %~-fa -I ~ \ 9 Z;7( 'C\.... ~ ls1-e s~l<J;),eJu Petition in Support of the New Cb-dege Terrace Centre PrQject proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F e, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking;garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name tJO-f'1 -e .{J-C Address ~Cvto 1\1-ro { ::::, S-r;-(x ~ nwo-v-z:-,1 --s-v-c.. L tifU((v-vC:... 1--2--& ~ f'v~(f.M W\OXOjW~ G,e~ I '1 ~'1-(~~\\ w, I St-a.J)\J~ .Jb '3 ~ ~()/ a ()rtK?-I' ~ ... Y\ Av.e . ;;LG15 N ccSA' -65/-0 I ~ L L. /'f7Hd4r>' ;;J R'. ..57l'7A/F&'&:::> Email Phone f.t,:S (P ') -0 -3 ~{-1-fC, bSV-l( q ~'?S-tp 1<75 --f-/70 :7£/~?5 zc -c (~-210) (Os-O -~J \ -Lfb C fO B '-c{7r~'2 ~ ?J::7 -.aG...z:> Petition in Support of the New C\;'_Aege Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We) the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (iff), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking ,garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the Co~ege Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone I , J 0 CA L1 tf:r<.)..IfA AV f. J, . 4-9"5 f1-51- ;<. 3 10 AMke(S {-fit O~)t/5 If-P4 II ~ 01 V'Ast.€cl ¥ol, :If 102- ;;Llf Ol~ fed RJ. ;VI. (OJ-Gf91 -'-(Od----.3 lX~ 1.1A~)--I I Of S-)y~~f~ 52CJ ~U--I t ~/;~ 'Bu1ft r;Je. ,----- '516) ,}(O-262f{ ~~-i'A.u J~ fJVJ1'oNJ.Lj @ J~vo . ~ Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (1'1), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off El Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone u -, -\" ,J~i . q. -l-r·'oo· '""f«>""' (2,~ol.co-I '.ro 31SCi:?Z./8 ff e N:rl-..~ ~ ttJ... ke;.na,-t{ ,yJje O'\tl{. CdI"l1I '1'JJ -'(fL.} 3)'3-&, /7 q Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approvaL Address Email Phone 'N\0(>e)~ S~S;t Q~~"'-t{[\vyw"d' ~~~Io' Dr mtu1 ... q?,.J Chu;z~ \0 S\· 4'-+ I /'-f SIM..II\.IV\\ ,;",lj. '2 pi Ij_~ ---v v'" v-_ 3 D)' J (7 J cV 54rAttf, v~ : eJtA. ~ :}3<.o (-:;..., \~..., 5' L q'v[ 301 .~ ~)}-, /?5Y~i6" <J!f Petition in Support of the New Codege Terrace Centre PrQ,ject proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F GJI), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking .garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone (\ hl >-\ -tN\, d-j ... ? .L .\. 7 i..{ 1,./ (~CiA'1 (\~ Q Il.\o CR fA') /~ ) p(2)9$ b~dmu tI /-'-7-v.~ ~. +t~0'lA BR ~ tJ-. --;}(cJ( 1Aj, t/(CiVvl's (7.1 ' ~O(,CA' '~&\s\-e\~ f ~S"') G~do ~I S+~~d I kei1 F /"JJ<...1 JrCl 109 /fir t Fp.~//{~J c-+ 4~11~\c;,td. ~-h~ M(;{~ wi 0; .I-t~ VVv' \<' ~ I~ Lv. / fOS'TeA o~ !~~11 6~ 5) 71;1 pc;fL f31vlJ , ~Q-+~~So-e~ 232}\ (A y~ t <- 0 \-..J ?-c 7"5 \j.Jgl t J~ S4. .::) u.<~ '-r~ - i I ~ Petition in Support of the New Codege Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 E1 Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking ,garage off El Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the CoJlege Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Address Email Phone /a~q V$/frt /f? 5iLvtJ-u li( 171 Ift/p ir i( Yf 3 :;)-e.. --,:;-l{Jc:>9 1 Sf 1 Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F <Ii), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking, garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approvaL Name "'~f:! 58 i C/()! yfd V 1.aJ.?{da5 i ) ,"" r:J~ O'Q) Email Phone ,-bj) D :Jr::JfJY7/ ~) .3~7-~ cfu~ t;(;; r'l1-1j1~7 /'Ai-n. C>~ -g'lc.O vt.t1 4 4G tA~~r-J. 'l'T'-71£p1 lVV\\ L-M1)~ ~k U~~S -1 '5-7--1 ~~ 7'5( n ~r/;. M; n ~Ivfl/l @ 't. ~, Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F CIf), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village~style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approvaL Name Address Email Phone E fA. ~vtk('5()1)ro~1 v: SOJ >'lS'rI17e>9 l .. f\\ * L( , 61= I ctl L\ I \ S4. qql\ \) ( tu&1l.(.lt.{..,.~~ (~" Sl ~~ ~~.:r~ 22.7~ lOl.'\d.t~ " I I 9D"8?S-O l~ Avt.... IbS~ -31,'1-QCbLf t ,,~ t:, c:; ~ (4..e,8e.U" 10 (, tYs~1.1c 4~ vt~ I Petition in Support of the New t;ollege Terrace Centre PrQject proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (fJj), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off El Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone #)~W~ ~ e(~ 17r-.JJ~5~ e f{J,..·o--·657; cY17 tY/tJ ( ~ <s-SI 5 I~q rc{ ;11 e~ €11 tt-ll ~ ~ <D(Si-J.~ [-e.," n., e. ,......, D~\)w w \ \ .. u'6. ~ So (.()"-Le ~ ~vG. ~1.1e-s 'A)n,us ~~~~.(J)~ Mn ~~)}J}D A,..,c:nc.. l.es \ 1~ IG>SQ Mo..,r'po5~ AI.Jc-Qr l~ l e6t 14 C!..C!..D"1'n~ ~o-~.'~jQl.~ t.her L; &01-Col"", 2.Oqr '.e SJ... p~ tkJo Ii Sa -G> fl-Dvt ~ ~ t-BullfIJ '( Jtf~ /I;(X, JIve, fj) ~- Jlhc?\v---t ilA ~; (g 0, {}e, fel'"Cow If( (,'or" ~ W~IS (l t~ ~ '1 ff4t1liJl>' :Jo I CAt I Fo~ ,vIA "tv G" 1,;1) ~fes'et,..·€? Y(24op, a:;:a." bStJ 'tS'6'12J'...f Ptl+-R1) be. (13 \1;51 ~~lAtt,~~Q n Dr \ Pale itlto til-QV3tb I I Petition in Support of the New Lvllege Terrace Centre PrQject proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alt01s approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (fj), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking .garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone 129(SI oS~/3Y3 ,2,'/ /~~Jr7'~ / ;z... Kt 4-R.Iv?9r' 'D~ 2:> Zl> . 0 C' 5< - I 6 S fl.,D<-"r",- 1~ V\/~. rpL~u- ~?J(v ~iil0e7 ~. ,vIA. 3U/(,(p 5~ '13/ ~~,~/ ?rA 9 7 5 -99¥! .... / ~ ::At ~5G-~30S Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Proj.ect proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F , 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address 'It. LA OiJ ~ A",.( \ Ull \)0 I CJV'e .) qs(" £\.s~ 1S"'. MC-i+t S· hee~lIt~ IS _~~ lJt,t~v.l Dr!v ~\;Ll("Q l \l ~V~ (." \) d-LQ_>~ LCd~_ ( "{t\I.>\bf'HCr,:. c.. L~vJ I) iSIvD ("''''''\fI,''1, flvt. Email Phone ef <0 '-c) n~ ~ 62-8' t",Gr~j~\'\i(~('" 4)~e 1Q~~0'(l"L--1 ~)c) blL-(·-»)l-\ Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 El Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino ReaL We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approvaL Name Address Email Phone 1'1.C; -.#)<;) No ~ '~,v1 I ~:4Yv(k£dtl/l1i9c, 1~~~;C)c:L Hv-G 1322-27£$ .\f I:: . I ...v;"" 72"- \O-Ju-/ 3G J Petition in Support of the New Colle2e Terrace Centre Projiect , J proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real : We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Altots approval of the proposed New College Terrace Crntre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedl~ support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F , 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage offEI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully w~th the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustafuable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a · living roof. This is a df.1~elopment the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. 'I Name Address :iter 'lib / I '" Ut ,-fpR fJ.. 2 t/ /((:'::)4 / 1- /7 ~ 5.t?/7 Itt?' ;'c) p( c! 6vf/ j t~~u,1 0~ \\QX'<\<:::> \0'3 -; kJsL .~<-/ to ,-./!.,'. ~ /::;Jr/. ~ CUA I'Zfl: {~/.iljVV1\'\ SF Email ---" , Phone ., , I G')O 1,,1 r; 3-l~~) n , " /~1l L / L'Ii" I.·-J vr ,r.~.:> lr 7 7 . .<.... () g Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 El Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly suppor:t it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F GJ), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone .-k~,~ 13;2.6 -~-j-6 , [33 Z E Q r.;/!l /4'i(.o 13 66'~ 8 c;S Z 8t:l ( ~ w I ~5""t,O.3 j &' .Q,t> / ~~ ~ 1-&-~6 ~L2-2.0 1/Y. AJf7 Tl2vYA Se~;c~lVA Afrctt(~1 z~ G'6,"b ~l4 S/'f;O (£1 (,w)~~0f~~!IT t:; Gil /-IM1At://<: (/I \6>0 7577 ?-O 7'(/? \ 1C.()~t') Petition in Support of the !few College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 El Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (Ij), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name ~ 314/ {~fvlt«/~ (j ~e Ei [;t:J£;frrI Email Phone -SF )1GJ)Qdrthl~d-f52to 'r I C ~~, iJ pP M C-. ct?(1 ~\ S~CoDi ( "3. 10 SA.d 1. t.e. (2 Ac ~J4N }vsel IE Bl1rJ¢4 Vv Ao L fU-Lf I 1\ ~~. ( . IS'S [..::.d?' q 1"_t-./() 6 ci I jy . II tdd C/q-l! J C; r- Cf~7 $'o£LAv£ F(E~ , err( If~ f'Pr I t tv fr I. 7 (cJ (;; /i:il!1/J J){JYV'- It IZ -7 )1!~ IYl £../'13 -6ALf-3 t:-/o 11 ~'8"6-lftSCJ G:,<;" (;, ,ak6 9Ctsf .?fC(::;' . ~ 2:-:;3 (GS-;IJ 3fl(-#'oz·/O 3)1c2S·~ t Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F Gj), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approvaL Phone 1 VJc J' /Y V" ff I }-?!8 w ,~ (( (-t1M;0 ,1r 3/1 {/ {JC 'II/~/ .:;".rT-~~lo -A-1ID f\lTN· fl/ t0tf.,,~k;a O~"'JI I I ' -------l--I.tLteJ W\\ \ \(,"')15 ~oJo ~ ~ I~Uli tc~ Lcv--"<,v<' S'Y\Q d, i[,tJ. OeM~ I ~ "f{() Wi \ \ IIw\J rc;,\ 0 iA ( -tv r "'-~ U ~ i vi. ""c SVV'&! 1 LcwlW PUII\~ +!lfA Vo \ :i111 3 LJ//iiCif/l3 PJ; If!:to kmJu'vJG hotmot't co. Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off El Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name/Sianature Address Email (sf.) 0 I (Yj s k d ~d Apt-l \J 31 c h €.,.r bQ.ft-@s TO".)'"\ ~t){o\ edu ' ;M) ') r Y lX1./fJ (--; ~\)~C) iole Sf 1~iY\j-~';) I a \ 3 b W { \ 'j i IilmS s.l-, J. ~o s@ U);//!.~ [-r ~ 1:J<"ff} J t (I S /: 1COCT'DtJ \q \ (? \{i4({oll ,I))w- QWY tvw'\ ~d)J~(\ ~ VV\S\i\ rflO-(-\In t? . f<e \t c~c"-0 CJMo...l l. C6)'rl Phone 40t -"t-:r ( -~'i..4-8 (pbD 30:)-- u5c;Cj tP 5()- 8 SC:, (/-3 ~-D ONGOING COMMUNITY OUTREACH In the City of Palo Alto, proactive community outreach and information sharing is of paramount importance in the land-use decision-making process. Our team understands this and has undertaken an intensive effort to share our vision for the College Terrace Centre with as many local residents and businesses as possible. Through a series of community meetings, neighborhood and business information walks, and petition and letter gathering activities, we have secured a substantial level of tangible local support for our project. We are proud that the vast majority of people we contacted responded favorably to the proposal. The contents of this binder represent the culmination of our outreach work. In just one month, we have secured support for the College Terrace Centre Proposal from 530 area residents and businesses!! Supportive petition signatures from local residents -454 Letters of support from individual local residents -13 Letters of support from Palo Alto businesses close to project site -30 Letters of support from people who are patrons of Palo Alto businesses -33 Recent Outreach Meetings: College Terrace Residents Association Annual Meeting Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association Chamber of Commerce GAC (2) Palo Alto Housing Corporation PREVIOUS COMMUNITY OUTREACH Public Neighborhood Meetings for the Project: 5/10/2005 -At Project Site 10/18/2007 -Scott's Seafood 4/05/2008 -Ananda Church 9/17/2008 -CTRA Meeting Community Outreach Meetings: 5/11/2004 6/08/2004 7/07/2004 10/25/2004 Neighborhood Mailing: In the summer of 2008, the project team sent out a mailing to neighbors. The purpose of this effort was simply to gauge local support and understand concerns. While not a technical survey, a significant majority --in excess of 75% --expressed support for the project as submitted in the previous Planning and Transportation Commission preliminary review. PAHC Housing Services, LLC 725 Alma Street· Palo Alto, CA 94301 • (650) 321-9709 • fax (650) 321-4341 April 20, 2009 Planning and Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: College Terrace Centre Project Letter of Recommendation Dear Honorable Commission Members: Received APR' 0 2009 Department 01 Planning· & Community Environment The Palo Alto Housing Corporation, through its affiliate, P ABC Housing Services, LLC, hereby submits this letter of recommendation in support of the proposed planned community, College Terrace Centre, located at 2100 EI Camino Real. This project is being proposed by Carrasco and Associates on behalf of the Clara Chilcote Trust. College Terrace proposes 14 Below Market Rate (BMR) one-bedroom rentals of approximately 600 square feet. These spaciously-designed two-story lofts are unique to the BMR Rental Program in that there are no other one-bedroom units with similar design in the current housing inventory, and therefore, will be highly desirable to applicants. Additionally, the amenities, including but not limited to, an individual yard, reserved parking, retail and office spaces, and an omite neighborhood grocery store make the project ideal for any single person or working professional. There is a current and constant demand for affordable housing in Palo Alto as evidenced by the lengthy BMR rental waiting lists maintained by the property managers. This project will provide some much needed affordable housing to the community. We are most pleased to lend our support to the College Terrace Centre project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, P ABC HOUSING SERVICES, LLC. An Affiliate of Palo Alto Housing Corporation o='~~ Jaejean~ 0- BMR fIousing Administrator ~nzalez Executive Director Susan Rosenberg ________________ 1425 Stanford Ave. April 23, 2009 To: Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Re: 2180 EI Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 Spawned by the Trees for EI Camino Project, and with a grant from Cal trans, the City of Palo Alto developed the EI Camino Real Design Master Plan in 2003. The plan was the result of the inconsistencies that exist with having a California State Highway running smack dab through the middle of Palo Alto. The project before you effects an entire block on EI Camino Real, the adjacent College Terrace neighborhood, Evergreen Park neighborhood, and an expanding Escondido Village, and therefore the goals reached in the El Camino Real Design Master Plan should have bearing on your decision regarding this project. Briefly, the vision for EI Camino Real that was developed during this process of public participation is: -To change the character from a highway to a road safe for walkers. bicyclists and vehicles -To become a center of community activity rather than a barrier -To become an aesthetically attractive corridor -To improve the quality of life along EI Camino Real while protecting adjacent neighborhoods The vision becomes reality with this project in some of the following ways: -A comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program would enhance safety over what exists -The return of JJ&F market and additional neighborhood serving retail coupled with the comprehensive safety program would draw consumers -A well designed project would replace buildings that are architectural "tired" and seismically unsound -The location of housing along Staunton provides a "step" into the neighborhood I believe this project would greatly assist in bringing the vision of a better EI Camino Real to reality, and would benefit my neighborhood and my community as a whole. It is truly a forward- looking project for Palo Alto. Given my interest that the Trees for EI Camino Project continue to flourish, I would have the developer replace the median trees adjacent to 2180 EI Camino Real consistent with the Trees for EI Camino Project as a condition of approval. Sincerely Susan Rosenberg Cc: Curtis Williams, Russ Reich College Terrace Residents' Association STATEMENT FROM THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION The Board of the College Terrace Residents' Association (CTRA) adopted the following statement regarding the proposed College Terrace Centre at 2180 El Camino Real on April 22, 2009. This statement is informed bya CfRA Task Force that has carefully studied the proposed design; debated its merits, and conducted a neighborhood survey to find where alignment exists and does not exist. The detailed survey and its results have been submitted to the Commission. This statement is made in terms of neighborhood preferences and values, and not in terms of planning metrics, zoning options, or statistics. We believe the Planning and Transportation Commission is in a better position to translate these preferences into a structured framework for moving forward. We would support • A center that will anchor the neighborhood, mirror the neighborhood, and serve the neighborhood. • An enforceable requirement that the center include an honest-to-goodness grocery store, not a convenience store, with sufficient conditions to be economically viable. • Giving JJ&F first priority in grocery store lease arrangements and every encouragement to return to neighborhood service after construction is completed, because of the Garcia family's roots, ties, and loyalties to the neighborhood. • . InCluding a strong, verifiable transportation demand management program as part of any proposed reduction in on-site parking requirements, to prevent spillover parking problems. • Ingress/Egress to underground parking from EI Camino Real to help minimize traffic cutting through the neighborhood. • Retail space and office space designed to attract a diversity of businesses, stores, and restaurants geared to serving the neighborhood .. • A beautiful, walkable, bikeable magnet for communitY interaction. We are neutral about • The BMR units. • The prior offer of space for a community room. We would not support • The transformation of a neighborhood center into a regional business district. • The preponderance of office space to the diminishment of other possible uses. • The level of traffic and parking turnover associated with medical offices. IN CONCLUSION, we ask you to ensure that any development at the 2180 EI Camino Real location will anchor the neighborhood, mirror the neighborhood, and serve the neighborhood of College Terrace. 2 Dick & Karen Dami.an i' ,';. ,_',;" ~ _. ,.' r. '\ .' If: ... , 870 College' Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 April 3, 2009 Palo Alto City Council Members Members, Planning & Transportation Commission 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 ATTACHMENT G APR 06 l009 Department of Planning & Community Environment Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning & Transportation Commissioners, As folks who have been homeowners in College Terrace and shoppers o't JJ& F for 23 years, we are writing to support the College Terrace Centre plans. It has been, as you know, a long and involved process to get to this point. We are pleased with this proposal and hope that you will pass the project at the formal approval hearing on April 29, 2009. Thank you all for the hard work you have done to create a solution that works for everyone involved. We are particularly pleased to read about the affordable housing units as well as the plans for our beloved neighborhood market. 2!~ Richard (Dick) Damian Karen S. Damian From: Magic Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2 PM To: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: Reich, Russ Subject: JJ&F Block Project 1 October 2008 Dear Planning and Transportation Commissioners, I'm writing about the project proposed for the block currently occupied by JJ&F market. As someone who for three decades has lived nearby, been a JJ&F patron, and been active in the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association, I've followed this project closely since I first learned of it several years ago. I'm heartened both by the changes you requested when the project was previously before you and by the proponents' response to your guidance. The addition of BMR housing in a location so near transit and services is a substantial improvement. So are the interruption of the buildings facing College and El Camino to create a less monolithic and massive structure, and the reduction in non-residential built area. I'm pleased that the developer has agreed to maintain a market on the site and has made a firm commitment to the owners of JJ&F that they can, if they choose, operate that market. I think the proposed relocation of the market to El Camino frontage will draw patrons from a larger area and that the wide sidewalk will create opportunity to extend the market into the open air and make it more attractive. Having reviewed the circulation and traffic impact assessments of the proposed project, as well as its "green" features (e.g., extensive photovoltaic arrays, north-facing clerestory daylighting, cisterns to capture storm water, reduced auto parking, secure bike parking) I think that it sets many positive examples for subsequent building along the El Camino corridor. I hope that you will agree. Thank you for considering these views. David Schrom From: Paula Sandas <paula_sandas@yahoo.com> To: planning.commission@dtyofpaloalto.org Sent: TuesdaYI April 281 2009 4:34:08 PM Subject: College Terrace Center Dear Chair Garber and Commissioners - I am writing to express my appreciation for the work done by the developers of the College Terrace Center and some residents of College Terrace on the College Terrace Center. Since the project was first introduced, there has been a lot of forward movement to make the project work for the neighborhood. There are elements of the project that are worth consideration in rezoning the block from CN to PC. 1. The valuable retention of JJ&F Market at a size that is both potentially profitable for JJ&F and can fully serve College Terrace and the growing Stanford residential community. While I was a member of the P&TC, the retention of local, independent business was a significant factor in considering development projects. Not only will JJ&F Market open in a more visible location from the one it's in now, the family represented by the developer and JJ&F's Garcia family have worked cooperatively to create the best set of circumstances under which JJ&F can be redeveloped and hope to re-open as a profitable market. 2. The placement of the ingress/egress to College Terrace Center on EI Camino instead of inside the College Terrace neighborhood is a key improvement. Avoiding spillover parking into College Terrace residential streets is a welcome relief for the neighborhood. 3. The consideration given by the developer for low-income, single bedroom apartments that should not impact the school system shows sensitivity to a broader set of issues faced by the community. The apartments are placed on the block facing existing residential across Staunton Court, "stitching the seam" of residential to residential. 4. Finally, the family that owns the land on which the College Terrace Center is to be built demonstrates their long-term commitment to the legacy of a neighborhood grocery store, and the character of College Terrace while developing a project that will stand as a legacy for the next hundred years. Thank you for your consideration - Paula Sandas Paulo Sondos poulo_sondas@yahoo.com From: LONERGAN <scobbin@sbcglobal.net> To: planning.commission@cityofpaloafto.org; board@ctra.org; input@2180ecrtaskforce.org Cc: letters@baydailypost.com; john@jjandf.com Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2009 12:00:01 PM Subject: 2180 EI Camino Real -Missed Opportunity Missed Opportunity To Keep Local Grocery Store &. Improve EI Camino Real The Palo Alto Planning Commission met on May 30th and voted to no longer consider a zoning change being requested as part of a project to rebuild the site of the JJ&F market. This was a missed opportunity to have possibly kept the JJ&F market in business and to have improved this tired section of EI Camino Real. One objection to the proposed project is that it has too much office space. I live in College Terrace, am not generally in favor of growth, but this issue of too much office space is a red herring. An important feature of the current zoning is that it requires retail space on the ground floor. The proposed project also includes retail on the ground floor plus a spot for the JJ&F grocery store. And yes, to go along with that it has more office space than the current zoning allows. Office space is bad for the neighborhood? Wait a minute, all along the California Avenue side of College Terrace we have many thousands of square feet of office space. I often work out of my home in College Terrace and walk to a California Avenue restaurant for lunch. I do this with many office workers who also walk to these same restaurants. Without these office workers, how can we have a vibrant retail area? The College Terrace residents eat like everyone else, but we can't support the retail space on our own. Offices also have the benefit of being largely empty on weekends and evenings so that us locals can have a quiet neighborhood when we are most at home to enjoy it. Have you walked to California Avenue for lunch mid-week or to the Sunday farmer's market? It's a great scene. Yes, office space brings traffic, but it brings in needed foot traffic too. I'm not suggesting a carte blanch zoning change for the entire area, but some flexibility on this particular project when a neighborhood grocery store is in balance is worth it. This is a great opportunity for JJ&F and improves EI Camino Real. This section of EI Camino Real is close to Stanford housing and the wonderful College Terrace neighborhood. It has great potential, but today, much of this section of EI Camino is run-down and not well integrated with California Avenue retail. Not only does the proposed project improve this section of EI Camino Real, but provides a great opportunity to JJ&F. JJ&F is, I have been told, struggling to stay afloat financially with declining sales. It is a small friendly neighborhood-oriented grocery store, in an inefficient space, that is largely hidden from EI Camino Real. As a result, their business is much less than it could be. The proposed redevelopment project provides a grocery store with a slightly larger space than the current JJ&F store, and moves it to a more visible location on EI Camino Real. It also provides the grocery store with 'subsidized' rent by incorporating office space as part of the overall prOject. This looks to be the best chance for JJ&F. There are no guarantees that JJ&F or any other grocery store can make it in this location financially, but at least this redevelopment tips the scales in their favor. The alternatives don't. Either (1) there is no near-term redevelopment and JJ&F sales continue to decline to the point where they have to close their doors after 60 years or (2) the owners rebuild the block consistent with the current zoning that most certainly will not include a low-revenue neighborhood grocery store. The proposed project has insufficient space for a neighborhood grocery store? The Garcia's don't think so and they are the ones running the business -so I would trust their judgment more than the Planning Commission. Also, I thought we were aiming to keep a neighborhood grocery store? Another large grocery store like Mollie Stones is not needed in the area so I believe the point about there not being enough space for the grocery store is misguided. So congratulations to the Planning Commission and others that have opposed the zoning change. You have just shot down the best chance we have to keep JJ&F, a true neighborhood grocery store, as well as improve this section of EI Camino Real with what looks to be a quality project brought to us by long-term owners with long-term interests. Maybe JJ&F will now close its doors due to the delays and lack of opportunity that a new store would provide. Who would fill the space then? Maybe the property will be sold to a short-term profit-oriented developer and give us another drive through fast-food restaurant -surely that would fit the current zoning ... To the Planning Commission and others opposing this project for the benefit of the neighborhood and the city -please reconsider your thinking and decision. Scott Lonergan 2090 Cornell St. From: LONERGAN [mailto:scobbin@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 6:11 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: 2180 EI Camino Project Hello, I've been living in College Terrace for 10 years and wanted to pass along my views on the 2180 EI Camino Real project currently under discussion: Overall, I am in favor of the project as it is being proposed. The critical elements for retaining my support of this project are that it retains these features: > The car access be from of EI Camino (not through the neighborhood streets). > The bottom floor of the project be neighborhood retail in perpetuity. If either of the above critical elements were removed I would withdraw my support. It would seem that the primary disagreement that many have expressed with the project is that it allows a zoning change to include 'regional offices'. I don't see a problem with this as there are many regional offices (e.g. Stanford Ave) in the area and they add vitality to the local businesses and possibly even a job or two to locals. EI Camino Real suffers from poor decisions in the past -look at the state of many of the businesses in the area! This project is being proposed by a long-term owner/trustees that I believe they will improve the area with a quality project with long-term goals (not just a spec builder looking to make short-term gains). Best Regards, Scott Lonergan 2090 Cornell St. Anna. Pankhauser Brnest Regua 567 Oxford Ave. Palo Alto, Ca.., 94306 Palo Alto City Councll Members . Members, Planning &: Tnmspo~on Commission 250 Hatnilwn Avenue Palo Alto, Ca., 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council and. Planning &, Transportation Commissioners, As residints in the College Terrace neighborhood and JJ It P Store, we are wri.tJns to support the CoU. Terrage Center plaas. We are p1eese<t to see that the new facilities for the JJ &. P Store will brina. our ueigbborhtod and the City ofPato Alto a larger assorI.Trient of non-cha.1n deli specialties. ftesh local. products and a variet;y· of food. We Qherish this family owned businesst S$ they have always supported our oommunity. They have been a valued member of the businesses on California Ave. The store is loved by families, students, louatlme iesldents. schools, businesses and office$. We ate also pleased. to see the 14 One-bedroolll housing1mits rented at affordable xates, which wi)] be an enric1unent to OUt' nei&hborhood. The green-village ~le development design with living roof and LIlED certification is sa Unl'ottant step in the direction of sreen building. The new office space'Mll provIde the surrounding neighborhoods with new customers, which we all welcome during these challenging economic times. Thank you for aU your efforts to briua an improved. value to OUt neighbothood and cammuni~. We hope yOli witJ pas, the project at the fonnal.pproval ~g on Wednesday, April 29, 2009. From: Jfmcd@aol.com [mailto:Jfmcd@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:19 PM To: TOHV, LLC Subject: Re: JJ&F Market I College Terrace Centre -WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!! we, our family that is, has shopped at JJ&F for about 30 years, and think of them as one of the great community resources in Palo Alto. It is a marvelous grocery store, but beyond that, they are folks who care. We would feel lost without them, and we are in support of the effort to keep them there when a new building goes up. Jeanne McDonnell and Eugene McDonnell ************** Check all of your email inboxes from anywhere on the web. Try the new Email T oolbar now! (http://toolbar.aol.com/mail/download.html?ncid=txtlnkusdown00000027) From: Larry Kavinoky (mailto:lkavinoky0{stanfordalumnLorg] Sent: Sunday, April 26,20099:16 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: 2180 EI Camino (aka 11 &F Centre) I believe the major community benefit of this project is a viable grocery store. To that end I would like you to approve the zoning change to PC with enforceable provisions that the size, rent and other terms be specified by you and your staff, not the current landlord and tenant. I am sure that in the last 10 years with Alma Plaza your staff knows what the industry needs for a viable grocery store in perpetuity. Perhaps the size for a neighborhood store is 5-10-15 thousand square feet. Perhaps the rent is 25-50- 75% of "average retail" or some other benchmark. Perhaps the developer should be required to provide a "turn key" project meaning that all the grocery store furnishings and fixtures are provided in the rent. Perhaps in the future the rents or terms will have to be adjusted to keep a grocery store viable. If JJ&F or another local grocery store is willing to pay the requested rent, then it is viable. If not, then something has to be adjusted to work in a changed environment. We all love JJ&F so please remember that when we speak of JJ&F you will hear in your official planning capacity "grocery store". My family has been associated with the 11&F folks since before they/we moved to Palo Alto. It should be of no concern to any of us what the current landlord and tenant have agreed to for now and in the future when you establish the exact definition of "viable grocery store" for this project. Also remember that when you see the public's support for this project, much of it really means they are supporting 11&F and not the specifics of the rest of the project. Please move this project along and don't make us wait another 10 years for a newer and better grocery store. In my mind there is no "subsidy" here. The term just obscures the economics of the project. The developer has costs to meet LEEDS standards, earthquake standards, parking standards, grocery requirements, etc. They then will collect rents from the grocery store, retail, office, and other tenants. If your restrictions are too severe, the project will not move forward. Please work with the developer to allow him enough rent, including the grocery store, to make this project viable for the owners. Perhaps your staff has some idea of how much income it will take to recover the anticipated costs. If that means exceeding your normal limits on "office space" or other metrics, please weigh that against the community benefit of the viable, walkable, neighborhood grocery store. Remember also that Stanford is adding many new housing units within a quarter mile of this project. I live directly across the street from this proposed project and I urge you to take the necessary action to be sure we have a viable grocery store. I do not believe it is in the community's best interest to drag this out as has been done with the Alma Plaza development or Ricky's. I believe that approving changes in zoning, etc in order to get the tremendous community benefit of a grocery store that would otherwise be forced to close is a great message to send to the citizens and developers of this city. "The city is prepared to adjust its normal metrics when necessary for a particular site and benefit." Please pass this project along to the next step. Larry Kavinoky 550 Oxford Ave, #4 from: Ann Hayashi [mailto:ann_hayashi@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29,20099:54 AM To: TOHV, LLC Cc: russ.reich@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: RE: JJ&F Market I College Terrace Centre -WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!! As a long time patron of JJ&F, I wholeheartedly support the JJ&F Market/College Terrace Centre. In this time of faceless owners of big box stores, the family and community feel of JJ&F is what brings me back to the market. The Garcia family has been an asset to the College Terrace area and this new project promises to better serve the residents of the area and those of us who travel from nearby to support them. Ann Hayashi ---On MOD, 4/27/09, TORV, LLC <info@210011c.com>wrote: From: TOHV, LLC <info@210011c.com> Subject: RE: JJ&F Market / College Terrace Centre -WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!! To: "ann _ hayashi@yahoo.comll <ann _ hayashi@yahoo.com> Date: Monday, April 27, 2009, 11 :56 AM Good Afternoon, There are two options for providing your support: 1. You may reply directly to this message and we will forward it on your behalf to City Staff 2. You may send your message directly to Planninq.Commission@CitvofPaloAlto.org; we would ask that you also 'cc' Russ Reich russ.reich@cityofpaloalto.org who is the staff member directly involved with this project If you have any additional questions please do not heSitate to contact us. Your efforts are greatly appreciated! from: Ann Hayashi [ann_hayashi@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 11:44 AM To: TOHV, LLC Subject: Re: JJ&F Market I College Terrace Centre -WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!! rm unable to attend the meeting but would love to send a support emaiL Could you send me the link? Thanks, Ann From: Karlette Warner [mailto:karlette46@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 8:04 PM To: Planning Commission Cc: CTRA Board; input@2180ecrtaskforce.org Subject: Comments for April 29, 2009, meeting regarding 2180 EI Camino Real (College Terrace Centre project) To the City of Palo Alto Planning Commission: I am unable to attend the April 29 meeting and am therefore sending my comments on the subject project via email. I am a 30-year resident of College Terrace. One of the primary attractions of living in this neighborhood is its proximity to shopping, transportation, and other services. Like many of my neighbors, I appreciate being able to walk to my local grocery store. I shop almost daily at JJ&F and never have to use my car! I strongly support the retention of a grocery store (preferably JJ&F) in the neighborhood. While I am not enthusiastic about additional office space and BMR housing in the proposed project, I nevertheless would support the project, if only to guarantee a grocery store at or near its current location. Thank you for your consideration. Karlette Warner 981 College Avenue Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ&F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F costumers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic time~. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: ~~~~~~~--~---------------------------------- Signature: , Business an' Add {-:'J!~, P h::a::) 54 r< 520 Co Ik"ie A0::. V ~ri: 7 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: };> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent };> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates };> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F };> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block };> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue };> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification };> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F costumers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic time~. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: L--l::) A Q. \A \ 0 \LS L-L.. 0 Signature: L ./(\A_~~o Business and Address: QLA vLC)CJ.[C1e..AA.. a~\S LA to-(\t\..~A.O~ fa.Qo~-\z . Q~ Phone number and email: (lp2D".)3.l1.9 ~~lo--::t ~ Cit{ tole Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and· operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: };> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent };> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates };> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F };> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block };> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue };> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification };> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F costumers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that. the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: bte.1AA ~ ,J \ ( Signature: ~1\,C'>."""7 .. Business and Address: ~buclrz b CO©..e ..... Phone number and email: (p 5:b -D:;YV -<6 [ 'd::-~ e2Dco [~L ~l> SWVI0 t1\vQ)~, Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: » JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent » 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates » Office space that will fund the new 11 &F » New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block » Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue » Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification » Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ &F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: ~Jc q"'D.>cClD. ~ Signature: .!~ Business and Address: {cr & S <it c t.l';,A4,s)V\Jl) )t ~ Phone number and email: ---I-r.t;~sn~-1t...s..L.J.,~c:t.1------<%FL.9---l-*-C)+Oy------- Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );> Office space that will fund the new 11 &F );> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );> Green village~style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ &F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuabl~ new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: -4~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~------------------- Signature: ---------------,1---7'--1--1-.------------------------- Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: » JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent » 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates » Office space that will fund the new JJ&F » New neighborhood serving retail to en1iven the block » Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue » Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification » Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: £~ GZo.-.. B -edz ~V' Signature: _--lI~_Ctt.:::...:::....~~_"-~=--'" ~ __ ~~~==-----=-_~ ______ _ Business and Address: Ca fY\ VY\ () Y\. 6«) ~ Phone number and email: ~e0S~L!~ rz:~~ (~~~ CP JQ) M~ CA--9l{ 3 ()£ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ &F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: --~~~~~~--~~----~----~T-------------------- Signature: ------I-~...(.£.~::;z:.--1::.-~--..!<:...;'_"'=__=_l£...ji::....::...=__l______.,f__----------- Business and Address: __ ~~UL~~~~~L-_~ __ ~~ _______________ _ Phone number and email: ----~---~------~--~~------------------ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: }o> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent }o> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates }o> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F }o> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block }o> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue }o> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification }o> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ &F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Signature: _~ ___ ....::....,_,.,t.llid~I.4(&nt~=-__ ==-____ ----I..'3+.1.;z...:J..t...II-c~Lt>-10-,-q.f---- Business and Address: _-t.SL.ljL01..J...l.f>\."t.:.JFO:tI-·~'{),),.,.ID~-1<~~E ...... :fJ"-!..\.LlJ--LI':f....L----,-"<!U-l1r.....,lJ:=l...OL..l.tJ-=---__ _ Phone number and email: \ rI n> <6:£ g --~(~&~5D~i~3~2~~~~~~~~~--~------------ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );;> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );;> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );;> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F );;> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );;> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );;> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );;> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importarltly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F costumers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic time~. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Business and Address: _c<.~1._5_I5_Et_t._&_yr;-,-,-I,,-P-,,-tJ_~-,--,-,f1;,--i ___ KiJ._W_:6:_-r_I%---=--~_ Phone number and email: ~50 3;?6 -IOil --~---------------------------------------- Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and imprOVed consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ&F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. PrintedName@foJ)A~ Signature: & a Business and Address: ~lq; r;-( C({ VY\ \' (\() Phone number and email: ra r;;cJ ~ 11-)-tt ~W Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 E1 Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );;> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );;> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );;> Office space that will fund the new JJ &F );;> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );;> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );;> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );;> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Signature: fA) F-&t -- Business and Address: 2.3. 0 S ~ E I CO'.'.';(\(1 15,C!\ l [W~ ') Phone numberand email(fa £ 0) 130 -II 'i ~ ti [ l r. K: It: @. WoM.oa>· CO "'" Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: » JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent » 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates » Office space that will fund the new JJ&F » New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block » Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue » Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification » Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F costumers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic time~. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Phone number and email: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );;> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );;> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );;> Office space that will fund the new JJ &F );;> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );;> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );;> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );;> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from 11 &F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: __ ~'""'"-""~_=-_/_~ t{j;u;t-___ -={)~_r_tJ__/_~'· __________ _ Signature: d :::=::> 1z1.. ~ ':5 6 rtJo «-13 A-i3 f}Js 'Ilts -Ctii/jy,/ q J/-;!e· Business and Address: Phone number and email: bSD--3CJ.FI-O-TOO ) Z-'-'1..sbb @~rna~ h (j)1V\ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ? JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ? 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ? Office space that will fund the new 11 &F ? New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ? Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ? Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ? Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to corne. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new horne occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Signature: ____ -'\::5~~=--..;::=~ __ \.___'/___' ______________ _ Business and Address: Cef'( A17l eg \(..A Phone number and email: &>50· 5"6 b ·034-4 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: };;> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent };;> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates };;> Office space that will fund the new JJ &F };;> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block };;> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue };;> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification };;> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. printedName:~ lli<:~<- Signature: -----zv--~~jI2:-~------------------------­ Business and Address: a \ j ~?.('.d::) ~~~,~~~~~~--------------- Phone number and email: GE () --W c:---G [ (l Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F );> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will aHow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from J J &F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. ~ /_ ~' A~" Printed Name: ~ ~ / (i '/ --~~--~~~-o~~~----~~--~--~~~~--------- Signature: /!?d wJ Ii i2-;U (' 11' IrrJ ( rp Business and Address: :r-LfJ..)' 6v J'?!b 5~ 'r> P""t \).v'~(t~ Phone number and email: _--",,6_· :.wdL-:-.'11L-----!.../ ..... i'-'l--q~· _#---__________ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );> Office space that will fund the new 11&F );> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow 11&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from 11 &F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: \J '~CAo', ){. A t~« (e-L Signature: ~ Business and Address: __ lr{--'--=O:....::::S~~C=U~ll_-h~O_._, '1.~~_~ __ ~G:;...V=-L-==-___ C{_'-{_~_O b Phone number and email: --------------------------------------------- Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: » 11 &F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent » 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates » Office space that will fund the new 11&F » New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block » Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue » Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification » Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow 11&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy_ In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~--------------------------- Signature: ~-==7Lf---H----Al..--w."-f->4:'£------------------------ Phone number and email: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: » JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent » 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates » Office space that will fund the new JJ &F » New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block » Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue » Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification » Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: -I-\::!P~~!s;2,rA--\-4¥~~~~------------- Signature: -~v-----=:::=-....,;z...-'::::='~'-\--lt...£...._--------'----------- 2~ C~ Y:>'rc<::.e'<\ S;-t Phone number and email: ((Q()6) 12"22.\ B t Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ):> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ):> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ):> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F ):> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ):> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ):> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ):> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to corne. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Signature: ------>-.!-''---''i='----'~:::::=>-...f-~---------------- Business and Address: _-L==~~~~~_~~~_~~ ___ ~~~ __ _ ~~oo~~~~:~_~~~_~~ ______ ~_._-_n __ V_u_a_~,~ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ &F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: T ''!'C~L/, ~ c ) Signature: ---~...,L,H-f~~r--~------.I/-H-'/_-~---L ____________ --:-__ Business and Address: <£0 ri {wll; [:;to N { /Iv zJt ell fftJ/rJl CJ 1-t Phone number and email: ------------------------ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ&F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Business and Address: Phone number and email: (Q9)-3"2-2-2)0:1 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new 11 &F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to corne. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the offiCe users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: \/'VJ'CENT ~~~ Signature: ----I-,--f1=-±-...D>----1< ~rJ----===~---.-------V Business and Address: M 0(1 \Lt \(4JJ6--1I-R 0-0 Phone number and email: 6S".tP1l1;:. ?.. s-iz.s:- Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F );> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block » Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family busin.ess would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F costumers, the office users and new home occupants ofthe College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for . our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic time$. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: • ----, fI Signature: ~ ~ -Q~:~ .. ..,-" --:'I <:--L f . () /} i rn (1.-eft Business and Address:, . d-·:a;o-v 'C \ Lh VI .. 'l \. v ... o IYvt-L r c.J.d L..t W Phone number and email: (950 -«l :l:-;t JO 0 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F );> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F costumers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Signature: __________ ~.:..l...~----------------- Business and Address: ___ 0sS>=-·_~L_l_~...:...{ S-+I---=-/rJJ_' _5_E_L_C_A_f/l_IM_O...:.../J=~...:...L=--_ C', 6\J\V~ C;:£> LL~ ~, ~' Phone number and email: ...:::::>....,) L--.J ----~------------~r------ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ 11&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new 11 &F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow 11&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from 11&F costumers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: ~, ect\(. Wv Signature: ~ Business and Address: Wv DA..n{oOQtJ'flC'$, 13 ~5 ~L. CAMlt\lo fU:;f}L fAlA1 A£:ilJ CI-\ '1 +Jut I Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ&F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F costumers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic time~. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Signature: __ ~ __ ~:::~=====~=::::.Z:::..::::==-___________ _ Business and Address: ReJ{boy UOvi"':f:» Phone number and email: m ) ::;. ~ c) -lyO / Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F );> New neighborhood serving retail to t?nIiven the block );> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F costumers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic time$. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Signature: _-I-f_~_· _~_--=--~ __ ~. ~ ____________ _ Phone number and email: ~~'O -'?1,....~ /~ 3. S? ,g Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: )P> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent )P> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates )P> Office space that will fund the new JJ &F )p> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block )p> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue )p> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification )p> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Business and Address: ~~-fo 1M C I Phone number and email: C('2r Ave") /?£ ~-6 S-'t<-Jt'hzj (i! le~~-6. (~ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new J J &F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Nameo ~ ~~_=~~I Signarure:)J2 ~ Business and Address: ~L 1 d yt-~ OfF / fIJI U. 9Lf;J0'2 7 7 Phone number and email: <f ~o -~~ I-~ / ~. , ( College Terrace Centre Received JUl ' 8 2009 July 13, 2009 & Dcepartm~ntofPlann;ng ommun.tyE . nVlronment By Twenty-One Hundred Ventures, LLC. COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE July 8,2009 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council c/o City Clerk 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301-2593 Re: College Terrace Centre Project, 2180 EI Camino Real--Initiation of (1) a Zone Change from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) to Planned Community (PC) District and (2) a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to assign the Mixed Use land use designation to the project site which is currently designated Neighborhood Commercial Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: We would like to begin by thanking your for the opportunity to present the College Terrace Centre project on the evening of Monday, July 13th • Given the significant detail and extensive history associated with this project we are providing this brief overview to facilitate productive dialogue as well as summarize our activities to date. We thank you in advance for your consideration and the opportunity to discuss our project. History of the Site The College Terrace Centre project site consists of an entire City block fronting EI Camino Real and bounded by College Ave. staunton ct., and Oxford Ave. The current owner, the Clara Chilcote Family Trust (liThe Family Trust"), has owned the site for over 80 years and has a more than 60 year working relationship with the Garcia Family, the owners of the beloved JJ&F Market which remains a retail anchor tenant on the block and is a past recipient of the City's Tall Tree Award. Based on this long and mutually beneficial relationship, approximately five years ago the Family Trust and JJ&F entered into discussions on how to: 1) improve the viability and func"tional workings of the grocery store, 2) provide increased sales area for the grocery store, 3) increase the visibility of the grocery store on EI Camino Real, and 4) provide a long term, affordable lease opportunity to JJ&F for its continued operation. Through a series of study sessions with JJ&F, City Staff and community members, our architect, Tony Carrasco, drafted designs to improve this block with the goal of meeting the expressed desires of all the various stake holders. In November 2005 we proposed that a total of 66,946 SF of new improvements be cons"tructed --in addition to retaining 6,459 SF of the current grocery store. The resulting project was proposed at a total 73,405 SF. However, it soon became obvious that retaining the existing JJ&F building was infeasible due to seismic retrofit requirements, other code requirements, ano renovation costs. Current Proposal After several more meetings with stakeholders and following additional plan revisions and submittals, we submitted the current mixed-use plan for consideration on September 10,2008. The College Terrace Cen"tre project now totals 61,960 SF and includes an all new 8,000 SF grocery plus 2,400 SF of outdoor market space, 5,580 SF of additional ground floor retail, 14 below market rate ("BMR") rental units (totaling 8,400 SF at 600 SF each) and 39,960 SF of office. Over 28% of the newly designed project is dedicated to public benefit space including guaranteed, subsidized space for a neighborhood-serving grocery store aJ71d BMR rental units. Please note that if directed by the City Council and in response to "the ongoing request of the Planning & Transporta"tion Commission members, we would be willing to agree to (1) eliminate 6 BMR units in order to reduce the overall square footage of the project, allow potential future expansion of the grocery, and reduce parking demand; and (2) reduce the office square footage by up to 1000 SF. These changes are discussed in more detail in the section below entitled "Responses to Requested Project Adjustments." Grocery store Rent Subsidy and Space Dedication The current design now establishes the grocery operation in a prominent EI Camino Real location and provides a 75% increase in sales floor area (from 5,250 SF to approximately 9,000 SF). This design and size compares favorably with Country Sun, Robert's Market in Portola Valley, Robert's Market in 2 Woodside, Bianchinni's Market in Portola Valley, Emerald Hills Market in Emerald Hills and Trader Joe's in Menlo Park as shown on Exhibit-l. Early in the process, it became abundantly clear that JJ&F -or any other neighborhood grocery operation --could not afford market rent in a Palo Alto location (as evidenced in the article attached as Exhibit-2 summarizing the city cornrnissioned Retail Background Report which concludes that the city's unmet need for grocery stores could justify an additional 133,600 SF of additional grocery store space). This factor prompted the present design which includes sufficient office space to generate a rental subsidy, allowing JJ&F to remain. To provide the assurance of economic viability for a grocery operator, the project necessarily must include an income generator. In this instance, the generator takes the form of the office component of the project, which is expected to generate rents at an approximate 3:1 ratio to the subsidized grocery operation. As evidenced in the legally binding letter of intent attached as Exhibit-3 (redacted only to preserve the confidentiality of the rental rates for business competition reasons), the Family Trust is unconditionally bound to offer JJ&F a right of first refusal to lease the proposed grocery store space at a subsidized rental rate for an initial minimum term of 10 years and a maximum initial term of 30 years at JJ&F's sole option. To ensure the economic long term viability of a grocery operator on the project site, the Family Trust has offered to record a deed restriction that would dedicate the proposed grocery store space --and a rent subsidy for that space for the life of the improvements This assurance, coupled with the expanded business opportunities generated by the new location, an increased customer base from the adjacent planned residential developments and the proximity of new office workers are together expected to provide strong growth opportunities and business stability. Project Design Revisions During our five year process, we have solicited feedback and guidance from all interested parties willing and available to meet with us. These exchanges have generated numerous design changes, project revisions and use changes. In addition, the project, as now proposed, provides vehicular access from EI Camino Real to reduce traffic impacts in the College Terrace neighborhood. 3 The project design and components submitted to you today incorporate the major alterations requested in our Community and internal meetings. These include, but are not limited to: • Relocate the main driveway from staunton Avenue to EI Camino Real (pending Cal Trans approval, which cannot be initiated until the environmental analysis under CEQA is complete) • Keep building heights in line with existing CN zoning in the residential arc • Locate the residential portion of the project adjacent to existing neighborhood residential properties • All commercial components of the project are contiguous with other commercial properties and uses • Remove a park setting on the corner of staunton Court and Oxford pursuant to the neighborhood's request • Redesign the architectural theme to create a "village style" project • Substantial pedestrian access to the block and all retail locations • Bicycle parking in excess of code requirements • Abundant parking capacity on the site • A repositioned project that mirrors Palo Alto's CN design criteria (as discussed in more detail below). • A mixed use design that is in concert with the Grand Boulevard vision for EI Camino Real • Walkability and transit orientation that encourages fewer vehicle trips and the use of proximate public transportation • Economic stimulus to existing businesses in the California Avenue Business District • Additional retail and office uses on EI Camino Real that anchor and support the California Avenue Business Distri~t • Project is in keeping with SB 375, the California Legislature's bill to promote transit oriented development in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobile transit. • Compatibility with the development expected to result from the planned expansion of the PTOD. Project Complies With Existing CN Zoning Context-Based Design Criteria 4 The project complies wi"th the existing CN zoning context-based design criteria (set forth in Section 18.16.090 of the City's Municipal Code) via the following elements and features; • Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment is created by providing walkability and connectivity 'from transit to shopping, work and residences. • Street Facades are detailed to provide a strong relationship with each street 'frontage. • Massing and Setbacks and Low-Density Residen"tial Transitions have been complied with by carefully modulating "the scale of the buildings. • Project Open Space consists of private and public open space designed for use by residents, visitors and employees at the site. • Parking Design includes 95% of the parking located below grade, so as not to detract from the pedestrian environment. Primary parking access is 'from EI Camino Real in response to community and Planning & Transportation Commission input. • Large site criteria has been applied in the design, providing physical and visual connectivity throughout the site, using a hierarchy of public and private spaces, and employing a diversity of building types. • Sustainability and Green Building Design are key elements in the LEED Silver design, including photovoltaic panels, a vegetated roof, on-site stormwater management, use of nontoxic materials, and natural daylighting. Public Benefits Provided Over 28% of the project comprises public benefits, which include; • Guaranteed space for a neighborhood serving grocery store for the life of the improvements. • 10 BMR rental units (in addition to the construction of 4 BMR units for which an in-lieu fee would otherwise be required by the City) • At least two car share vehicles for use by the public Responses to Requested Project Adjustments by the Planning & Transportation Commission • Eliminate the BMR Units 5 According to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, BMR Units in Palo Alto are in high demand and low supply. Our proposed one-bedroom units will provide housing for an underserved section of the market (as evidenced by the letter from Palo Alto Housing Corporation attached as Exhibit-6). We believe this is an invaluable public benefit that should not be removed. However, as discussed below we would be willing to eliminate 6 of the BMR units at the direction of the Council to accommodate a potential future grocery store expansion as requested by the Planning & Transportation Commission. • Reduce the Office Component The community's primary request throughout this process has been the retention of a neighborhood-serving, full service grocery store. The cost to provide a grocery shell including land, development costs and hard costs is approximately $800/SF. Per industry standards, small, non- chain grocery operators cannot pay more than $2.50/SF for NNN rent. Therefore, the proposed office component is needed, to subsidize the inclusion of a grocery operator in the project. While any reduc1"ion in the proposed office space would substantially weaken the economic viability of the project, in response to Planning & Transportation Commission's concern regarding the office density, we are prepared to agree to reduce the office component by up to 1000 SF at the Council's direction. • Allow for Expansion of the Grocery JJ&F, which has successfully operated a full service grocery for 60 years, explicitly requested the proposed grocery space square footage and has stated that it does not want additional space beyond the current design. Furthermore, industry trends indicate that the space as designed is in line with new stores being built in California and throughout the United States. This is supported by letters attached as Exhibit-4 from Bristol Farms and Emerald Hills Market -two other grocery operators -indicating that they would gladly pursue a tenancy in the proposed grocery space in the event that JJ&F decides to close its doors. However, if the City determines that expansion potential for a larger store is necessary, this could be accomplished by the elimination of 6 of the BMR Units at the corner of Staunton ct. and Oxford Ave.. (Note, however, that the additional square footage would not be subsidized, nor would JJ&F be willing to lease it). • Eliminate the Park at Oxford and staunton 6 This design element was removed at the request of the Planning and Transportation Commission and in response to comments from College Terrace residents. However, if the City Council directs us to remove the 6 BMR units to allow for expansion potential of the grocery store (as discussed above), the park could be ternporarily reinstituted in place of the 6 BMR units until this space is ultimately developed. • Provide Adeq uate Parking As discussed in Exhibit-5, a memorandum prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., the project provides more than adequate parking and satisfies the City's parking code requirements. Note that if the underlined changes above are made at the direction of the Council, parking demand would be significantly reduced and the project would be substantially over-parked. • Construct For-Sale, Market Rate Residential Condominium Units as Replacement for Omitted Office Square Footage to Help to Subsidize the Grocery Market. The Family Trust has held the property for over 80 years. The trustee family members consider this ownership a legacy that they are morally and legally obligated to continue. Under the terms of the Family Trust, the sale of the property -or any portion of the property -is prohibited (much like the sale of property held by Stanford University is prohibited by the terms of its trust). Therefore, substituting for-sale condo units for office space square footage is not an acceptable option. In addition, construction of for-sale residential units runs contrary to the stated desires of the community and the Planning and Transportation Commission. Such units would add to the drain on public services, impact schools and increase parking demands and traffic impacts as, for purposes of marketability, they would be necessarily larger than the proposed one bedroom units. • Change the "Monolithic" Design Facing EI Camino Real and Reduce the Massing of the Project This request has been addressed in the new 'village style' design, with increased articulations of the retail and office buildings, increased set backs, a reduction in building heights, and the relocation of the driveway to EI Camino Real. The project has also been designed to searrllessly meld with the College Terrace neighborhood, stitching the seams of all proposed uses to contiguous like existing uses in the 7 neighborhood (Le., residential faces residential and commercial faces commercial). • Build a CN Compliant Project and then Add a Grocery This request represents a financially infeasible project alternative. While the total project created under this suggested scenario would have a larger floor-area-ratio ("FAR") than the one we propose, it is not economically viable as it would require 50% of the project (less the grocery) -or approximately 25,000 SF --to be residential. As stated above, the incremental office portion of the project is needed to offset the subsidized rent requirements of JJ&F and cannot be made up with the addition of residential space. Furthermore, residents of the College Terrace neighborhood have made clear that they would not welcome more residences on the project site. • Conduct More Public Outreach In response to this request, and as discussed in more detail in the enclosed binder in your council packet, we have conducted a series of public outreach sessions in the neighboring communities. In addition, we have walked the College Terrace neighborhood, met with owners of local businesses and gathered more that 500 signatures in support of the project as designed. We have also received letters of support (attached as Exhibit-6) from the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, and other prominent members of the community including David Shrom of Magic, Inc. and Susan Rosenberg, a board member of the College Terrace Residents Association. Conclusion For over five years and at great expense, the owners of the proposed College Terrace Centre, the developn1ent team and the owners of JJ&F Market have worked diligently to respond to the desires of the community and arrive at the application before you. Our application offers a forward-thinking, village-style development that retains a beloved neighborhood-serving, full-service grocery store (which may be lost to the City of Mountain view if this project is not initiated as evidenced in Exhibit-7). Our project also implements SB 375 by providing this much needed community service within a walkable distance of alternative transit and residential neighborhoods, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions generated by automobiles. In addition, it complies with Palo Alto's 8 vision of EI Camino Real --and regional plans for this Grand Boulevard --by offering a transit-oriented, smart-growth, mixed-use, LEED silver, in-fill development that would revitalize a deteriorating and visually prominent block fronting EI Camino Real. We respectfully ask that you approve our request to initiate our PC rezoning application, allowing us to officially begin the City's consideration process starting with a public hearing before the Architectural Review Board. We understand that an affirmative vote by the City Council at this stage does not bless or approve any aspect of the project; it simply allows Palo Alto to carefully consider our application over the coming months. 9 Sincerely, Its: Managing Member cc: Jim Keenel City Manager Steve Emslie, Deputy City Manager Curtis Williams, Interim Planning Director Russ Reich, Planner Camas J. Steinmetz, Esq. Robin B. Kennedy, Esq. Enclosed Exhibits: 20218219.1 Exhibit;..l: Exhibit-2~ Exhibit~3: Exhibit·4 : Exhihit-5: Exhibit-6: Exhibit-7: Groce'ryStore SF Cornparables Palo Alto Weekly Article SummarizIng Retail Background Report . Lette r of I nte nt Bristol Farrns letter Emerald HilTs Market letter Hexagon Traffic Consults Memo Letter from World Centric Chamber of Commerce letter ' Palo Alto Housing Corporation letter David Shrom letter Susan Rosenberg letter Scott Lonergan letter Letter from: GarCia Family to City Of Mountain View Letter from City of Mountain View to Garcia Family Daily Post Article 8 COMPARABLE STORE SIZES JJ&F Sales Floor Area Current Proposed Sales Floor Area AND TRENDS 5,200 SF 9,000 SF Approximate Sales floor Area of Nearby Comparable Markets County Sun Palo Alto 5,250 SF Robert's Market Woodside 6,300 SF Emerald Hills Market Emerald Hills 8,000 SF Robert's Market Portola Valley 8,640 SF Bianchinni's Portola Valley 9,360 SF Trader Joes's Menlo Park 10,000 SF Approximate Gross Floor Area of National Chain Markets Fresh & Easy 13,969 SF Wal-Mart Market Side 15,000 SF 7-11 2,200 SF 20216695.1 Uploaded: Friday, May 15,2009,9:30 AM Report: Dearth of grocery stores in Palo Alto But city's department stores, restaurants continue to attract shoppers from throughout the region by Gennady Sheyner Palo Alto Weekly Staff Palo Alto may be a regional Mecca for high-end fashion and classy restaurants, but local neighborhoods are suffering from an acute shortage of grocery stores, car dealerships and gas stations, a new report has found. The study, released this week by Walnut Creek-based consulting firm Applied Development EconomiCS, analyzes Palo Alto's retail conditions and confirms what many local residents, commuting shoppers and developers have long known or suspected --that residents often cross the city line to fill their grocery bags. The report finds that the city's unmet demand for grocery stores could justify 133,600 square feet of additional grocery-store space in Palo Alto, the equivalent of two major, full-service supermarkets or four smaller markets. The new grocery stores would have the potential to attract about $64 million in consumer spending. The report also found that Palo Alto households spend almost $303 million annually at retail stores outside Palo Alto. This "sales leakage" could potentially support 41 new retait establishments, the report states, and bring in about $215 million in annual sales. Other store categories with significant retail leakage, the report stated, are home-improvement stores, car dealerships and used-merchandise stores. For developers, the biggest obstacle to bringing a large grocery store to the city is the dearth of space. John McNellis, a major developer whose projects include the recently approved Alma Plaza, said a typical 60,000- square-foot supermarket requires about 6 acres of land --an amount that's hard to come by in Palo Alto. And given the magnitude of the current economic recession, luring even smaller stores presents a major challenge to local developers. McNellis, who is required to bring a 20,OOO-square-foot grocery store to Alma Plaza before he could build other portions of the project, said he expects the search for a grocer to take a year or longer. McNellis characterized Palo Also as a "Fort Apache" when it comes to supermarkets. Though large grocery stores abound just outside Palo Alto, giving local residents plenty of shopping options, few supermarkets can penetrate the city border. "It's like Palo Alto has a fence around it and all the retailers, if theywant to be in Palo Alto, are right outside this fence," McNellis said. Though this trend diverts sales-tax revenues to other cities and forces residents to commute to other towns for their groceries, it also has several benefits for Palo Alto, McNellis said. Most notably, the lack of bulky, boxy stores makes Palo Alto a more pleasant place to work and live in, he said. The new report acknowledges the challenges of finding space for supermarkets, but also emphasizes other benefits of neighborhood grocers. The new supermarkets would not only allow shoppers to spend their money in Palo Alto but would also inspire other businesses to open up shop. Conversely, recent closures of Albertson's supermarkets at Alma Plaza and Edgewood Plaza "eroded grocery store spending in Palo Alto and contributed to the loss of other retail stores at those shopping centers," the report states. "Because grocery stores typically serve as anchors for local-serving shopping centers, this shortfall also paints to unmet demand for other locally oriented establishments that currently goes into neighboring communities," the report states. The subject of grocery-store retention is expected to resurface on June 1, when the City Council is scheduled to hear a developer's proposal for College Terrace Centre. The new analysis also emphasizes Palo Alto's major retail strengths, particularly in department stores and restaurants. The downtown district and Stanford Shopping Center will continue to boost the city's retail figures, even as the luxury-goods market takes its knocks from the worldwide economic slump. These two shopping areas, the report states, represent assets that surrounding communities cannot readily replicate. "Currently, the lUxury retailing market is most vulnerable, but also represents Palo Alto's greatest strength," the report states. ~ i ~ t, , I t-I I ! I i J I ! Mr. John fJ~t9ia c/o JJ&:PMarket 2100EI C}an)inQ Re.a1 PalQ AhQ,Californla94036 The Chilcotc'Trust c/o Twenty:-Dne Hundred Ventures) lJ ... C 274 Redwo()d Shores Parkway. # 202 RedWo(jd City,CaHfornia94065 August 30) 2008 This]e;tter,oated a~~ofA:o,g~$t 3(), 2008~constitutes a '~Letteroftntentn ,by and between TheClulCbteirust·f''Trust'tl. 'asownererthatcenain :block Iocaterlin the City of Palo Alto, COUflt)"Qf ~at1t~rClar~1$t~t,e' O~·Ca1ifQtl1ia,.o:t1 whichthe.cnrte.'rlt JJ&F Marketis locat(!d{the ~'1l1(l¢.k'?~~$y0t! ateaw~et tb~1;~stil)t~l1d~Joq~m()1ish .~lofthee~jstini improvements on the 13T(;}~k ,and.torep]acet1mmwithJtcmixedretailf residential.·and Qffice,,cmnple~caUed '·QQl1~ge Terrace '~entre~)) AS'~Quarea1$p'aw~C~.i~~heC.ity ,of]?alo Alt{},C'"City") appri1ves.·the Trust';s appnqatiotrtole..;z,onefb~<QlockftQtn ·eN (ne*ghhoin(}()d'cQlnrnel'cial) to 'PC (pIMned CQ.ntJlJ:llni~Y.)iColl~geTett~ce~~~trewnl B~abl¢to -and,. w'lUprovide · .• a com,mitmentt<ttbe City f()r,-·jtlQl\l~j(;)njntbe.Q¢ye~QPti1~ntof.,a:n:cighqorhoQd..,gerYing;gr()cerystore·(a.(·G~o¢e.ryHl,~of the typeandqu~t1ity .. currently:bcing'ollerated by JJ ~fhtl aOl()TC fa.vQTableand visjble 19c~tJ()nOrt~he Block According t~t()U~i;no,st recent plans , .. the ... Grocery ·wiJJ.bave tlIe .. followiIlg .squ;~refootage: 7;035 ,~QunciJ~yel inte~;Or$p~ce; .. lj$OOattacb~d 'alld c{)vere{l'receivingaref\~ .1 ,3J2 :uQpen M~tl\ef1' (comCor sioewaIlr~pap~}i aJl;d60~ for4ry st(Jra~ejll tnebaSCI)lenr (which ll!tt~rgturage sp~cewin be" ~djacen~to . a.deqicatedelevator)tfor .. a·.totalof'lOA47sq1.taxe. feet .. (th~~'(1VnniInum S(Jg;~re F'oofage");.,At t.~t;p~tionQf~he owne,rl01)~ratorQft~:e. Groncryy the gronnd~level :i~telior ~pa~~Tnay~eas largea~ 14"QOQS9uarefc~t{tbe"'~1\1a~il~lnn .sq~l~reF(}otage'T .. Othe[YIise~ t~e addit~Q;Qi;dQ19650f intcri{lr,gro~tnd lcvel.space in thedeveJ()pll1ent wUlbeleased t();bther 'neighbQ't'h90d":$~rvirlgr~taner~~ Thebase'lnonthIy.tetitforthe7Jt351bJfound level intedorspacea:nd the 1,50Q ;r-ec.~i)f;it1g1pt'9fc?gP spa¢~.'(c.o.ll~pt~w~lYitl~e '~PdltlarySpacen) (fora total of 8~535) \>viUbe .$" !9ft,ot$~>·. -~~'~r~~l~nth).Thetn()ntfdY:rentatf:orthe It312 ~petlnl~u:,kct~pac~wiJl be. $' .. ;S~ft; 'Q{,$~ ' ........ ~t\.l)eflnd~th+.Andthe1il(}nthlyrental · for the6eOstorag~'space wIll ilea n~t xateof$-....... '~:f •. TJlis .brjngs thetQtattlipl~ n~t~9nthlyreIltJQrth~ entires;pace to ,$';~conectiy~l))Jmase,~IQlitblyRetlt)1), This resultrs in an effective blended ftlteof $: {sq fUrnontb. ' t~pl~l1et!neanf)th,~t~~he<:t.t;()g~r~·willhex~spOf1sible f()f paYIIlentofproperty taxes. ..' insutall.¢e •. anuutilitj;es~ Vtilities(wltb';the 11{)ssibleexceplion QfWa.te.f~ which · we· Ill~t)' . not be: able, to~~p-~atelYniJ!tet)wiHOtq:1:\Vis~b¢ separately metered. the GrocerywHl .mainhtin aU of jts eqtJ!~l11em. includ~l1g'btiln()t l'i.rnitedtoHVA(:. As you have been involved with U$ in our effotts to move College Terrace Centre through the City ofPaloAlto!sentitlement proces.Sj you· ate Well a.ware that theeconOlmc terms set forth in· this I~tter of Inte.ntdepcnd.u.PQn the ~quateftJotageo(the:.entitlementsthatare actual1y approved. by the City .. Thecun:entCN' zoning,which authQrizes 25,000 square feet of office/comm'etcial space and' 25 iOQOsqllare feet or resideHtial space, does not provide sufficient re?ttoprodilcetbe income ne~esstl(y tosubsidize .th~ rent for ·~gr()cery .. If the City does not grantaPl'roval for a zoningchangefron1 CN10·.PG, there will 'be no subsidy for thcgrocery. Th1& lettera(:knowledg~$thatYQur' fa¥iilyme·mbers, LloydGarci~ and Denriis Gfux;ia, who have owned and operated jJkF withyonfor'mal1Y yeats~intend to retire . at the end of th~ CUl1l}tltleaseterm ~iJp:rep~rati()hf()r ground brt~akihg. forCotIege Te1l'a.ceCetltre. If our understfindingofsuchimpending retiremen.tsis incorrect,QrU'eitherLloydGarciaorDennis OarciashouJdsubs~qlJ{entlyclultfgetheirrt~lridsabouttheiTrespective intentions to retire, the exclusive b~-nefitspro¥lded tQyouin ttJ.is L¢tterof Intent \\'i1] Of course becxtend.ecHo then) as "veIL By' thisLetteroflntetrt~ the ;Trus~ offers tpyou, persol1ally ,aright. offlrstrefnsaI to lease the Grocery; YOll :mayexercise thjs .rightcijnytirnebt~twccil the date on. which thec City gives final'1ppr()va]t()Jhept()PQ~~ddevelopment ofC?UegeTep:ace Centre and the date that is eighte~n(18) lllOntlis;priottQ the~xpected··~Qlnpieti.onofconStructi<>n thereof and the issuance ··of a Certificate'ofOccupa~cy fortbe;devel()pme~t (the~(Required. Date: of A~Cel)tancen) .... The undersi~1}e(l wiU provide YOlf with writtyu no~ice Qfthe.Re~luiIed Dat~ .of Acceptance at leasf Sixty (QO)daysin~ldv~ncethel"eQr,d~Qr,ingwbi~tI sixJY (tSO) day period you willbavc the opportll1'lity toexerciseyourrightoffirst refusaL ,Uyou hav~ nQtexerc.lsed.yo~r.righ t of first r~fu~alby su.chqate,Jh~ .• u.fld~rsigl!tedWill .nJ.aI'ket ·th~ Grocery·tootner potential 9wnerJoperators. Untilsm:htime as the.undersignedac.tuallyexecutesa leHsewith .anotherowner!operator, yo~ carrm.nJ,:e~. and the Tmstwi11 'wijrrnly receive; an alfef to lease the Grocery. Thc ··terms.ot thelease'for the ·Grocety·(thc4't~(!ase';) will include the foHowing: L TheJniEialtermo'ftne lease (ttle HTermH}sh:.ali be a minimum often {I 0) years. At . your option, themjnhnuQl. termmaybeaslonga$thirt;y (30)years~ 2: Therentwillbe>suusidized;bytbe owners and thGir suc:cesso!S .. itl,;,lnter¢st · fpras It)ng~s .you (and'yoursuccessbts;.i~~interc$t}agree that the' grocery 'usc'rerhruI1s viable andso Jongasthepremises .a,renot taken. bycondenlnatiorlQrdestroyeqbY'fire or natural disaster. If tl}eCe.rti{icateof >OCCttpancy.isissued Qn orbefore f)eGCln~er31t2011 ,the . lease rate for the i~ti,m~ySp~cefor.tllQ .fir~tJive.(5) ye~l:sof.~l1e Tent! win b¢$; ; NNN, .. per sq\lat"e,;fooL The lease ·rate f<)17 tneO:pen MatkQtancl. thebasen~ent>$torages}mce.shal] increase bya sinal lar ftaCtion .. If~ltlC;e1"tlficatc()f9ccqpattcyisis8U~d()tr 6tafter J(Uluary It 2012; the 1easerate,·per sqqa~cf()ot for the . Nfiniromll Squar~,Fo()tage,for tht~tiJ:stfive· (5) years (If:the .'ferm win .be ~l$ .fOilOVlS; . (;aleri(Iat Year 2012 C€;\1~udif:year201.$ Caiendar . Year 2014 Calendtu. Year 2015 CniemlarYear2016 $: $: $ $: $' 3. . NotWitl:t$tandingtheprovis.iorrsinParagr~ph 2, during thetlrst three (3) months of the Terrn, Hase,~on~bly,~Renlwil1 ,be, W~iv~d ,so,mp'~t,~tY~nd.dJ.lring the following thr~e, (3) . months of the Term"Bas'l~·MonthlyRent. wHlbe reduced-by'titty percent (500/0 ). . , 4 .. , .. Duong thet~rm:: oft~e L~ase for the()r0cery~·th~pers{luare foot Tentfot·tlleTotal Squarel?oQtage(i.c..,tne P.~ln~. Spacc~,theQpen:Mar;kei Spaccan(rthe ~st9ragespace) will i~creasel 'eY~rr five ('~ yeatsJ'b)ttne arnou~tQf inctea$e~ ifariY,in the San Francisoo-San Josc- Oakland CPI' Index Qver theptvVtollS tlve{5J-Y~4irpetiod~ . 5. YOll win fl~ve thetignt)ex~t¢isabl¢ nine (9) m6nths pripr'to the issuance 00£ a Certifi(tateo,foc~up~ncy.JQr ~~~ .. d~velqpmcnt toincrea¥elhr·squure·. fuotagy .of.theGrocery~. tip to the .]Maxi1);iurJ1Sq9.are .:Footage~ptOv.ided, however. ·that . any square fQotageso.leascd.in' exc~ss ofth(tl\1initnulljSq:~~r'cPVQt~~ef$h~Ilti6tb~Pi(JY'i4edtlt a subsidized tent, out rather at. a. nl~kel~rate .. r~nt. (which·W~;~~"'e.'~tr~e,~peGJ'JP ·.be$' . ~. pf~r squ~re.fQot,if.tbe Certlticat.e of Occupancy .is iss.ucq·.on .()itbefb.re~eCel!l,b.er31;· 2011 ),~ aiia: .s,ti.al1 b~.adjusted Oll. the· s~nne'Jnlsi$as the rest ofth{;retai),~pt'lcejn (}9Ilege ~e~~c.e Centre. . Altho.tigbnlqstLettenr{}flnt.ertt~not'b!Jld:b\g,crflheparties theret,6uritil and u~des$ a lease ()r. putcha~pagr¢etn.t;~t .is ,e~~Pt~'f~et~ye~ntJleljlrOlltinte~rlons Wi~h respect t{}lhis.L~tte,r ,(lfInte~t ar~dif:f~l:en.t .. '~f¥o~ ~gt~ewitathe.,fort~goh1g/ ttr'(i. e~e~ut~ thi~ ~eiteriJf IJlt~nf,intlie space provided· ~ltlw .for:you~\~~gnattlre ()RQt before S'el1M~}:rlbet .1. .. 2008'~ .. ,wcagreel(1'beOOund by its tern~s .• 0~'tll~ ... f.)tllerlt~a,;ullf.i~r~tandnlg.,th&t. y'our,pqrs~n~d. cjrcuJJ1stances'm~ychaT1g~ betweennow:,an<f the,-.tlmc. y()u .w.oul:d.berequt:red,t~;\'eXeH;js~your iigl?t:of fifst~fu$"d lluac'rthis Lett.e.r pi Int9nt~we ,als?a:gr~e 'tht\t'~his, Ecttcr'oflrrtbnt i$. l)()l oindingdn ,yQo.~ ,andth*t, y:ouhavc t.he,dgbt,:~l,~llYtimepr~olLt{);the l.~eq~i~ed I)ate. of ,t\(~ccptaj,{~e.~ to ,t~nmnaleit·by· ~tiyjng; the undersigriedn:otic6; in writing;' Df· yd~tdeci~ian. ' ' , tfyo~ a~e in a~eeNnen(~ilJlthc. t~rl11$ of thisbettet,OfInl~ntt Ple,a~e.so iitdicatcby iSlgniu!fht; thespac:eptovidedbelo'W": fory(;)Ji'signat1.lr'C'att~:t' retun)il1g th~ onginal. sigt1arut~: page t()R:oh~l1 . I(er)uedy. ' 20?QOOI~, 1.1 PatrickSm<lHey A~tttbodzedAgenI MEMORANDtfMOF LETTER OF INTENT :FHIS MIt'M:ORLt\NDUM' 0E.LE'iTE& OF INTENT is .• effectiveas·.of August 30, 2008 by andbetweenJohl1q~ia~nbeha]fQfJJ&F'MI1fk~f{ "JJ~FU) at)d The Chilcote Trust e'9Wl101"') (collecttvely,.fhe "F1U1iest1, who hereby agree as follows: 1. By that'c:edainLetterof Intent by aIld between the Parties, dated as of August 30, 2008~ .~rheChilcoteTru.stoft:ere.dt()~J;J&F,nndJl&F·ncc¢pt~d) ... a righc of first refusal to lease . 10A47sqtl1ltefeet inne\.\{premis~stobeconstfilcledb)l The Chilcote Trost in anew d~velopn;umtjn tb¥qltypfR~O .. A.lf()ktloWnas. \:alleg~Terrace Centre. This square footage shall. be dedicated fQt:tlse .. byJJ:&PMarketas;a grogcr)',stofY. Pil.r~tiantto· the Letter ()f!ntenfilheirdtifdterIi1 of the lease will be teo .. (10) years. AtJj&F'$~sQle optian, the initial term of the lease may be u$lollgas thirty (30) y~ars: 3. :E>Ul"Sutillttotne!Letterti£Intentj 1J~:{Market shall have the rightto lease up to an addidonalo;965 square <l;eetofgr(l~nd level re,tijl space at College Terrace Gentre. 4. Pursuant.·totl1eLettc.rd-fIntent; lheright .• to·· exercise·. the· ,tight. of first ret~usal to lease' the .spac.eshal1be~t. JJ&Fl ssQledisctetion. IN'VlttNE$S~:EREOF:}theJ'ard~sbaye executed tlusmstrumentasbfthe date fitstset forth ilbove. By: Its: Date: M&y 28,2009 Mr. Patrick Smailey Managing Member lJDristolg-arms Twenty-One Hundred Ventures, Ltc 27 4 Redwood Shores Parkway, #202 Redwood City, CA94065 Dear Mr. Smailey: I was recently infonned about your potential new grocery store site onEI Camino Real in Palo Alto. While I understand that you have a local operator iaplace, this location would be an attractive one for Bristol Farms or Lazy Acres, our two specialty store retail fonnats. As you mayknow,E3rist<)lFarms has 15 markets in ·California, including one in San Francisco. We specialize in gourmet and specirutr foods andpdde ourselves on excellence in customer service ... All of our-locations are specifically tailored to. the community in which they are . situated.·· We are considering furtherexpansiQn in ,Northern California and believe th&t Palo Alto would be an ideal city fOl".a new store based on the: high-end income demographics and education levels of the residents there. Our real estate brokers have targeted this market area for some time; and while We nave not yet found a suitable location or existing store, we would certajnly consider all locations that might beCol11eavailable. As past Chaiiman of Unified Grocers, the largest ·wholesalegrocery distributor in the western United States, I am familiar with several high-end operators who would consider this location an ideal demographic . fit for their lifestyle oriented store formats. . Please call me at 310-233-4715 if you have further questions or requite more detailed inforll1ation. . 1 wish you all the best with the· approval' and construction process. Sin¢erely; ZlJ, Kevin· Davis : PresideIlt, Chairman and CEO KD/ps.smailey 915 K 230th Stre~t. Carson, ealifornia.90745 51 0-253L4700 tel 31() .. 23$ .. 47(jl!a..1: May 19~ 2009 Mr. Patrick Smalley EMERALD -----MARKET Re(ldy to Serve Twenty-One Hmtdred. Ventutes, LLC 214 RedwQod Shores Parkway, # 202 Redwood City, ea 94065 21 QO El CaminQ Real Dear Mr. $mailey, Thank you ·fQrta,kingmycaU rodayabout your PQtentialnew grocery store site on El·Camino Realm Palo Alto-Your deseriptiot1ofthe proposed retail site is impressive andjust the kind of Opportunity we look for~ We know that we could make it work. I fully understan", and you were quite clear that you have along-standing tenant in JJ&F Market. I also know that they plan on occupying tbe new site for the foreseeable future. However, please know that w~ would be very interested in ~t location if ever it becomes available. . Bestregams, Emerald Market ~~ ..• I~saAho . . . .President "":0: .• .-., 32150akKnoU Drive, Redwood ,City Ca 94062 (650)568 ... 6000 (650) 568 ... 6005 fu a f:J . . jiiP4iiiiiiii ~~XMON T~ANSPOHATION (ONSULTANTS, INc. Memorandum Date: To: From: June 19, 2009 Patrick Smailey Gary Black and Matt Nelson Subject: Parking Analysis for the Proposed College Terrace Center Mixed-Use Development Introduction Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed this parking analysis for the proposed College Terrace Centre mixed-use development in the City of Palo Alto. The project proposes 14 affordable multi- family residential units, 8,000 s.f. of grocery store use, 5,580 s.f. of general retail use, and 39,980 s.f. of office use. The project proposes a total of 227 parking spaces (216 of those parking spaces would be located within an underground garage accessible from EI Camino Real and the remaining 11 parking spaces would be located at surface level and accessible from Staunton Court). All parking spaces are planned to be shared among all land uses. In addition, the project proposes an area of landscaping reserve within the garage that could be converted to parking if necessary. The purpose of the parking analysis is to evaluate whether the proposed number of parking spaces is adequate to satisfy the City of Palo Alto parking code. Parking Requirements The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code specifies the number of off-street parking spaces that development projects need to provide. Section 18.52.040 lists the required number of spaces for each type of land use. The code also states that parking requirements may be adjusted by the Director of Planning under specific instances. Section 18.52.050 describes the allowable parking adjustments. Both of these parking code sections are described in detail below. City of Palo Alto Parking Code: Section 18.52.040 This section of the code enumerates the number of required parking spaces based on the type of use and size. Based on the size of the College Terrace development and the parking code rates, a total of 251 parking spaces are required, broken down as follows (see Table 1): • Residential Units (One Bedroom): 1.5 covered spaces per unit + (1 space plus 10% of total # of units) = 23 total spaces • Retail -Intensive: 1 space per 200 s.f. of gross floor area = 68 total spaces • General Office: 1 space per 250 s.f. of gross floor area = 160 total spaces egEkiQg/~\E)glY?I?,.fQr the ProposE?9~gIJ~g~I~C[g~,~,~~nJ~L~i2<~g:,~?~ ........ Q~y~IQP,CD~Qt)~ne 12,2009 City of Palo Alto Parking Code: Section 18.52.050 This section allows a reduction in the required parking for a proposed development project if it includes the following features: on-site employee amenities, joint-use parking facilities, housing for seniors, affordable housing units, housing near transit facilities, or transportation and parking alternatives. The code specifies a maximum reduction for each factor and a maximum overall combined reduction. " The following parking reduction factors are applicable to the proposed College Terrace Centre Project. 0 1. Affordable housing units 2. Housing near transit facilities 3. Transportation and parking alternatives 4. Joint-use parking facilities These are each described below. Pursuant to Section 18.52.050(a), the combined maximum allowable reduction for this type of development is 30% (which represents 75.3 spaces in the case of the College Terrace Centre Project) Affordable Housing The parking code allows a 20% reduction for low income units, 30% for very low income, and 40% for extremely low income. The proposed units would fall into the "low income" category. Therefore, the 20% reduction can be applied. The reason for allowing a parking reduction for low income housing is that low income units tend to be smaller, which can mean fewer residents, and the residents tend t own fewer cars. The particular affordable housing proposed herein would consist of one bedroom units only 600 s.f. in size. Applying the 20% reduction reduces the residential parking requirement from 23 spaces to 18 spaces. Table 1 City of Palo Alto Parking Code Required Land Use Size Rates Parking Multiple Family Residential 14 units 1.50 21 Guest Parking (1 +1 0% x unit count) 2 Total Residential 23 40% Affordable Housing/ Transit Reduction 0.40 -9 Net Total Residential 14 Retail -Intensive (Grocery) 8.000 ksf 5.00 40 Retail -Intensive (Retail) 5.580 ksf 5.00 28 Total Retail 68 5% TOM Reduction 0.05 -3 Net Total Retail 65 General Business Office 39 .980 ksf 4.00 160 5% TOM Reduction 0.05 -8 Net Total Office 152 Total Parking Spaces Required 231 Source: City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, October 2007. ~ ...... WeXdgOn T rdnsportdtion (onsultdnts, 2 Po ge e2E~.i.Q,g, ... ,6Q9 .. I .. Y?i~, .... ,fQr,t .. b,~w erQ.PQ,~ .. ~g ,_~.QJt§,g,.~ ..... I~Erg~,.~ .. ,.~ .. ,~.Q.!.~.r ..... MiX~~t:,ld.?,~"I2 .. ~.y~.IQ.f?QJ~Q!} .. ld ... Qe 12,2009 Housing Near Transit Facilities The parking code allows up to a 20% reduction in spaces for proximity to transit. The College Terrace site is within reasonable walking distance of the California Avenue Caltrain station. In addition, the California Avenue area is a mixed-use, walkable area that includes stores, offices, and other businesses. Residents can meet many of their needs without the use of a car. In Hexagon's judgement, the full 20% reduction is warranted. This represents an additional reduction of 4 spaces for the residential component of the project. Transportation and Parking Alternatives The parking code allows up to a 20% reduction where alternatives to automobile access are provided. Examples include transportation demand management (TOM). The project is located in a mixed-use, walkable area. It is reasonable to assume that a portion of retail customers will walk to the site. It is also f1 reasonable to assume that some office and retail employees will use transit seNices since the site is within walking distance of a Caltrain station. In addition, the project applicant proposes to include two Carshare vehicles in the garage. These Carshare vehicles will allow residents or employees to forego bringing their personal vehicles to the site. The project also proposes to include 60 bicycle parking spaces where only 38 spaces are required. In total, the TOM measures will reduce the number of cars that will be brought to the site. Hexagon recommends a conseNative 5% parking reduction to be applied to the retail and office component based on these proposed TOM measures. (A TOM reduction for the residential portion of the project already was applied as described above.) Applying this 5% reduction would reduce the number of spaces required for the office and retail components from 228 spaces to 217 spaces. • I Joint-use Parking Facilities The parking code states that the total number of spaces may be reduced when "the joint facility will serve all existing, proposed, and potential uses as effectively and conveniently as would separate parking facilities for each use." The code specifies the use of criteria developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) to estimate the shared parking characteristics of the proposed land uses. The maximum allowable reduction is 20%. The combined land uses of the project will provide the opportunity for shared parking on-site. It is expected that the combined land uses will result in a demand for parking that will be less than the demand that would be generated by separate free-standing developments. To determine the shared parking reduction, an evaluation of the peaking characteristics for the proposed development was completed. The evaluation is based on sUNey results compiled by the Urban Land Institute and the methodology presented in their Shared Parking guide. Parking demand for the proposed project was calculated based on the Net Total Parking Spaces Required in Table 1 and the application of the Shared Parking guide methodology. Based on the Shared Parking guide, the parking demand for the proposed land uses are staggered throughout the day and have the highest demands on weekdays rather than weekends. Weekday retail peak demands occur between the hours of 1 :OOpm to 2:00pm. Residential peak demands occur during late night/early morning hours of 1 0:00pm to 6:00am. Office peak demands occur between 1 0:00am to 12:00pm and 2:00pm to 4:00pm. The combined peak parking demand of residential, retail, and office uses for the site was determined to occur during weekdays between 2:00pm to 3:00pm, with a peak of 224 spaces. This represents a reduction of 7 spaces or 3% of the 231 spaces required by the code as indicated in Table 1 when considering each proposed land use separately. ~ ~ Wexagon Transportdtion Consultants, ~ • I egr~ing,6ngly?j?tQrtb~e~QJ2Q?~g~QIIE?gE?" .. IE?rrg.C:E? ... C::.en.tE?r.Mi?<E?g.-uSE? .. gE?YE?IQPtJJE?nt,.,J~,EJe l2,2009 Table 2 Shared Parking Requirements Based on City of Palo Alto Requirements Residential Hour of Day Office Retail (All) (non-CBD) Total 600am 5 1 14 19 700am 46 3 13 61 800am 14 900am 144 23 11 178 1000am 152 42 11 205 1100am 152 55 10 217 1200 m ____ t~? 62 9 208 100pm 137 65 10 212 200pm 152 62 10 224 300pm 152 59 10 220 400pm 137 59 11 206 500pm 76 62 12 150 600pm 38 62 13 112 700pm 15 62 14 91 800pm 11 52 14 76 900pm 5 33 14 51 1000pm 2 20 14 35 1100pm 0 7 14 21 1200pm 0 0 14 14 Source: ULI Shared Parking, Second Edition, 2005. Landscape Reserve In addition to the 227 spaces supplied by the project, the parking garage includes a landscaped light well that could be converted to parking spaces, if needed. Thus, this area could be considered a landscape reserve pursuant to Section 18.52.050(b). The reserve area could accommodate up to 14 tandem parking spaces (7 pairs). If used for tandem parking, the spaces would need to be reserved for specific residents or employees. Accordingly, 14 of the spaces required by code could be deferred on the basis of the landscape reserve pursuant to Section 18.52.050(b). Conclusion Hexagon has determined that the project would qualify for a total parking reduction of 27 spaces (11 %) under Section 18.52.050 of the Parking Code. This is within the maximum allowable reduction of 30%. A reduction of 27 spaces would reduce the number of parking spaces required by the code from 251 spaces to 224 spaces. The applicant is proposing 227 parking spaces. Based on this analysis, the project would comply with the City of Palo Alto parking code. It is not expected that use of the landscape reserve (which could provide an additional 14 tandem spaces) would be necessary. ~ IIra...dlI ~eXdgOn T r~nsportdtion (onsLiltdots, -4 -WORLD CENTRIC 2121 Staunton Court Palo Alto. CA 94306 r<J-Y Ar· ~e.U:·~w W',,,AI'f PH 650·283H3797 .F 866-850-9732 May 17, 200.9 Patrick Smailey Clara ChilcotE) Trust P.O. Box 620.186 Redwood City, 'CA 940.62 Dear Patrick, AS per your request, the breakdown of transportation fOr employees at World Centric is as follows: 1 -walk 4.. 50-70%' public tran~poftatiQn(bikelbus/CaITrain), drive 30-500/0 4 -drive tOO~VQof the time 4 -OaITrain90%·of time. PleaSe let me know, if additional information may beneaded. Sincerely .~~ Aseetn Oas Founder & ExecutiVe Director \V"W\v~wor1d(entri~.Ol'g W! ilMl!Jt> 1Awnv. FIiiIoAItv, A~!)t ~I_ 2401n' !i.m~ l240t21S Ill! :~{.,.,lrodll I~(om w.,w,pili\);tItr,4w -.her.rom SOAR,!) ()F 1. ~f;(:l'Ol5 ClIail' TOll'lmy F lI'~nbJdI 5t1>ffi Mortg~! COl1l'p<!TI)' ;~<l!1l1rs ) Coffaro LuCift 'mid Chi1l1l1 .~ HQijlItli/ tn,l-'.ampst&n E wrdJorw: Kit ;'IOJmflH jSBCBank ~C~D lh Papp«" sere! ~11l Blll1k and Tn ~Ct7mpanr !arJlI'l~ Pille-!®1 communt 'Child Ca~ .~ AndyC04 StD1'lford tlOH ill a Ckll/u ; 1R1)~ J.\J~1J11 w11'l~1~ ~'II1!:I~1 CI lelica ;a~k CtJlI' I G.mntr ThiI ihwtlln aWe lI'1Jl3IoAim ~ 14\rllGro;.t Glfdt C(ll,lrt~ AI (NHdriu. Rethe .tl~ "'I~ U.e MUk·~ __ lh~ QI: !liiij Motel & R~ lit P610 Alto S ip Ju51lWlt, 1, 'N OftIW~ of H old Justmflll It,tIie ~11y S~nfl)rd 5h >plr,g Center ,lame! ~nlqar ;',i~(lvlla!'!y-9t fl~JOl-ll'llal ' .I!~M~ ~1~1\ rd UnMl~1ty If MkXe~on HIlV/lE!tN'!!I:. 1m (otftpitny a llTi!) Pl!d!« Po \) Alto 4rt (en r &lunttWoi\ JOI~ISpOIJrJ .;\brgluw MOl lage Sanklng Mie~ n !iukuf'la~ S1eltI Mi;nt f92 Company lJ!"'WI\f~r Ata!~ ~4n OMl~p~nt 5mictS,Irte:. PN ilent&om J"Guhl $i)nd.s Apri122~ 2009 . Dan Garber! ChaiT Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission City QfPalQ Alto 25() Hamilton Ave. Palo A1to~ CA 94301 At the April 14,2009 Palo Alto Chamblitt Government AotiOti Committee meeting, representatives of the College Terrace Center project made a presentatio~ of the CUlTent iteration (lithe project.. The GAC voted to endorse the project~ s -request for rezoning from eN to PC. Ofp.artiQulU appeal was the retention oflQng-term grocery store, JJ&F and the addition of other retail. Appreciation W3£ given "by th~ Committee for the inclusion ofBMR? one bedroom apartm~Dts and parking in.grees an~ egress from HI Camino Real. ThaJ1k YOU for your conside;ratioD) Paula Sarldas Presjde.nt/CEO (..a PAHC Housing Services, LLC 725 Alma Street • Palo Alto, CA 94301 • (650) 321~9709 • Fax (650) 321M4341 April 20, 2009 Planning and Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 943Q1 Re: College Terrace Centre Project Letter of Recommendation Dear Honorable Commission Members: The Palo Alto Housing Corporation, through its affiliate, P ARC Housing Services, LLC, hereby submits this letter of recommendation in support of the proposed planned community, College Terrace Centre, located at 2100 EI Camino Real. This project is being proposed by Carrasco and Associates on behalf of the Clara Chilcote Trust. College Terrace proposes 14 Below Market Rate (BMR) one-bedroom rentals of approximately 600 square feet. These spaciously-designed two-story lofts are unique to the BMR Rental Program in that there are no other one-bedroom units with similar design in the current housing inventory, and therefore, will be highly desirable to applicants. Additionally, the amenities, including but not limited to, an individual yard, reserved parking, retail and office spaces, and an onsite neighborhood grocery store make the project ideal for any single person or working professional. There is a current and constant demand for affordable housing in Palo Alto as evidenced by the lengthy BMR rental waiting lists maintained by the property managers. This project will provide some much needed affordable housing to the community. We are most pleased to lend our support to the College Terrace Centre project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, PAHC HOUSING SERVICES, LLC. An Affiliate of Palo Alto Housing Corporation a= '--~ Jaejean~ 0- BMR flousing Administrator ~nz8lez Executive Director Message----- From: Magic [mailto:magic@ecomagic.org] Sent: October 01, 2008 2:38 PM To: .commission@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: Reich, Russ Subject: JJ&F Block Project 1 October 2008 Dear Planning and Transportation Commissioners, I'm about the ect for the block currently by JJ&F market. As someone who for three decades has lived been a JJ&F patron, and been active in the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association, 've followed this project closely since I first learned of it several years ago. I'm heartened both by the changes you requested when the ect was before you and by the proponents' response to your . The addition of BMR housing in a location so near transit and services is a substantial improvement. So are the interruption of the buildings College and EI Camino to create less monolithic and massive structure, and the reduction in non-residential built area. I'm pleased that the developer has to maintain a market on the site and has made a firm commitment to the owners of JJ&F that they can, if they choose, operate that market. I think the proposed relocation of the market to EI Camino will draw patrons from a larger area and that the wide sidewalk will create opportunity to extend the market into the open air and make it more attractive. Having reviewed the circulation and traffic impact assessments of the proposed project, as well as its features (e.g., extensive photovoltaic arrays, north-facing clerestory cisterns to capture storm water, reduced auto secure bike parking) I think that it sets many positive for along the EI Camino corridor. I that you will agree. Thank you for these views. David Schrom 1 Susan Rosenberg _________________ 1425 Stanford Ave. April 23, 2009 To: Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Re: 2180 EI Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 Spawned by the Trees for EI Camino Project, and with a grant from Caltrans, the City of Palo Alto developed the El Camino Real Design Master Plan in 2003. The plan was the result of the inconsistencies that exist with having a California State Highway running smack dab through the middle of Palo Alto. The project before you effects an entire block on EI Camino Real, the adjacent College Terrace neighborhood, Evergreen Park neighborhood, and an expanding Escondido Village, and therefore the goals reached in the EI Camino Real Design Master Plan should have bearing on your decision regarding this project. Briefly, the vision for EI Camino Real that was developed during this process of public participation is: -To change the character from a highway to a road safe for walkers, bicyclists and vehicles -To become a center of community activity rather than a barrier -To become an aesthetically attractive corridor -To improve the quality of life along EI Camino Real while protecting adjacent neighborhoods The vision becomes reality with this project in some of the following ways: -A comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program would enhance safety over what exists -The return of JJ&F market and additional neighborhood serving retail coupled with the comprehensive safety program would draw consumers -A well designed project would replace buildings that are architectural "tired" and seismically unsound -The location of housing along Staunton provides a "step" into the neighborhood I believe this project would greatly assist in bringing the vision of a better EI Camino Real to reality, and would benefit my neighborhood and my community as a whole. It is truly a forward- looking project for Palo Alto. Given my interest that the Trees for EI Camino Project continue to flourish, I would have the developer replace the median trees adjacent to 2180 EI Camino Real consistent with the Trees for EI Camino Project as a condition of approval. Sincerely Susan Rosenberg Cc: Curtis Williams, Russ Reich Missed Opportunity To Keep Local Grocery Store & I m prove EI Cam ino Real The Palo Alto Planning Commission met on May 30th and voted to no longer consider a zoning change being requested as part of a project to rebuild the site of the JJ&F market. This was a missed opportunity to have possibly kept the JJ&F market in business -and to have improved this tired section of EI Camino Real. One objection to the proposed project is that it has too much office space. I live in College Terrace, am not generally in favor of growth, but this issue of too much office space is a red herring. An important feature of the current zoning is that it requires retail space on the ground floor. The proposed project also includes retail on the ground floor -plus a spot for the JJ&F grocery store. And yes, to go along with that it has more office space than the current zoning allows. Office space is bad for the neighborhood? Wait a minute, all along the California Avenue side of College Terrace we have many thousands of square feet of office space. I often work out of my home in College Terrace and walk to a California Avenue restaurant for lunch. I do this with many office workers who also walk to these same restaurants. Without these office workers, how can we have a vibrant retail area? The College Terrace residents eat like everyone else, but we can't support the retail space on our own. Offices also have the benefit of being largely empty on weekends and evenings so that us locals can have a quiet neighborhood when we are most at home to enjoy it. Have you walked to California Avenue for lunch mid-week or to the Sunday farmer's market? It's a great scene. Yes, office space brings traffic, but it brings in needed foot traffic too. I'm not suggesting a carte blanch zoning change for the entire area, but some flexibility on this particular project when a neighborhood grocery store is in balance is worth it. This is a great opportunity for JJ&F and improves EI Camino Real. This section of EI Camino Real is close to Stanford housing and the wonderful College Terrace neighborhood. It has great potential, but today, much of this section of EI Camino is run-down and not well integrated with California Avenue retail. Not only does the proposed project improve this section of EI Camino Real, but provides a great opportunity to JJ&F. JJ&F is, I have been told, struggling to stay afloat financially with declining sales. It is a small friendly neighborhood-oriented grocery store, in an inefficient space, that is largely hidden from EI Camino Real. As a result, their business is much less than it could be. The proposed redevelopment project provides a grocery store with a slightly larger space than the current JJ&F store, and moves it to a more visible location on EI Camino Real. It also provides the grocery store with 'subsidized' rent by incorporating office space as part of the overall project. This looks to be the best chance for JJ&F. There are no guarantees that JJ&F or any other grocery store can make it in this location financially, but at least this redevelopment tips the scales in their favor. The alternatives don't. Either (1) there is no near-term redevelopment and JJ&F sales continue to decline to the point where they have to close their doors after 60 years or (2) the owners rebuild the block consistent with the current zoning that most certainly will not include a low-revenue neighborhood grocery store. The proposed project has insufficient space for a neighborhood grocery store? The Garcia's don't think so and they are the ones running the business -so I would trust their judgment more than the Planning Commission. Also, I thought we were aiming to keep a neighborhood grocery store? Another large grocery store like Mollie Stones is not needed in the area so I believe the point about there not being enough space for the grocery store is misguided. So congratulations to the Planning Commission and others that have opposed the zoning change. You have just shot down the best chance we have to keep JJ&F, a true neighborhood grocery store, as well as improve this section of EI Camino Real with what looks to be a quality project brought to us by long-term owners with long-term interests. Maybe JJ&F will now close its doors due to the delays and lack of opportunity that a new store would provide. Who would fill the space then? Maybe the property will be sold to a short-term profit-oriented developer and give us another drive through fast-food restaurant -surely that would fit the current zoning ... To the Planning Commission and others opposing this project -for the benefit of the neighborhood and the city -please reconsider your thinking and decision. Scott Lonergan 2090 Cornell St. 2 JJOF Market 5. ColleKe Aveaue Palo Alto,l:alJJoZ'llla 9006 ~S0.857,0901 Ellis Bems Economic Development Manager City of Mountain View Community Development Department 500 Castro Stre:et Mountain View, CA 94939 .. 7540 Dear Mr. Berns, On behalf of the Garcia family and JJ &F Market, I thank you for your initial call to {ne and now for the detailed information regarding the supermarket opporttmity in the City of MoWlWn View. Please know that we are keenly interested in the prospect of serving as op~rator at this Redevelopment Area site,at the very attractive downtovvn site at the comer of California and'Bryant Streets. - As we have discussed, I am still hopeful that we can remain in place at our current location. However, it is clear that our Palo Alto store is very much up in the air, even though we have been there for 60 years. We fully intend to remain in the grocery business, and if necessary, we will go toajurisdiction where we are better appreciated. Who knows, maybe we ~an operate both store locations sometime in the future. I very much want to remain in close contact about this possible option for my family and me. Again, thank you fqr your initial inquiry ,and follow·up materials. Jo1m Garcia (I. 1'\ ~L-\ \? \f 00 H ~ VE ~IV-f Q Lh; S 7 I Or\J--S 0\0.... WDJL-D L\K~ 70 J)\sc....;J~ ~ArJ¥:-S AGA)J --({ -... ---..... '-~.~ . PREP ARED FOR: PREPARED BY: PB #COOJOOOI (?VU #-1353-002) NOVEMBER 2008 PROPOSEDSUFE~T 8\VC CALIFORNIA STREET/BRYANT STREET DOWNTOWN MOUNTAIN VIEW~ CALIFORNIA PH #COOJOOOl (1\11 #1353-002) MR. DENNIS DRENNAN" RE.AL PROPERTY PROGRAlvI .ADMlNISTRATOR CITY OF MOUNTAIN vmw 500 CASTRO STREET MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94039 (650) 903-66~3 PITNEY BOVIES :MAPINFO 7567 A..1V1ADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD SUITE 310 DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 94568 (925) 556-9999 WEDNESDAY Jul 8,2009 Verdict reversed in Biletnikoff murder Jackson's kids emerge Israel boots U .5. ac'tivists Mtn. View wantsJJaF BY IAN S. PORT Dally Post Staff Writer While developers seeking to build a new space for JJ&F Market struggle against Palo Alto's cumbersome ap- proval process, Mountain View is woo- ing the beloved store, with offers of downtown land and even possible fi- nancial help. Days after Palo Alto's planning com- mission criticized and stalled plans for a project that would build a larger new home for the market, Mountain View officials told the store's owners that they'd love to see JJ&F move south, co-owner John Garcia said yesterday. "I have my neighbor- hood that wants me, but 1 have the city who doesn't really give a hoot." John Garcia, JJF co-owner "They're rolling out the red carpet," Garcia told the Post. "They're asking us to go there." Ellis Berns, Mountain View's eco- nomic development manager, said the [See JJ&F, page 19] (050) 380.1420 NEW JJ&F -This rendering, supplied by architect Tony Carrasco, shows the proposed College Terrace Center development in Palo Alto. THE UPDATE -16 .27 Man with 7 DUls fights No.8 BY JOSH WOLF Daily Post Staff Writer William Scott Simon, who was ar- rested for drunken driving after he stumbled into a San Mateo Starbucks and found two CHP officers inside, goes on trial today for what would be his eighth DUI. Simon, 42, of Belmont, drove into the parking lot at the Starbucks at De Anza Boulevard and Polhemus Road at around 7 a.m. on Jan. 11 and crossed over several parking stalls be- fore crookedly parking his car, said Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe. Simon then stumbled into the cof- fee shop to find two CHP officers who had witnessed everything, said Wag- staffe. "I have a lot of balls to be walking in here," Simon told the officers who noticed the man smelled strongly of alcohol, according to Wagstaffe. A breath test conducted an hour lat- er determined Simon's blood alcohol [See DUI, page 19] CONTROLLED BURN: Cal Fire says it will be doing a controlled burn today of 100 acres in the Russian Ridge Area at Highway 35 at Alpine Road. Smoke will be visible from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. SWINE FLU DEATH: A 44-year- old woman with underlying health problems is Santa Clara County's first swine flu victim. Her name was not released, and health officials did not disclose additional details about her case, including when she died or Daily Post to add Saturday edition [See THE UPDATE, page 4] At a time when many papers are cut- ting editions and reducing news cover- age, the Daily Post is headed in the op- posite direction. On Saturday, the Post will launch a Saturday paper and begin publishing DEMARTINI ORCI-IARD -KOZY BROTHERS" six days a week. The Post has printed Monday through Friday since it started last year. The expansion of the Post contrasts with the cut backs competing papers are making. In the past year, the Daily News has eliminated its Sunday and Monday papers, and dropped its San Mateo, Burlingame and Redwood City editions. The Palo Alto Weekly, which used to publish twice a week, now has [See SATURDAY, page 19] ----0 --1 I QU1ZnOS' : Enjoy a FREE wedge of creamy & smooth Beemster Gouda cheese and a small jar of whole colossal-sized I I FARMFRE9H ANDALWAV9 THE8E9T • 011" "lid Irom July 8-14. 1009. This Kalamata olives from : ~~Ii,~~o~:'p~~I~~:eOh~~~nae:d~i~::~~er Sigona's when you spend 1 50~~1 66 N. SAN ANTONIO RD., LOS ALTOS www.demartiniorchard.com 650-948-0881 • visil.please. topies not valid. $30 or more! : 2345 Middlefield Rd, Redwood City 399 Stanford Shopping Center, Palo Alto • (650) 368·6993 (650) 329·1340 I PALO ALTO -on Emerson I I between University and Hamilton I t l6~Q>-3_2J :8}9Q! iii; t • ) ~ I il!tfJ :t • SATURDAY just one edition, and its publisher pre- dicted that within four to five years it will stop printing altogether, and only provide information online. On the other hand, the Post doesn't put its stories online and has seen steady growth in reader demand and advertising. "People say newspapers are dying, but we didn't get that memo," said Dave Price, editor and co-publisher of the Post. "We're adding advertisers and readers every day." With a Saturday edition, the Post will be able to print Friday's news in Saturday morning's paper. The Saturday paper also gives adver- tisers another day to reach readers in a popular, locally oriented paper. JJ&F city has talked to JJ&F about getting a space in a redevelopment project planned for what is now a parking lot along Bryant Street between Califor- nia and Mercy Streets, only one block from the main downtown drag, Castro Street. He said City Council has envisioned a residential and commercial develop- ment on the roughly 1.5-acre site and wants to see a grocery s tore of 7,000 to 10,000 square feet go in on the ground floor. That's similar in size to space that JJ&F would get in the project now grinding through Palo Alto City Hall. Garcia said that Berns told him that the city's redevelopment agency will contribute $7 million to various proj- ects before 20 II, and that some of that money might be used for the Bryant Street development, of which JJ&F could be a part. He said the message JJ &F is getting from Mountain View is a radical change in tone from Palo Alto, where planning commissioners frowned upon the of- fice, residential and retail project that would include a new, 8,000-square-foot space for the family-owned grocery. At an April 29 hearing, planning commissioners said the project, known as College Terrace Center, would pro- vide too much office space -about 40,000-square-feet -and not enough space for JJ&F, even though the plan would nearly double its current size. They also worried the project's 227 parking spaces wouldn't be enough, that the project was too dense, and that JJ&F might not always occupy the new space at 2180 EI Camino Real, just up from California Avenue. "If that 8,000 square feet turns into a 7-Eleven, it's a bad trade-off," Com- missioner Susan Fineberg said at the April meeting. After a lengthy discussion, the com- mission eventually voted against mov- SUDOKU ing the College Terrace Center plans forward in the approval process. But that worried Garcia, who says the store will soon need to move out of its current 80-year-old building. And he said commissioners' concerns that his new store won't be big enough are ab- surd -he said that's all the space the market can handle. "I have my neighborhood that wants me, but I have the city who doesn't really give a hoot," Garcia said. He said he wants to stay in Palo Alto -and especially to move into the pro- posed new store, which would give JJ&F space fronting El Camino Real, an outdoor market area and nearby of- fice workers who could become cus- tomers. But until the plans move for- ward, Garcia said he'll keep one eye looking south. "I want to stay. These are my friends here," he said. "I consider them a heck of a lot more than my customers." DUI level was .22, said Wagstaffe. The legal limit in California for adults is .08. Wagstaffe said he doesn't know how Simon's lawyer, Timothy Gomes, plans to defend his client against the charges. At one point, Gomes suggested that Si- mon might consider taking a plea deal if he could avoid being sent to a state prison, said Wagstaffe. But because of the prior convictions, the District Attorney's office said it wasn't willing to waive the possibility of prison, said Wagstaffe. "It's been a prison case all along," said Wagstaffe. "It doesn't have to be, (but) prison has to be one of the pos- sibilities." Man 'driving commando' gets a DUI A Delaware man who claimed he lost his pants faces drunken driving charges after authorities say the deputy who pulled him over noticed he was in the buff below the waist. Jonathan Schultz, 41, "was driving commando" and only partially covered with a towel on his lap, though he was wearing a shirt. Lt. Bernard Chiominto says Schultz was stopped Saturday near Rising Sun for going 69 mph in a 50-mph zone. Chiominto says the deputy smelled alcohol and noticed Schultz's semi-ex- posed situation. The Newark, Del., man told the deputy he'd lost his pants, and the deputy didn't find any in the car. It was unclear if Schultz had an at- torney, and an attempt to reach him at a relative's home was unsuccessful. KAKURO Easy Difficult Bit 6 4 is-1 '~"L$"':;i .i Puzzle on page 21 BERRY & SON Qualitv Repair 30 Years Experience -Licensed .~I-I Tile, Plumbing, Dry Rot Repair, Bathroom & I Kitchen Remodel. Painting InteriorlExterior i _ !:::a~,_s~:c~ ~i~ ~~r~, ~n~ ~r: _ Single low bigb under 30 $60 $149 30's $84 $180 40's $147 $362 50's $264 $578 60's $421 $747 Youth (are Rates low high under 1 $104 $339 1-18 $54 $117 Wednesday, July 8, 2009 Daily Post 19 Married Family low high low high under 30 $175 $276 under 30 $417 $526 30's $308 $408 30's $494 $711 40's $517 $726 40's $662 $944 50's $822 $1138 50~ $798 $"17 60's $1051 $1447 60's $1137 $1576 Call me for a custom ized quote today! (650) 328-1000 SandyWhite sa ndy@alliedbrokers.com 630 Cowper St Palo Alto, CA 94301 blue ~ of california 81ueShIeidoiCanromla .... n Independenl Member ollhe Slue Shield M~ocioTion Uc#OA38716 CITY OF PALO ALTO Memorandum July 13, 2009 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER July 13, 2009 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 304:09 Initiation of: (1) a Zone Change from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District to Planned Community (PC) District for a mixed use project having 61,960 square feet of floor area, including 8,000 square feet of grocery (intended for JJ&F Market), 5,580 square feet of other retail, 14 affordable one- bedroom residential units, 39,980 square feet of office use, and two levels of below-grade parking facilities and surface parking facilities providing 227 parking spaces located at 2180 EI Camino Real; and (2) a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to assign the Mixed Use land use designation to a site currently designated as Neighborhood Commercial Staff has received and reviewed the recent (July 8, 2009) submittal infonnation from the project applicant, and recommends that Council approve alternative #3 in the City Manager's Report, to initiate the Planned Community zoning and Comprehensive Plan amendments for the project and forward the proposal to the Architectural Review Board with the following direction: 1. Delete six below-market rate units and set aside that area for parking, open space, and/or future expansion of the JJ&F (or other) Market; 2. Provide for on-site parking in compliance with the zoning ordinance, with adjustments only for the remaining affordable housing units and for proximity to transit for the office square footage, and considering "landscape reserve" parking if feasible; and 3. Emphasize the pedestrian nature of the ground floor, sidewalk, outdoor market area, and plaza features along EI Camino Real to create an exemplary retail frontage on that major boulevard. The applicant's materials address several of the concerns raised by the Planning and Transportation Commission, and include a letter of intent that better insures that the 9 "market space will be reserved for and used by JJ &F market, a willingness to accommodate expansions of the market, and increased parking spaces with reduced parking demand. Staff believes that these changes are adequate to move the project on to the ARB, while noting that ARB and Planning and Transportation Commission review is still required and that modifications to the site planning and land use mixes and intensity may be recommended by those bodies prior to final Council consideration of the Planned Community zoning. Other alternatives remain available to the City Council, as noted in the CMR, to either: 1. Accept the Commission's recommendation and vote not to initiate the proposed amendments, requiring the applicant to then submit a new and different application; or 2. Provide direction regarding development parameters, such as those pertaining to land uses and maximum floor area, and suggest that the applicant modify the project and direct the Commission to conduct a second preliminary review of a modified project prior to forwarding the project to the ARB. Planning and Community Environment COURTESY COPIES Linda Poncini, Carrasco Associates Tony Carrasco, Carrasco Associates Patrick Smailey, The Chilcote Trust Andrew Gregg Robin Kennedy William D. Ross Fred Balin Greg Tanaka Susan Rosenberg I / f " ,r--a (:j- I To: Palo Alto City Council 8 July 2009 From: Tom Jordan, 474 Churchill Ave, Palo Alto 94301 Re: Item? 7/13/09 Council Agenda Re JJ& Block Application This application should be denied because: it does not comply with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the current zoning on the property (see your Planning Staff report and the P&TC vote of 4129/09 as amplified by the minutes of that meeting) the P&TC has advised you by a 6-1 vote on 4129/09, as amplified by the minutes of that meeting, that the application should be rejected -the College Terrace Neighborhood Association ("CfNA") Board has formally asked you to accept the P&TC advice and deny the application -the detailed poll of the College Terrace residents conducted by a Task Force appointed by the CfNA Board and receiving a heavy response indicates, with great specificity, the deficiencies of the application. In summary, the application violates Palo Alto land use laws, your Staff and appointed advisors have recommended denial and the neighbors closest to the proposed project do not want it and have diligent in telling you why. What in the record could possibly overcome this overwhelming case for denial? The one element of public interest, and the only horse that the Landowner/applicant can hope to ride to victory is the JJ&F Market. A 7/03/09 editorial in The Palo Alto Weekly correctly described JJ&F as being "strategically used to gain public support". But stop and think carefully for a moment: -JJ&F is NOT a troubled or fading business. A visit on any day at any time will show that it is well patronized. The owners have repeatedly stated their own desire to continue in business. Their neighbors love and support them. So do the Palo Alto City Staff and appointed and elected officials, even though to hear the Applicant's continued drumbeat of criticism of the City you would not think so. Who then is the threat, and the only threat. to close JJ&F? The answer is THE LANDOWNER! APPLICANT, the same party that is trying to ride the JJ&F horse to approval. IF THIS APPLICATION IS GRANTED, CLEARLY JJ&F WILL CLOSE. There is no dispute on that point. It will not be there during the construction period of 2+ years, and, as the 7/3/09 PA Weekly editorial points out, there is no certainty in this application before you that JJ&F or any comparable market will ever open there again. If none opens, the buildings will all be built and common sense will not permit them to sit idle because of lack of a market Even the space for tJ:ae market will be converted to other uses. The Landowner/applicant gets everything it wants and the publ!c gets nothing. But the JJ&F owners-say loudly that they will return. Is that sufficieni assurance to the City to proceed with this application? NO, IT IS NOT. It is insufficient for all of the reasons stated below. 9 Starting with the obvious and always present uncertainties of the health of the JJ&F owners and their personal economic conditions, goals and plans, known only to them. Next come the economic conditions of the area, state and nation. -Then, there is the absence in the land use documents of 3Ily enforceable penalty against JJ&F or the Applicant if there is no market there. And further, there is the possibility of JJ&F being lured away to Mountain View, as reported on the front page of The Palo Alto Daily Post 7/8/09. -And, more importantly, there is the fact, as the PA Weekly 7/3/09 editorial pointed out ''the public is entitled to know what agreements and promises have been made between the owners of the market and the property owners, and to be assured that they are consistent with the broader public interest and, indeed, constitute the required ''public benefit". There are two agreements, at least, that are crucial and both have been held in secret by Applicant The first is the agreement covering the construction period and the lease terms afterwards. -The second, and by far the more important one, is the secret settlement agreement from about August 2007 after the Landlord/applicant sued JJ&F to more than double its rent retroactive to February 2003 (an amount I compute as of 7/09 as about $500,(00) plus $1,600,000 in damages and other relief, including termination of the lease. The matter was settled in August 2007 but the terms of the settlement have been secret Seven weeks after the settlement Landlord/applicant filed i~ current application with the City and JJ&F has given its full throated support ever since, to.the point at times that JJ&F seems, itself, to be the Applicant. Obviously, the question that the Council has to answer is whether the threat of a large money judgment is being used by Applicant to coerce JJ&F's support. If it is, and we have to insert that the court records show thatin April 2006 JJ&F had decided NOT to participate in Applicant's prior development plans for the block, even though they would not have closed during construction and would wind up with a larger store, it bears directly on whether JJ&F will actually return after construction. After all, if someone sued you for $2,000,000+ and the litigation continued more than a year, would you not split from further dealings with that party at the first opportunity? The Council cannot evaluate this application without seeing a court certified copy of of that August 2007 settlement agreement. TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES DATE: JUL Y 13, 2009 CMR: 314:09 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Adoption of an Ordinance Increasing the Utilities Advisory Commission from Five to Seven Members and Amending Section 2.23.010 (Membership), Section 2.23.030 (Term of Office) and Section 2.23.060 (Meetings) of Chapter 2.23 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code RECOMMENDATION To implement Council direction, staff recommends that the Council adopt an ordinance amending three sections of Chapter 2.23 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to increase the number of commissioners appointed to the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) from five to seven. Staff additionally recommends, particularly in light of the complex and highly technical nature of the Commission's work, that Council modify its proposal to stagger the terms of the Commissioners so that no more than three Commissioners are newly appointed or re-appointed in any given year. DISCUSSION On July 6, 2009, the Council considered a colleague's memorandum from Mayor Drekmeier and Council Members Klein and Espinosa to increase the number of commissioners that Council appoints to the UAC from five to seven. The Council supported the proposal, and the City'S Municipal Code must be amended to effect the change. The proposal also suggested that Council vote to select the top three commissioners on July 6, and select an additional two commissioners to be seated contingent upon Council's adoption of the new ordinance. To stagger the terms of the two new commissioners, Council supported the proposal's recommendation to amend the Municipal Code to grant a full three-year term to the fourth place candidate, and a two-year term to the fifth place candidate. This will result in a seven-member commission that will include four new commissioners with three year terms and three commissioners (two existing and one new) with two years left on their terms. The attached ordinance reflects this direction. CMR: 314:09 Page 1 of2 Separately, and to ensure smooth transitions as Commissioner terms expire, staff proposes that the terms of the fourth and fifth place candidates should be limited to one-year terms in order to permit reappointments on the following schedule: 2011: 2 appointments for 3 -year terms 2012: 3 appointments for 3-year terms 2013: 2 appointments for 3-year terms. This will ensure that in any given year no more than 3 new appointments will be available. RESOURCE IMPACT Some additional cost may be incurred by increasing the number of UAC commISSIOners. Although UAC commissioners receive no stipend, additional staff time will be required to respond to questions from additional commissioners. In addition, there will be extra costs to advertise and recruit additional UAC members each year. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Adoption of this ordinance will change the Municipal Code and establish new City Policy. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Adoption of this ordinance does not meet the definition of a project, pursuant to section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQ A), thus no environmental review is required. ATTACHMENT A. Ordinance PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR: 314:09 JANE RATCHYE Assistant Director, Resource Management r_~~~~~~ ____ ~~~~~ IIF- ( ,ALERIE O. FONG l/Director of Utilities JAM]tS/KEENE City yanager Page 20f2 ATT ACHMENT A NOT YET APPROVED Ordinance No. -,------- Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Increasing the Utilities Advisory Commission from Five to Seven Members and Amending Section 2.23.010 (Membership), Section 2.23.030 (Term of Office) and Section 2.23.060 (Meetings) of Chapter 2.23 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Section 2.23 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 2.23 UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION Sections: 2.23.010 2.23.020 2.23.030 2.23.040 2.23.050 2.23.060 Membership .. Manner of appointment. Term of office. Officers. Purposes and duties. Meetings. 2.23.010 Membership. There is created a utilities advisory commission composed of :ff:¥e-seven members who shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the city council, but who shall not be council members, officers or employees of the city. Each member of the commission shall be a utility customer or the authorized representative of a utility customer. Fe:ar--Six members of the commission shall at all times be residents of the city. 2.23.020· Manner of appointment. The following procedures shall be followed by the city council when filling vacancies on the utilities advisory commission: (a) Following notification of vacancy or pending vacancy on the utilities advisory commission, the city clerk shall advertise the same in a newspaper of general circulation in the city, including the council agenda digest, two times within two weeks; 090708 syn 6050900 NOT YET APPROVED (b) Written nominations and applications shall be submitted to the city clerk within such two-week period to be forwarded to the city council for its consideration. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the nomination or application of an incumbent commission member is not submitted to the city clerk within the period submitted above, said period shall be extended for an additional five days during which the city clerk shall accept written nominations and applications of nonincumbents; (c) The city council shall review all nominations and applications and conduct such interviews as it deems necessary prior to selection; (d) Final selection and appointment shall be made by the city council at a regular city council meeting after the period for submittal of nominations and applications has expired. 2.23.030 Term of office. (a) Term of Office. The term of office of each member shall be three years or until his or her successor is appointed. The initial terms of the three-four members who received the highest number of city council votes on July 6, 2009 members shall be three years, oommelleing on Jely 1, 1991. The inititd terms of the member who received the fifth highest number of city council votes on July 6, 2009tv;o other members shall be two years, commencing on July 1, +99+. Thereafter, the-commission appointments shall be staggered so that in each three-year cycle." threetwe members are appointed one year, three-four members are appointed the next year, and no members are appointed the next year. (b) Commencement Date. The terms of the three members who received the highest number of city council votes on July 6, 2009 shall commence on July 7, 2009. The terms of the members who received the fourth and fifth highest number of city council votes on July 6, 2009 shall commence on the effective date of this ordinance. 2.23.040 Officers. The commission shall elect one of its members chairperson. The chairperson shall hold office for one year and until his or her successor is elected, unless his or her term as a member of the commission expired earlier. 2.23.050 Purposes and duties. (a) The purpose of the utilities advisory commission shall be to advise the city council on long-range planning and policy matters relating to the electric utility, gas utility, water utility, and the subject of recycled water, excluding daily operations. (b) The utilities advisory commission shall have the following duties: (1) Advise the city council on planning and policy matters pertaining to: 2 090708 syn 6050900 NOT YET APPROVED (A) Acquisition and development of electric utility, gas utility, water utility, and recycled water resources, - (B) Joint action projects with other public or private entities which involve electric utility, gas utility, water utility, and recycled water resources, . (C) Environmental implications of electric utility, gas utility, water utility, and recycled water projects, (D) Conservation and demand management, and (E) Recycled water matters not otherwise addressed in the preceding subparagraphs (A) through (D). . (2) Review and make recommendations to the city council on the consistency with adopted plans and policies of any major electric utility, gas utility, water utility, or recycled water project; (3) Formulate and review legislative proposals regarding the electric utility, gas utility, water utility, and any recycled water operation to which the city is a party or in which the city has an interest; (4) Review the electric utility, gas utility, and water utility capital improvement programs, operating budgets, and rates, and recycled water program, budget, and rate, and thereafter forward any comments to the finance committee or its successor; (5) Provide advice upon such other matters as the city council may from time to time assign. The utilities advisory commission shall not have the power or authority to cause the expenditure of city funds or to bind the city to any written or implied contract. 2.23.060 Meetings. (a) The commission shall establish a regular time and place of meeting and shall hold at least one regular meeting per month. (b) Thfee Four of the fl¥e-seven members shall constitute a quorum. (c) The commission may establish rules and procedures governing the conduct of its meetings. (d) The commission shall be subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Government Code Section 54950, et seq. 3 090708 syn 6050900 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 2. The Council finds that increasing membership of the utilities advisory commission does not meet the definition of a project under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21065, and therefore no environmental impact assessment is necessary. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective upon the expiration of thirty (30) days from its passage. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: . City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Deputy City Attorney City Manager Director of Utilities 4 090708 syn 6050900